home

The Veep "Stakes"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:10:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Kevin Drum wrote:

Overall, I don't have any strong feelings about who Obama ought to pick right now — though I don't think either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards would be good choices (and I'm not sure either of them wants the job), and I'm not keen on Webb either. Based on a fairly low information "blink" kind of test, I guess my top picks right now are Joe Biden and Kathleen Sebelius. But I could be pretty easily converted to half a dozen other candidates too.

I am curious, because Kevin does not explain it, why does he think Hillary Clinton would not be a good choice and why does he think Joe Biden or Kathleen Sebelius would be good choices? He sort of explains why he thinks Jim Webb would not be a good choice:

My biggest issue with Webb is that I think he'd be too obvious a choice: the press corps would (probably correctly) immediately interpret it as a sign that Obama was picking Webb to shore up his military cred, and this would be a tacit admission that he agrees with McCain's fundamental criticism that he doesn't have CinC credentials. In much the same way that picking an ostentatiously young running mate would merely highlight McCain's age, picking an ostentatiously hawkish running mate would merely highlight Obama's lack of military experience.

I could write the same paragraph for Biden (replace "military cred" with "foreign policy experience") and Sibelius (replace "military cred" with "women"). But I really do not buy that critique anyway. What matters is who helps Obama win in November. All the rest of this is just plain blather.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Late Night: The Doobie Brothers | Pols Are Pols >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Veep "Stakes" | 213 comments (213 topical)
    Unfortunately for Obama (5.00 / 13) (#1)
    by djork on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:32:41 AM EST
    There is only one Veep position available and he's got too many weaknesses to shore up in just one person. He needs three or four running mates.
    precisely.... (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:40:01 AM EST
    McCain doesn't have to compensate for anything in his VP pick -- and his choice of VP won't be seen as the first big test of his judgement.

    Obama, on the other hand, has too much to compensate for --- and this will be seen as the first big test of his "judgement".  Regardless of who he picks, it will be widely criticized because he needs to reassure voters on some many different and incompatible levels....

    [ Parent ]

    I think (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:50:55 AM EST
    McCain's VP pick could tell you something. Does he pick Huckabee to make the evangelicals happy or does he pick Christie Todd Whitman who could help him pick up the Clinton Dems? It shall be interesting to see what happens here.

    [ Parent ]
    Christie Whitman is covered with too much WTC (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:54:02 AM EST
    dust and lies about environmental safety. The NYC metro area, including NJ, does not have good feelings either about her governship nor her time at EPA.

    She is a huge NO! Unless you want to handicap McCain even further.

    [ Parent ]

    Arguing that Christie Todd Whitman (4.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Baal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:33:19 AM EST
    could possibly help pick up certain  Clinton Dems is an insult to Hillary supporters, since it is only in the light of the horrors of a Bush Cheney administration that CTW can be considered something other than a partisan right-wing candidate.  She is not particularly different from Kay Bailey Hutchison, which is to say, a very very bad choice.

    Hillary was not my top choice for this nomination, and I disagree with may people on this site about the merits of various Dem candidates, but I would never throw out an insult like that.  

    [ Parent ]

    CTW (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:36:16 AM EST
    is perceived as a moderate Republican whether you like it or not. Do you know remember her resigning from the administration and her taking the GOP to task for being taken over by fundamentalists? I'm not advocating but you really have to face the facts. Hillary supporters have a huge problem with Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I think she could actually put NJ... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by cosbo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:04:56 AM EST
    in play. She's the former Gov of NJ and is considered a moderate. Heck even I consider her moderate. She'd be good regional pick for McCain.

    Oddly enough, if a McCain/Whitman team won, I wouldn't feel too awful.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes I know she resigned (1.50 / 2) (#35)
    by Baal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:43:09 AM EST
    but not after taking steps that represent a considerable electoral liablity, such as her statements post 9-11.

    Anyway, she won't be the one picked.  The GOP base would dessert in a second.

    I honestly believe most Hillary supporters will vote for a candidate who agrees with Hillary on about 95% of issues and not flip to the wingnuts.

    [ Parent ]

    Polls (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:45:21 AM EST
    don't back up your assumption and Obama is not trying to get hillarycrats on board. He's basically ignoring them and arrogantly expecting their vote while pandering to the radical right.

    [ Parent ]
    Experience does (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:53:03 AM EST
    Most of the time most voters come home in the end. I doubt very much Obama will risk alienating all Hillary voters. Some, of course, will never be convinced, no matter what Obama says or does, or Hillary says or does. Too much pandering to some voters who  will never be convinced makes him appear weak.  

    Obama has to appear his own man. Therefore even if he wants Hillary, he has to go through the motions of reviewing all potential veeps. Also it get free publicity and it helps the image of politicians on the short list.

    [ Parent ]

    What do (5.00 / 5) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:58:11 AM EST
    you think of him pandering to the evangelicals then? Does that make him look weak? Or is it only trying to get Hillary supporters on board that makes him appear weak?

    [ Parent ]
    Apathy can make the difference (5.00 / 5) (#192)
    by esmense on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:16:52 AM EST
    It did in '72. Record setting turnout in the primaries turned into a 22 year low in turnout in the general election, thanks to a divided Democratic party and candidates who were unappealing to significant numbers of their own constituencies. For further discouragment, add in an ugly campaign season marked by dirty tricks and personal attacks (justified by issues of "character" and "trust")- just as this election is already shaping up to be. Significant numbers of people hated BOTH Nixon and McGovern by the end of that campaign. And the young people, independents and moderate Republicans McGovern counted on for his win in the primaries never showed up for him in the general.

    Enthusiasm for McCain won't be Obama's biggest worrry -- a bigger problem will be the lack of enthusiasm for both men and the whole process; created by ugly campaign tactics, already coming from both sides, that relentlessly push an image of the other guy as cluelesls, dangerous, wicked, deserving of hatred or fear. (True, the Obama campaign's demonization of both Clintons worked in the primary -- but just barely. And over time it started to lose him more voters than it gained. Demonizing McCain will be harder, and offers the possibility of greater backlash.)

    If you talk about hope on the one hand, while spreading genuinely ugly talk about your opponent's first marriage on the other, you come across as a phoney, not a leader. And while its true that, as a result of the trash you are peddling, people may end up disgusted with your opponent, they are likely to also end up equally disgusted with you.

    [ Parent ]

    I hear this all the time (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:31:54 AM EST
    Most of the time most voters come home in the end

    First, this election isn't anything like "most of the time".  We had a woman and a black man, and arguable irregularities via the RBC.  Because of this, you cannot make any predictions about future events based on past events surrounding generic white guys.

    Second, when they say "most of the time" they use Kerry as their example.  

    Um, Kerry lost.

    [ Parent ]

    "Who will not flip to the fundies?" (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:52:36 AM EST
    Hmmm.  You must have not been reading here at TL the past two days...let's see, BO has, in just one week, launched a Joshua Generation effort aimed at fundy youth; launched an effort to "kick off" the Dem convention with a "Faith Event"; and, as late as last night, admitted to meeting with fundy religious leaders to pray and stated that faith will be an important focus in an "Obama Administration".

    Of course, with his religious background...I guess you won't call that a flip or a flop.

    I do.  As a constitutional "law professor" did he not read the document he taught - or perhaps he just skipped that particular section.

    [ Parent ]

    P A N D E R I N G (none / 0) (#56)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:55:22 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    what section is that? (none / 0) (#59)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:55:54 AM EST
    where in the Constitution does it say that a president shouldn't talk to religous people?

    What specific thing has Obama ever said or proposed that could, in any way, be seen as a breach of the church-state separation?

    [ Parent ]

    Please (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:58:43 AM EST
    Enough with the strawman that the entire issue is about Obama talking to people.

    What specific thing has he said?  Gee, how about where he said that religion would be a priority in his administration?  It was right there in yesterday's post, if you bothered to read it.

    [ Parent ]

    The Democratic Party and Evangelicals (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by foobar417 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:58:41 AM EST
    For an interesting history of the relationship between the Democratic Party and evangelicals, I recommend reading Amy Sullivan's "The Party Faithful."

    There's a long chapter detailing Bill Clinton's extensive efforts to reach out to evangelicals, despite the instincts of his close advisors. It gives interesting context to evaluate Obama's efforts to date and likely future efforts.

    While you may not agree with Ms. Sullivan's analysis, she brings up a lot of forgotten history and raises some interesting questions going forward about how the Democratic Party can continue to expand its pool of voters without compromising its ideals.

    --Eric

    [ Parent ]

    what does that mean? (none / 0) (#108)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:22:56 AM EST
    why do you find it offensive?

    I interpreted that as saying to the religous community that it would be a priority of his to reach out to them and listen to their perspective.

    If you can point to any objectionable policies he is pushing, then please share.

    [ Parent ]

    Did Bill Clinton ever refer to faith? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:03:02 AM EST
    I believe he did on numerous occasions. Has Hillary? I believe she has as well.

    Personally I don't care whether someone is religious or not. There isn't supposed to be a religious test for office. I do care whether or not a politician seeks to impose his religion on others. That is a major difference between Democratic politicians and Republican ones. Republicans often make an effort to back up their pandering words with deeds, usually with judicial nominees.

    I don't care if Obama reaches out to evangelical youth on issues besides choice to seek common ground. That is probably a good thing. We don't want or need all of the evangelical vote. But if we can persuade some to support us on other grounds, why not?

    [ Parent ]

    Well, for a "presidential candidate" to (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:04:29 AM EST
    be playing the game the way he is - focusing three key efforts to fundies during the start of his campaign while ignoring other groups (women, jews, seniors, workers, members of the services, etc.) you kind of get an idea - based on his background - of what he might do if (god forbid) he is actually elected.

    Of course it's hard to tell right now because, thankfully, he is not President.

    [ Parent ]

    god forbid he is actually elected??? (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:25:03 AM EST
    Are you under the illusion that you are at some Republican site here? Or was that some typo?

    [ Parent ]
    No typo...I pray every night (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:33:29 AM EST
    that Obama falls on his face in the next 30 days so we can nominate the better candidate in August.  And since Obama is not the official candidate, I have a right to my hopes (how audacious of me!!) and dreams that the nation will get a chance to elect a real leader.

    [ Parent ]
    I totally disagree with your (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:37:57 AM EST
    statement. Please do not lump us with "most." And, just because you disagree with the other side's positions, please do not namecall. It's not becoming.

    [ Parent ]
    My reply was to Baal's above. (none / 0) (#129)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:39:09 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I believe she is pro choice (none / 0) (#42)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:47:13 AM EST
    Therefore she is unacceptable to a big chunk of the GOP base. It would be an interesting pick. She has a lot of explaining to do re: air quality after 9-11.

    [ Parent ]
    you really need a dose of reality juice... (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:01:23 AM EST
    Obama supporters have to stop acting like every Republican will be perceived as the anti-Christ because it suits their agenda.  

    Whitman's actions concerning 9-11 won't make a difference in the election -- what would matter is her symbolizing of the moderate wing of the GOP, and the willingness of the GOP to include women in the ranks of its leadership.

    Whitman remains popular in New Jersey -- and right now the Democratic governor and legislature of NJ are not terribly popular.  

    [ Parent ]

    that goes both ways if (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:13:00 AM EST
    you think Whitman is acceptable to the GOP anti-Roe base. He might gain some independents, but he would lose evangelicals. To keep them, he would have to come out more forcefully anti-Roe. Thats a difficult balancing act for a talented politicians, let alone a mediocre one like McCain.

    The primary is over. I didn't go out of my way to insult any of the candidates' supporters during the primary or afterwards (unless they explicitly stated they would vote for McCain). Please don't go out of your way to insult others. My position has always been I will support the nominee. Its nothing personal. I won't be silent in front of half truths and left over primary spin. We can disagree, but lets do so gracefully.

    [ Parent ]

    A Mistake That Many Obama Supporters (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:22:59 AM EST
    make is to assume that Hillary ONLY attracked Democratic voters. She also attracted Indies and Republicans who have no loyalty to the Democratic Party. They have never had any trouble voting for Republicans before and I doubt that they would have trouble voting for them this year.

    As Obama continues to blur the lines between Democrats and Republicans, it will be much easier for people for a Republican.

    [ Parent ]

    I am not so sure......Christie Todd Whitman (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Mrwirez on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:32:23 AM EST
    might be the eff-you to Obama, and I think some women might just use that as an excuse to bail from Obama and head over to camp McCain.... I ran it by the gf and she said good for McCain , and she hates him over the bomb bomb bomb Iran Beach boys song. There is a fine line between democrat and republican when it comes to moderates, I work with thousands of them and all it takes is likability or familiarity. Personally I am a very moderate democrat, based on the support of organized labor, Obama nor McCain seem to have a care in the world for organized labor. I think I am leaning for The New American Independent Party (NAIP) here:  http://tinyurl.com/6499xo  This is the type of party us working class people need, and they are reaching out to Clinton supporters....

    [ Parent ]
    Of course he does! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:14:31 AM EST
    Age, evangelicals, social conservatives, geography...he's got plenty of areas where he needs to compensate just to hold his party.  Let's not pretend like McCain's some messianic figure who needs not compensate for any failures and shortcomings.

    [ Parent ]
    You don't think McCain has any weaknesses at (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:23:58 AM EST
    all?  No chinks in his armour?

    Despite his having said that he "didnt know much about economics" and would need to get some "help with that".  Seems like a pretty big weakness given the fact that Americans number 1 concern is the economy.

    What about his 100% anti choice positions.

    His wanting to stay in Iraq for "100 years" and with "as many troops as it takes".

    What about his age?  Most see it as an electoral liability, and apparently it hurts him most with older voters of a similar age.

    [ Parent ]

    l00% anti-choice? (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:58:03 AM EST
    Read and learn that McCain is not the "monster" on pro-choice that you make him out to be:  

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/prochoice_democrats_and_john_m.html

    Please note the final sentence in this section - it relates to your supposed pro-choice candidate:

    "Whatever McCain really thinks, the chances that he would submerge his presidency in the maelstrom of abortion politics seem slim. Partisan battles over court nominees aren't his thing, either.

    McCain played a central role in the Gang of 14 -- the seven Democratic and seven Republican senators who joined hands to find common ground on court appointments. For his efforts at compromise, McCain took a pummeling from the right wing. Note that Obama, the self-styled foe of division, declined to join the bipartisan group."

    [ Parent ]

    McCain... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:14:46 AM EST
    ... has always held anti-abortion positions. The best that can be said about him in that regard is that he might, like the first President Bush, not really mean them, and might appoint O'Connor-like judges who'll straddle the fence on the issue. But he also might not.

    Obama may equivocate on the issue publically, but I can't really imagine him appointing justices (especially via a heavily Democratic Senate) who would overturn Roe.

    [ Parent ]

    "Obama might equivocate (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:38:30 AM EST
    on choice publically"....I don't accept that. Besides, he is on record as saying he is personally opposed to choice.  What do you think he will do if given the power of the presidency?

    I want a leader for women and women's right, not a weakling and panderer on those issues.

    He can go pander on vascetomies or gas taxes (oh wait, he already has flip-flopped on that one!) but not on choice.

    [ Parent ]

    The problem (4.42 / 7) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:30:16 AM EST
    here is that while McCain certainly isn't great with economics neither is Obama. Obama is pushing the same Milton Friedman economics that McCain is.

    Honestly from my reading, no one really knows where either Obama or McCain stand on the pro choice position. Both of them have made conflicting statements over the years and the course of the campaign.

    That "100 years" is not going to go anywhere because it sounds to vague and over the top to be used as an attack. No one cares about 100 years from now. Obama has been backing off his primary stance about Iraq and stating that it now "depends".

    Attacking his age is bad. I'm 48 and I find it offensive. Obama already has problems with older voters and this kind of thing simply makes it worse.

    [ Parent ]

    That is simply not true (4.20 / 5) (#37)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:44:44 AM EST
    McCain's voting record has been anti-choice his entire career. He has pledged to pick more Scalias. To say you don't know where he stands on choice is willful blindness.

    As for Obama, he is clearly pro choice. That is his announced position, one that he cannot afford to back away from, even if he is secretly anti-Roe (which I don't believe).  

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:47:18 AM EST
    in 1999 that's not what he said. Frankly he has the same problem Obama has. They've both flipped around and made so many contradictory statements about choice that who knows where either one of them stands.

    [ Parent ]
    When has Obama said he does not support Roe? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:54:06 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well...he may not have said those (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:00:35 AM EST
    exact words, but he carefully avoids using the word "yes" when asked if he supports a women's right to choose (See his waffle in the January debate when asked that specific and pointed question).  Now we know why he voted "present" instead of taking a stand for us.

    And choice will probably be his kumbaya issue to throw under the bus when he joins with his friends to "all come together".

    [ Parent ]

    Can't afford too (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:06:15 AM EST
    He would lost 75% of the Democratic base (or more). Even if he is secretly anti-choice (which I don't believe he is), he would have to be a complete moron to do as you suggest.  Not gonna happen.

    [ Parent ]
    What did he say in '99? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:12:13 AM EST
    Seriously, are you comparing a lifetime of anti-choice votes and a threat to appoint judges who'll overturn Roe v Wade with a single questionnaire answer (from a person with 100% Illinois Planned Parenthood, PPFA and NARAL ratings throughout his career) pertaining to minors' traveling across state lines without parental consent?  Do you really think those are comparable in any meaningful way?

    [ Parent ]
    That's simply false (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:20:50 AM EST
    McCain has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood that he's keeping secret?  Obama has said he supports overturning Roe v Wade?

    PLEASE try to keep your arguments, if not factual, then at least within the realm of plausibility.

    [ Parent ]

    You're dealing (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:41:56 AM EST
    with voting records not rhetoric. They both have rhetoric that doesn't agree with their voting records. That's my point. Besides how many people consider Lieberman conservative and he has an etremely high rating? Lieberman was endorsed by NARAL over Lamont.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry, that was in response to ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:25:44 AM EST
    ...GA6thDem.

    [ Parent ]
    You are simply wrong (3.66 / 3) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:00:43 AM EST
    Obama has been staunchly pro-choice his entire career.

    McCain has been staunchly anti-choice his entire career.

    If you wish to create doubt about their positions in your own mind in order to rationalize voting for McCain, that is your choice.  But the reality is that they are wildly divergent on the issue.

    [ Parent ]

    no, you're wrong (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:13:26 AM EST
    from Barack's own lips:

    As he [Obama] writes, "I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

    Perhaps he's not as Pro-Choice as you're trying to sell him as?

    [ Parent ]

    and perhaps... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:21:35 AM EST
    ...you've shamelessly de-contextualized his quote.

    [ Parent ]
    Context and link please (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:27:04 AM EST
    And explain this:

    100% voting record per Planned Parenthood. Are they secretly anti-choice?

    How about

    REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE
    Supports a Woman's Right to Choose:
    Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

    Again this a make or break issue in Democratic politics. Even if he is secretly anti-choice as you suggest, he cannot afford to lose 75% or more of the Democratic base.

    Moreover, Bill and Hillary Clinton record on abortion was "safe legal and rare" which is anti-abortion, but also pro choice. These are not mutually exclusive positions. Arguably most people, if not all,  are not pro abortion, but they are pro choice.   There is a reason that we don't call ourselves pro abortion. Pro abortion rights perhaps, but rarely if ever pro-abortion.


    [ Parent ]

    "present" (5.00 / 7) (#115)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:28:18 AM EST
    Obama has been all over the choice issue -- but mostly he's been staunchly vague and "present"

    [ Parent ]
    clearly... (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:48:47 AM EST
    as he votes present, panders to evangelicals, and embraces anti-choice Dems.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is pushing the same Milton Friedman economic (3.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Baal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:44:06 AM EST
    This is just plain silly.

    [ Parent ]
    Have you (4.50 / 8) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:46:19 AM EST
    looked at his economic team? It's right out of the Univ. of Chicago. One of his own advisors supports privatizing social security.

    [ Parent ]
    Which Obama as of yesterday is saying he won't do- (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:55:41 AM EST
    trust him much? Does he know what he's talking about much? Will he be swayed as he was on Excelon?

    We have so little to guage him on! Darn newbie.

    [ Parent ]

    "Not knowing much about economics" (none / 0) (#133)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:46:29 AM EST
    at least he was "honest" about that. Anti-choice positions is his right to have, you don't have to agree with it. He did say "stay in Iraq for 100 years" and Obama is now backing away from getting out of Iraq, a war he could have tried to end in the U.S. Senate but didn't. Age, well, Obama sees age as a liability and altho' McCain is older than me, I see it as vast experience. And, I'm not voting McCain!!!


    [ Parent ]
    2nd sentence should say He "didn't" (none / 0) (#138)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:48:47 AM EST
    say stay in Iraq for 100 years. It was part of an ongoing statement for how long the task would take.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain credentials. (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:38:52 AM EST
    Your post suggest you think McCain is a great candidate. I submit, while formidable, he is not a great candidate. He is a terrible speaker, he does not have sterling domestic credentials.  

    So who can he pick to shore up his economic deficiencies? That will be tough, how far will he be willing to stray from GOP fundamentals? I don't think very far. Free market ideologues are more likely to be a drag on the GOP ticket this year than not.

    McCain won, because the other candidates were even more underwhelming. A noun, a verb and 9-11, An actor/former politician who had to ask for applause and bored everyone, Romny's faith was an issue to evangelicals. Huckabee's support was only evangelicals. Ron Paul? I don't think so.

    Foreign policy? McCain is wedded to the neo-con agenda. He can probably afford to pick a more moderate on foreign policy, but unless he is willing to repudiate the Neo-cons, that isn't going to get him very far. I don't see that happening- he loses a chunk of the GOP base.

    In 1980, Jimmy Carter lead Reagan in most polls until the very end. In the end, despite the cold war, a majority of the voters decided to take a chance on a governor who made a lot of gaffes in the campaign, because they wanted change and Reagan convinced voters to take the risk.

    That dynamic has returned in 2008. A disaster in Iraq, poor economy, high gas prices, failure of the ruling party's fundamental ideology. Obama's task is to convince the voters who want change that taking a chance on him is the least risky choice versus  John "More of the Same"  McCain.  That is why McCain will be running with George W. Bush, whether he wants to or not. McCain has not shown a willingness to jettison Bush, even if it is only as a bait and switch tactic.

    Bottom line: McCain is formidable, but beatable.


    [ Parent ]

    Feels a bit more like 1972 (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by joanneleon on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:18:05 AM EST
    than 1980, though I can see the parallels to 1980 too.  

    I think there are a lot of people who want change but are concerned about how radical that change would be and about whether we'd be throwing out the baby with the bath water, only to end up with new and different problems but no discernible relief.  There's not a lot of trust in Democrats to solve problems, given what they've done since they were given a mandate in 2006.  The one person who has had a recent positive record both economically and militarily has been thrown under the bus by Obama, who tried his best to deny him any credit for peace and prosperity in the 90s.  Many people believed that Hillary would achieve similar things, having been a partner to Bill during their WH years.  He makes no secret of the fact that she was his closest advisor.

    I think that a lot depends on whether the war in Iraq or the economy is the absolute top issue of this election.  Personally, I think they are tightly connected, so that could present a new and different dynamic.  Even more depends on whether people trust that Obama has his priorities straight.  When the country is sinking fast, making race and religion high priorities isn't going to play well, IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    Think what you like about McCain, (none / 0) (#203)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:24:49 AM EST
    but he's their presumptive nominee and he was counted as down and out. He's a fighter. You may not like him or his positions but don't think he's going to lie down and lose, and don't attribute words to him that either he did not say, or may not know. His life has been extraordinary, and he has always stuck to his principles and he doesn't waiver. Yes, he doesn't read teleprompters well (imo, neither does Obama), but he brings lots to the table.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, a 'Compensatory' VP shows Obama's conundrum (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:57:18 AM EST
    While Obama's positives as a candidate rested on being untried and not having a trail nationally, he has since shown himself to be weak in personally presenting his record and merits to his own party.

    Telling potential supporters he'll give another speech, or will dash away somewhere to consider is an unacceptable way of addressing this. (In light of his forward reach to hard right religious groups, with whom he hopes to Unite, this is a double-snub to his own party, who have met him halfway and find themselves still standing there.)

    He has also weakness in his ability as a politician to function well off script

    Thus the additional burden placed on a VP to provide both a balance and a buttress has increased to the point where anyone adequate to offset all of those weaknesses is innately a BETTER choice for President than Obama.

    A stronger candidate wouldn't be looking for someone better than himself, but judging from Obama's views of Sen Clinton's merits, I doubt he'd recognize that in anyone else anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is so (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:49:29 AM EST
    green that you are right. Any pick will have more experience and the press will pick up that he has a weakness in that area.

    Sebelius is a bad pick simply because she's more qualified than Obama and it sends the message that a less qualified man should always be picked over a more qualified woman.

    He should just stick with a more qualified white male but that might tick off the guys. I have no idea about that one.

    Picking Biden would bring literally howls from the blogosphere. It might be worth him being picked simply for that reason!

    I think McCain is going to pick a woman running mate.

    The Olympia Snowe idea (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:47:44 AM EST
    has some traction with me.

    Again, the best pick to me would be Colin Powell.

    [ Parent ]

    Why he didn't elaborate (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by This from a broad on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:56:01 AM EST
    He doesn't know why Clinton would not be a good choice, all he knows is that he had a deadline to meet and had to write something.  It's the equivalent of the talking heads on TV filling the air time with senseless blather.  They have the microphones and the platforms, but they have nothing to say!

    You know how it struck me.... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:21:28 AM EST
    ...in reading that piece it struck me that Drum's primary criteria in a VP for Obama would be one that would not force him (Drum not Obama) to confront any of Obama's weaknesses as a candidate. Do you see what I mean? It's a very unreal way of looking at a candidate, IMHO.

    [ Parent ]
    Hasn't that already been covered? (none / 0) (#15)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:23:36 AM EST
    He wrote this on June 8th, in direct response to BTD.

    [ Parent ]
    That post from Drum says (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:47:19 AM EST
    nothing about the reasons not to choose Hillary -- only why Hillary might very well not want the position.

    You can pretty much always count on Drum to weasel out of taking a clear stand on these issues, and never adequately explaining himself.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, it really does (none / 0) (#57)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:55:24 AM EST
    He phrases it badly, but he covers some of the bigger arguments:
    On a social level, it's hard to picture someone of Hillary's age, experience, and temperament being willing to play second fiddle to a young guy like Obama. On a political level, she has more clout in the Senate than she would as vice president. On a personal level, Obama and Clinton (and their respective teams) just don't seem to like each other much.
    That basically means he thinks Hillary wouldn't be able to play the role, she'd be forced to give up her legislative clout, and he doesn't think they can get along in a working relationship.  You can argue that he's wrong (and on two of those points, I think he is), but it's pretty obvious what his argument is.

    [ Parent ]
    Try to read (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:07:21 AM EST
    the passage again.

    It's about why Hillary wouldn't want to be VP.

    [ Parent ]

    and the reasons he gave came from where? (none / 0) (#96)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:14:04 AM EST
    It's clearly him offering HIS analysis of why it would be a bad idea.  This isn't that difficult to grasp, is it?

    You try reading it again, and start by pointing out where exactly his impartial analysis replaces his personal feelings on the matter.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you even (none / 0) (#174)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:05:39 AM EST
    know what you're arguing anymore?

    You sound totally confused.

    [ Parent ]

    Now we have to start playing (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:09:09 AM EST
    WKDRM?

    [ Parent ]
    No, you have to read his post (none / 0) (#172)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:05:18 AM EST
    and apply a basic understanding of the English language to it.

    [ Parent ]
    Jim Webb (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Virginialass on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:00:49 AM EST
    Would be a horrible pick for him especially after the mysonginistic media campaign ran against Hillary. Webb once said the Naval barracks "is a horny womans dream." I voted for him in Virginia because my other choice was George Allen. Webb did not win by a huge margin and Allen was way ahead of him until the fatal "maccaca" incident. He would be a nightmare for Obama. The Hillary block will be truely disenfranchised.

    I can only see one VP pick that would take him to victory and that would be Hillary. She could give him Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and a sure bet in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Sebelius would not get him Kansas and I really do not know much about her. I am from Kansas and my dad still lives there. I asked him why so many Democrats get elected in Kansas when they are such a red state - his response was "The Kansas Democrats are actually more conservative that the Republicans that run."

    Agree with you about Webb (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:58:29 AM EST
    There's much that I like about Webb--in an Appalachian, Scots-Irish kinda way :)--but he has some serious liabilities with women and also with progressives. A few Obamites would actually choke on their Kool-Aid if Webb was the VP pick.

    She could give him Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and a sure bet in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

    I know what you're saying, but I really think that Hillary could bring in some of those states only if she were leading the ticket. Obama is flat-out disliked in KY and WV and large portions of FL and MI. I think it would take more than a Hillary VP to compensate for his lack of experience and competence and judgment in the eyes of those voters. A lot simply will not get beyond his 20 association with Reverend Wright. Period. No matter who is on the ticket.

    And thinking about that led me to consider what it would be like to see Hillary back out on the campaign trail, this time as Obama's VP....If ever there were a presidential candidate who was overshadowed by his VP pick, that would be Obama with a Hillary VP.

    [ Parent ]

    You mean they're not dumb hicks? (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:25:51 AM EST
    Obama is flat-out disliked in KY and WV and large portions of FL and MI. I think it would take more than a Hillary VP to compensate for his lack of experience and competence and judgment in the eyes of those voters.

    But the MSM said those voters only saw skin color, and voted Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    No reason (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:10:28 AM EST
    There's visceral only with the Clintons it seems; CDS continues as reason takes a holiday. What's best for the party? Why that would be the candidate who garnered nearly as many votes as the presumptive nominee, or is that too easy?

    There are good reasons for and against (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:18:39 AM EST
    putting Hillary on the ticket.  I don't think it is as simple as you make out.

    [ Parent ]
    Sometimes it is simple... (none / 0) (#17)
    by crystal dawn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:24:33 AM EST
    McCain is definately going to try and steal the "woman" vote from Obama rather than worry about the evangelicals this time around. Those nutsies will pick McCain anyway. McCain and the GOP realize women are a huge voting bloc and will most likely pick a WO-man for his VP spot. And the only way to counter that is for Obama to also pick a WO-man. Picking anyone other than Hillary would be seen as a sort of insult to the Hillary fans, imho.

    If not Hillary, then Al Gore. heh

    [ Parent ]

    Possibly (none / 0) (#21)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:30:28 AM EST
    What are the reasons not to put Hillary on the ticket?

    [ Parent ]
    plenty (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:12:15 AM EST
    BTD seems only interested in who would be the biggest help in November. Given that a loss in Nov. renders any other consideration moot, he has a point.

    But I think a lot of Clinton-as-VP supporters look only to the positives that she brings to the ticket, not the negatives.

    She, and Bill, would becomes major targets of negative ads and probing investigations - especially of what Bill has been up to the last 7 years. May not be anything embarrasing there, but it would be a major theme, and represent tons of things to be defensive about.

    They also tend to muddy the waters of the Obama as change agent message. I am not talking about reality here, but perception - especially in the eyes of independent swing voters. Its a return to the nineties in a sense. Many Dems may feel that would be a good thing, but lots of other folks would rather try something new.

    Hillary has high negatives. They are probably less high amongst a lot of Dems now than they were a few months ago, but they are still higher than for just about any other VP possibility.

    Although some think it besides the point, I am sure Obama also has to think about what his next 8 years would be like with Clinton as VP. Personally I think it would be very difficult, especially for the Clintons, and especially Bill.

    As the spouse of the VP, he will be seen around the world as part of the administration. Which means he would need to say nothing that isn't fully consistent with the administration's position on anything. Thats terribly restraining for a guy in his position. If he speaks his mind freely, then the administration will have to run around constantly clarifying the extent that his comments do or do not reflect administration thinking - it would be a constant distraction.

    Hillary as VP would also be highly unattractive prospect to any president. She is a locus of power in her own right. She knows and his deep relationships with many of the people who would be appointed to any Dem administration. She would have the potential for a Cheney-strenght vicepresidency, but Obama is not Bush, and would not want to turn over anywhere near that amount of power to her. That would be a fractious relationship, frustrating for Clinton (since the president has the power to win such battles), and very much a poor use of her skills.

    As a senator, or senate leader, she could be a powerful and independent voice. As a VP she would need to be subservient to the OBama-defined agenda. Hillary as VP strikes me as a bad deal all around.

    [ Parent ]

    Does she even want to be on the ticket? (none / 0) (#26)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:35:35 AM EST
    That would be a good reason.

    She would be more effective in a senior Senate position?

    It's not clear that Obama and Clinton would be able to work well together in the White House?

    [ Parent ]

    if she doesn't want it... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:55:32 AM EST
    he still needs to offer it to her and let HER turn it down in order to let her supporters know that she was asked and it was HER choice.

    [ Parent ]
    All 3 reasons Drum gave... (none / 0) (#66)
    by jr on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:00:11 AM EST
    ...in his June 8th piece responding to BTD.

    I'm a bigger believer in the "Bill would get creamed in the vetting process" theory than in any of those, though.  

    If HRC didn't want to be on the ticket, we'd probably not be hearing so many outright refusals from her former campaign surrogates like Strickland.  And she's just not that likely to get a senior Senate position anytime soon (more likely to be the next Governor of New York, I think).

    As for the working relationship issue, while there are examples of that being a consideration in the selection process (Reagan/Ford), electoral considerations are generally given serious weight (JFK picking LBJ, for example, as a way to shore up Southern support).

    [ Parent ]

    Is governor a real option? (none / 0) (#140)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:48:54 AM EST
    I really like Hillary, and governor of NY is quite the position.  I only see that as an option if Patterson doesn't run.  I would be very hard for the Black officials in NY who supported Hillary to support her again against another Black guy (especially one who is already there).  

    That said, I would like to see Hillary as governor of NY instead of Patterson, as he appears really weak (though I don't know much about him).

    I think Hillary would be a great VP.  I don't understand they coudn't work together thing.  If she was selected as the VP, my guess is that they would have worked all this stuff out.  The only issue I see is the balancing act between what Prez Clinton brings (a lot) vs. the baggage he brings (not as much. but it is strong).  Also, it just seems like the weakest Rep attack to go after a VP, regardless of who it is.

    [ Parent ]

    CDS sufferer's reply (none / 0) (#65)
    by lgm on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:59:33 AM EST
    I first came down with the syndrome in `93 when her health care proposal was announced.  Liberals and conservatives alike thought it was terrible. Then she ran for Senate in my state in the biggest panderfest I ever have seen (from a Democrat).  The allergic reaction got worse.  

    That said, I would vote for her in a heartbeat over McCain (anti choice, anti birth control, pro deficit spending, pro Iraq for 100 years, bomb Iran, pro torture (after he was against it), pro sleaze).  

    But understand that not every negative statement about HRC is an expression of hatred.  Most of it is reactions to her policies and actions.  

    [ Parent ]

    her policies (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:29:32 AM EST
    are no different than obama's here.

    Part of cds is attributing positions to her she doesnt have.

    Go to an obamablog and ask them how she voted on the bankruptcy bill.

    [ Parent ]

    What NY state policies (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by smott on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:48:26 AM EST
    did you disagree with? My NY inlaws went from hatign her to loving her over the work she did there.

    [ Parent ]
    Big problem with Webb is (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:17:35 AM EST
    it would be a kick in the teeth to Women, given his shaky history regarding women in the military and his remarks on the tailhook scandal.  The definitive case against Webb was made by Kathy G of the gspot     here  while guest blogging for Matt Yglesias.  Also Webb seems temperamentally unsuited to a job such as the Vice Presidency.

    As for Hillary,  there are good reasons both to put her on the ticket and not to.  The reasons against are obviously related to the perception that she would hurt the ticket amongst persuadable Independents and Republicans that  could be persuaded to cross the aisle to vote Democratic.  Also the idea that with her on the ticket the GOP base would be more galvanised to turn out and vote.  The question is whether the above effects exist, and to a great enough extent to offset any assistance she provides in core democratic constituencies.  

    The GOP (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:22:22 AM EST
    being galvanized to vote against her really isn't a valid point. They already hugely galvanized to vote against Obama. She'll make no difference in that area.

    That being said, I don't think she wants it so it won't matter in the end.

    [ Parent ]

    GOP women and Reagan Dems (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:29:20 AM EST
    voted for Hillary. Many GOP women who voted in early primaries have stated they'd vote for Hillary in the GE.
    Now they're all supporting McCain.
    Obama had to divide the party by demonizing the Clintons to win Kidz and Blacks who normally vote Dem anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    i agree (none / 0) (#25)
    by Baal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:35:08 AM EST
    with all of this

    [ Parent ]
    This is the way I see it (none / 0) (#163)
    by Virginialass on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:58:51 AM EST
    If he does not pick Hillary - there will be a major block of Democrats that will stay home on election day or vote for McCain. I don't think Republicans are going to vote for him and the independents will swing both ways. My husband is an Independent and is voting for McCain. I have not made up my mind about staying home or voting against McCain. Voting for Obama would be just me voting against McCain. I am no passionate about him at all. However, if he does put Hillary on the ticket then I would actually think he does care about my Dem demographic.

    [ Parent ]
    Dems are expected to fall in line (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Josey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:17:51 AM EST
    before Obama selects a VP running mate. Patty Murray even had the audacity to equate this primary with a hard fought football game.
    Dem leaders imply Obama's race-baiting, sexism, and ageism is simply a
    "part of the game."

    Flanked by Sen. Maj. Leader Harry Reid and DNC Chair Howard Dean, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "Women and blue-collar workers, whatever their race, have the most to gain by the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States and the most to lose by the election of John McCain."
    <><><><>
    "We all worked hard," Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan said. "It takes a little while. You have to take a deep breath. But the reality is, there is no doubt in my mind that there is such a clear difference and so much at stake for our country, that people are going to rally around Sen. Barack Obama.

    MSNBO - First Read
    http://tinyurl.com/53l9sz

    Too bad (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:20:26 AM EST
    that there's reps in congress already abandoning ship. The party really isn't going to really around Obama but they can't come out and say that. It would be like the GOP admitting that they won't rally around McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    There would have been reps in deep red (none / 0) (#22)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:32:56 AM EST
    districts distancing themselves from the nominee regardless of who was nominated.  A Democrat in a R+18 district is always going to want to brand themselves differently to the national party.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:38:47 AM EST
    Sorry. Tapper is reporting that there's going to be a whole slate of reps who are going to come out and state that they aren't going to support Obama as the nominee and they aren't going to go to the convention. It's really indicative of Obama's demographic problems more than being in a red state.

    [ Parent ]
    Citation please? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:55:19 AM EST
    Tappers post here has the extract included below.  None of it in my opinion justifies your characterisation of it, if this is the source you are referring to.  The rep actually says he will vote for Obama in the GE.  

    Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., told the Associated Press today that he has no intention of endorsing Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

    And Democratic officials do not expect Boren to be the last to refrain from making a show of not backing his party's presumptive presidential nominee -- though Boren says he will vote for Obama for president in November.

    Other House Democrats from swing districts -- Democrats who eked out victories in traditionally GOP districts, whom House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., calls her "majority makers" -- may refrain from even attending their party's convention in Denver in August.



    [ Parent ]
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:37:37 AM EST
    he say's he'll vote for Obama but won't endorse him or go to the convention? Yeah, that's great isn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    complete nonsense... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:20:15 AM EST
    Clinton won in most of these "red/swing" districts by decisive margings, and (ironically) her status as the "not Obama" has greatly increased her credibility and respect among these voters.  

    Don't expect anyone to describe an endorsement by Hillary Clinton as an "attack", like that guy in Louisiana had to do when his opponent said he'd been endorsed by Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure, (none / 0) (#153)
    by JoeA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:55:33 AM EST
    because the GOP never smeared Bill or Hillary Clinton,  or Kerry or Gore.  And Democrats in Red districts never distanced themselves from the nominee or the national party.

    [ Parent ]
    Please (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:15:42 AM EST
    try to summon up the modicum of intellectual honesty required to admit that Obama is clearly much more of a liability to downticket Democrats in red or reddish states than Clinton would be, OK?

    Otherwise, why should anyone bother arguing with you?

    [ Parent ]

    You're kidding me (5.00 / 2) (#208) <