An Open Convention For the VP Choice

Matt Yglesias jokingly proposes the Adlai Stevenson 1956 model for choosing the VP:

[H]ow about this ó Obama could pull an Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and throw the selection open to the Convention delegates. The problem with that move, of course, is that you donít get to fine-tune the pick. But it turns out to be the case that there seem to be substantial problems with all the possible picks. And opening the selection to the field would ensure huge media coverage of the convention and perhaps a bigger-than-usual convention bump.

Yeah, like that would not be a disaster with pro- and anti-Hillary force arraying. And the last thing Obama would need would be to be compared to Adlai Stevenson right now. It would be fun though to see that food fight. Let's makes this is an Open Thread.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Georgia Blowback? Russia To Temporarily Cut NATO Cooperation | Razor Wire Won't Top Makeshift Convention Jail Cells >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The thing (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:35:08 PM EST
    that I'm finding interesting is that all the candidates named so far are problematic for groups in the base.

    Forgetaboutit. This election is so lost already with the Georgia situation and Obama not making an economic case to the voters. Wake me up in Nov.

    "And the last thing Obama . . . (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:35:48 PM EST
    . . . would need would be to be compared to Adlai Stevenson"

    you have a talent for pointing out the obvious facts  that these guys seem to miss.

    however Stevenson did at least have a sense of humor.
    voter: Mr Stevenson, every intelligent person in the country will be voting for you.
    Stevenson: yes ma'am, but I need a majority.

    More like Dukakis (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:40:54 PM EST
    The way he's hemorrhaging support.

    I dunno.. wasn't Dukakis' summer (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:45:39 PM EST
    vacation two weeks long?
    Big difference.

    lol, but the summer isn't quite over yet. :-) n/t (none / 0) (#50)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:28:29 PM EST
    Going to the "open" in (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by scribe on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:37:50 PM EST
    "open thread"...

    Mr. "Lightning" Bolt of Jamaica has cemented his status as a world-class winner.  He won the 200 going away, by more than 5 meters over the putative silver medalist, from the Netherlands Antilles.  The putative bronze medalist was from the US.

    After a protest by the US team, the Olympics ruled that the silver and bronze medalists had gone outside their lanes, those two were disqualified, and the silver and bronze went to two other US runners.

    Bolt has swept the 100 and 200 - the first time since Carl Lewis did it at LA in 1984.  And, he set new records in both in doing so, which was unprecedented.

    Well done!

    No spoiler? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:39:29 PM EST
    I knew but maybe others do not. It is my must see TV and I will write a post about Bolt in track history

    Sorry - I got my news on this (none / 0) (#24)
    by scribe on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:54:40 PM EST
    from German radio about 11 AM ET, and the update on the DQs about noon ET.

    It's also on Yahoo news, too.

    Sorry I spoilt it, but there it is.


    Oh it's out there (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:58:28 PM EST
    Just wondering about spoilers.

    But hell, we're discussing it already and no one seems to care.

    I can't wait to see it.

    Bolt is THE athlete of these Olympics for me.


    I haven't seen the 200m yet (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:01:45 PM EST
    But I didn't think it was possible to win the 100m by that much.

    I won' t tell who the new holder of the (none / 0) (#27)
    by scribe on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:56:05 PM EST
    title "world's strongest man" (heaviest weight-class weightlifting winner) is, though German radio had that on, too.

    That is an interesting result, though.


    weight lifting scares me (none / 0) (#73)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:58:11 PM EST
    You can injure yourself sooooo many ways doing that.  Definitely a do-NOT-try-this-at-home sport.  

    Did you see the video (none / 0) (#77)
    by scribe on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:03:36 PM EST
    last week of the Hungarian guy whose elbow gave out while lifting.

    Not. Pretty.


    no thanks! (none / 0) (#84)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:10:45 PM EST
    You stress every joint and major muscle group below the neck.  Your form and focus need to be perfect and you need to know immediately if the situation is going south.  Better to drop the weight than to blow a joint.

    It's so much more than brute strength.


    Hey! I have an idea! (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by goldberry on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:39:43 PM EST
    Let's have an open convention for the top spot while we're at it.  Yeah, that's the ticket!  The superdelegates put aside the perception management Haka that Obama has played on them and actually assess the electabilty of the candidates with a whisper thin number of delegates separating them.  
    Oh, and How about Obama stops trying to intmidate, disqualify, deceive and poach pledged delegates that belong to his opponent.  
    Wow!  It would almost be like the voters counted or something.  
    And then, when they realize that the best winning ticket is Hillary as President and Obama as VP, they could all close ranks and tell the media to go to hell for even suggesting that Hillary stole the election.  They could say, oh, i don't know, that she earned it because she had sufficient pledged delegates, party loyalty and mastery of the job qualifications and if they didn't like it, they could take a flying leap.  
    That's what I would do.  But that's just because I want to win and save the Democrats from wrecking their own party.  
    Silly me.

    A free and fair vote by the delegates? (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:46:15 PM EST
    That doesn't sound very Democratic.

    Someone posted the other day (none / 0) (#35)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:02:11 PM EST
    that a delegate reported that they were being threatened with some version of "You'll never work in this town again" if they didn't tow the line.



    and the problem with not working (none / 0) (#52)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:29:29 PM EST
    in that town again would be..... :-)

    Whadda concept!! (none / 0) (#21)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:53:20 PM EST
    But, but, but, (none / 0) (#31)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:00:43 PM EST
    the Obama people will riot in the streets!

    I got (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:40:30 PM EST
    polled today. The pollster asked me a number of questions but the most interesting one was "Do you think your neighbors are ready for an AA President?" I said I don't know because I really don't.

    Poll (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:50:59 PM EST
    This is why I despise polls.

    The question is designed to illicit a response.
    The honest answer that is sought is, "no".
    The dishonest answer would be, "sure."

    The poll is skewed no matter how you slice it.

    All they would have to ask is whether someone would vote for Obama. Yea or Nay.



    Well (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:06:05 PM EST
    they did ask me if I was voting for Obama. I told them I was leaving it blank and they put me down as McCain? They also asked these stupid questions about Iraq, Abortion, and Experience. The question about Iraq were 1. The same rehashed statement Kerry made about the WOT 4 years ago. 2. John McCains statement about Iraq forever. With the Georgia situation, I was thinking that the question was really dated and out of touch. They asked me how much experience mattered and I said a lot. They asked me whether I though abortions should be banned and I said no. There may have been other questions but I forgot them. Might have been the Obama campaign running the poll, who knows? Maybe they are considering pulling out of GA based on the info they are getting in these polls.

    Always, always, ALWAYS ask (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:08:51 PM EST
    who the polling firm is and who's paying for the poll!

    (Sorry to yell, I just think that's good information to have).


    It's okay (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:13:52 PM EST
    to yell at me :)

    It never dawned on me to ask. If I get asked in the future I'll be sure to ask.


    Sounds like the same outfit I was polled by. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:34:45 PM EST
    It was surveyresults. The questions seemed leaning. The poller I talked to was nice and definitely leaned liberal.

    They asked me on a scale of 1 to 5 how closely I was following the election.

    They asked if the election were held today who would I vote for.

    They asked about the Virginia Senate race.

    They asked which was more important experience or changing Washington.

    They asked if I was pro choice.

    They asked if I felt if we should stay in Iraq indefinitely or if we should be responsible in how we leave but pull out.

    They asked if there was still a possibility of me changing my mind(I told her as of right now I wouldn't vote for either of the two).

    I gave the poller an earful. Probably more than she needed.


    sounds almost like a push poll (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:43:38 PM EST
    with the leading and obviously biased questions like: They asked if I felt if we should stay in Iraq indefinitely or if we should be responsible in how we leave but pull out. It sounds more like they want to have an effect rather that collect data since the polling questions make any data gathered corrupt I'd think.

    Oh the questions were (none / 0) (#68)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:50:49 PM EST
    definitely felt leading and when I was talking to the poller she let slip she was of the same position as me on choice(she'd never have one but respects the right of others to make that choice.) I made sure to leave the impression that my vote was up for grabs. Here's to hoping she let's the DNC know.

    Testing memes. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:04:54 PM EST
    I wouldn't call them push polls.  More like trial balloon polls.  Took one for the last mayoral race.  They asked about the school systems.  Heh.  Mayor has almost no ability to affect the elected school board.  I pointed that out.  I'm always nice to the pollers and they generally are nice to me.

    I do marketing polls for businesses, too.  They are looking to see where they should spend their marketing dollars and which hot button memes get consumers' attention.  I'm sure there are political polls that do the exact same thing.

    (I did take one political poll a couple years back.  It was soooo obviously slanted to a social conservative POV that the only use it had was to create a deliberately skewed result.  Maybe some wingnut org needed to justify its existence?)


    Yes (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:17:44 PM EST
    that's the EXACT same questions I was asked. What state are you in?

    Swing state Virginia (none / 0) (#95)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:20:09 PM EST
    I was not surprised.

    Are your neighbors ready for an inexperienced pres (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:39:54 PM EST
    They should ask you that.

    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:21:12 PM EST
    the question should have been "Would your neighbors vote for a Democrat? I could have easily answered "probably no". If Hillary was the nominee, the margins in my district would probably be better but she'd still lose/

    Heard John King On CNN (none / 0) (#42)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:08:31 PM EST
    say that McCain would be a good president.

    The dems really are snatching defeat from...



    It's designed to test the Bradley effect (none / 0) (#103)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:24:58 PM EST
    If you say that you would vote for Black President, but your neighbors probably wouldn't, there's a good chance you probably wouldn't either.  It's one of the few ways to test for the Bradley effect.

    I was polled as well (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:27:59 PM EST
    We must of had the same polling company.

    Ditto in Wisconsin. Questions (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:03:22 PM EST
    and rating scale sound quite familiar, and the combination of national and state issues, etc.

    It was about a week ago here.  But it sounded more Dem to me (I also have been polled recently with one that sounded more from McCain's camp).  If so, why?  Wisconsin is put away for Obama, so all the pollsters and all his fans here tell me.

    Shoot, don't tell me we're a swing state again.  I decided it would be so much better to not have to decide what to do about the top of the ballot.


    I asked this in another thread, but... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by cmugirl on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:46:41 PM EST
    Could it be possible that Obama is spending all this money right now in places he won't win because he has to use up his primary money?  Am I correct in understanding that the money raised in July is still primary money and he cannot start spending GE money until he actually becomes the nominee?

    Anybody know?

    campaign contributions.... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:42:00 PM EST
    Obama has continued to raise money for his primary campaign throughout the summer.  IIRC, primary funds can be transferred to general election funds as long as the donor has not maxxed out on his/her general election contributions -- but that may (or may not) require the permission of the donor.  

    The idea that it makes sense to spend the primary money where he is least likely to win is absurd -- and especially absurd when it comes to Obama.  But just because the idea is stupid, doesn't mean that Team Obama didn't pursue it --- they show all indications of believing their own hype about Obama, and figured he would win easily, and wanted to set up a landslide.

    It will be interesting to see what happens moneywise with Obama -- his GE budget is $300,000,000 -- and when he was looking inevitable, that was not unrealistic.  But now that he's looking increasingly vulnerable, its not going to be as easy for him to raise money -- and the media will eat him alive if he starts having to make cutbacks...

    (Personally, I can't wait to see the 'backbiting' that will come out of the Obama campaign if/when money becomes a problem.)


    Surely (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:10:15 PM EST
    the money he's been raising for the last 2 1/2 months is for the general election. He did have money left over from the primary but how much I don't know. I've also read that he's not raising nearly enough money to be competetive with McCain. His burn rate has been extraordinarily high.

    Also, for what it's worth (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:52:24 PM EST
    Somerby had fun today with fish-in-a-barrel Dowd.

    So bad (none / 0) (#41)
    by Faust on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:08:01 PM EST
    I don't know whether to laugh or cry about this stuff anymore.

    MoDo (none / 0) (#69)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:53:14 PM EST
    deserves every take down she gets.

    And yes, fish-in-a-barrel is right.  Speaking of which, I haven't read any Jonah Goldberg this month...


    True story: (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Makarov on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:54:20 PM EST
    My 80 year old mother's most favorite Democrat is Adlai Stevenson. She couldn't understand why people couldn't realize how smart he was. She frequently compares Hillary Clinton's intellect to Adlai.

    Well, I can't resist now. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:57:10 PM EST
    My first thought when I read MY's comment was that he must believe that Obama has the thinking man's vote, given the comparison with Stevenson.
    Not so sure about that one.

    My mother, too. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:58:24 PM EST
    She would be in her 80s now.  And she was a volunteer for him, so I still have the thank-you she received -- a lovely pin.  A pewter shoe sole with a hole in it, of course. :-)

    And yes, Stevenson had an absolutely marvelous sense of humor.  I was only a kid then but overheard my parents chuckling over many a witty line, and I've come across quotes since and chuckled some more.


    My first campaign (none / 0) (#92)
    by caseyOR on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:44:07 PM EST
    Family lore has it that Stevenson's 1956 campaign was my first foray into presidential politics. I was only 4 years old, so have no memory, but the story is that I canvassed door-to-door with my father.

    When Stevenson lost (none / 0) (#104)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:30:49 PM EST
    He said, "It hurts to much to laugh, and I am too big to cry".  My parents taught me that when I was a wee girl.  I loved it.  

    Has America ever elected a liberal intellectual?  I cannot recall such a President.  I don't think most Americans identify with intellectuals.  


    The Irony-Proof Obama, New and Improved! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:55:02 PM EST
    He's fighting to make sure the values and ideals enshrined in the Constitution are upheld? It sure is news to me. But then, I'm one of those old fogies who thought his vote for the unconstitutional FISA bill sent a louder, more long-lasting message than any pablum he can come up with now.

    Judge delays Rezko sentencing -- til Oct 28 (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:08:32 PM EST
    NBC poll says Obama gets 1 in 2 Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:42:42 PM EST
    voters? wow


    Maybe more have become racist since June (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:43:50 PM EST
    that would explain the drop.

    She's doing better than Obama (none / 0) (#64)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:46:32 PM EST
    It's also worth noting that while Obama leads McCain by three points in the poll, Clinton edges the Republican by six points in a hypothetical match up, 49 to 43 percent

    unsurprisingly... (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:05:38 PM EST
    ... the article makes it clear that if Obama doesn't win, it will be Hillary's fault...

    For these reasons, Hart believes that Clinton's speech on the Tuesday night of the Democratic convention will be a significant event. "The Democratic convention is more than a coronation," he says. "It is an event where the words of Hillary Clinton are probably going to be exceptionally important." ...For next week's Democratic convention to be a success, Hart says that not only does Hillary Clinton have to make the case to her supporters that Obama is the right choice for president

    This kind of crap really infuriates me -- not only does it assume that Clinton supporters are mindless drones and that Clinton just hasn't gotten around to pushing our "vote for Obama" buttons, it completely ignore the concept that its Barack Obama, NOT Hillary Clinton, who has to give us a reason to vote for Obama.



    It will be BO's fault. Article Smarticle. (none / 0) (#101)
    by nulee on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:05:47 PM EST
    That's a drop is it not? (none / 0) (#59)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:43:22 PM EST
    50%. Huh.

    This is bad (none / 0) (#62)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:44:22 PM EST
    Indeed, the poll shows McCain holding advantages over Obama in handling terrorism (51 to 23 percent), international crises (52 to 27 percent) and the war in Iraq (46 to 36 percent).

    WOW!!!! (none / 0) (#105)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:33:04 PM EST
    That is terrible.  If the voters think that McCain is better on the war in Iraq, we are SO toast.  Burnt toast.  Really burnt toast.  

    not much of a drop (none / 0) (#63)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:46:10 PM EST
    I think the most Hillary voters I've seen go to Obama has been 52%. So this is about the same.

    I;ve never seen a number that high... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:55:54 PM EST
    30% is the max, and 20% is higher than normal... so I'm gonna have to ask you to provide a link.

    last numbers I saw (none / 0) (#96)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:34:47 PM EST
    were 52% for Obama (wondering if you thought I meant against), around 17% against, and 20 some were unsure or just not voting for. I'll track down a link, but it's been discussed here before.

    Historicals (none / 0) (#108)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:47:46 PM EST
    I just tracked some, didn't keep all the links...

    4/6/2008  .41   
    4/21/2008  .5   
    4/22/2008  .47   
    5/6/2008 NC  .52   
    5/6/2008 IN      .55
    5/13/2008  WV      .62
    5/20/2008  KY       .67
    5/20/2008  OR      --
    6/3/2008  MT      .34
    6/3/2008  SD  .4

    Gallup 03/08 .28

    MSNBC 04/08 30% just for McCain

    CNN 05/08 has the IN/NC numbers

    I also have Obama supporters that wouldn't vote Clinton.  Her voters were always higher by an average of 20 pts.


    I guess so but this is gut check time or close to (none / 0) (#66)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:47:59 PM EST
    it. I think there are a lot of those kitties out there unaccounted for.

    Yeah, I think the "Gosh, everyone looks (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:05:13 PM EST
    so good, you pick" option would be just swell - if what you want to cement in people's minds is that you can't even make the first decision a presidential nominee needs to make.

    Let's see, what are the other choices...

    Rotating vice-presidents, with Hillary going first because she called "shotgun."  

    Or how about this: you've heard of the Nixon-era Committee to re-Elect the President, right?  What abut a Committee of Vice Presidents?  They could meet once a week and divvy up all the funerals and tea parties, and draw straws to see who was on call to break ties in the Senate.  I'm thinking either a special beauty pageant-type sash emblazoned with "Vice President," or perhaps a blazer in Obama's favorite color.  Assuming he can make that decision, otherwise rotating colors: Monday, charcoal; Tuesday, coral; Wednesday, beige (Bayh's FAVORITE day!); Thursday, burgundy; Friday, red.  Weekends would be free days - if you're on duty, you get to pick!

    Perhaps Ryan Seacrest would be available to co-host, with Cat Deeley, "So You Think You Can be A Vice-President and All-Around American Idol?"  It would be the one judge's bench where legislating would be A-OK.  And the winner would be the one who could send the most text messages in the allotted time.  Cat might want the men to go topless and Ryan might argue for the women to wear Manolos, so this could be very exciting!  Can you picture Evan Bayh doing a samba, or Tim Kaine doin' some L'il Wayne?

    Tyra Banks could host "America's Next Vice-President;" I can't wait to hear how Miss J and Nigel break down the contestants' strengths and weaknesses, and you just know the makeover episode would be the best: imagine what they could do with Biden's hair plugs.  John Edwards will go into a deep depression thinking about missing out on a free haircut.

    Really - could Obama  Just.  Get. On. With. It?

    OK (none / 0) (#97)
    by suki on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:44:02 PM EST
    you have to stop now. I'm in actual pain from laughing.

    Stephanie Tubbs Jones has died (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by scribe on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:06:45 PM EST
    ohh no. what a loss (none / 0) (#86)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:14:07 PM EST
    They may have held her (none / 0) (#87)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:14:09 PM EST
    on life support in order to allow family to arrive and say their good byes.  

    RIP, Congresswoman.


    How about this (none / 0) (#1)
    by Faust on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:35:07 PM EST
    Obama picks Hillary at the convention. Wins in November. The end.

    I like this scenario better....obama realizes (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:52:18 PM EST
    Hillary is the candidate who can win and takes a step back and agrees to be the VP.

    heh (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:53:24 PM EST
    good one.

    Well I'll stick with my (none / 0) (#46)
    by Faust on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:11:32 PM EST
    fantasy that has a 1 in 10 chance of happening. You can enjoy your fantasy that has a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent chance of happening.

    Quite frankly I'm fine with either one. I don't give two $hits about either of these candidates. I just want a winning ticket and in my view that's a ticket with both names.


    Lets see what happens, but you don't (none / 0) (#65)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:47:36 PM EST
    need to be so testy...

    At least we don't push Gore (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:17:46 PM EST
    for VP here.

    (It's still a refrain elsewhere, despite overwhelming evidence against it.)


    meh sorry (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Faust on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:59:14 PM EST
    this whole VP business is stressing me out a little. I just can't stand the idea of throwing away another election.

    Nah, (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:55:48 PM EST
    I like Goldberry's idea better. Hillary picks Obama.

    Again (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:01:48 PM EST
    I say, Obama needs Hillary, but she doesn't need him.  Hillary for prez!

    Miss Peach, tek....yeah babeeeee! (none / 0) (#67)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:48:41 PM EST
    Olympic thought of the day (none / 0) (#4)
    by CST on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:37:48 PM EST
    Anyone see the 100m hurdles?  I thought it was terrible the way they interviewed the woman with a "heartbreaking loss" before they interviewed the gold medal winner.  And then proceded to follow her around while she's crying and rip her apart on national TV.  Stay class NBC...

    On a higher note, Usain Bolt is CRAZY fast.

    Bummer for Lolo Jones (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Emma on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:48:31 PM EST
    I didn't see the interview.  I knew it was coming so I turned it off.  She was clearly heartbroken, who needed to hear her say it?

    But did you see the Aussie who came in second?  She clearly surpassed her wildest dreams ever by winning a silver.  She kept running around like she wanted to hug somebody but couldn't find anybody.


    Yea (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CST on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:50:58 PM EST
    The winner was in shock too.  She just kept yelling "WHAT!"  and didn't even know she won unil they posted the scores.  I think she was supposed to be the 4th best runner for the U.S. and she ended up winning the gold.  There were plenty of good stories to go around and they just kept harrassing Lolo Jones.  It definitely was a bummer for her.

    From the other side (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:00:55 PM EST
    I saw it totally differently. Lolo Jones came off great, congratulated those that beat her (even giving one a hug in mid-interview). She stayed upbeat and I didn't see her as being harassed at all. Indeed, I thought her interview was one of the highlights of the night. It showed a favorite being beat, staying classy, and then head off on her own to suffer the pain of one missed hurdle.

    As for her being interviewed before the winner, that would be because the winner was no where close to where the interviews were taking place.

    Along with Shawn Johnson's earrings, I saw Lolo as one of the great stories of the night.


    You saw something totally different (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:05:01 PM EST
    What I saw, was gold medal winner standing right behind Jones while they made her wait to be interviewed.  Jones was super-classy, but then when she left, they followed her into the hallway and showed her crying in a corner.

    Different network/interview???


    Im not sure this signifies anything (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:41:23 PM EST
    but it just seems odd.

    Barack Obama's 'lost' brother found in Kenya

    The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.
    "No-one knows who I am," he told the magazine, before claiming: "I live here on less than a dollar a month."


    Wonder (none / 0) (#36)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:04:13 PM EST
    what would happen if the Reps showcase all of Obama's half-siblings all over the world, people he's never met or only seen once or twice because his father had so many wives, or something.

    the viral email is already circulating (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:07:34 PM EST
    I have been getting it for weeks.

    All these siblings, and some are so desperately (none / 0) (#106)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37:34 PM EST
    Poor.  This cannot be a good thing for our candidate.  

    Obama has no responsibility for his father, but the man sounds like a cad.  


    Hasn't Obama said he has relatives (none / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:29:50 PM EST
    living in poverty? I thought he had trotted that out as a way of connecting with the working poor?

    the problem (none / 0) (#102)
    by bigbay on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:29:29 PM EST
    is that most 1st generation immigrants spend a good part of their lives and money taking care of the folks back home , or bringing them here. If it looks like Obama is ignoring his ,it's not a positive. I've been expecting this line of attack for a long while - especially after hearing about his grandma who lives in a thatched hut.

    \obama's father had many (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:48:24 AM EST
    children, according to one bio I read.  

    Jesus, that's crazy (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:51:36 PM EST
    Glad it's a joke, though I think this is part of the problem with paying people to produce internet content!

    It (none / 0) (#30)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:59:00 PM EST
    appears Rep. Tubbs is still hanging on.  

    Barely, I'm afraid. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:04:44 PM EST
    I just posted in another thread that I'm in Cleveland today, and the local news is reporting that she hasn't much brain function.  :(

    any reaction to this from Hillary? (none / 0) (#83)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:10:37 PM EST
    Sad News (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by ClevelandHope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:09:46 PM EST
    The local Cleveland news stations just broke into programming to announce that Rep. Tubbs Jones passed away at 6:12pm.  This is such a tragic loss.

    hmmmm... (none / 0) (#48)
    by WalterJamin on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:20:14 PM EST
    It would be nice but it's too late for this.  He has already made his choice and it would look bad to change everything now.  It' still not too late to choose Hillary though, and obviously she would be chosen if the other route was taken- but why not just skip the formalities and choose her already.  Isn't it better to have to deal with Hillary for the next four years than not have the White House at all?  Plus, the Clintons are good attack dogs and  he could use their help immensely.

    The Clintons connect to working people (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:42:59 PM EST
    they are more than attack dogs - Hillary provides reasons to vote FOR her. Obama is his own attack dog.

    Please stop reinforcing the right-wing frame.


    The people want (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:18:46 PM EST
    to change political parties, the Clintons are identified with the the Democratic party, Obama tried to do everything to run away from the party.  Go figure.  

    re: open convention (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:53:29 PM EST
    my thoughts exactly.

    you don't go leaking to the media about who's being vetted, who the "top three" are, and doing everything possible to maintain the media focus by encouraging speculation about who your VP pick will be, then turn around and say "open convention."

    But as far as picking Clinton is concerned, that dog won't hunt.  First off, I don't think Clinton ever wanted the job -- she's already done her time being a mouthpiece for a president, and I can't imagine her giving up the autonomy she's enjoyed for the last eight years.

    But even if there was a point where she would have taken the job, that point has passed.  Obama offered her practically no help retiring her campaign debt (instead holding fat-cat joint fundraisers for the DNC), and has done everything in his power to degrade the "Clinton wing" of the Democratic Party.  She owes him, and the Party, nothing -- and Obama's complete lack of commitment to her core Democratic values has to say to her that there is little point in sacrificing her own ambitions and priorities for an Obama presidency.


    Well, I'm sure she couldn't resist (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:55:51 PM EST
    such a flattering offer.

    Happy Days (none / 0) (#75)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:01:26 PM EST
    Who remembers the episode of HAPPY DAYS where Richie starts working for the local campaign office of Adlai Stevenson (mostly to get a girl, as I recall), while everyone else was all for the war hero Eisenhower.  Fonzie sealed Adlai's fate at a rally when he delivered the smooth clincher: "I like Ike.  My bike...likes Ike."

    The Fonz as oracle.  I'm starting to hear a similar voice with St. John.  Ike's military-industrial complex posterboy as the sitcom savioreality.  

    I wonder if Cream-C (none / 0) (#85)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:13:08 PM EST
    attended the unvieling of the Fonz statue in Milwaukee?

    I totally remember that (none / 0) (#100)
    by nulee on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:04:40 PM EST
    that's the one with the Lifesavers joke at the end, remember?

    McCain's ad (none / 0) (#94)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:01:44 PM EST
    "[images of Congress, gas pumps, etc.] We're worse off than we were four years ago...Only John McCain has taken on big tobacco"

    I love how his ad has a segue that makes absolutely no sense.  Big tobacco is so 90s!  But ads are about images.  They don't have to make sense.

    Paging Obama...

    The ad is called (none / 0) (#98)
    by Makarov on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:54:51 PM EST
    "the Original Maverick". It's playing in the Philadelphia media market, and it's a great ad for McCain. The way for McCain to minimize Obama's apparent advantage on economic issues is to make the two look pretty much the same. The differences the Republicans will put out about Obama are:

    1. he wants to raise your taxes
    2. he wants to surrender to the terrorists

    That's the Republican strategy this time around. Based on polling this summer, it appears to be reasonably effective.

    What is Obama's advantage on the economy? (none / 0) (#107)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:42:01 PM EST
    Sorry, but I am not sure what he has said about how he will fix the economy.  

    Voters might reasonably think that Obama will raise taxes and when times are tight, that's the last thing they want to hear.  


    BTD - you have probably seen this (none / 0) (#99)
    by nulee on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:03:03 PM EST

    Nichols is you "lite" - he is now DISCOVERING why HRC should be on the ticket.