home

A Better Role for Obama

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:21:00 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I think Barack Obama's greatest contribution to America would be as Attorney General in a Hillary Clinton administration.

  • He be terrific as head of its civil rights division.
  • He'd go after crooked lobbyists and big time corporate offenders.
  • He'd have the ability not to charge non-violent drug possessors with mandatory minimum offenses, while pushing Congress to change the law.
  • He'd be the best advocate for a congressional end to the unfair disparity in crack-powder cocaine sentences.
  • He could refrain from prosecuting federal death penalty cases until an independent commission has established that the death penalty is no longer applied in a racially disparate manner -- and in any case in which DNA evidence does not conclusively prove guilt.

In accordance with his expressed beliefs,

  • He'd direct federal prosecutors not to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries or users in states that have passed medical marijuana laws.
  • He'd charge and prosecute suspected terrorists in federal courts, eliminating the need for unfair military commissions.
  • He could stay tough on meth labs, an issue he's made a priority.

[More...]

It would be great to have someone other than a career prosecutor as Attorney General. As President, it has been speculated that Obama's choice for AG would be the "tough on crime" Alabama Senator Artur Davis. Davis would be a terrible choice for Attorney General.

Obama could prove his mettle as Attorney General. With the experience he would gain and a strong record of accomplishments while in the position, he'd be a great contender in 2016.

Obama for Attorney General. Sounds great to me.

Update: For those intent on misinterpreting this post, you couldn't be more wrong. It's about getting someone installed as Attorney General who will be favorably disposed to defendants' rights. The rights of those accused of crime remain the chief focus of TalkLeft. Obama has repeatedly mentioned these specific issues in his campaign. I hope he means them. As Attorney General, we'd get a chance to find out. I don't think John Edwards, who sought the nomination and suspended his campaign, and has since frequently been mentioned as a possible AG if Obama is elected, would be a favorable AG for defendants' rights. He wasn't great on crime issues in the Senate and has not shown much interest in them. He could make a much greater contribution in a prospective Democratic administration in the area of reducing poverty and ensuring universal health care.

The Civil Rights division of the Justice Department handles voting rights, employment discrimination, discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation, protecting the rights of the disabled and much more.

I believe Obama, if President, will compromise when it comes to criminal justice reform legislation and Congress. This is based on my extensive review of his record as I've posted many times. If he is not the ultimate nominee, which admittedly I hope he isn't, I see an opportunity here through the charging discretion afforded the AG to effect some real progressive change. Should he not get the nomination, I think this would be a great way he could make a positive difference.

Obama supporters can disagree with my view that Hillary is a better nominee, but their attempt to label this a race-based post is patently absurd and offensive.

Comments now closed.

< Why Hillary's Supporters Won't Give Up | It's Not Personal, It's Politics >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Better Role for Obama | 185 comments (185 topical)
    Ummm (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    Even if by some miracle Hillary won the nomination, Obama would have to be the VP choice.

    This is not a realistic option.

    Miracles happen (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:20:00 AM EST
    but I don't see Obama as AG, mostly because I don't think he wants the job.  But, what do we know of his record while he was working at the law firm?  What cases did he choose?  Whom did he help?  I know that Gonzales greatly lowered the bar, but I don't see Obama as qualified enough for the job.

    It's very telling that, should he not win the nomination, Obama's options are rather limited.  Go back and finish his first term as senator?  Take to the speaking circuit?  Run for another political office?

    With Clinton, you know that she'll go back to the senate and continue to kick hiney and take names.

    Parent

    I See obama Going Back To Illinois And (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:27:57 AM EST
    being Mr. Dad.  Although I would rather see him be AG than president, I don't believe he is even up to that task.  He is not given to hard work, as far as I can see.

    Parent
    It's a bit early to judge the success of (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MarkL on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:38:24 AM EST
    his campaign.


    Parent
    Obama lazy? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by bobbski on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:10:53 PM EST
    "He is not given to hard work, as far as I can see."

    His senate record, or lack of it, would certainly support your statement.

    Parent

    Obama is the ONLY (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    editor of the Harvard Law Review who NEVER WROTE A SINGLE WORD.

    I'm sorry, but I read that and really knew that the juxtaposition of the "cute charming guy" versus the "dedicated worker gal" was right on the money.

    That is an appalling fact of his life.

    Parent

    OMG! (none / 0) (#84)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:21:04 PM EST


    Parent
    do you have a link? (none / 0) (#89)
    by DJ on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:28:46 PM EST
    I would love to read that.

    Parent
    Never published (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:07:23 PM EST
    as president of Harvard Law Review.

    Quote 1:
    "Obama was friendly and outgoing, but the class succeeding him wanted a tougher editor to lead them. [David] Ellen, quiet and fair-haired, had graduated summa cum laude in history and science from Harvard College in 1987. He had worked at The New Republic in 1989, the summer before starting law school, and was seen as someone who would be a more rigorous blue-penciler."

    Quote 2:
    "The law students on the Review all have the right to publish at least one piece (typically they publish at least their third-year papers, which they have to write anyway), and many publish at least two pieces. It would seem surprising if Obama published nothing at all in the very Review over which, he has so often boasted, he presided as President."

    Here's Steve Sailor's blog

    In case you missed it yesterday.. obamameter


    Parent

    I'll see if I can find it..... (none / 0) (#97)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:35:57 PM EST
    The young kids on Live Journal dug that one up.

    Parent
    really... (none / 0) (#207)
    by CanadianDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:46:25 PM EST
    There's nothing in Obama's record to suggest he's lazy, either physically or mentally.

    You read his books, and you can see the man has thought through both sides of most arguments. He's slippery as hell when it comes to specifics--like a lot of focus-grouped politicians these days--but he's not averse to weighing both sides of an arguments and granting validity to the side he disagrees with. This is not the mark of a lazy man.

    Obama is far from perfect, and I may very well change my mind in the coming months, but from where I'm at, he's the best choice of the three for the country.

    As far as his executive skills go, here's something to consider: As of today, Obama, a neophyte on the national scene, has managed to run a national campaign that beating the pants off a candidate who had practically been coronated last year. a candidate with years in the Senate, and national name recognition. Yes, he's had some advantages with good press coverage, but HRC started off with a lot more.

    In fact, HRC's management style has bordered on the Dubyan, as Kaus points out on his blog. She kept an out of touch idiot in charge long after it was clear her ship was sinking.

    Parent

    candidates don't run campaign... (none / 0) (#226)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:25:22 PM EST
    they are too busy campaigning.

    ...the Clinton campaign had an obvious strategy --- aim toward November.  Win in the states that mattered in November during the primary season -- and prove on Super Tuesday that you are the best candidate for November.

    ... So Axelrod goes to Obama and tells him "This is a Democratic year -- so you don't actually have to worry about anything but accumulating delegates for the nomination --- so just go out and suck up to the media, and leave the rest to me."

    So what little time Clinton spent in terms of "strategy" prior to Super Tuesday was in asking "are we on track for November?"

    Ever since that horrible two week period when the Clinton campaign was in disarray after ST, Clinton has kicked Obama's ass.  Obama has been an utter disaster for the past two months, and were it not for the hostility of the media toward Clinton, he'd be long gone.

    He avoids debates.  He sulks and cries "foul" when he isn't treated with kid gloves at debates.  And worst of all, he runs away from the very constituencies in places like West Virginia and Kentucky that he'll need in November -- and tells them they aren't important.

    Axelrod was right -- it WAS a Democratic year.  But its not anymore, thanks to Obama.

    Parent

    Re: candidates don't run campaign... (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    >the Clinton campaign had an obvious strategy --- aim toward November.

    And that was a mistake.  Not sure this speaks to good judgment...

    >So Penn goes to Clinton and tells her "This is a Democratic year -- so you don't actually have to worry about anything but accumulating super delegates for the nomination

    Fixed.

    >So what little time Clinton spent in terms of "strategy" prior to Super Tuesday was in asking "are we on track for November?"

    Again, mistake, not accomplishment.  Strategy for November is pointless when you're watching from home.

    >Ever since that horrible two week period when the Clinton campaign was in disarray after ST, Clinton has kicked Obama's ass.

    Well, he won Texas, long after anyone was paying attention to it.  And he kept her from surging ahead.  Oh, and he gave her a 1% victory in Indiana when she needed a 40% victory, which effectively derailed her nomination.  Oh, and he stayed even in supers.  But besides that.

    >Obama has been an utter disaster for the past two months, and were it not for the hostility of the media toward Clinton, he'd be long gone.

    I agree that Obama's media strategy, which he wisely played to, was part novelty act (the standard "articulate" candidate that media elites like to indulge now and then so as to feel open-minded) and part "I'm not Hillary Clinton."  While Chris Matthews is pretty shameful in his open derision for the Clintons, he's certainly not the only such harpy in the media.  He just can't conceal it as well.

    But Jeremiah Wright proved that the media love affair with Obama was a mile wide and an inch deep.  Given the chance to try and demolish an icon that they themselves had just helped create, they didn't hesitate.  If anything, it's been a McCain love-in so far, although there are a few tentative signs that that might be ending.

    >He avoids debates.

    There have been 21 debates.  I guess he's not good at avoiding debates.  One more reason for the Clinton fans to criticize him, I guess.  "He can't even get out of having to debate!  Vote Hillary."

    >He sulks and cries "foul" when he isn't treated with kid gloves at debates.

    This is obviously about the ABC debate before PA, and he was right to criticize it.  It was an hour of petty nonsense for both of them, but especially for him.  I know it's good tactically for Clinton to criticize him for his pastor and for the "bitter" non-troversy, but here in the real world, it doesn't help me, or you, or anyone.  Do you really care whether or not he holds his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance?

    >And worst of all, he runs away from the very constituencies in places like West Virginia and Kentucky that he'll need in November -- and tells them they aren't important.

    Okay, this is clearly a parody and I've been tricked.  The Clinton campaign was constantly announcing which states weren't important - caucus states didn't matter, small states didn't matter, etc.  Obama has done his best to soften the blow from his upcoming losses in KY and WV by ceding her the victory in interviews.  Where has he said anything like what you're ascribing to him?

    >Axelrod was right -- it WAS a Democratic year.  But its not anymore, thanks to Obama.

    I guess party is more important to me than personality.  I was disappointed that Edwards and Clinton both lost but I didn't take it so damned personally.  Don't lose heart.  I really think that either Clinton or Obama could beat McCain this fall.  I'm sorry you feel otherwise.

    Parent

    Thanks... (none / 0) (#234)
    by Spike on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:30:46 PM EST
    ...for clarifying the strategies of the two campaigns. As you indicate, Obama's strategy for the primaries was to accumulate the delegates necessary to secure the nomination. He is very close to successfully implementing that strategy. As you explain, Clinton's strategy was from the beginning of the campaign was to "aim toward November" under the assumption that she didn't have to really compete for the nomination because it was "inevitable" that she would be the nominee. Obama actually dominated the race for a full month after Super Tuesday. While Clinton has enjoyed some victories since March 4, she hasn't been able to make up the ground that she lost during that fateful 30 day losing streak. Her strategy of aiming toward November before securing the necessary delegates clearly has come up short.

    Parent
    You know who else ran a great campaign? (none / 0) (#231)
    by angie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:03:47 PM EST
    GWB -- that's not a road I want to go down again.

    Parent
    GWB did NOT run a great campaign (none / 0) (#246)
    by bird on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:22:39 PM EST
    He lost in 2000 - not that Gore ran a great campaign.

    As an incumbent during a war almost lost again.  Electability almost worked for us then, but it didn't.

    GWB did NOT run great campaigns - do your homework.

    Parent

    You are wrong (none / 0) (#254)
    by angie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:17:42 PM EST
    and the proof is that he has been the President of the United States of America for almost 8 years now -- "almost" lost! HA -- almost doesn't count sweetheart.

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Brookhaven on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:40:49 PM EST
    needs to learn how to be a Senator.  Baby steps as my moma said to me, baby steps on your trek to walking upright and tall as if you earned it. Well, she never said the last part but it made my point.:)  

    He hasn't earned his title of Senator, I don't care if the Dems voted for him, he's not qualified and hasn't earned it by his credentials.  

    And, last time I checked, Clinton won a majority of Dem votes not Obama (who pulled out all the stops and even had "Be a Dem for a Day" to Republicans in open primaries and caucuses).

    I'll never forget when he became the Jr. Senator from Illinois, how he went to see Clinton with all doe eye boyishness asking her for advice on how to conduct oneself as a frosh Senator (because others including Repubs told him she was the Model Senator to follow as a frosh).  Nice pay back for the sage advice and mentoring she gave to him by prematurely running for an office he had no credentials to run for (especially in one of the most grave periods in our history).  He reminds me of Eve in the 1950's film "All About Eve".  

    So, back to the Senate for Mr. Obama to do his job.  And, perhaps have his FIRST hearing as the Chair of European-Nato sub-committee on the Foreign Relations Committee which oversees Afghanistan: kind of important to have a hearing on that hot spot, no? Perhaps he would then start to prepare himself to understand foreign policy as well as Clinton who was/is a serious student of foreign policy (studying it and understanding it, inside and out as we saw in those debates)while on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of whom the Military Brass called her an expert.

    Baby steps. But, that's not Obama's way. Alice Palmer was his first woman whom he stepped over to quench his egomanical ambition to the top.

    I've heard no one refer to Mr. Obama as a Model anything or an expert on anything.  But, yet, here we are and he's on the cusp of perhaps attaining his party's penultimate position as the Dem Nom for the POTUS.  Sweet, hey?

    Parent

    Correction (none / 0) (#129)
    by Brookhaven on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    Clinton serves on the Senate Arms Services Committee.  

    Parent
    Too Much Coffee :) (none / 0) (#130)
    by Brookhaven on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Last one is a winner.  

    The Senate Armed Services Committee.  Phew. :-)

    Parent

    Funny you mention that... (none / 0) (#245)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:22:02 PM EST
    Because the Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs, which Obama chairs, doesn't have jurisdiction over Afghanistan.  Well, I think they have third or fourth crack it.  The primary Senate body overseeing Afghanistan would be the Armed Services Committee on which Clinton sits.  I think after Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and then after FR, whichever FR subcommittee has geographical jurisdiction.  THEN the European committee.

    Parent
    BO as head of the civil rights division? (5.00 / 2) (#225)
    by bridget on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:00:15 PM EST
    Why? What has he done so far? And yes "Whom did he help?"

    BO is not a challenger, quite the opposite. I remember the sea of black suffering faces in New Orleans and what was Obama's response? Denial.

    Obama said that Katrina was a class problem not a race problem. AFAIR correctly he said Washington was colorblind. That was my first real imp. impression of BO. When I heard that I knew that he would not be another MLK or Jesse Jackson. And it turned out he is not and wouldn't want to be. If he said or has done anything helpful re Katrina I must have missed it. Did he rent buses like Gore? Did he pull the drowning out of the water? What did he do to ease the suffering of his black brothers and sisters. What?!!!

    Katrina is a litmus test for me. And BO didn't pass the test.  

    re AG
    I really wouldn't want him to be in any important position in the Clinton admin. I hope the next AG can raise the bar high again. That wont be Obama. Just don't see it.

    Parent

    It depends on why (4.90 / 10) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:17:57 AM EST
    he didn't win the nomination. I don't buy the unity ticket as a necessity or even as a desirable, whichever candidate is at the top of the ticket.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:19:39 AM EST
    I do not believe this is a realistic scenario.

    but have it.

    Parent

    It's Mothers Day today BTD. Let us have our dreams (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by BarnBabe on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:37:48 AM EST
    In June, you can have your sweet dreams on Fathers Day. And remember, believing is the magic that makes dreams come true.

    Parent
    I don't this idea has any merit, (none / 0) (#192)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:39:37 PM EST
    so perhaps it is a dream of J's for Mothers' Day only.

    For one thing, Obama is getting lots of $$ from Wall St.   So I doubt he would fulfill this part of J's dream:

    He'd go after crooked lobbyists and big time corporate offenders.


    Parent
    Hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#115)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM EST
    Certainly the Justice Department is a total shambles thanks to years of evisceration by Cheney & Co.

    Personally, I think we would need a stronger personality as AG - perhaps Hillary herself, if miraculously Obama is nominated AND wins the GE.

    If Hillary is the nominee, I agree with the posters who say that the position would not be suited to Obama's style.

    Maybe Ambassador to one of the African countries - perhaps Kenya, since he has family there, I believe?


    Parent

    Personally, I think we would need a strong... (none / 0) (#228)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:31:48 PM EST
    good point about needing leadership at Justice.

    Obama isn't a leader in the sense of providing direction and holding people accountable.  

    I think the best thing for Obama would be if we became a Constitutional Monarchy, and made him King.  Don't give him any real power, just have him be a symbol.

    Its a role he's actually qualified for, and the only one he really wants anyway.

    Parent

    Re: Hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#241)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:07:07 PM EST
    >Maybe Ambassador to one of the African countries - perhaps Kenya, since he has family there, I believe?

    Wow.

    When Obama's path to the nomination is pretty much unassailable, people are discussing whether President Clinton should make him Attorney General, or Ambassador (to an African country, of course).

    I know that if I went off the deep end, I'd want someone to step in and tell me, so...I'll just say this: Don't come up too quickly.  You'll get the bends.

    (If this post and thread were all said tongue-in-cheek, then my apologies for not realizing.)

    Parent

    How About Ambassador to Watts? (none / 0) (#249)
    by bird on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:26:49 PM EST
    Are you serious?

    What if I said HRC s/b Secretary of Health and Human Services, would that be taken as insulting?

    Parent

    I totally agree - not nec. and def. not desirable (none / 0) (#237)
    by bridget on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:38:17 PM EST
    Hillary's VP should have expert knowledge to strenghten the ticket. That was Bill's criteria when he picked Gore who was smart no doubt about that. What does Obama know that Hillary doesn't know already? What?

    Also, I doubt they like each other much. Why pick someone who trashed the Clinton admin and your husband? It would be a disaster. Pols are people, too.

    And there are def. VP candidates with more experience and knowledge on the short list.

    Unity your name is not Obama - he would be a bad choice.

    Parent

    I think Jeralyn's (none / 0) (#13)
    by talex on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:28:45 AM EST
    post was "If Only" in tone.

    That said it still could happen. Even if Obama gets the nomination and goes on to lose to McCain, McCain could make Obama the AG. After all Obama is Multicultural - half Democrat, half Republican that is. It would be a great move for McCain and for Obama it would greatly increase his street cred with Republicans and Fox News. And the new breed of 20 something Progressives who think holding hands with Republicans is not only the answer but is actually possible would eat it up too.

    Parent

    Ummm (none / 0) (#66)
    by gabbo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:09:14 PM EST
    There`s no way that Obama can be her VP. For him to lose the nomination, it would have to be caused by his implosion as a canditate (we`re talking dead woman, live boy territory here), which would disqualify him for the vice presidency.

    Parent
    The dream (none / 0) (#113)
    by americanincanada on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:45:51 PM EST
    is that he wakes up and realizes he can't win the general and steps aside for the good of the party.

    It's a pipe dream but there you have it.

    Parent

    Actually, we are hoping (none / 0) (#200)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:09:43 PM EST
    that the SDs will
    wake(s) up and realize(s) he can't win the general
    Then we will have Hillary as the nominee. In spite of Obama's touting of the SDs that have announced for him, and they don't have to vote for him even if they pledged, he doesn't have the necessary numbers to get the nomination. Like most of the rest of him, the SD meme is mostly hype. Given the campaign he has run so far, I think his slogan should be "The Audacity of Hype". There is more hype than hope about Obama. And I think the SDs will see that, especially the ones in Congress who know how much work he hasn't done.

    Parent
    He certainly could use a list of solid (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by hairspray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:14:45 AM EST
    national accomplishments.  But it doesn't seem to matter to the insiders in the DNC, does it?

    I think (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by talex on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:36:18 AM EST
    the DNC insiders want the weaker candidate to win the nomination. That way if Obama does win in November they can roll Obama if he tries to get to tough with the Democratic congress.

    Over at OpenLeft they seem to think Obama is going to Rule all of DC. They seem to think that some of those Senators who have been in office almost as long as Obama has been on earth are going to give up their power centers and fan Obama with Palm Leaves. That will hardly be the case. No President has had total control over congress, even George Bush who has his party turn on him on several issues. And they are  a lock-step group. Much more so than Democrats. I can see the most Liberal in congress fighting Obama when he tries to water down Progressive policies to appease his Republican allies.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:05:33 PM EST
    This Congressional inertia problem is my biggest concern for any Dem in the WH right now, but especially Obama.  I have never understood this notion that Obama's election would magically trigger a stunning reversal of how Congress works and acts.

    The only way I could see it happening would involve Obama taking some really drastic step, like refusing to sign a budget and shutting down (most of) the federal gov't, and then taking his case directly to the voters in a national address.  And I don't believe for a second that he'd do such a thing.  (I'm not saying that course of action would necessarily work; this is just an example pulled out of thin air to illustrate the extreme steps that would be necessary to budge Congress.)

    Parent

    Obama would never do anything like that (5.00 / 9) (#74)
    by Virginian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:11:49 PM EST
    look at his history...

    best predictor of future behavior is past behavior...the guy is so afraid to make any ripples, afraid to have anyone dislike him, he'll give up positions and issue he cares about in order to "compromise" and make others happy...

    it took him two tries to quiet the Wright stuff (for now) when his campaign ADMITTEDLY knew that it would at some point be an issue, talk about weak, talk about afraid to take a stand!

    Parent

    Absolutely (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by Virginian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:09:20 PM EST
    The old school legislators are supporting Obama because that is how they are going to gobble up power...HRC would be a strong president...Congress wants to at minimum re-balance the 3 branches...but at best, they want to swing the pendulum well into their favor...Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, etc, want a president that will do what they say and will NEED them when they don't NEED the president...These folks actually will have the same basic scenario regardless of a GE outcome when the candidates are McCain and Obama...obviously they want Obama because he'll do their bidding, but a McCain still lets them swing the power back to Congress...

    In some regards, a re-balancing is really good for the nation...but on the other side of that coin, a strong Democratic president with expanded executive powers, coupled with a solid democratic majority in Congress is a scenario that only fools would pass up (and Kennedy, Pelosi etc... are fools, their greed for power has blinded them to the larger good).

    Parent

    Very Good (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by talex on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:30:04 PM EST
    observations regarding a strong President - which as your other post says which echoes my thoughts, Obama won't be a strong Democratic/Progressive President. His whole campaign has told us he will not be and has no intention of being.

    Parent
    Oh my dear goodness (none / 0) (#152)
    by mg7505 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:22:29 PM EST
    A country run by Kennedy, Pelosi and Reid? That's the ultimate nightmare: Democrats who take us in only half the right (er...left) direction, do nothing to solve real problems, thus giving Repubs the foothold to lock down the Capitol from 2012 to 2020. And we only get to look forward to all this after fighting tooth and nail to get Obama elected this November.

    Get me a clothespin so I can hold my nose. Better yet, just replace me with an Obamabot... he's been pretty clear he doesn't need my vote anyway.

    Parent

    Finish his job in the Senate before moving on (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:58:02 PM EST
    I'd like to see him fulfill his obligations before making new ones. He still has a major responsibility as the Jr Senator from Illinois to his constituency, who he under represented with his voting record, no-shows and absences.

    The Unity Pony platform to ride out of the "boring" senate. Now he's stepping back from talking to voters (in WV and KY) that he's supposed to get to know in his bid for a (Dem) Presidency because campaigning is "boring".

    I think he should go back to the Senate OR in a DNC party building and fund-raising capacity under the capable wing of Howard Dean or Donna Brazile.

    Parent

    This is a very audacious post (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ajain on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:15:10 AM EST
    Now I love Hillary Clinton, but its hard to see how she can/will win.

    yes, the audacity of hope. (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:23:48 AM EST


    Parent
    more than audacious, (none / 0) (#224)
    by cy street on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:56:17 PM EST
    obama already has an attorney general, john edwards.

    Parent
    he's got a current role (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jcsf on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:15:18 AM EST
    Or will soon - Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

    So say we all - popular votes, delegates, superdelegates, most states, most contributors to a campaign.

    Who is this "we" (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by americanincanada on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    you speak of.

    it looks to me like at least half the electorate in the primary doesn't agree.

    Parent

    Four months to go (4.87 / 8) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:19:10 AM EST
    unless Hillary decides to drop out. Hold your horses. Presumptions can be overcome.

    Parent
    Hubris (5.00 / 9) (#34)
    by Iphie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:41:21 AM EST
    Which in modern times has come to mean pride, but to the Ancient Greeks meant more than that -- it was the insolence and insult that was borne of pride. It was the hubris, not the pride that caused the resultant punishment by the gods. Obama is nothing if not insolent and insulting -- to Hillary, to her supporters, but especially to the democratic process.

    There's time -- Hillary will keep racking up wins, Obama will keep ignoring and insulting voters he doesn't think he needs. I think Obama is heading for a Greek tragedy type fall -- we should all hope that it happens now and not in November.

    In terms of AG, does he have a strong enough core set of principles? His opinions and stands on so many issues seem to be completely malleable -- I think we need someone who we know will clean up the DOJ, not someone who is still a big question mark.

    Parent

    Obama = Icarus? (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:07:07 PM EST
    You can only fly so long and so high on wings of wax, even with all the winds of pundistan powering the flight.

    What's the Greek word for PHWEEEeeeeee-Splash! again?

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#208)
    by Iphie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:51:28 PM EST
    O/T, I know, but have you ever read Geek Love? Iphie and Ellie were the names of the Siamese Twins (short for Iphigenia and Electra, speaking of Greek mythology.)

    Parent
    SHUT! UP! Now I have to order it. (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:09:30 PM EST
    One of my (actual and free range) sisters recommended it but my free reading time has been whittled down since I host her kids for a weekend a month while her ... reading time ... has ... gone ... up ...

    Hmmm. Starting to see the flaw in that deal. :-)

    Parent

    He has so much going, but but but (none / 0) (#45)
    by BarnBabe on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:48:40 AM EST
    the people are not all that excited about him and we women want her to go all the way.First of all, with this race being actually very close, and with us finding new things every day, there is a good chance that something else might come forward that would change the whole election. The impossible just takes a little longer.

    Parent
    Perhaps McCain will (none / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:44:24 PM EST
    pick him for AG?

    Parent
    I like this post. It envisions a realistic (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by MarkL on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:37:33 AM EST
    role for Obama that is aligned with his abilities and experience.
    Maybe it's just a pipe dream, but the thought of Obama as candidate---or President---is a nightmare to me.

    I dunno J (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Virginian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:57:50 AM EST
    like I've been suggesting for a while...

    Obama isn't a guy I'd want at he top of anything, not even the DOJ...the guy just doesn't have any LEADERSHIP skills or abilities...everything he has done from Harvard to now points to the antithesis of leadership, he waffles, he bends, he gives in on his positions to attain positions and titles, even if they are meaningless and powerless...he's about image.

    I think this is why Pelosi, and Kennedy and a number of the old school pols really like him, because as president, they will hold the reins, Congress will be more powerful than this upstart who has no clout to do anything...Obama will NEED them, but they won't NEED Obama...the same would be true as an AG...he wouldn't have enough clout...he'd NEED everyone else to help him and do for him, but nobody would NEED Obama...he'd be one of the weakest AGs in recent memory (if elected in the GE, he'll also be one of the weakest presidents in our history I suspect)...

    If he's not the nominee (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:59:28 AM EST
    for whatever reason, I think it's where he can make the greatest positive contribution.

    Jeralyn, can you look up (none / 0) (#206)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:36:16 PM EST
    what he did as a lawyer in Illinois? Did he do any civil rights cases as he claims? He said he specialized in civil rights cases when he first came to Chicago. Is there any record of him doing any representation in court of anyone? Does he have any court experience at all?? I am quite curious about that. One of the things my sister claims inspired her to "come to the TRUTH"(yes, she said that, and she is usually sane) was his work for civil rights in Chicago. I can't find any myself. But then I don't have access to the lawyer databases. Could you take a peek and see, please?

    Parent
    I don't know what Obama would be good at (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:00:06 PM EST
    should he loose the nomination or the GE.  His last job Senator for the state of Illinois, he's is doing hmmmm and he already wants to quit.

    Absurd Notion (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Spike on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:05:17 PM EST
    It is a slap in the face to millions of Democratic voters to suggest that the candidate who will emerge from the Democratic nominating process with the most pledged delegates, most superdelegates, most popular votes, most states won, etc would be better suited for a lesser job than the one they will nominate him to assume. It was this elitist attitude of disdain toward the democratic process -- because Hillary Clinton's nomination was both an entitlement and inevitable -- that caused the nomination to slip through Clinton's fingers. She entered the race with every conceivable advantage. All she had to do was to secure 2025 delegates. She has failed to do that. To now suggest that the candidate who will soon achieve that objective should wait until 2016 to become a contender for an office that is now within sight is the height of arrogance.

    2025I am glad you believe Fl and MI (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    don't count.

    Parent
    And I Hope You Punish Your State Legislators (none / 0) (#250)
    by bird on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:32:52 PM EST
    Think how much more influence FL would have if it would have held its election later.

    Maybe as much as West Virginia!

    Oh well - I bet your state legislators don't do that again.

    Parent

    Not an insult at all (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    If for whatever reason he doesn't get the nomination, I think this would be a great role for him. The nominating process isn't over.

    Parent
    If it is so inevitable that Obama will have (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:11:11 PM EST
    all of these pluses in his column, then why not let the process finish?

    What harm could it possibly do?

    Parent

    Qualifications, credentials and 2209 at minimum (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:04:20 PM EST
    Bring it or fold before the judges' decision is in.

    Complaining that your competition won't fold isn't really being a good sport, is it?

    Parent

    I am so tired of this... (4.55 / 9) (#134)
    by coolit on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:07:35 PM EST
    statement that Clinton thought she was inevitable.  She thought it was destiny.  She was arrogant.  She never said any of that that.  As someone who thinks she'd do a good job, I never thought that.  This is just parroted over and over again by Obama supporters and his media.  

    It something they know is not true that they say repeatedly to make her look bad.

    You gotta love this new kind of politics.  

    New kind of politics = dirty politics while at the same time pretending you're not.

    That is worse than any other kind because it allows the possibility that you can do anything you want to smear anyone because no one thinks you will.

    Parent

    She was wrong to show up; is never supposed to win (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    And when that "rule" is broken, out comes the chorus of yelling, complaining and general HIS-teria.

    Some of the persistent wishful arguments against demonstrable realities are breathing. (You can see it all the way up the line from the astro pa-Trolls to the media and party bigwigs.)

    Parent

    Not a slap (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    Just a reasoned opinion. I think it is a good one, but I like Obama as pres a bit better.

    Parent
    Why is it a slap? (none / 0) (#90)
    by zyx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:29:32 PM EST
    Voters can vote for anyone to be the primary candidate or the president.  Our party's voters have a long tradition of voting for candidates that are hapless losers in the GE.  And our country's voters have a long tradition of voting for men who make mediocre or bad presidents.  

    Most of these men would have been well suited to other jobs.

    Just sayin'.

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:48:27 PM EST
    mediocre MEN

    the WOMAN would be outstanding

    Parent

    Deomcracy in the USA (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Curious on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:12:17 PM EST

    How long will this comment remain here I wonder?

    If every dissenting voice is being erased, regardless of its tone then this blog is no longer a good advertisement for the Clinton Campaign ot for the democratic process.


    dissenting voices are not erased (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:17:25 PM EST
    uncivil ones, ones with personal attacks, name-calling are deleted. Comments that are off topic and an attempt to redirect or hijack the conversation are deleted. The comment rules are clearly spelled out. By posting here, you agree to them. The blogosphere is a wide open place, you are free to post elsewhere if you don't like the rules.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#83)
    by Curious on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    Do you consider this post civil or a personal attaack on Senator Obama
    he's not that interested in the law, or policy, or anything that isn't about moving himself up the power ladder

    Is it acceptable?

    Parent

    Actually, you missed the objectionable (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:37:55 PM EST
    part. I just read the entire comment rather than just the lines you quoted. The last line was a factual misstatement of his record and that comment has now been deleted.

    Parent
    that's an opinion of Obama (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:35:40 PM EST
    it's not an insult to other commenters, it's not name-calling-- it's civil in tone. I don't agree with it but it's borderline acceptable. I wouldn't delete that comment if it said Hillary vs. Obama.

    There are scores of comments on this site opining far worse things about Hillary.

    Parent

    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:24:25 PM EST
    I'm not lockstep in agreement here.

    This is actually a great group.  I disagree with some of the posters, too, on certain points.  But gosh, it's nice to be able to actually be real.

    It is NOT, however, a site where you want to just post the latest PR Release statement.  :)

    Parent

    Obama Isn't Prepared to Be Attorney General (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by BDB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM EST
    He's never really practiced law and he's never run a large organization.  DOJ is a complete mess.  It needs that rare combination of good lawyer, good manager, strong leader.   There are very few people ready for the mess that is DOJ.  Obama isn't one of them.

    There is this one lady... (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by mg7505 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:29:44 PM EST
    who was twice among the 100 most influential lawyers in America ... who has a long record fighting for folks ... who knows corporations inside and out... who is tough as nails and intellectually brilliant. Maybe she would be qualified for the job. Then again maybe she's overqualified and we need her in a higher place.

    Parent
    Be realistic (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by indesq on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    Obama, who has never been my first choice, ran an excellent campaign.  He was organized and forward looking in each contest.  He has the advantage in delegates, the popular vote, and in funds.   How can you now suggest he should be the attorney general rather than president?

    I hate to point this out, but the president has far more impact on the administration of justice, and the policies the department pursues, than the AG.  Senator Clinton, or her husband before her, never impressed me with their commitment to criminal justice issues.  I only add this because she has made much about her experience in government as first lady of arkansas, and later the country.

    If this post was a "what if" post, then you might as well write a what if obama was a woman.

    It's easier (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:19:16 PM EST
    to get results by an AG exercising discretion than getting Congress to act. We've tried for 20 years to eliminate mandatory minimums in Congress and the unfair crack powder disparity and for 8 to get a decent rather than watered down innocence protection act. Ashcroft used his discretion to increase federal death penalty prosecutions in states that have no death penalty. An AG with progressive views on crime would be able to direct his prosecutors to refrain from unjust prosecutions that were statutorily allowed.

    The examples I give are all ones in which Obama has expressed his agreement in principal. He's also, unfortunately, said on many of them, like mandatory minimums and marijuana prosecutions, that as President, it may not be worth the political capital to fight for legislative change. This would be a great way for him to effect change without needing Congress's approval.

    As to your other point, this is not about who will or will not be the nominee. That is an open question at this point, and my view is I'd rather see him as AG than President.

    I agree that the Bill Clinton presidency was bad on crime issues, I've written about that many times. One of the ways to correct that would be to put a non-career prosecutor in the AG position. I wouldn't be thrilled with Eric Holder as a Clinton AG, suggested by a commenter above who obviously doesn't know that Holder joined Obama's campaign in 2007 so it's very unlikely.  With Obama as AG, it's also a way to test whether he has the strength of his convictions or he's just politikking on some of his professed views on crime issues, as I've also written about many times.

    Parent

    Ehhh??????? (none / 0) (#161)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    He did not run an excellent campaign he just got his behind covered by the press and the blogosphere he has made more gaffe's than any credible candidate should have and has not been called on it.  He has been treated with kids gloves from the beginning.  Anytime anyone said anything about him it was called negative campaigning and blamed on Hillary. I could go on but then I would sound like some of the trolls I hate so much.

    Parent
    please drop (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:10:26 PM EST
    the "number of states won nonsense. It's just silly. That would suppose the Alaska is as important in the "math" as California. It's just not so and repeating it will not convince anyone here. Stop it.

    And the premise was if he didn't win the nomination. Not that he should drop out now. We Hillary supporters don't think anyone should drop out til the last voter has had their say and the last vote is counted. Including MI and FL.

    Obama is not "lazy" (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by dem08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    as so many have argued here on THIS thread.

    Here is Lawrence Tribe from the link cited above:

    "Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space.'"

    I know Obama backers are obnoxious, but Obama has astonishing talents. Enough to be President? I don't know. But he is not "lazy" and I don't see how labeling him as such helps anyone understand anything.

    I agree and thought I deleted the comment (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:20:58 PM EST
    that said he was lazy. That's untrue and an uncalled for insult.

    Parent
    People (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:21:33 PM EST
    were stating their opinion that he is "lazy" based on things they have read about and the way he never seems to stick with the hard work necessary to "complete" a difficult task.

    That's "their" opinion. Just as it's your opinion that he has "astonishing talents". Not an opinion that I share I might add but we are both entitled to our own opinions.

    I don't know if I believe he would make a good Attorney General or not. He doesn't seem to be willing to stick with the drudgery of doing the boring work that doing a great job of any job requires.

    Parent

    that is not a direct Tribe quote (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by DFLer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    that you cited. That is the description by author of the article in the Post. Tribe did call him the most all-around impressive student he'd had seen in decades.

     According to the cover of the Law review issue with this article, Barack was one of five people cited for their "analytical and research assistance" ( and also a Physics prof for his "comments")

    The Post article also describes him as Tribe's "research assistant"

    Parent

    Laziness is probably the wrong word (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:35:16 PM EST
    I would say not very resourceful.

    I picture the strategy session back in 2006 going something like this.

    Axlrod:  "Well. We can't figure out any way to do this besides denigrating the Clinton legacy."

    Obama:  "Neither can I."

    Axlrod:  "Yep.  I'm stumped, and sure it's going to divide the party, but I just can't figure out any other way to do this."

    Obama:  "Nope.  Neither can I."

    Axlrod:  "Well.  We could run an issues based campaign."

    Obama:  "You think we could try that?"

    Axlrod:  "Not really.  She's better on the issues."

    Obama:  "So really.  At the end of the day, the only way we can figure out how to do this is to denigrate the Clinton legacy and we'll deal with the fallout the best we can when the time comes."

    Axlrod:  "Yeah.  That's the best we can do."

    They very diligently couldn't come up with any better strategy than the strategy we saw implemented.

    And now they have to deal with the fallout.


    Parent

    My strategy would have been: (none / 0) (#171)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    Obama:

    "Hey, I'm still a young man. Why don't I run in 2016? Meanwhile I'll distance myself from Wright, Ayers and Rezko and sponsor some important Senate legislation to build up my credentials. I'll be unstoppable!"

    I really wish I knew why he didn't take this path.

    Parent

    Instead of controlling the white house (none / 0) (#172)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    For the next 16 years, we now have this.


    Parent
    I know, I know. (none / 0) (#174)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:45:20 PM EST
    Short-sighted in the extreme.

    Oh well. Anything can happen, so let's not lose hope. :-)

    Parent

    That Strategy Was Thought of By Millions (none / 0) (#251)
    by bird on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:43:38 PM EST
    It's not hard to be progressive and be against the Clinton legacy.

    There is nothing wrong with opposing: NAFTA, most favored trading status to China, industry-favored telecommunications regulations, the health care initiative failure, the welfare "fix", Dick Morris, triangulation as a political principle.

    We can disagree on how we think the future will play out, but many left Dems don't think that WJC was the liberal the right makes him out to be.

    Parent

    I'm not one to say that Obama is lazy... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:40:15 PM EST
    ...but what you offer as evidence for his not being lazy is really just evidence that he is really, really smart. Who knows, he might not have even broken a sweat doing that intellectual work. It might have come easy to him. But since part of my job is coordinating scientific peer review, I'd like to get the opinion of three physicists before I accept Tribe's judgment of exactly how well Obama did that. Cause that's how we do it in science, lol.

    Parent
    I'm Lazy and I admit it (none / 0) (#176)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    That's why I always try to do things right the first time.  That is also the reason why I would never run for public office.

    Parent
    You know, (none / 0) (#156)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:27:03 PM EST
    Obama's record and lack of accomplishments simply show, factually speaking, that he is lazy as a public servant. He doesn't take a stand, he doesn't sponsor controversial legislation, and he's going for the brass ring after having done very little to earn it.

    As a person, I can't speak to his work ethic, but I don't think it's insulting to say that his job performance so far doesn't show a strong one.

    Parent

    The metric argument is so over (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:18:47 PM EST
    and it's offensive, so long as you leave out that Hillary has won every major Democratic state.

    It's also offensive if you omit FL and MI, and don't EVEN quote the rules.

    It's really very simple.

    Either the Democratic party admits......this is very neck-and-neck, and 1/2 of the Democrats do not agree with the other 1/2.....

    Or people will remain angry, polarized, and hurt.

    Your choice.

    Thanks for the talking point of the day. (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:33:29 PM EST
    Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, apparently.

    Parent
    Barely (none / 0) (#165)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    and if you can't admit that, then you take the responsibility for alienating 1/2 of the party.

    Your choice.

    I totally am with BTD on this issue.

    You want to shove this down 50% of the voters throats?

    You go right ahead.  

    But that's suicide politics at its finest.

    You may end up feeling "right," but you sure aren't going to be happy with the outcome.

    Again.......your choice.

    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#175)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:45:50 PM EST
    Obama will not win some of those states, and my dear, that is not enough to win.

    Parent
    You're dreaming . . . (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by bdbd on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:19:20 PM EST
    Obama is leading in the delegate count and in all likelohood the nominee.  What makes you think he would pay attention to a patronizing suggestion that he accept the position of AG?  How about asking Clinton to consider serving as Secretary of HHS?  How would that be received?

    that would be fine (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:22:24 PM EST
    if that's what she wanted to do and Obama won the presidency and offered it to her. Not an insult at all.

    Parent
    Seriously, I think he should become a lobbyist (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by BarnBabe on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:20:23 PM EST
    The AG idea is interesting and doable but I don't think he would be interested. If you are the head of a sub-committee and never called a meeting, then you  will not be a good leader at the AG office. I think he should finish out his last 2 years term and join a lobbying group. I believe his talents would serve him well there. And it would be ironic.

    Anne in CA (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:29:49 PM EST
    please stay on topic of the post and please refrain from race-baiting comments against Obama.

    OK (none / 0) (#169)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:38:04 PM EST
    and wow!

    I so don't agree.

    But I sure don't intend to offend.

    I have so enjoyed my time here, but this is way off-base, and I'll find another spot.

    But, truly, mea culpa.

    Parent

    I would like to say (1.00 / 1) (#177)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:47:11 PM EST
    too, thank you for a place to express for at least this while.

    Truly.

    And good luck!

    I think this site has truly great potential.

    I do apologize if my viewpoints offend you.

    But I am very much offended by being called a "race-baiter."  I will not take that label lightly or put up with it.

    So I bid you all "good-well."

    It has been one heck of a ride this season.

    And I do hope we all meet again, under calmer circumstances.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    I am shocked, based on reading your previous comments here, that you have such a thin skin. Seems to me that you are overreacting big time. Most of the people who have been around for some time have been called out, had comments deleted and even if we disagree, respected Jeralyn's discretion because we post here at her pleasure, and all in all she is extremely tolerant and fair.

    Parent
    where are you gonna go? n/t (none / 0) (#184)
    by coolit on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:58:53 PM EST


    Parent
    To (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:56:04 PM EST
    AnninCA

    Please come back sometime

    I don't know what youu said or wrote that got you into hot water here, but I usually read your posts and enjoy them...

    don't go away for good

    Wonderful. (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by Fabian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:34:57 PM EST
    Just wonderful.  I ended up replying to a dk comment from BarbinMD because I couldn't believe the reading comprehension there was that bad.
    This part of her post had my jaw dropping:

        He'd be the best advocate for a congressional end to the unfair disparity in crack-powder cocaine sentences.

    I understood that sentence to be about the frigging LAWS that Congress passed.  (I didn't remember until just now about Obama's brush with cocaine.  No, really!)  If they can drop the Hillary Hate for just a minute or two, they too can read the words written without reading anything into them.

    BarbinMD.  A front pager.  All I ask for is a little objectivity, not world peace.

    it's about the laws he has promised (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:19:09 PM EST
    to try and repeal if elected president -- the 100:1 ratio whereby it takes 5 grams of crack to trigger a 5 year mandatory minimum but 500 grams of powder. (and 50 grams of crack gets a 10 year sentence while  it takes 5 kilos of powder to trigger the 10 year sentence.) He's said at various times he would work to eliminate the disparity in the law. Bills have been pending for years in Congress to do that. They don't seem to go anywhere. Obama has said he's not sure how much political capital he'd be willing to expend on the issue if President.

    The fastest and best way to equalize the penalties now is to have an AG who says he won't charge an offense of more than 5 or 50 grams of crack under those statutes. There are other statutes to use to avoid this. Since he has professed his opposition to the disparity, as AG he'd be in a perfect position to implement the solution without needing Congress to act. He could do the same with respect to prosecution of other drug possession cases that carry mandatory minimum penalties.

    I don't take the  comment you reference to insinuate that that I made the suggestion because of  Obama's personal use. That makes no sense. If they did write that, they are completely clueless and should be ignored.

    Parent

    The entire string of replies (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Fabian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:26:39 PM EST
    made me just go "Huh?" over and over until I got back here and say Obama/cocaine for the nth time and it finally clicked.

    I totally forgot about all that and I just couldn't figure out what got them all fired up.  I'm barely versed on anything legal, so I figured you knew what you were talking about.  I also assumed that the commenters didn't because not one referenced anything about laws, drugs or sentencing.  

    Parent

    He'd be a terrible AG.... (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    He is opposed to confrontation.

    I think we could maybe find someone who is capable of a fight and more importantly a person who has the smarts to pick his or her battles - I'd like the next AG to clean up the GOP corruption and I get the distinct impression that Obama would do everything in his power to avoid upsetting his GOP friends.

    He would be unacceptable to me in this role.

    Jeralyn, not his style (4.77 / 9) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:18:55 AM EST
    it involves boring day to day work.  He wants the high profile stuff.  Processing, schmoozing.  Senator is perfect.  It will be a rude awakening like Bush got if he is elected when he realized the "team that brought him" will not be there to coddle him all the time and he will actually have to do something, make decisions, stand for something.  

    BS (1.00 / 1) (#199)
    by squeaky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:06:52 PM EST
    He doesn't like to work....

    Wow, got any other AA stereotypes you would like to add?

    squeaky that comment has been (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:30:10 PM EST
    deleted. Thanks for pointing it out, it was completely inappropriate.

    Parent
    J (none / 0) (#218)
    by CanadianDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:14:51 PM EST
    Nice to see you monitoring things like this, I've been reading your blog from way back when the old design was up (different nick, closed my account a few months ago), things were getting a little hairy here for awhile (from both sides)...was concerned once the primary/election was over your site would collapse - still miss the legal focus though.  Keep up the good work.

    Parent
    Actually, I think Obama might be a very (none / 0) (#37)
    by cosbo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:43:52 AM EST
    effective Secretary of State considering how well he's regarded internationally right now. Of course, that little shine will probably wear off during the GE.

    Obama face to face with Putin. (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:45:09 AM EST
    What a hilarious image.  

    Parent
    "yes we can!" vs. "nyet!" (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:09:00 PM EST


    Parent
    oh no, (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by OldCoastie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:15:11 PM EST
    I think he'd be way in over his head....

    doesn't exactly speak well to his presidential aspirations, now does it?

    Parent

    I am not in agreement (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:55:14 PM EST
    I feel that his diplomatic philosophies are slightly akin to taking your hands off the handle bars and then going "weeeeeeeee!" down the hill.

    We are 1 year away from his gaffe on preconditions and he still has not communicated an understanding of their role in a successful diplomatic process.

    Parent

    Creative thinking here, for sure (none / 0) (#48)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:51:35 AM EST
    but I noticed that Obama bailed on a very simple question about the gun law of Washington DC that is before the courts now.  He said he'd have to read the brief.  LOL*

    Made me wonder about his constitutional law credential.

    I don't understand how he was (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Virginian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:02:37 PM EST
    lecturing on a subject that he never practices in...very soon after graduating law school...

    I know he has a JD...but that hardly makes him an expert on constitutional law...at least expert enough to teach others who are getting their own JD...

    With that said, I have often seen lecturers brought into the UVA Law school that are only a few years removed from attaining their JD as well...so I assume this is common practice in Law schools? Maybe someone else can answer to that?

    I know that for the other professional schools, Business and Medicine, that people without both degrees and serious experiential bona fides are not brought in as lecturers or professors...

    Parent

    I've wondered that myself (none / 0) (#68)
    by angie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:09:27 PM EST
    the adjunct or guest lecturers in both my law schools (after my JD, I went on to get my LLM) were all experts in the field with many years of practice under their belts. In all honesty, I think Obama got the gig through connections and/or the fact that he was in the state legislature.

    Parent
    The way of academia (none / 0) (#70)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:10:04 PM EST
    today......they are surviving on adjunct faculty who often have no expertise.

    Parent
    I've read that (none / 0) (#78)
    by Virginian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:14:14 PM EST
    but I have also read that we have a PhD surplus...basically schools are awarding too many PhDs, and the PhD programs have become much less rigorous (and less meaningful)...

    Its hard to imagine that contradiction, but I am assuming that it means we have more PhDs in the workforce, and fewer going to Academia...

    Parent

    Well, he certainly had the "look" of a (none / 0) (#85)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:22:55 PM EST
    great candidate.....editor of the Harvard Law Review would open any door.

    See my previous post on the truth of his work there.  He was characterized by his classmates as a bit lazy.

    LOL*

    What a trip.

    As far as academia goes, the lack of benefits and low pay of adjunct faculty is the issue.  One cannot make a living that way.  Therefore, until we start investing again in education, even the big-name universities are relying up a myth to prop up their reputations.

    Parent

    The academic job market's (none / 0) (#92)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:31:35 PM EST
    really really tight.

    The post-doc writing program at Duke had 150 applications for their Spring job posting.

    States have been tightening their belts. This forces the universities to do the same.

    When two oldster faculty retire, the odds are good that the department will try to turn those two tracks into one...asking for applicants who will be able to cover Renaissance as well as Medieval lit plus be able to teach World lit...and be able to teach FYC.

    So now...instead of being a top drawer Medievalist, you're expected to have a broad knowledge of the area +.

    Parent

    these are off topic (none / 0) (#117)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    please take them to an open thread

    Parent
    Obama was an adjunct instructor. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:02:27 PM EST
    He probably taught beginning classes, at least at first.  He probably had some teaching experience at Harvard.  I'm a Ph.D. candidate right now and I've taught a lot in adjunct jobs.  They hire us for the 100 and 200 level classes so the real Profs. can do the seminars and graduate courses.  It's a bit much for him to call himself a "professor."

    Parent
    Brilliant (none / 0) (#51)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:53:00 AM EST
     If Obama had not been so impatient this would have been a brilliant spring board to running for President.  Maybe he will win even though he has taken a lot of short cuts, we will see.

    Miserable? (none / 0) (#53)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:54:44 AM EST
    If this was a miserable campaign how did she get over 16 million votes, maybe more than Obama when it comes to the end?  Are you saying the people voted for her are too stupid to know she ran a miserable campaign?

    Amen (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:19:58 PM EST
    This attitude will either change.......

    or they will be handed a loss in the fall.

    It's not reasonable.

    Parent

    Sar 75 (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:00:19 PM EST
    has been suspended for posting off-topic comments in  an anttempt to redirect or hijack the thread.

    qwatz (none / 0) (#62)
    by 2liberal on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:05:58 PM EST
    i can't imagine obama leaving the senate to work as part of a clinton administration.  he will have his eyes set on a future run, and this doesn't help him. he will be working on his foreign policy and defense credentials for the next chance 4, 8, 12, or 16 years down the road when he gets his next best chance.

    Clinton would make a great... (none / 0) (#87)
    by mike in dc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:24:41 PM EST
    ...HHS Cabinet Secretary in an Obama administration.

    I think Secretary of the Treasury is out of the question given her campaign finance troubles, but I suppose she could redeem herself by staying in the Senate and sponsoring some civil rights initiatives.

    She could even become Majority Leader someday.  

    Or she could keep this up and get primaried in 2012.  

    It's my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    That Obama is a vacuum in space.

    This in response to threat made above by mike in dc.  It is indicative of the kinds of goals the Obama movement has, to purge those who question them, and the only way you can really talk to them is to do what I do.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:49:50 PM EST
    He's another Bush in this respect.

    As soon as he's elected, the press will have no access unless it's highly engineered.

    But his supporters were given the information that he is this way.

    So they are OK with it.

    I'm not, but I'm not in the winning crowd this year.  I have enjoyed the "rough and tumble" of Hillary's campaign because it was transparent, it was authentic, and she knew she had to overcome the reputation that she was, somehow, not straight up.  I appreciated the peek into the innards.  I did, indeed, become convinced.

    Obama?  He's hidden.  Still is.

    That's why, in my opinion, he's not won over the traditional Dems.  We so get him.  Just another suit, with a Madison Avenue marketing scheme, who will take our vote and do zip for us.

    Parent

    We could boil all that down (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:51:11 PM EST
    into two words, but we should refrain from doing so.

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:07:43 PM EST
    Or she could keep this up and get primaried in 2012.

    She could "keep this up?"  Do you mean her audacity in daring to run for President?  Good luck beating her in the NY primary.  

    Parent

    She already was primaried (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:48:22 PM EST
    in 2006.

    Her challenger was roundly defeated.

    We love us some HRC in New York. ;-)

    Parent

    LOL, I don't think you really mean that. (1.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    ..but even if you did, haven't you heard? Clinton won't be allowed anywhere near an Obama administration because Michelle doesn't like her.

    Parent
    Yes, and she will be (none / 0) (#211)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:01:09 PM EST
    much more effective in the Senate holding Obama to his promises. And making sure he doesn't overstep the legal bounds of the Presidency. Remember, she is a lawyer too, and has much more experience than Obama does.

    Parent
    Yes, HHS... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Spike on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    I was thinking the same thing about Clinton at HHS. I'm not sure that she'd be as good as Shalala, but she has some experience with the health care issue, which might be useful. But if she's patient and waits her turn, she might be able to move up to Senate Whip after Durbin becomes Majority Leader after Harry Reid retires in 2010 or 2016.

    Parent
    These are both off-topic (none / 0) (#111)
    by shoephone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:43:03 PM EST


    Parent
    And meant to be demeaning. (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:14:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Arguments can be made about VP viability (none / 0) (#104)
    by blogtopus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:39:43 PM EST
    either way. But I think that Hillary would have a better chance of winning without a Unity ticket than Obama would, imo.

    Reason? Just a feeling, but I get the idea that the AA community would be less inclined to abandon the Dem party (for what? Who else will represent them? The GOP?) than the older, white voters of the Midwest who can find an alternative in voting (nose held firmly) for McCain rather than putting an elitist fop into office who soundly abandoned them.

    Also, I think Hillary has a very strong ability to truly unify everyone in a positive way, whereas Obama can unify people only in hatred of THE OTHER.

    My 2 cents.

    this is completely off topic (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:41:07 PM EST
    take it to an open thread.

    Parent
    "Fop"? Is that acceptable here? (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:55:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Delete it if you want (none / 0) (#210)
    by blogtopus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:56:53 PM EST
    Responding to something brought up that was demonstrably on topic. My bad

    Parent
    Edgar 08 (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:40:29 PM EST
    I've deleted several of your personal insults to Obama in this thread. Please stop making them.

    mike in dc's comment (none / 0) (#112)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:44:22 PM EST
    Is off-topic.


    Parent
    How about attacking corruption in Chicago? (none / 0) (#116)
    by gandy007 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:48:35 PM EST
    Would Obama have the inclination or will to attack
    corruption in Chicago? Would he be willing to give Patrick Fitzgerald free rein to do his thing?

    Perhaps not.  Maybe it's just my bitter attitude or looking through my white tinted glasses as some might say, but I find this article from the Chicago Tribune via Real Clear Politics to seem credible.

    I know nothing about this writer or the bent of this paper, but his construct of Obama's history in Chicago seems plausible.  If so, the Republicans could have a field day with this alone.

    If he were AG (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:53:26 PM EST
    he could devote extra funds to combatting corruption in Chicago. He could promote Patrick Fitzgerald to Deputy AG.

    Parent
    Or he could protect all his friends who (none / 0) (#214)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:07:24 PM EST
    put him on the path to the current campaign. Of course, with his record of throwing away people who are no longer useful, he might actually do something. But that would take a lot of work, and probably some of the dirt would land on him, given that he was the darling of the Cook County machine and used them to get ahead. I don't look for Obama to take a job that actually involves a lot of work, and one that he has to take risks in, or actually take a stand on something. Fitzgerald would make a much better AG than Obama. Fitzgerald actually gives a damn. Obama doesn't.

    Parent
    By this reasoning... (none / 0) (#142)
    by diogenes on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:16:12 PM EST
    Why not a deal to put Hillary on the Supreme Court (she would be no worse than any other liberal) unless failing the DC bar would disqualify her.  She could be in a potition of power for thirty, not eight, years, and we'd be spared the spectre of Bill Clinton.

    The spectre of Bill Clinton? (3.66 / 3) (#181)
    by rooge04 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:54:56 PM EST
    Bill Clinton is a LEGENDARY, wonderful Democrat. The fact that Obama has succeeded in having other Dems call him names and denigrate him utterly disgusts me.

    I don't want Obama as AG, I don't want him as VP, I don't want him anywhere.  I don't want him in the Senate.  I want him back in Chicago, where his kind of politics thrive.

    Parent

    If Obama is miraculously elected President... (none / 0) (#143)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    I would support this idea.

    I would think she'd make a very strong counterweight to the scary right-wingers that sit there now.

    Parent

    I'd be open to that (none / 0) (#198)
    by dmfox on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:59:46 PM EST
    She seems like she'd be great on individual rights, especially considering her work with children and on health care.  However, the great majority of cases before SCOTUS involve business interests, and I don't think anyone knows where Hillary would stand on consumer interests when pitted against big business.  Even Breyer and Ginsburg are someone conservative on those issues. That's not to say Clinton wouldn't be very progressive, I just don't know what her philosophy would be.

    Parent
    Holder joined Obama's campaign (none / 0) (#155)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    in 2007, I doubt he'd be Hillary's AG.

    I don't understand why (none / 0) (#168)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:37:13 PM EST
    in a Democratic administration, we have to make such an effort to include Republicans.

    Patrick Fitzgerald may be okay, but I'm sure there are at least 100 Democrats that would be better.

    If we must have Republicans, let's put them in less important positions. I think the evidence is pretty clear by now that they cannot be trusted within 50 miles of the levers of power.

    please repost without the link (none / 0) (#173)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:43:03 PM EST
    urls must be in html format. Long ones like the one you posted skew the site and I have to delete the comment. I'll leave it up for 1/2 hour to give you a chance to redo it. Either use html or don't include the link.

    Help (none / 0) (#221)
    by DFLer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:23:00 PM EST
    What is the code to use for html links? (Aamong those listed in the html "allowed" guide. thanks

    Parent
    there is a link button (none / 0) (#232)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:12:24 PM EST
    at the top of the comment box. Just type the text you want people to click on, for example Chicago Tribune, highlight with your mouse, click on the link button and paste in the url.

    or, even easier, go to tinyurl.com, and it will give you a short url.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#180)
    by pixelpusher on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:50:23 PM EST
    From the blog entry on Obama's tenure on HLR, a suggestion on how McCain should attack him:

    "Obama is a state-of-the-art B.S. artist who tells everybody what they want to hear. Everybody loves him because they think he agrees with them, but that's because he has spent his whole adult life not telling anybody what he really thinks. In contrast, lots of people hate me because I'm always saying what I really think."

    This imagined McCain response gets to the heart of why I'm so uneasy about Obama:  I feel like he's so aloof and unable to pin down, that I feel like he's a candidate who could just get sick of running and say "To hell with all this, I'm not playing any more, goodbye."  I feel like he's going to be a one-termer... not because he's going be harmed by anyone (though sometimes I think his own supporters have sick fantasies about him nobly being cut down in the prime of his life by a racist assassin's attack), or even because he wouldn't be re-elected, but just because he would choose not to run.  Or even quit midway in office because he found it tiresome.

    I think either Dem (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:56:48 PM EST
    runs the risk of being turned into a one-termer.

    The country is much worse off than the corporate media is admitting. If a Dem gets elected, it will be gloves-off time, and that Dem will be blamed for everything from the economy to Iraq.

    I think HRC is strong enough to avoid that trap. Obama, not so much.

    Parent

    From your lips to Guam's ears (none / 0) (#185)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:01:01 PM EST
    At least you're not repeating "contests in a row" over and over, as though that counted for anything.

    Sure, if he weren't the presumptive nominee (none / 0) (#195)
    by dmfox on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:55:19 PM EST
    Good arguments for how Obama would make a good AG.  However, this is not realistic, as he is the party's presumptive nominee for president.

    I mean no disrespect to Senator Clinton or her supporters, but the reality is that Obama will be the party's nominee. I am open to the possibility of Clinton being on the ticket, or SCOTUS, or Senate Majority Leader.  I think she'd make a hell of an AG as well.  That's probably the more appropriate discussion to be having though, since like it or not, Barack Obama's name is going to be at the top of the ticket this November.

    OK, one more time..sigh (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:15:20 PM EST
    the nominee is picked at the convention, not by the one who thinks he is ahead in the early summer. The pledged delegates are only pledged through the first ballot. Neither candidate has enough delegates to win on the first ballot. After the first ballot, the delegates are free to vote as they please, for the candidate they think can WIN the election. Most of the SDs are undeclared. Therefore, there is no presumptive nominee, there are only the two candidates and the nominee will be decided at the convention. Is there any part of this that you do not understand? If so, I will be happy to explain further.

    Parent
    Not Quite (none / 0) (#229)
    by Spike on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    A nominee hasn't actually been "picked at the convention" since who knows when. The nomination will be determined long before the convention and ratified in Denver. There won't be more than one ballot. Obama already has an insurmountable lead among pledged delegates and superdelegates are quickly lining up behind him as the presumptive nominee. After the final votes are cast in June, the writing will be on the wall for all to see. Hillary Clinton will then thank her many supporters and graciously "suspend" her campaign -- in case Obama self immolates -- and pledge her support for the nominee. At that point, the focus shifts to beating McCain and the final phase of party unification will begin. In Denver, Clinton's name will be placed in nomination, permitting the success of her campaign to be acknowledged. She will then withdraw her name from consideration and pledge her support for Obama. He will be nominated unanimously on the first ballot. And the party will march united to victory in November.

    Parent
    If Obama is the nominee, (none / 0) (#238)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:45:57 PM EST
    McCain will win in November. Obama doesn't have the votes to win. He has pissed off too many people in his quest for "unity". He will lose massively. Here's a newsflash for you. The MAJORITY of voters are middle class, lower middle class and not college graduates. And those are the people that Obama has belittled and insulted during his campaign. Not to mention the women he blew off with his misogynist and sexist comments about Hillary Clinton. Obama cannot win the General Election. Hopefully, the SDs will realize this and go for Hillary. And FYI, the undeclared SDs in Congress are more likely to go for someone who they know can and will campaign hard, will work hard when they get into office and who appeals to a broad spectrum of citizens. That person is not Barack Obama, it is Hillary Clinton.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#239)
    by Spike on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:54:11 PM EST
    for the clarification. However, I beg to differ with your analysis of the current situation. Obama has surged into the lead in superdelegates since last Tuesday's results in NC and IN. I have recently spoken with several Democratic members of Congress who are excited about having Obama at the top of the ticket heading into November. It is going to be a great year for Democrats!

    Parent
    Spike (none / 0) (#248)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:24:42 PM EST
    I deleted a personal insult here to you. I didn't see it earlier. Sorry.

    Parent
    No, it will be the year they (none / 0) (#252)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:52:05 PM EST
    should have won, and didn't. Get ready for McCain as President if Obama is the nominee. Obama cannot take the states he needs to to win the GE. He just can't do it. Sorry.

    Parent
    This type of negative thinking gets us nowhere (none / 0) (#255)
    by dmfox on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:21:05 PM EST
    Obama is ahead of McCain in nearly every poll, and was tied with him during the Jeremiah Wright controversy, bittergate, and some tough campaigning from Hillary Clinton. He will be a formidable nominee.  This type of thinking, frankly, is not grounded on any facts.

    The party and rank-and-file will need to get behind the nominee in November.  It's a banner year for Democrats. Just because your favorite didn't win doesn't mean that Democrats won't win. I think it's safe to say that no one here wants John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg replaced by more "Robertses and Alitos," as John McCain has promised. The prospects remain good for victory in November. Hard work is necessary, but no need to be down on our chances.

    Parent

    Re Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#201)
    by gandy007 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:12:36 PM EST
    Are you saying that as AG, it would stiffen his spine.  I am only taking the word of the Chicago press, but apparently he has been pretty silent on the issue of Chicago corruption before now.

    Earlier, I cited a Chicago Tribune story about Obama's history as crusader or non crusader as an Illinois politician.  My mention of Fitzgerald was related to the fact that Mayor Daley and associates may become or already are the target of an investigation by Fitzgerald.

    Given the close relationship between Obama and Daley, at least as characterizes in that article, and a relevant referral to Fitzgerald, I was speculating about Obama's resolve in pursuing Chicago corruption as AG.

    Jeralyn, thanks for giving me a chance to repost.
    Don't know how to do html or I would.  Pretty computer illiterate. Guess I'm just one of those senile over educated Hillary fanatics.

    Try this. (none / 0) (#213)
    by Iphie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:07:12 PM EST
    Good step by step instructions for formatting links.

    Parent
    Embedded link for ChiTrib article (none / 0) (#222)
    by jawbone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:26:43 PM EST
    Link

    In case it's deleted before commenter gets it embedded.

    And detailed instructions, if it might help (none / 0) (#227)
    by jawbone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:26:35 PM EST
    If you learn this embedding, you will hate every other site that doesn't embed this tool.
    '
    I wish there were a way to put it into my toolbar.

    Parent
    What Would HRC's Cabinet Position Be? (none / 0) (#242)
    by bird on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:14:28 PM EST
    Secretary of Energy?

    she is kind of like (none / 0) (#247)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:22:46 PM EST
    the energizer bunny, I admire that about her.

    Parent
    So You Don't Find The Speculation Premature? (none / 0) (#253)
    by bird on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:55:58 PM EST
    Seriously, if neither candidate offers the other the VP, do you think a cabinet post would be acceptable?

    Parent
    Problem (none / 0) (#243)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:15:00 PM EST
    with this whole argument is that Obama peaked in Feb. It's pretty much been downhill for him since.

    Notice to new commenters (none / 0) (#244)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    Read the comment rules before you post. Your comment must be on the topic of the post, in this case, whether Barack Obama would make a good attorney general or other positions in which he could make a significant contribution if Hillary were the nominee and elected President.

    That's the premise. We have open threads every day where you can write about other topics. Or, you can comment elsewhere or start your own blog.

    No personal attacks, insults, name-calling or drive by snipes. Comments close at 200, if you have nothing to add to the topic, please don't take up  a comment slot.

    Don't feed the trolls, I'll get around to deleting  comments that violate the rules. If I miss one, email me. Thanks.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#256)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:27:58 PM EST
    Too many off topic comments, this one's closing early.

    A Better Role for Obama | 185 comments (185 topical)