Clinton the Wrong Choice For Obama

[Dr Ron]

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3372

Clinton the Wrong Choice For Obama

June 6th, 2008 by Ron Chusid

I don’t imagine that George Will is tops on the reading list for most readers here. Therefore it might be worth pointing out his current column as it pretty much echoes what I’ve written in the past about the prospect of picking Hillary Clinton to be Obama’s running mate. The key point is that, while Obama must look to unify the party, this is not the only consideration. The election will largely be fought over independents, and those former Republicans who are began voting Democratic in 2006. Obama can find other candidates who will appeal to Clinton’s voters without needing to accept all the negatives Clinton brings to a ticket. Will wrote:

Obama’s choice of a running mate will be the first important decision he makes with the whole country watching, so it will be a momentous act of self-definition. If he chooses her, it will be an act of self-diminishment, especially now that some of her acolytes are aggressively suggesting that some unwritten rule of American politics stipulates that anyone who finishes a strong second in the nomination contest is entitled to second place on the ticket.

Behind the idea that Obama should run in harness with Clinton is this wobbly theory: Because the Republican Party is in such bad odor, if you unify the Democratic Party, that will suffice to win the election, and she is a necessary and sufficient catalyst of unity. But she is neither. She would be a potent unifier of John McCain’s party, thereby setting the stage for exactly what the nation does not need, another angry campaign of mere mobilization rather than persuasion.

Surely she, the most polarizing Democrat, is not the only Democrat who can help Obama appeal to the voters who rejected him in Kentucky and West Virginia. And as his running mate, she would nullify his narrative. The candidate embracing the “future” should not glue himself to Washington circa 1993. Someone promising to “turn the page” should not revert to an earlier chapter. Someone whose mantra is “change” should not embrace her theme of restoration — that the 1990s were paradise and Democrats promise paradise regained.

She, whose experiences as First Spouse have not impressed Obama as acquisitions of national security expertise, would not help him deflect McCain’s predictable attack on his thin curriculum vitae. And the more she seems to be pushing Obama to choose her, the more resolutely he must resist. Otherwise, at the beginning of a contest in which McCain will portray him as a flimsy figure, Obama will define himself as someone who can be pushed around.

Clinton certainly will not help Obama on national security matters, unless the race comes down to who is most qualified to fend off imaginary sniper fire. Clinton has no match on that one. Unfortunately she also has few matches for dishonesty in politics, having morphed into a virtual clone of George W. Bush. Beyond fighting such imaginary sniper fire, her national security credentials are highly exaggerated, along with all her other claims of being the more experienced candidate.