The Truth will prevail, But only if we Demand it from Congress!
9-11 Inside Job and Neocons Hacked 2004
Hillary Is McCain's Dream Candidate, Not Obama's
By Guy T. Saperstein, AlterNet
Posted on May 10, 2008, Printed on May 11, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/84955/
Now that it is apparent to all, except perhaps Hillary Clinton and
some of her die-hard supporters, that Barack Obama will be the
Democratic presidential nominee, the drumbeat for a "dream" ticket [Obama/Clinton]
is starting. But before this goes too far, we need to ask, whose
"dream" are we talking about? Our Republican opponents' dream or
ours?
John McCain is in deep trouble, and not just because of the legacy
of George Bush. He is in trouble with much of the Republican base,
particularly the Religious Right, who never have trusted him. It is
no accident that turnout in nearly all Republican primaries has been
low, that McCain's fundraising has been dismal and that in the North
Carolina and Indiana primaries, nearly 25 percent of Republican
voters voted against him, despite the fact that he clearly will be
the Republican nominee.
While McCain was the strongest in a weak field of Republican
candidates, his candidacy clearly is not galvanizing conservatives.
There is only one candidate who can do that: Hillary Clinton. To the
conservative base of the Republican Party, she is the Democratic
demon and the candidate the Republicans' want to face. She is Rush
Limbaugh's candidate of choice. She is the candidate who the Right
would use to raise money and turn out volunteers. She is the only
potential Democratic VP who would build Republican enthusiasm and
inspire the grassroots Republican campaign.
She also is the candidate who consistently measures the highest
"unfavorable" ratings of anyone who ever has run for the presidency.
In an ABC News poll, Clinton polls 54 percent unfavorable; perhaps
even worse, 58 percent of voters say she is not honest and
trustworthy. Both Clintons stand out for the amount of voter
antipathy they attract: Thirty-nine percent of voters have a
"strongly unfavorable" opinion of Hillary Clinton; only 22 percent
have a "strongly favorable" view. Thirty-four percent are strongly
negative on Bill Clinton and 51 percent have an "unfavorable"
opinion of him. And Hillary's low-road campaign has had an impact:
Forty-one percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters
describe the tone of the Democratic campaign as "mostly negative,"
and by nearly a 4 to 1 margin, 52 percent to 14 percent, blame
Clinton. Is taking baggage like this into the general election
anyone's "dream" but a Republican's?
Worse than Hillary's high unfavorables, an Obama-Clinton ticket
would create a continuing crossfire -- not between McCain and Obama,
but between Obama and Clinton. Every one of Clinton's interactions
with the media would feature questions like, "Do you still think
Barack Obama lacks experience to be commander-in-chief?" "Do you
still think Obama is an elitist?" "That he doesn't understand the
problems of the white working class?" "Do you still think his past
association with Reverend Wright is very troublesome?" Obama would
be asked, "During the primary campaign, your VP said your healthcare
plan sucked. Was she right? Does it suck?" "Do you want to
obliterate Iran, too, like your vice president?" And, when the press
wasn't asking these questions, John McCain would ask them. Or, maybe
we all could be reminded of Bill's talk of a Clinton versus McCain
contest, where we would have a campaign of "two people who loved
this country and were devoted to the interest of this country,"
unlike Obama. Even worse than this scenario, Barack Obama would be
cast in the position of having to defend his own VP's past attacks
on himself. By doing so, he would not simply look like a hypocrite,
he would, in fact, be a hypocrite -- thus putting into jeopardy his
coin of the realm, his honesty and integrity. The general campaign
wouldn't be about Obama versus McCain, it would be Act Two of a very
bad marriage, with Obama sacrificing his integrity trying to explain
away his own VP's past attacks on him. If you think her snarky,
negative primary campaign was a thing of the past, think again
because the Republicans and the press would offer us deja vu all
over again. Lost in this dialogue of the past would be Obama's
opportunity to explain how he wants to take America into a more
productive future.
Those who "dream" of an Obama-Clinton ticket also fail to recognize
something significant: Hillary has been a lousy candidate. I used to
think that Al Gore and John Kerry ran the worst campaigns for
president ever, but Hillary's ineptitude set new records. Five
months ago, Hillary had a 20-plus point lead in Democratic polling,
the greatest name recognition of any candidate, the most money,
support from a popular former Democratic president who was actively
campaigning for her, nostalgia for the Clinton era of "peace and
prosperity," a ton of endorsements, the aura of "inevitability" --
and she squandered it all with an inexorable series of misjudgments,
abetted by her husband's, her campaign's and her own unrelenting
arrogance. By contrast, Obama ran down and exposed the dinosaur for
what it was, not simply with a brilliantly executed campaign, but
with a core understanding that voters were tired of the type of
old-style politics and old-style campaigning Bill and Hillary so
ably represent. Why should he now forge an alliance with one of the
most ineffective old-style campaigns ever, not to mention take on
the Big Dog [Bill] as his new pal -- in this case, an uncontrollable
pal who would try to run not only Hillary's campaign, but Obama's,
as well? This is my definition of a Living and Breathing Nightmare
-- one with plenty of 3 a.m. calls from Bill! Even worse than
sharing a campaign with Bill and Hill, allying with the Clintons
would undermine the very essence of the Obama message -- that real
change is needed in Washington. It would be seen as completely
inauthentic, the worst type of marriage of convenience. And unlike
the shotgun marriage JFK made with LBJ, Hillary brings nothing to
the table; unlike LBJ, she can't bring a swing state into the
Democratic column. Obama could win New York with Daffy Duck as his
VP.
Then there are the revelations to come. Does anyone think that a man
with a documented 30-year history of philandering with a long list
of bowling alley queens has magically stopped playing the field, or
that the Republicans will not exploit this? Does anyone think the
Republicans will not exploit Bill's fund-raising associations with
some of the questionable people who have given him millions for his
library and foundation in favor of his deal-making with oil
oligarchs, or exploit his 11th-hour pardons of some pretty
disreputable characters, including two convicted bomb-carrying
members of the Weather Underground? How much more baggage can
Hillary sustain?
There are, of course, many strong vice presidential candidates for
Obama to choose from. In light of Clinton's and McCain's challenging
Obama's national security credentials, a VP such as Gen. Wesley
Clark, Sen. Jim Webb or Gov. Bill Richardson would add substantial
national security/foreign policy heft. Gen. Clark is our last
successful commanding general and a smart, attractive spokesperson.
He comes from the Clinton camp, but is no hawk like Hillary; Clark
understands not only the uses of military power but also its
limitations. He would fit well with the new direction in foreign
policy we hope a President Obama would take the country, as well as
add great credibility to new security initiatives. Jim Webb, a
former secretary of the Navy, has been perhaps the most outspoken
and effective critic of the War in Iraq and Bush-Cheney foreign
policy belligerence. He won in Virginia, a swing state, against all
odds and an incumbent Republican, and is a great campaigner. Gov.
Richardson has spent most of his adult life working in the foreign
policy arena. He is a popular governor in a swing state and is a
Hispanic to boot -- a near-perfect trifecta of qualifications. He
also has an incisive sense of humor, which politics and political
combat could use a bit more of. Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown is another
VP possibility many have mentioned positively.
And, there are solid women VP candidates: Sen. Claire McCaskill won
her Senate seat in Missouri, a swing state in any presidential
election; she has a tough law-and-order background as a former
attorney general, and is smart and articulate. Kansas Gov. Kathy
Sibelious has proven to be an effective governor who works well with
the opposition and knows how to win in a Republican state.
This short list certainly is missing many other potentially good
candidates, but the point is simple: There is no dearth of qualified
VP candidates for the Democrats and there is no reason to take on
the baggage and negatives of the Clintons, let alone try to work
closely and cooperatively with them for four to eight years.
Hillary, Bill and surrogates like James Carville have graphically
challenged Obama's toughness, even his "cojones." I recognize that
Obama is a conciliator, but conciliation should not come at the cost
of getting rolled by the Clintons. That first act of a Democratic
presidential candidate would show strength to no one [including the
Clintons] at a time when voters still need to be convinced that
Obama not only is an inspiring leader, but a tough and strong leader
as well.
Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation;
previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most
Influential Lawyers in America."
© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/84955/
