Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Conversation | 05/11/2008 11:16 am

Cokie Roberts on the Chances of an Obama-Hillary Ticket

© Shutterstock

LESLEY: You know, Hillary gave an interview to USA Today last week, and people are interpreting what she said as race-baiting.

COKIE: Yeah. I think that’s wrong. I really do.

Click here to read the first part of Lesley Stahl’s interview with Cokie Roberts.

LESLEY: Well let’s tell everyone what she said. There was a suggestion that the white vote will never go to Obama. Something like that. So why don’t you think that was race-baiting?

COKIE: Well, because what she was doing was describing what her vote was. And her description was 100 percent accurate. It’s become very difficult in this country to use words like "white." I must say, through this campaign I have found it interesting and disturbing that even though we are happily at a place in our history where it is not appropriate, and considered inappropriate, to say anything negative about race, it is apparently just fine to say things negative about sex. And we certainly saw that in the course of this campaign.

I do think that she probably shouldn’t have used the word she used, but we use these words in talking about the exit polls all the time. She gets the majority of the white vote. She gets an overwhelming majority of the lower income white vote and of voters who have traditionally been up for grabs in the general election.

LESLEY: You know, it’s interesting because if you are at all sympathetic to Sen. Clinton, then you give her the benefit of the doubt. And if you’re really for Obama, you saw race-baiting. It’s interesting.

COKIE: But that’s true about everything now. I mean, it makes me nuts. The truth is that nobody gives anybody the benefit of the doubt. And part of this is the ferocity of the blogosphere — that people are all evil on the other side and they’re all doing something terrible. And that is the way our politics is these days. And Barack Obama might say constantly that he wants to get beyond that and bring people together and all that. But that certainly has not been true of his supporters.

LESLEY: No. Cokie, one last question on this: Do you think there is any chance at all that they would form a ticket together – Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

COKIE: I think there’s a chance. But I think it would be a really stupid thing for the Democratic Party. I mean, again, if this was the year for the generic white guy, you certainly want him as the vice president — probably a white man, preferably a gun owner, from a swing state. I mean, to have two liberal senators from states that are going to go Democratic anyway …

LESLEY: What about a Hispanic … a Catholic Hispanic governor? There is one.

COKIE: We’re talking Bill Richardson.

LESLEY: Yeah.

COKIE: Well, that could happen.

LESLEY: Yeah.

COKIE: That could happen.

Related Headlines

Everything I Hate About Myself I See in Hillary, by Judy Bachrach

Who Stands to Gain the Most in Indiana and North Carolina: Clinton, Obama or the Republicans? by Lesley Stahl

wOw’s Views on the News: Will Pinocchio be the Next U.S. President?

Marlo Thomas: The Media Steals Our Chances of a Fair Election

wOw’s Views on the News: Is Rev. Wright Leading to the Demise of the Obama Campaign?

wOw’s Views on the News: Is It Time for Clinton or Obama to Throw in the Towel?

Poll: Did Sen. Obama Clinch the Democratic nomination last night?

158 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye
The ‘blogosphere” is the Wild West. It’s only an odd territory for people who don’t know how to use it.
By Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye on 05/17/2008 1:11 pm
Frank Peterson
For me it’s the only sensible thing the Dems can do. Yet I still may be too early to answer this properly.
By Frank Peterson on 05/12/2008 12:35 am
Diana T
I am hoping that Bill Richardson is chosen, no matter who runs for President. I have been saying this from the get-go.
By Diana T on 05/12/2008 9:06 am
zut alors
Diana, Bill Richardson seems to be universally beloved. Since the world is on edge, and he is so brilliant on the environment, my wish is that there is a new cabinet level position (EPA is already cabinet) much more expansive EPA, renamed, beyond ‘protection’ with really Teddy Roosevelt-like environmental sense. The time is ripe, and Bill Richardson would be the absolute perfect person.
By zut alors on 05/12/2008 1:32 pm
Renata
Also, unlike the equivocating John Edwards, Bill Richardson stood up and repudiated not only HRC’s candidacy, but the lowball strategies against fellow Democrats. He bravely stood up for principle, endured their horrendous WRATH — so other weak and fearful Party elites could begin to do so. John Edwards is STILL fence-sitting, not adding value to the discussion and actually propping this DRAMA up over the weekend by saying it should CONTINUE. Question: Then why didn’t he stay in??? Answer: He left early for HRC to advance…but, hedges an endorsement just in case Barack takes it. Nice. Give me Bill Richardson anytime!
By Renata on 05/12/2008 2:41 pm
zut alors
Renata—For me I’m tired of the enablers and the wishy-washy. The new Democrats need to reframe clearly, strongly and quit reacting to the lunatic right (ie not the moderates with brains like Hagel, or Jeffords, who re-registered Indy.) I’m VERY glad for Arianna Huffington’s new book. It will be an instant best-seller just from Huffingtonpost.com DailyKos.com alternet.org Truthout, talkingpointsmemo.com, Buzzflash, etc. It will be the manifesto for millions…talked about, adopted. The Back to the Stone-Ages Flat-Earthers need to be exposed for what they are.
By zut alors on 05/12/2008 2:57 pm
Renata
I have to pick up Arianna’s book today, when I finish proofing for the day! Yes. We have to be firm, steadfast and not REACT to the ridiculous, as Democrats have done since 1992 — making all kinds of compromises that lack integrity, in order to address the Republican juggernaut. We are no further ahead, and left ourselves open to Republican criticisms of lacking INTEGRITY and VALUES because of our support of the Clintons in the 1990s. Democrats, including Al Gore, paid a price we no longer have to pay. We have a superior choice.
By Renata on 05/12/2008 3:04 pm
Frannie Em
Frank: re:12:35 do you think she really wants it? Do you think Obama would want Bill hanging around. Obama’s presidency would always have that in the shadow, and her in the shadow. How would she really feel with that? - Or? would she rather wait it out to see if McCain gets it and then she can campaign in 2012 - How old will she be - late 60’s? I am not sure that would be the right thing for either of them. It is a tough situation for the democratic party.
By Frannie Em on 05/12/2008 2:03 pm
Renata
Here’s a QUESTION that should presage ANY joint ticket discussion. Can Hillary function professionally WITHOUT BILL’s involvement/support/facilitation? Can she do so in ANY capacity? How far does this two-fer/FUSION go? Where are the lines? Are there ANY? I have NEVER seen evidence that she can. Even when we voted for Hillary in NY, we felt safe taking the risk because she campaigned WITH BILL every step of the way and he VALIDATED HER EVERY STEP OF THE WAY — as he has done this year. Would any other female lawyer, Board member, SENATOR…require this? Where/when does it STOP? This question needs vetting and should have gotten vetting BEFORE this Nomination process began. It most assuredly would/should require vetting before HRC supporters’ continued attempts to impose her on the ticket. Further, there is no evidence the Clintons have coattails downstream or for the Party. Quite the opposite, evidenced by Bill Clinton’s 2008 divisive Campaign/strategy. Divide and conquer has run its course. There is little evidence the Clintons can run a Campaign or manage a White House and LEADERSHIP any other way.
By Renata on 05/12/2008 2:19 pm
zut alors
Renata- I don’t think that’s completely fair. Many political couples seem like a lock-solid two-fer. The Obamas are too. They both had other careers besides this campaign, and so did Hillary before they came to WDC. BC has said he helps her now (and in the Senate race) because she put her career on hold for his and it was her time. John Kerry and his wife, McCain and his, there are many political couples that come to mind as a team. The Clintons more forcefully because that’s their style. Like them or not…anyone would like a mate that bolsters their career to the extent possible. That’s partnership. The whole BC/Monica payback by the Right was a response to HRC’s prosecution of Nixon.
By zut alors on 05/12/2008 2:38 pm
Renata
Michelle Obama will wisely not invite or entertain a two-fer couple that includes Bill Clinton into the VP residence. The Clintons’ two-fer version of power couple comes with a price. The healthcare debacle, scandals and impeachment are derivatives of this FUSION. Fused power couples doesn’t always equal fused careers. Bill Clinton’s commoditizing ACCESS, while his wife if NY Senator or a President/VP — is unacceptable. Further, the law does not permit a 3rd Clinton term, which was one of the major reasons Mayor Mike (Bloomberg) was willing to spend a $100mil (exactly equal to what the NYC-hedge funds, etc. has raised for HRC) to run AGAINST them. So, while I agree with your premise, I also agree the Clintons have, are and will push the boundaries to what is universally acceptable standards in ANY scenario — including the role of power couples.
By Renata on 05/12/2008 2:51 pm
josepha leyba
JOSEPHA The main reason that Obama ‘Took off’ so quickly was that many Democrats were soo very tired of Hillary. big mistake to run them together
By josepha leyba on 05/12/2008 7:50 pm
zut alors
Josepha— While I don’t agree that it is the main reason Obama shot out of the gate like the champ at the Kentucky Derby…..I do agree that at least half the democrats and extremely tired of HRC and want her to go away.
By zut alors on 05/13/2008 1:19 am
Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye
NO HILLARY NOW OR EVER—-NO HILLARY 2008 WEBSITE ALL HER DIRTY DEALINGS http://www.nohillary2008.org/
By Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye on 05/17/2008 1:20 pm
C A Rose
Cokie, I bet you never thought your comments would generate the most posts (500) to a single issue since I have been coming to WoW. I hardly knew where to slide a comment in or if I even wanted to jump into the fray. What worries me about this election is what the incoming President is going to have to get his/her head around after taking the oath of office. Our earth is weeping from her polar caps. In the face of human disaster in Burma people are not receiving aid because of political distrust by a military dictatorship. All over the world children are starving, women are being raped, wars are being waged, respect is being lost, we are sucking our earth dry for oil, and she is weeping so that we might finally pay attention to something bigger than ourselves. I am very sad, and I am weeping for my mother earth…
By C A Rose on 05/12/2008 12:52 am