In the first few Presidential elections after the adoption of our Constitution in 1783, the vice president was the loser of the Presidential race. I guess the founding fathers thought that at least that way the people had a say on who was #1 and who was #2 but also it required bipartisan working together for the good of the country and its citizens. I know that this idea wouldn’t fly today but that working together bit is sure attractive. The example might even inspire Congress!

Annie Kate
Birmingham AL

Of course they will pick a running mate that best helps fill them out to be the best. But not to be the best for us or the country, oh no!! To be the best to help them win this election! That IMO is what they both will be looking for! I guess you can just call me cynical! LOL

Cindy…Ga.

I think the Obama campaign should also vet David Gergen.

Or maybe David Gergen will serve as an advisor (again) to President Obama. If I were Obama I’d want him closeby as an advisor.

Annie Kate……….

I usually don’t agree with you, but I like that idea. McCain is a good guy………Obama would do well with him as his VP……………..

For me, ethics has littel to do with choosing a Vice-Presidential running mate. My casting a vote for one of the two “primary” candidates could now well rest on who picks who they pick as their running mate. Both the Presidential candidates at this time do little to make me feel warm and fuzzy. Right now, Mickey Mouse has a better chance of getting my vote than either McCann or Obama.

@ Cindy: you’re not cynical at all. You speak the truth. It is appreciated. : )

Doesn’t the VP have to have the same agenda as the prez? Picking a VP that is not 100% in line with the prez on everything could be difficult, especially if the vp is called to replace the prez.
When JFK sent troops to Vietnam, would he have wanted Johnson to stay in Vietnam?

Obviously, that Obama and McCain have opposing views on the Iraqi war and foreign affairs, it is important that each chose a vice-president who supports their ideas.

@Teresa
Omg Cindy only repeat something she has seen on TV or heard from McCain. She do not research the information on repeat it

I would like to see you debate the possibility that the Bush Adm, has changed (publicly at least) his approach to both Iran and Iraq for the purpose of actually narrowing the differences between McCain and Obama so if events begin to support Obama’s plans before the election voters will not think McCain is totally out to lunch. He has decided to sit down with the envoy from Iran, though without the spirit of negotiation and has decided that perhaps our men in Iraq should begin to leave within a time range. Or perhaps it is because Bush wants credit for ending our participation in Iraq and getting a resolution with Iran instead allowing Obama to get it. Thanks You.

EJ……………..

David Gergen is awesome. It is no wonder he has served so many Presidents so well. I agree…………If I was Obama I would ask him at the least to be an advisor if not more……….he is brilliant.

I agree…….. Sen. Obama should vet David Gergen! He would be brilliant!

I think Sen. McCain should pick Sen. Clinton. Myself and alot more pissed of Democratic women would be more than happy to vote for them.

One can not be a good President, accept he has a vision for the country. Therefore he would pick someone who has the same vision, and together, the two of them would become a treasure to their country.
And for those, of us, who see Obama with the eye of the heart, know that he has the vision that will bring about, not just a better America, but alsoa better world.
So who will his VP be? The one we least expect!

I wonder how many times a day Bruce writes or says ethics a day?
Anyways, the candidates are going to choose their running mate based on their requirements and ours; who will be the most helpful before and after the election process. Period. It’s not a complicated theory to grasp.
Bruce is absolutely correct in saying that ethics is not an observation of the world, but how it might, and I’ll say might again, best be. There is nothing radical in this article in this article, but yes maybe a touch naive.
So let me say something radical. Suppose democracy is not the best form of governing? Perhaps an extremely intelligent, ethical dictator who always does what is best for his country would be the most ethical. Or term limits of Presidents are actually unethical? For example; if the country is running great and now he must step aside to allow a lesser person take the reins. Clinton to Bush is one example and their are many more in our history. Should the people not have the choice of who they continue to want as their leader? Is not the forced changing of our leaders not some form of personality disorder to the rest of the world? Does it not, philosophically, force us backwards or at least slow down progress at times? To drastically change paths in an instance is not always the best of options; or as Bruce would say, unethical.
Of course to make these kinds of decisions we would have to process a better understanding of what is actually ethical, good, best. This form of philosophy, ethics, continually fails as it relies to much on public opinion, which has been called private laziness in some philosophical circles. It lacks intellectual courage and pays no attention to the human will. Maybe it’s just Bruce?

is it not obvious who the next pres. should be. not some old guy that can only relate to his elitest clan, how can they say Obama is an elitest when the rest of you are acting that way. There are people that are not voting because Obama is black and thats the only reason, i’ve heard people put the theory of “hope” when we all ahve hoped for something at one time or the other. I think Hillary should be the vice pres. for Obama but when she said she was suspending her run for pres. that to me seemed to be very elitest, she couldnt even take a loss and sit in the losers bracket, it was like she said to herself i wont stop the campaign because something might happen.
(Obama’s assasination) I think the only one worthy to be by Obama’s side in november is Richardson. He seems just as honest as Obama
and more honest then all them other politions but probabillity it will be him is nill. is because he’s mexican. For the 1st time americans are concidering a non white pres. is that really american.

I think Obama’s choice should be Hillary Clinton. If he doesn’t choose her then when the women who voted for during the primaries should do it at the convention.

The only reason, he won’t is because the press decided a long time ago, that they were better than Bill Clinton-didn’t take to kindly to him. Moving up to running for President or anything else. You guys decided - There were negatives. If you can’t find something. You Nic Pick. We like them.

In Bill’s case, At least Bill got the Country’s Bills paid. Everybody paid for it through their taxes. No special treatment for any one. Just what Did they do to you personally? For you to say, She can’t be a Vice President?

IF NOT AT THE POLLS IN NOVEMBER–WE SHOULD JUST WRITE HER IN THE OTHER SPOT ON THE BALLOT!!

HILLARY FOR VICE PRESIDENT!!WRITE HER NAME IN OTHER

obama should pick hillary clinton for a vp ….
she is the best canidate for the job ….. it wouldn’t be right for him to pick another lady …hillary brought a lot of women to the table ..i ..for one would have voted for her …. she is very smart …people may say what they want .. i voted for bill clinton [2] times . he was a good president ..if he could run again .. there is no doubt in my mind he would be elected .. tks polly from tn ..

Dear Bruce,
As the world becomes more complex and equally so increasingly smaller, then for me the TEAM of President and Vice President , becomes increasingly important.
At various times as National Presidential elections occur the choice of a VP should depend on Americas needs at the time, so you could say either Obama or McCain need someone with good economic or business skills this time, or that Obama needs a military expert and McCain an economist. the point is that it changes over time, and does not follow that a VP should be the same for a second Presidential term, thats the quid pro quo for the following.
The essence is trust, honour and respect between the two and letting the House and Senate know, that where I as President allow the VP to speak , hey guys listen to both of us we are one in these matters.
He as VP gets appropriate contact with the executive branch, which is opposite to the current basically non entity that is practice, simply usually a choice of who will bring swing votes.
That hurts democratically, because if the chosen teams policies are not good enough to win, politically motivated selection to win a swing or swing states demeans the intelligence of the voter.
The major change needed in the American political system is that winner by state takes all so far as the Elected president is concerned, the president should be who got the most popular votes.
And ban the Lobbyists, and Pork barrel politics, concentrate on the issues not buying ( pork barrel) or allowing special/private or commercial interests(lobbying) of house or senatorial votes.
In other words debate the issue with humanity, humility, common sense, and a government of the people for the people and by the people and not any one secular, religious, special interest group or anything else.
Regards,
Hodgson.