An Obama-McCain ticket = sensible foreign policy?

Author: Rosa Maria Young

On Tuesday Richard Cohen, who had been on the side of candidate Obama during the primaries, wrote in the Washington Post “I have an even better ticket in mind: Obama-McCain. That way we might get a sensible foreign policy.” This was in response to one of the utterances of Chris Matthews, one of the pundits of MSNBC, who said that he was beginning to think that a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton ticket made sense. I will not go into what Mr Matthews thinks as I don’t care at all about what the majority of the pundits in the media think. I hope they can live with themselves if the Democrats lose the election.

So let us go back to Mr Cohen. Apparently he is already ahead of some of us and in his mind Obama and McCain are already running. What was interesting is that he named his ideal ticket thinking that McCain sounded like an inflexible hard liner and Obama was too naive. So a combination of the two was needed or as he said “some moderation on McCain’s part, some realpolitik on Obama’s.”

I found it fascinating as it is well known that as different as the Republicans want McCain to be presented, he is just too conservative and some of the most important problems the country has had with Bush may well be continued with McCain. To me what is most worrisome is what I found out when reading an article by Carl Tobias in the CS Monitor. Allegedly McCain made the standard promise to name Supreme Court justices who share the perspectives of Chief Justice John Roberts as well as those of Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. For that reason alone we should work extra hard to put any of the two Democrat candidates in the White House.

Continuing reading Cohen’s article I came to the following “I attribute Obama’s predicament to inexperience and a certain worrisome naivete. When he said he would personally negotiate with Iran (if he were president), he might not have realized exactly what he was saying.” Well is that the type of President we want? Inexperienced and naive, not realizing what he says? This is also rather scary. And puzzling that when we have someone like Clinton, who whatever her faults are is certainly not inexperienced and or naive, someone who could stand up to anything the republican machine throws at her in the general election, we just discard her candidacy as if it was not valid. Why? That is all I want to know, why?