Bill is supposedly irked that he's assigned to speak about foreign policy and national security when he wants to talk about domestic policy. Why is that preference important? Two reasons are given: 1. "he is eager to speak about the economy and more broadly about Democratic ideas — emphasizing the contrast between the Bush years and his own record in the 1990s," and 2. the subject of foreign policy and national security restricts him to a dignified, statesmanlike presentation. I'd say this — if true — is: 1. incredibly narcissistic of Bill Clinton, and 2. striking evidence that Democrats minimize the Commander in Chief role of the President. Why should this be considered a second-rate assignment?
Further tension:
Some senior Obama supporters are irritated at how they perceive the Clintons fanned — or at a minimum failed to douse — stories that she was not even vetted as a possible vice presidential nominee. This is because she told Obama she preferred not to go through the rigorous process of document production unless she was really a serious contender, an Obama associate noted.So she was told she wasn't a serious contender! Why is that any less vexing to Clinton supporters? We'll vet you for appearances sake? No thanks. Obviously.
Patterico writes: "I guess when Obama said Hillary would be on anyone’s short list, he meant anyone’s but his."
Back to Politico:
A prominent Obama backer said some of Clinton’s lieutentants negotiating with the Obama team are “bitter enders” who presume that, rather than the Clintons reconciling themselves to Obama’s victory, it is up to Obama to accommodate them.What changed? Obama's failure to do well in the recent polls?
In fact, some senior veterans of Clinton’s presidential campaign do believe this....
The peevishness on both sides and the volume of behind-the-scenes catcalls are noteworthy because both the Clinton and Obama teams had resolved in pre-convention talks that it was overwhelmingly in the interests of both sides to get along.
:.
0 comments:
Post a Comment