Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Obama Scoffs at VP Talk, Accuses Clinton of Attempting to Bamboozle Voters

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 1:17 PM on March 10, 2008.


Obama doesn’t sound like he’d even consider the VP job.
r3921987248

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Election 2008 in your
mailbox!

 

The AP, reporting on Barack Obama’s comments in Mississippi this morning, said the senator “did not absolutely close the door to a second spot on the ticket, but it was his most pointed signal that he is not interested.”

I think that’s putting it mildly. Greg Sargent offered this transcript of the relevant part of Obama’s speech.

With all due respect, with all due respect, I’ve won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. I’ve won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So, I don’t know how somebody who’s in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who’s in first place. [Long applause.] …
“But there’s a second point. This is an interesting point — I want you guys to follow me on this. You know Pres. Bill Clinton, back in 1992, when he was being asked about his selection for vice president, he said, ‘The only criteria, the most important criteria for vice president, is that that person is ready, if I fell out in the first week, that he or she would be ready to be the commander-in-chief.’ That was his criteria.
“Now, they have been spending the last two, three weeks — you remember that advertisement with the phone call, telling everybody, getting all the generals to say well we’re not sure he’s ready, ‘I’m ready on day one, he may not be ready yet.’ But I don’t understand. If I’m not ready, how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president? Do you understand that?

“See, I was trying to explain to someone the ‘okey-doke.’ Y’all know the okey-doke? It’s when someone’s trying to bamboozle you, when they’re trying to hoodwink you. They are trying to hoodwink you. You can’t say that he’s not ready on day one, unless he’s willing to be your vice president and then he’s ready on day one.
“I want everybody to be absolutely clear — I’m not running for vice president, I’m running for president of the United States of America. I’m running for president of the United States of America. I’m running to be commander-in-chief. And the reason I’m running to be commander-in-chief is because I believe that the most important thing when you answer that phone call at 3 in the morning is: what kind of judgment you have?”

I suppose some cynics might suggest that likely VP candidates are supposed to feign interest in the job, and that Obama might just be playing the game, but it sounds to me like he really doesn’t want the gig.

Moreover, the Clinton campaign has, with varying degrees of subtlety, been arguing that the best way to get the so-called “dream ticket” is to vote for Clinton (because she's more likely to tap him as a running mate than the other way around).

Clinton hinted at this argument on Friday…

"I've had people say, 'Well I wish I could vote for both of you. Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday."

…while longtime Clinton apparatchik Lanny Davis and Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe floated the same idea a month ago.

Obama touched on this point today as well: “Maybe I can get both.” Don’t think that way. You have to make a choice in this election. Are you gonna go along with the past, or are you gonna go towards the future? Are you gonna do the same old thing, or are you gonna try something new?”

I think all of this is important for a variety of reasons:

1. Obama doesn’t sound like he’d even consider the VP job;

2. Obama is fairly explicitly accusing the Clinton campaign of trying to con people, which is a more aggressive message than he’s been using of late;

3. and Obama is getting back to the frame that seemed to work for him effectively in January (past vs. future, old vs. new).

Mississippi probably won’t be the most effective test — Obama is already favored to win by double digits — but expect to hear more of this message in the coming weeks.

Digg!

Tagged as: clinton, obama, democratic party

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


A Desperate McCain Attacks Obama With Vicious Smears
With his campaign flailing, McCain shamelessly tries to manipulate voters by appealing to their 'lizard brains.'
Post by Arianna Huffington. October 6, 2008.
McCain Campaign Finally Agrees to Send Spokeswoman to Rachel Maddow Show
It's about time.
Post by Ali Frick. October 6, 2008.
Meet McCain's Sexy Brazilian "Foreign Policy Experience"
Ha-cha-cha!
Post by BoRev. October 6, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
We're gonna do it
Posted by: g50 on Mar 10, 2008 2:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are going to be able to beat the Clintons & get the Democrats back into a winning mindset. Since 1992, Democrats have had to accept that we are a losing ticket versus the Republican coalition, losing only when the right splits as in Bush-Perot, losing to the 1994 onslaught, losing to the Texas boys - finally we can articulate our connection in a way that brings a majority around an agenda for the country. This is the death rattle for Hillary, the first true election of the 21st century, and a key realignment election for a new Democrat majority. The days of the Republican ascendancy, so strong throughout the last three decades, number in the hundreds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We're gonna do it Posted by: Jersey Devil
???
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 10, 2008 2:24 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All that blather. Why didn't he just way NO ? ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ??? Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: ??? Posted by: Fishbone Soldier
» RE: ??? Posted by: Sissy
» RE: ??? Posted by: Bibsi
???
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 10, 2008 2:24 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All that blather. Why didn't he just say NO ? ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Enough with the Clinton/Obama B.S.
Posted by: Aaunk on Mar 10, 2008 5:24 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Clinton/Obama ticket just isn’t going to happen.
This is just Clinton campaign BS trying to fool a few voters into thinking that vote for Clinton is also a vote for Obama.

Besides, why would Obama want anything to do with the Clintons? He would never be allowed any meaningful role in the Clinton/Clinton Administration.

And why is it that Clinton and her supporters assume she would be the presidential nominee, even though she is behind in delegates, votes, states, and money, and is likely to stay that way?
Is this some special privilege she gets because she is Hillary Clinton?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» yes that is what she thinks Posted by: foreverhope
The videos Hillary Clinton does NOT want you to see!
Posted by: jhecht on Mar 10, 2008 7:24 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&feature=related

part 2 - spread it wide & far!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It doesn't sound to me like he wants it.
Posted by: Longdream on Mar 10, 2008 7:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not in any way.

Not after he points out the flaw in the logic, and says it isn't the loser's to give.

He calls it the okey-doke. Around here we call it "the old assafah".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TODAY's PLOY
Posted by: ruscle on Mar 10, 2008 9:58 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm telling you, Clinton's campaign has these all drawn up. Ever notice that JUST before some meaningful election (in this case Mississippi) the Clinton campaign drops one of these little stink bombs... hoping... counting on it... plotting... that it will derail just a few votes here and there. This was a small stink bomb. But it's gotten a lot of press and taken to focus off the issues and muddied the water. All just in time for Mississippi... where Clinton really doesn't have a prayer other than to drop a stink bomb.
You can count on a really big stink bomb just before Pennsylvania. Any best as to what that one's going to be? Something to really make Obama look awful... until after the election when we discover (like this VP flap) that there was nothing to it but Clinton manipulation of the media.

I'm SO over this kind of politics. Race to the bottom and Clinton will beat you ever time.... well... unless you are a Republican.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: TODAY's PLOY Posted by: ty111
» RE: TODAY's PLOY Posted by: SkeeterVT1
The Audacity!!!
Posted by: artie on Mar 11, 2008 3:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Billary clan should write their own book ... but what to call it?

The Audacity of ???

Any suggestions???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Audacity!!! Posted by: bbfmail
» The Audacity of Chutzpah Posted by: kimbari
» RE: The Audacity!!! Posted by: foreverhope
I don't see why either would consider it
Posted by: Ambercat on Mar 11, 2008 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both are sitting senators in a senate that will become more Democratic in November. They have power, authority and autonomy to advocate for their agenda there. In someone else's White House, what they did would be at someone else's pleasure, they would be constrained by what that administration wants and forced to represent that administration's point of view whether they agreed with it or not (I give you: Colin Powell) and they would be victim of whatever inside politics were working inside that person's administration. It just doesn't make sense for either of them. (Remember that John Edwards was leaving the senate regardless).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

might as well shoot himself if...
Posted by: schnoggi on Mar 11, 2008 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...he even considers making that bag of raw greed and lust for power his VP. you know she's going to fight for it with her last rancid breath. i really hope when it comes to it he has the spine to tell her to piss off. otherwise a lot of people are going to be heartbroken. hell, if he picks her as VP I might just vote for McCain, just to be a jerk.

how is this horrible beast Hillary still even in the race? who supports her, and why? ugh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

buying in
Posted by: curtrock on Mar 11, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all due respect to the writer...the secondary headline suggesting that Obama will not EVEN consider the Vice Presidency becomes a component of the 'bamboozling' of the public being orchestrated by the Clinton camp. The Clintons are obviously desperate and are stooping to subliminal messages...it's the same type of 'power of suggestion' that the Bushes utilized to increase their hold on power...that and fear, which Mrs. Clinton doesn't seem to have a problem with either. It all suggests that Hillary Clinton is a self-centered, power hungry opportunist, hell-bent on winning the white house...These tactics do nothing more than mock the intellect of the American voter...a demeaning, belittling overture that cuts to the core of Mrs. Clintons being...Pieces like this one simply play into the propaganda being delivered by the Clinton campaign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My Perspective...
Posted by: dave16 on Mar 11, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please see www.discussrace.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The REAL danger for Obama is~~~~
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Mar 11, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If he was elected president and had hellary as VP.
You can BET there WOULD BE an assasination.

President Obama, NEVER EVER allow this evil woman in your cabinet and, NEVER EVER turn your back on her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: american vet? Posted by: Beepath
because, who will pardon us
Posted by: maxloen on Mar 11, 2008 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
`` Moreover, the Clinton campaign has, with varying degrees of subtlety, been arguing that the best way to get the so-called “dream ticket” is to vote for Clinton (because she's more likely to tap him as a running mate than the other way around)."

And that's what this is all about. They are desperate, and I don't mean just Billary, but the whole big media and big finance interest backing them. They need her to stick to the failed past so they can still reap control over their misinformed sub-prime to keep themselves in style, as in a Switzerland ski paradise, like Marc Rich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Obama is so sure he's going to win?
Posted by: weslen1 on Mar 11, 2008 11:03 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then why doesn't he stop screaming for a do-over in FL and MI? Hillary CLEARLY WON in both those states and the ONLY REASON for a do-over is in HOPES the tide will turn in his favor. Hillary WON. Even if you add ALL THE VOTES NOT FOR HILLARY TOGETHER, AND GIVE THEM ALL TO OBAMA, HILLARY STILL WON. Obama needs to concede and let her have the delegates she WON and GET OVER IT. He is so THIN SKINNED and whines about every word he can contribute to Hillary. WHAT'S HE GOING TO DO WHEN THE GOP PROPOGANDA MACHINE AND THE WAR MONGERS AND TORTURE LOVERS GO AFTER HIM INSTEAD OF HILLARY? HE'LL BE TOAST!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hillary won in FL and MI? Posted by: foreverhope
» Sorry to be blunt but, Posted by: TennMom
Bama's fairy tale.....
Posted by: Beepath on Mar 11, 2008 12:52 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems he's the one giving you folks the ol' okeydoke. We'll see what happens, we've got a ways to go. Meanwhile, people are taken in by his "charisma." Judge Judy is so correct when she says, "Cute is temporary, dumb is forever." You want change? Listen to wimmin for a Change! Rodham has made mistakes, so what? I'm very suspicious about the horrible things people are calling her. Horribly vicious. I'd swear the reich-wingers are posting this crapola, trying to pass as progressive but failing miserably. Bama-jelly man ought to be more grateful and not be so bold as to demand anything but the maturity to appreciate what he has. His time will come when he's better prepared. Think of your daughters, ferchrissakes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bravo, Sissy! Posted by: TennMom
The Cult of Obama
Posted by: epd071148 on Mar 11, 2008 5:29 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why can Obama's supporters NEVER argue based on the policy positions of the candidates. Their defense of Obama is always reduced to "Obama- good; Clinton- bad".

This kind of unreasoning cult-worship has allowed demagogues to rise to power for centuries. Regardless of whether their message is worthwhile or not, demagogues, who present a simplified message to a desperate public, are dangerous, because they are not expected to offer specific policies, but only make general statements, which individuals can interpret according to their own expectations.

Think for a change, instead of continuing the character assassination that has been heaped on both of the Clintons since the start of Bill Clinton's presidency. Obama could never withstand the scrutiny, and baseless accusations that have been visited on both of the Clintons.

It is perfectly reasonable for Clinton to point out Obama's weaknesses. If you can't make a case for Obama, other than his obvious ability to mesmerize a crowd into unreasoning worship, and his original opposition to the Iraq War, there isn't really much substance to him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Cult of Obama Posted by: Bibsi