home

Webb Out Of VP Stakes

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:28:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Sonja Henie's out. We'll take Danny Noonan.

-Ty Webb in Caddyshack

Jim Webb says no to VP:

"Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for vice president,” the Virginia Democrat said in a statement released to reporters. “Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country,” Webb said.

Allrighty then. So who's Obama's Danny Noonan?

By Big Tent Democrat

< Why Flip Flop At All? | Why Dems Lose, Part . . . >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Webb Out Of VP Stakes | 196 comments (196 topical)
    jack webb (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Turkana on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:34:40 PM EST
    for the law 'n' order vote. granted, he may be dead, but the same has been said about cheney...

    Heh! (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by standingup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:07:46 PM EST
    never knock the appeal of deceased candidates.  We had one beat Ashcroft in Missouri.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well then, Clifton Webb should be on the (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:19:33 PM EST
    list too....he will get the curmudgeon vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, I wouldn't have liked (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    giving up that hard-earned senate seat.

    We need to hold onto every single senate seat we have now -- unless there's an absolutely compelling candidate out there who's clearly a no-brainer for Veep.  S/he does not exist however.

    Clark too, imo, is out of the running.

    Schweitzer wouldn't seem to help O shore up his major weak area, nat'l security, something Webb could have done.

     

    Good (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:39:23 PM EST
    Webb was never one of my favorite picks and IMO better to keep the Senate seat.

    Quoting Caddyshack? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:48:24 PM EST
    I'm surprised....a movie so full of sexist and racist un-pc speech...shouldn't you be appalled by such a film?

    I smell malign acceptance:)

    Lol! (none / 0) (#71)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:12:55 PM EST
    I guess it is OK since there were only gophers in Caddy Shack and no crows.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course, there were crows (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:22:25 PM EST
    in the flick.  There are crows everywhere, I swear.  Therefore, you are guilty of malign neglect!

    [ Parent ]
    Does that make me... (none / 0) (#100)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:29:25 PM EST
    ...and avianist?

    [ Parent ]
    Watch it Mile.... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:06:31 PM EST
    gopher can be considered offensive to personal assistants and other hired help.

    [ Parent ]
    And I smell a libertarian a@@hole (none / 0) (#184)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:33:40 PM EST
    who enjoys belittling serious issues that harm groups of people as 'PC' or 'oversensitivity' or 'silly' because, in his selfish privileged world, none of those issues will affect him so they should be mocked and trivialized.  

    But, hey, what do I know? I only saw this theme play out ad nauseum all over the liberal blogs this season.

    [ Parent ]

    Hey.... (none / 0) (#202)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:56:47 AM EST
    BTD quoted that vile film full of insensitivity, not me babe:)

    Nice to see you too Molly....but watch your language, a**hole can be considered offensive to people with intestinal problems.

    [ Parent ]

    Probably wasting my time but... (none / 0) (#203)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:34:32 AM EST
    in case your curious, crap like this is why I worry about the pc police.

    Hat tip to PPJ.

    [ Parent ]

    he should just go for it (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:54:46 PM EST
    and run with Opra

    And give away free cars, too (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:44:24 PM EST
    That oughta get some votes.

    Telling us what to read, though, I dunno.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm, wonder what's up with Webb (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:07:48 PM EST
    When a pol comes out with statements like:

    "Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for vice president"

    and

    my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country"...

    It usually translates as:

    "Damn, Caroline Kennedy found out about (choose one: A)my lobotomy, B)the $5,000 hooker C)what happened in the bathroom stall at Washington National).

    Nobody comes out in advance to REFUSE a vice presidential nod.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:18:17 PM EST
    It's only "in advance" from our perspective.  It could easily signify that he received word that he's off the list.

    Otherwise, there's not really a good explanation for why he would suddenly decide to issue a Shermanesque statement right here and now.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe he's found out something (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by cosbo on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:02:29 PM EST
    about Obama that he doesn't want to defend, because that's what his job essentially would be isn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. That is really puzzling. (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:27:30 PM EST
    I mean, if nobody asked him, why would he say that?

    In fact, we could all say that. Stop the presses!!!! I refuse to be Barack Obama's running mate too! How about you?

    [ Parent ]

    That's what I meant (none / 0) (#92)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:25:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    webb has a military background and (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:52:26 PM EST
    so does clark. webb was in support of clark. it may well be his way to saying "don't come knocking". as i have seen so far there have been several who made sure they weren't under consideraton.

    [ Parent ]
    Every pol has (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:18:34 PM EST
    his skeletons.

    Maybe Obama will have to pick the Bionic Man.

    [ Parent ]

    Not true (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:29:13 PM EST
    Strickland did. IIRC, so did Rendell.

    [ Parent ]
    Just tuning in? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:52:30 PM EST
    No, several this year have already come out and said no VP for me.  Rendell, now Webb, Edwards (although he may have reversed himself on that, and then reversed himself again), and Warner.  Biden also made noises about not taking it but I almost don't count him because he had a definite "pick me! pick me!" false modesty subtext going on.  

    Any I'm missing? Seems like there was a spate of them a month or so ago we talked about quite a bit on TL.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:35:40 PM EST
    perhaps Webb isn't an Obama fan. It isn't like he was one of the pledged delegates on the Obama list. Last I saw he was a holdout and wasn't pledged all the way to the end.

    It isn't like Webb isn't known for his forthrightness.

    Then again, one of the biggest critcisms I saw about Webb was that he isn't "team" material which could have very well been why they precluded him. He would be "difficult" to control.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes. That's what I like about him. (none / 0) (#159)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:28:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My guess is (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:48:33 PM EST
    Webb's realizing Obama won't win VA and doesn't want to be tied to him.

    There are still a LOT of Bubbas in that state...(I'm in TN, don't mean it as an insult ;))

    [ Parent ]

    Yup. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:10:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    How Do You (none / 0) (#193)
    by Jane in CA on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:24:28 PM EST
    Explain Strickland in that case?

    [ Parent ]
    I am fully prepared to have him (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:09:20 PM EST
    stick his finger in my other eye and pick someone who makes no sense to (I guess I have to call us this) "old" Democrats like me, who will resist with every fiber of their being having the Democratic brand turn into unrecognizable mush.

    I am also preparing to cover my ears so I don't have to hear the media and the pundits get all breathless over the "brilliance" of the pick.

    Honestly, even the possibility of Hillary as VP doesn't move me - she would be wasted there.

    Handicapping this part of the race is probably a lot more fun if you like the person at the top of the ticket.

    Biden or Reed seem like the only plausible choices (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by ajain on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:18:18 PM EST
    I dont think Clinton is gonna happen, and frankly I don't care at this point (even though I ardently supported her and am still nursing my dissapointments).

    Webb was always a bad choice, right up there with Nunn (who better not be on the ticket). Hagel is also a bad, bad choice.

    Edwards, with his Rove debates, is very unlikely. Kerry is annoying to watch even as a surrogate. Richardson is truly pathetic. I think Sebelius or Napolitano wouldn't be great picks either.

    It just makes you sad to think that every name that comes up is in some way or another, very very bad.

    I'd be OK with Biden or Reed (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:32:14 PM EST
    I would much rather have Clinton or Clark, but I agree neither of those is going to happen.

    Just looking at the atmospherics, Biden has a youthful attitude even if he is older and very knowledgeable in foreign affairs. Reed seems very capable and confident. I think they both make believable VPs and possible presidents.

    [ Parent ]

    It's going to be Biden. (none / 0) (#143)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:50:10 PM EST
    Reed is more progressive, but RI has a republican gov who would replace him with a republican.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't Biden from Delaware? (n/t) (none / 0) (#149)
    by Palomino on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:42:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    yep (none / 0) (#152)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:53:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Webb withdrew when the search committee (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:01:33 PM EST
    asked him for his documents, according to Ambinder.

    I don't think he has anything to hide -  it just must rankle to have achieved so much in life and have to apply for a job to a committee of functionaries.

    Isn't that pretty standard though? (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:14:04 PM EST
    I have no idea, I just got the impression that that was what the vetters usually did.  I think this year it's just much more out in the open and slobbered over by the press since Obama made such a big deal of who he was appointing.

    Which he would not have, imo, had Caroline Kennedy not been on the list.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, I believe it is pretty standard (none / 0) (#141)
    by democrattotheend on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:43:31 PM EST
    And when they talked about the prospect of Hillary as VP, I remember the talking heads mentioning that she might not be willing to go through the vetting process either.

    [ Parent ]
    i seriously doubt it was a request for (none / 0) (#188)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:05:00 PM EST
    documents that sent webb the other way. it had to be something far more serious. perhaps it was a political calculation in concert with his long term goals and maybe he is unhappy with something going on in the campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Where are Obama's IL senate documents? (none / 0) (#201)
    by gram cracker on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:41:02 AM EST
    It would be interesting to see if Barack could pass his own campaign's VP vetting process.  Can he pass a FBI/CIA or security clearance background check?  My recollection is they are pretty strict on past drug use. Or has that disqualification been eliminated?

    [ Parent ]
    Good news (4.50 / 6) (#20)
    by Prabhata on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:44:14 PM EST
    I'm gratified that Webb does not want to be linked too closely with Obama.

    I'm glad you're wrong (4.50 / 2) (#54)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:05:06 PM EST
    Webb is a very strong Obama supporter, and he will do President Obama more good in the Senate than as VP.

    [ Parent ]
    So strong (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:40:24 PM EST
    that he was undeclared all the way until the end eh?

    He may be on board the bus but I didn't get the impression that he was that strong of a supporter.

    I suspect someone from the Appalachians(as Webb hails from) might not have been impressed with Obama's showing(or lack of it) in WV.

    [ Parent ]

    Not buying it (none / 0) (#170)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:52:08 PM EST
    Webb is a conservative Dem.  He's anti-choice and hasn't done jack about what he claims is his opposition to the death penalty.

    What's in this for him?  Nothing, from where I sit.    He realizes tying himself to Obama could cripple him, perhaps fatally.

    (Anyone who thinks Virginia's a shoo-in hasn't been to Accomack County lately.)

    [ Parent ]

    Why is that? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:44:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Two Senators on the ticket (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:25:00 PM EST
    with barely four years of experience together?  Nope.  Not even to get into Webb's predilection to write it all out there for years now, and some of his musings have not withstood the test of time.

    [ Parent ]
    Also, meant to add that a Republican (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:37:00 PM EST
    only two years ago, as Webb was (so I just read in Time), would not be the best way to reach the Dem base.  Then again, that doesn't seem to be a priority with the Obama campaign, which could see it as more reaching out to the Repub base.

    It all is becoming very confusing. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Good (none / 0) (#1)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:30:23 PM EST
    He's a darn fine Senator, and he's helping Virginia turn blue.

    I'd like to think (none / 0) (#2)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:32:12 PM EST
    Webb was never really much of an option.  IMO, Clinton, Clark, Schweitzer and Sebelius should be the shortlist, in that order.  With a few extra spaces between Clinton and Clark.

    If it's not Clinton, Clark (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:04:56 PM EST
    is the only one I can see might draw Clinton supporters who are in the 46% who say they won't vote for him now.  Schweitzer isn't all that well known, and Obama's already got the 'youth' thing on board.  It's one of the things -- translated as inexperience -- that turns her supporters away from him.

    Clark has the NS cred and has the experience and age to add maturity to the ticket without raising specters of Cheney (which picking Nunn would just broadcast).  Plus he's smart and has the big intellactual credentials (Rhode Scholar, etc) that a lot of Dems really get excited about.

    [ Parent ]

    The 46% of Clinton supporters (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:36:13 PM EST
    who are already not planning to support Senator Obama will only be motivated by his choosing Clinton. For some of them, it will get him their vote. For others it won't matter one iota. Anyone else, who cares? The question is will his choice turn more of her supporters off? Clinton is the only candidate that can be a positive vote getter for him. The other candidates are either neutral or vote losers.

    [ Parent ]
    Many of Clinton's supporters won't (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:31:10 PM EST
    vote for him even if he puts her on the ticket. I don't want him to because I don't want her to go down in flames with him.

    [ Parent ]
    ... female version...Phoneix (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by fctchekr on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:23:04 AM EST
    ...bird regenerates when hurt or wounded by a foe, thus being almost immortal and invincible -- a symbol of fire and divinity.

    If Bill, the GOP and the media can't take her down, neither can Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    It is a quandry (none / 0) (#127)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    or maybe a minefield for him.  VP picks are supposed to reinforce a candidacy (at the very least bring some sort of geographic oomph), not add another minus to the list.

    Sebelius might actually be a neutral pick with regard to Clinton voters, since many of them who would object are already not voting for him.  She's pretty boring so may go largely unnoticed otherwise.  But no geography advantage, since it seems she'd may very well not even carry her own state.

    [ Parent ]

    Jack Reed (D-RI). (none / 0) (#4)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:35:20 PM EST


    Todays trial balloons . . . (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:40:59 PM EST
    Kerry and Graham are who MSNBC said were being "floated" . . . .  I believe the intro to the piece said Hillary voters would like Kerry, lol!~

    [ Parent ]
    Why would anyone in their right mind... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:42:26 PM EST
    ...want either on the ticket? For what POSSIBLE reason?

    [ Parent ]
    No clue! I was flippin' channels (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:45:50 PM EST
    and stopped to see WTF they were talking about. The 'pundits" didn't think Kerry brought anything to the ticket really, lol!~

    [ Parent ]
    So we can have another season of (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:48:20 PM EST
    Lurch references?

    No thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh,I don't know. I can (none / 0) (#161)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:34:06 PM EST
    hardly wait to see the debates. Mr Uhhhhh....
    and Mr. never getting to the point.

    [ Parent ]
    rec'd (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:42:47 PM EST
    for the laugh factor!!

    [ Parent ]
    that would be about the right tin ear (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:43:20 PM EST
    for that team to think Kerry would be a choice Hillary voters would like. That same group probably thought the Hillary voters would like Webb. LOL

    [ Parent ]
    isnt that the pathetic (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:53:01 PM EST
    truth.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL Kerry (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    Oh goodness, he's be soooo dangerous!  Millions would die laughing.

    [ Parent ]
    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:59:34 PM EST
    Just think they actually pay these people big bucks to make this crap up. Exactly why would Hillary supporters like Kerry who supported Obama even though his state went heavily for Clinton?

    [ Parent ]
    The people who deliver these pearls of (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    wisdom are only talking to each other, that's why they think what they do; I have yet to hear anyone in a prominent anchor/headliner/political reporter-type position explain with any accuracy or insight what "the problem" is with Hillary supporters.

    Even when it is explained to them - even when there are lots of places to read what's going on, they still come up with baloney like this.

    [ Parent ]

    Too true. I haven't heard a one of 'em (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:30:06 PM EST
    who did the work to figure out just what the DNC did.  It's all about Obama, all the time, so we must just be pouting.  But we only do so periodically, so we'll come around.

    The question is will the Dem party come around to what it was, of course.  But figuring out what it did would be, as someone once said, harrrrd worrrrk.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh don't you realize we are still in the (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:36:27 PM EST
    ten stages of grief? Eventually we'll come to "acceptance."
    The pundits say so.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm in the ten stages of disgust with (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:58:13 PM EST
    Dems advancing Republican agendas. Been there and done that on acceptance and all it got me was more right wing crap. Tell the pundits to call me when the Dems actually start standing up for issues and principles that are important to me. Then and only then, we can talk about me coming home.

    [ Parent ]
    Kerry?! Di they mean Kerrey? :-) (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:26:56 PM EST
    Our local tv types always mess up pronunciations and can't spell to tell similar names apart, putting a Hartland in a county where a Hartford belongs.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Clark is a more compelling choice (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:41:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Per Digby (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:02:15 PM EST
    Clark has "decided" to take some time off from Dem politics, because as one unnamed Dem put it his attack on McCain was not "helpful".

    God forbid this Party nominate a VP who has actually won a war, that would just be stupid you know.

    Clark has now been destroyed by the Media, which of course never works in concert on anything, that's just conspiracy stuff of addle-minded Clinton supporters you know.

    Jackson

    [ Parent ]

    you know, that quick media attack on Clark (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:05:33 PM EST
    makes me worry about what the media will do and who's side they're really on. I mean, attacks even came from Obama's own NBC. I'm beginning to think the media can be fickle. snark. But seriously, that was fast and vicious. Makes me think they're just waiting to pounce on someone.

    [ Parent ]
    Ding! Ding! Ding! (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:21:00 PM EST
    We have a winner!  LOL

    The Media was anti-Clinton, and being pro-Obama was a part of that mindset.  The worm (no, not that WORM-lol) will turn and stab Obama right in the back.  After all, the people were too stupid to listen to The Village when we didn't ride WJC out on the rails because of the unforgivable sin of being the first President ever to committ adultery.  Gore found that out the hard way didn't he?  They're really mad that we stubborn, bitter clingers wouldn't listen to their post-mortems on Clinton in February.  That's the reason Russert was so deified on Kos and the like, because he was an old school anti-Clintonite, not because they gave one half of a poo about his wife and kid.  

    Jackson

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, next step is to stick Obama (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:32:50 PM EST
    with a loser, so narrowing his options that the media will look all librul for backing him but making it harder for a Dem ticket to win.  

    For example, the NBC talk of Kerry.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:34:36 PM EST
    Last week, an anonymous Republican strategist was quoted as saying, "Dick Gephardt is the one we're really afraid of."  Can you imagine?

    [ Parent ]
    They must not like eyebrows. (none / 0) (#163)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:38:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This thread is so funny! (none / 0) (#182)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:19:04 PM EST
    It's killing me!

    [ Parent ]
    It's going to be fun to read the reactions here (none / 0) (#118)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:44:06 PM EST
    when Obama wins in November

    [ Parent ]
    if obama works for for traditional (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by sancho on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:50:23 PM EST
    dem issues like universal healthcare, preserving roe, getting rid of the FISA atrocity, keeping social security, etc., then people here will be happy. if he continues to collaborate with corporate interests and ramps up the war and fails us on DEM issues, we wont be. for too many obama supporters, the election is about personality and not about issues and social justice.

    [ Parent ]
    I said corporate media want him to lose (none / 0) (#151)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:49:25 PM EST
    not that Obama would lose.  He's got a shot at it, depending -- much depending on the VP pick.

    Got it now?

    [ Parent ]

    I think (none / 0) (#196)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:51:32 AM EST
    Obama believes that a Colin Powell endorsement will totally wash away the Wes Clark stain....  

    Seriously...  

    [ Parent ]

    That is a dang shame (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:20:41 PM EST
    How much would you pay to be a fly on the wall the next time the Clarks and the Clintons get together for dinner?

    [ Parent ]
    I would give everything I have!! (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:35:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Me too, and max out my credit cards as well! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:00:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If need be, we can pool our resources! :) (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:52:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think you found the way (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:46:35 PM EST
    to retire Clinton's debt.  A lottery for a chance at dinner.  With or without Clark.  

    [ Parent ]
    Comment of the day!! (none / 0) (#181)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:16:26 PM EST
    God forbid this Party nominate a VP who has actually won a war, that would just be stupid you know.


    [ Parent ]
    wikipedia (obviously): (none / 0) (#12)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:41:39 PM EST
    Early life and family

    Reed was born in Cranston, Rhode Island, to Mary Louise Monahan and Joseph Anthony Reed.[1] Reed graduated from La Salle Academy in Providence and attended the United States Military Academy in West Point, where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1971. Following his graduation and receiving an active duty commission, Reed attended the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he received a Masters in Public Policy. Reed, an Army Ranger and a paratrooper, served in the 82nd Airborne Division as an Infantry Platoon leader in the 325th Infantry Regiment[2], a Company Commander, and a Battalion Staff Officer. He returned to West Point in 1978 as an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences.[3] He married professional Senate staffer Julia Hart in a Roman Catholic ceremony in the Catholic chapel on the United States Military Academy campus on April 16, 2005. On January 5, 2007, Mrs. Reed gave birth to a daughter, Emily.


    Law and politics

    Reed resigned from the army in 1979 as a captain and enrolled in Harvard Law School. In 1982, he graduated and served as an associate at the Washington, D.C. office of law firm of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. Afterwards, he returned to Rhode Island and joined Edwards and Angell, a Providence law firm. Reed was elected as a state senator in 1984 and served three terms. In 1990, Reed was elected to the United States House of Representatives. For the next six years, Reed became well known in his state for his positions on education and health care, and when Senator Claiborne Pell announced his retirement in 1996, Reed campaigned to be his replacement and won the election. He was easily reelected to a second term in 2002.

    Reed is currently a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and the Senate Appropriations Committee. Americans for Democratic Action has often listed him as a "hero" as they indicate he has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.[4]


    [ Parent ]

    I hve come to really admire (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:46:20 PM EST
    both of the Rhode Island senators.  Reed isn't very dynamic, but he's smart and appears to be amore principled dem that some of the rest of them.

    I wouldn't mind seeing Sheldon Whitehouse run for president.

    [ Parent ]

    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:50:19 PM EST
    I wouldn't mind seeing Sheldon Whitehouse run for president.

    Can you just see the campaign posters?  Put Whitehouse in the White House!

    [ Parent ]

    A perfect fit! (none / 0) (#42)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:55:58 PM EST
    :)

    [ Parent ]
    Whitehouse is very impressive (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:06:36 PM EST
    One of the few new 06 Senators that consistently vote Democratic on key issues like Iraq and FISA. Also, one of the best questioners around during his committee appearances. Some of the more established members could take lessons IMO.


    [ Parent ]
    I really like Whitehouse (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    We stopped donating to NARAL after they absurdly insisted on endorsing Lincoln Chafee over Whitehouse.  Gee, is the cause of abortion rights better served by a Senator who votes to confirm anti-choice judges or a Senator who votes to reject them?  Tough call there, NARAL!

    [ Parent ]
    NARAL is completely worthless IMO (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:27:50 PM EST
    The best thing pro-choice women could do is find another outlet for their donations and completely eliminate funding that organization.

    [ Parent ]
    Our pro-choice dollars (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:31:01 PM EST
    go to Emily's List.

    [ Parent ]
    Even EMILY's (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:34:29 PM EST
    has its issues for me lately.  (Btw, it is an acronym -- Early Money Is Like Yeast.  I won't go into the wimmen's jokey takeoff on that. . . .)

    [ Parent ]
    Hee hee (none / 0) (#110)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:35:42 PM EST
    I'm sure I wouldn't want to know!

    I eschew the capitalization because it looks weird, even though I know that's how they like it.  So far, they haven't called to say my checks are improperly made out, for some reason.

    [ Parent ]

    Mine go to Planned Parenthood (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:02:52 PM EST
    and occasionally Emily's List.  I'd already written NARAL off so was unable to un-support them even more this year.  Useless.

    [ Parent ]
    Reed is great in hearings... (none / 0) (#49)
    by magisterludi on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:00:51 PM EST
    he comes in prepared and he holds feet to fire.

    What if McCain chooses Crist? I think that may be "change" evangelicals refuse to believe in, but nothing surprises me anymore.

    [ Parent ]

    funny thing, i noticed crist just got (none / 0) (#142)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:47:23 PM EST
    engaged. that would certainly play better than single veep!

    [ Parent ]
    I'd love to see (none / 0) (#197)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:54:54 AM EST
    McCain choose Clinton.  That would totally throw everybody over!!  It would be the most fun you could have in an election year!!  

    [ Parent ]
    I'd die to hear (none / 0) (#198)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:57:01 AM EST
    McCain say "I told Hillary she could have any healthcare plan she wanted."  

    I'd totally die, choke, rollover, and whatever else -- and I'd vote for the McCain/Clinton 08 Ticket!!!!!!

    [ Parent ]

    Reed appears to be a good guy but (none / 0) (#67)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:11:41 PM EST
    I saw his appearance yesterday on, I think, This Week, opposite Sen. Lieberman.  I think Lieberman out-wonked Reed.  


    [ Parent ]
    Army captain vs. Supreme Commander of NATO (none / 0) (#25)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:47:23 PM EST
    No disrespect to Sen. Reed, but Clark is better known and has a better resume. And he's a liberal too.

    [ Parent ]
    OTOH - Reed did not spend his entire career (none / 0) (#44)
    by scribe on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:57:46 PM EST
    in the military.  He did a full term plus of military service.

    And, I've known (from my service days) a couple fellow officers who went on to teach at West Point.  (Now that I think of it, it'd take two hands to count them) They all made full colonel, a couple before hitting 20 years in.  You don't get that assignment - teaching at the Point - without (a) first having an advanced degree, almost always at gov't expense (i.e., the Army says "we think so highly of you that we will send you to one of the finest civilian colleges at government expense and pay you your full soldier-pay") and (b) having done exceptionally well in your troop assignments previously.  In other words, you're a star.

    That he quit to go to HLS and thence, tells you what a sharpie he is.  Impressive guy.

    [ Parent ]

    Clark will be a great SecDef (none / 0) (#120)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:45:30 PM EST
    The response to his comments have put him on the bench for VP

    [ Parent ]
    Can't be Sec. of Defense (none / 0) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:04:16 PM EST
    unless Congress initiates legislation for an exception to the rule that a person must be retired from the military for 10 years. IIRC Clark retired in 2002.

    [ Parent ]
    Sen. John Kerry (none / 0) (#6)
    by bocajeff on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:38:24 PM EST
    Why not? He's already been a presidential nominee, experienced legislator, Vietnam War Hero, etc...Heck, if he was good enough in 2004, why not 2008.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:40:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He wasn't good enough in 2004... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:43:01 PM EST
    ...and we knew THAT in 2004!

    [ Parent ]
    Kerry? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    He's going to have to put up a fight to retain his senate seat, isn't he?

    [ Parent ]
    No, not much of one (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:18:17 PM EST
    O'Reilly has only slightly better than a snowball's chance in hell.  But he's getting a lot of attention and pretty good polling for an unknown out of nowhere because of Mass. folks' annoyance with Kerry over the Obama endorsement so early and so contrary to the sentiments of Mass. voters.  (my annoyance is solidly in the John Kerry Annoyance Pool).

    At the state primary caucuses, O'Reilly surprised a lot of people by getting over the 15% votes from delegates needed.  Both sides have said they know the pro-Clinton annoyance was a significant factor.  To O'Reilly's credit, he's working pretty hard for it and he talks quite knowledgeably about policy issues.

    Just today I was thinking that there are awful lot of people around Obama who seem to be trying to make themselves more important off of him, rather than already being important in their own right -- Kerry, Brazile, McCaskill, Daschle, Wexler.  Maybe reaching for greater prominence is more appropriate way to put it.  Some sort of twisting double reverse back suck-up.

    [ Parent ]

    Not really (none / 0) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:49:07 PM EST
    Not so much. The last Massachusetts Senate poll has Kerry at +31. Can't see him being on the short list for VP though. I like Webb but suspect anytime we hear someone say "I absolutely will not accept" pretty much means they already know they will not be asked.

    [ Parent ]
    Um. (none / 0) (#33)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:50:51 PM EST
    Maybe he really doesn't want the job.

    [ Parent ]
    He does have a primary challenger. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:51:15 PM EST
    But I don't think O'Reilly's got the chops.

    [ Parent ]
    Um . . . (none / 0) (#51)
    by Landulph on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:03:21 PM EST
    Why on Earth would Kerry (who came within 3 points of the White House himself) even want the job? This sounds like something the pundits made up, to be honest. Makes no sense at all

    [ Parent ]
    Well, it's time for Kerry to stand up (none / 0) (#164)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:41:51 PM EST
    and say that "if nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve!"  

    Pretty soon we could have a whole group (pod?) of them.

    [ Parent ]

    Kerry would really help him with his (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    problem in small town and rural America. Not to mention the fun the Republicans would have with the two most liberal Senators evah and dueling flip flop images.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh LAWD (none / 0) (#171)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:56:40 PM EST
    And here we'd be stuck with the Swift Boaters all over again.

    Ay, carumba.

    [ Parent ]

    Attack of the 50 foot flip-flop (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by davnee on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:12:14 PM EST
    with a giant piece of arugula stuck to its sole.

    The R's would have too much fun with that ticket.  And I wouldn't be able to stop myself from laughing along.

    [ Parent ]

    Hi 5'ing Davnee....lmao (none / 0) (#90)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:24:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Richardson of course (none / 0) (#11)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:41:14 PM EST
    OK, a bit of a snark. I'm kind of thinking he'll pick a Republican myself.

    Picking Richardson could have some value (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:43:33 PM EST
    of the comedic sort . . . .

    [ Parent ]
    I'd put a couple of bucks on Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:00:15 PM EST
    For these simple reasons:

    1. He's got a rep as an experienced foreign policy hand. But he's not so dynamic as to outshine the big O.

    2. Latino, speaks Spanish, from a purple state, governor (therefore no loss of Dem Senate seat)

    3. He sold his soul for O..and now they owe him.

    Okay, well I wouldn't put more than $20 on it.....

    [ Parent ]
    Picking a Republican would definitely complete (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:52:10 PM EST
    the transition from the Democratic Party to the Unity08 party. Great way IMO to help save the Republican Party from the consequences of its own actions and set up a Republican for president in 8 years assuming Obama is elected and serves two terms.

    Of course, I was never a fan of the Unity08 Party concept for precisely the reasons state above. Choosing a Republican VP would definitely have a negative impact on my vote.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Zero chance it will happen. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:53:59 PM EST
    For one thing, I don't think Obama would do it.  And if he tried, it'd cost him the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    50/50 (5.00 / 1) (#47)