Can We Cross Off Richardson, Biden and Bayh from Veepstakes?

The Democratic National Convention Committee announced more added speakers to Wednesday's lineup. Earlier, I reported on Sen. Ken Salazar. Now, there's another press release (no link yet) that says the following have been added:

Governor Bill Richardson and Senators Evan Bayh, Joe Biden and Jay Rockefeller will echo Obama’s call for a new direction in national security and outline his policies and plans to secure America’s future.

I think that means we can cross them off the list. Who's left? General Wesley Clark and Tim Kaine come to mind. [More...]

Also, the theme for Wednesday is:

Securing America’s Future: Tribute to Veterans, Active Duty Military & Military Families

My earlier post on why I like Gen. Wesley Clark is here .

Other speakers Weds. nite include Bill Clinton, Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth.

The press release says "The headline prime-time speaker on Wednesday will be Barack Obama’s Vice Presidential Nominee." It's then followed by saying Bill Clinton and Sen. Harry Reid will speak and then the other names.

Update: Jerome at MyDD agrees this announcement means these four are out. Markos at Daily Kos thought so too, but added an update acknowledging that, as his commenters said, schedules can be moved around.

I'd agree if the schedule had been set last week. But by now, Obama knows who he's picking -- or at least who he isn't -- and for his campaign to agree just today that these are speakers in addition to the VP candidate, says to me they've been eliminated.

< Reviewing The Presidential Debates | Obama Messin' With Charlie Rangel >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Tim Kaine is (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:23:08 PM EST
    a definite dealbreaker.

    Tim Kaine?! (none / 0) (#132)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:22:20 PM EST
    I just cannot believe it will be Tim Kaine!  But I did here 2 pollsters today say that Virginia is the Florida and Ohio of this election.  But Tim Kaine!  OMG, he's such a nobody!  

    I call Tim Kaine the 'not really' Governor.  He's against the death penalty, but 'not really', he kills every one of them.  He doesn't do pardons.  He says he's pro life but not really, he votes pro choice, usually, not always.  (No one knows where he really stands on that issue.)  He's says he's not for off shore drilling in VA, but not really.  It may be ok now.  He campaigned on not wanting to raise taxes, but, again, not really.  This summer he has pushed for an increase in lots of taxes, including an increase in gasoline taxes!  As if we aren't paying enough!  

    Tim Kaine BARELY won Virginia and he's now even less popular.  If Obama chooses him, it will ONLY be because Virginia is in play this year and McCain is up a few percentage points in Virginia.  PURE politics.  If Obama choose Kaine, it shows what a total phony he is.  Just another Chicago pol, doing whatever he has to do to win.  
    If it were not politically expedient, Kaine would never be considered for the ticket.  


    Is it true that Kaine is anti-choice?? (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by athyrio on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:23:27 PM EST
    and if so that is a slap in the face to all women that have fought so hard for Roe-v-Wade...:-(

    Yeppers (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:35:28 PM EST
    although, just like Obama, you want need to worry about those pesky convictions getting in the way of whatever will bring electoral victory. Kaine could be Obama's twin on that. He's anti death penalty. It hasn't stopped him from frying folks here in Va. Oh and don't get me started on how he thought it was constitutionally okay to charge Virginia residents more for speeding violations.

    I've been slapped in the face so many times (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by stxabuela on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:04:22 PM EST
    this primary season, my face is numb.  

    I guess I'm just in a rotten mood, but if the election was today, I would stay home.


    like NARAL - what a great (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by nulee on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:44:15 PM EST
    endorsement they gave BO instead of HRC (Not!)

    Kaine is not anti-choice (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:19:11 PM EST
    Like most people, he's anti-abortion, but not to the extent that it gets in the way of choice.  He's against partial-birth abortions, which is just a wedge issue anyway.  He's for promoting abstinence, but also guaranteeing access to birth control and information.  He's for promoting adoption.

    No, he probably doesn't satisfy strident abortion supporters, but he's well within the area of moderation and compromise.

    He'd be an excellent VP, and it would probably nail down Virginia, and possibly North Carolina.

    However, I prefer Clark because the Lt. Governor of VA is a raving right-winger.


    anti abortion (5.00 / 10) (#86)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:31:04 PM EST
    is anti choice. Anytime you force a woman to carry a fetus to term that is anti choice.

    Being against partial birth abortions is particularly agregious because anyonew with a lick of sense knows women don't put up with the strain of pregnancy on thier body for months on end and then out of nowhere chose to abort. Women that choose abortions late term general do so due to health concerns either for themselves or the fetus. I find it disgusting that women now are forced to undergo a more dangerous route simply because the Democrats are too craven a cowards to address this issue. Virginia fails when it comes to reproductive rights and Kaine has done little to fix that so you'll forgive me if I don't jump up and down and clap at his selection.

    As a Virginian, I'll tell you Kaine managed to eke out a victory because of folks like myself. I won't be repeating that process and I doubt that he'll deliver Virginia for Obama.

    As for being called a strident abortion supporter, I'm a strident women's right advocate. I've also given birth to five children so I wish you luck painting me as one.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by flowergirlovesobama on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:07:19 PM EST
    there is NO SUCH THING as a partial-birth abortion.  just more language made up by the right.

    Oh really? Well, there was one doctor in MA in (none / 0) (#140)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:19:37 AM EST
    2004 who performed such procedures on women in dire health conditions with non-viable fetuses.  He has stopped performing the procedure because he's afraid doing so could be considered illegal.

    Yes, really (none / 0) (#155)
    by Romberry on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:07:05 AM EST
    "Partial birth abortion" is not a medical term. It is a political phrase of art designed to arouse intense feelings and shut off reasoned thinking and debate. The actual medical procedure involved is called intact dilation and extraction. Of course running around shouting about the evils of intact dilation and extraction doesn't have the same ring to it as a made up term like "partial birth abortion"...which is why the wingnuts made up the term. Get it?

    Yeah, except the debate had real consequences. (none / 0) (#166)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:22:56 AM EST
    See above.

    Stupid (none / 0) (#153)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:19:40 AM EST
    as in Kaine, the dolt who supports banning a rare procedure that is utilized primarily to protect the health of the woman when a fetus is deformed and will if carried to term have a short and painful life. Yeah that's a real keeper of a choice. I'm sure the women who die due to hemorrhaging and have their uteruses preforated as a result of the Dems "strategic" capitulation on the abortion "issue" will be consoled by the fact that the decision to support a "partial birth ban" helped the Dems maintain a majority even if it was done by selling them down the river. Strategic indeed. My only wish is these men could have the opportunity to be the recipients of a complicated ob situation and their lives were at risk and at the whim of "strategic decision makers."

    If Kaine is "anti-abortion" (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by angie on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:46:15 PM EST
    then he should not have one.

    Yeah ... let's see what raising a baby will (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by bridget on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:41:15 PM EST
    do to his career. Will a pregnant Kaine with morning sickness and a baby on the way any minute still be selected as VP? Just asking ;-)

    when it comes to the abortion issue MEN really should shut up cause they just don't have a clue

    NOT A CLUE!!! Until reality hits them from left field and we all know what these $$$ "pro" lifers will do to keep their lives easy and carefree ....


    Kaine and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:55:49 AM EST
    are cowards that will never be FORCED to carry a child to term against their will or have their health jeopardized as a result of their "strategic" decisions on choice. Pregnancy is not a one size fits all issue and the government treating it as such does no one favors, least of all women. Family planning should be left in the hands of the people who will bear the responsibilty of the people forced to deal with the consequences of the choice to carry a child to term not the government and particularly not a government that seems to abdicate its responsibility once it leaves the womb(as evidenced by SCHIP, cuts in education etc, etc)

    Bull (none / 0) (#179)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    Partial birth ban does force a woman's hand. It makes the decision much more difficult and raises the risk for hemmorhage and death much greater. You feel free to paint his wishy washyness all you like.

    With all due respect the people that are ZEALOTS are people who wish to exercise control over OTHER peoples bodies(people that risk other peoples health). Don't worry I'll be zealous(the same way I was zealous in getting Webb into office) if Kaine is his choice though and I will laugh because any attempt to make me out as some female who wants to use abortion as a birth control option will fail gloriously since at least two of my children will be with me while I speak my piece. As for the contention I'll never find a candidate, I will. The day of reckoning for Democrats who say one thing and do another is coming. Accountabilty is about make a new come back and become the new black. When it does womens rights will not just be about lip service but about protecting women and children and ensuring that they aren't under the bus for the sake of political expediency.

    I've pretty much made myself clear I think. Kaine's a dealbreaker and I will not only not vote for Obama but will campaign against him if he is chosen. (don't worry Jeralyn I respect and will continue to respect this site and its rules. I've already said I don't think I'll be coming here after his VP pick. Oh and yep I'm in battleground Virginia.) By the way, ideas become mainstream when fear of being ridiculed takes a back seat to desire to change the way things are done and people are unafraid to vocalize why their views as smarter and making more sense(it's how homeschooling became mainstream instead of fringe). It starts with a single voice. I'm already more than one voice.  


    Seems that with Kaine, the line is very thin. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Romberry on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:16:47 AM EST
    Tim Kaine is quoted at On The Issues as saying:

    Promote abstinence; ban partial-birth abortion

    I will reduce abortion in Virginia by enforcing current Virginia restrictions, passing an enforceable ban on partial-birth abortion, ensuring women's access to health care (including legal contraception), and promoting abstinence-focused education and adoption. We should reduce abortion in this manner, rather than by criminalizing women and doctors.

    Source: Campaign website www.kaine2005.org, "Issues" Nov 8, 2005

    I have a faith-based opposition to abortion

    I have a faith-based opposition to abortion. As governor, I will work in good faith to reduce abortions by:

       1. Enforcing the current Virginia restrictions on abortion and passing an enforceable ban on partial birth abortion that protects the life and health of the mother;

       2. Fighting teen pregnancy through abstinence-focused education;

       3. Ensuring women's access to health care (including legal contraception) and economic opportunity; and

       4. Promoting adoption as an alternative for women facing unwanted pregnancies.

    Too often politicians are interested in scoring political points, rather than in reducing the number of abortions. Many of the legislative proposals introduced in the General Assembly, like the ones to require unnecessary building standards for doctor's offices that perform abortions, are just political grandstanding. They encourage division and lawsuits rather than contributing to the goal of reducing abortions.

    Now to be honest, I am not "pro-abortion", as in I don't think every woman ought to run out and have one just for the experience because it's a great and fun thing to do. But I am pro-choice. Tim Kaine? I'm not really sure where Tim Kaine stands. But using wingnut language about "partial birth abortion" and saying "I have a faith based opposition to abortion" makes me a bit uncomfortable, especially considering Obama's remarks after the primaries.


    "strident abortion supporters"? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:29:30 AM EST
    Jeezus, this is what the Democratic Party has fostered. If it weren't so horrifying how women's rights have become unimportant during this campaign season, it would be funny to study the evolution of this kind of thinking in the party.

    Womens' issues are important (none / 0) (#173)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:25:24 AM EST
    and that's a good reason to vote for Obama.  Anybody that interprets his position as anti-choice might consider that they are being "strident."

    Yup, the 'not really' candidate (none / 0) (#134)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:24:08 PM EST
    Kaine is pro choice, but not really.  Or he's pro life, but not really.  

    He's Obama's twin (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:43:43 AM EST
    separated at birth. he's pro choice except he hasn't done a darn thing about an F rating in the state he governs(it's a strategic thing). He's anti death penalty but that hasn't stopped him from executing people. Who needs principle when you can just blow whichever way the political wind says.

    You've got that right, (none / 0) (#188)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:42:46 PM EST
    They are the 'not really' twins.  

    Obamaa's choice... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Check077 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:44:14 PM EST
    could be Ray Mabus, former Mississippi governor. At least, it would give conspiracy theorist something to talk about.

    I think Casey is anti- choice and (none / 0) (#71)
    by gabbyone on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:54:57 PM EST
    Kaine has problems with gays.

    Oh Kaine also believes (none / 0) (#144)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:49:26 AM EST
    marriage is between a man and a woman. He opposed the gay marriage ban but not because of the gay aspect but because he saw it as a limitation on contracts. Oh and it also didn't stop him from signing it when it made it to his desk. He's a real gift. let me tell you. Women and gays both will be firmly ensconced under the bus if Kaine is Obama's pick.

    You think maybe (none / 0) (#172)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:54:11 AM EST
    the limitation on contracts excuse could have been cover?  It doesn't always pay to run around trumpeting your support for gay marriage while attempting to carve out a political career in the South.
    And, even if I'm wrong, and Kaine's views somehow supersede Obama's, do you think women and gays will fare better under President McCain?

    I know exactly what I'm getting with President (none / 0) (#177)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:10:50 AM EST
    McCain and his cabal. Obama gives me the opportunity to be stabbed in the back again by my own party. No thanks. If he doesn't get a strong women's right advocate he can count me out. It's beyond horrible that Democrats signed on for the "partial birth abortion", have stood by and done nothing while states give rapists parental rights, have stood by and done little to nothing when it was ruled that BC did not need to be carried on insurers formularies, allowed a loophole to cause the cost of BC pills to sky rocket on campuses, and a myriad of other indignities. For a party that supposedly represents womens rights they have done an amazingly poor job all in the name of strategy(because they are afraid of the abortion boogeyman fight).

    no, women and gays (none / 0) (#178)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:14:35 AM EST
    won't fare better under McCain.  But they don't expect to.

    They DO expect to fare better under a Democrat in the Oval Office and, with that apparently no longer being the case (in an anti-gay, pro-life Obama Administration), they have more than enough reason to vote for None Of The Above.

    Are you going to threaten us with the USSC next?  Or will you just save us all the need to bring up the horrific Cass Suntein in response.  

    Because, really, by now the Reasons NOT to Vote for The One are growing longer and longer by the day.  And his recent tanking in the State-by-State Polls show even more people waking up to who he really is and what the Democratic Party is in danger of becoming.


    I'm not threatening (none / 0) (#182)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:42:00 PM EST
    I'm just pointing out that you don't always get your first choice candidate.  And you really think homosexuals/women will have an equally bad time under Obama?  Really?  
    And can we not reinforce republican talking points on a site that ostensibly supports the probable dem nominee?  I mean McCain has an ad titled "The One," for cryin' out loud.

    Bad enough (none / 0) (#183)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:00:16 PM EST
    With the GOP I know where I stand. With the Dem party I know where I stand. The difference between the two is lip service and hypocrisy. At least I can respect the GOP for not lying to me to get my vote. Both options are bad. I'm done with the Dem party patting me on the hand right before they throw my constituency under the bus. If I have to throw the Dem party under the bus to get MY point across then how is that any different then what they have been doing to me and mine for years now? It's the Dem party's turn to put up or shut up. If they choose an anti choice VP candidate, someone who supported the insane idea that a woman's health should take a back seat to the fetus growing inside her then I WILL throw them under the bus. They have had no compunction with doing so to feminists and gays and I see no reason that it can't be their turn.

    I agree (none / 0) (#185)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:55:26 PM EST
    With you on the abortion policy stuff.  I'd just like to point out the following
    1. You don't know where you stand with the GOP.  You know they'll be terrible, but they will say/do anything at any time, any place to get votes.  Unlike us, their only goal is winning.
    2. The VP will not be making important choices regarding women's rights.  If Obama selects Kaine, it will be a political move to put the south even more in play.
    3. Staying home is not the same as throwing the dem party under the bus.  Nor will the dems take the lesson from that gesture you wish they would.  Nor will Prez McCain give two hoots.

    In sum, vote for who you believe would best address the issues important to you.  Then fight like hell to make sure that candidate follows through and/or that we nominate someone more in line with your views next time around.  

    Opposed to the ban on gay marriage, (none / 0) (#189)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:44:21 PM EST
    but not really.  He's the not really candidate.  

    Surely Tim Kaine is not the best that the democrats can do.


    Clarck - I would love it to be Clark (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Key on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:24:25 PM EST
    An Obama Clark ticket would be a winning ticket.

    Adding.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Key on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:31:44 PM EST
    Can you picture McCain (graduated 4th from the bottom) having to deal with Obama's VP Clark, who graduated first from Westpoint?

    Here's his full bio:



    So what? (3.22 / 9) (#75)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:00:30 PM EST
    Know what they call the person who graduated last in his class from medical school? They still call him "Doctor".

    Who cares where McCain graduated in class rank? I'm not defending the man's policies, but really, no one cares. And I don't think the comparison is usually made between the presidential candidate of one party and the VP candidate of the other party.

    As far as Clark is concerned...there were many reports that Clark pondered running as a Republican, and even said at on May 11, 2001, where he delivered a speech to the Pulaski County Republican Party in Arkansas saying he was "very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill -- people I know very well -- our president George W. Bush."

    Clark also testified before the House Committee on Armed Services on September 26, 2002 that he had supported the Iraq Resolution (although he thought we should try more options first).  How does this play to Obama's "superior judgment" in his speech protesting the war?


    How do you know... (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by trillian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:17:20 PM EST
    ....that Clark was contemplating running as a Republican?  

    If you are basing your statement on the fact that he delivered a speech to Republicans, you are obviously unaware that the same year he delivered a speech to the Ark. Dems as well.  Clark was Independent or "unaffiliated" throughout his Army career, but he voted for Bill Clinton 3 times (2 as Prez and 1 as Gov) and for Al Gore in 2000.

    As for Clark's testimony before the HASC, you obviously haven't read it or you would know that testified against invading Iraq.  In fact Kennedy and  Graham both said their 'Nay' votes were in large party due to Clark's testimony.

    We fought against these same lies in 2004. It's amazing they are being recycled now.


    Clark anti-Iraq War (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:13:07 PM EST
    I worked for Clark's 03-04 campaign for President in large measure because of his pre-Iraq War commentary on CNN about the rah-rah war talk in the build up to the war.  He continuously said he thought we ought to have far more information than we did and there was no reason to rush into things.  In the context of being asked on air whether he thought the Bush admin should wait more time before invading or would the wait put us at risk over WMDs, Clark responded that he thought taking more time would be useful, especially in that it might help us figure out where the WMDs were located.  I attended a 2003 1 1/2 hour talk then Q&A Clark did before a large group of lawyers/potential campaign donors in which he made quite cleark he thought at the time there was little justification for going into Iraq, that the decision to go in had been made long in advance, etc.  
    Clark has much respect for the military that he served for so many years, but like many who have actually served and seen the ravages of war, he views military action as a last resort.  

    Um, no. (4.66 / 3) (#109)
    by jen on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:41:52 PM EST
    Clark testified the exact opposite of what you claim and was quoted by Kennedy, Wellstone and Levin when they voted no on the IWR.

    Umm not quite (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Ford Prefect on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:24:25 PM EST
    He said he doesnt want the congress to vote for an invasion "now" and that time is on our side. so we could wait and go to the UN and threaten Iraq with a war. Not quite the version you portray like lets not invade Iraq since it had nothing to do with 9/11. If he had actually said the latter, then he would have credibility in "opposing the Iraq war". He said no such thing and has very little credibility on the moral question of whether US should have invaded Iraq under any pretext.

    the reality is most of the key dems straddled the line carefully in order to avoid saying something against the Iraq war which at the was quite popular in this country. I have no doubts Obama would have done precisely that had he been in the senate at the time, given how he has shown no guts on any issue be it FISA, Iraq vote, or other things after he got to the senate and took safe positions and a different position after the primary as well


    Well, I'm not alone (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by jen on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:16:02 PM EST
    in knowing Clark opposed invading Iraq, but you can believe whatever you like.

    WaPo, April 2005 (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by jen on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:22:47 PM EST
    Same Committee, Same Combatants, Different Tune


     As chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Perle had gone before the same committee in 2002 and smugly portrayed retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who urged caution in Iraq, as "hopelessly confused" and spouting "fuzzy stuff" and "dumb cliches."

    Thirty months and one war later, Perle and Clark returned to the committee yesterday. But this time lawmakers on both sides hectored Perle, while Clark didn't bother to suppress an "I told you so."


    It was not always thus. At the September 2002 hearing, GOP lawmakers joined in Perle's dismissal of Clark's argument that "time is on our side" in Iraq and that force should be used only as a "last resort."

    In retrospect, Clark's forecasts proved more accurate than Perle's, and even Republicans on the committee made little effort yesterday to defend Perle or to undermine Clark. The exception was Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who pressed Clark to acknowledge that the Iraq invasion should get some credit for signs of democracy in the region.

    "We've got to do a lot less crowing about the sunrise," Clark rejoined.

    When Hunter's GOP colleagues didn't join his line of questioning, he took another turn grilling Clark. The chairman likened President Bush's Middle East policies to those of President Ronald Reagan in Eastern Europe.

    "Reagan never invaded Eastern Europe," Clark retorted.

      In another try, Hunter said Clark was "overstating" the risk in challenging other countries in the Middle East. Clark smiled and showed his trump card -- reminding Hunter of their exchange at the 2002 hearing. "I kept saying time was on our side," Clark said. "I could never quite satisfy you."

    As for who proved correct, the general said, "I'll let the record speak for itself."


    I posted actual trasncript from the testimony (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ford Prefect on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:44:09 PM EST
    here yesterday, or so I thought. It disappeared. Is it a cite violation if you post portions of transcript? I am not that well versed site rules or blogging in general. I am puzzled. can somebody clarify? Outside of that I had absolutely nothing that could be even interpreted to be offensive or personal.

    I was just saying that his own words demonstrated that after expressing his doubts about Iraq's nuclear weapons and connection to 9/11, he goes on to say that we have to deal with the serious threat of Iraq by threatening them with use of force and going to UN and preparing our allies and use force if necessary. He should have said Iraq had no weapons and no connection to 9/11 and therefore we shouldnt invade Iraq period, instead of all the other waiting for the right time and putting pressure on them stuff.


    Sometimes (none / 0) (#187)
    by jen on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:49:23 PM EST
    I've posted snippets of articles and had it deleted. Other times, no -- so I'm not sure what the cut off is for how much one is allowed to copy/paste.

    More excerpts from that Clark testimony that was quoted by Senators voting NO.....
    Sept. 26, 2002

    CLARK: Well, if I could answer and talk about why time is on our side in the near term, first because we have the preponderance of force in this region. There's no question what the outcome of a conflict would be. Saddam Hussein so far as we know does not have nuclear weapons. Even if there was a catastrophic breakdown in the sanctions regime and somehow he got nuclear materials right now, he wouldn't have nuclear weapons in any zable quantity for, at best, a year, maybe two years.

    So, we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is. Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.

    I would say it would depend on whether we've exhausted all other possibilities and it's difficult. I don't want to draw a line and say, you know, this kind of inspection, if it's 100 inspectors that's enough. I think we've got to have done everything we can do given the time that's available to us before we ask the men and women in uniform, whom you know so well (inaudible).

    Iraq Watch.org

    Well obviously... (none / 0) (#135)
    by trillian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:27:23 PM EST
    Kennedy and Graham disagreed with you.

    VP (none / 0) (#145)
    by jrterrier on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:54:06 AM EST
    i doubt he'd pick clark but who knows.  the campaign distanced themselves from his recent comment on mcain and besides clark is from arkansas and a clinton ally and i think obama wants only loyalists.  

    daschle couldn't even win sdakota for obama in the primary.  i don't think he'll be it.  

    richardson has made a fool of himself once he endorsed obama.

    if he goes with kerry, it would be suicide.  how can he claim to be the politics of change?

    i think it's going to be kaine.  or maybe it will be hagel.  


    One has to wonder why anyone should (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:31:13 PM EST
    care what Jay Rockefeller has to say...and re:
    Palomino's comment...I don't want Hillary playing second fiddle to obama either.

    Given the latest Rasmussen poll numbers (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by hairspray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:54:55 PM EST
    with Obama tanking in many, many states, including ones that Hillary won, he may not have the "brave new world" VP after all.  Who will help him win these states is and always has been the issue. It makes complete sense.  Just look at what he won.  Critical thinking has got to kick in her folks!

    awww MKS feel better? You can downrate (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:50:35 PM EST
    all you want, but obama is losing a good portion of his supporters, especially in the AA community and soon it will not make any difference who he picks as VP.

    Got a link to substantiate that wild claim? (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:24:35 PM EST
    obama is losing a good portion of his supporters, especially in the AA community

    The link doesn't work (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:54:00 PM EST
    but I'm guessing it has to do with a single poll indicating Obama has slipped from something like 99% to 98% among African Americans.  

    Obama-haters are really stretching their credibility to suggest weakness in his strongest constituency - and rely on one daily tracking poll to suggest his overall support is decreasing.

    His average in polls shows a consistent 5-point advantage, which is also reflected in the Gallup daily tracking poll.  Moreover, he has a distinct advantage in potential electoral votes - defending only one state (Michigan), while challenging 13 or so.


    Damn you (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:14:18 PM EST
    with your pesky facts and informative snippets from actual newspapers and such!

    How are Obama Supporters supposed to remain in their protective bubble of condescension and derision if YOU keep putting things like facts and poll numbers and percentages and stuff in your Posts?

    Damn you!  Please, next time, will you at least think of the children?  



    Thanks Palomino...you are faster than I am :) (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:49:10 PM EST
    Why must we always be called obama (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:50:42 PM EST
    haters?  Is it because we are going to vote for him and we must be punished?

    oh hell....should be "we are NOT going to (none / 0) (#113)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:51:35 PM EST
    vote for him so we must be punished".

    thank goodness (none / 0) (#164)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:37:43 AM EST
    for the correction!

    I was grabbing my pitchfork and lighting my torch, ready to storm your charming abode.



    that tinyurl link doesn't work for me either (none / 0) (#169)
    by DFLer on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:31:13 AM EST
    comes up as "secure.www.talkleft.com"

    Other tinys do work for me (I'm using Moz)


    O losing supporters (none / 0) (#148)
    by jrterrier on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:58:54 AM EST
    unless mccain picks condi rice, i can't imagine the AA community voting for mccain no matter how much O ticks them off.  

    Palamino's comment was deleted (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:35:14 PM EST
    as other gratuitous slams against Obama not having to do with the topic here, who he picks as his VP, will be deleted.

    of course not (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:53:09 PM EST
    I'm saying you need to leave the slams with your personal antagonism to Obama out of this thread.

    if you're going by the (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:37:39 PM EST
    "X is going to speak...ergo he/she's not a VP choice," then you can cross HRC off the list as well.

    Jeralyn did that (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:39:57 PM EST
    awhile ago. She has pretty much made peace with it. Some of us others, not so much.

    He wants to pick Kaine (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:40:42 PM EST
    He is deciding whether he can.

    He can't (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    Kaine barely managed to eke out a win here just like Webb. They were pushed to the finish line by people like me. I won't be pushing this go round if Kaine is his choice.

    Then (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:46:41 PM EST
    he'll go Biden.

    I think it is down to those 2.


    Apologies to Jeralyn, but I hope it is Biden if (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:48:23 PM EST
    it's down to those two.

    The better choice politically (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:51:01 PM EST
    between the 2 is Biden beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    The BEST choice is Clinton. But we all know he won't do it.


    Which pretty much (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:58:56 PM EST
    makes him ego driven. Country first, ego second. If he can't get it in the right order then why the Hades would I vote for him again? Please don't trot out He's not McCain 2.0. That strategy didn't work for Kerry and Bush is much worse than McCain.

    happily, if Biden is speaking (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:54:32 PM EST
    Weds night in the other group, he's out. He's the only dealbreaker for me.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:56:13 PM EST
    If I had to bet, I would bet Biden right now.

    Polls look tight. Russia is looking like an issue.

    I think you may be breaking your deal.


    Not a chance (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:05:44 PM EST
    They wouldn't have announced him as a non-keynote speaker and put him in the generic speaker pack for Weds. if he were still in the running.

    As for other reasons, besides my distaste of him, he's got too much baggage and is a loose cannon -- and totally contradicts Obama's message of change in Washington.


    Biden may not represent change, but... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by pluege on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:07:22 PM EST
    he LOVES sucking up to republicans. There Obama and Biden see eye to eye. Then again, Obama's "change" is all hot air anyway. He is anything but change - the ultimate go along insider. Obama's policies are center-right.

    I haven't been hearing that much about Change (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:39:29 PM EST
    from the Obama campaign recently, it seems.  Maybe it's just because I pay insufficient attention to him, though.

    I get the feeling the Hope and Change riffs were sort of left behind in the primaries -- not sure if they are really much of a bar to Biden anymore.


    Biden? Oh... (none / 0) (#121)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:23:57 PM EST
    My issues with Biden, aside from the many times he's found with foot in mouth, etc., is that his notion that Iraq should be divided into three countries seemed to me an extension of assumptions behind our current foreign policy that seem to me to get us into a lot of trouble, i.e., the notion that the U.S. somehow has the right to decide how countries govern themselves; in addition, the notion depends on agreement among the 3 factions as to things they can't agree on; it is also based on what seems to me to be a simplified view of power issues there, i.e., it assumes that each group is a monolith.
    Perhaps Obama thinks Biden can help him with the Catholic vote in PA, etc.?

    So you are betting Kaine (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:09:50 PM EST
    We'll see.

    No, I haven't a clue about Kaine (none / 0) (#158)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:46:32 AM EST
    There may be someone we haven't heard of. It's not me saying Kaine is front and center. I even wrote a post suggesting he was a ploy to distract the media.

    But others have suggested Mark Warner wouldn't be the keynote speaker for the entire convention if Kaine were the Veep choice because they wouldn't pick two speakers from the same state. I'm not politically savvy enough to know if that's true.


    Kaine's post-SOTU address was more boring (none / 0) (#55)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:14:47 PM EST
    than Sebelius was. They will get eaten alive with the no experience claims with the circumstances of the world right now. Does he really think voters will feel good about two somewhat newbies at the same time?

    If he picks Kaine, he really cares more about his new kind of politics than the issues, I think. Dang, I'd rather have Kerry.


    Kerry!! (none / 0) (#124)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    I just saw a Kerry ad during the opening bits of tonight's Olympics coverage, on the main NBC channel around these parts.

    I thought it was weird, since he seems to not have a real challenge on his hands (as much as I'd like Ed O'Reilly to have a real chance), and even local time during the Olympics must be awfully expensive.  And I don't remember ever seeing a Kerry ad for his Senate seat before in primetime.

    Anyone outside the Mass. area see this ad tonight?

    Color me paranoid, but I couldn't help thinking about the story that he's being vetted...


    But think about it, Valhalla, (none / 0) (#165)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:00:45 AM EST
    if he chooses Kerry, that will be a real loser choice, and we can get rid of Kerry here in Massachusetts. We can send him on a permanent windsurfing vacation.

    But remember how he likes to go on and on (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:09:40 PM EST
    ...maybe they needed to reserve two spots for his big mouth. Seriously, apart from Clark I don't like any of these choices.

    Yep. Older voters like my mother want someone (none / 0) (#37)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:56:36 PM EST
    who makes them feel safe and Biden will do that. I know it won't be Hillary but I'm still holding out hope that someone will see the light and force her on him.

    I just read Kos' post...he is betting on Daschle? (But prefers Sebelius?) What do you think about Daschle's chances?


    Zero chance imo (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:09:19 PM EST
    He and his wife are lobbyists.

    I do nto care about that but a weaker wimpier candidate than Daschle would be hard to find.

    I can not imagine him picking Daschle.


    I agree. I hope Kos isn't betting real money. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:16:24 PM EST
    I hope (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:58:39 PM EST
    he is.

    Daschle doesn't expect it (none / 0) (#58)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:36:52 PM EST

    Of course, they all are modest, but here's how The Hill is also reporting Obama's VP choices.  L


    Daschle was a weak leader (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:40:55 PM EST
    It speaks a lot when you are Senate Leader and your own state votes you out.

    I sort of agree with that...Sebelius. Monday is (none / 0) (#60)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:40:35 PM EST
    just for practice and she'll be back on Wed.  I just want to slap some sense into these people.

    Yeek (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:55:28 PM EST
    If either Biden or Kaine are on the ticket I may begin to question not only Obama's views but his chances as well. Biden is a problem in waiting [plus he puts his foot in his mouth too often] and Kaine is okay but he is perceived as being too Conservative - and perception is a big part of politics.

    UGH!!! (none / 0) (#136)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:27:55 PM EST
    They both have such huge negatives.  We can count on Biden to have another outbreak of foot in mouth disease and Kaine is such a nobody, a rather strange nobody, with no firm views about anything and a strange eyebrow that gravitates up his forehead.  He'd be trounced in any debate.  

    I have to choose 'neither of the above' with those two.


    that doesn't mean obama won't pick kane. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:41:30 PM EST
    the campaign runs on their own storyline it seems. if it doesn't agree with reality, then reality better get straight. smile

    and I hear Kaine only won because (none / 0) (#65)
    by nulee on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:46:04 PM EST
    of HRC helping by campaigning for him, therefore, by the transitive property BO should pick HRC if he was smart.

    Why would he want Kaine over others? (none / 0) (#54)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:12:03 PM EST
    I think because he has this vainglorious (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by nulee on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:47:19 PM EST
    dream of taking Virginia, it seems to be kind of "thing" for BO.  Meanwhile, back that the ranch PA, OH, etc... what about taking THOSE states....? not so much.

    it's bizarre (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:10:33 PM EST
    He assumes he'll automatically get PA, OH, FL and MI so he's going to put time and energy into getting VA and KS?

    So, great.  He only loses VA by 10 points and KS by 13, but loses PA and OH and FL and they call the race for McCain by 11 PM EST!

    Ugh.  Please, God, let the SDs pull their greedy little mouths off of Nancy's PAC pump long enough to see the inevitable loss in November and make the right choice at the Convention.


    and kane really does toe the line also. (none / 0) (#90)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:42:09 PM EST
    I confess, it's me (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:40:45 PM EST
    I'm not on the speaker's list either!


    Oh darn! (none / 0) (#152)
    by NWHiker on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:07:44 AM EST
    I might have reconsidered a write-in for Prez if you were on the ticket!

    Just so I can't cheat: I'm expecting it to be Kaine. Ugh.

    I finally figured it out today. I don't want McCain to win. I want both McCain and Obama to lose... can we do this again, please?


    Well, since they are scheduled for Wed night (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:43:39 PM EST
    I guess it really may not be Bayh. Please let it be Clark. I can't tolerate another get along with everyone compromiser. Even better, Hillary.

    My secret hope is that Hillary is no longer having a tribute night because there will be a huge tribute to her Wed. night.

    I think, (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Jeannie on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:00:18 PM EST
    for what little it is worth, that he will choose a sycophant. The biggest suck-up, someone who massages his ego, tells him that he is already the president and that the election is just a formality. He seems to need to be surrounded by these people. Perhaps the most famous sycophant - maybe one of the Kennedys?

    kane! that sound like kane! (none / 0) (#91)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:42:42 PM EST
    It sure does! (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:30:47 PM EST
    Kaine will be happy to be in the background, adoring Obama.  But the fact is, Kaine is not qualified to be President.  

    Oh well.  How nice.  Our ticket will have two unqualified people on the ticket.  

    Just when I think it can't get any worse..........Obama exceeds my expectations.  


    caroline! (none / 0) (#147)
    by jrterrier on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:56:20 AM EST
    maybe caroline kennedy will pull a cheney!

    Clark (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:46:59 PM EST
    Would satisfy most ends of the party. He has the military background for the blue dogs and yet he is respected by the netroot crowd, He seems to me to be the only one of the group mentioned that could this. And the Dem's must realize by the polls that they're going to need to unite the party.

    I agree. (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Jeannie on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:16:20 PM EST
    I wonder what the supers are thinking?

    General Wesley K.Clark Bio (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by sallywally on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:04:08 PM EST

    Wesley K. Clark Biography
    (From Clark Web site)

    Born in 1944 in Chicago, Illinois and raised in Little Rock, Arkansas, Wesley Clark distinguished himself early as an athlete and a scholar, leading his high school swimming team to a state championship and graduating first in his class from West Point.

    In 1966, he was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University, where he earned a Masters Degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics.

    During thirty-four years of service in the United States Army Wesley K. Clark rose to the rank of four-star general as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. After his retirement in 2000, he became an investment banker, author, commentator, and businessman.

    In September 2003 he answered the call to stand as a Democratic candidate for President of the United States, where his campaign won the state of Oklahoma and launched him to national prominence before he returned to the private sector in February 2004.

    In his final military command, General Clark commanded Operation Allied Force, NATO's first major combat action, which saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and he was responsible for the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia.

    In previous duty, General Clark was the Commander-in-Chief, US Southern Command, where he was responsible for all US military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean. And from April 1994 through June 1996, he was the Director of Strategic Plans and Policy, J-5, in the Joint Staff, where he helped negotiate the end to the war in Bosnia. His previous assignments include a wide variety of command and staff positions, including Command of the 1st Cavalry Division.

    General Clark's awards and honors include the Presidential Medal of Freedom, The State Department Distinguished Service Award; the US Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal;(five awards), The US Army Distinguished Service Medal(two awards), The Silver Star, the Bronze Star (two awards), the Purple Heart, and Honorary Knighthoods from the British and Dutch governments.

    He is the author of the best selling book Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo and the Future of Combat (Public Affairs, New York, NY 2001) and Winning Modern War: Iraq, Terrorism and the American Empire (Public Affairs, New York, NY 2003). General Clark graduated from the United States Military Academy (B.S.) in 1966 and completed degrees at Oxford University B.A. and M.A.) as a Rhodes Scholar. He is also a graduate of the Ranger and Airborne schools.

    General Clark joined UCLA as a senior fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations in UCLA's International Institute in 2006, where he teaches seminars, publishes through the Burkle Center and hosts an annual conference of government, corporate and opinion leaders from around the world on national security.

    General Clark currently serves in leadership roles with a number of non-profit public service organizations, including VoteVets (Board of Advisors), Democrats Work (National Advisory Board), Project H.E.R.O. (Campaign Chairperson), the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Distinguished Senior Adviser), the Center for American Progress (Trustee), the International Crisis Group (Board Member), City Year Little Rock (Board Chair), the United States Institute of Peace (United Nations Task Force Member), and the General Accountability Office (Advisory Board Member).

    Nothing is really following previous convention (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:21:36 PM EST

    I wouldn't cross anyone off the list whether they are already scheduled to speak or not.

    Maybe this is just (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:45:00 PM EST
    lame journalism, but this

    ... will echo Obama's call for a new direction in national security and outline his policies and plans to secure America's future.

    sounds incredibly boring to me.  I'm young, I haven't seen so many DNC conventions, but is there no room for candidates to stand up for the issues they have devoted their lives to?  Am I going to have to sit through a dozen reinforcements of the Obama theme from people who have spent the past 25 years doing okay without it?

    And if Rockefeller is speaking for a change...then pass the New Coke.

    Biggest echo chamber ever, I'm (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:15:24 PM EST
    afraid, and what you see will be the premiere of the All-New Democratic Party; I wish I could say I was happy about it, but all I seem to be able to feel is a sense of having been abandoned, with an undercurrent of disaster for what this means for the policies I care about, going forward.

    I think I will end up watching very little of this convention, as one speaker after another seems to be someone I just have a general lack of respect for.

    And I'm just utterly weary of the Veep watch - given the likely choices, it's about as exciting as watching the grass grow.


    Well, I think the glimmer of hope is (none / 0) (#129)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:04:22 PM EST
    that since all of our pols have their fingers to the wind, all the time, we can expect them to come back if the going gets tough, or the climate changes, or X, or Y.  I personally don't think there is a unified vision of the Dem Party they have abandoned - the Dem Congress has clearly signaled that they are willing to shotgun whatever priorities they feel they might look good doing so.  That is the Dem Party of today.  They seem to think principles are unviable.

    If Obama expects every prominent supporter to just spout his nonsense all the time, I find that simply oppressive.  The convention hasn't happened yet so perhaps this vision will not materialize.  But isn't the freaking point of hordes of non-keynote speakers to hear about other parts of the platform?  Pluralism, dangit.  Deal with it Obama.  

    As for VP, well, I just want not to puke when I look at my bumper.  I'm not sure which combo would make me feel that way.


    The problem is... (none / 0) (#163)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:11:07 AM EST
    ...I haven't seen so many DNC conventions, but is there no room for candidates to stand up for the issues they have devoted their lives to?

    Then I'm afraid you are going to be very disappointed because the top of the ticket does not match that question either, so maybe you shouldn't expect it from just regular speakers.


    I know this is a little goofy and shallow, but (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by DFLer on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:38:19 AM EST
    does any else think there would be name recognition confusion with "Kaine" -as in with "McCain"?

    Advantage/disadvantge - and for whom....dunno.

    Chis Dodd? (none / 0) (#1)
    by standingup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:23:04 PM EST
    I heard some of the talking heads on CNN or MSNBC talking about Dodd being a possibility.  The general consensus was that Obama could really use Clinton to help him in areas where she is stronger but that Obama kept going back to persons he felt comfortable working with and Dodd was one of them.  

    I don't get this "feeling comfortable" (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by dianem on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:26:25 PM EST
    He's not going to be spending a lot of time with the VP candidate. They tend to keep different schedules. About the only time they would be together is on the convention stage and on the night of the election (gotta have that shot of the two of them standing with their hands clasped in the air - or maybe this time it will be a fist bump).

    Supposedly Obama (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by standingup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:44:16 PM EST
    wants a VP he can work with closely?  I do think he will need the assistance of a good VP.  

    That whole deal (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:40:08 PM EST
    with him getting a special mortgage could bite them in the nose with Dodd being chair of the banking committee and all.

    My thoughts too (none / 0) (#46)
    by standingup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:05:51 PM EST
    Dodd doesn't exactly fit the Washington outsider, new politics image either.  I found the transcript of the show (it took a while) Cooper Anderson's from Tuesday:

    YELLIN: You know what, Anderson? People are afraid to not mention her [Hillary] on the list, but I would give it a 0.0001 percent chance. They just don't have that kind of fit that Barack Obama keeps saying that he wants and that the team says he's looking for, that Obama wants somebody he can work down the hall from for many years, that he wants to be that close with. And they just don't have that kind of mutual trust.
    YELLIN: Yes. You know, I hear that despite the fact that some of, for example, Obama's aides really like the idea of seeing a Tim Kaine with Barack Obama, the image of change together -- it's the young governor from Virginia -- or an Evan Bayh, also young -- it looks like a new America, that Barack Obama keep going back to people like Chris Dodd, the senator from Connecticut, who is a Washington insider, but Barack Obama has enormous personal respect for him and just likes the guy, from what I'm told.

    And then also Joseph Biden stays in the running, senator from Delaware, even though he's another Washington insider, because of his years, because Obama has this fit with him.

    COOPER: Yes. YELLIN: So, it might not necessarily be what the picture should be. It's, you know, where the candidate just feels his gut taking him.

    Who knows?  


    When candidates start being led around (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:09:01 PM EST
    by their "gut," I get worried.

    Especially such and inexperienced gut (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:15:38 PM EST
    The only staff he's ever managed has been the HLR and the "staff" that seems to take the blame when he screws up. With so little work experience, I don't know how good his gut or evaluation skills are.

    it's going to be (none / 0) (#10)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:34:01 PM EST
    Donna Brazile, she's not listed as a speaker yet is she?

    it's Oprah (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:36:35 PM EST
    He's going the celebrity route. :)

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by hairspray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:55:27 PM EST
    Its going to be me (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:58:14 PM EST
    They haven't mentioned me yet.  I can also counter the healthfood issue that people have against Obama,as I like the McDonald's cheese burger.  I will also bring the valuable Black Jewish constituency wth me.

    mmmmmmmmmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:04:07 PM EST
    cheesy goodness. What's your position on the Britney Spears crisis this country is facing? Remeber my vote for Obama is hinging on your answer. ;P

    Awww man! (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:59:52 PM EST
    Now I want a Big Mac.

    lol, that's fine with me Sam. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:00:52 PM EST
    Lieberman (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by nemo52 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:08:55 PM EST
    is going to make history by being the VP candidate -- on BOTH SIDES!

    I hope so (none / 0) (#127)
    by Lil on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:53:32 PM EST
    because then he will be a 2-time loser.

    Sebelius (none / 0) (#18)
    by sleepingdogs on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:40:22 PM EST
    Is Sebelius listed to speak on any night?

    She is speaking Monday. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:47:18 PM EST
    I don't think being a scheduled speaker really eliminates anyone but I agree with BTD, he really wants to pick Kaine.

    sebelius (none / 0) (#150)
    by jrterrier on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:02:34 AM EST
    yep, sebelius is listed to speak along with hillary, mark warner and every other dem governor in the US.  he's way behind in KS and i don't think sebelius would help him carry KS.  and she has even less foreign affairs experience than he does.  

    kane is a harvard law school graudate like he is and taught for a time after college in a south american country.  so i think it's him.

    if webb hadn't pulled himself out of the running, i would say webb (even with his tail hook problems)


    That still leaves (none / 0) (#41)
    by rjarnold on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:01:32 PM EST
    Nunn and Daschle in addition to Kaine. I can't think of anyone else.

    Dascle will be in Denver for the convention (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:08:50 PM EST
    But he's speaking on a foreign policy panel Weds. from 2 to 4. I just got an invite:

    2:00-4:00 p.m.    
    Panel Discussion: Combating Global Poverty

    Madeleine K. Albright
    Chairman, National Democratic Institute for International Affairs;
    Former U.S. Secretary of State

    Nancy Birdsall
    President, Center for Global Development

    John J. Danilovich
    Chief Executive Officer, Millennium Challenge Corporation

    Tom Daschle
    Co-Chair, ONE Vote '08 Health and Poverty Initiative;
    Former U.S. Senator

    Hernando de Soto
    President, Institute for Liberty and Democracy;
    Co-Chair, Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor

    Donald M. Payne
    Member, U.S. House of Representatives

    Tim Wirth
    Chief Executive Officer, United Nations Foundation

    James D. Wolfensohn
    Chairman, Wolfensohn & Co.;
    Former President, World Bank

    Location:    Denver Center for Performing Arts,
    Boettcher Concert Hall
    Speer Boulevard at Arapahoe Street
    Denver, CO

    If it were him, he'd be working on his acceptance speech.


    Will Obama's numbers go down (none / 0) (#47)
    by Manuel on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:06:27 PM EST
    if he announces a VP and it isn't Hillary or will he get a bounce anyway?

    Probably not much bounce (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:39:17 PM EST
    The Republicans go the next week and they too will get a bounce out of their convention - it'll be a wash.

    Yes. (none / 0) (#70)
    by nulee on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:51:37 PM EST
    So if they are speaking (none / 0) (#48)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:06:50 PM EST
    one night they are not in contention for VP?  Why is that?

    No, if they are speaking Weds. nite (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:11:51 PM EST
    which is the night the VP gives his speech, and are listed in a group of other speakers, it's unlikely they would be the VP.

    The announcement says the VP will speak. After that it lists the two other primary speakers, Clinton and Reid.

    After that it lists the others, lumped together.


    Okay...I see (none / 0) (#92)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:49:38 PM EST

    Well, if it ain't Hillary or Wes, who's the best? (none / 0) (#62)
    by robrecht on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:44:10 PM EST
    I mean, I don't know many of the others who are supposedly still in the running.

    Is Dodd out?

    Feinstein (2.00 / 1) (#106)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:19:21 PM EST
    The ticket coming out of the convention will be:



    Everyone who fell for the "be the first to know" trick to get their cell phone number is probably seething by now that nothing has been released. Most people really don't like being tricked into doing something they might not have done.


    Feinstein is as bad as (none / 0) (#159)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:48:47 AM EST
    Joe Lieberman.

    Gore? (none / 0) (#68)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:47:34 PM EST
    I know he said he had no interest, but, is he speaking anytime?

    I haven't heard of Gore Speaking (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:58:12 PM EST
    Since Obama has already signaled that he'll cave on off shore drilling, Gore might not quite fit in the program!

    There is one other name that was (none / 0) (#76)
    by gabbyone on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:04:36 PM EST
    vetted.....John Kerry and he is not speaking.

    Yes. That's interesting. (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Jeannie on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:20:00 PM EST
    The last Democratic candidate is not included as a speaker. Actually, the last two. And shouldn't Gore be a speaker? Perhaps only Obama fans are allowed to speak.

    Well, Kerry is an Obama fan (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:02:11 PM EST
    so maybe it is him.  I can't imagine on what planet that would be considered a good idea, but if the criteria is not speaking and an Obama fan, he fits.

    Interesting. I wonder if he is introducing Obama (none / 0) (#93)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:51:05 PM EST
    or is he the new VP candidate. That would seem weird.

    So can I still hold out hope for Clark? (none / 0) (#77)
    by robrecht on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:06:25 PM EST
    Someone said the other day he'll be in Europe.  Hillary no.  Dodd mortgage.  Adolf "loose canon" Biden.  He's not seriously thinking about this Kaine guy, is he?

    Clark's still the best choice.  He can fight against McCain on McCain's territory.  Hence, Obama only sends his Veep to deal with the Repug presidential candidate.  Total dis.

    Sure, as long as the candidate who emerges (none / 0) (#115)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:57:41 PM EST
    from the convention vote is Hillary Clinton.

    Where's Dalton? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:03:37 PM EST
    Did she say she was obsessively checking flight schedules and such?  Maybe she's been keeping track of where Clark is.

    General Clark will be in Milan (none / 0) (#160)
    by Donna Z on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:15:29 AM EST
    attending a European Economic Conference.

    In Sept. Clark will be part of the Clinton Global Initiative and then he will be off to Germany for a major wind-energy conference. (Clark is a director of a wind turbine co. based in the Netherlands.)

    I think that he's booked.


    In what possible way (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:06:02 PM EST
    did he run as a big liberal?

    I'm thinking you have that backwards (none / 0) (#180)
    by sj on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15:44 PM EST
    It isn't seek to become Number One Most Liberal Senator in The Senate and then get nomination.  

    It's more like get nomination and then get painted as Number One Most Liberal Senator in The Senate.

    I'll leave it to you to determine who starts making the claim.


    It would about kill me (none / 0) (#114)
    by jen on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:53:33 PM EST
    if he chose Clark, and Clark accepted. I couldn't stand to see him compromise himself to the point he'd have to for Team O. I honestly don't think he would do it -- at one point when he was running for president someone asked him about being Dean's VP and Clark said he wouldn't be anybody's puppet. The man is a leader, not a follower. O! needs a follower.

    jen.... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by miriam on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:00:37 PM EST
    You certainly know Clark well enough to also know that if he's asked by Obama he'll accept.  He's said over and over how important this election is and we know he's really worried about the country under Republicans.  And for Clark, country comes first!  He'll do what it takes to bring a Democratic president winner in November and I think he's the best, if not the only, hope Obama has to overcome the inexperience hammer McCain will wield. And he's the sole potential VP who can trump the public's (misplaced) confidence in McCain as Commander in Chief.  If Obama has even half the brains he's credited with, he'll choose Clark.  If not...I give up.

    Jack Reed. (none / 0) (#126)
    by halstoon on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:46:26 PM EST
    Obama goes out of the mainstream to keep the focus on him.

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:08:52 AM EST
    Obama doesn't need anybody to help him get elected or help govern



    VP (none / 0) (#151)
    by jrterrier on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:07:29 AM EST
    the more i think of it and the posts here, it will probably be kaine.  obama is following what bill clinton did even if he refuses to give him credit.  and bill broke tradition by picking another youngish, southerner.  kaine gives him executive experience because he's a governor.  he can't have two senators on the ticket.  and if he picks someone with military/foreign affairs experience it would just be a concession that he can't answer the 3 AM call without his VP at his side.  

    Um, no. BC picked a two term Senator, (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:24:19 AM EST
    former congressman, with a family name in politics, not another nubie.

    Is Angelina Jolie scheduled to speak? (none / 0) (#168)
    by mike in dc on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:26:39 AM EST
    She has foreign policy experience.

    Kaine, ugh! (none / 0) (#171)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:52:50 AM EST
    Kaine is anti-choice no matter how they try to spin it. It's not a dealbreaker for me, since the deal was broke loooooong ago in my case, but it is not a move designed to win BO any votes. Unless he is still counting on that evanescent "evangelical" vote?

    He'd be an excellent VP, and it would probably nail down Virginia, and possibly North Carolina.

    THANK YOU for the hearty belly laugh. HAHAHAHA. Just what is the Dem/Obama obsession with Virginia. Remember the Hollywood big shot in "The Godfather" screaming "Johnny Fontane never gets that picture!!" Hear me now: DEMOCRATS NEVER GET VA. I do not care what the polls say. It will never happen--not this election.

    And North Carolina??? Oh, because Kaine's tremendous popularity will reach South into another pure-red state...right, maybe that would work if Kaine were polling higher than the low 40s in approval ratings right now. But again, thanks for the laughs.

    Is Kaine able? (none / 0) (#174)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:45:23 AM EST
    Yes, I think, in the mind of Senator Obama.  They have several things in common such as Harvard Law, wives are friends and graduates of Princeton, little national experience, and policies and positions  marked by "on the one hand, but then on the other" qualifiers.  As a governor, Kaine does not have an Iraq voting record.  Kaine would be totally beholden to Obama, having been plucked from relative obscurity to vice president.  The bet that once over all that inexperienced stuff, Kaine's blank slate will be a plus. Kaine is Catholic so the thinking, probably, is that  may help in some key areas.  Best of all, Obama can do it with no stink'n help from people of stature, such as Mrs. Clinton, General Clark, or even a bright politician who has been around the block, such as Evan Bayh (not all that bad, if you discount his initial Iraq vote).  I think he is saving that has-been, Nunn, for Secretary of State.

    TOM DASCHLE? (none / 0) (#175)
    by bmc on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:58:47 AM EST
    That's what Kos thinks? He says he agrees with Trapper John that it's likely to be Tom Daschle?

    Well, you know what they'll say about that, dontcha? Another Flip-Flop. So much for Obama wanting to change Washington. Tom Daschle is quintessential Washington.

    What a joke. Our nominee can't find any decent candidates to agree to be his VP.


    KeysDan (none / 0) (#181)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:09:44 PM EST
    ...gets extra points for his "Is Kaine Able" pun? But bear in mind, this is from someone who laughed herself silly at an old Tales of the Crypt episode where the sexy cable repairman introduced himself as "Abel...with the cable." LOL.

    I know, totally OT.