I'm an Idiot! Prove me Right!

Ok, so I posted on another board my thoughts on the next election. I have little knowledge about US politics, and I’m certainly not qualified to lecture Americans on how they should run their country. But I had to post my thoughts, and I’m waiting for the counter-arguments. What I’d like is some facts, as I have no idea about what I’m saying, re: US politics. Here is the blurb I came out with:

‘If I had the Choice it’d be Obama, but my (hopeful) prediction is Hillary, with Obama as home secretary, Giuliani looking after the Arctic, Ron Paul taking Bernanke’s position in the Fed, Bloomberg in charge of NY City, and Ross Perou special adviser to EVERY department. Mr Clinton would be a special envoy to Iraq, just as Blair is. They made a pretty good fist of N Ireland, lets give them free reign in the middle east.’

It’s rubbish, no? I think it is, and my ignorance on this subject is pathetic. Please rubbish me as much as you dare, for it will be a learning experience. I’m inviting you all to give me the benefit of your experience. It’ll do me good in the long run.

If I receive no replies then I’ll guess I was right.

Yep, but you seem well meaning. Let me explain how that is so wrong as to be nonsensical.

There is no position of “Home Secretary”, and since Hillary and Obama are running against each other for the Democratic party’s nomination, it’s doubtful that the she would choose him as her Vice Presidential running mate. Possible, but doubtful. If she is elected, it’s doubtful she would appoint him as either Secretary of State or Director of Homeland Security because of his abject lack of experience in foreign affairs. More importantly, there is no position of “home secretary”, so anybody reading that is going to think “What?!”

As to Giuliani “looking after the arctic”… Double What!!! Is that a joke?

Ross “pie chart” Perot is out of politics, seemingly for good and “special advisor” isn’t a position, anyway. The only thing that’s possible in your post is Slick Willie being appointed the ambassador to Iraq - that’s actually not a bad idea, come to think of it.

Oh, and Bloomberg is already the Mayor of New York.

Thank you, some ignorance has been corrected!

No joke about the Arctic, it a sizeable and political issue, or should be.

I had a lengthy post typed up explaining how President Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have any obligation to make half these appointments or the authority to make the other half, but I think I’ve misread the OP’s idea.

Oh, I was hoping you were saying Giuliani should be exiled to wander the Arctic tundra, like Frankenstein’s monster. Because that’s the sort of political vision I could get behind.

Not a problem, Glass. One other thing: Bernanke’s not going anywhere. Fed chairnan is one of the few positions that the politicians don’t play too many games with. He’s appointed for a four year term by the President, sure, (and subject to Senate confirmation) but the Fed chairman is almost always reappointed by the incoming administration, even if that administration is diametrically opposed in politics to the previous one. Greenspan served under Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr. Barring some kind of fiscal catastrophe at the fed (which I don’t see happening) Bernanke is going to be reappointed no matter who wins the election.

Ha ha, I was seeing it as an unknown, which required someone with experience in dealing with erratic situations.

That’s sorta true, but it’s not really a political issue yet. We have no “Arctic Resources Tsar”.

In fact, when Russia planted their undersea flag in the arctic, the U.S. did the diplomatic equivalent of laughing at them.

Um, isn’t it virtually always the case that the Presidential nominee chooses another candidate as the running mate?

You haven’t mis-read my OP, it just seems I’m way off the political landscape. Authority in making additional staff seems to be different to what I know. Never mind, it was a decent question, and it could be asked again.

Usually not. Cheney wasn’t running against Bush, and Gore wasn’t running against Clinton. I did say it was possible, but two things are acting against a Clinton/Obama ticket. The first is the front runner thing. I could see the race for the nomination start to get ugly near the end. The second is the need to “balance the ticket”. The two are too similar and both are going to need someone that’s a bit different. Just my opinion, of course, but I’d lay some serious money against a Hillary/Obama ticket happening.

That is my thought too, Mr C. But I cannot argue too virulently, for my reaction could seam absurd. Good point though, thank you. I’m too insecure to follow this line of argument, as it could go either way. Never mind, I’ve got some excellent music to listen to!

So who’s Hillary gonna run with? Ack, I’m just hyper-boling now, but I can see her as a ‘team’ with Obama, and not an enemy.

Oprah Winfrey?

Just kidding, I’ve no idea, but Phil Bredesen, or Brad Henry, maybe? I hate to say it, but both Hillary and Obama are going to need a white guy. People can jump on me for saying that if they want, but ya gotta admit that it’s the truth.

My personal choice would be Sam Nunn if she can lure him out of retirement. Senator Nunn would be perfect.

This OP is really what the Straight Dope is all about. You seem like a delightful person–welcome aboard!

Don’t know who P Bredesen or B Henry are, at all, but Sam Neil is cool! He he. I ain’t gonna jump on ya for saying what you feel, it’s a free country after all. The white guy is (in my opinion) a valid point, we all know it’s there and it isn’t going to go away today, so we have to live with it. That the country is considering electing not a middle class white man, but a black guy or a woman is massive. Let’s be honest, whoever gets elected is a ‘face’ and it’s the party who actually make the decisions. That’s the way it’s always been, you can’t have one guy making decisions on behalf of the most powerful country on the planet, that’d be crazy. No, it’s the party, with a political figurehead representing the country. If that PR spokesperson is less middle-class oil and closer to the demographic of some of the other countries which the US do business with, is that such a bad thing?

I don’t think that’s true at all. Party organizations have little influence over Presidents and Presidential candidates compared to how things were earlier this century.

Things have changed that much in six years or less?

I must’ve forgotten to set my watch for 21st Century time. :smack: I was thinking of the present vs. 100 years ago, obviously.