Originally Posted by SDW2001
First, I agree Gore wouldn't consider it. But secondly, how can one possibly
believe Gore got the election stolen from him? Really, there's just no case for it whatsoever. And last...it doesn't have anything to do with the grueling schedule. It's about Gore supposedly not wanting the job anymore. Oh, and the the polls show he wouldn't help (coincidentally, that's why he isn't running for President, too).
I don't think Gore wants the job, and that's the more important reason why Gore won't be the VP pick. But it's undeniable that elections are physically, emotionally and financially draining, and after such a tough experience with the 2000 election, whether it was "stolen" or not, who would want to go through that again?
On the topic of the election being stolen:
It's pretty almost undebatable that the election was stolen from Al Gore.
- The Supreme Court unilaterally decided Bush won the election without a full recount.
- Gore won the popular vote, the only thing that should matter. I do understand, that the electoral college is the way the system works, and therefore isn't an argument for why Gore should have won from a purely technical standpoint.
- There is hard evidence of voter disenfranchisement in historically democratic areas (Miami/Dade).
- Controversial punch-card systems were primarily found in poorer and historically democratic areas. Many votes were discounted because of so-called "Hanging Chads."
- Gore won the election in the majority of third-party, post-election recounts.
- Katherine Harris, then secretary of state for Florida and co-chair to Bush's Florida campaign, certified that George Bush had won the popular vote in Florida.
- Jeb Bush, brother of George Bush, was the Governor of Florida at the time. Skullduggery would have been easier to arrange.
I'm not really complaining about it so much as pointing it out as a fact: the election was stolen from Al Gore. This isn't really a big deal, after all, the Democrats stole the election from the Republicans in 1960. What comes around goes around, right?
That I agree with.
No one except Obama himself is pulling race into this election. And another black candidate is not going to change anything in itself. The number of people who are racist enough not to vote for Obama because he's black is not going to increase because of the VP choice.
Not true at all. Obama's race is an inherent characteristic that is an undeniable factor in the election, to a certain extent. It may or may not be true that Obama is utilizing his race position to gain an advantage, I am not going to make any judgment there, but it is certainly a huge mistake to say that "no one except Obama himself is pulling race into this election." Hillary and Bill were the first to pull race into the election, and Obama was forced to respond.
No, it's supposed to be someone who would make a good President, not be "a great pick." Either way, why is that not Rice? I don't think she'll be the one, but it's more about the first reason you gave than the second.
You're arguing over semantics. When I said "the VP pick is supposed to be someone who [...] would be a great presidential pick," I meant that they would be a great pick for president. There is no telling who will or will not be a great president in advance. The "pick" part imparts the element that all elections are based off: the potential to be a good president. So essentially, then, we agree with regards to that.
If I had to guess, I'd say McCain is likely to take Romney or Huckabee.
I agree that Huckabee is a likely choice and would be a good choice for McCain. I can't say the same about Romney though. Romney had sub-par performance in the primaries. Although he may be a suave and debonair businessman with supposed economic cred, he turned out to be mostly talk and no action. Romney can't electrify the religious-right conservative base like Huckabee can.
Obama looks to be leaning towards Webb or Kaine.
Both would be strategic and admirable choices, although there are plenty more choice that's true for. Personally, I feel that Claire McCaskill is the perfect ticket balancer for Obama. She offers southern charm which could help Obama in his weakest spot: the south. With a choice like Claire McCaskill, Obama could win Missouri (her home state), North Carolina, and Georgia. If McCain picks a female running mate, I think Obama must pick a female running mate (although the reverse is not true). As I've already said though, a female pick other than Hillary is dangerous. You can bet the veep hunters are doing intense research on this. Another great possibility is Chet Edwards of Texas; could be a great ticket balancer.