There is one problem with Joe Biden, he can't stop talking-ever. If Obama wants to win he should pick Sam Nunn.

Obama should choose Mitt. Then, he would be a shoe in to carry politically important Utah. Mitt has proven he can chance faster than kids after sacrament meeting wanting to go swiming on a sizzling Sunday in July.

I'm from Orem. If Obama chooses Mitt I will become a liberal democrat.

What a dream ticket! One lunatic and one maniac together in one package.Their campaign motto could be "apocolypse now". Move to Canada immediately if these two get in.

he should choose George Soros as his VP - he's going to be calling the shots anyway

Gag! gak! Yuk! Biden is an inside the beltway wonk who has been on every side of every issue. Pick Jim Webb. He's only a part time politician and a military man who understands the limitations of same. Webb's the guy.

O Canada--our home and native land.... Better start brushing up on those lyrics.

I guess our letter writer does not remember Joey's plagarism problems from a few years ago. Yep, just what we need, another non-original thinking disgraced booby.

Senator Obama needs to pick some "heavy weight" that can do more than talk. Whomever he selects, his running mate will have to be a person that citizens can rely on who actually has a proven work record to show that he/she can do the job.

The same goes for Senator McCain. Although Senator McCain has much more experience than Senator Obama, our nation is facing financial ruin and moral decay at the same time. His running mate needs to be a proven leader in both of those areas.

scard to death, I am sorry but I would not wish people like you on our neighbors to the north. Don't make our problems their problems anymore then they already are.

"...our nation is facing financial ruin and moral decay," says Mike Richards.
You can thank the people that took a healthy surplus and immediately went to work to turn that into a record-breaking deficit for that.

As far as the usual right-wing morality whining, when are conservatives going to figure out that they have lost every battle of trying to force their brand of "morality" (it's really about political power) on the majority of freedom-loving Americans?
on

I say the Big O should take Antonin Scalia as his running mate. He would balance the ticket, get a conservative Catholic in line for the Presidency and most of all would get an activist judge off the bench. Take that Neos!

Do you realize just how much you sound like Rush Limbaugh - only in reverse?

Clinton did not leave a healthy surplus. Where do lies like this get started.

The deficit is nothing compared to the national debt, and the national debt is what will destroy this country once and for all.

If you have $20 in your pocket (surplus) and you owe $1 million, you are in debt, there is no surplus. Such math is how we got into this mess in the first place.

I'm sure John knows that Clinton's final year in office produced a budget surplus. But maybe it isn't surprising that he didn't mention that the total national debt is up 50% after just one administration - the current one. And please, let's save the Constitutional 101 lecture about Congress spending all the money.

I'm in agreement that Joe Biden would be a fine running mate. If plagerism is the worst thing he ever did, then that's not too bad for 35 years.

If the new President did nothing but clarify for the deficit/debt numbers it would be great. The newspapers should run at least a monthly report on what the numbers are and the direction of both. Otherwise, we bumble on with people claiming "their side" lowered the deficit and the "other side" raised it. The Clinton record was one of slowing the growth of the deficit (while increasing the debt)until in his last year as President he nearly balanced the budget and had little or no deficit spending. The the first President since Nixon to do so. However he only changed the upward angle of the national debt.

As John pointed out, there was no "surplus", nor has there been in my lifetime.

Those who are taking a joy ride down the slippery slide of moral decay ask, "What moral decay?"

Without a doubt, we need a leader who has a proven record in those areas. For most concerned Americans, the running mate will be the deciding factor when it comes time to vote.

Now that Iran has just fired nine missles across the oil shipping lanes, we cannot let a "newby" learn on the job. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain had better choose wisely.

10:32,
You want to replace our Constitution with your Constitution? Why else would you shift responsibility for the actions of Congress away from Congress?

Congress was made responsible for taxing and spending because the House has the closest ties to the people.

You may not like Government 99, but until it is understood, there's no need to even try Government 101.

Personally I would like to see either Jim Webb or Bill Richardson. However, ignoring the anti-Obama scare-freaks on this thread, nothing really prepares a person to be president. A good president is known for the advisors he/she gathers to advise on policy, and this depends upon the character of the president-elect.

Unfortunately, George Bush only selected people who agreed with him and his personal "good versus evil" mentality. That is why Dick Cheney was such an excellent choice by Dick Cheney. Cheney has become the ultimate knight battling "evil". Nonetheless, the success of a presidency resides with advisors who provide candid, realistic information so that president can make the best decision for the American people.

Obama, I believe, has the knowledge and skills to select outstanding people. The only question, in my mind, is if he will do that or will he compromise for the sake of party hacks. This remains to be seen, but I'm sure he is very aware of the pressure on him to select well and do a good job.

It is important not to be side-tracked by Republican talking points with regard to Obama. Republicans want to set the campaign agenda on their terms.

I wish candidates would choose running mates who are DIFFERENT from them. What's the point in surrounding yourself with people who think the same way as you? Where do good ideas come from? Think about marriages- good marriages are the ones where one partner's strengths balance out the other's weaknesses.
I heard Obama early on say he wished to surround himself with different people. I hope he sticks to it. As much as I hate the arrogance of the GOP, I think he should consider a republican for his VP. Now THAT would make him unbeatable..

Mr.Obama's method of solving problems has been used by the United Nation during most of my life. I'm sorry if I seem negative, but the United Nations has been a waste of time and money.

Today they failed again in "talking" Iran into getting along with the world. Iran has shown that it can hit Israel with its missiles.

Why should we care about Israel? Because we have nursed them into existance. They are our strongest partner in the Middle East.

Mr. Obama's method did not work with Iran. Should we be surprised? I don't think so.

If he is elected President, his choice of running mate may well determine our nation's survival.

The Constitution?
Oh, yeah, I remember.
That's the thing that conservative George W. Bush said was "just a [bleep-bleep] piece of paper!"

I'd actually like to see BHO take someone like; Gus, Roland, Grover, Ernest T Bass, Mark B, our Anonymous daily hater, AlpacaFam, or our "neocon" writer. I think one of our own from these pages would be the backbreaker and send Obama to POTUS.

The solutions to the world's problems are always found from one of the above. I know that with any one of them as the Veep, all will be well in Zion again as well as the rest of the nation.

Is there a 2nd? :)

Why would anyone want Biden as the VP if we didn't want him as the president? He is good for Delaware and that is were he needs to stay.

Anonymous 6:59 - Soros is not US born, sorry he will have to call the shots from outside the administration.

I like the fiery Biden.
Why not find out what Limbaugh thinks about him than do the opposite?

What we learned in December, 2005 that George Bush and the telecoms were doing -- listening in on the private conversations of American citizens without warrants -- is a felony under clear U.S. law, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine for each offense. Anyone can go read the section of FISA -- right here -- that says that as clearly as can be:

A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally -- (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; . . .

An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

It was also as clear a violation of the Fourth Amendment as can be. For the Government to invade our communications with no probable cause showing to a court is exactly what the Founders prohibited as clearly as the English language permitted.

But today, the Democratic-led Congress -- with the support of both John McCain and Barack Obama, neither of whom will even bother to show up and vote -- will cover-up those crimes.

We have a person who, by using superior problem solving skill set, believed trickle down would work and Bush and republicans would bring economic prosperity, leadership and moral to Washington commenting on Obama's analytical skills.

When do your start you lecture on brain surgery? I missed reading your thesis on advance rocket science :-)

To 11;33,

What do YOU think about the Constitution? You're a citizen. The Constitution is YOUR contract with the government.

One of the things that really alarms me is that some posters expect so much less from their candidate than they do of the opposition.

I do not support Mr. Obama, not only because of his statements, but mostly because of his party's platform; however, I expect even more from Mr. McCain.

When it comes to voting, both the candidate and his choice of running mate must be considered.

We need to be critical of both office seekers. The Vice President may become the President. Who he is and what he stands for is as important as the views of the candidate running for President.

To vote for the party when a better choice exists is folly.

Mike wouldn't our constitution read easier if our Founding Fathers, who owned slaves, who have used a Times New Roman Font?

There is always a monumental difference between The People and the group of people who happen to be in power at that time.
What we have in power at the moment is an abomination to the world and to The People.
I want my old America back.

I wouldn't mind seeing an Obama/Biden ticket... yes it would be a good combo. But I still have a preference towards an Obama/Sebelius ticket, that's what I'd really like to see.

Let's just keep Hillary out of it. Biden would be better than her.

I'm a Republican who will be voting for Obama in November... my first time ever purposely voting for a Democrat (and will probably only be a one time thing for me).

Ya, if your campaign is based on "CHANGE"ing Washington, you need a running mate with 35 years of Washington establisment experience and 35 years of IOUs to other established Washington power-brokers.

That would be a great combo. A President with 3 years of Government experience and a VP with 35 years experience in Washington. If you want to run your campaing on CHANGE and new ideas, don't pick an old Democrat establishment icon like Biden.

Does anyone but me find it alarming that someone who is adroit at turning a phrase to his advantage could be considered to be the best person in the entire United States to lead our Nation?

There are several posters, both liberal and conservative, who have posted in the DN who know how to turn a phrase, who know how to manipulate the readers. Does that qualify them to become the leader of the United States?

Why would anyone select a candidate because he was clever? Late night entertainers are clever. Should they lead us?

Neither major candidate is qualified to lead this nation. Let us hope that the VP will have credentials.

"Does anyone but me find it alarming that someone who is adroit at turning a phrase to his advantage could be considered to be the best person in the entire United States to lead our Nation?"

If you know Reagan's record the only thing he was talented at was turning a phase in speeches written for him.

Mike: what's you point. How does Reagan's blunders like selling arms to Iraq and training terrorist in Afghanistan or cutting and running from Beirut have anything to do with Obama?

Didn't George Bush, speaking to a group of school children say that if he could become president after earning only a Gentleman's C to graduate from college, that anyone should be able to become president.

The only criteria presently required to become president is to be wealthy or have wealthy backers. Any Joe cannot even afford to run for office because of the costs involved.

As for Mike's comment (2:50 p.m.) about "turning a phrase", he must forget Ronald Reagan who was a master at it. I suspect, in addition to good communication skills, you would want someone who is both clever and intelligent to be president, surrounded (as Gus suggested) by an excellent group of advisors.

Remember, Lincoln chose his cabinet, not on the basis that the members all agreed with him, but that they were smart and capable. Thank goodness for that because he would not have been able to keep the Union together by himself.

Not anyone can be president, but good communication skills are absolutely essential. Think Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan. Probably the heir to this tradition will be Obama.

It was always great to hear Bush speak without notes as it confirms everything I've said.

To Wrong yet again Mike 11:33: Would you please provide backup for your supposed George Bush statement about the Constitution. The only place I've ever found it was on this site.

Dear Oscar, ever hear Obama speak without notes? It ain't pretty and that's when he does all his double-speak and gets into trouble....

Obama isn't bring change to Washington.

Gus said, "I believe, has the knowledge and skills to select outstanding people" Would that be the good ol' Rev. Wright or the American bomber where Obama has used his good skills to select his friends?

It's a much-accepted fact (except for neocons, for obvious partisan reasons) that George W. Bush has complete distain for the Constitution of The United States of America. "I'm the decider!" he likes to repeat.
A simple google search with key words: George Bush, "the Constitution is just a piece of paper!"
will give you all the information you need.

And of course, "Re," everything you find via a Google search is the gospel truth.

Even hard-core leftists (at least, the ones who care about being honest) acknowledge that the "just a piece of paper!" quote is a fabrication.

But live in your fantasy world if that's what it takes to feel good.

Do a google search on the youtube video of college republicans. They all support the war but, none are wiling to serve in the military.

Conservatives bring up Obama's pastor. What about McCains pastor who said the Jews were responsible for the Holocaust?

Most of us who are beyond puberty have had the opportunity to admire someone who has changed the course of our lives. Perhaps that person was a teacher, or a church leader, or a community leader, or a family member. Whoever he/she was, his/her life made a difference.

About a year ago I ran into one of those 'leaders' in my life, Harvey Hirschi. He made a difference when I was twelve years old. Clear back then he had confidence in me and I had confidence in him. I knew, without doubt that whatever he expected of me or of anyone else, he had already done.

Even 43 years later, he still inspired confidence in me. He had risen from the rank of Captain to the rank of Colonel in the military. He had held high positions in his business endeavors. He was held in high esteem by his family. In short, he was a leader who led others along a path that he had already traveled.

Oh were it possible to have such leaders in Government who knew the way and walked ahead of us, rather that telling us where to go!

Thomas tells us: "everything you find via a Google search is the gospel truth."

And I suppose the very same thing can be said about our very radical right-winger Thomas in his usual trite "let me tell ya all about it - I'm ultra-conservative" manner.

:>

To Ditto: Regarding Republicans and their families not serving, my uncle, a retired brigadier general is republican and my son, deceased, a proud courageous loyal marine, was a republican, my father, served in world war II, a democrat, two uncles in Korea, politics unknown, my grandfather, a captain in the army corp of engineers, a republican, great great great great grandfather, a Union army aide to President Lincoln, and honorary pall bearer, a republican, John McCain and his sons, one serving in Iraq, republicans. Why these global statements which are so logically and rationally outlandish? Like the outlandish quotes and motives attributed to the President of the United States. Get real.

Lionheart tells us that quotes from George W. Bush ie., "Bring'em on!" and "I'm the War President!" and "I'm the decider!" and "Mission accomplished!" are all outlandish.

And ya know what, Lionheart is right.
I can't think of too many comments from Dubya that are not.

Is it November yet?

I agree with the Obama-Romney ticket!!!

I'm 100% sure this letter was sarcasm. Biden the biggoted baffoon on the ticket would spell disaster.

Perfect ticket!

A flip flopper and a plaigerist!

NO one will ever know what to believe!

Here's something we can believe.
There are
WMD's in Iraq.
The conservative Bush/Cheney team told us so.

I think both candidates should choose Mickey Mouse for vice president. Why not, they treat the country like its disney land.

To 6:53,

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002