Obama on Larry King Live: Osama and the VP Stakes

Sen. Barack Obama was on Larry King Live tonight. I only got to hear a few minutes. Here's what I heard:

  • Osama bin Laden: He'll go after him and the U.S. will either kill him or bring him back for a trial and if it's a trial, the death penalty is appropriate. If he's in Pakistan, we'll ask Pakistan to help. We'll go get him if we have to.
  • VP Stakes: He will pick someone who shares his vision and will bring a new kind of politics to Washington.

Did I miss anything?

< 4th Circuit Upholds Military Detentions, But Not Unchecked Executive Power | WaPo Poll: Obama By 8 Over McCain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:29:40 PM EST
    The headline at CNN - the pressing issue of the day - is, of course, Obama's response to the New Yorker cover.

    I really can't understand what is going on with the Obama campaign's constant rush to condemn stuff through spokesmen, only to see the candidate himself take a much more moderate tone.  It's schizophrenic.

    I don't get why (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:49:04 PM EST
    you see that as odd.  It's normal for Presidential candidates to use surrogates to handle stuff like that -- and the attack stuff that will probably come later in the campaign.  The VP candidate traditionally does some of that as well.  The candidate himself stays "calm" and "above the fray".  Like Reagan.

    Um (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:50:20 PM EST
    This isn't anything like an attack on McCain that you might want to come through surrogates.  This is a spokesman creating a controversy by strongly denouncing the cover, only to have the candidate say "oh, it's no big deal."  What is gained by that approach?

    I think the average person (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:54:52 PM EST
    forgets/doesn't know where the outrage starts, so by the time (usually 24hrs in Obama's case) the "no big deal" gets said, it's already been put in their heads.

    If you look at some of the issues voters had with Hillary, they were echoes of what the Obama team was putting out. Didn't matter if Obama was "charitable" in his response, the damage was done.


    Well, Sen. Obama gets to stay cool, (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:52:32 PM EST
    calm, and collected.

    They get to throw out the attack (none / 0) (#23)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:54:29 PM EST
    without Obama appearing thin-skinned or temperamental.

    You can't just leave stuff hanging out there but you don't need the nominee to engage in the attacks.

    McCain doesn't seem to understand that and it makes him look petty when he gets his dander up because someone challenged his military credentials.


    So (none / 0) (#38)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:00:52 PM EST
    how did the totality of this response help Obama?

    The commentor underneath you seems to have the exact opposite reaction as you, by the way.  Not sure if you want to address his point.


    I really don't know (none / 0) (#46)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:08:02 PM EST
    if it helps Obama or not.  But it is a tried and true political strategy.  

    I don't think that any poster here, myself included, is a good barometer for the effectiveness of Obama's campaign.


    Well (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:12:36 PM EST
    I understand the strategy when it involves attacking the opponent while maintaining plausible deniability.

    I don't understand the strategy when it involves the campaign spokesman repeatedly making attacks that the campaign doesn't actually stand behind.  Shouldn't they use an actual surrogate in that case?


    Good question (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:22:14 PM EST
    I guess that wanted to make the point clear.  

    I don't think that Obama backing off the comments is a problem in any way.  But it may have been better to have surrogates go after it.


    No, it's a strong response. . . (none / 0) (#27)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:55:03 PM EST
    to a distasteful subject.  I think the Obama campaign must have a war room set up and they're using it to respond to the allegations referred to in the cartoon, even if in a slightly round-about way.

    But it's a subject it's not appropriate for Obama to deal with directly, so he doesn't.  I really don't see why it's odd.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#21)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:52:40 PM EST
    This is pretty standard fare.  If it wasn't for the fact that his opponent shoots his mouth off whenever there is a mic in front of him, it would be fairly obvious.

    Presidential candidates have been playing the above the fray card since the early 19th century when they wouldn't even campaign, as it would thought to be in poor taste for the nominee to actually campaign.


    If you agree with me. . . (none / 0) (#36)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:58:28 PM EST
    and Steve doesn't, can I have a chance to change my original point?

    Just kidding!



    lol. (none / 0) (#70)
    by halstoon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:14:22 PM EST
    too funny.

    There's no point in asking Pakistan to help (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:31:11 PM EST
    All you're doing is putting more pressure on that government.  

    I'm thinking that might be misquoted from the interview tonight.  He got a lot of flack for putting OBL on Pakistan's shoulders earlier in the campaign.  Sparked a riot or two in Pakistan.

    Can't believe he'd go back there.

    he talked about (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:37:29 PM EST
    giving Pakistan financial incentives to get them on our side. I wasn't live-blogging, just listening as I was fixing dinner but Larry kept asking him if he would go use force to get Osama and he kept giving the same answer -- the one I wrote above -- maybe I didn't hear right, but that's what I thought I heard. It will replay it at 10pm ET.

    we've given Pakistan billions (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:42:22 PM EST
    in financial incentives.
    Oh, and thanks Jeralyn for watching Obama so I don't have to.

    The Pakistanis take our billions, while they also (none / 0) (#68)
    by MsExPat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:59:03 PM EST
    cozy up with the Taliban and give them free reign in the western area of the country. It's called playing both sides against the middle.

    Obama wants to give MORE money to the Pakistani government to "get them on our side"?! How naive can you get?


    I keep worrying and wondering (none / 0) (#76)
    by tlkextra on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:19:02 AM EST
    where all this money is coming from that Obama keeps promising and pandering to so many?

    Repealing Bush's (none / 0) (#81)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:48:53 AM EST
    tax cut, which evidently has a endless supply, and will not effect anyone but the stinking rich.  

    I watched the repeat (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:16:12 PM EST
    and I heard him correctly.

    Again he plays both sides (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:37:23 PM EST
    VP Stakes: He will pick someone who shares his vision

    and will bring a new kind of politics to Washington.

    These are conflicting.  Obama is an old politician pretending to be new.  His vision is old politics.

    Not really (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:42:33 PM EST
    That's code for "it's not Hillary".  ;)

    If he's smart, he'll pick her (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:52:59 PM EST
    I honestly don't think he will.  And some people are saying this is good for Hillary since Obama will either lose or be a lousy president and she won't have his name tied to his.  I disagree.  I don't like Obama but he needs all the help he can get.  In order to win and more importantly, to effectively govern, he'll need Hillary.  

    But it's still better for Hillary (none / 0) (#66)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:54:53 PM EST
    Even if she's VP, she'll be closed out of any policy making role.

    If Obama wins, he probably will be a lousy president.  Given the economic and military challenges, it would take a great president to get the US out of the mess we're in.  Even if, somehow, Obama is an above average president, it won't be enough to save him.

    I give about a year (again, if he wins) after the GE before everyone turns on him.  The bloggerkidz will turn just so they can fulfill their self-fantasies that they are all amazingly clever and knowledgeable political analysts instead of louts with keyboards.  And as we've seen, they're vicious when their self-image is at stake.

    All the entracing wool will fall right out of all those college kids eyes when they can't get jobs or health insurance and their parents can't afford to support them in the style to which they've become accustomed.

    I can easily see the latte liberals as the only constituency he has left (well, the ones that have forgiven him his FISA vote, anyway).


    I agree it will be a difficult role for anyone (none / 0) (#77)
    by tlkextra on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:32:10 AM EST
    to take over at this point. Because I expect Bush's replacement to most likely fail, whether justified or not, I hope HRC doesn't become VP. If Obama does poorly in Office, it would hurt her by association. Also, if he chose to run for re-election, it would be awkward for her to run again in 2012. Although I'm not sure she would want to run again after all she went through this time.

    Does sharing "his vision" eliminate (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by mogal on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:44:43 PM EST

    I think/hope so. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:46:27 PM EST
    Especially if the last couple weeks mean anything.

    I caught that he said Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:45:20 PM EST
    is a great and brilliant guy and the party owes him so much . . . and apparently Bill has had his epiphany and seen the light.  And it makes me sick.

    Same with what I heard Obama say about the New Yorker cover, that it's not worth talking about, blah blah blah -- and King, of course, did not call him out at all about his campaign talking about it.

    I can only conclude, from his constant backpedaling from what his staff says, that Obama would be a lousy executive.  And he wants to run what is called the executive branch, after all.  But he can't manage his own people.  Is that really the message that he wants to keep sending?  

    But -- overall, he did well today elsewhere and on this show in sending a message that comes across as more forceful than before.  As long as he doesn't need to "refine" it tomorrow. . . .

    What epiphany did Bill see? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:54:51 PM EST
    How much is this going to tick me off?

    I caught that he said Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#78)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:58:19 AM EST
    is a brilliant guy and the party owes him so much . . . and apparently Bill has had his epiphany and seen the light.  

    Cream City,
    what did he mean by that?
    What kind of light did Bill see and what kind of epiphany did he have?

    I just can't bring myself to watch Obama on TV and when he fawns over President Clinton NOW in that fashion .... grrrrrrrr.


    It's probably a good idea... (none / 0) (#79)
    by EL seattle on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:32:56 AM EST
    ... to say good things about Bill Clinton a day or two before the Clinton Foundation makes a big announcement about some sort of NGO news that's not related directly to the US election.  I think there's an announcement of some sort there set for Thursday morning.

    Did Obama actually say about Bill Clinton that he (none / 0) (#89)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:22:50 AM EST
    "had seen the light"? Had the epiphany (note that the only epiphany worth having is the one that Obama is The One).

    someone (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by tek on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:54:40 PM EST
    who'll bring a new kind of politics to Washington because that's what Obama is doing?

    It's too (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by tek on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:55:19 PM EST
    1-0, NL.

    I am baffled (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:56:44 PM EST
    How does it possibly happen that on the same day Obama is rolling out his plan for Iraq and Afghanistan, saying all the things I want to hear, his campaign is caught changing its website to remove language critical of the surge?

    The old version of the Web page stated "the surge is not working" and said the reduction in violence in the Anbar Province should be credited to the cooperation of Sunni tribes and American troops, not additional military force. "It demonstrates that the solutions in Iraq are political, not military," it read.

    On the new page, Obama credits the "military's hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice by our troops" for a reduction in violence. The presumptive Democratic nominee does not deny positive effects of the surge in the new version of his Web site, but criticizes the Iraqi government for not stepping up to reach a political solution.

    Obama national security spokesperson Wency Morigi said the campaign had remained consistent. "Senator Obama has long said that the stated purpose of the surge was to create breathing room for political reconciliation, and that has not happened" and that the campaign had added " updated language on the Iraq section of the website to help further clarify that point."

    Someone please, please tell me the CNN piece was an unfair hit job of some sort.  I can't handle the idea that from now until the end of time, the idea that the surge was something less than an unqualified success has now been permanently forfeited.  "Even Obama knows the surge worked, he got caught removing the part of his website that said otherwise!"

    Steve M... (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:05:35 PM EST
    I caught them doing it myself.

    I often look at that page to try and figure out what Obama is saying on Iraq. A couple of days ago, it looked completely different and had the anti-surge language intact.

    They have "updated" it to reflect Obama's totally NOT NEW positions on Iraq.

    The surge worked. Obama never said otherwise.

    We have always been at war with East Asia.


    It will be interesting to see if McCain (none / 0) (#53)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:16:57 PM EST
    will hit Obama with these contradictions in the debates...

    um, what debates (none / 0) (#59)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:52:14 PM EST
    Obama is too scared for those. I'm not sure we'll see any. Or if any, maybe one or two.

    Reading between the VP lines... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:58:47 PM EST
    If you want to 'bring a new kind if politics to Washington', that'll mean getting a state governor, right?

    ...Unless there's a legislative detention hall in the Capitol building where the misunderstood "bad boys" hang out with their motorcycles and camel smokes and the multitude of significant budget-balancing and paradigm-shifting House and Senate resolutions that they've been secretly writing in the margins of their poetry journals.

    That, or a celebrity.

    I bet it'll be a governor who has military and foreign policy experience.  (But one that can act like a misunderstood bad boy.)

    LOL, love that analysis n/t (none / 0) (#60)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:53:36 PM EST
    Camels?!?! (none / 0) (#67)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:56:57 PM EST
    I thought bad boys smoked Marlboro Reds.

    Okay here is my serious question: (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:00:56 PM EST
    Does the Obama campaign really think this tired old "new politics" thing is actually going to not only get them through this election, but also bring them victory?

    I thought that Obama would at least not fall into the broken record mode that Kerry did, but I am thinking now that I am wrong about that.  Next we'll be hearing that he (Obama) like Kerry before him will vow to fight the war in Iraq "better" than Bush rather than selling the rationale for actually getting out as soon as possible.

    I am so tired.  I can't do anything for these people out here in the real world when they go all mealy-mouthed on me.  When my Republican friends who want to enact a whole host of Dem policies hear this guy give himself over the the Republicans, I can't honestly say that they MUST vote Dem anymore - I can't.  Wake me up when there is a real Democrat in a leadership position.  I am just too tired now after having defended so many DINOs for no sane reason at all.

    They'll win because McCain is so lame... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:09:16 PM EST
    ...but they will think that they won because the electorate bought their new politics schtick. I don't think anyone's going to be buying that come November no matter who his VP is. But McCain only keeps getting worse so Obama will win handily.

    probably right, McCain is about the worse (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:59:32 PM EST
    politician I've seen in a long time. But then again, he looked this way early in the repub primaries, so I'm not sure I'd count him out if I were the Obama team. And if I were the Obama team that would be really strange because I'm like one person and they're like lots of people. :-)

    It occurs to me (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by jen on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:15:54 PM EST
    Repubs want a Dem in the WH. When the chit hits the fan, which will occur under the next president's watch, it will be blamed on Dems. This particular Dem is the one they wanted. Hillary may have made lemonade out of the lemons that are waiting to drop. They had to ensure the weakest link would be there holding the ball...

    That said, I still don't think Obama can win the GE without a little Diebold help.


    The Democrats could effectively counter... (none / 0) (#80)
    by EL seattle on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:45:28 AM EST
    ... that strategy by doing a few simple investigations into corruption and fraud and waste that's happened in the War on Terror and war in Iraq.  

    If the Republicans had gone into those ventures with the sort of zero tolerance for fraud approach that you'd expect from conservative rhetoric, they'd probably have strong majorities in both the House and Senate right now.  But they didn't, and if the democrats are able to do some digging, they should be able to find easy scapegoats a-plenty to blame for the tough times we're facing.  


    I've seen this idea here that the Repubs (none / 0) (#97)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:32:57 PM EST
    wanted to run against Obama because he's the weaker Dem and that Repubs gave Obama money so he could beat Hillary.  

    This particular Dem is the one they wanted.

    But that belies the reality of the Limbaugh Operation Chaos resulted in untold hundreds of thousands of Republicans crossing party lines to vote for Hillary, the candidate they really wanted run against.  


    Heh (none / 0) (#98)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:17:05 PM EST
    Operation Chaos was not designed to make Hillary the winner, but to prolong the primary process, hence the name.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have waited to implement it until Obama's victory was a virtual certainty.

    Also, it's not clear to me whether "hundreds of thousands" is a claim that's supported by evidence or simply a number you've made up.


    McCain's 'I know how to win!' today was sad. (none / 0) (#84)
    by andrys on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:29:24 AM EST
    He gets worse by the day.

    But then it worries me that Obama, who said he would debate McCain 'anytime, anywhere' refuses to do much in the way of town hall meetings with him, where one has to answer off the cuff.  Why is he worried about McCain ???


    Because unlike Obama, McCain is (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:15:48 AM EST
    actually extremely good in extemporaneous exchanges.  That decision on the campaign's part I completely agree with because I think it would be a disaster to have Obama doing his absent-minded professor thing while McCain is firing off witty one-liners and keeping the crowd entertained.  That would be deadly for Obama and the people working for him know it.

    Please keep in mind that Obama's stellar oratory is always supported by a prompter.  He is no where near as good when he doesn't have a script.  McCain is awful at delivering speeches regardless of what kind of aids they provide for him - so at the moment Obama looks like a better speaker and the campaign wants to keep it that way.


    Witty one liners? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:07:07 AM EST
    Is that what bomb bomb bomb Iran, and send the cigs, to kill them count as?  Man I really don't get McSame then.

    Review any and all of his appearances (none / 0) (#94)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:20:23 AM EST
    on talk shows like The Daily Show.  He's good.  I don't like him or his politics, but he is definitely good in that free-form format and that is one reason why a lot of people get the impression that he is a decent guy - excellent at playing a role and has years and years of practice doing it.

    Well... (none / 0) (#95)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    ...I saw him getting asked the birth control/Viagra coverage question last night on the Daily Show and it was not anywhere near "good".  I saw a confused, uninformed, out- of-touch, possibly senile man.  

    I guess that opens the door (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:01:08 PM EST
    for Hillary to be McCain's veep choice. P.S. I like Hagel.

    doesnt hagel or his family (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by sancho on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:52:42 PM EST
    own (now or previously) massive shares of diebold? i could be wrong about that. but if so, and he picks hagel, i'd say obama is looking pretty good to win.

    Would work for me if McCain promised to resign (none / 0) (#90)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:24:25 AM EST
    after 6 months or so!

    Obama's 'new kind of politics' VP choice (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by S on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:10:29 PM EST
    " a new kind of politics"  is he kidding...

    ...Obama has all the old democratic establishment backing and behind him...the names thrown out are biden, dodd, bayh, sam nunn - there's a new one for you...what is old, is new -

    ...and that old way of doing politics - which obama will now reverse himself on and run on the Clinton successful economics of the 90's...let's just hope they can manage to mention the democratic president during those days...uhmmmn....oh, two time successfully elected Democratic President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton...

    oh, claire mccaskill...MTP...simply forgot to mention Bill Clinton was the president she was bragging about vs Fiornia...

    Hillary Clinton is the only VP choice...Rasmussen has a poll out today where Hill beats McCain and Obama does not...

    Rasmussen states the Dems are putting up their weaker candidate and the Repubs are putting up their strongest candidate...

    ...thanks, Donna Brazile...more brilliant work on your part...

    if Hill is not on the ticket, expect more backlash...Obama is fading...every day...

    When it becomes clear to the voters (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:50:52 PM EST
    that Hillary will not be on the ticket Obama will drop like a stone in the polls.

    Here's the link for that (none / 0) (#85)
    by andrys on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:49:00 AM EST
    Just found it.



    Whaa??? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by blogtopus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:34:52 PM EST
    He will pick someone who shares his vision and will bring a new kind of politics to Washington.

    I must have missed something too... 'Shares his vision' and 'new kind of politics' are entirely different concepts for Obama, no?

    His new kind of politics is the old tyype (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Saul on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:21:03 AM EST
    of politics.  I wish Obama would stop using that phrase it is not relevant  anymore.  He never was a new kind of politician. He just hoodwinked everyone that he was.  Everything  he has done since he was nominated has been what every politician has done in the past.   Therefore for his choices for VP he will have plenty to choose from.

    Today in my very liberal Brooklyn neighborhood (3.33 / 3) (#72)
    by MsExPat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:16:24 PM EST
    as I was out buying groceries and stuff, I was approached on the street five different times by various young people. All of whom had the glassy-eyed earnestness and born-again grin I usually associate with the Hare Krishnas, the Falun Gong, or the Socialist Worker Party.

    "Hello," they said, "Do you have a minute today for the Democratic Party?"

    I swear, I never thought I'd see the day when I'd be ducking democrats as if they were Jehovahs Witnesses.

    I fear the Hare Obama brigade will be out in force for some months to come.

    You know. . . (none / 0) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:26:58 PM EST
    I'm completely on the side of a fair and orderly trial for everyone accused of a crime and I really didn't like to see Dean crucified when he suggested that a trial would be appropriate for bin Laden.

    On the other hand, and quite aside from the death penalty itself, I can't see that implementing the it against bin Laden could possibly be a net positive for us.

    If that's what you heard, (none / 0) (#4)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:33:24 PM EST
    I'm depressed.

    Are you kidding me?


    Which part - the trial? (none / 0) (#7)
    by catfish on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:40:45 PM EST
    Which part depressed you.

    The part beginning. . . (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:46:56 PM EST
    with "O" and ending with "A".

    LOL! (none / 0) (#82)
    by andrys on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:17:06 AM EST
    Swear I am a Dem. But a trial for Bin Laden? (none / 0) (#9)
    by catfish on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:41:24 PM EST
    Seriously? Somebody more informed please edumicate me on this.

    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:57:06 PM EST
    If at all possible you have a trial and you execute him for crimes against humanity.

    Having him die on the battlefield will mythologize the guy.  Having him dragged into an American court looking pathetic and small and having him judged guilty in the most infamous trial since Goering, would be far far better.

    And, no, there would be no chance of acquittal and the risk of reprisal is marginal, since they would be attacking us already if they could.


    Agree completely (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:07:40 PM EST
    No single act would do more to put the US back on the road to respectability in the world's eyes than to put bin Laden through a public and scrupulously fair trial.  He would, I'm sure, do everything possible to turn the proceedings into a circus, which would only play to the US' advantage.

    Plus, it's the right thing to do.


    Oddly enough for me it wouldn't work that way... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:11:36 PM EST
    ...I also didn't enjoy the execution of Sadaam Hussein and did everything in my power to avoid watching it. For the most part I succeeded.

    I have no interest (none / 0) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:13:09 PM EST
    in watching the trial.  But as a person who was very personally affected by 9/11 and who feels like he tried to kill me, I have no problem with his execution.

    Martyr (none / 0) (#52)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:14:40 PM EST
    is what it will make him.  Shouldn't he be tried in the Hague?

    Why? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:18:00 PM EST
    He attacked the United States.  What nation would oppose the right of the United States to put him on trial for it?

    Who will think (none / 0) (#55)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:19:28 PM EST
    we can conduct an impartial trial? Like the judicial process we offer at Guantanamo?

    Heh (none / 0) (#57)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:23:04 PM EST
    It wouldn't be a secret trial.

    Still (none / 0) (#58)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:42:10 PM EST
    our conduct at Guantanamo and Abu Gharaib (sp?) will have made it impossible for the international public to see a U.S.-based judicial process against Osama as fair.  And why not let the Hague handle?

    many would argue that some of those chasing (none / 0) (#64)
    by sancho on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:47:16 PM EST
    him (not obama, obviously) should be put on trial for war crimes. that is, many around the world, and here, would say that w/o prosecuting some from the u.s., the trial would be merley a show trial. osama'd still be a martyr.

    No we should hand him over to the world court in (none / 0) (#96)
    by suzieg on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    The Hague, where Sadam Hussein should have been tried instead of that kangoroo one we witnessed!

    Give Osama a fair trial... (4.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MsExPat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:08:34 PM EST
    but without the death penalty. This would play far better internationally, particularly in Western Europe, where the death penalty is seen by many as a violation of human rights. (Rightly so, imo.)

    LET"S KILL HIM (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:56:48 PM EST
    Let's go and kill Bin Laden.
    Let's have a trial and then kill him.
    Let's kill him and then have a trial.

    Ah, what a breath of fresh air.

    We so need a qualified (none / 0) (#33)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:57:07 PM EST
    hero(ine) right now!

    New kind of politics. Exactly the phrase (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:57:07 PM EST
    my friend, who strongly supports Sen. Obama, sd. in explaining why it is so important the Dems. win the Presidential election in Nov.  

    Yep (none / 0) (#48)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:10:11 PM EST
    I can't think of a pick that would be a better fit for what Obama has said and done in the last few weeks.

    Enjoyed your irony there ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by andrys on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:26:27 AM EST
    And just think, if for some reason, Obama developed a health problem ( I hope it's okay to worry about that), we might then  get a Republican President after voting for a Democrat.

    May your bad back get good again! (none / 0) (#99)
    by andrys on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:57:30 PM EST
    In the meantime, for all those reasons given and more, I hope he never picks a Republican for Dem VP...

    You didn't miss anything. (none / 0) (#73)
    by halstoon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:34:20 PM EST
    Obama simply restated for the Nth time his position that the executive sets the agenda and then relies on his commanders to carry out the mission. It's the exact same thing he's been saying since back before he had to fire Samantha Power.  

    After essentially two news cycles, there was no real point in talking about the New Yorker cover. As for strategy, of course his staff is going to rebuke the cover; it has to be on the record that they resent the portrayals, but Obama doesn't want to come across as having anything to worry about from it. He played it the only way he could, imo.

    I'm taking Jack Reed on the VP board. If he's picked, I win a lunch at Chili's.

    Any discussion of energy policy? NPR this morning (none / 0) (#91)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:27:06 AM EST
    had someone on who said it was difficult to compare McCain's and Obama's energy policies as Obama's was so vague.

    Wow (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:04:25 AM EST
    That is a lot of substance for Larry King, and I'm not being sarcastic, it really is.  Jeralyn, I must give you kudos for being able to sit through that.