I think Obama supporters are OK with people who voted for the war but later (like Edwards) admitted they were wrong to have done so. It might now show timely good judgment, but it at least shows that the candidate is aware now of what good judgment is. Clinton insisted she did the right thing in order to look consistent and strong, but that just infuriated alot of Democrats.
I'm not sure if Bayh has repented his vote or not, but he was quite enthusiastic about it at the time which is one of many reasons why the netroots does not like him. I think part of why Bayh has been floated is so the Democratic base can say "Whew! At least it wasn't Bayh!" when someone else is picked.
I'm still holding out hope for Reed (RI) (and dream of Feingold or Gore), but it's really not a big deal regardless.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 21, 2008 09:20 AMBased on what we know about American politics, the corporate press/media and the Democratic Party, there are three things we know for certain:
1) Obama's VP choice will be vilified by the Republicans and put forth as further evidence that Obama is 'not ready to lead.' The corporate press/media will promote this message by only featuring people who say that on their shows.
2) Several nominal liberals will declare that Obama's choice is a betrayal of . . . something, it doesn't matter, it's a betrayal.
3) Several Democrats and nominal liberals will appear on the Sunday talk shows, and on cable for the next week, criticizing Obama's VP choice.
Posted by James E. Powell at August 21, 2008 09:30 AMI keep hoping that Obama is going to choose someone completely different than most of the short list everyone has been waving about. I think Obama would be crazy to name another Senator or other Washington insider, but I think that's exactly what he's going to do.
Hope and Change. Right.
of course, james, the one thing we also all know is that obama won't make a truly exciting choice.
Posted by Turkana at August 21, 2008 09:34 AMObama's choice does not need to be exciting, it needs to be assuring.
Posted by James E. Powell at August 21, 2008 09:42 AMObama made the comment that his V/P will be one that will help him win the Presidency.
At this point, I hope he chooses Hillary.
We will not have to worry about it coming down to tight races in PA, OH, FL or IN.
Idio, we agree on that one. Two senators running on the ticket doesn't work for me. Sure, if that's his choice, he will be vilified, that's natural. Hasn't Pelosi been vilifying the senate for their lack of movement on the "many' issues she'd like to see moved forward? Now, to have two senators representing the ticket from that very same body, geesh! Bayh, Biden, neither does much for me. Biden's at least witty, Bayh's a bore.
Wait, bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, my crackberry just went off...
Posted by peter at August 21, 2008 10:25 AMObama's choice does not need to be exciting, it needs to be assuring.
Exactly. You never want the VP to distract from the nominee, just have a solid reputation. That is one reason why it won't be Senator Clinton.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 21, 2008 10:46 AMTo clarify - Senator Clinton does have a solid reputation, but she would most definitely distract from the nominee.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 21, 2008 10:48 AM7o6,
exactly. i'm not sure what "assuring" means, but increasing his odds of winning- and winning big- would help...
Posted by Turkana at August 21, 2008 10:50 AMJust to be clear, and in consideration of some wounds that, apparently, will never heal, I think choosing Senator Clinton is at least as good as every other name I've heard and quite a bit better than most. But I wouldn't consider choosing her to be 'truly exciting' or even very surprising.
Since she had such broad and persistent support, even after it was clear she was not going to win the nomination, I have always thought she was a major contender for VP. I have viewed the process as, "if not Hillary, then who?" and I haven't come up with anyone who is better in any obvious or unarguable way.
I think the issue of whether Clinton joins the ticket is more a personal one between Obama and her.
Posted by James E. Powell at August 21, 2008 11:00 AMTo Seven of Six,
Barack Obama said he’ll give his vice president substantive work and will choose his running mate based on ability to govern, not to help win a state in November.Yahoo News
Badges? Don't need no stinking badges.
Posted by prabhata at August 21, 2008 11:18 AMObama should nominate Dan Quayle as his veep. Hey, don't laugh. Old man Bush launched his fourth reich police state crap with Danny boy, who really, was nice to reporters. Remember what a fuss EVERYBODY who was ANYBODY made over the Quayle pick. And the Presidential playbook has become more risable EVERY waking fuckin' minute for the last 8 years.
Posted by Raymond in Hell at August 21, 2008 11:26 AMthere is a very large % of GOPers who admit to being "unexcited" about the McCain candidacy. Hillary would certainly solve that problem.
Posted by T2 at August 21, 2008 11:26 AMGreat Odin's Raven, I hope it's Hillary. That would be a ballsy move that would pump this campaign so full of energy that the city of Denver might detach from the earth and float off into space.
Mr. Powell, 7o6, you're absolutely right. It's gotta be her. Anybody else and this thing is going down the toilet.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at August 21, 2008 11:27 AMUh, no, T2.
McCain is supported by 85% of his party.
Obama is only drawing 75% of his Democratic base.
I did not support Clinton in the Primary. I Supported Obama. When the primary season was essentially over, i did not want Clinton on the ticket, but i have changed my mind.
The dems need to solidify the base, and Clinton would definately do that. Not to mention that there are many women who will want to vote for her, and women are the majority. I think that if she were onthe ticket, it would be a winner.
Forget all that stuff about who can contain Bill Clinton, its about winning. Right?
Posted by Chris at August 21, 2008 11:54 AMForget all that stuff about who can contain Bill Clinton, its about winning. Right?
That's actually part of the problem. How do you keep Bill and Hillary Clinton from distracting from the candidate? Bill became a big issue in the primaries, and that was with people who are (or at least were) generally friendly toward him.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 21, 2008 12:02 PMfrom the comments at Balloon Juice:
If you don’t know how many houses you have, you might be elitist.
If you think $2.5 Million a year is “middle class,”—you might be an elitist.
If you think the economy “is doing pretty well,” because your friends aren’t hurting, you might be an elitist.
If you think the answer to high gasoline prices is to give big oil companies rights to drill in environmentally risky areas, even though the oil won’t flow for five to ten years, you might be an elitist.
You may be an elitist if you think the answer to all our economic problems is to give huge tax cuts to the rich and skimpy ones to the rest of us.
If your footwear costs more than a month’s rent in Dodge City, Kansas, you might be an elitist.
If you are John Sidney McCain, you might be an elitist. Might be? Oh, Hell No! You are an elitist!
To Chris,
Sorry pal. Stick with Obama and under no circumstance believe that Hillary supporters will help Obama. We won't because it's not about Hillary, but about Obama. Your candidate sucks.
Mary, uh...don't you think the 85% will go up if the GOPers see Hillary on the ticket? They "hate" her. Certainly, if the Clinton "Obama haters" would decide to vote Democratic instead of voting Clintoncratic, Obama's 75% would rise also..maybe its a wash? But, remember, they still have to vote Obama the nomination at the convention, so there's still a chance Ms.Clinton will score a victory there when the Superdelegates all vote for her.
Posted by T2 at August 21, 2008 12:23 PMBy the Great Odin, choosing Clinton for the VP slot would show the disparateness the campaign finds itself in today. After all that was said in the primary season, the 3AM phone call bit. Placing her on the ticket would be some about face.
Oh wait, bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, another one, my crackberry just went off...
But, remember, they still have to vote Obama the nomination at the convention, so there's still a chance Ms.Clinton will score a victory there when the Superdelegates all vote for her.
There's the plot twist everybody's waiting for. That would be HUGE. Then fly McOld over to Denver, do a 20 minute debate so she can wipe the floor with his adult diapered ass, then let's just open the polls the next day and wrap this thing up.
Biden never apologized for his vote, did he? He sure doesnt strike me as somebody who would acknowledge that kind of thing.
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at August 21, 2008 02:01 PMvigilante - you need to grow up your imagery a tad. You read about 12. Not there is anything wrong with soppounding like you are 12 - if you actually are 12.
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at August 21, 2008 02:03 PMprabhata, Obama made this comment months ago, almost off the cuff so no one would notice it. It did get picked up by some because I saw it in MSM.
Besides WTF do you care, you don't want him elected. Just scurry off to your little, "I Hate Obama" hell hole.
Capj, Bill Kristol thinks it may be Reed too. Great minds thinking alike...
Seems Gov. Kaine was waxing about being considered, past tense a while ago.
Posted by at August 21, 2008 02:41 PM"Two known Democratic supporters are outraged at their own party after being solicited to buy tickets to Barack Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Field next Thursday, CBS4 reports. The seats were distributed for free to the general public.
One source directed CBS4 to an unpublicized part of the Obama campaign's Web site where Democratic supporters, reportedly with deep pockets, could buy tickets for $1,000 each. The source told CBS4 he was solicited three times to buy the tickets through the Web site.
One source said it was unethical and being kept secret from the public.
CBS4 was able to find the Web site only by directly typing in the URL provided by the source. While CBS4 attempted to contact the Obama campaign about the selling of tickets, the pay-for-tickets page was changed to say no more tickets were available." from the Rocky Mountain News
See how disparate he is for funds, charging for a "free" event. They think he raised a million bucks for this "free" event next week.
Posted by peter at August 21, 2008 03:24 PMNo I don't, T2. In fact, amongst my husband's business friends here in Texas, there were LOTS of Republican women who WANTED to vote for Hillary.
Be that as it may, Obama first task is to secure his own base, period, especially in swing states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Hillary could even kick him into winning Florida.
He'd be terribly foolish not to choose her.
That said, his choices are his choices.
But the consequences are also completely his.
Posted by Mary at August 21, 2008 03:39 PMBiden never apologized for his vote, did he? - the young Judith
An overwhelming number of the Democratic senators who voted to authorize use of force indicated they would vote differently today, including former and current Democratic Senators Joe Biden of Delaware, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, John Breaux of Louisiana, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.Posted by CA Pol Junkie at August 21, 2008 03:42 PM
To quote some singer, "oops, I did it again."
"See how desperate he is for funds, charging for a "free" event. They think he raised a million bucks for this "free" event next week.
Sorry folks.
Harold Ickes said the new magic number is … 2211 to secure the nomination. And Senator Clinton has not released her delegates yet. There's emails going forth encouraging her voters to get in touch with the delegates supporting her to vote for her on the first ballot.
Hillary Clinton’s staff is creating a 40-member “whip team” at the Denver Democratic convention to ensure that her supporters don’t engage in embarrassing anti-Obama demonstrations during the floor vote on her nomination, according to people familiar with the planning.
...
"An Obama attack ad with the following statistics:
Word count for “Republican”: 1.
Word count for “Democrat”: 0.
Does that strike anyone else as odd?
Cleverly, it puts the focus on Obama right away, by putting “I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message” at the beginning of the ad, not the end.
And at the end, it’s “Paid for by Obama for America,” not the Democrats. Which is weird, too (unless it’s some funding maneuver?)
Nowhere, nowhere at all is there any indication that Obama is a Democrat. In fact, the only Republican mentioned is Ralph Reed (and not McCain!). It’s like the ad is …. all about Obama." from Lambert over at the Corrente Building,
Seems to coincide with that NCDPAAC's head telling blacks to not vote for white Democrats down ticket.
vigilante - you need to grow up your imagery a tad. You read about 12. Not there is anything wrong with soppounding like you are 12 - if you actually are 12.
Do you want me to be 12, young Judith?
Posted by MaskedVigilante at August 21, 2008 06:21 PMno, I want you to make some sense and stop embarassing yourself. :-)
Ca Pol - love to see the direct quote. What you put there doesnt impress. I'd love to see the lengthy ends he went to blame his bullshit on somebody else. He didnt just vote for it - he actively went on tv with Richard Lugar and SOLD IT.
If he is Obama's pick all I can say is - HYPOCRITE.
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at August 21, 2008 08:11 PMSomething is stirring in downtown Wilmington Delaware. A grandstand has been set up in a park and cops are everywhere. Rumor has it that Sen. Joe Biden will be speaking there to announce his acceptance of the Democratic VP slot. I’m near certain Biden will be on the ticket so this does make sense.
But I’m not sure why he’d announce it in Delaware considering the little time Biden spends here. I’d have figured he would have announced it with Obama - unless of course He is making an appearance here as well. It’s also possible that the activity is due to local political activity - the Delaware primaries are two weeks away.
Posted by peter at August 21, 2008 08:15 PMSorry, I missed the hat tip to deanesmay.com's Scott Kirwin.
Posted by peter at August 21, 2008 08:20 PM"…immediately step in and act without hesitation to end our involvement in Iraq without destabilizing the Middle East and the rest of the world. Our safety is literally at stake, our soldiers lives are at stake, our energy supply from the region is now at risk and America's leadership among the world's nations is at stake."
Biden.
Joe Biden has been in the Senate for 4 decades, and of course is best known for his expertise in foreign policy as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has been a hard worker, a good student, and a thoughtful analyst. Few could match his knowledge and expertise. He has apologized for his vote on the Iraq War.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/bidn-his-time-if-its-joe_b_120136.html
Biden apologizes for his vote:
Voted for Iraq War resolution to avoid war in Iraq
"I made my pitch for Biden-Lugar, [the alternative Iraq war authorization resolution], pointing out the very real constraints it put on the president. But the president was giving personal assurances that he would try every avenue of diplomacy before he took the country to war. And it was clear that Colin Powell and members of the Joint Chiefs were not eager to go to war in Iraq. With that in mind, I decided to vote for the resolution.
I believed the resolution passed by Congress provided the firm & united support Powell needed to be able to get the United Nations Security Council to pass and enforce a new resolution that got the inspectors back into Iraq, kept Saddam in his box, and thus avoided a war. I wasn't alone in that.
I made a mistake. I underestimated the influence of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the neocons; I vastly underestimated their disingenuousness and incompetence. So Bush went to war just the way the neocons wanted him to--without significant international backing.
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Joe_Biden_War_+_Peace.htm
Posted by Judith at August 22, 2008 01:14 AMno, I want you to make some sense and stop embarassing yourself. :-)
Where would be the fun in that? Pssh. (hugs)
I am sooooooo bored with the "suspense". Just freakin' announce already. If it's Biden and Romney, then let's just put it out there so we can all move on with our lives!!
I gotta get to Science Lab now. We have an experiment due today and my lab partner totally bailed on me. Douche!!
Posted by MaskedVigilante at August 22, 2008 07:27 AMah, now I think you're at least 50.
:-P
I made a mistake. I underestimated the influence of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the neocons; I vastly underestimated their disingenuousness and incompetence.
Yeah, right. Bull. Watch the clips of him selling this thing. But it is the applogy I asked to see. Too bad I have less respect ofor him having read this blame game crap.
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at August 22, 2008 07:53 AMah, now I think you're at least 50.
I know, right? I couldn't remember what grade a 12 year old would be in or what classes they take. I was thinking 7th grade, Science?
37.
I underestimated the influence of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the neocons; I vastly underestimated their disingenuousness and incompetence.
Really? Dennis Kucinich didn't. I didn't. Guess that makes us smarter than you, Joe.
The worst part is, he's STILL underestimating them if he thinks this is bumbling incompetence. BushCo has accomplished what they set out to do. I wouldn't call that incompetence.
hee hee. funny post.
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at August 22, 2008 08:09 PMTim Pawlenty just overtook Mitt Romney on the Veepstakes Game on Facebook apps.facebook.com/veepstakes.
People playing the VP stock trading game last week picked Joe Biden to be Barack Obama's running mate by a huge margin! The wisdom of the crowds works!
Posted by The Takeaway at August 28, 2008 04:03 PM