The conservative commentator isn’t impressed with either major party candidate for president. and argues that “not since 1972 have we been presented with “two such painfully inadequate candidates: “One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear — or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s. There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West’s lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West’s industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively. But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs. Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.”
However, he warns against conservative voters staying home: “At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure — at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job. Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America. On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.”
The conservative Republican commentator discusses pressure on Sen. Barack Obama to pick Sen. Hillary Clinton as his running mate: “Some Democratic leaders are advancing the ‘dream ticket’ scenario. ‘Put them together and they cannot lose,’ they say. ‘I’m open to it,’ she says. This is the Obama dilemma. Having clinched the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama must now decide whether to invite Senator Clinton to join his ticket. Rejecting her will almost certainly alienate Mrs. Clinton’s most dedicated supporters who feel cheated by a convoluted nominating process. Ironically, if the Democrats employed the same straightforward nominating process as the Republicans, Mrs. Clinton would have clinched the nomination long ago. Conversely, selecting Mrs. Clinton would almost certainly alienate the enthusiastic legions attracted to Mr. Obama as a new political leader who promised a break from old-style politics. It would be hard to select a running mate more representative of the old-style politics of division than Mrs. Clinton. No doubt, Mr. Obama took notice of her ‘victory speech’ after he had locked-up the nomination on Tuesday night. Some may say, that just like in Lewis Carroll’s story, Mr. Obama has seemingly become the bread-and-butter-fly and Mrs. Clinton the weak tea with cream. Without her, Mr. Obama will flounder. With her, his core support will dissolve. It seems the dream-like world Carroll created may swallow the Democratic Party and its presumptive nominee.”
Mr. Blackwell continues his commentary about the dilemma facing the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee: “But before Democratic leaders rush to counsel Mr. Obama one way or the other, they should consider two things: 1. This election is eerily reminiscent of 1972 and 2. Both members of the ‘dream ticket’ are incomplete — together or individually. In 1972, the Democrats nominated George McGovern. On Election Day, President Nixon beat Mr. McGovern by 61%-38%, resulting in an absolute blowout of Nixon taking 49 states. While it’s extremely unlikely Mr. Obama would lose to Mr. McCain by the same 49-1 margin, the Democrats are embarking on a path with a proven history of defeat. During 1972, in a friendly environment, Democrats demonstrated they had become weak on military and national security matters, and so they lost. Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson all had been strong defense hawks. So had their party. But in 1972, Mr. McGovern and the Democrats were against the war. Since the late 1960s, Democrats have won only when they follow a particular pattern. Jimmy Carter, a naval officer, narrowly won as a traditional Southerner. Bill Clinton, a left-leaning centrist Southerner, choose another left-leaning centrist Southerner who had served in Vietnam, Al Gore….To be fair, there are differences between 2008 and 1972, which (like 1984) a sitting Republican president sought re-election. In addition, Democrats had been out for four years, not eight. And the GOP brand was not as badly tarnished as it is today. But there are many similarities: an unpopular war, and a record young voter turnout for the Democrats. And the Democrats, like in 1972, have nominated someone who did not win the popular vote in the primary. There is one difference that does not help Democrats: Neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton has served in uniform. Both Messrs. McGovern and Shriver were veterans. And Democrats now face not just a veteran, but a decorated war hero in John McCain.”
And more: “Yet there is this fascination with the Obama-Clinton dream ticket. Should it happen, it could be an electoral nightmare for the Democrats. And if that ticket, the most liberal in American history, somehow wins, what kind of ultra-left mandate would they claim? At that point, all of Middle America would be taken ‘through the looking glass.'”
My response: No way should Sen. Obama pick Sen. Clinton as his running mate, as there are significantly more negatives than positives in doing so. For one, adding Sen. Clinton to the ticket undermines Sen. Obama’s claim to be a change agent, seeing as we’ve had Bush/Clinton/Bush for 20 years. Two, about half of the country absolutely hates her. Conservatives and Republicans are now disorganized and disillusioned, but adding Sen. Clinton to the ticket would galvanize the GOP’s base. Three, most of Sen. Clinton’s supporters will vote for Sen. Obama, regardless of who is his running mate. There are other potential running mates who bring Sen. Clinton’s strengths without her baggage. Four, let’s be honest: a black man and a white woman on a ticket together is arguably “too much” change for America to handle at once, especially given their liberal credentials. Most importantly, former President Bill Clinton comes with Sen. Clinton. Does Sen. Obama really want to have the Clintons just steps from his office doing their own thing? Caving in to pressure to have Sen. Clinton be his running mate would make Sen. Obama look weak and reinforce Sen. Clinton’s sense of white entitlement in helping to run the country. Don’t do it, Barry!