THE PLANK MARCH 10, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Hillary Clinton's main argument for the presidency is that she is ready to be commander-in-chief, and Barack Obama is not. At the same time, her campaign has repeatedly floated the prospect that she could add him to her ticket as vice-President (which her polling apparently shows might attract wavering voters who like both to vote for her.) But how could she put him a heartbeat away froma job for which he's totally unqualified? Reporters have started to ask the question.
Clinton's chief spokesman tried to square the positions thusly:
Howard Wolfson, Clinton's chief spokesman, said during a conference call with reporters that Clinton would not pick a running mate who has not met the “national security threshold” — as Clinton’s military advisers and Wolfson put it on the call — but that it is possible Obama could meet that threshold by this summer's Democratic convention.
Wolfson repeated Clinton's weekend assertion that picking Obama is “not something she would rule out at this point,” but he also repeated that Obama is not ready to be commander in chief, a key requirement to being Clinton’s running mate.
When asked if Obama could do something to cross that “threshold,” Wolfson said, “It’s not something that I’m prepared to rule out at this time.”
But wait -- if Obama could cross the threshold by this summer, why not vote for him, since he'd still have another six months before he assumed office?
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton was asked the same thing about Obama's alleged unreadiness, and replied, "That's politics." Now, there's often a lot of comedy when campaign flaks have to justify the sort of spin that always goes on in campaigns. But the claim that Obama isn't ready to be president isn't ordinary spin, it's the central rationale for Clinton's candidacy. Now her campaign is tacitly admitting it's pure bullshit, just something she has to say to get elected.
Okay, now that they've admitted it, can we re-vote Ohio and Texas?
--Jonathan Chait
25 comments
Where can I sign up for this national security readiness summer internship workshop? Is it like camp?
- adaglas
March 10, 2008 at 2:16pm
Well, hey, if we can say anything without consequence because "that's politics," then why not go all-in and propose that Hillary is actually winning the Democratic "popular vote" because low turnout and steady loyalty makes black voters only worth 3/5 of more independent white voters? And how come it's not "just politics" when a volunteer for the other guy calls you a "monster," but it is "just politics" when you effectively endorse the other party's nominee over your own party's frontrunner?
- rhubarbs
March 10, 2008 at 2:28pm
This post by Chait sounds a little desperate . After all, it is Obama who is maneuvering for voter nullification in Florida and Michigan (and all the while pretending he is not--an emerging characteristic of how he does things--"oops, my recorded vote was a result (six times) of accidentally pressing the wrong button.)
Along the same lines, it turns out that Obama, who is calling for tax returns that Clinton has already said she will release, has only released his tax return from last year (when he was in the senate). But he is refusing to agree to release his returns going back further than that (when there might be some interesting stuff on Rezko or otherwise). Clinton has already said she will release six years of her returns before Pennsylvania votes. So, why won't Obama release his tax returns. And why has it taken the media so long to notice this?
Again, Obama is saying one thing and doing another. He is practicing the Rovian tactic of accusing your opponent of your own weakness as a distraction and a preemptive strategy.
- Eos
March 10, 2008 at 2:28pm
I think the general idea is that running a competitve campaign against Hillary Clinton is somewhat akin to being held hostage in Hanoi. After just a few more months of abuse from Clinton, Obama will be ready. Of course, as her veep, he'd get even more ready than "ready enough" what with all of the doubletalk he'd have to parse for the press, etc.
You have to think of the "ready for president" club as kind of a frat thing. Obama's a pledge. Hillary is the member who gets to whack him with her (inane and contradictory) criticism stick.
He's just 53 "thank-you-ma'am-may-I-have-another"s away from being ready to be president.
- miceelf
March 10, 2008 at 2:36pm
pccostello, when you say this:
"Again, Obama is saying one thing and doing another. He is practicing the Rovian tactic of accusing your opponent of your own weakness as a distraction and a preemptive strategy."
...you are amazingly becoming like, a super-Rove. All the attacks by the CLintons, especially the "not-ready to be CiC" (while at the same time lying about her role in, say, the Good Friday Peace Accords), basically endorsing McCain in the general, and then turning around and saying how you are being attacked, is really breath-taking. My head can't handle the Escherian levels.
Why has she not released them yet, pccostello? Honestly: why? And also, while we are on-topic, explain her essentially endorsing McCain. How does that square with November?
And your "disenfranchising" argument is so lame I can hardly think straight. BOTH candidates agreed that they shouldn't count. Hillary even went so far as to say that she didn't take her name off Michigan because "it didn't matter." Now that she thinks she can win she is suddenly hitting hard that they should be seated. Why the concern now, and not before the votes?
- boneill
March 10, 2008 at 2:42pm
I"ve been waiting for pcostello to say something I could agree with about Clinton and Obama, and he finally obliges: I agree - both candidates should immediately release their last 5 years' returns. Let the voters decide where the skeletons are lurking.
- sdemuth
March 10, 2008 at 2:51pm
Can't we just call this what it is? There's no way that Hillary's making Obama her running mate. No chance whatsoever. Obama probably wouldn't accept the role, anyway. Clinton constantly suggesting the possibility of a "Dream Ticket" is just as cynical as the rest of her campaign.
- kerouac9
March 10, 2008 at 3:13pm
Well, I guess Obama's got a better chance of being picked than Eliot Spitzer.
Never mind the "ready, not ready" bullshit. Obama won't take VP because if Hillary gets the nomination she'll be creamed by McCain, who then goes into the hospital for the last year of his first term, and Barack wins big and easy in 2012,
But the REAL reason Obama won't take VP is because he's going to win the nomination, and the White House. No amount of petty hatchet-wielding is going to suffice for The Queen of the Monsters.
- Robert Powell
March 10, 2008 at 3:22pm
Jon's already done a fine job of pointing out the incompatability (and political shamelessness) of
- Anonymous
March 10, 2008 at 3:26pm
bone,
I disagree (obviously) with most of your response to my post. But, in fairness to yourself, you should catch up on the story that Obama does not want a re-vote. This is because it could end his candidacy, which at this point is hanging on the nullifcation of the voting in Florida and Michigan. He is clearly (and the press acknowleges this) maneuvering for some form of voter nullification, such as splitting the delegates equally.
I don't know why she wants to release her six years of returns April 15th instead of now. For all I know, her returns are very clean and she wants the public focus on taxes that April 15th will bring and Obama is being sandbagged into his Ken Starr impersonation of demanding them. But it is true that Obama has only released last year's return and that he is refusing--at least so far--to release any earlier returns.
Maybe he lost them (pcc said snarkily) like he lost his legislative records and his billing records, like he pushed the wrong voting button, like he didn't coordinate the land deal with Rezko, like his campaign didn't meet with the Canadians, like it's "off the record, etc., etc.
- Eos
March 10, 2008 at 3:46pm
Faster than a speeding electron! More powerful than a rational argument--IT'S SUPER-ROVE!!!
- Eos
March 10, 2008 at 3:51pm
pccostello, thanks for the response. We can probably be civil if we both try, huh?
I don't know if there is anything unclean in Hillary's records. I would imagine that there are tax shelters, like all rich people use, which might be percieved as hypocritical, but an issue like that won't get much play. I think more likely is that they don't want people to know just how fabulously wealthy they have become in the last seven years. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, but the immediate connection might hurt her standing among working-class types. I think that is why they don't want them released.
For the record, I think Barack should release all of his as well.
- boneill
March 10, 2008 at 4:07pm
Super-Rove is also considerably balder than regular Rove. I know that doesn't seem possible, but, like reverse entropy on the edges of black holes, the universe constantly surprises...
- boneill
March 10, 2008 at 4:08pm
LOL. HIs candidacy "hangs on denying a revote"
Good lord!!!
- miceelf
March 10, 2008 at 4:16pm
LOL???? If Senator Obama lost Michigan and Florida (for the second time, at least in Florida) by significant margins, at this point in the campaign and after losing all the other large and important battleground states, it would be a nail in his coffin. Losing Michigan would be especially embarassing, but losing Florida a second time would be very powerful. He can't afford a re-vote, but he can't admit that he is trying to get to voter nullification in those two states.
- Eos
March 10, 2008 at 4:25pm
bone,
That was a nice post. We can make a serious effor to stay civil, even though I feel a moral obligation to show you the error of your ways. :-)
- Eos
March 10, 2008 at 4:33pm
"We can make a serious effor to stay civil, even though I feel a moral obligation to show you the error of your ways."
This is your problem, then. You think these are mutually exclusive.
Oh, and Chait -- I love you.
- rozenson
March 10, 2008 at 4:43pm
pccostello, if I had a nickel for everytime someone tried to show me the error of my ways- well, my net sum would be the same, but I would have a LOT of extra nickels to spend on booze and gambling.
- boneill
March 10, 2008 at 5:00pm
PC, you're certainly a reliable source for what the Clinton campaign is trying to sell. But if you look at it, it doesn't make sense. Michigan and Florida are battleground states, and the most important ones? Really?
Look, Michigan is a safer dem place than (say) Wisconsin, which is a real battleground state.
And after 04, Florida is looking less likely as a steal from Republicans than is Virginia.
Why is it that only you and the CLinton campaign gets to decide which four or five states matter?
- miceelf
March 10, 2008 at 5:51pm
um... bone, he has released other years, so why do you take pccostello are her word?
This is from last year: Barack Obama's income took a big nosedive last year, but nobody's going to be holding a bake sale for the Democratic presidential contender.
The Illinois senator released his 2006 federal tax return Monday, a day ahead of Tuesday's tax filing deadline. Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported taxable income of $983,826, down from $1.6 million in 2005.
good lord bone, why in the world would you take pccostello's word on anything? It took me one minute to find his 2005 and 2006 returns. I will go back further if you want me to.
- blackton
March 10, 2008 at 6:41pm
Following a standard of disclosure set by former Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) and maintained by the the state's current senior U.S. senator, Dick Durbin, Obama has released his tax returns every year since he first ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004.
So it took me about two minutes to catch pccostello in an outright lie. In fact his statements are detailed and copious. He has released
Effective tax rate – including whether or not any tax shelters were used to reduce it
Amount of income for spouses by source
Amount of stock gains and losses
Gross income for the couple
Amount earned from stock dividends
Amount of household employment taxes paid
Personal exemptions taken
Charitable contributions made
Senator Clinton has also claimed that she is too “busy” to release her tax returns. Given the fact she is able to loan her campaign $5 million, you would think the Clintons would be able to hire an accountant. The reality is that she wants to keep this information hidden from voters. The people of Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and the rest of the country should wonder why.
So pccostello LIED. A BALDFACED LIE. And I am calling her on it. pccostello, there is something called google, if you decide to make up facts it can take anyone less than a minute to catch you in your lies. You lied.
- blackton
March 10, 2008 at 6:52pm
Ah, Blackton. You can choose to apologize now or later. See the following link:
blogs.abcnews.com/.../the-obama-tax-a.html
From the article by Jake Tapper, political director at ABC:
>>>Clinton has released past joint tax returns as First Lady and when her husband was running for president -- Obama's point seems to be that she hasn't released any returns as a presidential candidate.
But it's not as though all Obama's returns from his entire time as a US Senator are available. Will Obama release all of those returns or, next month, his 2007 tax returns?
That's unclear.
So when the Obama campaign says Clinton should release her returns, it just means for 2006?
Apparently so.
"We’ve said she should release her tax returns from last year, like we have done," says Obama spox Bill Burton.
As for any pre-2006 or 2007 returns, Burton says he "will keep you posted."<<<
So, do you want to apologize now or later?
- Eos
March 10, 2008 at 11:30pm
The problem is, PC, that you can cite all the news items claiming that Obama hasn't released the returns you want, but they're trumped by the news that actually REFERS to his released returns. This, for example, refers to his 2005 and 2006 returns:
money.cnn.com/.../5.html
- miceelf
March 11, 2008 at 9:52am
The issue is slightly confusing in a way that fits a lot of what Obama does and doesn't do. Apparently Obama in the past has provided parts of his returns to the Chicago Tribune. But so far, his campaign is declining to provide copies of the full returns to the media now. It is not clear what the Tribune has or doesn't have, though they clearly got something--but not full returns and only in the past. I don't know why he wouldn't just release copies now if he has done it in the past. I don't know if the Tribune agreed not to publically release the parts of returns that they did get. I don't know.
But, once again, it looks like Obama is making a plausible claim that he is doing one thing when in fact he is doing another.
- Eos
March 11, 2008 at 11:04am
pccostello, caught in a lie, comes up with another one. It is not clear what the tribune has or doesn't? No, it is clear you don't know what you are talking about. Hillary has released nothing. Obama has released his total returns. The only one lacking plausibility is you. Fine, he has to release his tax returns by April 15 for this year. I know many people who have not done there taxes, especially if they owe money. Are you daft?
I love how you cherry pick out of that article. How about this one from that article: Keep in mind, this Obama transparency push comes at a time when one of his most prominent backers, former Sen. Bill Bradley, D-NJ, went on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer and dropped this bomb:
"I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library. And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed.
"These are important questions. The people deserve to know. And we deserve, as Democrats, to know before a nominee is selected, because we don't want things to explode in a general election against John McCain," Bradley said.
He has released his tax returns she has not, end of story. I have furnished proof he has, you have LIED again. You have no shame. congratulations in your ability to make Democrats hate Hillary more and more, you really do her justice.
- blackton
March 11, 2008 at 12:06pm