Battle of Wits: Clinton goes first

From the NYTimes:

In another televised interview, Mrs. Clinton said her close race with Mr. Obama might result in a shared ticket. Speaking on CBS’s Early Show, she said, “Well, that may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket.” She said her victory in Ohio indicated that the choice should be her.

Oooo, this is fiendishly clever. Here’s what this little blurb was about:

1. The party is divided and she shows leadership by offering a very reasonable solution.
2. She is starting to condition the voters to believe that Obama will work under her. That’s also very reasonable. She wins the experience argument and she’s nailed down the states with the big electoral college votes. Her husband’s administration comes with the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. She’s a known commodity. She’s been more efficient in her strategy even if Obama has managed to wrack up a lot of delegates through states we don’t have a prayer of getting in November. Plus, recent polls suggest that 2/3 of all Democratic voters did not want her to drop out if she hadn’t won Texas, suggesting we *want* a Clinton/Obama ticket (well, *I* don’t but I’ll take what I can get)
3. With this idea floating in the voters’ minds, they can more comfortably vote for her knowing they won’t have to sacrifice one for the other and they can tie this up quickly. She should pull in higher margins in the remaining states.
4. It puts Obama on the defensive. It’s hard to argue with the logic of the solution. All that’s left to decide is who is on top. She beats him on #2 so many voters will find his hesitation to accept such an offer stubborn, petulant and divisive. Clinton can hammer that home by saying that voters want to wrap this up already and concentrate on going after McCain. She boxes him into a corner.
5. It makes it harder for Obama to go negative on her. If there is a public expectation that he will share her ticket, they will want a show of cooperation and comity from both candidates. On the other hand, she can always say, “I tried to unite the party but he wanted none of it.”

Your turn, Barry.

Barry’s first attempt, from the Politico.

On a joint ticket:
“We are just focused on winning the nomination. That is my focus. I respect Sen. Clinton. She has been a tenacious opponent. It is premature to talk about a joint ticket.”

and

“I hope people start asking is what exactly is this foreign experience she is claiming,” he said. “Was she handling crises during this period of time? I haven’t seen any evidence that she is more equipped to handle a crisis.

“She made the experience argument and her ability to handle a crisis, so I think it is important to examine that claim and not just allow her to assert it,” he added. “She has made the argument that she is thoroughly vetted. If the suggestion is somehow that on issue of ethics or disclosure or transparency that she is somehow going to have a better record than I have or could (better) withstand Republican attack, then that should be tested.”

“I believe I am in a much stronger position to run against Republicans,” he said.

Hmmmm, not going to do it, Barry. We just don’t see you beating her on foreign policy especially after she had a hand in getting Madeleine Albright appointed SOS. Then, there’s General Wesley Clark, a Clintonista, remember him?

And as for going after SNL, it’s satire, Barry. They only get involved when the level of absurdity in current events reaches a critical threshold. They are equal opportunity ridiculers. Hillary also gets her share of abuse. But the point of the SNL ribbing in the past few weeks was aimed at the media, not you. Lighten up, already.