Still open to a "dream ticket," at least in a form that he controls, Sen. Barack Obama said on "Today" that Sen. Hillary Clinton "would be on anybody's short list" for the vice presidency. Meanwhile, clicking over to GMA, I see Geraldine Ferraro arguing with Diane Sawyer over the media's bias in favor of a black candidate.
« House Dems in Florida: No Re-Do | Main | A Second Muslim Is Elected To Congress »
Obama: Clinton On "Anybody's Shortlist"
12 Mar 2008 07:12 am
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/19894
Comments (59)
But Sinbad is more qualified for that post!
I also watched the Ferraro interview. The hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper, her basic character and worldview more and more clear.
Just to reiterate, Ferraro claims that Obama would not be where he is, and is lucky, because he is not a white man or a woman of any color. This morning, she pushes the idea that she really means that blacks are voting for the black candidate. She said the same thing about Jesse Jackson in the 80's though, and I'm not sure why he didn't become president (or at least democratic nominee) by her logic.
Of course, she didn't really mean that Obama only benefited by blacks voting for him because he is black, she meant that he gets favorable treatment from non-blacks as well (from the media, from voters, who knows?).
I'm sure she can explain, then, why there is exactly one black governor in the US, and one black senator (let alone no black presidents). Given all the bias in favor of black men, this seems an odd fact. I'm also sure that she can explain why exit polls in Ohio showed Hillary Clinton doing better both among people that thought gender was important and among those who thought that race was important. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226001/
Ferraro's idea here is, just as Sen. Obama put it, "patently absurd" as a factual matter. Why is she saying it then? Why does she seem to believe it? Her later claim that she was being attacked because she is white points to the answer: like many whites, she thinks that she is the victim of reverse discrimination in general, that our society is not, in fact, one that discriminates against blacks, but is one that discriminates against whites.
Never mind how factually inaccurate this is, it fits nicely with the narrative of the white victim.
I really, really hope that some of the elders of the democratic party come out strongly against this kind of thing, and the Clinton camp's obvious (to me) comfort with the idea of garnering the white victim vote.
Ferraro from ABC News:
"She told Sawyer she was "absolutely not" sorry for what she said.
Ferraro also told Sawyer she has no intention of stepping down as a member of Sen. Hillary Clinton's finance committee."
Racist that don't even know they are racist are the biggest problems.
Hillary being Racist No. 1 is a pretty sure bet.
Here is the question: how much of Hillary's campaign funds have been raised on a pitch (discretely done in private) based on keeping this 'N...' out of office by Ferraro and others that Hillary has around her?
"Obama: Clinton On "Anybody's Shortlist""
That's the kinda thing pols say. It's standard fare. That's what Hillary said. The "liberal media" added "dream ticket"
And why would obama want to make Hillary is VP when he has said she is like bush/cheney and part of the cause of the divisive politics that has ruined Washington? Does obama really want a VP like that?
Will the "liberal media" waste the same amount of time chasing obama around questioning why obama would want someone for VP that he has said is part of the problem in Washington?
Hillary divides. Anything, anything to be elected. She has not fired Ferraro because she knows that finger pointing - even the most absurd - will stick somehow.
Latinos, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabs, Pakistani, all others, all non pure white, beware: racists are racists. This is the problem in the USA. This is the problem with Washington establishment and the Clintons are very much part of it.
Sure, she's on anybody's shortlist but she's clearly not at the top of Obama's shortlist after the kind of campaign she is running. He isn't going to pick her unless the superdelegates basically force him to in order to put him over the top for the nomination.
Clinton is pandering to a certain demographic in Pennsylvania that she can't afford to lose. It is sad and sick that someone who has claimed to be a champion for people's rights would sell out so blatantly and in such an ugly manner.
Even if she finally gets around to removing Ferraro from her official campaign staff, she should still be held fully accountable for telling us why she ever recruited this woman with a history going back to 1988 of this sort of race baiting language.
Hadenough, saying that someone would be on anybody's short list does not say that she would be on his short list. He's simply being polite.
What a LOSER campaign Clinton - Ferraro are running.
Go back to the stone age LOSERS !
I wouldn't appoint Clinton to an Ambassadorship in Pupae New Guinea.
Stop tearing up the Democratic party for your EGO trip Clinton ! GO HOME !
If the Clinton campaign wanted to, they could tell Ferraro to stop doing interviews -- but tellingly, they don't. They must have encouraged her because she seems to be doing the circuit. Perhaps the Clinton campaign didn't plan this from the beginning, but they sure have made clear that they are not above taking advantage of Ferraro's racist bile to help animate white bigots in Pennsylvania.
How has Ferraro not been shut up yet? I've bee sickened by all the guilt by association bull in this campaign, but if she doesn't get packed up and shiped to yellowknife soon this is going to start to look like a tactic rather than a mistake.
Hey dont send her to Yellowknife. She is a classic American liberal bigot. Keep her in the U.S. we do not need that warped world view up here. Has anybody noticed that the racism in the campain is comming from a bunch of washed up baby boomers. Times up folks.
My wife and I watched the interview on ABC and at the end just looked at each other and said, "she's just made things worse for her and Clinton."
She was rude, strident, and at the end had this chesire cat smile. On another blog, someone noted that Ferraro had not been properly vettted. I wrote at that time that in fact, she had been, and this was to be her exact role.
Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign, in its incompetent hubris, doesn't realize you can win a battle and lose the war. Although this may help her win PA by more than 5%, it is costing her big time in other states and with the SD's.
And Clinton's refusal to really disavow the comments ("Well, I disagree with that now let's move on") is also a big mistake.
Ferraro did her job, she should now be canned. Anything else looks bad.
"Still" "open" to a dream ticket?!!
What a willfully absurd spin on Obama's comments.
Of course, Obama is not going to expressly rule Clinton out as a VP choice. He's in the middle of a campaign in which he eventually is going to need her supporters.
But Obama's not ruling Clinton out is very different from Clinton's appearing to rule him in. Clinton's shameless and desperate gambit for undecided voters is a promise which, for all sorts of reasons, she is in no position to make.
The fact is, Obama has never indicated, in any meaningful way, that he is "open" to a "dream ticket," and he is not indicating that now.
To pretend otherwise is to attempt to make news, rather than report it.
Is no one paying attention to the fact that Hillary responded to Ferraro's comments?
"Clinton rejected Ferraro's remarks.
'I do not agree with that,' Clinton said Tuesday in an interview with The Associated Press, and later added, 'It's regrettable that any of our supporters — on both sides, because we both have this experience — say things that kind of veer off into the personal. We ought to keep this on the issues. There are differences between us' on approaches to health care, energy, experience, Clinton said."
I agree...why is no one focusing on the issues anymore??? Or did we ever.... It seems to me that our election has become nothing more than a shameless popularity contest.
Obama's campaign is phony when he says that she would be on anyone's short list because there are only two short lists this time around. He has a short list and she has a short list and she isn't on her own short list.
people are asking a specific question and he gives a phony non-specific lets-not-upset-anybody or-say-anything kind of non-answer. His choice not to answer questions with any real integrity but we notice.
Miss Geraldine has said something about Barack Obama that people have pointed out everywhere and all the time about Clarence Thomas.
I dis-like Clarence Thomas so intensely for his politics that I've never been particular critical of MSM and everyone saying this about Thomas, so its very tricky to see it differently when its about Obama.
Geraldine is an important trailblazer and attempted to do something that was very near impossible and she knows what a double-edged sword being the first viable anything is.
Even though she was part of a ticket that did badly she has made it easier for women to gain elective office since.
In some weird similar way, it is easy to find things about a pioneer like Jesse Jackson that make one queasy or doubtful and yet its clear what he did decades ago was hard and important and helped a lot of good people in his wake.
I have a great deal of trouble criticising either.
And there is often a great deal of uncomfortable truth in what they have to say from their unusual vantage places.
This is so ridiculous.
Obviously many (not all) African Americans are voting for Obama because he's the first black person with a real shot to become president. To deny that is so absurd. Why else are 90% of blacks supporting him? Is it experience? Is it his remarkable record of accomplishment? Is it his illustrious career in the Illinois state senate? Is it his opposition to a health care mandate? I don't think so. And there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't see what's supposed to be so positive and transcendental about expecting people to suspend disbelief and deny reality so that people can feel so great about how "race doesn't matter." Guess what? Race matters, gender matters, sexual orientation and religion matter. As long as a lot of people think about it, and talk about it, and those identities mean something to people, as they certainly do, then they all matter.
Ferraro didn't say he wasn't an impressive guy, but it's undeniable that a lot of his success has to do with the historic nature of his candidacy. His own speeches have reflected this. And that's because he is black, obviously.
I don't see what's so controversial about that.
Obama is an idiot.
We cannot afford to have this moron as President.
Ferraro: Obama's lucky to be winning just because he's black.
Rendell: Obama's worthy but can't win Pa because he's black.
Bill Clinton: Obama = Jackson; they're black.
Finally the Clinton campaign speaks with passion and hope on an issue: that racial profiling will prevail in the election.
Now just stop that girls – we know you're out there, but that's no way to win a nomination – be polite. Again, Clinton Playbook, Rule No.1: PERCEPTION TRUMPS REALITY. Muddying the waters may be a good strategy for the loser: http://theseedsof9-11.com
HRC would not dare ask Ferraro to step down, risking backlash from her senior white female base. She's more comfortable having Ferraro out there, as her rants may help HRC with racist white votes, especially in PA and IN.
I do not believe HRC is a racist, by any means, but I also believe that she will do/say nearly anything to win.
Personally, I say let Ferraro rant! Even if it helps HRC in the short term, it may backfire with those beloved superdelegates. Pelosi has already signaled her repudiation. Should the Clintons hold this line of attack for the next six weeks, I seriously doubt party leaders will put up with it. Who knows? It could force Gore/Biden/Edwards/Richardson to step up to the plate against HRC before she takes down the party.
Hillary would certainly be on anyone's short
and fat list.
Would somebody please explain to me why they believe what Ferraro said was racist? All I am reading is assertions to it being racist, but with no actual reasons. Can somebody please give reasons?
Hillary is any unkind adjective your brain can think of, certainly a conspirator in murder and should be executed along with her pal, Bill Clinton.
I saw Sawyer's interview with Ferraro and kept waiting for her to ask the obvious question--if Hillary's name weren't Clinton would she even be the carpetbagger Senator of New York, let alone a viable contender for the presidency?
As for Obama, if a white candidate with his credentials, charisma, and unifying message would have run in this race, he would have wrapped it up a long time ago and Clinton's presidential run would be history.
I saw Sawyer's interview with Ferraro and kept waiting for her to ask the obvious question--if Hillary's name weren't Clinton would she even be the carpetbagger Senator from New York, let alone a viable contender for the presidency?
As for Obama, if a white candidate with his credentials, charisma, and unifying message would have run in this race, he would have wrapped it up a long time ago and Clinton's presidential run would be history.
mbtogut:
Right, because Barack Obama is the first candidate to run with credentials, charisma, and a "unifying message."
GIVE ME A BREAK!
Ferraro's comment was more embarrassing to Clinton as it highlighted Hillary's sole claim to fame as being the wife of an ex-president who failed her assigment of a health care plan.
Obama was being too generous by suggesting Hillary is fit for any post as it becomes increasingly obvious Hillary is plotting to sabotage a Democrat victory should she lose the nomination.
Debbie:
Congratulations for the paranoid delusion of the day.
Tim K--Obama's not the first; nor was Bill Clinton, another charismatic politician, who ran on pretty much the same message and had about the same level of experience Obama has, if not less. Look where it got him.
I suppose you're also going to tell me that if Hillary's last name weren't Clinton, and if she weren't piggy-backing on Bill's experience, she'd nonetheless be where she is today. Give me a break, why don't ya.
Same level of experience? Bill Clinton was a governor for 12 years! What are you smoking?
Oh and btw DTM:
Here's a Gallup poll out today that shows both Clinton and Obama with a 2% lead over McCain in a general election match-up.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104938/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Competitive-Obama-Clinton.aspx
I'd just love to read you trying to spin this into great news for Obama.
He was the 46 year-old governor of Arkansas, who had NO foreign policy experience. He came out of nowhere to win the Democratic nomination based largely on his message and his charisma. His opponents chided him for lacking experience. At least Reagan--another charismatic white guy with a good message--was governor of California and had a long history as a voice of conservatism within the Republican party. (FYI--I voted for Clinton twice, and for Reagan's opponent twice.)
Care to answer my other question Tim? If Hillary weren't Bill's wife--would she be where she is today? The sword cuts both ways.
mbotogut:
Well she would and she wouldn't. Clinton's political career has been so intertwined with Bill Over the last 30 years, mainly because she sacrificed any personal ambitions she may have harbored in order to support his political rise. She was an instrumental and indispensable part of his political success all the way along, and particularly at certain key junctures (specifically 1982, 1992, and 1998) when his career would have been over without her. Having said that many people who knew her thought she was sacrificing a successful political career of her own when she married Bill and moved to Arkansas. So who knows what she would have accomplished by age 60 had she stayed in DC or moved to New York, or back to Illinois. She might have become Senator for Illinois for all we know.
Barack Obama being the person who is he would have gotten far in life no matter what as well. But I don't think he would have been able to rise from the Illinois state senate to Democratic front-runner in a mere 4 years had he not been black. It would have taken longer.
Obama isn't playing race cards. From the very beginning he\\\'s shown clear reservations towards initiating any discussion about race in this campaign. Though it is necessary that he responds to what the media pays attention to.
Obama consistently encourages his supporters and potential supporters to ignore such primitive notions that say characteristics which one has no control over should be a credit or discredit to ones character or ability or electability.
If we believe that race and gender really matter, is does. If we believe race and gender don't matter, it doesn't. Obama may be young but he is wise beyond his years.
JFK was white, young and male... so was Bobby...
Tim K,
Is Obama the first black candidate to get 90% of the black vote? I hope you'll at least admit that the answer to that is no. Why, then, as I state in my post above, are there so few black governors and senators -- could it be that being black is actually more harmful than it is helpful in getting elected to statewide or nation-wide office?
If you really want to try to justify Ferraro's statement that Obama is actually advantaged because he's black, you'll do us all the favor of explaining the lack of black elected officials (why don't white people tend to vote for black candidates), and you'll explain why the exit polling from Ohio shows Clinton winning both those who thought gender was important and those who thought race was important.
Spencer:
Obviously being an African American by itself isn't a help to reaching national or state-wide office. Barack Obama is advantaged in this specific instance because it has bestowed on his candidacy an aura of history-making that has attracted many voters, and that obviously couldn't possibly be the case if he were white. And it has allowed him to rack up huge margins with black voters.
Obama won the voters who thought race was important in Mississippi, by the way. So it cuts both ways.
There's no real way of knowing how far Obama would have gotten with his credentials and talents had he been white. However, he did get to where he is without riding on the coattails of someone else.
Likewise, there's no telling how far Hillary would have gotten on her own merits. But we do know that she's gotten as far as she has, and has a shot at the presidency at this point of time because of Bill's talents. She's no doubt very intelligent, dedicated, and extremely competent, but she lacks that certain something both her husband and Obama have--charisma, charm, whatever you want to call it. She comes across and dull and pedantic when she speaks, and her persona keeps shifting as the race progresses.
I always thought Hillary got a lot of undeserved bad press and evokes the hatred of the right for no good reason except that she's a strong woman and Bill's wife. I would have voted for her in the general election, despite my dislike of dynastic politics, if she hadn't decided to drag the campaign into the gutter when she started to see the prize slipping from her grasp. Her offer of the vice-presidency to Obama, along with a lot of other campaign moves, reeks of desperation and disingenuity. The same with Ferraro's comments. Clinton won't offer Obama the number two spot--he'd outshine her by drawing large crowds and a lot more enthusiam and it's not good to be overshadowed by your number two.
mbtogut:
It's a mistake to underestimate Hillary Clinton, that's all I'll say.
Tim K,
On Mississippi -- the number of states with black populations large enough to have it cut in favor of being black is very small (deep south only). Saying it "cuts both ways" doesn't change the fact that it cuts far more against you if you're black (as you admit is shown by lack of national black elected officials).
Please pay careful attention to what Ferraro actually said, and what you have been defending. She said that he would not be where he is now (whatever exactly that means, though I take it that it means he would not be beating Clinton) if he was either a white man or a woman of any color. Ferraro said that if he was a black woman, he would not be where he is -- I see no getting around this, and no way to square this with the idea that he benefits overall by being a historical first.
Sen. Clinton would of course be the first woman president, just as Sen. Obama would be the first black candidate. By this "historical first" logic, if he was a black woman, he would be a double first, and thereby in an even better position than just being a black man. Why did Ferraro say that he'd be worse off if he were a black woman? It goes back to her basic view, I think: 1) being a woman puts you at a disadvantage to be elected and 2) being white puts you at a disadvantage (some sort of affirmative action/reverse racism). This is just flatly contradicted by the world as it exists.
Spenser:
She meant a white guy or a black woman 4 years out of state legislature would not be beating Hillary Clinton. And I agree with that. Most people with his level of experience would be laughed off the stage at this point.
TimK--Obama is not most people. I don't see how Bill Clinton's experience--12 years as governor of freakin' Arkansas, a backwater state--is that much more extensive than Obama's eight years in the Illinois state senate, his three years in the Senate, and his years as a community organizer. Again, Obama and Clinton have what Hillary does not--drawing power and a message. If Barack had his talents and was white, you can damn well believe he'd be beating Clinton, probably by a far wider margin than he is now. She's benefitted from a lot of white male working class voters who are voting on the race issue.
TimK--I agree; you underestimate the Clintons at your own peril. As the race goes on, it's become clear that they'll do just about anything to win the nomination, Democratic Party be damned.
Not everyone is so certain that Obama is even going to win in November.
Tim K,
So, we've established that being black doesn't help win national or state-wide elections, it hurts.
Your argument is that although this is true in general, it is not true where the black person in question happens to have had his exact legislative history (which encompasses more years than Sen. Clinton's).
You can't seriously want to say this. I mean, really ... being black makes it harder to get elected, unless your name happens to be Barack Obama, in which case it helps?
TimK--nobody is certain Clinton will win either, unless you're privy to some secret information of which I'm unaware.
I don't think Obama's race is an advantage in the general campaign. As for Hillary, she has a huge pile of negatives that bode well for McCain.
mbtogut:
Yeah and I think Obama has his own negatives.
Spenser:
We haven't established anything of the kind. If you're trying to say that Obama is so wonderful that he is doing this well *despite* being black you are being ridiculous.
How can you possibly believe that Barack Obama would have attracted this much attention and support even if his candidacy weren't historic at all?
There would be no history-making argument, there would be no argument about racial reconciliation, there would be no argument about what positive message electing this man would send to the rest of the world about America... so much of his candidacy would be totally mute.
Tim K,
"Obviously being an African American by itself isn't a help to reaching national or state-wide office."
This is you from above. So, yes, we have established that being black does not help win national or state-wide office.
Now you say, "if you're trying to say that Obama is so wonderful that he is doing this well *despite* being black you are being ridiculous." So, again, we come back to it: you admit that being black is not an aid to being elected president (or winning democratic primaries), yet you say that it is an aid for Sen. Obama. You justify this by simply claiming that there is no other possible way to account for it -- seemingly it doesn't matter how little sense this explanation makes given what we have both said about the difficulties faced in general by black candidates.
That about does it I think ... there is simply no factual reason for your (and Ferraro's) absurd idea that Obama is where he is because he is black (and, oddly enough, would not be where he is if he was both black and a woman). So what accounts for your (and Ferraro's) unbelievable repetition of this absurd idea? I can't see any other realistic conclusion but that both of you are under the incredibly deluded perception that racism works more against whites than it does against blacks.
Let the flag of white victimhood fly high and apparently without shame.
I'll be ashamed for you ... white as I am.
Have Americans voted white males with perceived few years of experience, YES
Kennedy, Bill Clinton
Are there more elected white females in office than black mates, YES
Is Ferraro, well past her sell by date, and does she deserve to be criticized on her racist comments, hell yes, but i think its clever from the Clinton campaign or not so clever, i think they are trying to shed the' wicked witch of the west' image Clinton is getting and transpose it to Ferrano.
Either that or its the lousiest Kitchen sink strategy of a generation.
Spenser:
I said being African American BY ITSELF is not a help. But if the person if bright and articulate then I think it's a great help. It's like Joe Biden said last year when he got in trouble for telling the truth about the fascination with Obama candidacy: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." For affluent white liberals, that's love at first sight. And understandably so. Obama definitely isn't Jesse Jackson and that's why he's so popular. If somebody is black I think they have to be extra intelligent and articulate, but once it's clear they are then that's the ticket to success right there.
I just think you're so desperate to believe Obama is this transcendent figure that you have suspended disbelief.
Tim K,
Yeah, I've said all there is to say to you at this point I think, and I think others can judge you, your arguments, your worldview, and your motivations.
I am quite sure I didn't say or anywhere indicate that I believe he is a "transcendent figure," by the way. There are actually issues involved, you know: he opposed the war, she voted for it; she accepts ridiculous amounts of money from federal lobbyists, he doesn't; he does far, far better among independents nation-wide and does far better in polls against McCain.
Anyway, there it is, others can judge for themselves.
Spenser:
You're being pretty self-righteous and sanctimonious.
You've already made your preference known and all of your argument are simply narrow-tailored to advance that prejudice.
I don't care what color they are, what their name is, what there gender is or for that matter their political party. (and yes I have my own biases)
Whats more important to me is fixing the mess GWB is leaving us.
Based on information from both campaign websites I conclude Mrs. Clinton shows she is extremely knowledgable about the issues and has well thought out solutions.
I am also intrigued by the inspiration that Mr. Obama offers and the hope people feel in changing the old style of politics in DC.
I believe we absolutely need "all" of this after years of the repressive Bush administration.
Additionally, I have ruled out the republican candidate because of the relative sameness it shares with the current administration.
So far, none of the supporters of either camp have convinced me they have the better candidate. It is truly hard, to filter through all the personal attacks, and charges of racism and sexism displayed by the media and blogs.
I suppose it might help a bit, if those of you that want to make the case for your candidate try a different approach instead of utiilzing negatives about the opposition. So far you offer nothing of substance anyone could use to make an informed decision.
Spenser: As I say to everyone on these blogs...ignore Tim K. He's an idiot, a troll, a bigot, and most importantly, a fool. If we ignore him he may go away.
C. Michol;
F*** off.
I said being African American BY ITSELF is not a help. But if the person if bright and articulate then I think it's a great help.
TimK
Yeah, because it's always such a pleasant surprise when one of "them" can speak clearly and use big words that our guilty white liberal hearts go pitter-patter and we automatically pull the lever for the black candidate.
That comment was condescending to both Obama and his supporters when Biden made it, and it hasn't improved with repetition. No wonder you think Ferraro was spot on.
The word "racist" is being thrown around a little bit too easily here. People need to chill out. I'm just making some factual observations. It's not racist to point out obvious differences between groups or to point out when certain communities are acting in solidarity.
He misspoke. He meant to say that "she would be on anybody's shit list".
| 
The question is shortlist for what?
I'd say make her Secretary of State which is the traditional toxic waste dump.
Posted by D | March 12, 2008 8:02 AM