Above all, the Vice Presidential nominee should be a person with leadership qualities of independent thought and military experience. Independent thought is important because the President will need to hear unvarnished comments from his V.P. on critical issues, especially those that are not shared by the President and his advisers. Rubber stamping a President's position on the issues does not speak well for the common good of the people or the nation. The V.P. has to back the President after he makes a decision, but he has to be that counter balance.
The military experience does not have to be in uniform, although that would be preferred. The experience could come from serving on the Armed Forces Service Committee, Foreign Policy Experience and other Military Experience that are active inside and outside of government. That is important because if the V.P. has that experience and has independent thought he will be able to balance the thoughts given to the President by our military leaders and others. We have a V.P. Dick Cheney who did the opposite in the run up to war with Iraq. He manipulated the intelligence and the military facts and threat that Iraq posed for the United States.
Senator Clinton would be more qualified to be President or Vice President than Senator Obama. But neither will be the V.P. nominee in my opinion. The Democratic Vice President Nominee will have to balance out Senator McCain's military experience because enough voters will view McCain's military experience as a problem for Democrats. The decision to go to war in Iraq was George Bush's decision alone. No one else made that decision but he, and he made that decision before congress ever voted for the resolution as Senator Chuck Hagel pointed out some time ago. Both Democrats and Republicans have been responsible for funding the war since it started. The Democratic party did try to restrict funds for the war after they took control of Congress but failed to have enough votes to do so.
The public really does not give much thought to the V.P. because it has not been often that a V.P. had to take control of the Presidency but we have been reminded how V.P. Cheney has abused his office and wielded power that no other V.P. in memory has had. There is no balance in the administration of Bush-Cheney. So the people should watch closely the choice of the Democratic nominee for his running mate. It will way something about the character of the Democratic Presidential nominee and where he will take the country. Experience does matter.
13 comments :
Don't be so quick to think McCain's military service will help him this November. Many service members don't support him because of his poor voting records on aid to veteran's and necessary equipment for our current troops.
Also, in 1992, George Bush was the veteran and he lost to a draft dodgar, Bill Clinton. In 1996, Draft Dodger Bill Clinton beat decorated war hero Bob Dole. In 2000, Draft dodger and AWOL air national guardsman George W Bush beat veteran Al Gore. In 2004, Draft dodger and AWOL air national guardsman George W Bush beat heavily decorated war hero John Kerry. The war veteran has lost the last 4 general elections!!!
What Obama needs in a vice presidential candidate is someone who can help him steal a purple state such as Virginia, North Carolina or Missouri. Having a strong female as a running mate, such as Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, would also help unify the party's current factions. The one person he definitely doesn't need is Hillary (assassinate in June) Clinton.
It will way something about the character of the Democratic Presidential nominee and where he will take the country.
~~~~~~~~~~~
"...where HE will take the country."? Freudian slip or realization finally seeping in?
It seems normal for the writer to say he instead of he/she, after all we have never been in this position before. But I will just repeat again, "It ain't over till its over."
Argo said...
It seems normal for the writer to say he instead of he/she, after all we have never been in this position before. But I will just repeat again, "It ain't over till its over."
~~~~~~~~~~
True. It just takes the loser a bit longer to realize when it's over. Hillary's like the head coach whose team is down by 20 with under two minutes to play and has her team keep fouling to prolong a game that's long over.
Evidently anonymous never played ball. There are some games won by that tatic. Any way its not weather you win or loose, its how you play the game that is important. Obama's supporters are mad because Senator Clinton's right to continue and let the people's vote be known. If they think its over, what is the problem. Excuses, Excuses.
Weather? If Hillary Clinton were to win every delegate at stake in Puerto Rico, Montana and South dakota, she still couldn't catch Obama in pledged delegates. The only way the Clinton campaign can win is by getting the super delegates to overturn the will of the voters who gave Obama more delegates than Clinton. To do so would be disastrous for the Democratic party in November.
Any poll that shows Hillary Clinton competitive with John McCain in November is assuming she WINS the nomination. If there's the appearance that she was given the nomination after Obama won it, she'll be lucky to carry ten states.
Another thing that would happen is the crossover Republican voters and the young voters who support Obama would be sufficiently turned off to either stay home in November or support John McCain as a protest vote. Either way, the delicate Democratic majority would be in real danger and the super delegates have already figured that out. Have you been paying attention to the flow of the super delegates? They're overwhelmingly coming out in support of Obama, even some prior Clinton supporters. After the June 3rd primary, enough of the remainer will endorse Obama to put him WELL over the top. He's less than 50 away now!!
Hillary Clinton and the audacity of spin
At long last we’re down to just three remaining primaries, South Dakota and Montana (where Barack Obama is favored to win) and Puerto Rico (where Hillary Clinton is expected to win).
And, surprise, surprise, according to the Clinton campaign, Puerto Rico is the crucial contest.
Why? Well, you see, there are a lot of Hispanic voters in Puerto Rico and winning Hispanic votes is apparently almost as important as winning the votes of “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.” This must be distinguished, of course, from winning the votes of well educated, young and black voters who aren’t nearly as important.
Confused? If so, you need to remember the Seventh Commandment (as modified) in George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Take that you latte drinkers!
And while we’re at it, some states, such as West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania, are, of course, simply more important than other states, such as Oregon, North Carolina and Wisconsin. The first group, after all, are the ones that will decide the election, as opposed to the second group which will be counted, but won’t decide the election because . . . well, just because they won’t.
Puerto Rico, which won’t even get to vote in the general election, is, nevertheless, also critically important because it is populated by people who are in certain respects similar to people in other states that are important. South Dakota and Montana, states which will be counted in the general election, on the other hand, aren’t important (unless Hillary scores an upset in which case they’ll become important) because not only are the states themselves not important, but they are also populated by people who are like people in other states that aren’t important.
Oh, audacity of spin, I do love you so!
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, while campaigning in South Dakota a couple days ago, angrily asserted that he has “never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running.” He went on to denounce the “frantic effort to push her out,” claiming that no one had ever tried to push prior losing Democratic candidates out early, which would be absolutely true if it weren’t for the fact that it isn’t as his own actions in 1992 establish.
And another indisputable fact is that Hillary has actually won the most popular votes, assuming, of course, that only the right sorts of votes are counted.
And, as we all know, this is still an extremely close contest, assuming you disregard the trifling fact that Obama has for all intents and purposes already won it.
All of which leads up to one question: just how far can Hillary push the spin? At what point does she stop being the scrappy fighter who refuses to surrender and become Mohammed Saeed, the infamous Iraqi Information Minister who declared one Iraqi victory after another as American tanks continued to roll across Iraq?
Sadly, it’s looking as though time will have to tell.
Endnote: I still respect Hillary Clinton and certainly honor her supporters’ decision. But if you’re going to stay in a contest long after you’ve lost it (doing harm in the process) and claiming all the while that you’re actually still in the ballgame, you can’t complain when people point the truth out (whatever my hero Paul Krugman thinks about it).
http://www.lastchancedemocracycafe.com/?p=1375
As of this writing Obama does not have the delegates necessary to win the democratic nomination. He may be close, but he is not there yet. Democrats who are willing to desert Clinton in the general election should she be the nominee deserve what they would get. As far as the Superdelegates go, the rules say they can vote for whomever they want so get over it. You would take A superdelegate who switched from Clinton to Obama but reject the opposite. That is a Republican ideology. I'm not afraid of letting the process run its course.
Argo said...
As of this writing Obama does not have the delegates necessary to win the democratic nomination. He may be close, but he is not there yet.
Response: No, but he'll have then after the middle of next week when the rest of the super delegates declare and the FL and MI delegation situation is resolved. Hillary will have no arguments left after that.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Argo said... Democrats who are willing to desert Clinton in the general election should she be the nominee deserve what they would get.
Response: I see no ideological difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Both candidates are strongly beholden to the special interests and corporations that control our government. How is voting for the status quo considered a vote for change?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Argo said... As far as the Superdelegates go, the rules say they can vote for whomever they want so get over it. You would take A superdelegate who switched from Clinton to Obama but reject the opposite. That is a Republican ideology. I'm not afraid of letting the process run its course.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't care who a super delegate votes for. Perhaps you misread something that I wrote. When I stated that overturning the vote of the elected delegates would be bad for the Democratic party down ticket, I was referring to the young voters and crossover voters who support Obama and would stay at home or switch back to McCain if the super delegates overturn the will of the people.
To anonymous: How is voting for Obama voting for change. What legislation has he introduced in Congress in the last four years represented change? We know he voted for Bush's energy bill which gave billions of corporate welfare money to the oil companies. So much for change. You are living in a dream world if you think their is no difference between Clinton and McCain, which shows you let your hatred for Clinton overrule your better judgement. The more the Clinton haters talk the more I like Sen. Clinton staying in the race untill it is over officially.
Anonymous decision to compare Clinton to Mohammed Saeed shows just how much hate he has for Clinton in his system. His hatred has warped his judgement. Any thing more he says will be taken with a grain of salt.
Mary P said...
Anonymous decision to compare Clinton to Mohammed Saeed shows just how much hate he has for Clinton in his system. His hatred has warped his judgement. Any thing more he says will be taken with a grain of salt.
~~~~~~~~~
Sorry about the confusion Mary P. The post in question was a reprint of an article I read on another website. I included the link to the article at the bottom but I should have prefaced my post to allow that it was an article posted elsewhere. Again, my bad. However, the gist of the post was about that one line. It was about how Clinton twists every primary into different scenarios. States that voted for Obama don't matter but even islands with no vote in November do!!
anonymous must be an expert at dancing the twist. I say that because he seems to twist everything Clinton says or does.
Post a Comment