Interact and Share With Your Friends on This Site

Politics 2.0 Digg Style Site Feed

Newt Gingrich and Jeffrey Sachs on Oil in Iraq

GroundReport TV - Arianna Huffington, Micah Sifry, Jay Rosen, Jeff Jarvis, etc.

Saturday, June 07, 2008

Bill Richardson Barack Obama Vice President

Bill Richardson campaigning in Elko, Nevada, 13 July 2007. Taken by faustus37. Public domain.Image via Wikipedia Bill Richardson Barack Obama Vice President - By Alex Hammer

If Barack Obama handles himself as well going forward (there have been some missteps but he is the sole Democrat standing in the 2008 race for President) as he has to this point in the campaign, he will select Bill Richardson as his running mate.

1. The Hispanic vote. This is not the only reason. It may or may not be the most important factor in the selection of Bill Richardson. But let us not kid ourselves in regard to what such a selection would mean in terms of the dynamics of this important voting demographic.


2. Resume. Bill Richardson ran as a resume candidate, and solidifies some of the areas in which Obama is comparatively weak, in general and against John McCain. Richardson brings not only experience but gravitas. However, and this is an important point, Richardson is well regarded but not an overwhelming presence or figure. He will not outshine Obama, and he will not attempt to do so.

3. Chemistry. Related to #2 but speaks to the dynamic between the two. Both Obama and Richardson are friendly, articulate, easygoing (the opposition might term it glib) politicians who know how to work a crowd, the media, and frame messages. They are at ease with each other, and radiate an energetic working style and flow that appears comfortable together and meshes well. Joe Biden would bring a similar type of experience to the ticket, if selected, but the Biden charisma (no offense to Biden, he's a great man, but is "Biden charisma" an oxymoron?) compared to Richardson just isn't there. Also, there is none of the apparent forced enthusiasm and effusiveness of Kerry - Edwards. It's more natural.

4. Loyalty. Speaking of Edwards, Edwards' endorsement was one factor helping to close the nomination in Obama's favor. But Richardson's endorsement came much earlier and thus at greater political risk. Richardon's endorsement, coming when it did, was a major move forward for the Obama camp in terms of gaining an advantage in the political deathmatch struggle that was occurring with Clinton at that time. This in itself demonstrated political courage for Richardson. When you couple that with the endorsement decision breaking away from Richardson's close political indebtedness to the Clintons, and the major political fallout he endured (e.g. James Carville Judas comment) by making the decision to abandon Hillary and support Obama against her at this critical juncture in the race, then you can understand why Barack is likely to feel just a little bit grateful to Bill Richardson (wouldn't you?).

5. He's not Hillary Clinton. This may be the most important reason of them all. John Edwards doesn't want to run for Vice President. He's already done that. Richardson, having run against Obama (but quick and enthusiastic to support him), now is a known, yet still fresh as well as nonthreatening entity with sufficient positives to add to a ticket to drone out those who will clamor - perhaps including Hillary herself - for a Clinton Vice Presidency. Clinton clearly has her eyes on "THE prize", is "in it to win it", spoke of the assassination of RFK some feel in the context of her Presidential aspirations, and is a Hillary player, not a team player (this focus on the White House is of course nothing new for her, some feel it is the reason she stayed with husband Bill despite years of his reported philandering). While Barack cannot well afford to alienate Hillary, and he has gone out of his way to insure that he doesn't, he can even much less afford to seek to ingratiate her by selecting her as his choice for VP. Forget about keeping your enemies closer, as one famous expression states, some political enemies (the most dangerous ones and Hillary is clearly among them) you just don't want that close.

Some will argue for electoral college math to be maximized and specific important state(s) won or put into play, or a balancing of the ticket on policy considerations as the major criteria upon which to select one's running mate. Obama and Richardson have enough in common (and also enough differences), for the five factors above to be compellingly and clearly more important, even moreso when you consider how little influence a VP choice can ultimately play in the final analysis on traditional selection factors.

Richardson has paid his dues to the party and to the nation, his timing in this election cycle was impeccable, and his time is now. Richardson represents the best of the past not tied to the past. His breaking away from the Clintons mirrors the nation's move beyond the Bush and Clinton Presidential leadership/placeholding (depending upon one's perspective) of the past two decades - 20 years.

John McCain represents a formidable obstacle, but certainly for the Democrats the future is now.

Obama - Richardson '08.



Zemanta Pixie

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Hillary's Dream

Hillary's Dream - By Alex Hammer

In a general sense, it is important to have a dream. As we know, dreams keep us truly (i.e. most fully) alive. They provide the spark and juice of life, keeping us motivated amongst the winds and tides of opposition that we all face in a challenging world.

But what about when dreams go amiss?

Dreams that reside on the back of driving personal ambition can be, potentially, dangerous when unchecked. Dangerous to anyone who "gets in the way" and ultimately self-defeating as well.

Human beings become pawns in an elaborate (and when thwarted even desperate) attempt to reach the goal in an ends justifies the means type of approach.

From where does this single minded win-at-all costs mentality and approach arise? Well, one can speculate. In Hillary' case, certainly she has waited considerable time - and sacrificed and endured much!! - to have an opportunity to now be so close to reaching her power dream. Certainly she is an individual of immense talent, intelligence, determination and drive. And within her ruthless pragmatism is, I believe, a refined and devoted idealism that provides the spark for her to wage such aggressive war.

But what is she becoming? And what are we becoming when we allow her to reach this point?

I am a Barack supporter but I do believe that he is somewhat naive. He is, to my mind, being run around the flagpole by Senator Clinton, and if he takes this same easygoing approach to our adversaries across the world, which, disturbingly, he has indicated a willingness to do, he could have his lunch handed to him.

Except that as our President it would be our lunch as well.

Why, too often in American politics, do we need to choose between a Jimmy Carter and a George Bush II? An ineffective idealist versus a cowboy diplomacy warmonger. Where is the happy medium in the toughness/let's get along dimension? (Why. also, in a separate question, do we need to choose between the ethics of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon?)

Not that we haven't had some good Presidents overall.

Our freedoms for difference of will before we eventually (essentially) come together is what makes this country great and strong, and allows us to endure crises, including constitutional crises, that might have put less strong nations asunder. From the contested 2000 Presidential election ultimately decided by the Supreme Court to the Civil War (and you could easily, I'm sure, think of your own additional examples). Somehow this nation has had the bend but don't break type of composition that has allowed us to take discord and strife and still ultimately integrate it (sometimes more effectively than others) and move on.

In Hillary's case, we must not mistake toughness, including raw ambition, for strength. If we do then we will have learned essentially nothing from that similar general category of shortcoming (although not in the same manner expressed) of the take no prisoners (and do what you want and the ends justify the means also) approach of the current administration.

They say that one receives the government one deserves. Just as an alcoholic might in some cases need to hit rock bottom before meaningful life change is made, so we cannot collectively alter our path until our collective political will is - infused by a rebellion against suffering - enlightened and strong. And we need an alternative. At the level of the Presidency, we need an individual who is strong as opposed to tough. One who will go the full measure of needed opposition to that which needs to be opposed, but no further.

For Barack to show that type of strength he must take on Hillary more forcefully. He is not finishing the contest because he is allowing her to hang on. And now a portion of the tide is beginning to swing back in her favor (power, and the world, abhors a leadership vacuum). The American people have essentially (but not definitively yet) spoken in the Democratic Presidential primary. But something is missing.

A closer.

Barack is a visionary, but he is 10% too optimistic and 10% unrealistic. Time for Barack Obama to tell the American people what they already know and are (I believe) waiting to hear from him if he is capable.

Hillary's dream is rapidly descending into our national nightmare.

Alex Hammer was a 2006 Independent candidate for Governor of Maine. His recently released book, This Great State, researches the political careers, activities and influence of prominent Maine politicians such as William Cohen, John Baldacci, Susan Collins, and George Mitchell.

Sphere: Related Content

Click ON THIS TOOLBAR to bring up all 36 choices

Politics 2.0 - Click on Get & Share Underneath This Box to Bring Up

Politics 2.0 Blog Headline Animator

Blog Archive

Search Google or Politics 2.0


Google
 

Site Feed