View Story | 1037 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Clark
Webb
Dodd
by lawprofessor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:17:07 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
He's become a Clinton partisan lacky
Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies
by dansac on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:31:46 PM PDT
I think Wes Clark would accept if offered.
"Beware the terrible simplifiers" Jacob Burckhardt, Historian
by notquitedelilah on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:41:18 PM PDT
...would need to codemn the tactics of the Clinton campaign first. Hardly likely to do that in the present poisonous atmosphere.
My list:
If its really a new kind of politics then any of three above would act professionally during the campaign and would be a credit to the US and American politics when they took up office.
Malcolm
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
by malc19ken on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:09:58 PM PDT
A lot of the Clintonistas, when she finally caves, are going to be angry that there won't be a woman on the ticket. Obama can change that pretty easily...
by irativesfo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:18:51 PM PDT
True she'd be missed as majority leader, but her district can probably be counted on to elect a solid democrat in her place, and there are quite a few dems who could take over for her as ML in the house?
She also has fundraising cred and might be a way to win back the women voting block that will be pretty grumpy at losing Hillary?
I dunno just throwing it out there.
Of course I believe in America -I just don't think I live there anymore.
by obsessiveprogressive on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:54:16 PM PDT
Dude: imagine it.
"Madam Speaker; Madam Vice President..."
I gotta stop there because I think I may cry. OH HOW I WANT THIS.
"The Crunch? How dare you speak to me of the Crunch! You know nothing of the Crunch! You've never even been to the Crunch!" -Saboo on The Mighty Boosh
by PomperaFirpa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:26:44 PM PDT
Speaker Hoyer? No thanks.
McCain - Ready to follow Osama to the gates of Hell but apparently not into Pakistan.
by khassani on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:28:54 PM PDT
Wooing Hillary voters with Nancy on the ticket is a lost cause.
The VP spot has to be seen as a stepping stone to the Presidency after Obama's 2nd term. Important to keep that in mind.
"It's hard to think straight when you have a crooked mind." ~ Snidely Whiplash
by Bugsby on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:42:59 PM PDT
by DWinFLA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:35:33 AM PDT
I hug your list. I smooch it on the cheek. I pat it on the head. I will snug it and feed it and name it George. It is the perfect list for me! Yay! I will quote it with abandon.
I love Kathleen Sebelius because I'm from Kansas and she was elected right after I left the state, convinced that it would never get its head out of its ass... oh, a beam of light is Kathleen Sebelius. And I have been half in love with Janet Napolitano since she showed up on NPR's "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" and was HILARIOUS. And Chris Dodd is, well, Chris Dodd.
by PomperaFirpa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:24:59 PM PDT
She gets my vote. Because her collaborative skills are nothing short of amazing and she's one persuasive lady! She was brilliant wooing moderate Republican leaders to flip and join the party and Kansas is on a solid footing thanks to her leadership.
Only downside I can see is that Kansas will want to keep her where she is, she's doing great things for the state.
by Bugsby on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:24:44 PM PDT
Except you're right we would miss her and cringe at the thought of who might replace her. Also, McCaskill is quite fiesty and could get Missouri to go Dem, probably before Kansas, although maybe this year is the year with Obama. I think choosing a woman would greatly help bring Dems together for November.
by annie on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:49:53 PM PDT
And I'd hope she could be active and busy as President of the Senate. Her skills at getting moderate Republicans to flip... would be ideally applied there, wouldn't they?
-5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!
by neroden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:54:21 AM PDT
voted and worked for her----but her hubby has financial and investment issues and it could be a rerun of Ferraro in 1984. These were raised constantly in her races against Talent and Blunt.
Who needs it?
As I sail against the tide, for what I believe is right.
by Toes on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:48:50 PM PDT
Once Obama's the nominee, every effort will need to be made to heal all rifts with Clinton camp.
Clark is a natural way for the rival campaigns to bond.
More important, Clark is a perfect fit for Obama. Both opposed the war from the first. Both are super-smart. Both are wise progressives.
Clark has a masters in economics. And, of course, he brings unmatched national security credentials. He'd win the vice presidential debate.
by purple tiger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:31:33 PM PDT
and all the rove crap they have been throwing around? if he is to have any credibility he must abondon the hillary camp quick, come clean tomorrow by denouncing her outright. Chances of that happening "N'aat so much", in barat's accent.
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters" Solomon Short
by RedMask on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:39:51 PM PDT
Wesley Clark needs to condemn Hillary's tactics because why? So you feel better about him? As far as I know he hasn't made any public statements or engaged in any activity that would damage the Democratic Party, nor has he even criticized Obama (like, for example, having a tag line that describes him as a termite).
If the only knock on the guy you have is that he supported Hillary, then you better expand your horizons, Malcolm, because so did about half the Democrats voting in the primaries, and so will almost half the delegates in Denver. (Or maybe you want them all to renounce Hillary?)
The above political reality is exactly why it's very possible that a "Clintonista", as so many here like to term Hillary Clinton supporters, will in fact be the Veep nominee.
Wesley Clark is a class act and has a lot going for him.
Better start building those bridges now or we all lose in November.
by lewisclark on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:31:42 AM PDT
"Somewhere. Someone's god is laughing." - Three Days Grace
by Intercaust on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:11:58 PM PDT
I like him where he is right now, as my senator. Don't need another republican senator.
-8.75, -8.00
by DisNoir36 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:23:35 PM PDT
Barack Obama - I'll never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, it's a threat that should rally this country against our common enemies
by madgranny on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:28:43 PM PDT
Connecticut has a Republican gov, so a Dodd move would mean we'd be down BOTH senate seats from Conn.
We need Dodd to stay where he's needed most - to take over the reigns in the senate.
more bloggie goodness.... More foodie goodness...
by jeremybloom on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:31:14 PM PDT
just wanted to give him some real mojo [not mojoe], but on a later post I added Phil Bredesen, the governor of Tennessee.
And the state has two great college basketball teams.
by malc19ken on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:25:00 PM PDT
Go Barack Obama
by concerned on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:35:50 PM PDT
I think we want a progressive liberal Demoocrat, right? He's not that.
Acceptable as a solid, conservative Democratic Senator from Virginia but as a possible POTUS? No thanks.
by lewisclark on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:35:44 AM PDT
Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.
by The Raven on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:55:28 PM PDT
by Randall Sherman on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:31:00 PM PDT
by knicely on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:34:47 PM PDT
He shouldn't be offered it in the first place.
by mnguy66 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:19:12 PM PDT
the ticket makes sense. It would help foster party unity.
Obama/Richardson '08
by MikePhoenix on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:02:26 PM PDT
I haven't heard him among the mud-slinging lackeys, and I for one am not going to propose any loyalty tests. To do so would be to fly in the face of the history of compromise and ticket-balancing in our party and nation's history, a process which is intended to foster healing.
Clark in fact would be perfect in that he represents an inner part of the Clinton circle but has not been directly associated with the sniping at Obama. As such, he's one of the few really prominent Clinton supporters who could be added to the Obama ticket without apology.
Call me any ugly name you choose -- The steel of freedom does not stain. -- Langston Hughes
by TheCrank on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:04:25 PM PDT
but I have to admit he's a pretty bad campaigner. Then again, so is Richardson frankly. Clark could be a good unifying choice and provides the military cred.
Richardson would be a great Veep, too, but my only issue with putting him on the ticket is that I can't think of a better candidate for State.
Assuming Sebelius is a better speaker than we saw after the SotU (how could she not be?) I see a lot of plusses for her as well.
I'm not Red-state, small-state, black, rich, volvo-driving, latte-drinking, birkenstock-wearing, or caucus-going. What's your excuse for how *I* voted?
by Rorgg on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:14:02 PM PDT
Joe Biden would be even more awesome for Sec of State
"Instead of asking what you could do, you ought to have been asking what needs to be done."
by khaavren on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:36:22 PM PDT
Which is why originally he was my candidate for president. Then he developed the appalling ability to stick his foot in his mouth at every opportunity and I gave up. He'd be fantastic in the administration, though-- Secretary of State would be fabulous. (And I'm still pulling for John Edwards as Attorney General. The thought makes my heart beat all funny.)
The beard, incidentally, is bottled awesome. He TOTALLY needs to keep the beard.
by PomperaFirpa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:34:15 PM PDT
He has criticized Clark as not being ready to be CIC. As such, he should not be part of the ticket.
by mnguy66 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:20:17 PM PDT
VOTE DEM 08! I'm VT ConQuest, and I approve this message of HOPE and CHANGE that Barack Obama is spreading across America.
by VT ConQuest on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:21:49 PM PDT
I'm not sure if they rent him out
Proud author of DailyKos's 19 millionth comment! Kind of like winning the lottery, except not.
by SunWolf78 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:56:40 PM PDT
by Bugsby on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:26:12 PM PDT
...by his deep involvement in the 1997 Kosovo war.
I know that even is still seen by many Democrats and liberals as an unmitigated success. But a lot of troubling questions remain about why military force was used against civilian targets in the city of Belgrade (far from the front lines of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo).
We killed many civilians when we bombed the TV station, the power grid, and the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. This was, in essence, terror bombing for purposes of political coercion, not a legitimate campaign against military targets.
When Kosovo unilaterally declared independence recently, Clinton's statement celebrated this event with unmitigated triumphalism. Obama's statement was far more guarded, which to me suggests that he understands the moral ambiguities of the whole Kosovo situation.
by MaximusNYC on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:01:41 PM PDT
If it is true that Clark is marred by his involvement (leadership, really) in the Kosovo war, which I don't necessarily dispute, what general is not somehow compromised?
There are certainly some (myself included) who don't believe in military force as a legitimate tool of foreign policy, and for this group no general would be a legitimate option for VP. Your position seems to be that generals broadly are acceptable but small snafus--in war, the problems in Kosovo were small--can disqualify widely-respected public figures.
All military conflicts are rife with moral ambiguity, but some are clearer than others; the NATO involvement in Kosovo in 1997 was fairly clear in terms of right and wrong, and Clark was on the right side, regardless of some irregularities and civilian deaths.
You can chain me, torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind. -Gandhi
by New England Liberal Elitist on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:49:19 PM PDT
I don't think the right and wrong of the Kosovo conflict was at all clear. The problems were not mere "irregularities" -- it was a question of our fundamental military strategy, which was terror bombing for purposes of political coercion.
Stopping ethnic cleansing by Serbian military and paramilitary groups was a good goal... but we ended up being manipulated by the KLA, another paramilitary group with blood on its hands. Ultimately, innocent Serbian civilians ended up being ethnically cleansed from Kosovo. The whole situation is ugly, and our approach was and is deeply problematic.
by MaximusNYC on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:45:53 AM PDT
if he had the guts to risk being called judas by the serpent from the south, he'd deserve a place on the ticket
i'm so disappointed in wes staying with the clintons, i could cry
May George Bush rot in hell for what he has done to Abdul Hamid Al-Ghizzawi
by FilipinoMonkey on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:47:21 AM PDT
Voted with Bush too many times, including telco immunity. When you get right down to it, Webb is just more George Allen, just minus the bedsheet.
"This is a very difficult vote... but I cast it with conviction." --Hillieberman, 10/10/2002, voting AYE for the Bush-McCain-Lieberman-Exxon war.
by simca on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:35:50 PM PDT
He opposed Bush to his face on the Iraq war, and he is good on many issues.
He's probably about the best we can do in Virginia right now.
***
This is not really for the author of the comment I'm responding to, but for everyone.
Please don't say, "So-and-so (dem) is just like Such-and-such (repug)." That is virtually never true. (One possible exception is Liebermouse.)
It's this sort of false equation of dems with repugs that Nader preached in 2000 which got us eight years of misery and war instead of eight years of Al Gore.
Remember, Nader and many many others said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. That is ridiculous.
by nicejoest on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:48:34 PM PDT
not someone who is complicit in torture, or on the erosion of civil liberties. I see what you're saying, but we need a SOLID BREAK with Bush policies so we can make sure our electorate is fired up to turn out at the polls in November. It's also simply the right thing to do.
by simca on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:51:35 PM PDT
Obama carries the progressive electorate. We need someone like web to carry moderate dems, not to mention that Webb destroys McCains entire base (military).
Think it out a little before you just fire off some cliche.
by knicely on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:36:54 PM PDT
is negotiable to you. It's not to me.
Wake up, Democrats! Even some of our own see the Constitution as just so much toilet paper.
by simca on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:39:09 PM PDT
than just a magnet who attracts some particular political advantage to the nominee. It's somebody who very well may be called upon to serve as President of the United States.
Because of his FISA stance and other positions he's staked out I don't think it's wise for this country and our Constitution for Jim Webb to be in that position.
by lewisclark on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:49:21 AM PDT
Let me repeat: LIEBERMAN IS NOT A DEMOCRAT.
by irativesfo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:20:39 PM PDT
is snot! is snot! is snot!
Ahem. Sorry, couldn't resist. :0)
by Bugsby on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:31:09 PM PDT
Webb is obviously a major improvement on Macaca. And he's smart and well spoken. But his politics are not progressive and therefore he's absolutely not somebody I'd want to see become President of the United States.
That should be the #1 litmus test for anybody on this kind of list: Would you want to see this person serve as POTUS? He's fine as a Senator from Virginia, but Webb doesn't meet that higher standard.
by lewisclark on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:43:34 AM PDT
Go back and read Webb's quite populist comments on economics.
Not that I'd want him as VP, and the telco vote just frosts my ass. But that last sentence is just deranged foaming at the mouth.
If Bill Clinton was the first black president... why can't Obama be the first female president? -- wry twinger, DKos, 5 May '08
by ogre on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:10:10 PM PDT
i agree lawprofessor. it's going to be a white male. probably a white male with military experience, so that means Clark or Webb. i prefer Webb. i would bet money it will not be Richardson or Sebelius.
by tomanderson13 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM PDT
god forbid we would have 2 brown people running...
by fhqwgads on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:49:04 PM PDT
I wish that didn't matter, but I think we all know that it will. Obama alone is unprecedented enough. I think his running mate will have to look....ummmm... more traditional. Clark or Dodd are good choices. And I eagerly await the day when sexism and racism are phenomena that children are puzzled by when they read about them in history books, but we ain't there yet.
The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin
by Korkenzieher on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:09:08 PM PDT
"change" that the country is willing to undertake at one moment. That's why I've always felt the so-called "Dream Ticket" would never happen. Democrats, the real liberal wing of the party, finds the idea gorgeous and dream-worthy, but the rest of country wouldn't, imo.
by CeeusBeeus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:14:45 PM PDT
It's OK, I wasn't using my civil rights, anyway...
by JWSwift on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:17:28 PM PDT
And I think that that particular deal has already been made.
And, I think that such is a smart deal, because Obama needs to bolster his Latino appeal the most, thus Richardson.
Do you think that Richardson came out for Obama against the Clinton machine just for the hell of it?
by BonzoDogBand on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:02:22 PM PDT
I take him at his word.
If there'd been a deal to make, it would've been before the New Mexico and Texas primaries.
by TheCrank on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:05:25 PM PDT
I think that Richardson, as an Hispanic, was genuinely disgusted with Billary playing the race card.
Maybe that disgust was enough to make Richardson come out for Obama all by itself, but Obama DOES need to MIGHTILY improve his stance with USA Dem Hispanics.
The ONLY Dem block who would likely stay home with an Obama candidacy would be the USA Dem Hispanics.
A Richardson VP makes for a nice juicy apple to draw back the USA Dem Hispanics!
by BonzoDogBand on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:16:18 PM PDT
and Webb could be part of it.
The team needs to have wide appeal - just the VP is likely not enough.
by tari on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:10:33 PM PDT
that's not such a great idea - I'm glad he endorsed Obama, but the NM guv has a credibility deficit on a par with the Clintons. ```` peace
Basketball Diary - Will Obama Be the First Hoopster in the WhiteHouse?
by peace voter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:06:03 PM PDT
I think Richardson is an idealist
however, somehow richardson seems to fit as obama's veep...call it aesthetics
my love and respect for hillary should kick in any time now...
by memofromturner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:07:14 PM PDT
...I'm not imputing any deep Machiavellian motive in this particular instance, as the better move if the motivation were purely Richardson's own political gain would've been to endorse earlier. Obama can't have promised Richardson the veep slot on this basis; the card is worth too much relative to Richardson's contribution at this point. That Richardson still has VP on his mind, that's probably indisputable. Nevertheless the timing seems to be based on the factors Richardson articulated at the time of the endorsement.
by TheCrank on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:09:08 PM PDT
Anyone think Richardson would be a fantastic SoS?
| | | Keeping Hope Alive
by DigitalTruth on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:31:32 PM PDT
If Obama chooses him, he will be accused of playing politics and getting Bill's endorsement for a VP nod.
Obama has been doing decent with brushing off controversy so far, but this may be a bit too much of a hot potato.
by sharky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:25:12 PM PDT
a Richardson VP choice, everyone will have long forgotten how Richardson came out for Obama during "Wright week."
by BonzoDogBand on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:34:41 PM PDT
I think Obama's VP will be a white male that's strong on Defense (Clark/Webb) or an HRC replacement (Sebelius) to smooth over any underlying (and TOTALLY unfounded) anti-feminist sentiment. AT best, HRC gets the Senate Majority Leader boobie prize.
by VT ConQuest on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:02:39 PM PDT
they'll vote Democrat regardless. Especially if they see blacks and whites somewhat uniting under an Obama/Clark or Obama/Sebelius ticket. Same goes for Asians. They won't vote McCain.
by VT ConQuest on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:16:53 PM PDT
Whatever Richardson's advantages, he is grist for the Republican mill. I haven't even watched closely, but a number of what some would call "minor" character issues come easily to mind - repeated speeding arrests, sexual harassment episodes, lying on resume, asleep at the wheel during critical incident at DOE. I'm sure his supporters will argue with these, but why hand the Republicans this kind of fodder? If Edwards never really overcame the house, the hedge fund, the haircut - those pale next to these in many minds.
by mmiddle on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:11:03 PM PDT
Putting aside the racial / identity politics, Richardson has impeccable foreign policy credentials and will also be a strong voice in the fight for immigrants' rights, since he has dealt personally with this issue in his home state.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it... unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha
by Brian A on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:39:06 PM PDT
And I'd be OK with Richardson as VP, but I think he'd be wasted there. I'd rather see him as State. In my opinion he has the makings of a great Secretary of State. Not just good, but great. As in historic.
Have I ever told you about my poor memory?
by ignorant bystander on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:36:33 PM PDT
experience or he is going to lose the middle-age white male vote to McCain in the general election.
Follow the Independents! Democrats lose the general election without the Independent vote.
by ConcernedCitizenYouBet on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:12:59 PM PDT
military experience.
by CeeusBeeus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:15:29 PM PDT
Obama will NEVER win the middle-age white male military-loving vote over McCain.
That is McCain's hardest corest base, for cripes sake!
Much better for Obama to pursue the Dem USA Hispanics with a Richardson VP choice.
by BonzoDogBand on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:21:53 PM PDT
white male vote if he picks a female or minority for the VP slot. That, my friend, you can take to the bank. A white male with military experience will draw in swing middle-age white male voters who are looking for an alternative to voting for McCain.
by ConcernedCitizenYouBet on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:37:41 PM PDT
by VT ConQuest on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:26:50 PM PDT
Don't underestimate the Hillary fans.
As I said, just a VP is not enough. I think he needs to come up with some names for a core cabinett that has a wide appeal. Richardson, Pelosi, Webb, Bloomberg could all be part of this team. A team of rivals - but under the leadership of Obama who keep all together and present a gurantee a cohesive team.
by tari on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:14:44 PM PDT
McCain?
Unfortunately, Obama needs to go with a white male.
Think I Spy, a market tested Black and White adventure story, except the Black guy is in charge. http://www.imdb.com/...
If Clark were redeemable (or Webb?) I think the military resume trumps every other issue and demographic detail.
Understand this psychodynamically. There is a respected military guy, a man's man, master of violence , and he is looking up to and saluting Barack Obama... the scary minority, the Black guy, the guy some people have a hard time seeing as the top dog.
That's (unfortunately, sadly) exactly what Obama is going to need. White guys, military guys, guys who appeal to guys, modeling the desired behavior which is that of supporting and voting for the guy named Obama.
And women who are concerned about women's issues frankly don't have a serious option other than Obama, who may not have the right gender or symbolism, but certainly has all the right policy positions, just like Hillary.
by Miles on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:27:31 PM PDT
http://www.esquire.com/...
I'd like to learn more about this guy.
Probably never work as a VP, but he looks like he would be a valuable addition to an Obama administration in some capacity.
Think of the constitution as a levee. Think of our democracy as New Orleans.
by Into The Woods on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:28:11 PM PDT
while he was CinCPac and had very little good to say about him. She was left very unimpressed by him and thought his elevation to the mission in Iraq was another in the long line of mistakes by Cheney/Bush.
Because he didn't agree with them on spreading their plague into Iran doesn't make him a great candidate.
by rnotrtoornotrtoo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:39:17 PM PDT
Thanks. That article was the first I had really read about him.
Face to face is always a better guide to character and capacity (why Iowa and NH are still worth their weight in gold.)
I'm afraid we will be getting worse in the bargain though in the position he just left.
Keep hearing word that June or July might have us pursuing the Neoconservative war plan in Iran - especially if chances for McCain start to dwindle.
by Into The Woods on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:01:17 PM PDT
you're absolutely correct that the Cheney/Bush house will try and try again to set their plans for the Middle East on course. Its difficult to do with much of the brass at the Pentagon not on their team.
Its a wonder they haven't vetted these guys they've chosen better than they have to increase their success rate. They must believe that there are more who are with them than against them at the Pentagon. A lesson they refuse to learn, to the country's advantage.
We can only hope that there are so few left who would go along with them, and that is probably their problem in choosing commanders, that they never find the kook who will ruin our military strength and the nation even more than they already have.
(And I have no fantasies as a citizen of the country with the most powerful military might in the world, I just believe that to do the wreckage that this Cheney/Bush team has wrought on this country in every known dimension, as they have, with no regrets, is just about as bad as we could have gotten. Its almost a milestone that we all lived through this era to witness it.)
by rnotrtoornotrtoo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:01:30 AM PDT
but america is not ready for so much diversity... and frankly i think that with a president obama a white male or female would balance the ticket nicely.
webb, or zinni
by maxnyc on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:42:17 PM PDT
I think the boat has already sailed on Obama being a white middle aged man. A white middle aged male at the bottom of the ticket isn't going to fool anybody who has a problem with a non-white at the top of the ticket.
by camipco on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:04:29 PM PDT
by VT ConQuest on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:19:33 PM PDT
Go for a middle-aged white female with military experience, and he has the trifecta....
Pity this country still hasn't ended institutionalized sexism in the military, or there would be more to choose from.
by neroden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:57:17 AM PDT
Consider your average racist who is leery about Obama: would they actually be any more likely to support Obama if he had a white man to watch him? It seems like Obama loses the racist vote in any case, and having Richardson as VP wouldn't make any difference there.
NOW, if the VP were BLACK, that would make a difference because it would be seen by some as a "time for us to get ours!" move. However, the reported animosity (mostly imagined) between blacks and Hispanics would be a plus for an Obama-Richardson ticket, because it wouldn't be perceived as "blacks and Hispanics ganging up on the whites".
Just the thoughts of a clueless fellow. :)
by LihTox on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:30:13 PM PDT
I am a middle-aged white male swing voter. I know my peers very well. What you conveniently write off as racism is, in fact, fear of the unknown. A white male with military experience adds stability to a ticket that is a little too radical for many middle-aged white male swing voters, especially middle-aged white men who are struggling to hold onto their jobs.
by ConcernedCitizenYouBet on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:47:34 PM PDT
That makes sense. Thanks.
by LihTox on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:56:57 PM PDT
I know you're probably right to a certain extent, but lord how this continues to frustrate me. This should be "introduce yourself to a frightened white male" week.
I'll start.
HI! I'M FEMALE! DO NOT BE AFRAID! I MEAN YOU NO HARM!
by PomperaFirpa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:41:08 PM PDT
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!! Aaaaaaaaah!! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!! snn ... nnifff Aaaah! whimper sniff th.. the..then why are you YELLING at me?
by SpiderCrash on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:37:22 PM PDT
Voted against the war. Solid intelligence/foreign policy creds. ???
Added bonus is Florida, Florida, Florida.
Significant white middle-aged female caucus voter for Obama. Deal with it!
by LarisaW on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:40:03 PM PDT
Graham would have been a great choice in 2000. Gore would be President. I think he is now too old and I think he has some heart problems.
by ardentgent on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:26:39 PM PDT
I've been to campaign rallies that he has been a part of, and he's kind of bleh...
Unfortunately, charisma matters. Graham could be great in the administration, though.
What about Edwards?
by Wendy in FL on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:35:13 PM PDT
while he is from a small state and not well-known, he is amazing and has everything that Obama would be looking for in a running mate.
"The only thing I would trust Dick Cheney on is if I had a dead hooker in my hotel room." --Jon Stewart
by DemBrock on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:44:36 PM PDT
Can someone explain to me how the GOP would win the presidency if it did not carry Virginia?
by mcartri on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:03:46 PM PDT
Clark tends toward progressive, liberal positions. Webb leans conservative and has sided with Bush on some critical issues.
Just wondering...
by lewisclark on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:53:18 AM PDT
i have wanted an obama-clark ticket for a long time; even after he broke my heart and endorsed hillary. (only halfway kidding.) ;)
i think that now, especially because of his support for clinton, he is the ideal pick...
that said, i would also love an obama-richardson ticket
-4.50, -4.92; Obama '08
by RSA TX on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:47:51 PM PDT
Clark. Webb can bring the "in between" white male vote over better than Clark. Clark is stained by his association with the Clintons.
by ConcernedCitizenYouBet on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:16:08 PM PDT
He will have coattails in places like Virgnia and Carolina where Obama can win with the right coalition.
Besides, how to out-Reagan McCain? Pick one of his former cabinet members, Jim Webb.
by TheCrank on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:22:05 PM PDT
I think Webb could swing some votes in Oklahoma. And if he could, he could probably do it in Texas and Arkansas too. He might be the only person on the planet who could make the case for common cause between working class whites and black that would resonate with the rednecks I grew up with.
by ignorant bystander on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:48:41 PM PDT
Obama absolutely must have Clinton supporters to win the general. An association with Clinton is a positive attribute in a VP pick, electorally speaking. Has Clark attacked Obama?
by Sicembears on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:45:32 PM PDT
Obama loses the non-affiliated and swing vote, he is toast!
by ConcernedCitizenYouBet on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:49:32 PM PDT
by RSA TX on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:23:56 PM PDT
of the bigger picture.
Wesley Clark's progressive, liberal credentials are solid. Jim Webb on the other hand leans conservative by nature and sides with Bush (and against the Constitution) on FISA and Telco.
So which one of these guys would you rather see sitting in the Oval office? That's a question we need to ask when considering who becomes Vice President.
As for Clark being "stained" by association with the Clintons, this is exactly the kind of thinking that risks splitting the party in two all the way to November.
by lewisclark on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:05:18 PM PDT
plus he fits the COO/administrator-type to go with Obama's more CEO-type.
I know those terms are probably troublesome after the whole Bush/Cheney thing, but they do apply here.
We are the ones we have been waiting for. Obama '08
by bawbie on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:08:27 PM PDT
I love Wes Clark but if Webb could deliver VA, I'd go with him.
by ardentgent on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:28:54 PM PDT
for all of the above reasons too ...
plus he's half-Jewish also (I believe that Obama will carry the Jewish vote overwhelmingly anyway, but the choice of Clark may put the final nail in the coffin of the BS innuendo that Obama is not strong enough on Israel-related issues).
by silver spring on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:08:18 PM PDT
A friend thinks Obama should announce his VP choice ASAP. I agree, and would go further and announce his potential Cabinet members, one a week.
Enough of Hillary's bad reality-show melodrama already.
Get your Democracy Bond and help build a 50-state Democratic Party!
by RobertInWisconsin on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:55:50 PM PDT
It's traditional to announce at the convention. The convention has to have something worth watching.
by Anthony Segredo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:09:50 PM PDT
it has been a little before convention. Kerry announced Edwards in June or July and the convention was in August I believe.
by DemBrock on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:45:51 PM PDT
Richardson for VP Biden for State Clark for Defense Edwards for Justice Bloomberg for Treasury (or Corzine) And for DHS How about Rudy?
Make friends with the horror...
by sandav on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:10:27 PM PDT
You must mean Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger.
Obama could at least count on Secretary Ruettiger to sack Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) on the last play day of Obama's first term....
by Rieux on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:59:48 PM PDT
swap him and biden.
by qkslvrwolf on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:15:52 PM PDT
You can fool some of the people some of the time....
by dmoore on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:02:43 PM PDT
born citizen to be V-P? That would rule out Yoda. :)
by CeeusBeeus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:16:36 PM PDT
maybe he'll persuade some voters who are still upset about McClurkin.
But he's not a native born American, so... bummer.
Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.Give to Populista's Obamathon 2.0!
by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:39:55 PM PDT
don't know his politics, but he's a white guy with combat experience, plus he's younger than mccain. go for it!
if [MSM] covered Einstiens paper on relatively... the title would have been, "Einstein calls Newton a Bitch! Oh Snap!" -kingfishstew
by amnesiaproletariat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:56:16 PM PDT
He wasn't born in the USA. In fact, he wasn't even born in Arda (the world), being one of the Maiar that followed the Valar to Valinor after the creation of the world.
Also, when he was sent by the Valar (along with Saruman and Radagast, and two others who never come into the stories except for one mention by Gandalf) into Middle Earth to contend with Sauron (another Maia), they were forbidden to use their power as Maiar to rule Men, but rather to persuade and assist them.
So not only the Constitution but the command of the Valar would prohibit Gandalf from taking the job.
/nerd
--Shannon
by Leftie Gunner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:24:48 PM PDT
all kinds of awesome. ^_^
Join the fight for student power on campus: ForStudentPower.org
by Liberaltarian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:35:16 PM PDT
This is truly the most magnificent discussion that has ever occurred in the history of time.
by PomperaFirpa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:47:01 PM PDT</
