home

Jim Johnson Out As Obama VP Vetter

Good move by the Obama camp. Obama's statement:

Jim did not want to distract in any way from the very important task of gathering information about my vice presidential nominee, so he has made a decision to step aside that I accept. We have a very good selection process underway, and I am confident that it will produce a number of highly qualified candidates for me to choose from in the weeks ahead. I remain grateful to Jim for his service and his efforts in this process."

Next time, let's be careful BEFORE we name folks like Johnson, who clearly epitomized everything Obama was said to be running against. Politics is phony theatre, but this was a bit too much.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed.

< Guantanamo Death Trials: 'Not Acceptable' | WMRM? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • If the extended primary was useful (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:59:05 PM EST
    for anything, it was to prove to Obama and his people that letting issues fester is BAD. Take the short term pain when you can.

    He still (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:03:28 PM EST
    hasn't learned that lesson. He should have gotten rid of him once everything came out. I figure he waits until he sees what happens in the polls and then acts.

    Parent
    I'm using my power of internet telepathy (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:06:26 PM EST
    to force him to understand!

    Parent
    How is that working out for you? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:08:53 PM EST
    Did you try it in the primary?

    Parent
    Isn't that what yammering on the internet (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:11:13 PM EST
    is for?

    Parent
    No, but oddly I just online-sent andgarden a pizza (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:13:40 PM EST
    Weird!

    Parent
    It seems to be Johnson should never have (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:08:24 PM EST
    been on that committe in the first place.  If obama is that ill-informed about something like this, how are we supposed to trust him in the WH.

    Parent
    Perhaps O's Campaign (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    thought they'd continue to get a pass from media on most things, including this.

    Parent
    Yes, funny how the media darling (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    is suddenly getting just a tiny bit of pushback, and he caves. Funny how the least bit of scrutiny seems to show glaring problems with his vaunted "judgment."

    How is he going to handle the inevitable August swiftboating campaign, I wonder, should he nominated at the Convention?

    Parent

    obama declares....I was for Jim Johnson (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:34:32 PM EST
    before I was against him....lol

    Parent
    I'm trying (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:55:17 PM EST
    to think when was the last time we had a candidate who filled up the bus so quickly? Not Kerry, not Gore, not Clinton. Dukakis perhaps? Mondale? I know Carter ended up throwing tons of people under the bus.

    Parent
    Let's see ... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:16:36 PM EST
    Gore:  threw his pollsters Penn/Schoen under bus, fall 99.  Fired his campaign director and others, May 00.  Didn't fire VP vetter Warren Christopher (loser also of Recount infamy) when he chose Joe Lieberman.

    Kerry:  fired camp mgr in fall 03.  Failed to throw self under bus when he failed to go with his gut instinct on the Veep pick.

    Bill:  pretty loyal, even to semi-disloyal fair-weather aides like Geo Stephanopolous.  Demoted/fired press sec'y Dee Dee Myers.  And did toss first two AG picks under bus, over the slightest nanny-SS tax reasons.  Ditto for thrown under bus CR Division nominee Lana Guinier.

    Hill: should have thrown Mark Penn under bus far earlier. Ditto for inept Patti Doyle Solis.

    Parent

    Kerry (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:24:22 PM EST
    wasn't the nominee when he fired his campaign manager.

    Although you disagree with the choice of Lieberman as VP there was no reason to fire Christopher over that one. It was only after the Gore lost that people realized Lieberman wasn't helpful.

    I remember Clinton doing that AFTER he was in office. I'm pretty much talking about a nominee who had to throw so many people under the bush. The only example that looks close is Gore firing his campaign team in May 00

    Already Obama's thrown Grandma, Wright, Pleger, Johnson and we haven't even made it to the convention. At the rate he's going, he'll be throwing Michelle and his daughters under the bus before the Nov. election.

    Parent

    I'm not sure what sort of principled point (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:34:09 PM EST
    you want to make if it's essentially okay to toss 'em under the bus so long as it's not done when the pol is campaigning as the nominee.  By that definition, and since O has only been the nominee for a week now, we must not count Wright and Pfleger and Granny, can we?

    Oh, and yes, as a matter of fact, I thought the Lieberman selection was a disaster.  Not so much in a 20-20 easy hindsight sense, but in a the way Gore so clearly threw Pres Clinton under the bus by selecting Mr Sanctimony.

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:43:34 PM EST
    Okay, if you just want to list the things candidates did then that's okay with me. Still Obama seems to be way ahead of the game already.

    What do you think of Obama throwing clinton under the bus then? Or of his sactimonious attitude. Truly, Obama is the closest thing to Lieberman in a lot of ways than any other candidate.

    Parent

    Brodie...I either didn't know or just forgot (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:42:19 PM EST
    about the DeeDee Meyers incident.  This could account for her husband's scandalous current Vanity Fair article...bogus b.s., with no real sources.  Man, these people are something else.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Chisoxy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:22:33 PM EST
    that has to happen when you choose to run as St. Obama of Chicago

    Parent
    In politics, (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by pie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:43:18 PM EST
    even the vetters need vetting, I guess.

    Also, he was only a volunteer!  He wasn't getting paid by the campaign!

    Geez, you guys.  ;)

    Parent

    Possibly obama's ticket on the Free Pass (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:35:22 PM EST
    Express has been punched...no more free rides.  

    Parent
    I think that is a myth (1.33 / 3) (#164)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:23:40 PM EST
    He has never gotten a free pass.  The only media coverage that showed him getting more positive press was immediately following Iowa.  

    Parent
    Sorry - no (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:39:26 PM EST
    "Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting from the media coverage this year--Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage while 14% say that Hillary got the best treatment.

    At the other extreme, 43% say Clinton received the worst treatment from the media. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say the media was roughest on McCain and only 15% thought the media coverage was most unfair to Obama. "

    LINK

    Parent

    Who Vill Vett de Vetters? (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:10:31 PM EST
    Vim Van de Vetters vom Den Haag.

    I'm surprised he let him go actually. Seemed a bit non controvetial, but mordantly funny.

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:19:03 PM EST
    Although I couldn't find anything deeming (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:02:34 PM EST
    Mr. Johnson as registered federal lobbyist. But, yes, a smart move.

    But why is Obama so intent on not seeing the obvious choice of Clinton?

    Not only that (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:04:25 PM EST
    but I think his campaign has had a concerted effort to discredit her.  

    Parent
    Not conducive to healing, imo. (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:12:45 PM EST
    Biding his time (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:26:31 PM EST
    In my opinion, he does not want to share a ticket with Hillary, but knows he may not be able to win without her. So for right now he's looking elsewhere and not mentioning Clinton as VP in any serious way, and will poll to figure out how many of Clinton's supporters seem to be willing to support him anyway even if she is not on the ticket. If he doesn't get enough of them, he'll name Clinton later, and say "we looked high and low, and couldn't find a more qualified person." If he does get enough of her supporters to come on board, then he'll name someone else.

    This is, of course, pure speculation.

    Parent

    It's right on (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:47:22 PM EST
    "Let's see if we can ride it out" is the standard M.O. of his campaign.

    Parent
    This should have been (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:03:25 PM EST
     his showcasing of putting together a coalition.  Now they showed their colors.  

    So much (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:04:20 PM EST
    for New Politics and Change, Change, Change.

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    As usual (5.00 / 12) (#7)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:04:26 PM EST
    Brilliant move by Obama to keep him on board, even more brilliant move to get rid of him.  The guy just keeps showing his mastery of the process.

    Surely (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:05:35 PM EST
    you are snarking? LOL.

    Yep, he ignores it until it becomes a crescendo then under the bus he goes!

    Parent

    Rumor has it (5.00 / 15) (#18)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    Johnson would have been under the bus yesterday but they had to wait for the arrival of a new fleet.  

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO! (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:10:33 PM EST
    Yep, it's looking like he might need that fleet. The GOP is forcing the media to "vet" him.

    Parent
    Who first Under the Bused? (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:17:11 PM EST
    There are so many thrown under it that people all over should be walking around with tire marks down their back. Picture that around DC. People walking down the street and you hear them say, 'Oh Look, they got Herb too.'

    Parent
    ala Night Of The Living Dead??? (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:41:27 PM EST
    LOL (5.00 / 6) (#132)
    by feet on earth on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:59:43 PM EST
    Someone should make t-shirts with tire mark prints for Hillary's delegates at the conventions. That be fun.

    Parent
    Guess they finally found a way (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:24:15 PM EST
    to use those buses they sent to New Orleans to evacuate the city.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 11) (#42)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    I am just remembering all the awesome rationalizations we got in yesterday's thread.  I think my favorite argument was "any qualified person you could possibly pick would have problems like this!"

    One of the most amusing things in politics is when you defend your candidate's position to the death, and then the next day they change their mind and throw you under the bus, so to speak.

    I don't know what it is about the Obama supporters.  It's like finding a rare jewel when one of them says "yeah, this sort of bothers me" or "gee, Obama could have given a better statement."  Some ability for self-criticism is nice.

    Parent

    Self-awareness is old politics. (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:16:07 PM EST
    Yes, and truthiness is back in vogue (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:24:30 PM EST
    Usually (5.00 / 8) (#55)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:19:11 PM EST
    they just attack you as if we just made this stuff up out of whole cloth. I got attacked by an Obama supporter yesterday by daring to point out that Obama's record on GLBT stuff wasn't that hot and cited McClurkin.

    Somehow that was just another attempt at 'character assassination by way of guilt by association' and....something.

    It astounds me that rather than actually bothering to look into things and realising that there might be something rotten in Hyde Park, it's just easier to screed about how it's Not True.

    Does anyone remember that short period of time when Obama was claiming his judgement was better'n anyone else's because he was Obama? I do expect to see those sound bites/standing behind signs that said "Good Judgement" showing up real soon.

    Parent

    And really Clinton (5.00 / 8) (#64)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:24:39 PM EST
    could have gone crazy on all the stuff. But she didn't much. She was a very kind opponent in my opinion. (To kind.)

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 7) (#83)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:32:42 PM EST
    The sad thing is the Obama supporters really have no idea how gently she treated him by comparison to what the Republicans can and will. This is just the starting salvos, IMHO.

    I keep hearing how now that he's our nominee we can't say anything bad about him and it's got to be all McCain-bashing all the time. Happily I am no longer part of that 'we' and will throw rocks where I see fit.

    Parent

    oh yes indeedy, Hillary is going to be (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:43:38 PM EST
    looking pretty good to them soon....and hopefully, to the SD's and the a$$hats of the DNC.

    Parent
    The one (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:01:39 PM EST
    they all seem to use is calling you a liar. Nothing makes me madder than that.

    Parent
    Or, "do you have a link for that!!??" (5.00 / 6) (#156)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM EST
    As if every politically aware person wasn't jabbering about the topic for days just a few weeks ago.

    They must teach these tactics to disarm threads at Obama camps. You see the same tactics used everywhere, over and over.

    It is like a lawyer trying to get something in the record, even when they know it is not true. As if naive people are going to read TalkLeft archives and stumble across the thread and be bamboozled.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:00:16 PM EST
    that's what makes this kind of stuff doubly funny. It reminds me of the bush supporters who hung on his every word and no matter how many "conservative" principles he killed off it was simply pronounced as "wonderful"!

    Parent
    Karen Hughes (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by magisterludi on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:44 PM EST
    used to say " The President, in his wisdom,...", referring to W. The crown jewel of cringe-worthiness.

    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:06:00 PM EST
    That was good. (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:09:21 PM EST
    I fear more Obama campaign hilarity over the next few months.

    Parent
    Not brilliant, conniving... (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:12:15 PM EST
    Johnson wouldn't be out of this job if the press didn't make such a big thing about him.

    Obama has again showed his "tell"... he will readily get rid of anyone who might bring attention to the weaknesses in his campaign and himself.  

    So that's what the Republicans should do... don't attack Obama directly, attack all around him.  Dig up the dirt on Axelrod and Co., bring out all the dirty Chicago politics around Obama.  Dig up all the crap on the politicians who dumped the Clintons to get on the Obama Magical Bus Tour and lets see how people Barry starts cutting off.

    Parent

    when will obama say "enough" (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:29:08 PM EST
    whatever one says about Penn, Clinton didnt throw him under the bus.  At least not until Penn failed to keep his two jobs separate.

    Of course obama can never say "enough".  Because No one has done more that obama to build guilt by association memes in politics.

    An expectation of purity now constricts  his every move.

    Parent

    Nice way to help the enemy (3.00 / 2) (#193)
    by tribe643 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:55:22 PM EST
    By giving advice to Republicans on how they could possibly attack our nominee. I understand fair criticism, but that comment almost seemed to imply a means of sabotaging Obama's campaign to the benefit of McCain.

    Parent
    Do you think (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:02:14 PM EST
    the Republicans won't think of it unless a commenter posts it on a blog somewhere?

    Parent
    Not necessarily (1.00 / 1) (#204)
    by tribe643 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:07:04 PM EST
    But if this type of attitude reeks face on various other blogs with similar types of comments, I have no doubt it will, at least on some occasions, get to Republican staffers.

    They can think of strategies to defeat our nominee all they want. We shouldn't be in the habit of giving them a leg up in that process.

    Parent

    we aint (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:08:18 PM EST
    unless we are being read religiously.

    Parent
    that's what Hannity is doing right now (none / 0) (#56)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:20:35 PM EST
    whatever that bloke does is fine by me (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:13:09 PM EST
    he's fantastic. Why, if he delivered a speech at the Oxford Union they'd hoist him upon their shoulder and shout out in glee:

    "For he's a jolly good fellow....which nobody can deny."

    Parent

    Why, just this morning on local NPR (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    radio the "political reporter," a woman of probably 70 and totally an Obamaite, reported 52% of Europeans would prefer Obama as U.S. President.  

    Parent
    Only 52%? (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by davnee on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:26:52 PM EST
    That's pretty pathetic for Obama actually.  The McSame meme apparently doesn't even win you a landslide across the pond!

    Parent
    Well, you know (5.00 / 11) (#77)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:29:58 PM EST
    Appalachia now extends into the Pyrenees.

    Parent
    But, remember, no Obama rallies (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:30:35 PM EST
    in Europe yet, to my knowledge.

    Parent
    It's also because (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:34:25 PM EST
    they've been pretty much shielded from any of the negatives (just like anyone who goes to the pro-Obama blogs). When I've given my European friends actual examples of Why I Will Not Vote For Him, they quickly change their minds.

    Parent
    A French friend asked me in April who I (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:35:58 PM EST
    favored.  When I sd. Clinton, he immed. sd. she lied about Tuzla.  He follows U.S. policics quite closely, but is strongly in favor of Obama.

    Parent
    Never trust the French with politics (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:50:48 PM EST
    They are really having a great time with Skarkozy, aren't they?

    Parent
    Definitely, buyer's remorse. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by themomcat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:52:45 PM EST
    which Sarkozy? (none / 0) (#205)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:07:30 PM EST
    mememememememe.

    Parent
    BTD (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:04:34 PM EST
    Obama hasn't been careful about who he picks. This kind of stuff is going to continue to happen throughout the campaign. Didn't he reinstate Goolsby?

    Threw another one under the bus (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    I knew this was going to happen.

    Obama will push off anyone ANYONE who could be a slight threat to him and his ambitions.

    And they use to put Hillary down everyday and this Obama gets to pretend like he doesn't know the people around him?

    As time goes by, I have less faith in this self-centered, narcissistic politician from the Chicago school of "back-door politics".

    The guy resigned (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CST on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    I think it's pretty clear Obama didn't throw him under the bus.  Obama defended him and then he stepped down.

    Parent
    Are you really that naive? (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:10:52 PM EST
    He was asked to step down so Obama wouldn't have to sully himself by 'firing' someone he claimed wasn't getting paid in the first place. One of the oldest tricks in the book. I'm surprised Johnson didn't say he was leaving to "spend time with his wife and kids".

    Parent
    Whatever (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by CST on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:13:19 PM EST
    There is a big difference between that and what happened with the reverends etc... that he actually threw under the bus.

    No I am not naive thank you, obviously it was a joint decision but they did it in a way that was clearly NOT throwing under the bus.

    Parent

    More like CYA (5.00 / 10) (#57)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:21:14 PM EST
    Obama was stammering and spluttering yesterday about how he couldn't vet the vetters etc. and defending Johnson. Now, he's gone. I guess our definition of what that bus is differs greatly.

    Parent
    the pattern is the same (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:29:27 PM EST
    An Obama associate is exposed. Obama initially ignores the glaring landmines and defends him/her.
    When it's obvious associates damning America, calling Hillary a monster, obtaining special deals from FHA, etc - are problematic, Obama finally sees the light.
    Obviously, Obama's judgment is reliant on polls and focus groups.


    Parent
    resigned? (5.00 / 8) (#79)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:30:12 PM EST
    or quietly asked to resign while the other hand kills with kindness?

    The latter is a standard "old" politics tactic.

    Parent

    hmm...you really think that there was (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by nulee on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:11:42 PM EST
    no chat with Axelrod? I highly doubt it.

    Parent
    Good one. Probably wanted to spend (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:17:02 PM EST
    more time w/his family.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 9) (#59)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:22:24 PM EST
    More like spending more time with Obama's grandmother.

    Parent
    Priceless (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:37:07 PM EST
    I am bookmarking this one for future reference!  

    Parent
    Hasn't she been re-habbed? The women (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    in Obama's life, you know.

    Parent
    You can still see the tire tracks (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    I wish she would speak up. The Kenyan (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:26:58 PM EST
    relatives are ecstatic.  

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#73)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:27:41 PM EST
    You are killing me today, Steve M! :-)

    Parent
    LOL. Just like how Rummy resigned. (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    Just how every politician in the history of America has "resigned." Elliot Spitzer resigned too.  LOL.

    Parent
    C'on CST (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:59:44 PM EST
    Oh well (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by CST on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:06:54 PM EST
    Guess I struck out on that one.  I definitely have a different idea of "under the bus"  although I am still waiting for Dick Cheney to literally throw someone under a bus and give the whole analogy new meaning.


    Parent
    He "stepped" down? (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:51:52 PM EST
    Like Rumsfeld and Powell "stepped" down?

    Awwwww, the wonderful world of the naive.

    Parent

    Way to be condescending (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by CST on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:10:03 PM EST
    If you actually bothered to read my other posts you would see that I clarified that - but yes, stepping down (even if he was asked to) is a big difference from being "rejected and renounced".

    But yea, I MUST be "naive" for having a difference of opinion on what being thrown under the bus means.  At least I don't refer to you as "out of touch".

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:10:58 PM EST
    once again shows superior judgment - Gee, all I want is a President who's smart enough to know that his associations are fair game, but it looks like we won't have that for at least another 4 years now.

    "The wheels on the bus go round and round.  Round and round. Round and round.  The wheels on the bus go round and round, all through the town."

    Parent

    It has probably been done already... (none / 0) (#166)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    and I am too out of it to know. But a YouTube to the tune of "Another One Bites the Dust" by Queen entitled "Another One Under the Bus" would be hilarious.

    Parent
    One Thing For Sure (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by talex on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:11:18 PM EST
    Loyalty, as with the Bushies, will not be a major theme with Obama should he win. The only one he is loyal to is himself.

    His priorities are: Self, Self, God, Self, Country

    Parent

    I disagree. (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:13:09 PM EST
    It is Self, Self, God, Self, and Michelle.

    Parent
    god? (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by denise on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    I think not. In religion as in everything else, it's all for show.

    Parent
    Now If Caroline Kennedy (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by talex on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:05:16 PM EST
    would resign all would be good. For we all know that Caroline would not even consider considering Hillary as VP. And if a vetter cannot vett without preconceived prejudices then they are not a vetter at all, they are just an unpaid employee (for now) following the bosses orders.

    As a sidebar to this issue:

    I wonder who Obama has his mortgage with? Countrywide? Nah!

    Maybe someone should look into that - it is public record. I mean Obama wouldn't have got a sweetheart mortgage through a referral from Johnson like he got a sweetheart deal on the price of property from Rezko would he? Nah!

    Are you basing this on the fact (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:07:14 PM EST
    that Kennedy endorsed Obama?  I don't think she has it in for the Clintons or anything.  

    Parent
    Caroline Kennedy has (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:16:09 PM EST
    been one of his better vetter picks, even though she didn't back my candidate, and indeed it doesn't mean she despises Hillary.  She managed by dint of her background and political parentage to avoid some of the backlash that went against, say, Oprah, from the HRC wing.

    Also, it's going to be very hard after a very long primary season to come up with vetters who not only have a "clean" resume but who are also "clean" wrt not having favored one candidate over the other.  

    The hyperventilating about his vetters, with the mischievous McCain camp leading the charge and curious McC backers on certain Dem boards rallying to this trivial cause, is really getting ridiculous.

    Parent

    I dunno (5.00 / 9) (#93)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:36:15 PM EST
    Kennedy said the reason she endorsed Obama was because her children told her to (just like McCaskill and several others). That hardly sells me. Perhaps her children would be more qualified to decide his vp pick then.

    Parent
    I actually (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:44:31 PM EST
    thought her initial article was effective. The problem became when instead of allowing her children's reaction to Obama be the star, she started stumping for him and it became not an emotional reaction to him, but a political device. That blunted alot of the reaction to it in my opinion.

    Parent
    Is a better vetter like a nutter butter? :) (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:48:16 PM EST
    I thought she was an odd choice... (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:48:17 PM EST
    ... since she has essentially no relevant experience. But I don't really consider her unfairly biased. And in any event, the vetters will give Hillary a clean bill of health if that's what Obama wants them to do. It's really the other candidates where a lot of work needs to be done.

    Parent
    I think she is mostly filling in (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:50:34 PM EST
    for Teddy, probably as a conduit to him.

    Parent
    He did not deliver the yesterday statement (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:06:25 PM EST
    in good form also. He hemmed and hawd rather than just answering the question. Maybe he did not expect the question. But we can't vet the questioner either because they had the facts on their side.

    My first thought yesterday was I wonder if Obama got his loan through him. That is not what you want people even forming in their mind. Yeah, nipped it in the bud. Might not be the end of it but maybe it is.  I suspect Obama is going to have a lot of these "Surprises". HE is finally being vetted.

    When the VP trio was announced (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by esmense on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    I figured he (Johnson) was going to represent Wall Street's interest in the proceedings. I don't think the campaign will have any trouble finding someone else to do that job.

    (Kennedy is a nice celebrity pick who can probably be counted on represent the interests of Northeaster liberals.)

    And Uncle Ted (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:09:32 PM EST
    N/T

    Parent
    It means (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CST on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:11:12 PM EST
    He is not speaking for Talk Left since Jeralyn runs the site not BTD.


    Obama says (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by magisterludi on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:11:16 PM EST
    he won't vet the vetters. So, if true, we'll see how often "stuff happens" through out the campaign? Interesting talking point,I'll give him that, especially in light of Wright and Pfleger.

    And so it begins (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Lil on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:12:31 PM EST


    iOh, it's already out there (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:15:50 PM EST
    Hannity & Co. were having a field day with it last night: Johnson and Holder plus the whole Pfleger/Wright thing. It's actually laughable in a very twisted way.

    I think the vetting is superficial (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by sociallybanned on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:18:22 PM EST
    Really!  I think Obama and his peeps already have made up their mind.  Just like the most recent article that they are seeking retired military.  

    I think Obama wants a veep that can get him out of his empty promise to withdraw by bringing on a veep of military.

    Plus, someone who can debunk McCain, for obvious reasons (McCain -POW).

    Plus, it's that 3 am call, that puts fear into a lot of ppls eyes

    surely that can't be the same bus, (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:18:38 PM EST
    can it? by now, there have to be at least two of them, one couldn't possibly hold everyone.

    and the implosion continues. it's like watching a train wreck slowly come to a grinding halt, as it lurches towards the convention. it's a good thing for the dems they still have clinton in the wings, ready to pick up the pieces of the self-destructed obama campaign.

    sheesh, who thought this guy was ready for prime time?

    Who thought this guy (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:22:06 PM EST
    was ready for prime time?

    Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle and Brazile.

    When is their bus coming?

    Parent

    Implosion? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:24:54 PM EST
    How about a reality check, courtesy of Mark Kleiman:

    In the two Presidential tracking polls, Obama has gone from roughly even to +7 (Gallup) and +8 (Rasmussen) since clinching the nomination a week ago.

    That's a bigger lead than either candidate had at any stage of the 2004 race.

    When Rasmussen pushes the "leaners," Obama's lead shrinks a point to +7, but he hits the 50% mark. Jimmy Carter got 50.6% in 1976. The two previous Democrats to crack 50% were LBJ in 1964 and FDR in 1944.

    Parent

    Today (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:32:24 PM EST
    It is Obama +5 (Ras) or +6 (Gallup). Is the bounce over?

    Reality check, this is going to be a close election.

    Parent

    Never said otherwise (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:36:06 PM EST
    However, commenters suggesting his campaign is imploding while he has a national lead over McCain is absurd.  You might also be intrested in the most recent Michigan polling Armando where Obama has surpassed McCain and now is up by 3% according to Rasmussen.  

    As for the bounce, I am not sure we have seen the full effect and likely will not until the end of this week.

    Parent

    many obama supporters promised a blow out. (5.00 / 7) (#119)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:52:39 PM EST
    I never believed 'em for a minute.

    Parent
    National Polls? (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Emma on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:34:38 PM EST
    I assume those are national polls?  I don't know that they mean much.  It's electoral votes that matter.

    Parent
    Obama should be (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:03:53 PM EST
    20 pts ahead ...This election should be a slam dunk for Dems. Bush approval ratiings are at 20%; the economy is a disaster (gas anyone?) and the war. 2008 should have been/be nothing like 2004.  

    That is at striking distance of a statistical error today is alarming.
    It will only get tighter in the Fall.

    Parent

    Is this the general election bus yet? (none / 0) (#176)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:33:32 PM EST
    Maybe you have to wait until after the convention to start another bus up. Maybe the FEC will have a ruling on wether Obama can start on a second bus as the presumptive nominee. Too bad he didn't take public financing. I hear FEMA has a whole fleet of Katrina buses he can use.

    Parent
    ineedalife....obama has commissioned (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:39:40 PM EST
    the new "Concord Bus".  You can fit millions under it...one bus fits all.

    Parent
    You know how the umpire throws the (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:22:53 PM EST
    manager out in MLB?  And then the manager sits in his office and manages the game from there?  

    A non-issue that results in a positive (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:25:51 PM EST
    This was much ado about nothing but I wasn't too keen on Johnson anyway so I'm glad to see him go.  

    And (5.00 / 10) (#74)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:28:47 PM EST
    let's go check out what flyerhawk was posting at the time:

    This is nothing more than gotcha politics.

    Jim Johnson is a Democratic operative who will give Obama the Party perspective on any potential choices.  That's it.

    It would be kind of noteworthy if one of you would ever express a negative opinion of something Obama does BEFORE he gives you permission to call it a mistake.

    Parent

    Honestly man, we already know (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:50:19 PM EST
    wtf happened to the Dems.  

    He who isn't against me is with me!--that should be our motto.

    not this balderdash about parroting the party leader's every whim.

    Parent

    I have no idea (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    why you think these 2 points are inconsistent.

    I thought it was a ridiculous issue.  I think it is a ridiculous issue today.  

    I thought Johnson was your typical party operative yesterday.  I think Johnson is a typical party operative today.  

    I realize that you just poking sticks at Obama supporters but this dog won't hunt.

    Parent

    Just think (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    If you'd have said "I'd be glad to see him go," yesterday,

    Parent
    Flyerhawk, Senator Obama only exists (5.00 / 6) (#150)
    by bslev22 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    as a viable candidate if he does more than hire typical party operatives who play footsie or are affiliated with companies that Obama publicly criticizes on the stump.  When you are the change candidate, when you are unlike the other folks, indeed when you place yourself on a pedestal of being something new, you must accept the good and bad implications of such a posture.  The result is that Senator Obama, and Senator McCain too, are both vulnerable to the hypocrisy charge in light of the respective positions they have taken in the campaign.

    This is a bad thing to happen to Senator Obama.  He can't keep getting rid of folks he trusted.

    Parent

    Say one thing, do another. (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by This from a broad on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:26:17 PM EST
    "folks like Johnson, who clearly epitomized everything Obama was said to be running against".  This actually applies to all of Obama's surrogates and some supporters.  He say's one thing -- they say or do another.

    Worse: Johson's history on board of United Health (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    re CEO compensation, one of Senator Obama's pet issue for legislation. This appointment never made any sense. What were they thinking?

    Mr. Johnson was also involved in some of the more controversial executive compensation decisions in recent years, serving on the board of five companies that granted lavish pay packages to their executives -- and often playing a key role in approving them.

    One of the more well-known cases involves UnitedHealth Group, a Minnesota company, where Mr. Johnson was a board member and later head of the compensation committee.

    The company came under fire after the chief executive was granted more than $1.4 billion in stock options -- some $618 million of which was returned as a result of settlements with federal regulators and shareholders.

    The executive, William McGuire, resigned, but he kept $800 million from the package.

    Because of cases like UnitedHealth Group, Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, introduced legislation in the Senate last year to restrict runaway compensation.

    article

    Is this the same UnitedHealth that is (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    being investigated by NYAG Cuomo?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:39:18 PM EST
    Being investigated re billings: New York

    Also legal troubles in California. It's a huge greedy company.

    Parent

    Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:47:51 PM EST
    Yeah, I had their insurance for awhile at my last job.  I was quite happy to see both CA and NY going after insurance companies.

    Parent
    This was a good day to do it (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Paladin on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:35:06 PM EST
    The Obama campaign is lucky that today's biggest gaffe was McCain's statement that "it's not important" how long the troops stay in Iraq.  Smartly, they jettisoned Johnson under the noise of McCain's statement.

    But still not a good sign for all the reasons mentioned in the comments.  

    At the end of the day (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:40:31 PM EST
    McCain's statement will be far more harmful.  I can't believe he says these things.

    No one will remember Jim Johnson in a week, but it was still a self-inflicted wound that didn't have to happen.

    Parent

    The thing with McCain is... (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:46:15 PM EST
    he sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and has been very good on funding for the VA and other military-related issues.

    As a result I think he is kind of insulated from these types of gaffes.

    Parent

    Well, except for his voting against the (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:47:22 PM EST
    latest GI bill.  

    Parent
    Did he? I thought that was a (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:50:50 PM EST
    myth, like Obama's supposedly voting for the bankruptcy bill.

    Let me go use teh Google on that one.

    Parent

    He voted against it because he supports (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:52:11 PM EST
    a bill requiring longer period of active duty and reenlistments.  Sd. if would help with recruiting and retention.

    Parent
    No, he didn't vote against it, (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:53:09 PM EST
    but he skipped it.

    Apparently he favors a different version of the bill.

    Parent

    Not a myth (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by CST on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:53:50 PM EST
    Worst part, he recieved free tuition for being in the military and now wants to deny it to the Iraq vets because it is "too generous".  This is a program we had in place for WW2 and Vietnam vets and now it's too generous for Iraq vets.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    Yes, McCain received a "free" education because he went to the US Naval Academy - no one "pays" -you pay with service afterwards.

    Parent
    CST - that's not accurate. (none / 0) (#129)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:56:38 PM EST
    See my post below.

    He has his own version of the bill and did not vote on the bill that passed the Senate 75-25.

    Parent

    The vote part (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by CST on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:58:38 PM EST
    Isn't accurate, since he skipped the vote.  The college tuition part is.  His bill doesn't supply in-state tuition to all vets.  He did receive this benefit himself.

    Parent
    That's what I meant... (4.50 / 2) (#147)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    the "skipping the vote" part.

    It seems nit-picky, but since he had his own version and didn't vote against the one that passed, he still "supports the troops."

    Sigh. I wish it weren't so, but I think that's the perception about him. Not long ago, I saw a story on McCain. The headline read, "McCain: Hero or Maverick?"

    I wanted to throw up. As if those are our only choices!

    Parent

    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by CST on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:24:57 PM EST
    I REALLY don't like McCain (in case you couldn't tell).

    He "supports the troops" by promising to keep them in a war zone.  

    Parent

    I know many here don't agree, (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:42:11 PM EST
    but I share your intense dislike for McCain.

    At least I can find some common ground with Obama supporters there...;-)

    Parent

    He didn't... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:54:03 PM EST
    He wasn't there to vote for or agin it. But he made clear that he didn't think that the GI Bill that Webb put forward was as good as his own GI Bill...

    Parent
    His own GI bill (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by CST on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:56:31 PM EST
    Doesn't supply in-state college tuition for veterans after 3 years of enlistment like the Webb bill.  He thinks it will hurt retention and re-enlistment.  Unlike, ya know, an unpopular war.

    Parent
    Hey... (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:01:35 PM EST
    I never said that I liked his version...just that he preferred his own.

    Parent
    Course he likes his better (none / 0) (#143)
    by CST on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:03:58 PM EST
    I just don't like people to assume they are equivalent since they are vastly different.  Not saying that was your intention, that's just how it read to me.

    Parent
    It isn't equivalent... (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:08:23 PM EST
    to me, his is worse.

    To him, his is better.

    Parent

    Broader Issue is Obama's (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:37:21 PM EST
    inability to make this go away in that press conference yesterday.  What is he, like 0 for 3 at handling these situations via press conference?  He is really not good at that, and he needs to get better.

    Come on, ruffian... (5.00 / 9) (#103)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:46:50 PM EST
    can't he just eat his waffle? I mean, he's answered like eight questions already!

    ;-)

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:51:30 PM EST
    What was I thinking?

    Parent
    At least Obama didn't say ... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:42:56 PM EST
    he was "behind him 1000%."

    Other than that not a good start to his first post Hillary week.

    No he didn't, which means (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:02:51 PM EST
    O is now free to name as Johnson's replacement a man more qualified than all other Dems to be vetting VPs -- George McGovern.

    Parent
    Overall (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:47:22 PM EST
    I give the campaign credit for improving over prior responses to conflicts.  No idea of how many more will come in the future but they must improve or it will cost them in the GE.  Dan Balz noted how Obama's response (this was prior to the resignation) is not a campaign strength:

    There are many ways Obama and his team could be responding to this, but they are doing what they've done in the past when turbulence hits, which is to hunker down, stick to their talking points and wait for the storm to pass, which it often has.

    ...

    It isn't clear whether the uproar over Johnson is a passing storm or a more serious problem for the Obama campaign. For now, the campaign has decided to treat it as a minor annoyance that will soon disappear. But the candidate's response has raised questions about the candidate himself that could well linger past the moment.



    what's troubling to me is (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM EST
    that Obama surely knew of Johnson's record re CEO compensation (see my post above) as the UnitedHealth/ McGuire case helped trigger Obama's introduction of CEO compensation regulation bill.

    I don't get it.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:41:27 PM EST
    his choice to put Johnson on in the first place is problematic.  Both McCain and Obama now have a number of people associated with their campaigns that have worked against the reformer/change theme.  Honestly, in today's political environment it has to be difficult to find people that have the experience and also clean record to match the change themes they have chosen.  I think we will probably see more of this in the future.  Proper management to mitigate the damage and keep it from dominating the news cycle will be very important.  

    Parent
    "Surely knew" (none / 0) (#146)
    by Paladin on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:05:37 PM EST
    is the key phrase.  Did he?

    Either way, it is a little troubling.  But it's early in the GE so we'll see.

    Parent

    what do you think? (none / 0) (#153)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:13:34 PM EST
     or did someone else research his bill for him?

    Johnson cited in article as not only heading comp committee, but being influential in comp granted to McGuire

    One of the more well-known cases involves UnitedHealth Group, a Minnesota company, where Mr. Johnson was a board member and later head of the compensation committee.

    The company came under fire after the chief executive was granted more than $1.4 billion in stock options -- some $618 million of which was returned as a result of settlements with federal regulators and shareholders.

    The executive, William McGuire, resigned, but he kept $800 million from the package.

    Because of cases like UnitedHealth Group, Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, introduced legislation in the Senate last year to restrict runaway compensation.

    The measure, informally called "Say on Pay," would give shareholders an advisory role in setting executive pay packages. It passed the House and is pending in the Senate.

    In introducing the measure, Mr. Obama said it was intended to "force corporate boards to think twice before signing over millions of dollars to C.E.O.'s."

    He added that "the rate at which executive pay has grown, as compared to stagnating wages among American workers, is rightfully frustrating shareholders and employees alike, especially given the lackluster performance of many of the companies paying these high salaries."

    NYT article cited in my earlier post

    Parent

    Was it his bill? Or a "gifted" bill? (none / 0) (#160)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:21:48 PM EST
    Either way it doesn't fly in my book, just curious  :)

    Parent
    sorry, don't know the difference (none / 0) (#165)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:24:08 PM EST
    gift or no.

    looks to me like it was his bill, if he introduced it.

    Parent

    Actually what I meant (none / 0) (#170)
    by Paladin on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:29:18 PM EST
    was in the context of "surely he knew" that naming Johnson on the VP committe would open a can of worms.

    Parent
    gotcha (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:34:51 PM EST
    perhaps he should have consulted Sen Klobachar.

    Parent
    Good one! (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Paladin on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:57:40 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:47:41 PM EST
    "That is  not the subprime lender I knew..."

    But Queen says it best: Another one bites the dust

    Getting crowded under the bus....

    This reminds me so much of the first (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:50:02 PM EST
    youth choir I directed.  The kids went to parochial school and new each other since before kindergarten.  They got out of school to come to choir rehearsal during school hours.  My solution to misbehavior was to toss the kid out of the choir.  But soon we didn't have enough kids to sing for church.  

    Parent
    Love your (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:53:11 PM EST
    story oculus !! Nice.

    Parent
    Probably should have taken education (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:54:25 PM EST
    course, as my mom frequently suggested!

    Parent
    Makes Sense (none / 0) (#194)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:55:34 PM EST
    From that story why you chose to be a prosecutor rather than becoming a defense atty.

    Parent
    Ooooo (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    Queen, yes.  I was just thinking of asking Jeralyn to put that up as the video/song of the evening, but it's a bit negative seeming compared to her usual picks.

    Yet appropos.

    Parent

    Queen (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:54:38 PM EST
    is one of my favorites groups of all times. They are awesome.

    Parent
    Andy08....for you (none / 0) (#181)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:36:55 PM EST
    link

    And another one under, and another one under, another one under the bus...

    Parent

    Thanks ! (none / 0) (#199)
    by Andy08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:02:12 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    Better yet (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:29:53 PM EST
    The parody of that song (by Weird Al?) "Another one rides the bus".

    And another one's on, and another one's on, another one rides the bus...

    Parent

    Media chimes in (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    I always look to see how the media responds to Obama's errors....

    WaPo: Obama Defense of Johnson Raises Questions

    [There are many ways Obama and his team could be responding to this, but they are doing what they've done in the past when turbulence hits, which is to hunker down, stick to their talking points and wait for the storm to pass, which it often has.]

    Bloomberg: Johnson Quits Obama's Vice Presidential Search Team

    [One possible candidate if the Obama campaign decides to replace Johnson could be former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a national campaign co-chair for Obama.]

    NYT: Vetting a Vetter

    [Oversight groups have also raised questions about the number of boards on which Mr. Johnson served while holding a full-time position at Fannie Mae. Besides UnitedHealth and Goldman Sachs, he served on the boards and compensation committees of KB Homes, the Gannett Corporation and Temple Inland. He was also a board member at Target.

    "He was on the boards of five companies at the time we had flagged him in our reports," said Paul Hodgson, senior research analyst at the Corporate Library, a company that analyzes corporate governance issues. "Two of those were involved in the backdating of stock options, and the levels of executive compensation at four of them were considered excessive."]


    BTD, this was a necessary political move (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by bslev22 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:01:57 PM EST
    and in that sense only was it a "good" move by the Obama team.  This should not have happened.  The VP vetter is a material member of the team, period, and it is just poor judgment to hire a guy affiliated with a company you have publicly criticized.

    We are at an odd juncture.  Many of us have pledged to support Senator Obama, including me, but I confess that I am not yet able to simply put the best "spin" on things that Obama does, as I would do in the ordinary course for Hillary Clinton.  This was a gaffe and it was hypocrisy for Senator Obama to pretend that this wasn't a problem yesterday.

    Obama's lack of judgment was evident (5.00 / 5) (#161)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:22:10 PM EST
    last summer when he became (and continues to be) the only Dem to declare Bush and Cheney had not committed impeachable offenses!
    Scary! - and more evidence Obama will say and do anything to advance his political career on the fast track.

    Parent
    Without (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by roadburdened on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:04:37 PM EST
    ...the details of the loans, this story didn't have a lot of meat. But it did suggest a certain irony. One of Obama's weaknesses is that his campaign seems humorless (the "dirt off my shoulders" bit notwithstanding). Bill Clinton had (and has) the same problem, in my opinion. As soon as you can be easily mocked, it's time to lay off the self-righteousness.

    Plenty of meat here (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:33:26 PM EST
    Hate to harp on this, but Johnson's involvement in CEO compensation packages is very negative, especially re UnitedHealth McGuire.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by roadburdened on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:17:31 PM EST
    that Johnson is a sleazy businessman. And his grossly excessive compensation packages run counter to Obama's rhetoric and the legislation he introduced last year. Does that mean he wouldn't do a good job vetting VP candidates? I don't think so. He has done it before (although, the candidates that were ultimately chosen weren't all that helpful). However, like I stated before, the irony of the choice made it a stupid one for Obama.

    The loan issue seemed to get the most media play, and it had the least going for it as a story.

    Parent

    McCain response (5.00 / 5) (#152)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:12:45 PM EST
     "Jim Johnson's resignation raises serious questions about Barack Obama's judgment.  Selecting the vice presidential nominee is the most important decision a presidential candidate can make and one even Barack Obama has said will 'signal how I want to operate my presidency.'  By entrusting this process to a man who has now been forced to step down because of questionable loans, the American people have reason to question the judgment of a candidate who has shown he will only make the right call when under pressure from the news media.  America can't afford a president who flip-flops on key questions in the course of 24 hours. That's not change we can believe in." --McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds

    That's gonna leave a mark. (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:20:06 PM EST
    This seems to be becoming McCain's (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:24:31 PM EST
    tag line:

    That's not change we can believe in


    Parent
    Unlike Hillary, (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:30:05 PM EST
    McCain is not constrained by Party loyalty. He is free to attack early, aggressively and often.

    Welcome to the big leagues, Barack.

    Parent

    oooh Sen. McCain.....BIG OLE SNAP!!! (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:31:27 PM EST
    He never wrote that. (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    Obviously Peggy Noonan is moonlighting.

    Parent
    I think you are abusing the privilege Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:18:12 PM EST
    has bestowed upon you.  Really rude.

    Seriously. (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:21:01 PM EST
    Why is this poster still here? I thought personal insults were verboten?

    Parent
    Da Da, Da Da Da (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by OxyCon on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:22:54 PM EST
    ...Another one under the Bus!

    Jim Johnson just wasn't the same sub-prime lender Obama knew two weeks ago.

    Obama's campaign song (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by stillife on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:33:04 PM EST
    should be "The People Under the Bus", to the tune of the kids' song "The Wheels on the Bus".

    Parent
    Good move? Um, what I take out (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by FemB4dem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:57:07 PM EST
    of this is that after he threw his "typical white person" grandma under the bus, there is no one Obama will stand by.  This one is the same pattern -- first say of course he's staying, and attack the questioner for playing old politics, then, upon reflection, kick whoever it is to the curb.  I guess I'm just old-fashioned.  I do like to see some evidence of loyalty, some evidence of a spine, some evidence of something (anything really) that a candidate stands for, and will always stand for.  So far, I have seen nothing or no one I am confident Obama will not turn against.  If that's new politics, count me out.  

    Parent
    Is Johnson some sort of corporate (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:00:48 PM EST
    headhunter? I don't understand why  he was picking a VP for Obama in the first place.

    The upcoming spin on Obama (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:04:18 PM EST
    Link

    Here's what the meme is setting up to be from the Republicans (from The National Review)

    "And in a political culture marked by grandiose promises, outsized egos, evasions of responsibilities, and "I'm sorry if you were offended" apologies, there was something refreshing and honorable about an elected official who came out and said, "I was wrong" -- and who could even express shame in a world that had seemed to become shameless.

    But since the campaign truly began, that fundamentally decent vibe of "while I'm not solely to blame, I must acknowledge my own responsibility" has evaporated. As he finds himself in an increasingly tough primary fight and facing a tougher general-election foe than he expected, the candidate demonstrates a different approach. Now, when Obama is confronted with politically uncomfortable facts or questions, his first instinct is to assert that the questioner is wrong."

    Any more room under the bus. (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Saul on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:05:23 PM EST
    Obama really got the hang of doing this lately.  Who's next?

    Nope (none / 0) (#50)
    by eric on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:17:32 PM EST
    Only three bloggers here, so it isn't like a giant diary site.  On the political stuff, BTD uses this disclimer.

    Vet the vetters (none / 0) (#209)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    That's what I always say.
    Re McCain's remark: He has a long list of his own questionable judgement - we can start with the Keating affair.

    Obama's recent Gaffe! (none / 0) (#210)
    by OssieBarnes on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:32:19 PM EST
    Are you people for Obama or not?  Then get behind your leader and stop criticizing him. We are all in this TOGETHER!  What are you? Repugs?
    Hillary could have made the same mistake!

    And if Hillary (none / 0) (#211)
    by mkevinf on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:34:14 PM EST
    had made the same mistake, this would've played all over cable, Keith and Tweety would've been drowning in their own spittle!
    As soon as I heard Barry-O say that it was a "game of vetting the vetters" so flippantly, I said, "Self, this ain't goin' away!"  Well, it won't be a story for long, but the drop-drop (as in under the bus) is definitely becoming a pattern.
    Nonetheless, I have chosen to follow Hillary's lead and will vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

    Why Not Just Stay Away (none / 0) (#212)
    by bob h on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:04:08 AM EST
    from the big-money, ex-CEO crowd in general?