Posts
When Bill Richardson and John Kerry demanded that Hillary Clinton quit the race so the party could rally around Barack Obama, did they not at that moment take their name off of the Vice President List?
Can anyone objectively rationalize that it is ethical to first publically demand a viable candidate step down from a race that was too close to call in the popular vote, and then be considered for the VP position by the other remaining candidate?
Is this the ethical cleansing of change that Barack Obama brings with his campaign? Can Barack Obama's think tank be running so on empty that even the most obvious ethical decisions remain on the table for further discussion?
Friday, June 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Can anyone objectively rationalize that it is ethical to first publically demand a viable candidate step down from a race that was too close to call in the popular vote
1) At the time that Hillary Clinton was being asked to toss in the towel she could be seen as viable, but the writing was on the wall that it was over...
2) Elections in the United States are not, nor have they ever been, run by popular vote. Candidates are chosen by delegations that are doled out based on a variety of methods, most of which have little to do with what box you ticked on election day.
The President of the US is not chosen by a show of hands, but by the electoral college who are representatives on a generally "winner take all" basis.
YOU don't elect the president... no matter how "popular" they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College
There has been a lot of talk in the media about what HIllary does or doesn't do.
Once a political figure gets involved in a two horse race and literally demands one of the two candidates get out, they themselves should realize they are "getting out" of the running for being VP.
It's just ethics, that's all.
That wasn't even close to what I was talking about...
Honestly, I don't see why voicing your opinion should exclude you from a VP run. It was mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for Hillary to secure the nomination, therefore it was only dragging things out and running the voters ragged over a pointless fight. Voicing your opinion is a basic human right, not a disqualification for VP.
I was commenting on your misguided opinion that the popular vote matters, it doesn't... never has.
The reason a potential VP candidate should just shut up is they have something to gain by the termination of one of the remaining candidates.
Unless the person gets up there and says they are interested in the VP slot, "Hillary please get out", (which of course would be ridiculous), they should have just shut up from the beginning.
Clearly Barack Obama is all about backroom deals and quid pro quo. This is old school politics and has nothing to do with "change".
Well anyone that ACTUALLY believed he was "new politics" and would ACTUALLY change things is a moron...
Everyone in this country has the freedom of speech, I don't think it's unethical for a Senator or a Governor or anyone else in a position of power to wonder out loud why a candidate is grasping for straws that don't exist.
James, you just describe half of Obama's followers. You may see through it as a facade, but it's going to take a few more months to hopefully make a dent in Obama's teflon facade.
Unfortunately, I do not see that as possible.
To many, he's the man... SIMPLY because he repeatedly slams in the message of "change" and to many, "change" means 'no more Bush" even though that will happen even if there WERE no elections in Nov.
This whole campaign season for everyone eventually fell into the trap of the vague, nebulous concept of CHANGE... whoopty doo, you're going to CHANGE things.
Problem I see with it is if you stop an Obamaniac on the street and ask him/her what he's going to change, NONE of them know.
Or, the things they think Obama is going to change are the very tenets Obama has already done himself.
Post a Comment