Obama's running mate -- not WHO but HOW and WHY
I might as well weigh in on this, for all the difference it won't make.
I don't see anyone (except ONE writer I'll mention below) who is actually making sense about how to decide who Senator Obama should select, i.e., base his decision on what a President should want from a Vice President.
Because, frankly, Barack Obama should be able to win against John McCain even if he ran alone, without ANY VP candidate.
McCain is a man who is repeatedly -- and tiresomely -- billed as "the straight-talking candidate" which is grating and irritating, since these days, his only solid stable continuing principle on issues seems to be -- obviously -- "Any way the wind blows"
If Obama can't beat John McCain on his own, he doesn't have what it takes to be president.
But, I read this in a blog and can't remember which one, which is annoying because I would love to give credit where it's due.
The blogger said (and I believe he or she was quoting someone else) that the choice of who to select as a running mate should not be made on the basis of who will help the presidential candidate get elected, but who will help the president govern and get RE-ELECTED.
Despite all the debating and arguing and strategic planning, even the people who are doing the arguing seem to recognize (and often say) that people don't vote on the basis of the running mate.
-----------------------------
I'm not plumping for any one in particular, although I am wary of one -- and as I've said before, I don't know what sort of sin I'm committing by agreeing with anything said by that animatronic Vril, Mitt Romney, but I do agree on this one statement (although Romney said it about a reason not to let Senator Clinton become President).
He delivered this one-liner that someone obviously wrote for him, since he delivered it with all the lack of style and rotten timing of some smartass 9th grade kid in a class play.
He said that he was afraid of Bill Clinton alone in the White House with nothing to do.
Me too, even if it's the Naval Observatory.
I don't see anyone (except ONE writer I'll mention below) who is actually making sense about how to decide who Senator Obama should select, i.e., base his decision on what a President should want from a Vice President.
Because, frankly, Barack Obama should be able to win against John McCain even if he ran alone, without ANY VP candidate.
McCain is a man who is repeatedly -- and tiresomely -- billed as "the straight-talking candidate" which is grating and irritating, since these days, his only solid stable continuing principle on issues seems to be -- obviously -- "Any way the wind blows"
If Obama can't beat John McCain on his own, he doesn't have what it takes to be president.
But, I read this in a blog and can't remember which one, which is annoying because I would love to give credit where it's due.
The blogger said (and I believe he or she was quoting someone else) that the choice of who to select as a running mate should not be made on the basis of who will help the presidential candidate get elected, but who will help the president govern and get RE-ELECTED.
Despite all the debating and arguing and strategic planning, even the people who are doing the arguing seem to recognize (and often say) that people don't vote on the basis of the running mate.
-----------------------------
I'm not plumping for any one in particular, although I am wary of one -- and as I've said before, I don't know what sort of sin I'm committing by agreeing with anything said by that animatronic Vril, Mitt Romney, but I do agree on this one statement (although Romney said it about a reason not to let Senator Clinton become President).
He delivered this one-liner that someone obviously wrote for him, since he delivered it with all the lack of style and rotten timing of some smartass 9th grade kid in a class play.
He said that he was afraid of Bill Clinton alone in the White House with nothing to do.
Me too, even if it's the Naval Observatory.
posted by Saintperle at
11:17 AM
