Obama needs someone with national "gravitas." In the few months that will remain, he will have to define himself for the American people, and his VP will have to have a record already established and name recognition. I, too, like some of the younger governors and senators, but they are only known in their own states. There isn't time to bring the people up to speed on TWO candidates.

Picking a governor from a state we need for electoral votes is also a questionable call. Barack's going to have to win this a different way, just as he has won the nomination: with registration of young and previously disenfranchised voters, and a sweep of new ideas. I like Edwards for anti-big business and southern appeal (but he didn't help Kerry much, did he?) I love Biden. We should relish his honesty, though he'd be hard for the "handlers" to handle (but don't we want to get rid of handlers?)
I think previously commenters have made a good case for Dodd.

I'm a fan of Hillary's, but I can truly see the handwriting on the wall (from the very BEGINNING of this campaign), and therefore voted for Obama in the CA primary. I agree with previous writers who raise the caution: do NOT, under any circumstances, pull a woman like Sebelius out of the hat. She's little known, lackluster, and any woman put in instead of Hillary will make some women furious. Hillary's the one who fought the fight. Don't put another woman in there and expect women to accept it easily.

I do love Pat Schroeder. She's amazing.
The end.

Posted at May 28, 2008 9:42 PM in response to Veepstakes Open Thread

Hi Everyone -
I'm an older white woman who loves Hillary, but voted in California for Barack.
I was a teenager in the 60s, when the drive toward the civil rights legislation made me ashamed, proud, aware, made me a citizen of this place, with a sincere desire to rectify the damage we'd done to this nation by attempting to undo the wrong of the founders: creating an imperfect union.
When my own children couldn't get college scholarships, we said "OK, we've got some work to do," assuming as we hoped, that some of those scholarships we're going to kids who had a greater financial need.
Barack's appeal to me, has been his mantra: that all kids are our kids.
If you watched the Bill Moyer's special on the Kerner report and were reminded of the dire misery still existing in this country, did it take you to the Reagan years?
While we watched, jaws hanging down, a whole generation of people bought into the theory that enabling business to conduct itself virtually without restriction, was appropriate. This fostered a national selfishness that made us ignore the problems of the less fortunate.
When I scroll down through California ballot measures, I vote against the ones which are supported by the (Howard Jarvis) Taxpayer Coalitions. Jarvis is gone, but the coalitions live on.
We won't pay for roads. We won't pay for improvements. We won't pay for schools. Add to this the lunacy of the "faith based" drivel by Bush (who really stands out, drivel-wise). HIS approach says that the government should support faith-based organizations that do ----- the work the American government has abnegated ----- mental health care, social services, before and after school care, educational enrichment.
I've spent a lifetime working for nonprofits, and they offer lean and modest, knee-jerk solutions to crawling, invasive and overwhelmeing social problems.
We need a government that will admit that all kids are our kids. Actually, we need someone to say, "Let's raise taxes." It's part of Reagan's clever evil that he managed to turn "taxes" into a word no politician could say.
We need to create new industries, re-employ our people, educate our children, and there's nothing about it that's racial, although the failure to do this has hurt the people who are in need, the most. And many of those people, are people who are black.
We can't change this until we agree to make the financial sacrifices necessary to bolster our society in its most important missions. And if this generation agrees to do that, under Barack's leadership, then the financial parity once supported by our society, would go a long, long way towards curing what ails us.
If the person at the next desk over, at work or at school, is a different color, you'll relate to him and make friends with him, because you're in the room together, tackling the same problems. If he can't sit at the next desk because we won't support him getting there, then we will never get to know him, and share something with him, and our reality will be immeasurably harmed.

Posted at April 2, 2008 6:13 PM in response to Bursting the Elite Bubble

Hi Everyone.
STOP IT!
Read about the war, the signing statements, argue about whether or not the house leadership should have impeached Bush, the worst president in our history.
I'm just as taken by this kind of political, reality TV, as everyone (I read these comments, after all). Let's change the dialogue, and talk about the incredible peril our country is in.

Posted at March 27, 2008 5:16 PM in response to Chelsea Clinton is a brat

Hi Everyone -
I TOLD you I was crabby.
Mr. clearthinker: in the California primary (yes, I like our female senators, too), I voted for Obama.
It's easy to assume older women are stuck with little Gloria Steinem stars in their eyes. But I'm not one of them. My reference to white men voting for Obama instead of Hillary goes back to a comment I made several weeks ago.
I actually think it's harder to be racist, in this campaign, than sexist, because stereotypical language is monitored for racism, but not for sexism (witness the flow of it from "news" sources).
Therefore, I voted Obama for one particular reason: being a fine candidate, (as I believe Hillary is, as well), I think the rather evil republican machine can do less to hurt Obama, than they can to hurt Hillary.
I voted Obama because it is critical that we turn our national consciousness around.
He appears to be a fine man. Sure hope so.
The rancor, the bitterness, the name-calling, that exists around Hillary Clinton is quite influenced by sexism. Perhaps I'm sympathtic to her dilemma, like a lot of "older" women, because I have seen it in workplaces for many years. The level of venom with which people launch their attacks on her, is an emotional level, not a rational level.
You and I could go toe to toe on fine points of each of these candidates, and both of them have fine points. But anger: anger's different. It has affected this dialogue since HIllary announced her candidacy, and I can only conclude the reasons behind it are emotional.
When I voted for Barack, because I thought he had a better chance to win, I did it as women often do things: with a lump in my throat, and some sorrow in my heart: I like HIllary better, but I've come to the conclusion that this country is not yet ready to elect a woman president.
Women make "greater good" decisions for their whole lives.
So that's what I did.
Maybe that's the way it will all end up. The thought of an African-American being elected president will make me cry just as hard with joy, as the thought of a woman being president.
Getting rid of the republicans -- the heart of the matter.

Posted at February 20, 2008 5:59 PM in response to Obama's Victory Speech...

It’s a Crabby Night for Hillary Women.
OK, so we all watch MSNBC, because we’re political junkies, and we have to talk this out. We listen to them and shake our heads.
So therefore, we have all memorized Barack’s stump speech.
For years, we listened to pundits (and before that, newspeople), whining about the stump speech. Well, we’re in a unique position this year, because WE have all memorized the stump speech.
So, I was dismayed tonight, not that Barack jumped in with his speech, as the MSNBC wags liked to point out, because Hillary wasn’t “polite” enough to concede. I was dismayed because MSNBC jumped to Barack in the midst of Hillary’s speech, and then went on to carry ALL of Barack’s remarks. Every, last, wonderful and enlightening minute, exactly as before (except I think tonight he left out the cute part about the republicans whispering their support on the campaign trail. I’m fond of that part.)
I’m also beyond tired at Tim Russert and his buddies increasingly referring to all Hillary supporters as older women. I’m going to have to stop dying my hair. I am, unfortunately, a woman who before this perceived myself as middle aged. Now I’m on my way out.
Look: I love the fact that this is exciting. I love the fact that Barack has raised the excitement of the political debate. I love the fact that young people are excited, that white men who would never vote for Hillary because she’s a woman might vote for Barack, that African-Americans and Latinos are lining up for the democrats. I actually think Barack could win this, because of his stirring rhetoric and the sound caring that clearly backs up his rhetoric.
But I’ve been sitting here since Reagan, for God’s sake, writing my congresspeople; I’ve been railing against the direction this country’s taken for virtually my whole life. I don’t need Barack to raise me to a new level of consciousness. I’m conscious, all right? Where has everyone else been? Wait, Hillary’s been at it for 30 years. Hmmmm. That’s about right. That’s about how long I’ve been at it.
The last eight years have been just disgusting.
Let’s not forget that the rancor we’re bringing to this exciting democratic contest must be directed appropriately toward the republicans who have sat in their seats, for the sake of power, and supported a bad war, a failing economy, the ruin of programs that can help people in this country, for the sake of rich people getting richer, selfish interests getting stronger, and fundamentalist ideas getting center stage when their share of the stage should be comparable to everyone else’s ideas, in a democratic society.
The democrats were mistaken not to impeach Signing-Statement-Bush.
But let’s not forget that every democratic representative who has continued to do business in this country, has been fighting a republican majority that devastated this country. Making compromises, making deals, making do – -- - I admire them all, in this hapless quest. Let’s not forget who’s caused this misery.
Tell Barack he didn’t need to wake me up. I haven’t slept for years.
Sort of, like Hillary.

Posted at February 20, 2008 1:59 AM in response to Obama's Victory Speech...

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should put their money where their mouths are, seek real change, and unite together as a ticket.
We cannot afford to lose this election in November.
Every single insult within the Democratic community, real or implied, colorful or nicely shaded, discomfits the public and removes the focus from the terrible reign of Republican mismanagement, and web of Republican lies, that have shamed us in the world community, and should have shamed us more in our own, national heart.
One of the strongest arguments for electing Obama is the fact that his election would be a testimony to the world that we can turn away from past mistakes. I’ve thought, through these past few years, that the only way we could redeem ourselves in the international community would have been with a resounding impeachment of George Bush. We didn’t do that, to my regret. But we could do it with this election.
Obama is an exceptionally intelligent man. (Wouldn’t that be a wonderful change of pace?) He would bring to this office the international understanding more prevalent in our younger, educated citizens. Global concerns must be part of our thinking going forward. Uncomfortable in a debate, he’s electrifying as a speaker. He appears to be thoughtful and measured in his understanding. He’s shown his own dedication to democratic ideals by returning to Chicago with his education, and battling on the front lines of local policy.
One of the strongest arguments for electing Hillary is her long experience in the political underworld. She, also, brings a different face to American leadership; as a matter of fact, I feel as a woman that there are tremendous prejudices working against her, as well. But she also brings a woman’s understanding to the domestic issues that are apparent and shocking in this country. I think many women recognize this understanding in her debates and in her speeches.
Hillary is also someone I’d be reluctant to tangle with. She is steely and gritty in her address to the issues, and in her competition with other candidates. I don’t doubt that we will need a steely presence in our address to the many issues, domestic and international, that threaten to overturn the American ship of state.
What would such an odd pairing of two people who clearly detest each other more with each passing day do for the country?
It would indicate to the world community, including our own national community, that we really do seek change, that we really do reject the past years of selfish and belligerent policies.
It would, practically speaking, solidify the interest and support of several blocks of voters: African Americans, Women, Latinos, Progressives, and those moderates who weren’t too horrified to vote for a Woman and an African American.
Here’s what it would require.
It would require two people who are probably serious egotists and power-hungry to boot, to actually stand by what they are saying. They would have to learn to squelch all their own anger and part of their own ambition, for the greater good. It would require that they stand on their own pretense of wanting change, and wanting it so much that they were willing to take a revolutionary step to heal some of the hurt in this country. It would require that they unite their message before this campaign dissolves into the destructive rancor that will make this election unwinnable for the democrats.
I actually think these two candidates are good enough people to pull this off. I like them both. I would like each of them to represent me in the world and in my country. Bill would have to go away, and let Hillary do this. The candidates would have to doff their communal hats to John Edwards, and sign him on for whatever post would allow him to sweep away the special interests that own our national policies on health and welfare.
I challenge them to do this, and do it soon. I’d vote for them and work for them.
I have grave doubts that either of these candidates can win on their own, but I believe they’d be unstoppable, together.
The simple fact of their unity, early in this election process, would be politically explosive. I challenge them to do it.

Posted at January 30, 2008 2:29 PM in response to Edwards Dropping Out Discussion

Oleeb:
I agree heartily with many of the things you say.

I also resent being in a position where I am actually sitting in my kitchen thinking about where my one, individual Super Tuesday vote should be placed, strategically, rather than going with my heart on which candidate I prefer.

One thought on the electability of Obama: I think the "young" and "inexperienced" critiques may have less clout in the general election, if McCain is the opposing candidate. "Young" can also be "fresh," and stand for change by its very nature (whether valid or not); but it has a better melody when the "experienced" candidate is 72 years old. For all his gravitas and genuine accomplishment, McCain would have a hard time representing substantive change. And change is what many Americans, of all persuasions, are looking for.

I also think it's easier to criticize a woman (witness what's happened) than an African-American, as the words Chris Matthews and his friends have been applying (quiet, stereotypical words like "shrill," for example), would rain considerably more hell-fire on the press if they were stereotypical words being used re: an African-American candidate. The press coverage of Hillary has been laced with such descriptive words, and it's part of the angry support of women, that they have felt each such barb.

Posted at January 27, 2008 2:42 PM in response to The Clintons, Atwater, Rove, and the Future

I'm in the wind, because I like all three candidates.

I am a woman who thinks Hillary is competant and would make a good chief executive. I have been inclined to support her, throughout this mess.

They've all played tricks during this campaign, and anyone who thinks they haven't, is delusional. The press, the media, the oh-my-god-talking-heads have pilloried Hillary for four years, and that makes me angry and resentful and inclined to vote for her. But...

...that same resentment makes me believe that Hillary is so damaged by this long, sad campaign, that she couldn't win in the general election. Imagine what will happen to her when the republicans, who have perfected lies and distortions, get a "Go" button on Hillary. Every moment of Bill's mistakes will be fair game. Every revision of reality will become a talking point for the mean spirit which pervades our political process.

I'm worried that an African-American will have a hard time winning in America, but I actually think it would be harder for a woman, particularly (I'm sorry, Hillary) this woman.

Listen to Obama's speech in South Carolina. I actually repeated, with his audience, "Yes, we can." Perhaps those of us residing in the Super Tuesday states should give him a shot. It's been a long time since we've been offered Hope.

Posted at January 27, 2008 12:28 PM in response to The Clintons, Atwater, Rove, and the Future

I wish I could particpate in this discussion with the kind of financial acumen you all apparently bring. I will instead add what only a nearly 60 liberal can throw in the pot: supply side economics doesn’t work. Deregulation of industries created a selfish culture that has destroyed the chances of countless Americans in the Middle Class. I say Middle Class with a certain blushing affection. I AM the middle class. I am college educated, my husband has degrees up the wootsie, my kids have PhDs, I’ve got a sticker for my gas-friendly car. My sister, a teacher, is 64, renting a small apartment, and she’s in $20,000 of debt to companies who are charging her 29% interest. I’ve been laid off from my last two jobs by school systems, and bring my grand intelligence to a part time secretarial job while I collect a partial unemployment claim. My husband is gray with the responsibilities of belief and hope, trying for many years to keep a small business afloat while he travels, trying to raise money from arrogant investors, until he topples into the house at night. We’d sell our house, but now we can’t, as it’s all we have – no savings, pensions or IRAs, and the house is borrowed against past its value for fix-ups, and the question is becoming, will we live long enough to sell it? My children and their babies all live far away, because they couldn’t afford to stay in California. One of them is a college professor living in student housing because it’s the only way he’ll ever be able to save for a house. My other kids bought a house in Michigan, then of course were unable to sell it because who could sell a house in Michigan? They’re now renting a house where their jobs took them. We carry a ridiculous insurance policy that won’t do a spit of good if we ever get sick, because someone who doesn’t care will deny us coverage. I haven’t been to a doctor in 15 years. I am well educated, well off, better off than millions of other people in this country, and awash with gratitude that I had a lovely family. I don’t expect there is any hope in my final years. All of our rule-following, all of our buying into the system, has led us to a reality we won’t be able to handle. And I have a sweet family to help me. What about people who don’t? What about people who are alone? I’m believing that we need to spend the next years leveling the playing field, and rejecting the self-serving economics that allowed the rich and the corporate to indulge their greed while the rest of us just paid our taxes with a smile and thought it would all come out. Gee, I’m depressed.

Posted at January 23, 2008 6:10 PM in response to The Economy Just Keeps Going “Bump!”

I, too, want a chance to vote for Edwards in California. My problem is that I want to vote for all of them: for Hillary, who beats her drums with fact after fact, making me believe that she knows enough about the system to actually affect change; for Obama, who spins similar ideas with hopeful oratory, a leader in demeanor, intellect and judgment. But Edwards – Edwards sings a louder song, and I’m in the mood to scream with him. I really believe we can’t make change in this country unless we’re angry enough to reject the interests which have governed our policy since Reagan. (I spit out his name: he institutionalized selfishness in this country). Do we need Edwards’ fire and anger to break the hold of the insurance and other special interests? We might.

Posted at January 21, 2008 11:48 AM in response to Senator Edwards' Next Act?