For once, I agree with Michael Moore….
2. Pick a running mate who is a conservative white guy or a general or a Republican.
Yes, it will seem like smart politics at first. Shore up Obama’s lack of military experience with a hawk. Be true to Obama’s message that he’ll be a president for everybody by having him run with a Republican. Make a pitch to the purple states of Virginia and Indiana by putting one of their own on the ticket. Or make the red state of Ohio happy by handing the vice presidential slot to its governor. Just so long as Obama’s running mate screams “same old, same old,” making it harder for him to attract the new voters he needs to win.
Former Counter-terrorism Czar from the Clinton Administration, Richard Clarke, would be the perfect Vice President candidate for Senator Obama. While not a general, he is a white, Republican man with a claim to being a veteran of the war on terror. He’s also a hero to the DNC party base. He’s the only person in the Bush Administration to apologize for the 911 attacks. He can claim (albeit falsely) that if it weren’t for Bushco and Darth Cheney then there’d never have been a 911 or an allegedly false pretext for invading Iraq and the subsequent six-eight years of war there. He can claim that while Sen McCain is a war hero, he’s a Vietnam war hero, and a fighter pilot….not a 21st Century counter-terrorism Czar; “hero.”
Will Obama go the smart route and pick a man who the American people will recognize and associate with the faux pre-911 peace sentiment? We shall see, but it would be a lot smarter than someone most Americans need to be introduced to.
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
TASTY PICK, BONEHEAD
Clarke’s aura fades on close scrutiny
If he’s Obie’s VP designate, there’ll be a lot of Lefties, like this one, who’ll start howling again. (NOTE – that one if his accusations is that Rice lied when she said Clinton didn’t hand over a working strategy for handling A.Q. But, as we see from the quote from the Clark memo, that was exactly the case. There was general concern, but nothing specifically substantive that was ongoing, and only tentative suggestions about what how to procede, if the Bush admin thought them appropriate. (If they were so @$#% sure of the need for them, why even suggest that they may be “overreaching?”). And, if you read the memo carefully, you;ll see it was ALL dealing with the threat of A.Q. to OTHER COUNTRIES, not to the USA homefront directly, but just to our overseas interests.
I do hope he’s picked and that SOMEONE goes back to the original memo to show what a lying piece of garbage that guy is, as well!
NOTHING LIKE TRYING TO CYA WITH A LARGE AND CLEAR TARGET
I remember some years back when Richard Clarke was making the rounds of the talk shows after 9/11 blasting the Bush administration and their policy on terror. He got the expected sympathetic reception in the media as he promoted a view where the Bush idiots never understood the danger and had put the country at risk while the Clinton team had understood it well and had been implementing policies that would prevent serious attacks. There is just one thing about this entire scenario that does not make sense to me. It is in no way is consistent with Bill Clinton’s 2000 State of the Union Address. Not only does he never mention Al Qaeda or similar imminent threat, he indicates that we are not facing any immediate threats.
President Clinton states:
“We are fortunate to be alive at this moment in history. Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats.”
And further:
“I predict to you, when most of us are long gone, but some time in the next 10 to 20 years, the major security threat this country will face will come from the enemies of the nation state: the narco-traffickers and the terrorists and the organized criminals, who will be organized together, working together, with increasing access to ever-more sophisticated chemical and biological weapons.”
Despite Mr. Clarke’s assurances to the contrary this does not appear to me to be an administration that had its eye firmly on the terrorist ball and understood how close we were. I always found it strange – well maybe not so strange – that none of the interviewers ever brought up the President’s speech.
Heh. Indeed. But if a Lefty does it, it’s called “cherrypicking.”
“Heh. Indeed. But if a Lefty does it, it’s called “cherrypicking.”” — WD-40
TRANSLATION….
‘Since he COULD have been misinterpreting, you should assume that he DID.’
But, I wasn’t. Whoever wants to check my interpretation for themselves can, because I gave the link.
Go ahead, knock yourself out.
Thanks Scott… this is the stuff nightmares are made of. Obama-Clarke bumber stickers. Ick.