home

LA Times: Obama Veep Announcement Imminent

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:37:36 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Just in from the Los Angeles Times: Sen. Barack Obama's campaign sent emails out today indicating he's very close to announcng his Vice-Presidential candidate and he may make the announcement by text-message and e-mail:

An e-mail just sent out says Obama "is about to choose a running mate." And when word comes, it will come by text message, e-mail and on the campaign website. An interesting twist that could mean the word might be released this week even during Obama's family vacation.

More...

...if hypothetically the announcement was to be made dramatically via cellphone texts, e-mails and the Obama website, the two candidates would not need to be together.

And if it came, oh, say, sometime this week. it would instantly dominate the news stream and erase any advantage Republican Sen. John McCain might have gotten from a week of campaigning without the Democrats' competition.

So, who's currently in the front seat? Bayh? Sebelius? Kaine?

Or will he get smart and choose Hillary?

< Nightly Headline Speakers Announced for Democratic Convention | McCain: The Ties That Bind >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    LA Times: Obama Veep Announcement Imminent | 159 comments (159 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Neat gimmick (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:45:48 PM EST
    and they'll have a nationwide database of cell phones, too. (That's why I'll be waiting to read about the selection.)

    Yes, this is exactly (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:06:29 AM EST
    how he mobilized millions of college kids for the first time in election history... college kids who know nothing about politics or about Obama for that matter but who love clever gimmicks, issues be d#*ned. I have been wondering how he was going to remobilize them before November. THIS is how he will do it... through some clever gimmick. It'll work. You'll see. He has really learned how to tap into the sheep mentality of those who go for gimmicks, slogans, and meaningless jingles. This is just... so... Barack. It really is clever when you consider his target community. Mordant laugh. I'm going to go away now and kick something inanimate.

    Parent
    Wouldn't cutting edge require (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:09:46 AM EST
    simultaneous transmission of a short video clip to Iphones or something.  Even I can text message.

    Parent
    Cutting edge (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by standingup on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:19:19 AM EST
    would give them two or three choices to vote on so we could have the first "American Idol Vice President."  

    Parent
    Now that would have been gimmicky... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Thanin on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:21:37 AM EST
    but kinda funny.

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Thanin on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:14:10 AM EST
    This isnt really a shocking or amazing way of delivering this; its too banal to be gimmicky.

    Parent
    No doubt you're right actually. (none / 0) (#36)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:32:29 AM EST
    I probably sound very old-fashioned.

    Parent
    I have said this before, but if the (none / 0) (#55)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:11:34 AM EST
    Republicans really want to win, they'll send out text messages to every cell number they can get the night before the GE telling everyone that voting will be by txt msg this year, and hand out an address (and phone numbers) that the kids can all  vote Idol-style.

    They'd win in a landslide.

    Parent

    Young people (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by indy in sc on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:09:14 AM EST
    are not as dumb as you seem to think.  For all the stereotyping of older voters (e.g. "bitter knitters") there is an equally disturbing amount of stereotyping of younger voters.

    Parent
    I don't think that young people (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:27:30 AM EST
    today are any different when it comes to politics and voting than those of us who are older were when we were young - not less involved, but not more involved either. My first presidential election was in 1972, and I was away at college. Some of us began fighting the spring before to be able to vote in the city where we went to school instead of going home to vote or getting an absentee ballot. We won our battle with the city clerk and let our classmates know that they could register to vote if they moved quickly, but most of them were too involved in their school work or social life to care. Obama will have some very active support from young people, and some of them, even ones who say they care, will not show up to vote. Same as always.

    Parent
    I don't disagree (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by indy in sc on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:17:10 AM EST
    with you.  To say that young people today are no different than young people of decades past is accurate IMO.  I think there are peaks and valleys in their interest/participation based on what is going on in the country at the time.  That is quite different from stating that they would be confused by being told that voting this year is taking place by text.  Turnout is a different issue than stupidity.

    Parent
    Indy, I totally disagree (1.00 / 0) (#119)
    by cpa1 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:08:43 AM EST
    They are dumb and their values are distorted, thanks to too many years of Republican rule and baby boomer parents who pray to the Leisure Class.

    A few weeks ago I wrote a comment about more  software evidence of Bush stealing the election in Florida by fraudulently changing the vote on the Diebold machines.  If that were to happen in the 60s, there would be hell to pay, marches, demonstrations and everyone would be speaking about prosecutions and real election reform.  These kids today worry about the next version of the IPhone or the XBox, not the real problems facing our country.  What's really sad is that these kids are the deciders in 2008, like their shallowness and stupidity led them to Nader in 2000, handing Bush the selection.  Some of them in 2008 even have stupid parents who follow what their children do.

    Parent

    "These kids today..." (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by indy in sc on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    tells me a lot about where you're coming from.  Let's face it--that phrase has been used every decade to describe the current youth by people who feel their contemporaries were far more engaged when they were "young."  As I said in another post, I don't think they're any different than the youth before them or the youth to come--each group having a range from activist to apathetic.

    Parent
    Agree with you (none / 0) (#57)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:13:01 AM EST
    There's no way he's going to text "Tim Kaine" or "Evan Bayh" unless he's prepared to introduce him within the hour.  Most Americans who get the text message will shrug since they have no clue who those guys are.   They have to go before the press VERY soon after the text messages go out.  

    Parent
    People are already sick of seeing obama's (none / 0) (#148)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:18:43 PM EST
    mug and there is nothing more annoying than receiving the same text message repeatedly.  If another shiny object is thrown in the mix, there is nothing to keep the college kids to run off after that.  Several election cycles have shown that that particular bloc of voters do NOT come out for the GE.  And, obama was losing them during the primary; so let's just wait and see.

    Parent
    **It's time to mobilize!** (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by boredmpa on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:22:57 AM EST
    Hello [FirstName],

    Today we have a chance to stop abortion in its tracks and protect the sanctity of marriage.  Our polls show that if we mobilize our voters, we can win these key initiatives because overconfident democrats are staying home.  Please go to your [precinct lookup] so we don't waste this historic opportunity.

    Signed,
    RepubPac

    .....

    ohhh electioneering

    Parent

    in case it wasnt clear (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by boredmpa on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:23:47 AM EST
    that mistaken message would mobilize young voters, even if it wasnt accurate for their state.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Steve M on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:46:56 PM EST
    I am trying to imagine a dramatic, revolutionary, world-shattering announcement via text message of someone like... Evan Bayh.  Kinda hard to do.

    Particularly given Obama's penchant for large rallies, it is hard for him to imagine making any announcement of this type via what amounts to a press release.  Moreover, unless the nominee is Hillary Clinton or someone similarly well known (Biden? Clark? Uh, maybe), it would be crazy to announce an unknown name without even attempting to get out in front of the public's curiosity.

    I'm inclined to suspect this is just the latest in a long series of head fakes from Team Obama.

    I tend to agree (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:52:22 PM EST
    You don't introduce a new product in August, after all ;-).

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:04:36 AM EST
    EVAN BAYH  or TIM KAINE will not grab the attention or interest of young voters.  Most of them won't know who the guy is and will care even less.  

    Parent
    Who would grab the attention of (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:13:31 AM EST
    voters under, say, 30?  As VP pick!

    Parent
    Paris Hilton (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:43:01 AM EST
    Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, one of the Olsen twins,  Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Ryan Seacrest.....

    Parent
    But he's got to, unless he waits until (none / 0) (#56)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:12:28 AM EST
    after the convention.  Introduce in August, I mean.

    Parent
    Another reason (none / 0) (#59)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:14:09 AM EST
    Why August is NOT a good time for a convention.  

    Parent
    It's because of the Olympics (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:45:33 AM EST
    or so I read -- for both parties, of course, with the Repubs even later.  And because the plan was to go for public financing, to shorten that time period.

    But here we are -- no public financing for the Dems, who could have had the convention in July and would have gotten the jump on it.  Instead, I read that some of the convention nights will be going up against the first nights of college football -- for bigger audiences than the Olympics, I bet.

    Parent

    Republicans (none / 0) (#155)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:39:22 PM EST
    Chose a better time, after Labor Day, when everyone is back from the beach.  

    If our convention is butting heads with the opening of college football, we're dead, NO ONE will be watching anything we do.  Is that the week that Virginia plays USC?  If so, it won't matter if our unpopular Governor is giving a speech at the convention, we will be watching UVA get creamed by USC.  :(  

    Parent

    Let's have a contest. The person (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:52:58 PM EST
    who creates the best text message wins . . . .

    4 u ready?

    Parent

    It could be ne1! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:08:16 AM EST


    Parent
    The movie or New England (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:12:37 AM EST
    Lighthouse Lovers?  

    Parent
    D00d, what does this BAYH message mean? (none / 0) (#94)
    by blogtopus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:23:06 AM EST
    "Barack Appreciates Your Hopelessness"

    Random Seattle College Student: "Wow, dude's getting kinda morbid, eh? Let's see what's playing at the Irish Emigrant!"

    Parent

    Hilarious! (none / 0) (#126)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:44:27 AM EST
    reminds me of Penn's character Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

    Parent
    This may not please the media (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:59:34 PM EST
    of the dated old sort, tvs and newspapers, to be beat by a new technology -- when the presumptive nominee usually holds a news conference for the cameras and tape recorders.

    Plus, I would bet that many on the beat are taking a bit of a break this week, but for those sent along with the Senator to Hawaii.  Their numbers seem to be few, though, with so few public events by Obama there.

    Some of them are getting midnight calls to check out plane fares and cancel family plans, I bet.  So he better not be pulling a switcheroo here.  Then again, the media darlings do what they will -- and it's only the media's fault for making them.

    Parent

    You just made me think of something (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:12:37 AM EST
    his ego. How can he just text the choice without being able to bask in the glow of the moment?

    I'm sure many in the press are textable (and are Facebook friends!), but it doesn't give front page coverage or video that can be broadcast to death. He would need to have something set up for the photo op wouldn't he? After all, he's making history . . . .

    Parent

    Although the non-interactive mode aligns (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:14:48 AM EST
    with the general campaign strategy.  This way he does not have to get in front of reporters who might ask uncomfortable questions about why he didn't pick Clinton.  That sure wouldn't look good.  Maybe he's making text message lemonade.

    Parent
    Betting on Bayh. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:49:38 PM EST
    Second bet...Sibelius.

    Both 2nd rate but I doubt they have the nerve to name Hillary, the best bet to draw more votes, dollars and activists, which they will need...not to mention, choosing Hillary would solve the roll-call vote issue as a threat to Obama or the unity he says he wants.

    I agree, it's Bayh (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:18:52 AM EST
    Although I can't quite imagine why.  What does Bayh bring to the ticket?  Other than maybe Indiana?  He's not new, he's not about change, and he's very inside the beltway, a Senator.  Yawn.  

    If he picks a woman, other than Hillary, I will be livid.  Plus, what does Siblious bring to the ticket?  No way she can bring in Kansas.  Waaaay too red.  So what good is she?  She's a nobody.  If it's a woman, it MUST be Hillary.  

    BTW, I must admit, I am always wrong on these kinds of guesses.  So ignore me!  

    Parent

    features not defects... (none / 0) (#107)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:38:33 AM EST
    What does Bayh bring to the ticket?  Other than maybe Indiana?  He's not new, he's not about change, and he's very inside the beltway, a Senator.

    I have no dog in this hunt, but I think that Bayh is a brilliant choice.

    1. he does make Indiana a strong possibility for a Dem pickup.

    2. He's relatively unknown -- which ties in well with the "change" message, and he won't overshadow Obama

    3. He's a white male whose got a great resume, and a famous name, both of which spell 'stability'.  Right now, Obama's biggest problem is that people don't trust his judgment -- were it not for that 'fear' factor, Obama would be well ahead of McCain right now.  

    oh, and I think this txt msg strategy is a really bad one.  While it may 'energize' a few young voters, it will further alienate those voters that Obama already has trouble with -- the vast majority of Americans whose idea of 'change' is a return to the status quo ante from before George Bush.  

    Parent
    Agree with all of the above (none / 0) (#118)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:05:43 AM EST
    I'll add that releasing it via text message seems gimmicky and too cute by half.  It is not new enough technology to give it a 'gee whiz' factor at all.  

    It is also like they are trying to lessen the import. I think that points to Sebelius, in a 'see, no big deal, no insult intended here' kind of way.

    I think Bayh is a good pick.  He does not spring to mind as 'Washington Establishment' to me.

    Parent

    How is Bayh not Washington establishment (none / 0) (#153)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:27:19 PM EST
    When he's a sitting Senator?  How much more Washington can he get?  Read the wikipedia article on Bayh, all the way to the last part, about his wife and lobbyists.  He sounds VERY Washington, and not in a good way (if there is one).  

    Parent
    Actually, look under Susan Bayh, (none / 0) (#160)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 01:37:39 AM EST
    Evan's wife, not under Evan. You won't find it under his name.

    Parent
    Gee whiz! (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:14:58 AM EST
    Lots of seething going on here.  I get so confused with TL.  Posts like this, make me think that this is still the site pre-end-of-primary.

    With all the moderation to keep all things Obama positive, I am suprised HALF of these posts stand.

    FWIW,  I think that the media, wanting to portray itself as "hip" and "cool", will follow along with this gimmick.

    Being from Fort Worth, world headquarters for Radio Shack, RS sent out texts and emails to let people know they were unemployed.  This kind of technology, to me, desensitizes and almost demeans an action.  So, the psychology to me is, Obama will do this to get the press hounds going again, but not to diminish HIS place at the top of the ticket.

    That said, do not count on one Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.  For all the team playing, I don't think that Bill Clinton wants her as VP.

    Personal and character attacks (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:19:17 AM EST
    are deleted. I can't read all the comments and I don't delete based on point of view.  There is no requirement that commenters support one candidate or another, they just can't spread unfounded gossip or make personal attacks. E-mail me if you see some, I'll be glad to delete. I do support Obama now.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#41)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:39:36 AM EST
    Bill Clinton doesn't want her as VP?

    Well, I don't know any more than you do about what Bill Clinton does or doesn't want but it is my considered opinion that, given realities, he does want her as VP.

    Let's remember...it is the most reliable route to the presidency.  Think how many VPs have become president.  Six in my lifetime, if you count Al Gore.

    Parent

    Considering (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:45:37 AM EST
    that President Clinton had to go on ABC to remind people that "He's not a racist" and then hearing on Fox News/Dick Durbin saying that Clinton "is hurting" doesn't give me much hope that HRC will do this.

    Team players?  You bet.  But the Clintons have to know that the R's are just waiting for the fiasco at Invesco to wrap itself up so they can train their howitzers on Obama.  The Clintons know how to beat the R's.  Obama doesn't.  And I think that after the bruising primary, the Clintons are not going to go THAT much out on a limb for Obama.  Besides, Obama and his supporters need to win this one on their own.  

    As a former lifelong Dem, and ardent Clinton supporter, I will take Donna Brazile's advice and just sit this one out, the unsavory Latino voter that I am.  /s

    Parent

    Considering all the criticism against the (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:19:38 AM EST
    Hillary campaign, is it that they know how to beat Republicans, or that they know how to engage the voters in their message of positive change?

    If Obama runs against the Republicans instead of FOR the American people, he will lose. No matter how much campaigning the Clinton's do for him, the people need Obama to tell them if he truly understands their needs.

    Parent

    I know a lot of Latinos who do not want Obama (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:20:55 AM EST
    I think it's the way that Obama beat the Clintons.  He did so in such a nasty, disgusting, despicable manner that left a bad taste in so many people's mouths.  It wasn't a good clean win, it required getting a lot of people who Bill and Hillary had done favors for to betray and backstab the Clintons.  It required winning delegates on technicalities, it required leveling charges of racism, praising Ronald Reagan, and insulting Clinton's legacy.  

    Parent
    Native Americans are also disenchanted (2.00 / 0) (#71)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:28:07 AM EST
    by Obama.


    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#97)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:29:37 AM EST
    Oddly enough, Native Americans voted for Obama in South Dakota.  That is the state that I never expected her to win in.  I honestly didn't.  But I thought if she did it would be because of Native American votes.  But I was wrong.  

    If Obama's hare brained strategy of winning North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska is to work, he's going to need a strong Native American vote.  If there's disenchantment, this really isn't going to work.  

    What is the view of Native Americans in regards to Obama?  Why is there disenchantment?

    Parent

    Read (none / 0) (#136)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:26:25 AM EST
    about it.

    Parent
    Oh and as a gay voter (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:21:40 AM EST
    I'll take Donna Brazille's advice too and sit this one out.  I'm not needed.  

    Parent
    Please remind me (none / 0) (#112)
    by DFLer on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:52:45 AM EST
    of Donna Brazille's advice to "sit this one out"

    Addressed to whom? etc.

    Gotta link?

    Thanks.

    Parent

    She crowed it during the PA primaries on CNN (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by Ellie on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:38:41 AM EST
    ... as did several triumphal Dems there and in statements. CNN has transcripts you can read. It was also discussed extensively here and at other blogs so you can catch up here, there, or trying Google.

    Parent
    Yes, she did (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:29:02 AM EST
    she was also the first (if I remember correctly) to say the Democratic Party no longer needed 3-4 of the demographics that had been their base because of their new members.

    Parent
    Latinos ands working class folk (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:54:01 AM EST
    particularly men(who according to Donna are a key GOP demographic anyway). Yeppers, that Donna sure knows how to win friends and influence elections. ;)

    Parent
    Yeah and the night of the North Carolina (none / 0) (#156)
    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 12:39:08 AM EST
    and Indiana Primaries.  

    Parent
    Not that many (none / 0) (#100)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:44:53 AM EST
    when you think about it. Truman, Johnson (but that's only because Kennedy was killed), Nixon (fiiinally), Ford (but that was only because Nixon resigned), and G.H.W. Bush. That's five. You can count Gore if you want to but you've still got Barkley, Humphrey, Agnew, Rockefeller, Mondale, and Quayle who weren't elected president, and there is no way Cheney will ever be president.

    Parent
    Actually it fairs (none / 0) (#101)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:56:53 AM EST
    even worse than I said for Veeps. Truman became president only because FDR died. So that really only leaves Nixon, G.H.W. Bush, and possibly Gore that were elected on their own. Obviously I'm not counting re-elections here because Truman and Johnson would not even been in the picture for president if it had not been for the deaths of their Presidents.

    Parent
    Ummmm.... (none / 0) (#130)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:05:04 AM EST
    that was my point.

    Surest, quickest, shortcut route to the presidency is to be the vice president because, well, ya never know...

    Parent

    But the statistical (none / 0) (#161)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 01:42:09 AM EST
    probability is not high especially with a young healthy guy like BO. Not only that, I expect the BO administration to be a one term administration after which the country will swing Repug and whoever is BO's Veep will be tarnished with his legacy.

    Parent
    Via text message? (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:15:57 AM EST
    Via email?

    Maybe I'm showing my age, but this type of announcement seems so casual, so not commensurate with the importance of the decision.

    Not to mention all the, ahem, older voters who don't have email and cell phones.  Kinda cuts them out of the picture, doesn't it?

    Don't need no stinkin' older voters. (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:17:42 AM EST


    Parent
    This is exactly how I have felt (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:24:20 AM EST
    about Obama's campaign from the beginning.

    Parent
    As a young person (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:30:29 AM EST
    The ageism of Obama's campaign really bugs me.  We will not be young forever.  We need to understand that we should do onto others as we would have done to ourselves.  We don't want the next generation discounting our views and marginalizing us.  People's opinions and votes should be valued regardless of age group.  

    We shouldn't be creating new classes of people to discriminate against.  I wish that Obama would encourage his adherents and worshippers to not discriminate against the elderly along with the myriad of other groups they dislike.

    Parent

    I didn't realize how personally (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:51:15 AM EST
    I would take the ageism. I'm still in the grey area where I'm not really old despite what his followers may think since Obama and I are only a year or 2 apart. BUT, some of his followers think I'm old because I'm a female Hillary voter, lol!~. No, the personal part comes because my parents are seniors. Not acceptable.

    Parent
    The age for when one becomes a senior (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:37:08 AM EST
    has moved.  My parents are 56 and 55 respectively but I don't consider them old.  I know several folks who are in their 60's who don't seem old either.  I also had grandparents who never seemed to age until they died.  Up until the day he died, my grandfather would get up at 5 or 6 am to get ready for work, head downtown to run his factory, and enjoyed all life had to offer.  So I wish Obama worshippers would just can it with the "McCain is SO old".  One other thing, there are a LOT of older voters in this country and you don't want to piss them off.  

    Parent
    Mine are mid and late 70's (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:04:11 AM EST
    still doing pretty well. Dad has health issues, but still manages ok and mom swims several times a week. In general, I don't think of them as old, but older.

    Yeah, the McCain's so OLD! isn't going to fly with a large percent of voters. Many are older than those proclaiming it  ;)

    Parent

    People live longer than they used to (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:39:50 AM EST
    so "OLD" age occurs much later.  

    My father actually had an aunt who was pulled over for speeding on the freeway.  She was right around 100 at the time (in age, not MPH -- she was 99 or 101 or something like that).  The highway patrolman was so shocked he wouldn't let her drive the car after that.  He forced her to park the car on the freeway and get someone to pick her up.  She had to retake all the driving tests before they would let her drive again.  This happened like 30 or 40 years ago but his family is notorious for living past 100.  He's nearly 90 now and still going strong.

    Also, I used to buy things from a woman who was 104!  She was deaf as a doorknob but sharp otherwise.  She was still driving too.        

    Parent

    It's okay. We've got God and guns (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:20:19 AM EST
    and that has our hands full.  Too full to text-message.:-)

    Parent
    And knitting! Everyone always forgets the (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:18:51 AM EST
    knitting!  Now I'm even bitterer than ever.  ;)

    Parent
    It also takes away the exciment of an (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:28:26 AM EST
    announcement in a swing state. He used Edwards and Gore for that and he had good crowds, multi media coverage and cycling.

    Frankly, this over the top marketing is really bad for politics. It's ok to have a slick well run campaign, but all brand (no substance sadly) like the latest long awaited Apple innovation (which he doesn't even come close too) is just too much. Hopefully it fails and next time around somebody runs a campaign on Talk, Issues and Action.

    Parent

    Good points. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:20:14 AM EST
    Will Obama text us his presidency too?  Not Signing Statements, but Texting Statements?

    Parent
    Cuts them out of the picture? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jtaylorr on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:41:21 AM EST
    I'm pretty he's not going to put a moratorium on TV, radio, and newspaper coverage of his pick.


    Parent
    Oh, we do too (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:44:13 AM EST
    have email and cell phones.

    We just can't program them things.

    Parent

    Isn't that the truth. (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:04:00 AM EST
    My daughter did mine.

    Parent
    No problem (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:03:27 PM EST
    In fact, I managed to make everything I own that has a digital clock flash "12:00" over and over again instead of, you know, actually telling the time.


    Parent
    My parents are nearly 80 and (none / 0) (#108)
    by independent voter on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:53:48 AM EST
    they each have a cell phone and are online daily. Just because McCain isn't comfortable with technology, don't condemn the entire age group.

    Parent
    Good for your grandparents, (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:31:37 AM EST
    but I think they are the rare exception.  I know very few 80 yr olds who text message.

    Parent
    They are my PARENTS (none / 0) (#131)
    by independent voter on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:07:58 AM EST
    my grand parents are not living.
    And they communicate with their also 70-80 year old friends through email. This is not unusual. The only place you probably won't find them is on the blogs.

    Parent
    Sorry for misreading your post. nt (none / 0) (#140)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:28:50 AM EST


    Parent
    I'm hoping for Clinton! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Little Fish on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:22:16 AM EST
    It seems like such a no-brainer.

    But if I had to put money on it, I'd say Bayh.

    Or maybe he'll mix it up and pick Kermit The Frog.  First muppet on a presidential ticket! Plus, who's going to bad mouth Kermit? Although, who knows what he and Fozzie were up to in the 70s, maybe he wouldn't make it past the vetting process.

    Mixed message: it's not that easy (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:26:27 AM EST
    being green.

    Parent
    Nah, we've had lots of green guys (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:34:14 AM EST
    just look at any dollar bill.  And we were promised that this time would be different. :-)

    Parent
    I'd say (none / 0) (#45)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:45:57 AM EST
    the presumptive is green as grass, governingwise.

    Parent
    Is Pat Paulsen alive? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:47:48 AM EST
    What about Pogo?  Wins the best slogan contest, remember?

    "We have met the enemy and he is us!"

    He died in 1997 (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by echinopsia on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:07:54 AM EST
    But he's still running for president.

    Parent
    Yep. "Dead Man Running". (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by tree on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:31:36 AM EST
    "Pat Paulsen in `08, Thinking Inside the Box"


    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#132)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:09:25 AM EST
    I'm stealing that line!

    Hilarious.

    Parent

    I would not be surprised (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:05:33 AM EST
    if there is no announcement this week at all.  As Jeralyn makes clear, the LA Times does not have any sort of scoop here; they are simply parroting the email from the Obama campaign that tells everyone to be on the edge of their seats.

    And the decision to take advantage of text messaging could very well just be intended to keep the suspense alive for the next week, when otherwise people might have assumed "there's no way he could announce this week, he's away on vacation!"  But realistically, it's hard to imagine an announcement would ever take place without a big ceremony being ready to roll somewhere within a matter of hours.

    So I will stick my neck out and say, I don't think it will be this week.  Er, probably.  I think they kind of enjoy the feeling of keeping everyone in suspense :)

    The LA Times: (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:28:55 AM EST
    Just another paper that doesn't do "investigative journalism" anymore.

    If the story falls into the LA Times' lap, they will report it... Maybe... Maybe not.    

    Parent

    I agree. (none / 0) (#117)
    by tree on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:39:05 AM EST
    I think this was just an attempt to keep the fan base and the press interested. I'll boldly predict that he won't announce a VP until the end of his vacation. Then, if I get a text message saying otherwise, I can do a flip-flop.

    (Well, I really WON'T be getting a text message. I don't do text messages. I don't do phones much either. When I'm alone I like to be really alone. I can even drive without feeling the need to call someone, something a few of my friends have trouble accomplishing, sad to say.)

    Parent

    Driving while talking on the phone (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:13:52 AM EST
    is dangerous. I hope it becomes a ticket-able offense.

    Parent
    Just not twitter (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by jerry on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 04:40:18 AM EST
    I don't care how he announces it, just not twitter.

    By website, email, flying monkeys, just not twitter.

    Please god, just not twitter.

    no, really? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by sj on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:44:10 AM EST
    Text message?  How cute.  He can't even be bothered to stand up in public with his selection?  I think it diminishes whoever he chooses.  

    If he used a text message to alert everyone to find a TV or radio, that's one thing.  But for the announcement?  It sounds kind of insulting to me.

    Obama's camp hasn't said (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by ChrisO on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:52:06 AM EST
    that text and e-mail will be the only way it's announced. I suspect he'll do the standard press conference, but send the text message shortly before the press conference begins, so his followers don't have to wait to hear it from the "antique media."

    And I really like the notion that he'll be telling his followers "the moment Barack makes his decision." He's going to say "OK, it's Bayh" and immdeiately start texting? I don't think so.

    And I'm with jerry. Anything but Twitter.

    OK. I'll bite. (none / 0) (#134)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:14:06 AM EST
    What the Hell is twitter?

    Parent
    Twitter (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Nadai on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:40:46 AM EST
    is a site for people to post short messages about whatever they're doing at the moment.  "Standing in line to buy tickets for 'Pineapple Express'."  "At the grocery store, looking at the avocados."  "Waiting for my new refrigerator to be delivered; hope the ice in the cooler doesn't melt before it gets here."

    No, I haven't the faintest idea why anyone would want to post these sorts of messages, or read them, but then I'm capable of entertaining myself.

    Parent

    Good grief. (none / 0) (#150)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:02:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Here's (none / 0) (#138)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:44:17 AM EST
    Twitter. It's a social networking site for people too busy to call their mothers.  8^)

    Parent
    Thanks. I think.... (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:03:46 PM EST
    ...sigh...

    Parent
    Another addition to Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:26:11 AM EST
    elitist credentials.  Believe it or not, we have a whole lot of folks who don't have cell phones OR computers, because they can't afford them...and I suspect many of those folks live in the "low information" states like Penn and Ohio.

    Might be smart for him (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:39:39 AM EST
    toi be far, far away from things if he isn't choosing Clinton. This way the media, who has a short attention span, might not circle the water like sharks asking WHY he didn't choose the obvious choice to unite the Dem party.

    That said, Clinton supporters attention span is far greater than the media and I can assure you he will not be getting a pass from me if this is the case.

    Dangerous move (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    I think this bit of announcing the selection electronically looks silly and really opens Obama up to the kind of attack McCain is obviously quite fond of--Obama is a celebrity, a lightweight, a poser, in a Real World With Real Problems, etc.

    If I were advising Obama I would push him as hard as I could towards doing things in a more traditional manner, if only to avoid handing McCain so many opportunities for this line of attack.  It's one thing to be sloppy and let your opponent define you, it's a far worse political sin to help in that definition.

    Seems like desperate times call for (4.25 / 4) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:42:24 PM EST
    desperate measures from the obama camp....he's down in the polls and needs to try to get the
    interest of the people back...why now?

    DON'T FALL FOR IT (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:02:59 AM EST
    :)

    He's just trying to get all our email addresses and cell phone numbers for his FISA deal!!


    Parent

    I like how... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Thanin on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:10:51 AM EST
    when hes down in polls McSame is even lower.

    Parent
    "Down in the polls" (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jtaylorr on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:23:29 AM EST
    According to whom?
    For instance, today Obama is ahead by 3 according to Rasmussen. A month ago today his lead was 2.
    Gallup has him ahead 3. A month ago he was ahead by 3.
    Yes the polls have fluctuated; at one point Gallup had Obama ahead by 9, and at one point Rasmussen had McCain ahead by 1.
    But it's all just statistical noise.
    There's absolutely no point in looking at micro-trends within these tracker; at least not until after the conventions, when more Americans start paying attention to the election.
    The only thing we can really take away from these trackers is that since the primaries ended, Obama has lead somewhere between 2-6 points.

    Of course, this is just looking at national polls. In state polling, Obama is doing even better.

    Parent

    Ras has Obama up by 2, not 3 today (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:06:33 AM EST
    And had him down by 1 a couple days this last week.

    Since the primaries ended, both Gallup and Ras have had him tied multiple days, and Ras has had McCain ahead this past week, as I said, and at least once previously.  So Obama has not in fact lead 2-6 pts since the end of the primaries

    I don't nec. disagree that 1 pt movements are not earthshattering, but get your numbers right if you're going to argue with others' assertions.

    Parent

    I realize (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by jtaylorr on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:33:25 AM EST
    that some polls have showed the race outside of that 2-6 point margin (e.g. Obama up nine; McCain up 1) but it's all just statistical noise; in reality Americans aren't changing their minds that much. I'm saying the actually static number for Obama's support is somewhere between 2-6 points.
    Realize that these trackers, because of their 2004 based "likely voter" models, tend to under report Obama's support. For example, the 3 non-tracker national polls that came out on the 6th from CBS, AP and Time, had Obama up 6, 6, and 5 points, respectively.

    Parent
    this doesn't seem desperate (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:37:52 AM EST
    seems very "techie".  Obama's just solidifying the cool college kid vote.  After all, he is playing to his strengths there.

    He will need to do this to text them, call them, hound them to DEATH to make sure they vote on November 4th.  We all know that the youth vote is the most unreliable to show itself on election day.  If they get a text msg from Obama, they're like, "wow! he really does care about my participation!"

    and these are the college kids i would love to get a hold of and sell things to!

    Parent

    College kids quickly tire of his text messages (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:02:27 AM EST
    Or so they tell me.  They say it's always a disappointment when the text is from his campaign.  

    I can't imagine that college kids will care about who Obama chooses for VP, but maybe I am wrong.  I'll ask some.  

    Parent

    the txt msg generation seems to have (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:08:05 AM EST
    short-ish attention spans and not a lot of love for spam, so while it's smart to try, the effectiveness is wearing off, I imagine.

    Parent
    But the press is being (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:23:16 AM EST
    used like the tools that they are to bait the kids. They are giving The One free ad space and time by warning the kids that a biiiig surprise is on the way. This way the kids won't think of it as spam. It will be the big prize just between them and the Big O.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:32:05 PM EST
    My kids are annoyed by Obama's messages.  It was ok when they first signed up but now his messages get eye rolls.  The VP message got eye rolls and a grown.  They don't care who he picks.  They're college kids, they want to hear from their friends about tonight and this weekend, not Evan Bayh, whoever he is.  Now, if he chose Hillary, they might be excited, but not a text about some guy they've never heard of. The college girls would definitely be excited about Hillary while Evan and Tim Kaine would win eye rolls and comments of "who's that"?

    Parent
    Your grown kids groan (none / 0) (#159)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 01:33:25 AM EST
    and roll their eyes, huh? -: Okay. Well, anyway... I'm just guessing. I may be entirely wrong.

    Parent
    I think it's a great idea (none / 0) (#92)
    by blogtopus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:14:47 AM EST
    However, unless he can manage to convince the Election board to allow votes by text messaging, he's not going to be getting as many votes as he thinks he will. :-P

    "What? You mean I have to BE there to vote?!"

    Parent

    He got the kids (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:26:39 AM EST
    to BE there in the primaries. I'm guessing he'll find some way of jingling them there in the GE.

    Parent
    short attention spans! bordeom sets in and (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:15:57 AM EST
    school is starting back.

    Parent
    Not everywhere (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:16:16 AM EST
    I remember the PA primary ended with the news his young voters didn't show up.


    Parent
    He'll pick Hillary (none / 0) (#8)
    by g8grl on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:59:52 PM EST
    Because it's now obvious that he could lose without her.  He was always going to have to pick her if his poll numbers started going down.  Now he's going to have to pick her but to show how much he doesn't want to, he's going to do it remotely while he's on vacation.  

    My thought also. I'll pick her (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:03:24 AM EST
    but don't make me stand next to her on a stage and smile about it.

    Meanwhile, Bill Curry, former advisor to President Clinton, says, at Huffington Post, of all places:  pick Hillary, as she has the most experience re the White House.  

    Parent

    I feel (none / 0) (#144)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:49:48 AM EST
    it's the opposite. He doesn't have to deal with the backlash of it not being Hillary if he's out of the country. I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

    Parent
    But that would be so... (none / 0) (#25)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:19:43 AM EST
    transparent. No one would be deceived by that. Such behavior would make Hillary supporters angry and jeopardize their bid from the beginning. No, BO is smarter than that. I think oldpro is right. My guess is Bayh.

    Parent
    Obama not going to pick Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:32:59 AM EST
    the DNC and its allies are pretty determined to keep the Clintons at bay.  Sadly, making her a VP would not bring home the PUMAS.  That ship has sailed a LONG time ago.

    Obama should get someone who can CLEARLY balance out the experience deficit and can win over the demographics that HRC did so well with.

    Strickland would have been his absolute best bet, but he's already given his Shermanesque response.

    Obama's gonna need help. The NE and the west coast is NOT going to do it for him.  Appalachia is a non-starter.  He will def need some midwest cred.

    He can send the announcement via text or smoke signals and the press will eat it up.  For how long though, I dunno.

    Parent

    i have noticed what the press "eats" up (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:17:42 AM EST
    doesn't mean the voting public will follow. those poll numbers don't move than much in his favor. a generic democrat would be doing much better i think. what to do? selibus? yawn!

    Parent
    Is he even going to get the west coast? (none / 0) (#74)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:33:02 AM EST
    I have seen polls where he only leads by the MOE in Oregon over McCain.  I thought Oregon was a gimme state for Obama, I thought wrong.  Obama will win California though I'm curious to see what the margins are.  If McCain could flip Asian and Latino voters (Which thus far has not happenned, despite Latinos voting 3-1 and Asians voting 4-1 for Hillary in the California Primary) in California, he might have a shot at it but it seems highly unlikely.

    Parent
    Is he even going to get the west coast? (none / 0) (#75)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:33:51 AM EST
    I have seen polls where he only leads by the MOE in Oregon over McCain.  I thought Oregon was a gimme state for Obama, I thought wrong.  Obama will win California though I'm curious to see what the margins are.  If McCain could flip Asian and Latino voters (Which thus far has not happenned, despite Latinos voting 3-1 and Asians voting 4-1 for Hillary in the California Primary) in California, he might have a shot at it but it seems highly unlikely.

    Parent
    Yes, slipping in the Northwest (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:47:49 AM EST
    I saw -- Oregon and Washington.  And in the Old Northwest aka the Midwest, his lead is less than half of what it was in Wisconsin.

    Early days yet, though.

    Parent

    Early days are slipping by quickly. (none / 0) (#82)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:59:09 AM EST
    They're talkin' back-to-School on the TV, things are deader than dead around me (which means end of summer), NFL is getting active, we're into MLB races for the finish. Crunch time will be here fatser than he can blink an eye. I am surprised to here he's dropping in the NW.

    Parent
    Iowa and Wisconsin (none / 0) (#99)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:43:38 AM EST
    Those two states confuse me.  They both were huge states for Obama in the primaries and after he won them, polls showed him up by massive amounts in the states.  Now though, his leads in both have declined considerably.  Minnesota too keeps floating between a tossup and solid Dem.  

    California is interesting because at the end of the primary season, it seemed unusually close.  Then after McCain began the oil drilling proposals, Obama took a massive lead that seems to have come back down to earth but he's still ahead.  And given the tightness of the electoral map and the fact that Obama has thoroughly outspent and outraised McCain, I think there is no money for McCain to make a play for CA.  So it will remain solidly Democratic.  However for those who think Obama might lose the electoral college but win the popular vote because of a massive increase in margins in CA, they might be incorrect.  

    Parent

    Both states with loose registration (none / 0) (#143)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:43:39 AM EST
    requirements -- Iowa much more than Wisconsin.  Same-day registration, easy residency rules, etc.  What this meant in Wisconsin was a lot of our traditional crossover voting.  I've written a bit about it here, if you want to search, or see jsonline.com.  Key: Waukesha County is one of the most Republican counties in the country.  See how it voted in the primary.  Also key, of course, was the Wisconsin weather at its worst then -- it was a record snowfall year for the key Milwaukee area -- and the Clinton campaign also was at its worst then, with the switch in campaign managers.  Those combined factors meant that Clinton hardly campaigned in Wisconsin, with many weather cancellations.  It was the turning point, and Obama's last significant victory -- but it caused the momentum . . . that was built on shaky grounds.

    Iowa had caucuses, of course, and we know those are not useful predictors.  And in addition to Iowa's incredibly loose registration and residency requirements, some caucuses were simply unruly from what we've read.  

    In sum, Iowa and Wisconsin do not embrace change easily.  They're back to behaving as usual.  And too many folks forget that "Progressives" were Republicans. :-)

    Parent

    I think Obama will win Oregon (none / 0) (#80)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:55:52 AM EST
    especially if Smith, a sort of moderate Repub, loses his Senate seat.

    Parent
    And he definitely wins WA (none / 0) (#85)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:02:32 AM EST
    Definitely. The Republicans in this state (the few that remain!) are mostly east of the Cascades where the population is much lower. Anyway, they are quite demoralized. Doc Hastings could very well lose his House seat to George Fearing.

    Parent
    I hope Darcy wins! (none / 0) (#87)
    by Little Fish on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:06:25 AM EST
    I'm not in her district, but I'm going to start volunteering on her campaign.

    Parent
    Obama will win WA (none / 0) (#86)
    by Little Fish on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:05:05 AM EST
    What's odd is in this "Dem year" our Dem Gov is only up 3-4 in her race and it's tightening. I just want the ads to stop. Make them stop.

    Parent
    Don't worry. Dino is dust. (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:08:15 AM EST
    And that's putting it charitably. Even some of his GOP followers are angry about the dirty shenanigans the BIAW is playing this year. And don't forget, he is still refusing to release all his tax returns for the last four years...

    Parent
    I don't think he'll win (none / 0) (#90)
    by Little Fish on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:11:03 AM EST
    because really! But it bugs me that it's so close because it shouldn't be and there's ads all. the. time. I can't avoid them, they haunt my dreams.


    Parent
    Wouldnt make this Hillary supporter angry... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Thanin on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:24:12 AM EST
    Id be happy.  I want her back in the WH.

    Parent
    Me, too, but not like this (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:36:39 AM EST
    and I want Bill out there making $50M+ on his book about the primary, and $1M+ for every speaking engagement. Really rattles the cages for some that he is able to command those fees :)

    Would he be restricted if Hillary was VP? Never seen a wife of the VP have a job or business of her own.


    Parent

    Ms. Cheney writes novels. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:54:52 AM EST


    Parent
    I don't think anyone (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:59:55 AM EST
    is going to restrict Bill from doing whatever he wants. But Hillary would be restricted. Not only would she not be able to do anything, she would be tarnished with the legacy from BO's presidency. The Repugs will blame her for BO's failures just as they blamed Gore for Bill's scandal and further extrapolated that into Gore lair Gore liar Gore liar in false stories repeated through the tentacles of the Rupert Murdoch echo chamber.

    Parent
    republicans will be... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Thanin on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:49:05 PM EST
    ripping on Hillary even after she dies, so no, she wont be tarnished by a BO presidency.  So whether shes VP with BO or not wont make a single dent in her reputation; the people that love her will always love her and the people that hate her will always hate her, period.

    Parent
    Thanin, it does not follow (none / 0) (#158)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 01:24:20 AM EST
    that because Repugs will be ripping Hillary after she is dead that she will not be tarnished with BO's legacy. My point is that being BO's Veep will give them more ammunition.

    Parent
    How is Bayh about change? (none / 0) (#66)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:20:09 AM EST
    And what does he bring to the ticket?  

    Parent
    He's got John Edwards hair (none / 0) (#81)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:56:57 AM EST
    but no accent.

    Parent
    Look (none / 0) (#88)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:06:42 AM EST
    here and read all the way down.

    Parent
    UGH!!! (none / 0) (#152)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:24:02 PM EST
    Not a good choice.  So Tim Kaine it is, my unpopular Governor who wants to raise taxes on everything, including gas, when it was at its peak.  Another bad choice.

    We can only hope and pray that Obama can put his ego aside and make the right choice, Hillary.

    Parent

    It is pretty amazing to me (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 01:19:25 AM EST
    that BO or anyone else would even consider Evan Bayh, but alas...

    Parent
    Here's the deal. Edwards, but (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:15:21 AM EST
    no presser.  <snk>

    VP not seen? (none / 0) (#54)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:08:20 AM EST
    Doesn't the Presidential nominee usually announce the VP candidate as he introduces him?  They both give their little speeches.  Will the VP choice in his state, while Obama's on vacation in Hawaii?  No introduction, no speeches?  Seems weird that they wouldn't appear together.  

    All movement of short list candidates (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:16:34 AM EST
    are being watched by the press.  Who is heading for Hawaii?

    Parent
    Well, if it's Bayh (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:19:43 AM EST
    they just did a joint appearance so maybe they can send images to phones and email?

    Parent
    Hmm, maybe the text won't be the choice (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:30:11 AM EST
    but an alert to tell you to tune in:

    Dear Friend --
    Barack Obama is about to make one of the most important decisions of this campaign -- choosing a running mate.
    You have helped build this movement from the bottom up, and Barack wants you to be the first to know his choice.
    Sign up today to be the first to know:
    {sign up link}
    You will receive an email the moment Barack makes his decision, or you can text VP to 62262 to receive a text message on your mobile phone.
    Once you've signed up, please forward this email to your friends, family, and coworkers to let them know about this special opportunity.
    No other campaign has done this before. You can be part of this important moment.
    Be the first to know who Barack selects as his running mate.
    Thanks,
    David
    David Plouffe
    Campaign Manager
    Obama for America

    In other words, you will be one of the first to know his choice if he springs it and it hasn't be leaked to the press as to when the announcement is. Could be a heads up message. Possibly timed to his arrival back. He lands and has the announcement planned for shortly after? Sounds like he has his fan base doing the legwork. Spam everyone you know, including your co-workers!

    Plouffe needs a grammarian. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 01:50:18 AM EST


    Parent
    Aincha heard? They don't need older voters n/t (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ellie on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:18:05 AM EST


    Parent
    I can't say much in that area (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:02:09 AM EST
    I might get called a pot or kettle  ;)

    Parent
    I'd like to be the first to know (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 02:11:50 AM EST
    I tend to be a curious person.  But I don't want them getting my cellphone number with which to text me endlessly about how great Obama is.  And then when he loses, my cell phone can be used as a place to send text messages for his latest fundraising pitch for whatever PAC or cause he devotes himself too.

    Parent
    Do text messages to certain numbers cost money? (none / 0) (#113)
    by DFLer on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:55:47 AM EST
    If so, who gets it?

    Parent
    Now U2 can Pester People for Pennies a Pester! (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by Ellie on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:50:09 AM EST
    ... and awesomely not budge people to Come to Obama! Cause undecided voters love to be annoyed in shopping mall parking lots by volunteers determined to share personal stories but trained never to provide details of Obama's past, present or future accomplishments that merit his fitness fo office.

    And what a great use of resources p!ssing people off!

    Another reason teh brilliant campaign evah has a 2-5x burn rate of functional ones staying within the MOE of The One's.

    Parent

    Going with the Obama track record (none / 0) (#109)
    by pluege on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:06:27 AM EST
    of going the worst possible way for women and progressives, I'd predict in order: 1) Kaine, 2) Bayh, 3) Sebelius.

    LA Times: Obama Veep Announcement Imminent | 159 comments (159 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment