An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Obama, Clinton join McCain vs. earmarks

Lt. Governor Could Replace Spitzer in NY »

Hillary Clinton Now Downplays Talk Of Clinton-Obama Democratic Ticket

Posted by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief in Politics.
Mar 10th, 2008 | Comments

Should we call it “the trial balloon that quickly popped?” New York Senator Hillary Clinton, whose bigwig supporters — including her husband Bill — have touted a Clinton-Obama Democratic ticket’s glories is now expressing surprise that the talk (which started from her side) has taken on “a life of its own.”

It was given life by the Clinton side, Obama repeatedly and today bluntly turned it down and pointed out the contradictions between talking about him for No. 2 when Clinton has called him unprepared to answer a red phone and not yet “over the threshold” (like her and GOP future nominee Sen. John McCain.) So now you get this exchange between Clinton and ABC News’ Jake Trapper:

Her answer was quite strange, considering it’s been her camp fueling this buzz.

TAPPER: “Senator, how do you reconcile your suggestion that maybe Senator Obama would be appropriate to be on a Clinton-Obama ticket while at the same time you are suggesting that he isn’t prepared to be commander-in-chief?”

CLINTON: “Well this thing has really been given a life of its own. You know, a lot of Democrats like us both and have been very hopeful that they wouldn’t have to make a choice, but obviously Democrats have to make a choice and I’m looking forward to getting the nomination. And it’s premature to talk about whoever might be on whose ticket, but I believe that I am ready to serve on day one.”

It sounds as if the trial balloon deflated once analysts began wondering how Obama could ever be offered second spot, given the way he is being described by Clinton as essentially an empty suit who makes good speeches.

Also: Obama’s comments addressed this issue and he noted that he’s the one ahead in pledged delegates. In other words: it was opening a can of worms for the Clintons and their campaign — so they are now moving on.

But memories of the trial balloon — which some contend was floated to give the impression that Clinton is front-runner — will persist.

And it’s virtually certain there will be a move to get some kind of unity ticket — but it’s likely it’ll fail, given increasing bitterness between each campaign and their followers.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

Cupples

Joe,

The reason Hillary is now downplaying the possibility of a joint ticket is likely because Obama has made multiple statements to the media that he isn't game.

Side issue: pledged delegates matter, but there is no rule that super-delegates HAVE to vote as the nation's majority of pledged delegates did. Never has been. IN fact, the Obama campaigns present arguments are rather novel.

Many super-delegetes are elected officials in their state. Why would any of them whose states voted for Hillary ignore their constituents and vote with the majorities of OTHER states? That's not what representation is about.

This race has become so emotionally charged that lines are getting blurred and facts are being forgotten.

janinedm

"There is no rule that super-delegates HAVE to vote as the nation's majority of pledged delegates did. "

It's March 11. We're all very aware of that fact now. I'll remind you that there are thousands of legal, stupid moves in chess.

However, what are the repercussions for the party if they overturn the vote expressing the will of the electorate. He's leading in delegates, the popular vote, and the polls. What will be the rationale? "We've decided we know better than you. Thank for 'voting' I'll see you in November when it really counts!" Shoot, there's no rule saying I can't live on a diet of cheese-whiz and krispy kremes, but that doesn't make that an intelligent or forward looking move for my future health.

"Never has been. IN fact, the Obama campaigns present arguments are rather novel."

I can't think of an example in modern politics where the superdelegates countermanded the voters.

"Many super-delegetes are elected officials in their state. Why would any of them whose states voted for Hillary ignore their constituents and vote with the majorities of OTHER states? That's not what representation is about."

Wait, so are you arguing that the superdelegates can vote however they want unless their constituents voted for Hillary? Oy vey.

"This race has become so emotionally charged that lines are getting blurred and facts are being forgotten."

We've all heard those talking points above, and haven't forgotten them. I'm not, nor is Obama or Clinton, arguing that the rules should change. But as a voter, I have every right to make sure my elected officials are very aware of what I want. That is the essential relationship and a voter and their elected officials. I don't just vote and then sit quietly in a corner.

blog comments powered by Disqus