Who Would Obama Pick for Attorney General?

According to Matt Stoller and The Washingtonian, Barack Obama is likely to pick Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama for Attorney General. Checking Davis' website, I found this:

From 1994 to 1998, Congressman Davis established a 98 percent conviction rate as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama fighting white-collar criminals and the scourge of drugs and violence on our streets and in our neighborhoods. From 1998 until his election to Congress, Congressman Davis worked as a litigator in private practice.

On issues, in 2006, NORML rated him -20,indicating a "hard-on-drugs" stance. The National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) rated him at 88 for being tough on crime.

Great, just what we need, another drug warrior. Politically, he's a centrist. His website notes:

He is the co-chair of the centrist New Democrat Caucus.

He voted for the bankruptcy reform bill. This article in The Black Commentator makes him out to be a corporate shill.


He also voted for class action reform (as did Obama, by the way, breaking with progressive Democrats), the Real ID act, the marriage amendment and the bill banning partial-birth abortions. And he voted yes on removing the need for a FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. He voted yes on continuing military recruitment on college campuses.

< Update on Whether Obama Will Offer to Help With Hillary's Campaign Debt | Why Did Obama Vote for a Bad Tort Reform Bill? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Makes sense (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Fredster on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:11:33 AM EST
    Since our Katrina-induced exile to AL I've seen him all over the tee-vee here in the B'ham area.  He was a big organizer in getting Obama here in the Birmingham area and he's limited promotion-wise.  With Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby as Senators there's no way (and also because it's Alabama) that he's going to the upper body.  

    I thank Obama (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:17:04 AM EST
    for one thing.  I truly wasn't sure if I was liberal, moderate, conservative......I really didn't know.  May sound silly, but I honestly am just a real person with a variety of reactions.

    Obama has truly helped me locate myself on the map.  I'm a lot more liberal than I realized.

    My son, Gen-Xer, has always said that.  But I'm like also this rabid Southern belle type, too, who is horribly judgmental about rudeness.  It makes me nuts when people boo, for example.  Tacky, tacky, tacky.

    It's the same to me as leaving your pumpking out to melt.  Or your Christmas lights on past January.


    Obama (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:58:33 AM EST
    is a neoliberal.  A modern variant of the classical liberal.  In other words, a conservative.

    The neoliberal supports "free" trade and some believe that the "free" market solves every conceivable problem.

    Obama's economics team consists of free market, free trade ideologues.  His Conservative leanings on economic matters have stuck out like a sore thumb from the start. Hell, by comparison, he practically makes Hillary look like a Socialist.

    IMO you can't describe yourself as a liberal if you're an economic conservative.

    Industrial workers are suspicious of him with good reason.

    IMO the biggest joke of this campaign is some "liberals" supporting Obama.  And they call us low information voters.

    But there's always something to divide us and I have to disagree on the following subject:

    It is not rude to leave Christmas lights on into January. Ever hear of the yule log? Burns from Dec. 24 to Jan. 6 (Epiphany). The Twelve Days of Christmas.

    When I was a kid my family's version (no fireplace) was to leave the tree up, lit every night, until Jan. 6.


    I did note (none / 0) (#27)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:04:01 AM EST
    that I'm a "belle" with stupid judgments, didn't I?  I'm the joke of my own famiy for my judgments on this.

    But to the real heart of your message?

    Thanks.  I'm honstly trying to catch up here with what is and isn't liberal/progressive.

    I was super-active politically in my 20s.  Then I had a baby.  I just got busy making money and raising a kid.  That's the truth.

    I feel like I've stepped into the twilight zone.  So many things I assumed are, clearly, not to be assumed.

    So I appreciate the explanation of the neo-whatever.


    Post modernist (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:05:31 AM EST
    I like to watch the pumpkin deconstruct.  

    I really must protest (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:16:17 AM EST
    Melting pumpkins are as offensive to me as pseudo-liberals.

    I stand firm.  :)                            


    I really must protest (none / 0) (#34)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:16:18 AM EST
    Melting pumpkins are as offensive to me as pseudo-liberals.

    I stand firm.  :)                            


    how ??? (none / 0) (#63)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:55:48 AM EST
    In other words, a conservative.

    how do you explain his voting record - the most liberal in the senate?


    I knew it (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by otherlisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:22:54 AM EST
    Every little bit of evidence I've managed to glean about what Obama would do as President adds up to a centrist with weak core principles who will service the needs of the corporate class at the expense of working people, the environment, and all those other non-New Democrat ("now with Creativity!") types.

    This is yet another confirmation.

    Here's my big question (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:26:34 AM EST
    I agree with you.  I also see all these supposed "progressives" and supposed "educated" people going for it.

    It's so obvious.

    What gives?

    I just don't get it.  


    You got me (none / 0) (#16)
    by otherlisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:39:03 AM EST
    All my "Progressive" friends are on the Obama-wagon. Some of them have sorta logical reasons - they don't think he's great, but they are all about the "Movement" and the "Process" and feel that Obama will be somewhat indebted to the people who help put him in the White House.

    That's the part where I really shake my head. It's one thing to not pay attention and buy the rhetoric, that he's the Great Liberal Hope and Hillary is the She-Demon of Babylon. But if you actually know who he is, why would you expect him to change?


    Process (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:15:15 AM EST
    ""Movement" and the "Process"

    What's amazing is that these people actually think that policy magically drops out of the sky because of the "process."  They couldn't be more wrong if they made a concious effort.

    I believe that his support is part Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Part economic conservatism. Part snob animus towards industrial workers and part simply because he's new. And many more parts just as revolting as those.

    That he's went anywhere at all in this race could be the subject of quite a revealing study.  A study of our decline as a nation.


    I am a "high-information" (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:24:11 AM EST
    person.  Proably a lot more than his demographic.

    However, I do wish to put forth a unifying idea here.

    The same fears I saw growing the the 70s and 80s among industrial workers is now growing among white-collar, college educated workers.

    Let's get real.  The average 4-year college grad is on the firing line job-wise.  This is the Stran Steel story of this decade.  Their jobs are being outsourced as fast as the blue-collar worker of previous decades.

    I have no explanation for why I saw what was coming, but I can tell you:  I was right.

    I say this, too.  Without a middle-class?  Whether you work in a cubicle or a factory?

    America is truly gone.

    If the "creative" class honestly imagines that they have much to offer?

    Go read the contributers to Huffington Post.  

    Honestly, 90% is hack stuff.  Poorly thought out.  Poorly written.

    We have no real creative class to offer the world right now.

    That's fantasy.

    We either rebuild the middle class, or we go down the tubes.

    BTW......I honestly don't care.  I'll be dead.


    college education means less (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by bigbay on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:59:55 AM EST
    what passes for college graduate writing now, would have been high school graduate level 30 years ago.

    I Agree bigbay (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:40:15 AM EST
    The quality we see today is poor by comparison.

    In high school we were actually prepared to go to college with stringent basic course requirements and high standards.

    I was dumbstruck when I asked a college bound nephew to tell me about his high school senior thesis. He didn't know what I was talking about.  That was a little over 30 years ago.


    OK (none / 0) (#18)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:50:19 AM EST
    Then I'm back to my original thinking.  I think a lot of them were raised by Republicans.  I really do.

    My Gen-X son knew that Hillary wasn't the she-devil, but he was raised Democrat during "the scorching."  I bet you bucks that many who are confused were raised in Republican households and bought the smears.

    My own Gen-Xer voted for Hillary, but has since fallen prey to "unite the party, omigod" mantra.

    However, I had to chuckle the other day.  He said, "I saw McCain debate.  Omigod...so not a problem."  LOL*

    I did, indeed, say......"told you so."  :)


    Yeah (none / 0) (#48)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:53:25 AM EST
    Among the 'creative class" are KOS, former Republican and free trade advocate, Josh Marshall, DLCer, free trade advocate and I read somewhere former Republican, Aravosis, former Republican.

    Of the Obama supporters I know, a number came from GOP families.


    Problem is... (none / 0) (#76)
    by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:15:20 AM EST
    Obama is NOT a progressive liberal.  He's a centrist.
    He co-oped John Edwards' platform and his populace stance and put the racial spin on it and knocked everyone out using undercover tactics and getting the media to promote him while doing little to nothing.

    What is pitiful is all these "progressive" liberals think they finally have a champion, but it's all lies.  Obama just hides behind the liberal mask, but that's not who he is.

    Just from some of the people who he cut loose during this campaign tells me that he is really an opportunist who will use anyone to get what he wants.  He uses his aloofness as "coolness", but that will only impress the "creative" crowd who, themselves, are aloof snobs.

    This is NOT translate in November.


    what gives (none / 0) (#66)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:01:56 AM EST
    is "progressives" have money now, and they like it, and they want to hold onto it.  It's called having your cake and eating it, too.

    I remember when I got my first check and had to pay almost half of it in taxes.  I grumbled, "dang tax and spend liberals!" all the way to the post office.

    Don't y'all see how perfect Obama is?  He'll assuage your white guilt, heal the world, talk the progressive talk, all while being a republican.


    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by phat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:23:26 AM EST
    This guy is a terrible choice for Attorney General.

    Is this what we have to look forward to?

    Ah well...

    I don't put too much stock (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:30:12 AM EST
    into Stoller's speculation.

    The point he makes about Daschle is quote concerning, though. It has some basis, I think.


    Daschle and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:45:55 AM EST
    are close.

    Obama's top Senate aide is Pete Rouse formerly of Daschle's staff.

    For more insight try on this WAPOST article:



    Yep (none / 0) (#23)
    by phat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:57:48 AM EST


    When I looked at the candidates at the beginning of the primaries I saw a great cabinet.

    Now I'm worried.



    Dick Daley made it possible for him (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:12:37 AM EST
    to be a Senator. Tom Daschle got him the seed money to run for President.

    Owned and Operated.


    Yes, he is owned and operated (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by chancellor on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:54:41 AM EST
    I've lived in Illinois all my life, and I can tell you that no city Democrat gets anywhere without being a product of the Chicago machine. There is also a strong state Dem party, of which Durbin, a real progressive, is part of, but Obama wouldn't have advanced in the city without the blessing of the machine and all the negatives that connotes. Obama's legislative emphasis in Illinois was not on the broad issues that effect most of us here. He is most definitely not a bread-and-butter Democrat.

    And so it begins (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by ChrisM on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:38:51 AM EST
    Is anyone really surprised by this?

    BO never pretended to be progressive. It's only the so-called "progressive" blogosphere that convinced itself that he is.

    this is far from fact (none / 0) (#65)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:59:21 AM EST
    amazing how quickly everyone here takes the Post article as the way it is.  I imagine names will be floated for months but w/ little bearing on decision.

    Ok, you made me look (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:43:50 AM EST
    The way these people write about Obama I repeat, it's really scary.  It's really political pornography to have alleged critical thinkers write things like:  
    In terms of the 'Iron Law of Institutions', the Obama campaign is masterful.  From top to bottom, they have destroyed their opponents within the party, stolen out from under them their base, and persuaded a whole set of individuals from blog readers to people in the pews to ignore intermediaries and believe in Barack as a pure vessel of change

    Gawd (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:57:00 AM EST
    Stoller writes as if it's all Obama's party starting now and the whole thing is going to be remade in his image.  Total political cluelessness.  Even if we grant him the nomination (heh), you ain't nothin' until you win.  I don't recall us being the John Kerry Party or the Michael Dukakis Party at any point.

    And even if you win, as Bill Clinton will testify, you hardly become the undisputed master of all things Democratic.  That might work if we were the other guys, sure.  But we have a big tent in this party, a wide spectrum of opinions, and everyone has their own agenda.  The Democratic members of Congress are not going to simultaneously prostrate themselves before Obama and ask how they can serve him.  It's like they're prepared to declare his entire 8-year presidency a smashing success based solely on vanquishing Hillary Clinton.


    How could a progressive ever (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:23:36 AM EST
    consider Reagan a Hero and actually cite america under Reagan as one of the golden years. In fact that hero worship by Obama itself should have shown red flags.

    Red flags (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:24:48 AM EST
    It did. To some of us. I remember John Edwards going ballistic and loving him for it. Unfortunately, the MSM rewrote it as something good and important and more people swallowed the Kool-Aid.

    John Edwards just said on the today show that. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:23:06 AM EST
    Obama will unite the party. LOL. Okay John, I guess you had to say that.

    yeah (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:26:42 AM EST
    I think he had to say it. Really, is he going to say that Obama won't? LOL! I'm sure Obama will unite the party--what's left of it anyway.

    No matter what happens (none / 0) (#70)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:24:21 AM EST
    They will call it united and annoint Obama, the great uniter. Who cares what the numbers say? Until he loses. Then the knives will come out.

    A "Pure Vessel of Change"?!?!? (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by otherlisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:59:27 AM EST
    I'll tell ya, the ObamaMessiah phenomena was the first thing that really turned me off about him. Remember that Sacramento Bee article, way back when? About how his volunteers were instructed to not talk about policy, but instead to share their personal conversion stories, "how they came to Obama"?

    Church and State - separate 'em, people! This sh** is creepy.


    You want to know why he lost (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:10:57 AM EST
    Jews 2:1 in PA? This should give you some insight.

    We do NOT like mixing religion with politics.


    Oy. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:21:11 AM EST
    No kidding. Personally, I think all Americans should be appalled at the lack of seperation of church and state lately, esp from the Dems.

    The messiah thing (none / 0) (#40)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:29:06 AM EST
    seems to have worked because today we have no less than nytimes - considered till now the most powerful progressive voice- telling us that votes do not matter and that Hillary should not raise FL & MI issue because that would harm Obama and that nobody least of all Hillary should harm the ONE.

    Change (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:59:26 AM EST
    It's always knocked me out.  When people talk about change they seldom bother to ask about the content of the change.

    They have their own idea of what the change consists of and project their content onto the candidate who shouts change without realizing that the candidate doesn't share their vision.


    Hmm (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:51:09 AM EST
    I seem to recall a high-profile committee hearing where Davis was a superstar questioner.  I don't remember what the subject was.  He at least seems like a sharp guy.  Now personally, I say nominate John Edwards so we can see the Republicans totally lose it.

    Even more troubling is Stoller's suggestion that Tom Daschle would be the likely Chief of Staff.  When will the first Obama supporter wake up and say "hey, it's actually not that awesome that Obama's Chief of Staff would be a DLC centrist lobbyist"?  Look for the same people who say Hillary can never be forgiven for her war vote to have no problem with Daschle, even though he's as responsible for the whole fiasco as any Democrat, rolling over for Bush when he demanded the war vote be scheduled right before the election for maximum Republican gain.  I mean, he's right there with Mark Penn on the list of people I never want to hear from again.  Chief of Staff?!

    Stoller a year ago (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:54:45 AM EST
    would not have gone for Daschle anywhere near the cabinet.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by phat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:59:36 AM EST
    is this party moving to the right?

    I would never have predicted this.

    Well maybe, a little.

    what makes it so much more disturbing is (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:25:19 AM EST
    that this is a year when we have a popular groundswell for a significant shift to the left.  opportunities like this come only once in a generation--and obama is squandering it for us, all because he wanted a free ride off of the dem brand.

    Interesting perspective (none / 0) (#45)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:29:09 AM EST
    although I've always thought the rabid anti-war group would lose if there was even an ounce of proof that it was working.

    The public......voted for this war.

    I stand by this conviction.

    The public......must answer for it.


    Probably (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:08:53 AM EST
    the most depressing thing I've read all night. Other than the screed by a now ex-friend proclaiming a) all HRC supporters for being f-ing idiots for actually have an opinion about their candidate and b) WWTSBQA? since clearly she is the bane of all things evil. The saddest part? He doesnt actually know where anyone stands on policies, hasn't followed any of the MSM coverage but is going basically on hearsay.

    Stuff like this points upward is what I actually expect and fear from an Obama presidency. Crappy oportunistic cabinet appointments given without any consideration as to competency. Because that would be boring and like, hard work.

    I love what (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:12:31 AM EST
    the a-list blogs and other Obama people do reagrding their hero de jour.

    They were angry when Feingold voted Ashcroft out of committee and now he's a hero because he endorsed Obama. They were upset when Leahy dithered until he endorsed Obama.  Some were suggesting Chuck Hagel as an Obama running mate because he came out against the war while ignoring his hard right voting record. Even McCain achieved near hero status during the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform days and they were giddy when the rumors about a Kerry/McCain ticket were rattling around.  Chris Dodd was a goat because of his ties to the insurance industry until he did his FISA show and endorsed Obama.

    Ezra Klein was a UHC advocate until he went in the bag for Obama. Now, not so much.

    These people sell out cheap.

    If This Is True, Then It Really Reinforces My (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:16:58 AM EST
    doubts on what type of person Obama would nominate for SCOTUS.

    FWIW an Obama supporter said that Cass Sunstein would be Obama's choice for SCOTUS. Sustein is a strong Obama supporter, graduated from Harvard Law and currently teaches at the University of Chicago Law School so this does make some sense.

    Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects. He is generally thought to be liberal, although he has publicly supported various of George W. Bush judicial nominees, including Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts. Much of his work also brings behavioral economics to bear on law, suggesting that the "rational actor" model will sometimes produce an inadequate understanding of how people will respond to legal intervention.

    Judicial Minimalism

    Their anti-conservative, yet also anti-liberal stance is well-expressed in the concurrent belief of many minimalists that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided by its overly liberal court, but also that modern conservatives who either sit on or influence the Supreme Court of the United States are wrong to try and overrule that case at one fell stroke, its effect on the law having become a stable precedent. Depending on the minimalist's particular preferences, a minimalist on the court would be likely to either very slowly bolster or chip away at abortion precedents rather than proclaim a lasting ban or legalization on abortion via Constitutional rulings.

    SCOTUS is the reason cited for having to vote for Obama no matter what. Yet, the more I learn about possible Obama appointments (Davis, Sunstein), the more I doubt that the justice(s) he would chose will rule favorably on choice and other things I care about.  

    Whenever an Obama supporter tells you (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:34:26 AM EST
    in that shrill voice that you must vote for Obama because of Roe, simply tell them back, "if women's right issues are your primary concern, why didn't you vote for the only candidate who was unambiguous about them? -- the woman"

    excellent point (none / 0) (#68)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:17:39 AM EST
    about reproductive rights.

    I have written many long and boring screeds here about abortion, and all the signals Obama has given that he's not going to take a firm stand.

    In short: I can see the dems fighting tooth and nail against a conservative McCain appointee who would restrict abortion.  I cannot see them taking up the charge against an Obama appointee who would do the same.  They seem to think anti-choice dems are fine so long as they are dems.

    No matter that it's dem in name only.  I mean, seriously, what do we stand for anymore?  Not reproductive rights.  Not the working class.  Are we supposed to be the valiant fighters soley for aa's and the sacred rights of a handful of spoiled, upper middle class, college educated whites?


    The "tell" for me on women's rights (none / 0) (#72)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:48:58 AM EST
    was the fact that his wife had to get his permission, and he had to interview the boss, before she could take a job. What kind of a husband does that?? One who doesn't think his wife has the brains, in spite of her two degrees, to make the decision on her own. This tells me exactly where he stands on women's rights. He doesn't think they have the brains to make their own decisions.

    If The Dems Did Not Fight Tooth And Nail (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:07:28 AM EST
    against a conservative McCain appointee who would restrict abortion, they would lose the issue of SCOTUS as a threat for decades to come. Of course, they might be tone deaf to the political implications of this, just like they have been on so many issues.  

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:04:08 AM EST

    Roe vs. Wade, decided in 1973, was founded on the right of privacy in the medical domain, but the court's argument was exceedingly weak. The Constitution does not use the word "privacy" anywhere, and, in any case, the idea of privacy seems to describe a right of seclusion, not a right of patients and doctors to decide as they see fit.

    Wouldn't it be ironic..... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:26:55 AM EST
    ...I keep being told on the blogosphere that Roe v Wade is the single most important reason that I MUST vote for Obama. It wouldn't surprise me if he appoints a justice who helps overturn it. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

    Why (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:27:33 AM EST
    should we even bother voting for Obama? It seems that we would be better off with McCain because congress is more likely to oppose this kind of stuff. Anyway, it also shows that Obama will continually cave to the Republicans also.

    The bigger issue here is and the reason Obama won't win the general election is because he is percieved as the far left but is trying to run as a centrist.

    you take this article as fact? (none / 0) (#71)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:25:52 AM EST
    i wouldn't be so quick to assume.  And it is asinine to think mcCain would be better (if your a dem) - you'd have to completely disregard the war, health care, education, middle class tax cuts, etc.???????  this rhetoric here by hillary supporters (which i understand to some degree) has become too much.  we should attempt to unite around the democratic nominee.  not write him off b/c he beat our horse.  When you compare him to Mccain, Obama looks.... like..... the rest of our party.... i know it is hard to believe but he is a stark contrast to McCain.  

    Until he is running in the GE (none / 0) (#74)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:01:50 AM EST
    Then he blends his ideas with McCains and people say, hardly no difference in issues. He did it with Hillary. That will be his MO again.

    Let's be real... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kdog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:14:16 AM EST
    we all knew going in that whichever of the 3 stooges gets elected they will appoint a pro-drug war, draconian on certain types of crime, corporate-friendly, wanna-be tyrant Attorney General.

    In the Democrat and Republican parties, there isn't any other kind.

    the more we know about this guy (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:14:20 AM EST
    the more I think McCain would be just as good.

    I think it might come down to (none / 0) (#73)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:54:27 AM EST
    Everything is a mess right now. People are expecting the change of ownership will result in miracles happening overnight. GW inherited a glorious Clinton bundle and squandered it away. Now it is start over from scratch. I don't think Obama is up for the job and if he can not immediately have success, the Dems will be to blame and it will ruin us for many years to come.And let's say Tom D is Chief of Staff, is that a good thing? Was he such a great Senate leader? I don't think so. I think he was weak. I mean, although other reasons, it is hard to be in that position and lose your Senate seat. That does not bode well for him. Once again, millions of people in the USA and it will come down to two people who will not be able to fix the problems. Hope, my posterior.

    UGH (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:55:22 AM EST
    can we take out "partial birth abortions" and bracket it with [late term] abortions?  That right-wing phrasing grates on my nerves.

    But, I'd like to point out that here we have a classic example of who Obama would seek out: a man who would restrict abortion access.

    I've said this before but I think it bears repeating: I had a friend who had to carry a dead fetus in her womb for two weeks because the procedure to remove it, a late term abortion, is illegal in Georgia.

    Sourced on 2 unsourced rumors. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ben Masel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:58:57 AM EST
    Has Hillary offered you the AG slot Jeralyn? If so, I'll reconsider.

    Fascinating... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:16:07 AM EST
    Where does this guy stand on NSLs? Warrantless wire tapping? Civil Rights? Electronic eavesdropping? ISP warrants?

    Wouldn't we all like to know... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Gabriele Droz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:25:22 AM EST
    Just hang in there.  We've always got hope, change, and unity.....not yet, of course, but it will happen.

    count (none / 0) (#57)
    by zero on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:03:52 AM EST
    don't count your ponies before they hatch

    Who cares? (none / 0) (#36)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:22:20 AM EST
    As long as we all get a pony!

    Davis is, among other things (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:17:41 AM EST
    a terrible fit for his district.

    I hope Stoller doesn't think he's doing Obama any favors.

    that was my first thought (none / 0) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:20:41 AM EST
    Is Davis a Democrat? (none / 0) (#6)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:21:24 AM EST
    It's hard to tell.

    I bet 50p (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:23:12 AM EST
    that by next week, he will be the new definition of progressive.

    Ahh yes, a sign of things to come. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Gabriele Droz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:23:17 AM EST
    From our "most liberal"  good Senator (grinding teeth).

    What?? (none / 0) (#20)
    by decih on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:52:32 AM EST
    Not Edwards? :(

    OK...... (none / 0) (#46)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:34:24 AM EST
    This West Coaster is off to bed.  Interesting discussion.  Thanks!

    I shudder to think of Obama's DOJ (none / 0) (#52)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:29:14 AM EST
    he's the only Democrat to declare Bush and Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses!

    Plus --

    WSJ - May 5, 2008
    Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.

    The Clintons didn't exactly end the (none / 0) (#55)
    by halstoon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:48:35 AM EST
    War on Drugs, so I'm not encouraged that any of the 3 people running now would really depart from that policy. Despite the clear evidence that it is bad policy, too many Americans support it, and it's too easy to demagogue crime/drugs in a GE.

    So no chance for Edwards? He was just on Morning Joe and seemed to indicate--in a very roundabout way--he voted for Barack while Mrs. Edwards supported Hillary.