Forgive my candor but I find the ballyhoo over a Sir Obama Madame Clinton combined ticket simply drole. It is not in the character of Madame Clinton to rest and accopmlish nothing for four years and this is the unfortunate job description of vice president. To quote from John Stewart's book, a simply splendid read if you find the time, "the most important duty a vice President serves during his term is being born in a location geographically disparate from the president". Hoohoohoo! But in all seriousness, anywhere in the states is geographically disparate from Hawaii. Even one of those omnivorous political castaways from California would get the job done.
It seems obvious to state that such a reputable political figure as Madame Clinton would be more happy in a position of more power. A gaurnteed seat on the Supreme Court, should one of the blokes currently presiding accidently overdose on opium or whathaveyou, would be much more fulfilling and make better use of her talent. Being very familiar with the laws of the states and trust-worthyly democratic in her opinions, she would not only be a bonafide round peg existing in a bonafide round hole but also a perfect identity to balance out the current Republican bias, unfortunate, in the highest court of the land.
On the subject of libertarianism, Sir Fondant, you and I seem to share the same opinion regarding the free exercise of our liberties. I've enjoyed the right to bear arms for as long as I've had arms and seperating me from my "passtimes" would require complex chemical equations and years of calculation.
What really captures my attention is the Libertarian additude toward the size and power of government. Had Sir Ron Paul had his way, a conclusion I daresay is all but forgotten now, he would have abolished the Federal Reserve and done away with income taxation. I don't know if a government that small is good or bad. It would certainly secure liberty but it's an open question what else it could stand to secure. Who would stop the paupers roaming through the street asking for money if not the government?
It seems obvious to state that such a reputable political figure as Madame Clinton would be more happy in a position of more power. A gaurnteed seat on the Supreme Court, should one of the blokes currently presiding accidently overdose on opium or whathaveyou, would be much more fulfilling and make better use of her talent. Being very familiar with the laws of the states and trust-worthyly democratic in her opinions, she would not only be a bonafide round peg existing in a bonafide round hole but also a perfect identity to balance out the current Republican bias, unfortunate, in the highest court of the land.
On the subject of libertarianism, Sir Fondant, you and I seem to share the same opinion regarding the free exercise of our liberties. I've enjoyed the right to bear arms for as long as I've had arms and seperating me from my "passtimes" would require complex chemical equations and years of calculation.
What really captures my attention is the Libertarian additude toward the size and power of government. Had Sir Ron Paul had his way, a conclusion I daresay is all but forgotten now, he would have abolished the Federal Reserve and done away with income taxation. I don't know if a government that small is good or bad. It would certainly secure liberty but it's an open question what else it could stand to secure. Who would stop the paupers roaming through the street asking for money if not the government?