Editorial on the news of the Day and Review of the Gridlock around the world.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Biden's Obama's Guy - Will Voter's Respond to the Cheney Play Again?

Barack Obama has stolen yet another play out of the George W Bush play book, proving that Democrats are even more like Republicans than anyone would really like. Last night at 3 AM, the Obama campaign announced that Joseph Biden, the Sen. from Delaware, would become the vice presidential candidate of the Obama ticket.

Just like George Bush in 1999, Barack Obama realized that people still think he's inexperienced, and frankly he is very inexperienced. In fact he's probably more inexperienced than George W. Bush was in 1999. George W. Bush at least had the experience to run the state of Texas, and to run several businesses into the ground. Back then George W. Bush decided that he needed someone with successful experience to balance out his own ticket and chose Dick Cheney to be his CEO of the White House.

Well Barack Obama, who shares far more similarities to George W. Bush than any candidate that has run for president this year, realize that voters saw his inexperience as well and chose his own CEO for the White House and Sen. Joseph Biden. Joe Biden failed to make it very far in the Democratic primary earlier in the year when he was unable to raise more than a few million dollars. He is widely recognized as having significant amounts of experience in foreign policy. Plus Biden brings to the ticket a couple things that Barack Obama and his campaign are lacking in the form of a blue-collar Irish background.

So here's the real question which you will not see on CNN, not even in closed captioning. This is the question that people should be asking about the new Obama Biden ticket. Do we need another inexperienced chairman running the White House within over experienced CEO possibly stealing the show. We've seen just how corrupt policy can be when a CEO is not answerable to Congress. Do we want another weak leader in the top office run by his subordinate.

No comments: