Barack Obama (and other Democrats) are in a situation where there are several potential alternative choices (options) available for candidates for Veep. He/they need to make a choice that is best for him, his party and the nation vis-a-vis the goals and Mission that have been articulated and put forth to his constituency.

Some of the options that have presented themselves to Obama are (listed here as they came to mind, in no particular order): Hillary Clinton; Bill Richardson; Kathleen Sebelius; Sam Nunn; Wesley Clark; Evan Bayh; Mark Warner; Joe Biden; James Jones; ... (and possibly several others).

The renowned systems scientist, John N. Warfield, has created a powerful aid, called 'Options Field and Profiling Method' to halp people actually measure (based on appropriate criteria) the benefits and disadvantages of each option against each other. It does take some considerable informed discussion to arrive at a true 'consensus choice'. In the normal discussion, what happens is that each participant (individual or group) elucidates his/her/their own views, but often finds it very difficult to properly understand and weigh the views of the 'other side' in the debate; in situations that we perceive as 'difficult', most of us have the tendency to 'turn off' our minds, we become facetious about the issues that our opponent in the debate may have raised.

This tendency to 'turn off' is understandable (when we ourselves do it), but it can lead to enormous frustration and even anger from those on the other side. This has been seen very often in the primary contest for the Democratic nomination between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Often these frustrations occur NOT because of any ill will or deliberate obstructiveness on the part of respective participants in the debate; it happens largely because of the linear nature of the 'prose mode' discussions that we conventionally use in our debates on complex issues. Prose is 'relentlessly linear' while situations in real life are very complex; and factors in these complex situations are related 'multi-linearly' to each other. Thus, while I am discussing one specific branch of the issue under discussion, you (my interlocutor) may well be thinking of some other branch - and naturally you become frustrated because I am refusing to perceive the issues you are raising!

Warfield has invented powerful modeling tools that enable people to properly engage themselves in effective debate on complex issues. Most participants engaging in the kind of reasoned debate that the Warfield methodologies demand and promote would feel at the end of it that they have been able to have their ideas on the issues - on the pros and cons of each option of choice for veep, say - fairly considered and assessed by all; AND that the final choice is in fact a true consensus providing the best possible choice based on what we really want to achieve.

This kind of debate would in most cases help avoid much of the bitterness and anger that has been seen in the Obama-Clinton primary contest (which may well lead several, perhaps many, Clinton supporters to shift their vote to McCain!!!)

When we use the process of debate developed by Warfield: Instead of the conventional resultant of choice between alternatives - of going for the usual compromise of the 'lowest common denominator' (or, worse, "this is what the boss feels, so we have to do it!)") - which is the general outcome of debates on such complex isses; now we can actually make our choice in a way that is accepted by most participants as being fair and just all round, and it has taken into effective consideration the views of all involved]. More information about the Warfield tools is available at his website http://www.jnwarfield.com and at the "John N. Warfield Collection" held at the library of George Mason University (see http://ead.lib.virginia.edu/vivaead/published/gmu/vifgm00008.tp).

Some useful developments from Warfield's seminal contributions to systems science now make it possible to enable people at any level easily use these sophisticated concepts and tools created by Warfield: the 'One Page Management System' (OPMS) is a practical means of enabling any individual or group choose a Mission of current interest and create an effective, workable Action Plan to realise it. The Mission could be, for instance: "Choosing the right candidate for Veep in the Democratic campaign". I'd be happy to provide (freely) more information about the OPMS to anyone who would write to me at gs (underscore) chandy (at) yahoo (dot) com.

-- GSC

..."A tool to help people in complex situations make an EFFECTIVE choice between different alternatives" in the other part of this debate: "Why Obama should pick Hillary Clinton as veep".

GSC

Please carefully read the title of LW's letter/Cary's article:

I stood on principle and was harshly reprimanded"

-- GSC

...I'm sure you'll feel right at home there!

http://images.google.co.in/images?hl=en&q=empty+head&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title

-- GSC

P.S. If you don't properly understand, view the emptiness between your ears, don't worry, be happy, be empty, tht's your natural state.