Choosing A Second Banana Can Be A Slippery Slope
How low will Hillary stoop to stay in race?
Pretty low.
So low, in fact, the New York senator recently called to mind the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in June of 1968, during a conversation she had Friday with the editorial board of The Sioux Falls Argus Leader, as a reason it would premature to withdraw her presidential bid.
Who’s to say, using Mrs. Clinton logic, a would-be-assassin’s bullet might be headed for her Democratic opponent, who, after all, carries the politically incorrect middle name of Hussein, was raised by a single white mother, is married to a black woman, who only recently became proud of America, and belongs to a church whose pastor claims America is a racist society?
God forbid, something happened to Senator Obama. What then?
Don’t worry; Hillary would still be around to pick up the pieces and carry the torch to the White House. So by staying in the race, Clinton is not dividing the party as some claim, but is rather a handy safety net should tragedy strike Obama?
Even giving Hillary the benefit-of-the-doubt, and forgiving her for the clumsy Kennedy comments, it was a shabby argument to use for a reason to remain in the race. It was additionally misleading to suggest her husband didn’t have the nomination locked-up until June of 1992, another reason she cited for refusing to give up.
In May, 1992, The New York Times was already reporting how the ``Comeback Kid’’ had the nomination practically signed sealed and delivered; in fact, Clinton was so confident of being nominated, he assembled a committee to study possible running mates, the most frequently mentioned were Senators Bill Bradley of New Jersey, John D. Rockefeller 4th of West Virginia, Senators Tom Harkin of Iowa and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska..
Senator Clinton knows the race is over. Her only reason for staying, despite repeated denials is obvious: to pressure Obama to put her on the ticket as a way of avoiding an unpleasant battle over seating the Florida and Michigan delegates and unite the party in time for the Democratic convention in Denver.
On paper, aClinton/Obama, Obama/Clinton ticket seems to make perfect political sense: Obama would continue to appeal to the ``Latte Democrats'' (upwardly mobile, well-educated) and black voters; while Mrs. Clinton scoops up the ``Dunkin Donut'' voters (those making $50, 000 or less) and working class white voters.
A marriage made in heaven?
Hardly!
Despite their subtle policy differences, both claiming to be more interested in defeating John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee in November, both Clinton and Obama have been striking below the belt like belligerent prize-fighters over character issues for over a year now, from Bill Clinton playing the race card in South Carolina, Mrs. Clinton being referred to as a ``monster’’ by an unpaid Obama aide, Geraldine Ferraro accusing the Illinois senator of running a ``sexist campaign’’, Hillary slamming her opponent for his association with a slum landlord in Chicago, and Obama contending his chief rival caters to special interests.
This is a marriage that eventually would be compared to Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor’s hot-tempered infernos in ``Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf’’ that could potentially backfire on the Democrats in November.
Could you imagine all the quotes that would be dug-up by Tim Russert et al., reminding them of their past mud-wrestling bouts if they join forces? It would take them months of repelling these criticisms; time they simply don’t have, to ease voter’s minds, including the press, how they have put their differences behind them, while insisting more unites than divides them.
The main difficulty to an Obama/Clinton alliance would be choosing Hillary as his running mate, brings with it hubby Bill as well.
Wherever Hill goes, Bill is sure to follow. So instead of having to watch his back with Hillary as his Veep, Obama would have to contend with the motives of ``Slick Willie'' as well
Could you imagine, for example, if Obama/Clinton were elected? Anything the former president would comment on would potentially outshine or upstage President Obama. He would run into the same landmine with his Vice President. Anytime Hillary weighs in on an issue, even if it’s in line with the administration’s policy, it could send feint smoke-signals to voters wondering who is really calling the shots in the Oval Office.
Despite Vladimir Putin being bumped down to prime minister on May 7th to make room for Dmitry Medvedev as the new president, there’s little doubt that Putin is still pulling the strings and making the important economic and global decisions affecting Russia’s future.
If Obama hopes to change the course of America through his bold domestic policy programs and a new geopolitical strategy, should he be elected, he’s going to have to do it without Bonnie & Clyde gunning for his back.
-Bill Lucey
billlucey@bellsouth.net
Pretty low.
So low, in fact, the New York senator recently called to mind the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in June of 1968, during a conversation she had Friday with the editorial board of The Sioux Falls Argus Leader, as a reason it would premature to withdraw her presidential bid.
Who’s to say, using Mrs. Clinton logic, a would-be-assassin’s bullet might be headed for her Democratic opponent, who, after all, carries the politically incorrect middle name of Hussein, was raised by a single white mother, is married to a black woman, who only recently became proud of America, and belongs to a church whose pastor claims America is a racist society?
God forbid, something happened to Senator Obama. What then?
Don’t worry; Hillary would still be around to pick up the pieces and carry the torch to the White House. So by staying in the race, Clinton is not dividing the party as some claim, but is rather a handy safety net should tragedy strike Obama?
Even giving Hillary the benefit-of-the-doubt, and forgiving her for the clumsy Kennedy comments, it was a shabby argument to use for a reason to remain in the race. It was additionally misleading to suggest her husband didn’t have the nomination locked-up until June of 1992, another reason she cited for refusing to give up.
In May, 1992, The New York Times was already reporting how the ``Comeback Kid’’ had the nomination practically signed sealed and delivered; in fact, Clinton was so confident of being nominated, he assembled a committee to study possible running mates, the most frequently mentioned were Senators Bill Bradley of New Jersey, John D. Rockefeller 4th of West Virginia, Senators Tom Harkin of Iowa and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska..
Senator Clinton knows the race is over. Her only reason for staying, despite repeated denials is obvious: to pressure Obama to put her on the ticket as a way of avoiding an unpleasant battle over seating the Florida and Michigan delegates and unite the party in time for the Democratic convention in Denver.
On paper, a
A marriage made in heaven?
Hardly!
Despite their subtle policy differences, both claiming to be more interested in defeating John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee in November, both Clinton and Obama have been striking below the belt like belligerent prize-fighters over character issues for over a year now, from Bill Clinton playing the race card in South Carolina, Mrs. Clinton being referred to as a ``monster’’ by an unpaid Obama aide, Geraldine Ferraro accusing the Illinois senator of running a ``sexist campaign’’, Hillary slamming her opponent for his association with a slum landlord in Chicago, and Obama contending his chief rival caters to special interests.
This is a marriage that eventually would be compared to Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor’s hot-tempered infernos in ``Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf’’ that could potentially backfire on the Democrats in November.
Could you imagine all the quotes that would be dug-up by Tim Russert et al., reminding them of their past mud-wrestling bouts if they join forces? It would take them months of repelling these criticisms; time they simply don’t have, to ease voter’s minds, including the press, how they have put their differences behind them, while insisting more unites than divides them.
The main difficulty to an Obama/Clinton alliance would be choosing Hillary as his running mate, brings with it hubby Bill as well.
Wherever Hill goes, Bill is sure to follow. So instead of having to watch his back with Hillary as his Veep, Obama would have to contend with the motives of ``Slick Willie'' as well
Could you imagine, for example, if Obama/Clinton were elected? Anything the former president would comment on would potentially outshine or upstage President Obama. He would run into the same landmine with his Vice President. Anytime Hillary weighs in on an issue, even if it’s in line with the administration’s policy, it could send feint smoke-signals to voters wondering who is really calling the shots in the Oval Office.
Despite Vladimir Putin being bumped down to prime minister on May 7th to make room for Dmitry Medvedev as the new president, there’s little doubt that Putin is still pulling the strings and making the important economic and global decisions affecting Russia’s future.
If Obama hopes to change the course of America through his bold domestic policy programs and a new geopolitical strategy, should he be elected, he’s going to have to do it without Bonnie & Clyde gunning for his back.
-Bill Lucey
billlucey@bellsouth.net
Comments