Over the course of the week we have been hit with suggestion after suggestion of the "Dream Ticket", with Hillary on top. I noted for example, the absurdity of Obama being told to "bow", and by the weekend Hillary and Bill had repeated these suggestions to the media.
While I would simply attribute this case of either the Clintons trying to make a new version of their "2 for the price of 1" voting strategy ("Vote for me and you'll get Obama too!") - or simply the "Bargaining" stage of the grief over their campaign, unfortunately for the Clintons it exposes a
massive contradiction that VASTLY undermines any claims that Obama is giving anyone else the 'wink wink'. After hitting Obama over the head with the kitchen sink, after her harsh words that McCain and herself would bring a lifetime of experience and Obama would bring a speech, how the hell does she justify ALSO saying that he should be her Veep? She has made it clear that Obama doesn't cross her twisted idea of the experience threshold, and yet she'd have him one tragedy away from getting the supposed 3am call?
Sure we've seen George Bush Sr. call Reagan's plan "voodoo economics", we've seen Edwards give Kerry a tough go and still get the slot, but when you make a case against someone the way the Clintons do, how do you get past something like this?
By being completely insincere:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...
But given the Clinton camp's implicit argument that Obama is not ready to be commander-in- chief or handle a 3:00 am phone call, Clinton was asked why then would she consider Obama for the No. 2 spot. "That's politics," Clinton said, not taking the bait, as he would put it.
Meanwhile today we get this gem from Wolfson
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/...
Hillary Clinton chief spokesman Howard Wolfson declared Monday that Clinton does not consider Obama qualified to be vice president.
Still, Wolfson said Clinton would not "rule out" Obama as a potential vice president, in the event the Illinois senator is somehow able to prove he meets the test for commander-in-chief between now and Denver.
Somehow I doubt we'll be hearing much in the media about Hillary wanting to have it both ways with her pro and anti-Obama supporters. And theres probably a big reason why:
A big problem for Obama's campaign is that he is still unscarred enough to get shamed by little gaffes. The Clintons' have built up a callous of shamelessness that we have become so accustomed to that not a soul feels particularly concerned when they trot out the most obviously dishonest histrionics. This is where the "Obama bias" argument falls flat - Hillary has survived her countless screaming fits and exaggerations through the media's complacency, familiarity, and at times boredom, with their typical load of crap.