Obama's Veep: A Headache, or a Head Fake and a Three Point Shot?

Al, how do you square this:

"It's a must-read for our Chicken Little inoculation program as it makes clear that the sky wouldn't fall due to an Obama-Bayh ticket."

with your post back here that implies that Bayh is one of the candidates who would, in fact, be disastrous to the ticket?

Stuart - You're correct: I see Bayh (or anyone that voted against the Immigration Reform Bill in 2007) as an extremely risky pick that could provoke backlash and/or apathy among the rising tide of Hispanic-American voters, who would be vital for Obama to win swing states like New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Florida, among others.

But did I use the word "disastrous"? If I did, perhaps I went too far. Among the names being mentioned, there's only one potentially disastrous choice, and it's not even her fault, but that of her bull-in-a-china-shop spouse. And even that one would be potentially harmful, not a sure or sudden death for the ticket.

As I wrote this morning, again: I think the outside-the-beltway pick is the smarter one. It would also be risky for other reasons (including that it will make so many with power inside DC nervous), but life is not about avoiding risks, it is about taking the right ones.

I think, in general, people can be much too quick to equate any misstep as apocalypse. Dial it back from "disastrous" to "not the best move" and I would agree with you. But since I wasn't nominated for president this year, I recognize that it's not my decision to make!

Why do I get a feeling he is going out of the box? I don't think Bayh makes any sense unless he 100pct delivers Indiana, AND Indiana is essential to the win.

I don't believe either to be true. I don't think geography is going to tilt the decision.

That was my own hyperbolic chicken-little interpretation of the gist of your prior post. My own interpretation of the polls (mainly based on 538's analysis with a side of skimming the crosstabs that occasionally get posted on Kos) would suggest that losing his current advantage among the Hispanic community would put Obama in a decidedly precarious position, or even give McCain a meaningful lead. NM and CO and to a lesser extent NV are pretty vital states if we want to avoid needing to count on OH this year. So I guess it's a matter of semantics whether that counts as disastrous or not.

Thanks for clarifying :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUr48lg9Ocs&feature=related.  And he doesn't pull his punches.

Or is the operative word "lie." Count me among the skeptics, but just for fun: http://lisajean.newsvine.com/_news/2008/07/18/1677618-astrological-predi...

To more conventional political thinkers, Bayh might also seem an obvious choice -- someone to balance the ticket who has the potential to put an important state in play. I agree with Al, though, that Bayh's probably not the man. Although Obama has been moving to the middle as part of his strategy to put red states in play, I don't think he'll want to undercut his theme of "change."

Would seem like a boneheaded move to go with Bayh, but who am I to critique Obama and his people? There's a reason why he's running for President of the United States and I'm wasting time on my laptop before getting ready for work.

Yet more fun --McCain's next ad: http://incertus.blogspot.com/2008/08/mccains-new-ad.html

...would be the surprise shot from behind the boundary line (see diagram above) that many of us dream of being able to see.

There are way too many leaks from anonymous sources close to Kaine and Bayh.  It almost seems like a set up from a campaign known for its tight lips and discipline.  Last week was Kaine, this week is Bayh, who knows what the following weeks will bring?  Maybe he'll continue rolling out all the potential VPs, gauge the reactions, and then make his decision right before the convention.

This is clearly a fake. The Obama camp's way too smart to not have read Al's post from last week dismantling the Bayh claim to the spot.

 

But the problem here is that this could very well be a pump-fake, used to lift the defender on the outside post, to make a slick move to outside the 3-point-line, as Al said.  At the same time, this could just as easily be the Obama campaign showing the media the ball long enough to make a straight b-line to the hole for a monstrous Obama-jam!

 

Frankly, I want a president who's not afraid to go to the tin, take a foul, and get three the old fashioned way. Clearly, I'm partial to Biden for that reason. Al, FieldHands, is there any reason other than the inside-the-belt-way-ness of our man that keeps him out of the running?

Then Reed, then Kaine, now Bayh.

I think they are all brilliant headfakes. Maybe next Biden buzz but I think the pick has to be Sebelius. Obama wants and needs to pick a Washington outsider to really signal that he's about change. Sebelius is better than Kaine in every way. It would be a very risky pick but it has the most upside as well.

Obama/Sebelius 08!

Al, I think you drilled your own jumper this morning.  I suspect Bayh is indeed another head fake and that the change message is best supported by selecting someone from outside the beltway.  I can't see Mr. O leaving McCain the opportunity to go "outside the box" and attempt to wrestle the change theme away.

Al, not to nit-pick, but it wasn't Nate who said that, it was Sean (Pocketnines) who wrote that article.

 

By the way, I wonder if the whole Kaine thing last week wasn't an effort to make it appear that he isn't the running mate by being too blatent about it, the idea that sometimes the best place to hide something is in plain view?

I can't see this pick happening before Obama takes the vacation to Hawaii he's been talking about.  I also think it's possible that he hasn't necessarily talked to or given instructions to anyone about how they are "allowed" to talk about the process - he may be just carefully observing how each contender is playing their hand.  We've heard about his information-gathering process before he makes decisions - listening to every possible angle and side to every argument.  *If* a particular candidate brought something absolutely indispensable to the ticket, and absolutely stood out in the field, but he did not connect personally with them very well, I think he would pick that person anyway.  But it seems from all the analysis, that there is no particular candidate that stands head over shoulders above the rest, so I think he will only have two criteria:

- can I work with this person?

- what skillset/expertise do they bring to the table?

And being alone with Michelle on vacation you can bet she will have input, especially on point 1.

KD

I'm hoping it's Schweitzer given the importance of the energy issue this election.

Howard Dean

http://www.ontheissues.org/Howard_Dean.htm

Al,

Would love to hear more of your thoughts on Schweitzer.  He's my favorite choice, as well, for 3 reasons:

1.  Appeal to Mountain West libertarian demographics

2.  Authenticity and folksy charm

3.  Energy policy expertise

But, what do I know?  I'm not as smart as the Washington establishment who fawns over folks like Biden and Bayh (two choices that I think would be very mediocre).

Well, I am leaning toward Schweitzer as well.

But I would hope that the O-man has in mind someone much, much more brilliant.

I think that the McCain camp will choose after Obama--and, if they are smart, they will choose someone smart, and someone outside the box as well.   McCain is at a disadvantage in many areas, and this is not a Republican year by all accounts--so, McCain has room to be a bit 'daring'.  However, I am sure that it will be someone relatively young.

On another note, we are organizing nieghborhood canvassing efforts here in Orlando.  I just got off the phone with the woman from the Obama campaign that is charged with my geographical area of the city.

First, it was Kaine from Virginia.  Now, it's Bayh from Indiana.  Maybe the discussion will revolve around Sebellius (Kansas) next week.

Seems like he's prepping everyone for a western choice: Schweitzer.

I like your blog too much to let you confuse me with Nate.

The head fake. Bayh has two big strikes already mentioned, the immigration vote and the loss of a critical vote in the Senate. I think there's a third strike in the Indiana, Illinois, link. The neighboring state tactic is not worth repeating. What is needed is another outsider with a measure of geographical diversity.

OT Another significant point Al has raised recently. Several friends have gotten one or another smear mail and so far I have heard stories of very inventive replies. Not only reference to the Obama sites, Factcheck and Swopes, but people have been using the e-mail media in reverse, sending a rebuttal back to every recipient.

Nice analogy, and I agree that Obama is more than likely to pick someone outside the beltway, and to count on throwing off the press with head fakes in order to gain the element of surprise when he sinks the three-ball! I've argued here that Schweitzer (or even Tester) from Montana could be more helpful at pushing Obama over the top geographically that anyone else from the so-called "toss-up" states.

Bayh is a head fake.

VP=Richardson

He shaved his beard (for Ad appearance?)

Will be at the Illinois State Fair this month. This would be a good way to introduce himself to the state.

You can win with the three but not without defense and rebounding.  Bayh does provide defense against the "inexperienced" claim.  Sebelius would be like adding another three pointer to the team.  VP's play defense but they also grab a missed shot and put it back up.  I like Bayh for that.  He knows DC and the legislative manuevering and he's a safe bet in the paint.  If Obama were up more points (or down too many) I could see adding Sebelius.

No matter who the pick is, it makes sense to announce it in Indiana, and then it also makes sense to ask Ever Blah to be there for support.

We all know the only sensible VP pick for Obama is Howard Dean.  Obama's entire campaign is an extension and perfection of Dean's 04 campaign, and also when they appear together they really seem to enjoy each other's company.  Obama saddled up his campaign to Dean's 50 State Strategy.  The DemocratIC base would rally like never before.  Great life insurance policy for Obama as well (hate to say it).  Makes a lot of sense.

Some of bad votes from Obama I can understand given the dynamics of Congress and being a junior Senator.  A lame VP pick like Ever Blah would make me seriously question Obama's judgment since this is basically all him.

I hope we'll be seeing a shot like this in the next day or so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9qRNB4uZGU&feature=related

 

This makes sense, but if this is a pump-fake, what is Bayh's motivation? Is he still auditioning for the part, or has the one-time Clinton supporter become such a convert to Obama that he's willing to make all of the appearances and build up the buzz for an offer he's not going to get? Even if Obama doesn't want Bayh for a running mate, it doesn't seem likely that he'd string Bayh along for cover and risk the fall-out of that.

With Kaine the fake-out seemed more natural. He was always a supporter, he and Obama seem to genuinely like each other, and he wouldn't necessarily have had his heart set on the Naval Observatory. So faking out the press could be good fun.

That doesn't seem as likely with Bayh.

I like Schweitzer, too, because he brings that sense of ideological independence that I think the ticket needs.  I also think his bio, demeanor and style will help with rural voters and will help the downticket races where I work (CA foothills).  Schweitzer looks and sounds just like the guys who drive bulldozers and run cattle here.

Also, he's Catholic, isn't he?  So maybe he can go toss back a few in Youngstown and help out there, as well.

That said, I recognize that you live by the 3 point play, and you die by the 3 point play, and if you're ahead you're better off driving to the hoop and making them foul you.  So, Biden may be the smarter pick (mostly I just want to see him in a debate).

Thanks for taking the time to write with some stye Al.  It's hard to come by on the internets.

Christie, I would personally love to see Howard Dean be the VP choice.  Only problem is that I think that both Dean and Bill Richardson are radioactive among the strong Clinton supporters.  The long contentious primary has sadly knocked out a couple of very good options, in my view.

 

 

Reed fits the bill: older than Obama, white as white, male so as not to piss off the Clintons anymore than they already are, lots of foriegn policy experience, a military background, blue collar upbringing, and progressive vote history.

 

perfect in everyway

 

 

In the grand scheme of this cycle, the VP choice is more about someone that isn't going to hurt the Presidential candidate.  I think that all of the VP talk is a great circle jerk, but if Obama has to rely on the VP pick to deliver this election, he will not win. 

I'm glad it's not my job to pick.  There really are so many variables. 

 

In having observed the personality of this campaign so far, I just can't help but think it will not be the most obvious pick.  They run such a leak free shop that it seems likely to not be the name du jour.  Think back to the June financials...the real number took everyone by surprise after the chatterers all had it pegged at a much lower number.

 

So what would happen to the MT Governor's race if it were Schweitzer??  And Dems to Win says certain choices are radioactive to Clinton supporters...it may be a true statement but I still just can't get my head around catering to such petulant, self-absorbed voters.

I think doubling down on sitting Senators would be a mistake.  I'm pretty sure we've only elected a sitting Senator prez once in the past century or so, and JFK was a first-termer like Barack -- not an old DC hand like McCain or Bayh.  Bayh's ex-Gov status mitigates somewhat, but I'm still skeptical.  Personally, Senator / not Senator is the only "ticket balancing" I'm interested in.

I am curious as to what's driving the pundit-pack in a new direction each week.  Do they really have sources or are they just reading the campaign schedule and swinging blindly?  My vague sense is that while Kaine & his people were self-flogging to an off-putting extent last week (w/ both leaks & media appearances), Bayh has been relatively tight-lipped -- which might be both a recommendation and a tip that he's more of a real possibility.

My own guess is that Obama waits til after the Olympics & his vacation, and that all the speculation that he "has to" make a splash before then is just the MSM beast crying "Feed Me!".

Important to distinguish campaign drama from the dramatic narrative of the candidate.  Plenty of latter w/ Obama, which in my book means the pick cannot be underwhelming in any way, doubly so after all this (I agree, carefully calibrated) fake-outery.

Watching from the upper seats w/ this point in mind (among others), I think it's going to be Gore.  Just think about it again, after you groan.  Think past the CW on this for both men but esp. Gore.

He's an outsider's insider, or an insider's outsider.  Re-read Al's post, also Sean's, w/ this in mind.

As a general rule, Obama has surprised me.  I expect he'll do so again.

I'm still keener on Kaine or Sebelius than most of the other possibilities.

I know everybody likes to talk about Obama's love of basketball, but if you listen to his fellow state senators in Illinois, if you want to understand him, play poker with him.

 

They'll tell you he doesn't tend to make high risk bets or big stake bets, but almost always walks away a winner.  Looking at the possibilities, try to figure out how this plays into the VP selection.

 

Schweitzer, I actually think, fits the bill.  He is not too flashy, but comes across well.  Has limited baggage, so is not a high risk. Provides a solid "white" image to counter complement Obama's personna.

 

But then, the same argument applies to others.  All I am really saying is Obama is a better poker player than a basketball player and he doesn't give away many "tells" as Al talked about yesterday.  He has a real poker face, and his whole campaign staff does too.

There are a couple of references above to not picking this person or that person because the Hillary people won't like it. That reminded me of Rachel Maddow's wonderful comment last night.

Toward the end of the show, Pat Buchanan is going on and on about how if it's a woman it has to be Hillary.  He asks why women shouldn't be insulted if Barack chooses a woman who is not Hillary.  I'm in my living room answering out loud - yes, talking to my TV set - when Rachel Maddow says it for me.  "Because all women are not the same."

Thank you, Rachel!  Women are not interchangeable!  How sad that we would have to explain that.  I believe Barack will make his best choice, regardless of who might not like it.  For what it's worth, I think it will be Kathleen Sebelius.

no offense to Roy Martin above, but every time i see an Obama supporter casually repeat the fallacy:

"Although Obama has been moving to the middle as part of his strategy..."

i feel like a stroke is coming on!

for the love of the gods, we MUST stop doing the Republicans work for them by casually repeating their frames and memes until they become CW.  Obama has NOT been moving to the middle, he has always been there- Al has even posted on this before, as eloquently as always!

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/if

as Al said in part then:

"...the nominee has not "moved to the middle," and even his vote last week on the compromise FISA bill did not surprise those that paid close attention to the Obama candidacy since last year or earlier."

it's the same as when people allude to Hillary's "18 million voters." the night she said that in her non-concession speech, people rightfully noted that by using that math and pushing that metric, the clear implication being made was that the nomination went to someone other than the popular vote leader.  techically irrelevant based on how we pick our nominee, but psychologically very damaging to party unity. but since then it been repeated and repeated, without being challenged, and  now i see it everywhere, from blogs to reputable papers to pundits on TV- it's become fact, despite the minor inconvenience of not being true.

i hate to sound like Ari Fleisher (gack!), but people really do need to watch what they say, PLEASE. it's pervasive, pernicious, and dangerous to let opposition talking points slowly become "the truth."

From what I've read and heard, it does seem that Schweitzer would be a great VP.  Unfortunately, I don't think he'd be a great VP candidate in that he seems to be too much of a loose cannon for Obama's disciplined message machine.

From a poll:

 

-Forty-seven percent of Hillary Clinton's primary voters said they'd be more likely to vote for Obama if he chose a woman running mate, and 4% said less likely. This is the exact breakdown of current Obama supporters overall. However, Hillary's primary supporters were largely unmoved by a woman on McCain's ticket (59%).

 

People tend to forget that only a small (but vocal) minority of Hillary supporters are Hillary dead-enders who will be outraged when Obama picks a woman other than Hillary. The large majority would be fine with it, or even enthusiastic about it.

Ok, this would be a total surprise VP.  I am not say'n that this will even remotely happen: but how about Colin Powell as VP?

I know, I know--his part in the imperialist slaughter in Iraq is well known.  But, I am just say'n--this would eff the rightwing up, big time.  Some would even jump out skyscraper windows.  Just that alone would be worth it.

(Ludicrous as VP would be even better--but, hey, we know O-man would lose in that senerio.)

Ok, jokes aside, I echo other comments here: Schweitzer seems like the man.  Is he Jewish?--this would help firm up that part of the traditional Dem constituency.   An older guy couldn't hurt the ticket.

 

I have never read comments here. My BAD. I have been for Schweitzer forever but I am not on the hip blog circuit. Brian will be the pick I venture. Why. Beause he is the only person out there as good as Barack at the same thing. The same vision. The same direction. And he is as smart as Barack, And the real reason why Barack will pick him. He was NOT for Barack. He was not interested in VEEP. He had to be convinced about Barack and he may not even now want to be VP. The point is he is like the electorate. He needed to be wooed and won.

Barack did not make that 3 pointer over there to be turned into a timid soul when it comes to playing out his grand plan which involves what David Wilhelm correctly called a 65 percent presidency.

When it all comes down, I bet even Saul Alinsky will launch a few approving etithets from his resting place.

And If I am wrong, I would much rather live with my fantasies than what I expect the world will look like with any other veep sort.

You want more on S. Hit my blog and search on it. Tons of good videos and even some apposite comments from Caped Composer.

Cathy, as someone pointed out to me a couple months ago:  Gore is wealthy, he is a nobel winner, he is getting up there in age, etc.

I think that he would be a great choice--but I don't think the man has the desire to be second on the ticket.  Indeed, I would be wrong.  Gore on the ticket would definately invigorate the last stretch of the race--but I don't think that it is likely to happen.

By the way, I don't like Baye from Indiana.  He seems like a Leibermann-type, very willing to cater to the far rightwing and big business--and uncomfortable with the civil rights and activist groups, the leftwing of the Dem party.

 

Schweitzer is Catholic. Wikipedia has a bit more on his family background.

I would love it to be Schweitzer and probably spend too much time constructing arguments showing that he could still be the choice.

Sebelius is awfully quiet while all the attention goes on other candidates, which leads me to think she may be the one, or it is someone like Schweitzer who is not on the shortlists.

It would be interesting to trace where all the Bayh talk is coming from.

Also, please note that, as of today, John McCain is also a celebrity!

Their supporters may not care but the Clintons care very much....

Stephen, I don't much like 'hip blogs' either.  Convential wisdom liberals, imbued with corporate America values and down with US imperialism creep me out.

Sorry, I misspelled Bayh--but it does rhyme with "don't like the guy".

Oh, so Schweitzer is Catholic.  Cool.

...not because of anything to do with her, and CERTAINLY not because i fear the wrath of the PUMAs, who, in my humble opionion, can suck it.

no, i worry that the woman and the black guy is just TOO MUCH CHANGE for one election cycle, even for an electorate hungering for change.

maybe it's because i've been black a looooooong time (my whole life, actually) but i just think progressives (read: white folks) are often too naive about the rest of the country being as enlightened as they are.  (i fight the same battle living in San Francisco- i NEVER saw Ah-nuld's election coming, for example, because i had never met one single person in the City who was going to vote for him.) 

i think an Obama/Sebelius has the potential to be seen (and potrayed) as an "affirmative action" ticket that will just make Obama's job harder in the heartland.

 and yes, i was here for the primaries- i saw the results in Wisconsin, Iowa, etc., and i see that he is doing fine in the polls with blue-collar whites.  but screw risk- i want him to get elected, and if that means a safe, old white dude that is more palatable to more of the masses, then so be it.

Obama is plenty of change on the ticket for me, and not just because he's black.

Laura, both Schweitzer and Tester are part of the more progressive, forward-thinking wing of the Democrat Party in the Western US.   There is a fierce libertarian streak in this part of the US ideology--and this would attract indies and moderate Republicans.

As far as race/gender.  The argument against Sebelius is that the ticket might be too outside the racist/patriarchy that has been the norm in the US.  However, I don't think that the campaign should cater the the baser instincts of US society--on the other hand...you can be sure that the rightwing WILL cater to these more ignoble and irrational aspects of the collective pscyhe.

Read Tim Wise's essay "What's the Matter with White People"--it's compelling.  This is a permutation of Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas", a book that was the rage among some establishment liberals.

is worth a read:

Obama and Schweitzer might come off as two highly attractive originals whose ability to see things eye-to-eye speaks multitudes to an electorate accustomed to narrow reasoning and penurious results.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-c-rose/does-barack-obama-have-a_b_113150.html

Al,

Off topic, but a few weeks back you blogged eloquently on how McCain's reversal on offshore drilling would sink him in coastal states like Florida.  Now, Obama seems to have reversed himself as well in his comments two days ago.  My guess is that Obama read the polls showing that a majority of Americans (ignorantly) think that more drilling offshore will reduce gas prices soon, and switched so that he couldn't be painted as the candidate who favors high gas prices.  Is this going to hurt Obama like you thought it woud hurt McCain? Thanks. absentee bob

The thinking behind the Gore hypothesis:

1. On Steven's age point: Gore is 60, 13 years younger than McCain.  He'd be 68, 5 years younger than McCain, at the end of 2 terms AND STILL ELIGIBLE.

2. The wealth thing I don't get, unless it goes to Gore's motivations, which is what most of the naysaying is based on.  On that issue see next points:

3. The overriding aspect is this: Gore can *cause* this ticket to win, as if he were God.  The landslide potential goes up, along w/ governing majorities and mandates.  The ticket would be a political godzilla shaking the ground as it strides toward Nov. 4th, republicans fleeing, tiny, before it.

4. If these were any old times and this were any old election I'd say it's not enough.  But we're in a pickle of historical proportions right now, the kind that draws out extraordinary service from people who are taken that way.

5. Gore is taken that way.  He and Obama would use it as an example of the national service model for the party and country generally.  The selflessness would score major cultural points on this question.

6. It's an open job description AFTER the relationship w/ #1 is worked out (which I think is very possible).  People say he can do more in his current situation than as VP.  Really?  Think about his potential on pushing legislation through, leaning on constituencies, bringing people to the table.  The various foundations and organizations can carry on substantially w/out him at this point.

7. He said in Austin recently of his private work "this is the best use of my life" and "I could be wrong about this."  This is a criterion for judgment and a declaration of fallibilism about his judgment to stay in private work.

8. Obama has said "not just go to funerals" and "roll up sleeves"; he has also talked about a specific expertise/portfolio on an important issue, and about someone committed to changing DC's ways (see Assault on Reason).

9. See body language during the speaker hand-off at Gore's endorsement (video somewhere).

10. Gore would not have to do any of the things he dislikes in the campaign--all in Obama's portfolio.

11.  Gore is unquestionably better qualified for the position than Clinton.  Cannot produce a politically sounder scenario for united party and turning disaffected Clintonites out in enthusiastic droves.

12. The usual attributes for Obama VP all satisfied, as far as I can tell.

13. No need for Bill Clinton to get over himself, or even show up, in my view, for the fall.  Who would he bring out that Gore wouldn't?

14. The decisions taken during and after the primary have all left this carefully open.  Gore could have endorsed during the primary and did not; I don't think it was political cowardice after the Dean foray.  He's got clean hands within the party for supporting Obama.

There's more, but chew on this!

Oh, this talk of Gore as VP has got me too excited. He would be phenomenal, and as very well said above, it would be an unstoppable juggernaut of a ticket. But I won't let myself think overly on this, because I don't think it will happen. But boy, how incredible it would be if Gore stood up beside Barack and said together: Yes, we can!

Absentee Bob - This is a good example of how the press oversimplifies events (and how many, this time unfortunately including you, jump to conclusions without looking into the actual facts). You write, "Obama seems to have reversed himself." Oh, really? No, that's a completely false way of portraying what he said. He supported an effort underway in Congress that is a compromise between Democrats and Republicans that extracts concessions from the latter to raise taxes upon the oil companies and invest it in alternative energy programs in exchange for allowing some new areas in the Southeast Atlantic and Eastern Gulf of Mexico to drilling, and to exploration off the coasts of Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia only if those states approved it.

As is the nature of compromise to break logjams one gives a little to get a little. That's hardly what the term "reversal" implies.

Do I think, given the way the media was bound to frame it as a "shift," that this was the best move? No. Do I think that it will impede Obama from using opposition to offshore drilling as a wedge issue in coastal Florida. Yes. But I'm not going to play along with the media-fed false narrative that confuses support for a legislative compromise with a "reversal." It's that view of politics that makes so many "issue activists" so damn ineffective because they don't understand that to compromise to get what you want - in this case billions from the oil companies for new clean energy development - you sometimes have to give things you would prefer not to. But that is quite different for being "for" something.

 

 She says "If Barack picks Schweitzer he will win Montana and probably North Dakota. He is very popular in the west." I read Stephen C. Rose's article from July 16th and immediately got on the phone to call my Aunt. She predicted toward the end of the primaries it would be Biden for VP. Hillary as Sec of State. Yea, I know but she has been around a very long time. Her Brother-in Law (my Grandpa) was a delegate for Adlai Stevenson. I like Schweitzer for Veep after reading everything I could on this subject.

No way it's Gore, which is too bad.  The guy hates campaigning and that's the only thing he'd need to do.  Also, the GOP narrative on him already exists, which gives the GOP a big head start.

As a resident of Washington state, I know well the libertarian tendency out west. Not just for candidates like Ron Paul (and, I hope, Bob Barr, siphoning off some of McCain's votes) but as a general tendency among people of many political persuasions. Obama did amazingly well in this region during the primaries and I think his best pick-up opportunties in the general will be out here. This is why I have long been an advocate of Obama picking a Mountain West governor as VP.

Especially with energy coming to the fore as an issue, I would love to see Schweitzer as VP, since this is an issue where he and Obama hold very similar views. There are some reports of personality conflicts between them, but I actually think that if they can work to get past these, they would make an even stronger team than with a VP who is not so independent-minded.

 It is important. It goes to Al's last entry.

Obama Pushes Back on GOP Tire Pressure Attack: "It's Like These Guys Take Pride in Being Ignorant"

"Let me make a point about efficiency, because my Republican opponents - they don’t like to talk about efficiency," Obama said.

"You know the other day I was in a town hall meeting and I laid out my plans for investing $15 billion a year in energy efficient cars and a new electricity grid and somebody said, 'well, what can I do? what can individuals do?' Obama recalled.

"So I told them something simple," Obama said. "I said, 'You know what? You can inflate your tires to the proper levels and that if everybody in America inflated their tires to the proper level, we would actually probably save more oil than all the oil we'd get from John McCain drilling right below his feet there, or wherever he was going to drill.'"

(Note: that's not accurate, as we fact-checked last week. But the larger point about energy savings is correct.)

"So now the Republicans are going around - this is the kind of thing they do. I don't understand it! They’re going around, they're sending like little tire gauges, making fun of this idea as if this is 'Barack Obama's energy plan.'

"Now two points, one, they know they're lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they're making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

"You know, they think it is funny that they are making fun of something that is actually true. They need to do their homework. Because this is serious business. Instead of running ads about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears they should go talk to some energy experts and actually make a difference."

----

Smart is finally back!!!  :-)

Gore would be a disaster as VP. [I'm a Feingold or Hagel aficionado myself.] It would call up the worst images of the Clinton admin, which isn't going to look too pretty when someone finally releases the Clinton presidential papers from Bush's super secret classification and writes the real history of what went on during those eight years.

Gore is making too much money now as the financial heir to Enron's creation of the carbon tax scheme. Enron dreamt up the carbon tax-and-trade scheme -- created it out of thin air -- after creating its highly successful $20 billion sulphur dioxide tax-and-trade program for the EPA following the The Clean Air Act of 1990 (1991?) The big problem was that CO2 wasn't a pollutant, so Ken Lay had to come up with something to make multo bucks from CO2. Voila: global warming. Ken Lay and Enron corralled Gore and Clinton in 1993 with the idea, donated $1.5 million to their campaign, then produced the Kyota Protocol with the rest of their global biz buddies and peddled it worldwide.

Make no mistake. I am not pooh-poohing energy efficiency* or clean air or non-polluted skies*, but this coronation of Gore as some scientific visionary is bullshit. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an absolute necessity for plant growth. If we dont have CO2, we dont have oxygen on the planet. Period. End of story. Gore and two buddies created a company in The City of London -- note that it was not in the USA -- whereby they are going to get the financial benefits of Enron's phony global carbon tax-and-trade program, now that Ken Lay is dead and Enron is belly-up.

If you think you, your farts, and your cars can heat up the rock we live on and boil the oceans, I've got a bridge to sell you. Massive numbers of undersea volcanos erupting (check USGS) and violent solar flares are the culprit if you read for-real scientific sites, and genuine scientific papers written by real experts. Check the Canadians.

Before you start screeching for links, here are a couple:

http://WWW.investigatemagazine.com/mt/mt-tb.pl/298

http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2002/Feb/20020226Comm007.asp 

___________________________

* Americans Wang and Lee won an instant Nobel Prize in 1957 when they discovered how to make free energy. They (and their discovery) were removed from all college Electrical Engineering textbooks; their discovery was rephrased as some stupid thing you can't even understand and no one and nobody knows who the hell they are. They cracked it 51 years ago and it was proven by someone named Wu, and no one knows a damn thing about them.

** I would be bitching full-time if I had to live in Beijing with that pollution, and I decry what American factories did to the drinking water in Mexico. Criminal.

I think that (1) Gov. Sellibus is at the top of the ticket because she would provide experience, the change argument, and illustrate how a democrat governed effectivly and CUT TAXES while balancing a disasterous budget. She's got a great economy to point to and would be a favorite daughter in Ohio.

 

(2) I think Sen. Patty Murray is a darkhorse that is no longer mentioned. She's got great national security credentials, is a soccor mom, and she voted against the Iraq war.

 

(3) I think that Schweitzer is on the list because of that fourth of July picnic. What a great time to get a feel on a possible VP who would be effective in locking down the west for you? And we ought to keep in mind that McCain is a senator from the west, a key battleground. For all of Sen. Obama's strength in the mid-west, Sen. McCain has real affinity in the west and Gov. Schweitzer would be an excllent VP candidate to carry a negative message and fight the good fight.

 

What also strikes me about the three I mentioned and other Obama VP picks (Biden comes to mind readily as well) they would make effective attack agents. I think that this is a main criteria for the Obama camp; especially after last week. For that reason, I really hope that Joe Biden is high  up on Sen. Obama's list. He's a smart man with tons of experience. He commutes to DC from his home state of Delaware and he has crediblity on national secruity issues. But most importantly, he attacks. If you've ever heard him, maybe it's the prosecutor in him, he turns ever attack into a nice soundbite that makes sense and has the air of authority to carry it off.

I think Joe Biden is senator Obama's best VP pick. That is the kind of energy we need. He's great at debates too.

 

 

Submitted August 5, 2008 - 1:12 pm by DebZ

I like Richardson too. Yeah...I know...he partied too hardied, and has some skeletons, but I liked him during the primaries. He's winsome. And he gets to the point when he talks. There's something simpatico about him.

I think it's on the money...although use of the word ignorant is bound to get some panties in a bunch.  It's a loaded word that prevents those listening from really hearing what he is saying.

 

Boy, aren't we all a bunch of Schweitzer fans around here today?  I still want to know what happens in the governor's race if he gets it.  How do the Dems pick up a new candidate that fast?

 

Regarding Gore, while on the one hand I do see it as unlikely, I guess I have also become so impressed with the Obama campaign to work magic that I really wouldn't put it past them to pull that rabbit out of the hat.  But would it turn away any Republicans?  How does Gore play in the Mountain West as we compare him to Schweitzer?  And really, I still cannot get past the idea of virtually locking up Virginia's 13 electoral votes with Kaine.

The polls today are accompanied by an explanation that says Obama's core support blocs are abandoning him. The young. Women. Minorities even. They point out 5% have dropped off the Obama train while McSame has picked up 5%.

 

But they skip over a few important points, like:

All candidates mid-summer, have a number of soft supporters. It's usually closer to 10%, so some shifting is normal. It's in the final 6 weeks that 5% would be alarming, not 13 weeks ahead.

Post-shift, McCain's only at 42%.  We still haven't ever seen him surpass 45%. Ever.

McCain also has a percentage of soft support in his ranks. That soft support could just as easily abandon him, too.

There is a distinct difference in the way Bill Clinton functioned politically and Obama has functioned. Bill Clinton was known to compromise his own proclaimed principles, but often there was no-one at all that he was negotiating with on the GOP side. Instead, he'd just co-opt the Republican position, which maddened the opposition.

 

Obama's history indicates he's sat down between polar opposites and worked as a genuine mediator. He determines some goals that both sides are trying to achieve and asks: "You want 'A'. If A-minus is provided, will you allow 'C' to be added to the mix?" Then he goes to the other side, and says "You want 'B'. If B-minus is provided, will you allow 'D' to be added to the mix?"

By adding C and D to the mix, neither side feels they're losing anything. Both feel like they're making a fair trade, gaining an extra, in the process.

So as he campaigns, indicating he's open to negotiations has no real bearing on what the end result will be. It co-opts the strength of a McCain talking point (ie, let's drill offshore) without making a concession at all. At this point, activists have no idea what 'quid' might be gained for what 'pro quo' Obama may yield. They're accustomed to gaining no quid and want Obama to demonstrate that he can use the bully pulpit.

And he can. And likely will. And when he doesn't, he'll mediate from a stronger position. All he's opened up are means to achieve forward progress.  Those aren't flip-flops happening. That's just called 'setting the stage.'

It tells most voters that he'll be there to solve problems, not push some ideological agenda that only one side approves of.

I'm hardly suggesting he's done so flawlessly. I do think his immunity vote was wrong and fully expected some erosion in liberal support to show in the polls. Let's not overlook that much of that can be rectified by what he does about wiretapping after winning the presidency. Sure, that could be wishful thinking. But it might also happen.

What is certain is that winning campaigns build momentum at a measured pace and the best strategies and full court press come in the final six weeks. Obama only needs to win half of that 'lost' soft support back in this next six weeks to be poised for that end game run (sorry about all the basketball metaphors).

Peaking 3 weeks early is risky. It forces desperation shots that occasionally can hit. Controlling the tempo to peak about 10 days before Election Day yields a majority of the 5% that won't decide till the final week.

So let's see what the polls say 2 weeks AFTER the GOP convention, which will be the last potential peak that McCain can obtain.

I fully expect Obama to shift to an economic message blitz in September and October, right at the heart of where most voters live. Let's not mistake the exhibition games for the finals. There's a huge Obama team ready, with an unprecedented number in its ranks (which I only fully became aware of via Al's tutorials).

The VP, I feel, is least likely to be a red state Senator. A governor or Congressional rep simply makes more sense. As does a 'retired' politico. (Not Nunn; what about Pat Schroeder? Mario Cuomo? What about a blue state's Senator?)

Historically, the VP selection has really mattered little. Voters vote their interests and have stomached both assholes (Agnew/Cheney) and mewlings (Quayle) if the top of the ticket is messaging effectively. It's unlikely he'll pick someone viewed as too unconventional on foreign policy or too wrong on issues that will matter in Supreme Court nominations. From the list of suggested VPs, erase those that don't fit these two criteria.

Beyond that, get organized. And execute. Winning campaigns don't get there on hyperbole and speculation. To use one last metaphor, they get there like Karl Malone, delivering the mail on time.

 

 

 

 

 

I am going to have to say that I would squeal with delight if Schweitzer were picked. I come from a family drenched in Montana Red, and without a doubt Schweitzer would appeal to Libertarians, Independents and Moderate Republicans. Plus his work with energy goes along with Obama's theme. He'd be a wonderfully aggressive VP. And he has successfully worked across the aisle. If Schweitzer were to be the pick, i can just see my uncles and cousins quiet their awful emails about Obama.

Gore: I informed my mother that if Gore is picked, I would drop my clothes and run outside naked. That's how little chance I think he'd be picked but what I would do in happiness if he was

Bayh is a Bore.

The first link I gave at 6:12 PM above doesn;t work.

Here is the correct link:

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/archives/2006/03/investigate_oct_5.ht...

If those comments you wrote about Global Warming had come from anyone else, I would have dismissed them.   I certainly don't want to hijack this thread on that topic but I appreciate the information.  I've been meaning to look in to this more.  It's also related to what I said about Gore turning off some potential voters.

Not meaning to hijack this thread either. But I bought into the whole Gore story until I spent weeks and weeks and weeks reading USGS and scientific papers. Made my head hurt. Then I spent some time in Canadian north. And Norway near the North Pole, listening to the captain of the boat (ship?) and got a whole different story from earnest local scientific wonks. Enuf. Wont carry on. What we've been told is entirely too simplistic.

Tara:

Here's the video - looks like the crowd lapped it up.  Hope it gets some play on the evening news.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Obama_responds_Its_like_thes...

And thanks to Stephen for the link to his article - well worth reading.  It's definitely Schweitzer, Richardson or Sebelius methinks.

KD

What is this tripe about climate change above me? The person writing this has absolutely no clue what he's talking about. Global Warming isn't some theory Gore made up, it's something practically all climate science agrees on. Absolutely nobody is suggesting washing all the CO2 out of the air, that would be retarded and extremily harmful. The problem is that humanity has increased the amount of CO2 in the air to the point that temperature is increasing rapidly. The idea which Gore is promoting is to at least slow this process down by stopping to dump ever increasing amounts of CO2 in the air.

The amount of CO2 that leaks from volcanoes is 150 times smaller than what humans are emitting. Also, there has been nog recent increase of solar activity that could explain the warming of the past thirty years.

Let's just stop right here.  Al will kill us.  I can't say I know the answer but Alexa is a very thorough researcher and I appreciate her input.

Alexa, pumped up and unsourced references to poring over USGS and "scientific papers" proving that climate change isn't happening smells of either duped-ness or dupery.  Where are your sources?  What's your expertise?  Are you going to tell me that some areas are cooling off (that's why scientists call it climate change, silly)?  Or that long-term climate shifts have gone on for millenia without our help, so our effect just mimicks what's already 'natural'?  Or just that those damned environmentalist scientists want to scare us all back to the stone age at take away our SUVs?

As for carbon taxes, trading, credits, whatever, they are indeed a scheme for industry to make a buck by shifting carbon reductions somewhere else so they can keep dumping crap into the air.  It's a con.  The scheme is generally to dole out credits and then ratchet them down over time, but always ends up with business interests manipulating the numbers to their advantage--which always kills the plan.  I should know, I helped write an emissions trading program rule that fortunately got killed a few years ago.  But if you think emissions control and conservation are about taking all the carbon out of the air, well, that's about as silly as  McCain's story that Obama's energy plan consists of a pressure gauge.

Sorry Alexa the investigatemagazine article doesn't add up for me. While it isn't surprising that Ken Lay would try to swindle a caterpiller from its future life as a butterfly CO2 die-offs have occurred before on the planet when other species got out of balance. One of these resulted in the cliffs of Dover. But the key is the spike which is way out of line and the second key is the quantifiable amount of CO2 which humans are putting out. The article asks us to looks outside our window and I can easily do this.

The erratic weather and increasingly violent weather suggests a serious problem. It could still be cyclic perhaps but Alexa you speak about "earnest local scientific wonks."

Not far to the north of me in New Hampshire there is a Maple Sugar house that has been keeping careful records of the first sap run date, the season length and the production (to simplify, they have a lot more detailed data). It is all on a chart on the wall and you can see a huge shift in the patterns, not simple cycles but the whole sap production of the trees is shifting.

Maple trees produce their sugar under conditions of specific temperature variations. It must freeze at night and thaw during the day without getting too hot or staying frozen all day for more than a day or so. Given the changes, it is entirely possible that Maple Syrup will no longer be able to be produced. Small producers have all quit in the last ten years, only the big sugar bushes with the trees linked up by hose can ride the increasingly erratic seasons.

There are cycles in sap production but none that have been as big as this. Add to this the recent increase in invasive plants from more southern places, summers that resemble Virginia more and more, invasions of bugs that couldn't live this far north previously and not the least repeated years of hundred year flood levels.

Alexa you could still be right but the article you linked to was far too cavalier in its dismissal for me to accept their unfounded and weakly referenced conclusions.

I have read through the comments and just want to add that the biggest thing about Brian Schweitzer is his way of explaining things. He is a political opponent you would never want to face. He will make toast of McCain and whoever he chooses. He would remind Palin about hpw much she likes Obama's energy plan. He exceeds Harry Truman in down home common sense talk. If I had no other reason for being for him it's because he is better than all the consultants you could hire in framing the message and making it understandable to folk. Just consider two words that describe what he is up to in Montana and believes we could do nationally -- the restoration economy. I think the only question is if Barack will promise him executive power to ride herd on the whole energy apparatus that will have people like Gore aboard. Gee I will be sad if this does not happen. Anyone from the Chicago office read here?

...was John Tester throwing Brian Schweitzer's name at Chris Mathews as a potential VP pick on "The Day the MSM Admitted Barack Obama was the Nominee".   Needless to say, this was an extraordinarily celebratory evening in my household - but a smililng, laughing John Tester found a brain fold in which to nestle.

 

For those without this memory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjNQvEl1jOs

 

I've been a Sebelius > Kaine > Richardson guy for awhile, but would be elated with Schweitzer for several of the reasons enumerated above, especially by the Rose piece that x-posted at the HuffPo.

I believe Obama's requirements have been: similar view of the political landscape (ie "change"/"outsider") and the ability to bring a significant portfolio to the table.

This election may have started as an Iraq and Health Care election, but it has moved towards Energy and Economy.  If Schweitzer brings energy experience - I need to do more research on his portfolio and would appreciate any links, opinions, anecdotes - he could be a wonderful and *possible* choice.

Al Gore first testified regarding global warming long before he was part of the Clinton administration as quoted by npr:

 

He first held a hearing on the topic more than 25 years ago, not long after he started in the House of Representatives.

 

Therefore, I think it is also too simplistic to say he's acting on behalf of the Ken Lay or anything like that. This has been his interest since college.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9072304 (Edited to add link - also includes an interview with scientists clarifying some of the points mentioned in Gore's documentary, such as the time span for the sea level rising)

"* Americans Wang [sic] and Lee won an instant Nobel Prize in 1957 when they discovered how to make free energy. They (and their discovery) were removed from all college Electrical Engineering textbooks; their discovery was rephrased as some stupid thing you can't even understand and no one and nobody knows who the hell they are. They cracked it 51 years ago and it was proven by someone named Wu, and no one knows a damn thing about them."

 

Alexa, what a delicious footnote to look up, so I did!  Before I get into it, can you tell me what is your source?  Is it Tom Bearden?

In any case, a short essay on Tom Bearden on rense.com, http://www.rense.com/general75/simpl.htm, was the closest I could find to the argument in your footnote.

Also, while I am drawn to physics, I'm not trained.  That said, since I'm not afraid to try to understand, and I'm looking to understand, are you a physicist and EE that can discuss this theory?

 

So, it seems to me the argument is that Maxwell's original equations allowed for asymetrical systems.  EE have ignored any asymetrical EM systems, presumably because conservation of parity was considered a fundamental law of nature, like conservation of energy. Yang and Lee showed that parity is not always conserved, as previously thought, ergo, EEs are wrong to discard asymetrical Maxwellian systems.

So,  my question is that since it seems Yang and Lee only claimed that conservation of parity is not conserved in weak nuclear force reactions, and that, for example, it is still believed that parity is conserved in strong nuclear force reactions, where is the argument that parity is not still conserved with the electromagnetic force?  Is the argument simply that asymetrical Maxwellian systems are wrongly ignored since they may be possible?  It also seems to me experiments should be possible, just like Wu was able to experimentally prove Yang and Lee's theory in weak interreactions.

I guess what I'm curious about is sussing out the nut of the science problem that is at the center of this "conspiracy theory."  But don't worry, I'm not afraid to look at questions of deep politics and "conspiracy theories" either.  Just science first, if possible.

Oh, if you're interested, I will probably ask my string theorist friend about this Yang Lee parity theory and whether anyone thinks it can apply to EM.  Maybe we can take this to the FieldHand's site?

Personally, I think Gore as VP would be a poor choice. This electon is about change. As much as I love Gore and think he would have made a great president, in terms of politics his time was back there -- with Clinton in the 90s. Also, just because we progressives love him doesn't mean that everyone does. He appeals to the same folks as Obama. Whereas Schweitzer would bring in swing voters -- white working-class, Western, Catholic.

Carpediva Hussein, I love Al for his insights and wisdom, but I don't necessarily agree with each and every word that get tapped out on his keyboard. I think it's clear Obama has shifted to the middle, and to refrain from saying so is just plain silly. If we on the left want to have credibility, we have to speak truthfully about what we believe.

Now you're welcome to disagree with me, just as I disagree with you. If you don't believe he's moved to the middle, I respect that. And I respect your right to share your opinion. That said, I do not believe you have any right to tell me what to say or not say. There's nothing democratic (small or capital "D") about that.

On offshore drilling, Obama clearly stated that he accepted a compromise in order to get legislation through, but he has not changed his belief on the issue, just made a tactical shift. That is how politics works.

Al already dealt with FISA.

But the other issues that people claim such as gun control, the death penalty or supporting faith-based programs are positions that Obama has held for a long time. Just read The Audacity of Hope.

Or do you have some other "shifts" to bring up? As Carpediva Hussein said, Obama did not "shift" because he already was where he is now on these issues.

He'd be a half-court buzzer-beater.  This guy is smart, progressive, charming, bi-partisan, a Washington outsider and an energy guru.  The only downsides are his limited political experience and lack of foreign policy experience.  But he does have experience serving an executive administration overseas.  That's more than Bushie and many others have had.

When I look at the remaining field of VP choices, assuming Obama doesn't pick someone completely unexpected, Schweitzer is the one that excites me the most.  The guy is the kind of compassionate libertarian progressive democrat that alot of people could really get behind.  For those that say he couldn't deliver Montana, I say don't be so sure.  Schweitzer is extremely liked and respected in Montana.  He could provide Obama with a very big bump in the state.

Good chewing, all!  (I'm staying out of the epistemic disputes about warming).

Mountain West, beyond progressives, Obamacans and republican storylines: Gore of 08 is not the Gore of 1992-2000.  An Inconvenient Truth and the Nobel, as well as the consensus shift in Gore's direction on this issue makes him very appealing in the West and to independents.  The republicans considering Obama would be getting past more w/ Obama than w/ Gore, in my view--remember Tipper and the lyrics flap!

Best response: magic with rabbits and hats from Tara--this is a big part of my suspicions about this as well.  From the top of the stadium, Obama looks confident beyond bluff that has nothing to do w/ cocky or anything like that.  More like he's swallowed the biggest canary out there--and who else would that be?

No way Gore can deliver Tennessee and the "progressives" who really like him will vote for Obama anyway.   No one else is that interested in him, imo.  Hate to say it and really glad for the awareness he has brought to the issue of climate change (even though it is overly simplified for sure) but he is a seriously bad campaigner.  I was an unenthusiastic supporter myself but maybe it was that hatchet piece Vanity Fair did early on in the campaign.  I always thought it did him in for some reason.  

 

Maybe Paris Hilton could be an aggressive surrogate, she's saying things Obama would never be allowed to even hint at.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/paris_hilton_res...

Sorry to be the contrarian, but I think that choosing Gore to be Obama's VP would be a terrible choice and would backfire miserably.  The natural inclination when looking at an Obama-Gore ticket would be to think that the order should be reversed. After all, no one (Dem, Repub or Indie) could deny that Gore is vastly more qualified and experienced to be Prez than Obama.

Choosing a vastly more qualified and experienced person as VP amplifies Obama's relative inexperience at a time when he is just starting to make the sale to fence-sitting and just-tuning-in swing voters. This was one of many mistakes prosecuted by Mike Dukakis in 1988 when he picked a running mate with vastly superior chops for the top job.  Other than an entertaining VP debate, that choice didn't work out so well.

Finally, would anyone here happily assume the same second-fiddle responsibilities that they had 8-16 years ago?  I didn't think so (and, guess what, neither would Al Gore).

Peace out.

- Vik

P.S.  Dear Caroline and Eric, please pick Brian.

I'm thinking schweizer or sebelius. Schweizer has the more obvious electoral advantages, but i also think it's true what someone said that VP doesn't really count for that much. On the other hand, I think it's very important to have someone you really trust -- so you don't get them betraying you like Lieberman did to Gore, and that's especially true if you win. And I think Obama really trusts Sebelius and doesn't know Schweizer at all

 

I agree with you, I think that Gore would almost overshadow the top of the ticket and that is one thing a VP should not do. And if I were him, I would certainly not want to go back to being VP. He can achieve much more where he is.

I love seeing how many Schweitzer fans there are here. I generally find that I agree with my fellow Field Hands, but this is even better than usual. :D

The perfect pick which would be a surprise and be in keeping with Obama's change slogan would be Mark Warner. Firstly with Warner on the ticket that would move Virginia into the democratic column. He is also from Indiana. I read an article about Obama''s birthday celebration at a fundraiser and when asked what he wanted for his birthday he said Virginia, Indiana and Colorado.

Alexa,

Your arguments about global warming would be a lot more credible if you didn't say things like this:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an absolute necessity for plant growth. If we dont have CO2, we dont have oxygen on the planet. Period. End of story.

Because it's the same thing as saying that drowning, root rot, and water poisoning are impossible since, after all:

Water is an absolute necessity for plant and animal life. If we don't have H20, we don't have life on the planet. Period. End of story.

As any toxicologist would tell you, anything can be a poison at the right dose.

In my view, Obama clearly shifted his positions, tactical or otherwise, on both drilling and FISA, for political reasons. To say otherwise is to put our heads in the sand.

I understand the motivation to move to the middle. However, on FISA I think it was a blunder because he could have won over Independents by sticking to his guns and making the case for why the Republicans were wrong. That would have garnered a lot of respect among those with libertarian leanings and fired up his base (rather than undercutting his most loyal supporters). But I recognize that the Obama team is very smart and could be seeing something I'm not. I also agree with Al and others that it's not the end of the world that he played it as he did, even if I'm right that he misplayed his hand.

On drilling, he made a tactical shift in order to stop the bleeding, which may be a smart political move. But both are examples of his moving to the middle -- whether we like it or not.

I do agree with you that Obama has held moderate positions on many issues. Initially, I supported Edwards because Obama seemed too moderate for my tastes. While I wasn't aware that this was specifically so on gun control or the death penalty, I was aware with regard to faith based initiatives. On that score, I agree with his handling of the issue, permitting religious organizations to obtain federal funds but applying all the right regulations. That's an example of a smart, pragmatic position -- and there I have to admire his willingness to offend (if necessary) those on the left who cannot see past their knee-jerk reactions. And I've come to see the wisdom of Obama's approach, even when he and I disagree on a specific issue.

Still on board with Schweitzer.

Been there since March.  Though VPs don't tend to directly bring you states, having a Mountain West guy on the ticket helps the campaign gain traction in an area where, IMHO, it's likely to make more in roads faster, and easier, than in the South.

Win the Presidency, and the accompaning downticket races first. I'll trade a governorship for it, easier than a Senate seat.

Getting back to the original topic, earlier on Tuesday, Bayh said that Obama had not asked him to be VP, he didn't expect it to be announced on Wednesday, and he had no idea who it would be.

Now I caught this in the Financial Times: Obama running mate could come from 'left field'.

It opens with:

Fans of Evan Bayh, the clean-cut senator for Indiana, are hoping today will be the day he is selected as Barack Obama’s vice-presidential running mate. They are likely to be disappointed.

Although the two senators will be campaigning together in Indiana – a traditionally Republican state that the Obama campaign is targeting in November – the audition process still has at least 10 days to run.

Obama officials say privately it is unlikely a running mate will be selected before the candidate returns from a week’s holiday in Hawaii, which starts this Friday. That leaves about 10 days until the start of the Democratic party convention in Denver.

Of course, it then goes on to list some entirely conventional choices.

But it does look like Bayh was a pump fake, and we wait to see if Obama will go for the three-point shot.

Here's something really out of the box.  Hillary makes her speech at the convention on Tuesday.  She offers up a mea culpa, talks about how she has come around to Obama's political philosophy, notes how their policies are not that much different.  Obama supporters forgive her, Hillary supporters sulk, but that's ok, because on Wednesday Obama makes the shocking annoucement at the convention that she is the pick for veep.  Of course, no chance of that now with Bill running off at the mouth again (unless she decided to cut him loose).  I'm no Hillary lover by a long shot, but that sure would shake up the dynamics of the race.

Will be tremendously relieved if today comes and goes, and no announcement is made. But it's just the last vestiges of chicken little speaking. Waiting until right before the Convention makes more sense strategically -- for two reasons. First, the buzz keeps building, perhaps to a fever pitch. Also, it forces McCain to pick his man right before or right at the Republican Convention, at a point where he can't get many news cycles out of it.

I just hope Obama keeps hitting McCain today and begins coordinating those hits with surrogates. So far, the McCain camp has been better in rocking Obama back on his heels and forcing him to play defense. I liked the ad yesterday on oil dependance, as well as Obama's remarks regarding ignorance. Obama appears to have shifted tactics and it may be time to grab some popcorn. But so far the best hit on McCain has come from Paris Hilton.

How I would love to see an ad asking why McCain doesn't know the difference between Sunis and Shia, complete with video, or one with Joe Lieberman whispering sweet nothings in his ear on Iran training Al Qaida. Or one simply showing clips of McCain looking or acting or speaking in a confused manner. That would force the networks to scrutinize McCain's performance, constantly looking for gaffs. It would be great to have that narrative locked in place before the debates.

To make that happen, it's not enough to run a great ad. The issue has to become a theme, pushed again and again, particularly by surrogates, in a coordinated manner. We constantly complain about MSM bias. There may be some merit. But more than bias, Republicans know how to drive news cycles. Democrats, even those of Obama's caliber, are still several steps behind.

To all of those who say that a VP can not deliver a state (or hasn't done so since LBJ in 1960 or Gore in 1992), I ask the following ... does this hold true for a state that:

A.  has never before been considered a swing state?

B.  has never before gotten any kind of media attention on the national stage?

C.  only has 3 electoral votes?

D.  has a governor with one of the highest net approval ratings in the country?

I tend to think that civic pride runs deep in places that are considered off the beaten path.  I bet if Obama picks Schweitzer, he locks up Montana's 3 electoral votes.  As far as North Dakota, Colorado and Nevada go, Schweitzer may not guarantee them turning blue, but his position as #2 certainly can't hurt.

What are the odds that Team Obama sees things our way?  1%?  2%?  Is Schweitzer even on the radar of the vetters?

P.S.  @Deb, if by "shaking up the dynamics of this race," you mean "totally tank Obama's chances to win," I agree with you.  For so many reasons that have been repeated ad nauseum on this board, Hillary would be an absolutely horrible choice as VP.

Laura - don't you hate articles with misleading titles like that? I read that as well and it referenced no left fielders at all....not even Schweitzer and how hard would it be to come up with that one? Warner is another one but I just don't see how the Dems give up a sure pickup with that Senate seat.  You gonna come to my fundraiser in Redmond??  : ))

 

Roy - I would love to see the confused meme out there but I don't think it's going to come from the Obama camp. Unfortunately, the McCain camp seems to have prevented that by convincing people that agism is a bad thing....politically incorrect. Quite honestly, McCain scares me because of his age. Having watched that session in Panama City where he totally blanked on the question that had JUST been asked him and having him refer to Czechoslovakia not one, not two but FOUR times has me convinced that he just doesn't have all his faculties about him. So policies aside, he is a dangerous pick for POTUS...how is this not relevant?

 

What I'm really waiting for the Obama camp to fire back with is "Since when is it a bad thing to have people excited about a president? Since when is a bad thing to have alot of people following...which conversely means that Obama is leading??"

For those concerned about the 'weakness' of Obama's surrogates I have two words for you - Jon Stewart.

Deb - I agree that if Obama ended up picking Hillary it would be a huge surprise and it would really shake up the race. When you think about it minus any emotion, it would be a pragmatic and shrewd choice.  I'm intrigued to see whom Obama will end up picking.

From Politico today. www.exxonmccain.com  Love the red and white!

Trying new image link skills!

Alcatholic,

Go here for Lt. Col (Ret.) Tom Bearden [I buy all these books and DVDs :-) I have no clue what half of the stuff means, but the experiments on the DVDs are fascinating.] He has an interesting link on his homepage about global warming:

http://www.cheniere.org/

One of his Yang (always mixing up with Wang) and Lee pages is here. He used to have a lot more:

http://www.cheniere.org/references/brokensymmetry.htm

Bearden's bio, sorta. This should interest your EE friend. Bearden worked at top no-mention military facilities on electromagnetic and scalar weaponry for US govt:

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/interview1991.htm

Only saw that Pastor article this AM. Pastor simplifies it. A lot. Easy to read. Thx

Now, enuf hijacking on this topic.

I agree that Gore would be a bad choice, and not just for all the reasons that he could not beat Bush in 2000.  Since then, Gore has sort of become a caricature.  The Right has buckets of ammo they could use on him.  And some of Gore's latest global warming proclamations are so out there, that I doubt he'd be taken seriously.  Obviously, Gore is trying to move the climate change debate forward, but he's doing so in a way that would make it difficult for him to ever be elected to office again.  This is all moot anyway, because Gore is not getting back into politics.

Tara - The confused mem has to come from Obama. The press isn't interested in truth. It's interested in horse race. If Obama pushes the story, they will cover it breathlessly and it will become a theme. It should become a theme for all the reasons you set forth. Sure, McCain will scream and yell "ageism," but so what. It will just make him look more pathetic when he stumbles and loses his train of thought.

Firing back on the popularity issue is alright, but it keeps the battle going on issues McCain is pushing. Most Democrats, wanting to be high minded and fair, don't understand that you have to play offense to win. You have to get the electorate discussing your issues. When the other side is hitting you over your supposed character flaws, it's not enough to try to push back with real issues like the war and the economy. Sure, talk about that stuff. But also push back with character issues of your own. The clueless voters need to 1) see a willingness to fight (so they trust you to fight for them) and 2) understand that it's not Obama against faceless, attribute-free white dude but rather Obama against McCain, with all his flaws and weaknesses.

The only way Obama loses this election is if he fails to hit back hard. But if he fails to hit back hard, lose he will. Just as John Kerry, the war hero, was beaten up as unpatriotic and effitte by an AWOL, draft dodging chicken hawk. The voters who decide elections are, unfortunately, the so-called "swing voters," which in essence means those who don't pay attention until the very end and then make their decisions based almost solely on emotion.

I guess I'm just not convinced that there should official Obama ads targeting his age.  Better to hit on the 26 years in the Congress to remind people that he's part of the problem AND old.  In any case, I assume they have a way to come after him in this regard that will be viewed as not hitting below the belt.  I agree he needs to hit back  - that was defiinitely Kerry's downfall.  But it needs to be a clean shot.  Plus, I assume that the debates will do a lot to expose his lack of mental faculties.  But it doess need to be exposed for all to see.  Policies aside - he scares me.  If he were to eek out a win, I wonder who the real guy in charge would be.

I have thought for over a year now that it will be Feingold.

Basically ever since the Democratic Senate Press Conference on January 8, 2007.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.daylife.com/imageser...

During the press conference Feingold and Obama unveiled Ethics legislation part of which Bush signed into law. The Good Government Act, I believe. The bill put rules on bundlers (bundling being a hot topic now- see Hess Corporation and Harry Sergeant), lobbyists and corporate jets, etc. A minor victory. In any case this gives Obama and Feingold a record of having already changed Washington.

I thought the press conference semmed odd, a bunch of hubaloo for nothing, considering the legislation hadn't passed. Basically, it was a big Democratic preamble for the election, I think. Getting the brand out there with lobbyist reform and cleaning up Washington. Funny things is Lieberman was there. If they only new...

Second, Caroline Kennedy is the VP vetter. Russ Feingold, along with John McCain were recipients of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage award for their work on McCain-Feingold. Caroline Kennedy was part of that decision and clearly she has a high regard for Feingold. I'm sure he is very much on her radar.

Third, the issues. Feingold has co-sponsored numerous bills that would help Senator Obama. He voted against the war, Patriot Act, FISA (bring in libertarians, independents), immigration bill. He has recently introduced the Use It or Lose It Oil Bill. The list goes on.

Also, Feingold is a great public speaker. He is very intelligent and thoughtful when speaking. However, he speaks his mind and can speak forcefully, but I've never heard a gaffe. He'd be a great outspoken attack dog. Also, he has a plain and folksy delivery and loves to reference Wisconsin. He travels to each WI county (all 72) at least once a year.

Clearly, he is popular with libertarians and Independents in Wisconsin. Oh, and even Republicans admire his tenacity and his principles. Of course, he also reminds them of the McCain-Feingold bill, which they hate McCain for. He managed to grab some Bush voters in the 2004 election (2 or 3%, I think).

He is also a budget hawk, sits on the Select-Intelligence Committee (which is HUGE--priviledged information), the Judiciary Comm, Budget Comm, and the Foreign Relations Comm, among others.

THe Select Comm. on Intelligence is really a big one. These Senators have had access to some of the knowledge that has been stinking up politics for the last 7 plus years (see FISA, scandals, etc).

Finally, if you want an outsider, you've got one in Feingold.

 

Yes yes yes.

 

For Pete's sake the man speaks Arabic and knows a few things about the ME.  Could be helpful in this day and age.

As a former Wisconsin resident and longtime fan of Feingold, I have also been vigilant about keeping his name on peoples' minds for VP.

I'll never forget how, on the day when their votes split on FISA, Feingold gave yet another ringing endorsement of Obama even while taking his colleagues to task for their votes.  I commented here that Feingold is a great practitioner of what Al called "smart dissent" in a recent post.

Even the fact that his seat would be safe if he jumped to the VP position bodes well for him.  With a Democratic governor, and someone like Tammy Baldwin standing by to fill his seat, there are very few negatives associated with the choice.

Yes, he's "progressive," but in that great Midwestern way that doesn't scare people, and I love that McCain-Feingold is his most noted accomplishment.  How can the Republicans attack him for being insufficiently bipartisan with that in his pocket?

 Love the assessment of a Obama/Feingold ticket.

The varied smart perceptions here, never cease to amaze.

Barack's first choice for VP:  Jim Webb (his Shermanesque step-down was a brillaint red herrring, and just think of how marvelously Senator Webb shores up Obama's weak flanks!)

 

Barack's second choice:  Female Repuublican governor Sarah Palin of Alaska (she's a real maverick unlike the hapless, puerile McCain, a refomer who successfully took on her state's powerful oil barons, and she recently said some very complimentary things about Obama's energy plan.  TYalk about "reaching across the aisle"!)

I realize this is extremely off-topic, but since this is an Open Thread, I figured this was the best place to inquire. As someone too young to remember the Soviet Union and the Cold War, I am a bit confused regarding this new conflict between Georgia and Russia. I realize that Georgia is a former-Soviet nation, but I'm not very informed as the geography or the political climate in this region right now. In order to better judge both the impact for the USA and the responses given by both campaigns, I am asking for any insight or education you smart Field Hands and/or Al can provide me.