The Next Vice President
By Jerome Grossman
Some Democrats believe their dream ticket for 2008 would be Hillary Clinton for President and Barack Obama for Vice President. It won't happen. Yes, Hillary is the likely nominee for president at this time but she is unlikely to select Barack as her running mate.
Personal like or dislike will have nothing to do with the decision. The Vice President is selected to win a state or increase constituency support for the ticket. In 1960, John F. Kennedy needed Lyndon B. Johnson to carry Texas. In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt needed John Nance Garner to carry Texas. In neither case, was there affection or affinity. It was strictly business, the political business of winning.
Obama, Senator from Illinois, is not necessary for the Democrats to win that solidly Democratic state. In 2004, John Kerry carried Illinois 55% to 44%; in 2000, Gore beat Bush there 55% to 43%. The Democrats hold the governorship, both Senate seats, both houses of the Legislature and a majority of U.S. House seats.
Would Obama increase the African-American vote nationally for the Democrats? Only marginally. They already vote about 90% Democratic and Hillary does not need validation with that constituency.
As the party nominee, Hillary will be looking for a Democrat who would bring a state or two to the Electoral College that do not usually vote Democratic. In New Mexico, Bush defeated Kerry narrowly 50% to 49%; Gore carried the state by a mere 365 votes. The Democratic governor, Bill Richardson, was elected in 2002 with a 55% of the vote. Democrats have also gained control of the state legislature, one senator and one of three U.S. House seats.
Forty two percent of the population of New Mexico is of Hispanic origin, Arizona 14%, Colorado 17%. Hispanic Americans now comprise 15% of all Americans and is the fastest growing minority. Richardson comes out of that community, father was an Anglo, mother Hispanic. They know him and his background. While they vote Democratic narrowly, this constituency offers an opportunity for significant Democratic expansion.
If not Richardson, the vice presidential nominee will be someone who can make a difference in the Electoral College. For the Democrats, politics in 2008 is desperately about winning, love and sentiment will have to wait for another time.
Showing posts with label Governor Bill Richardson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Governor Bill Richardson. Show all posts
Monday, August 20, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
My Position on Iraq By Governor Bill Richardson
My Position on Iraq
By Governor Bill Richardson
I believe that we need to withdraw all of our troops within six months. That's all of our troops. Other than the customary Marine contingent at the embassy, I would not leave anyone behind. And if the embassy isn't safe, they're coming home too.
No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol - with targets on their backs.
A regional crisis is worthy of military intervention. A true threat to our country's security is worthy of war. But a struggle between a country's warring factions, where both sides hate the United States, is not worthy of one more lost American life.
With all due respect to my Democratic colleagues, Senators Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and Biden have all voted for timeline legislation that had deliberate loopholes. Those loopholes allow this president, or any president, to leave an undetermined number of troops in Iraq indefinitely for the purposes of training Iraqi security forces and providing force protection. Troops protecting troops training troops? We've heard this before - it sounds a lot like Iraq today.
For those who believe that we should leave behind a residual force, one question must be answered: how long does that force need to be in place before we can leave? One year? Two years? Ten?
There is not a single sign that Iraq is improving. To the contrary, every indication is that it's getting worse, and a smaller force will do nothing to change that.
How many more Americans must die before we leave an Iraq that will be no better off than it is today? And in a war where American troops are the number one target, who are the poor souls being left behind?
Congress should use its authority under Article One of the Constitution to de-authorize the war and require the president to withdraw ALL troops - and the President cannot veto that. If they don't do it, I'll issue the order on January 20th, 2009.
By Governor Bill Richardson
I believe that we need to withdraw all of our troops within six months. That's all of our troops. Other than the customary Marine contingent at the embassy, I would not leave anyone behind. And if the embassy isn't safe, they're coming home too.
No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol - with targets on their backs.
A regional crisis is worthy of military intervention. A true threat to our country's security is worthy of war. But a struggle between a country's warring factions, where both sides hate the United States, is not worthy of one more lost American life.
With all due respect to my Democratic colleagues, Senators Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and Biden have all voted for timeline legislation that had deliberate loopholes. Those loopholes allow this president, or any president, to leave an undetermined number of troops in Iraq indefinitely for the purposes of training Iraqi security forces and providing force protection. Troops protecting troops training troops? We've heard this before - it sounds a lot like Iraq today.
For those who believe that we should leave behind a residual force, one question must be answered: how long does that force need to be in place before we can leave? One year? Two years? Ten?
There is not a single sign that Iraq is improving. To the contrary, every indication is that it's getting worse, and a smaller force will do nothing to change that.
How many more Americans must die before we leave an Iraq that will be no better off than it is today? And in a war where American troops are the number one target, who are the poor souls being left behind?
Congress should use its authority under Article One of the Constitution to de-authorize the war and require the president to withdraw ALL troops - and the President cannot veto that. If they don't do it, I'll issue the order on January 20th, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
