Now that Barack is back from overseas, and ready to deal with the day to day campaign, there really isn't a lot to talk about except who he'll pick for his running mate.
What has puzzled me in the discussion and debate is why so many folks, particularly Progressives, seem to be leaning toward conservative Dems.
That just seems ridiculous to me, so I wanted to post a simple question:
Why would Barack choose a DLC type for VP?
There have been a number of "who should the VP be?" diaries over the last week or so. None of them have made the rec list because they aren't fawning, sycophantic discussions of how perfect Barack is (or how his vacuous speech in Berlin was "the greatest speech ever!!!!!!!!").
But I have noticed a strange trend in the VP diaries and the associated comments: folks who are ostensibly Progressive seem to be strongly touting conservative (and in some cases VERY conservative) choices.
My question: why?
And before you start in with the silly "we just want to win" BS, I'd like to make the point that Barack has already taken enough conservative positions in order to satisfy the most bitter, gun-toting, God-fearing Pennsylvanian. He really doesn't need to go any further to the right, thank you very much!
I'll admit the last real hope I have for Barack from a "Progressive issues" perspective, is that he will choose someone for his VP that has solid Progressive credentials.
Unfortunately, things don't seem to be playing out that way.
Most, if not all, of the names that are being floated are all DLC types. McCaskill, Kaine, Sebelius, Bayh (really???). Even Hagel has been somewhat seriously mentioned.
WTF????
All of these folks (and many others) are as conservative or more conservative than Barack. Why do we need to add another DLC type to the ticket?
And before you start whining that "Barack is to a Progressive", just stop. Barack is one of two things. Either he is a Progressive taking cynically conservative positions just to win, or he is a true DLC type Democrat.
And frankly, for the Progressive-minded, neither choice is particularly appealing.
So, while a lot of us thought we were getting a honest-to-goodness Progressive when we supported Barack through the primaries, we really ended up with a Harold Ford clone. Great.
But, be that as it may, I still hope he will give us Progressives some chance for a true discussion of Progressive issues by choosing someone who actually embraces those positions.
So, why don't we start lobbying for a strong Progressive choice? At least lets settle on some names and press for those in our mediums and at the convention. And pleasepleaseplease stop talking up all of these DLC types.
This whole situation is starting to take on an unpleasant, anti-Progressive tone, and unless we start insisting on a discussion of our issues, we are once again going to be relegated to an after-thought once Barack is elected.
So, let's at least see if we can 1) stop floating these conservative-types, and 2) start throwing together a working list of solid Progressives.
My personal favorite is Wes Clark, by the way. He has great credibility on national defense issues, and he has shown he will not hesitate to take McCain on when he raises ridiculous issues. I'd LOVE to see that fight continue!
But I am sure that there are lots of other people folks like. I just ask that you drop anyone who doesn't have a solid Progressive voting record (that means they voted FOR FISA or supported the "surge" or took any other "DLC approved" positions).
It seems like this is the least Progressives can try and insist on, since Barack has essentially shed any pretense of being a Progressive candidate.