rebuttal to: vice president clinton: no… way!
by Cameron Contois
Published: May 31, 2008
On the April 21st edition of World Wrestling Entertainment’s Monday Night Raw, “Hillary Clinton” faced “Barack Obama” in a wrestling match. The fake Clinton got an early lead, landing a Hogan Leg Drop on a downed Obama. Obama got a second wind and slammed Hillary to the mat with what is apparently his finishing move: the “Barack Bottom.” However, neither candidate was able to get the pin for the one, two, three. The Samoan Bulldozer, Umaga, ran down to the ring and decimated both candidates. This was not only hilarious, but eerily symbolic of the divided Democratic Party. In a triple threat match, the odds favor McCain.
Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton need each other. Clinton clinching the nomination, at this point, is a long shot (although it still could happen), and there is talk of whom Obama will pick for the vice presidency. He needs to pick Senator Clinton.
The true danger to the Democratic Party is not this arduous nomination process but those of us who become, with passionate tunnel vision, so focused on our candidate that we no longer see what’s the best for the country. What’s best for our country is a ticket that includes both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton.
In Greek mythology, hubris brought down even the gods, and in the last 8 years, the Democrats have hardly had the strength of Hercules, the fight of Ares or even the spite of Hera. It is arrogant to have so much faith in a single candidate when being united guarantees the White House. Why put all bets on just the youth vote when the Dems could have the blue-collar vote, too? The Democrats could have the Hispanics, elderly church ladies and Oprah. I bet Obama and Clinton secretly despise each other. Oh, well. They still need to work together. That’s politics.
Unfortunately, some Obama supporters selfishly see Clinton on the ticket as a horrendous betrayal. Clinton is somehow inconsistent with their message of change. I have an idea for real change: how about the Democrats not lose a presidential election. Obama asserts he can reach across the aisle and work with everyone. If he can’t work with Clinton, who shares almost all of the same views on the issues, how’s he supposed to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans? Picking Clinton would help prove he’s not all hot air.
Some on Obama’s side would rather gamble on a far-fetched scenario where Obama would forsake states he would win with Clinton, like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Florida, in favor of gaining some red states. They would put their chips on this magic electoral math instead of a realistic path to victory. They wouldd exclude Clinton even as polls show she has a better chance of beating McCain than Obama. Senator Clinton may use some questionable arithmetic to show she has the popular vote, but even if she doesn’t have it, she’s pretty darn close.
I used to say I’d vote for whoever the Democratic candidate was. Now, I’m not so sure I could bring myself to vote for Obama. Why would I? He refused to work with Michigan to have a re-vote, effectively silencing my voice in the primaries. He said small-town people like me cling to guns and religion. He is the most liberal senator there is and claims he can win over Republicans even though he has done nothing to prove this in the Senate. I’m all for talking with our enemies, but I feel like he’d offer terrorists pedicures and massages while they plot to kill us. I’d feel safer having McCain answer that phone at 3 am. No, as of now, I won’t be voting for Obama. Perhaps I’ll be persuaded if Clinton is on the ticket.
Maybe Obama will prove me wrong and unite us all with a joint ticket. Or else he’ll prove he is, in fact, an arrogant elitist and go it alone… and the Democrats will again lose the presidency. And Obama, after all those campaign promises, will end up bringing about no change at all.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
June 1st, 2008 at 10:16 am
You do raise so valid points, but I think you’re placing a great deal of faith in Hillary’s electoral ability overall. She has the highest negative rating of any presidential candidate ever in the Gallup poll. You either love her or hate her; as such, many dems would vote for her and most republicans would vote against. The battle of ‘08 will be for independents and dissaffected republicans. Obama has an inherent appeal to these voters, whereas Hillary will not garner sufficient support from these people. My argument: Obama appeals to the middle, when Hillary has been rejected by the middle as well as young voters, African Americans, suburban voters (ie. Philly suburbs): all places where elections are won.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
but again you’re missing the whole point here. Three months ago Obama was projected to win in a landslide over McCain. All reasonable math showed Obama had the primary easily in his grasp.
The only reason this is close at this point is, because Clinton kept scratching and clawing at Obama. This is exactly what I said would happen back in February(http://www.therebuttal.com/2008/02/27/if-you-really-love-a-country-let-it-go/).
Hillary has not made the country like her more as a candidate, she’s only succeeded in makeing the country like Obama less.
The Clinton’s DO NOT play second fiddle. Putting her on the ticket might win the election, but as long as she stays in the spot light this bitter fight will never end. There will constantly be questions about who’s running the country, and constant infighting amongst the democrats.
If Hillary Clinton really loved this country, and she really wanted the Democrats to win, she would not have forced Obama into a bitter death match. She has ripped a part a party that was previously united against the republicans.
You people need to wake up and realize that Hillary Clinton is NOT a leader. She is a Politician. She has purposely divided this party against Obama, by scaring you into thinking he’s an inexperienced elitist. If we are ever going to turn this country around, we need to unit behind one leader. That leader will NEVER be Hillary Clinton, it will NEVER be McCain, there is still hope that it can be Obama, but if Hillary doesn’t end this circus soon, we’re going to be stuck with 4 more years of George Bush, 4 more years of a divided country, 4 more dollars per Gallon of gas, and 100 more years of war. If that happens Cameron you’ll have nobody to blame but yourself.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
“Hey, don’t blame me. I’m just a writer.”
- Joe Gillis (Sunset Boulevard)
I know, I’m commenting on my own article, but since I was mentioned by name in the comment about I felt compelled to point out the fact that if Obama gets the nomination and loses the general election, he has no one to blame but Barack Obama.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Cameron, since he’s the candidate at the top of the ticket, he would have no one to blame but himself. Kerry liked to blame Edwards for his loss in 2004, but he did it all on his own. It’s not the VP’s fault for a ticket losing; it’s the Presidential candidate’s fault.
Obama doesn’t need HRC. She needs him; she’s the loser. He’s won. If he picks her, he’d be going against everything he ran for this year, and he’d alienate more of his own supporters than attract more of hers. Yes, we’d still vote for him, but again, we’d be voting for him NOT her. She lost.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Sandra, your comment above states that somehow Senator Clinton running with Obama would alienate his supporters, but you admit both that the vice president doesn’t lose the election AND that Obama supporters will vote for him regardless.
What I find so baffling is Obama supporters like yourself who not only take the opposite position of your candidate (Obama has offered nothing but praise for Clinton since clinching the nomination - something I do find admirable about him) but the denial of just how bitterly split the Democratic party is right now.
I am a Democrat who is not sold on Obama. And McCain appeals to me. I consider him a level headed war hero and often find myself agreeing with him. I know I’m not the only Clinton supporter who feels this way.
Yes Clinton lost… just barely, but she did. And I congratulate Obama and all his supporters on a well run campaign. So if Obama wants to follow the advice of his supporters like you and try to unite the Democratic party without Clinton, well that’s his prerogative. He’d risk losing my vote to McCain.
I disagree with you on one other point as well. You state “If he picks her, he’d be going against everything he ran for this year…” Hasn’t he been running on the fact that he can work together with all Americans, purple states, the uniter, blah blah blah. Maybe he and his supporters just say they’re willing to work with other people when it sounds good on 30 second sound bites on CNN.
To me, the message of change and unity, except hate Hillary Clinton, is in complete opposition of Obama’s message and makes me suspect of the whole thing.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
That you find McCain level headed and you often agree with him, yet you supported Hillary baffles me. Especially since so many Democrats who cited a struggle in choosing between Obama and Hillary said it was because their policies were so similar and they both stood for similar things. Hillary and McCain are miles apart on many key issues — the war (well, now anyway. She wasn’t initially, which is one of the big reasons for not getting my vote.), abortion, equal pay legislation for women, health care, the Bush tax cuts, NCLB. What it is, exactly, that you find in McCain that you also find in Hillary besides support for a gas tax holiday, the utter lack of scruples, or the willingness to say whatever they think it is their audience at the time wants to hear?
The Democratic Party is bigger than one person, bigger than two people. Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic Party, and the fact that she and her supporters seem to think the Party and Obama will fail without her shows a degree of narcissism and egotism that is akin to GW and represents exactly what is wrong with Hillary and Bill, and why the majority of people voted for Obama.
Yes, Obama’s message of unity and working together is his message, and one of the big reasons I support him. But change is not Hillary Clinton; change is not a contiuation of the politics that have divided us for years under Bill Clinton and his chosen leadership (i.e., Terry McAuliffe); change is not what Hillary represents.
Further, I do actually recognize how divided the party is. But, you know when that divide came? Not since Iowa. Not since Feb. 5th. Not this election season. That divide started in 1998 when Bill Clinton put himself and his ego ahead of the good of the party and put the Democrats in a tough spot regarding the impeachment. That divide widen with Al Gore’s loss in 2000 (for which many people blame Bill; if he hadn’t sullied the office and left a guilt by association stench on Al Gore, he may very well have won); and it further divided with those in the party, like Hillary, who sided with Bush and voted for an unjust, unnecessary war.
Obama and his supporters aren’t trying to divide the party; he’s trying to heal it. It can’t get better if the problem (namely the Clintons and their self-centeredness) won’t go away. I don’t hate the Clintons. I’m just tired of them, their political games, and I want them to fade into the sunset and realize it’s time for the Party, and the country, to move on.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Sandra, you make a good point when you point out how similar Clinton and Obama’s policies are and ask why I would consider voting for McCain. I don’t know if I could bring myself to vote for McCain, however, I do trust him on one issue much more than Obama… national security. And that’s a biggie. I like his experience and, I know this shouldn’t matter, but I just plain like him. But I understand you’re point.
But saying President Clinton divided the party in ‘98… are you kidding me? As Peter Beinart points out in his Time magazine article “What Obama Owes the Clintons”, if it wasn’t for Clinton, Obama wouldn’t be here today. Because Clinton embraced the death penalty and changed welfare so it wasn’t a whites versus blacks issue (which did divide the democratic party) he chipped away the right being able to use these as wedge issues. Because Clinton balanced the budget and ushered in an era of unprecedented American peace and prosperity, the public now trusts Democrats with the economy instead of Republicans. If Clinton wasn’t the centrist he was, Obama could never lead the more liberal campaign he is today. If you equate cutting national deficit to a surplus and deracializing politics as “political games”, let the games begin.
And if I remember correctly, wasn’t Al Gore blamed for losing the election because he distanced himself from Clinton (ok, he didn’t lose the election, but you know what I mean)?
If you think that Obama can win the general election without the 18 million votes that Clinton got, then you’re wrong. That’s not Clinton narcissism, that’s a mathematical fact.
Obama recently said that universal health care is a must. Who knows universal health care better than Hillary Clinton? She could focus on that as the VP while Obama works on getting the lobbyists out and such. Elizabeth Edwards, a tireless health care advocate, admits that Clinton’s health care plan is the best.
Obama and his supporters won, Clinton will gracefully back him on Saturday, and yet some of his supporters can’t help but still viciously snub her. I do think Obama is trying to heal the party, as is Hillary, but many Obama supporters don’t take his lead and spit on the very people who built the party Obama runs on now. I just don’t get it. You guys won and now you won’t compromise. Doesn’t sound like much change to me. Too bad those Obama supporters don’t take their lead from Obama, cause unlike him, they just keep pushing us all apart.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:04 am
To Sandra: Sorry, dear. Obama did not get the nomination because “the majority of people voted for [him].” It was actually Hillary who won the popular vote. Obama just got more delegates. Of course delegates are what wins the nomination. Those are the rules. But if it’s o.k. for Obama to win the nomination without the popular vote, will all you democrats please stop whining about Bush winning the electoral votes in 2000? Those are the rules.
And what makes any of you think Hillary is out of the race? I haven’t heard a concession speech, just a suspension of her campaign.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Oh, snap…
I can’t wait to see what Sandra says when she sees that you called her “dear”… :)
June 6th, 2008 at 8:44 am
“If you think that Obama can win the general election without the 18 million votes that Clinton got, then you’re wrong.” I never said this. Clearly he will need the votes of the people who supported her, and I think he’ll be able to get them in the next 5 months. Especially she is gracious enough to move on. I don’t think most of those 18 million were necessarily voting against Obama or the Democrats, as much as they were voting for the person they thought was most able to beat McCain in November and who would be the best person to bring unity to the country and party. Clearly the people chose Obama on that front, and I’m positive he will be able to do what he says he’s going to do.
The narcissism the Clintons show is in their demonstrated thinking that she, and only she, would be able to beat McCain. It’s in Bill putting his two cents in on everything, even when it caused more harm than good. It’s in the speech she made on Tuesday night and waiting until Saturday to announce her decision (whether it’s a concession or a campaign suspension). Her inability to immediately recognize that he’s won demonstrates the denial she’s in and her inability to get over herself. She’s been around Bill too long; his self-centeredness must be contagious.
As for her winning the popular vote, sure if you don’t play by the rules her own people, including Harold Ickes, helped establish before the primaries began. (Find the counts here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
It’s so Clintonesque to bend the rules when it’s in their favor, and that’s exactly why we need Obama and why he’ll win.
Clinton’s policies made have helped Obama, but after 1998, he was a lame duck and created a great deal of anomosity within the party because of his liasions and the impeachment process. That’s when the division began.
As for McCain’s policies on national security. Seriously? No, SERIOUSLY? What makes you feel safer on this, that we’re still at war with young people dying every day in vain, that because of the money spent on the war our economy is in the tank and we’ve mortgaged ourselves to the gills to China, or that while we may not have been hit against since 2001, allies throughout the world (Spain, England) have suffered their own 9/11s? Or that the rest of the world is so turned off by this administration that they no longer want to help us in the wars?
I admire McCain for his personal war record, but until he, himself, is back on those current frontlines, I can’t have anything but contempt for him on the national security issue. As we’ve seen with experienced “leaders” in the GW administration (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz) experience does not always equal intelligence. Obama is well-liked internationally; McCain is not. This will go a lot further in helping us mend international relations than national security policy by McBush.
As for the “dear” comment, it’s the condescending tone I’ve come to expect from Hillary supporters.
On a side note, I encourage you to watch a movie on Shirley Chisholm, who ran for the Democratic nod in 1972. http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/chisholm/
A lot of the issues from that campaign are extremely relevant in this year’s campaign, and the pull between electability, race, and gender is still relevant.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
LOL Polited… yeah, Sandra doesn’t seem too impressed with that guy’s “dear” commment…
June 6th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
“Obama is well-liked internationally.” Seriously? No, SERIOUSLY? What makes you thinks he’s anything more than an inexperienced, unknown neophyte internationally. I don’t doubt he’s well liked by the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. After all, Obama wants to add legitimacy to terrorist governments by having talks with them. How can you possibly talk peace with people who deny the holocaust and want to repeat it?
The bigger question is: who cares what the international community thinks of Obama? I want to know how Obama feels about America. If his two decades of attendance in the radically anti-American Rev. Wright’s congregation are any indication… If Michelle’s admission that she’s never been proud of her country prior to a few months ago is any indication…
He’s got to win in America. Sure, he won a senate seat against the carpet bagger Alan Keyes, and he’s barely squeaked out a victory in the primaries (without the popular vote) thanks to super delegates, but this guy is going to feel the heat of a general election and 527 ads real soon. He better finish eating his waffles quick. It’s show time.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:51 am
No, but seriously. Did you just pull the “anti-American rev” and “Michelle’s not proud of her country” cards?
June 7th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Chris, wow. If we’re pulling the spouse card as a reason to not support the candidate, there’s a whole lonnnnnnngggggg list of things Bill has said — and done — that would keep many, many, many people away.
How else do you propose talking, and more importantly, creating, peace with the people with whom we need to make it? Should we just bomb their country and hope for the best six years down the line when thousands of Americans have lost their lives for no legitimate reason? Ignoring the bad guys won’t make them go away; it’ll just give them more time to stew and feel ignored. Ignoring the problem didn’t work when my mother told me to do it; my brother is still a pest. Ignoring the likes of Ahmadinejad won’t either.
The United States’ standing in the international community is vital. It’s building coalitions with allies, such as France, Australia, China, that allow us to implement our ideas for other countries. The go-it-alone mentality has failed, as evidenced by Iraq, and we can’t afford to continue to have weak foreign relations. It affects our domestic policies, too, and if you don’t think it does, look at the weak dollar, the price of gas (Bush can’t convince his Saudi friends to release more barrels and thus lowering the price of oil), and debt we have to China. After 8 years of a president who had visited foreign soil three times before becoming POTUS and who didn’t even have a passport when he was elected, Barack Obama is hardly an “inexperienced, unknown neophyte internationally.” That he’s lived throughout our world and has half-siblings in Africa, is a HUGE step toward him understanding the global community and the global community understanding him. His perspective on the world and our country’s place in it is far more experienced, defined, and advanced than that of GW or even McCain’s. Many in the rest of the world can identify with Obama simply because of his background, his skin color, and yes, even his name, and that will go along way toward mending the international fences that were broken, bulldozed, and pissed on by the current administration.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
No, seriously. I’m pulling the “guilty by association” card. You don’t walk through manure and come out smelling like a rose. Obama can say all “right” things for two or three months, and it won’t overcome where he’s been for the last twenty years. And don’t even try to defend the Rev. Wright; even your lord and savior, the messiah himself, Sen. Obama has denounced him… AFTER DECADES OF PARTICIPATING IN AND SUPPORTING Wright’s anti-American “ministry.” Michelle is just another indication of Obama’s true color.
Speaking of “wow”… Wow! Democrats sure can turn on each other in a hurry. Bill was your poster boy not so long ago. Even after Monica came out, there were plenty on the left ready to pick up where Monica left off. You people defended him like he was, well, Obama himself. What happened? I hope the way you’ve turned against your “first black president” isn’t an indication of what Sen. Obama has to look forward to.
As for Bill keeping people away, I agree. Yet Hillary still walked away with more votes (if not delegates) than Sen. Obama. I suppose that proves once again that Obama is the stronger candidate.
How about talking with people who promise the holocaust? Perhaps with Obama as president, we too can have “peace in our time.” How naïve. Will you not learn from history? Don’t think I’m suggesting we should ignore Ahmadinejad. We need to stand up to him. If Obama is so set on talks to the extent that he even wants to talk with terrorists, why is he unwilling to talk to the American manufacturers of prescription drugs (which save millions of lives each year)? Aren’t talks the only way to make progress?
Then we have: “The United States’ standing in the international community is vital.” To what? Our being voted most popular? How’s China doing in that regard? Yet they’re as influential as ever. And did you just call China our ally? Seriously? No, SERIOUSLY? And France, too? Don’t get me wrong… I visited southern France a few years ago and loved it (plus they had the most amazing ice cream I’ve ever tasted), but beyond their status in the UN, they’re insignificant. Even if they had supported us in our war effort, what army would they have sent? (By the way, the people there were very friendly. I don’t think my standing as an American offended them at all.) Sandra, dear, do you really believe that the personality residing in the White House is what determines our standing in the world? I would think that the American marketplace is far more influential than POTUS, just as China’s economy shapes its relationship with the world more than the policies of the current dictator there.
Now to the weak dollar and the price of gas. I suppose because B. Hussein Obama has a name like theirs, he’ll be able to convince OPEC (hey, that even sounds like his name) to export more oil. Do you think he’ll do as well as Jimmy Carter? You make a good point about more barrels lowering the price of oil. How about more domestic production? That would also increase supply and lower the price. But guess whose dead set against that idea.
If you’re concerned about the national debt let’s look at the cost of Obama’s domestic policies. At least your whipping boy Bill had a balanced budget.
Finally, I just love that Obama comes from broken home, was raised by rich, white grandparents, and has half-siblings in third world countries. That makes him soooooooo qualified to be the leader of the free world. Come on! His perspective on the world and our country’s place in it is reflected in where he’s gone to church for the last twenty years and the person he married. Perhaps his perspective is more defined than McCain’s, but that doesn’t make it a good thing.
Go ahead. Vote for the man with the international (third-world) sounding name, the skin color that’s politically correct, and the family (childhood) experience I wouldn’t exactly call ideal. Perhaps he can mend the international fences for America as satisfactorily as Chairman (dictator) Hu Jintao has for China.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:36 am
“I have an idea for real change: how about the Democrats not lose a presidential election.”
Hahaha, love it! :)
June 10th, 2008 at 9:18 am
What an argument…
First things first; I love this line from the original article, “Unfortunately, some Obama supporters selfishly see Clinton on the ticket as a horrendous betrayal. Clinton is somehow inconsistent with their message of change. I have an idea for real change: how about the Democrats not lose a presidential election.”
June 10th, 2008 at 9:46 am
haha I see Karen just said that above me…oops. Anyway, I’ve read everything on the page - Chris, why don’t you say the same thing in every single argument about every single issue?
“I want to know how Obama feels about America. If his two decades of attendance in the radically anti-American Rev. Wright’s congregation are any indication… If Michelle’s admission that she’s never been proud of her country prior to a few months ago is any indication…”
oooooohhhhhhhh…you know what - I think the GOVERNMENT administered Aids to the American public too. I think the American Government put crack and other drugs on our streets to covertly fund the Cold War in the late 70’s and early 80’s. I think the CIA murdered or assisted with the assassination of President Kennedy. I think there is more to 9/11 that meets the eye. I think there is a coveted group of people (Bilderberg Group, New World Order, Committee of 300, whatever you want to call it) that make basically all of the decisions for an enitre planet of people behind closed doors. Does that make me unpatriotic?
NO…
That makes me as American as it gets because I REFUSE to believe the lies that fake Christians in the White House bestow upon me and the rest of my brethren be they white, black, asian, hispanic, Native American, or purple for that matter. If Jerry Falwell had said something completely opposite yet just as appauling, you would have heard Evangelical (”blanks” - starts with F) yelling AMEN’s all the way across the holler!!!
I wish for once the Right would save the pulpit talk until the afterlife when your spirits can magically fly away and discuss it in a more appropriate setting…one where Church and State aren’t SEPERATE.