A Heartbeat Away

When Bill and Hillary Clinton tout the virtues of a joint ticket with Barack Obama, they're trapping themselves in a bit of a box about the qualifications necessary to be vice president. The subtext of HRC's "ready from day one" argument is that she IS, and he ISN'T. Of course, there are gradations; someone might be more qualified than someone else, but for the purposes of politics, there's a bright line above which someone is qualified, and the Clinton campaign has taken to arguing for two weeks that Barack Obama is below that line. And yet... as a vice president, a heart-beat away from the presidency... suddenly the line moves. Here's an example of how this argument plays out in real life.

MR. RUSSERT: Governor Rendell, I want to talk to you about some comments made by Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton about the vice presidency. Yesterday in Mississippi, Bill Clinton said that if Hillary Clinton was the nominee, she would certainly consider Barack Obama. In fact, they would be "almost unstoppable" together. Hillary Clinton herself on Friday was talking about this also in Mississippi. Let's listen.

(Videotape)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): I've had people say, "I wish I could vote for both of you." Well, that might be possible some day.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Would--do you think that Barack Obama would be acceptable as vice president?

GOV. RENDELL: Acceptable? I think it would be a dream to Democrats all over this country. Personally, for me, it would be a great ticket. I mean, I'm going to fight hard for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, whoever the candidate is. But put them together and I think it would give America a rare opportunity to experience something just incredibly wonderful.

MR. RUSSERT: So, if you believe he's acceptable as vice president, one heartbeat away from the presidency, you believe that Barack Obama is qualified to be commander in chief.

GOV. RENDELL: I think he's qualified. I don't think he's as good a potential commander in chief right now as Hillary Clinton is. But I certainly think he's qualified. And I will work my heart out for him if he's our nominee, just as I know Tom will work his heart out for Senator Clinton if she's our nominee.

MR. RUSSERT: It--that seems to be in conflict with some things that you have said and what Hillary Clinton has said. On Wednesday you sent out a statement from the Clinton campaign that says, "We want a president who's ready, not one we hope will one day be ready," suggesting Barack Obama is not ready. Hillary Clinton said this on Monday. Let's listen.

(Videotape)

SEN. CLINTON: I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: And she went on to offer these observations about a threshold for commander in chief. Let's listen.

(Videotape, Thursday)

SEN. CLINTON: I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander in chief threshold, and I believe that I've done that. Certainly Senator McCain has done that. And, and you'll have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: So, Governor Rendell, if Barack Obama's qualified to be vice president, he has crossed the commander in chief threshold. Correct?

GOV. RENDELL: Well, I, I think he's ready. He's not nearly as ready as Hillary Clinton is, there's no question about that. But, look, make no mistake about it, he's a talented, dynamic politician and, and a, and a good senator, and I think he would make a fine president. Again, is he as experienced and as ready as Hillary Clinton? Nobody is. Tim, I've been talking to Democratic candidates since 1980, and Hillary Clinton is the best-prepared candidate I've ever talked to. Far better prepared than Bill Clinton was in 1992.

MR. RUSSERT: But if, in fact, there's a possibility Obama may be the Democratic nominee, would it be better, in the interest of the Democratic Party, that the Clintons not suggest that he hasn't passed the threshold to be commander in chief?

GOV. RENDELL: Well, sure. Look, there, there's rhetoric in a campaign on all, on all sides, and I, I think the, the issue should be framed as ready compared to Hillary Clinton. And, and that's the way I would frame the issue going forward. To me, there's no contest. I don't think--it's not Barack Obama's fault. I think almost any of the other candidates would have fallen into the same category, ready but not as ready as Hillary Clinton.

Comments

Bill Clinton's response to this line of questioning was "that's just politics" . Politics as usual, indeed.

Posted by south side | March 10, 2008 8:36 AM

Logic isn't really a concern here and has no effect on the constituencies to which they're catering.

For example, a Clinton supporter at Newsweek yesterday made the argument that:

1) Obama was the candidate of "the coastal Green Party Dems" that were out-of-touch with "flyover country" so he couldn't be the nominee.
2) Clinton had "won more electoral votes" (from "flyover" states like California and New York) whereas Obama had only won small coastal states like Wisconsin, Kansas, Wyoming, Colorado, and Missouri. Thus, Clinton should be the nominee.

As the commenter lauded Ed Rendell's mastery of the sophistic arts, this direct contradiction never occurred to her. In the topsy turvy world of the Clinton Cult, the "four state strategy" of the DLC represents more of America than the DNC's "fifty state strategy." Clinton is the candidate of "flyover country" even though Obama wins those states and they don't matter. Obama only appeals to hardcore Democrats yet we must assume, as Rendell did, he won't get the electoral votes from California and New York.

It's incoherent babble and it's predictably par for the course with the Clintons.

Posted by Klaus | March 10, 2008 8:47 AM

Well, Hillary could always try the 'experience by osmosis' line for someone in the VP position. She relied on it for her First Lady experience.

Posted by Tom J | March 10, 2008 8:48 AM

"that's just politics"
But what does "that" refer to? Are they lying when they say he'll be part of the ticket or when they say he's not qualified.
Oh, and the he'll be part of the ticket gambit should be officially renamed the Rosa Parks strategy.

Posted by bjd | March 10, 2008 8:59 AM

So apparently she is ready on "day one", but Obama is ready on "day two"? I'm having a Lewis Black spastic moment here, so excuse me but WHAT THE?? I love what Daschle said at the end of the interview, I'm glad somebody finally pointed it out... he said that this may be the first time in history that a candidate in the No.2 spot for the nomination has offered the No.1 candidate the No.2 spot. Isn't that ridiculous! This is just dumb... Hillary Clinton is making me dumber.

Posted by Blake | March 10, 2008 8:59 AM

Please notice that Hillary Clinton, by saying that it might be possible to "vote for both of us someday," did not actually say that people would be able to vote for both of them on the same ticket (although her surrogate, Bill Clinton, did). Clearly this is all political B.S. to make it plausible to think that by voting for Hillary you can get a twofer. But the truth is that Hillary is behind and is losing this race. Unless Obama implodes (unlikely), or the Clinton's are willing to destroy the party and our election chances by taking the election through backroom deals with the superdelegates, Obama is going to be the nominee. It's time to start realizing this.

Posted by stretchingit | March 10, 2008 9:04 AM

The good news is the longer this campaign drags on the more people (including her supporters) will begin to see how the Clintons will say anything to gain the upper hand for the moment.

Play on people's fears about Obama - Obama is not ready to be President. Answer people's fears that Hillary is a divider - Say she'll unite the party and put him on the ticket.

Never mind that these two statements are totally contradictory. At least one of them has to be false.

The truth is they are both false. And The Clintons are sociopaths. That's great leadership for you. Hopefully, we won't have eight more years of it to look forward to.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 10, 2008 9:07 AM

The Clintons make us feel we are in the twilight zone. So Obama get put down, mocked, called inexperienced, and McCain even gets endorsed by Hillary, over Obama, a fellow Democrat. It is time to ask the Clintons why they now keep talking about a joint ticket with the man who, in their questionable judgment, is not ready to be Commander in Chief, but could be her VP?

Sometime talking from both sides of your mouth, becomes a habit.

Posted by Marlyn | March 10, 2008 9:08 AM

Is it really a shock at this point that Clinton is willing to offer completely inconsistent statements whenever she deems it expedient?

But, thanks for at least pointing it out this time.

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 9:09 AM

Marc Please do not post that "black-face" buffoonery SNL clip today, seriously I can only stand going back in history so far, but not that far.

Posted by eh? | March 10, 2008 9:10 AM

You know there's a huge, indefensible contradiction in Hillary's statements when Russert calls someone out on it. The Obama campaign should be pushing this more, I think.

Posted by Helter | March 10, 2008 9:13 AM

Although to be fair, it should be noted that this isn't really that problematic when you realize that Hillary's experience arguments are actually code for putting Bill back in the White House. In that sense, it isn't really inconsistent to argue it would be a good idea to put Bill back in the White House and also to have Obama as VP. It just becomes laughable if you take their experience arguments at face value (but that was true even if you ignore the Obama as VP stuff--Hillary Clinton more prepared than Biden? McCain? Please).

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 9:14 AM

Saying that Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle," - Kos commenter, Jsn.

Posted by Mark | March 10, 2008 9:15 AM

Exactly. Even Bill Clinton was asked about this and admitted it was all just "politics."

The Clintons are bad for this country and bad for the Democratic party. Why Hillary is still in this is a mystery to me.

She is an awful candidate who inherited the greatest advantages in name recognition, political machinery, and money, and yet still couldn't seal the deal. For a capable candidate, it should have been a slam dunk. Imagine if Obama had started out with the advantages that Hillary did; the contest would be over.

The only reason she is still in it is because of political machinery loyalty. Obama has earned his votes, Hillary has not, and in fact, has seen her base erode.

Wherever Hillary goes, she divides. It's her nature. She could never unify the country, and that is what is needed most now.

After seeing how she runs her campaign, we know she's not even a competent manager, and so that argument goes away. I really believe that Hillary would be a disaster as president.

Obama is the only candidate that can unify this country, and he is also a brilliant leader of people. Who can turn that offer down?

Posted by cm | March 10, 2008 9:19 AM

So really, this is Hillspeak for "he's ready, over my dead body"?

Posted by Lolo | March 10, 2008 9:19 AM

When Clinton refers to the Hillary/Obama ticket as 'unbeatable', is he really saying in Southern speak that Obama cannot be beaten because longstanding southern tradition says house servants cannot be beaten, unlike the field hands.

What Hillary is really saying is Obama is qualified to be a house boy in her White House.

It offends the dignity and pride of Obama and his supporters to such an extent that if I were him, I would rather sit out this election (as Achilles sat out the Trojan war) rather than to be a VP candidate.

To be a VP in the Clinton administration would also gut any legitimate claims Obama has to "Change you can believe in". He would be able to achieve more as a nationally prominent Senator.

Obama would be better to lose the nomination and keep his pride and his principals intact. There will be another chance for him 4 years hence. There will not be a second chance for Clinton.

Posted by D | March 10, 2008 9:21 AM

Now the rest of the country gets to find out what those in PA already know: Ed Rendell is a tool.

Posted by neilrlca | March 10, 2008 9:23 AM

I am puzzled that people are surprised that the clintons would use contradictory arguments.

They've done it before...here are five examples:

1) Obama is not black enough.....no, wait a minute, he's "the black candidate."

2) Obama is the reincanation of Ronald Reagan...no, wait a minute, he's the most liberal senator in America.

3) Obama is too far left on national security....no, wait a minute, Obama is not serious about getting out of Iraq.

4) Obama is abandoning the politics of hope by attacking me and Ken Starr's brother....no, wait a minute, Obama is not tough enough to fight the republicans!

5) Winning the Nevada caucuas was a huge momentum changing victory for Hillary. No, wait a minute, Caucuses are inherently undemocratic.

Instead of asking whether Hillary's argument on commander-in-chief readiness is consistent with offering him the vice-presidency, one should ask themself whether anything the Clinton campaign has done has been remotely consistent or whether the media have done its job in pointing out the breathless dishonesty emanating from camp clinton.

Posted by RKA | March 10, 2008 9:24 AM

that "black-face" buffoonery SNL
It's really time for SNL to get called down on this. It's 2008, not 1908.

Posted by bjd | March 10, 2008 9:25 AM

"there's rhetoric in a campaign on all, on all sides"

...i agree with Neil up there. living in NJ, i see a lot more Ed Rendell than most people, and he's a hack.

his statement above tries to suggest they're both lying about each other--yeah, sure, ed, its been a 50/50 split.

ugh.

Posted by rob! | March 10, 2008 9:27 AM

I guess this is just another meme (like the one that Obama is the second coming, or Hillary is a monster) that I just don't get.

I mean, the whole point is that she's more experienced than she is, so he needs more exposure to the job. It really doesn't seem so complicated, unless of course you want it to be.

Posted by dk | March 10, 2008 9:28 AM

Where is the party elders? George Mitchell, Sam Dunn, Al Gore.
Why aren't they calling this for what it is. The party is afloat because of the Clintons and their actions. But is it the selfishness of the 'leaders' which has shocked me. The Joe Biden's, Richardsons, Edwards. So dissapointing,

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 10, 2008 9:40 AM

dk -Vice Presidents must be ready on day one to assume the presidency if something should happen to the president. In order to be ready to be Vice President, one is also ready to be President. It's part of the job description.

It's not a meme. Hillary has been going around saying that Obama is not ready to be president period - not that she is more ready - and therefore, accordingly he can't be ready to be vice president either. It's like being a "little pregnant." Either you are or you aren't.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 10, 2008 9:57 AM

Marc,

The really outrageous thing is that the Clintons are offering Obama the vice-president spot even though they're running in second place! Takes some chutzpah, if you ask me. For all her talk of working hard, HRC doesn't seem to think that first place is something you earn, so much as something you claim.

Posted by alex | March 10, 2008 9:58 AM

Saturday Night Live is unfairly trying to skew the Election in favor of Hillary. They know the powerful influence tv has on the sub consciousness of man and they are trying to influence man's consciousness that Barack is not ready and Hillary is.

Certain news media put much emphasis on SNL's unfair and biased skits playing it over and over again, like it has some real value on News and more slyly, like it is news, not making the distinction that it is just comedy! They too know what they are doing in trying to influence the election in favor of Hilary.

What is this reason for this undue influence? What is their purpose? What do they have to gain?

If SNL must do these election skits, then in all fairness, they should try not to be so biased in one candidate over the other.

Those of us who are concerned about this undue influence and unfair practice should contact SNL & Media and let them know what we think about this practice. There is power in numbers.

Posted by Angellight | March 10, 2008 10:00 AM

I mean, the whole point is that she's more experienced than he is, so he needs more exposure to the job. It really doesn't seem so complicated, unless of course you want it to be.
Posted by dk

The vice-presidency isn't supposed to be where you groom your protege, though--this isn't Russia. It's supposed to be someone qualified to take over running the country in a heartbeat, preferably (in modern parlance) who can also be entrusted with some aspects of moving important programs along.

I keep being reminded of both Clintons' NC comments that "I am just so proud of Barack." What, exactly, did they have to be proud of? Do they get credit for all talented Democratic politicians appearing on the national stage after 1992? He is not their trainee; he could, in fact, teach them a lot: How to run a campaign in the 21st century. How to appeal to independents. How to be tolerable to Republicans. They can teach him how to hunker down and fight, endlessly, even when people started out in agreement, even after the battle is lost, while wildly covering up every new possible scandal--those aren't lessons most of us want him to learn. And he, wisely, has made it clear he won't sign on to learn them.

Posted by Deborah | March 10, 2008 10:02 AM

In order to answer this latest Hillary spin, we should acknoledge the fact that Hillary de facto already has a running-mate with Bill. What role will the VP have with this couple running the country? Suddely the VP position seem much less appealing..

Posted by Migleu | March 10, 2008 10:21 AM

In order to answer this latest Hillary spin, we should acknoledge the fact that Hillary de facto already has a running-mate with Bill. What role will the VP have with this couple running the country? Suddely the VP position seem much less appealing..

Posted by Migleu | March 10, 2008 10:22 AM

Nothing like having an argument thrown back in one's face:

Washington, DC - Today, former service secretaries for each of the Armed Forces - Clifford Alexander, Jr. (US Army), Richard Danzig (US Navy), and F. Whitten Peters (US Air Force) - will host a press conference in Washington, DC to discuss why Obama has demonstrated the judgment and has the experience to be Commander In Chief.

Secretary Clifford Alexander, Jr. (US Army - Carter Administration)

Secretary Richard Danzig (US Navy - Clinton Administration)

Secretary F. Whitten Peters (US Air Force - Clinton Administration)

Posted by Mark | March 10, 2008 10:36 AM

Rendell must be somehow related to the Clintons? I have rarely seen such a despicable man. As I was watching this human POS on MTP, all I could think of was a)he is a perfect proxy for the Clintons, and b)although I am not a religious man, Rendell has sold his soul to the devil.

Obama should make a commercial about this - and all the other Clinton inconsistencies and spin throughout this campaign. It is EXACTLY what he speaks about in wanting a change from the "old style" of politics (read: lying through your teeth).

Why do we allow people like this to gain power?

Powers was 100% right. These people are monsters.

Obama would be insane to offer VP to Clinton. He'd have to test every meal for poison before eating it.

Posted by slick | March 10, 2008 10:36 AM

What is this foolishness about her winning the big states? Obama would easily carry New York and California in a general election, to think the opposite is retarded. She is using a general election argument (Republican vs. Democrat) in a primary (Democrat vs. Democrat), does anyone besides me see something wrong with this picture? Why is the media letting her get away with this argument? It is pure foolishness!! And she is including Michagan and Florida in this argument as states she won? Please help them get a clue!!

Posted by Kym | March 10, 2008 10:38 AM

I would like to see Obama continue to hammer HRC on bad judgment. This is a great argument that kills her vaunted experience claim. Her experienced resume reveals one bad call after another, namely, the Iraq vote. And Obama has lots of fodder for her bad judgment during this campaign: claiming caucuses are undemocratic, saying certain states don't matter, having Bill run around South Carolina yapping about race, etc. And the all-time, most ridiculous bad judgment statement is about how she and McCain are ready for the presidency and Obama is not.

Posted by Stephanie | March 10, 2008 10:53 AM

Obama should call them on this, which I think can be done without being negative. How's this for a response, the next time a reporter asks Obama about the 'dream ticket'

Choosing a vice president is one of the most important decisions a presidential candidate makes. The most important criteria is that the vice president must be immediately ready to serve as commander-in-chief if necessary. I would not consider anyone to be my runningmate if I did not have the ultimate confidence in his/her meeting the threshold for commander in chief, and would not even consider running with anyone who did not express the same confidence in me.

The Clinton campaign would be forced to respond. Either they would have to backtrack on the threshold meme, or it would be clear that it is Hillary's fault that the dream ticket is not going to happen.

Posted by Marc from Asia | March 10, 2008 11:47 AM

I am sick and tired of the Clintons and their Rovian double-talk. How stupid do they think we are?

Posted by Ruth in OR | March 10, 2008 11:48 AM

Geez - step away from the Kool Aid y'all.

There's nothing unreasonable about suggesting that someone probably isn't ready to take the office, but might "do in a pinch." No one is saying there's an absolute binary yes/no qualified/unqualified paradise/catastrophe test for president. If there was one, then BO would undoubtedly flunk it, HRC would have to cram, and JSM would be qualifed to give it, but that's neither here nor there.

There's a good argument for putting someone whose qualifications are arguably uncertain in the VP spot, expecting that every day in office their qualifications will significantly improve. Sure, it's taking a chance that, in the case of national tragedy, we might have to deal with a relatively unqualified person filling the top job, but arguing that that risk is tolerable compared to some alternatives doesn't mean you can't still argue qualifications.

Anyway, the Clintons have several reasons to float the "dream team" (gag me) scenario: 1) it's popular with the voters; 2) it distances them from any criticisms of BO that may seem too personal; 3) it deflects criticisms from some that they're being divisive by staying in the race and seeking to game the rules; 4) it's popular with the voters; 5) it's popular with the voters; 6) it's popular with the voters.

Also, it's popular with the voters.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 10, 2008 11:56 AM

"I am sick and tired of the Clintons and their Rovian double-talk. How stupid do they think we are?"

Ruthian.

Posted by slick | March 10, 2008 12:02 PM

Thanks for the voice of reason, CK. I tried to make a similar comment further up in the chain, and predictably I got jumped. I hope you fare better than I do.

I have to say, it also cracks me up when the kool aid drinkers label every single thing coming out of Clinton's mouth as "Rovian." It seems that, to those people, if Clinton says anything other than "Obama is God, I could never be as good a president as he could be," she gets accused of this whole "Rovian" thing. Do you all realize that you are parodies of yourselves at this point?

Posted by dk | March 10, 2008 12:17 PM

dk - As Regean famously said - "There you go again." No one is asking that The Clintons declare Obama a "god"- just not insult everyone's intelligence on who is and isn't "ready on day one."

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 10, 2008 12:36 PM

dk - I left out the other, possibly most important reason why I think the Clintons like to float the joint ticket idea: When Barack and his Barackettes swat it away, it makes them look like the arrogant, selfish, and divisive ones.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 10, 2008 12:43 PM

CK - Very true, although the Barackettes don't seem to need this to be arrogant, selfish, and divisive. It's their normal routine.

And look at some of the other comments above. One person talks about how the Vice Presidency isn't supposed to be where you "groom your protege." Tell that to all of the Vice-Presidents who have run for President touting their on-the-job training as Vice-President. And how about the commenter who sounds like he/she would like to fire the writers of SNL. I guess censorship is fine and dandy if it furthers Obama's interests. Though who knows, maybe the commenter is just a frustrated comedy writer.

Posted by dk | March 10, 2008 2:15 PM

I think that's the problem with all the lawyering and posturing the Clintons do. At the end of the day, it's a royal mess that none may decipher. Kind of like the Clintons in general, but they know that. Yet, the Clintons are on the ticket – it's either, or, now, and that's more than half the battle. In my way of thinking the Democratic Party shot itself in the foot, by allowing them on the ballot. Did you ever know the Clintons not to make a mess, then not to prosper from that mess: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 10, 2008 6:04 PM

Hillary's lifetime experience definitely includes being wife of Bill Clinton who was well known for his domain expertise in intern al and external affairs. For that matter see what happened to India with lifetime experience of playing Hockey - it did not even get a ticket to Beijing olympics. Its time to see the Change and the message is clear. Hillary must read Oscar Wilde Quote which says experince is another name we give for past mistakes. Americans must be looking for a President to have a date with history of the future and not one who will do time pass to turn back the pages of history of lifetime experience to look for precedences to offer the same bad old decision.

Posted by BR Natarajan | March 10, 2008 8:21 PM