More

Obama Aides: VP Talk Is A Ruse

First Posted: 03/28/08 03:46 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 01:25 PM ET

Afpgen

High-profile supporters of Sen. Barack Obama dismissed the notion Monday that he would be a "dream team" vice-presidential nominee, arguing that the suggestion -- as put forth recently by the rival Hillary Clinton campaign -- was but a political ruse intended to distract voters.

"It is somewhat amusing that at the same time...the Clinton camp is trying to suggest that Sen. Obama is not ready to be commander in chief, they are touting him as a potential a running mate, which puts him a heartbeat away," said Susan Rice, a foreign policy aide to Obama. "He is not going to be a running mate. He is going to be commander in chief."

Rice's comments echoed those made by the senator earlier in the day, part of a larger strategic effort made by the Obama camp to refocus the media spotlight away from attacks on the candidate's national security credentials. In a forty-five minute press conference with reporters, Rice was joined by three former service secretaries -- Clifford Alexander, Jr. (US Army), Richard Danzig (US Navy) and F. Whitten Peters (US Air Force) -- each taking turns touting Obama's foreign policy capacity.

"I think people recognize, anybody who really deals with Senator Obama, what an extraordinary commander-in-chief he would really be," said Danzig. "And I think it is difficult for others to effectively deny it. They can talk about his not having this or that experience or this or that particular attribute. But the reality is, as Secretary Alexander said right at the outset, it is character and his judgment."

A new argument not yet heard on the campaign trail was added in praise of Obama: that his youthful appeal would make him a boon to the country's military recruiting.

"Sen. Obama has demonstrated an ability to inspire people; especially among younger voters the turnout has been dramatic," said Peters. "And it is those younger voters who are the same people who must be recruited by military services."

The surrogates also struck back hard against assertions that Sen. Clinton was more qualified to be commander-in-chief, challenging the New York Democrat to provide one instance in which she handled a crisis management situation.

"For Senator Clinton to suggest that somehow her experience as First Lady uniquely qualifies her for that phone call is a dubious proposition," said Rice, a former Clinton administration official. "We continue to ask the question as to what exactly is the experience that Sen. Clinton can point to that indicates that she has had real crisis management experience? And when asked that question we get 20 seconds of silence," Rice said.

Indeed, the machinations of the Clinton campaign were a thread of discussion throughout the presser. Earlier in the day, Clinton's spokesperson Howard Wolfson said that while Obama was not yet ready to be commander-in-chief, he might pass that threshold by the time of the Democratic convention. Asked to respond to the logic, Alexander declared:

"Howard Wolfson has a particular role. It's a spokesman's role, and it is a role to agitate if he can. The issues in this campaign are far more important..."

The Obama supporters also used the press conference to counter policy questions that have recently haunted their candidate's campaign. Much of the focus was on Iraq, as Rice dismissed the notion that Obama was hedging on his campaign pledge to withdraw U.S. combat troops within 16 month time frame. Former campaign advisor Samantha Power, who stepped down last week after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster," had suggested in a different interview that Obama's withdrawal plan might in fact take much longer. Rice downplayed that idea and instead turned the accusation of waffling back on the Clinton camp.

"We don't know what Sen. Clinton's plan is," she said. "She has said really that she would meet with the Joint Chiefs upon taking office and begin the process of redeployment within 60 days. She hasn't said when she aims to conclude it... and [many Iraq analysts] have called into question her readiness to continue and proceed with a phased redeployment if circumstances on the ground should become more complex. Rather than [spokesperson] Howard Wolfson playing politics you should ask Sen. Clinton what's her specific withdrawal plan."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

High-profile supporters of Sen. Barack Obama dismissed the notion Monday that he would be a "dream team" vice-presidential nominee, arguing that the suggestion -- as put forth recently by the rival Hi...
High-profile supporters of Sen. Barack Obama dismissed the notion Monday that he would be a "dream team" vice-presidential nominee, arguing that the suggestion -- as put forth recently by the rival Hi...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 496
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
06:33 PM on 03/12/2008
I'm still amazed at Obamanation or at least its followers. Don't you understand that you're candidate's whole campaign was against the sort of divisive politics that you pour out onto these pages. You're like those veterans that say they fought for America so no one should be allowed to say negative things about it. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
10:35 AM on 03/12/2008
I'm still amazed at Obamanation or at least its followers. Don't you understand that you're candidate's whole campaign was against the sort of divisive politics that you pour out onto these pages. You're like those veterans that say they fought for America so no one should be allowed to say negative things about it. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
02:53 PM on 03/11/2008
I never witness any "hope" or "inspiration" from Obama Supporters.

Nor do I ever hear any substance on Obama's positions.

All I ever hear on HUFFPO from Obama's Supporters - is hatred.

Excuse me while I take a shower.
04:04 PM on 03/11/2008
You were a filthy pig before you even turned on the computer.
04:41 PM on 03/11/2008
So true. You have that troll pegged.
03:24 AM on 03/12/2008
Have you been under a rock all this time?

Obama supporters are just flabbergasted. They don't understand how anyone can support Hillary, who's been the most divisive presidential candidate in modern US politics.

She's behind in delegates, popular vote, and states. How can she win the general election?
01:20 PM on 03/11/2008
related fake news

MCCAIN REFUSES TO TAKE VP OFFER

From his front porch in Sedona, Arizona, Senator McCain held a brief press conference to deny any interest in being the vice presidential candidate on a ticket headed by Senator Clinton. Showing traces of his well known hot temper, the Senator berated the Clintons for spreading rumors of such a bipartisan ticket. (off the record, he used the word "monster")

He disposed of the thought of any meeting with Senator Clinton, saying that any such meeting would be secret and " how the ___ could a meeting be secret if I talked about it?".

The conference concluded with the Senator noting that he was already the candidate in first place and asking " Can't those _____ Democrat candidates ever find a worthy Democrat?"

homer www.altara.blogspot.com
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:23 PM on 03/11/2008
Traditionally, it is on the issues of defense (war) and foreign policy that the Congress has allowed the President maximum flexibility. On most domestic issues, while the leadership of the President can be important, it is not crucial. Therefore, war and foreign policy issues should weigh much more in the choice of Presidential candidates.

There is no question, based on facts, that the defense and foreign policies of the Republicans have been a disaster. Driven by the NeoCon (PNAC : http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html ) agenda, Bush and Cheney have given us the worst debacle in several decades. Some view the long-term consequences of this debacle direr than of any previous war.

It has devastated America’s moral authority abroad, increased the number of terrorists, caused massive death and suffering to millions, diminished America’s prestige by shameless acts such as torture, made the Middle East and the world a more dangerous place than ever before, set a shameless precedent for unprovoked (pre-emptive) war, caused death and injury to tens of thousand American soldiers, wasted over $1.5 trillion, contributed heavily to the decline of our economy, and all this to satisfy the depraved goal of a few ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm ) seeking “benevolent hegemony” and world domination, while mutilating the long cherished American values of peaceful coexistence and justice.

It is in this context that we must make our choices in this election. This election is unlike any in at least fifty years. It is imperative that we, the American electorate, make the right choice in this election.

It is based on these issues, more than any other, that we must evaluate candidates.

Between Obama and Hillary, one finds that the biggest difference between the two is in foreign policy and war. On most other major issues, they are quite similar.

Do your own research, and make your judgments as to which of the two candidates is better. A good place to start is: “Spotlight on the Candidates”( http://www.fpif.org/fpifinfo/4809 ).

I did my research and concluded that Obama is the better of the two candidates. It was an easy decision.
11:35 AM on 03/11/2008
I don't think this really matters. Tell me what you think makes one candidate a better chaoice than the other.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:21 PM on 03/11/2008
Obama was not my first choice before the other candidates dropped out. Hillary was always at the bottom of my list.

So, the choice has been made for me. It is Obama.

Hillary might still prevail. However, I don't see how and why anyone passionately opposed to U.S. invasion of Iraq, and of the pre-emptive war doctrine of the NeoCons can ever choose Hillary over Obama. I find that completely irrational.

On the issue of war, Hillary has consistently sided with the NeoCons.

While some might have doubts about Obama’s votes to fund the war, but there are no questions as to where Hillary stands: with the NeoCons.

Before the war started, we begged Hillary not to side with the NeoCons. She ignored us.

We begged Hillary not to side with the NeoCons on the recent Kyl/Lieberman amendment that gave Bush even more power to potentially expand the war to Iran. We wrote letters to her, we made phone calls, we sent emails. Hilary gave us the finger, and sided with the NeoCons.

As far as I'm concerned, let Hillary go beg the NeoCons for their support, not the Liberals and Progressives.

Win or lose, I can't vote for Hillary knowing her record of consistently siding with the NeoCons. And I'll do everything I can to convince people with conscience, people genuinely interested in peace and justice, people truly for American values, to deny Hillary their vote.

There is no question in my mind that that is the right thing to do, win or lose.
02:11 PM on 03/11/2008
I, like you, perferred others in the race than the final two although up until today I was happy with either of them. I understand your position with respect to Hillary and her support of NeoCons. I suppose I felt like I was lied to about the war from the start and had all the facts been known it wouldn't have happened. Basically, President Bush and his advisors tricked us into war that we shouldn't have been in and then did it badly. I am still unsure why we ever invaded Iraq. And I guess I'm willing to forgive Ms. Clinton her intial vote because based on the case that was made, I believed the war was right thing to do. (I appreciate we probably disagree on this point). So I guess in my narcissitic thinking, if even the brilliant ME was tricked what chance does a mere mortal like Ms. Clinton have. Of course I'm kidding but I have to forgive her because I have to forgive myself. At least with respect to the initial vote.
With respect to the Kyle/Lieberman amendment, that's tougher. But it also high lights some of my reservations about Mr. Obama. Whatever he says on the issue now, he either wasn't present or abstained. If he was so committed to this cause why did he leave it to someone like Senator Webb to make a passionate plea for a "No".
I agree with Hillary more than I don't. Which probably says I agree with Mr. Obama more than I don't. But I don't trust him, which is not to say I distrust him. Hillary may be flawed but I imagine I know most of her flaws. I've seen her in public life for nearly 20 years. I've seen stand on her own. I know for every scandel or personal misgiving I have about Mr. Obama, his followers can match them with five (5) of hers. But that's sort of the point, Hillary is flawed but I feel like I know her flaws and I trust that I know them.

There is something about Mr. Obama that makes me uncomfortable. I can't help but believe there are things about him I don't know, like his relationship to the guy in Chicago, that housing deal, etc. Another concern I have is that few of his ardent supporters that I have come across know a lot about the guy. For example he first got elected in the Illinois by suing everyone out of the race. In the end, Mr. Obama may be the better candidate but I don't feel like I know him as well and that makes it harder for me to say, Yes, I want him as President.
To me Iraq is a critical issue, but not the only issue. And I feel more comfortable with Hillary across the spectrum of things.
The other issue that has come out for me is just the vitrol that comes from his supporters. I've been called a "Nazi" and a "wacky tacky liberal" in my time, but no one has ever compared me to a roach in political discussion before. I even called my State Democratic party about that and they hung up on me. And I know that's not all his supporters, but there seems to be such an emotional ferver related to his candiacy that even reasonable objections or concerns are completely marginalized. And Hillary has done some negative campaigning but for the most part, I think the campaign is a lot less negative than it could have been and less negative than what general election will be. I think Ms. Clinton (and I am excluding her husband on this) is sensitive to the we're all Democrats thing. And I know everyone will be jumping on me about the McCain and I are qualified to be Commander and Chief comment and that wasn't smart, but it hardly amounts to an endorsement McCain. And the fact is that McCain will use his military experience against whoever the Democrats nominate. I don't think that Mr. Obama can win the "experience" argument on almost any issue. But he's selling "vision" and "judgement" not experience so I don't see the problem. I think that Ms. Clinton was right to draw that distinction although it was clumsy.
Up today I supported Hillary and the Democrat Party. After today, I know I can't support Mr. Obama and I'm not sure that I can even support a Democrat. Frankly, his supporters scare me.
I appreciate your thoughtful post, your position and your values. I hope my post was respectful to yours. Respectfully.
11:22 AM on 03/11/2008
This hint by the Clinton's was a red herring from the beginning, and a rather odoriferous one
at that, which is insulting to the publics intelligence.
11:16 AM on 03/11/2008
Hillary's words and endorsment of McCain show she is not a Democrat!
10:50 AM on 03/11/2008
baraks' own words shows he is not a team player
11:23 AM on 03/11/2008
Hillary and Barack aren't on the same team yet. They're competitors. When a candidtate gets nominated, THEN they'll be on the same team.

there's no "I" in team
there's not "I" in Barack Obama either
....Hillary Clinton, on the other hand ..... "I" "I" "I"
11:56 AM on 03/11/2008
Barack's own words? Which words are that? Sounds like lately he's channeling Denzel Washington, and Malcolm X. His words change depending on what state he's in.
03:24 AM on 03/12/2008
Proof?
10:27 AM on 03/11/2008
ATTENTION SUPERDELEGATES: Obama must have some pretty big "coattails" for the 2008 General Election --- even Hillary Clinton is trying to hitch a ride on his coattails!!!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peddler
Peddler of Information
10:00 AM on 03/11/2008
The Democrats are at each other throats trying to determine who the next Democratic nominee for President will be. They will say and do anything to support their candidate. It obvious that the candidate at the end of the primary, who has the lead, would be the logical choice. Instead, they keep pushing each of their candidates....this one has experience...this one doesn't have experience...etc...etc...etc. In the meantime, McCain just sits back with a bag of popcorn and waits for all those dis-enchanted voter ans swing to cross. When it is all said and done, the Democrats will not even be aware of who won the election....Now you know why McCain is always smiling.
10:31 AM on 03/11/2008
I wouldn't want obama on MY ticket as a garbage collector even...
10:41 AM on 03/11/2008
We can all read the subtext of this comment. Right out of the Hillary Rove Clinton playbook.
photo
andyboy
Little bit Country, little Chicago Blues
12:25 PM on 03/11/2008
This from another blogger who writes posts worrying about being scrubbed.

Dunderhead. You should be scrubbed for lack of a cogent thought.
photo
andyboy
Little bit Country, little Chicago Blues
12:30 PM on 03/11/2008
Peddler,

McCain can barely get a mention in the news he's so utterly irrelavent. Oh and he's not allowed to eat popcorn waterhead he's too old it causes all kinds of digestion problems.

Here is McCain's standard comment to any question: "I don't know about that" or "I'm not much on economics" or " I don't know what to make of that".

Take a look at Mccain's website. He has changed his position on EVERY issue there is just to re-invent himself for the idiot 20% that wil vote for him anyway.

John is arguably the second stupidest asshole in Washington. Next to that hick from Texas who shines Cheney's shoes.
09:50 AM on 03/11/2008
In other news, the New England Patriots today offered to let the New York Giants hold the Super Bowl trophy.
08:42 AM on 03/11/2008
I think it was pretty stupid to imply Obama might be a running mate from a position of weakness in the first place. He currently leads the race. If anyone should be hinting at the offer, its Obama. Earlier in the race she was way ahead. That would've been a better time for Hillary to make the offer. But now she is making it from a position of weakness, and doing so only weakens her position further. She blinked and Obama is all but guaranteed the nomination.
10:25 AM on 03/11/2008
Mr. Obama being Ms. Clinton's running mate might not be the best suggestion, but I think Hillary should be applauded for making SOME suggestion designed to reunite the party. Mr. Obama had the oppurtunity to make his own suggestion, but failed to do so. (Although, I wonder if Mr. Obama sent campaign staffers over to the Clinton campaign to let them know that his I'm Number One speech was all "politcial positioning" and he really is interested in the VP despite the harsh rhetoric.) He was more concerned about the indignation of the suggestion than offering a positive suggestion. Much like he failed to offer any proposal that attempted to solve the issue of disenfranchising the Democrat voters of the 4th and 8th largest state because that's what "the rules" said . I bet he was always the banker when he played Monopoly. I hear that 3 a.m. phone call now, "Mr. Medevedev broke a treaty, doesn't he know who I am". Its not unlike when Mr. Obama went around to get endorsements from everyone and their dog/cat. Like he was saying, "See, really I am credible, the cool kids like me". Now that he in the cool clique he will tell you how cool he is and that is WAY to cool to be VP. What about the party? What about the country? This election, more than ever, is about something other than any one person's ego. But when it comes down to it, Mr. Obama is like the gulls in Finding Nemo, "Mine, Mine, Mine. Mine, Mine, Mine . . . "
I have always been proud of my country. Respectfully.
10:50 AM on 03/11/2008
another disingenuous hillary supporter....they're like roaches.
10:50 AM on 03/11/2008
- Voters in Florida and Michigan knew before they went to the polls that their votes wouldnt count. Blame the leadership in the respective states and the democratic party for whatever happened there, not Obama. Obama and all other candidates except Hillary followed the letter and spirit of this. Hillary when asked about her name still being on the ballots said that it didnt matter because the vote didn't count. Now she says that they do. Can we really trust her?

- This post seems to include a thinly veiled reference to the NAFTAGATE. Funny thing is Obama has been cleared of it and it was the Clinton folks who did the wink-wink. How can we trust her?

- If you are talking about doing what is best for the Democratic Party, Clinton endorsed Mccain over a democratic candidate. How can we trust her?

- Americans are increasingly supporting Obama because he has superior judgment, a great record of legislative accomplishments, the ability to organize and inspire Americans to work toward the goals we want, and because we want a president who will be president of ALL the people. Hillary will only be the president of those who vote for her, and we already had that the last eight years.
03:03 PM on 03/11/2008
I wouldn't go so far as to say she is in a position of weakness. REAL PEOPLE voted in both FL & MI. Senator Clinton would have received 128 delegates (out of 156) for Michigan and 118 delegates (out of 188) for Florida. A total of 246 delegates, which would have put her comfortably in the lead. Even more important is pyschological importance of theses vote being counted - if they had been, the so-called Obama 'surge' would most likely never have occurred, which would have increased the Clinton lead in delegates even further. I would hardly call this weakness of the candidate, but rather stupidity of the DNC process....
05:44 AM on 03/11/2008
Round and round we go, where the game stops, nobody knows!

I get so tired of hearing Hillary's rhetoric. What I would like to hear is a clear concise idea as to what she's going to do with the troops, but we won't get that. This is the same woman who claimed "based on what they knew then" it was right to invade Iraq. Never mind the fact that Powell's "damning evidence" was taken, verbatim, from the senior thesis of a Swedish college student who admitted in the paper that he was postulating ideas and not facts.

And of course, the same woman who considers any demands to release her tax returns before the last of the "big" states votes an evil request made by an Inquisitor like Ken Starr...as though her tax returns are going to change between now and then.

Well...wait, this IS the Clintons, after all--I guess those returns very well could change.
03:59 AM on 03/11/2008
Morning, everyone. What happened to my other comment? It was here a minute ago. All I said was that the main thread had 965 comments pending and that we ought to ---oh, never mind.