home

A Better Role for Obama

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:21:00 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I think Barack Obama's greatest contribution to America would be as Attorney General in a Hillary Clinton administration.

  • He be terrific as head of its civil rights division.
  • He'd go after crooked lobbyists and big time corporate offenders.
  • He'd have the ability not to charge non-violent drug possessors with mandatory minimum offenses, while pushing Congress to change the law.
  • He'd be the best advocate for a congressional end to the unfair disparity in crack-powder cocaine sentences.
  • He could refrain from prosecuting federal death penalty cases until an independent commission has established that the death penalty is no longer applied in a racially disparate manner -- and in any case in which DNA evidence does not conclusively prove guilt.

In accordance with his expressed beliefs,

  • He'd direct federal prosecutors not to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries or users in states that have passed medical marijuana laws.
  • He'd charge and prosecute suspected terrorists in federal courts, eliminating the need for unfair military commissions.
  • He could stay tough on meth labs, an issue he's made a priority.

[More...]

It would be great to have someone other than a career prosecutor as Attorney General. As President, it has been speculated that Obama's choice for AG would be the "tough on crime" Alabama Senator Artur Davis. Davis would be a terrible choice for Attorney General.

Obama could prove his mettle as Attorney General. With the experience he would gain and a strong record of accomplishments while in the position, he'd be a great contender in 2016.

Obama for Attorney General. Sounds great to me.

Update: For those intent on misinterpreting this post, you couldn't be more wrong. It's about getting someone installed as Attorney General who will be favorably disposed to defendants' rights. The rights of those accused of crime remain the chief focus of TalkLeft. Obama has repeatedly mentioned these specific issues in his campaign. I hope he means them. As Attorney General, we'd get a chance to find out. I don't think John Edwards, who sought the nomination and suspended his campaign, and has since frequently been mentioned as a possible AG if Obama is elected, would be a favorable AG for defendants' rights. He wasn't great on crime issues in the Senate and has not shown much interest in them. He could make a much greater contribution in a prospective Democratic administration in the area of reducing poverty and ensuring universal health care.

The Civil Rights division of the Justice Department handles voting rights, employment discrimination, discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation, protecting the rights of the disabled and much more.

I believe Obama, if President, will compromise when it comes to criminal justice reform legislation and Congress. This is based on my extensive review of his record as I've posted many times. If he is not the ultimate nominee, which admittedly I hope he isn't, I see an opportunity here through the charging discretion afforded the AG to effect some real progressive change. Should he not get the nomination, I think this would be a great way he could make a positive difference.

Obama supporters can disagree with my view that Hillary is a better nominee, but their attempt to label this a race-based post is patently absurd and offensive.

Comments now closed.

< Why Hillary's Supporters Won't Give Up | It's Not Personal, It's Politics >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Better Role for Obama | 186 comments (186 topical)
    Ummm (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    Even if by some miracle Hillary won the nomination, Obama would have to be the VP choice.

    This is not a realistic option.

    Miracles happen (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:20:00 AM EST
    but I don't see Obama as AG, mostly because I don't think he wants the job.  But, what do we know of his record while he was working at the law firm?  What cases did he choose?  Whom did he help?  I know that Gonzales greatly lowered the bar, but I don't see Obama as qualified enough for the job.

    It's very telling that, should he not win the nomination, Obama's options are rather limited.  Go back and finish his first term as senator?  Take to the speaking circuit?  Run for another political office?

    With Clinton, you know that she'll go back to the senate and continue to kick hiney and take names.

    [ Parent ]

    I See obama Going Back To Illinois And (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:27:57 AM EST
    being Mr. Dad.  Although I would rather see him be AG than president, I don't believe he is even up to that task.  He is not given to hard work, as far as I can see.

    [ Parent ]
    It's a bit early to judge the success of (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MarkL on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:38:24 AM EST
    his campaign.


    [ Parent ]
    Obama lazy? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by bobbski on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:10:53 PM EST
    "He is not given to hard work, as far as I can see."

    His senate record, or lack of it, would certainly support your statement.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is the ONLY (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    editor of the Harvard Law Review who NEVER WROTE A SINGLE WORD.

    I'm sorry, but I read that and really knew that the juxtaposition of the "cute charming guy" versus the "dedicated worker gal" was right on the money.

    That is an appalling fact of his life.

    [ Parent ]

    OMG! (none / 0) (#84)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:21:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    do you have a link? (none / 0) (#89)
    by DJ on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:28:46 PM EST
    I would love to read that.

    [ Parent ]
    Never published (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:07:23 PM EST
    as president of Harvard Law Review.

    Quote 1:
    "Obama was friendly and outgoing, but the class succeeding him wanted a tougher editor to lead them. [David] Ellen, quiet and fair-haired, had graduated summa cum laude in history and science from Harvard College in 1987. He had worked at The New Republic in 1989, the summer before starting law school, and was seen as someone who would be a more rigorous blue-penciler."

    Quote 2:
    "The law students on the Review all have the right to publish at least one piece (typically they publish at least their third-year papers, which they have to write anyway), and many publish at least two pieces. It would seem surprising if Obama published nothing at all in the very Review over which, he has so often boasted, he presided as President."

    Here's Steve Sailor's blog

    In case you missed it yesterday.. obamameter


    [ Parent ]

    I'll see if I can find it..... (none / 0) (#97)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:35:57 PM EST
    The young kids on Live Journal dug that one up.

    [ Parent ]
    really... (none / 0) (#207)
    by CanadianDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:46:25 PM EST
    There's nothing in Obama's record to suggest he's lazy, either physically or mentally.

    You read his books, and you can see the man has thought through both sides of most arguments. He's slippery as hell when it comes to specifics--like a lot of focus-grouped politicians these days--but he's not averse to weighing both sides of an arguments and granting validity to the side he disagrees with. This is not the mark of a lazy man.

    Obama is far from perfect, and I may very well change my mind in the coming months, but from where I'm at, he's the best choice of the three for the country.

    As far as his executive skills go, here's something to consider: As of today, Obama, a neophyte on the national scene, has managed to run a national campaign that beating the pants off a candidate who had practically been coronated last year. a candidate with years in the Senate, and national name recognition. Yes, he's had some advantages with good press coverage, but HRC started off with a lot more.

    In fact, HRC's management style has bordered on the Dubyan, as Kaus points out on his blog. She kept an out of touch idiot in charge long after it was clear her ship was sinking.

    [ Parent ]

    candidates don't run campaign... (none / 0) (#226)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:25:22 PM EST
    they are too busy campaigning.

    ...the Clinton campaign had an obvious strategy --- aim toward November.  Win in the states that mattered in November during the primary season -- and prove on Super Tuesday that you are the best candidate for November.

    ... So Axelrod goes to Obama and tells him "This is a Democratic year -- so you don't actually have to worry about anything but accumulating delegates for the nomination --- so just go out and suck up to the media, and leave the rest to me."

    So what little time Clinton spent in terms of "strategy" prior to Super Tuesday was in asking "are we on track for November?"

    Ever since that horrible two week period when the Clinton campaign was in disarray after ST, Clinton has kicked Obama's ass.  Obama has been an utter disaster for the past two months, and were it not for the hostility of the media toward Clinton, he'd be long gone.

    He avoids debates.  He sulks and cries "foul" when he isn't treated with kid gloves at debates.  And worst of all, he runs away from the very constituencies in places like West Virginia and Kentucky that he'll need in November -- and tells them they aren't important.

    Axelrod was right -- it WAS a Democratic year.  But its not anymore, thanks to Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: candidates don't run campaign... (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    >the Clinton campaign had an obvious strategy --- aim toward November.

    And that was a mistake.  Not sure this speaks to good judgment...

    >So Penn goes to Clinton and tells her "This is a Democratic year -- so you don't actually have to worry about anything but accumulating super delegates for the nomination

    Fixed.

    >So what little time Clinton spent in terms of "strategy" prior to Super Tuesday was in asking "are we on track for November?"

    Again, mistake, not accomplishment.  Strategy for November is pointless when you're watching from home.

    >Ever since that horrible two week period when the Clinton campaign was in disarray after ST, Clinton has kicked Obama's ass.

    Well, he won Texas, long after anyone was paying attention to it.  And he kept her from surging ahead.  Oh, and he gave her a 1% victory in Indiana when she needed a 40% victory, which effectively derailed her nomination.  Oh, and he stayed even in supers.  But besides that.

    >Obama has been an utter disaster for the past two months, and were it not for the hostility of the media toward Clinton, he'd be long gone.

    I agree that Obama's media strategy, which he wisely played to, was part novelty act (the standard "articulate" candidate that media elites like to indulge now and then so as to feel open-minded) and part "I'm not Hillary Clinton."  While Chris Matthews is pretty shameful in his open derision for the Clintons, he's certainly not the only such harpy in the media.  He just can't conceal it as well.

    But Jeremiah Wright proved that the media love affair with Obama was a mile wide and an inch deep.  Given the chance to try and demolish an icon that they themselves had just helped create, they didn't hesitate.  If anything, it's been a McCain love-in so far, although there are a few tentative signs that that might be ending.

    >He avoids debates.

    There have been 21 debates.  I guess he's not good at avoiding debates.  One more reason for the Clinton fans to criticize him, I guess.  "He can't even get out of having to debate!  Vote Hillary."

    >He sulks and cries "foul" when he isn't treated with kid gloves at debates.

    This is obviously about the ABC debate before PA, and he was right to criticize it.  It was an hour of petty nonsense for both of them, but especially for him.  I know it's good tactically for Clinton to criticize him for his pastor and for the "bitter" non-troversy, but here in the real world, it doesn't help me, or you, or anyone.  Do you really care whether or not he holds his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance?

    >And worst of all, he runs away from the very constituencies in places like West Virginia and Kentucky that he'll need in November -- and tells them they aren't important.

    Okay, this is clearly a parody and I've been tricked.  The Clinton campaign was constantly announcing which states weren't important - caucus states didn't matter, small states didn't matter, etc.  Obama has done his best to soften the blow from his upcoming losses in KY and WV by ceding her the victory in interviews.  Where has he said anything like what you're ascribing to him?

    >Axelrod was right -- it WAS a Democratic year.  But its not anymore, thanks to Obama.

    I guess party is more important to me than personality.  I was disappointed that Edwards and Clinton both lost but I didn't take it so damned personally.  Don't lose heart.  I really think that either Clinton or Obama could beat McCain this fall.  I'm sorry you feel otherwise.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks... (none / 0) (#234)
    by Spike on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:30:46 PM EST
    ...for clarifying the strategies of the two campaigns. As you indicate, Obama's strategy for the primaries was to accumulate the delegates necessary to secure the nomination. He is very close to successfully implementing that strategy. As you explain, Clinton's strategy was from the beginning of the campaign was to "aim toward November" under the assumption that she didn't have to really compete for the nomination because it was "inevitable" that she would be the nominee. Obama actually dominated the race for a full month after Super Tuesday. While Clinton has enjoyed some victories since March 4, she hasn't been able to make up the ground that she lost during that fateful 30 day losing streak. Her strategy of aiming toward November before securing the necessary delegates clearly has come up short.

    [ Parent ]
    You know who else ran a great campaign? (none / 0) (#231)
    by angie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:03:47 PM EST
    GWB -- that's not a road I want to go down again.

    [ Parent ]
    GWB did NOT run a great campaign (none / 0) (#246)
    by bird on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:22:39 PM EST
    He lost in 2000 - not that Gore ran a great campaign.

    As an incumbent during a war almost lost again.  Electability almost worked for us then, but it didn't.

    GWB did NOT run great campaigns - do your homework.

    [ Parent ]

    You are wrong (none / 0) (#254)
    by angie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:17:42 PM EST
    and the proof is that he has been the President of the United States of America for almost 8 years now -- "almost" lost! HA -- almost doesn't count sweetheart.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Brookhaven on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:40:49 PM EST
    needs to learn how to be a Senator.  Baby steps as my moma said to me, baby steps on your trek to walking upright and tall as if you earned it. Well, she never said the last part but it made my point.:)  

    He hasn't earned his title of Senator, I don't care if the Dems voted for him, he's not qualified and hasn't earned it by his credentials.  

    And, last time I checked, Clinton won a majority of Dem votes not Obama (who pulled out all the stops and even had "Be a Dem for a Day" to Republicans in open primaries and caucuses).

    I'll never forget when he became the Jr. Senator from Illinois, how he went to see Clinton with all doe eye boyishness asking her for advice on how to conduct oneself as a frosh Senator (because others including Repubs told him she was the Model Senator to follow as a frosh).  Nice pay back for the sage advice and mentoring she gave to him by prematurely running for an office he had no credentials to run for (especially in one of the most grave periods in our history).  He reminds me of Eve in the 1950's film "All About Eve".  

    So, back to the Senate for Mr. Obama to do his job.  And, perhaps have his FIRST hearing as the Chair of European-Nato sub-committee on the Foreign Relations Committee which oversees Afghanistan: kind of important to have a hearing on that hot spot, no? Perhaps he would then start to prepare himself to understand foreign policy as well as Clinton who was/is a serious student of foreign policy (studying it and understanding it, inside and out as we saw in those debates)while on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of whom the Military Brass called her an expert.

    Baby steps. But, that's not Obama's way. Alice Palmer was his first woman whom he stepped over to quench his egomanical ambition to the top.

    I've heard no one refer to Mr. Obama as a Model anything or an expert on anything.  But, yet, here we are and he's on the cusp of perhaps attaining his party's penultimate position as the Dem Nom for the POTUS.  Sweet, hey?

    [ Parent ]

    Correction (none / 0) (#129)
    by Brookhaven on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    Clinton serves on the Senate Arms Services Committee.  

    [ Parent ]
    Too Much Coffee :) (none / 0) (#130)
    by Brookhaven on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Last one is a winner.  

    The Senate Armed Services Committee.  Phew. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Funny you mention that... (none / 0) (#245)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:22:02 PM EST
    Because the Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs, which Obama chairs, doesn't have jurisdiction over Afghanistan.  Well, I think they have third or fourth crack it.  The primary Senate body overseeing Afghanistan would be the Armed Services Committee on which Clinton sits.  I think after Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and then after FR, whichever FR subcommittee has geographical jurisdiction.  THEN the European committee.

    [ Parent ]
    BO as head of the civil rights division? (5.00 / 2) (#225)
    by bridget on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:00:15 PM EST
    Why? What has he done so far? And yes "Whom did he help?"

    BO is not a challenger, quite the opposite. I remember the sea of black suffering faces in New Orleans and what was Obama's response? Denial.

    Obama said that Katrina was a class problem not a race problem. AFAIR correctly he said Washington was colorblind. That was my first real imp. impression of BO. When I heard that I knew that he would not be another MLK or Jesse Jackson. And it turned out he is not and wouldn't want to be. If he said or has done anything helpful re Katrina I must have missed it. Did he rent buses like Gore? Did he pull the drowning out of the water? What did he do to ease the suffering of his black brothers and sisters. What?!!!

    Katrina is a litmus test for me. And BO didn't pass the test.  

    re AG
    I really wouldn't want him to be in any important position in the Clinton admin. I hope the next AG can raise the bar high again. That wont be Obama. Just don't see it.

    [ Parent ]

    It depends on why (4.90 / 10) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:17:57 AM EST
    he didn't win the nomination. I don't buy the unity ticket as a necessity or even as a desirable, whichever candidate is at the top of the ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:19:39 AM EST
    I do not believe this is a realistic scenario.

    but have it.

    [ Parent ]

    It's Mothers Day today BTD. Let us have our dreams (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by BarnBabe on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:37:48 AM EST
    In June, you can have your sweet dreams on Fathers Day. And remember, believing is the magic that makes dreams come true.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't this idea has any merit, (none / 0) (#192)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:39:37 PM EST
    so perhaps it is a dream of J's for Mothers' Day only.

    For one thing, Obama is getting lots of $$ from Wall St.   So I doubt he would fulfill this part of J's dream:

    He'd go after crooked lobbyists and big time corporate offenders.


    [ Parent ]
    Hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#115)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM EST
    Certainly the Justice Department is a total shambles thanks to years of evisceration by Cheney & Co.

    Personally, I think we would need a stronger personality as AG - perhaps Hillary herself, if miraculously Obama is nominated AND wins the GE.

    If Hillary is the nominee, I agree with the posters who say that the position would not be suited to Obama's style.

    Maybe Ambassador to one of the African countries - perhaps Kenya, since he has family there, I believe?


    [ Parent ]

    Personally, I think we would need a strong... (none / 0) (#228)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:31:48 PM EST
    good point about needing leadership at Justice.

    Obama isn't a leader in the sense of providing direction and holding people accountable.  

    I think the best thing for Obama would be if we became a Constitutional Monarchy, and made him King.  Don't give him any real power, just have him be a symbol.

    Its a role he's actually qualified for, and the only one he really wants anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#241)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:07:07 PM EST
    >Maybe Ambassador to one of the African countries - perhaps Kenya, since he has family there, I believe?

    Wow.

    When Obama's path to the nomination is pretty much unassailable, people are discussing whether President Clinton should make him Attorney General, or Ambassador (to an African country, of course).

    I know that if I went off the deep end, I'd want someone to step in and tell me, so...I'll just say this: Don't come up too quickly.  You'll get the bends.

    (If this post and thread were all said tongue-in-cheek, then my apologies for not realizing.)

    [ Parent ]

    How About Ambassador to Watts? (none / 0) (#249)
    by bird on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:26:49 PM EST
    Are you serious?

    What if I said HRC s/b Secretary of Health and Human Services, would that be taken as insulting?

    [ Parent ]

    I totally agree - not nec. and def. not desirable (none / 0) (#237)
    by bridget on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:38:17 PM EST
    Hillary's VP should have expert knowledge to strenghten the ticket. That was Bill's criteria when he picked Gore who was smart no doubt about that. What does Obama know that Hillary doesn't know already? What?

    Also, I doubt they like each other much. Why pick someone who trashed the Clinton admin and your husband? It would be a disaster. Pols are people, too.

    And there are def. VP candidates with more experience and knowledge on the short list.

    Unity your name is not Obama - he would be a bad choice.

    [ Parent ]

    I think Jeralyn's (none / 0) (#13)
    by talex on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:28:45 AM EST
    post was "If Only" in tone.

    That said it still could happen. Even if Obama gets the nomination and goes on to lose to McCain, McCain could make Obama the AG. After all Obama is Multicultural - half Democrat, half Republican that is. It would be a great move for McCain and for Obama it would greatly increase his street cred with Republicans and Fox News. And the new breed of 20 something Progressives who think holding hands with Republicans is not only the answer but is actually possible would eat it up too.

    [ Parent ]

    Ummm (none / 0) (#66)
    by gabbo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:09:14 PM EST
    There`s no way that Obama can be her VP. For him to lose the nomination, it would have to be caused by his implosion as a canditate (we`re talking dead woman, live boy territory here), which would disqualify him for the vice presidency.

    [ Parent ]
    The dream (none / 0) (#113)
    by americanincanada on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:45:51 PM EST
    is that he wakes up and realizes he can't win the general and steps aside for the good of the party.

    It's a pipe dream but there you have it.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, we are hoping (none / 0) (#200)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:09:43 PM EST
    that the SDs will
    wake(s) up and realize(s) he can't win the general
    Then we will have Hillary as the nominee. In spite of Obama's touting of the SDs that have announced for him, and they don't have to vote for him even if they pledged, he doesn't have the necessary numbers to get the nomination. Like most of the rest of him, the SD meme is mostly hype. Given the campaign he has run so far, I think his slogan should be "The Audacity of Hype". There is more hype than hope about Obama. And I think the SDs will see that, especially the ones in Congress who know how much work he hasn't done.

    [ Parent ]
    He certainly could use a list of solid (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by hairspray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:14:45 AM EST
    national accomplishments.  But it doesn't seem to matter to the insiders in the DNC, does it?

    I think (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by talex on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:36:18 AM EST
    the DNC insiders want the weaker candidate to win the nomination. That way if Obama does win in November they can roll Obama if he tries to get to tough with the Democratic congress.

    Over at OpenLeft they seem to think Obama is going to Rule all of DC. They seem to think that some of those Senators who have been in office almost as long as Obama has been on earth are going to give up their power centers and fan Obama with Palm Leaves. That will hardly be the case. No President has had total control over congress, even George Bush who has his party turn on him on several issues. And they are  a lock-step group. Much more so than Democrats. I can see the most Liberal in congress fighting Obama when he tries to water down Progressive policies to appease his Republican allies.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:05:33 PM EST
    This Congressional inertia problem is my biggest concern for any Dem in the WH right now, but especially Obama.  I have never understood this notion that Obama's election would magically trigger a stunning reversal of how Congress works and acts.

    The only way I could see it happening would involve Obama taking some really drastic step, like refusing to sign a budget and shutting down (most of) the federal gov't, and then taking his case directly to the voters in a national address.  And I don't believe for a second that he'd do such a thing.  (I'm not saying that course of action would necessarily work; this is just an example pulled out of thin air to illustrate the extreme steps that would be necessary to budge Congress.)
    What is The Cost of Energy?
    [ Parent ]

    Obama would never do anything like that (5.00 / 9) (#74)
    by Virginian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:11:49 PM EST
    look at his history...

    best predictor of future behavior is past behavior...the guy is so afraid to make any ripples, afraid to have anyone dislike him, he'll give up positions and issue he cares about in order to "compromise" and make others happy...

    it took him two tries to quiet the Wright stuff (for now) when his campaign ADMITTEDLY knew that it would at some point be an issue, talk about weak, talk about afraid to take a stand!

    [ Parent ]

    Absolutely (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by Virginian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:09:20 PM EST
    The old school legislators are supporting Obama because that is how they are going to gobble up power...HRC would be a strong president...Congress wants to at minimum re-balance the 3 branches...but at best, they want to swing the pendulum well into their favor...Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, etc, want a president that will do what they say and will NEED them when they don't NEED the president...These folks actually will have the same basic scenario regardless of a GE outcome when the candidates are McCain and Obama...obviously they want Obama because he'll do their bidding, but a McCain still lets them swing the power back to Congress...

    In some regards, a re-balancing is really good for the nation...but on the other side of that coin, a strong Democratic president with expanded executive powers, coupled with a solid democratic majority in Congress is a scenario that only fools would pass up (and Kennedy, Pelosi etc... are fools, their greed for power has blinded them to the larger good).

    [ Parent ]

    Very Good (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by talex on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:30:04 PM EST
    observations regarding a strong President - which as your other post says which echoes my thoughts, Obama won't be a strong Democratic/Progressive President. His whole campaign has told us he will not be and has no intention of being.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh my dear goodness (none / 0) (#152)
    by mg7505 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:22:29 PM EST
    A country run by Kennedy, Pelosi and Reid? That's the ultimate nightmare: Democrats who take us in only half the right (er...left) direction, do nothing to solve real problems, thus giving Repubs the foothold to lock down the Capitol from 2012 to 2020. And we only get to look forward to all this after fighting tooth and nail to get Obama elected this November.

    Get me a clothespin so I can hold my nose. Better yet, just replace me with an Obamabot... he's been pretty clear he doesn't need my vote anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    Finish his job in the Senate before moving on (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:58:02 PM EST
    I'd like to see him fulfill his obligations before making new ones. He still has a major responsibility as the Jr Senator from Illinois to his constituency, who he under represented with his voting record, no-shows and absences.

    The Unity Pony platform to ride out of the "boring" senate. Now he's stepping back from talking to voters (in WV and KY) that he's supposed to get to know in his bid for a (Dem) Presidency because campaigning is "boring".

    I think he should go back to the Senate OR in a DNC party building and fund-raising capacity under the capable wing of Howard Dean or Donna Brazile.

    [ Parent ]

    This is a very audacious post (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ajain on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:15:10 AM EST
    Now I love Hillary Clinton, but its hard to see how she can/will win.

    yes, the audacity of hope. (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:23:48 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    more than audacious, (none / 0) (#224)
    by cy street on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:56:17 PM EST
    obama already has an attorney general, john edwards.

    [ Parent ]
    he's got a current role (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jcsf on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:15:18 AM EST
    Or will soon - Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

    So say we all - popular votes, delegates, superdelegates, most states, most contributors to a campaign.

    Who is this "we" (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by americanincanada on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    you speak of.

    it looks to me like at least half the electorate in the primary doesn't agree.

    [ Parent ]

    Four months to go (4.87 / 8) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:19:10 AM EST
    unless Hillary decides to drop out. Hold your horses. Presumptions can be overcome.

    [ Parent ]
    Hubris (5.00 / 9) (#34)
    by Iphie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:41:21 AM EST
    Which in modern times has come to mean pride, but to the Ancient Greeks meant more than that -- it was the insolence and insult that was borne of pride. It was the hubris, not the pride that caused the resultant punishment by the gods. Obama is nothing if not insolent and insulting -- to Hillary, to her supporters, but especially to the democratic process.

    There's time -- Hillary will keep racking up wins, Obama will keep ignoring and insulting voters he doesn't think he needs. I think Obama is heading for a Greek tragedy type fall -- we should all hope that it happens now and not in November.

    In terms of AG, does he have a strong enough core set of principles? His opinions and stands on so many issues seem to be completely malleable -- I think we need someone who we know will clean up the DOJ, not someone who is still a big question mark.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama = Icarus? (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:07:07 PM EST
    You can only fly so long and so high on wings of wax, even with all the winds of pundistan powering the flight.

    What's the Greek word for PHWEEEeeeeee-Splash! again?

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (none / 0) (#208)
    by Iphie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:51:28 PM EST
    O/T, I know, but have you ever read Geek Love? Iphie and Ellie were the names of the Siamese Twins (short for Iphigenia and Electra, speaking of Greek mythology.)

    [ Parent ]
    SHUT! UP! Now I have to order it. (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:09:30 PM EST
    One of my (actual and free range) sisters recommended it but my free reading time has been whittled down since I host her kids for a weekend a month while her ... reading time ... has ... gone ... up ...

    Hmmm. Starting to see the flaw in that deal. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    He has so much going, but but but (none / 0) (#45)
    by BarnBabe on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:48:40 AM EST
    the people are not all that excited about him and we women want her to go all the way.First of all, with this race being actually very close, and with us finding new things every day, there is a good chance that something else might come forward that would change the whole election. The impossible just takes a little longer.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps McCain will (none / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:44:24 PM EST
    pick him for AG?

    [ Parent ]
    I like this post. It envisions a realistic (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by MarkL on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:37:33 AM EST
    role for Obama that is aligned with his abilities and experience.
    Maybe it's just a pipe dream, but the thought of Obama as candidate---or President---is a nightmare to me.

    I dunno J (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Virginian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:57:50 AM EST
    like I've been suggesting for a while...

    Obama isn't a guy I'd want at he top of anything, not even the DOJ...the guy just doesn't have any LEADERSHIP skills or abilities...everything he has done from Harvard to now points to the antithesis of leadership, he waffles, he bends, he gives in on his positions to attain positions and titles, even if they are meaningless and powerless...he's about image.

    I think this is why Pelosi, and Kennedy and a number of the old school pols really like him, because as president, they will hold the reins, Congress will be more powerful than this upstart who has no clout to do anything...Obama will NEED them, but they won't NEED Obama...the same would be true as an AG...he wouldn't have enough clout...he'd NEED everyone else to help him and do for him, but nobody would NEED Obama...he'd be one of the weakest AGs in recent memory (if elected in the GE, he'll also be one of the weakest presidents in our history I suspect)...

    If he's not the nominee (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:59:28 AM EST
    for whatever reason, I think it's where he can make the greatest positive contribution.

    Jeralyn, can you look up (none / 0) (#206)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:36:16 PM EST
    what he did as a lawyer in Illinois? Did he do any civil rights cases as he claims? He said he specialized in civil rights cases when he first came to Chicago. Is there any record of him doing any representation in court of anyone? Does he have any court experience at all?? I am quite curious about that. One of the things my sister claims inspired her to "come to the TRUTH"(yes, she said that, and she is usually sane) was his work for civil rights in Chicago. I can't find any myself. But then I don't have access to the lawyer databases. Could you take a peek and see, please?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know what Obama would be good at (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:00:06 PM EST
    should he loose the nomination or the GE.  His last job Senator for the state of Illinois, he's is doing hmmmm and he already wants to quit.

    Absurd Notion (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Spike on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:05:17 PM EST
    It is a slap in the face to millions of Democratic voters to suggest that the candidate who will emerge from the Democratic nominating process with the most pledged delegates, most superdelegates, most popular votes, most states won, etc would be better suited for a lesser job than the one they will nominate him to assume. It was this elitist attitude of disdain toward the democratic process -- because Hillary Clinton's nomination was both an entitlement and inevitable -- that caused the nomination to slip through Clinton's fingers. She entered the race with every conceivable advantage. All she had to do was to secure 2025 delegates. She has failed to do that. To now suggest that the candidate who will soon achieve that objective should wait until 2016 to become a contender for an office that is now within sight is the height of arrogance.

    2025I am glad you believe Fl and MI (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    don't count.

    [ Parent ]
    And I Hope You Punish Your State Legislators (none / 0) (#250)
    by bird on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:32:52 PM EST
    Think how much more influence FL would have if it would have held its election later.

    Maybe as much as West Virginia!

    Oh well - I bet your state legislators don't do that again.

    [ Parent ]

    Not an insult at all (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    If for whatever reason he doesn't get the nomination, I think this would be a great role for him. The nominating process isn't over.

    [ Parent ]
    If it is so inevitable that Obama will have (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:11:11 PM EST
    all of these pluses in his column, then why not let the process finish?

    What harm could it possibly do?

    [ Parent ]

    Qualifications, credentials and 2209 at minimum (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:04:20 PM EST
    Bring it or fold before the judges' decision is in.

    Complaining that your competition won't fold isn't really being a good sport, is it?

    [ Parent ]

    I am so tired of this... (4.55 / 9) (#134)
    by coolit on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:07:35 PM EST
    statement that Clinton thought she was inevitable.  She thought it was destiny.  She was arrogant.  She never said any of that that.  As someone who thinks she'd do a good job, I never thought that.  This is just parroted over and over again by Obama supporters and his media.  

    It something they know is not true that they say repeatedly to make her look bad.

    You gotta love this new kind of politics.  

    New kind of politics = dirty politics while at the same time pretending you're not.

    That is worse than any other kind because it allows the possibility that you can do anything you want to smear anyone because no one thinks you will.

    [ Parent ]

    She was wrong to show up; is never supposed to win (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    And when that "rule" is broken, out comes the chorus of yelling, complaining and general HIS-teria.

    Some of the persistent wishful arguments against demonstrable realities are breathing. (You can see it all the way up the line from the astro pa-Trolls to the media and party bigwigs.)

    [ Parent ]

    Not a slap (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    Just a reasoned opinion. I think it is a good one, but I like Obama as pres a bit better.

    [ Parent ]
    Why is it a slap? (none / 0) (#90)
    by zyx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:29:32 PM EST
    Voters can vote for anyone to be the primary candidate or the president.  Our party's voters have a long tradition of voting for candidates that are hapless losers in the GE.  And our country's voters have a long tradition of voting for men who make mediocre or bad presidents.  

    Most of these men would have been well suited to other jobs.

    Just sayin'.

    [ Parent ]

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:48:27 PM EST
    mediocre MEN

    the WOMAN would be outstanding

    [ Parent ]

    Deomcracy in the USA (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Curious on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:12:17 PM EST

    How long will this comment remain here I wonder?

    If every dissenting voice is being erased, regardless of its tone then this blog is no longer a good advertisement for the Clinton Campaign ot for the democratic process.


    dissenting voices are not erased (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:17:25 PM EST
    uncivil ones, ones with personal attacks, name-calling are deleted. Comments that are off topic and an attempt to redirect or hijack the conversation are deleted. The comment rules are clearly spelled out. By posting here, you agree to them. The blogosphere is a wide open place, you are free to post elsewhere if you don't like the rules.

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#83)
    by Curious on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    Do you consider this post civil or a personal attaack on Senator Obama
    he's not that interested in the law, or policy, or anything that isn't about moving himself up the power ladder

    Is it acceptable?

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, you missed the objectionable (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:37:55 PM EST
    part. I just read the entire comment rather than just the lines you quoted. The last line was a factual misstatement of his record and that comment has now been deleted.

    [ Parent ]
    that's an opinion of Obama (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:35:40 PM EST
    it's not an insult to other commenters, it's not name-calling-- it's civil in tone. I don't agree with it but it's borderline acceptable. I wouldn't delete that comment if it said Hillary vs. Obama.

    There are scores of comments on this site opining far worse things about Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:24:25 PM EST
    I'm not lockstep in agreement here.

    This is actually a great group.  I disagree with some of the posters, too, on certain points.  But gosh, it's nice to be able to actually be real.

    It is NOT, however, a site where you want to just post the latest PR Release statement.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Obama Isn't Prepared to Be Attorney General (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by BDB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM EST
    He's never really practiced law and he's never run a large organization.  DOJ is a complete mess.  It needs that rare combination of good lawyer, good manager, strong leader.   There are very few people ready for the mess that is DOJ.  Obama isn't one of them.

    There is this one lady... (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by mg7505 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:29:44 PM EST
    who was twice among the 100 most influential lawyers in America ... who has a long record fighting for folks ... who knows corporations inside and out... who is tough as nails and intellectually brilliant. Maybe she would be qualified for the job. Then again maybe she's overqualified and we need her in a higher place.

    [ Parent ]
    Be realistic (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by indesq on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    Obama, who has never been my first choice, ran an excellent campaign.  He was organized and forward looking in each contest.  He has the advantage in delegates, the popular vote, and in funds.   How can you now suggest he should be the attorney general rather than president?

    I hate to point this out, but the president has far more impact on the administration of justice, and the policies the department pursues, than the AG.  Senator Clinton, or her husband before her, never impressed me with their commitment to criminal justice issues.  I only add this because she has made much about her experience in government as first lady of arkansas, and later the country.

    If this post was a "what if" post, then you might as well write a what if obama was a woman.

    It's easier (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:19:16 PM EST
    to get results by an AG exercising discretion than getting Congress to act. We've tried for 20 years to eliminate mandatory minimums in Congress and the unfair crack powder disparity and for 8 to get a decent rather than watered down innocence protection act. Ashcroft used his discretion to increase federal death penalty prosecutions in states that have no death penalty. An AG with progressive views on crime would be able to direct his prosecutors to refrain from unjust prosecutions that were statutorily allowed.

    The examples I give are all ones in which Obama has expressed his agreement in principal. He's also, unfortunately, said on many of them, like mandatory minimums and marijuana prosecutions, that as President, it may not be worth the political capital to fight for legislative change. This would be a great way for him to effect change without needing Congress's approval.

    As to your other point, this is not about who will or will not be the nominee. That is an open question at this point, and my view is I'd rather see him as AG than President.

    I agree that the Bill Clinton presidency was bad on crime issues, I've written about that many times. One of the ways to correct that would be to put a non-career prosecutor in the AG position. I wouldn't be thrilled with Eric Holder as a Clinton AG, suggested by a commenter above who obviously doesn't know that Holder joined Obama's campaign in 2007 so it's very unlikely.  With Obama as AG, it's also a way to test whether he has the strength of his convictions or he's just politikking on some of his professed views on crime issues, as I've also written about many times.

    [ Parent ]

    Ehhh??????? (none / 0) (#161)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    He did not run an excellent campaign he just got his behind covered by the press and the blogosphere he has made more gaffe's than any credible candidate should have and has not been called on it.  He has been treated with kids gloves from the beginning.  Anytime anyone said anything about him it was called negative campaigning and blamed on Hillary. I could go on but then I would sound like some of the trolls I hate so much.

    [ Parent ]
    please drop (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:10:26 PM EST
    the "number of states won nonsense. It's just silly. That would suppose the Alaska is as important in the "math" as California. It's just not so and repeating it will not convince anyone here. Stop it.

    And the premise was if he didn't win the nomination. Not that he should drop out now. We Hillary supporters don't think anyone should drop out til the last voter has had their say and the last vote is counted. Including MI and FL.

    Obama is not "lazy" (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by dem08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    as so many have argued here on THIS thread.

    Here is Lawrence Tribe from the link cited above:

    "Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space.'"

    I know Obama backers are obnoxious, but Obama has astonishing talents. Enough to be President? I don't know. But he is not "lazy" and I don't see how labeling him as such helps anyone understand anything.

    I agree and thought I deleted the comment (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:20:58 PM EST
    that said he was lazy. That's untrue and an uncalled for insult.

    [ Parent ]
    People (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:21:33 PM EST
    were stating their opinion that he is "lazy" based on things they have read about and the way he never seems to stick with the hard work necessary to "complete" a difficult task.

    That's "their" opinion. Just as it's your opinion that he has "astonishing talents". Not an opinion that I share I might add but we are both entitled to our own opinions.

    I don't know if I believe he would make a good Attorney General or not. He doesn't seem to be willing to stick with the drudgery of doing the boring work that doing a great job of any job requires.

    [ Parent ]

    that is not a direct Tribe quote (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by DFLer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    that you cited. That is the description by author of the article in the Post. Tribe did call him the most all-around impressive student he'd had seen in decades.

     According to the cover of the Law review issue with this article, Barack was one of five people cited for their "analytical and research assistance" ( and also a Physics prof for his "comments")

    The Post article also describes him as Tribe's "research assistant"

    [ Parent ]

    Laziness is probably the wrong word (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:35:16 PM EST
    I would say not very resourceful.

    I picture the strategy session back in 2006 going something like this.

    Axlrod:  "Well. We can't figure out any way to do this besides denigrating the Clinton legacy."

    Obama:  "Neither can I."

    Axlrod:  "Yep.  I'm stumped, and sure it's going to divide the party, but I just can't figure out any other way to do this."

    Obama:  "Nope.  Neither can I."

    Axlrod:  "Well.  We could run an issues based campaign."

    Obama:  "You think we could try that?"

    Axlrod:  "Not really.  She's better on the issues."

    Obama:  "So really.  At the end of the day, the only way we can figure out how to do this is to denigrate the Clinton legacy and we'll deal with the fallout the best we can when the time comes."

    Axlrod:  "Yeah.  That's the best we can do."

    They very diligently couldn't come up with any better strategy than the strategy we saw implemented.

    And now they have to deal with the fallout.


    [ Parent ]

    My strategy would have been: (none / 0) (#171)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    Obama:

    "Hey, I'm still a young man. Why don't I run in 2016? Meanwhile I'll distance myself from Wright, Ayers and Rezko and sponsor some important Senate legislation to build up my credentials. I'll be unstoppable!"

    I really wish I knew why he didn't take this path.

    [ Parent ]

    Instead of controlling the white house (none / 0) (#172)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    For the next 16 years, we now have this.


    [ Parent ]
    I know, I know. (none / 0) (#174)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:45:20 PM EST
    Short-sighted in the extreme.

    Oh well. Anything can happen, so let's not lose hope. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    That Strategy Was Thought of By Millions (none / 0) (#251)
    by bird on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:43:38 PM EST
    It's not hard to be progressive and be against the Clinton legacy.

    There is nothing wrong with opposing: NAFTA, most favored trading status to China, industry-favored telecommunications regulations, the health care initiative failure, the welfare "fix", Dick Morris, triangulation as a political principle.

    We can disagree on how we think the future will play out, but many left Dems don't think that WJC was the liberal the right makes him out to be.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not one to say that Obama is lazy... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:40:15 PM EST
    ...but what you offer as evidence for his not being lazy is really just evidence that he is really, really smart. Who knows, he might not have even broken a sweat doing that intellectual work. It might have come easy to him. But since part of my job is coordinating scientific peer review, I'd like to get the opinion of three physicists before I accept Tribe's judgment of exactly how well Obama did that. Cause that's how we do it in science, lol.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm Lazy and I admit it (none / 0) (#176)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    That's why I always try to do things right the first time.  That is also the reason why I would never run for public office.

    [ Parent ]
    You know, (none / 0) (#156)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:27:03 PM EST
    Obama's record and lack of accomplishments simply show, factually speaking, that he is lazy as a public servant. He doesn't take a stand, he doesn't sponsor controversial legislation, and he's going for the brass ring after having done very little to earn it.

    As a person, I can't speak to his work ethic, but I don't think it's insulting to say that his job performance so far doesn't show a strong one.

    [ Parent ]

    The metric argument is so over (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:18:47 PM EST
    and it's offensive, so long as you leave out that Hillary has won every major Democratic state.

    It's also offensive if you omit FL and MI, and don't EVEN quote the rules.

    It's really very simple.

    Either the Democratic party admits......this is very neck-and-neck, and 1/2 of the Democrats do not agree with the other 1/2.....

    Or people will remain angry, polarized, and hurt.

    Your choice.

    Thanks for the talking point of the day. (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:33:29 PM EST
    Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, apparently.

    [ Parent ]
    Barely (none / 0) (#165)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    and if you can't admit that, then you take the responsibility for alienating 1/2 of the party.

    Your choice.

    I totally am with BTD on this issue.

    You want to shove this down 50% of the voters throats?

    You go right ahead.  

    But that's suicide politics at its finest.

    You may end up feeling "right," but you sure aren't going to be happy with the outcome.

    Again.......your choice.

    [ Parent ]

    But (none / 0) (#175)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:45:50 PM EST
    Obama will not win some of those states, and my dear, that is not enough to win.

    [ Parent ]
    You're dreaming . . . (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by bdbd on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:19:20 PM EST