Veep Stakes: Latest Tea Leaves

The Denver Post reports Sen. Ken Salazar will speak Wednesday night at the Democratic National Convention, but he isn't the Veep pick.

Who's left? According to the Post, only those without a speaking slot at the Convention. That includes:

  • Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine,
  • New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson,
  • Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana,
  • Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and
  • former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn.

What about General Wesley Clark?

< Hillary's Name to Be Placed In Nomination | Hillary Supporters Plan Two Days of Celebratory Events >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ugh, he might go with Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    I can't see why--terrible campaigner.

    If the VP were an appointed position (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:29:20 PM EST
    with little visibility, I think he'd be fine.  But he is truly awful on TV. On Sunday he looked and acted like they dragged him out of bed to be on the morning shows. Maybe they did.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#103)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:41:20 PM EST
    hopefully he's not speaking because...he's a horrible speaker.

    Richardson, yes please (none / 0) (#120)
    by DJ on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:33:31 PM EST
    or Kerry.  fun, fun, fun

    Richardson was sent out (none / 0) (#142)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:23:32 PM EST
    last week as a surrogate on the talk shows...Kaine the week before...Bayh, too....Biden, not lately.

    Ugh, ugh and absolutely not.

    As for Nunn, they're kidding...right?


    Richardson would be a disaster (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:37:39 PM EST
    He was horrible in EVERY debate.  

    Was there any debate that he didn't have to issue a statement after correcting something or explaing what he meant by something or explaining what he thought the question was that he really couldn't hear?

    What's sad is (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:45:30 PM EST
    that I'm looking at these guys and thinking "which one would least upset me?"

    That's not a good place to be in.


    Me too except for Wes Clark (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by mogal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:22:31 PM EST
    Obama is hopefully smarter than this list (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:24:54 PM EST
    makes him appear to be.

    Well, if he were, (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:32:44 PM EST
    that wouldn't be the list, now would it?

    It is an IQ test this year.

    And you don't have to look on your neighbor's paper to get the right answer.

    Quite obviously...it's Hillary.


    She would not say no. (none / 0) (#155)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:08:57 PM EST
    She has said that she would accept the VP slot.

    No...I don't have a link...


    Didn't he get pretty good reviews (none / 0) (#15)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:44:20 PM EST
    In the town hall style question and answer type?

    He was almost universally terrible (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:46:59 PM EST
    He has a good resume and great TV ads, but horrible standard politician skills. He's a gaffe machine.

    The gaffes where pretty amazing (none / 0) (#42)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    That is one of the things that impresses me about the Clintons and Obama, their RELATIVELY few gaffs.  Can you imagine talking most of the day, asking questions, giving opinions and making the small number of mistakes they do, that is just amazing.  

    I wonder if that is a trained skill?  Some of the smartest people in the world teach me daily, and the amount of mistakes they make are huge (and sometimes funny).


    In order to be a serious (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:16:20 PM EST
    contender for national office, I do think you really have to be that good. Some are naturals, but I assume others can be trained.

    How is that any different (none / 0) (#18)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:47:18 PM EST
    than Obama explaining away every gaffe as an "inartful statement" or "someone in my campaign said X without my knowledge"?

    While it has been reported, albeit briefly, Obama's gaffes have disappeared pretty quickly.  I am sure that any mistake Richardson makes can be similarly swept under the rug.  On the plus side, Richardson has more experience than the other Democratic candidates combined.  He might not be inspiring... but he is solid.


    "solid?" (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:50:11 PM EST
    Did you pay attention to the primary campaign for more than five seconds?

    Just because he didn't give great speeches (none / 0) (#75)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    doesn't mean his experience isn't solid.  You're (once again) confusing giving a great speech or having a recognized name with having experience and qualifications.

    This kind of style over substance approach makes me worry about Obama's chances come November.


    Hilarious (none / 0) (#96)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:30:55 PM EST
    You said something about that before we chose Obama, right?

    When I spoke out against him as a bad choice for a candidate no one wanted to listen.  Here in Chicago we knew about Rezko, Ayers, the earmarks to U of C, his voting record (or lack thereof) but when I mentioned it to his national supporters, they could not have been less interested.

    I believe Hillary called it a purposeful suspension of belief...  I hope it doesn't come back and afford us another defeat in the fall.


    andgarden, I love having political discussions (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:42:15 PM EST
    with you... you already know the answer to every question and whatever might threaten that blissful knowledge is so easily discounted.  I wish I could ignore reality as easily as you.

    It must be quite relaxing... ignorance really is bliss huh?


    Since I can't remember (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:55:04 PM EST
    ever having had a political discussion with you, I can't say that I really know what you're talking about. Perhaps you were someone else before?

    In any case, I think you miss the point: the problem with Obama has not mostly been substantive. How impactful was Rezko, for example? No, it is his political style, and his unwillingness to fight for Democratic values, that made him so problematic.

    I have no confidence that Richardson could assist in that area, and I find it rather more likely that he will cause difficulty.


    I remember the anecdote he told (none / 0) (#99)
    by JoeA on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:38:39 PM EST
    about Obama having to rescue him by whispering a hint when he dosed off and didn't hear a question he was asked.

    He couldn't be worse than Kaine (none / 0) (#163)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:47:20 PM EST
    Richardson does have real foreign policy experience.  I always thought it would be Richardson, because of the Hispanic vote.  Was I the only one who noticed that as soon as Richardson dropped out of the race, he became much more Hispanic appearing, with the darker tan, and the little beard?  I thought he was auditioning for the role of the Hispanic VP.  

    Clark as VP might "energize" me. (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:43:14 PM EST
    ...but I am fully expecting to be quite disengaged throughout the rest of this election. I don't want McCain to win but I can't even work up a good case of Republican-inspired indignation these day.

    Of course my opinion and feelings don't really matter except that I don't think I'm alone in them.

    Clark is scheduled to be out of the country (none / 0) (#39)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:13:44 PM EST
    according to information commented on yesterday.

    And, apparently, he wasn't vetted.


    can someone (none / 0) (#65)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:32:48 PM EST
    tell me where they publish the list of who has and hasn't been vetted?

    Does anyone think when they report who has and hasn't been vetted that is actually TRUE?

    Yep, Clark is "scheduled" to be in Europe.  Like that can't be changed.

    Yep, Hillary is already speaking on Tuesday.  Like there aren't already 38 other speakers scheduled for Tuesday and she isn't the KEYNOTE  and she can't be re-scheduled.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:54:28 PM EST
    Wes Clark Jr says it's not going to happen.  I've never seen Jr play it anything but straight.

    I believe it then (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:56:13 PM EST
    He is very good - real straight shooter.

    Thank heavens! (none / 0) (#92)
    by Shainzona on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:24:29 PM EST
    When there are quotation marks, it is (none / 0) (#70)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:51:08 PM EST
    more often closer to true than false.

    the "geniuses" over (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Little Fish on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:44:19 PM EST
    on MSNBC think its between Bayh or Biden, with the edge going to Biden.

    Color me blah.

    Blech and blah (none / 0) (#164)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:48:53 PM EST
     to both of them.  I cannot decide which is the lesser of those two evils.

    Bleh (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Faust on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:51:30 PM EST
    Based on that list I hope we get a big suprise.

    If I have to pick from that list I choose Biden.

    Wait! How about Pikachu? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Faust on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:52:15 PM EST
    Why not Pee Wee Herman? He's pretty (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:59:49 PM EST

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:12:08 PM EST
    Since we're appealing to the youth vote why not Hannah Montana or Vanessa Hudgins from High School Musical. If those are too female, maybe Zac Efron. I realize that the rules are that you have to be a certain age but can't we just create some new ROOLZ and holler that the opposition is racist if they don't like it?

    How about Snoop Dogg? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:17:33 PM EST
    He's a successful businessman.  He's done things with his life.  

    He may be a felon (I don't know about this - I just know he's been arrested more than once) -- but hey!  

    Hope!  Change!  Ain't that what it's all about?!


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:22:44 PM EST
    How long do you figure before they finish gutting the rest of the Constitution and labelling it quaint like the Geneva Convention anyways. I mean we've already decided the 4th amendment was passe', why not age restrictions or other VP requirements?

    I agree, that's why I said Rendell (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by cpa1 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    should be the VP.  He's a Jew.

    Seriously, those picks are horrible.  Biden is a lunatic, Richardson's selection would lose all the Hillary supporters real fast, including me, Bayh is boring and too conservative, Sam Nunn is too f---g old and a little arrogant, Kaine is anti abortion, that should be a great followup to Obama's not filibustering Alito.

    Someone said Rendell took himself out, well if a presidential nominee asks the right way, they all conform.  It's not like he's not a politician, unless he just doesn't like Obama, which I could understand.  But even though Obama is a low life too, he's a politician and we have to expect that.  I don't like him but I will vote for him because he might be more creative than McCain.

    Now more than ever I wish Hillary were the nominee.  


    Like I said (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Faust on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:07:53 PM EST
    hopin for a suprise.

    It's Oprah (none / 0) (#149)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:46:17 PM EST

    She announced today she's going to the convention, and she still doesn't have a speaking role on the schedule.

    Perhaps she's the keynote, or the one who is going to introduce Barack, since Michelle will have used up her speech on Monday.

    Perhaps she's the VP pick. At least she will require no explanation when those text messages go out. We'll hear a collective woooo hoooo from his base, for sure.


    How about Wal-Mart's CEO? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    Has LOTS of business experience!  Unfortunately, he's against unions, healthcare, and 80% of Democratic values -- but hey!  Can he make money!!  

    Lee Scott is a moron (none / 0) (#50)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:18:11 PM EST
    He's got to be the only person I know to fight against his own interests by endorsing the GOP time and time again. I hear he is shaking in his boots over the Employee Free Choice Act. it's probably the only positive I can come up for when thinking about why to vote for Obama at the moment.

    I know he's a moron (none / 0) (#53)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    but Obama is trying to appeal to Republicans.  Wouldn't this give him a boost?  Wal-Mart is loved by those who don't know any better.  

    Nope (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:51:41 PM EST
    not a one does a thing for me. Not even a little tingle in my legs.

    Surely Obama will listen to them.... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:52:23 PM EST
    ...certainly for are they not the reason for his success. He is but an instrument of their will. And he's got nothing better to do while he's on vacation in Hawaii than keep track of all the Facebook groups that have been set up for the express purpose of communicating to him the will of his people. I mean, it was the progressives who got him to change his mind on FISA, after all. </snark>

    Pick Clark, Please (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by bselznick on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    If he picks Clark, I'd run to the internet and give $100 before he finishes his speech.  I think Clark is a true patriot and someone I can trust.  Do I agree with Clark on eveything, no, neither do I agree with Obama on everything.  

    Clark is very credible, no matter what the right tries to do to him about not kissing McSame's military service behind.  The right tried to dirty Clark because he is a huge threat.  McCain has two things, experience and a military background.  Clark can not only match that, but he far surpasses McCain in military leadership and knowledge.  The right is all about war, and if the Dems put a more credible warrior on their ticket then the right's got nothing, absolutely nothing.  

    Plus, for what it's worth, Clark is a handsome guy.  He and Obama would look great speaking together.  

    I think Clark (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Makarov on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    is the most likely pick at this time (Wed night theme named after his PAC), with Bayh and Richardson tied for second.

    I don't believe Biden or Nunn are under serious consideration for VP.

    Clark is a good pick, although I wish he had a voting record to judge him by. He fits in with the campaign as a "washington outsider".

    I have no personal issues with Richardson, either.

    Kaine, Bayh, and Biden may be deal breakers for me.


    Disastrous rightwing rule for eight years (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by karmadillo on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    and this is the best we can do?

    think of it this way (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:09:43 PM EST
    The right had the WH for 8 years and the Congress for most of the last 16 years, and look at their pathetic bench strength.  I think we are doing OK.

    What that list shows is just how (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    conventional this supposedly unconvential candidate really is.  

    There is nothing inspired or even remotely "changey" about the people on that list.

    Biden would be the only one who would be interesting and that would only be because the media loves to catch him in his gaffes.

    Well re the short list, (none / 0) (#51)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:18:43 PM EST
    remember that it's reduced somewhat by the fact of no non-Hillary woman being an acceptable choice at this point.

    As for Biden, he had the best line of the primaries, either side, with his shot at Rudy -- "A noun and a verb and 9/11".  Classic and well delivered.

    Re change, I agree JB dings the ticket in that respect -- a little more than Bayh would, but no less than Hillary would.

    Regardless of who O picks, except maybe for picking another one-termer in Kaine, which would be stupid since it would enhance one of O's most glaring weaknesses, O's to-now pristine Change theme is going to be somewhat sullied.

    His campaign will need to counter, with a Biden pick, to argue that Joe with O in the WH would bring significant change to this country's sorry FP attitude these past 8 yrs, and that there would be a refreshing change seen in the way America is again respected in the world in an O/Joe admin.  


    Let's not forget Biden's part (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:26:30 PM EST
    in the trainwreck known as the Bankruptcy bill. He'd be a poor choice considering the economic situation we find ourselves in even if he can do sports analogies and zingers better than the others.

    What that list shows (none / 0) (#125)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:05:41 PM EST
    is that the media sticks with very conservative speculation and has absolutely no idea who Obama is going to select or even who is on the list.

    For once (none / 0) (#128)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:19:12 PM EST
    I am actually in agreement with you.

    Ridiculous. (none / 0) (#160)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:31:08 PM EST
    The media is getting these bits and pieces as part of a traditional strategy employed by politicians of sending out names and ideas to test them out with the media and the public.  The list is the product of a tried and true political strategy of getting a rumor out unattributed to gauge the response in advance of actually making an announcement.  If you have an opinion, you'll be smart and speak up now because this is the testing period.  Once they announce, the whole thing will be over.

    So boring it's criminal (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:12:56 PM EST
    that veep list, I mean.

    Does Obama (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Bluesage on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:07:44 PM EST
    Have any plans to announce a VP pick before the convention or will he keep playing this game hoping it will keep us interested and we will actually watch the convention.  

    There is no one on that list that give me hope or instills confindence that change is on the agenda.

    Bill Richardson is a back-stabbing moron who wouldn't even have a career outside his home state if not for the Clintons.

    Bayh is right-wing and boring.

    Biden I always picture standing in front of a mirror talking to himself.

    And the rest, Ugh!

    Anyone too close to (none / 0) (#97)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    Clinton could find themselves on Obama's no-chance list, of course.

    What a lovely collection of (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:22:02 PM EST
    middle-to-older-aged white men; why, any one of them would be a real symbol of change in Washington, don't you think?

    I would have to say that I don't know that I have ever felt this bad about the party or about the direction it's heading as I do right now - we haven't had the convention yet, so it's possible I could feel worse in the next two weeks.

    Oh, joy.

    Take a good long look at the bulk of the people who are going to have prominent roles in the convention because these are the people whom Obama believes represent the new direction of the party.  

    I get the argument that many of these people are Democrats who have managed to rise in predominantly red states, and that is seen as part of expanding the map, but I have yet to hear a good argument for why it doesn't seem to matter that that expansion is coming at the expense of some traditionally Democratic positions.  Why are we working to expand the map by weakening those positions, instead of working our butts off to make the case for the more left-leaning positions that we believe are better for the country?  Especially when the people seem to be begging for it - it just makes no sense to me.

    I am starting to feel like the lone woman who has not been Stepford-ized, like I walked into a room and people who used to make sense are now spouting propaganda, and that seems to be okay with the rest of the crowd.  It's Bizarro World, and I'm not comfortable there.

    So, whether it is Kaine or Bayh or Biden or Nunn, it pretty much doesn't matter; I'm sure the pick will be someone the center-right Dems will just love, and those with more Obama-infatuation than common sense will fall into line.

    Really just depresses the hell out of me, sorry.

    because, anne, "we" aren't (none / 0) (#131)
    by sancho on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    working to expand the map (ok, some of us are, or are dreaming of it) but are  committed to a group named "democrats" who want to acquire as much power inside of washington as possible. not to pass laws that help citizens but to acquire wealth and power and favor. the big party dems want what the repubs had until recently and to get it they have to destroy the old dem brand--something that clinton (bill) sidetracked but has been on the way since reagan--while counting on the current public disaffection with republicans 9and to keep this public disgust high the dems are committed to not doing anything so the repubs can continue to be blamed for the dreadful status quo.  

    love the stepford wife analogy.


    Man, the democrats have no bench at all (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:59:14 PM EST

    Neither party is doing well in terms of a (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:28:33 PM EST
    bench... at least Obama is likable and speaks well... McCain is... hmm... wrinkly?  Oh yeah, and I heard he was in Vietnam, but I will have to check on that to make sure :)

    Seriously, I hope someone figures out a way to attract better people into politics!  Pelosi, Bush, Reid, Cheney... we all deserve better than these jokers!


    Sure don't but the GOP does (none / 0) (#146)
    by RalphB on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:41:00 PM EST
    the worst of their crop ran in this most Democratic year.  They've got Lugar, Gordon Smith, Grassley, Hutchinson, Snowe, Collins, and that list includes 3 women who are potential presidential candidates in 2012.  Not a great list but a lot better than this year's.

    I can only hope... (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by desertswine on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:06:20 PM EST
    that he chooses someone that I never heard of and know nothing about.

    Clark (none / 0) (#1)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:28:19 PM EST
    Will be out of the country that night.

    They would have Mark Warner introduce Kaine if Kaine was the choice.

    My money is on Bayh.

    Really! (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by Shainzona on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:30:36 PM EST
    Great - I hope he declined any offers.

    I read that too about Clark (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:29:24 PM EST
    being out of the country. But, I couldn't find a link and don't you think he'd reschedule his trip if he were asked to be VP?

    It was also reported that he said (none / 0) (#49)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:17:43 PM EST
    he was never interviewed or vetted by the team or Obama. Granted, that process could be held to a secrecy pledge, but I'd think he would find a way to resist answering the question without outright lying about it.

    He could go with Kaine if (none / 0) (#5)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:35:04 PM EST
    McCain took Ridge. Ridge is Pro Choice. Kaine is not. Have even tickets.

    I don't think McCain indicated that Ridge (none / 0) (#9)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:42:24 PM EST
    would get the offer... I think he just used him as an example of a Pro-Choice candidate that he could envision working with...

    If he is really going to go down this path, I would expect McCain to pick Lieberman.

    As for Obama, he needs and "elder statesman" to help ease the view that he lacks experience.  

    Byah doesn't do that for him.  Clark is a train wreck who was fired by the Clinton's (spin it however you want, he was told to retire or be relieved).  Biden might not be perfect but he does have gravitas...

    Whoever he picks, it will be interesting!


    Clark is not a train wreck. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by wurman on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:58:04 PM EST
    And your comment about his retirement is only half true.  K. Seelye, NYT, Sep 19, 2003 (link)
    Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the White House that they had to find a spot for Joe Ralston, a popular Air Force general and right-hand man to William S. Cohen, the secretary of defense. General Ralston had been denied the promotion to chairman of the Joint Chiefs after admitting to adultery 10 years earlier while separated from his wife.

    These members, according to several accounts, told President Clinton that General Clark's regular tour of duty as NATO supreme allied commander was up and that they wanted General Ralston to succeed him.

    ''Clinton signed on, apparently not realizing that he had been snookered,'' David Halberstam wrote in his book, ''War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals'' (Scribner, 2001).

    Other sources, that you are unaware of, make the point that the rethuglican SecDef Cohen was not happy with being shown up by Clark amongst the European diplomats & heads of state.  Also, Cohen did not believe that air power alone could subdue Milosovic.  He was wrong.  Clark was right.


    Actually it had more to do with the fact that (none / 0) (#83)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:03:36 PM EST
    Clark blamed a friendly fire incident that he was responsible for on an innocent F-16 pilot.  President Clinton knew that this outright lie was a political killer... and Clark was given the choice of retiring early or being relieved.

    Quote whatever source you'd like, I was in theater when it happened.  His own troops were calling him a slimeball.  No spin in the world will make him honest, or that incident go away.  Can't you just picture the McCain ads featuring the pilot?

    BTW - Rethuglicans? Pithy.  Nothing like having to resort to name calling and emotions to "win" an argument.


    How 'bout a link? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by wurman on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:51:03 PM EST
    The only F-16 shot down in Serbia was May 2, 1999.  The pilot describes it Feb 7, 2007, at F-16 Net (link):
    The SAM launch sites had proved to be a constant threat in Serbia, disappearing and reappearing. This one appeared right under the squadron's route as it flew into Belgrade, Serbia, on a night mission to destroy enemy air defenses. The missile destroyed Goldfein's engine.

    The story clearly indicates the pilot apparently doesn't have your opinions.

    If your "story" is accurate, then it is known only to you.

    Here's a Bit Torrent about all the US aircraft "lost" in Kosovo / Serbia [cross-referenced from all internet sources] (link):

    NATO reported that it had lost two U.S. aircraft in its Kosovo air campaign. An F-16 crashed about 18 kilometers (11 miles) east of the Serbian town of Kozluk early Sunday, NATO spokesman Jamie Shea said. The plane was returning from a combat mission in Yugoslavia. "The pilot ejected at around 2:20 a.m. (1200 GMT) this morning and he was rescued by NATO forces two hours later," Shea said. "He is safely back at his operating base, where he is receiving medical attention and being debriefed on the incident." Serbian air defense officials said they shot down the F-16, but NATO military spokesman Col. Konrad Freytag said the jet crashed after experiencing engine failure. He said the cause of the engine failure was unknown.

    You're not in an argument.  You need some facts, logic, & evidence to get into an argument.  You are telling a personal story that does not seem to have any credibility in available sources.


    Nope, wrong link. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:38:51 PM EST
    Sorry for the confusion.  I am talking about the incident that prompted the request for Clark to retire.

    Basically, civilians were killed and Clark and his staff accused an F-16 pilot of a friendly fire incident without learning all of the facts.  This turned out to be a huge embarrassment for President Clinton who was taking enough flak at the time for out involvement.

    Here is a part of the story (and the link)

    For "Bear 21," April 14 will be a day to remember. The U.S. Air Force F16 Falcon pilot dove on a clearly identified Serb target in Kosovo that day and saw it destroyed by his laser-guided, 500-pound bomb. For his skill and professionalism, the pilot was branded a killer of innocents. Not by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's propaganda machine in Belgrade. Bear 21 was fingered by the staff of U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO commander directing both the air war on the former Yugoslavia and the almost equally important struggle to control the global perception of what is going on in the Balkans.

    What happened to Bear 21 says more about the American-led Operation Allied Force than all the slides, maps and film clips created to sway journalists into presenting a positive view of the bombing offensive. Serb television reported that day that NATO planes had struck refugee convoys near the Kosovo town of Djakovica. Belgrade television showed film of elderly men and women among the dead and inaccurately reported that more than 60 people were killed.

    The next day in Brussels, Clark's staffers said there may have been a bombing mistake. Then they played an audiotape of Bear 21's formal debriefing in Aviano, Italy.

    The pilot's words evoke an image of someone straining to be accurate before striking--a NATO firefighter running down Serb forces who had been terrorizing Kosovo, where more than 580,000 ethnic Albanians have been expelled. The pilot tells how he flew back and forth north of the town, seeing a string of villages burning. Then he spotted a three-truck convoy, leaving a freshly lighted building.

    "I make a decision at that point that these are the people responsible for burning down the villages I've seen so far," the pilot says. "I roll in, put my [infrared] system on the lead vehicle and execute a laser-guided bomb attack...destroying the lead vehicle."

    Later that day, President Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair led NATO in apologizing for the killing of civilians. Television and newspaper reports were filled with the pilot's debriefing.

    The trouble was, Bear 21 had done nothing wrong. Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said as much three days later. "The F16 pilot is not responsible in any way," said Shelton's spokesman, Navy Capt. Steve Pietropaoli.

    NATO spokesman Jamie Shea would concede privately to journalists in Brussels that, in the rush of events, Bear 21 had been unfairly pinpointed. (About a week after the bombing, NATO briefers showed gun-camera footage that indicated other NATO pilots may have accidentally killed some civilians in the area on April 14. But the footage also proved it was not Bear 21. His bomb hit a military vehicle, as he had recounted.)


    Dave B, you hit the problem on the nose... it was plausible... it just happened to be wrong (and a political embarrassment) in this case.  Clark has since tried to explain the incident away, but do we really want to bet this will work in the middle of a tight presidential race?

    Getting back to the original point of this thread, this is why I don't think Clark would be a good choice for Obama's running mate... This incident alone would be enough to ruin whatever advantage he might bring to the ticket.  Again, IMO.  


    NYTimes article contradicts AJR (none / 0) (#159)
    by wurman on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:57:37 PM EST
    Your reference is not even moderately supported by the Apr 20, 1999, Times article, M R Gordon (link):
    General Leaf said the episode began about 12:30 P.M. local time when a pair of United States F-16's saw Albanian villages being set on fire north of Djakovica. Their call sign was Bear 21. The episode was first documented last week at NATO.

    A pilot in Bear 21 saw people running from a house that burst into flames and jumping onto a vehicle, which NATO officials said may have been a tractor. Believing that they had set the house on fire, he attacked the vehicle with a laser-guided bomb, destroying it.

    NATO officials added today that in addition to the Bear 21 attack, another bomb was later dropped north of the town in an attack by a different group of F-16's, Bear 41. Serbian television later showed destroyed tractors at that site, raising the possibility of civilian casualties.

    Lieutenant General Leaf is NOT General Wesley K. Clark--no spin necessary on that one.

    Leaf was the USAF general in charge of all the bombing [November 1998 - January 2000, Commander, 31st Fighter Wing and 31st Air Expeditionary Wing, Aviano AB, Italy], took full responsibility, & handled all the press.

    Gordon's quotations are from the Bear 21 to Control audio recordings.

    So instead of being responsible for a friendly fire shoot down of an F-16 [my misinterpretation of your comment], you actually meant that  Gen. Clark is totally responsible for General Leaf's explanation of 3 F-16 bombing raids that went wrong----really stoooopid wrong.  And you are of the opinion that Gen. Clark should have contradicted Gen. Leaf & explained to all of the reporters, NATO diplomats, & Pres. Clinton that those damned tractors were military vehicles.

    The Sloyan article that you link to in AJR was published in June & has no resemblance to the tapes, the videos, or the very direct comments of Gen. Leaf as covered by the NY Times.

    I'll take the stories by Gen. Leaf & David Halberstam--you take your chances.


    What the heck are you talking about? (none / 0) (#161)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:51:29 PM EST
    That is the entire first part of the article!  The announcement WAS made, by Leaf... who is Clark's immediate subordinate.  Clark, in turn, went on to explicitly stake and accuse the F16 pilot of killing civilians.  

    Then a few days later, it comes out that Bear 21's radio conversation was about a completely different incident.  In the meantime Clark's comments had been picked up and used as propaganda.  This incident is what lead Clinton to instruct Cohen to pull him from his command.

    You can't just read the parts that support your arguments and then stop reading.

    BTW, you keep trusting people who have a reason to lie... good luck with that.

    At this point, you if honestly (and I am sure quite smugly) believe that Wesley Clark would be a good VP choice for Obama, I will gladly concede the point.  You have earned it.


    Events described: Apr 14 to Apr 21, 1999 (none / 0) (#166)
    by wurman on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:56:02 AM EST
    Mike in Chicago, I don't know if you are reading impaired or arithmetic "disabled," but the story makes very clear that all this stuff took place in April 1999.  General Clark retired in May 2000.

    You mean to imply, state, assert that it took Clinton & Cohen & Shelton 13 months to "fire" the dude that ticked them off.  Get real, bud.  Your opinion has no merit, whatsoever.  More than a year later, Clark retires & you want to connect these 2 events as cause & effect?????

    Furthermore [& I'm not going to reference or link this stuff because it's a waste of time], the reason Gen. Clark is described as giving "conflicting accounts" is that the reporters were asking questions about 3 very different, somewhat unrelated incidents that Gen. Leaf, later, sorted out in a specific press conference.

    Clark responded to allegations that Bear 21, 31, & 41 were all involved in some poor quality command & control decisions.  The politicians, the press, & the NATO diplomats were relying on Yugoslav reports which were self-serving propaganda.  The reporters, particularly, would contradict clear statements by Clark with idiotic claims by the Milosovic-directed TV broadcasters.

    Rather than being fired by Pres. Clinton or SecDef Cohen, Gen. Clark was directed to take care of the "problem."  So, as SACEUR, Clark put a total clampdown on the US & European reporters.  They were even forbidden to publish the names of the commanders who briefed them so that the lame stream media could no longer "game" them by going up & down the chain of command & compare US, British, French, etc., sequential "He-said, no He-said, no They-said" narratives & then counter them with very obvious propaganda from the Slavs & Serbs.

    General Leaf terminated that problem.  In late April, his bomb wing obliterated the TV & radio stations & probably killed two-thirds of the reporters.  Oh well, collateral damage. . . .

    As a staff member, you know damn well that Clark was not relieved of his command.  As absolutely noted by me, he served another year beyond the dates of these incidents.


    Well if you were in theater (none / 0) (#102)
    by Dave B on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:40:35 PM EST
    That seals it then.  You must know EVERY detail of what happened there. </snark>

    No Dave, you're right. As someone who served (none / 0) (#106)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    on a combined staff (as a junior aide to a general officer) I was completely out of the loop.  Good plan, believe someone interpreting incidents years after the fact who wasn't there.

    Once again proving that if you don't like the facts... you can just ignore them.  I can't believe we are in the same party.  So depressing.

    /snark? If you have to indicate that you're being sarcastic... you're not doing it right.


    I doubt we are in the same party (none / 0) (#119)
    by Dave B on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:33:27 PM EST
    I'm and Independent.  I don't believe you're a Democrat.  Looking at your comments, you appear to be a McCain booster.

    Sorry. Registered Democrat. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:14:19 PM EST
    But consider myself to be a Truman Democrat as opposed to a Pelosi Democrat.  It is a dying breed in the party, but we still do exist.

    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#139)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:11:47 PM EST
    If you're an Independent... doesn't that by definition mean we're not in the same party?? :)

    How about a link (none / 0) (#122)
    by Dave B on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:35:53 PM EST
    To any news story about friendly fire.  I found on story about Civilian Serbs getting bombed by an F-16, but nothing seems controversial about it.

    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#89)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:13:03 PM EST
    And you mean to tell me that Bill Clinton, one of the smartest politicians of our age was out witted by a bunch of knuckle-dragging military men who didn't study hard enough and would like wind up in Iraq?

    Really?  THAT is your argument?  I realize that there is a sucker born every minute... but were you born for an hour???

    You know what, you're right... I am with you, let's push for Wes Clark.  Once again, we will get what we deserve.


    Your links to credible sources please. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by wurman on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:58:08 PM EST
    Name calling me doesn't support your story.

    I've quoted the pilot, NATO sources, & Yugoslavian sources through the links.

    CNN covered this the very next morning.

    As to Pres. Clinton's behavior, I will go with David Halberstam's description in lieu of yours & the readers here at TalkLeft can probably arrive at their own views about Gen. Clark's departure from NATO.


    Yes you did. Unfortunately, you quoted (none / 0) (#136)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:50:37 PM EST
    a different and unrelated incident.  The incident that led to his reassignment happened after Shea was shot down.

    As for who to trust on this incident, that is completely up to you.  But for me, I am going to trust:

    General Hugh Shelton would say of Clark during his 2004 campaign that "the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote,". Shelton never elaborated further on what these issues were.

    David Halberstam thought that Clark was treated badly... given that fact that he is supposed to be an impartial journalist I am surprised that he was so willing to take a side.  In my mind, that makes his neutrality suspicious.  But, as I said, trust whomever you like.


    Leiberman (none / 0) (#45)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    Now there is a party unifier for Dems.

    Did you see yesterday, though, that (none / 0) (#52)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:18:46 PM EST
    Lieberman has given $100,000 to the Dem Party? Seems he might be hoping more for a cabinet position than VP to a Republican.

    You can always trust Joe to go where the power is (none / 0) (#58)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:24:42 PM EST
    Joe is for Joe, no matter what. Blech.

    Can anything really unify the Democratic Party? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    It is starting to seem way more like a rabble than a party lately....

    Absolutely (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:01:00 PM EST
    Put a Clinton in charge again.

    her negatives are known...

    One caveat: (none / 0) (#123)
    by Lil on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:49:35 PM EST
    McCain is a terrible candidate. Losing to him would be very hard to do and an embarrassment.

    Biden is the best (none / 0) (#7)
    by Landulph on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:39:39 PM EST
    of a bad lot, frankly.

    Where's it say the VP nom ...... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Kefa on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:41:08 PM EST
    can't speak twice?????

    Or on Tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Lil on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:43:41 PM EST
    for that matter?

    That's what I was thinking too! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by talesoftwokitties on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:51:53 PM EST
    No reason why he/she can't. (none / 0) (#20)
    by JoeA on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:50:52 PM EST
    Also,  the Convention organisers are not in the loop on the VP vetting and decision making process,  so I don't think the idea that "if they have a speaking spot they won't be VP" really holds any water.

    Holds water like a sieve (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    Not a consideration to me at all.

    exactly! (none / 0) (#40)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:13:53 PM EST
    Celebrities at the Grammys and Oscars announce the winners - and can be winners!

    Really? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lil on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:43:08 PM EST
    That's what is left? I keep thinking the pick would be exciting. None of these guys do that (except Clark). My wish list: Clinton, Clark and then Biden for the entertainment value. I suppose Richardson would be funny to watch for for 3 months, but I'd like to win this year. But after this past year of high expectations, this is what we are down to? Ennui is setting harder now.

    I'd be OK with Bayh or Biden (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:07:34 PM EST
    No one else from that list.

    Still hoping for a 'none of the above' surprise. Other than Clark or Clinton though, I can't think of anyone that would get me excited.

    It could still be Sebelius also.  I don't place much faith in the 'who is already speaking' method of tea leaf reading. The speaking schedule can be easily changed.

    yeah, he is not going to let his selection be (none / 0) (#43)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:15:00 PM EST
    obvious based on this elimination game. If he is determined to keep it a secret to the end, he couldn't start saying...leave Kaine off the list, leave Bayh off the list.

    I'm still keeping my head in the sand and hoping for Hillary.


    Obviously, his tempting ploy to get (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:21:21 PM EST
    cell phone numbers wasn't because he was really ready to release the name.

    This guessing game is getting exhausting.


    If I can't have my first choice (none / 0) (#37)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:12:49 PM EST
    of KS, since the O Team failed to lay the groundwork for that one in June and July, I'll accept Biden.

    JB gives us a knowledgable guy on FP who can, for a refreshing change in Dem tickets, give us a proven attack dog against the oppo.  I am so tired of seeing our nominees pick milquetoasts for Veep, who then go out and underwhelm with the nice guy approach.

    Nice won't get us the WH.  Bayh is nice.  Too nice.

    We also don't lose a senate seat with JayBee; Bayh probably means an unnecessary loss of one senate seat.  Bayh isn't that crucial to put on the ticket for us to give up his safe Dem seat.

    O/Joe 08

    Madeline Albright (none / 0) (#44)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:15:03 PM EST
    is the only woman I would accept if it isn't Hillary.  I like Albright.  She's intelligent.  

    Two problems (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:17:39 PM EST
    1. She's probably too old (b. 1937)

    2. She isn't a natural born U.S. citizen, so she can't be in the line of succession.

    Oh well... I like her! :) (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:22:27 PM EST
    Me too (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:28:06 PM EST
    Me 3. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:31:02 PM EST
    Bummer (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:32:03 PM EST
    She would be great.

    What of the scuttlbutt (none / 0) (#66)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:34:21 PM EST
    that Kerry was being vetted?

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:00:39 PM EST
    They have to vet Kerry after that miserable campaign four looooong years ago?



    I think there may be something to that (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:00:16 PM EST
    I would not be very surprised - except I don't think Theresa would go for it.

    Hard to believe, (none / 0) (#132)
    by Landulph on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:23:32 PM EST
    frankly. Don't forget he's up for re-election this year, too. I'd put the same credence in this as the Obama/Gore rumors (yes, really).

    Since I don't like any of those guys.. (none / 0) (#67)
    by rjarnold on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:35:28 PM EST
    I'll root for Evan Bayh just to see the the Markos Moulitsos - John Avarosis types go crazy. And at least Bayh is better than Nunn and Kaine.

    there is NOTHING (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    that would make them crazier than Clinton as VP.  I want to watch their heads explode right online during the convention.

    Can you imagine how hard a time they would have trying to figure out just what to say while "live blogging" a Clinton VP nomination?


    "Obama just lost my vote" (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:57:54 PM EST
    would probably roll off their keyboards effortlessly.

    yeah, sure..... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    weren't they supposed to get all indignant over FISA too?    LOL

    But (none / 0) (#129)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:20:37 PM EST
    this is important.

    that would be worth reading (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM EST
    But really, they seem to be just as unhappy with Bayh. They can't even 'love to hate' him.

    good enough reason for me (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:46:13 PM EST
    That is one form of party unity - we'd all be mad about something!

    It Must Be Gore (none / 0) (#72)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:55:27 PM EST
    Just kidding.

    i just had a crazy thought (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:02:37 PM EST
    How about RFK, Jr? No. 1 environmentalist, strong change credentials, populist, young, and of course the pedigree

      If Obama pulls that card out of his sleave I will have some respect for him.

    But a lot of Obama's (none / 0) (#93)
    by nemo52 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:24:51 PM EST
    supporters protested heavily AGAINST Clinton as a member of a "political dynasty" -- can't get more dynastic than a Kennedy.

    Well, I did say it was crazy (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    HEH (none / 0) (#113)
    by nemo52 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    I do like RFK, Jr., myself.    For a lot of reasons!

    He has an illness (none / 0) (#148)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:44:30 PM EST
    which impacts his speaking.

    You couldn't possibly put him on TV in a veep debate.


    Actually, if you read some of the other (none / 0) (#115)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:17:29 PM EST
    information today (Rangel), you will see that supporting HRC probably is a disqualifier.

    Not true. Bayh supported HRC (none / 0) (#156)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:29:23 PM EST
    and is/was considered for VP and does have a speaking role.

    Probably (none / 0) (#162)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:43:03 PM EST
    did you miss the word probably?

    None worse than Nunn (none / 0) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    Why in the world does Sam Nunn even show-up on something as important as a vice presidential list, long, medium or short? Nunn is a right-winger masquerading as a moderate Democrat, he has been a retired senator for over ten years, he is just two years younger than McCain, and a homophobe extraordinaire.  Maybe a redemptive strength in Obama's eyes is his history of undermining President Clinton's (in partnership with Colin Powell) proposed executive order to permit gay men and women to serve openly in the military. Nunn's carnival-like hearings on this issue, complete with tours of the tight quarters on submarines, almost derailed President Clinton's agenda in his first year.  Some reports give credit to Nunn for his more recent work in dismantling errant nuclear weapons.  Apparently, he has finally found a way to capitalize on his destructive proclivities. All of the others bruited about seem great in comparison, but Bayh gets my half vote.

    Well, this isn't an actual VP list.. (none / 0) (#98)
    by rjarnold on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:36:19 PM EST
    It's just a list of major Dems who have not been offered to speak at the convention. Sam Nunn probably isn't really been seriously considered.

    Then, Charlie Rangel (none / 0) (#105)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:46:20 PM EST
    should be on the list.

    Jimmy Carter said he would be his first choice (none / 0) (#118)
    by mogal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:32:16 PM EST
    Carter said that about Nunn..my post ended up in (none / 0) (#121)
    by mogal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    the wrong spot.

    My hunch (none / 0) (#88)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:12:14 PM EST
    I don't know why, but even though it seems "obvious" that it's Bayh or Biden or Sebelius, I have this nagging feeling that Obama will pull a real shocker and pick someone most of us here never heard of, like a second-term member of the House.

    It just occurred to me that it might be Sebelius, and that putting Clinton's name into nomination is meant to be a peace offering to her female supporters.  This is based on nothing but a gut feeling, and I honestly hope I'm wrong, because I think it would play out very badly for the Dems.

    I have been suspecting that also (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:26:26 PM EST
    I think she was always his favorite choice and he sees no reason why he should not get his favorite choice.

    I have to admit I have softened my stance about her as time has gone by.  Now it does seem a tad petulant to turn down a qualified woman just because she is not the most qualified woman.   We nominate lesser qualified men for office all the time.


    My nightmare pick: (none / 0) (#130)
    by Landulph on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:22:06 PM EST
    Rep. Jim Cooper (DINO-TN). Remember, you heard it here first.

    Is Kathleen Sebelius no longer on the list?

    She has been named as a (none / 0) (#109)
    by rjarnold on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:54:25 PM EST
    speaker at the convention at a different time than the VP will speak, so it seems that she probably isn't being considered anymore. It's a shame since she's better in several ways that all the guys who are probably being considered.

    Sooooo, we're down to just (none / 0) (#133)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:35:42 PM EST
    Republicans to pick from :)

    Maybe Colin Powell is it, afterall.

    I've been enjoying watching Bill Kristol try to backpeddle away from his big announcement of yesterday...now he's saying he never said what he said...he was just mentioning the Obama camp was "hoping" for a Powell endorsement. Heh, anyone who watched him is sure to fall for the clarification!

    People sure are forgetting who Powell is, and what he did.


    I have a bad feeling (none / 0) (#135)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:43:35 PM EST
    that it's kaine or Nunn. they are the nly ones who have not had their speaking times announced.

    I think it's Tim Kaine (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by bmc on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:13:50 PM EST
    More's the pity.

    He won't help the ticket at all. The only thing he helps is Obama's ego.

    But, of course, that IS what this is all about.


    I bet it's been every one of the above (none / 0) (#150)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:54:09 PM EST
    for at least a day while Obama flips and flops and flips some more. The only reason his campaign hasn't been able to text those messages to the fans is because he keeps going, "ok, let's go with him. Wait, no, let's go with her. No, no, no, we have to pick him."

    According to The Page (none / 0) (#127)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:16:57 PM EST
    it sure doesn't seem now like it's Biden or Bayh. they have been given speaches on Wednesday night.


    The two Senators along with Gov. Richardson and Sen. Rockefeller will echo Obama's national security agenda in their Denver addresses Wednesday.

    Senate Majority Leader Reid will discuss Obama's energy policy,Rep. Murphy and Iraq War veteran Duckworth will lead a tribute to the troops. Sen. Salazar, Rep. Clyburn will also speak.

    Obama's unnamed veep will also speak this night in Denver.

    I wish it was Richardson, in a way... (none / 0) (#140)
    by bmc on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:12:06 PM EST
    He has the most foreign policy experience, and can "bring home the bacon" so to speak for Obama, who, in my opinion, is a danger to himself and others because he's so lacking in foreign policy experience.

    Richardson is also LATINO, and might help Obama with that constituency...might.

    Bayh? Boring! Obama/Bayh. Does have a ring to it.

    Biden? Good on foreign policy, gaffe prone like Richardson, and a true statesman politically, because he's been around long enough to know how to work the hill.

    I fear it will be Tim Kaine, and a worst VP pick cannot be imagined. It will send the message that Obama doesn't know what he's doing beyond Virginia.

    Clark would be a good choice, but I think he's been thrown under the bus.

    I also fear it will be Kaine (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:30:26 PM EST
    And Obama couldn't send a worse message to female voters re: SCOTUS and choice.

    It will show that Obama (none / 0) (#165)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:00:20 AM EST
    Is truly a political animal who will do whatever is necessary to win.  Virginia is VERY close and Obama needs Virginia because he's losing Florida AND Ohio.  Kaine isn't qualified, but that doesn't seem to bother Obama.  

    Interesting news from CNN (none / 0) (#151)
    by mogal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:04:48 PM EST
    According to the Democratic National Convention Committee, both Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden will deliver speeches on national security during the marquee night -- the same evening former President Bill Clinton is also scheduled to speak.

    New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar will also speak Wednesday evening, according to the convention committee.

    Nunn is the guy they put out there (none / 0) (#152)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:14:47 PM EST
    so that eveyone says atleast it's not Nunn when he announces.

    Whew. (none / 0) (#153)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:18:14 PM EST
    I can't think of a group of less inspiring candidates for V.P.
    I would add Wesley Clark to the list. Obama trashed him, through his spokesman, for his remark about McCain's war experiences not necessarily qualifying him for the presidency. Clark's comment was clear, simple and obvious. Obama teamed up with the knee-jerk right-wingers to condemn him and exalt McCain's marvelous "service".

    Clark, undaunted, is raising money to go on a tour to support Obama. I can't, for the life of me, understand how he would not feel intense anger at being disowned at that crucial moment. Obama could not stand up and defend him. And this means nothing to Clark? It makes him appear to me as another one who, if given the vice-presidency, would feel it as his job to go out and sell whatever his boss, the pres, tells him.