Sunday, March 09, 2008

The Case for a Clinton/Obama Ticket

1. Hillary is ready to be president, and to be a great president.

2. Obama will make a great president, but he's not ready yet. He's young (46) and he needs more experience.

3. Together they can beat McCain.
-Obama would have a very tough time beating McCain because all McCain needs to do is make the election about national security and many, many people will see that Obama is not ready to take on the tough challenges: he can go on and on about his record on Iraq, but what's important now is who is capable of implementing an exit strategy. Obama isn't.
-I used to think Hillary could beat McCain, but her fellow Democrats have savaged her so badly in the primary that she may be too damaged to do it without Obama (or it may turn out as it did with her husband, who took the hard hits in the primary and they didn't have the same impact in the real election).

4. Some people object that the Democratic ticket should not contain two liberal senators, but don't forget that Hillary has much more experience than your average senator and McCain is a lefty Republican (despite his current pretense of being otherwise to attract the Bush base).

5. Having them on the same ticket will unite the party.

6. Having such a popular and capable VP as Obama could help ensure 16 years of Democratic government.

7. Punching through two glass ceilings at once: way to go!

###

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think Obama is very condescending and his ego too big to accept VP. Shows how much he cares for the Democratic party and the people who vote.

It's all about Obama, superstar, please admire me man.

Lord Kitchener's Own said...

The case against a Clinton/Obama ticket:

Obama's going to win the nomination.

Just sayin'.

:-)

Altavistagoogle said...

Disclamer to Americans:******** Do Not Read my comment as I'm Canadian and do not want to interfere with your countrie's democratic process (sarcasm unintended). *******
I'm tired of the Bushes, Clintons and Windsors. Change, in that sense, is good.

Barry Gibb said...

I'm a half yank and I'm getting tired of people outside the country pushing forward the Clinton myth without knowing about the affairs of the American government.

The First Lady does not have security clearance. Hillary's foreign policy experience, as the Associate Press has recently revealed, goes as far as doing goodwill tours with Sinbad the comedian and Sheryl Crow. If you think, for some reason, that she's got some sort of leg up on Obama on that front you haven't been reading for the last twelve months. You also haven't paid attention to her record in the Senate, where she was a lapdog for the president for her first six years in office.

Your age argument is also weak. Hillary's husband was younger than Barack when he was inagurated. JFK was. Teddy Roosevelt was.

What Hillary did do, her health care review, was behind closed doors. The papers haven't been released, no one knows who she met with or what she did exactly. Same goes with her tax returns, her meeting records, and all the contributions Bill has lapped up post-presidency.

Before you launch a vague, blanket attack on Obama, make sure the candidate you are supporting meets the standards you're about to establish. In the case, she doesn't.

Yappa said...

Hey Barry Gibb -

I'm a dual citizen of the US and Canada, and if you had read anything else on my blog you'd know that I know quite a bit about the candidates. In this post I didn't restate arguments that I've made repeatedly before. Here is an excerpt from a previous post on her experience:

She started her career on the House Judiciary Committee considering the impeachment of Richard Nixon. Throughout her career she has worked with the Children's Defense Fund, and currently sits on its national board.

While her husband was governor of Arkansas she transformed Arkansas schools, worked for women's rights, and led the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession.

When Bill Clinton was running for President he said he was "two fer" - that is, he and his wife for the price of one. She was a completely different first lady than anyone else. She is the only person to date who has taken on the health industry and tried to create universal health care - and while she failed, she moved the possibility further than anyone else. Besides health care reform, during her White House years she led efforts to make adoption easier, to expand early learning and child care, to increase funding for breast cancer research, and to help veterans suffering from Gulf War syndrome; she helped launch a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy; she helped create the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997; she was instrumental in designing and championing the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which has provided millions of children with health insurance; and she travelled worldwide to champion human rights (among other things).

For the last six years she has been a US senator. During this time she has been a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, working to improve the lives of US military personnel. She has initiated legislation to improve health care for the National Guard and Reserves; to tie Congressional salary increases to an increase in the minimum wage; to improve quality and lower the cost of prescription drugs; to protect the food supply from bioterrorism; to increase America's commitment to fighting the global HIV/AIDS crisis; to ensure the safety of prescription drugs for children; to help schools address environmental hazards; to expand access to child care; to improve the qualifications of teachers and principals; to increase access to family planning; and to improve the way elections are run and votes are counted.

Ross Heany said...

You make a good case for her accomplishments but Obama has been involved in legislation in both the IL and US senates aswell

to paraphrase Kayser Soze (or however you spell it) from The Usual Suspects : the greatest trick Hillary ever pulled was convincing the world she was experienced.

for a presdidential candidate with no experience in foreign affairs (despite what she might imply), who has never been a state governor and who has only been a senator since 2001 to be banging on about her experience of "35 years" is bizarre

I think the press have given her a largely free pass on this one