Thursday Morning Text Message Watch

I won't be around to hear the news of who Obama picks as his Vice-Presidential candidate if today is the day he chooses to text it to the world.

Here's a place for you to keep each other updated on what happens -- or doesn't happen.

I really hope it is not Joe Biden. But since everyone else seems convinced it is, I've got my i-Pod set to play Don Henley's "The Heart of the Matter" which begins:

I got the call today I didn't want to hear
but I knew that it would come.

Next up: B.B. King and The Thrill is Gone.

My earlier post on the mountain of material Biden will provide McCain for ads belittling both Biden and Obama, is here.

< Picking Biden Won't Help Obama Control His Environment | Last Chance: Hillary For VP >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Up all night on Tropical Stprm Fay/VP Watch (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:36:12 AM EST
    Random thoughts:

    I hate wind.

    I would say that mass volumes of blowing hot air point to a Biden selection.

    Why I love Talk Left: the first 10 commenters in a thread do not congratulate themselves on being first.

    Is that a metaphor? or (none / 0) (#22)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:42:59 AM EST
    are you in path of Fay?  

    I'm in the path in East Orlando (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:09:49 AM EST
    Fay was lodged over Daytona most of the night.  The wind and rain kept me awake.  Not dangerous where I am, just loud and nerve-wracking.

    Sorry about that.... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:37:34 AM EST
    ....it does put you on edge. Hope you don't lose power. Anyway, stay safe and hopefully catch up on your sleep.

    I thought he was all about Indiana? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:02:37 AM EST
    This guessing game is getting old and played.  Did you see that CNN article that said that they sent out an email to journos titled "VP nominee" in the subject line and then read, "Just kidding."

    Oh my.

    I know - the longer it goes on (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:20:28 AM EST
    the more enthusiasm drains out. I think the announcement will be greeted with  collective yawn.

    Toying with the press is a real great idea. The 'letdown' stories are writing themselves at this point.


    Who cares? (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:56:46 AM EST
    By continuing to play their silly games, the Obama camp has managed to increase the party rift. I've gotten so tired of this, I'm to the point where it won't matter. The only two that I think could have helped him (Hilary or Clark) are supposedly out. The rest can only hurt him.

    Chuck Todd on the Today Show.... (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:32:22 AM EST
    ....just put everything on Hillary's shoulders. He blamed Obama's drop in the polls on her supporters and said that its her responsibility to convince any of them who don't want to vote for Obama that they must vote for Obama.

    Oh dear, what a responsibility for someone who won't be on the ticket. We all knew this would happen, but its sort of really mind-blogging to watch a supposed political expert say with a straight face that victory in an election for one candidate depends on the actions or behavior of the candidate he supposedly defeated.


    LOL. It's hilarious because they don't (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:41:55 AM EST
    understand that HRC supporters aren't IN LOVE with her. So her telling me I should vote for him makes no difference to me. HER going for party unity will not make her supporters listen.  They seem immune to understanding that most of her supporters are not in a cult of personality with her.  We voted for HER because of the issues. And if some HRC supporters don't support him SHE has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that I don't like his stances on the issues. I don't like what HE stands for. These pundits are such idiots.  Hillary has NOTHING whatsoever to do with it.  

    Exception proves Rule: Repug Dad in Fanboi mode (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:23:19 AM EST
    Yes, he's still goofy about his Schnookums. I have yet to examine any personal correspondence for fear of finding heart-dotted i's and Cupid's arrow crossed t's.

    But. I. Know. They're. There. (I can sense it.)


    Agree (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:39:59 AM EST
    Hillary has NOTHING whatsoever to do with it. It is ALL about Obama. It is all about the direction of the party, issues and complete lack of trust that Obama will stand up for the things that are important to me. Obama did a complete 180 on FISA and voted to effectively help cover up Bush's illegal activities and reduce my Constitutional rights. If Obama was not willing to honor his oath to protect the Constitution, don't see him honoring any other so called commitment. IMO Obama and the NEW Democratic Party seems more than willing to promote Republican agendas and barter away anything and everything for political gain.  

    Besides being classic IACF, (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:42:47 AM EST
    I think those media folks who support Obama and perpetuate this are trying to "guilt" us holdouts into voting for him. If we don't vote for Obama and he loses, it will be our fault when Hillary is blamed. I feel bad that she'll take the hit, but it won't make me vote for him.

    She won't take the hit. (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:46:50 AM EST
    She'll take a hit from hard-core Obama supporters (you know,the same ones that were saying she was responsible for Vince Foster during the primaries) and the media. NOTHING new.  Her supporters and most of America will still not believe the media BS.

    What a bunch of babies! (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:47:34 AM EST
    Blame the girl - wow that's new and exciting.  Wait - there was...Eve.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:11:49 AM EST
    I never quite believed they would actually blame her, but sure enough, here it is.  They have no shame.

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:00:18 AM EST
    It was a given for me, just from the reaction after Hillary suspended her campaign.  Someone posted a Hillary-for-VP diary today and there were three response types - reasonable, CDS and severe CDS.  (It was a reasonable, as opposed to inflamamtory, diary.)

    There was a front paged VP poll at DK earlier this week and Richardson was in second place.  Richardson!  Do people really want Obama to win?


    Yep, he couldn't help himself (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:47:56 AM EST
    She tempted him with that d(mned apple!

    Do (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:58:23 AM EST
    people like Chuck Todd realize that they are making it even worse for Obama? They constantly make excuses for him makes me like Obama even less. And the fact that they want to make Hillary responsible for his ineptness only divides the party even further.

    Besides, the drop in the polls is his supporters abandoning him. He had these supporters at one time. Why are they leaving?


    what I find fascinating (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:34:04 AM EST
    is the fact that they've obviously lost a great deal of confidence in The One if they're blaming Hillary this far out from the Election and even before he's the Official Nominee.

    It's almost like they've resigned themselves to the strong possibility of an Obama Loss and are all rushing to be the first one to assign blame to Hillary and start the media theme of throwing his future campaign failures at her feet.

    Truth be told, voters were fairly adept at ignoring the Media bobbleheads during the Primary -- and voting for her in record numbers -- and will be equally successful in ignoring them now, eventually laying the blame where it belongs:  on Barack, the DNC and the surprisingly inept Democratic Party.


    Twisted logic (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:10:42 AM EST
    I don't understand the reasoning of Chuck Todd or any of the others. The only person responsible for unity is the guy that ran on that platform. If he can't work with his own party, what chance is he going to have with the Republican Party? To blame anyone else is ridiculous.

    Yup - Hope, Change and Unity. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:02:20 AM EST
    That's Obama.  Hillary supported and supports party unity, but she didn't RUN on it.

    Of course, the "Unity" that Obama was running on was actually of the bi-post-partisan variety, so you can argue Obama is still being consistent.  


    A sexist dinosaur mindset, even for a cretin (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:15:29 AM EST
    Unbelievable. I'd love to hear the practical  expectations underlying Todd's complaint.

    Although I didn't see the show (or transcript) this may, yet again, fall into the pile of historically unique niche for Sen Clinton. (Like the media complaining that she didn't quit running.)

    HRC has been a stellar Dem and thrown her support behind party and nom.

    Did Todd expect HRC to work her magnificent lemming-controlling superpower by scanning the masses with her lazer-eyes, or using the Magic Voice via satellite?

    Or was she just supposed to stride forth and smack people in line individually? (Where does teevee find these @ssh0les?)

    Sorry Bobbleheads, but each vote belongs to the individual until cast.


    Apparently they are doing the same thing... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:40:02 AM EST
    ...on CNN, though I didn't see it firsthand, at least that's what my husband said.

    Honestly, if Hillary had the power they (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:49:54 AM EST
    are claiming she has, she would be the nominee and obama would be a blip on the radar.  Hillary has done what she was asked...try to get her voters to vote for obama.  Problem is that too many of her supporters are thinkers and want what is best for the country, thus its a no-go.  

    As for Chuck Todd, he and those of his ilk are off the mark and maybe this puts their jobs in jeopardy.  Its hell when you think you are right all the time, and then it just doesn't pan out....he falls into the Tweety class, along with David Shuster, David Gregory, Jack Cafferty, etc.


    Stupid Analysis (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:28:04 AM EST
    It's ridiculous for Todd or any of them to blame Hilary. The only person responsible for party unity is the guy that ran on that platform. Obama has had almost three months to get the party in order and he's squandered them. If he can't bring the Dem's together, what chance is he going to have with the Rep's, who will block his agenda at every chance?

    it's the rock & hard place situation (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:53:02 AM EST
    The kinds of things Obama would have to do to create unity CAN'T happen because if they did, that wouild also cause him to lose.  Here is a list of the kinds of things that I would like to see happen

    1.  The Obama campaign admits that they played the race-card intentionally to take AA support away from Clinton.  They apologize and explain that there wasn't anything inherantly "racial" or "racially coded" in what the Clintons or the Clinton campaign said.

    2. The DNC admits their wrong doing in the primary season.

    3. Donna Brazile is remove from any position of power within the party.

    4. The ROOLZ committee admits they broke their own rules.

    5.  Caucuses will no longer be allowed in any dem state primary system because they disenfranchise voters.

    Press Objectivity Is A Myth (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by JimWash08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:57:21 AM EST
    Chuck Todd on the Today Show just put everything on Hillary's shoulders. He blamed Obama's drop in the polls on her supporters and said that its her responsibility to convince any of them who don't want to vote for Obama that they must vote for Obama.

    Not only are they cheerleading for him, MS(NBC) is now quite literally making a case for him and fighting on his behalf to ensure he ascends the throne.

    Utterly shameless and despicable.


    No more excitement in the race (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by djork on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:03:27 AM EST
    It's because Hillary is the only person in politics that generates any excitement at all, so even though she's gone from the race, the media can't stop themselves from talking about her even if they have to make stuff up. They irony is how badly they wanted her to drop out throughout the primary. So they got what they wished for and are now facing the agonizing boredom of covering Obama's candidacy and possible administration that could be the longest four years of their lives. His game playing with the Veep drama is coming off as a really unsatisfying consolation prize.

    Allowing talking heads who don't know the (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:46:52 PM EST
    meaning of democracy and freedom should not be allowed to report on politics as though they are some sort of expert. But, as long as they draw viewers and the ratings allow them to charge for their advertising, those flapping lips will continue influencing the people who don't want to think for themselves.

    Why won't so many HRC supporters just follow the bouncing "D"? Because the DNC destroyed their own brand with the contortions they put the rules through this primary. Donna Brazile became the voice of the party, and that level of anger and deception doesn't speak for me.

    Hillary can't give Obama the experience, or the ethics he so sorely lacks to those of us who will not follow. She can forgive and forget what was done to her, but she can't repair the damage the party did to itself. It is the responsibility of the DNC (the convention hasn't started, they could still play the rules the way they were written) to fix what they broke, and it is the responsibility of Obama to come clean and speak loudly about what he believes and what he wants to do. He does not make me feel safe and understood the way JFK did, and both Clintons do.

    I do not believe the outcome at the convention will be changed even if the DNC runs the roll call the way it was designed. Obama is the candidate, and each and every registered voter in this country gets to decide for themselves how they are going to cast their vote. Until the media starts talking like they understand that, they won't be getting my help in staying on the air.


    the roll call won't really matter anyway (none / 0) (#105)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:23:43 PM EST
    since Team Obama has been quietly replacing Clinton delegates with Obama delegates since the end of the primaries.

    The reason it won't work is because (none / 0) (#106)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:36:03 PM EST
    the DNC refuses to make any effort to show they see the flaws in the party, and the need for reform and a change in leadership. This fiasco of a primary will be a blight on the democracy in history books for decades.

    Chuck Todd's wife (none / 0) (#31)
    by magisterludi on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:12:42 AM EST
    works for McCain. I wonder if Todd is still pushing the anti-Hillary meme to keep the party from coming together. He can still be kewl to the KOClub, yet help throw the election to McCain.

    However much (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:00:28 AM EST
    you might like to think so, Chuck Todd is not a political operative.

    In fact, I would guess that the reason Todd and so many others in the political press are so clueless is exactly because they are largely non-ideological.  Because Todd, as the prime example this morning, doesn't think much about issues and is at an income level where little of it really matters anyway, he has no idea why X percentage of people who voted for Hillary don't want anything to do with Obama.

    He doesn't meet us or talk to us, he doesn't read the blogs farther than to quickly scan A-list front-page posts.  He quite literally is clueless about where the Obama resistance is coming from.

    Because he doesn't care much about issues, he (and the vast majority of other political pundits) can't see that there's enough difference between The O and Hillary to explain the resistance.  So there are only two explanations he and others can think of.  One is that a large percentage of Dem. voters are stone racists.  They really don't want to go there, although they flirted with it in the primaries.

    So the only explanation they can come up with is a Hillary cult of personality parallel to Barack's that simply refuses to let go.

    They see all us voters (not entirely without reason, actually) as a bunch of sheep.


    Absolutely--the coyness is irritating (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kempis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:00:00 AM EST
    and counterproductive at this point.

    Toying with the press is a real great idea. The 'letdown' stories are writing themselves at this point

    Very true. And the truth is, any choice but Hillary is going to be blah. The whole race has become blah without Hillary in it. The Hillary-haters in the media and the blogs seem adrift....

    Maybe this is why the Obama camp is waiting until immediately before the convention. They're hoping the convention will drown out the VP announcement?


    I posted this at the end of another (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:27:52 AM EST
    thread but I'll repeat it here...

    John McCain's campaign plans to send out telegraphs and letters via Pony Express.  All you have to do is send him your address.

    I'm just kidding but I'm tired of this VP thing with Obama.  It's like "Announce it aleady!"  We are busy people!  We don't have time to sit around and wonder about this stuff!    


    This (none / 0) (#108)
    by IzikLA on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:59:59 PM EST
    Is the one reason I'm actually starting to think it's Hillary.  Maybe he will just announce with her in Illinois on Saturday.  Really, considering the pent up anticipation by that point, anything less would be a letdown and I would be surprised if he and his campaign don't know that.  

    Also, the text message thing -- today I was thinking that if they've really thought this text message thing through at all (and I'm guessing they have), that it has to be someone with high name recognition.  I doubt they want millions of voters getting a text message and going "who?" Clinton's name solves that and the instant buzz would be phenomenal.  I'm assuming they are counting on that.

    The closer it gets to Saturday with no announcement, the more I think it'll be her.


    Also (none / 0) (#109)
    by IzikLA on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:38:03 PM EST
    Regarding the text message - that could also point to a Saturday announcement - they do a text message to get everyone talking, since no one watches news then - they will all have a reason to immediately tune in...

    Passive agressive behavior - (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:01:54 AM EST
    are they angry with the Press or all of us?  I thought the Press was in it for him - am I wrong?  Or are the cracks beginning?

    I would vote for him if he picked Wes Clark.  Never thought he'd pick Hillary.  But since I'm in Illinois - I can vote Green.  


    I think the press is getting OVER him (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:55:00 AM EST
    Check the headlines posted on RealClearPolitics this morning.  Again, just like yesterday, the majority of them are now critical of Obama.

    I think you're right (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:02:42 AM EST
    In today's NY Times on the Op-Ed Page, Gail Collins ends her slightly humorous take on the VP search -- both Dem and Repub -- with the statement "Who will Barack pick?  I don't care" and then something about at least it'll be someone from the Dem Party (referring to the speculation McCain will pick Lieberman).

    More and more I'm seeing critical articles and Op-Eds on Barack.  Makes me think his campaign is sitting slack-jawed in utter shock, disbelieving that "his friends" in the media who were so nice to him during the Primary are now "against him".

    Well, there goes at least ONE trick he can't count on to lift him over the Finish Line.  Looks like he might have to get out there and actually work for it a bit more.


    Yes, many many TLers predicted (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:57:46 AM EST
    a media turncoat fest would come.

    You'd think the Democrats would learn.  But they preferred to think the media lovefest was genuinely because of Obama's inspiring personality.

    I guess if they were watching Tweety's 'he's a gift to us from the world' footage, I can see why.

    Naw, I can't.  Lucy, Charlie Brown and football.  Isn't that the popular TL metaphor?  Well, here it is...


    apparently... (none / 0) (#14)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:21:59 AM EST
    these were hoax messages not sent from the Obama campaign...

    [warning, link to foxnews]


    Let's look for a nobody (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by koshembos on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:04:23 AM EST
    It seem that the goal Obama has set for the VP is to be someone with no stature, no significance, no strong personality and no political strength.

    As Cmugirl above says, choose your poison.

    I loved Stephen Colbert's comment about Bayh ... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:46:36 AM EST
    ... that he looked like the picture that came with the frame. (LOL)

    No smack on Bayh given I may have the wallet sized ones.


    Funny story (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:16:54 AM EST
    I sent all of my siblings a copy of an old family photograph in a frame one year for Christmas.  My brother's wife threw away the picture and kept the frame - she thought it was one of the pictures that comes with the frame.  She was quite embarrassed a few months later when the rest of us were talking about the picture and she realized what she had done.

    We like her anyway ;-)


    That's hilarious; LOLx2 skimming the thread n/t (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:29:08 AM EST
    That (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:45:50 AM EST
    would be Kaine IMO. He's a complete nonentity. Or just as bad would be Sebelius.

    Sebelius is the human equivalent of a (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:31:56 AM EST
    sleeping pill.  

    They can call (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by magisterludi on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:17:33 AM EST
    their campaign bus The Somnolent Express.

    Well, at least I probably will.


    How about (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:20:16 AM EST
    Pearl Jam - Better Man?

    "Fool on the Hill"? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by suki on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:41:57 AM EST
    I heard the news today, oh boy ... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:32:51 AM EST
    Tossing A Day in the Life as ringtone pick.

    I considered: It's Reigning Men but evidently the song title's misspelled throughout the inner netz.  

    I Think It's Going to be Kaine (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by bmc on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:27:17 AM EST
    Or Bayh.

    Maybe Biden.

    Could be Sebelius.

    None of them will help him; except Bayh, maybe.

    But, look, if he doesn't have the guts [or the nuts, thanks to Jesse] to pick Clinton, then he won't have the guts to have a Clinton supporter either, will he?

    He's going to show his hand with this pick, and I think it will be Kaine. Kaine was the first to endorse him, and hasn't been on the Clinton bandwagon at all, and hasn't made any derogatory comments about whether or not Obama is ready to lead. Kaine fits Obama's comfort zone, i.e., Obama's ego can't take anyone else.

    Wes Clark was never an option. The reason (none / 0) (#43)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:31:48 AM EST
    I think it will be Kaine is that Bayh supporter Hillary at one point. That makes me think that makes him unacceptable. Since anyone that dared support her seems to have been on the outs from the beginning.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:33:08 AM EST
    that even Bayh would help. It's hard to say.

    Bayh will be a status quo pick... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:43:25 AM EST
    ...he won't make a difference one way or another, but maybe that's the best case scenario at this point. I don't care what the media and some Obama supporters are saying....Biden would be a liability.

    Bayh is the safe choice (none / 0) (#49)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:49:12 AM EST
    i dont know how the repubs would swiftboat attack him.

    your post (none / 0) (#85)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:34:38 AM EST
    reads like the Obama campaign.  Pick a candidate please!

    It could be.....or......or....maybe....

    Why are so many people so undecisive these days?


    I am not now nor ever will be a Budgie Voter (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:59:10 AM EST
    ... looking in the lil' round mirror in my birdcage and responding to what appears to be another lil'old bird in a cage just like me.


    To many many many people, issues, candidates' respective abilities, party concerns &c &c come before empty marketing and sloganeering.

    In that respect, never having met the dude, I have no personal animosity towards Obama. I question his character based on some of his statemnts and actions, eg, falling down so quickly on core Dem principles -- and dumping his own platform -- to ingratiate himself with a faction of people who are determined to obliterate basic human rights.

    The sheer ugliness of the misogyny and bigotry he fomented was sickening but since when have most of the jerks in office or the airwaves cared about that? I've moved on.

    Someday Obama might develop into a decent politician, and one who advocates for issues and causes I've always supported.

    He hasn't done it up to now, as anyone would expect, were he fractionally as much The One as his suppoters claim. He's not showing it right now and I seriously doubt he'll suddenly spring into action and bring the progress if he takes office.

    I really need more than an assurance from some Cheetoh-stained wretch that this RW pandering is a wink and a nod that some people just don't get. Even if that WAS what Obie was doing, it's not that I don't GET it but that I don't particularly WANT that, either.

    Rights? Economy? Quality of people's lives? Planet in turmoil? Issues?

    Anyone? Bueller? Obama?

    animosity (none / 0) (#75)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:03:24 AM EST
    animosity for Obama is rampant these days... i really feel like if he said that water is wet... people will attack him for it.   If an Alien landed on TL... he would think OBAMA was tthe rebirth of Hanibal

    somehow I just don't get the validity (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:34:35 AM EST
    of comparing Obama's knowlegde of the properties of water with the actual list of real concerns in the post you responded to.

    Aliens landing you say? You might want to ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:19:41 AM EST
    ... check in with Lou 'El Gringo Blingo' Dobbs on that one.

    Otherwise, hypotheticals matter even less to me than the numbing dullness of this "exciting" text messaging that has the yoots all in a bunch.

    An astonishingly predictable use of a technology that's been around for ages you say? Phones you can carry around untethered to the front hall? A a crank-operated computational machine* that has put both our beloved phone operator (and shameless town busybody) Velma Lou and the local bookkeeper Mr. Peepers out of work?

    Who'da thunk it.

    * Speaking for MY laptop only, of course.


    New poll shows the opposite is true (none / 0) (#99)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:16:22 PM EST
    as well.  I chuckled at the new poll (Fox).  Those questioned wouldn't give up on Obama no matter what.  Didn't matter who he picked for VP.. the funny part?  They wouldn't give up on him even if he said he was going to appoint conservative judges.  Ha!  Funny stuff.

    Some fun news (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:49:22 AM EST
    Hallmark has started making cards for gay marriage:


    that shocks me (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:33:32 AM EST
    because if you go to buyblue.org they list Hallmark as a big republican supporting company.  no monies to Dem candidates.

    No doubt, but money speaks louder! (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:44:16 AM EST
    One of the arguments in Mass. when they were debating a constitutional amendment to reverse the gay marriage decision was a big economic one, and from what I could tell, it had some decent traction. (esp. for the Cape, what with Provincetown and all).

    cliche alert (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:26:03 PM EST
    Money talks and Bu*s*t walks!  Even if those dollars are gay!

    How nice! (none / 0) (#88)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:49:59 AM EST
    Something tells me: Not available at all locations.

    I gotta stop that. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:52:38 AM EST
    People are navel gazing over at the Orange.  (Polls have them periodically feeling down.)

    "Why would anyone vote for McCain?" they moan.  "McCain is a nasty, horrible person!".  They then go on to talk about the nasty horribleness of McCain.

    I point out that McCain bashing might feel good, but it's not going to win the election.  McCain is bad because of X,Y and Z.  &  Obama is good because of A,B and Z. is effective because it contrasts both candidates instead of mindlessly bashing one.

    I also used the "Not-McCain" meme.  Probably going to get flamed for that but that is a pathetically weak argument.  Always go with your strongest argument!  

    I do wish Democrats would learn message control and public relations and marketing.  CDS might have helped to win the primary, but it is foolish to think that McDS can win the GE.  Mindless bashing doesn't win voters, it suppresses turnout.  

    I'm not a fan of Obama, but I would like the Dems to at least prove themselves competent at running a presidential campaign.  Please.  The GOP is weak and coming out of a disastrous two term presidency.  It should be simple enough to create a strong positive brand to contrast with that!

    First up on my iPod: (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:15:05 PM EST
    "Not Ready To Make Nice" by the Dixie Chicks-

    "I'm not ready to make nice,
    I'm not ready to back down
    I'm still mad as he11 and
    I don't have time to go
    round and round and round..."

    I want my Democratic party back....NOW!

    Well (none / 0) (#1)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:34:10 AM EST
    Obama is in Virginia all day with Gov. Kaine.  But listening to the radio here in NoVA/DC this morning as I get ready for work, they are still saying odds on favorite is Biden. Pick your poison.

    What happens when (none / 0) (#13)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:07:08 AM EST
    he doesn't pick Hillary (which I personally hope he doesn't)?  I feel sorry for the actual choice because the media narrative will be a little about the actual choice and at least half of how s/he compares to Hillary and why Hillary wasn't chosen.  If the announcement is today, then it marks the official end to the media Hillary hate-fest, and they don't want to give that up, so they will bring her into the equation any way they can.

    are you new here? ;) (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:26:38 AM EST
    I mean, the media always finds a way to attack Clinton.  In this case, they'll blame her for not taking her name out of consideration immediately so that her supporters could get used to the idea that she's not VP -- and blame her for setting the bar too high.

    why (none / 0) (#32)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:14:02 AM EST
    why would she take her name out the VP running when he is picking her.

    the best way to attack the repub swiftboaters is to blindside them

    Biden and Kaine are just float names...



    I thought she already said that? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:17:21 AM EST
    Didn't she already say that she wasn't being vetted?

    no need to VET (none / 0) (#38)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:18:27 AM EST
    no need to VET a strong primary opponent...she was already vetted to death

    Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:30:09 AM EST
    campaign has made it abundantly clear that she would not be the VP. Besides, Obama doesn't have the confidence to put someone on the ticket who would outshine him. It's going to be a boring bland nonentity.

    Obama made it abundantly clear (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:58:26 AM EST
    that he would filibuster any FISA bill with telecom immunity too.   So, what's your point?

    Well (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:02:41 AM EST
    you've got a point there. However, do you really think that he's got the guts to do it? I don't. I think that he believes that he has the election "in the bag" and doesn't need anyone's help. After all, he's already calling himself "President" right?

    not a question of guts, (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by kimsaw on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:38:23 AM EST
    but of smarts. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. Clinton is his best choice, always has been, but he's seems to be in the fog of his own rhetoric. Change is being bold, doing the unexpected.  Perhaps he wants to build the soap opera then do the right thing by picking Clinton. If he doesn't choose Clinton, he's showing a lack of political judgment and maturity.

    As an independent, an Obama ticket without Clinton  sends a huge message to me.  He is willing to work with Lugar, respects the presidency of Reagan, yet  is unwilling to step away from his ego and do what's in the best interest of his country and his party by teaming with Clinton. His willingness to buy into the Republican attacks and use them against Clinton from the very beginning has made me question what side of the fence Obama was really on. To this day I still don't know and not knowing piles up as distrust.

    In the end even if he picks Clinton I would struggle with pulling the lever for Obama. You see, its not about Clinton, its about Obama.


    is there anything (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:57:28 AM EST
    is there anything about OBAMA that isnt 100% horrible to u.

    but you are consistant  i will give u that.


    He has cute kids (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:27:25 AM EST
    and he can give a good teleprompter speech.  

    Look, the main thing people have against him is that he has no real experience to do the job of being president.

    Lately, though, he has also shown that he stands for nothing and seems more interested in winning to BE president as opposed to DOING THE JOB OF president.


    for a man his age (none / 0) (#89)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:50:48 AM EST
    he looks OK in swim trunks.

    He's likable enough I guess. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by DJ on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:55:37 PM EST
    Honestly, I gave up (none / 0) (#63)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:08:08 AM EST
    trying to figure out what his camp thinks.

    One new possibiltiy just came to mind though.  Do you recall the big story about how Mark Penn was so "knowledgeable" about the primary process that he initially thought it was winner take all and the other advisors had to explain to him that it wasn't?

    Well, maybe the Obama camp thinks the ROOLZ committee will be able to hold a meeting after the voting is done and give some of McCain's electoral votes to Obama.  Has there been any consideration to taking Obama's names off any of the ballots in RED states yet?


    I thought he would NEVER pick (none / 0) (#62)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:05:09 AM EST
    her from the very first time that it was even floated. Back in February. And back when she was talking about a joint ticket. He always deflected the question or went "we're winning!" And I don't think anything has changed. He was not interested in January, March or June.  He is not interested now.

    They will rather lose without her than guarantee a win with her.


    No :) (none / 0) (#54)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:56:24 AM EST
    I just figured the media would look silly constantly blaming someone who would "officially" be out after next week - especially when people start paying attention to the election again.

    Ah, but I realize my question was naive and fanciful!  :O


    Sorry to disappoint you but.... (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:37:02 AM EST
    ...see my post above about what Chuck Todd said re Hillary's "responsibility" to win the election for Obama this morning. I think they have found a way to keep her as they object of bashing no matter if she is on the ticket or not.

    obama's catch 22 (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:12:39 AM EST
    he needs someone to help him with voters who think he doesn't have the experience to be president.

    But all the people who fit that bill have already gone on record to say Obama isn't ready for the job.

    If he has to pick someone who's never said "he's not ready", his options are then limitted to people who don't address the issue.

    Wes Clark never said that, that I recall (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:18:09 AM EST
    true (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:23:50 AM EST
    Not that anyone can remember.  And I don't think he did.  

    Daschle or Pelosi (none / 0) (#64)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:17:07 AM EST
    I don't think either one of them has ever said it.  

    Yes (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:22:18 AM EST
    But they don't address the concern.

    Foreign Policy Experience (none / 0) (#50)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:51:28 AM EST
    Biden would do well as Sec of State rather than VP. But Obama might be thinking older voters. They know his name.

    They can blame Hillary all they want because 18 million voters know differently.  

    We need an attack dog (none / 0) (#52)
    by Semanticleo on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:54:33 AM EST
    Biden is a crass, self-serving politician with most of the negative traits associated with that position.  But he is the perfect deflector of garbage from the Ancient Mariner.  You know, Cap'n Ahab, or John McCaine, if you will.

    I thought (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:03:54 AM EST
    so until the GOP started dumping the oppo research on Biden. Heck, even Biden has stated that Obama isn't qualified to be President.

    Obama isn't qualified to be president! (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:22:11 AM EST
    It's not surprising a lot of people have said that in the past.  He really isn't qualified!

    He's qualified to be a Sanator, but that's apparently a job he decided he didn't care for much after a few months of doing it.    


    even Obama said (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:28:55 AM EST
    he wasn't qualified to be President as he was still figuring out where the Men's washroom was.

    Don't think that won't show up in a commercial or during the debates.



    unlike George W right? (none / 0) (#73)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:59:05 AM EST
    the country already (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:30:30 AM EST
    made that mistake twice with the unqualified GW.  Are you suggesting we should willingly make it again?

    Interesting article from Joe Klein (none / 0) (#90)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:55:20 AM EST
    Where is Obama's Passion?

    Interesting I saw the lack of it myself this morning. I was watching Obama's Virginia event and he has started to sound more and more like Hillary but without the fire and believability. He even mentiond the 'Clinton years' instead of using his normal 'the ninties'.

    But it just didn't ring true when he said he is running for president because he wants to fight for the working class. I didn't believe him.

    Mentioned the "Clinton" years (none / 0) (#91)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:03:58 AM EST
    without degrading them as filled with bitter partisanship which he based his primary campaign on....and it didn't sound believable?  Who would have ever guessed...

    No Biden, please. (none / 0) (#92)
    by blueaura on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:07:55 AM EST
    He's a blowhard that is too enamored with the sound of his own voice. And as most people who like to hear themselves talk, he has provided plenty of ammunition to use against him. He really adds nothing, and may even take away some. Please Obama, not Biden.

    You have to think (none / 0) (#93)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:13:58 AM EST
    that if he waits until the weekend he is looking to temper the announcement.  

    Why wait until no one is paying attention?  

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#94)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:20:29 AM EST
    the concern that if Clinton is offerred and takes the VP spot that somehow Obama will "neuter" her and she will have no influence.

    I would think that if she is offerred the VP position she will accept with "conditions" applied as to how her role in the adminstration will be defined.  I don't think she would accept if Obama's plan is just to send her to funerals as his rep.

    I think the problem is two-fold. (none / 0) (#101)
    by tree on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:18:45 PM EST
    I doubt she could put any conditions on her acceptance without facing the possibility that Obama won't agree to them, and would then publicize the fact that she set "unreasonable" conditions on her acceptance. CDS will cycle yet anew and she'll have set herself up for a stronger argument about how its all her fault for a loss for not being the party unifier by accepting the job.

    Two, there is probably little to be realistically gained from setting conditions. If he does agree to them there is nothing to hold him to that agreement, and the Vice Presidency is only as powerful, or weak, as a President chooses it to be. There is very limited inherent power in the Vice Presidency. Its mostly tied up in breaking ties in the Senate and it doesn't look like that will be needed in the near future.


    repugs have announced their motto (none / 0) (#97)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:57:07 AM EST
    for the dem convention in Denver next week

    "A Mile High and an Inch Deep"

    Continuing the Rock Star / Celebrity theme.

    That makes no sense (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:54:56 PM EST
    That's like saying a mile long and an inch short.

    Guess I shouldn't expect much.


    Apparently Obama made a public statement (none / 0) (#107)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:40:08 PM EST
    this afternoon that he has made his decision, but won't be sharing it today.

    Hard to imagine how his promise to make anyone who would give up their cell phone number "the first to know" can be pulled off now. Press are camped out at all locations where anyone even considered a possibility can be found, and you know they all gave up their company cell phone numbers!

    He really needs to release the name, though. He's taking a beating on his criticisms toward McCain today.