Does Hillary Want to Pick McCain for VP?

Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left at 5:26 AM on March 7, 2008.

Clinton yesterday:

Asked on CBS's The Early Show whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said: "That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket."

In a Cabinet-style setting, surrounded by retired military leaders, Sen. Hillary Clinton said the public should ask whether Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama has met the criteria needed to become the nation's commander in chief.

"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a "distinguished man with a great history of service to our country," Clinton said, "Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with."

To imply to Democratic voters "it's OK to vote for me, because I'll pick Obama as VP," and then to turn around and imply that "Obama is not qualified to be President, but John McCain is," is both contradictory, self-defeating, and, shall we say, not entirely forthcoming. Maybe someone should ask Clinton why she would pick a Vice-President who she thinks is not qualified to become President. Or, maybe someone should ask her why she wouldn't pick McCain as her Vice-President, since she thinks he is so well-qualified on national security issues.

Another thing that bothers me about this attack is how it is not based in policy. Why are ideological concerns, such as whether or not you think we should bomb Iran, not considered "qualifications" to be Commander In Chief? Conservatives have rammed a couple of Supreme Court Justices onto the highest court by arguing that it doesn't matter what they decide, it only matters if they are experienced judges. That, of course, is hogwash. Ideological interpretation of the Constitution, and foreign policy judgment, are absolutely part of what makes someone "qualified" to become either a Supreme Court Justice or Commander in Chief. If judgment played no role, then Bush would be far more qualified to be "commander in chief" than any of the candidates running.

Clinton's hawkish foreign policy has always been a reason why I leaned toward other candidates in the nomination campaign. That Obama consistently argues foreign policy judgment on issues like Iraq are main qualifications to become commander in chief is one specific reason why I favor him in the campaign.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Tagged as: clinton, obama, mccain

Chris Bowers was a full-time editor at MyDD from May 2004 until June 2007. Some of his projects have included the creation of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, the first scientifically random poll of progressive netroots activists, the Use It Or Lose It campaign, the nation's most accurate forecast of Democratic house pickups in 2006, and the 2006 Googlebomb the Elections campaign.