With Sarah Palin drawing huge crowds on her book tour, and debate continuing about her qualifications for higher office, the Atlantic decided to do a little thinking about who was the worst pick for vice president.
The nominees are (drum roll please):
1. Spiro Agnew. (Richard Nixon)
2. Richard Nixon. (Dwight D. Eisenhower)
3. Henry Wallace. (Franklin D. Roosevelt)
4. Geraldine Ferraro. (Walter Mondale)
5. John Edwards. (John Kerry)
We now know what a rapscallion and liar Edwards was. A few thousand votes different in Ohio and he would have been President John Kerry's vice president. The thought is not deeply comforting. He had a trial lawyer's facility with words and a genuine compassion for the poor, but was he so much more qualified than Sarah Palin after four years in the U.S. Senate?
Hat tip: RTB
Comments
Re: Who's bad?
November 30, 2009 - 9:51am — meschreinerWhat about Aaron Burr?
You'd think a vice president that shot and killed the designer of the American industrial economy and one who so deviled Thomas Jefferson that Jefferson put Burr on trial for treason would make such a list.
But apparently, the editor's memory doesn't go back past 1936.
(And, Burr was certainly 'picked' by the Democratic-Republicans, who had thought they had fixed it so Burr would finish second in the Electoral College to Jefferson. The fact that they tied led to enactment of the Twelfth Amendment, creating the prez-veep team ticket.)
Re: Who's bad?
November 25, 2009 - 1:51pm — cdtewComon...really, Atlantic? Nixon and Agnew were bad choices?
Sure, two of the smartest and most qualified men of their generation were bad choices.
Now, they may have done bad things after they were picked as VP, but in their context they were superb choices, and I challenge any left-leaning dimwit to claim they're not.
Re: Who's bad?
November 25, 2009 - 10:48am — rdw27103"but was he so much more qualified than Sarah Palin after four years in the U.S. Senate? "
So was Obama so much more qualifed than Palin after 4 years in the Senate?
Re: If someone is bad does that make you more gooder?
November 25, 2009 - 9:30am — domewatcherWhether or not Sarah Palin is qualified to be anything at all is not what is important to me. I am just happy to sit back and watch her drive the liberals more crazy than they are currently in their path along life's highway. She gets more press than Obama. But I guess that is by design. Beating her down will obviously solve the problems of this country. The media has turned their full attention to her since the only thing they can write about Obama is his lackluster performance and failure to start leading this country.
Maybe the media could turn their attention back on the real problems facing this country. Maybe they could spur Obama on to do more than photo ops and actually make some decisions. His latest decisions have been about which Hollywood star to invite to the White House. I am not sure if crucifying Sarah Palin will make Obama a more successful President. Why is the media so worried about 2012? when, at the rate Obama is going, it really won't matter.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Bad pick
November 25, 2009 - 9:13am — Isaac136I think another extraordinarily bad pick was Al Gore's choice of Joe Lieberman, for reasons that are becoming increasingly obvious.
Re: Who's bad?
November 25, 2009 - 9:11am — Isaac136Well, yeah, actually, he was definitely more qualified. But then, Mickey Mouse would also be more qualified than Sarah Palin.