Joe Biden Leaves for Georgia

Joe Biden left for Georgia today to meet with its President.

Either Obama is not naming his VP candidate Monday or on a more hopeful note, it's not Biden.

I'm wondering if Bill Richardson could be back in the running, even though he has a speaker slot at the convention. Obama will be in New Mexico Monday, and New Mexico is one of those states (with its five electoral votes) Obama is trying hard to win but he faces a lot of resistance among Hispanic voters in the southern half of the state.

< Obama Ignoring Arkansas | Rick Warren Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Richardson is my mom's dealbreaker (along (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:44:52 PM EST
    with any woman not named Hillary Clinton).

    Mine too (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:46:02 PM EST
    Because Richardson is the biggest idiot in public life not named Bush.

    Is it because he looks like he has a heat-on (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:50:26 PM EST
    all the time? I always thought it looked like he'd had a few budwiesers before the debates.

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nulee on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:51:38 PM EST
    BR was easily the biggest (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:57:49 PM EST
    clunker of those candidates considered to be viable.  Whizzer White  as his fave Scotus guy, and his answer, given twice, about homosexuality being a choice stand out for their stupidity.

    Never considered for Veep, imo, in large part because of his poor primary showing.  


    Uh huh. (none / 0) (#32)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:13:43 PM EST
    Never considered for Veep, imo, in large part because of his poor primary showing.

    Who won over eighteen million people, otoh?


    I can't blame O for not (none / 0) (#36)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:19:16 PM EST
    wanting to go that route.  Very complicated situation both with the candidate and her spouse, both in the campaigning and in the governing aspects.

    He's got to feel comfortable with the person he's running with and about to govern with, and since they're all human, there are probably plenty of bitter feelings among all the people involved which will need more time to heal -- if ever in some cases ...


    I really love this logic (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:23:43 PM EST
    If I were going to start a company that I intended to take to say, Fortune 500 level, and I know I'm going to be the CEO who doesn't have enough experience to do this, would I hire a CFO and team of executives who do NOT outshine me?

    That begs the question.....who, in an Obama administration, gets to know more and have more experience than Obama?


    Then you know she is a bigger person than (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:25:16 PM EST
    him and able to put the past behind her. She would have picked him immediately. In my job, I don't choose the person I like best to help on a project; I choose the one who would do the best job and help me succeed.

    Actually you'll note how I (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:37:47 PM EST
    said above there were several parties involved on both sides.

    And it appears that at least one spouse hasn't quite been able to put the past behind him.

    As for the private sector analogies that get taken too much to heart, in our work situations we dont' normally have to go out to the larger public and get their formal approval to move into the job.

    Picking a VP is a unique situation, and past history with these things shows there can be plenty of pitfalls with the wrong selection.  That's just in the campaigning.

    As for the governing, it's also not merely a Q of being outshone or picking someone with more experience, though in O's case he's likely to choose someone who is more experience at the national level because that makes sense politically.

    Hillary might otherwise have been the logical choice, but as I say it's not that simple.   Certainly not with Bill in the mix ...


    Actually, brodie, (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:42:30 PM EST
    that comment only goes to show how much you let the media do your thinking for you.

    And it appears that at least one spouse hasn't quite been able to put the past behind him.

    Bill Clinton will look past everything to get to what's best for this country.


    All I argue, Java, is that Bill (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:52:50 PM EST
    is all too human.  These things take time to heal, longer than just a few more months of the election cycle, no matter how well intentioned he is.

    But Hillary is a bad fit for O's VP for other reasons, which we've gone over at length previously ...


    The only reason Hillary is a bad fit (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:56:44 PM EST
    is because she's more qualified than he is. Oh, and Obama is acting like a spoiled little child.

    I personally want her far away from his mess, but I would feel better if I knew she was there to keep an eye on him and look out for us.


    Mostly because of "O' (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:18:01 PM EST
    and less because of HRC.

    I've always said that I would love Hillary as my VP.  Tell her to get something done and then stand back and watch her work!

    If you like that kind of thing, HRC would be great.


    Bill can rise above it, and graciously (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:40:27 PM EST
    accept a sincere apology.

    I'd be willing to bet that Obama can't do the sincere apology part.

    So, who's the one holding onto the riff?


    Also, Bill's busy with his own work (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:54:27 PM EST
    Why can't people see that. It's not like he's in the way of her job now. He let's her shine on her own. No way would he get in the way of her work as a VP or a President.

    First of all, I don't blame Bill one bit for being (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:43:28 PM EST
    angry at how he was treated and second, he has to be amazed that Obama won't choose Hillary as VP. Do you think for an instant that if he chose her, Bill Clinton wouldn't be their best campaigner out there?

    I don't blame Bill either - (none / 0) (#53)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:50:33 PM EST
    - and I don't doubt he would campaign well for him, starting with his speech at the convo.  I just don't think he's nearly gotten the primaries out of his system yet.  Not by a long shot.  And these things do have a tendency to, well, come out involuntarily at times of stress or lack of sleep or just the sight of the dreaded MCM.

    But all along I have been against HRC for Veep.  Bill is just an additional reason.


    And, I still think the only reason you believe (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:43:08 PM EST
    that is because of what you've heard from the media talking heads.

    You have absolutely nothing substantial to base it on, unless you, too, are a master at figuring out what the hidden meaning is between the lines of everything he says.


    It amazes me how many people (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:33:49 PM EST
    think they can read Bill Clinton's mind, esp. when their conclusions are totally opposite to his actions over the past 8 years.

    He is busy with his foundation.  He LOVES it.  Outside of campaigning for Hillary, he's stayed out of politics almost entirely.  He's shown no sign whatsoever of pining for his old job.  He's got all sorts of new glory, he doesn't need the old.

    Unlike the Obama campaign, which seems to be still trying to ride to glory on the strength of one strongly popular month in Feb.  Or Howard Dean, who seems to be trying to relive his own failed campaign for president through Obama's.

    You know, I don't remember a whole lot of people worrying about the influence of George Bush Sr on his son, or shaking with anxiety over the possibility that George Sr would always be dropping by the WH and sticking his nose in Jr's business.  And that was when GWB had surrounded himself with all his dad's old golfing buddies for advisors!


    I've been reading (none / 0) (#57)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:54:12 PM EST
    here for awhile.

    Seems to me that you used to say you were once a Hillary supporter.

    I have found that hard to believe.  Now, it's even more unbelievable.


    I indeed was, and amazing as it (none / 0) (#62)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:58:24 PM EST
    sounds, not all HRC supporters think alike nor want her to be VP.

    Right. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:02:48 PM EST
    You've made it pretty clear why you don't want Hillary to be VP.

    You are no supporter of hers.

    Your problem is with her husband.


    I hope you're not speaking (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:51:35 PM EST
    for Obama, because you'rer making him look worse.

    Being th POTUS is way complicated.

    If he cabn't handle this, he doesn't deserve the office.

    He's being protected.  

    We are not amused, satisfied or comfortable.


    As BTD says, Speaking (none / 0) (#59)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:54:59 PM EST
    Only For Myself.

    And a P nominee doesn't want to unnecessarily complicate matters, not with 1-2 viable alternatives of a less complex headachy nature.

    He'd go with Hillary if the situation in the polls and the overall political climate for Dems were a little less positive.


    How less positive does it (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:59:38 PM EST
    have to get?! If he finally grabs her out of desperation, that's going to be great reassurance for the voters, not.

    Headaches?!!! (none / 0) (#63)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:58:40 PM EST
    You're worried about him, and he hasn't won anything.

    As I said, you're not doing him any favors.


    Wonder how Obama's going to (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:03:01 PM EST
    handle all those pesky issues that will come up as president if he can't handle Hill n' Bill?! lol!~

    In other words, (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:34:22 PM EST
    Very complicated situation both with the candidate and her spouse, both in the campaigning and in the governing aspects.

    Obama is afraid of the Clintons?!

    Surely you don't mean to suggest that.  The man is running for president.


    If Obama doesn't realize that his greatest (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:51:17 PM EST
    allies are the Clintons, should he actually find himself thrust into the Whitehouse, he has only himself to blame. He accused them of being something they are not, and never corrected the problem he created for them.

    He should be ashamed of himself for how many times he praised the Reagan administration and passed over the Clinton years.

    Those are Obama problems, not Bill Clinton's.


    He's a walking, talking, gaffe machine (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:01:05 PM EST
    That's actually one of the two things I like about (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:02:24 PM EST
    Biden.  I forget the other one.

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:04:04 PM EST
    Also because picking him shows horrible judgement (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:25:36 PM EST
    It's one thing to be the biggest idiot.  It's another not to recognize an idiot when you see one (and help him out with his debate answer).

    BTD (none / 0) (#74)
    by bocajeff on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:35:42 PM EST
    That's right, BTD, he's an "idiot". He's a lawyer, governor, been in the cabinet, etc...and he's an "idiot". Not wrong mind you, but an "idiot". Very clever BTD.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by IzikLA on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:56:39 PM EST
    I do not have all that many dealbreakers despite not exactly being an Obama fan.  Richardson, however, is most certainly a dealbreaker.

    it will never be Clinton (none / 0) (#76)
    by laila on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:20:23 PM EST
    If it is I will eat my hat, I just don't think that he will go there. He has a great deal of respect for her I'm sure but she is no more experienced then he is to be fair.  That being said I am not sure of Biden?  I kinda like him, I think he could add a lot the foreign policy credential Obama supposedly lacks.  I was going to say it would surprise me if it were two senators, but well...looks like that is how it heading.  According to Chuck Todd from MSNBC, he had it down to three, Biden, Bayh, or Kaine, and because the former governor of Virginia is speaking at the conference that it wont be Kaine because this has never happened before.  Who knows?

    Joe Biden for President of Georgia! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:45:20 PM EST

    It could still be Biden (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:49:48 PM EST
    Obama has Biden deal with Georgia so he doesn't have to and then he wraps it all up in a nice lil' package and sells it to his voters.

    Hillary will be in NM also with Obama. I hope he doesn't pick Richardson.

    I doubt he'd be that callous (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:02:19 PM EST
    to announce his VP choice is Richardson with Hillary standing there.

    So I guess it's not Richardson.


    Well, he's texting it, so it's not (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:09:18 PM EST
    like she'll hear  ;)

    Heh, maybe he'll want her to be there to endorse his VP pick. Nothing would surprise me these days.


    Picture if you will (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:28:15 PM EST
    Hillary standing behind Obama as he speaks.  She receives a text message and reads it ever so discretely. It's Richardson!  She screams.  They wanted shrill, they got shrill.

    I think that sending Biden to Georgia... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:17:15 PM EST
    ...and then announcing that he will be the VP is exactly the type of grandstanding that the O-camp like sto do so to me this trip makes it MORE likely that Biden is the VP pick. I don't know for me Biden is kind of the Democrat's version of Fred Thompson. The media thinks he has a wide appeal, but he's really more of a dud than anything else.

    I think Biden went to Georgia (none / 0) (#80)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:54:22 PM EST
    because Biden wanted to go to Georgia.

    John Kerry will be the VP pick. Obama owes him, and he has no debt with Biden.


    Kerry, oh gawd! (none / 0) (#82)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:23:26 PM EST
    :) Now, it's as logical and (none / 0) (#84)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:51:21 PM EST
    baseless as all the other predictions :)

    I will be at work Monday, If he picks Hillary (none / 0) (#14)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:00:43 PM EST
    before I get home, will you text me?

    I don't know how to text! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:07:22 PM EST
    lol!~ My friend sent me one the other day about the Farve pick and all I could do was look at it  {grin}

    Well, you certainly belong under that bus! (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:10:37 PM EST
    You have been left off the Obama circle of friends now.

    Cool! I'd rather hang with the (none / 0) (#37)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:20:07 PM EST
    busunders and chat than get text messages from Camp O!

    Biden leaving for Georgia (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:02:05 PM EST
    might even tend to make him slightly more of a likely O pick for VP.

    He would only spend a few days there, gets some positive FP pub for the Dems and himself, and he's back by mid-week, revved up and ready again for the spotlight, for the announcement of his selection.

    I thought about that. I checked to see when (none / 0) (#21)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:04:20 PM EST
    he would be back and it doesn't say. It just says he'll be there this weekend.

    How much longer before those (none / 0) (#81)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:58:46 PM EST
    who fell for the "be the first to know, decision being released" - all we need is your cell phone numbers, get really mad that they were tricked into releasing that information?

    Seems the campaign needs to up their effort to collect money from this $25 crowd...wonder how many requests they will get via text.

    It isn't Biden.

    Heh, but I could be wrong :)


    cant be Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:06:54 PM EST

    I heard Richardson has groping problems. This would be a disaster, since O needs to rack up big numbers among women. He is one of those choices that look good on paper, but people will look back on with disbelief.

    I like Biden since he actually knows the kind of people you need to appoint to govern effectively. I have little faith in Obama's circle that he has to dole out jobs to.

    I'd have to agree with you (1.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:36:50 PM EST
    Biden seems to be the best of a not-so-great lineup of contenders.

    The people still hoping for Hillary are just deluding themselves.  Obama doesn't want to be part of a Presidential triumvirate!  

    Face it, the Clinton's would suck the oxygen out of an Obama White House.  Hell, do you really think that she wouldn't consider running against him in 2012... on the basis that she and Bill did all the heavy lifting.  Hell, she'd undercut him so fast he'd wind up shorter than McCain!

    Obama couldn't trust them farther than he could throw them!


    Hmmmm. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:40:23 PM EST
    Aren't you the guy who knew all about Wes Clark in Kosovo?

    A former staff person to some poo-bah?

    Pardon me if I distrust you just a tad...

    Or more than a tad.


    What Obama doesn't want, by not picking Hillary, (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:50:09 PM EST
    is to be president, period. People who deny this are deluding themselves.

    Obama knows that he won the election (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by bridget on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:20:15 PM EST
    because Hillary didn't fight back hard enough after he ran his negative campaign against her.

    And That alone puts the above Obama trust talk in a whole diff. perspective.

    Besides, had she used all the negative stuff already available earlier against him in fall 07 (and the same goes for Edwards, of course) he would have never made it to Iowa. It would have been over for Obama so fast... For both of the tagteaming men as a matter of fact.

    Hillary would have been the nom as quickly or even faster than McCain.

    Hillary made a huge huge mistake in this primary by holding back .. Obama the way she did. This Cost her the United States Presidency, unfortunately. I always thought so. Just because the media and netroots celebrated Obama's campaign as pure and saintly, and Hillary's as nasty and negative, that didn't make it so IN REALITY. It was Obama who ran the negative campaign .. Hillary.

    just saying


    well.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:14:58 PM EST

    2007 was probably too early because then she just looks like a meany bombing on the poor black guy.

    She made the classic mistake of nudge him off incrementally without being seen hot have gotten her hands dirty. Frankly this his how we lost Vietnam.

    Olbermann and the talking heads were already squaking away 11 anyway any time she went on the mildest offensive. They really couldn't have been any more apoplectic, so she should have unloaded on him in a two week period and ended this early. Keith was already spending his whole hour slighting her campaign so how could it get any worse.

    This is the campaign managers fault... if you know you cant let him get to Super Tuesday because you are mis-position to defend it, then to dont let him get to Super Tuesday.


    should obama lose, and he well may, (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by sancho on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:52:38 PM EST
    he could (and probably should) be the most disgraced dem nominee of the tv era. i wonder if knowing that will influence his pick. if he chooses poorly, i think he loses. i've seen little positive for him in the polls since he "won" the nomination. picking hillary as vp now may be his only chance to get to run again in 2012--otherwise, he may just be seen as that guy who talks to kerry, the other dem loser and occasional senator, from time to time between votes on c-span.  

    Well, Lyndon didn't pick Bobby (none / 0) (#51)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:45:07 PM EST
    in 64 in part because he could never trust him not to secretly undercut him, as he suspected the AG tried to do during the presidency of his brother.  Of course, by that example while I intended the RFK-HRC parallel, I didn't mean to imply that O is at all the highly paranoid type that LBJ almost certifiably was ...

    Let's see, in actual examples of a Veep turning disloyal on his master, in 1940  FDR's two-term VP John "Cactus" Garner ran against him.


    What a disgusting comment. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:11:23 PM EST
    Retract (none / 0) (#47)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:39:09 PM EST
    Following up myself to withdraw "groping".

    That is too strong a word for the info in the story I saw so I dont want to spread rumors. Still, its icky creepy behavior that will do him and the ticket no good, so I hope he is past over.


    For me Hilary is the only voting option for me. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Saul on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:13:28 PM EST
    All the others choices are deal breakers for me.

    That is what I told the caller from Obama's (none / 0) (#42)
    by mogal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:27:42 PM EST
    campaign just yesterday. Is this going on all over the country or is just Missouri?

    VP Choices (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by JThomas on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:53:45 PM EST
    Clearly, there is no concensus on VP candidates in the blogasphere and that is to be expected.
    Hillary,Biden,Dodd,and Bayh are one school of thought while Kaine,Sebelius,Richardson,Clark are outsiders who are being considered.
    I have no real dog in this hunt..whoever Obama thinks will help him govern effectively is ok by me. I can see Hillary as a strong VP. My main concern is the vetting of the Clinton Foundation and Library donors.
    I still would support any of his picks,including Hillary, because beating McCain his American Enterprise Institute advisors (Podhertz) is imperative to me as a military parent with a child in combat right now in Iraq. McCain is an advocate of military intervention as a first and last resort. He supported and pushed for the invasion of Iraq as far back as 1998 and still believes it was the right choice despite no WMD's and in light of Suskinds book, despite of intentional deception by the Bush administration to plunge us into a war that has cost my son 4200 mates and up to 80,000 Traumatic Brain injuries and 11,000 lost limbs among our brave military. It is unconscionable that McCain continues to adhere to the neo-con vision of US military intervention to democratize foreign countries and secure their natural resources. God help us all if McCain wins.

    Jeralyn you'll still vote Obama if it's Biden (none / 0) (#2)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:45:18 PM EST
    right? Even though you'll be disappointed.

    She said he's a deal breaker (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:46:02 PM EST
    I think McCain shouuld be the deal breaker.

    She said giving Obama Michigan delegates (none / 0) (#6)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:49:20 PM EST
    would be a deal breaker.

    I said (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:23:37 PM EST

    In the end, I do think Obama won the nomination fair and square. Obama didn't steal any votes, he was handed them and he accepted them. The superdelegates went with Obama as is their perogative under the rules. I don't like the rules, but the answer to that is change them for next time. I don't hold that against Obama. I supported Obama the day Hillary dropped out and still do. That doesn't mean future events can't change my mind. As with Biden, they could.


    After reading the stories (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by denise on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:33:28 PM EST
    from people who were in caucuses, I don't believe the process was fair & square. On the contrary, I'm now convinced that we're turning the Democratic Party over to a gang of thugs.

    the caucuses were not fair (none / 0) (#86)
    by sancho on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:00:20 AM EST
    and cant be fair by definition. i wish some of the disenfranchised voters would sue (not for hillary but to get rid of the corrupt system.) obama won fairly and squarely in the sense that the DNC can do whatever it wants--and as long as people will endorse their decisions no matter how egregious their tactics, the DNC will do whatever it wants. many (not all) voting for obama are actually DNC enablers/collaboraters since they are voting despite their sense that the DNC violated the principles of the party.

    not-mccain is not a good enough reason to vote and is recipe for 2008-12 disaster.

    hopefully, obama's vp choice will give some of us a reason to vote for him.  


    Obama won the nomination fair and square (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by bridget on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:54:06 PM EST
    ONLY if the votes were handed to him on the ballot by the voters. IMvHO.

    As a citizen Why even bother to vote when a selected group of people can pick the Dem candidate just like that ...

    Why even spend millions of $$$ for the primaries alone ... For what? I wish the money would have gone to PETA instead. Or to the Vets, or victims of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or Darfur, or ... you name it.

    I am sort of surprised the foremost election expert in the world, Pres. Carter, seems totally d'accord with this theater we have just been through.

    Never again. Never. I learned my lesson.


    That sounds more than fair. (none / 0) (#41)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:26:46 PM EST
    Future events?  

    We're approaching September.

    All that's left is October.


    She did?! (none / 0) (#34)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:15:16 PM EST
    Biden is a deal breaker to me (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:00:25 PM EST
    right now. I won't vote for such a pro-law enforcement, pro-drug war, pro-wiretapping candidate to be one step away from the presidency. Of course I won't vote for McCain -- I guess I will vote down-ticket if that happens.

    And don't bother telling me about his good vote on FISA. He's not opposed to more wiretapping, he's just opposed to the President being able to unilaterally order it instead of Congress.

    I really doubt it will be Biden so it's probably a moot issue.


    WADR, that just helps McCain win CO (none / 0) (#16)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:01:35 PM EST
    that would be the point (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:04:36 PM EST
    to keep Biden from getting to the White House. My intent would be for a ticket with Biden on it to lose.

    If I could cost a Biden ticket one vote by staying home, I would. But I'm not going to vote for his opponent.


    Please list why President McCain would be better (none / 0) (#27)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:07:40 PM EST
    than Vice President Biden.

    McCain would be worse (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:14:25 PM EST
    as a President than Obama, by miles. But Biden as VP is far too dangerous in my opinion and the VP is one step away from the Presidency. I won't help him get there. I'm done on this topic.

    People should not have to defend (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by RalphB on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:25:06 AM EST
    their voting decisions in the USA.  Last time I looked we were officially a democracy and how a person votes is their own business.

    Bill (none / 0) (#23)
    by sas on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:05:47 PM EST
    Richardson for VP?



    For Prez (none / 0) (#25)
    by sas on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:06:57 PM EST
    Obama?  McCain?

    UGH again!


    Hillary is (none / 0) (#28)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:08:48 PM EST
    the only one.

    Looks like a circling of wagons.

    Obama's choice (none / 0) (#61)
    by Prabhata on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:57:21 PM EST
    Obama doesn't have good VP list to choose from.  How did that happen?  Is it that the candidate is not seen as a winner and therefore not many good politicians want to be part of the ticket?  Is it Obama's priorities that has taken away good candidates from the scene?  Is Obama's judgment in selecting those to be vetted in the short list? Whatever the reason, I'm astounded how bad his choices are.

    Ironic because Obama is the PERFECT VP candidate (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:18:57 PM EST

    DNC is just. so. stupid.


    Why is no one going to Russia?? (none / 0) (#75)
    by jawbone on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:36:39 PM EST
    If Biden is representing Obama in any way, given that Obama stresses that he is that rational actor who will negotiate and us diplomacy, why no visit to Russia????

    Excellent article about Hispanic voters (none / 0) (#88)
    by stxabuela on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:52:41 PM EST
    It quite accurately states the feelings of many Hispanics in my area, too.  I don't think any VP pick other than Hillary would help.  Don't know about NM, but in TX, Richardson is would hurt the ticket with Hispanics.  Many believe he owed the Clintons his support--loyalty to one's friends is very important here.