Posted on 07/25/2007 6:37:16 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Amidst all the MSM analysis of the dust-up between Hillary and Obama over his statement at the CNN/YouTube debate that he would commit to meet with the world's worst dictators in his first year in office, I haven't noticed anyone observing the obvious: that with her statement on the subject, Hillary has made it virtually impossible for herself to name Obama as her VP running-mate. To see why this is true, consider the kind of ad that the Republican candidate would inevitably run if Hillary were to tap Obama for the Veep spot . . .
As images of terrorism play across the screen, a dead-serious voiceover intones: "Terrorism. It could threaten the very survival of our country. Dealing with the dictators who threaten our nation might be the most important matter confronting our next president. Hillary Clinton says Barack Obama is "naive and irresponsible" when it comes to that. What does it say about Hillary Clinton that she wants him to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?"
Let's monitor the MSM. Kudos to the first poster who finds an instance of the MSM connecting the dots . . .
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
Obama out as VP? Ping to Today show list.
Not so. Writer is naiively assuming political things hinge on absolutes.
Politics (except at FR) is actually nuanced and fluid. Hillary and Barack could easily come up with a statement to explain the difference-—12 or 13 months from now, if anybody that matters can remember.
All will be forgotten.
And HRH Hillary, she of the fair white skin, is against that??
Nah, what this country really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really needs a president with leadership skills.
Hmmmm . . . intriguing. Who (would you say) her next choice might be? Not paying enough attention to Democratic insider discussion, I’m not sure who the next favorite is.
Logic need be of no concern here. If Dukkakis could run with Bentsen...
She never was going to tap this nobody. I think it will be Bill Richardson. Actually I wish she would pick Obama. Richardson will be more difficult because he appears so darn reasonable even when he’s blowing smoke. He’s a Clinton class seasoned liar. Obama is a babe who is not fooling enough people.
True — but then who would be voting for a communist with fat legs backed up by black teenager with Hussein as a middle name?
If they had been voting for that pair in the first place, there’s no policy logic that will sway them.
We will be seeing a lot of these: 
Ok, I’m in.
What better way to give Mr. Obama experience than to have him learn under the wings of Hillary? This way, a talented young new Progressive can learn under her tutelage. Vice President for Eight Years, President afterwards.
It actually would be a good move for both - if Hillary and Obama can endure a ticket with two rock-stars.
Can someone please explain to the author the word naivite’?
As the author of the original article, let me say that I might be naive, but that tape of Hillary calling Obama “naive and irresponsible” on a grave national security matter isn’t going away. They could try to spin it, but I think it would be very harmful to her campaign.
Nope, she’ll take him under her wing, so to speak (awful thought, I know) and bring him up to speed as a VP and groom him for the follow up.
I hope that the tension between the Clinton and Obama gets so heavy that they almost come to blows.
I think the African American community would be extremely deflated if it is a close nasty race and Hillary names someone else as her VP.
They might not be as enthusiatic to support her. 80% probably wouldn’t switch and vote for the Republican but many might choose to stay home on voting day.
I am the author, so please go ahead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.