About a year ago I thought a Clinton-Obama ticket was a good idea. I thought Hillary Clinton was more experienced and Barack Obama was more visionary and could spend time as VP and learn the ropes. I was terribly wrong. Hillary Clinton is not any more experienced, she is just more aggressive, and those are not the same skill. I now think that if Barack Obama became Hillary’s VP running mate he would be bannished from any real governing and her subsequent mistakes and mis-management would tarnish his career ala Al Gore. This would be a career ending move for Barack.

I do think though that the flip side situatuion might work. If Barack has the upper hand by being President he can and will keep Hillary in line and maybe teach her something about real people’s needs rather than just politicking and power in Washington. She would still get the notoriety by being the first lady as Vice President and would not be able to get into too much trouble or cause too much damage. Although Barack would have to establish the rules first and enforce them constantly because she is so hard to keep out of trouble. It’s what happens when egos run wild.

As far as John McCain goes, he has a connundrum also with who to choose as a VP. He can’t choose anyone middle of the road or mainstream because he would really alienate all the super conservative base people and he would loose their votes. What could be more dangerous though would be if he went and chose someone like Mike Huckabee who is an extreme conservative right guy. That would alienate the even larger base of normal middle of the road republicans who you don’t think he can loose, but he could. Either way he would have to attract more democrats to vote for him to replace whichever part of the Republican party that doesn’t like his VP. And if you remember anything about the show The West Wing, you know that the VP is a totally arbitrary position that has nothing to do with governing on a day to day basis. People who run together usually don’t even like eachother and potentially have completley different ideas. But thanks to the law the president has all the power and the VP has none, unless he has to take over in the unlikley event that something happens to the president. 99.9% of the time the VP is just a figurehead and diplomat.

So, maybe we shouldn’t base our vote on the VP at all? Maybe we should just pick a President and not worry about the VP this year in 2008? What do you think?

So, I have some catching up to do here. The presidential primaries have happened in almost all of the states in the USA already (it is March after all) and the Republicans have a clear front runner in John McCain. He isn’t the middle of the road sensible guy he used to be, but the Republicans are happy about that. The Democrats have a knock down drag out battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the nomination and we won’t know anything about what those delegates really vote for until the Democratic National Convention later this year. I am one who personally thinks that Barack Obama is the better choice. I can’t trust Hillary. She is not in this for the American people. She is in it for personal pride and power. I think Barack enjoys those things too, but he has not been in this business as long and still has some morals and values that link back to every day people and their needs. Plus I think we need a uniting force between the different groups in this country and Barack is the right guy to do that.

So, we don’t know what will exactly happen yet but we are all still waiting with baited breath and hoping that nobody makes any tragic mistakes or mis-steps. (unless they are Hillary)

Anyway, back to the original topic at hand. They profiled all the potential First Ladies and it turns out that 4 of them are Lawyers. This group as a whole is as non-traditional as you could imagine. More women are successful in their careers on their own these days and this is directly reflected in the professions and backgrounds of these women. It shouldn’t be a suprise though that someone successful in politics would want a wife that is just as smart and accomplished as he is. Times have changed.

This brings up the question, what do Americans want of their First Lady? How much does that figure into who they Vote for? I personally think it can’t really help you too much, but it can hurt you a lot. I think people will not vote for a candidate if they don’t like the wife, but they will vote for a candidate if they like him and are either ambivolent about the wife or like her (or him). I still think that 90% of who you vote for is still about the candidate themself.  It’s just the spouse that can be a disqualifier if they seem too aggressive, too crazy or not very polished.

Who will actually follow through?

When was the last time we had a president that made changes for the better in the U.S.? A lot of candidates make promises I think this election will have to be about actual changes made or people will riot. There is so much discontent in America right now that if the next president doesn’t deliver what they promised, there will be massive revolts in the streets. I just feel it around me.

People are tired and frustrated. They have been used and abused by mega corporations, abandoned by family and are isolated by the internet. They can’t deal with the government failing them too. This is the one topic that should unite this country. Finding a better leader.

This should be everyone’s top priority in 2008. We should all get together and debate the issues as citizens and take notice of the elections on a local level too. Support those candidates that have the ideas and methods to improve our lives as citizens and work against big business. Only then will the quality of life and pride in this country return. Based on that information, who do you think deserves my vote?

TIME magazine has a profile article on John Edwards and his campaign in Iowa. They summarize his stance on many issues as the leftist of the 3 major candidates. They quoted him as describing Hillary’s stance as very mainstream and almost the same as a moderate Republican, Barack Obama as a more liberal and change minded candidate and himself as the most left Democratic stance with the most transformational ideas of all three. I think from what I read about how he would like to provide health care for every American, cut the environmental damage being done in this country and start to find real ways to end poverty sound like all well meaning ideas and positions to have.

What I worry about isn’t how genuine John Edwards is about these ideas. What I worry about is his ability to convince the congress to vote for them when some of them personally have financial motivations to do exactly the opposite and will loose a lot including re-election if they go for these policies and plans in the future. Should we develop more government run programs to try and solve the problems facing Americans at the bottom of the financial ladder? Some feel that it is our duty as humans to help others, and if these government programs can provide a saftey net like medicare and social security and disability pay we have a moral obligation to do so.

Others hate the cost of these programs and feel that lasezz faire is the only way that the economy can be unburdened and run properly, and when it does jobs and money for services are plentiful. What I think is going to be the reality is something in between. No one wants the government to be federally intertwined with our daily lives, but how many homeless people do you have to walk past on a daily basis to know that there is something broken about our country? Why is it ok to some people to leave large numbers behind just because you found a way to exploit society and it’s systems and get rich to protect your own family? Where is the humanity?

Otherwise, we all have heard by now that Fred Thompson has officially declared his run for the Presidency and some are comparing him to Ronald Regan. Which is not a similarity I found outright noticeable. But the crossover between acting and politics is there and apparently Regan declared late in the Primaries too. As far as what he thinks about the issues that the country faces and will determine votes for or his history of how he has voted and made policy aren’t completely known. Well some people may know, but I haven’t read a lot about it yet.

Barack Obama had a big Garden Party this weekend with Oprah at a fund raiser. Some people may indeed vote for him because Oprah is, and others may consider him when they would not have before. Oprah has a strange pull on a certain demographic in America. I would guess it is the less educated group who use TV as a main source of information. But I am not sure that fully describes it either. Colin Powell also has kind words for Barack Obama in a recent GQ article about Iraq and world diplomatic decisions.

Not many people have had kind words for Hillary Clinton lately, although she leads the Democratic primary race in many polls. The John Edwards camp pointed out in TIME that she has accepted $40,000.00 from lobbyists in her campaign and she would continue the same military involvement that the current Bush Administration has started. (even though many people consider it a giant clusterfuck)  She also still has issues with her presence on stage and speaking style. Bringing Bill Clinton along to campaign with her has helped, and they are doing a promotion through her site that if you donate you could possibly be drawn to win a lunch in person with her and Bill to atlk about what you want to change in America. (disclosure: I have not donated any money to any candidates now or in the past)

Rudy Giuliani is taking a very pro-Bush continue what we’ve going because terrorists are coming back stance and not really getting into social issues because he isn’t really in the realm that most republicans are on them. It also scares me that TIME magazine reported 2 weeks ago that he uses a bunch of former Bush advisers to get information and form some policy stances for his campaign. That is like electing another Bush. I am not really for any one party or another, but I am definitely not about Bush. Mit Romney is also going the lets do more War stance and he has some scary social views to keep the far right happy.

I was recently reading a book called “One Billion Customers” which is about doing business in China and profiles the societal differences between the U.S. and China. One major difference is the absence of Religion there due to the communist party. They talk about how this makes the society have an absence of guilt and the only thing bad about breaking a law there is getting caught. This brings to light the idea of where religion stands in American Politics for me. It isn’t something that should directly influence policy, or be an arm of government, but it should help guide the moral ideas of the people and the candidates. I hope someday we aren’t like China. We should care about the law for more reasons than getting caught.

 I think that the grey area with Religion in politics comes when so many religions coexist and may have different values. But overall the helping of all people and belief that there is something greater than all of us shapes how people act and live and apparently act out. So even though the Democrats are not known for their Religious ties, I think it is important to note the positive effects of their policies in helping those very much in need and that the Republicans pretty much despite their religious ties, don’t care about helping people just businesses. That’s not a lesson from any book of any religion.