Conversation | 05/11/2008 11:16 am

Cokie Roberts on the Chances of an Obama-Hillary Ticket

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

And who exactly was Gen. Smedely Butler?

By immoddesta godessa on 05/13/2008 2:28 am

e-mail alert

WWI WAR HERO AUTHOR OF FAMOUS SHORT BOOK ‘WAR IS A RACKET’ http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm WOULDN’T HAVE LIKED THAT WAR MONGER HILLARY CLINTON

By Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye on 05/17/2008 1:23 pm

e-mail alert

If only people would realize that when ‘the high road’ is taken, things usually work out for the better-

By Why J9 on 05/12/2008 12:58 am

e-mail alert

WHY J9-RIGHT, MAYBE TELL THAT TO RACE-BAITING HILLARY CLINTON AS THE NY TIMES DID: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/group-tell-clinton-to-stop…

By Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye on 05/17/2008 1:26 pm

e-mail alert

If we assume for a minute that the interview was with Sen. Obama and he made these remarks - “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” he said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Obama cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Clinton’s support among working, hard-working Americans, African- Americans, is weakening again, and how African-Americans in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.” “There’s a pattern emerging here,” he said. -I am certain that the uproar would still be audible. Regardless of whether Sen. Clinton was engaging in “race-bating” or just using poor judgment when she was interviewed by USA Today, her facts were wrong. If Sen. Obama was not receiving the support of white Americans as well as African-American and members of other racial groups he wouldn’t be ahead in the vote.

By Maurine H on 05/12/2008 1:09 am

e-mail alert

HRC and her very expensive legion of “consultants” know the facts. So, lying to American people in particular geographic regions to manipulate them for votes, is why the blogosphere and non-traditional media is OUTRAGED. There is much at stake and Americans need to make an INFORMED DECISION — which our red-state friends did NOT do in 2000 and 2004. Republicans will manipulate those same voters w/red herrings, lies, race-baiting, class one-upmansship. We KNOW this. What is UNACCEPTABLE, is HRC running that kind of Campaign against fellow Democrats during a Nomination process — and sewing the seeds for Republicans to build upon this Fall for an outcome she well knows could once again be…a 3rd Bush term. Senator Obama is receiving votes from all quarters. Twisting, manipulating or maligning that FACT is being challenged by the blogosphere — and carefully by traditional media pundits, who wisely are realizing there is a sea-change afoot that may yet SWEEP THEM, their viability and relevancy to the heap along w/Clinton Inc. and pols who supported this General Election Campaign by a President/First Lady/sitting Senator against fellow Democrats during OUR Nomination process — and enrolling REPUBLICANS to buttress her activities. HRC et al MISMANAGED her Campaign and MISJUDGED the zeitgeist. She will NOT accept this. She will need VIDEO EVIDENCE she has lost — aka Bosnia. She will have it very shortly.

By Renata on 05/12/2008 11:14 am

e-mail alert

maurine, it seems to me that this that you report: “Obama cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Clinton’s support among working, hard-working Americans, African- Americans, is weakening again, and how African-Americans in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”” is just what hillary clinton did, only instead of african american she said white. why is it ok if obama does it but not if clinton does it?

By mary lou s on 05/14/2008 8:12 pm

e-mail alert

I think three men make the most strategic sense for Obama’s VP: 1) Senator Jim Webb from Virginia. He was a Republican. Was Secretary of Navy under Reagan. Is a decorated Vietnam Vet, a gun owner, and an author. With the 24/7 cut-throat Swift-Boating gearing-up now, he is an outstandingly articulate street-fighter who could verbally cut a battalion off at the knees. His qualities balance the ticket and offset McCain. Senator Webb is fantastically impressive, and will bring over disaffected Republicans, while still appealing to everyone else. All around great guy, photogenic family. 2). Wesley Clark: Retired four-star general. Valedictorian at West Point. Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. Decorated Vet. Silver Fox. Excellent speaker. Former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. When the brainiacs of the world meet for a confab at the Aspen Institute, Wes Clark is who wows them and brings them to their knees. He ran for president so already has a built-in national constituency and fan club. Militarily he out McCains McCain….plus he’s infinitely smarter and handsomer too. Adds gravitas to the ticket. Fantastically lovely older wife who was a hit during his presidential run. 3) Senator Chuck Hagel. A Republican, openly critical of the Bush Administration. He has famously said to question the government IS patriotic, and believes that the Iraq invasion and occupation was one of the top five biggest blunders in history. He’s also opposed much of the secrecy of the WH. He served on intelligence, security, financial and foreign policy committees and is a very successful entrepreneur. Also extremely articulate, ready for the Swift-Boat fire-fights. Mediagenic. Either Chuck Hagel or Wesley Clark would make excellent an excellent Secretary of Defense. If the VP went to Webb I’d tap Clark as Secretary of Defense, and bring Homeland Security under his aegis too. Chuck Hegel as Secretary of Commerce. John Edwards as AG. Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. And combine Agriculture, Interior, and EPA into a super agency headed by Bill Richardson. I haven’t figured out the rest of the cabinet. Mr. Obama, call me ;

By zut alors on 05/12/2008 1:24 am

e-mail alert

Great choices Suzanne. Webb for VP. I might change your cabinet a little though. Maybe Dianne Feinstein as Sec State, Chuck Hagel as Homeland Security, Wes Clark SecDef, Bill Richardson heading distribution of all intergovernmental foreign aid, and Hillary Clinton as first Supreme Court nominee

By yetischmeti 1 on 05/12/2008 1:47 am

e-mail alert

HRC for Supreme Court nominee….that’s thinking on all cylinders! Also believe we need to deep-six the Nazi-esque ‘Homeland Security’ tag. OK, then settled. Webb for VP. I’m happy. Maybe we should start a pool.

By zut alors on 05/12/2008 2:43 am

e-mail alert

NEVER. We are a diverse Nation and her balkanized view of the American ethnic tapestry — let along her Bosnia delusions and refusal to stop lying when even Sinbad thankfully openly told the truth, mocking him as “just a comedian” — until there was VIDEO EVIDENCE — recuses her from a seat on the Supreme Court. Again, HRC should have stopped and should stop now - throwing hail mary passes that will have CONSEQUENCES later down the road. That would be the responsible and mature way to stand down. Several other Democratic candidates have made this wise decision w/less DRAMA and angst. Oh, I forgot, we are dealing with the Clintons…here.

By Renata on 05/12/2008 11:45 am

e-mail alert

I like Wes Clark. However, he would have to DIVORCE Clinton Inc., not extend or impose or solicit FAVORS to the same — as repayment of out-of-Office debts incurred by the same to the Foundation, Library, SPEECHES, etc. With that said, I am fascinated by the discussion(s) regarding who Barack chooses. Certainly, after running the best Campaign apparatus in the history of the US — from a running start — against the most powerful political BRAND/MACHINE — and, finally motivating our children to GET INVOLVED and assume their civic responsibilities — he should take his time and CAREFULLY make HIS decision based upon what serves his vision of leadership, and evaluation of the MAJOR challenges we face - simultaneously. Certainly he deserves NOT to be pressured in this very personal matter of who HE wants/needs to rely upon to help him assume this awesome responsibility and CLEAN UP THIS ROYAL MESS?

By Renata on 05/12/2008 11:24 am

e-mail alert

Renata—I know—we’re having some fun. Senator Obama will make a clear, reasoned choice as he has in this campaign all along. But I still will hope it’s one of the three above—even while liking others. On the national scene I can’t personally fathom others who would more balance the ticket and assure his win. And at this point, that’s the laser focus for me.

By zut alors on 05/12/2008 11:39 am

e-mail alert

Suzanne: I understand. I am perfectly fine representing an alternative view in this community of pro-HRC supporters. I understand and respect their wanting to support HRC, because when I voted for her TWICE for the Senate w/misgivings that have now been borne out — I did so because I wanted to support her to reposition her life after the White House years — and, because she has some basic competence. I marginalized the memory of the HEALTHCARE debacle and her being sidelined by Bill’s own White House team to traditional First Lady status. I ignored the Maggie Williams scandal and others. I bought into the vast “Right-Winged Conspiracy” — and, though it was real, I now KNOW did not mean Democrats should have made the kinds of COMPROMISES we did to ignore the Clinton’s OWN “issues.” I am learning a ton from a very pro-HRC environment about how I and other Democrats allowed ourselves to COMPROMISE our own principles — to support the Clintons and ignore their standards/issues. We were lulled into believing these were COMPROMISES we had to make to WIN. This time, we don’t have to make those COMPROMISES…something Clinton Inc. did not expect and are VERY ANGRY about. Understood. Progress always come with a COST and, fortunately, the majority of Americans have historically been willing to PAY the tab for the caboose! So be it!

By Renata on 05/12/2008 11:55 am

e-mail alert

I like those choices for VP, Suzanne. Earlier in the campaigns I’d thought an Obama/Clinton ticket would be a good thing, but in recent weeks I’ve changed my mind. Webb is such a strong personality…I have a lot of respect for his sense of ethics and it would be in keeping with Obama’s philosophy of uniting the parties to consider him. I’ve always been impressed with Hagel. I’m less familiar with Clark even though he’s been on the scene a great deal. Of course, Sen. Obama must be considering Richardson, as well.

By Maurine H on 05/12/2008 12:14 pm