Slashdot Log In
Algorithm Names Powell 'Ideal' Vice President Candidate
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Jun 30, 2008 04:16 PM
from the moldable-like-tofu dept.
from the moldable-like-tofu dept.
CWmike writes "Turns out the ideal vice presidential candidate for Sen. John McCain is the same person as the ideal vice presidential candidate for Sen. Barack Obama, according to a sophisticated online survey based on technology developed at MIT. Mr. Ideal? Colin Powell, a former U.S. Army general and former secretary of state. Affinnova's survey methods doesn't use the typical polling method of asking respondents to pick a name from a list. Instead, it gives respondents larger concepts, including photos, biographical information and possible first-term priorities. Affinnova calls this algorithm 'evolutionary optimization.' Steve Lamoureaux, the company's chief innovation officer, said of the VP finding: 'We never imagined that the same candidate would show up for both parties.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Meet the new boss... (Score:5, Insightful)
.. same as the old boss.
'We never imagined that the same candidate would show up for both parties.'
What? The Demopublicans and the Republicrats are all the same? That unpossible!
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:5, Funny)
I think you're missing the point, which is that Powell in some sense falls into both parties and this is WHAT makes him (at least according to this) such a good candidate. I've done my own data mining studies on the US Senate, and the computer was able to easily divide the Senate into two camps. Uninterestingly, it placed almost all the Democrats into one camp, and all the Republicans into the other. So even a stupid computer can tell the difference.
You're taking the one guy who bucks tradition and using it as an example for why the parties are indistinguishable. You have it completely backwards.
(And by the way, the only Senator my data mining system got "wrong" was Hillary Clinton -- she ended up placed with the Republicans.)
Parent
Obama & Powell (Score:5, Interesting)
And I think you hit the nail on the head there, but there might ba a deeper insight there.
Powell has always struck me as an excellent choice for a presidential candidate: He has spent time 'on the inside' in the whitehouse, so he understands the job. He does not aspire to power (or he covers it far better than most), he is intelligent, and he does not seem tied too closely to the idiology of either party. In short, a competent guy who isn't a professional politician.
Now, if a VP candidate has qualities like this that are desireable to the public at large without a strong tie to the political left or right, they will of course be desireable to both parties. The interesting thing is that qualities that make Powell an good candidate (intelligent, honest, outsider) are the same qualities that Obama seems to posess.
McCain is a war hero, and a passable senator but I think hes going to get stomped in November. An interesting election would have been if the Republican had put up Powell.
Parent
Re:Obama & Powell (Score:4, Insightful)
The interesting thing is that qualities that make Powell an good candidate (intelligent, honest, outsider) are the same qualities that Obama seems to posess.
Maybe you should state it like this instead:
The interesting thing is that the qualities that I see in Powell that make him a good candidate are the same qualities that I see in Obama.
I would call the intelligence and honesty of both Obama and McCain into question. They are just good politicians.
Parent
Re:Obama & Powell (Score:4, Interesting)
"The interesting thing is that qualities that make Powell an good candidate (intelligent, honest, outsider) are the same qualities that Obama seems to posess."
I would maybe agree excepting for Powell's role in selling the Iraq war. Either he wasn't intelligent or he was dishonest. Either he was seriously dumb to buy the case for that war, or he was dishonest selling that case if he knew it was a fabrication. That war pitch to the U.N. with the vial of Anthrax was really contemptible. He was also completely walked over by the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense which suggests he can't compete in the shark tank that is Washington.
He was probably the ONLY insider in the Bush administration who had a slim chance and the motivation to derail the rush to war in Iraq and he failed miserably at it, since he ended up carrying the neocons water for it instead and got in front of the world at the UN and sold a lie. The U.S. paid dearly for his failure. Needless to say he had to do what his boss told him to do or resign, but if he had fought it tooth and nail, spoken out before the war and then resigned he might have derailed that whole misguided cluster fuck. He was also head of State during the time State could have salvaged Iraq but instead he let Bremmer and Rumsfeld completely screw the place up leading to a multi year insurgency. Allowing Bremmer to disband the Iraqi Army and de-Bathification were colossally stupid and practically created the insurgency that got thousands of Americans killed and maimed.
Were it not for that one giant blemish on his record I would support him for VP.
I'm also frequently flabbergasted that Condolezza Rice is often mentioned as both very popular and a leading VP candidate. Because she has also either been malevolent, incompetent or completely outmaneuvered by Cheney and Rumsfeld and was a disaster both at the NSC and State. She has apparently nearly wrecked the State department and she seems to never deliver tangible positive results on her major initiatives.
Parent
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:5, Insightful)
thus it's not particulary suprising that they are very similar in certain policy.
more appropriately, I think it should be said that they "at least claim to be" very similar in policy.
As you said, "the more things change...". What's the last time any politician full-filled campaign promises, besides GWB, who's pretty much said he isn't pulling out of Iraq? As some of my friends, who never waste a chance to fire a few shots off, said: "The one thing about Bush, he'll been honest. He said he's screw up this country and he did!" *badda bing*
McCain's changing his stance as fast as Obama. There's more than enough sound clips out there of the two directly contradicting themselves in the hopes to obfuscate and confuse votes to make them believe they're on the right side. That's just par for the course. Has anything changed with the Democrat controlled congress? Nope, more Pork Barrel Ear Marked spending on pet projects and no balls to actually live up to their "out of Iraq" promises.
The only real record one has is the voting record, which Obama doesn't have as much history of as McCain.
Parent
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:5, Insightful)
Has anything changed with the Democrat controlled congress? Nope, more Pork Barrel Ear Marked spending on pet projects and no balls to actually live up to their "out of Iraq" promises.
Oh yes, let's blame the Democrats. They are in a situation which is unwinnable. They have tried to pass many times an Iraq timetable but it doesn't get past the senate because it doesn't have any Republican support and/or Bush will veto it anyways. Without overwhelming support in the house and senate it can't survive the veto. And that's not going to happen because the White House is playing partisan politics because Bush can't stand to lose.
Also, the Democrats have to vote for more war spending because if they don't they are sacrificing our military, and that doesn't go over well with any voter, whether you're blue state or red state.
Giving Bush his war will hopefully weigh on many of our elected officials for the rest of their lives. They are all guilty of being fed false information and not taking the time to question it. As one of the few who voted against it, Obama is literally the only sane choice for president. That is, unless you would like to have a war with Iran as well?
Parent
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm really tired of that argument. The Republicans rammed their agenda down the Democrats' throats when the Republicans had a small majority. Given how hated the Republican Party is right now, the Democrats could easily crush Republican resistance if they did pulled all the parliamentary dirty tricks that the Republicans were famous for, if the Democrats did their PR right and IF THEY HAD THE COURAGE, but they keep rolling over EVERY G*D*MN time the neo-con attack machine barks.
The Democrats are completely in charge of setting the Congressional agenda. They don't have to propose anything they don't want to, and there's nothing the Republicans can do about that. They could shut Republicans out of making any sort of legislation at all, and there's nothing the Republicans could do about that. The Democrats could refuse to allocate any money at all for Republican pet projects, and there's nothing the Republicans could do about that. They can make the Republicans do song-and-dance routines on the Senate floor to keep a filibuster going, and there's nothing the Republicans could do about that. The Democrats could do public investigations on all of the most-corrupt neo-con leader finances, and there's nothing the Republicans could do about it. But the Democrats KEEP ROLLING OVER.
The Democratic leadership MOST DEFINITELY bears a huge responsibility for continuing the status quo, as does people like you who keep making excuses for them.
You do remember how the Vietnam War was ended, right? Congress refused to allocate any more funding for it - and suddenly, it was over.
We can either end it now, bring everyone home, and try to use what resources we have left to lick our wounds & repair our crumbling infrastructure, or we can wait until we have NO RESOURCES left, and then they'll have to come home anyway, back to a collapsing economy where it's hard to find a job, and we're hated by the world even more then we are now - especially if we attack Iran!
The _only_ reason Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld haven't been perp-walked by now is because the Democratic leadership doesn't have the courage to do what is necessary to crush the neo-con leadership & restore the Rule of Law to this country.
Parent
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:4, Informative)
As one of the few who voted against it, Obama is literally the only sane choice for president.
Obama was in neither the House nor Senate when the Iraq War Resolution was voted on. As such, he could not have "voted on it". He was, at the time, a critic of the war and, since then, although he has continued to speak out against the Iraq war, he has also voted in favor of every war funding resolution that has been sent to the Senate floor while he has been a member.
None of this is to imply that he is not still the best candidate in the race, but people should remember (a) to get their facts straight and (b) that Obama is still a relatively inconsistent politician who still needs his feet held to the fire (as evidenced both by these votes and the recent FISA flip-flop).
Parent
Webb, Richardson, or Clark are better choices imo (Score:5, Insightful)
Powell strikes me as a vastly better civil servant than politician. But if Obama wins, he should definitely ask Powell to be Sec Def or Sec State. Hell, same with McCain for that matter. He was a good Sec. of State in an administration that didn't give two shits about him or his opinions, imagine what he could do if the President actually tried to make use of his experience and expertise.
Re:Webb, Richardson, or Clark are better choices i (Score:5, Insightful)
Well the fact is that he told his bosses the truth, and they didn't want to hear it. They told him to go speak a pack of lies, and he did. You can feel free to hold that against him, following orders is no excuse and all that. That doesn't change the fact that in the employ of an administration that wanted to listen to his honest opinions, he would be a tremendous asset.
Parent
Re:Webb, Richardson, or Clark are better choices i (Score:4, Interesting)
Powell claims that he didn't know at the time all the caveats and questions and known faults surrounding the intelligence. In other words, that he was as much a recipient of white-washed intel as the U.N. council who received his speech. And of all the officials who were involved, his story is the most plausible by far. Already the Bush Cabal had started blocking him out of their decisions due to his tendency to disagree with them. As Rice later found out, the State Dept. had been fire walled away from Defense and the intelligence agencies. Any caveats that survived to reach the admin would have reached Powell only on the inner circles' say so. And the result is perfectly typical of the administration: Send the one guy who isn't "loyal" enough to agree with everything out to make the phony case and ultimately be the fall-guy for it.
I don't know for sure. It is possible that Colin Powell was a knowing and willing conspirator in the effort to push a war he had been against from the first ('the first' being when Rumsfeld suggested invading Iraq on 9/12/2001, if you believe Richard Clarke). If that's the case, may he burn in hell. On the balance of evidence, though, I simply find it implausible. I think he was a dupe and a patsy, and ultimately this is why he resigned, and called the U.N. speech a 'permanent blot on his record'.
Parent
Re:Webb, Richardson, or Clark are better choices i (Score:4, Informative)
It is important to remember three things: Colin Powell is a lying cocksucker who covered up a war crime in Vietnam. Seymour Hersh is a brilliant journalist who broke the story of that war crime.
Third thing: For almost a year, Seymour Hersh has been writing in the New Yorker about Dick Cheney's preparations for a war, possibly even a nuclear first strike, against Iran.
Fear.
Parent
An alternative they didn't seem to face (Score:5, Interesting)
is that their algorithm is severly flawed.
For example, most people - dem or rep - want responsible spending, national security, etc. Where the difference lies is in the road to take to get to that point. Any survey that says one of the primary party leaders would be the same person for either party is obviously in error.
Re:An alternative they didn't seem to face (Score:5, Insightful)
Any survey that says one of the primary party leaders would be the same person for either party is obviously in error.
Why? It reminds me of an example from a class I took once. Imagine you have a beach with two ice cream salesmen, for the exercise assume the customers are uniformly distributed, price is equal and they have no preference or loyalty. Now the theoretically optimal is obviously that they set up at 1/4 and 3/4, each getting half the beach and the customers walk as little as possible. But then, one of the ice cream salesmen decides to stand a little closer to the center, catching more than half. The other moves closer to compensate and so it goes. Eventually they'll stand right next to each other on the middle of the beach. With both fighting for the customers in the center, they'll become more and more equal until there's basicly no difference at all.
Try mapping it directly over to politics, with the customers as the voters and reps/dems as the icecream salesmen and the distance to the ice cream salesmen as the political distance. Everyone's fighting over the independent voters so both focus on what they want. I think what happened here is that you showed they're so close, if one is a little better at buzzword bingo it could "win" both sides. I think he should run for both parties, would be funny... Obama/Powell vs McCain/Powell, maybe it'd clue people in on how little choice they really have.
Parent
Algo source code (Score:5, Funny)
Flawed candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Colin Powell was the face of the deception campaign the Bush administration orchestrated. He was the one who went to the United Nations, and made a whole bunch of claims that turned out to be false. He's damaged goods. Why on earth would someone suggest he'd be a good candidate in a year when the electorate is itching to repudiate everything about this war?
Empty Slate is liked by all! (Score:5, Insightful)
Shock and Amaze! A politician who has made almost no memorable positions known on any domestic policy beyond truism of cooperation is liked by everybody!
Of course he's a top pick by everybody--he's like Opera-- nobody knows what his actual beliefs and agenda is, therefore nobody disagrees with him. If Colin Powell were so audacious as to actually make his position known on a politically hot subject he would suddenly see his popularity plummet.
This is America. If you agree with me you're a good guy. If you don't, you're a muslim terrorist. The only way to be liked by everybody is to say nothing of consequence.
mmmkay (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:mmmkay (Score:5, Interesting)
I've said it before, but it didn't seem like ANYONE reported on the timing of Colin Powell's shift to supporting the war. He was steadfastly the only administration dove, until the week that he gave very off-party-line comments defending affirmative action admissions policies in universities. It was like he was given a bone, allowed to speak his mind on university admissions, in exchange for future devotion to the hawk position on Iraq. I could just imagine the "come to Jesus meeting" that must have happened in 2003. That very week, I lost all respect for the man.
Parent
Re:mmmkay (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
nice theory, but for one small detail (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a good example of why even the best algorithms are poor predictors of human behavior. Powell probably IS one of the best, if not THE best, choices for McCain's VP. If only the world could fit neatly into the parameters considered by the algorithm. It's just not going to happen. Powell is on record saying that his wife has vetoed him being on a Presidential ticket. Period. She has personal issues around it and it's simply not in the cards. End of story. And end-of-line for El Algorithmo.
Al Gore Rhythm picks optimal vice president (Score:5, Funny)
Divination through dancing retired politicians is no way to run a society!
Watery tarts throwing swords is clearly a superior methodology.
Re:Makes sense... (Score:5, Funny)
How many voted for JFK?
Or Elvis Aaron Presley?
Or Santa Claus?
Or Dart Vader?
Or SpongeBob?
The better question is, how many of those would do a better job...
Parent
Re:Makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Including what is "best" for non-property-owners?
Parent
Re:Makes sense... (Score:5, Interesting)
Call me an elitist jerk all you want, but I think you should have to be a property owner to vote.
While what you're saying probably comes across as a step (or several) in the wrong direction to many people (it is very politically incorrect after all), I understand where you're coming from. It kind of reminds me of the political system at work in Heinlein's Starship Troopers [wikipedia.org]. From that link:
I don't know how well it would work in our situation, even just considering the difference in scale, but I do find it interesting. I admit I wish we had a system where people who have no idea what the issues are or what candidates (supposedly) claim to support don't vote, but finding and perfecting such a system would be impossible I think. We're doomed to have our future chosen largely based on the candidate that's thrown the most buzzwords around and has the worst^H^H^H^H^Hbest MySpace page.
(Oh, and has the strongest lobbyists. You want to seriously try and fix the system? Start with getting rid of them.)
Parent
Re:Makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should I let a illiterate imbecile (snip) vote about my future?
On similar lines:
Why should I let a uncouth non-college-graduate vote about my future ?
If you aren't smart enough to get a PhD, how can you decide what good for the entire country ? We should allow only PhD's to vote.
The simple answer to that is because its not just your future they are voting for, its their own future too. If you live in city, should the president you elect not have any powers to make any changes in the rural areas ? Why should an urbanite decide a farmers future. etc. etc.
Parent
Re:Makes sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
IQs under 90 points - you don't get to vote. (...)
Elementary education IS free AND mandatory.
You are old enough to vote but couldn't find time to learn to read yet?
Literacy rate is 99%+, so presumably those who haven't learned it, can't. In a poorer country I'd slap you silly for saying that though, do you think kids that can't read:
a) Have been just partying through their teens and never got around to it
b) Been forced to work from child age, and never got a choice
and that they might like to have a say in for example what the law says about that?
P.S. You do realize IQ tests get recalibrated right? So you'd always exclude the bottom 25%, no matter how high we raised the education level, not nearly that many are actually mentally handicapped. Not to mention such ugly things that IQ tests can be taught - sure there's a limit but without training you won't reach it. You'll have people studying for the IQ test instead of the SAT test, and oddly enough well educated people will come out on top. That kind of bullshit has been tried before to claim african-americans are less intelligent, but it's bogus. Now you want to take away their vote over it? Hell, I'd probably pass if you set it well past 100 and I still think it's a stupid idea.
Parent
Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Insightful)
I keep hearing "McCain is too old" and then read other age-relative statements about VP selection and wonder who age really matters to. Yes, at the extreme, I worry about the ages of the candidates but only to the extent that it is extreme and has other impacts (eg, health or lack of experience).
But are there people out there who are like "Gee, he's too old" even when the candidate's age has no bona fide health impact? Do the same people think "Gee, he's too young" about someone younger? Obviously there's no health issue, but experience could matter a lot.
I don't think of age outside of physical health, but I worry from the way the media portrays McCain's age that we're falling a little victim to the cult of youth.
Parent
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Insightful)
As people age they're more likely to suffer health problems. Older people are significantly more likely to die or become incapacitated due to health. There's a certain amount of unrest with people at the idea of the president becoming incapacitated.
But what's this "cult of youth" and where can I join one? Does the YMCA host a local chapter?
Parent
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since discussing basic policy is too hard, we just settle for hammering a guy for being old.
This line of discussion rarely, if ever, comes up in the context of the other two branches of government, for some reason.
Parent
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:4, Funny)
How about when he died in office? Was he incapacitated then?
Parent
The Race Card. Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only am I playing the Race Card. I'm dealing it from the bottom of the deck :).
At the end of Gulf Wars episode one, a lot of Americans were suggesting Colin Powell for president. Then I went online and checked around. Turns out that most of them did not even know he was black.
I don't know what is going the rounds in America but where I live (a Caribbean country where over 90% of the population is at least part black). The popular fear is that if Elected Obama won't survive to inaugeration.
Giving him a black VP would mean bumping him off would still leave America with a Black President.
That calculation of course would just ruin the plans of whichever secret organization conspiracy nuts like this week.
Parent
Re:The Race Card. Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I, nor any white man I know, is racist.
Well, congratulations on yourself, but how do you know nobody you know is racist? You're white, so they aren't going to be racist against you. And if they know you consider yourself to proudly be non-racist, why would they reveal that to you? Or, maybe, you just don't know the right subset of the population, don't live in the right areas. Is where you live mono-cultural? As in nobody says anything bad about blacks because there aren't any around to bother them? Do you live in a truly integrated neighborhood/city? It seems like it's mostly in the conflict areas, white-dominated areas facing a minority 'incursion', where this happens...
Cus I've certainly met some of them. I've had people openly express their racism to me, under the assumption that I'd be sympathetic as another white man (which I mostly am). I've heard people openly slander blacks in their earshot, even store owners talking trash while black customers are in their store. From Chicago to New York to Texas, I've heard some vile, vile racism.
I can't say this nicely, I assure you I mean nothing personal, but it seems to me the only ones who say there is no anti-black racism in America are simply sheltered from it.
Not that this is ultimately a bad thing... I believe racism is learned, and the more people are simply not exposed to it, and grow up wondering how or why anyone could be racist, the better the next generation will be.
White Americans are, by and large, afraid of even being thought of as racist.
That doesn't mean they aren't. It means they're going to be much less likely to be openly racist unless they're safely among their friends. And even then, not always, but those are the worst cases. Your "average" racist is simply going to leave their mouth shut and wield their racism more subtly.
And given what I've seen and heard, I shudder to think of what would be said and done if there weren't such a huge stigma against it.
We can see the same thing, more obviously, with homophobia. It's starting to get less and less acceptable to be openly anti-gay, at least in the more progressive parts of society, while absolutely not the case in the less-progressive. But has this actually made all these people unwilling to gay-bash into non-homophobes, or has it just made them reluctant to express their discomfort and disgust? Isn't that the inherent joke of "not that there's anything wrong with that", a superficial statement of tolerance that immediately follows a vehement rejection of the very concept?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Parent
Plenty of racism to go around! (Score:5, Insightful)
I am absolutely sick and tired of this "white America is overtly racist".
Well, white America is overtly racist. I know you talk about social chastisement for being a racists white but I've never met a white guy that wasn't popular for making a black joke every now and then. You really just need to quit pretending that there is any other case. It's just a fact of life. People that think that a few speeches by Martin Luther King and a couple of segregated schools can change the attitudes of a nation in a generation are utterly stupid. Being racist, in many people's eyes, is that they aren't allowed to call black people n---rs any more, and so, because they don't do that, they don't see themselves as racist...
except that...
More white people, if they see a black guy in a Lexus getting pulled over by the cops, will assume that the guy was doing drugs or is some kind of a gangster than a guy with a business or an advanced degree. If alone, they'll cross the street when they see more than one black guy.. if with a bunch of people, they'll sing Sweet Home Alabama and make that black guy go to another block. How is it in America that we have major corporations investing billions of dollars in building up data centers in places from the phillipines to india and you don't as much as even a server placed in an inner city?
There's plenty of white people too, that say that would prefer a white quarterback to their favorite NFL team. There's more to white America than a few suburban towns. All you have to do is take a drive through the civil war museums and you'll find that Confederate flags and merchandise sells on par with that of the Union. If you go into prisons, you immediately find that whites all band up into neo-nazi gangs, and, if there is a criticism of the right wing these days about religion, it is that christianity, with its message of peace, has been used to pollute the white race.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that we'd see confederate flags -everywhere-, should Obama get elected. Like he's seriously going to get a lot of votes in the South.. Come on... where's all the black NASCAR drivers? I see confederate flags more now, than I ever have before. I live in a mixed neighborhood and you have the white side of the street with guys flying the Stars and Bars and on the black side of the street you have a bunch of black guy dressed up like gangstas. People do not talk to each other -at all-, and its no different than it was when blacks and whites were throwing bricks at each other during the race riots of the early 1980s.
If there's any institution out there that is -not- racist, it is the membership of pro sports teams, and the US military. There's plenty of white soldiers that don't like blacks and plenty of whites that don't like black, but, when a black man saves a white man's life, and vice versa, things like race just don't matter, and, in this present war, there's an aweful lot of that going on.
This isn't to say that whites are all devils (Farrakhan joke deliberate), or that blacks are angels. It is to say that racism is far from dead in the USA and quite honestly I do not think it will ever be. There will never be a day where we do not have to have some sort of affirmative action in university or even in some workplaces. There will never be a day where we do not have to constantly police ourselves to ensure that people are not being judged on anything different than their ability. Racism isn't like a disease that you cure, its a chronic condition that requires persistent and determined management by the nation, the government, companies and finally the people.
Parent
Re:The Race Card. Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:4, Interesting)
Powell is rumored to be about to endorse Obama. But that is as far as his support is likely to go. Powell is still a Republican albeit a disappointed Republican. Powell is certainly not going to sling mud at the media darling McCain, point out that while the McCain camp is trying to make Obama's wife an issue, McCain's wife is a drug addict with a history of pilfering prescriptions from her charity, &ct. &ct. The McCain camp have been playing a dirty game for some time and Obama needs a veep who can return fire with like.
Powell makes no sense as a veep for either candidate. He is not likely to bring in any group of supporters. His term as Secretary of State damaged his reputation. He does not bring experience of working with Congress. He is certainly not a credible candidate for the party in 2016.
The last point is just about the only one that is relevant at this point. There is no LBJ out there who can deliver a major swing state. Obama might benefit from a veep who beings in a lot of experience of the executive branch, can make things happen, but there are plenty of slots available for that.
Clinton would be the best choice on offer if not for the 2016 issue. She is not going to be a credible contender then, even with 8 years as veep, too old. A deputy should be a credible successor.
The calculus is different for McCain, there is absolutely no value in having a second military man on the ticket. McCain needs a veep who has interest in domestic affairs, McCain has displayed none. Its pretty easy to rail against pork when you have nine houses, a private jet and you and don't care about any government issue other than starting more wars.
Parent
Re:The Race Card. Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama is half-black and half-white. It's odd that many people forget that.
It's not that odd; it's just that in the US, 1/2 black + 1/2 white = 1 black.
Parent
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry if that's harsh. We certainly do a lousy job honoring our senior citizens in this country. They should be much more respected and valued for what they've been through and what they have to offer. But they should also be less entitled than they are. Bad reflexes, an often fuzzy mind, a full pharmacy in their cupboard w/ all the side effects of that. And often a set of values that doesn't reasonably translate to the world of today. We could certainly find better ways to value and honor our most senior population, like making them an important part of the community, spending more time with them, not sticking them away in a home, etc. Blindly handing them the keys to cars or the White House, regardless of age, isn't respect, it's irresponsible appeasement.
If they want those things it's only sensible that they regularly pass the same tests a 30 year-old would have to pass for the same privileges. Being old doesn't give you the right to be dangerous. Proving your driving ability every 5 years starting at 65 or 70 is not the least bit unreasonable.
How about a 200 question *timed* multiple-choice test at a surprise time like 4am for eligibility for public office?
However it's done, testing a candidate's mental capacity and stamina would be quite helpful. The last 8 years would have been completely different.
Parent
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:4, Insightful)
Find me an old person that believes they drive more poorly now than before because of their reflexes. Having many relatives make it to 80+, I haven't found one yet. The *only* reason I know of an old person electing to not drive again is eyesight. Otherwise, they demand the world adapt to them.
Driving at a speed suitable for their poor reflexes?
Often impossible. On an interstate where the road is marked at 65, and drivers tend to be at or above that speed, an old person is unsafe driving the same as everyone else, and they are unsafe driving 10 mph below everyone else because of the disruption to traffic. So it is either that you hold back all able bodied persons, or you ban the drivers unable to intermingle with the rest of the population safely.
Nevermind that many people that age drive completely like normal folks.
There is one person I wouldn't ever ride with. She drives like crap, and taught her children to drive like crap. I pulled up to her once at a light. I recognized her and waved. No response. I rolled down my window and shouted. No response. I honked. I could see others looking at me, but she didn't. I don't know where her mind is when she is in a car, but it certainly isn't on her surroundings. That's standard. My dad drove into an intersection to make a left turn. One of those people that pulls half way in and waits for everyone to go before completing the turn. Well, he got disoriented and couldn't figure out which way he was supposed to go to get out of the intersection. While he was there, confused, the lights changed. One of the feeders into the road had limited visibility, and someone came around the corner and broadsided him. But that was long after I stopped riding with him. It only took a few times of running over curves, going the wrong way on a one-way and such before I realized he was unsafe and shouldn't have a license. But it's not like repoting anyone helps. He let it expire, took the test and failed, but the testing lady felt sorry for him and passed him anyway. Or at least that was his version of the events, and given his inability to drive safely, I believe it.
Your first point about them realizing their limitations is just plain wrong. Old people think that they are just fine. They didn't slow down, the world sped up. They are safe illegally cruising in the left lane at 20 mph under the limit. My dad told me that he can't see to change lanes (for being ancient, he never used his mirrors) so he just changes lanes slowly and aborts if someone honks. He used to turn his head to look, but now when he does that he runs off the road so he stopped. And he's typical of old people. Perhaps a little worse than some. But he's someone I've seen go from poor but barely acceptable driving to horribly unsafe driving. And the whole time, he thought he was just fine. He turns 78 this year.
They LIVE in the world of today, it's their world too even if they're not the young and hip anymore. Just because you're not happy with their opinions, what makes them less valid than your own?
Because one of the important parts of being a leader is vision. If you aren't living for the future, you are dwelling in the past. A young leader with a vision of the future to work for will make the world better for the young and old, while an old leader with an idealized memory of the past will make the world better for a select few, if any.
Oh god, how I think this one can be turned around. Make all the highschoolers and college kids that have never had a real job take a "maturity test" if they really understand enough to vote. Something tells me you'd see huge dropouts at both ends and only a power elite left to vote.
I don't see a problem with that. Some 12 year olds would pass the test with flying colors, and others would make it into their 40s without ever passing. A good number that are better
Parent
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:4, Insightful)
HERE HERE!
Old people drive horribly! Most are either too proud or too old to realize they have serious shortcomings in the mental and physical aspects.
Example? My grandfather, at 80, is a serious threat to himself, my grandmother, and anyone else on the road. Take one ride with him and you'll have to change your underwear, no joke. Still driving? Of course! Blinded severely on his left side (oncoming traffic)? Sure! Any plans to stop driving? Nope.
Your bit about older people not looking to the future is very interesting. Since government passes laws in present that have impacts on the future, it is essential that our elected leadership has the future in mind when making decisions.
Old people should be living with their families, not passing the last years in a care home or lonely in their own. Our sense of self-interest has gone so far in this country that divorce is alarmingly high (wife? who? kids? what?), relatives are left to rot, and communities are suing each other instead of working together.
American Culture sucks. To generalize: Fat, selfish, hasty, materialistic... garbage.
Parent
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Insightful)
Alot of people in McCains age group are racist, religious, sexist, homophobic and hold hatred toward countries for things that occured 70years ago.
Interesting. Yet parent post offers no evidence, citations, or examples to back up this assertion. It is a value judgment placed upon a societal segment without being encumbered beforehand by any facts.
Can you say "prejudice"?
Very good!
Now, can you say "ageist"??
BTW, I will be voting for Obama. In one of those weird ironic twists, I think Obama has a better handle on how to fix this country's age prejudice than McCain does, even though Obama hasn't been on the carousel for anywhere near as many go-rounds.
Parent
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not immensely knowledgeable about politics, but a lot of people feel that the US government has pretty much become a 2-party competition, and elected officials generally follow party lines. So, depending on the context of the comment, it could either be a compliment or an insult.
As a compliment, you can think of him as someone who thinks outside of the normal party lines. I believe McCain has co-sponsored bills with Democratic members of Congress. While this would seem to be common sense (being able to compromise with others), not everyone views that way. Some look at his as being disloyal or maybe not tough enough.
McCain has been called "not conservative enough" by some, and that was meant as an insult. They worry that he won't push the traditionally Republican viewpoints (opposition to abortion, for example).
It probably doesn't need to be pointed out, but US politics is in poor shape. It's not the fault of either party, but a collective failure. I'm not sure exactly when, but it almost feels like the venom in government got considerably stronger during Bill Clinton's presidency. I'm not saying its his fault, but if you look at Clinton, then George W. Bush, and now this round of campaigning, it seems like politics has just become petty and people are focusing on the smallest, silly things. I'm not necessarily an Obama support, but there were some press trying to question his patriotism because he wasn't wearing a US flag pin. Just silly.
As for effective government, don't make me laugh. The bureaucracy is just ridiculous. Most people in government (both elected official and civil servants) aren't interested in making a difference. They just want the status quo and to continue living off tax revenue.
Sorry for an unfocused and slightly rambling comment. I spent a couple of years working in government, and it was just very depressing to see how low the bar was set.
Parent
"Not Me!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Funny)
Not entirely true. Look at Bush/Cheney: Dick Cheney, a known Vampyre, is dated to be at least 450 years old, making him nearly 20 generations older than Bush.
Parent
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to the rest of the world, he didn't. Everyone outside the US knew his presentation in the UN was a sham for the US public, and not for the world, since the rest of the world got to see the TV reports (funny how the US stations didn't carry them, hmmm ...) debunking his "findings" before he even presented them.
More like "Semi-Colin Powell" or "Up Your Colin Powell", since he's at best, a half-measure, and at worse, helped give everyone the shaft by presenting known lies as truth.
Parent
Most of us in the US knew it was a sham too (Score:4, Interesting)
I was really disappointed when I saw Powell loyally say what his master wanted said; before that I'd had some respect for the man. And as Secretary of State, he should have been seriously using diplomacy to build negotiations and prevent a war, instead of using his position as Bush's representative to prevent diplomacy from breaking out.
I was less bothered by Condi Rice doing much the same - she was always Bush's protege, and while she was clearly very bright and opinionated on her own, it was also pretty clear that she was using Bush to get power just as much as he was using her to exercise power.
Parent
Algorithms... bah! (Score:5, Insightful)
People will say they want the person with the best tax policy, yet vote for the guy with the nicest shoes or looks like a hero. The Governator is only there because he dealt to the bad guys in the movies, not because of anything he's done in Real Life.
Parent
Re:Algorithms... bah! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Powell: Stupid or Spineless? You decide! (Score:4, Insightful)
I supported the war because Iraq never honored their obligations of the armistice agreement that ended the first gulf war. I also his whipping Clinton around and defying UN resolution after resolution with no real consequences as a major motivating factor in what gave Al Qeada the balls to hit innocent civilians instead of sticking to military targets. We demonstrated time after time that we were all bark and not bite. I seriously think If Clinton would have went in after the first time inspectors were removed, 9/11 and other precursors that lead up to what we have today would have never happened.
Sure, but that isn't a sign of not using overwhelming force. The force just moved on. Perhaps too soon or inappropriately but they moved on. The fact is that the Iraqi army more or less disbanded themselves from the role of an organized force.
Again, the force moved on. It isn't a sign of not enough force as much as an improper use of the force. Those calls were made in the field by leaders pulling the trigger.
And there is the famous story about the soldier standing there watching it who said to a reporter that he couldn't do anything without orders. The munitions depots locations probably weren't well known until after they were raided but an essential part of the plan was to allow chaos for a short period of time before order was restored to reinforce the notion that the old regime isn't in power. Don't blame faults of the plans or management of the plans on a lack of force. The simply aren't the same things.
Lol.. Down to name calling because of your ignorance are we? First, we went in with overwhelming force. Second, because we didn't properly use that force or in hind site not effective use that force isn't the same thing as not having it. Basically, the troops went too fast for the military strategists to analyze the situation. We had a point of information overload where a report was literally outdated by the time it took to proof rad it and print it up. The command structure grew too small for the tasks and soldiers were waiting on orders because commanders were playing catch up. The mismanagement of phases and transitions to other phases of the plan as well as problems effecting the command efficiently doesn't mean we didn't have enough force nor did it mean that the force wasn't there.
You see, what you have complained about doesn't mean what you want it to mean. This is especially true when you follow the events that were going on in Iraq as we were going in. I know some people who were in the position of aggregating the battlefield reports and they verify the few news report
Parent