I realize this would take at least an act of Congress. An alteration to the documents our forefathers created hundreds of years ago. A fight that would make Roe v. Wade seem like a genteel tea party.
But I have a solution to the current dilemma facing democrats as we try to choose between two candidates who seem to be equally popular, in a race that seems to be deteriorating into namecalling, fistfighting and - in one case in February - a rather distasteful stabbing incident.
Clinton doesn't want to take a backseat to Obama. And Obama isn't keen on being anyone's second-fiddle.
So how about we have CO-presidents?
I realize the ramifications. Who would be in charge? Who would have the final say? Where would the buck stop?
But ask yourself, how would it be any different than it is right now? With Dubya turning to Uncle Dick for advice, counsel, someone to explain the big words to him?
At least with Hillary and Barack, we'd be getting a bit more brains for the buck. Plus, their strengths complement each other. She has the experience, he the charisma. Apart, they divide the party. Together, I'd say they're nearly unstoppable.
CO: a sharing of duties. It works for chairpersons of committees (as well as anything involving a committee works). Sports teams name co-captains without any trouble. Our own Iowa Hawkeyes women's basketball team is sharing its Big Ten champs title with another team. Planes have co-pilots. Magazines have co-editors. Books have co-authors. Businesses have co-founders. There's more than enough work to do, running our country, to share the load.
Co-presidents...why not? We're already changing the history books -- in an utterly awesome way -- with this campaign, an African American man against a woman to be leader of our country. Their dual popularity ought to be evidence enough that together, they can boot Senator McCrusty right off his high horse.
(And then ship him off to Iraq, since he's so all-fired hot to keep us there for the next 100 years or so.)
But I have a solution to the current dilemma facing democrats as we try to choose between two candidates who seem to be equally popular, in a race that seems to be deteriorating into namecalling, fistfighting and - in one case in February - a rather distasteful stabbing incident.
Clinton doesn't want to take a backseat to Obama. And Obama isn't keen on being anyone's second-fiddle.
So how about we have CO-presidents?
I realize the ramifications. Who would be in charge? Who would have the final say? Where would the buck stop?
But ask yourself, how would it be any different than it is right now? With Dubya turning to Uncle Dick for advice, counsel, someone to explain the big words to him?
At least with Hillary and Barack, we'd be getting a bit more brains for the buck. Plus, their strengths complement each other. She has the experience, he the charisma. Apart, they divide the party. Together, I'd say they're nearly unstoppable.
CO: a sharing of duties. It works for chairpersons of committees (as well as anything involving a committee works). Sports teams name co-captains without any trouble. Our own Iowa Hawkeyes women's basketball team is sharing its Big Ten champs title with another team. Planes have co-pilots. Magazines have co-editors. Books have co-authors. Businesses have co-founders. There's more than enough work to do, running our country, to share the load.
Co-presidents...why not? We're already changing the history books -- in an utterly awesome way -- with this campaign, an African American man against a woman to be leader of our country. Their dual popularity ought to be evidence enough that together, they can boot Senator McCrusty right off his high horse.
(And then ship him off to Iraq, since he's so all-fired hot to keep us there for the next 100 years or so.)
Comments
Chilly Dog