I was reading this article about tension between Obama and Clinton supporters at the Democratic Convention in Denver. This paragraph in particular caught my attention and made me do a double-take:
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.
I admit to being slightly confused about this statement. Ms. Clinton was a presidential candidate, aspiring to the highest office of the land; and she doesn’t want to “go through the rigorous process of document production” unless she’s a serious contender for the VP position.
Does that mean it’s more difficult and detailed to produce background vetting documents if you’re a VP than it is if you’re actually the President? Wouldn’t you think that a President would have to be “vetted”, either within the party leadership or by the law of the land, to a greater degree than a VP? Or am I naive and uninformed about how the process works? Are Presidents held to a lesser standard in this area than those within their administration? Wouldn’t that be odd?
If anyone has a thought or explanation, I’d appreciate reading it.
this material in your RSS reader, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. http://the-word-of-