Now we move on the Vice Presidential selection part of the campaign. Obviously many supporters and surrogates for Senator Clinton would love to see her recieve the V.P. spot. After all, her loss was slimmer than any other Democrat's in history. But with any V.P. candidate you have to compare the negatives with the positives.
Her positives are quite obvious. She would bring in millions of voters. She might make Arkansas blue. Florida would probably be a sure thing. She could bring in a significant portion of the womans' vote. She is a fighter.
Unfortunately, her negatives are just as high. I personally feel (and I hope I don't offend too many people here) that her largest negative is Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a great president. I loved him. I loved his presidency. I feel he got a raw deal in his last term and highlighted how much tax payer money some Republicans are willing to waste to achieve personal goals regardless of how it might affect the country. But Bill has been very off as of late. More to the point, ex-presidents are hard to work with in general. Bill Clinton found that out with Carter during his presidency. Hillary found that out with her husband during this campaign. It's hard to reign in someone who has been the leader of the free world. They feel that they know what they're doing, even if what they're doing may not be what you want them to do. So unless promises are made that he won't have a key position, Bill's presence is actually a hindrance to Hillary as V.P.
Her second biggest negative is the campaign she ran. McClatchy reports (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/39 811.html) that the RNC has already put up ads using Clinton's campaign talking points against Obama. This is something Obama supporters right here on MyDD warned about in the negative diaries that were so popular on the rec list earlier this year.
It's really hard to refute words during a debate that you uttered multiple times just a couple of months prior. Many people have stated that she could simply reply that she was in a hard fought campaign to excuse her comments. The problem with this is that you come across as either playing politics during the nomination, or playing politics during the general. Either way your sincerity is questioned. I won't even go into the "Elitist" comments and the Clinton campaign commercial that followed that.
Finally, putting Clinton on the ticket after spitting out the word CHANGE for 17 months might seem a little disingenuous. So it's not like Obama is completely blameless in the position I see Clinton in.
I honestly feel these her negatives outweigh the positives I mentioned. I simply don't see how she can be an asset on the ticket. Please note that I am fine with her if Obama ultimately decides to choose Clinton. But I'd like to see what other people think, and tell me if my reasoning just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 66 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
