Report: Kaine, Biden, Bayh at Top of Obama's Veep List

The Washington Post and Chicago Tribune's Swamp are saying the same thing: Obama's veep vetting is focusing most heavily on Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, Joe Biden, and Sen. Evan Bayh.

Problem: If Joe Biden is the nominee, count me out. I couldn't even clap for the ticket.

Other reasons: His saying we may need to rethink the military draft. His inability to cure rampant injustices in his own state, where one of every four prisoners who died in prison since 2000 died of AIDS-related diseases and the states' prisons suffer from an atrocious lack of medical care.

I'm just warming up. I so hope Obama doesn't pick Biden. He is the antithesis of change and the embodiment of your father's Oldsmobile. [More...]

Update: I forgot to add his most recent transgression: introducing his latest crime bill, S. 2237, in October, 2007, just in time for him to campaign as your toughest law and order Democrat. He proposes spending billions on 1,000 new FBI agents, 500 new DEA agents, and 50,000 more police officers, increasing prison sentences and locking up more disadvantaged youths by branding them gang members. (While it has some prevention funding and equalizes crack and powder penalties at the current powder ratio, he ties the reduction to increased salaries for drug prosecutors and agents and the bill expressly provides it is not retroactive and won't apply to the 19,000 already serving draconian crack sentences.(See Section 5110).

There are better crack-powder bills and on the whole, Biden's bill should be strongly opposed. Even the title is objectionable and tells you where he's at: The Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007.

Then there's his voting record:

  • Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
  • Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
  • Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
  • Rated 36% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion. (Dec 2003)

On a lighter but equally telling note, there's this doozy (bill here):

Breaking this law--even if it's to share music by your own garage band--could land you in prison for up to five years. And that's not counting the civil penalties of up to $25,000 per offense.
< McCain Was Against Raising Taxes Before He Was Maybe For It | Carrots And Sticks >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bayh by default? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:15:40 AM EST
    Nothing wrong with him--that may be his best qualification.

    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:21:50 AM EST
    I've read a lot of letters of recommendation for jobs/promotions/appointments (and written more than a few myself) but I have NEVER read one that said "Nuttin wrong wit dis guy!"



    It's Code (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:25:13 AM EST
    He won't upstage the neophyte.

    That "upstaging" stuff... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:29:07 AM EST
    ...I just don't buy that it's a real concern to the campaign.  Or if it actually is, I think it shouldn't be.  

    Are people really going to say "man, I love that running mate!  Even more than the candidate!  So much so that I'm... voting for the other guy!!"?


    Uh (5.00 / 13) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:32:55 AM EST
    If it was a certain Senator from NY, they might.

    I think it's a HUGE concern for them.


    You really believe that? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:35:37 AM EST
    You think HRC's most ardent supporters would vote against a ticket she's on, even if she's only in the second slot?  Out of pure spite, or what?  I mean, I guess there are loonies in the world, but I don't think their number is electorally significant.

    I just can't fathom the thinking behind that.


    That is nuts. (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:40:39 AM EST
    Hil on the ticket is the ONLY way to get some of us to vote for the Dems this year.

    FWIW, although I think that's (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:44:42 AM EST
    a bit of a crackpot position (Dems are Dems, at the end of the day -- it's not a party of one), you're entitled to it and I think it's one of the reasons that he absolutely should make her his running mate.  She'd be my first pick if I were Obama.

    Well, not to start an argument (5.00 / 17) (#50)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:04:49 AM EST
    or anything, but FWIW, Dems are NOT Dems any more.  It was my party for 55 activist years but this Dem party bunch are OK with trashing the Clinton presidency and tagging Democrats with racism to win a nomination, all in a fight for party control and personal power.  The Michigan vote division was the last straw, processwise.

    It is beyond acceptable.  

    Issues matter.  The FISA vote should be the last straw for any committed Dem worth their salt, IMHO.

    Others seem not ready to make that case...yet.

    I understand that very well.  I stuck with it myself, through thick and thin, until this mess.  I didn't leave them...they left me.  My standards are the same.


    To each his or her own. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:12:06 AM EST
    Me, I don't find ceding the field to movement conservatives to be an acceptable choice.  Imperfect as they may be, the Democratic Party is still our best (and probably only) real tool to use against them.

    For my money (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:16:07 AM EST
    the 'movement conservatives' - or worse - are now running the Democratic Party.

    Um, yeah... (3.50 / 2) (#61)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:20:46 AM EST
    this is the point at which we have nothing left to say to each other, because you're seeing things that simply don't exist.  Nice talk, though.

    Not the first time (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:23:20 AM EST
    I've been accused of that!  Along with Bobby, I sometimes "see things that never were."

    OK.  Hang in there.


    You'll need to make up your mind (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by dws3665 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:55:53 AM EST
    "Dems are Dems" versus "To each his own"

    That's it, in a nutshell, and you've just argued both ways.


    Nope. (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:58:41 AM EST
    Not unless you've got a viable third party I haven't heard about.  We just don't have an avenue of political opposition right now outside of the Democratic Party.  If some people can't handle that, and want to opt out, that's their call.

    QED (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by dws3665 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:10:50 AM EST
    What you're really saying is nothing. A real Dem can't vote for a third party; unless s/he wants to.

    Thanks for that.


    A Real Dem HAS to vote (4.57 / 7) (#178)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:33:16 AM EST
    for a third party, 'cause the current dem party is not the democratic party real dems were once aligned with.

    Except the tool is rusted and broken (5.00 / 14) (#146)
    by Mike H on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:42:55 AM EST
    I'd almost buy that argument IF the elected Democrats had actually, you know, DONE something to stop movement conservatives in the past eight or nine years.

    The incredible cowardice and ineffectiveness of the Democratic leadership in countering the GOP deserves contempt, not support.

    And they've offered NO proof that voting yet again for them will create different results this time around.  In fact, many of them -- including the presumptive presidential nominee --are actively moving towards more conservative positions rather than taking stands for the progressive side!

    Best tool?  Only real tool?  Doesn't seem like it, based on results!  We'd be better off using our bare hands at this point.


    From Life Long Dem To Independent (5.00 / 10) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:46:37 AM EST
    in one year. Quite an accomplishment. So I agree that Dems are NOT Dems any more. Too many things went over my personal  boundaries and went against my values. FISA was just the crowning jewel. No way will I ever vote for any candidate who voted to cover up Bush's illegal activities and to eliminate my 4th Amendment rights.

    Hillary would be the best pick (3.66 / 3) (#51)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:07:06 AM EST

    Hillary and Obama interacted well together during their joint campaign appearance--surprisingly so...His best poll numbers came after that...She fixes his problems...too arrogant too inexperienced....She (by herself) could fit nicely within the change theme.  

    Hillary could be a number 2--although many here would find that distasteful--she has done it before and could do it again.

    She would be the best VP pick if...she had not blasted Obama as much as she did during the Primaries...and if it weren't for Bill....he, not she, brings the heavy baggage....


    Heh (5.00 / 12) (#56)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:13:51 AM EST
    Just try to imagine Republicans saying, "We can't have Reagan around, he brings the heavy baggage."  But Democrats just can't honor their own legacies.  Won't it be funny a decade or two down the road when some young gun is going on about how President Obama never did anything for people.

    It is inconceivable to me that anyone who aspires to be President of the United States would be more concerned with Bill Clinton's "baggage" than with the wealth of knowledge and experience he would obviously bring to an advisory position.  I am not so disdainful of Obama to believe that he actually feels that way.  Some of Obama's supporters, however, appear to think it would actually be a perfectly legitimate criterion.  Truly amazing.


    The thinking behind that (5.00 / 14) (#138)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:58:37 AM EST
    The vast majority of the "Disaffected Democrats" are angry at the Democratic Party leaders. The way the caucuses were handled, the Rules Committee's debacle, and their total silence on the misogyny and sexism that were part of this campaign. Not voting for Obama is as much a protest against the DNC as it is a belief that Obama is not qualified to be POTUS. For this group of people, who Obama chooses as his running mate is immaterial. Most of them hope that HRC will not be Obama's choice for VP because it will be heartbreaking to vote against her, but they will. The assumption that the Disaffected Dems are not voting for Obama "out of spite" or because they are "sore losers" plays well with Obama supporters who want to believe that anyone with any sense will just "get over it", but it is not the motivation that drives the movement. At this point the only connection to HRC is to help pay down her debt. We asked her not to quit so that debt is also ours. Insisting that her name be put into nomination is pushing the DNC to follow what has always been done in the past. If John Edwards, et. al. have not released their delegates, then they should be nominated as well.

    No no no no (4.40 / 5) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:39:36 AM EST
    That's not it at all.

    It has to do with being at a rally and the VP candidate getting more applause then Obama.

    The inferiority complex is palpable.  What was the analogy I kept using?  Oh yeah.

    Steve Young begging "Oh please please, Don't put me on the same stage as Joe Montana!!!!"

    And Steve Young would never say that actually because he has his own set of accomplishments actually.

    But that's what it's like.


    Yes (4.25 / 4) (#154)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:56:08 AM EST
    I'm sure that would be a problem since Obama has had such a hard time getting crowds.  Ohh but I guess at this site it is comonly believed it is for some no name groups that play as the crowd arrives.

    Uh, not sure what you mean (none / 0) (#168)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:16:53 AM EST
    I'm as unhip as they come, and even I've heard of the Decembrists.

    A little history from Wikipedia:

    "In July 2007, the band embarked on a five-date tour with a full orchestral accompaniment. On July 7, the tour put the band on the stage of the historic Hollywood Bowl for the first time, pairing them with the Los Angeles Philharmonic.[11] On July 15, the band performed with The Mann Festival Orchestra at The Mann Center for the Performing Arts in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where they debuted a new song.[12] The band then played a free concert in Chicago at the Millennium Park with the Grant Park Symphony Orchestra. On October 6, 2007, the band announced the cancellation of the remainder of their European tour, citing the ill health of a band member. On November 1, 2007, the band further canceled the remaining 28 shows of their "Long and Short of It" tour.[13] The members of The Decemberists appeared, individually billed (as "Colin Meloy, Chris Funk, Jenny Conlee, Nate Query, and John Moen"), to perform in support of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama at a rally at the Tom McCall Waterfront Park in Portland, Oregon, on May 18, 2008.

    In November 2006, the band encouraged fans to create a music video for the single "O Valencia!" using footage of the band in front of a green screen. On his Comedy Central program, Stephen Colbert started a mock feud with the band, claiming his "green screen challenge" came first;[14] the band countered that its 2005 on-stage lightsaber fight in San Francisco preceded Colbert's idea.[15] The feud culminated in a December 20 guitar solo competition[15] on Colbert's show, with lead guitarist Funk representing the band. After Colbert feigned a hand injury, Peter Frampton took over for Colbert and won an audience vote. Show guests got involved, with New York Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer and Dr. Henry Kissinger declaring, "Tonight, I think the American people won." The prize for winning the challenge was revealed to be a copy of The Crane Wife. According to Meloy, the Colbert challenge was not prearranged, and before Funk's appearance, they were only told that Frampton would step in for Colbert."

    So, I guess if they were hip enough to be on the Colbert Report, it's plausible many of those people at the rally showed up to see them instead of Obama.


    I don't think (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:56:12 AM EST
    the Decembrists have ever pulled in crowds that large.  Rationalize things however you need to, no one really likes Obama, no one is excited to vote for him.  They have music at those rallys with all those people.  

    Hillary could make sense (4.00 / 7) (#29)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:43:49 AM EST
    but there are her comments against Obama that could find their way into commercials ....all the empty suit comments....Obama is an elitist, etc.  All perhaps manageable....

    Bill's library donors tend to clarify the real issue....He most likely doesn't want to disclose them....and he more than she would undercut Obama's message of change....


    All manageable, IMO, even Bill. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:49:07 AM EST
    Obama's proven pretty adept at rhetorical sleight-of-hand thus far.  They'd find a workaround, and any media flap would be ultimately drowned out by sheer Democratic enthusiasm for the ticket, IMO.

    I guess it would depend on what exactly's on that donor list, though.


    The list: tens of millions of dollars (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:51:15 AM EST
    or hundreds of millions of dollars from those who have that kind of money--e.g.,the ruler of Dubai?

    Blah blah (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:01:39 AM EST
    And besides there's Obama's comments about Clinton

    She's too divisive, right.   A real polarizer, right?

    Don't want to give up on all those voters who are willing to say Bush was wrong, but not yet willing to say Bill was right, eh?


    Bill was wrong on the (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:53:35 AM EST
    war.  I don't see how everything has to be black and white.  You can think someone was a good president and still have criticism.

    No kidding (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:17:03 AM EST
    How could he possibly put someone "who will say and do anything to win", someone he trashed during every stump speech, and showed such disdain for until they stood on the "Unity" stage? Clinton on his ticket would make him look like a fool. His supporters won't help her retire her debt, so they sure wouldn't tolerate him choosing her for a running mate.

    This whole election has become so boring, I don't think anything can breathe life back into it.


    Obama's comments about Clinton (none / 0) (#182)
    by daring grace on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:34:38 AM EST
    Good reasons for her not to choose him as a her running mate.

    IIRC There is a clip from one of the first (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:35:15 AM EST
    debates where Biden says something to the effect that Obama does not have the experience necessary to be president. Yet, he is on the short list.

    Yeah, but you're not (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:09:18 AM EST
    a player in politics, Oldpro. "Nothing objectionable" is the highest ideal in politics.

    Shows ya what I know! (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:27:25 AM EST
    Certainly not a player in THIS politics!

    I've won more campaigns than my national colleagues in the past 40 years, however.  They've only won three.



    Bayh the Goldilocks candidate (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:27:28 AM EST
    Kaine is too inexperienced

    Biden has too much baggage

    Bayh has a resume and a famous name, but isn't terribly well known.... he's just right!!


    Bayh has a "pretty" face. (none / 0) (#184)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:36:00 AM EST
    I don't think it adds any heft to the ticket nor do I think it's a winning ticket! I agree about Biden and Kaine.

    Bayh (none / 0) (#171)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:18:11 AM EST
    Wouldn't the Dem's lose a seat in the Senate with him? I can't see them dimminishing their majority over a VP.

    Why not? (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:34:15 AM EST
    If he chooses Kaine he would be taking away a democratic (in name only but still) Gov and allowing him to be replaced with a republican Lt. Gov. Six one way and half a dozen the other. I doubt Obama cares.

    I could though see Hillary turning it down because of not wanting to give up a much needed dem seat in the senate.


    I've heard over and over (none / 0) (#183)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:35:53 AM EST
    Two Senators is not a good plan for running mates.

    Yet, nearly every person under consideration is a Senator. Is that reflective of the vetting team not understanding the process?


    Judgment? (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:18:45 AM EST
    Oh dear Gawd...atrocious.

    If I hadn't already said 'no deal,' Biden would surely do it for me, too.  Bayh?  Bah... Tim Kaine?  Sigh...don't get me started.

    Only chance I give an Obama ticket is if Hillary is on it.  He's probably not strong enough, smart enough or brave enough to stand up for that obvious necessity.

    And he's running on his 'judgment.'

    Good grief.

    Democrats.  Once again, snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

    Kaine has a 'faith-based' opposition to women's (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by catfish on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:20:28 AM EST
    rights to choose. So Obama would really be courting that evangelical vote.

    And losing (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:23:37 AM EST
    the Democratic base...women.

    Think gender gap.


    P. S. Which means (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:26:02 AM EST
    we're going to need a fleet of buses cause it's really, really crowded under this one.

    That's why Kaine is probably the dumbest (none / 0) (#19)
    by rjarnold on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:31:11 AM EST
    choice of all the major VP candidates. He would be even worse than Sebelius.

    But not worse than (none / 0) (#28)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:43:28 AM EST

    That's a tossup...


    Sebelius is better than (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:49:11 AM EST
    McCaskill or Napolitano. He won't pick a woman though. He won't risk another historic first on the ticket, unless it's Hillary.

    Agree. (none / 0) (#38)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:55:19 AM EST
    Kaine did pull his ads (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:24:24 AM EST
    From gilliard's blog cause Steve depicted Michael Steele in an unseemly way.

    I wonder if that has anything to do with anything.

    Probably not.

    It wasn't a Post-partisanship moment on gilliard's part anyway, that's for sure.


    As I recall (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:27:50 AM EST
    there was a pretty ugly blowup over that incident, with Markos posting a rant about how Kaine pulling his ads was the most shameful decision ever, and some of his readers who had been working for Kaine for months flipping out because Markos decides to trash the Democratic candidate just before election day over a stupid blogspat.

    Kaine was a little bit like Harold Ford back then, in that everyone thought he would lose his election, so they felt free to trash him for being too moderate and don't you know that's not what the voters want blah blah blah.  But he won and kind of screwed up the message on that account.


    I'm not sure that's what they wanted (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:35:36 AM EST
    All I remember is a blogger saying a campaign refusing to buy adspace on a blog would have a "chilling effect."

    To clarify (none / 0) (#26)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:41:43 AM EST
    the episodic Kaine-bashing was going on long before the Gilliard episode erupted.

    The blogs tended to be mildly supportive of Kaine although they'd take their occasional shots for the reason I described.  It was only after the Gilliard episode that Markos snapped and decided Kaine was the most cowardly politician of all time, just because he didn't want a big story two days before an election about how his ads were running on a blog that has blackface images.

    I mean, Markos was really just sticking up for a friend there, but it was just so irrational to jeopardize an election over a last-minute blowup like that.


    The precedent (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:55:33 AM EST
    Of ad revenue on blogs getting pulled cause of messaging also had to be a concern.

    I think that's too obvious, and needs no further comment.

    But suffice to say, I did never notice the Kaine bashing before that time.  I appreciate the insight there.

    But more importantly, I see that episode as a way that people used to express themselves before race became exploited by the Obama campaign.  I don't believe Steve would have made the same post today.  Just couldn't do it.  Not and still support Obama.

    I support:

    1.  Steve's right to portray Michael Steele in an unseemly way to make a point about Steele's denial of racism in the media and the republican party.  I have done the same with a certain woman in the media only to be attacked by the same person who called Kaine a coward.  And I won't go into it here.  But it was a very telling moment in my experience here at Talkleft.

    2.  Kaine's right to distance himself from such polarizing rhetoric.  A politician can never associate themselves with the likes of me.  Or that kind of satirical input.  

    3.  My right to see Kaine's position on the issue, as a politician.

    All of that has nothing to do with Kos's bottom line.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:00:47 AM EST
    We have certainly been poorer for not having Steve Gilliard's thoughts regarding this campaign.  Lord knows he never felt obligated to subscribe to the prevailing narrative regarding much of anything.

    Here is my favorite Steve Gilliard tribute of all time, although it is very much inside baseball.


    'faith-based' has become (none / 0) (#46)
    by weltec2 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:00:59 AM EST
    rather a loaded term under Bush. I can't think of it without the word 'initiatives' resonating in the background... which BO supports. But you're right, Kaine is a strong Roman Catholic.

    Biden is also a Catholic (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:15:55 AM EST
    and has some degree of gravitas and definite foreign policy cred.  Everything I hear from the better-connected commentators and political types is that Biden is highly favored.

    Highly favored if you (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:35:57 AM EST
    didn't watch the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings.

    Forget all that. This is "new." (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:41:10 AM EST
    Aha. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:55:19 AM EST
    Good point.

    I keep forgetting the wrong things.


    Thank you oldpro (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:22:55 AM EST
    Biden's out for me for just those hearings.  G*d he was execrable.

    That is, if I wasn't already a nonsupporter of BO.


    It's only a handful of us bitter old (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:06:10 AM EST
    people who care about that.

    But it's characteristic of my beef with Biden-- he can talk a great game, but then he apologizes and takes it all back a few hours or days later.  He's one of the most consistently disappointing politicians out there in his unwillingness to actually follow through on what he says.


    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by sj on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:22:01 AM EST
    That's what I've always told anyone who would rave about one of Biden's righteous rants.  Because seriously, the guy can make you want to stand up and cheer.  

    But if you take a step and wait a day or so you'll find that here it comes... right on time... Complete disappointment.


    On the bright side.. (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by rjarnold on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:19:21 AM EST
    they aren't talking about Hagel or Nunn anymore.

    I really don't think they ever were. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:25:46 AM EST
    Not Hagel, anyway.  The Broderistas love to chatter about unity tickets every four years, and this one made less sense than ever.

    Less sense than (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:27:29 AM EST
    Kerry asking John McCain?

    Not a lot about the Kerry campaign (none / 0) (#18)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:30:54 AM EST
    made sense.  Although on that count, there was just maybe some potential political benefit w/r/t Kerrys' utter lack of credibility on Iraq.  In the case of Hagel, there's jack squat in favor of it.

    NO potential benefit (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:38:06 AM EST
    to Democrats.

    Any day the Democratic Party allows a Republican...ANY Rpublican...on the ticket is the day you can stamp "cancelled" on the Democratic Party.


    Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:42:49 AM EST
    But in theory, maybe it gets Kerry over the hump in a Bush state or two, and then we don't have Roberts and Alito.  Weighed against the probable damage to the larger Dem agenda, I'm honestly not sure how that pencils out.

    But as I said, I'm inclined to agree with you.


    Well, in THEORY (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:51:18 AM EST
    when Kerry dies in office (of one thing or another) we then have....President McCain!!  Kerry's choice.

    Oh, wait...something funny about all this...ummm, wasn't Kerry one of the Obama drafters?  Yeah...that's right...

    Hmmm....if I were a conspiracy theorist...


    Good thing you're not. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:58:08 AM EST
    It'll make a great (none / 0) (#70)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:30:42 AM EST
    Oliver Stone movie, tho...

    Coming soon to your nearest theatre!


    Having Hagel as one of (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:17:38 AM EST
    his two chaperones on his royal tour of the Middle East and Europe wasn't exactly designed to stifle that particular boomlet, though.

    Charlie Rangel (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:19:35 AM EST
    actually introduced a bill to reinstate the draft--conservatives hate the idea because it would make waging war more difficult..

    And I blasted Rangel for it (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:27:36 AM EST
    here saying it's despicable and anything but liberal.

    Wasn't his reasoning for that (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:39:39 AM EST
    to get the rich kids, and kids of his fellow congressmen into the military so this administration would think twice about another pre-emptive strike against any country?

    Biden's DrugWar and 1st Amendment (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:45:40 AM EST
    He's co-sponsored some doozies with Orrin Hatch.

    The 2000 Meth act, in its original form, would have made it a 10 year felony to provide "information which could be used" to produce use, or distribute a controlled substance." This would include 1400+ pages from Jefferson's diaries talking about hemp for fiber. After Unanimous passage in the Senate, the provision was stripped in House Judiciary. credit Baldwin, Frank, Conyers, Barr, Hyde, Sensenbrenner.

    The RAVE Act, as originally submitted, would have made it a 20 year felony to host a musical event at which any attendee imbibed. Amended in House Judiciary to raise the burden of proof that the promoter or venue owned had direct intent. Credit above Representatives, minus Barr, no longer in office.

    Sensenbrenner?!? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:48:26 AM EST
    Maybe I should be supporting HIM for US Senate, WI 2012.  I had no idea he was such a friend of civil liberties.

    Sensenbrenner is the worst of the worst (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:56:46 AM EST
    He's no friend to civil liberties or any kind of liberty.  He sponsored the Meth bill, the 5 years for passing a joint bill, snitch or go to jail bill, the worst immigration bill ever and too many others.

    He wanted to repeal the Booker decision giving judges discretion in sentencing.

    Ben, don't spread misinformation here. I'll delete any future comments with false praise for Sensenbrenner. As TChris, who is also from Wisconsin wrote, Just Say No To Sensenbrenner.


    Sensenbrenner put the Meth Act in the Patriot Act (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:00:44 AM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:02:00 AM EST
    Allow me to clarify that my comment was tongue in cheek, in case there was any doubt.  I recall being totally horrified by that mandatory snitching bill.

    Different Meth Act, different year. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:44:05 AM EST
    He IS awful on drug policy and Civil Liberties NOW, and from the '80s through '99. For a BRIEF period, 2000 to 2002  he took a considerably better attitude. I reached him on the censorship provisions of the 2000 Meth bill with help of the Waukesha Linux Users Group.

    If I were spreading false praise, you'd be justified to delete, or even ban me, but I can produce recorded Judiciary committee votes on the 2 items I cited.

    (I COINED "Snitch Act," for HR 1528, picketed his appearance shortly thereafter at as WI Repub fundraiser, forcing him to enter the Concourse Hotel in Madison via the Kitchen entrance. Stalinists for Sensenbrenner

    I mentioned him in the comment above to show just how bad the Hatch/Biden bills wedre, so bad that even Sensenbrennewr could be moved to oppose them on 1st Amendment grounds.


    Again: why not? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:10:10 AM EST
    The object of the exercise is to win more votes than the opposition.  You are not presenting an argument that explains why Clinton as VP would net the ticket fewer votes.

    You apparently think the O campaign is ruling her out because of ego, pure and simple.  To which I roll my eyes.  If Clinton really were a more popular politician than Obama, we'd be discussing her VP shortlist right now.

    Plus there's the media darling factor -- Obama and Co. know they have it, so I very much doubt they're worried about coverage.

    She got more votes (4.60 / 15) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:17:54 AM EST
    And does better against McCain right now.

    The last thing Obama wants is to be on stage and have Clinton get a bigger round of applause.  He is more worried about THAT than he is about the welfare of average Americans.  Of that I am sure.

    If you want to go to the Obama folks and tell them that would be a GOOD THING, that Obama could feed off of it and make it work for him, i'm all for it.   I would agree with that.  Al Gore gets a huge amount of applause and Bill doesn't wince every time it happens, ok?

    others have been trying to make that suggestion for quite some time now.  two hugely popular people with intensely loyal support, two very intelligent people working together to help Americans?

     For now, I'm concuding it's the last thing he wants.  That he's like a quarterback trying to take over from a legend and wants to spend more time dissing that legend than incorporating it into his legend, and creating his own set of accomplishments.

    I see no other reason why Clinton is not being announced right now by the Obama folks other than Obama's ego.


    Nothing else makes sense.


    PS: since I feel obligated (none / 0) (#67)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:28:56 AM EST
    to offer my own explanation of why they're not just sucking it up and going with HRC, here you go:

    Narrative problems.  He said too many unflattering things about her, and she said too many about him, and their joint campaign would spend a month on the sidelines trying to put an end to the massive MSM orgasm that would ensue as the pundits unpacked it all.

    I disagree with that assessment, but that's what I think is going on.  Although know that I read it, I have myself halfway convinced that they're right.


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:32:42 AM EST
    I do actually think Obama isn't qualified.

    And I do suspect his people think me and the Clintons are racist, so I guess there's nothing to be done.

    At least nothing Obama can do anything about anyway.

    You're right.  A lot of nasty things were said during the primary.


    You know (5.00 / 7) (#72)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:35:16 AM EST
    that would be a month when no one paid any attention whatsoever to John McCain.  Think about it.

    I would love for the campaign to be nothing but one long soap opera when the Beltway media finally condemns themselves to perpetual irrelevance by ignoring the issues in order to obsess over whether Hillary and Obama really do get along.  At the end of that hypothetical process, we would win so convincingly it wouldn't be funny.

    But yes, it's entirely possible that the Obama campaign is gravely concerned that media focus on Hillary would preclude them from publicizing the details of his next white paper on agricultural policy.  That could be it.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:39:49 AM EST
    As I said, I believe their thinking is mistaken.  But I also believe it's way more likely that my analysis is accurate than it is that he's just afraid she'd get more applause at joint rallies.

    "Campaign 2008: The Musical" (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:24:17 AM EST
    I sense this would make a better musical than it would a soap opera.  I guarantee you that someone is probably sitting at home writing it as we post here.  ;-)

    Ooo Ooo (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:27:11 AM EST
    I hope it's Joss Whedon!  Dr. Horrible was a big hit (on the net at least) and Once More with Feeling was a masterpiece.

    Now that's funny. Ethanol. Stay tuned. (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:39:37 AM EST
    Obama / Biden > Obama / Lieberman! (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jerry on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:13:11 AM EST
    Biden, yech, blech, vomit....

    You didn't come up with (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:30:04 AM EST
    a more reasonable consideration.

    Either he thinks Clinton and the people who support her are bad for the party, or he thinks she will upstage him and assume a certain amount of authority as VP that Obama is unomfortable with.  In short, he won't be able to control her.

    What more is there?

    Every other answer ends in "It's a no brainer."  I mean we seem to agree in part that it's a good idea.  You just don't want Obama to be criticized for refusing to do something that you think is a good idea.  And that makes no sense.

    I ask again.  What more is there?

    See below. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:45:42 AM EST
    And I am criticizing him.  I think it's a moderate screw-up.

    Why not Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:13:45 AM EST
    I wish he would really consider her and put her on, she would help him to victory.  

    At least with Biden, it's better than Sam Nunn.  If Sam Nunn was on the ticket, I might go volunteer for McCain.  Seriously.

    My money is on Kaine and in fact I think it'd be the smartest choice.  I know Obama thinks he's going to win Indiana, I am very skeptical.  After all, he couldn't even win it in the primary and he started out with a double digit lead there.  Not to mention that some of the highest concentration of Democratic voters were in his backyard (the infamous Lake County).  Virginia is a state Obama can win.  You've got a large black population with a surprisingly high number of blacks voting GOP.  You have NOVA with affluent whites who are Obama's biggest supporters.  Let's not also forget that Virginia is one of three states that has elected either a black senator or a black governor.  Kaine can help boost him in that state.  Now I don't know how much it helps that Kaine is a Catholic (he was a missionary when he was younger) but it could help shore up Obama among Catholic Independents and Catholic Dems.  

    Still Hillary is the best choice.  God, I wish Obama would grow up.

    2 weeks ago (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:16:03 AM EST

    check your facts before accusing others of making things up.

    If his internal polling shows a big hit (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:21:38 AM EST
    with Hillary and none of the others, it will be Hillary. They'll probably send Bill to Africa on humanitarian missions to appease Obama and his fear that he'd have two VP's.

    I don't see any groundswelling of support for Obama post primary like there was before. He can't do this alone and if he wants to win, he needs to give special consideration to the one candidate who can put him over the top.  

    Aside of Hillary, (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:52:44 AM EST
    none of these choices are exciting me.  

    I almost wish he would pick Pelosi so I could merrily vote against BOTH of them!  Pelosi OR Dean!  



    Obama/Pelosi (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:10:06 AM EST
    Or Obama/Brazile!

    Both too risky for play-it-safe Obama.  (Too "historic" doncha know.  Also too partisan for the GE.)  But I would so enjoy not voting for both those tickets.  


    Perhaps (none / 0) (#111)
    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:43:45 AM EST
    I get the feeling that Obama does as he feels and as Michelle wants.  When you say "groundswelling of support for Obama post primary like there was before", which "before" are you reffering to?  Are you looking back at June 7th or are you looking to prior campaigns?  

    The fact that McCain has kept this close (or might even be leading if USA Today/Gallup is right) is a testament to McCain's weakness.  The public is not divided anymore.  There is widespread agreement that the economy is in shambles, Bush is horrible, civil rights need to be restored, Iraq was a mistake, and there needs to be change.  Obama does need a good vp pic.


    Shhhh (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:32:15 AM EST
    no one actually discusses the poll result that shows McCain leading.

    In fact, if you were to watch TV Monday night, you would think you were in a time warp.  All the pundits all night long continued to talk about ther Gallup Poll from Sunday showing Obama with a 9 point lead.  

    They did this despite the fact that NEW Gallup data had come out on Monday showing an 8 point lead.  And, there were the Rassmusen  and USA Today Gallup polls both using LIKELY voters instead of REGISTERED voters showing Obama with a 3 point lead or McCain with a 4 point lead.  But, still the lead in all the shows I saw was talking about Obama's 9 point lead.


    Closer race than it should be (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Mike H on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:50:40 AM EST
    Even the 9-point lead is closer than it should be.  Bush trashed the country and the GOP "brand".  McCain is a terrible campaigner and a huge flip-flopper in his own right.  The media is in the bag for Obama.  That McCain, with such an awful campaign, is still keeping it within single digits should be of concern.  It leaves open plenty of room for attack ads, an "October surprise", and Diebold to swing the election for McCain.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:07:33 AM EST
    It's not a 9 point lead anymore.  That was the number from Gallup on Sunday.  The number on Monday for the SAME POLL was 8 points.  It is now irrelevant to quote the 9 point lead anymore.  That was the point of my post.  Gallup will publish a NEW number today which will make Monday's 8 point lead irrelevant.

    I would just like the press to stop promoting poll numbers that are out of date.  And, I would like them to stop promoting poll numbers unless they intend to promote ALL the different polls or at least use a disclaimer that there are other polls out there that they are CHOOSING to ignore because they tell a story they aren't interested in publicizing.


    Well, Kaine is (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by mabelle55 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:40:49 AM EST
    anti-choice, which really bothers me. I can understand why Jeralyn is upset by Biden, really! I don't think Kaine is any better, especially on choice. He has also opposed sex education curriculum that isn't abstinence-based (from what I recall reading).

    Obama said he was a "new" kind of politician. Fact is, I still believe he's more Republican-lite than Democrat and his VP "short list" seem to reflect this. I said a few months back that Obama wasn't really a change agent, based on his U.S. Senate record and other bits and pieces of his time in Chicago.

    I never was excited about him. I'm still not. His VP list is not inspiring and is actually pretty depressing...

    I think only hardcore (5.00 / 11) (#122)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:16:25 AM EST
    Obama supporters think he's an Agent of Change.

    When the Establishment lined up to support Obama, they weren't doing it to bring Change to Washington, D.C.  They were doing it for purely partisan and personal power.  I might think differently if Pelosi et al had led the charge on impeachment, but they were cowards.  When the political cowards cheer for a candidate, I hardly think it's because they think he's going to rock their world.  They probably think he is the "safer" pick.


    I would hope that this supposed list (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:44:21 AM EST
    is nothing more than an effor tof running some names out tere to see what the response is.

    The fact that Kaine seems to be promting himself woudl say to me that he really isn't the front runner.  Do you think if he was that the Obama camp would have him out there TELLING that to the media?

    To me it has appeared throughout the primary and now as well that the Obama camp has tended to send out trial ballons by proxy and then when the data isn't well received, to claim it was NEVER their position in the first place.

    Recall the big bru ha ha when the "unnamed campaign source" was quoted in the NYT as claiming that Obama's take on Faith Based Initiatives would allow them to use religion in hiring practices.  And then they claimed the NYT was "mis-reporting" the facts.  Who DOESN'T believe that that was a trail balloon?


    Easy to figure out Obama's VP choice (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by pluege on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 03:38:48 AM EST
    determine the most disappointing choice for progressives. That will be the one Obama chooses.

    Kaine (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by chrisvee on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:51:12 AM EST
    is a non-started IMO. Anti-choice, used really questionable campaign tactics, and holds some other borderline DINO positions.

    It may end up being Bayh by default then since he's so boring.

    Three very uninspired choices, IMO.

    and to think..... (none / 0) (#131)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:38:12 AM EST
    it might be nice if he were to pick someone who was actually qualified to be President should the need arise.

    What happened to the theory pundits always put out there that the VP pick is used by the public to determine the JUDGEMENT of the candidate.  It is the first important decision to be made after the end of primary and before convention.

    And apparently everyone is suggesting that Obama can best show his JUDGEMENT (which is what he supposedly ran his campaign on) by picking a VP with the personality of a bucket of warm spit.  Because Obama supporters believe anyone with a oulse rate and any accomplishments at all would immediatley OUTSHINE the "chosen one".  How can his ardent supporters believe he is the ONE and at the same time believe he would be so easily upstaged.

    That's some pretty strong Kool-Aid.


    All three - yuck (5.00 / 7) (#124)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:03:57 AM EST
    Biden for the reasons Jeralyn said. The other two are anti-choice, among other problems.

    These are just bizarre choices on a number of levels - Kaine has no experience, Biden is a gaffe machine, etc.

    But what REALLY bothers me is that, no matter who he picks, even if it's an anti-choice anti-gay guy like Kaine, the Obama supporters will say it's great.

    Progressivism is dead.

    Bayh (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:14:38 AM EST
    Would he be able to deliver Indiana?  He supported FISA.  He voted down amendments to FISA.  Bayh has been extremely hawkish re: Iran, including a bill he is sponsoring in the Senate right now.  

    Greenwald cites Evan Bayh, a Democratic senator from Indiana. Bayh thinks it would be a shame if we "soured an entire generation on the necessity, from time to time, of using force because Iraq has been such a debacle." According to Bayh, Iran is "everything we thought Iraq was but wasn't. They are seeking nuclear weapons, they do support terrorists, they have threatened to destroy Israel, and they've threatened us, too."

    Palaima Book Review

    He is a terrible choice that makes basically no sense to me.  If he becomes VP I hope he has absolutely no power whatsoever.  What's the point in choosing someone like Obama over Hillary (whose war vote hurt her a lot in the primary) if Obama is going to cuddle up to the newest breed of hawk?

    This shortlist is weak.  

    He's not pro choice (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Lahdee on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:47:36 AM EST
    Yep, that'll sure give warm fuzzies to all those Clinton supporters and undecided women.

    He's got two years as a Governor and no national experience. One newby, okay maybe the rhetoric will overcome, but two newby's? Not so good, I think.

    I dont care (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by sas on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:48:49 AM EST
    who is his running mate.

    As the days go by, I realize that Obama is nothing but hype and air.

    He changes positions routinely, has difficulty speaking an unscripted sentence and panders to just about everyone.

    I never liked him, now I detest him, because I believe he is totally untrustworthy.

    As an Independent (former Democrat), I am appalled at the choices before me.  McCain or Obama -they are both awful.


    Would the SCOTUS threat go away? (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:18:34 AM EST
    One of the strong why you should vote Democratic message is about the Supreme Court judges. To save Roe. If Kaine is Anti Choice and Obama is yes, but, and I liked Roberts, wouldn't that argument be lost?

    From a progressive point of view... (5.00 / 0) (#179)
    by esmense on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:33:30 AM EST
    how do Bayh or Kaine represent "change?" Biden of course doesn't represent change, but, really, will anyone else Obama is likely to choose? Both Bayh and Kaine represent middle of the road to fairly conservative, compromising politics. Both bring a decided lack of any personal excitement to the ticket (I've seen Democrats mock Romney as a bad choice for McCain because he's "plastic" -- but the same can easily be said for Bayh. And, frankly, put those two plastic men up against each other and I fear Romney will appear to be the brighter one).

    There's only one reason for choosing either Bayh or Kaine -- to help win their home states. But do they add anything to the ticket anywhere else?

    All three leave me cold. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:45:45 AM EST

    All three, and the presumptive nominee, leave me (5.00 / 4) (#207)
    by jawbone on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:25:26 AM EST

    Kaine was a welcome addition the number of govs with a D after their names--he was a Dem who could win in the transitioning VA political atmosphere. He could not have won a primary in most Blue states (esp'ly with the anti-choice stand). He is not someone I want in the vice presidency, much less the Oval Office. (Note: I am not advocating assassination by writing about this remote, but historically possible, possibility.)

    Biden? Loose lips sink ships. As a senator he can get away with motor mouthing, with incompetent editing: as VP, his words have more heft and will be taken much more seriously; they have policy and political implications. He goes along for a good while making sense, then, whammo, he lets one fly about deli owners or some such thing. Then he has to do the walkback with a WBRM (What Biden Really Meant) way too often.

    Jerlyn's list of particulars is pretty damning, as well.

    Now, Bayh??? Again, do we want this kind of Dem in the WH or even near it? As president???

    Re: Both Kaine and Bayh--we probably lose the governorship of VA (for what that's worth), and we probably lose a Senate seat count in IN. Not that Bayh has helped Dems stand up for the Constitution, civil liberties, progressive legislation, and against BushCo judicial appointments. Shudder.

    All of which brings consideration of Obama's judgement and how he will govern. I'm not impressed with the first and have no idea about the second. Which is why I can't get behind him.

    Holding my nose will be the only way I can vote for him. But Cynthis McKinney is looking better every day....


    Bayh (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by emmy bee on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:03:09 AM EST
    This is my first post here but I find this site very informative and is not an echo chamber like most blogs.  Thanks!  Anyway, I live in Indiana and think there are some good points about Evan Bayh.  He was a huge Hillary supporter so I wonder if he gets the spot, does that help improve the chances of her donors donating to Obama?  Secondly, when he was governor here he started a program called 21st Century Scholars which pretty much pays for poor kids (who've followed a set program in high school) to go to college.  My daughter's friend is in college because of this program and otherwise wouldn't have been able to go.  And I do think Indiana might go for Obama if Bayh is on the ticket.

    Thank you all - TL is an oasis for me. (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by mogal on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:05:44 AM EST
    I don't post often but I enjoy the thoughtful knowledgeable comments. I especially enjoy rating the comments I agree with which are many and oldpro  you often speak for me - hang in there.

    Enough is enough? (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:44:12 AM EST
    When will they say enough is enough and stand up for their female counterparts?

    Um, maybe when they realize that they need the votes of those female counterparts? And the way they realize that? Hint: It's not by continuing to vote for them no matter how often they take you for granted, spit all over your rights, and taunt you that you have no place else to go.

    On that subject... (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:47:34 AM EST
    I really DO want to know when "enough is enough" for the dead-ender Obama supporters. When is enough enough on the issue of choice? BO is extremely tepid on the issue (and his choice of legal advisers is downright scary on this and many others), and has proven himself untrustworthy to boot, so it doesn't matter what he says. He's not reliable on choice, his own words show it and remember, "words matter"?

    FISA, Sunstein, full-on embrace of Republican talking points and neocon positions. Yes to shredding the Fourth Amendment, yes to the death penalty, yes to torture and the use of executive orders, no to choice, yes to destroying Social Security. Did you hear how he's meeting with Bush's economic team to get advice on the economy? It would be funny if it weren't so ludicrous...So really, when is enough enough? I am longing to know.

    Two beige-colored trial balloons (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:49:12 AM EST
    and one filled with hot air.   Kaine is almost perfect in that he is unknown outside of Virginia and brings almost three-years of unremarkable experience as governor; Bayh is colorless, a centrist (i.e., rightward leaning Democrat), but has gubernatorial and senatorial experience that he will be able to keep cunningly concealed so as not to overshadow the top of the ticket.  Biden is a blowhard who we can thank, in large measure, for the confirmation of Clarence Thomas.  His leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee was akin to that of ringmaster of a bad circus act.  Although he voted against Thomas, the process was a mess over-ruling germane questions, such as the nominee's position on women's right to choice.  

    One more reason not to ever, ever allow Biden (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 03:09:27 PM EST
    to get on the ticket:

    He chaired the hearings that put Clarence Thomas on the court.  He set a time limit on those hearings, and he allowed the Thomas people to trash the reputation of Anita Hill for the majority of that time.

    There was no need for a time limit.  His unbelievably stupid handling of those hearings is the reason we are stuck with an incompetent, rigid, mute 100% conservative vote on the court.

    Biden had a responsibility to the country to get to the bottom of what Anita Hill was alleging . . . he ducked.  I say NO to him on any ticket.

    It'll be Bayh. (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 05:12:17 PM EST

    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by Miri on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 05:38:48 PM EST
    "for 2012 is clearly Hillary.  One doesn't get 18 million votes and then quite publicly shafted by your own Party and not have a fairly strong number of voters feeling you got screwed."  

    Hillary should follow Reagan's 1976 example. Give lukewarm support to the ticket. Stay out of sight. Wait for Obama go down to defeat. Organize for another run.

    The worst thing she could do would be to accept a VP spot on the ticket. It would be the absolute worst. If Obama loses she will blamed a la Ferraro. God forbid if he got in he will be defeated in 4 years a la Jimmy Carter and she will be like Mondale.

    No, no, no. Stay away from the ticket Hillaryy. Keep your eyes on 2012. You will be able to say I told you so. Remember Reagan.

    Drunk (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Miri on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:03:36 PM EST

    "They really don't like her.  Period. "

    It is more than that.

    Obama is drunk on power and adulation. He is like a movie star who believes his own publicity. He think she can win a landslide victory all by himself.

    In a way Obama is like Bush after the rigged 2000 election. He is behaving like he won a landslide when in fact strings were pulled to give him a "victory".

    His cult followers like Markos are convinced he is going to win all 50 states. They hate Hillary and her husband. They are usheing a brand new Democratic party, victorious all over the map, winning states like Indiana and North Carolina.

    It is a fairy tale.

    If the two men at the top of the ticket (4.72 / 11) (#139)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:11:15 AM EST
    were as qualified as they needed to be, there would not be nearly this level of interest in who the #2 on each ticket was going to be.

    McCain needs someone young enough to be an heir apparent in 2012 - I just can't see McCain doing a second term at the age of 76, since after 4 years in the WH he would be effectively be about 90 - and someone who appeases the very conservative wing of the party.  Would not shock me one iota to see Huckabee get that job.

    Obama needs Hillary.  Biden is too old to carry on in 2016, and he has his own not inconsiderable baggage, Bayh is a nice guy, but he pulls the ticket more to the right.  Obama can't have someone on the ticket who also needs training wheels, so Kaine is not a good choice.  Ditto on McCaskill and Sebelius.

    Hillary not only brings with her millions of voters, but she would wipe the floor with McCain's VP in any and all debates.  Yes, she would definitely outshine Obama, but without her, we can forget health care reform.  

    Still not sure I could vote for him even with Hillary on the ticket, but it certainly would be more palatable than Obama paired with any of these latest possibilities.

    It is very amusing (4.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Politalkix on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:01:20 PM EST
    that so many at TL who seem to be uncomfortable with Obama and Kaine because they are not convinced that they are reliably pro-choice(despite Obama getting a perfect score from NARAL in this regard)have enthusiastically defended Clinton's selection of Gore in 1992. Please examine the link.
    The article specifically mentions that "Mr. Gore's position on abortion is somewhat different from Mr. Clinton's and from the plank in this year's Democratic platform. He opposes Government financing of abortions for poor women. Since the mid-1980's, Mr. Gore has favored legal abortions, although before that, he was less firm".

    Just say what you think (3.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 03:01:41 AM EST
    That's all.

    Don't worry so much about me.

    Wow (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:15:15 AM EST

    Maybe it's time to make Joe Biden .......  drum roll please..... radioactive.

    Biden has foot-in-mouth disease (none / 0) (#74)
    by Plutonium Page on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:38:51 AM EST
    In addition to all the other reasons he'd be a terrible choice.

    Bayh = lame for this reason.

    I've heard mumblings about Kaine being "a disappointment" but have no idea why.  I don't know much about him.

    In the end, I guess the point is to have a smiling VP who doesn't upstage the candidate and doesn't make any negative news.  In other words, someone really boring.

    Bayh it is.

    Plutonium Page (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 03:01:00 AM EST
    There's a wing of the party that thinks you choose a running mate that is interesting and who will challenge the candidate.

    I know that Gore challenged Bill in a lot of ways, and often times got some initiatives started with solar energy and high mileage cars.  I can provide documentation on that if you want.

    I don't think he got everything he wanted from Bill.  Not totally, but I think he made Bill a better president than he would have been otherwise.  I am totally sure of that.

    That is the wing of the party I belong to.

    I find your idea that a president needs to find someone boring and someone who won't upstage Obama pretty dissappointing actually and indicative of the direction of the netroots as a whole.

    Might want to rethink your position here on this.

    Take care.


    I don't think boredom is the issue (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:43:08 AM EST
    although I agree that Obama would probably have a hissy fit if he shared the stage with a politician who got more applause than he did (i.e. Hillary Clinton), Obama needs someone who won't upstage him too much on the question of competence, knowledge, and experience.  At the same time, his lack of qualifications demands that he have someone that people feel is "solid" and reliable.

    Bayh seems to fit that bill perfectly.  Eight years as governor, in his second term in the Senate (and on key "economic" and "military" committees), and a famous family name -- nothing says "solid" on a subconscious level like a political dynasty.  

    And there is no question that Bayh would accept - he's practically salivating at the prospect.  He almost ran this year -- if Obama loses, he becomes a favorite for 2012.  If Obama wins, he's the favorite for 2016.    


    the favorite (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:40:04 AM EST
    for 2012 is clearly Hillary.  One doesn't get 18 million votes and then quite publicly shafted by your own Party and not have a fairly strong number of voters feeling you got screwed.  

    And if Obama loses in November -- which I suspect he might --, there will be even more people playing "what if" and believing Hillary actually would have won had she run against McCain.  Fortunately, they'll have Electoral College numbers and Polls which showed -- and still show -- her ahead to turn to as evidence.

    Anyone running in 2012 will be running against a much better run machine with a candidate in Hillary who's stronger due to the experience of having run before and a public which is eager to put it right this time.


    LOL (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:42:40 AM EST
    I just said above it was important to have a candidate who doesn't upstage Obama and got criticized for it.

    Adam Nagourney on (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:13:04 AM EST
    prospect of Obama choosing Clinton:


    He's such a jerk (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:14:37 AM EST
    Yawn (none / 0) (#136)
    by Redshoes on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:56:56 AM EST
    Please tell us there's a stealth vp candidate out there for the pickin'  -- not one of these guys is a good opening act.  

    BTD talked about LV v. RV polling yesterday and anecdotally the friends and family poll breaks this way:

    2004 Bush voters (2) = Mccain
    2004 Kerry voters (6)  = 3 Obama (2 enthusiastic, 1 that would be me pragmatic); 2 undecided leaning Mccain.  

    Am hoping the VP pick shows some creativity -- something to get us tepid supporters closer to enthusiastic -- but if not, at least not someone who will cause us to sit it out.  Time will tell.

    Count me out? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Saul on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:58:35 AM EST
    Jeralyn, what do you mean by that?  

    I think Obama is not a slam dunk in Nov against McCain.  The recent poll shows McCain taking the lead.  The main reason is Obama has not passed the CIC smell test yet with many voters.  The oversees trip does not look like it helped him that much.  The gaffe with the canceling of visiting the wounded troops is ammunition for McCain.  The answer they gave for this is really dumb.  They did not want to look like they were using the troops in the campaign and also because one of the person that was going with him to see the troops was a military person who supports Obama would have been shown as politics.  So why not tell this military man not to go.  The very fact that they made a decision not to see the troops is in itself a political decision. So the very thing they were trying to prevent ended up as doing something for political expediency.  

    The very fact that he Biden is on his very short VP list and not Clinton tells me that all that crap about the Clintons representing the past
    is like your father's Oldsmobile was just that crap.

    His future will  depend on who he picks as VP.  I still say if he wants a slam dunk deal then he should pick Hilary.

    and Americans (1.00 / 1) (#145)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:42:40 AM EST
    don't realize yet that Obama's appearance in Germany was immediately preceded by two very popular rock bands.  Is it possible a solid chunk of that 200,000 came out first to see the bands and hung around to see Obama?

    Smoke and mirrors, people.  Smoke and mirrors.


    I continue to believe (none / 0) (#142)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:38:57 AM EST
    more and more than Hillary will be Obama's running mate.

    Clearly the campaign continues to throw out names and see what sort of reaction they get.  But if none of them really excite people I suspect they will have no choice but to go with Hillary.  

    I have a hard time seeing Biden as his running mate.  From a purely political perspetive it goes against his entire campaign theme.  Biden is about as Beltway politician as you can get.  I do see a role for him in the Obama cabinet if he so chooses but not the VP slot.

    Bayh is a possibility but really not terribly exciting.  Kaine is the guy, of these 3, that the Obama campaign is really considering.

    Kaine is anti-gay, anti-choice (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:12:19 AM EST
    Flyerhawk, I agree with most of what you write but, I have to say, it pisses me off to no end that democratic men are OK with anti-choice candidates (not pointing at you, just making a general point). When will they say enough is enough and stand up for their female counterparts?

    For me, it does not have to be Hillary, and it does not have to be a woman, but it damn well at least be a social moderate and not some religious fundamentalist, war hawk, or social dinosaur.

    To me, it is a huge affront that he has even DISCUSSED or CONSIDERED people like Nunn, Hagel, etc.

    If he picks an anti-choice VP, he loses my vote. I've come a long way to overcome a lot of my dislike and discomfort to be able to support him, but enough is enough.


    oh, and it would be really freaking nice (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:13:07 AM EST
    if some liberal men would stand up and say the same thing. I won't hold my breath.

    Im standing (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:15:25 AM EST
    and Im sayin

    Thanks Capt (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:17:56 AM EST
    You rock.

    To be clear (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:21:41 AM EST
    I'm not endorsing any one for VP.  I really don't know enough about Tim Kaine to make a judgment about him.

    If he is anti-choice I would be surprised if Obama were to take him.  It would get him nothing but really upset a lot of women's rights voters.  I just can't see him being that politically tone deaf.

    My personal choice would be Russ Feingold but that doesn't appear to be an option.  

    So far all of the names being thrown about are nothing but speculation and perhaps some controlled leaks by the Obama campaign.  3 weeks ago everyone was confident that it would be Jim Webb.  Then Richardson, now Kaine.  

    IMO, I think Obama will either go hard core foreign policy guy like Wes Clark or he will go with someone that will appease the netroots.  Or he will go with Hillary.  IOW, I really don't know. :)


    I know (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:28:58 AM EST
    that you're on the side of the angels flyerhawk. I was only trying to say that it disgusts me when I see so many liberal men in the blogosphere blithely supporting anti-choice male VP picks, and I KNOW that, if that is what Obama picks, they will go along and rationalize it. It is already starting here (not talking about you) and it is repulsive.

    I hope you are right about Obama's instincts. Wes Clark would be a great choice IMO.


    I think (none / 0) (#192)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:45:52 AM EST
    that Kaine is sort of a generic red state Dem in that he finesses the abortion issue by saying "gosh, personally I'm against abortion for religious reasons, but I support Roe v. Wade."  Now, as Howard Dean says, if you support an individual woman's right to choose then you're pro-choice regardless of what your personal beliefs might be.

    But I think someone like Kaine would be less problematic if there were more confidence in the person at the top of the ticket.  If you're iffy about the commitment to choice of the presidential candidate, of course you're going to want Ellen Malcolm in the VP slot.  I doubt the same level of concern would exist if the nominee were, say, Hillary.


    Hmmmm. (none / 0) (#193)
    by pie on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:46:36 AM EST
    this is one of the top stories at MSNBC:

    Kaine in 'serious' veep talks with Obama

    Va. governor in discussions with Democratic candidate about joining ticket

    He's anti-choice?  Nail, meet coffin.


    Many of us have been saying for months (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:56:01 AM EST
    that Obama is weak on issues that affect women. (We're still waiting for him to comment on the regulations that would classify many common forms of birth control as abortion agents.) His supporters have convinced themselves that "no one has done more for women than Obama has". They will spin Kaine's stand, too. Which is why the fear tactics of electing Obama to protect Roe v. Wade have become such a joke, and why it matters little who Obama chooses.

    Well let's see (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:07:41 AM EST
    Planned Parenthood gives Obama a 100 rating.
    NARAL gives Obama a 100 rating.
    National Family Planning gave Obama a 100 rating
    National Right to Life gave Obama a 0 rating.

    Or you can read what the Right to Life people have to say.  Let's just say that they aren't big fans of his.

    So the pro-choice people are uniformly in support of him while the anti-choice people are uniformly against him.

    Yet you think his support of pro-choice issues is suspect?

    There are legitimate gripes about progressive bonafides. He is a free trader.  He tepidly supports gun ownership.  He supports the death penalty in certain circumstances.  However there is no reason to believe that he is anything but staunchly pro-choice.


    I don't think so (4.40 / 5) (#151)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:52:28 AM EST
    She hasn't been asked to submit the materials any VP pick would need to submit and the blood between the two camps is still pretty bad due to her refusal to relinquish her delegates and his "dragging his feet" on helping her retire her debt.

    Secondly, Obama just really, really doesn't like Hillary.  I often wonder, if she were the pick, how Obama would explain how she suddenly ISN'T a racist after painting her so effectively as one in South Carolina.  Or how he didn't brush her off his shoulder of scrape her off her shoe.  Or how Powers didn't speak for the campaign when she called Hillary a "monster".

    I don't think people realize that Obama was really giving us strong glimpses into what he really thinks about her when this stuff was happening.  Also, don't forget, too, that the DNC and Obama are one and the same now and the DNC as well as the Party Leaders were begging Hillary to drop out as early as January.  I doubt they're prompting Obama to give Hillary serious consideration after all that.

    They really don't like her.  Period.   Besides, she'd effortlessly upstage him and that doesn't play into his need to show himself as Prepared to Lead or whatever.  And if she stayed quiet in the background, his campaign would be accused of muzzling a truly experienced, obviously intelligent woman for fear of him seeming less than by comparison.

    Her often impressive performance in those Primary debates changed a lot of minds and won her a lot of contests.  To muzzle her in order to make him look good would rub a lot of people the wrong way.


    Gotcha (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:56:21 AM EST
    She's too awesome to be his running mate.  

    You guys are hilarious.

    If he doesn't offer her the job it is purely because his campaign doesn't feel she helps the ticket on the whole.


    you're right (4.50 / 6) (#157)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:01:19 AM EST
    she IS too awesome for his ticket.  Perhaps that's why she won NH, CA, NJ, PA, OH, FL and IN against a better funded candidate who had the Press propping him up while her own Party begged her to drop out.  

    That's why she got more votes than he did -- while he ran up his delegate count in caucuses in Red States the Dems WON'T win in November -- and continued to hold her base (aka the Dem Base) strongly while he struggled to make in-roads into groups other than AAs and Young Voters.

    Her intelligence on issues, her strong grasp on policy, her strong debate skills and her ability to connect to Voters in a way The One just can't make her an impossible VP choice for him.  

    Can't have people openly questioning why SHE can't be at the Top of the Ticket instead of HIM now, can we?


    Ok (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:26:30 AM EST
    She's teh awesome and Obama quakes at her mere presence.

    After weighing pros and cons (none / 0) (#156)
    by Politalkix on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:59:35 AM EST
    here is my Veep wish list  
    (1) Tim Kaine, Wesley Clark
    (2) Hillary Clinton, Kathleen Sebelius
    (3) Bob Graham
    (4) Barbara Boxer

    Enabling Bad Behvior... (none / 0) (#159)
    by SunnyLC on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:04:38 AM EST
    Biden, who should know better, should stay clear of becoming Obama's VP...he's got a reputation of sorts on foreign policy that may not gel with Obama's crowd....

    In the meantime, I want to introduce someone...


    A big WELCOME to kenoshaMarge, who is honoring this blog with her first contribution! KM has "known" me since the old Buzzflash days and managed to find her way here after my hasty departure from that site during the primary season. I'm so glad we're "together again" and I hope visitors will enjoy reading her thoughts. (She's from the "North Country" and I'm in the Southwest, so it will be interesting to perhaps see different perspectives.) She'll be posting when she gets the inspiration to get something out there...

    AGAIN, WELCOME kenoshaMarge!!


    Her first post is called:

    ENABLING BAD BEHAVIOR....she examines the parent-child relationship re: the Democratic Party...a great read!


    Biden's crack bill is the best one (none / 0) (#161)
    by tomangell on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:10:02 AM EST
    For whatever it's worth, ALL of the drug policy/criminal justice reform groups working on the crack/powder issue are behind the Biden bill (S.1711) over any of the others.  We're talking ACLU, Drug Policy Alliance, Open Society Institute, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, NACDL, etc.

    Not saying I like Biden, but FYI -- all the groups support his bill.

    Is Kaine on record (none / 0) (#165)
    by dk on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:13:44 AM EST
    as being anti-choice?  If so, Jeralyn, do you consider an anti-choice VP a non-starter, or would you be willing to live with that?  Just curious.

    of that three (none / 0) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:14:26 AM EST
    it had better be Bayh.  and I dont even like Bayh.

    Can't Obama Make His Own Headlines? (none / 0) (#189)
    by daring grace on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:40:52 AM EST
    Where have you been this past week?

    Apart from anything else, naming Hillary veep would be entertaining for the way the TWO of them on the same ticket would make the MSM heads spin furiously and for the way poor Senator McCain would disappear even more from the front pages and the cable talk.

    On the other hand, it would please the MSM ever so much and who the heck wants to do that?

    Not A Long List, No (none / 0) (#198)
    by daring grace on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:58:59 AM EST
    People here argue that Obama is afraid to put Hillary on the ticket because she will upstage him with her strength and talent.

    How about the very real prospect that with her on the ticket the campaign will be upstaged by the MSM fixating on trivia and gossip:

    "How are they getting along?"

    "What does it mean that x, y or z happened? Are they fighting?"

    "What's Bill doing?"

    Not to mention the fact that Clinton comes with her own squad of unreconciled supporters who may or may not get on board with her in the veep spot or may just continue to come out loudly about how SHE should be the nominee etc.

    There are lots of reasonable motives for Clinton not being chosen as running mate and they don't relate at all to her strengths or Obama's deficits. Rather, it's the climate and landscape of this campaign season.

    The "family values" consideration (none / 0) (#199)
    by Politalkix on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    has always been a big factor in past democratic veep selection, irrespective of whether people agree or admit to it. Examine the link. Gore was chosen in 1992, not simply because of his resume but also because he had solid "family values" credentials (BC was fighting marital infidelity accusations at that time). Gore chose Lieberman in 2000 primarily because he delivered a stinging rebuke link to Bill Clinton on the floor of the Senate over the Lewinsky episode.

    Kaine's only positive (none / 0) (#206)
    by Exeter on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    is that he might -- MIGHT -- tip the scales in Virginia, IF Virginia is close. But, that seems like a longshot. (Yes, Northern Virginia has made the state more Democratic, but their is alot of quiet racism in Northern Virginia as well.)

    I would prefer Obama trying to tip the scales with a pick from a much more manageable win in either Ohio or Florida.  

    Kaine is "pro-life" (none / 0) (#208)
    by bmc on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:29:11 AM EST
    That's going to be a problem for the campaign whose surrogates argued that women should support Obama, using the "roe" argument. Virginia would be crucial for Obama, and Kaine adds that to the ticket. Biden is not going to be the vp choice; he's got a history of popping off and ending up in hot water over it. I think it will be Kaine, and I'm going to laugh at all those Democrats who thought Obama was the safe choice on "choice."

    Obama's choices are dwindling though at this point, aren't they? He keeps floating possibilities, but people keep saying no, thanks.

    Obama not a Republican. (none / 0) (#212)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:18:12 AM EST
    Timothy Kaine supports access to legal abortions.
    He just personally has a problem with it. So does Mario Cuomo and John Kerry.
    When did Obama say no to choice, yes to death penalty and stand in opposition to social security? And why is it a problem if he 'meets' with Bush's economic team? Who says he is meeting them for advice? Most likely he is meeting with them for the same reason that a new [potential] President meets with his predecessor; not for advice but to transition. You need to know what's going on from the inside if you are going to take over.

    Kaine and death penalty issue (none / 0) (#213)
    by Politalkix on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:39:27 AM EST
    this article will shed some light on Kaine's stance on the death penalty.

    If Obama picks a male VP, couldn't McCain (none / 0) (#214)
    by karmadillo on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:45:13 AM EST
    get a decent bounce by picking a woman? Maybe Whitman (Meg), Fiorina, Snowe, Lingle, Palin, or Blackburn? It would let McCain undercut Obama's change message a little and suggest old, old dogs can learn new tricks. It also seems that more than a few Hillary supporters who are currently keeping their distance from Obama might hold their nose and vote for McCain if the package included a woman.

    Jeralyn, State vs Federal (none / 0) (#217)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:56:48 PM EST
    If those prisons are state prisons, the responsibility belongs to the state officials not a U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative.

    Both candidates... (none / 0) (#218)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:10:52 PM EST
    ... seem intent on choosing the least inspiring VP candidates possible. None of the names on Obama's list are interesting in the least, and McCain seems determined to pass over rising stars such as Sarah Palin for other bland prospects.

    But Kaine is a good choice? (none / 0) (#220)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:35:50 PM EST
    First anti-choicer on a Dem national ticket since before Clinton.  That your cool with?  I'm confused.  

    Obama/Kaine...change conservatives can believe in.

    Except (none / 0) (#221)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:41:54 PM EST
    I agree with your reservations about Biden.

    I would disagree with you, however, on your denigration of my father's Oldsmobile.

    It was roomy, comfortable and reliable.

    Virginia (none / 0) (#224)
    by Miri on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 05:43:39 PM EST
    Dems are not going to win Virginia. It is a fairy tale.

    Polls this early are meaningless. I remember Clinton leading in Alabama Summer 92. Totally meaningless.

    Virginia is going to McCain.

    Cultists (none / 0) (#225)
    by Miri on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 05:47:26 PM EST
    "I really DO want to know when "enough is enough" for the dead-ender Obama supporters."


    His supporters are like cult followers. They see him as the Messiah. He can do no wrong.

    They are not that different from Bush supporters. Markos making excuses for Obama and supporting him no matter what is not that different from the O'Reilly's and Hannitys supporting the Dear Leader.

    Bayh is close to Hillary (none / 0) (#227)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:13:14 PM EST
    as one of her most loyal supporters, so I think he is who she would want Obama to pick, if it is not going to be her.  That would be fine with me on that basis - hopefully they would stay close during the administration.

    I am ready to predict it will be Bayh.  So I am on record with Bayh and Pawlentey as the VP picks.  

    Bland and blander.

    Bayh is TOTALLY unacceptable to me (none / 0) (#228)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:09:20 PM EST
    He is bought and paid for by the banking/credit/securities industry. Millions of dollars funnel from their influence peddlers into his campaign coffers every year. Goldman Sachs has been his largest campaign contributor for the past 6 years, and his #2 contributor before that. His other top contributors are the real estate, insurance and law lobbies.

    He doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. I don't care what Hillary thinks of him. AFAIK he is the poster-boy for corrupt-politician-allows-corporate-special-interest-takeover-of-Congress.

    Oh Come On (none / 0) (#229)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:36:39 AM EST
    He is the antithesis of change and the embodiment of your father's Oldsmobile.

    Please lay off Oldsmobile. I was born and raised in Lansing and still live in the area.

    The loss of the Oldsmobile nameplate was a blow to the community, a good community of fine people.

    That advertising slogan was pathetic, grossly inaccurate and probably contributed to the downfall of the line.

    About Biden; I have to say that I agree with at least one of his ideas.  An idea that I'd bet 90 out of 100 readers of this site would oppose and that's returning to a military draft.

    I have greater trust in a citizen's army than I do in a professional army.

    A fair draft (inductees chosen by lottery, exemptions granted only for parents) could very well force the electorate to take a more serious look at any proposals to authorize the use of armed force. I believe that ending the draft was one of the more insidious acts of the Nixon administration.

    I honestly don't know why (none / 0) (#230)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:44:23 AM EST
    ...my last two comments were deleted, since I didn't issue any personal insults or otherwise troll, as far as I know. But I defer to the authority of the site admins.

    Anyway: It's not true that Kaine is popular in VA, as everyone keeps insisting. He started off high, but his approval rating is in the 40s:


    I live in VA (none / 0) (#231)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:20:04 AM EST
    And I don't want Kaine!  He's been a huge disappointment and a not very popular Governor.  So many people, from both parties, are angry with Kaine.   Plus, he has had so little experience at doing anything, other than a few offices in Virginia and one year as Governor.  Hardly an impressive resume.  I didn't think that there was anyone who had less experience than Obama, but it looks like he found one in Kaine.  

    Biden is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.   He talks too much, to the point where I want to tear out my hair before he gets to the point!  Plus he is hardly about change.  

    Bayh is so blah.  Nothing exciting there.  

    Color me unexcited about any of them.  

    Draft is of no concern (none / 0) (#232)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:24:08 AM EST
    Congress will never approve it because only those who have no intention to run again would vote for it.  Supporting a draft would be the kiss of death.  Plus, women would have to be drafted too, and that's a no go from the get go.  

    Not to worry, there won't be a draft, so it's an easy thing for Biden to talk about.  He knows it will never happen.  It's just another blowhard statement from the blowhard.