When Will Obama Make His VP Pick?

Obama's ten day Hawaii vacation begins today, as do the Olympics. The Democratic Convention starts August 25. So Obama's VP announcement will come sometime between the 18th and the 25th. If the Vice President is going to be anything more than an afterthought (and at this point, it seems clear that the Obama camp does not want the Vice Presidential choice to get much attention at all imo), it will have to be early in that 7 day period. Why not just before the Convention? In my opinion, yesterday's events (with Barack Obama shrewdly offering Bill Clinton a Wednesday night speaking spot) made clear that to the degree the Democratic National Convention is not about Barack Obama, it will be about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Because of that, Ann Kornblut makes me chuckle when she writes:

[Wednesday night], officials expect the vice presidential nominee to dominate the stage, along with, potentially, a separate keynote speaker (the role that Obama filled in 2004)


(Emphasis supplied.) Ha! Bill Clinton is speaking Wednesday night now. And good for Obama. Because, count on it, Bill Clinton will make the argument for Barack Obama for President better than Tim Kaine or Kathleen Sebelius or any nondescript pol Obama chooses to be the empty suit of a VP he seems insistent on. After the convention, Obama will be The One. He will be making the argument for himself by himself. His VP will, by design it seems, be an afterthought in this campaign.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Late Night Open Thread: Oprah's Back | What The Bush Administration Has Wrought >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:51:25 AM EST
    has made it impossible for Bill to make the argument for him. He spent the entire primary calling Bill a racist and every other name in the book. He should have been smarter during the primary but by trashing the Clinton legacy he will be conceding now that either he was wrong during the primary and is flip flopping.

    Obama is not running on Bill Clinton's record. He is running for Carter's second term.

    I cannot wait for Bill Clinton (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by independent voter on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:11:00 AM EST
    to speak and prove you wrong. He WILL make the case for Obama. If anyone understands what is necessary in politics, it is Bill Clinton. He may not like it all, but he gets it.

    Are you (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    silly enough to believe that Obama's tactics aren't going to come back to bite him? Do you not think that the GOP isn't going to remind voters of how Obama repeatedly called Clinton a racist? Can Obama decide if he's a racist or not? Why is Obama having someone that he believes is a racist make the case for him? Or was Obama lying about Clinton being a racist? Do you see my point?

    All that being said, Obama is going to have to make the case for his presidency. He's not running on the Clinton legacy, he's running on the Carter legacy. Remember he said that Bush and Clinton had the same economic results right?


    I agree with the independent voter (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:24:38 AM EST
    he will do what he needs to do.
    will it make a difference.  probably not.  but he will do it anyway.
    and he will do with style and panache.

    So basically, you just want to pick a fight. (none / 0) (#54)
    by independent voter on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:26:05 AM EST
    I don't appreciate the insinuation that I am "silly", and my comment had NOTHING to do with what the GOP will or will not do. I directly responded to your allegation that Bill Clinton will not make the case for Obama. You are wrong, and I can't wait to see it proved so. Your ODS is showing, and it is not attractive.

    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    will make a nice speech I'm sure. The problem is that it won't help Obama because he has made it impossible for Bill to help him. Obama has created a huge problem for himself that Clinton CAN NOT solve. Do you understand that? That is my point.

    I don't have ODS. I know any criticism of Obama is called ODS or whatever. I tell it like it is.


    Clinton will make the case for the Democratic (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by esmense on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:45:56 AM EST
    Party. He will try to repair the damage done by months of Obama supporters and Obama himself using Republican talking points against the last Democratic president's character and accomplishments and insisting that his administration shares blame with the Bush administration for the nation's current state of affairs. This is a job -- reminding people of the successes of the 90s and how much stronger both the economy and the government were after Clinton's 8 years than they were when he took over after 12 years of Republican mis-rule -- that absolutely has to be done and that no one can do as well as Clinton. Making the case for Obama will, and should be, left to the VP.

    People who don't understand the successes of the Clinton administration -- including most of Obama's younger supporters -- tend to be people too young to remember or too affluent or otherwise financially secure (tenure?) to be much affected by what happened under Reagan and Bush 1. They look at Clinton and see someone who failed to create progressive nirvana and compromised with conservatives (who legislatively were reaching the peak of their 20 year ascension to power and public favor legislatively). They don't understand the world of hurt the American people, especially those in the bottom half of the economy -- young workers, working women, minorities -- were in economically (the mounting business failures and growing unemployment, the growing job losses related to massive technological change, the increasing need for education coupled with greatly inflating education costs, escalating health care costs, the sky high interest rates accompanied by increasing levels of crushing personal debt, etc), how unresponsive the Bush and Reagan administration had been to these developments (and how their policies had been complicit in both creating some of these problems and in crippling the government's ability to respond to them) or how ineffective in combating and often complicit in supporting bad Republican policies the Democratic congress had been over the previous years. (Clinton didn't "lose" the Democratic congress -- they did that on their own with their betrayals, complacency and corruption.)

    What Clinton did accomplish, the battles he did win for ordinary Americans, the bad policies he did thwart -- within the context of the political environment of the time, and while under constant, vicious political attack (remember, the Republicans never considered his presidency legitmate and were plotting impeachment from the moment they took power) -- is impressive.

    One would hope that, in the context of an entirely different, and for progressives easier time, when conservative governance is finally totally discredited and conservative ideas are at last in decline, an Obama administration would try to pick up where Clinton was forced to leave off -- to return to good ideas that worked, expand the good policies that could only be put into effect in small or compromised ways in the political climate of the 90s, continue the commitment to a government that works for ordinary Americans in the context of all the dramatic change of the last half of the last century and all the challenges of this new century.

    Unfortunately, his most powerful backers in the Democratic party and both the political and mainstream media (and blogosphere) appear to be people who were too often complicit in (or encouraging of) the Democratic party's compromises with destructive conservative nonsense in the 80s and 90s. When these people praise Obama as potentially "another Reagan" what they really mean is they expect him to be another Tip O'Neill.


    you are forgetting the "new" democratic (none / 0) (#159)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:41:08 AM EST
    party has dissed bill's presidency and told the democratic core base they aren't needed. new democrats? yeah right! bill of course has too much class to say what he wants. but you can't just totally attack two good people and call them every name in the book and then turn around when your polls are going down and say make the case for me.

    If people had listened to (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by TomP on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:13:33 AM EST
    Jimmy Carter, the energy issues we have today would be much less.


    America should have listened to Jimmy Carter on Energy in 1977.


    Look, (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:21:47 AM EST
    I don't disagree with that but you have to realize that running on Carter's legacy is a general election loser.

    Having Bill (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by TruthSayer on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:24:35 AM EST
    speak before the VP is ironic and insulting in so many ways as I said last night.

    And I find this comment a bit off base because it is without context:

    ...the Democratic National Convention is not about Barack Obama, it will be about Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    Well Obama does not intend it to be about Bill & Hillary but Hillary negotiated hard to have a prominent voice at the convention - probably in lieu of having a vote that included her name. This is probably all we are going to get as far as recognition for the 18+ million of us (well that and Hill Supporters in the streets of Denver sucking up some oxygen :))

    And then Bill - how could you not have the last Democratic President speak at the convention? His spot too was also in all likelihood negotiated by Hillary. After thinking about it a bit more last night what better way to highlight that Obama didn't choose her as VP than to have Bill on the stage directly before the VP takes the stage?

    So was it Obama that was so shrewd? No it was Hillary and you can bet that Obama fought this Clinton tandem off the best he could but in the end had to fold the same as he has been folding on other issues all along and will continue to fold in the future.

    As for Bill making the case for Obama apparently some have not heard Bill interviewed in the last week about that subject.

    SNOW: Is he ready to be president?

    CLINTON: You could argue that no one's ever ready to be president. I mean, I certainly learned a lot about the job in the first year.
    SNOW: You think he's completely qualified to be president?

    CLINTON: The Constitution sets qualifications for the president, and then the people decide who they think would be the better president. I think we have two choices. I think he [Obama] should win, and I think he will win.

    Not exactly an enthusiastic endorsement of Obama. If Bill takes that route at the convention he will speak more about the need for 'a' Democrat in the WH more than Obama as having the potential to be a 'great president'.

    So yeah some of the convention will be about the Clintons. But it in not because Obama wanted it that way. It was because he painted himself into a corner and had no way out. Obama can't be happy about this scenario.

    And then lastly how can the convention really be about the Clintons when Obama is going to pull up stakes and move to a rock star outdoor venue to bask in hero worship? Hero worship btw that will continue to reinforce McCain's frame of Obama as a celebrity. Little did Obama know when he chose going outdoors that he would be writing Part II of McCain's Paris/Brittney ad.


    Obama got himself caught between a rock (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:40:40 AM EST
    and a hard place with his own primary campaign.

    Not inviting Bill Clinton to speak would have given the analysts fodder for weeks, and it would not have been a good review for Obama. Giving Bill a spot that can be analyzed as manipulative, insulting or intended to demean will have the same effect as leaving him off the agenda.

    I'll be watching on C-Span to avoid the eye-rolling speculation of what he really meant, because I think Bill Clinton is worth listening to.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:49:40 PM EST
    He didn't have a choice.  If Bill hadn't been asked to speak, that's all we'd hear about from now until November.  Obama's past actions prove to me without a doubt, that if he could have I'm pretty sure Obama would have cut the Clintons out.

    I told my husband that Obama was going to let Bill speak.

    Husband said in reply:

    What do you mean "let him speak". Obama should be thanking Bill profusely that Bill would actually speak at Obama's convention after what Obama did to Bill's legacy.

    Besides that, having the last two-term Democratic president speak is a favor TO Obama, not from Obama.

    The Democrats have become extremely warped.


    i'll listen to bill but why should i listen (none / 0) (#162)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:44:19 AM EST
    to a group who indicated i was a bitter has been they didn't need? the democratic congress has lower poll numbers than bush. the conduct of the dnc is shamefull yet there are some who think we should shake our pompoms and get a good case of amnesia. tell you what that isn't going to happen.

    Bill and Hill are worth listening to (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:13:49 AM EST
    even under these trying circumstances.  I'll be doing the cspan thing too, for their speeches.  I figure TL or other online folks will let everyone know if Obama says anything new or different that is worth paying attention to.

    that's right! i haven't heard anything (none / 0) (#195)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:17:37 AM EST
    so far from obama's campaign that made my heart sing, and i don't expect it at the convention. it is now too much about mass manipulation in my view. that's turnoff in this house.

    Couldn't (none / 0) (#106)
    by tek on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:55:49 AM EST
    have said it better.  So, he had to break down and schedule the Big Dawg.  Interesting.  I doubt it will help him now for all the reasons cited above and if anyone thinks Barack Obama won't need all the help he can get in this campaign and, possibly, WH, they are dreaming.

    Following in Bush's footsteps all the way:  what's with the ten day vacation, already?  


    takin' the kids (none / 0) (#215)
    by zyx on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    to see Grandma. Doesn't everybody?

    Will Obama expect to "pre-approve" (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:56:47 AM EST
    Bill's speech? Not that it would matter because we already know that Bill can deliver an important speech sans teleprompter.

    He's not going to do that (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:55:50 AM EST
    I love Bill and Hill, but they're not leaders of an insurrection.

    Bill will hit whatever themes Obama wants him to hit, and hit them out of the park.

    I still don't get why it's a briliant move for Obama to "give" Bill a prime speaking slot at the convention.  He was always going to have a prime speaking slot.  He's the very successful, very popular most recemt former POTUS of the party.  It would be a scandal without precedent if the party and Obama were not to give him a prime speaking spot, or none at all.

    Leaving him twisting in the wind about it until this late in the day is clumsy at best, and pretty outrageous.


    Yes - I would think that it would be a (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    given that the last Democratic President would have a prime speaking spot.  It is odd that it is being spun even as being news worthy to the degree it is.

    My sense is that the media (and the GOP) would like nothing better than to keep the Obama-Clinton feud narrative going as long as possible - even if there is no real conflict worth noting.

    So much of this Obama-Clinton back and forth is actually pretty standard - pedestrian fare - when you are dealing with successful politicians who all (including Obama) have big egos and who tend to feel the need to control and protect their own images.

    The only reason the Republicans aren't going through a similar struggle is that out of all of their pathetic candidates they only had one who offers them a decent shot at winning.  We had two plus a successful former President.  That should make us look stronger as a party overall rather than weaker - but that wouldn't be anywhere near as fun for the media (or the GOP) to report on.


    the media has to (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:21:51 AM EST
    sensationalize everything to try to remain relevant.  Last night they had to change the way they were reporting their "controversy" about whether Clinton's name would be put into nomination for a rollcall vote.  IN the beginning of the reporting they were acting like "why would anyone think her name SHOULD be put in nomination for a vote".  The n I think they finally woke up to the fact that it is standard procedure for all the candidates names to be put in the roll call vote.  So, then they changed there reporting to be "this would be the first time a candidate ever ENDORSED the nominee and campaigned for them so early in the process and still wanted their name put in nomination".

    So, instead of stating that Obama would be setting the precedent of NOT having all the candiadtes who earned delegates be part of the roll call vote, the media had to change it and come up with a brand new category that they could claim Clinton was setting the precedent in.

    I'm really kind of surprised that the VP discussion hasn't included the reason of possible assasination for keeping Clinton off the ticket.  That's what the Obama fans were all talking about with the RFK statement.  They even brought up the old Vince Foster charges again then.


    Hitting it out of the park (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by blogtopus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:16:14 AM EST
    I think that if Bill is going to do any damage, it will be in this manner.

    I can see him doing his best to deliver the greatest speech of his life about how Democrats can make the world a better place... without mentioning Obama until he has to. Or making a speech listing all the important elements of a good Democratic mission, many of which are lost on Obama and his supporters.

    Or, just maybe, he'll show the class that his wife has shown and give everything he has to convince people that the race-baiting, half-term Senator who wants to bury the legacy of the last successful Dem administration is actually worthy of being President. If anyone can do that and appear sincere, it's a Clinton.


    "not leaders of an insurrection" (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:22:29 AM EST
    absolutely not.  they are going to be Obamas biggest supporters from now until the convention.
    and Bill will undoubtedly do exactly what BTD says.
    he will show people what a real politician could do in the VP slot.
    but of course he is correct.  Obama doesnt want one.

    Right... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:31:21 AM EST
    It would be a scandal without precedent if the party and Obama were not to give him a prime speaking spot, or none at all.

    Just like it will be a scandal for Clinton not to have her name in nomination. The first time, according to Jake Tapper, since 1964 that something like this has happened. And it only happened then because the nominee was running unopposed.

    Classy guy that Obama.


    I think it's significant that Hillary speaks (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by zfran on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:41:40 AM EST
    on Tuesday, Bill on Wednesday and perhaps Chelsea might intro her mom. That makes 2 days the Clinton show with the veep speaking after Clinton, boring after Bill imo, and Obama getting his crown on Thurs. Much more Clinton than Obama, I find that interesting!

    Dick Morris's other point last night (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:46:21 AM EST
    was that the nefarious Clintons were hijacking three nignts of the convention.
    as if Obama had nothing to say about he schedule.
    the man is a treasure.

    dick morris is a pathetic has been that needs (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:46:41 AM EST
    to be put out to pasture with some very good meds. other than that he is useless.

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#38)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:17:36 AM EST
    one wouldn't think Obama thinks that with the way he dragged this very same Dem President through the mud.

    Obama would expect the scenario (none / 0) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:47:17 AM EST
    that he, himself, would be able to muster.

    I believe (none / 0) (#109)
    by tek on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:58:13 AM EST
    Obama and his people would have left the Clintons out altogether if they could have.  This seems like a concession to me, that's why it's so late.  You don't spend a year saying that the last Democratic president was failure who didn't bring as much to the country as a whole string of Republicans and then invite him to your party.

    Falling poll numbers (none / 0) (#216)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 04:56:32 PM EST
    perhaps injecting a bit of reality perhaps?

    polls fom two days ago (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:12:27 AM EST
    said that this year 30% of voters are going to consider the VP picks of both candiadtes as an important part of their decision on who to vote for.

    In 2004 that number was 15%.

    So, the VP is twice as important this time around.  Do you suppose anyone has told this to the Obama campaign?

    The conventions are being held later this year than before leaving less time to campaign and introduce a relatively unknown VP pick to the rest ofthe country.  Many in the country don't even feel they know Obama very well and he's been campaigning for almost 2 yaers now.

    By picking Clitnon, Obama wouldn't have to worry about introducing her to anyone.  In fact, she could vouche for him in states like PA, OH, WV, AK, TN.

    Another reason to pick Clinton....  if you were Obama, would you rather have Clinton, the fighter, on your team as VP, or have her as a very powerful force in the senate where she would be trying to force you further to the left than you want to go?

    Maybe Obama doesn't really want to win.  Maybe he's just trying to get a new book deal and a "Movie of the Week" on Lifetime TV.

    But for what reason? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MikeDitto on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:01:24 AM EST
    My feeling is, just from talking to voters on the campaign trail (I work for Colorado's U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall), that Dick Cheney has made people leery of a Vice President with too much power.

    In general when doing field work we speak to so-called "lazy Dems" (Democrats who are not consistently reliable voters) and unaffiliated voters--the two voting blocs who will decide this election, yet who usually know the least about who and what is on the ballot. I'm consistently stunned at the level of knowledge and strong opinion that these people have about Dick Cheney when a lot of them couldn't tell you who their representative or senators are, or even if they are Republicans or Democrats.


    It's interesting (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:07:55 AM EST
    that even on the blogs, people don't seem to realize that the idea of a powerful VP originated not with Dick Cheney, but with Walter Mondale and Al Gore.

    Of course Bush/Cheney have made this paradigm into something awful.  But I still hope Obama doesn't waste the opportunity to name a running mate of consequence who can be the next Al Gore.  Even on the blogs, though, the sentiment you describe is very real - "I don't care if he picks a nobody, I don't want another Dick Cheney."


    the reasons given (none / 0) (#189)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:11:15 AM EST
    for voters' increased interest in VP picks this year were.

    1. McCain's age
    2. Obama not yet being well known by many of the voters as far as knowing what he actually stands for

    In 2004, there was (none / 0) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:46:58 AM EST
    an incumbent vice president.  Is there a figure for 2000, which would be much more comparable?

    really??? (none / 0) (#20)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:59:30 AM EST
    I didn't realize that both VP candidates in a presidential election can claim incumbent status?

    And, also I recall there being much talk before the elections in 2004 as to whether Bush would replace Cheney.


    Maybe he's going to do it (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:30:09 AM EST
    the "reality TV way". He'll have all the people that have been mentioned as possible VP choices in a line on the stage. The spotlight will be moved from one to another as an announcer says, "Will it be the lovely governor from Kansas or a senator from a family dynasty in Indiana? Or . . . Do the judges have their votes tallied? And the winner is ----" The losers can all circle round the winner and offer their congratulations. Then someone can interview the new VP nominee and ask him or her how it feels to be the winner among so many talented options.

    Or (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MikeDitto on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:03:35 AM EST
    Do it game show style.

    "You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye!"



    oh, oh... (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:10:16 AM EST
    they coulod ask questions like:

    1.  how many states are in the Union?
    2. can you name the Great Lakes and locate  
       them on a map
    1. Does KY share a border with IL?
    2. If all citizens don't have insurance, can a
       healthcare plan still be called universal?

    Heh ... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:04:08 AM EST
    "I'm sorry, Governor Kaine, your journey with us ends tonight."

    Cries of shock fill the audience.

    Kaine wipes tears from his eyes, as we're treated to a video package highlighting his excoriation of gay and abortion rights set to "Time of Your Life" by Green Day.

    And then ...

    The spotlight falls on Governor Sebelius and Senator Bayh.

    "And now your choice for America's Top Veep ..."

    Long pause.  The tension builds.

    "... after these messages."


    Or they can vote eachother off the VP island (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:40:45 AM EST
    I feel certain Hillary can outlast, outwit, and outplay any of the competition

    They are trying to simply (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:42:27 AM EST
    make it as much about Obama and NO ONE else as possible. Grudgingly, they seem to have accepted that gosh-darn a bunch of millions of Americans still love the Clintons--- lots of them Democrats. So Bill will be on.  Classy of Bill, I must say because after Obama completely besmirched his name, tore down his relationship with AA's by calling him and his wife racist (STILL at times), and calling the previous 20 yrs the Clinton-Bush years (yeah, Obama I did NOT forget that.) he is a much much classier man than Obama.  I heard Obama the other day talking about the 90s and how incomes went up and under Bush they went down.  Funny because I remember saying the same thing when Obama was saying Bill Clinton didn't do anything.  

    Heck (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:53:56 AM EST
    Obama wrote the McCain's campaign against himself during the primaries. In 20 years of watching politics, I've never seen anything like it.

    keep this up and we will become the (none / 0) (#177)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:56:05 AM EST
    biggest joke in the world. our enemies are jubilant when they see bull like this. think the obama seal. ug!

    I fully expect (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by weltec2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:44:29 AM EST
    the VP pick to be Evan Bayh. They have a great deal in common on many different levels. Both are fairly young. Both have intelligent lawyer wives. Both have similar social and economic policies. Evan won't make any waves for him and he certainly won't overshadow him.

    I don't know......... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:57:09 AM EST
    who the Vice-Presidential pick will be, but THIS I know: At the end of Bill Clinton's speech, there will not be a dry eye in the arena. The place will erupt in an orgiastic explosion of tears and cheers heard around the world. As Michael Corleone said to Carlo Rizzi just before having him killed, "All family business was settled today."
    .......and millions of previous Obama Clinton Haters will be streaming into their churches and synagogues to try and wash the sins from their souls.  

    And hopefully the Clinton Obama haters (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:15:45 AM EST
    will follow Hillary's and Bill's lead and support Obama, even if reluctantly

    never (3.00 / 2) (#50)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:24:11 AM EST
    we'll just wait for Hillary to beat McCain in 2012

    Here's (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:29:25 AM EST
    the problem I have:
    I don't think Obama will be a good president. I think he'll be a very poor one. He'll be our version of George W. Bush who puts the party in worse shape after his term. IMO, losing in Nov. might be a better long term strategy for the party. I just don't think that Obama has the experience, drive or understanding to deal with the problems that are out there. He could even make them worse.

    I am not an Obama fan, but I know (none / 0) (#71)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:37:25 AM EST
    that for the overall good of this democracy - forget the party - John McCain can't be allowed to win.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:48:54 AM EST
    to say but I don't really see Obama as an improvement. The argument seems to be that because he has a D beside his name it makes him automatically better. I'm usually this way too but Obama's campaign has convinced me otherwise. He'll willingly cave to the GOP and do whatever they want. Some have even conceded that's why they'll support him--they can roll over him continuously. And why wouldn't they think that? They've done it to his main supporter Pelosi for almost 2 years now.

    what absolutely amazes me is (none / 0) (#182)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:03:21 AM EST
    that many people are democrats and dang good ones too who don't care for obama. we are told that in order to be "accepted" we must march in lockstep. that isn't going to happen and no one and i mean no one gets to define me or the rest of the voters either.

    weeellllllllllll (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:25:56 AM EST
    I wouldnt go quite that far.

    I can tell you (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by MikeDitto on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:09:15 AM EST
    After having worked in politics for years that a rested candidate is a much better candidate--more thoughtful, quicker on his or her feet, and less prone to unforced errors.

    It's going to be 20-hour days from the convention through November. It is also the appropriate time for the candidate to meditate on where he is, where he's been, and where he needs to go.

    Let the guy recharge his batteries and spend some time with his kids. He'll be a much better candidate as a result.

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:47:24 AM EST
    and the start of the Olympics is the right time for it.

    Seems like a good idea to me too.


    as good as any (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:54:07 AM EST
    I have no problem with the vacation.
    I dont get those who do.

    You can be very, very rested (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:55:39 PM EST
    without making a well-publicized trip to Hawaii.

    he can recharge his batteries in chicago. (none / 0) (#179)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:57:39 AM EST
    last night I saw Dick Morris (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:20:01 AM EST
    (I love Dick) talking about how what Obama should really do is let Bill speak the same night as him and then OVERSHADOW him.
    after I cleaned what I was eating off the coffee table I thought, yeah.  
    listen to Dick Mr.  you can never go wrong listening to Dick.

    you know what kills me? (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:42:05 AM EST
    Obamas new line that the bad feelings between the camps is all an invention of the media.

    no Mr. B.  you are an invention of the media.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:09:47 AM EST
    TruthSayer (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by tek on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:05:24 AM EST
    I love your post, but you have to know that Obama people will credit him with anything and everything unless he loses, then that will be the Clintons fault.  Another way in which Obama is like Bush Jr.  He takes credit where it isn't due and every bad thing that happens in his administration is Bill Clinton's fault.

    The truth is, Obama is scared to death of the Clintons because they outshine him so badly and they have popularity gained from their policies, not a marketing team.

    Obama has flipped so many times, (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by zfran on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:19:11 AM EST
    I wonder what would happen if he picks his veep, and the people and polls show a negative effect. Will he then say, oops, I've changed my mind. My new vp choice is....

    How about this scenario. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:40:44 AM EST
    holds off picking VP until Bill Clinton finishes speaking.  If Bill's speech convinces Obama that Bill Clinton supports Obama and that Bill Clinton is "controlable,"  Obama's VP choice is then announced:  Hillary Clinton.  

    And the crowd (none / 0) (#214)
    by nemo52 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:46:41 PM EST
    goes wild!

    I'm worried (none / 0) (#217)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:07:04 PM EST
    that when Bill and Hillary speak at the convention, some will erupt in applause and others will stay seated, silent or booing, and the press cameras will focus on those whose reactions are negative; what is known about the percentage of Clinton supporters who will be in attendance?  And will Obama get the message out that the Clintons are NOT to be booed -- or will he let it rip, so he can be the one & only Dem hero?

    One Nation, Under a New Obama Salute! (none / 0) (#5)
    by bmc on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:28:35 AM EST
    All I could (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:45:13 AM EST
    think when I saw the graphic was, "Big Fat Zero."

    And I bet I'm not the only one.


    Go ahead and place the bet. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:50:37 AM EST
    It's a sure thing.

    You're not.. (none / 0) (#13)
    by pie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:48:10 AM EST

    My thought was (none / 0) (#56)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:27:00 AM EST
    Big fat zero wrapped in shiny packaging.

    this has to be the (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:22:23 AM EST
    one of the dumbest things in a season of stunningly dumb things Obama could do if he decides to give any support to this "Obama Salute".

    I kinda figure that by the time we get past the Olympics and then the Convention, most of America will be so sick of seeing his face or hearing his voice -- or seeing yet another one of those damn commercials! -- that the only salute they'll want to give him doesn't rely on lacing one's fingers together, but holding just one up in the air.

    And, no, it's not the index finger.

    This is just more fodder for the already overflowing Republican attack/mock ad machine.


    BWAHAHAHAHAHAH (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by blogtopus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:23:00 AM EST
    Too many allusions... head... exploding...

    1. Big Fat Zero
    2. Empty on the Inside
    3. Two hands to grasp... nothing?
    4. Wrestling an invisible snake
    5. Goatse we can! (don't google that term - yuck)
    6. Big Mouth (supporters can open and close the mouth when Obama is giving his big speech)
    7. Actually stands for Oprah
    8. Represents the giant hole in our privacy rights (FISA)

    Have to go, but this is fun!

    And (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:28:14 AM EST
    don't forget:

    It's all about Obama.
    (and we're all "O" about the Obama, if you know what I mean.)


    I thought of a big YAWN. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:49:27 AM EST
    nooooooooo..... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kempis on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:42:43 AM EST
    In other cultures, this is "salute" (none / 0) (#69)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:35:15 AM EST
    is a vulgar and offensive hand gesture. Especially for Hispanics/Latinos.

    hysterical (none / 0) (#136)
    by sj on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:19:25 AM EST
    The very first comment completely bursts the balloon.

    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:32:25 AM EST
    somtimes I feel like I am participating in Mystery Election Theater 3000.

    OMG it's the next Great Seal (none / 0) (#193)
    by RalphB on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:14:17 AM EST
    and just as stupid!

    It's a fad based on (none / 0) (#199)
    by waldenpond on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:06:06 PM EST
    these (just search for 'holding the sun photos')....photo    photo     photo    photo

    It is not original and it should lose the O (zero, sheesh.)  'Holding the Sun' is enough of a message.... a new day etc.


    I hope (none / 0) (#18)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 08:56:22 AM EST
    You don't honestly think that he's waiting because he wants the spotlight.  He's waiting because he wants to keep the focus on the dems, thus maximizing his convention bump.  The waiting also makes me think that the odds of him asking another Clinton to be VP have gone up.  The press would be constant all the way through the DNC.  Also, the guy needs a vacation.  Like him, don't like him, but he fought one of the most closely contested primary battles against one of the best politicians in recent memory.  Clinton doesn't even clash with his "change" thing.  How is a woman VP not change?

    Really? Obama hasn't yet proven to you (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:14:17 AM EST
    that he LOVES loves LOVES the spotlight? LOL

    I question the wisdom of going on (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:27:53 AM EST
    vacation without having a VP surrogate to cover for him while he is away.  The McCain camp will take advantage of that gap.  I will add that Obama's showing on the economic front has been weak at best compared to the McCain camp's.  The world tour looked pretty good when I expected him to come back to the US and go full force into the economy, but they didn't really do that and at the same time they got side tracked by McCain's celebrity ad.  Now he is going on vacation in Hawaii when there are millions of Americans who are having a tough time trying to figure out how to afford getting to work and for them vacations are something they can't even dream about right now.

    I understand that he is tired - but so are millions of Americans.  If he had a surrogate in a VP, he might have been able to cover better at this point.  More and more I am thinking that he has to choose Clinton, but I'll leave the details of my thinking on that to another comment - I will say that I didn't come to that conclusion out of any particular loyalty to the Clintons because I was never a big fan - I just think that there are a lot of practical considerations that I believe apply in this particular race and political climate.


    Obama seems to tire easily (none / 0) (#218)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:09:24 PM EST
    for a young man.  

    Heh (none / 0) (#21)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:00:09 AM EST
    I do not think 'dominate the stage' means what Ann Kornblut thinks it means. :-)

    I think the observation that the campaign is trying to make the VP an afterthought is spot on. If Obama doesn't want Hillary (and indeed, all signs point that way) but also wants to try to avoid doing harm, then I can see them coming up with this strategy of announcing the VP pick immediately before the convention then dazzle everyone with Clinton-Clinton-Obama in order to change the subject. This sounds like an attempt to manage the news cycle so that the story isn't 'why didn't he pick Hillary' 24x7.

    Good luck with that one, Obama campaign.

    I don't think it will work and I feel a tad sorry for anyone having to speak after Hillary and Bill.  I'm already expecting stories about how Bill redeemed his legacy through his speech.

    But I feel even sorrier for the voters who are missing out on getting Hillary Clinton on the ticket. I think I may just spend the time until the convention believing that it's all just a big fake out and she's The One.

    Given the desire to not pick Clinton (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:46:24 AM EST
    I think it is a pretty good plan.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#111)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:59:18 AM EST
    I'm sort of stuck on the 'why is it necessary to avoid Hillary' issue so even the best plan seems unnecessary and risky to me although I agree this was probably the best they could craft. Frankly, I think the Obama campaign is flirting unnecessarily with a loss to McCain when polls have clearly shown that a Hillary VP pick will help him.

    I also look forward to the 'Did Bill Clinton redeem his legacy with this speech?' conversation we're sure to get from MSNBC.


    You may have noticed (none / 0) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:18:53 AM EST
    I have been pretty stuck on it too.

    Yes (none / 0) (#205)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:51:24 PM EST
    I have much admired your writings on this point.

    "Did Bill Clinton redeem his legacy" (none / 0) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:27:31 AM EST
    you dont have to wait for this.  they were already milking it this morning.  I have sworn off MSNBC but sometimes I just cant resist surfing through to see how bad it can get.
    they never disappoint.

    let's agree our media for the most part (none / 0) (#183)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:04:40 AM EST
    is a waste of time. they are stuck on cds and won't let go. it's just too much fun for them. what would they have to say? gee, they might have to work and think.

    Hah! (none / 0) (#206)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:52:26 PM EST
    I have sworn off cable news for my own health but I'm greatly amused that they've already started.

    Best plan given the circumstances, but (none / 0) (#169)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:47:40 AM EST
    not good, not really.  If he's picking anyone not-Clinton then playing it down is the best option.  (although I think most people will eventually notice she's not the VP, even if only in the voting booth).

    But a plan that works better than highlighting not-Clinton and ramming it down her supporters throats does not necessarily meant it will work well.  Esp. since I anticipate the MSM will not be able to restrain their celebratory glee at another dis to Clinton.

    It probably is the best he can do as long as he doesn't pick her.


    Oh, you're being too harsh... (none / 0) (#24)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:01:29 AM EST
    Even Paris Hilton said she was going to pick a VP and not go it alone on her celebrity status

    Anthony Zinni . . . (none / 0) (#34)
    by allys gift on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:14:06 AM EST
    was mentioned some time ago and forgotten.  The top names batted around now (Kaine, Bayh, Biden, Sibelius) are all unacceptable in one way or another to the campaign and to some portion of the electorate.  But I think they are all head fakes anyway.  I think it will be someone out of the blue.  

    Zinni fits the bill for BHO.  Military, experienced but won't outshine "the one", white male, Catholic??, etc.  All the stuff to fill in the gaps in the electorate for BHO except with women.  Yes, we're being taken for granted.  Just not sure what there is to do about it.  

    I'm in a deep blue state and can vote for McKinney, but I wouldn't advocate that for swing staters.  4-8 years of McCain would make my life hell, both as a citizen and Fed. Gov. employee.

    The whole thing is just sad.  I'm really mourning the loss of any hope of a Liberal Democratic Party emerging anytime soon.

    BTD (none / 0) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:19:06 AM EST
    Do you know when a VP is usually chosen? My memory before Kerry's early move is that it is very close to the Convention and has been announced at the Convention in the past

    With the Conventions getting less and less coverage from the Big 3 Networks, would a VP choice at the convention help? or would Wednesday or Thursday the week before allow for extended coverage right up to the the start in Denver?

    McCain will obviously sit back and wait until after the Dem Convention to try to nullify an Obama convention bounce. His decision as to "when" is far easier.

    Conventions (none / 0) (#61)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:30:00 AM EST
    used to be held earlier than they are this year.  So, you could wait until convention and still have time for a VP pick to be introduced to the rest of the country who doesn't know the person well.

    July (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:45:24 AM EST
    Conventions used to be in July.

    the idea of an early pick is to have another high profile surrogate grabbing Media attention ans blasting the message of the campaign.


    Why must I wonder? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Dano on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:38:33 AM EST
    Listen, I have no problem with your politics. But must I wonder what you mean all the time when you use lazy Internet/instant message type language instead of writing out what you mean? I can figure out what "imo" means, although I usually see it written as "imho" (which I suppose means that you aren't particularly claiming to be honest, or those other people are fighting an extant reputation for dishonesty). But what the heck is "pol?" I've looked this up with a search engine and can't find it anywhere. Even when I know what these mean, I still stumble over them when reading. Is it really okay now (acceptable form) to write like that in an adult political discourse? This ain't Tiger Beat magazine.

    Usually, the h in imho=humble. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:26:17 AM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:44:21 AM EST
    You do not know what "pol" means?

    In the words of McEnroe, you can NOT be serious.


    "Pol" is short for politician. (none / 0) (#89)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:47:22 AM EST
    My dad used that term in the 50's.

    I usually see it written as "imho" (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:49:30 AM EST
    he probably didnt use IMHO for the same reason I dont.
    it would be a lie.  (love ya BTD)

    The Original Dem Rock Star (none / 0) (#85)
    by indy in sc on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:45:55 AM EST
    speaking about the new Dem Rock Star will be a moment not to be missed.  Bill Clinton will deliver a memorable and moving speech that will make it seem as though all is healed between the two camps (it won't be, but that's besides the point--Clinton will do what needs to be done).  I think it will mean more because we know that there has been open hostility between the camps.  It's not like a Kool-Aid drinker giving an address--it will be a former critic who now believes Obama is the right choice.  I think it will be a spectacular moment from a spectacular politician and I can't wait to hear it.

    Have you heard Bill say (none / 0) (#99)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:52:10 AM EST
    anything about Obama's being the "right choice"? He's says that it's important to have a Democrat in the White House. I think some of us are a little amused thinking of all of the ways that Bill might slide under the wire and d@mn Obama with faint praise. It may be the only speech at the convention that I listen to.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:56:34 AM EST
    he will be completely earnest and he will come out with all guns blazing.
    no one pounds the GOP or delivers the dem message like Bubba.
    but I totally agree.  it is the one speech I will not miss.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:00:41 AM EST
    He's great at speeches to fire up the base. It doesn't matter if he believes in Obama or not. He believes in the Democratic Party (goddess help him) and that conviction will carry the day.

    To clarify (none / 0) (#117)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:02:00 AM EST
    his conviction in the party will ensure he gives a great speech.

    I remain unconvinced that this will sway any voter who knows the history of the primary. In fact, I wonder about a backlash effect because of the way he's been treated.


    Bur which "base" (none / 0) (#219)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:15:21 PM EST
    will be in attendance?

    Well, we'll see but I'm betting (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    Bill takes the 'We must have a Democrat' line.  I would be very surprised if he suddenly started singing Obama's praises, and I think anyone hoping for that will be disappointed.  Hillary's speech will be the same.

    Both Clintons have a much better understanding of how to connect with people than all of Obama's market research approach does.

    Anyone who hasn't already fallen for Obama based on the personality cult is only going to be brought on board with the argument that a Democrat, any Democrat, is better than a Republican in the WH.  Expect much articulation and condemnation of the Republicans for the past 8 years, and a discussion of the problems brought on by Bush, but don't expect a lot of big happy Obama is the Awesomest One puffery.

    The move to Invesco Field, attendance pledges, massive text messaging bombs -- all these reflect the Obama campaign's continued belief that the winning strategy is still social networking/emotional manipulation.  But the conversation and the audience have changed, the winning path is now through hard hits on the issues and if I can figure it out, you can bet the Clintons have too.


    at this point in time, if they haven't sold (none / 0) (#187)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:09:09 AM EST
    those bitter gun loving bitter democrats on the "new democratic party", they aren't going to do it in a week for with one speech each from bill and hillary clinton. many people are not that foolish. yeah i know mass manipulation is so much fun and all, but the polls say otherwise.

    Bill has probably never been this (none / 0) (#113)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:00:07 AM EST
    hurt and angry before. Watching his body language during that last interview was painful.

    well racist is a pretty bitter pill for him (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:05:32 AM EST
    I have no doubt.  but he, like  his wife, takes the long view.  and this is a man who has been through things you or I can not imagine.
    this is bean bag for him.
    he will be a good soldier at that convention.  

    i have noticed that very few others in (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:07:00 AM EST
    the "new" democratic party take the long view. most certainly nancy pelosi doesn't.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:53:41 AM EST
    come now (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:47:25 AM EST
    there is no burden of anything on anyone.
    we are one big happy family now.

    Obama may name himself (none / 0) (#97)
    by sancho on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:50:51 AM EST
    as VP. That way he would have the ultimate unity ticket and keep the focus where it needs to be--on Obama.

    dont encourage him (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:52:40 AM EST
    then he could be the One (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by sancho on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 09:57:27 AM EST
    twice. Obama Double O One.

    Seriously, aren't he and McCain playing chicken at this point to see who names first?


    McCain is definitely going (none / 0) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:03:33 AM EST
    to let him go first IMHO

    LOL! (none / 0) (#126)
    by tek on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:06:27 AM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jgarza on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:19:40 AM EST
    Obama's VP role will be attack dog and nothing else.  

    obama's veep choice will be someone (none / 0) (#191)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:12:08 AM EST
    who doesn't over shadow him and nothing else. tradtionally that has been what a veep was, but this is "new" politics.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#155)
    by Dano on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:39:36 AM EST
    So "pol" means politician? Thanks. I guess the extra seven letters were just too much. I just assumed it was one of those Internet acronyms. LOL, I suppose.

    And if IMHO refers to a humble opinion, I sit corrected (but, really? Humble? That seems inconsistent with the opinions that often follow). Anyway, it's awfully hard to learn these things when you're grown up and the second language you studied in high school and college was German. Danke schoen to all for your assistance.

    I you wanted to know what it meant (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by tree on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    you could have looked it up in the dictionary

    Main Entry:
        circa 1942

    : politician

    I'd recommend asking nicely next time if you don't understand a word, rather than assuming an air of condescension.

    Since you're a self-confessed grownup, I would have assumed you know how to use a dictionary. Did you notice that the term dates from 1942? That's long before the internet was even a gleam in Al Gore's eye, so to speak.


    You're welcome. (none / 0) (#167)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:46:54 AM EST
    And here's a link to help you translate the new stuff.


    I need it to correspond with my nephew.


    Also, I find (none / 0) (#186)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:08:22 AM EST
    Corrente's glossary good for figuring out politics-specific abbreviations:



    Pol is NOT an internet acronym (none / 0) (#184)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:04:43 AM EST
    There is actually a reason I use that term.

    I am sorry you do not understand why I use it, but your condescending tone is very much not appreciated.

    Particularly given your ignorance of the jargon.

    Cool it please.


    the 'HUMBLE' (none / 0) (#196)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:20:34 AM EST
    part of that should be taken with a grain of salt, just as the phrase "with all due respect" is.

    Now that was a stellar example of what (none / 0) (#160)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:42:46 AM EST
    not to do in determining a time to go on vaction imo - Obama - we hope - won't make the same mistake of walking out of the convention into seclusion - except for wind surfing photo ops of course.

    Satiric veep fun--but true. . . ! (none / 0) (#198)
    by wurman on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:39:30 AM EST
    US Constitution: 22nd amendment
    Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

    Let us have William Jefferson Clinton nominated as the vice-presidential candidate on the ticket with Sen. Barack Obama.

    It's OK, too.  If Obama were to die in office, Pres. Clinton could legally become president because he would suceed to the office--not be elected.

    The GOoPerz would suffer paroxysms.  Limbaugh would asphyxiate, on air. O'Reilly would collapse in a quivering heap.  Schieffer would try to read & re-read & re-re-read the 22nd amendment aloud, hoping it would change. Talking heads would turn into Max Headroom.  The tingle in Tweety's leg would be an embolism.  Bring it.  Just do it.

    And the Big Dog would laugh so hard & so loud it could be heard all the way to Ken Star's office at Pepperdine in Malibu, CA--in stereo.

    Bill's Speech (none / 0) (#200)
    by liberalone on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    Will attempt to secure his legacy, first and foremost.  Secondly, he will set the stage for a possible Hillary run in 2012 just in case.  Then, he will praise the party.  I cannot think of one instance of party loyalty superseding Bill's own ego.  

    I like Bill and I think the 90s were great, but I am not one for hero worship.  I don't consider him a victim or a god.  My feelings are the same for Obama and Hillary.  I especially don't subscribe to the notion that Obama turned black people against Bill or that Obama was race baiting.

    Black people are not a monolith nor do they need anyone to tell them how they feel.  Just as all of you are have your perceptions on racism, each individual black person has his/her perception. (Response to a comment up thread.)

    Not long ago, Jeralyn posted about the grieving process, which I believe has now become the destruction process.  Some of us Democrats are tired of the name calling and bitterness and hero worship.  The party is about platform and issues.

    Indeed, it's all about issues (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by lambert on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:32:48 PM EST
    Like FISA, or universal health care, where in each case Obama sh*t the b*d.

    I'm not into hero worship (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:51:16 PM EST
    However, Bill's won 2 terms of office. Obama hasn't won anything yet.

    Much as Obama tried to destroy it, Bill's legacy is fine.


    And BTW (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:52:58 PM EST
    There was no grieving process, much as the Obama camp wanted it to be about grieving.  It was always about resenting Obama for the trash he pulled to get himself elected.

    And it's also about the fact that many of us think that he's not qualified to become president and that he's running for Carter's second term.  


    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Bluesage on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:15:22 PM EST
    Never did strive for hero worship.  But you are way off base and not seeing the reality if you think that Bill and Hillary were not victimized by both the Obama campaign and the media during this primary.  Of course, both Obama and the media underestimated the Clintons because neither of them fell into that victim trap.  They are far too smart and far too strong.

    The race-baiting by the Obama camp was not a theory or a rumor, it was a fact.  There was even a memo and their surrogates like Jesse Jackson Jr. and Jim Clyburn were overt in their racism.  Obama and Axelrod figured out very early that Obama would not win against Hillary unless they turned the black voters against her and Bill.  As someone who was a civil rights advocate and activist since I was a young girl in MS in the very early sixties I was devastated to see this happen.

    Bill Clinton and Hillary are both smarter politically than Obama ever will be and they will both handle their roles at the convention with class and a deep love for country and party.  They will be kind to Obama and respectful but they are not going to drink the kool-aid either.

    Obama not picking Hillary for VP is very stupid and I do believe he will lose if he doesn't.  At this point I would want her to tell him to take a hike if he did offer it but that's just me.  She would be gracious and do it for her country.


    Clinton at 2004 Unity Dinner (none / 0) (#220)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:27:04 PM EST
    If you had heard Clinton speak at the March 2004 unity dinner (of DEM party), just after Kerry had clinched the nomination, one might think differently.  Kerry gave an abysmally poor speech, Carter was impossible to understand, and Clinton gave an excellent, cadenced speech outlining the reasons Kerry was the best candidate for President.  Had -0- to do w/Bill.  But I guess times are different....

    OBAMA-BYE (none / 0) (#209)
    by Bornagaindem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    I kinda hope Obama will pick Bayh because then the bumper stickers will be


    or more appropriately


    can't wait for those.

    some posted this yesterday (none / 0) (#210)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:15:22 PM EST

    but it was pointed out that it is still better than the popular hemorrhoid treatment Obama/Kaine


    If we had (none / 0) (#212)
    by Bluesage on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:32:22 PM EST
    A sane and just Democratic Party, Hillary's name would be put in for nomination and she would be the new nominee in Nov.  She could then either pick The One as VP or send him back to the Senate to learn his craft and some manners.  We would have a landslide win and clean up the disasterous mess we'll be left.  Sigh!

    sadly (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:45:20 PM EST
    if we had a sane and just democratic party we would not be in this mess.