ÐHwww.dakotavoice.com/2008/06/should-hillary-be-obamas-vp-running.htmlC:/Documents and Settings/Bob Ellis/My Documents/Websites/Dakota Voice Blog 20081230/www.dakotavoice.com/2008/06/should-hillary-be-obamas-vp-running.htmldelayedwww.dakotavoice.com/\sck.g0tx–Œ[IÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÈÀ_•Ç\OKtext/htmlUTF-8gzip (àÇ\ÿÿÿÿJ}/yWed, 31 Dec 2008 15:12:12 GMT"22b8d6e8-af76-4dbc-8bbd-5ad97a6bd61c"šBMozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98)en, en, *”Œ[IÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÒpÇ\ Dakota Voice: Should Hillary Be Obama's VP Running Mate?

Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Should Hillary Be Obama's VP Running Mate?

NewsMax says Jimmy Carter advises against Barack Obama naming Hillary Clinton to be his Vice President.

Naming Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate “would be the worst mistake that could be made,” said former President Jimmy Carter.

In an interview Carter gave to the U.K.-based publication,” The Guardian,” Carter urged Democratic presidential nominee Obama not to pick the New York Senator for the bottom slot on his general election ticket. Carter cites opinion polls showing that half of U.S. voters have a negative view of Clinton.

It is true that Hillary's negative numbers are very high. But then, a lot of Democrats (somewhere between 20-24%, depending on the poll) say they won't support the party's nominee if it isn't Hillary; putting her on the ticket as VP might diffuse that discontent.

Besides, Democrats are big into victim groups. With Obama and Clinton, the ticket would be in a perfect position to pander identity politics to blacks and females like never before.

But there's another factor here that should help cut through the murkiness of whether Hillary should or shouldn't be on the ticket.

Given that I can't think of a single thing Jimmy Carter has ever been right about (e.g. energy, Iran, the Panama Canal, Afghanistan, the economy, terrorism, etc.), that means odds are pretty good that bringing Hillary on as VP would be a good thing for the Democrats.

Therefore I think Obama should follow Carter's advice. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Who says it's difficult to figure out the right thing to do?


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

What exactly about terrorism has Jimmy Carter been wrong about.

Actually it's neocons like Hillary Clinton that voted for one of the most tragic events in U.S. foreign policy, the Iraq war, that are the problem.

Furthermore, Hillary is talking of war-mongering again with her vote for labelling the Iranian army 'a terrorist organization'.

Actually, it anyone should be labelled a rogue terrorist-state...it would be the United States and it's cohort of terror Israel. These nations violate nuclear treaties left and right, and reckless invade countries and kill millions of civilians in the process.

Yes, sometimes I'm ashamed of being American.

Bob Ellis said...

Anonymous, I thought for a second of going to the trouble of examining Jimmy Carter's love affair with terrorist organizations and terror-supporting nations.

But then I saw your comment that you believe the United States and Israel are terrorist states. I've learned that when someone embraces evil to the degree that they can make such a statement, they are so divorced from reality that no amount of facts, logic or reason will reach them. So I won't bother.

Do patriotic Americans a favor, though: if you're that ashamed of your country and think it's a terrorist state, why don't you do the rest of us a favor and move to one of those utopian, peace-loving bastions of paradise like Syria, Iran or the like. Then we could all be a lot happier, eh?

 
Clicky Web Analytics