Joe Biden

2016 Presidential Election Could Be Decided By Texas And/Or Florida

At this time, in February 2013, it seems very likely that Texas and Florida, the second and fourth largest states in population and electoral votes, will decide which party will win the White House in 2016.

The Democrats have a good chance to win Texas, as it is starting to turn “Blue”, with the growing Hispanic and Latino vote in that state with 38 electoral votes. Hillary Clinton, in particular, would have an excellent chance to win the Lone Star State if she ends up as the Democratic Presidential nominee, but even other Democrats would have a chance to win .

At the same time, with Florida (29 electoral votes) having gone to Barack Obama twice, the Democrats would have a good opportunity to win it next time as well, particularly with Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden as their nominee.

With the other large populated states in the hands of the Democrats for sure (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan), it is these two states that will decide the election, although if the Democrats can win everything they won under Obama, they do not need Texas. But if they also win Texas, then they would have a literal landslide in the Electoral College, with 370 electoral votes!

So that is why Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush are the best nominees the GOP can run, with a good shot at winning the Sunshine State, and keeping control of Texas, with its Hispanic-Latino vote and the Bush family connection with the Lone Star State.

But again, IF the Democrats just win all the 26 states they won in 2012, or even if they lose some, they will still win the White House. But these two large states are where much of the action will likely be in 2016!

Florida Senator Marco Rubio: His Record Not A Positive One For The Presidency In 2016!

Florida Senator Marco Rubio is very charismatic, handsome, youthful, and charming, and Time Magazine called him “The Republican Savior”.

Then he gave the response to the State of the Union Address, and showed total hypocrisy when he stated that government gets in the way, and cannot solve people’s problems or help them in a major way.

But then, he also said in the same speech that he would never have finished his own education without the federal government loans program, and that his mother depended on Medicare for her health care, although now the federal government should be cutting both programs and others as well.

In so doing, being contradictory, Marco Rubio messed up his chance to be impressive, just as Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana and the same age as Rubio, did when he responded to the State of the Union Address in 2009.

And when one examines the Rubio record, he discovers the following facts:

Rubio has had huge personal debt problems and was implicated in a political credit card scandal.

Rubio has lied and exaggerated about his family history, including the idea that his grandfather escaped Fidel Castro and Cuba, when he actually migrated in 1957, when Fulgencio Basista was still in power.

Rubio backed Florida Governor Rick Scott in his scheme to limit the hours and participation of voters in the Sunshine State.

Rubio voted against the extension of the Violence Against Women Act.

Rubio has been involved in support of groups that are vehemently anti gay rights and marriage.

Rubio supported a bill to allow employers to deny birth control insurance coverage to employees.

Rubio has called for Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel to withdraw, denying President Obama the right to select his own cabinet officers, as long as there is no corruption involved.

Rubio has denied science, questioning climate change and evolution

Rubio signed the Grover Norquist tax pledge.

And the list of faults and shortcomings goes on beyond this short list above, and disqualifies Marco Rubio as a serious Presidential nominee in 2016.

And yet, when compared to Jindal, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, and many others, Rubio probably has a better chance to be the GOP nominee in 2016, and lose to Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or whoever else the Democrats nominate!

Presidential-Vice Presidential Relationships Rarely Warm

When one looks at the relationships between Presidents and Vice Presidents historically, it is clear that most Presidents look at their Vice Presidents and see their own mortality; often see the Vice President as a rival; often have disdain for the Vice President; and often do not support the Vice President in his Presidential ambitions to follow the President in office.

Examples of the above abound:

George Washington ignored John Adams, and Adams lamented that he was in an office that had no influence or respect.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were at constant odds, being of different political parties, and elected together by the early quirks of the Electoral College, later resolved by the 12th Amendment to the Constitution in 1804.

Thomas Jefferson literally refused to recognize Aaron Burr, after Burr tried to steal the Presidency from him in 1800, with Burr’s contention that he and Jefferson had ended up in a “tie” vote in the Electoral College, forcing Alexander Hamilton, a rival of both Jefferson and Burr to intervene and call for support of Jefferson, which led to the gun duel between Hamilton and Burr in 1804, and Hamilton’s tragic death.

John Quincy Adams discovered that John C. Calhoun was undermining him, and Calhoun switched sides and ran with Andrew Jackson in 1828.

However, Jackson and Calhoun became bitter rivals, and the Nullification Crisis over the protective tariff, with Calhoun enunciating the doctrine of states rights, nullification, interposition, and secession almost led to civil war, prevented by the intervention of Henry Clay, but only after Jackson threatened to hang Calhoun, a threat that could not be ignored, since Jackson had killed several opponents in gun duels.

Abraham Lincoln hardly dealt with his first term Vice President, Hannibal Hamlin, and then “dumped” him, for Andrew Johnson, someone he hardly knew.

When Theodore Roosevelt decided not to run for another term in 1908, he ignored his own Vice President, Charles Fairbanks, and backed his Secretary of War, William Howard Taft.

Woodrow Wilson gave little concern to the role of his Vice President, Thomas Marshall, and when Wilson suffered a stroke in 1919, he did not intervene to prevent his wife from preventing Marshall from visiting him, and ascertaining the state of his health, or allow him to take over Presidential authority.

Franklin D. Roosevelt ignored his three Vice Presidents—John Nance Garner, Henry A. Wallace, and Harry Truman. This led Garner to say the Vice Presidency was not worth a pitcher of “warm spit”. Wallace was allowed to “hang in the wind” over his public statements on civil rights, and be “dumped” on the demand of Southern Democrats in 1944. Harry Truman was not informed of anything, including the atomic bomb project, in his brief Vice Presidency.

Dwight D. Eisenhower had a strong dislike for his Vice President, Richard Nixon, as shown by his original plan to “dump” Nixon in 1956; his lukewarm support of Nixon in 1960; and his having problems remembering Nixon as a potential future nominee in 1964. At the end, however, Ike witnessed his grandson, David, marry Nixon’s younger daughter, Julie, and was supportive of Nixon in his last year of life, the first year of the Nixon Presidency.

John F. Kennedy failed to use the talents of Lyndon B. Johnson, his Vice President, to a great extent due to the hatred of his brother, Robert Kennedy, for LBJ. Robert Kennedy went out of his way to embarrass and humiliate Johnson in every way possible.

Johnson abused his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, once he realized that Humphrey was critical of his Vietnam War policies. He threatened to leave Humphrey out of his cabinet meetings, and forced him to speak up for the war, which undermined Humphrey’s own Presidential campaign in 1968. And secretly, because Humphrey started to veer from support of the administration policies late in the campaign, Johnson hoped for a victory of Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon utilized his Vice President, Spiro Agnew for political gain, but showed little respect for him, and let him “hang in the wind” when Agnew was forced out of the Vice Presidency in 1973. And Nixon picked Gerald Ford as his successor Vice President under the 25th Amendment, thinking that this insured that Nixon would not be impeached and be removed from office.

Gerald Ford had a strong respect for Nelson Rockefeller, who he selected as his Vice President, but yet “dumped” him for Bob Dole in the 1976 Presidential race.

Ronald Reagan was never close to George H. W. Bush, who had been his chief rival for the 1980 Presidential nomination, and never invited the Bushes to a private dinner at the White House, although he utilized Bush’s expertise in foreign policy and intelligence, as Bush had been head of the CIA.

Bush did not care for Dan Quayle very much, and considered “dumping” him in 1992 over Quayle’s embarrassing flubs. Quayle was given less involvement in the administration than his recent predecessors, and when he tried for the Presidential nomination in 1996, Bush did not back him in any way.

Bill Clinton was closer to Al Gore, but their friendship and collaboration suffered greatly during the scandal over Monica Lewinsky, and the pursuant impeachment trial. Gore decided not to ask Clinton, who remained popular, to work for him in the last days of the 2000 Presidential campaign. After his defeat, there were recriminations between Gore and Clinton over who had been responsible for Gore’s defeat.

George W. Bush relied on his Vice President, Dick Cheney, a lot in the first term, but became estranged from Cheney in the second term over the Scooter Libby scandal and in other ways, as Bush asserted himself much more, making clear he did not need Cheney as much as in the first term.

With all of the above examples of estrangement, or lack of closeness of Presidents with their Vice Presidents, there are two shining examples of very close, warm relationships between two Presidents and their Vice Presidents.

These would be Jimmy Carter with Walter Mondale, and Barack Obama with Joe Biden.

Carter and Mondale were the closest team in American history, with Carter allowing Mondale to share just about every decision in a way no Vice President, before or since, was able to do, and they remained close personal friends, for what is now the all time record of 32 PLUS years out of the Presidency, the longest lasting team in American history, with Carter now 88 plus and Mondale just passing 85, and both still in good health. No sense of any rift has ever existed between the two men, and their relationship was the smoothest ever, a lot of it due to Carter’s lack of insecurity about his Vice President, a testimonial to the former President!

Also, every indication is that Obama and Biden have as close a relationship, but with Biden nearly a generation older, while Carter and Mondale are less than four years apart in age. It seems as if there might be some issues between Obama and Biden, but that will have to be left to the future to find out. Also, a question arises as to how Obama will handle a possible competition for the next Presidential nomination between Biden and Hillary Clinton, both of whom have been crucial to his Presidency’s success so far.

So the Presidential-Vice Presidential relationships have been almost always far from warm and close, with only the two exceptions mentioned above.

This would be an excellent topic for a future scholarly study!

“Turning Point” Presidencies: Those With The Greatest Impact!

With Presidents Day coming up on Monday, this author has, already, made clear which Presidents were transformative in the areas of foreign policy and diplomacy, and in domestic affairs.

Now, it is appropriate to make clear which Presidents have been the true “turning points” in American history, in the sense of changing the dynamics of Presidential leadership.

This author would say that there have been EIGHT Presidents who transformed America by their actions in office. In chronological order, they are:

Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), who was the first President to transition from opposition leader to one who united the country in his inaugural address, adopted many ideas of the opposition as his views, and doubled the size of the nation, and kept America away from a war with Great Britain.

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837), who added greatly to Presidential power, and was the symbol of the spread of democracy to all white men, rather than just the aristocracy, and became the father of the Democratic Party.

Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865), who saved the Union by fighting the Civil War against the Confederacy, brought about the end of slavery, promoted nationalism over states rights, made the Republican Party the majority party in America, and greatly increased Presidential power

Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), who revived and expanded the Presidential office, promoted government intervention in the economy, advocated for the environment and for labor rights, and became a model for later Presidents of both parties.

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945), who helped bring America out of the Great Depression by massive federal government intervention and programs through his New Deal, and took America through another great crisis (World War II), all the time greatly increasing Presidential authority.

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969), who greatly expanded federal authority beyond beyond the New Deal through his massive Great Society domestic programs, becoming the image of modern American liberalism at its peak.

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), who promoted a conservative “Revolution”, reversing the direction of the previous fifty years, and helped to bring about the end of rhe Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union.

Barack Obama (2009-2017), who brought about the greatest domestic reforms, including ObamaCare, since the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson, and moved to change the direction of foreign policy and fight terrorism effectively, with of course, his final record of accomplishments still in process.

These eight Presidents all ushered in a generation or more of their political party’s dominance, with the exception of TR and LBJ, who saw what they represented repudiated or replaced by the opposition party within a short span of time.

And of course, the long range effect of Barack Obama is still questionable, although at the moment, it looks likely that his agenda will be pursued by a stronger Democratic coalition seen as likely to keep the Presidency in 2016 and beyond, with either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden as the standard bearer and inheritor of the Obama legacy!

Also, notice that these “Turning Point” Presidencies occur within a 16-40 year range from one President to another, with most within a generation of earlier such Presidents by the end of each of these Presidencies!

A Potential Unbeatable Democratic Ticket For 2016—Hillary Clinton And Joe Biden!

It has recently been suggested by some political observers that a truly unbeatable Presidential ticket for 2016 would be Hillary Clinton for President and Joe Biden for Vice President.

Upon first thought, the idea sounds unbelievable, and many wonder if either or both will even run, but assuming they both are interested, the question arises whether they would be willing to fight each other, come into combat with each other, when both are great friends.

Both Clinton and Biden are competitive and ambitious, but to imagine the knock down, drag out fight between them, is hard to imagine.

Yes, Joe Biden wants to be President, but being already 74 in 2016, and knowing that Hillary Clinton would break a “glass ceiling”, as the first woman President finally and belatedly, it is hard to imagine him unwilling to sacrifice his ambitions to give her the chance, and to be a willing “soldier” willing to help her, and be by her side for another eight years as Vice President!

Were anything untoward to happen to Hillary, Joe would be there to take over, but even if he did not ever become President, he would have served a theoretical 16 years as Vice President, an amazing record, and be in on all the important decisions, treasured for his wisdom and counsel by both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and giving the nation his talents and abilities, with the recognition that he would become regarded as the most powerful, influential Vice President in American history!

And there is no ticket that the Republican Party could run, which would match the experience, the breadth of knowledge, and the talents and abilities of these two public servants, who have already had a massive effect on our country!

With the Electoral College situation as it presently is, is there anyone who can come up with a scenario where any Republican ticket could possibly gain a majority, in a nation with growing Latino-Hispanic participation, and Arizona, Texas and Georgia likely to tip “Blue” in the future?

Age Vs Youth: Will The Republicans And Democrats Be Switching On Their Presidential Nominees In 2016?

When one analyzes the two major political parties in the past forty years, it has been a general reality that the Republican Party has run Presidential candidates who tend to be much older than the Democratic Party nominees for President.

Witness Richard Nixon, nine years older than George McGovern in 1972; Gerald Ford eleven years older than Jimmy Carter in 1976; Ronald Reagan thirteen years older than Jimmy Carter in 1980; Reagan seventeen years older than Walter Mondale in 1984; George H. W. Bush eight years older than Michael Dukakis in 1988; Bush twenty two years older than Bill Clinton in 1992; Bob Dole twenty three years older than Clinton in 1996; John McCain twenty five years older than Barack Obama in 2008; and Mitt Romney fourteen years older than Obama in 2012. Only in 2000 and 2004 did we see George W. Bush older than Al Gore by only two years and in 2004 actually younger than John Kerry by three years.

This phenomenon is maybe just a coincidence, but it has often been said that the Democrats go for youth and the Republicans for experience in their Presidential nominees.

Well, if that is the case, it is about to be switched dramatically in 2016 if one assumes that either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden are the likely front runners for the Democratic Presidential nomination, as Hillary will be 69 in 2016, and Joe will be 74 in 2016. Clinton would be the second oldest first time nominee, behind Ronald Reagan, and Biden would be the oldest first time nominee.

The Republicans are certain to nominate a candidate decades younger, such as Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, or Ted Cruz, all born in the early 1970s, being therefore mid 40s in 2016. If you consider Chris Christie, Scott Walker, or John Thune, they were born in the 1960s, so would be in the mid 50s. Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann all were born in the 1950s, so would be in their late 50s or in the 60s. There is no candidate born in the 1940s seriously mentioned, unless one expects Newt Gingrich to try again for the Presidency, being just a year younger than Joe Biden and four years older than Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats have alternative possible candidates in Martin O’Malley and Amy Klobuchar born in the early 1960s, so either would be mid 50s in 2016, but Andrew Cuomo and Mark Warner, born in the mid 1950s would be nearing or at the age of 60 when running in 2016, and Elizabeth Warren, born in 1949, would be 67 in 2016, only about two years younger than Hillary Clinton.

So we are seeing a likely switch from an older to younger Republican nominee, and a younger to an older Democratic nominee, and the difference in years could be massive, as it was in the past forty years in most Presidential elections.

A final thought: In the nine elections between 1972 and 2012 when the GOP nominee was always older than the Democratic nominee, the Republicans won the election four times, and the Democrats five times, so basically, trying to determine whether age or youth are an advantage is clearly a pure guessing game!

The Smearing And Character Assassination Of Bill Clinton And John Kerry Reversed: The Rewriting Of History By The Right Wing

Many people have very short memories, and many Republicans and conservative right wing activists have the amazing ability to rewrite history, and make former “demons” suddenly seem acceptable.

So is the case with President Bill Clinton and 2004 Presidential nominee John Kerry, both of whom have suddenly become “acceptable” and “mainstream”, as the smearing and character assassination of Barack Obama continues in earnest!

Bill Clinton was savaged, accused of every scandal imaginable, brutally mistreated by the opposition party for eight years, and put through the torment of an impeachment, which everyone knew would NOT lead to removal from office, but was designed to besmirch his historical accomplishments.

John Kerry was bitterly attacked, his record distorted, his Vietnam War service trivialized because he had the gall to challenge the war as a mistake, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 42 years ago, and made out to be an unpatriotic American, while his opponent, George W. Bush, sat out his military service in the National Guard reading magazine, and often not showing up at all, all due to family connections.

Now, suddenly, you cannot hear enough praise about the Bill Clinton Presidency, including Paul Ryan this morning saying how different things would be now if only Clinton was President. This is an amazing statement, but only the most recent of laudatory comments by Republicans and conservatives toward the 42nd President.

And, suddenly, as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry is nominated to be Secretary of State, the praise and compliments from his former Republican enemies is overwhelming, and he faces little opposition for confirmation. Nothing is said about his supposed “anti American” statements on the war in Vietnam before the committee he now heads, and how he will now be leading our foreign policy, an idea which would have shocked his critics just eight years ago.

The right wing is rewriting history, hoping that the memory and ignorance of most people about past events is forgotten.

Instead, the attention is given to making Barack Obama a demon, a threat to the nation, to make him out as a man unwilling to negotiate, when it is the opposition which has been intransigent for the past four years, and is still engaged in smearing and character assassination greater than either Bill Clinton or John Kerry experienced!

One would have thought any greater assault was not conceivable, but here it is in full throttle!!

And since Obama will not be coming back for a third term, one can already see the revival of the attacks on Hillary Clinton, as the Benghazi, Libya tragedy is politicized for all it is worth. And since she is a woman, of course she must be trashed, destroyed, eviscerated as the likely future enemy, as the right wing assault machine goes into full gear to elect someone they want, to reverse things back to the “good old days” of Ronald Reagan!

But of course, Chris Christie, by working with Barack Obama, is also, already, being smeared and trashed, because he actually has some “moderate” elements in him, and some views on some issues that does not fit the mold of the far right. Chris Christie, if he runs for President in 2016, will discover just how venal and vicious the attack will be on him for being a “traitor” to the cause, just as much as Colin Powell has been experiencing recently, because of his view that the Republican Party must change its tune, its views, its image, its principles, or face extinction.

It is often said that the media are tilted to the left, when in reality, the right wing media is very much in a time of prosperity and growth, with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden helping to energize their conspiracy theories, the image that the Republic is in danger of destruction all because we have a person of color, a woman, and a man of principle and convictions, playing major roles in the development of our domestic and foreign policy!

The Vice Presidency NOT Fertile Hunting Ground For Future Presidents

Much of the history of the Vice Presidency, whoever has been chosen to be in that office has failed to have much impact, and has seldom been seen as a potential President.

When one looks at those who have held the office, one realizes that in most cases, even those who succeeded to the Presidency during the term, a total of nine times, would be highly unlikely ever to have become President, if it had not been for the death or resignation of the President during that term.

Would John Tyler and Andrew Johnson, picked as Democratic running mates of a Whig (William Henry Harrison) and Republican (Abraham Lincoln) Presidential nominee have ever had the likelihood of being a Presidential nominee on their own, if their Presidents had finished their terms of office?

Would Millard Fillmore, who succeeded Zachary Taylor, or Chester Alan Arthur, who succeeded James A. Garfield, have been likely Presidential nominees, if their Presidents had not died in office?

Would Theodore Roosevelt, who succeeded William McKinley, but was despised by Mark Hanna and conservatives in the Republican Party, and was put into the Vice Presidency to take him out of the Governorship of New York State, have been likely to be the GOP nominee in 1904?

Would Calvin Coolidge, who succeeded Warren G. Harding, have been likely to be the GOP nominee in either 1924 or 1928, after Herbert Hoover had made such a good impression as Secretary of Commerce during a prosperous seeming 1920s?

Would Harry Truman, who as a non controversial Senator, hardly thought about by many before he was selected to run with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944, and never having any real ambition for the Presidency, have been likely to be the next nominee of a party that had passed by John Nance Garner and Henry A. Wallace?

Would Lyndon B. Johnson, as a Southerner, after not being allowed much of a role as Vice President under John F. Kennedy, and with an ambitious brother, Robert Kennedy, waiting in the wings to run for President in the future, been able to be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 1968?

Would Gerald Ford, who had absolutely no ambitions to be President, had remained in the Vice Presidency and Richard Nixon had not resigned or been removed from office by impeachment, would he have been the GOP Presidential nominee in 1976?

The answer in all cases clearly is NO, and when one considers that ONLY George H. W. Bush actually succeeded his boss, Ronald Reagan, the only time since Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson 152 years earlier, it is clear that had none of the eight Presidents who had died or been assassinated in office, nor the one who resigned (Nixon) would have been succeeded in the Presidency by their Vice Presidents.

And when one considers that Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale (four years after), and Al Gore also failed to hold the office of the Presidency, one has to come to the conclusion that the likelihood, in reality, of a President Joe Biden being elected to follow President Barack Obama, is quite unlikely, less than 50 percent, as indicated in the previous blog entry today!

The Likelihood Of Joe Biden Succeeding Barack Obama: Less Than 50%

With the second term of President Barack Obama beginning, already the news media is speculating on the likelihood of Vice President Joe Biden running for President, and the odds that he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2016, and become our next President.

Biden is certainly encouraging speculation, while saying he has not made up his mind. It is clear that he would like to run, but even he admits that the success or lack of success of the first two years of the second term of Obama, on top of his first term, will have a dramatic effect on his decision to run, and the odds of his having a good chance to become the 45th President of the United States.

Biden has a long record in public office, actually greater in number of years than any President of the United States having come to the Senate at the minimum age of 30, serving six terms (36 years), and now on his second term as Vice President, which, when he completes it, will mean he has served 44 years in national office.

Biden knows Washington DC like few know it. He also knows how to work with the opposition Republican Party in a manner unseen since Lyndon B. Johnson, although Johnson had a much more unorthodox approach to bargaining, and “wheeler dealing”, than the much more proper and mannerly Joe Biden.

But he also has a long list of gaffes, most not harmful, except to those who oppose him, and his liberal views have alienated major groups, as he has worked on issues highly controversial, including gun rights, women’s rights, gay rights, civil rights, foreign policy, Supreme Court nominees, and protection of the Great Society and New Deal programs, including the so called “entitlements”.

And his age, now 70, meaning he would be 74-78 in a first term, and 78-82 in a second term, is not a plus, as we only had one President beyond the age of 70, Ronald Reagan, who seemed to be in decline in his second term of office, finishing it at age 77 and about 49 weeks,

And there is the challenge of Hillary Clinton, whose public opinion ratings are higher than Biden’s, although there is much doubt that she will, ultimately, run for the Presidency. This author and blogger has already theorized, at the beginning of January, that Hillary will decide not to run. Her performance in testifying today at the Benghazi, Libya hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be crucial in any plans she might have, after a good rest and recovery period, to run for President in 2016.

And of course, there is the “younger” or “newer” generation of political leaders who have interest in running—including Governors Andrew Cuomo of New York and Martin O’Malley of Maryland, both taking strong leadership on gay marriage and gun regulations in their states; plus others, including Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and even possibly others, including Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado.

So the likelihood of Joe Biden running, while good, is not, automatically going to give him an edge in a field of many likely challengers. And of course, even if many Republicans like Joe Biden personally, it is certain, and obvious, that they are building up a long list of issues to use against the Vice President, should he end up as the Democratic nominee for President in 2016.

Barack Obama Continues Tradition Of Progressive Republicans And Liberal Democrats

President Barack Obama demonstrated in yesterday’s Second Inaugural Address that he is following the best traditions of the progressive and liberal champions of the 20th and early 21st century!

Not only is he pursuing the vision of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, but also of many others, including:

Senator Robert La Follette, Sr. of Wisconsin, progressive Republican
Senator George Norris of Nebraska, progressive Republican
Senator Robert La Follette, Jr. of Wisconsin, progressive Republican
Senator Jacob Javits of New York, progressive Republican
Senator Clifford Case of New Jersey, progressive Republican
Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, progressive Republican
Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland, progressive Republican
Senator Charles Percy of Illinois, progressive Republican
Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon, progressive Republican
Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, progressive Republican, Independent, liberal Democrat
Senator Robert F. Wagner, Sr. of New York, liberal Democrat
Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, liberal Democrat
Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, liberal Democrat
Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, liberal Democrat
Senator Walter Mondale of Minnesota, liberal Democrat
Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, liberal Democrat
Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, liberal Democrat
Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, liberal Democrat
Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, liberal Democrat
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Independent Socialist, allied with Democratic Party

And this list of ten progressive Republicans and ten liberal Democrats are not a complete list, but they are among those who have stood the test of time on their progressive and liberal values!

And realize that La Follette, Sr., Humphrey, McGovern, and Mondale all ran for President, and that Humphrey, Mondale and Biden all have served as Vice President of the United States.