Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome to the official home of Doctor Biobrain. We are not currently accepting complaints at this time.
Doctor Biobrain
Where to Find Me
Posts
Biobrain Blog Whores
Bio-Links
The Old Stuff
-
▼
2008
(295)
-
▼
May
(30)
- The New Accountability
- Very Deep Thoughts
- The Commies Are Coming!!!
- Scott McClellan: Human Douchebag
- Is Barack Obama Muslim?
- What Was Hillary Thinking?
- Elitist Obama and the BLACK Robe
- Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Commie Haters
- Irony 101
- Rightwing Ignorance
- Symbolic Bozos
- Appeasing Nutjobs
- Wizard for President
- Doing God's Work, and Vice Versa
- New Government Study: Pot Smokers Can't Count
- We're Saved!!
- Clark for VP
- Elitist Populism
- Swimming with Sharks
- The Wright Situation
- Dewey Defeats Obama
- Summer is Real Hot
- Down with Plush!
- Obliterate
- The Lions with the Lambs
- If We Had a President...
- Beating Guam
- The Hillary Compass
- Rice Has a Hunch
- Fantasyland Fiscals
-
▼
May
(30)
8 comments:
I like you, lol!
You make a strong case, sir. I cannot find a good reason to dispute with you.
Will you punch me if I ask your opinion of Janet Napolitano?
I have no opinion of Napolitano, as I don't actually know who that is. But I think the whole woman VP thing is a mistake. Politically, I think it hurts us because it sets us up to look like the Affirmative Action party; as if we only represent women and minorities. Plus, it smells like a gimmick; like we're just trying to fool female voters to woo back the Hillary vote, and that kind of thing can really backfire. And finally, I think we need to harden up the ticket, which is why I prefer Wesley Clark. Not only is he smart as hell, but his military background DEFINITELY hardens the ticket and helps woo back white males who might feel a bit sketchy about Obama. And I think they're the biggest problem for us. Because I don't think female voters rejected Obama; I think they just preferred Hillary and will vote for Obama in November. But white males, particularly of the independent-type with the populist bent would definitely respond better to having a former general on the ticket than a woman.
Of course, those are all political arguments dealing with appearances, and doesn't necessarily reflect how things really are. Policywise, I have no objection, as I don't know what her policy positions are. But then again, I kind of like the idea of putting a non-politician in the VP slot, rather than someone with executive experience who is accustomed to calling the shots. I think Clark would be an able subordinate to help Obama take care of business; but a former governor is a different matter. A VP is not supposed to have any policy differences with the president, and I just see Clark as being preferable for that kind of thing.
Plus, I'd really like to see President Clark in 2016. Sure, he'd be 73 when he gets sworn-in, but I think they will have conquered old age by that time; thanks to President Obama's new War on Death initiative in 2010.
If I was going to go by who I'd like to see become president in 2016, I'd go with Russ Feingold, to be honest. Wesley Clark would definitely strengthen the ticket in the immediate term as far as the fact that we're engaged in multiple overseas conflicts/occupations at the moment, and the voters will be reassured to have an accomplished General at the helm, but as far as a President Wesley Clark I have no idea what he would stand for.
As for as a President Clark, you're probably right about not knowing what he stood for, which is a big reason I like him for VP, as he won't try to outdo Obama. But all the same, I really did want to see him win in 2004.
Frankly, I'd actually like to do away with the idea that presidents stand for anything. Congress passes legislation. Presidents enforce it. I kind of wish we could get back to that model. As it is, it's as if the president is Chief Congressman, and beyond just having powers that "check" Congress, it's as if he's the ulimate congressman that guides a friendly Congress and creates giant roadblocks for an unfriendly Congress. And I just don't think that's how this is supposed to work.
The point was to separate powers, but our current system seems to have given most of the power to the president. That's gotten much worse under Bush, but executive powers have been getting a bit too big for quite awhile before that. Even Clinton was seen as a Super-Congressman, and was always expected to have his own legislation to push through Congress or be seen as being weak and irrelevant. That's just not how this is supposed to work. Bush-Cheney has DEFINITELY shown how the system can be used for evil.
I'd say that there have been flaws from the beginning which were always exploited to one degree or another, remember that the Constitution once regarded people like Barack Obama as worth 3/5 of a vote -- and that 3/5 not freely cast. The idea of some golden perfect historical age is not accurate.
A president like George Bush was well nigh inevitable, that does not excuse it. Power is seized by those who can hold it, and held until it is seized back. We the people are the sovereigns, after all.
Clark was originally my 1st choice for President early last year for the fact that I don't think the Republicans can beat a General... Obama needs Clark as VP to solidify and balance the ticket, Clark brings top foreign policy credentials and the right demographic appeal (as you mentioned!)
McCain has no chance against Obama/Clark '08.
Draft Clark for VP '08!!!
Post a Comment