This week people will pour into Denver by the thousands, to celebrate the ascension of Sen. Barack Obama to the head of his party. On August 28, 2008 he will accept the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. The very next week Sen. John McCain will be in St. Paul, Minnesota to accept his party’s nomination. Despite all of this, major occurrences are happening in the world around us. Recently controversial and United States supported Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf resigned. This happening in the midst of convention celebrations should not mean it gets lost on us.
This issue is paramount to many in the United States. The first reason this is paramount is because Pakistan has been a supposed ally to the United States. This relationship has seemed to be more in word than deed as many in the Taliban have taken refuge and regrouped along the Pakistani border. The United States has been unhappy with the way that Pakistani officials have not vigorously pursued United States enemy combatants. President Musharraf has gone on record in interviews and in his memoir “In the Line of Fire: A Memoir” saying that the United States essentially bully-ed Pakistan into being an ally. Musharraf claimed that both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell drew a clear line in the sand, and in the case of Armitage even threatened Pakistan if they did not side with the United States.
These are accusations from Musharraf’s point of view. Armitage has categorically denied this and President Bush won’t even address it. But if you look at the behavior of Pakistan it doesn’t seem to be very ally-like, which would lend credence to Musharraf’s claims. Furthermore with Musharraf stepping down, that leaves open a place for a new president, and that process has been a great deal of controversy thus far. A coalition that was a significant portion of the governing body there has split, and now confusion and potential chaos is on the brink. For the first time in recent memory, in a place where the United States has an immense interest, they have vowed to stay hands off and allow the people of Pakistan to work their way through the potential governing issues. Although the United States has said publicly that they will not intervene (diplomatically or otherwise) a casual observer would note that as being inconsistent with recent United States foreign policy.
This comes full circle when you think of the two men vying for the presidency of the United States. McCain has made no qualms about continuing a hawkish foreign policy and going into Pakistan to fight the Taliban. Obama has not been as aggressive but has not ruled out going into Pakistan to fight the Taliban should he feel the Pakistani government is not doing enough. What this could mean is that we could see a situation similar to Iraq playing itself out in Pakistan. There will be a sizable disgruntled population that does not want to see the Unites States there and will take offense to occupation. Despite the United States noblest attempts to justify its presence, it will be seen on a world stage as more invasion even if it is sanctioned by the “candidate of change”.
Pakistan has demonstrated that it is not a state to be taken lightly as they have the same willingness to assassinate their leading political figures just as the United States does (see Benazir Bhutto). What’s more is that Pakistan (unlike Iraq, and probably Iran) actually has nuclear weapons. This is not a state that would take United States intrusion lightly. This issue demands that regardless who the next United States president is, we hold them accountable for their actions and policies, to be sure that we avoid military imperialism in the name of “fighting terrorism”. As the Pakistani people determine their new leadership, the United States should pay close attention. Who they choose as their leader can tell us much about their attitudes and the best way to treat them as partners in the global community.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The Swinging States
Around this time of year during a presidential election season, people begin to discuss the swing states. A general definition of a swing state is a state that is not overwhelmingly and consistenly won by a particular party. In the two most recent elections swing states have been a major point of interest because they have secured the election for George Bush. In 2004, people protested the election results in Ohio citing the unfair distribution of voting stations based on population. The Ohio results were also called into question because of then Secretary of the State (of Ohio) Ken Blackwell's on the record proclamation that he would do everything in his power to see that George Bush won Ohio. The conflict of interest comes because it is the Secretary of State's job to oversee elections and ensure the fairness of elections. In 2000 Florida was at the center of controversy as the hotly contested election results were taken all the way to the Supreme Court
This election cycle swing states are still expected to play a huge role. Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committe have committed to their "Red to Blue" program which aims to make red states (states that usually vote Republican) blue (states that vote democrat). With this intiative states such as Virginia, Nevada, and Indiana which were won by Bush in both of the past two elections are very much in play. Those states along with Colorado, Montana and to a lesser extent Kansas, Georgia, and Alaska, are all reasonable for Obama. As always places like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Missouri and Florida will receive a good deal of resources from both campaigns. This is understandable considering that of the last nine presidential elections the candidate who has won Ohio and Missouri has won the election. Florida has voted in favor of the winner in eight of the last nine presidential elections. Altogether these states are sure to be the center of much conversation in the coming months.
In order to get a grip on the states that may be significant points of interest, you can begin to look at Colorado. Many will say that Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania matter more because of the amount of electoral votes they posses, but those states will be throrougly examined in the coming months. Colorado is a little tougher to figure out. In the past two elections Colorado has voted with the Republican ticket. However, Colorado has a Democrat in the Governor's mansion. Its two senate seats are divided with one held by a Democrat and one held by a Republican. Although a Democrat, Gov. Ritter is known for having a pro-life stance, despite threatening to veto any legistlation that sought to completely ban abortion. The state is the true epitome of a swing state. It has a very "green" record, yet holds the second amendment with the highest regard. It will be difficult to tell who will come out on top in this state.
Virginia is another state that will be under a close eye. All political trends point to Obama taking the commonwealth. Obama will be joined lower down the ballot by a wildly successful former Governor seeking a Senate seat, he (Obama) was endorsed (while the primaries were still up for grabs) by the current Governor and won his primary there by 29 points. Those factors alone would lead someone to think Virginia is his for the taking. The only problem is that Virginia has gone for the Republican candidate in the last nine elections, and is generally thought to be a rather conservative state. Though the state seems to be trending to the center, Sen. McCain positioning himself as the "maverick" and not as an prototypical Republican gives him a better chance to win a state which looks like it should be going for Obama.
The two states examined provide just a glimpse into the endless possibilites swing states hold. Because of these candidates unique appeal to voters of both of the major parties, many more states are in play than normal. Pennsylvania, for example is considered a major swing state this election cycle despite going for the Democratic candidate in the last four election cycles. As the topic of swing states gets mentioned, one thing that creeps into the minds of many is the question of fairness. As previously mentioned Florida and Ohio were the source of a great deal of controversy in 2000 and 2004. Whatever state turns this year's presidential election, let's hope the cloud of controversy avoids it.
This election cycle swing states are still expected to play a huge role. Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committe have committed to their "Red to Blue" program which aims to make red states (states that usually vote Republican) blue (states that vote democrat). With this intiative states such as Virginia, Nevada, and Indiana which were won by Bush in both of the past two elections are very much in play. Those states along with Colorado, Montana and to a lesser extent Kansas, Georgia, and Alaska, are all reasonable for Obama. As always places like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Missouri and Florida will receive a good deal of resources from both campaigns. This is understandable considering that of the last nine presidential elections the candidate who has won Ohio and Missouri has won the election. Florida has voted in favor of the winner in eight of the last nine presidential elections. Altogether these states are sure to be the center of much conversation in the coming months.
In order to get a grip on the states that may be significant points of interest, you can begin to look at Colorado. Many will say that Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania matter more because of the amount of electoral votes they posses, but those states will be throrougly examined in the coming months. Colorado is a little tougher to figure out. In the past two elections Colorado has voted with the Republican ticket. However, Colorado has a Democrat in the Governor's mansion. Its two senate seats are divided with one held by a Democrat and one held by a Republican. Although a Democrat, Gov. Ritter is known for having a pro-life stance, despite threatening to veto any legistlation that sought to completely ban abortion. The state is the true epitome of a swing state. It has a very "green" record, yet holds the second amendment with the highest regard. It will be difficult to tell who will come out on top in this state.
Virginia is another state that will be under a close eye. All political trends point to Obama taking the commonwealth. Obama will be joined lower down the ballot by a wildly successful former Governor seeking a Senate seat, he (Obama) was endorsed (while the primaries were still up for grabs) by the current Governor and won his primary there by 29 points. Those factors alone would lead someone to think Virginia is his for the taking. The only problem is that Virginia has gone for the Republican candidate in the last nine elections, and is generally thought to be a rather conservative state. Though the state seems to be trending to the center, Sen. McCain positioning himself as the "maverick" and not as an prototypical Republican gives him a better chance to win a state which looks like it should be going for Obama.
The two states examined provide just a glimpse into the endless possibilites swing states hold. Because of these candidates unique appeal to voters of both of the major parties, many more states are in play than normal. Pennsylvania, for example is considered a major swing state this election cycle despite going for the Democratic candidate in the last four election cycles. As the topic of swing states gets mentioned, one thing that creeps into the minds of many is the question of fairness. As previously mentioned Florida and Ohio were the source of a great deal of controversy in 2000 and 2004. Whatever state turns this year's presidential election, let's hope the cloud of controversy avoids it.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Defining Black Politics
In recent days some White writers have sought to define Black politics. The most famous of this was Matthew Bai's piece in Sunday's New York Times Magazine. In the piece Bai discusses the "new Black politics". He cites Sen. Obama and others as a changing of the guard of Black politicians. Bai argues that the new generation of Black politicians, who are the beneficiaries of the struggles of years past, are at odds with those same elders who provided them this opportunity. The article had been throughly and eloquently dissected and dismissed by journalist Glen Ford on Black Agenda Report so my interest is not to seek to discredit Mr. Bai's piece. Instead I question why so many mainstream and "highly respected" news organizations are seeking to define Black politics.
Mr. Ford in his repudiation of Mr. Bai's article cites the absurdity in thinking that Whites know Black generational relationships better than those groups know each other. More than that, what's troubling is that so many Blacks will see Mr. Bai's work published in the New York Times and assume it to be true. Mr. Bai and others have asserted that Sen. Obama's support is not as strong among an older "civil rights" generation of Blacks. This flies in the face of known statistics that more than 90% of Blacks have voted for Senator Obama during the primary season. Mr. Bai is not the only one to have erroneously sought to define Black politics by pitting one generation against another. Jodie Allen, a senior editor at the Pew Research Group did a study to find out who's more in touch with the African American community. The premise of the study pitted Sen. Obama against Civil Rights Veteran Jesse Jackson. The fallacy of the study is the assumption of Black Monolithic views. Black politics is more than just a choice between either Sen. Obama's trans-racial rhetoric and Rev. Jackon's cries of racial injustice.
Jonathan Tilove tries his hand at explaining how Sen. Obama and racial politics will affect racial scholarship. He does better by getting out of his own way as his piece is littered with opinions spanning a decent spectrum of Black thought. He gets input from the quasi-conservative economist Glenn Loury, the completely conservative John McWhorter and the progressive Adolph Reed. The trouble with Tilove's piece is that HE identifies who HE deems to be a "leading race scholar from the left". With no disrespect intended to Dr. Howard Winant, the man who was given the laudable title, but few who know or are familiar with Black politics would be hesistant to call anyone other than Dr. Ron Walters a leading "race scholar from the left".
Though Mr. Tilove lives up to the his journalistic responsibilities by gaining points of view from a wide spectrum of thought, he fails in his intial attempt. He is trying to ultimately define something that he apparently does not have the knowledge or experience to speak on. This has been a recent and recurring problem especially in the mainstream media. As Sen. Obama continues to travel down paths never before traveled it seems many mainstream media outlets have become interested in the Black lived and political experience. The fault is not in the exploration of such topics but rather the definition of these topics. The outlets seem to be dreadfully off base. From CNN and their Black in America series, to Matthew Bai questioning "Is Obama the End of Black Politics?" these media outlets seem to not recognize the enormity of what they are tackling.
The easiest response is because they are not going through the lived experience that makes up Black politics than, they miss the target in trying to define it. I believe though with all of their "resources" and the "committment to diversity" present in various mainstream media outlets that having intelligent qualified African Americans to explore Black politics should not be a problem. Perhaps more than that, the media outlets should reaffirm their positions of journalistic integrity and concentrate rather on the policy matters of the election. With a volatile economy, energy issues, foreign nations aggression, so many uninsured Americans, and the consistently rising cost of food there seem to be plenty of substantial policy issues for these media outlets to concentrate there intellectual resources on. It seems when the media is fascinated by a charming and charismatic Black candidate (Sen. Obama) they try to make up for the decades of neglect it has paid to the Black community, to horrendous results. Black politics do not need to be defined and contrary to many both Black and White, Barack Obama is not the epicenter of it (Black Politics). As long as there has Black Americans trying to make sense of the world around them on the local, statewide, and federal level, there have been and will continue to be Black Politics.
Mr. Ford in his repudiation of Mr. Bai's article cites the absurdity in thinking that Whites know Black generational relationships better than those groups know each other. More than that, what's troubling is that so many Blacks will see Mr. Bai's work published in the New York Times and assume it to be true. Mr. Bai and others have asserted that Sen. Obama's support is not as strong among an older "civil rights" generation of Blacks. This flies in the face of known statistics that more than 90% of Blacks have voted for Senator Obama during the primary season. Mr. Bai is not the only one to have erroneously sought to define Black politics by pitting one generation against another. Jodie Allen, a senior editor at the Pew Research Group did a study to find out who's more in touch with the African American community. The premise of the study pitted Sen. Obama against Civil Rights Veteran Jesse Jackson. The fallacy of the study is the assumption of Black Monolithic views. Black politics is more than just a choice between either Sen. Obama's trans-racial rhetoric and Rev. Jackon's cries of racial injustice.
Jonathan Tilove tries his hand at explaining how Sen. Obama and racial politics will affect racial scholarship. He does better by getting out of his own way as his piece is littered with opinions spanning a decent spectrum of Black thought. He gets input from the quasi-conservative economist Glenn Loury, the completely conservative John McWhorter and the progressive Adolph Reed. The trouble with Tilove's piece is that HE identifies who HE deems to be a "leading race scholar from the left". With no disrespect intended to Dr. Howard Winant, the man who was given the laudable title, but few who know or are familiar with Black politics would be hesistant to call anyone other than Dr. Ron Walters a leading "race scholar from the left".
Though Mr. Tilove lives up to the his journalistic responsibilities by gaining points of view from a wide spectrum of thought, he fails in his intial attempt. He is trying to ultimately define something that he apparently does not have the knowledge or experience to speak on. This has been a recent and recurring problem especially in the mainstream media. As Sen. Obama continues to travel down paths never before traveled it seems many mainstream media outlets have become interested in the Black lived and political experience. The fault is not in the exploration of such topics but rather the definition of these topics. The outlets seem to be dreadfully off base. From CNN and their Black in America series, to Matthew Bai questioning "Is Obama the End of Black Politics?" these media outlets seem to not recognize the enormity of what they are tackling.
The easiest response is because they are not going through the lived experience that makes up Black politics than, they miss the target in trying to define it. I believe though with all of their "resources" and the "committment to diversity" present in various mainstream media outlets that having intelligent qualified African Americans to explore Black politics should not be a problem. Perhaps more than that, the media outlets should reaffirm their positions of journalistic integrity and concentrate rather on the policy matters of the election. With a volatile economy, energy issues, foreign nations aggression, so many uninsured Americans, and the consistently rising cost of food there seem to be plenty of substantial policy issues for these media outlets to concentrate there intellectual resources on. It seems when the media is fascinated by a charming and charismatic Black candidate (Sen. Obama) they try to make up for the decades of neglect it has paid to the Black community, to horrendous results. Black politics do not need to be defined and contrary to many both Black and White, Barack Obama is not the epicenter of it (Black Politics). As long as there has Black Americans trying to make sense of the world around them on the local, statewide, and federal level, there have been and will continue to be Black Politics.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
The Sweet (but inexact) Science
Boxing is often referred to by sports enthusiast as "the sweet science", politics has something of its own science, however it perhaps is much less sweet, and even more inexact. That science is predicting who will be a candidate's running mate. Some pundits and so called experts like to look at what a potential VP can bring to a ticket. Some think that a strong VP choice can cover a candidate's weakness or magnify a strength. Others think a VP choice could move a state from being a swing state to one that's solidly for one candidate. All of those items can be factors in the choosing of a VP this election cycle, and there are interesting and qualified candidates on both sides
The Republican situation is very simple. There is one clear choice and that is Gov. Bobby Jindal. He would be perfect for the Republican ticket. He is young (37 years old) intelligent, and has a good amount of charisma to offset Sen. Obama's candidacy. It is not necessarily in Jindal's or the Republican party's best interest for Jindal to be a VP candidate right now. Jindal's career is mirroring Sen. Obama's back in 2004 and it would actually do more for the candidate to have Sen. Obama win in 2008. Then Gov. Jindal and the Republican party can ride the nation's "wave of diversity" and run in either 2012 or 2016. Either way that leaves Sen. McCain with some familiar choices.
One choice is fmr. Ohio Congressman Rob Portman. Portman seems logical because he has been a longtime ally of McCain's and could prove pivotal in helping a swing state like Ohio go McCain's way. Portman also has served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This would lend credibility on the issue of economics which is one Sen. McCain admittedly doesn't know as much about as he should. Another name that's been thrown around that would help McCain on economics is fmr. Governor Mitt Romney. Romney was a rival of McCain' s in the primary but his fiscal prowess could prove to help the Senator in the general election. There are a few others on the list as names being thrown around for Sen. McCain's running mate including Florida Governor Charlie Crist and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Crist is another ally of Sen. McCain but has questions regarding his personal life that may turn conservative voters off. We'll get back to Gov. Pawlenty later
Sen. Barack Obama is in a unique position. As the first man of African descent to be the Democratic Party's nominee for President his choice has to balance not just policy or geographical differences but it must also be a comfortable choice for whites who are still unwilling to vote for a man of African descent. Some pundits have gone as far as saying that Sen. Obama should choose a "traditional, boring white male politician". With that being seemigly the popular logic, many expect to see Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana named as his running mate. Bayh supported Sen. Clinton in the primary so he would be able to bring back some of her disenchanted base. Also he has served on the Armed Forces committee, so that could speak to the foreign policy credentials that Sen. Obama's critics say he lacks. Furthermore Sen. Bayh is popular in his home state of Indiana, a state that could be pivotal in the 2008 election. Another popular name thrown around is that of Sen. Joseph Biden. Sen. Biden is currently the chair of Senate Foreign Relations committee, and is a veteran of the Senate and Capitol Hill having served on the Hill for 35 years.
There are still wild cards for each candidate. Sen. Joseph Lieberman was the Democratic party's nominee for VP in 2000. He is a friend of Sen. McCain and has even gone out campaigning for him. Some speculate that McCain could choose Lieberman because of the appeal he would have to independent voters. To that end Sen. Obama has a very good working relationship with Sen. Chuck Hagel. Sen. Hagel accompanied Obama on parts of his overseas trip. Sen. Hagel also said it is possible he could endorse Obama, but doubts that would happen. Sen. Hagel has been one of the loudest voices of dissent about the war in Iraq from the Republican party. Also, choosing a Republican VP would be consistent with Obama's claims to be above partisan politics. One of the names swirling the fastest on the rumor mill is Va. Governor Tim Kaine. He and Sen. Jim Webb from Va. are supposedly very high on Obama's shortlist. With all of these possibilities it seems a bit ironic that its called a "shortlist" For what its worth I see the VP's being Tim Pawlenty for McCain and Evan Bayh for Obama.
Pawlenty is young, charismatic, has executive experience from servings as Governor of Minnesota, and he is popular in a swing state. Regardless if a McCain/Pawlenty ticket were to win, you can expect to see Pawlenty on the national scene for quite some time. Sen. Bayh wins because he is everything Barack Obama is not without seeming too far off from Obama's message of change. Though it would be very enticing to select Gov. Kaine, the issue of foreign policy may outweigh executive experience. Also with Sen. Bayh, you get both because of his time as Governor of Indiana. Also extra bonuses Obama would get with Bayh, is a moderate midwesterner who President Clinton asked to deliver the keynote address at the 1996 Democratical National Convention.
After all of this reasoning and speculation the VP choices could have nothing to do with region or adding anything new to the ticket. President Bush chose Dick Cheney and Republicans had safely won Wyoming (Cheney's home state) in the two general elections prior to the Bush Administration Politically Bush and Cheney were cut from the same cloth and its not like Cheney added anything new or different from an ideological standpoint. Fmr. President Bill Clinton chose fellow southerner Al Gore as his running mate and he won two consecutive terms in the White House. This just goes to show you that trying to predict a VP choice is simply just for fun. It allows so called pundits and experts to show how right (or wrong) they are at understanding this sweet inexact science we call politics.
The Republican situation is very simple. There is one clear choice and that is Gov. Bobby Jindal. He would be perfect for the Republican ticket. He is young (37 years old) intelligent, and has a good amount of charisma to offset Sen. Obama's candidacy. It is not necessarily in Jindal's or the Republican party's best interest for Jindal to be a VP candidate right now. Jindal's career is mirroring Sen. Obama's back in 2004 and it would actually do more for the candidate to have Sen. Obama win in 2008. Then Gov. Jindal and the Republican party can ride the nation's "wave of diversity" and run in either 2012 or 2016. Either way that leaves Sen. McCain with some familiar choices.
One choice is fmr. Ohio Congressman Rob Portman. Portman seems logical because he has been a longtime ally of McCain's and could prove pivotal in helping a swing state like Ohio go McCain's way. Portman also has served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This would lend credibility on the issue of economics which is one Sen. McCain admittedly doesn't know as much about as he should. Another name that's been thrown around that would help McCain on economics is fmr. Governor Mitt Romney. Romney was a rival of McCain' s in the primary but his fiscal prowess could prove to help the Senator in the general election. There are a few others on the list as names being thrown around for Sen. McCain's running mate including Florida Governor Charlie Crist and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Crist is another ally of Sen. McCain but has questions regarding his personal life that may turn conservative voters off. We'll get back to Gov. Pawlenty later
Sen. Barack Obama is in a unique position. As the first man of African descent to be the Democratic Party's nominee for President his choice has to balance not just policy or geographical differences but it must also be a comfortable choice for whites who are still unwilling to vote for a man of African descent. Some pundits have gone as far as saying that Sen. Obama should choose a "traditional, boring white male politician". With that being seemigly the popular logic, many expect to see Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana named as his running mate. Bayh supported Sen. Clinton in the primary so he would be able to bring back some of her disenchanted base. Also he has served on the Armed Forces committee, so that could speak to the foreign policy credentials that Sen. Obama's critics say he lacks. Furthermore Sen. Bayh is popular in his home state of Indiana, a state that could be pivotal in the 2008 election. Another popular name thrown around is that of Sen. Joseph Biden. Sen. Biden is currently the chair of Senate Foreign Relations committee, and is a veteran of the Senate and Capitol Hill having served on the Hill for 35 years.
There are still wild cards for each candidate. Sen. Joseph Lieberman was the Democratic party's nominee for VP in 2000. He is a friend of Sen. McCain and has even gone out campaigning for him. Some speculate that McCain could choose Lieberman because of the appeal he would have to independent voters. To that end Sen. Obama has a very good working relationship with Sen. Chuck Hagel. Sen. Hagel accompanied Obama on parts of his overseas trip. Sen. Hagel also said it is possible he could endorse Obama, but doubts that would happen. Sen. Hagel has been one of the loudest voices of dissent about the war in Iraq from the Republican party. Also, choosing a Republican VP would be consistent with Obama's claims to be above partisan politics. One of the names swirling the fastest on the rumor mill is Va. Governor Tim Kaine. He and Sen. Jim Webb from Va. are supposedly very high on Obama's shortlist. With all of these possibilities it seems a bit ironic that its called a "shortlist" For what its worth I see the VP's being Tim Pawlenty for McCain and Evan Bayh for Obama.
Pawlenty is young, charismatic, has executive experience from servings as Governor of Minnesota, and he is popular in a swing state. Regardless if a McCain/Pawlenty ticket were to win, you can expect to see Pawlenty on the national scene for quite some time. Sen. Bayh wins because he is everything Barack Obama is not without seeming too far off from Obama's message of change. Though it would be very enticing to select Gov. Kaine, the issue of foreign policy may outweigh executive experience. Also with Sen. Bayh, you get both because of his time as Governor of Indiana. Also extra bonuses Obama would get with Bayh, is a moderate midwesterner who President Clinton asked to deliver the keynote address at the 1996 Democratical National Convention.
After all of this reasoning and speculation the VP choices could have nothing to do with region or adding anything new to the ticket. President Bush chose Dick Cheney and Republicans had safely won Wyoming (Cheney's home state) in the two general elections prior to the Bush Administration Politically Bush and Cheney were cut from the same cloth and its not like Cheney added anything new or different from an ideological standpoint. Fmr. President Bill Clinton chose fellow southerner Al Gore as his running mate and he won two consecutive terms in the White House. This just goes to show you that trying to predict a VP choice is simply just for fun. It allows so called pundits and experts to show how right (or wrong) they are at understanding this sweet inexact science we call politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
