Premature Speculation Time
It's jolly that we have a clear winner in Iowa, small as its caucuses are and arcane as their rules are. Let's consider the caucuses, for a moment, a big focus group, and (almost) leave it at that.
It's even jollier that, as the Republicans touch up the corner they've painted themselves into, the Democratic winner seems bent on pitching a big tent, knows what organizing is for and what money is for, and can lilt in preacherly cadences and talk "coming together" while showing many signs of knowing that corporate and Pentagon power will have to be confronted. Inspiration is not nothing for a transformative politics. It is very far from nothing.
So let's say, for the sake of argument, that we accept that when Obama talks about coming together, he hasn't forgotten that the "conservative" movement that bulldozed its way to collective disaster with George W. Bush has to be defeated--ringingly, enduringly defeated.
But some are now arguing that Obama's red-blue synthesis calls for his welcoming as his veep none other than...Joe Lieberman.
Crush this one with a gnash of teeth! Forget Jolting Joe's propensity for preventive war and think about the electoral strategy. Who does Obama need to pick up? According to Bill Bishop's Daily Yonder,
Eighty-eight percent of those voting in the Republican caucus described themselves as very or somewhat conservative. Forty-four percent of those voting in the Democratic caucus described themselves as very or somewhat liberal.
Now, Obama won 41 percent of the city vote, which we'll assume, for the sake of argument, tends liberal. So there's the strictly electoral argument for Obama swinging right for a VP.
But Bishop also notes:
Edwards also won among those Democratic voters who described themselves as conservative. He picked up 42 percent of these voters, according to entrance polls. Obama won only 21 percent of this small group of Democratic voters.
Now, why Edwards would want a second shot at the second slot, I can't imagine. Why Lieberman would either, ditto, except perhaps for the raw power of it. But it's worth noting that Edwards could pick up voters to the right of Obama's without Lieberman's baggage.
The far more astute choice would be Jim Webb, who in his reincarnation doesn't campaign for unnecessary wars though he actually fought in one.
You don't have to guess about those urban voters trending liberal, MSNBC has the statistics on how the exit polling broke down.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225980
Of each category of voter, Obama captured:
40% of the very liberal
36% of the somewhat liberal
33% of the Moderate
21% of the conservative
January 4, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Napolitano for Veep! Go Janet!
January 4, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love the Webb idea.
Will not vote for a candidate who puts Lieberman on the ticket. At all. Ever.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 4, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, as a Virginian, I am very proud of Webb, and even though he has experience, it is not deep enough to counteract the criticisms of Obama's youth and inexperience.
I go for Governor Richardson -- he has the experience, and can sweep all the hispanic voters into the tent as well.
Barack would never go with Lieberman! Who in the world put that ridiculous thing out? McCain said he would want Lieberman as Sec'y of Defense. Can you imagine? The War Without End Campaign!
Next we'll hear that Barack is considering Cheney as VP!
I sincerely hope Obama keeps his head; realizes that he has the momentum and doesn't have to stoop. But look out. Hillary has bags of money to throw at him. Hope he can rise above it.
Jan
January 4, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be it Obama, or anyone else who might be elected, in order to "ringingly, enduringly" defeat the conservative movement, the next Potus will need to have a much better set of numbers in both Houses. Until then the movement have enough compliant people in both Houses to continue to impede or out-right road block any ringing and enduring progress, with or without a Republican POTUS.
January 4, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, great, but why the need to be so reserved? Why the residual cynicism?
I think we need to get past somewhat snide usage of terms like "inspiration" and "hope" and recognize that Obama has never said just "hope" in a fluffy way, but always said "the Audacity of Hope" and talked about the effort necessary to achieve common purpose once it's recognized, and the extent to which we can all benefit by shared purpose. That's fundamentally a rational and logistical argument.
The MSM + Hillary "naive" meme was simplistic and lame on day one, and not getting any better. At this point it's a matter of who is ahead of the curve, and who is behind?
***
For a little context of political realignments:
For people of faith, "hope" and "faith" aren't fluff words, they're the fundamental nature of the universe, god's will, which must be actualized in meaningful ways. Even Huckabee, for all his problems, has the sense to tap into that, and even the Republican establishment sees that, their worst nightmare, and are plotzing themselves.
From the standpoint of an evolutionary biologist or atheist, whether it's Darwin himself or a primatologist like Frans de Waal, hope, faith, compassion, common cause, and an emotional inspiration to practical deeds, are also fundamental to our nature, a profound natural truth, and the most important trait for survival and fitness in higher social species. All the great speeches i can think of have all tapped into that.
How many goons said Kennedy's "Ask Not" speech was corny? How many said MLK was too soft, and a more militant leader was necessary, like Malcolm X? A lot did. And how are those cynics remembered now?
Cynics who deride hope and common purpose, who don't understand it, they tend to be either cynical Social Darwinists, or burned out hippies who blew it once and never figured out why.
We're not going to fix big issues like Climate Change, Medical Insurance, Corruption, Iraq, Oil Dependence, and so on, by sticking sharp sticks in each other's eyes on every wedge issue. We're not going to browbeat each other to a solution. We're not going to litigate it in the courts for any lasting solutions. We're not just going to suddenly win against embedded corporate interests by virtue of "spine" without a broad base of public support, including moderates and even reformed Republicans, becasue "spine" is just a bumper sticker slogan, while a broad political consensus is real, and overwhelming, political power.
The only way we'll get some national unity to address these issues is if partisans on both sides can get over the habit of continually insulting each other, and if people have some hope and common cause for a change.
January 4, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
whenever he says 'the audacity of hope' he only makes me MORE cynical. i understand why people fall for that crap, but give me a break. the problem isn't so much that obama is naive, it's that his supporters are. we need someone's who gonna FIGHT for what's right. obama's schtick just smells exactly like W's 'uniter not a divider' crap-o-la. just because he wraps it up in motivational speaker and christ-y preacher happy talk doesn't make it any more relevant to reality. just makes it more appealing to the sucker voters who don't like politics. they lap that kool-aide up.
January 4, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? While i can respect Edwards' supporters on support for the same issues I value, imho his supporters can be a little naive and hot headed.
As I said "fight" by itself is just a hollow slogan. What are people going to do? Literally punch ATT, EXXON and Merrill Lynch in the nose? Throw bricks through Starbucks windows? Take them to court without first passing the legislation necessary to do so? Nope.
Did "fight" get Lieberman out and Lamont into office? Is Lamont now in office to help pass progressive legislation? No, and no.
Did Edwards "fight" even beat John "reporting for duty" Kerry in 2004? No.
Where is this fabled "fight" I keep hearing about.
****
The only way to address problems is via legislation. And legislation takes popular support. Which is what Obama is all about. That's the real fight, to build a large and forceful coalition to bring change.
And people do want change, on major issues like the economy, healthcare reform, climate, oil, etc. Across the spectrum people are fed up. Even Huckabee, as problematic as he is, is still a populist on economics and more Sermon on the Mount than Milton Friedman. (Or Krugman for that matter.)
Obama is more of a level headed coalition builder than Edwards, who has never been able to build support beyond a small but dedicated following. Obama is more principled than Hillary and Bill who are the real DLC compromisers.
They'd come into office weak. Congress would balk at their mandates, balk at their agenda. Just as the Clintons blew it in the 90's while passing NAFTA and such.
***
Malcolm X was just a "fighter" and accomplished... nothing. Any good he did was more than offset by the reaction to him becasue he was too inflammatory and unpopular.
At the time some people said MLK was too soft, was working too closely with the Kennedys, who were just rich white Northern Catholic Irish kids, and would never really help black people.
Who was right? Who accomplished far more? The militant, or the pragmatist? Who is revered today by the general public as an inspiration to real activism. Who is just a fringe icon for rebellious youth and symbolizes militant inactivism? Of course even Malcolm X realized his foolishness late in life, but then it was too late.
Look at Bush. He promised to be a uniter, and that was a lot of what got him elected. He turned out to be a divider, or perhaps in inadvertent uniter, but the point remains even in 2000 people wanted a candidate who would bring people together and stop the senseless partisanship and viciousness in politics. Especially after the Clinton/Gingrich era.
Look at Nader. A hero of his generation. A hero of the left and middle. Accomplished so much in his day for things like seatbelts and safe water and air standards, and even child toy safety protections. But for running as a militant and fracturing the vote in 2000, he's now largely reviled except by some goof balls. Even his own Nader's Raiders literally weep at what he's become.
Just being a "fighter" isn't good enough. One also has to be the right fighter at the right time, and a consensus builder to establish a powerful and lasting change.
January 4, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
boy, have you gone off the deep end with your analogies...
maybe i should remind you that we are talking about barack obama and john edwards.
your eagerness to compare obama to MLK (and JFK) seems a bit zealous.
excuse me, but that was MY point. everyone lapped up bush's BS just the same as everyone's lapping up obama's BS.
but while we are 'looking' at this person and that person as far as 'the audicity of hope' vs 'the need for fight', perhaps we should 'look at' FDR....
January 4, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they're all leaders and important role models for all future leaders. And we are talking about the next President of the USA, so we cite MLK, JFK, and problematic leaders like Malcolm X and GW Bush.
We don't cite Joe Schmoes's management handbook and motivational "fight" talk seminar on self empowerment. This is the real deal. History book stuff. Not Survivor or LOST.
January 4, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm pretty sure you just edited your post substantially. if i'm wrong please ignore this.
but it would be helpful if you want to add something to your post to add it as a reply. i really don't like replying to a post only to find the content of the post has been edited significantly.
January 4, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who was right? Who accomplished far more? The militant, or the pragmatist? Who is revered today by the general public as an inspiration to real activism. Who is just a fringe icon for rebellious youth and symbolizes militant inactivism? Of course even Malcolm X realized his foolishness late in life, but then it was too late.
I completely disagree with almost every word here. Malcolm was and is revered by those for whom he did the most. It took both the pacifists like Dr. King and the firebrands like Malcolm X to bring this country to where it is racially -- not that we've arrived yet!
Where would America be without Samuel Adams? Where would America be without John Brown? Where would America be without Susan B. Anthony?
I agree that fighting alone doesn't get the job done, but none of those people were consensus builders. They were boat-rockers, "loonies" of their day.
Look at Nader...But for running as a militant and fracturing the vote in 2000, he's now largely reviled except by some goof balls.
Count me among the goof balls. We didn't know how right he was then and how much we needed him. Now that we have a Dem Congress giving Bush everything he asks for to drive this country to perdition, we "goof balls" can see the truth in Nader's claim that the differences between the two major parties is negligible.
January 5, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is disengenuous at least:
...we "goof balls" can see the truth in Nader's claim that the differences between the two major parties is negligible.
Do you honestly think that if Gore had actually taken office (instead of only winning) we would be in Iraq now? That we would have 2 new young right-wingers on the Supreme Court? Do you think we would have lost allies and gained enemies throughout the world for our war-mongering? Do you think we would have tortured people? Shredded the Constitution? Would Katrina victims have been ignored by a FEMA ineptly run by a Gore crony? Would we be spending billions on a mercenary christianist-led army while denying health care to our own citizens? Would oil barons have set our energy policy? Hell, I doubt that even VP Lieberman would have shot someone in the face!
If you think that all of the above is negligible, I guess we just don't see things the same way.
Jan
January 5, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note that I did not say that there was no difference between Gore and Bush.
Let me turn your good points around. Do you honestly think that the Democratic Congress has made an honest attempt to curb Mr. Bush's excesses? That they couldn't have blocked those extremist appointments to the court? That they have done enough to reverse the anti-Constitutional trends that Dubya has established, to stop the disaster in Iraq, to check the economic policies that threatens to eliminate the middle class?
If you think that the Dems have done their job as a MAJORITY opposition party, I guess we just don't see things the same way.
BTW, disagree with me all you want, but if you question my motives or my honesty, I may fall out of love with you.
January 5, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Darling, I didn't question your motives OR honesty; I just questioned how you could consider the things I pointed out to be negligible.
I agree with the criticisms of the "Democratic" Congress (which, when you realize that Lieberman's decision to caucus as a Dem is the only reason we have a bare majority). No, they have caved and caved and been disappointing with their actions, which is even harder to take after they bloviate about toughness.
BUT...
Nader wasn't running for Congress, was he? He was running for President. And saying that there was no difference between Bush and Gore is how his message was received. He is such an egotistical person that he could only manage to be a spoiler. Why couldn't he run for Congress and try to make a difference there? He would most likely get elected to Congress, but that isn't what he wants. He is an enabler all the time pretending to be a saint.
Jan
January 5, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the vote of confidence.
I must repeat that I did not claim that there is no difference between Bush and Gore.
Nader's egotism is three things: legendary, effective in aiding him to get things done, and completely beside the point. Whether or not he intended to be a spoiler, he failed to be one. Mr. Gore won both the popular and electoral contests. The Supreme Court was determined to have Mr. Bush in the White House and would have found a way to steal the election with or without Mr. Nader.
As for why Nader doesn't run for Congress, I can only speculate, but I'm sure he feels that he couldn't make the same point in a congressional race.
Mr. Nader is neither an enabler nor a saint. Ask the automobile companies how well he enabled them.
January 5, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? By what OBJECTIVE standard do you make this pronouncement?
...obama's schtick just smells exactly like W's 'uniter not a divider' crap-o-la. just because he wraps it up in motivational speaker and christ-y preacher happy talk doesn't make it any more relevant to reality. just makes it more appealing to the sucker voters who don't like politics. they lap that kool-aide up.
You just feel it in your gut, doncha? Or did you look into his eyes and saw his REAL soul? How can you compare Obama and Bush in a similar way and expect to be taken seriously?
As to the christ-y preacher happy talk; I haven't heard it, but I'll take Obama's oral delivery any day over Hillary's "boy-voice."
"Sucker voters?" Those would be the ones who think Hillary has more experience to hit the ground running than all the others. Those would be the ones who think we need to keep the pattern of bush/Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush....going so that we can be SAFE! Experience? Why doesn't Laura just take over in '09? We wouldn't even have to pay for redecorating.
Jan
January 5, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
objective standard?? what are you talking about? i'm expressing my opinion which is my reaction to my personal observations.
how can you deny that obama's 'we are divided' and 'unity' talk doesn't have the same intent and effect as bush's 'uniter not a divider' talk in 2000? they are the same talking points. just because you believe obama doesn't mean that the message/tactic isn't the same. obama is employing the same approach that bush used in 2000, tapping into voter disaffection with washington and positioning himself as some sort of outsider above the fray who will put an end to partisan bickering/gridlock by bringing both sides together. do you not remember bush's 2000 campaign??
i don't know why you're going on about hillary. what does she have to do with anything, let alone anything i actually said?
January 5, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mind the term "audacity of hope," but I think you miss my meaning when I commend inspiration. (And I did so, I hoped, in such a fashion as to speak to the cynicism of others rather than to embrace it.)
I mean something specific about the value of inspiration. Inspiration charges up the energies of a political base, energies that are an absolute prerequisite for transformational politics. You can't just talk about confronting corporations, imperialists, etc., you have to energize people to do it. It's this that Obama has demonstrated he can do. Which is not to say that Edwards can't do that.
What I haven't found is that HRC can do it. Of her desire to do it I have little doubt. But desire ain't ability.
Todd Gitlin
January 4, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did get your point. I'm not necessarily criticizing you in particular, though you do seem a bit reluctant to just out and say it.
I'm just saying, I think we need to move past the kind of grudging admission that hope has value, while also remaining well short of going into free-love territory. Inbetween there is pragmatic argument which also has spiritual overtones.
Which I don't expect many pundits to be able to manage. Most will probably fall into one camp or the other, like flocking bats echo locating each other at the only point of reference once their cave-like surrounding collapses in a tectonic shift they never saw coming. Or something.
I'll say it. I don't think Edwards can do it. Not for a big enough group. He's always been great at winning over a small group, passionately. But that's not enough. His supporters don't get to elect extra congress people for passion, and frankly many of them are pretty self gerrymandered, like me, in San Francisco.
The candidate who appeals to folks in Iowa, and NH, and Ohio, are far more important.
Since folks like me also agree with them on many issues, nobody wants to offend them by saying Edwards can't do it. But it's time to look at facts.
For Edwards' causes to be successful, somebody more popular needs to carry the torch. Edwards can be a great issues activist, and he's a great prosecutor. But he's not been able to build a large enough coalition, and he, and people who care about his causes, have to accept that and put aside their egos.
If he can't pull off New Hampshire, or at the latest SC, neither of which look good, then he should drop out and throw support to Obama to defeat Hillary.
And he definitely shouldn't go negative in the coming debate. That's his problem, and is a big part of why he's never been able to build a big coalition, but why DKos folks love him. But again, he's got to decide if he wants to be for Edwards and his fan base, or what's best for the issues.
Hillary had her shot as far as I'm concerned. She had it all lined up for her. I was even ready to volunteer for her. But then she went pillow cuddling, cackling, waffling, playing gotcha and politics, and just blew it. Which reminded of the real 90's, not the nostalgic 90's, and of Iraq, and Iran, and PATRIOT, and NAFTA, and everything else. All stuff I was hoping to forget, but that's just impossible now.
Obama has already shown himself to be the better candidate. And so has Edwards for that matter. If Obama wasn't in the race I'd be a hardcore Edwards supporter. If Edwards also wasn't in, I'd be a Hillary supporter. But Hillary is right about one thing, things are serious, and we need the best person for the job.
January 4, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
++++
What kosmik said.
January 4, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any ticket with Lieberman on it would lose me completely and irredeemably. Fortunately, the Lieberman talk is just pundits blowing smoke. I don't think there is any prospect at all of an Obama-Lieberman ticket.
I sort of like the idea of Edwards as Attorney General, and think that Richardson is the obvious choice for Veep.
January 4, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, i was wondering about AG too. Though I'm not sure if that's really the right place for him.
I think his causes would actually be better served if he was a clearly and aggressively one sided issue advocate, either in a poltical post, or as an outsider. The AG should be a more apolitical figure. Especially after Gonzo.
If you look at Fitzgerald too, he was a hero until he got into politics. The rules are different for an aggressive prosecutor versus a manager/leader.
Nader was also far more effective as a "FT Citizen" then he would have been in office, which he just wasn't suited to.
Even Bobby Kennedy had issues, and caused a lot of unnecessary blowback from being a hot head, that nobody but his brother would have put up with. Johnson hated him. It wasn't until much later that Bobby Kennedy sort of found his bliss and lost the hard edges, coming into his own.
January 4, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm on board with Edwards as AG, but not Richardson. Obama's strategy is going to require an attack dog somewhere down the road, and Richardson proved himself a fumbling mess of a campaigner.
I'm thinking Biden. He knows his way around congress, he's got about the best foreign poicy cred of any Democrat, and he is quite good with the one liner rips into his opponents.
January 4, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden, really? I can kind of see that, but, I kind of doubt Obama will pick from any of the other Presidential candidates. And I really doubt he'll pick anyone who voted for the Iraq resolution. So Edwards and Biden are out. That's my guess anyways.
He'd do well to go with somebody like Webb. Not actually Webb, but someone who is a moderate, consistently against the war, preferably with FP and military experience, who knows his way around Washington, but doesn't come with too much baggage.
Some people would probably be thrilled to see a Feingold or such, but that would be a political mistake and counterproductive imo. Feingold is great at what he does, but as VP his type would generate way more pushback. A Webb type could criticize the war and the quagmire nature of the region, and sell an exit strategy far better, while still being difficult for Republicans and moderates to criticize.
January 4, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, on the issue of Leiberman, as absurd as that is and without merit, unless Obama's camapign says they're considerign Leiberman, and they're absolutely not, I'd pay it no attention.
My bet on Obama giving Leiberman the VP slot is:
No Way in Hell, Ever.
To point out just how absurd and even Orwellian the notion is, Lieberman was put on the ticket under... Gore.... following the advice of.... the Clintons, DLC, and Third Way types of course. Which is exactly the sort of worst-of-both-worlds triangulation Obama is campaigning to change.
***
The whole absurd notion Obama would even consider Lieberman just plays into the myth that Obama is compromised, which again is a Hillary meme and totally hypocritical considering their affiliation with Lieberman.
I wouldn't be surprised if her people or even Edwards' are starting this absurd rumor.
Unfortunately, from what Trippi said last night (an over rated consultant if ever there was one) Edwards' aggressive nature and bad advice is about to betray him, again, as he'll slip into prosecutor/attack mode against Obama, by echoing Hillary's attack memes, which means Edwards hoisting (more like cratering) himself on that same petard.
***
Speaking of past VP nominations, Edwards has a far better chance, and they're still pretty slim. He's make a better appointment or outside issue advocate anyways, rather than being tied to the role of VP. I think it was a mistake for Edwards to join Kerry's ticket after being beaten by him, becasue Kerry was such a dope, and it tainted Edwards by association.
January 4, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just out of curiosity -- is that the same Lieberman who has endorsed John McCain for President? What if McCain got the GOP nomination! OMG! They could fight over who could get the "obvious HUGE asset to any campaign" LIEBERMAN as their VP running-mate!! SHEEEEESH!
Who starts these dopey rumors?
Jan
January 4, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have to suspect it's the Hillary or Edwards campaign.
Also, kind of amazed Gitlin took the bait. What's Gitlin's politcal ties? Does he have any? Or just ruminating for lack of a better topic?
January 4, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama may be talking "big tent" now but in the general would veer back to his natural "center" position as he indicated in his DailyKos diary of 2005: …According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
I think this perspective misreads the American people….
This would be the Obama who has supported the Iraq War, talked about bombing Iran and Pakistan, raised the social security issue and proposed non-mandated health care.
So, yes, big tent if the tent includes Lieberman, Obama's mentor in the Senate. Obama hasn't forgotten: ""I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said in 2006. Was Obama looking ahead to 2008?
January 4, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is complete horse shit. And you are a known Republican here, which is fine, but that kind swift boating absolute BS is totally dishonest trolling.
Obama never supported the Iraq war. In fact he opposed it from the beginning, and has all along.
Obama said he would use surgical strikes in Pakistan to take out ObL, only if we had actionable intelligence, and only as a last resort. But goign after AQ is an important goal. Which is frankly common sense and indisputable. He also specifically said that nukes were not an option.
Hillary claimed nukes should be "kept on the table" which is just crazy, as it's never been on the table as a tactical option to take out a terrorist camp, least of all in a nuclear armed Muslim country. Totally nuts. Experience? Delusional.
And as I said about Lieberman myself, on DKos, he was sure to win re-election, despite being a complete asshat, becasue he has 18 years of loyal support and is in his own weird way in tune with CT politics, as unfortunate as that may be. The net result was to drive him, and the Senate, further rightwards. There is a good reason some people cautioned against making matters worse.
January 4, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama never supported the Iraq war. In fact he opposed it from the beginning, and has all along.
Obama voted for every war budget, because, he often said: Now it's America's war. Responding to a question from Tim Russert on his support for Kerry in 20024: SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/12/214957/09
You didn't counter Obama's positions on Pakistan, Iran, social security and Lieberman.
So where's the "complete horse shit", Kozmik? You can't handle simple facts that differ from your personal beliefs on Gore, Obama or probably anyone else, which is when you turn to your old standby, slander, the refuge of scoundrels.
Obama told you in his own words what he will do, I didn't make them up. You don't believe Obama?
January 4, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let the record show that three geniuses gave me zero ratings because they couldn't argue with facts and so had to violate the TPMCafe ratings guidelines and give the fact-giver troll ratings.
See you on the next blog, geniuses.
January 4, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I make a point of not rating except in extreme circumstances. This is one.
January 5, 2008 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I make a point of not rating except in extreme circumstances. This is one. The other raters seem to be saying, as troll-raters often do, "We have no argument to counter yours, and we're punishing you for making a point we can't answer."
I don't actually think this post deserves a 5, but it certainly doesn't deserve a 1 or a 0.
January 5, 2008 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This would be the Obama who has supported the Iraq War, talked about bombing Iran and Pakistan"
Dude, no one is buying this bullshit anymore. Seriously, have some respect for the readers of this blog and stop it.
January 4, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ok for a first thought, to make Lieberman veep, as the post has such a small legal role (unless you're Cheney with an idiot president) and it'd get him out of the senate. But I wouldn't settle for that. Perhaps the candidate, whoever it is, would consider him instead for something like cafeteria attendant. Or maybe zookeeper in San Francisco.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 4, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or King of Ambassador to Israel.
Jan
January 4, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
the obama/webb ticket sounds interesting. but i think webb as a running mate would just make obama seem like a milquetoast.
January 4, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb, as a first-term Senator (notwithstanding his military and short Reagan administration creds) would be vulnerable to the same "experience" criticisms that Obama is noted for. Obama has to pick someone who can balance his perceived weaknesses --> Richardson comes to mind.
If Wesley Clark had not been such a Hillary shill, he might be a possibility. We have a whole country full of people to pick from. He can choose from many.
My biggest hope is that when all is said and done, the very thoughtful and intelligent people who cared enough to run in a campaign that was hopeless for many; will be in the Cabinet of whoever wins.
Jan
January 4, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eh, I think the experience thing is over rated. I think somebody Webb-like would have enough. And don't you think Clark has even less experience, and is less likable than Webb's folsky appeal?
Regardless, Obama needs somebody like LBJ, only less so, if you know what I mean.
January 4, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't even suggesting Webb himself would be good. In fact, Webb himself would probably be bad for various reasons. Besides, he's needed in the Congress. But someone with Webb's general CV would be good.
I can't imagine who specifically Edwards or Hillary would pick.
Hillary would pick some DLC toady and probably Southern. Speaking of toads and Lieberman, they already helped pick him once for Gore.
And don't forget that Gore (despite his environmental creds) was picked for Bill, as a kind of folksy Religious Southerner, and Free Trader, when Tipper was going nutz over cultural conservative nonsense, which Hillary milks as well. Before we get too nostalgic over Gore, remember he also won the NAFTA debate with Perot and sold it to the American public. So the Gore we know now is not the Gore of the 90's that the Clintons picked.
So, yeah, Hillary would go with a DLC toady or some Republican lite. They'd have some token cultural liberal positions, but be very pro-corporate overall. Also the person would probably have some anti-war bonafides, but still manage to be a hawk at the same time. Probably somebody close to medical insurance too.
January 4, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
the suggestion of webb being responded to came from todd.
January 4, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
you know who would be a great vice president? Al Gore.
ah, I crack myself up. Seriously, I think Jim Webb would be a good choice and Bill Richardson would still be a strong choice. It's hard to think of another good candidate for VP, but I wouldn't want to see Edwards or Clinton in the post. If Obama is serious about upending the establishment, handing the VPncy to Clinton would be a good move. And in any case she doesn't really bring any more electability to the table.
Someone new and well known. that'll probably be Jim Webb.
January 4, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, and By the Time I Get to Phoenix is a great tune, too!
Kevin Russell Cook
January 4, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Though, we'll see if Richards just stays in this debate just to attack Obama as a Hillary proxy. You can bet she's trying to cut a deal as we speak, or already has, the way he was sucking up to her.
Btw, on Webb, I just through that name out there becasue he's recent and has the right CV. but I seriously doubt Webb would be the pick.
January 4, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? All the scuttlebutt out of Iowa, from actual caucus goers and local media was exactly the opposite of your scenario instead suggesting Richardson/Obama overtures. New York Times blog today did a roundup of that:
from January 4, 2008, A Richardson-Obama Deal? Some Caucus-Goers Thought So, By Jeremy Peters
January 4, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but that's not been confirmed as far as I know, it's just rumored.
Besides, you have to decouple what Richardson does in debates, and how his so-called followers vote.
It's a mistake to think someone like Richardson can really steer votes to Clinton in Iowa, even if he wanted to. Early polls weeks ago showed his supporters would break for Obama and Edwards. His support nationwide is marginal, and not exactly loyal soldiers.
What's known is Richardson has been kissing up to Hillary through several debates, whether his supporters like her or not. He's not doing that for his people, but for Hillary and for himself personally. He doesn't really care about his supporters outside of New Mexico anyways. They don't put him in office or hold any power over him in a week or so. He knows he'll never be President. Knew it going in.
So, he may very well continue fluffing Hillary, if he's got an angle. She'll back some border reform legislation for him later or something.
Or, he could cut a deal with Obama I suppose.
It all depends on what's happening behind the scenes. But he's not running to win, and never was, that's for sure.
January 4, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the Webb idea. He would be able to be an effective campaigner, and would be able to guard Obama's flank against the attacks from the Right.
Richardson.... I've just never gotten why he's still around. I think he'd have the CV for Sec. of State, but so does Biden and I like Joe better in that role.
January 4, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But some are now arguing that Obama's red-blue synthesis calls for his welcoming as his veep none other than...Joe Lieberman."
Raising up the Lieberman boogeyman? Who in the bloody hell is pushing THIS nonsensical crap? Hillary's minions?
It sounds just like the rest of the silly stuff they throw against whatever willing wall is recruited to run yet another stick test.
I guess that there may be some "progressives" who are unaware of the far more logical rumors that Lieberman will be McCain's VP. Here's the latest on that from Shmuel Rosner:
"McCain left "my favorite Democrat" back in New Hampshire to carry on the good work. The mention of Joe Lieberman of Connecticut brings cheers from the crowd here in Iowa. Two weeks ago Lieberman announced his endorsement of the Republican McCain - a pretty astonishing move for someone who ran for vice president seven years ago on the Democratic ticket alongside Al Gore (as well as the first Jew to contend for that high office). And now the rumors that nobody confirms are spreading, and have reached all the way to senior officials in Jerusalem: Lieberman may also be McCain's running mate."
http://tinyurl.com/32ajje
The Clintonittes are also pushing the Iowa is sooooo irrelevent meme.
In addition to the derisive post-Iowa sniffing by Mark Penn et al linked to on TPM, this from Bill in NH this am (via MYDD):
" Oh yeah, and he got in a little dig at Iowa: 'New Hampshire is going to be given the chance to prove that you are the first primary'."
What if they lose NH, too? On to Nevada and SC telling those electorates that white NH doesn't represent the REAL America like they do?
January 4, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I caught that sentence of Gitlin's too:
Pretty hard to believe, since Obama supported Lamont against Lieberman. Obama isn't stupid. We indeed ought to have some suspicions about who those "some" are.
"The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
January 5, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie.
"We indeed ought to have some suspicions about who those "some" are."
The premise of Lieberman being considered as Obama's VP isn't within spitting distance of the realm of possibility from the POV of either entity. The only bonehead I can think of who is clueless enough to suggest such a notion is Obama "advisor" Dennis Ross.
January 6, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama gets the nomination he should nominate a woman as his VP.
There are a couple of Democratic governors -- from Western states -- who would be excellent choices.
It would be one way to help convince life-long Democratic women, like me, that he really is seeking to lead the country past the old politics of "culture war" -- so much of which has been based in fear of the changing role of women in our society and economy -- rather than just exploiting that fear in new and more subtle ways.
January 5, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama gets the nomination he should choose the best, most qualified person regardless of gender. He should choose someone who can balance his qualities in order for us to win.
The whole concept of a woman just because it should be a woman really is just self-defeating and nonsensical. In fact, if he chose Hillary, I think it would ensure a loss for the Democratic ticket.
He needs someone with foreign policy and military creds as well as maturity. I support Obama, but it is certainly not because I believe it is time for a black person to be president. Although I do believe it is time, we also had to wait for the right person. I believe that we have found him.
PS: Can you spell Geraldine Ferraro?
Jan
January 5, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the reference to Ferraro means what? That you think she was a detriment to the ticket? That you fear a woman on the ballot will weaken Obama's appeal?
If you really want change, you have to have courage.
Whose the big daddy with military "creds" who you think Obama will need to make his candidacy a little safer?
January 5, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geraldine Ferraro was an unqualified choice. She was chosen because of her gender rather than what she could offer as a VP. That is what I was referencing.
I think that Wesley Clark could fit the bill of military experience; Bill Richardson for executive and broad governmental and foreign policy experience. I'm not saying there might not be a woman with exellent credentials, but I am not aware of any and I don't think the search should be limited to a specific gender, ethnic background or race. I don't think that means I have no courage.
I don't want Rudy or John or Mitt, or any other republican choosing one more Supreme Court Justice; I don't want them in charge of our army, and I don't want them making public policy. If we are going to win it has to be because we have chosen the best without limiting our candidates.
Jan
January 6, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
<gackh>How about Condi?</gackh>
January 6, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean "Mushroom Cloud Condi?" The same one who was Security Adviser for the 911 fiasco? The one who read the "Bin Ladin determined to strike the US brief and ignored it?
Er...that's not the kind of "experience" or "credentials" we need either.
Jan
January 7, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The very same.
January 7, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, Todd, we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves in the speculation about a VP, when based on only the Iowa caucuses (OK, there are the polls too). We need to really examine Obama's positions and past actions to make sure he's the absolutely best Dem candidate we've got running. I admire his ability to inspire, and as you say that's an "absolute prerequisite," but we should remember in itself it's not enough.
There's no need to rush this. I don't support Hillary, but her comments about thoroughly vetting our candidate are spot on.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
January 7, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink