I reject the notion that Obama needs a VP with foreign policy experience

[Hippo_Tron]

In fact I think that is just about the worst thing he could do. After 8 years of Bush and Cheney, the last thing that Obama needs is the illusion that he will defer to his Vice President every time there is a crisis. I can already hear McGramps saying "The Vice President is going to be commander-in-chief, that's not change we can believe in."

Let me make this clear. McGramps has military experience but he DOES NOT have foreign policy experience. He has never sat on the Foreign Affairs Committee or the Intelligence Committee. He graduated 5th to last in his class from West Point and he's 71 and senile. Obama will go toe to toe with him on foreign policy in any debate. He doesn't need his running mate to do that for him.

[Honeycombe8]

1. I disagree. Two newbies on the ticket is not a good idea. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Carter had no trouble winning in 1976 in the midst of the cold war

Because Gerald Ford said that there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Experience does not = ability. McCain is a bag full of Ford-like gaffes waiting to happen.

[Honeycombe8]

5. There was no war. It was the same ol', same ol' col' war. Nothin' new. nt

[anonymous171]

2. I reject your rejection. Having a VP with foreign policy experience gives the ticket confidence.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Please explain in more than one sentence

[george_maniakes]

6. isnt forein policy the sec of state's job anyways? n/t

[flpoljunkie]

7. Tony Auth on the Bush foreign policy legacy- one that McCain and neocon advisors will continue

[Aloha Spirit]

8. Agreed. Why not a VP with business experience and economic chops!

[rucky]

9. I reject the notion that nearly any VP choice will greatly affect Obama's chances

one way or another.