Sunday, June 08, 2008

Who Do Republicans Want on the Obama Ticket?

I never listen to Democrats talk about who should be Barack Obama’s running mate. Democrats get too analytical about it. Which swing state do they want to flip for the Democrats? That state’s governor or senator is the obvious choice. Does Hillary Clinton bring more to the table than her negatives? What is Bill going to do when Hillary is Veeping? That’s just too darn many questions and trying to answer them doesn’t get you anywhere.

I noted early on that the McCain camp wanted to run against Hillary Clinton in the fall. It was obvious to me. It was obvious to lots of people. It was so obvious to Rush Limbaugh that he devised “Operation Chaos” in the primaries, inciting Republicans to cross the line and vote for Clinton in open primary states. Clinton, everyone said, “brings her negatives” to the front page, spurring Republicans to come out from under their rocks to vote against her.

Now Democrats are saying the same thing about Clinton if she were to be chosen to share the ticket with Barack Obama as his Vice President.

But the Republicans are not.

Listening to CNN this morning, with Wolf Blitzer firing questions at Senators Diane Feinstein (D - Calif) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R - Texas) I was amazed and taken aback at responses to whom each senator thought should be on the ticket. Well, not so amazed at Diane Feinstein’s answer. It is well known that Senator Feinstein favors the idea of having Clinton in the Vice President’s spot. What Kay Bailey said gave me pause.

Kay Bailey Hutchison suggested that Barack Obama wouldn’t want his brand to be tarnished by having Hillary Clinton on the ticket. If Barack Obama represents change and the future, said the senator in so many words, Hillary Clinton represents the past and the status quo. Barack Obama, according to Kay Bailey Hutchison, would be making a mistake by having Clinton on the ticket.

My guess is that this is the message that Republicans are going to be putting out there. My guess is that they have done the analysis, just as they did when Clinton was running for the nomination, and found that while Clinton’s negatives made her the opponent of choice in a presidential election, those very negatives now make her the least desirable opponent on the Democratic ticket. Or rather, her negatives are far outweighed by factors like being able to attract the votes of “hard-working white women”.

Republicans don’t want Hillary Clinton on the ticket. That has become obvious to me, too. Take a look at how the Wall Street Journal has weighed in. Not only do they not want Hillary Clinton on the ticket, they are delightfully obvious in their insinuation that if Obama were to pick Clinton, he would be seen as a weak, emasculated nominee who has been ridden hard and put away wet by the Clintons.

Now does all of that have a bearing on whom Barack Obama should pick as his Veep? It very well should.

Should he give Clinton the nod?

Not sayin’.

Not sayin’ because I agree with Obama when he says that this should be a slow and deliberate process. One that, at the end of the day, should yield the most correct result.

No, I’m not saying that Barack Obama should choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Frankly, I find myself in close agreement with the words of Kay Bailey Hutchison on this. Now how’s that for irony?

No, I’m not saying that at all.

But the Republicans are saying it.

UPDATE:
Now from what I read today in the news, the Republicans are not the only ones who think that a Barack Obama / Hillary Clinton ticket would be one difficult to beat in November. Apparently the GOP prognosticators agree with none other than Fidel Castro. And here I thought that my agreeing with Kay Bailey was ironic.

4 comments:

Perry Dorrell, aka PDiddie said...

You nailed it.

While Kay Bailey couldn't analyze her way out of a paper bag, she can read the talking points, and yes, Obama-Clinton destroys. Thus we get the senior senator as concern troll for Obama.

More to the point, it destroys Republicans down-ballot in Texas. And even Kay Bailey is smart enough to understand that.

Mark Bankston said...

Point taken P-Dizzle, but Richardson's new beard is so freakin' sexy.

Hal said...

Yes, agreed. "Analysis" is too strong a word to use in Kay Bailey's case. Not so with the cadre of analysts she listens to, all of whom are graduates of the Rovian School of Campaigning in America.

Anonymous said...

Obama needs someone with experience but one that wont overshadow him.

Richardson is perfect, except he brings only 3 votes with his fat ass.

Clinton would over shadow him and brings a state we will win anyway.

I personally like to see him pick Clinton so all the hillary haters have someone to blame when Obama loses.