Initially I intended to write a very different blog, but while researching that blog I came across the following quote that rocked me into reality:

While the nation was having a good laugh at the expense of Florida's hanging chads and butterfly ballots, Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi were there, in Florida, learning to drive commercial jetliners (and ram them into the World Trade Center towers). It will take a novelist to paint that broad canvas properly. It will take some deep political thinking to understand how the lackadaisical attitude toward government and the world helped leave the country so unready for the horror that Atta and Shehhi were preparing. -- Michael Oreskes, New York Times, October 21, 2001.

History proves that al-Qaeda likes to strike within 7-10 year cycles. History also shows that al-Qaeda likes to take advantage of transition times in United States politics. In other words, al-Qaeda knows that new administrations are more vulnerable and ripe for attack. A sobering fact to think about while we witness the back-stabbing, squabbling, and fratricide spewing between the Obama and Clinton camps.

Yes, there is much dramatic debate revolving around the comparative experience (or relative inexperience) of both Clinton and Obama. Swirling questions as to who is better qualified to answer the menacing phone ringing at 3 a.m. In fact, some people -- namely Obama's foreign policy expert Susan Rice -- feel that neither Clinton and Obama are experienced to answer that phone call. Let's hope she misspoke.

But the truth is that both Clinton and Obama would probably handle the phone call in similar ways. They would do their best to remain calm and lead our country in a time of crisis. Who wouldn't?

They would then turn to their advisors and seek their counsel. Would there be any line of demarcation separating such advice -- in other words, does either candidate have a superior set of advisors? Not really. Frankly, both Clinton and Obama have very similar advisors who would most likely offer the same sort of advice. And that advice would be status quo.

Most campaign advisors for both Clinton and Obama are former Clinton administration personnel: Sandy Berger, Richard Holbrooke, Madeleine Albright are advising Hillary Clinton; Richard Clarke, Roger Cressey, Anthony Lake are advising Obama. Not much difference there really. Just more of the same. (Of course, I would choose any of these guys over some of McCain's choices like Henry Kissinger!)

It's bad enough that the likes of Karl Rove and the Republican attack machine are plotting and planning to hold onto the White House for their "100 more years of war."

It's even worse that al-Qaeda is plotting and planning for an attack on our homeland to kill thousands of innocents.

Perhaps worse still is that our troops are being killed on the battlefield and suffering painfully in veterans' hospitals daily.

Adding to our worries is the looming recession that is already causing people to lose their homes, their jobs and their savings.

But perhaps most of all, we need to realize that we are not showing leadership with our current behavior. Folks, we have got to get our priorities in order. The runaway train of the Democratic Party needs to stop. And somebody needs to take control.

I think it was refreshing to see that Hillary Clinton recently mentioned the concept of a unity ticket. And yes, maybe she mentioned it because she is currently behind in the delegate count. But, she still gets accolades for offering the possibility on the morning after winning Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island.

I am dismayed that Obama would not consider a unity ticket yet -- according to him, it is too premature to contemplate. That's a shame. But it reminds me of another time when Obama spoke about being way too premature.

In November 2004, Oprah asked Obama if he would be the first black President. Obama's response:

Listen, if you're in politics at a certain point you think about where to take your career. But at this stage, it's way too premature. Politics is a marathon. So many things can change. You can't plan 12 years ahead. But what I will say is this: We can win the race we're in now. I think I have the aptitude to be a terrific U.S. Senator. And if, at the end of my first term, the people of Illinois say, "This guy's been serving us well," then I'll be in a strong position to have a lot of influence in this country for a long time to come-whether or not I'm President.

Dare I mention that 12 years from 2004 would be 2016 -- a year that dovetails nicely with the concept of a unity ticket...


 
 

Comments
176
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)
- LeoMarvin See Profile I'm a Fan of LeoMarvin

Isn't it interesting how Hillary and Barack supporters both seem to understand that when Hillary promotes a joint ticket without mentioning details, what she means is Hillary-Barack, but not necessarily Barack-Hillary? What does that imply that we take for granted when she talks?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:06 PM on 03/08/2008
- brueso See Profile I'm a Fan of brueso

she doesn't get accolades for suggesting a possible unity ticket after Ohio, TX, etc.

You're wrong about 'accolades'. After what Hill said about Obama- favoring a Republican over someone in her own party- she doesn't get any accolades at all. She gets scorn. She knew the superdelegates were probably appalled that she'd sunk lower than any candidate has ever sunk in disparaging someone from their own party- to the extent that she essentially created a commercial for Republicans in the fall- but she figured if she went through the motions about a unity ticket, she would look like she was a good Democrat.

Nice try, Hill. Since the one you admire the most, McCain won't be offering you a VP ticket, why don't you see if you can cook something up with Joe Libermann- another self-motivated hack who cares about his own career more than the party he once professed to love so much. The two of you make an apt pair.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:54 PM on 03/08/2008
- LBKN See Profile I'm a Fan of LBKN

I guess Hillary and Kirsten's premise is that it takes a fearful village to teach children to be afraid of the boogey man.

Terrorism is a sham.

Nobody's getting out alive... nobody.

The question is how are you going to posture while alive?

Cowering or fortified?

Nobody can harm me. I'm dead already.

I've been dead for 30 years... since I walked away from a car wreck that should have killed me.

I am living on borrowed time...

and I know that death is tugging at my heels every second of every day.

I'll be G0&-Dam#ed if I will cower... or teach my kids to cower... by example.

Cowardice kills more than any terrorist ever did.

Please... for your self... get some more trauma counseling...

and stop trying to frighten my kids and neighbors.

There are 325 million Americans...

324 million, 993 thousand who have had no terrorist complications in the past decade.

7000 have been sacrificed to the attack and the sham of a war in Iraq.

Why not campaign for Hillary from a different tack.

Hillary will stop lightening from striking American Golfers, will mandate that bathtubs be coated with a non skid surface, and remove stingers from bees.

That would likely save 7000 Americans in her first year as POTUS.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:27 PM on 03/08/2008
- tomcj See Profile I'm a Fan of tomcj

You have to be joking. Not Ready for President, Obama, needs to submit to Hillary because Al Quiada will attack us if he doesn't? Or they will attack but Hillary won't be answering that phone?

She didn't read the Intelligence Report when she voted to get us INTO the 100 Year War, but now that she has defined Obama out of existence, he should bow to her non-existant judgement?

If you like random and illogical and contradictory statements: Vote Hillary!

She is The Warrior/Health Reformer/Obama is incompetent/I need him as my Veep Clear Choice.

I see it now that you explain it so clearly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:27 PM on 03/08/2008
- j.gold See Profile I'm a Fan of j.gold

Hillery is just suggesting it to look good and I find the suggestion degrading to Obama. She means little Obama can be HER v.p. when HE is ahead of her. Do you think she is even considering being his v.p.? It is another of Hillery's political ploys, she will say anything to try and look good.

And why would Obama want her? It would mean no change more of the same to have her and bill in again.

Besides, I don't want republican lite even as a v.p. She is moving closer and closer to McCain, maybe she can be McCains v.p. They act and think pretty much the same way.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 03/08/2008
- quest44 See Profile I'm a Fan of quest44

If there were a Clinton/Obama or Obama /Clinton ticket I can tell you I will not be voting in November .
Hillary is not President or vice President material ,she is far to right wing to even be called a Democrat .
I would however love to see either an Obama Kucinich or Obama Richardson ticket .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:18 PM on 03/08/2008
- swkidder See Profile I'm a Fan of swkidder

First, if you're going to quote Susan Rice ... then quote her accurately. What she said was factual, that neither Obama nor Clinton has ever had the actual experience of answering that phone at 3:00 AM. Hence, if a dress rehearsal were the prerequisite for competence, neither was "ready" to handle it. But Bush did have that experience, although his moment occurred in the middle of the morning in Florida while reading My Pet Goat to kindergarten kids, and it's not as if he exactly demonstrated either courage or judgment in his handling of that crisis or any subsequent "tough decisions." So maybe the wisdom needed to lead in a crisis isn't exactly acquired during one searing moment, but rather over time and because of who one is?
This whole tempest in a teapot is a great example of what turns the majority of people in this country off politics mainly because it is so conspicuously self-serving for those whose power and livelihood depends upon creating drama in the political arena. The rest of us, the grown-ups, would prefer that we get on with selecting another grown-up to lead this nation - one that has demonstrated a commitment to service rather than self-promotion, to calm rather than fear mongering, and to more concern over what the nation needs than what would enable a win in the next round in the primary. (It's illuminating to listen to the contrast between Obama's and Edward's speeches after the Iowa Primary as opposed to Hillary's)
For my money, that individual would be Barack Obama, and I'm getting disgusted enough with Hillary's campaign that I just want the Clintons to GO AWAY. It's time to put the Democratic Party "insiders" on notice, if you screw us one more time and give us Hillary as a candidate ... I'm going to stay home in November and bake cookies. I will not vote for this woman. And I don't believe I'm alone in this decision - the "huge turnouts" that the Democratic Party is celebrating do not consist of "new Democrats." Rather, they consist of a new breed of voter, and we are not transferable to the "candidate of the Party's choice." What we are, like it or not, is the new voice of the Party, and you fail to listen at your peril.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:18 PM on 03/08/2008
- ipayattention See Profile I'm a Fan of ipayattention

I have one word to say to you in reply.....(sorry about the shouting ) AMEN!!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 PM on 03/08/2008
- TankerRat See Profile I'm a Fan of TankerRat

I 'm just sitting here laughing my tush off while you damned Democrats fiddle as Rome burns. Truth is NEITHER of these two idiots you have running can win the nomination as things now stand. Instead the "superdelegates" will decide the nomination.You argue about who said what and "big" states and the smirk on Karl Rove's face grows ever wider. Do any of you understand that just FIVE states ( all of which are deep cherry RED- OH,PA,GA,FL,TX) would give McCain 43% of the ELECTORAL VOTES needed to win the WH? Probably NOT!!! That doesn't include ten or more" medium" states (also cherry RED) -NC,TN,VA,AZ,AL,IN,KT,SC ,MI, LA, that would simply add to that percentage. Add in some small states - UT,OK,MT,AS,SD,NE,MT,KS,ID, and things get pretty grim. Howl all you want Billary shills and Obamabots but unless you stop this pointless bickering you'd better sign up NOW for tickets to McCain's inaugural ball.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 AM on 03/08/2008
- LiarLiarIraqsOnFire See Profile I'm a Fan of LiarLiarIraqsOnFire

Nope, I'm not buying that. Sen. Obama is making change the theme of his campaign and taking Hillary as his V.P. would piss away all of his cred, and I don't think he'll accept any hypothetical offer from Sen. Clinton to be HER V.P.

Face it folks, it's going to end up either Obama/??? or Clinton/Bayh - the Ken & Barbie of the DLC. Your choice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 AM on 03/08/2008
- rury See Profile I'm a Fan of rury

I don't want Barack to be Hillary's water boy or bootlicker or whatever.
And if Hillary's the nominee, I'll vote for Nader!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 PM on 03/08/2008
- mtrue See Profile I'm a Fan of mtrue

Hopefully Barack will prevail -- nice win in WYOMING -- we still have the inside track on the nomination. The thought of the choice of McCain/ McClinton does make we want to vote for Nader also.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:57 AM on 03/09/2008
- LiarLiarIraqsOnFire See Profile I'm a Fan of LiarLiarIraqsOnFire

I won't vote for Hillary for President either, I'll write-in Bill Moyers & Molly Ivins - right after I change my party affiliation to Independant.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 AM on 03/09/2008
- mtrue See Profile I'm a Fan of mtrue

To me the thing that is most revealing about the red phone ad is thinking about who we really want to answer that phone. Do we want a person who is cool, analytical and steady? Do we want someone who is given to snits and fits of anger. To my mind I see Barack as cool, analytical and absolutely self possessed. On the other hand I have seen Hillary as vindictive, manipulative and given to snits of anger. Of course McCain is an absurd choice -- he is a hot head and anxious to send young people into battle.

So I'd rather have Barack choose someone other than Hillary for vp -- someone who is cool, analytical and not an egomaniac. I do like Chris Dodd as a choice -- but there must be plenty of others.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:16 AM on 03/08/2008
- LiarLiarIraqsOnFire See Profile I'm a Fan of LiarLiarIraqsOnFire

Obama/Feingold '08

Obama/Sanders '08

Obama/Richardson '08

Obama/Webb '08

and one for my fellow women -

Obama/Carnahan '08

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:55 AM on 03/09/2008
- kmbo See Profile I'm a Fan of kmbo

Hillary could pick Lieberman, they would make a better fit, although she may be angling for McCain's VP.

Hillary needs to unify herself - it is dizzying to see the many Hillarys that have been swirling about in this campaign. While Senator Obama is calm and unflappable, Hillary is clearly bi-polar.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 AM on 03/08/2008
- LeoMarvin See Profile I'm a Fan of LeoMarvin

Let me begin by giving credit where credit is due. Compared to the partisan pornography of your last post, this one was responsible commentary.

What? You say that's damning with faint praise? Not what you'd call "giving credit?" Good, then you understand how I felt reading your stirring appeal to the common good, only to discover what you had in mind was coronating Hillary and letting Barack carry the train of her robe.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:24 AM on 03/08/2008
- koolwoman See Profile I'm a Fan of koolwoman

LeoMarvin, What she was trying to say is that Barak could spend 8 years as VP while learning every thing he needs to know and he would be well prepared in 2016. It's called on the job training. As for you people who think Hillary was unaware of all that was happening in the White House while she was first lady, then you don't know this intelligent woman and the President who asked her for feed back, as any smart husband and wife would do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 AM on 03/08/2008
- LeoMarvin See Profile I'm a Fan of LeoMarvin

This was a sadly transparent trojan horse. Hillary told the candidate who leads in the delegate count, states won and popular vote, and who by every metric except one is more likely to beat John McCain, to concede. She then added insult to injury by wrapping her "suggestion" in a tissue of concern for the greater good. If there was a grain of sincerity to her proposal, she'd at least have committed to accepting the VP slot if Barack gets the nomination.

Oh, and that single metric in Hillary's favor for the general? The two and half times larger contingent of her supporters than Barack's who say they'll vote for McCain if their candidate loses the nomination. It would seem that if there's anyone whose supporters need an object lesson in prioritizing progressive interests over personal aggrandizement, it's Hillary. Why do I suspect that she made zero headway firming up their commitment to principle with this double-talk proposal?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:39 PM on 03/08/2008
- j.gold See Profile I'm a Fan of j.gold

Obama doesn't need "training"

And Hillery won't even opening up the documents to show what kind of "training" she had in the White House. Talk about secretive, no release of tax records, presidential library donations or white house documents. How can anyone trust her?

The only "training" I see is Hillery has learned how to act like a republican.

Hillery/McCain 08 this is her "dream ticket"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 PM on 03/08/2008
- Tejano1 See Profile I'm a Fan of Tejano1

who the hell is mcclinton to "train" anyone? obama doesn't need "training." he's not a dog or a child. he's shown superior judgment than mcclinton, get it? no? then you never will.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 03/08/2008
- LightningJoe See Profile I'm a Fan of LightningJoe

I once thought Hillary might make a good-enough VP. At least if Bill had to live at the VP's residence, he'd be out of the hair of the WH staff.

But I've changed my mind, after seeing more of the lengths she'll go to, to make it to the top.

This RedPhone3AM meme, for example. She's touting her hair-trigger reflexes, over studied consideration, in deciding where to commit troops? That's how we got in this mess in the first place!

The pentagon has file-rooms full of contingency plans ready to go, and can lay hands on any of them in five minutes, tops. The president (unless of course it's a joke president, as in the present case) reads daily intelligence summaries and action proposals. No matter who takes the call at the WH, nothing will happen untill he/she consults with the Joint Chiefs on it.

For Hillary to call Obama a risk to the Nation's security is underhanded and irresponsible. Indeed, it's probably against the letter of the Patriot Act she voted for, by giving "comfort" to our enemies.

----

PLEASE stop watching tv.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 PM on 03/07/2008
- happyfeelin See Profile I'm a Fan of happyfeelin

Newsflash...Obama doesn't need to run for Vice President if he doesn't get the nomination. He can let the Clintons continue on their destructive path that we Independents and most Republicans feel they are on. Obama has vetted running for Gov of Illinois and he's well liked in his home state. If the Clintons do their usual garbage and steal the primary, guess what, Ralph Nader is right...the Dems need to retool and go back to the drawing board and come back with a party in 2012 that actually can manage to work. Obama is an innovative thinker...heck, he's so baaadass (e.g. good at what he does) that this fool might put an independent or republican on his ticket as a running mate (Chuck Hagel comes to mind since he's just as experienced with military as McCain..and he's younger and may not end up dying in office). That's what folks who are not dems that are voting for Obama see...his ability to out-smart the foxes and do things that are not expected of the people or the party but seem to fit the politics of Washington that can get things done! Hillary Clinton will bring nothing but polarizing negativity to the party and nothing will get done. Remember that you need folks to help you get things done. And, if the Clintons get re-elected,, the Republicans will again gain seats in the House and Senate (just give it a bit of time) and we will be back at the same polarizing politics of 1994 and 1996.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 PM on 03/07/2008
- DNVigerJr See Profile I'm a Fan of DNVigerJr

Why would Obama stoop to be Hilary's VP. It should be the other way around. Maybe he would consider her as a running mate! We have had enough of the Clintons and their ravaging of the White House, making deals which add to their coffers. Why not a fresh face, one without all the baggage. If we are going to get the same package, why not in a fresh wrapper!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:52 PM on 03/07/2008
- shelleybear See Profile I'm a Fan of shelleybear

The question is, not that she proposed a "Dream Team" ticket (talk is cheap) but, would she be willing to take the V.P. slot.
Time will tell.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:43 PM on 03/07/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in