Strickland's News Not New

Gov. Ted Strickland's strict and unequivocal statement about his lack of interest in being vice president or accepting a nomination was news to most of the media, and to me. But not to Ohioans. It seems that Strickland has said the exact same thing for a year. Didn't matter whether Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee. Here's Strickland in November of 2007.

An aide to Strickland e-mails: "Governor Strickland has said, consistently and unequivocally for several months now, that he has had no interest in appearing on the national ticket and that he would turn down any offers (while trying not to sound presumptuous, of course!)."

So it's not quite right to interpret Strickland's comments as a reproach to Barack Obama.

Comments

IF STRICKLAND DOESN'T WANT TO BE ON THE TICKET, THAT'S HIS BUSINESS SO LONG AS HE ISN'T TRYING TO BE COY ABOUT IT AND WAIT FOR THE RIGHT SIGNAL FROM THE RIGHT PERSON. There is an old song from the 1950's that he should listen to: "Got along without ya before I met ya, gonna get along with ya now........"

Posted by Lee Larson | June 10, 2008 10:14 PM

In case Barak Obama do not chose Clinton as the vp

hey Barak dont count on my vote wont vote for crash and burn know what I mean....

Posted by bob | June 10, 2008 10:16 PM

How many people actually would want the veephood? It's good for positioning you to run after a successful two terms, but that's a long ways out. There's very little power, just what the president crafts. So I could see it as sort of a cabinetlevel position if you want to work on certain projects the presidential candidate would be inclined to turn over to you (e.g. Gore and getting the budget under control) or because you're a passionate advocate of the nominee and will take the bucket of warm piss to advance his or her cause. But if you can be governor or big city mayor or senator, why be veep?

Posted by Deborah | June 10, 2008 10:16 PM

Strickland's comments were not new, but his tone was. Wow, did anyone HEAR the interview on NPR? I was driving home from work and I was laughing so hard at his response as it sounded somewhat like he wanted nothing to do with that ticket. I also liked it when he suggested there were two ways to run as a Democrat in Ohio, and he noted one was more successful than the other: (1) There's the "Kerry way," where you try to run up big margins in the metropolitan areas and (2) "the Strickland way" where you compete in the whole state, trying to win votes in the southeast part of the state too. It was a hilarious, biting, and correct piece of political wisdom from Gov. Strickland.

Posted by John | June 10, 2008 10:26 PM

This could certainly have been a reproach...if Obama had actually asked him. But he didn't, the media did, so it's actually a great example of a non-story that the media created out of boredom.

Posted by A voter | June 10, 2008 11:19 PM

What is it about Ambinder's blog that seems to attract the stupids?

Posted by kjxq | June 10, 2008 11:58 PM

So he doesn't want to be vp. That's good. I'm no fan of Strickland; Obama knows there's much better choices than him.

Posted by Marco | June 11, 2008 12:17 AM

Marc,
I'm a bit disappointed and confused here. You wrote, "So it's not quite right to interpret Strickland's comments as a reproach to Barack Obama."

Actually, it's not *at all* right to interpret this as a reproach to Obama. If Strickland said that in '07, then it clearly had nothing at all to do with Obama.

Posted by dap | June 11, 2008 12:47 AM

If Obama can carry Ohio, it's awfully hard to see how McCain can win. So are there any other Ohio Democrats who might pull the state even 3% in Obama's direction if they were on the ticket? Could Sherrod Brown do this? Anybody else? There must be some Ohioans out there.

Posted by Hal | June 11, 2008 6:50 AM

As a HRC supporter I will listen to Hillary but Obama has to earn my vote. There are reasons why I and many like me supported Hillary and Obama knows what they are. How he and his supporters treat Hillary and her policies will be very important for me. Currently I am favoring McCain a bit but Obama can win me over if he tries hard. Obama is too liberal for me. With a strong Democratic Congress we can keep McCain in check on things like Supreme Court nominees. What Hillary says under pressure does not make much of a difference. .

Obama supporters looking for Hillary to help them win the White House shows a lack of confidence they have with their candidate. He has to move to center to win us over and is he willing to do that!!

Posted by Alex Williams | June 11, 2008 9:23 AM

To Alex: Nice post. Cogent and sensible. I'm a Hillary supporter in your shoes as well. I agree with what you say. Obama has done a good job praising Clinton generically, but hasn't really done anything to get our votes in terms of policy. If he was smart, he would embrace Hillary Clinton's health care plan instead of offering a watered-down meaningless plan. McCain's and Obama's plans aren't good, and Obama doesn't seem to care about health care given the lack of specifics and inability to pay for his plan.

I disagree with you on one point though. I'm not yet convinced Obama knows the reasons we supported Hillary Clinton. His campaign simply suggests we are racists and that is why. Not exactly a reason to get on board when you are being accussed of bigotry for supporting the first serious female presidential candidate in history.

Posted by Regina | June 11, 2008 10:14 AM

Strickland has been saying he won't be a VP choice even before he made his endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

http://www.morningjournal.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=18777444&BRD=1699&PAG=461&dept_id=566374&rfi=8

Posted by 505J | June 11, 2008 10:36 AM

Dear Alex and Regina,

I am pleased to see that Marc's comments section has not yet been taken over by crazy posters.

As an Obama supporter, it is difficult for me to understand the concern about policy. There is little difference between what Hillary Clinton proposed and what Obama is proposing. Obama has a very detailled and (to my mind) sensible set of proposals on his website and elsewhere. While most of the media and his supporters have focused on his "inspirational" speeches, he has some excellent very "wonkish" discussion. Take a lot at his Google Meets the Candidate talk (its on You Tube)done about a year ago, for example.

On a deeper level, ask yourself does a President's policies really matter? The answer is sort of. It certainly sets the course for the administration goals and in that sense, both Obama and Clinton have pretty much set the same course. McCain would set the country in a very different course-- less focus on "healing" the economy, less focus on ending the war, and less focus on increasing access to health care.

The second question is implementation. I would argue that Obama is at least as good as Hillary in terms of implementing new reforms and probably better than McCain.

Just my two pesos worth.

Posted by Erik Bloom | June 11, 2008 11:36 AM

It's good to know it's not about Obama (if we can infer that from this info). However, it still seems like a case of what did you think you were running for? If Kathleen Sebelius was saying this, fine, she's from KS, no skin off anybody's nose. But how do run for governor of Ohio and forswear any responsibility to the party for helping deliver your state by being on the ticket if that's deemed necessary. And why say this so publicly and forcefully now? You could have the meeting, politely refuse, and allow the nominee to move on quietly. It seems like there is no way around this being about Obama at this point, even if Strickland did feel the same way a year ago.

Posted by Mike | June 11, 2008 12:17 PM

The reason some Obama supporters might suggest race as a reason for your exodus from Hillary's failed campaign to McCain is this: The policy positions stated by Sens. Obama and Clinton are very close and differ greatly from McCain. If you supported Hillary purely for political reasons, Sen. Obama is the candidate left that most closely mirrors her politically. To say you support Sen. Clinton's healthcare plan but will now vote for McCain because you do not like Sen. Obama's healthcare plan is plain dishonest and intellectually disingenious. Why not just tell the truth and admit he is not femal enough, or white enough for you and no0 amount of "earning your vote" will get it? For those who say he must earn your vote, what exactly did McCain do to earn your vote after Hillary dropped out? I detest liars, guess that is why I could not support a Clinton. I prefer overt racists who are up front about how they fell to people who make up BS excuses that are as transparent as can be.

Posted by christopher | June 11, 2008 1:42 PM

To Christopher: Neither Obama nor McCain's health care plans are any good. McCain's are based on tax breaks and Obama's allows people to opt out. Neither is universal, though Obama does require kids to have coverage, which is good. However, this still won't pay for it because of adults who can opt out. Neither Obama nor McCain will help keep costs down because only those who are sick will opt in to health care plans under both McCain and Obama. Also, neither Obama nor McCain has seemed to express any serious interest in this issue. If one of them starts to, they'll get my attention.

And, I understand that Obama and Clinton share more views than Obama and McCain. I also understand that McCain almost became a Democrat in 2001 and has voted much more liberally than many Republicans. It's not as stark a contrast as many make it out to be. Especially on health care they are both bad. What this has to do with race is difficult for me to comprehend.

Posted by Regina | June 11, 2008 2:17 PM

What purpose does it serve to be nasty to Clinton supporters? And what purpose does it serve to accuse them of racism? It's something the Obama campaign never has done and never would do. It's deeply divisive and is profoundly unhelpful in winning over her supporters.

Regina,

Actually, Obama addresses the health care issue far more frequently than McCain and has pledged to include both Elizabeth Edwards and Hillary Clinton in his health care efforts. I think the main reason for his "watered-down" health care plan is that it would be politically poisonous to be in favor of "socialized medicine." We can toughen up the plan and add mandates later. But Obama is committed to moving in the right direction.

Furthermore, McCain while swinging to the left after losing to Bush in 2000 has swung hard to the right in the attempt to win his party's nomination. He was watered down or eliminated almost all of the things that liberals and moderates once admired him for whether it's torture, tax cuts, executive privilege, immigration, or even global warming. To govern effectively, he would need to placate his base which is in staunch opposition to the Democratic party platform.

Although the Democrats will likely put up a fight over SCOTUS nominees we are within one justice of overturning Roe v. Wade and these appointments can last for decades. Obama would have the support of the entire Democratic party and could definitely move the Democratic agenda forward. McCain could veto most of that.

So Obama supporters let's be cordial to Hillary supporters. (I may be deeply disappointed in how Senator Clinton ran her campaign against Obama, but we should not hold Clinton supporters responsible for her behavior, and we need to move beyond that.) After all, she came within a half of a percent of the popular vote, and so there's a whole lot of Dems who did not support Obama that we need to reach out to.

Posted by eusto | June 11, 2008 4:29 PM

Regina,

Interesting. My impression is that there is little practical difference between Obama's plan and Hillary's plan. The Obama plan is a bit more market-driven (which would contradict your worry that he is "too liberal") but in practice both would function in a similar fashion. Both Obama's and Hillary's would achieve a similar level of coverage.

However, this is not particularly relevant because the choice is between Obama and McCain. McCain offers very little in terms of effective health care. Obama's subdiies are much better thought out and much more likely to encourage real coverage. Real subsidies (Obama) vs. virtual subsidies via tax cuts (McCain).

Health care reform requires the support of Congress. Obviously, this is a big issue for Obama and of little importance to McCain. So it is more likely that we will something with Obama then with McCain.

Posted by Erik Bloom | June 11, 2008 5:35 PM

Obama's health care plan is simply much weaker than Hillary Clinton's. Obama's plan only covered children universally. He doesn't have universal adult coverage. Clinton's had universal adult and child coverage. Obama keeps saying his plan is 'universal,' but it depends on what the definition of "universal" is. If universal means people get to opt out, meaning all aren't covered, meaning costs go up, it isn't as good. People need to get into the details. His promises to include Elizabeth Edwards and Hillary Clinton don't mean anything to me until he actually changes his policy. What good will it be for them to help him with a flawed policy? It will be good for kids, but that's it. Costs will continue to spiral. I hope he moves left on that issue.

Posted by Regina | June 11, 2008 8:20 PM