FYI, I gather that Wes Clark *cannot* be SecDef until 2010.

His active military service is too recent (10 U.S.C. 113). I am told this rule has to do with enforcing some nutty idea about 'Civilian Control' of the military :) and was enacted since Marshall served in the post.

I have for the years now been interested in a Dem promoting a "Best of America" cabinet -- as a strategy and a campaign element.

Though it could be risky, announcing cabinet appts during the campaign, as part of laying out a vision of Restoring America or somesuch, might be quite compelling. Imagine a rally headlined not just by some surrogate, but by "X, slated to be Obama's Secretary of State"...

Posted at May 9, 2008 3:06 PM in response to Obama's dream cabinet pool

Actually he's improved mightily on that front since 04.

He's been a near-constant campaigner for Dems around the country since then, and has honed his debate skills by taking the 'voice of reason' (i.e., non-conservative commentator/analyst) gig on Fox news.

He'll never be Obama-charismatic, of course.

But if he and Barack work well together (who knows?) I think he'd be a solid asset on the ticket. More nationally vetted than Webb, whip-smart, and overall very compatible with the *Change* motif, based on his own campaign rhetoric from last go-round.

And as he's a prominent Clinton supporter, picking Wes could be seen as a fence-mending move.

Not a bad man to creatively dismantle the Cheney VP legacy either.

Just my 2 cents....

Posted at May 7, 2008 2:33 PM in response to Spokesperson For Wes Clark Denies He Urged Hillary To Quit

Great stuff. Thanks for posting.

Obama's campaign should consider using part of this endorsement in a PA television ad. Maybe along with a PA-friendly surrogate driving home the same message.

Posted at April 17, 2008 4:56 PM in response to Must Read - Philly Daily News Endorsement

when two (or more) parties attend a political debate, and one party brings their position papers and philosophy texts while the other brings well-crafted agitprop and brass knuckles, things are not likely to turn out well for the former

You make good points here and above.

I'm curious what you make of my thoughts (above) re: combining principled politics with hardball (short of demonization and contentless attacks) as well as a fearless calling out of the opposition?

I'm not saying Obama is doing or will do this, but somebody could. Dean or Clark surely could take a run at it. Obama might be able to as well. He certainly has the rhetorical skills and -- it appears -- the heart for it. I worry that he hasn't yet been through his Edwards/Gore "I'm my own man now and damn the consultants" moment. No way anyone pulls this off without taking major risks.

That is what we need, desperately. Real courage and leadership.

Posted at May 23, 2007 12:41 PM in response to Where Is The Love?

forgot links, and the philosopher's name:

Harry Frankfurt of Princeton University

Bullshit (wikipedia)

Complete text of essay

Posted at May 23, 2007 11:27 AM in response to Where Is The Love?

I agree we're in deep trouble, which is why this election matters so much.

But -- and I say this as someone who has been skeptical of Obama and in some ways still am -- cultivating empathy and respect for others isn't necessarily about limiting your tactics to exhorting your opponents to do the same. I can imagine a leader who calls on everyone to put themselves in others shoes AND plays hardball. Such a leader would need to carefully avoid any demonization of the opposition. But given what's at stake, empathy and respect demand that we pull out all the stops to change the course of our nation -- short of feeding the basest tactics of the struggle by embracing them as our own.

I imagine this as being a bit like Bill Clinton's early speech (was it his inaugural?) where he eloquently proclaimed that we needed the strengths and abilities of all Americans, without excluding anyone, to face the future. The difference (and the main thing that I'm trying to figure out about the candidates, the main thing that I distrust about Hillary) would be having a real, instinctive and active embrace of the grassroots follow from that speech. Not just a call to think nice thoughts and support me while I do all this great stuff in DC, and some of you go do some kinda service stuff, that's great -- but a real call to citizenship, to stand together, to confront our national failings of recent years and take action.

One last thought on this. How will such an idealistic campaign stand against the agit-prop and brass knuckles of the Right, you ask? By calling it out for what it is, loudly and clearly and repeatedly in terms so unmistakable that they slice through the media filters and reach into the culture. That means controversy, riding it out, getting beyond it, and changing the terms of the debate.

My suggestion is for the president, whoever it ends up being, to use the term Bullshit in a major live speech on TV, and to explain the delightfully head-clearing definition of this term promulgated by : bullshit is worse than lies, because lies can -- perhaps -- be proven false. Spreaders of bullshit cultivate the irrelevance of the truth by saying anything -- true, false or in between -- they can think of to manipulate the emotions and opinions of the audience. Define that for Americans, point out how pervasive it has become in our political discourse, ride out the controversy, and move on. Repeat with variations (not more obscenity, just more bluntness that cuts through the filters).

So who can do something like that (I'm not attached to the term, just the results)? Clark or Dean, certainly. But we may not have either of them running. Edwards? Not sure, but I think so. Obama? ditto. Hillary? Actually, I can see her doing it and pulling it off, but I have a harder time seeing her make the initial decision that it's worth the risk -- essential actually -- to stoke up a little controversy and rally the public, a solid majority at least, to her side.

Posted at May 23, 2007 11:22 AM in response to Where Is The Love?

I don't blame you.

CauseMix's destruction of that thread was so singleminded and infuriating that I will have great difficulty ever taking anything else by him with any seriousness whatsoever. It's sort of like the road-rager who follows you to your house after you cut them off on the freeway. He can never let it go.

He may be sincere, but he is sincerely in need of some other sparring partners, perhaps in the physical world, who meet his needs, so he doesn't have to mess things up here.

He's in fine form again in this thread. As one exasperated commenter noted "Again, you seem to be looking for a fight rather than discussion".

I will join you in ignoring the CauseMix response [schoolyard taunt, misbegotten assertion of the principle that assholes are essential to real democracy, hurt feelings assertion (that would be interesting), accusation of censorship, or generic petulant dismissal, as it may be.]

Posted at April 26, 2007 10:18 AM in response to The Case for Bureaucracy

ah, mea culpa, I missed the links at the bottom of your comment page stepping back through time.

This is not the only thing you've done in 3 weeks.

My apologies for the mischaracterization there.

The rest of my comment stands.

Posted at April 13, 2007 3:44 PM in response to What's with the sexualized threats against women?

DOOD, wtf??

I notice that your entire lifetime contribution (assuming of course that kozmik is your first handle, which is probably a bad assumption) to TPM is that today you have defended Imus with the brilliant analysis:

All the knee jerk fools have done is kick the most moderate radio show host out, and left all the real bad guys to absorb his market

and here you have worked like a demon to destroy the entire discussion of this post.

After being a member for 3 weeks this is the one issue worth commenting on, that all of this pain and fear and outrage on the part of women getting hatred spewed at them isn't worthy of discussion. Hmmm.

Why are you so damn threatened by this topic??

And tho I'm sure you've got some erudite put-downs to dish out to me, once you've gotten that taken care of, you've now pretty well established your impressive argument. Why don't you stand down and let someone else speak without trying to shut them up?

(and honestly, if you had more than one thing to say and weren't so annoying about saying it 20 times, I would not be asking you to quiet down.)

Posted at April 13, 2007 3:39 PM in response to What's with the sexualized threats against women?

Nudnik:

Biography

M.J. Rosenberg works in Washington supporting US efforts to advance an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. Previously, he worked on Capitol Hill for various Democratic members of the House and Senate for 15 years. He was also a Clinton political appointee at USAID. In the early 1980s, he was editor of AIPACs weekly newsletter Near East Report. After the signing of the Oslo Accords, Rosenberg broke with the AIPAC position and became a strong advocate of the "two-state solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

You sure hit the nail on the head, that MJ is one ignorant bastard.

Why doesn't he talk about what he knows, and leave the Middle East to experts like you?

Posted at April 13, 2007 9:27 AM in response to David Brooks: The Neocon On Israel