Is it 'Gall' or 'Clinton Entitlement' for HRC to Propose that Obama Take the VP Slot?
Posted by Damozel | In a post that I also addressed here, Andrew Sullivan brings up one of the sillier and most self-defeating arguments to come from Obama's supporters---and AS now seems to believe as firmly in the righteousness of Obama as he once believed in the righteousness of Bush and the Iraq War:
I still think the Clintons cannot believe the gall of anyone daring to challenge their power or their specious self-regard. I've said it before, but imagine if Clinton had won over a dozen primaries in a row, was ahead in the delegate count, ahead in the popular vote, and way ahead in the number of states won. Don't you think the pressure on Obama to pull out would be enormous? And wouldn't Clinton regard his persistence as treachery? And yet Clinton in the exact same situation carries on, with a minimal chance of victory,and actually had the gall to offer Obama a veep slot. Who on earth does she think she is? At best it's pure Clinton entitlement. At worst it's white entitlement.
We've given kudos to Andrew Sullivan on more than one occasion---for conceding that he was wrong on Iraq, for his principled stance on torture, and for helping to persuade some Republicans that it would be all right for them to repudiate Bush's policies, but come on: isn't this just a little over the top?
After all, the campaign for the first post-Bush presidency is a little more of a serious matter than a campaign to be president of the student body.
The half of the Democratic party that believes Hillary is not only more qualified, but much more qualified than Obama to lead the country after Bush, think she is not only entitled to go on fighting as long as there is even a minimal chance but that she has the duty to.
Nor is the offer to Obama to run as Vice President of the United States---the logical successor to the presidency if the Dems do the right thing--- exactly treating him as a second-class citizen.
It was
good enough for quite a few of our past presidents, I seem to recall, even some who ultimately became far better known than their erstwhile running-mates. Many politicians, I suspect, would love to be demeaned by a request to run as the presidential candidate's presumptive successor.
Poor Andrew Sullivan, who is so right on topics such as Iraq and indispensable on torture, really does have a severe case of Clinton derangement syndrome if he's convinced himself that Hillary's persistence isn't backed by quite a substantial base of support from Democrats.
As to his heated question "Who on earth does she think she is?", why, the answer would be, "She's HILLARY CLINTON."
And to many Dems, that means something very different than what Andrew Sullivan would like for it to mean.
RELATED POSTINGS
Note to my Fellow Dems: Lighten Up, or It will be Raining McCain (Illustrative Video Included)
Dept of Desperate Diversions: Obama Aide Compares Bill Clinton to Joseph McCarthy
Carville on the Ingratitude of Bill Richardson
Clinton's, McCain's and Obama's Passport Files Breached
Richardson Endorses Obama, Praises him as a Unifier?
Flag Officers Explain Why Hillary Would be a Better Commander-in-Chief
Executive Director of NY Civil Rights Coalition: "Obama Blew It"
Comments