home

The Veep "Stakes"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:10:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Kevin Drum wrote:

Overall, I don't have any strong feelings about who Obama ought to pick right now — though I don't think either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards would be good choices (and I'm not sure either of them wants the job), and I'm not keen on Webb either. Based on a fairly low information "blink" kind of test, I guess my top picks right now are Joe Biden and Kathleen Sebelius. But I could be pretty easily converted to half a dozen other candidates too.

I am curious, because Kevin does not explain it, why does he think Hillary Clinton would not be a good choice and why does he think Joe Biden or Kathleen Sebelius would be good choices? He sort of explains why he thinks Jim Webb would not be a good choice:

My biggest issue with Webb is that I think he'd be too obvious a choice: the press corps would (probably correctly) immediately interpret it as a sign that Obama was picking Webb to shore up his military cred, and this would be a tacit admission that he agrees with McCain's fundamental criticism that he doesn't have CinC credentials. In much the same way that picking an ostentatiously young running mate would merely highlight McCain's age, picking an ostentatiously hawkish running mate would merely highlight Obama's lack of military experience.

I could write the same paragraph for Biden (replace "military cred" with "foreign policy experience") and Sibelius (replace "military cred" with "women"). But I really do not buy that critique anyway. What matters is who helps Obama win in November. All the rest of this is just plain blather.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Late Night: The Doobie Brothers | Pols Are Pols >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Veep "Stakes" | 213 comments (213 topical)
    Unfortunately for Obama (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by djork on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:32:41 AM EST
    There is only one Veep position available and he's got too many weaknesses to shore up in just one person. He needs three or four running mates.
    precisely.... (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:40:01 AM EST
    McCain doesn't have to compensate for anything in his VP pick -- and his choice of VP won't be seen as the first big test of his judgement.

    Obama, on the other hand, has too much to compensate for --- and this will be seen as the first big test of his "judgement".  Regardless of who he picks, it will be widely criticized because he needs to reassure voters on some many different and incompatible levels....

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:50:55 AM EST
    McCain's VP pick could tell you something. Does he pick Huckabee to make the evangelicals happy or does he pick Christie Todd Whitman who could help him pick up the Clinton Dems? It shall be interesting to see what happens here.

    Parent
    Christie Whitman is covered with too much WTC (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:54:02 AM EST
    dust and lies about environmental safety. The NYC metro area, including NJ, does not have good feelings either about her governship nor her time at EPA.

    She is a huge NO! Unless you want to handicap McCain even further.

    Parent

    Arguing that Christie Todd Whitman (4.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Baal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:33:19 AM EST
    could possibly help pick up certain  Clinton Dems is an insult to Hillary supporters, since it is only in the light of the horrors of a Bush Cheney administration that CTW can be considered something other than a partisan right-wing candidate.  She is not particularly different from Kay Bailey Hutchison, which is to say, a very very bad choice.

    Hillary was not my top choice for this nomination, and I disagree with may people on this site about the merits of various Dem candidates, but I would never throw out an insult like that.  

    Parent

    CTW (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:36:16 AM EST
    is perceived as a moderate Republican whether you like it or not. Do you know remember her resigning from the administration and her taking the GOP to task for being taken over by fundamentalists? I'm not advocating but you really have to face the facts. Hillary supporters have a huge problem with Obama.

    Parent
    I think she could actually put NJ... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by cosbo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:04:56 AM EST
    in play. She's the former Gov of NJ and is considered a moderate. Heck even I consider her moderate. She'd be good regional pick for McCain.

    Oddly enough, if a McCain/Whitman team won, I wouldn't feel too awful.

    Parent

    Yes I know she resigned (1.50 / 2) (#35)
    by Baal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:43:09 AM EST
    but not after taking steps that represent a considerable electoral liablity, such as her statements post 9-11.

    Anyway, she won't be the one picked.  The GOP base would dessert in a second.

    I honestly believe most Hillary supporters will vote for a candidate who agrees with Hillary on about 95% of issues and not flip to the wingnuts.

    Parent

    Polls (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:45:21 AM EST
    don't back up your assumption and Obama is not trying to get hillarycrats on board. He's basically ignoring them and arrogantly expecting their vote while pandering to the radical right.

    Parent
    Experience does (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:53:03 AM EST
    Most of the time most voters come home in the end. I doubt very much Obama will risk alienating all Hillary voters. Some, of course, will never be convinced, no matter what Obama says or does, or Hillary says or does. Too much pandering to some voters who  will never be convinced makes him appear weak.  

    Obama has to appear his own man. Therefore even if he wants Hillary, he has to go through the motions of reviewing all potential veeps. Also it get free publicity and it helps the image of politicians on the short list.

    Parent

    What do (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:58:11 AM EST
    you think of him pandering to the evangelicals then? Does that make him look weak? Or is it only trying to get Hillary supporters on board that makes him appear weak?

    Parent
    Apathy can make the difference (5.00 / 5) (#192)
    by esmense on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:16:52 AM EST
    It did in '72. Record setting turnout in the primaries turned into a 22 year low in turnout in the general election, thanks to a divided Democratic party and candidates who were unappealing to significant numbers of their own constituencies. For further discouragment, add in an ugly campaign season marked by dirty tricks and personal attacks (justified by issues of "character" and "trust")- just as this election is already shaping up to be. Significant numbers of people hated BOTH Nixon and McGovern by the end of that campaign. And the young people, independents and moderate Republicans McGovern counted on for his win in the primaries never showed up for him in the general.

    Enthusiasm for McCain won't be Obama's biggest worrry -- a bigger problem will be the lack of enthusiasm for both men and the whole process; created by ugly campaign tactics, already coming from both sides, that relentlessly push an image of the other guy as cluelesls, dangerous, wicked, deserving of hatred or fear. (True, the Obama campaign's demonization of both Clintons worked in the primary -- but just barely. And over time it started to lose him more voters than it gained. Demonizing McCain will be harder, and offers the possibility of greater backlash.)

    If you talk about hope on the one hand, while spreading genuinely ugly talk about your opponent's first marriage on the other, you come across as a phoney, not a leader. And while its true that, as a result of the trash you are peddling, people may end up disgusted with your opponent, they are likely to also end up equally disgusted with you.

    Parent

    I hear this all the time (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:31:54 AM EST
    Most of the time most voters come home in the end

    First, this election isn't anything like "most of the time".  We had a woman and a black man, and arguable irregularities via the RBC.  Because of this, you cannot make any predictions about future events based on past events surrounding generic white guys.

    Second, when they say "most of the time" they use Kerry as their example.  

    Um, Kerry lost.

    Parent

    "Who will not flip to the fundies?" (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:52:36 AM EST
    Hmmm.  You must have not been reading here at TL the past two days...let's see, BO has, in just one week, launched a Joshua Generation effort aimed at fundy youth; launched an effort to "kick off" the Dem convention with a "Faith Event"; and, as late as last night, admitted to meeting with fundy religious leaders to pray and stated that faith will be an important focus in an "Obama Administration".

    Of course, with his religious background...I guess you won't call that a flip or a flop.

    I do.  As a constitutional "law professor" did he not read the document he taught - or perhaps he just skipped that particular section.

    Parent

    P A N D E R I N G (none / 0) (#56)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:55:22 AM EST


    Parent
    what section is that? (none / 0) (#59)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:55:54 AM EST
    where in the Constitution does it say that a president shouldn't talk to religous people?

    What specific thing has Obama ever said or proposed that could, in any way, be seen as a breach of the church-state separation?

    Parent

    Please (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:58:43 AM EST
    Enough with the strawman that the entire issue is about Obama talking to people.

    What specific thing has he said?  Gee, how about where he said that religion would be a priority in his administration?  It was right there in yesterday's post, if you bothered to read it.

    Parent

    The Democratic Party and Evangelicals (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by foobar417 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:58:41 AM EST
    For an interesting history of the relationship between the Democratic Party and evangelicals, I recommend reading Amy Sullivan's "The Party Faithful."

    There's a long chapter detailing Bill Clinton's extensive efforts to reach out to evangelicals, despite the instincts of his close advisors. It gives interesting context to evaluate Obama's efforts to date and likely future efforts.

    While you may not agree with Ms. Sullivan's analysis, she brings up a lot of forgotten history and raises some interesting questions going forward about how the Democratic Party can continue to expand its pool of voters without compromising its ideals.

    --Eric

    Parent

    what does that mean? (none / 0) (#108)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:22:56 AM EST
    why do you find it offensive?

    I interpreted that as saying to the religous community that it would be a priority of his to reach out to them and listen to their perspective.

    If you can point to any objectionable policies he is pushing, then please share.

    Parent

    Did Bill Clinton ever refer to faith? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:03:02 AM EST
    I believe he did on numerous occasions. Has Hillary? I believe she has as well.

    Personally I don't care whether someone is religious or not. There isn't supposed to be a religious test for office. I do care whether or not a politician seeks to impose his religion on others. That is a major difference between Democratic politicians and Republican ones. Republicans often make an effort to back up their pandering words with deeds, usually with judicial nominees.

    I don't care if Obama reaches out to evangelical youth on issues besides choice to seek common ground. That is probably a good thing. We don't want or need all of the evangelical vote. But if we can persuade some to support us on other grounds, why not?

    Parent

    Well, for a "presidential candidate" to (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:04:29 AM EST
    be playing the game the way he is - focusing three key efforts to fundies during the start of his campaign while ignoring other groups (women, jews, seniors, workers, members of the services, etc.) you kind of get an idea - based on his background - of what he might do if (god forbid) he is actually elected.

    Of course it's hard to tell right now because, thankfully, he is not President.

    Parent

    god forbid he is actually elected??? (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:25:03 AM EST
    Are you under the illusion that you are at some Republican site here? Or was that some typo?

    Parent
    No typo...I pray every night (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:33:29 AM EST
    that Obama falls on his face in the next 30 days so we can nominate the better candidate in August.  And since Obama is not the official candidate, I have a right to my hopes (how audacious of me!!) and dreams that the nation will get a chance to elect a real leader.

    Parent
    I totally disagree with your (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:37:57 AM EST
    statement. Please do not lump us with "most." And, just because you disagree with the other side's positions, please do not namecall. It's not becoming.

    Parent
    My reply was to Baal's above. (none / 0) (#129)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:39:09 AM EST


    Parent
    I believe she is pro choice (none / 0) (#42)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:47:13 AM EST
    Therefore she is unacceptable to a big chunk of the GOP base. It would be an interesting pick. She has a lot of explaining to do re: air quality after 9-11.

    Parent
    you really need a dose of reality juice... (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:01:23 AM EST
    Obama supporters have to stop acting like every Republican will be perceived as the anti-Christ because it suits their agenda.  

    Whitman's actions concerning 9-11 won't make a difference in the election -- what would matter is her symbolizing of the moderate wing of the GOP, and the willingness of the GOP to include women in the ranks of its leadership.

    Whitman remains popular in New Jersey -- and right now the Democratic governor and legislature of NJ are not terribly popular.  

    Parent

    that goes both ways if (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:13:00 AM EST
    you think Whitman is acceptable to the GOP anti-Roe base. He might gain some independents, but he would lose evangelicals. To keep them, he would have to come out more forcefully anti-Roe. Thats a difficult balancing act for a talented politicians, let alone a mediocre one like McCain.

    The primary is over. I didn't go out of my way to insult any of the candidates' supporters during the primary or afterwards (unless they explicitly stated they would vote for McCain). Please don't go out of your way to insult others. My position has always been I will support the nominee. Its nothing personal. I won't be silent in front of half truths and left over primary spin. We can disagree, but lets do so gracefully.

    Parent

    A Mistake That Many Obama Supporters (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:22:59 AM EST
    make is to assume that Hillary ONLY attracked Democratic voters. She also attracted Indies and Republicans who have no loyalty to the Democratic Party. They have never had any trouble voting for Republicans before and I doubt that they would have trouble voting for them this year.

    As Obama continues to blur the lines between Democrats and Republicans, it will be much easier for people for a Republican.

    Parent

    I am not so sure......Christie Todd Whitman (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Mrwirez on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:32:23 AM EST
    might be the eff-you to Obama, and I think some women might just use that as an excuse to bail from Obama and head over to camp McCain.... I ran it by the gf and she said good for McCain , and she hates him over the bomb bomb bomb Iran Beach boys song. There is a fine line between democrat and republican when it comes to moderates, I work with thousands of them and all it takes is likability or familiarity. Personally I am a very moderate democrat, based on the support of organized labor, Obama nor McCain seem to have a care in the world for organized labor. I think I am leaning for The New American Independent Party (NAIP) here:  http://tinyurl.com/6499xo  This is the type of party us working class people need, and they are reaching out to Clinton supporters....

    Parent
    Of course he does! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:14:31 AM EST
    Age, evangelicals, social conservatives, geography...he's got plenty of areas where he needs to compensate just to hold his party.  Let's not pretend like McCain's some messianic figure who needs not compensate for any failures and shortcomings.

    Parent
    You don't think McCain has any weaknesses at (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:23:58 AM EST
    all?  No chinks in his armour?

    Despite his having said that he "didnt know much about economics" and would need to get some "help with that".  Seems like a pretty big weakness given the fact that Americans number 1 concern is the economy.

    What about his 100% anti choice positions.

    His wanting to stay in Iraq for "100 years" and with "as many troops as it takes".

    What about his age?  Most see it as an electoral liability, and apparently it hurts him most with older voters of a similar age.

    Parent

    l00% anti-choice? (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:58:03 AM EST
    Read and learn that McCain is not the "monster" on pro-choice that you make him out to be:  

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/prochoice_democrats_and_john_m.html

    Please note the final sentence in this section - it relates to your supposed pro-choice candidate:

    "Whatever McCain really thinks, the chances that he would submerge his presidency in the maelstrom of abortion politics seem slim. Partisan battles over court nominees aren't his thing, either.

    McCain played a central role in the Gang of 14 -- the seven Democratic and seven Republican senators who joined hands to find common ground on court appointments. For his efforts at compromise, McCain took a pummeling from the right wing. Note that Obama, the self-styled foe of division, declined to join the bipartisan group."

    Parent

    McCain... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:14:46 AM EST
    ... has always held anti-abortion positions. The best that can be said about him in that regard is that he might, like the first President Bush, not really mean them, and might appoint O'Connor-like judges who'll straddle the fence on the issue. But he also might not.

    Obama may equivocate on the issue publically, but I can't really imagine him appointing justices (especially via a heavily Democratic Senate) who would overturn Roe.

    Parent

    "Obama might equivocate (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:38:30 AM EST
    on choice publically"....I don't accept that. Besides, he is on record as saying he is personally opposed to choice.  What do you think he will do if given the power of the presidency?

    I want a leader for women and women's right, not a weakling and panderer on those issues.

    He can go pander on vascetomies or gas taxes (oh wait, he already has flip-flopped on that one!) but not on choice.

    Parent

    The problem (4.42 / 7) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:30:16 AM EST
    here is that while McCain certainly isn't great with economics neither is Obama. Obama is pushing the same Milton Friedman economics that McCain is.

    Honestly from my reading, no one really knows where either Obama or McCain stand on the pro choice position. Both of them have made conflicting statements over the years and the course of the campaign.

    That "100 years" is not going to go anywhere because it sounds to vague and over the top to be used as an attack. No one cares about 100 years from now. Obama has been backing off his primary stance about Iraq and stating that it now "depends".

    Attacking his age is bad. I'm 48 and I find it offensive. Obama already has problems with older voters and this kind of thing simply makes it worse.

    Parent

    That is simply not true (4.20 / 5) (#37)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:44:44 AM EST
    McCain's voting record has been anti-choice his entire career. He has pledged to pick more Scalias. To say you don't know where he stands on choice is willful blindness.

    As for Obama, he is clearly pro choice. That is his announced position, one that he cannot afford to back away from, even if he is secretly anti-Roe (which I don't believe).  

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:47:18 AM EST
    in 1999 that's not what he said. Frankly he has the same problem Obama has. They've both flipped around and made so many contradictory statements about choice that who knows where either one of them stands.

    Parent
    When has Obama said he does not support Roe? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:54:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Well...he may not have said those (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:00:35 AM EST
    exact words, but he carefully avoids using the word "yes" when asked if he supports a women's right to choose (See his waffle in the January debate when asked that specific and pointed question).  Now we know why he voted "present" instead of taking a stand for us.

    And choice will probably be his kumbaya issue to throw under the bus when he joins with his friends to "all come together".

    Parent

    Can't afford too (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:06:15 AM EST
    He would lost 75% of the Democratic base (or more). Even if he is secretly anti-choice (which I don't believe he is), he would have to be a complete moron to do as you suggest.  Not gonna happen.

    Parent
    What did he say in '99? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:12:13 AM EST
    Seriously, are you comparing a lifetime of anti-choice votes and a threat to appoint judges who'll overturn Roe v Wade with a single questionnaire answer (from a person with 100% Illinois Planned Parenthood, PPFA and NARAL ratings throughout his career) pertaining to minors' traveling across state lines without parental consent?  Do you really think those are comparable in any meaningful way?

    Parent
    That's simply false (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:20:50 AM EST
    McCain has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood that he's keeping secret?  Obama has said he supports overturning Roe v Wade?

    PLEASE try to keep your arguments, if not factual, then at least within the realm of plausibility.

    Parent

    You're dealing (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:41:56 AM EST
    with voting records not rhetoric. They both have rhetoric that doesn't agree with their voting records. That's my point. Besides how many people consider Lieberman conservative and he has an etremely high rating? Lieberman was endorsed by NARAL over Lamont.

    Parent
    sorry, that was in response to ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:25:44 AM EST
    ...GA6thDem.

    Parent
    You are simply wrong (3.66 / 3) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:00:43 AM EST
    Obama has been staunchly pro-choice his entire career.

    McCain has been staunchly anti-choice his entire career.

    If you wish to create doubt about their positions in your own mind in order to rationalize voting for McCain, that is your choice.  But the reality is that they are wildly divergent on the issue.

    Parent

    no, you're wrong (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:13:26 AM EST
    from Barack's own lips:

    As he [Obama] writes, "I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

    Perhaps he's not as Pro-Choice as you're trying to sell him as?

    Parent

    and perhaps... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:21:35 AM EST
    ...you've shamelessly de-contextualized his quote.

    Parent
    Context and link please (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:27:04 AM EST
    And explain this:

    100% voting record per Planned Parenthood. Are they secretly anti-choice?

    How about

    REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE
    Supports a Woman's Right to Choose:
    Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

    Again this a make or break issue in Democratic politics. Even if he is secretly anti-choice as you suggest, he cannot afford to lose 75% or more of the Democratic base.

    Moreover, Bill and Hillary Clinton record on abortion was "safe legal and rare" which is anti-abortion, but also pro choice. These are not mutually exclusive positions. Arguably most people, if not all,  are not pro abortion, but they are pro choice.   There is a reason that we don't call ourselves pro abortion. Pro abortion rights perhaps, but rarely if ever pro-abortion.


    Parent

    "present" (5.00 / 7) (#115)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:28:18 AM EST
    Obama has been all over the choice issue -- but mostly he's been staunchly vague and "present"

    Parent
    clearly... (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:48:47 AM EST
    as he votes present, panders to evangelicals, and embraces anti-choice Dems.

    Parent
    Obama is pushing the same Milton Friedman economic (3.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Baal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:44:06 AM EST
    This is just plain silly.

    Parent
    Have you (4.50 / 8) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:46:19 AM EST
    looked at his economic team? It's right out of the Univ. of Chicago. One of his own advisors supports privatizing social security.

    Parent
    Which Obama as of yesterday is saying he won't do- (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:55:41 AM EST
    trust him much? Does he know what he's talking about much? Will he be swayed as he was on Excelon?

    We have so little to guage him on! Darn newbie.

    Parent

    "Not knowing much about economics" (none / 0) (#133)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:46:29 AM EST
    at least he was "honest" about that. Anti-choice positions is his right to have, you don't have to agree with it. He did say "stay in Iraq for 100 years" and Obama is now backing away from getting out of Iraq, a war he could have tried to end in the U.S. Senate but didn't. Age, well, Obama sees age as a liability and altho' McCain is older than me, I see it as vast experience. And, I'm not voting McCain!!!


    Parent
    2nd sentence should say He "didn't" (none / 0) (#138)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:48:47 AM EST
    say stay in Iraq for 100 years. It was part of an ongoing statement for how long the task would take.

    Parent
    McCain credentials. (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:38:52 AM EST
    Your post suggest you think McCain is a great candidate. I submit, while formidable, he is not a great candidate. He is a terrible speaker, he does not have sterling domestic credentials.  

    So who can he pick to shore up his economic deficiencies? That will be tough, how far will he be willing to stray from GOP fundamentals? I don't think very far. Free market ideologues are more likely to be a drag on the GOP ticket this year than not.

    McCain won, because the other candidates were even more underwhelming. A noun, a verb and 9-11, An actor/former politician who had to ask for applause and bored everyone, Romny's faith was an issue to evangelicals. Huckabee's support was only evangelicals. Ron Paul? I don't think so.

    Foreign policy? McCain is wedded to the neo-con agenda. He can probably afford to pick a more moderate on foreign policy, but unless he is willing to repudiate the Neo-cons, that isn't going to get him very far. I don't see that happening- he loses a chunk of the GOP base.

    In 1980, Jimmy Carter lead Reagan in most polls until the very end. In the end, despite the cold war, a majority of the voters decided to take a chance on a governor who made a lot of gaffes in the campaign, because they wanted change and Reagan convinced voters to take the risk.

    That dynamic has returned in 2008. A disaster in Iraq, poor economy, high gas prices, failure of the ruling party's fundamental ideology. Obama's task is to convince the voters who want change that taking a chance on him is the least risky choice versus  John "More of the Same"  McCain.  That is why McCain will be running with George W. Bush, whether he wants to or not. McCain has not shown a willingness to jettison Bush, even if it is only as a bait and switch tactic.

    Bottom line: McCain is formidable, but beatable.


    Parent

    Feels a bit more like 1972 (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by joanneleon on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:18:05 AM EST
    than 1980, though I can see the parallels to 1980 too.  

    I think there are a lot of people who want change but are concerned about how radical that change would be and about whether we'd be throwing out the baby with the bath water, only to end up with new and different problems but no discernible relief.  There's not a lot of trust in Democrats to solve problems, given what they've done since they were given a mandate in 2006.  The one person who has had a recent positive record both economically and militarily has been thrown under the bus by Obama, who tried his best to deny him any credit for peace and prosperity in the 90s.  Many people believed that Hillary would achieve similar things, having been a partner to Bill during their WH years.  He makes no secret of the fact that she was his closest advisor.

    I think that a lot depends on whether the war in Iraq or the economy is the absolute top issue of this election.  Personally, I think they are tightly connected, so that could present a new and different dynamic.  Even more depends on whether people trust that Obama has his priorities straight.  When the country is sinking fast, making race and religion high priorities isn't going to play well, IMHO.

    Parent

    Think what you like about McCain, (none / 0) (#203)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:24:49 AM EST
    but he's their presumptive nominee and he was counted as down and out. He's a fighter. You may not like him or his positions but don't think he's going to lie down and lose, and don't attribute words to him that either he did not say, or may not know. His life has been extraordinary, and he has always stuck to his principles and he doesn't waiver. Yes, he doesn't read teleprompters well (imo, neither does Obama), but he brings lots to the table.

    Parent
    Yes, a 'Compensatory' VP shows Obama's conundrum (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:57:18 AM EST
    While Obama's positives as a candidate rested on being untried and not having a trail nationally, he has since shown himself to be weak in personally presenting his record and merits to his own party.

    Telling potential supporters he'll give another speech, or will dash away somewhere to consider is an unacceptable way of addressing this. (In light of his forward reach to hard right religious groups, with whom he hopes to Unite, this is a double-snub to his own party, who have met him halfway and find themselves still standing there.)

    He has also weakness in his ability as a politician to function well off script

    Thus the additional burden placed on a VP to provide both a balance and a buttress has increased to the point where anyone adequate to offset all of those weaknesses is innately a BETTER choice for President than Obama.

    A stronger candidate wouldn't be looking for someone better than himself, but judging from Obama's views of Sen Clinton's merits, I doubt he'd recognize that in anyone else anyway.

    Parent

    Obama is so (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:49:29 AM EST
    green that you are right. Any pick will have more experience and the press will pick up that he has a weakness in that area.

    Sebelius is a bad pick simply because she's more qualified than Obama and it sends the message that a less qualified man should always be picked over a more qualified woman.

    He should just stick with a more qualified white male but that might tick off the guys. I have no idea about that one.

    Picking Biden would bring literally howls from the blogosphere. It might be worth him being picked simply for that reason!

    I think McCain is going to pick a woman running mate.

    The Olympia Snowe idea (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:47:44 AM EST
    has some traction with me.

    Again, the best pick to me would be Colin Powell.

    Parent

    Why he didn't elaborate (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by This from a broad on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:56:01 AM EST
    He doesn't know why Clinton would not be a good choice, all he knows is that he had a deadline to meet and had to write something.  It's the equivalent of the talking heads on TV filling the air time with senseless blather.  They have the microphones and the platforms, but they have nothing to say!

    You know how it struck me.... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:21:28 AM EST
    ...in reading that piece it struck me that Drum's primary criteria in a VP for Obama would be one that would not force him (Drum not Obama) to confront any of Obama's weaknesses as a candidate. Do you see what I mean? It's a very unreal way of looking at a candidate, IMHO.

    Parent
    Hasn't that already been covered? (none / 0) (#15)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:23:36 AM EST
    He wrote this on June 8th, in direct response to BTD.

    Parent
    That post from Drum says (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:47:19 AM EST
    nothing about the reasons not to choose Hillary -- only why Hillary might very well not want the position.

    You can pretty much always count on Drum to weasel out of taking a clear stand on these issues, and never adequately explaining himself.

    Parent

    Actually, it really does (none / 0) (#57)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:55:24 AM EST
    He phrases it badly, but he covers some of the bigger arguments:
    On a social level, it's hard to picture someone of Hillary's age, experience, and temperament being willing to play second fiddle to a young guy like Obama. On a political level, she has more clout in the Senate than she would as vice president. On a personal level, Obama and Clinton (and their respective teams) just don't seem to like each other much.
    That basically means he thinks Hillary wouldn't be able to play the role, she'd be forced to give up her legislative clout, and he doesn't think they can get along in a working relationship.  You can argue that he's wrong (and on two of those points, I think he is), but it's pretty obvious what his argument is.

    Parent
    Try to read (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:07:21 AM EST
    the passage again.

    It's about why Hillary wouldn't want to be VP.

    Parent

    and the reasons he gave came from where? (none / 0) (#96)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:14:04 AM EST
    It's clearly him offering HIS analysis of why it would be a bad idea.  This isn't that difficult to grasp, is it?

    You try reading it again, and start by pointing out where exactly his impartial analysis replaces his personal feelings on the matter.

    Parent

    Do you even (none / 0) (#174)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:05:39 AM EST
    know what you're arguing anymore?

    You sound totally confused.

    Parent

    Now we have to start playing (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:09:09 AM EST
    WKDRM?

    Parent
    No, you have to read his post (none / 0) (#172)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:05:18 AM EST
    and apply a basic understanding of the English language to it.

    Parent
    Jim Webb (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Virginialass on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:00:49 AM EST
    Would be a horrible pick for him especially after the mysonginistic media campaign ran against Hillary. Webb once said the Naval barracks "is a horny womans dream." I voted for him in Virginia because my other choice was George Allen. Webb did not win by a huge margin and Allen was way ahead of him until the fatal "maccaca" incident. He would be a nightmare for Obama. The Hillary block will be truely disenfranchised.

    I can only see one VP pick that would take him to victory and that would be Hillary. She could give him Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and a sure bet in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Sebelius would not get him Kansas and I really do not know much about her. I am from Kansas and my dad still lives there. I asked him why so many Democrats get elected in Kansas when they are such a red state - his response was "The Kansas Democrats are actually more conservative that the Republicans that run."

    Agree with you about Webb (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:58:29 AM EST
    There's much that I like about Webb--in an Appalachian, Scots-Irish kinda way :)--but he has some serious liabilities with women and also with progressives. A few Obamites would actually choke on their Kool-Aid if Webb was the VP pick.

    She could give him Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and a sure bet in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

    I know what you're saying, but I really think that Hillary could bring in some of those states only if she were leading the ticket. Obama is flat-out disliked in KY and WV and large portions of FL and MI. I think it would take more than a Hillary VP to compensate for his lack of experience and competence and judgment in the eyes of those voters. A lot simply will not get beyond his 20 association with Reverend Wright. Period. No matter who is on the ticket.

    And thinking about that led me to consider what it would be like to see Hillary back out on the campaign trail, this time as Obama's VP....If ever there were a presidential candidate who was overshadowed by his VP pick, that would be Obama with a Hillary VP.

    Parent

    You mean they're not dumb hicks? (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:25:51 AM EST
    Obama is flat-out disliked in KY and WV and large portions of FL and MI. I think it would take more than a Hillary VP to compensate for his lack of experience and competence and judgment in the eyes of those voters.

    But the MSM said those voters only saw skin color, and voted Hillary.

    Parent

    No reason (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:10:28 AM EST
    There's visceral only with the Clintons it seems; CDS continues as reason takes a holiday. What's best for the party? Why that would be the candidate who garnered nearly as many votes as the presumptive nominee, or is that too easy?

    There are good reasons for and against (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:18:39 AM EST
    putting Hillary on the ticket.  I don't think it is as simple as you make out.

    Parent
    Sometimes it is simple... (none / 0) (#17)
    by crystal dawn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:24:33 AM EST
    McCain is definately going to try and steal the "woman" vote from Obama rather than worry about the evangelicals this time around. Those nutsies will pick McCain anyway. McCain and the GOP realize women are a huge voting bloc and will most likely pick a WO-man for his VP spot. And the only way to counter that is for Obama to also pick a WO-man. Picking anyone other than Hillary would be seen as a sort of insult to the Hillary fans, imho.

    If not Hillary, then Al Gore. heh

    Parent

    Possibly (none / 0) (#21)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:30:28 AM EST
    What are the reasons not to put Hillary on the ticket?

    Parent
    plenty (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:12:15 AM EST
    BTD seems only interested in who would be the biggest help in November. Given that a loss in Nov. renders any other consideration moot, he has a point.

    But I think a lot of Clinton-as-VP supporters look only to the positives that she brings to the ticket, not the negatives.

    She, and Bill, would becomes major targets of negative ads and probing investigations - especially of what Bill has been up to the last 7 years. May not be anything embarrasing there, but it would be a major theme, and represent tons of things to be defensive about.

    They also tend to muddy the waters of the Obama as change agent message. I am not talking about reality here, but perception - especially in the eyes of independent swing voters. Its a return to the nineties in a sense. Many Dems may feel that would be a good thing, but lots of other folks would rather try something new.

    Hillary has high negatives. They are probably less high amongst a lot of Dems now than they were a few months ago, but they are still higher than for just about any other VP possibility.

    Although some think it besides the point, I am sure Obama also has to think about what his next 8 years would be like with Clinton as VP. Personally I think it would be very difficult, especially for the Clintons, and especially Bill.

    As the spouse of the VP, he will be seen around the world as part of the administration. Which means he would need to say nothing that isn't fully consistent with the administration's position on anything. Thats terribly restraining for a guy in his position. If he speaks his mind freely, then the administration will have to run around constantly clarifying the extent that his comments do or do not reflect administration thinking - it would be a constant distraction.

    Hillary as VP would also be highly unattractive prospect to any president. She is a locus of power in her own right. She knows and his deep relationships with many of the people who would be appointed to any Dem administration. She would have the potential for a Cheney-strenght vicepresidency, but Obama is not Bush, and would not want to turn over anywhere near that amount of power to her. That would be a fractious relationship, frustrating for Clinton (since the president has the power to win such battles), and very much a poor use of her skills.

    As a senator, or senate leader, she could be a powerful and independent voice. As a VP she would need to be subservient to the OBama-defined agenda. Hillary as VP strikes me as a bad deal all around.

    Parent

    Does she even want to be on the ticket? (none / 0) (#26)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:35:35 AM EST
    That would be a good reason.

    She would be more effective in a senior Senate position?

    It's not clear that Obama and Clinton would be able to work well together in the White House?

    Parent

    if she doesn't want it... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:55:32 AM EST
    he still needs to offer it to her and let HER turn it down in order to let her supporters know that she was asked and it was HER choice.

    Parent
    All 3 reasons Drum gave... (none / 0) (#66)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:00:11 AM EST
    ...in his June 8th piece responding to BTD.

    I'm a bigger believer in the "Bill would get creamed in the vetting process" theory than in any of those, though.  

    If HRC didn't want to be on the ticket, we'd probably not be hearing so many outright refusals from her former campaign surrogates like Strickland.  And she's just not that likely to get a senior Senate position anytime soon (more likely to be the next Governor of New York, I think).

    As for the working relationship issue, while there are examples of that being a consideration in the selection process (Reagan/Ford), electoral considerations are generally given serious weight (JFK picking LBJ, for example, as a way to shore up Southern support).

    Parent

    Is governor a real option? (none / 0) (#140)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:48:54 AM EST
    I really like Hillary, and governor of NY is quite the position.  I only see that as an option if Patterson doesn't run.  I would be very hard for the Black officials in NY who supported Hillary to support her again against another Black guy (especially one who is already there).  

    That said, I would like to see Hillary as governor of NY instead of Patterson, as he appears really weak (though I don't know much about him).

    I think Hillary would be a great VP.  I don't understand they coudn't work together thing.  If she was selected as the VP, my guess is that they would have worked all this stuff out.  The only issue I see is the balancing act between what Prez Clinton brings (a lot) vs. the baggage he brings (not as much. but it is strong).  Also, it just seems like the weakest Rep attack to go after a VP, regardless of who it is.

    Parent

    CDS sufferer's reply (none / 0) (#65)
    by lgm on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:59:33 AM EST
    I first came down with the syndrome in `93 when her health care proposal was announced.  Liberals and conservatives alike thought it was terrible. Then she ran for Senate in my state in the biggest panderfest I ever have seen (from a Democrat).  The allergic reaction got worse.  

    That said, I would vote for her in a heartbeat over McCain (anti choice, anti birth control, pro deficit spending, pro Iraq for 100 years, bomb Iran, pro torture (after he was against it), pro sleaze).  

    But understand that not every negative statement about HRC is an expression of hatred.  Most of it is reactions to her policies and actions.  

    Parent

    her policies (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:29:32 AM EST
    are no different than obama's here.

    Part of cds is attributing positions to her she doesnt have.

    Go to an obamablog and ask them how she voted on the bankruptcy bill.

    Parent

    What NY state policies (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by smott on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:48:26 AM EST
    did you disagree with? My NY inlaws went from hatign her to loving her over the work she did there.

    Parent
    Big problem with Webb is (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:17:35 AM EST
    it would be a kick in the teeth to Women, given his shaky history regarding women in the military and his remarks on the tailhook scandal.  The definitive case against Webb was made by Kathy G of the gspot     here  while guest blogging for Matt Yglesias.  Also Webb seems temperamentally unsuited to a job such as the Vice Presidency.

    As for Hillary,  there are good reasons both to put her on the ticket and not to.  The reasons against are obviously related to the perception that she would hurt the ticket amongst persuadable Independents and Republicans that  could be persuaded to cross the aisle to vote Democratic.  Also the idea that with her on the ticket the GOP base would be more galvanised to turn out and vote.  The question is whether the above effects exist, and to a great enough extent to offset any assistance she provides in core democratic constituencies.  

    The GOP (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:22:22 AM EST
    being galvanized to vote against her really isn't a valid point. They already hugely galvanized to vote against Obama. She'll make no difference in that area.

    That being said, I don't think she wants it so it won't matter in the end.

    Parent

    GOP women and Reagan Dems (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:29:20 AM EST
    voted for Hillary. Many GOP women who voted in early primaries have stated they'd vote for Hillary in the GE.
    Now they're all supporting McCain.
    Obama had to divide the party by demonizing the Clintons to win Kidz and Blacks who normally vote Dem anyway.

    Parent
    i agree (none / 0) (#25)
    by Baal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:35:08 AM EST
    with all of this

    Parent
    This is the way I see it (none / 0) (#163)
    by Virginialass on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:58:51 AM EST
    If he does not pick Hillary - there will be a major block of Democrats that will stay home on election day or vote for McCain. I don't think Republicans are going to vote for him and the independents will swing both ways. My husband is an Independent and is voting for McCain. I have not made up my mind about staying home or voting against McCain. Voting for Obama would be just me voting against McCain. I am no passionate about him at all. However, if he does put Hillary on the ticket then I would actually think he does care about my Dem demographic.

    Parent
    Dems are expected to fall in line (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:17:51 AM EST
    before Obama selects a VP running mate. Patty Murray even had the audacity to equate this primary with a hard fought football game.
    Dem leaders imply Obama's race-baiting, sexism, and ageism is simply a
    "part of the game."

    Flanked by Sen. Maj. Leader Harry Reid and DNC Chair Howard Dean, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "Women and blue-collar workers, whatever their race, have the most to gain by the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States and the most to lose by the election of John McCain."
    <><><><>
    "We all worked hard," Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan said. "It takes a little while. You have to take a deep breath. But the reality is, there is no doubt in my mind that there is such a clear difference and so much at stake for our country, that people are going to rally around Sen. Barack Obama.

    MSNBO - First Read
    http://tinyurl.com/53l9sz

    Too bad (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:20:26 AM EST
    that there's reps in congress already abandoning ship. The party really isn't going to really around Obama but they can't come out and say that. It would be like the GOP admitting that they won't rally around McCain.

    Parent
    There would have been reps in deep red (none / 0) (#22)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:32:56 AM EST
    districts distancing themselves from the nominee regardless of who was nominated.  A Democrat in a R+18 district is always going to want to brand themselves differently to the national party.

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:38:47 AM EST
    Sorry. Tapper is reporting that there's going to be a whole slate of reps who are going to come out and state that they aren't going to support Obama as the nominee and they aren't going to go to the convention. It's really indicative of Obama's demographic problems more than being in a red state.

    Parent
    Citation please? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:55:19 AM EST
    Tappers post here has the extract included below.  None of it in my opinion justifies your characterisation of it, if this is the source you are referring to.  The rep actually says he will vote for Obama in the GE.  

    Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., told the Associated Press today that he has no intention of endorsing Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

    And Democratic officials do not expect Boren to be the last to refrain from making a show of not backing his party's presumptive presidential nominee -- though Boren says he will vote for Obama for president in November.

    Other House Democrats from swing districts -- Democrats who eked out victories in traditionally GOP districts, whom House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., calls her "majority makers" -- may refrain from even attending their party's convention in Denver in August.



    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:37:37 AM EST
    he say's he'll vote for Obama but won't endorse him or go to the convention? Yeah, that's great isn't it?

    Parent
    complete nonsense... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:20:15 AM EST
    Clinton won in most of these "red/swing" districts by decisive margings, and (ironically) her status as the "not Obama" has greatly increased her credibility and respect among these voters.  

    Don't expect anyone to describe an endorsement by Hillary Clinton as an "attack", like that guy in Louisiana had to do when his opponent said he'd been endorsed by Obama.

    Parent

    Sure, (none / 0) (#153)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:55:33 AM EST
    because the GOP never smeared Bill or Hillary Clinton,  or Kerry or Gore.  And Democrats in Red districts never distanced themselves from the nominee or the national party.

    Parent
    Please (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:15:42 AM EST
    try to summon up the modicum of intellectual honesty required to admit that Obama is clearly much more of a liability to downticket Democrats in red or reddish states than Clinton would be, OK?

    Otherwise, why should anyone bother arguing with you?

    Parent

    You're kidding me (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:37:42 AM EST
    I didn't see that quote on Patty Murray.

    And Ms Stabenow, I took a breath in January.  I knew then that under no circumstance would I be voting for Obama.

    For me, he was out of the running for president for me, just as Hillary Clinton is out of the running as VP for him.

    I don't want another petulant, arrogant child in the White House.  That isn't change.


    Parent

    There are lots of good Dem choices (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Baal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:25:25 AM EST
    My argument against Webb is that his was a very tough senate seat to win and I would not like to relinquish it so soon.  Biden is a bit of a loose cannon at times.  Sibelius is a bit dull on the stump, and maybe is needed in Kansas to keep their wingnuts from taking over the school system.  

    Doom and gloom about McCain not having to "compensate for anything" ignores fact that he is a complete fool (shopping trip with flack jacket in Baghdad, not knowing difference between Shiite and Sunni, etc.).  Also, there is video record of his flipping on every conceivable issue, the fact that he faces massive generation gap in voting, his temper and tendency to gaffe, the fact that he needs a nuttier wingnut to shore up his base, etc.  

    And never forget -- McCain scored a zero rating from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

    it appears you're admitting... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:41:06 AM EST
    a Dem Congress would not oppose rightist judges.
    Perhaps you're correct - since Obama and Dems who bashed Hillary's tax on oil companies were making the same proposal yesterday.
    And how did the Repubs respond? with the same talking points Obama and Dems had used against Hillary..."the oil companies will just raise prices."

    McCain is not Bush on evangelical steriods. He quickly moved away from Hagee's endorsement while Obama continued to stick by his racist and hatemongering pastor and church.

    Obama has already won the flip flopping trophy - so that's a non-starter.

    Parent

    Which goes to show how important it is (none / 0) (#47)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:51:08 AM EST
    to elect a Democratic President,  so President McCain doesnt get an opportunity to nominate more Alito's, Robert's and Scalia's for the Democratic congress to roll over for.

    McCain has been sending out fundraising letter specifically saying that he wants to overturn Roe v Wade and will nominate judges who will do so.

    Alot of the pro McCain posters over at Noquarter and the like arre pushing arguments along the lines of "McCain is a moderate" (he isn't),  that the democratic congress would stop right wing judges (they wouldn't),  that Roe v Wade doesn't really matter anymore anyway (I would argue that it does), and much more along similar lines.  The words used do seem very similar across posts of these types so I'm not sure how much can be attributed to Republican games, and how many are from genuine Hillary supporters who actually believe that McCain would not be a disaster for the country.

    Parent

    Threats about the Supreme Court are so yesterday. (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:53:49 AM EST
    I will not be threatened.  Obama does not have the experience or judgment to be president.

    Parent
    Neither does John McCain (none / 0) (#76)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:04:03 AM EST
    Just being in Washington since L'Enfant designed the place doesn't mean you're experienced in the ways necessary to run the country, and seeing as how he co-sponsored the Iraq War authorization and has absolutely insane ideas on choice, taxation, and foreign policy, I don't think you can claim he has the judgment necessary, either.  And since it's a two-party system, we're getting either him or Obama.

    If you want to rationalize voting for McCain, fine, but don't pretend it's because he'll do a better job  or leave a better legacy than Obama, because there's no evidence to justify that belief.

    Parent

    Disagree. McCain has a lifetime of experience, (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:11:09 AM EST
    30 years more than Obama.  He was a military officer, a Vietnam POW, he's been a senator for many years, he has been a husband (twice) and raised a family.  He has lots of experience that trumps Obama's measly 2 years in the US Senate and 10 years as a state legislator.  You may not like McCain but he does have experience.  

    Parent
    and yet... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:24:46 AM EST
    ...when has he ever directed anything larger than a Senate staff?  Where's his executive experience?

    Note that I didn't say he has no experience, I said he doesn't have the experience necessary to run the country.  And he doesn't.  Very, very few candidates ever do, though almost all like to claim they do regardless.

    And the fact that his judgment has been so terrible in the past, especially during this administration, illustrates that, for all it's longevity, it hasn't made him a better political leader.

    Parent

    you can't threaten me with the Supreme Court (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:00:44 AM EST
    I'm a 54 year old gay man in NC.  I don't need an abortion anytime soon and the FEDS are never going to give me any rights anyway.

    It's time you started to threaten the dem senators about doing their job with judges instead of the voters.

    The old up or down vote mantra never seemed to make the repugs buckle under, why does it always seem to frighten the dems?  Let the dem senators show some backbone from now on.

    Parent

    Keepin' that old powder dry! (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:21:23 AM EST
    A fat lot of credibility the Dems have when they spent all that time "keeping their powder dry" instead fighting Bush's nominees.

    The least they could have done was to make Bush expend some of that so-called political capital.

    Parent

    Threats? (none / 0) (#81)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:05:42 AM EST
    If you support McCain on the issues then go ahead and vote for him.  What issues is it that you feel the GOP platform better represents your views on?  I'd be interested to know.

    Parent
    for starters... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:33:17 AM EST
    McCain released his birth certificate. Why hasn't Obama?


    Parent
    Um, why is anyone supposed to care (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:34:31 AM EST
    about what's on a birth certificate. Are you suggesting that he isn't a US citizen? That he's lying about his parents?

    Parent
    This is nuts. (none / 0) (#134)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:46:55 AM EST
    You agree with McCain on releasing his birth certificate?

    This is one step up from an "obama is a muslim" smear.

    Parent

    Naw (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:01:48 AM EST
    it's not about him releasing the birth certificate but how he handles the issue.

    Parent
    Well I would argue that it would be a (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:08:16 AM EST
    mistake to legitimise every far right e-mail internet smear that is pumped out by Swift Boaters and Larry Johnson types.

    Ooooh why hasnt he released his birth certificate . . .  he must have been born abroad . . . or maybe his middle name isnt really Hussein, but Muhammed.  

    I think he would be doing the right thing not to dignify this kind of garbage with a response.

    Parent

    That's (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:10:11 AM EST
    what I'm afraid of. Just like Kerry who doesn't think you should "dignify" things with a response.

    Parent
    Of all the McCain criticisms one can make... (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:03:13 AM EST
    why is it that Obama supporters only trot out SCOTUS? Is there NOTHING else Obama is better with than McCain other than SCOTUS? Because screaming Roe v Wade will not help you at all.  Roe v Wade is to Dems as gay marriage is to Republicans. An issue used to scare up votes.

    Parent
    There are plenty of areas... (none / 0) (#83)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:06:24 AM EST
    ...foreign policy and taxation among them, where Obama is light years ahead of McCain.  But none where you're likely to have as great a legacy as SCOTUS appointments (especially considering just how old the majority of the bench currently is--the next 8 years could see 3-5 appointments, and the court is currently comprised of, what, 7 Republican appointees?  Why would you be dismissive of that?).

    Parent
    Gay marriage and local constitutional (none / 0) (#86)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:10:16 AM EST
    amendments on the issue certainly worked well for the GOP in 2000 and 2004 in terms of boosting turnout of the base in swing states.

    Off the top of my head,

    Foreign Policy - ending war in iraq, and avoiding a war in Iran. Engagement abroad etc.

    Healthcare - Universal Healthcare or as close to it as possible, as well as the expansion of SCHIP in the shorter term

    Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

    Opposition to bans on Gay marriage and any constitutional amendments,  support of Civil Partnerships.

    Ending destructive policies on funding abstinence only sex education both in the US and abroad.  Ending policies of withholding US support for any organisations working in Africa and the developing world that offer advice on abortion.

    but hey,  I'm sure none of these issues are important to you at all.


    Parent

    Then why is Roe v. Wade the only (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:14:27 AM EST
    one ever trotted out to scare Dems into falling in line? Obviously Obama is weak on many other issues that we'd rather not talk about.  But please, please try and sell me on his foreign policy cred of living abroad for four years as a child.

    As for repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, I don't trust him on that at all.

    And did you miss Sam Powers little outburst of truth where she admitted it wouldn't be quite as easy to get out of Iraq as her own boss was claiming?

    And universal healthcare?  HA! Universal means everyone is covered.

    Parent

    You are making perfect the enemy of good (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:19:08 AM EST
    here.

    Obama has committed to getting out of Iraq as soon as possible, vs. McCain who is happy to stay there forever.

    Obama's healthcare plan is now supported by Elizabeth Edwards and is a huge move towards universality.  OK,  it's not quiiiite as good as Hillary Clinton's,  but it is still light years better than McCains.

    I don't know,  this just seems like an exercise in cutting your own nose off to spite your face?

    Parent

    health care is NOT a priority for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:43:53 AM EST
    Any Dem using Repub ads against health care is against health care.
    I can't think of a nominee who has purposely offended more categories of voters in their own party - simply for the purpose of winning the nomination.
    I do not trust cons and I. Do. Not. Trust. Obama.

    Parent
    JoeA, Obama's stance on Iraq has (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:59:15 AM EST
    changed since he's become the perspective nominee, haven't you heard, we're not leaving yet, perhaps putting more troops in...Obama's healthcare plan is not supported by EE as yet. His campaign has said they are not working together, altho they intimated it and want you to think so, and Obama is touting "universal" health care. He's said those words. His plan is not that.

    Parent
    Well Elizabeth Edwards was at the event (none / 0) (#169)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:04:03 AM EST
    where he made those remarks.  I very much doubt that he would have said that without her approval.

    Parent
    But, his campaign did say they (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:16:02 AM EST
    were not working together and John and Elizabeth left the event before the press could get to them. Hmmmm.

    Parent
    Link??? (none / 0) (#145)
    by michitucky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:52:06 AM EST
    I must have missed it, could you please provide a link where Elizabeth Edwards has said she supports Obama's Health Care Plan???  Thanks.

    Parent
    Links below. (none / 0) (#168)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:02:58 AM EST
    Obama, Elizabeth Edwards To Partner Over Healthcare

    Obama To Team Up With Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care Reform

    The above articles came from remarks made by Obama at an event on the economy,  and both Elizabeth and John Edwards were at the event.

    I don't see that this is any kind of surprise.  Elizabeth preferred Hillary's plan to Obama's,  but she is still going to massively prefer his to John McCain's.  Also I would hope that in partnering up with him to deliver Universal Healthcare she can use her influence to improve his plan.

    Parent

    That's What I Thought...... (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by michitucky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:39:46 AM EST
    Nary a peep from Elizabeth Edwards about Obama's comments.  

    No where does it say that Elizabeth Edwards supports his Health Care Plan.  Partnering up to work on health care does not equate into her supporting his plan.

    I'm waiting to hear from her......

    Parent

    Recent Update On DADT (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:42:04 AM EST
    In a recent interview with The Advocate, a gay newsmagazine, Democrat Barack Obama stopped short of promising to lead the way for change, saying only that he can "reasonably see" a repeal of the current ban if elected president.

    Indeed, the gays-in-the-military issue has slid from being a top campaign pledge of President Clinton's to a footnote on the Democratic agenda even as some of its staunchest opponents soften their rhetoric and acknowledge that the nation's attitudes are changing. yahoo

    Another "strong" commitment by Obama on an issue? Can't tick off the fundies that he wants to attract. Wonder why I don't completely trust him on SCOTUS.

    Parent

    Obama will neither balance nor liberalize SCOTUS (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:13:34 AM EST
    Obama won't even neutralize the right wing trajectory, as his continuing reach to the radical right has shown.

    Attempting to use Roe v Wade or the SCOTUS to herd Sen Clinton's is bad stratetically and dangerous politically.

    Obama's excessive and increasing focus on a minority of voters almost certain to vote against him in the general, while contually alienating the majority that favors neutral courts and choice, is a failing strategy right out of the gate.

    Would that he courted loyal Democrats with the same fervor. (Delegating this important role to the auto-messaging of stro-turf and trolls is a terrible campaign strategy.)

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#32)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:39:11 AM EST
    that Webb may not be a good choice. What concerns me are the conversations I'm having with co-workers and friends where the broad stroke view of the general sees McCain as the moderate and Obama as the weak in a "liberal" sorta way.  Now those who I talk to may not be a good indicator, I do live in Arizona, but it could be said he can only improve his position with people such as that by the selection of a "strong" Veep, what ever that means.


    Parent
    I say this time its very very different (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Saul on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:41:30 AM EST
    than all past Dem primaries and GE.  The amount of people that got involved and the passion involved this time was unprecedented.  So unique though, that I doubt if we will see such passion and involvement ever again.  That is something Obama is not paying attention to.   Having said that, Obama in not choosing Hilary, will be his waterloo.  The idea that all will fall inline and have a get over mentality  in whoever Obama  picks other than Hilary will not be true. Not this time.  The amount of people who will not get over it will also be unprecedented.  

    Not to mention (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:53:19 AM EST
    that if it's a close race, and Obama's never been so clearly ahead of McCain that there's any indication it won't be, it doesn't have to be a huge number of people who stay home or switch their votes for it to impact the final tally on election night.

    Obama's record is so thin that almost everything he says can be legitimately doubted, even without the flipflops we're seeing now.

    As for the SC and abortion, all we know is that Obama showed up to vote a bunch of times, voted 'present' in several of those, and thinks that abortion is a decision a woman needs to make with her doctor and her pastor.  There's no record whatsoever of the actions which would show he would hold the line with regard to the already degraded set of reproductive rights we have now.  

    He's certainly never fought for pro-choice anything.  Unless you count whatever $ he promised NARAL in exchange for their endorsement a month ago.

    Combine the reaching out to anti-abortion evangelicals with his pastor comment and a lack of action and I think there are reasons to be very nervous about his commitment to reproductive rights.


    Parent

    Of course they don't think Clinton is a good (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:45:56 AM EST
    choice. They spent the last six months destroying her and her husband personally and using every republican tactic in the book. Somehow I don't think it'll sell to all the followers that this woman they  eviscerated will be a good pick.  Just ignore the 18 million that backed her.

    I would simply die laughing if they chose Sebelius as a way to sell women on his candidacy.  That would be hilarious.

    I'd laugh so hard I'd cry (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:11:27 AM EST
    or cry so hard I'd laugh.  Unclear which until it happens.

    Parent
    isn't Webb Pro Choice? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:50:14 AM EST
    If he is, wouldn't that be a "perfect" pick to try to woo the Clinton voters, NOT!  That would make about as much sense as picking any woman OTHER than Hillary.  Do they keep mentioning Sebelius just to try to pi$$ off Clinton supporters?  Or is it because she was so impressive with her response to the State of The Union Address?  Did anyone find that the least bit impressive?

    The one thing that I never see discussed (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:50:23 AM EST
    when Webb is promoted as a VP choice is how he voted on issues. Webb has consistently voted with the Republicans on FISA and on Iraq timelines. How can we legitimately rail against the Republicans on these issues and then select someone who agress with their position as VP?

    Parent
    consistency is the hobgoblin (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:05:27 AM EST
    of the Clinton wing of the democratic party

    Parent
    You're argument being what? (none / 0) (#61)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:57:30 AM EST
    That any female or pro choice VP pick is unacceptable?  He has to pick a male anti choice running mate?

    I'm sure Obama will take your advice into consideration.

    Parent

    sorry, I meant isn't Webb PRO LIFE... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:05:36 AM EST
    too early in the morning for me to type...

    Parent
    Fair enough, there are myriad reasons (none / 0) (#91)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:12:36 AM EST
    why Webb would be a terrible pick for VP.  Kathy G had a good and comprehensive post on the topic which I linked to elsewhere on this thread.

    Parent
    There is no substitute for Hillary. None. And (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:51:13 AM EST
    trying to suggest that putting any woman on the ticket will appease us is an insult.  Obama has many weaknesses, foremost is that he is inexperienced.  Anyone he picks will be more experienced than Obama.  He doesn't have the foreign policy creds, the economic creds, the judement necessary to be president.  

    Obama has enough amo aimed at him (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by crystal dawn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:04:13 AM EST
    anyway...
    I would imagine that being a Black Muslim Terrorist is sufficient "baggage" for the GOP to jump on, and anything they can conjure up about the Clintons won't be that earth shattering to the Dems.

    Parent
    Prospects for post-November (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Coral on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:53:52 AM EST
    I worry about the viability and future strength of the Democratic party if Obama goes with a VP other than Clinton.

    Especially if he loses in November, which for the Democratic party as an organization would be an unmitigated disaster.

    It has become more and more dysfunctional over the past 3 decades as splits between socially progressive elites and working-class, middle-class (family-income around $50-60,000 and below) have widened. Meanwhile the Democrats have turned on their own in a fashion that seems suicidal.

    I think it should be Wes Clark (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:13:40 AM EST
    (if not Hillary)

    but Obama supporters can't seem to get past this idea that picking someone who shores up Obama's weaknesses only calls attention to those weaknesses and makes them worse.  By that logic they will pick someone even younger and less experienced than he.  Maybe Ezra Klein is available.

    LOL. I mean really, he should just run alone. (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:17:38 AM EST
    Because anyone he chooses will just highlight where he fails.  Choose a military guy--reminded that he's got no experience.  Choose a woman--insult HRC voters because the best woman for the job won't be anyone but her.  Choose a fighter like Biden--remind everyone that he doesn't fight.  

    Anyone he chooses will simply highlight his weaknesses instead of helping him.  

     

    Parent

    pretty amazing that such a "weak" (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:57:32 AM EST
    candidate was able to defeat the most powerful political machine in the Democratic party, and everyone else as well.

    But you have a point. Maybe he should run alone. Anyone else might just slow him down.

    Parent

    His early victories only prove his weaknesses (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:18:44 AM EST
    As his momentum slowed, more financial and party resources were needed just to keep him in the race.

    Had you been following the trends of his primary run (and party actions that shredded votes and moved Sen Clinton's gains into the Obama column), you'd see how weak your own argument is.

    Obama has likely maxed out his potential for new support and one trend that he does display is that the more people see of him, the greater their distrust and antipathy towards him.

    To me that goes beyond weakness as a candidate and makes him a toxic one.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton showed in '92... (none / 0) (#101)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:19:02 AM EST
    ...that sometimes it's better to have someone who complements your strengths than someone who highlights your weaknesses when he picked another Southern moderate for his ticket.

    Parent
    Yes, but Bill Clinton's (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:36:28 AM EST
    strength's were stronger than Obama's - he had been a governor.  What are Obama's strengths that he could complement in that way?  Rock star campaigning? Good grassroot's organization? Youth?  I don't know who that would be. I guess we'll find out.

    Parent
    Complementing or providing a synergy (none / 0) (#156)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:56:38 AM EST
    to a ticket in the many ways Al complemented and reinforced the positives of Baby Boomer Bill is easier said than done.   Bill could pick an Al Gore, a fellow Southerner with almost identical political views, also because Al helped the Dem effort in a very tough region where Dems had been performing badly since 64, and yet Gore, unlike other Southerners like Nunn, had great political and personal appeal outside of the south/border.

    Obama can't pick a fellow Northerner, or he would be wise not to do so -- he needs a pick that broadens the appeal of the top of the ticket.  And he would also be well served to pick someone with a little more experience though not necessarily in DC since too much there (Dodd, Biden and the rest) would seriously undermine his outstanding message of Change.

    Someone like a two-term non-Northern gov who's attractive and has potential national appeal to a large group of voters is his best bet in this Dem year which will turn on people's personal economic concerns.

    Parent

    Veep stakes theatre (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by joanneleon on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:36:12 AM EST
    I'm sure that most people realize this whole Veep stakes thing is just theatre.  

    What I don't know is who he is trying to patronize right now, his own supporters or Hillary's supporters.  He's going through this process of considering all these different candidates both to stroke their egos and to try to show everyone that he's at least considering their favorite choice, when really, he's going to choose someone like Mark Warner, and put others in strategic places in his cabinet in order to win their swing states or voter blocs.

    The question is, is he going through the process so he can say he analyzed all of the choices and found that Hillary isn't the best choice for a win in 2008?  Or is he doing this to calm down his own supporters, and will come out with his analysis that Hillary provides the best chance for a win, and hoping that the portion of his supporters who have CDS won't throw major fits?  Giving her the VP slot too early would cause virtual riots.  He has to do it slowly.

    Right now I'm leaning toward the former but hoping for the latter.  I think he strongly does not want to choose Clinton but is looking for a way to do it carefully.  Howard Dean is being sent out to try to solve the Hillary supporter problem, IMHO.  Good luck with that.  I think the only way he can win this election is by teaming up with Clinton -- both Clintons, in fact.  But I strongly believe Obama's team has a strong aversion to that idea, probably more like a veto.  He's not the one making the decisions anyway, and has proven to be a bit wishy-washy, and he'll go with his team's decision.

    You're probably right (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:47:08 AM EST
    I think that any serious presidential candidate knows who he/she wants for a running mate pretty much from the get-go.  The rest is all designed to show that the choice is a good one.  I think Obama has really wanted Sebelius all along and is in a slight quandary now because he is hearing she may not be accepted by Clinotn supporters. (she won't).  So he'll wait a long time befire he annocunces anything, and see if he can try to make that sentiment die down.

    Parent
    Im thinkin former (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:51:02 AM EST
    it is what they all do.  I still cant see him picking Hillary.

    Parent
    Howard Dean = Solution to Hillary problem (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:09:47 AM EST
    LOL. Yeah that'll work.

    Clinton supporters who are against Obama now hold Dean in only slightly less contempt than they do him.

    And I could make an argument for holding Dean in greater contempt.  I don't blame Obama for going with the less electorally viable candidate for Pres., because it's himself.  

    But Dean has been head of the DNC for nearly 4 years and aggressively pushed the less electorally viable candidate on the Party.  His reaction to the malign acceptance of sexism in the party was to blink rapidly and say he had no idea!  no idea at all! that there was gambling going on in the casino.  Give me a frakkin' break.

    Parent

    He's been on the media (none / 0) (#212)
    by joanneleon on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:48:07 AM EST
    talking about how there were many unfair things done in this primary, racism and sexism, and such.

    This morning he said that we'd have to figure out what to do about it.

    I think he has no credibility.  He didn't speak out about it until he had achieved his goal of Obama as the nominee and securing the DNC chair for himself for another four years.  So it's pretty clear what his priorities were.

    Parent

    Peggy Noonan says (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by joanneleon on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:50:27 AM EST
    (LOL, she gets funnier with every passing day)

    He doesn't need her. He needs a boring white man. Because he's an interesting black man. He needs a sober, experienced, older establishment player who will be respected by the press, the first responders of the political game. They'll set the tone in which the choice is celebrated, or not. He needs someone like Sam Nunn. Or, actually, Sam Nunn. He could throw a wild pass at Jim Webb because he has a real-guy, Southern, semi-working-class persona, and a Scots-Irish grit and chippiness. He is from important Virginia, has Vietnam boots and is moderate.

    Choosing Mrs. Clinton would make Mr. Obama look weak. No one would believe he picked her because he respected or liked her. They'd think he was appeasing her. This is not something he can afford!...

    As for reports of their rage, there are always dead-enders, and frantic lovers of this candidate or that. This goes under the larger heading "lonely people."...
    http://online.wsj.com/public/article/declarations.html

    So Obama needs a boring white man.  Like, McCain, maybe?  And this is her sage advice.  What a transparent freaking joke she is.  Yet, there will be Obama supporters who will use her words and listen to her opinions.  Wait and see.  Coming soon on a netroots diary or story near you.

    she really is a case study (5.00 / 5) (#146)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:52:20 AM EST
    in all that is wrong with the MSM.  I try not to use the word often but I hate her.

    Parent
    Really (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:57:12 AM EST
    Couldn't make it through without a gratuitous insult, could she? "lonely people" indeed.  

    My cats resent that.

    Parent

    Never could stand Peggy (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:08:33 AM EST
    Noonan, however, I believe her comments are somewhat racist, given the fact she points out he should appt. a white man which in effect counters his being a black man (gee didn't Obama start out to be transracial, and now he's the aa canidate?)

    Parent
    And I will never vote for Sam Nunn in any way. (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:09:09 AM EST


    Parent
    sabsolutely (none / 0) (#198)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:21:06 AM EST
    if Nunn is on the ticket the 10% chance I will vote for Obama goes to 0.
    this is why I mentioned Pryor below.  if he is considering people like Nunn, why not Pryor.  he is younger and smarter and lot of people like him.

    Parent
    If for no other reason than (none / 0) (#189)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:14:35 AM EST
    he's being promoted heavily by some of the more obnoxious and overexposed pundit bloviators in the MCM -- Geo Will, Nooner, David Gergen -- Sam Nunn should off the short list.  Their promotion of this political has-been makes me a bit nervous.  

    Also, our worst Dem president since Lyndon -- Jimmy Carter -- is pushing for him.  Yet another reason to reject him.

    This is going to be a solid Dem year across the board, something a little different from 88 when Duke picked a Nunn-like southern hawk/conservative.  No need to go so far in the conservative direction this time.  

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#204)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:24:59 AM EST
    I never figured out why arguing that Obama needs a white guy in the #2 slot for demographic reasons is any different from arguing that we need a white guy in the #1 slot for demographic reasons.

    Parent
    Problem with any running mate choice (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by Nike on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:52:51 AM EST
    I feel like Obama will have a hard time picking ANY running mate. To my mind, the "unity" message has less been about "togetherness" (one meaning of unity) than it has been about "oneness" (singularity and exceptionalism). Any choice involves introducing some sense of duality into the campaign of singularity. Hence, the suggestions by some that he cannot pick X or Y because they might make him look weak, or other suggestions that A or B could only address this or that perceived weakness.... If there are two, is he the One?

    Yup (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by smott on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:56:56 AM EST
    HIs whole campaign has been about his persona. The very notion of a VP diminishes that. And anyone qualifified will make him look unqualified, because he is.

    Parent
    Sognature Drum (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:54:47 AM EST
    "Overall, I don't have any strong feelings about who Obama ought to pick right now"

    Then why are you posting on it? So many of his posts begin with that meandering style.

    LOL! (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:56:15 AM EST
    Come on, don't try that BS. Clearly Shainzona was referring to Obama's campaign misstepping.

    I'm ambivalent too (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:02:14 AM EST
    But probably for very different reasons.

    I won't go into my reasons again.  

    But I will note those who have suggested, satirically, that he should pick no one because to pick someone would draw attention to a weakness of his.

    I think he should pick himself.  His internal monologs have clearly been embraced on a national level.  He is the perfect compliment and foil to himself.  His conciliatoriness will be a perfect VP to his arrogant President.

    Obama can't pick (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by sas on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:04:16 AM EST
    Hillary or Edwards - they would outshine him...and they are competant and actually know a few things.  

    Both would make him look small by comparison.  

    I actually thought he should avoid Edwards (none / 0) (#184)
    by smott on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:10:17 AM EST
    ...already a losing VP.
    But the polls say otherwise.

    Parent
    A lot of that is name-recognition effect n/t (none / 0) (#197)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:19:56 AM EST


    Parent
    Webb? I dont' think we need two NEWBIES on the (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:07:31 AM EST
    ticket--I mean, both are first term senators, still learning their way around the Senate. I know that Obama has never held meetings of his sub-committee on Foreign Relations. I don't know what chairs Webb holds or what he has done.

    Also, VA is not so reliably purple, much less blue, that a Dem would necessarily be elected to an open Senate seat. Werner would be a better choice to help carry VA, but I haven't learned whether he's interested in the VP slot. He is actively campaigning for the Senate seat witch he will most likely win, increasing the Dem majority. Jowever, until the Dems get to a reliable 60 votes, the Repubs will still filibuster (wonder when the MCM will call it that???).

    I think Webb could overcome the Navy remarks about women, but, together with what the Obama campaign and Obama himself did, it would carry a pretty strong odor, making holding one's nose even more difficult.

    Does a senior cabinet post not count? (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:10:19 AM EST
    You must have a pretty narrow definition of experience.

    Parent
    Maybe the top of the ticket (none / 0) (#193)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:17:21 AM EST
    then?

    Heh.

    Parent

    A different kind of politician? (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by coolit on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:08:54 AM EST
    I .... can't even comment. It's just so frustrating.

    <shaking my head in despair/disgust>

    If Obama were doing something to (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:19:33 AM EST
    win over blue collar voters and women he might be able to get away without picking Hillary, but so far he is more interested in courting "Christians" and his base of young people than the rest of us.  

    The Politics Of Crime.. (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Silhouette on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:21:49 AM EST
    Well you might want to take a second look at who might be the best VP for whom...

    ...this is interesting....I hadn't counted on this...not for lack of effort though...

    Seems people, including several superdelegates, are changing their minds about Obama.  

    By jove I think the fog of "hope" and "change" is clearing to reveal the cold hard facts of the reality of a non-unified democratic party!  

    Seems they're starting to realize Obama supporters are open to Hillary because she does have experience and the economy was the strongest under her last stint in the Whitehouse (alongside Bill).  Polls reflect that Obama-ites do not quite have the same fear for Hillary's running the country that Clintonites have for Obama.  They're doing the math and figuring that with Obama they almost certainly won't win in the Fall and with Clinton they almost certainly will....

    Now who said that first!  lol....OK, enough gloating..

    Here's what one recently on-the-fence superdelegate had to say:

    ***

    "...While initially remaining faithful to Barack Obama, my colleagues and I have been having many discussions about his ability to carry enough Clinton supporters to take the election this Fall.  Even more unsettling is an increase in numbers of our constituents who initially supported Obama, but who are now writing to urge us to change our positions.  While we still feel that Barack Obama does have a chance this Fall, we are beginning to get an unsettling feeling of defection not only from the Clinton supporters, but within the ranks of the very Obama supporters themselves.  We will have to work very hard now not only to rope back in Clinton supporters, but also to keep Obama supporters from jumping off..."

    ***

    A miracle!  Obama supporters changing their minds due to thinking things through??  And they said it couldn't happen...

    This is the site for "the politics of crime.."

    OK, no offense to Obama supporters for I was one myself way back when our state had the primary election.  As time went on though it became clear to me that he was getting funding from way too many loaded "college students"...while Hillary's supporters could only muster 1/4 of that from a working/wealthier base and one of great passion...hmmm...one red flag...could it be that the same republican driven machine who sought to prop their dummy candidate from Big Media might also be funneling funds to his campaign via proxies?  No!  perish the thought!

    ..then the shameless promotion of Obama by Big Media...red flag number two...

    .. his longtime minister denouncing the US...cripes...I'm critical of the US at times but when you add together that venom he had, plus that Obama used this guy's words as spiritual inspiration you begin to see a hatred of the US going to his very soul, masked of course with denial, distancing himself from the 20-year relationship at the 11th hour with a look of genuine concern..

    .. Add in a sprinkle of "Obama" sounding like "Osama" and his middle name "Hussein"  being the same sirname as a terrorist the US put to death...rumors that he has muslim ties...

    ...Not to mention we're at war and he's had no military service, nor any foreign relations experience...

    You think???  You think he might not be electable eh?

    Oh God...sometimes realizations come slowly and painfully.  At least they come...

    Better not-too-late than never.

    If this has been mentioned above, (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:40:32 AM EST
    my apologies - haven't had time to read all the comments.

    Whoever gets the VP nod will be the de facto nominee for president in 2016, assuming Obama wins this year and wins again in 2012.  I think whoever gets picked has to be someone who is positioned to run successfully in the future, and I think there are too many on the Obama team, and too many in the DNC, who do not see Hillary Clinton as the future of the Democratic Party.

    Which raises the all-important question: what is the future of the Party?  

    At this stage, I have no clue what is happening to the Party, and I am extremely uncomfortable with all the religious talk and the associations with people who are hard line anti-choice; is this an effort to bring these people to the Democratic Party's positions, or is this about taking the party in a new direction that is more geared to their positions?

    What this tells me is that whoever is on the list for VP is going to be someone who has more appeal to those to whom Obama is reaching out than to "the base;" I think it is ironic that Obama once referred to Hillary as Bush-Lite, given that he seems to be taking the party more to the right every day, alienating the loyal Democrats without whom he cannot win.

    Other than Hillary Clinton, (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Mrwirez on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:47:23 AM EST
    I really don't know who Obama could pick. The swing states governors can't or won't run with Obama, PA and OH governor's already said NO. FL is a republican. Webb has confederate problems along with being new and also said no. If he picks a woman, the Clinton women will be pi$$ed.... I think Obama is the wrong candidate and was jammed down our throats by the DNC. I honestly think Obama is screwed.

    Re highly dec'd Marines (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by smott on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:50:27 AM EST
    ...the wingers had no problem going after guys like Cleland or John Murtha...Jones will be no different.
    Oh and one other guy...what was his name? Kerry?...

    He won't pick Hill. (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:40:25 AM EST
    I've come to realize that half his supporters support him in getting rid of her, so it's a no go.  I also pretty much think he doesn't like her at all.  

    Warning: references to the GOS (none / 0) (#24)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:33:31 AM EST
    In regards to the question about Hillary, I have been promoting the Unity Ticket over at the GOS whenever the conversation seems reasonably open. I got two responses one of which said:
    She would motivate Republicans to turn out like no one else. The financial stuff related to Bill's library and charity would provide non-stop scandal coverage.

    I wasn't sure how to answer the bit about the financial stuff. Any thoughts?

    That's an argument I've seen. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:37:59 AM EST
    i.e. that as part of the vetting process Bill would need to release all his donors for the Presidential Library etc. to ensure that there were not any skeletons that would come out in the G.E.  the speculation being that he might not want to do that.

    Parent
    It's not clear one way or the other (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Baal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:38:39 AM EST
    on a factual basis since little is known about contributors to Bill's library.  However, the history of the press's approach to covering the Clinton family financial affairs is that it would be unfair, unrelenting, and based on rumor and innuendo.  And yes, tainted with misogyny.  In that sense it is a valid concern.  

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#201)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:23:06 AM EST
    Obama has already intimated that a woman can't be president because mysogyny would create too much divisiveness for the country.

    Stands to reason he'd feel that way about a woman VP too.


    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:46:05 AM EST
    The infamous Kazakhstan story got front-page treatment at the NYT despite the utter lack of substance.  And you know what?  No one cared.  The folks at Big Orange seemed quite convinced it would be the scandal of the year, though.

    Frankly, the person calling attention to Bill Clinton's library donors right now is Barack Obama.

    Parent

    Heh. It's funny because the whole (5.00 / 9) (#51)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:53:34 AM EST
    "would motivate Repubs like no one else" has been a long-standing REPUBLICAN talking point in reference to the Clintons both. Only it became a Dem talking point this year. It's absolutely not true. What scandals?  Are they going to bring up Monica?  LOL.  It's funny to see Dems warning of Clinton scandals!

    Parent
    I suspect the problem is two fold (none / 0) (#46)
    by mwb on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:50:46 AM EST
    Setting aside your very reasonable arguments I think there is another reason Senator Clinton won't be a viable VP choice by Senator Obama.

    Paradoxically, she did too well toward the end.  Had she done strongly but significantly less well than Senator Obama in the primary race, especially toward the end - it would have been a slam dunk choice by him and the party elders.  

    Generally they don't want a VP threatening to outshine the P candidate.  Mind you I don't agree with that logic, but I voted for Senator Clinton in the primaries.

    On the other side of VP land, here's my insane prediction that I'm not remotely stupid enough to bet on.

    Senator McCain pick Colin Powell as his VP and squeaks to victory in the general by another razor thin and somewhat suspect margin for a Republican.

    (And Carrottop will win the Oscar in 2009....)

    If Obama Picks Powell As VP, (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:09:02 AM EST
    I guarantee that I will hold my nose and vote for McCain. Powell's performance before the United Nations was dispicable. Powell knew that invading Iraq was a mistake, had the opportunity to turn the whole conversation around had he put country before Bush and resigned and chose to just go along.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#187)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:13:21 AM EST
    You are responding to a post predicting that McCain would pick Powell as his VP,  not that Obama would.

    I think Powell could well endorse Obama as he has specifically refused to endorse McCain so far,  but he has zero chance of being on the ticket.  

    Parent

    I'll predict that Powell would not touch (none / 0) (#72)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:01:38 AM EST
    the VP spot with a 20 foot barge pole.  He has said very nice things about Obama,  and his family talked him out of a run for the presidency in the past out of concerns for his safety.

    Also given his role in selling the Iraq war and his falling out with the Bush administration I doubt he would want to be associated with the GOP.  I think it is more likely that he would endorse or support Obama than McCain (never mind run on McCain's ticket).  I think his foreign policy views are certainly more in sync with Obama's than McCain.

    Parent

    Has he even see the polling about Sebelius? (none / 0) (#67)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:00:17 AM EST
    "blink" test?  Seems like he's just bloviating.

    Any national polling of figures other than (none / 0) (#73)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:02:33 AM EST
    Edwards and Hillary is relatively meaningless imho as it's a test purely of name ID.  Frankly who has heard of Sebelius outside of Kansas?

    Parent
    I have found no HRC polls on SUSA (none / 0) (#150)
    by smott on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:53:36 AM EST
    ...they seem to be mostly Sebelius, Hagel, Edwards.
    Sebelius looks like a big drag.
    Edwards by far gives Obama the most boost.

    But on his own Obama is now compfortably up in OH and PA so that should put him over the top unless he implodes.

    Parent

    define "compfortably" (none / 0) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:58:02 AM EST


    Parent
    Yes, please (none / 0) (#195)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:19:09 AM EST
    RCP certainly doesn't make him look so comfortable in Ohio.

    Parent
    I think that Mark Warner (none / 0) (#103)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:19:26 AM EST
    is going to get a lot of consideration from Obama. Lots of positives, not any negatives that I can see. IF Gov. Kaine can replace him in the Senate race, it could lead to a VA sweep as well.

    Kaine would leave VA (none / 0) (#110)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:24:17 AM EST
    with a far-right wing governor...

    Warner would be a decent VP pick, but the repercussions (potential loss of a "gimme" senate seat or loss of a crucial governorship with redistricting coming up in 2011) is ill-advised.

    Parent

    I would be all for that pick (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:37:59 AM EST
    I would gladly sacrifice that senate seat for a great VP that represented the future of the party.

    Parent
    Sorry, but Dems can't afford the luxury (none / 0) (#175)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:06:07 AM EST
    of losing a single senate seat, not if we want to get progressive legislation done in the next Congress.

    Scratch Mark Warner.

    Plus he's a bland corporate centrist with narrow appeal who ran a lackluster campaign (remember 2006) for president that went nowhere.  Put him in the senate for VA.

    Parent

    Mark Pryor (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:29:21 AM EST
    Sen from Arkansas might be an interesting choice.
    He gets a 29% from NARAL (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:33:21 AM EST
    So, um, no. Not on the national ticket.

    Parent
    I didnt say he would be my choice (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:49:17 AM EST
    I have sent multiple mails to the guy saying I will never vote for him again starting with the LIEberman fiasco.
    I said he would be interesting.  

    Parent
    CharleyCarp (none / 0) (#118)
    by CharleyCarp on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:31:38 AM EST
    A VP isn't a co-president, it's a person whose job it is to shut up and do whatever the Pres says.  (Cheney notwithstanding).  HRC is a bad fit, and a bad choice.  (I didn't support her for the nomination: I think she can be better in the Senate (a) than she has been; (b) than she could be in any other position; and (c) than nearly anyone there.)

    Webb's a bad fit for the same reason: he's not a go-along, get-along kind of guy either.

    I've thought Wes Clark had the inside track for a while, but don't know whether he has chemistry with BHO.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:23:11 AM EST
    I guess Walter Mondale and Al Gore were terrible picks too.

    Parent
    In HRC's case... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Cal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:59:14 AM EST
    This appears headed for a veep stake in the heart.

    I'm a little bit intrigued... (none / 0) (#200)
    by mike in dc on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:22:15 AM EST
    ...by the inclusion of former Marine Commandant James Jones on Obama's "short list"(well, if you can call a list of 16 names a short list).  Leaving aside all the other considerations, it would be highly amusing watching the wingnuts try to find an angle of attack on a highly decorated Marine with 40 years of service.  Not saying it wouldn't be tried, but I think it would likely fail miserably this time around.  I noticed in his wiki that Gen. Jones went to Georgetown's school of Foreign Service back in the 1960s.  

    On the one hand, it could be seen as some kind of admission of weakness on national security to pick a former general, but on the other, if the guy can give a good speech, he could tear the GOP a new one with respect to foreign policy and national security policy.

    I'd rule out Evan Bayh immediately (zzz), and it looks like Gov. Strickland and Sen. Edwards have taken themselves out of contention.  I don't think Sen. Webb wants the job, either.  That would narrow the list down to 12 candidates, including Sen. Clinton.  

    Silhuoette.... (none / 0) (#214)
    by smott on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:59:34 AM EST
    Where did you see that? Anywhere in the media?....

    short and sweet! obama will pick (none / 0) (#216)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:47:52 AM EST
    the candidate whom his support systems tells him to pick. who will that be? biden? naw he didn't come out that strong for obama. will it be a woman? maybe but  probably not! military? hmm, maybe to bolster obama's credentials. it would be nice for someone smart and with foreign policy experience. but many of the best supported hillary and i don't think obama will want them - ego will rule it out.

    A few "no thank you"s.. (none / 0) (#217)
    by Silhouette on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:16:14 PM EST
    Yes the question really is who, in the absence of Hillary (and her enormous voter support) he will choose to lose the election with this Fall.

    I imagine not many people are lining up for that dubious distinction.  And I predict he'll be getting a few "no thank you"s from prospects therefore..

    Hillary gained momentum towards the end because the majority of people started to figure out how poor of a choice Obama would be for a win this Fall.  That is THE reason she pulled ahead.  GOP/media played this down of course and waved their magic wands to get us to look at delegate support instead of logic and critical thinking..

    I think Clinton/Obama would be an unbeatable team...

    Just a reminder in case anyone was unclear on the matter.  Hillary suspended her campaign.  She did not end it.  And the actual nominee is determined by a vote in August and superdelegates are by no means required to stay by what GOP/media pressured them to say on June 3rd.

    We are aware of that, yes?

    The Veep "Stakes" | 213 comments (213 topical)