Obama: If I'm Not Ready, Why Suggest Vice Presidency?

Sen. Obama responded today to the Clinton's repeated suggestions of a joint "dream ticket." Said the senator at an afternoon rally: "I just want everybody to absolutely clear: I am not running for vice president. I am running to be president of the United States of America." He also addressed what some have suggested is the motive underlying the discussion; namely, that Clinton is seeking to convince voters to support her as a means to secure both Dems on a general election ticket.

"So I don't want anybody here thinking that somehow, 'Maybe I can get both.' Don't think that way. You have to make a choice in this election."

He followed up by questioning why Sen. Clinton would suggest a joint ticket while she is currently in second place in pledged delegates and popular vote:

"I won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. I won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So I don't know how someone in second place can offer the vice presidency to someone in first place. If I was in second place I could understand but I am in first place right now."

Going farther than comments in the past, Obama offered a frank explanation: "They are trying to hoodwink you."
Obama also pointed out the tension between suggestions of a joint ticket on the one hand, and Sen. Clinton's suggestions in Texas (notably, the "3AM ad") that Obama is not ready to be commander-in-chief on the other. He referenced a May 1992 comment by-then candidate Bill Clinton, who explained the "most important criteria" for selecting a vice president would be "someone who would be a good president if, God forbid, something happened to me a week after I took office." Airing the statement, Obama then feigned ignorance:

"I don't understand. If I am not ready, why do you think I would be such a great vice president? I don't understand. You can't say he is not ready on day one, then you want him to be your vice president."

The Clinton camp advanced a response to a similar question posed to them during their morning conference call. When asked why Sen. Clinton and her husband were suggesting a joint ticket and saying that Obama had not passed the "commander-in-chief threshold", spokesman Howard Wolfson replied:

"We do not believe that Senator Obama has passed the commander-in-chief test. But there is a long way between now and Denver."...

"Senator Clinton will not choose any candidate who has not at the time of choosing passed the national security threshold. But we have a long way to go until Denver, and it's not something she's prepared to rule out at this point."

Watch an excerpt from Obama's speech:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1452197114http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=1178199204

Comments

[mix2007]

11:17 PM on 03/12/2008

The ultimate irony to Hillary & her Second-wave Feminist friends' scorched earth, poison the well, "destroy the party if we don't win" strategy:
McCain will appoint the next Supreme Court justice and overturn Roe v Wade once and for all.
That would be truly ironic if these older women themselves overturned Roe.

[KDH]

03:17 PM on 03/11/2008

Who among you thinks that VP Cheney is ready?

[uglybetty]

04:36 PM on 03/11/2008

Is that who Obama is picking for VP ???????

[RonNYC]

02:27 PM on 03/11/2008

What they mean to say is that the dream ticket is Bill and Hillary, stupid!

Wolfson will be helping Hillary teach the threashold class from now until Denver. Obama is a quick learner.

I wonder how the Clintons will feel after McCain walks away with the election???

[citizenxyz]

04:24 PM on 03/12/2008

Hi RonNYC,
I don't think the Clintons care in the least.

[leeskyblue]

01:17 PM on 03/11/2008

Dream Ticket? A vote for the Clintons is a vote for the Clintons. The Clintons don't share power with anyone. How stupid do the Clintons think we are? On the other hand, having just got a boost for her fading candidacy, maybe she can wend her way back to a solid second place finish again with her irritating patronizing ("OK, "matronizing") behavior.

[democratsaint]

01:06 PM on 03/11/2008

he has more vore if you toss out fla and michigan.there are 13 states needed to win in nov and its almost all winner take all. if oyu win by 1 vote you get the ec votes. how many of the needed states has obama won ,oh yeah 2 georgia and illinois.with his rhetoric he will lose fla,he will probaly lose calif too as the latino votes for mccain. what does he bring to the vote the blacks,wait they vote democrat anyways. the fact is he loses more votes than he brings.by the way only ga of the top 13 has a large black population.

i'll say it again in a general election obama will lose.just like dukakis,mcgoveren.he is a liberal.he is a throwback to the old democrat party that has lost time and time again.till clinton went to the middle.

[lobear00]

12:47 PM on 03/11/2008

Hillarys little bag of Tricks is Shrinking. The only thing left for her to pull out of that bag is !!!! George Bush.

[johnnyjust]

11:59 AM on 03/11/2008

Obama touts his vote against invading Iraq as a measure of good judgment, but we'll never know what his true motivation was.

[nazgul]

11:36 AM on 03/11/2008

Why do AnninCA and uglybetty get to say anything and flood this thread while 95% of my posts go into a black hole?

[nazgul]

11:31 AM on 03/11/2008

Hillary's actions show that she is not a team player. She's promoting McCain over Obama.

Why should Obama join her team? If anything, she should join his team, but she's sacrificed that right, IMO.

[ballewb]

11:25 AM on 03/11/2008

Big deal.

[nazgul]

11:22 AM on 03/11/2008

Why should Barack take the 2nd position when is and has been in 1st the entire campaign?

Why should Barack join her ticket when she threw him under the Republican bus by promoting McCain over him?

Hillary is not a team player.

Hillary has betrayed not only Obama but the Democratic Party.

[sklfcats]

10:44 AM on 03/11/2008

BARAK'S WORDS SHOWS HE IS NOT, NOT A TEAM PLAYER

[nazgul]

11:03 AM on 03/11/2008

Why would he accept the VP role when he's ahead and she has promoted McCain as being more qualified? How does that make HER a team player?

[nazgul]

11:37 AM on 03/11/2008

But HRC IS a team player when she promotes McCain over Obama?

[harriscrl3]

10:35 AM on 03/11/2008

Chosing Hilary as his VP is going to HURT Obama. I hope he does NOT allow himself to be forced into doing so.

Carol

[pdxwoman]

10:35 AM on 03/11/2008

Ok let's all take a breather here and look at this a little objectively:

Hillary was the 'shoe-in' candidate last year, BUT she could'nt connect to the average American. I watched some debates where she was repeatedly referring to Bill's 'accomplishment's in office. She was rightly criticized for that because that is coat-tailing and disingenous. It just didn't work at all to win over anyone but affirm Clinton loyalists.The country is in much worse shape than it was in 1992 and people are looking for drastic CHANGE NOW!

Obama touched a nerve with people. He was able to connect on many levels. His detailed plans on how to change the status quo is resonating. His hopeful, inspiring message is giveing people what they have lost: hope. It's not a pipe dream at all. At a time, when we are facing a foreign policy disaster, mortgage crisis, health care crisis, economy in trouble, the one thing that can really generate SUCCESS in turning the disaster around that Bush created is HOPE! How are you going to get people to roll up their sleeves, pressure congress and support a president who wants to push through legislation without support of the people?

It's very easy: look what Bush did. He was able to push through all sorts of policies because of massive support by his voters. It was so strong, that even Dems caved ( that deserves a different discussion). However, IF we get a democrat president, he/she will NEED huge popular support to get anything done. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is not only a polarizing figure, but also DESPISED by the republican base who will pressure their representatives to work against ANYTHING she proposes regardless what it is.

That brings us to the GE. We all know that McCain doesn't have enthusiastic support of the republican voters, in fact it's clear their numbers in primaries have been down significantly. He can't energize them or motivate them., BUT if he runs against Clinton, SHE will be the one thing that will motivate them to come out to vote in HUGE numbers. The scenario is different if Obama is the dem nominee: most will just sit it out.

Bottom line: if the dems really want to WIN and get an opportunity by putting a president into office who will REVERSE the damage done by Bush, they need to nominate Obama. As bad as times are, the country cannot afford to go another 4 years of stalemate. People are dying in Iraq, in America and are losing homes,jobs, etc. Politics is not about personalities, its about creating a society and world that reflects our values.

I can understand how people can be loyal to the Clintons and that's admirable. It's just that she's too polarizing and frankly, with her attacks on Obama recently, she has turned alot of democrats and new democrat voters against her, which translates into NO support of her if she was president. We simply cannot afford that to happen.

We do need a democrat president, but we don't need one who simply can't get anything done because of a personality and history that only generates contempt and hate in the populace.

[EvoMan]

10:48 AM on 03/11/2008

I'd like to add to this. Senator Obama is going to the convention with a sizable lead in delegates and he will end up with the popular vote lead.

If the second place candidate somehow games the system to win the nomination, we will immediately cede the moral high ground to the Republicans in the GE. We'll be seen as undemocratic and we will deserve to lose.

[Prism]

10:27 AM on 03/11/2008

Good grief. Obama's "attack" employs yet another borrowed speech: "hoodwinked and bamboozled" is a
direct lift from one of Louis Farahkan's typical riffs. Obama flies close to the sun in evoking the controversial minister. Is this code to that community that he has not disavowed them after all? I can already see the juxtapositon of speeches on MSNBC - no, wait - what am I thinking? On CNN? No -wait - maybe on the only serious news outlet worth tuning in: Jon Stewart where are you?

[nazgul]

11:06 AM on 03/11/2008

Are all the words Farrakhan has used?

I think these words are used by a lot of people. Also, they are very accurate and expressive in this context.

[vcthree]

11:11 AM on 03/11/2008

Uh...aren't you confusing Farrakhan with MALCOLM X?

Good grief, indeed.