Friday, March 21, 2008

Obama's Future VP???

Governor Bill Richardson will formally endorse Sen. Obama this morning. .e and I were discussing him as a possible VP for Obama the other day, and I think he might be the best guy out there for the job. He has more (and better) experience than anyone else that was in the race, including McCane. He has been an ambassador, a cabinet member, congressman, and a governor. He would balance the ticket by helping Obama with his two biggest weaknesses: Hispanics and those who do not think he has enough foreign policy experience. Furthermore, Obama balance's Richardson's greatest weakness, his lack of charisma.

As I sit and watch Sen. Clinton and Mark Penn and their master plan to elect the Republican nominee, and the temporary results of their behavior, I wonder how this can all end on a positive note? If Clinton really cared about the issues she claims to care about, she would have dropped out long ago. They care about power. Like any good student of Machiavelli, power is an end in of itself.

I do think that Democrats will come together and today's polls just reflect bitterness that occurs in the heat of battle, but this thing needs to end before we have irreconcilable differences.

8 comments:

alzaido alzaido said...

I agree Sal, Bill Richardson would make a superb running mate. Richardson’s endorsement today speaks volumes considering his relationship with the Clintons, his diverse political career, and his Mexican heritage.

A lot of the views being expressed by political analysts and voters suggest a growing civil war within the Democratic Party. I decline to join in with this sentiment. One of the arguments presented in the linked article states that voters will not be happy if the “other” candidate receives the party nomination. Of course they won’t! Everybody wants the team that they are rooting for to win; however, I do not believe that there is or will be a major rift within the party. Obama and Clinton are both outstanding candidates. Say what you will about Clinton, but she is like a beautiful sparkling diamond compared to the dull lead bullet Bush.

kreplech said...

alzaido - you're right, we are lucky enough to have two great candidates. i prefer obama based on his ability to motivate the electorate and his steady pursuit of "high-road" ethics - i do believe that the obama and clinton campaigns have presented, so-far, what appears to be a draw policy-wise. i also believe that there is - and has been - a growing rift in the democratic party. the new progressives are not represented by dlc associated democrats... and those "establishment democrats" in the dlc are the same ones that will kill the 50 state strategy, remove dean from his position as chairman of the dnc, and continue to support more centrist policies. choosing whether to align with dlc vs. dnc is easy for a far-left liberal as myself - what isn't easy is finding the clearly drawn line that links obama to a side. maybe his strength is that he refuses to take a side - but there is still a part of me that fears a centrist obama administration (given our current political circumstances, perhaps "fear" is entirely too strong of a word).

.e. said...

Yo B Rich. Where where you at before the Texas voting? This could have been over already.

alzaido alzaido said...

Yes Kreplech, I understand your point in regards to a growing rift. After reflecting some more I have come to realize that the growing rifts within the Democratic and Republican parties are due to the natural evolution of the political system. People within each party are definitely not all of the same perspective in regards to many matters, so we break voters up by classifying them as far to the left or right and in other such means. Candidates who ride the middle line can pick up a lot of votes because they appeal to the masses on both sides. That is to say they are not to liberal and they are not to conservative; although, the terms liberal and conservative have seemed to evolve in meaning much over the years too. I suppose it is just a matter of time before each of our two major parties splits into unique factions. This is no different then religions splitting into an array of sects to accommodate differing views. Once the parties separate into sects, they will never be able to form a universal party again. The reason that the two party system has worked for so long is that if one of them split, the votes would be reduced by half; and therefore, would be unable to compete with the other side. As always, it will be interesting to see how things play out.

As for me, like I mentioned before I live in Florida, it would be nice to live in a country where my vote actually counts. I hope that the US turns into such a country in the near future.

Bradda said...

You guys all live in America. Your votes don't count. Get used to it.
Total amount of money spent on campaigning this election cycle: 790 million dollars. For all candidates together. Could that money have been spent better? If your not rich and white, America's political system has nothing for you.

kreplech said...

bradda - where do you live?

Bradda said...

In Willy Wonka's factory.

Sal Kilmister said...

blind thought.