I noticed a few people have listed Vilsack as a possible SoA pick. I'm from Iowa and, although I like the man, I don't think he's the right guy for that appointment. Just my opinion. Gephardt or Daschel would be better.

Posted at May 9, 2008 10:34 AM in response to Obama's dream cabinet pool

Although I don't share the enthusiasm for an E. Edwards pick as some in this thread, I completely disagree that either of those women are unqualified. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, politicization of these spots has been exactly the problem over the last eight years. Samantha Powers, for one, is more qualified than almost anyone currently working for the federal government. We need people like her--that are actually experts in the field they're appointed to--if we're going to undo the last eight years.

Posted at May 9, 2008 10:31 AM in response to Obama's dream cabinet pool

The most important thing about this individual endorsement has been missed:

Braley is potentially vulnerable in November. He's a first-termer and the Republicans think they can pick up his seat this year. Braley obviously agrees with the opinion (popular on this site) that an Obama nomination increases the likelihood of down-ticket success.

He could have waited for this decision to be made for him--like some supers are trying to do--to avoid alienating some Dems in his district. But instead he endorsed Obama. I think that is very telling.

Posted at April 30, 2008 4:17 PM in response to Obama To Pick Up Endorsement Of Super-Del Bruce Braley Today

Obama will win Iowa, Hillary will lose Iowa. It's that simple.

The nuts in the western third of the state (who continue to elect Steve King, which is more frightening than any Stephen King novel) will not come out in large numbers for McCain. He's not far enough right for them.

The blue central and eastern parts are the people who gave Obama a big win in the caucus. They got to see Hillary up close for months and didn't like it (she took third, remember). These are the people who have turned the entire state government and most congressional districts blue. Bordering Illinois could only make the eastern third even bluer for Obama.

On the other hand, Hillary will bring out all the far-right republicans in western Iowa (who despise her) and demoralize the fervent support Obama has in the rest of the state.

Polls have made this pretty obvious. Iowa will not be purple if Obama is the nominee, in my opinion. The state will be a lock for dems. McCain obviously thinks otherwise (remember he got smoked in the republican caucus) and I'm not sure what he's basing that on.

Posted at April 29, 2008 12:11 PM in response to McCain Airing Health Care Ad In Iowa

I don't think it's a stretch to say War Games is THE GREATEST MOVIE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

Seriously, though, it's one of my favorites--very underrated (assuming people remember it was made a quarter of a century ago).

Posted at April 28, 2008 10:40 AM in response to Totally Obliterating Iran: The "Foolish and Dangerous" Plan of Dr. Hillary Strangelove

I hope (and suspect) that off camera Obama not-so-subtly implied that "you need me now, you'll need me once I'm in office, and I won't oblige unless you stop with the BS."

Fox's ratings have been slipping and by November the network won't be getting all the friendly exclusives from the executive branch. If the president and his/her subordinates completely ignore a news channel it's screwed. I'm sure they'll continue to be slanted right in a disgusting way, but even the wingnuts will tune out if it seems Fox is screaming at an empty sea.

If Obama offered such an ultimatum, I think he played it perfectly--secure more reasonable coverage in the future without alienating voters. That still doesn't explain the advisor's comment, though.

Posted at April 27, 2008 10:34 AM in response to Obama Doesn't "Take Fox On," After All

First, it would be wonderful if that advice could be given to more than a few people around here (assuming they'd take it, which is a terrible assumption).

Second, the original post is absurd. I've been amazed at how neutral Josh has been during this campaign. I have to assume Mike's view of his comments is skewed by the clear Obama-favored tilt of the anonymous posters.

In the outside chance the original poster decides to take you up on your offer, I'm sure the examples cited would be appropriatly critical but not overly so, which would be necessary to show bias. There have been plenty of posts critical of Obama that I've disagreed with, but I don't have a large enough capacity for hyperbole to allege an alterior motive.

Posted at April 22, 2008 11:49 PM in response to Josh Marshall needs to stop his bias

I don't agree with 99% of the posts on this site that claim TPM has some sort of hidden agenda. But it does occasionally seem like certain posts are put up for the sole purpose of pissing people off. It's a good way to keep up readership--people always return to see what new thing will anger them. A number of press people do this and it works.

I'm not claiming this is what's going on here (I think TPM is better than that), but with the big majority Obama supporters have, some posts make me wonder.

Posted at April 20, 2008 11:37 PM in response to Obama: McCain Would Be Better Than Bush

Dan Abrams was referring to him as "Teflon John" last night, which I thought was fairly clever as well. It's also the first time I've seen anyone in the media directly say McCain is getting a free ride.

Posted at April 9, 2008 1:46 PM in response to How the GOP Ticked Off African-Americans Today

It's nice to see some quantitative evidence for what a lot of us have been saying all along. I honestly don't see how anybody can claim Obama isn't the better candidate down-ticket.

Posted at April 8, 2008 8:23 PM in response to DSCC Chief Schumer: We'll Keep Republicans On Defense All Over The Map