McCain/Clinton Ticket Possible?
Tommy Christopher
Contributor
Posted:
03/20/08
I first floated this idea yesterday while reporting on a conference call with Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn. Here's
the excerpt from that story that gave me the idea:
I had three follow-up questions for Mark Penn. Here they are:
What conclusion can be drawn from this? Well, shouldn't this be about the easiest question in the world to answer? What sort of deliberation could be going on? I hope to find out before publishing this article.
The other possibility is that the delay serves the purpose of allowing them to formulate a response to the comparison.
For weeks, I have been baffled by the Clinton campaign's strategy of attacking Barack Obama in areas where Hillary is vulnerable to McCain. Although she has gained on Obama and McCain in national polls since launching the "3am" ad, assailing Senator Obama's foreign policy credentials, and essentially saying that McCain is a more credible Commander-in-Chief than either of them, she has also erased what was a longstanding aggregate lead for the Democrats, and handed a slim national margin to Senator McCain.
I have said before how disastrous this strategy is, and suggested, quite logically, that Hillary makes a better case for herself as the nominee if she takes the fight to McCain in a way that Obama has not. At the very leastm it makes sense to open that fight up on 2 fronts.
It makes absolutely no sense to pass up a gift from McCain in the form of his embarrassing foreign policy gaffe on Tuesday in favor of Iraq talking points that have failed to dent McCain for weeks.
McCain, for his part, has adjusted his message somewhat on Iraq following his victory in Texas. During his victory speech, he adopted a much more flexible, results-based tone on the war. With some further adjustments, McCain's and Clinton's positions could be made to seem, if not similar, at least somewhat compatible, and a bi-partisan ticket would play into McCain's narrative as a maverick, as well as Hillary Clinton's pragmatic approach to change.
For his part, Clinton National Finance Co-chair John Graham says there is no way that would ever happen, and I would be inclined to agree with him, except I never thought I would see a Democrat attack another Democrat on national security while boosting their opponent's credentials. I never thought I would see so many loyal supporters of a female Democratic candidate for President swear that they would vote for the Republican, even at the risk of overturning Roe v Wade, if their candidate were not the nominee. All of these notions would have seemed ridiculous to me just a few weeks ago.
After 27 hours of deliberation, I have my answers. From Clinton spokesman Jay Carson:
the excerpt from that story that gave me the idea:Also interesting was, when asked about John McCain's Iran/Al Quaeda gaffe from yesterday, Howard Wolfson declined to jump on McCain or his foreign policy credentials, instead highlighting Hillary's differences with McCain on Iraq policy. Why this reticence to go after McCain? Is Hillary angling for a VP slot with McCain should she lose the nomination?Taken by itself, this is a little bit of a stretch, but when you consider several other factors, the idea starts to make much more compelling sense. I didn't get to ask my follow-up on the conference call, but no worries. Mark and Howard said they'd be happy to take follow-ups via email or phone.
I had three follow-up questions for Mark Penn. Here they are:
1. Your campaign has gone at Senator Obama pretty hard on the "Commander in Chief" question, but in the process, have made a case for John McCain in this issue. Would it be wise, and do you plan, to launch a campaign against McCain on his fitness to be Commander in Chief?After the jump, a little more on this theory, and I'll tell you what responses I got from each of the three campaigns.
2. Would Senator Clinton rule out running as McCain's VP on a bipartisan ticket if Obama is the Democratic nominee?
3. Would Senator Clinton rule out an independent run if Obama is the Democratic nominee?
I asked my questions yesterday at 4:30. I made several follow-up calls, submitted my questions via email to 4 different Clinton staffers, and had two different well-placed Clinton confidantes urge the press office to respond in a timely fashion. I know their email is working, because I've gotten 11 press releases from them in the intervening hours. As I write this, 26 hours later, I am still waiting for answers.
What conclusion can be drawn from this? Well, shouldn't this be about the easiest question in the world to answer? What sort of deliberation could be going on? I hope to find out before publishing this article.
The other possibility is that the delay serves the purpose of allowing them to formulate a response to the comparison.
For weeks, I have been baffled by the Clinton campaign's strategy of attacking Barack Obama in areas where Hillary is vulnerable to McCain. Although she has gained on Obama and McCain in national polls since launching the "3am" ad, assailing Senator Obama's foreign policy credentials, and essentially saying that McCain is a more credible Commander-in-Chief than either of them, she has also erased what was a longstanding aggregate lead for the Democrats, and handed a slim national margin to Senator McCain.
I have said before how disastrous this strategy is, and suggested, quite logically, that Hillary makes a better case for herself as the nominee if she takes the fight to McCain in a way that Obama has not. At the very leastm it makes sense to open that fight up on 2 fronts.
It makes absolutely no sense to pass up a gift from McCain in the form of his embarrassing foreign policy gaffe on Tuesday in favor of Iraq talking points that have failed to dent McCain for weeks.
McCain, for his part, has adjusted his message somewhat on Iraq following his victory in Texas. During his victory speech, he adopted a much more flexible, results-based tone on the war. With some further adjustments, McCain's and Clinton's positions could be made to seem, if not similar, at least somewhat compatible, and a bi-partisan ticket would play into McCain's narrative as a maverick, as well as Hillary Clinton's pragmatic approach to change.
For his part, Clinton National Finance Co-chair John Graham says there is no way that would ever happen, and I would be inclined to agree with him, except I never thought I would see a Democrat attack another Democrat on national security while boosting their opponent's credentials. I never thought I would see so many loyal supporters of a female Democratic candidate for President swear that they would vote for the Republican, even at the risk of overturning Roe v Wade, if their candidate were not the nominee. All of these notions would have seemed ridiculous to me just a few weeks ago.
After 27 hours of deliberation, I have my answers. From Clinton spokesman Jay Carson:
Whew! That was a close one.
1. Your campaign has gone at Senator Obama pretty hard on the "Commander in Chief" question, but in the process, have made a case for John McCain in this issue. Would it be wise, and do you plan, to launch a campaign against McCain on his fitness to be Commander in Chief?
SENATOR CLINTON FEELS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE AND THE NEXT PRESIDENT MUST BE READY TO LEAD AND BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF ON DAY ONE. SHE FEELS SHE IS THAT CANDIDATE BUT SHE ALSO THINKS ANY DEMOCRAT RUNNING WOULD BE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN JOHN MCCAIN WHO SIMPLY WANTS TO CONTINUE GEORGE BUSH'S FAILED POLICIES AROUND THE WORLD.
2. Would Senator Clinton rule out running as McCain's VP on a bipartisan ticket if Obama is the Democratic nominee?
YES. SHE WOULD RULE THIS OUT. SHE WILL STRONGLY SUPPORT AND WORK HARD FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE.
3. Would Senator Clinton rule out an independent run if Obama is the Democratic nominee?
YES. WHILE SHE EXPECTS TO BE THE NOMINEE SHE WILL STRONGLY SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE EVEN IF SHE IS NOT THE NOMINEE.