The Pub Discussion Board

Okay, first off, full disclosure:  I am a centrist conservative, and I DESPISE the Clintons.  Having said that, I will attempt to set my feelings aside to be objective as any human actually can be.

The reason that the Obama/Clinton ticket was NOT the "Dream Ticket" that everyone thought it would be is as follows:

1. It would have made Obama look weak to everyone.  It would appear as if the loser had dictated the terms of her own surrender, and people would have to ask, "If he can't even handle his political opponents, how in the hell is he going to deal with terrorists?"
2. Having Hillary and Bill back in the White House would have essentially negated Obama's ability to be president.  Those two have such a working knowledge of Presidential dealings, they would simply have circumvented him on most issues.
3. Historically, we have yet to elect a ticket with ONE minority member on it... and you want to put two on the same ticket?  The likelihood of such a pair being elected at this point in time is pretty damned slim.
4. Want to find a way to energize the base?  This would do it.  The REPUBLICAN base, that is.  They already don't like Obama, but they LOATHE Hillary Clinton.  Put both of them on the same ticket, and what is expected to be a mediocre Republican turnout would probably have turned into a record turnout, just to make sure those two didn't make it into the White House. And by "those two", I mean Bill & Hillary.

No, it was a smart move on Obama's part to avoid the Clintons.  I don't know if Biden is going to help or hurt him, but I do know that he wouldn't have really been President if he'd won with Hillary on the ticket.  What they accuse Bush/Cheney of would have become a literal reality:  The VP would have been calling the shots.

I no longer really consider myself a Republican, but I am more of a conservative than a liberal, so I'd personally rather see McCain in the White House.  But I can live with Obama, I guess.  (Still doesn't mean I'm gonna vote for him... )  But I'm quite happy he didn't cave to the Hillary supporters and put her on the ticket.

Eric

PS:  BTW, tigerdevil, "dirty politics" is redundant, and the Republicans are hardly the only ones guilty of going negative in this campaign season.

And Karl Rove has had his Democratic equivalents.  They just don't get nearly as much attention.

And the problem with choosing Hillary is that she comes with Bill attached.  You don't get "just" Hillary.  You get "The Clintons".  They would both be there in the White House, running the show.  And Bill would be even freer to badmouth Obama if they disagreed because, after all, he wouldn't be an administration official, now would he?

As to a leader who can unite the people in time of crisis... um... Can you say "George Bush in late 2001"?  It's not the leader who does the uniting; it's the crisis.  I'll readily agree that GW Bush has not been the best of Presidents... nor has he been the worst, despite what some want to say.  He was one of the middling Presidents, of which probably 80% of Presidents are.  But in late 2001, the country was fairly unified behind him.  Why?  It had nothing to do with HIM, and everything to do with the fact that we, as a nation, were pissed off.  And that is usually what unites this country: not presidents, but particular issues, usually about our national sovereignty or safety.  The problem with most of the issues that need to be solved in America today is that unity is completely impossible.  We can agree the problems need solving, but we are diametrically opposed about HOW to solve them.  No president is going to overcome that problem, no matter how dynamic, charismatic, or energetic s/he is.

I agree that Reagan and Clinton were dynamic, but they were NOT "uniters", as you have implied them to be.  In fact, both of them engendered MASSIVE hatred and opposition.  Reagan was successful because he figured out how to take down the Soviet Union (at least temporarily... I personally think they'll be back soon).  Clinton was successful because... uh... see here's the problem:  Clinton was a POPULAR President, but he wasn't really "successful", because he didn't actually DO anything!  Some will claim that we had a booming economy at the end of his term, but the fact is that Presidents have little to nothing to do with how the economy fairs.  He didn't have any overarching achievement, as such... but I admit he was well-liked and popular when he left office.  So... I'm not sure how 'strong' a leader he was... given that he didn't really do much 'leading'.  But yes, he was very charismatic and energetic.

As to our current choices for President...  *shrugs*  You don't always get charismatic or energetic.  Obama is afraid to speak off-the-cuff.  McCain sucks at prepared speeches.  Neither of them gets fired up about anything other than bashing their opponent.  In short, they are typical politicians.  Will either of them be "great" Presidents?

Odds are against it, but anything's possible...

Eric

I wasn't referring to George HW Bush.  I was referring to George W. Bush, after 9/11.  The country was united for quite some time after that... which, as I said, had little to do with the president, and everything to do with the citizenry being royally pissed off.

And I didn't say charisma wasn't important in getting elected.  I said it wasn't important for the president to possess.  Charisma is useful in getting people to follow you.  It does NOT, however, qualify you to be dog catcher, let alone president.  I'll take someone with the personality of a wet noodle but who knows what the hell they're doing over a charismatic idiot any day of the week.  (Note: that wasn't a commentary on either of the charismatic candidates in the race at this time.)

Eric