Obama (may be) Running for (Vice) President

-

lieberman_obama.jpg
Senator Barack Obama has been pretty giddy about the speculation that he might run for President. He is an exciting political force and seems fresh, somewhat innoncent, inspiring.
But behind the energetic spontaneity exists a cautious calculator. He knows that he is vastly out-gunned by Hillary Clinton as things stand — and though she may be telling the truth to her New York constituents that she has made “no decisions” about running for the Presidency, everyone around her has decided (essentially) that she will run.
Obama, despite the feverish speculation, is RUNNING FOR VICE PRESIDENT.
I was in Senator Jay Rockefeller’s office the day that Joe Lieberman lambasted on the Senate floor President Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Rockefeller was furious with Lieberman and roared that Lieberman had just issued his first salvo in a quest to be Gore’s VP running mate.
The Lieberman speech happened way before anyone thought he had a chance at the VP slot — all except Rockefeller, and Lieberman himself.
My hunch is that Obama is setting himself up to be Hillary’s running mate. Probably more likely with Hillary than John Edwards.
Clinton and Obama would actually be a pretty impressive ticket.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

59 comments on “Obama (may be) Running for (Vice) President

  1. Carl Nyberg says:

    I have a hard time getting enthusiastic about HRC being the nominee.
    It will help the Greens though.
    I think people are ready for some new blood and new ideas.

    Reply

  2. William Hallowell says:

    Public Agenda’s latest Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index (http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/index.cfm) shows there is a marked dissatisfaction on immigration. Nearly eight in 10 Americans give the United States low grades (http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/foreignpolicy_reportcard.htm) for protecting U.S. borders from illegal immigration. And eight in 10 worry (http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/foreignpolicy_worries.htm) that it may be too easy for illegal immigrants to come into the country.
    Public Agenda is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group devoted to public opinion and public policy. For more information on who we are and what we do, go to http://www.publicagenda.org.

    Reply

  3. Allen B. says:

    A pretty impressive ticket indeed. And, a pretty impressive way to go down in flames. A woman OR a black American would be a huge step for the American electorate. A woman AND a black man would relegate the Democrats to permanent minority status. We need to get real.

    Reply

  4. Alexander K says:

    Steve:
    I think you’re right about Senator Obama being a cautious calculator, but your entire analysis rides on the proposition that he’s vastly outgunned by Hillary Clinton, and as I see it, that proposition does not stand up upon closer inspection. By vastly outgunned, I assume that you’re talking dollars and cents. It’s true that as of September 30, Hillary Clinton had $15,756,426 cash on hand, which dwarfed Obama’s $755,696. But Obama, who was flying completely below the radar screen until his 2004 keynote address at the DNC, has raised almost as much money in 2006 (i.e. $1,215,930) as Hillary did in 2002 (i.e. $1,455,747) after 10 years of being one of the world’s most recognizable women and after soliciting campaign contributions since 1989. What Obama currently lacks in cash, he makes up for in the eloquence he exudes and the hope that he inspires, which can translate very quickly into campaign contributions from lots of small donors who want to feel good about politics again. And with few exceptions, the media seem to love him, which should translate into even more free air time during a presidential primary season than it does for him right now. These are qualities that Hilllary Clinton cannot claim to have. And I think that if and when both she and Senator Obama run for president, this deficiency on her part will negate her current fundraising advantage, which wouldn’t make that much of a difference anyway when she’s up against someone who’s as intelligent, rhetorically brilliant, and politically savy as the Junior Senator from Illinois.
    If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination for president, it will be because she played just enough defense to do so. If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination for president, it will be because he surged to victory with the support of people who ready for a new chapter in American politics, not the unwelcome extension of an old one. The latter is a story that people who have yet to pledge allegiance to either candidate will want to be a part of. The former is a story that such people don’t want to associate with as much. I trust that the latter story will be played out in the end. And if it doesn’t, then Lord help us progressives.

    Reply

  5. Judith says:

    I would love to see a woman on the ticket. I don’t think HRC is electable. I have been so disappointed in her positions particularly her support of the war. As long as we having seemingly intelligent people like her taking positions like she does regarding Iraq and Israel, there will never be peace in the Middle East.
    I like Al Gore. For me, the environment is one of the most important issues. I applaud the work that Gore has done and
    will probably continue to do whether or not he is a candidate.
    He may have too much baggage to be electable. And I want to see a Democrat elected.
    I think Clark or Feingold would be good choices to head the ticket with Obama as a VP.
    It would be wonderful to see people in office who would take positions that are fair and reasonable rather than so many who
    take positions that clearly represent pandering to their constituency.

    Reply

  6. JoMoHo says:

    I agree with Alex.
    Speaks to the filter that is in place through which today’s politicians must go through in order to “make it”. The pandering, two-faced, teflon-coated characters that are secreted through it are proof enough as to its true nature.
    I would hazard to hypothesize that an intelligent and decent person could not possibly matriculate through this sewage factory.

    Reply

  7. Alex says:

    I’m like a lot of other people.
    Fatigued at the same old names. Same old ideas. Same old approach.
    Clinton. McCain. Bush (altho after two Bush train wrecks (1988 & 2000), maybe people will learn a lesson). Kerry. Etc. Etc. Etc.
    Honestly. Is this the best the US can do?
    This Congress is supposed to be the most experienced (incumbency), yet look at it. It’s the worst so far.
    There is nothing new coming out of these people. Same ole same ole. It’s like the geriatric league is governing.
    Bush says uses “The Google” and doesn’t email. And these people are making the laws.
    Road the 19th century maybe.
    The US has a case of “old-timers” disease.
    Sigh!

    Reply

  8. billmon says:

    A woman AND a black guy at the top of the ticket?
    What country does Steve think this is? Sweden?

    Reply

  9. AndrewBW says:

    I agree with Suzanne at the top. Gore and Obama.

    Reply

  10. bob h says:

    And why not follow with Obama and Spitzer in 2016, so that Dems would have the first woman, first black, and first Jewish presidents, all in a row?

    Reply

  11. Robert Morrow says:

    Frankly, I am delighted by this Barack Obama boomlet. I think EVERYONE wins under this scenario.
    Robert Morrow

    Reply

  12. Robert Morrow says:

    I say put Obama at the TOP of your presidential ticket and leave Hillary off. I think Obama has a 40% chance of winning a general but Gollum only has a 20% chance of winning a general election.

    Reply

  13. gost says:

    grusse aus Russia – repco = 99$

    Reply

  14. elementary teacher says:

    Punchy,
    Have you tried hitting F11? Works for me.
    Best, ET

    Reply

  15. Dan Kervick says:

    I hate the idea of a real talent and inspiring figure like Obama languishing in the Vice Presidency for eight years, doing make-work jobs and cutting ribbons while he stands around squandering his abilities and waiting his turn, and hopes that the person in the Oval Office doesn’t screw things up badly or get dragged down by a scandal that takes her Vice President’s reputation down with her.
    As for the supposed Inevitability of the Hillary Machine … well, adapting a line from Faulkner, I decline to accept the end of the Democratic Party.
    Part of me says Obama isn’t ready, and should be saved for the future. But another part of me says we can’t afford to wait and hope the time will be right later. Things change. The years pass quickly. In ten years, Obama will be a veteran senator with the classic senatorial liability – a long voting record with plenty of “I voted for it before I voted against it” marks on his record.
    Sometimes when you have a young gun on the bench, who clearly has the best fastball on the team, you’ve just got to throw him into the big game. The next time he gets his chance to pitch in an equally big game, his best may already be behind him.
    By the way, I think McCain may be more worried about Obama than he is about Hillary, as evidenced by McCain’s pre-emptive strike against Obama back in February.

    Reply

  16. Carroll says:

    I cannot get excited about elections, any of them…and the more same old claptrap I hear the less I think electing dems will change that much of anything on the international scene…there will just be more endless talking and talking and talking. More hot air, more think tanking,..with nothing ever being settled…we have gone from bad to worst to FUBAR…and they are still talking and talking while people are dying like flies.
    I think we need our own “Clean Break” plan, a new “catalyzing event” to shock the public before the 2008 elections…something like France and Israel getting into a shooting match in Lebanon…so we can watch our congress and presidential opportunist try to convince us we have to sanction or bomb France for Israel…something so really absurd and far out in our mafia foreign policy that it will shock the public awake.
    Yep, we need a “catalyzing event” for the US public..one straight out of the neo’s own playbook before the next presidential election.

    Reply

  17. vachon says:

    I listened to Obama off and on all weekend on the TV. He talked beautifully and didn’t say a damn thing. He can run for Chippendale of the Year, but IMHO, he’s another spineless wonder. Just what we need: another Democratic “calculator”.
    Hillary is almost as bad. She has positions that are wrong and dangerous, but at least she has positions. She won’t get my vote, either.
    Gore? Better. Wes Clark? We have a winner.

    Reply

  18. Zathras says:

    Steve’s suggested ticket in comprised of one candidate whose major accomplishment in public life is her choice of husband, and another whose record could be matched by about two dozen freshman Congressmen. This is not encouraging.
    Surely, with over two years to go before the 2008 election, there is time for Democrats to consider what is the best their party can do, rather than just lining up behind the crowd of campaign consultants looking for the surest payday and the media types looking for the juiciest personal story. In the last two Presidential election cycles the primaries offered both workhorses and showhorses; Democratic voters went big for the showhorses in each case, and were stunned when they came in second — second, mind you, in races they each should have won easily.
    And that was just the campaign. Generally, candidates who haven’t done very much before winning the right to work out of the Oval Office don’t make very good Presidents. There have been exceptions, but not many and not recently. Six months before the election, things are different; you support the candidate the party has chosen, even if you have reservations or would have preferred someone else. But two years is a long time. Are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama really the best the Democrats have?

    Reply

  19. km4 says:

    > Clinton and Obama would actually be a pretty impressive ticket that would lose
    The only person that can win hands down over any Republican including ‘I will say anything to get elected’ John McCain is Wes Clark
    Sen. Clinton – cannot win in 2008
    John Edwards – 2nd Best choice but not a ‘hands-down’ winner like Clark
    Al Gore – like Al Gore but too much excess baggage and no to very little cross over Republicans
    John F. Kerry – cannot win in 2008
    Joe Biden – forget this bozo
    Wesley Clark – 1st with BEST CHANCE of winning against McCain ( or any other Republican candidate ) because he would get more indpedent and crossover Republicans than ANY other Dem candidate
    Bill Richardson – – cannot win in 2008
    Who is best choice for Wes Clark’s running mate?
    I don’t know yet

    Reply

  20. Carroll says:

    Posted by Uzi at October 23, 2006 10:07 AM
    >>>>>>>>
    Dear Uzi
    Here’s one for you Israeli terriers…you folks who approve shooting unarmed children and genocide in Palestine.
    But hurry, it’s just been declared a jewish terrorist organization by the US state department….so their site might go down any day now.
    http://www.kahane.org

    Reply

  21. sdemetri says:

    Hillary is too much a lightning rod. Even if she got elected, the partisanship and attacks would be relentless for her entire tenure.
    Gore is less incendiary than Clinton and may not invite the same response. Gore/Obama, or Clark/Obama though I’m not convinced Obama has the chops this early in his game. Does he have the substance behind the polish? The mess we are in will require competent players, not just pretty faces.
    As an aside, Bill Clinton gave a good speech at Georgetown University last Monday, recorded on CSPAN:
    http://tinyurl.com/yalg79

    Reply

  22. RichF says:

    If Hillary Clinton is the nominee for Pres, she will lose.
    It’d be indicative of a Democratic Party that hasn’t just lost its bearings, but has actually come unglued.
    Hillary Clinton is just THE perfect excuse for every raving Clinton-hater to forget every rational reason to vote AGAINST the Republicans–limited govt, fiscal conservatism, rule of law, competence–and vote FOR Republicans ANYWAY.
    Just because. To some, Hillary Clinton is the Anti-Christ, or certainly painted as such. It was like half the country had gotten into the rye ergot. And if the whole country was Plymouth, we’d a had a witch trial or two. As it happens, we had to settle for Arthur Dimmesdale (Starr) and the bizarre inversion that asserted America could EVER stand for Scarlet Letters, rather than against ’em.
    Republicans who grudgingly dislike Bush on substance but who are die-hard GOPers will need or be looking for a viscerally-felt reason to vote Republican anyway. All they need is an excuse. The rationalizations are already at work: “John McCain is not Mark Foley.”
    But just one little old excuse to work themselves into a frenzy, will likely change a lot of votes, if not the larger electoral dynamic. Forced to choose between voting for Hillary or the froth and fun of another hate-fest, many will vote Republican just for spite, just to avoid admitting they were wrong.
    Offering Hillary Bait to feed the Hillary Hate just plays right into their hands and into their tendencies. Running in 2008 just fulfills all their expectations. It’s just not bright politics.
    And Hillary Clinton has no track record. What has she accomplished? How has she defined herselfas either a) a distinctive presence or b) a visionary leader??
    Had she the political acumen that many claim, she’d hold off now, and let a Democrat who can actually win in 2008 run unopposed. Dems can win in 2008 with a leader who is not a divisive figure, nor a lighting rod(ham) for right-wing hate. In 2016 all that vitriol will be gone, put into perspective, and Hillary will have a record to run on. If she runs now, she’ll be painted as the grasping, power-mad harpy by the bottomless bank accounts of Richard Mellon Scaife’s character assassination machine.

    Reply

  23. goethean says:

    If we nominate HRC, we lose. Simple as that.

    Reply

  24. JoMoHo says:

    I agree with comments that Clinton, despite her strengths, would be the wrong choice. The Republicans would just love this kind of base-motivating candidate. A significant percentage of right-wingers are angry, paranoid, authoritarian, blaming and hateful. Clinton would fuel their angst. Dems need a new face.

    Reply

  25. gq says:

    While I’d like to see a female on the ticket, I think Clark/Obama would be an unbeatable ticket. Clark has foreign policy gravitas, is extremely bright, has a gig on Fox News, has already won a war, is most immune to partisanship and is tough. The advantage of Clark/Obama and any of the other combos is that both Clark and Obama are, at this point, less polarizing than HRC and Gore. While I’d vote happily for HRC or Gore (again), I’m ready for a little less partisanship–we have a lot of problems that need to be addressed.

    Reply

  26. Easy E says:

    MUZZLE AND REPLACE PELOSI!
    Pelosi Vows No Impeachment……..
    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pelosi_Impeachment_off_table_1023.html

    Reply

  27. Ray says:

    Steve,
    I hope you’re wrong. I think Obama would be a great candidate and pairing him with Hilary would be disastrous on his part. The right wing is foaming at the mouth at the prospect of a Hilary campaign as it plays into the ‘fear’ hand of the neoconservative idea. They will paint her to be the devil just as they did Bill. I also think that she has damaged herself too much with her support of the war. I don’t think Obama is foolish enough to link himself with her in a VP job. I he would do well with John Edwards, but honestly…I think that he will run on his own and hopefully win. Now that Warner has dropped out their is a void for a centrist voice, but at the same time a voice that is not dictated to by the heir apparent Clinton machine. The worry is that Obama doesn’t have the experience or the time in Washington…but that is procisely why he must take the bull by the horns and use the popularity; the ‘something fresh’ and new attitude and use it to his advantage. A run with Hilary would only crush his chances in 2012. He should run now while his Washington connection isn’t entrenched. JFK was the last Senator to pull off winning the presidency and he too was in the midst of his first term in the Senate. I believe the nation is ready for Obama and his honesty and straight forward approach. I think he can gather the support of his colleagues more than Hillary could and be a galvanizing force that would be undoubtedly much more difficult for the the right wing to attack. His popularity in his own party would outweight the unpopularity of Hilary. Run Barrack Run!!!

    Reply

  28. Kathleen says:

    I’ve known Joe Lieberman for more years than I care to admit and like Jay Rockerfeller, I thought his Mid-Life Monica Mess speech was to position himself for the # 2 spot. I even made a bet with a friend and marked it on the calendar.
    My choice for Democratic candidate for President is Senator Russ Feingold. He is the only one who actually walks his talk on campaign finance reform and a campaign between McCain and Feingold would contrast the difference between the two parties sharply. I think voters are hungry for cleaner campaigns and only Russ Feingold has the guts to actually adhere to campaign finance regs.
    Additionally, I loved it when Russ got up and walked out on Arlen Sphincter, rather than participate in a farce. Obama, on the other hand, during the Alito confirmation phase, was actually considering not filibustering. Too weak for me. Perhaps with some seasoning, he’ll grow stronger, but I think only Feingold has the spine for this mess.

    Reply

  29. Kathleen says:

    I’ve known Joe Lieberman for more years than I care to admit and like Jay Rockerfeller, I thought his Mid-Life Monica Mess speech was to position himself for the # 2 spot. I even made a bet with a friend and marked it on the calendar.
    My choice for Democratic candidate for President is Senator Russ Feingold. He is the only one who actually walks his talk on campaign finance reform and a campaign between McCain and Feingold would contrast the difference between the two parties sharply. I think voters are hungry for cleaner campaigns and only Russ Feingold has the guts to actually adhere to campaign finance regs.
    Additionally, I loved it when Russ got up and walked out on Arlen Sphincter, rather than participate in a farce. Obama, on the other hand, during the Alito confirmation phase, was actually considering not filibustering. Too weak for me. Perhaps with some seasoning, he’ll grow stronger, but I think only Feingold has the spine for this mess.

    Reply

  30. Pissed Off American says:

    Note the names of these people actually trying to restore our voice on the excerpt below. The TRUE patriots. Do you see their names on this blog??? Have you EVER seen their names on this blog? Do you see the media recognizing them?
    Beware the candidates handed to you by the media, and syncophantic Washington “insiders”. They represent the same interests that the Bush Administration do. Our electoral process has become a scam, and the so called “two party system” has become a masquerade where the same monster dons two different costumes.
    http://www.blackboxvoting.org
    10-15-06: Now we’re getting somewhere — Congressional hand counted paper ballots bill introduced in U.S. Congress
    Here is the text of the bill, courtesy of Paul Lehto:
    Paper Ballot Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)
    HR 6200 IH
    109th CONGRESS
    2d Session
    H. R. 6200
    To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require States to conduct Presidential elections using paper ballots and to count those ballots by hand, and for other purposes.
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    September 27, 2006
    Mr. KUCINICH (for himself, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. LEE, Mr.MCDERMOTT, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. SOLIS, Ms. WATERS, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions … …….More
    http://www.blackboxvoting.org

    Reply

  31. Pissed Off American says:

    Two stolen Presidential elections, an irrefutably insecure electronic voting system utilizing machines manufactured by financial interests controlled by the extreme right, and you people till talk about the vote as if it is not in the same trash bin they threw Habeas Corpus in.
    The White House will be filled with the people they INSTALL, not the ones you vote in.
    http://tinyurl.com/sgnk9
    Electronic Voting Machines Could Skew US Elections
    ABC News has obtained an independent report commissioned by the state of Maryland and conducted by Science Applications International Corporation revealing that the original Diebold factory passwords are still being used on many voting machines.
    The SAIC study also shows myriad other security flaws, including administrative over-ride passwords that cannot be changed by local officials but can be used by hackers or those who have seen the discs.
    Until we have a real paper trail on elections in the US, we won’t have any real idea of who actually won elections here, particularly if the votes are close.
    http://www.blackboxvoting.org

    Reply

  32. John Wilson says:

    Westley Clark and Obama.
    I believe absolutely none can predict
    what the Presidency would be like,
    —but what a great Campaign! I soldier who knows what he is talking about, and a man who is refreshingly
    able to speak English properly.
    (Can you see in your mind Obama telling
    a sitting senator to “go Fuck yourself”?
    Neither can I. )
    .

    Reply

  33. SevenOneEight says:

    Obama IS running for President not VP. Steve you have this one wrong…despite your medium/high connections in his office.
    You have to look outside of his Senate staff to find the real power players in his world…those who run his kitchen cabinet.
    The players in that kitchen have no love for HRC having been never been in the Clinton inner circle. Their desire to acheive power via a platform that is not Clinton-based is intense.
    They have both entertainment money (one iconoclastic mogul in particular)and Wall St./VC money already following to Barrack. Additionally, a number of them have key relationships with Schumer who has done quite a job raising funds for DSCC.
    VP does nothing for Obama.

    Reply

  34. Steve Clemons says:

    Punchy — I will add this to the list to do. I’m not a web designer and depend on the very able work of a volunteer/colleague to keep this all together. He does great work and have forwarded him your note — but may take a while.
    thanks, steve

    Reply

  35. Punchy says:

    Mr. Clemons, can you redesign this comment section to embed links? Once a long link has been inserted in the comments, it skews the comments so that they scroll off the page. Impossible to read.

    Reply

  36. Linda says:

    Karenk,
    Not very likely ticket with both Boxer and Clark candidates from CA. Clark moved to LA last month, probably as a good place from which to launch his candidacy in 2008:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-clark18sep18,0,4679495.story?coll=la-home-headlines
    Former NATO Commander to Join UCLA as a Senior Fellow
    By Rebecca Trounson
    Times Staff Writer
    September 18, 2006
    Wesley K. Clark, a former NATO commander and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, will join UCLA this fall as a senior fellow, university officials plan to announce today.
    Clark, who is expected to arrive on campus about Oct. 1, will teach occasional seminars, publish policy papers and organize and hold an annual conference on national security, officials said.
    He will be affiliated with the university’s Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations.
    The retired Army general’s wide-ranging military, political and teaching background will serve UCLA and its students well, said Patricia O’Brien, executive dean of the university’s College of Letters and Science.
    “I am especially pleased that our students at UCLA will benefit from Gen. Clark’s extraordinary experience, as well as his dynamic leadership and teaching credentials,” O’Brien said in a statement.
    Clark, who taught economics and political philosophy at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in the early 1970s, said in a brief telephone interview that he was looking forward to returning to the classroom, although at least at first he will be a guest lecturer in other professors’ courses and not teach his own.
    “I’ll be looking at U.S. national security in the broadest terms, including military, diplomatic, energy, environmental and trade issues,” said Clark, who served as NATO’s commander during the 1999 Kosovo conflict. “There’s never been a time in American history when Americans have been more impacted by events abroad, and we need a strategy that touches all those areas.”
    Clark, 61, also said he was looking forward to living and working in the Los Angeles area, where he has a son. He said he expected to spend at least a few days a month at UCLA and sometimes more. The appointment is open-ended, he said.
    Previous lecturers and scholars at the Burkle Center have included former Presidents Clinton and Carter and other U.S. and foreign officials.

    Reply

  37. karenk says:

    Wes Clark/Barbara Boxer ticket anyone?

    Reply

  38. Linda says:

    Steve is correct about Obama for VP as VPs ususally are the next Presidential candidate. So the strategy should be to think optimistically and hope for 16 years of Democratic occupancy at 1600 PA Ave. Cheney is an exception to the rule.
    And perhaps, given events of the past six years, it is a mistake to have a VP who never plans to run again for public office. That gave Cheney freedom to do a lot of harm.
    Obama would be good with Gore, Edwards, or Clark heading the ticket. Obama has an advantage in not only IL but also Kansas. And any of those tickets could win the South for Democrats. Republicans gained the South by getting all the old Dixiecrat Democrats. That’s the Old South and not the New South. Atwater and Rove were effective because they had long term strategies for making the country Republican. Democrats need their own long-term strategy.
    The Senate has not produced many successful Presidential candidates, and lack of time there is an advantage as one doesn’t have that large a national record to run against. Also Democrats have some other potentially very strong candidates for national office who currently are mayors in cities with populations bigger than those of most states, i.e., Antonio Villaragosa in LA and Shirley Franklin in Atlanta.
    Linda

    Reply

  39. liz says:

    Is there anyone else in America just about sick of the regular names that are trotted out every Presidential cycle…. Bush, McCain,Clinton,Kerry,Gore,Romney,Edwards etc. America needs some news faces and ideas folks. The above people have failed miserably at creating the America I want to live in.. like the one I grew up in. At best, we can stave off another one party sweep and make everybody work together…. what a concept. Vote balance on National Housecleaning Day.

    Reply

  40. Uzi says:

    Carroll:
    I agree completely. They’re taking over the world. Here are some additional sources for you to consider. http://www.stormfront.org. I’m sure you’ll find many there who share your feelings.

    Reply

  41. Carroll says:

    Everyone has gotten the message on the ME except the politicans…..
    Faster….
    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9904
    Faster….
    http://amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_06/feature.html
    Faster…..
    http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2006/10/rachel-corrie-and-jimmy-carter-on-apartheid.html
    Faster…..
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19550#23fnr1
    My ideal election october surprise scenario would be to leap ahead to the ultimate and final bottom line in US foreign policy….by seeing France shoot down an Israeli plane illegally violating Lebanon airspace. This would be the perfect showdown line in the sand for “Isrmerica” vrs.
    “the rest of the world.” I think we need something of this type to bring things to a head for the US public and make them start thinking about where their interest lie. It would also reveal the utter corruption of the US congress to the public as they tried to justify bombing France for Israel…lol.
    Do it France…plezzzzzze…do it, do it…

    Reply

  42. Carroll says:

    Kevin Tillman Honors Late Brother’s Birthday with Plea to Speak up for Democracy
    “In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation….”
    by Kevin Tillman
    It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we get out.
    Much has happened since we handed over our voice:
    Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.
    Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.
    Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military.
    Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.
    Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.
    Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.
    Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.
    Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.
    Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.
    Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.
    Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.
    Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.
    Somehow torture is tolerated.
    Somehow lying is tolerated.
    Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.
    Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.
    Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.
    Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.
    Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.
    Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.
    Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.
    Somehow this is tolerated.
    Somehow nobody is accountable for this.
    In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.
    Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.
    Kevin Tillman joined the Army with his brother Pat in 2002, and they served together in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pat was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. Kevin was discharged in 2005.
    >>>>>>>>
    Why don’t we ask Kevin who he would vote for?

    Reply

  43. Shaneekwa says:

    Nonsense! Obama for PRESIDENT. HRC for VICE. That MIGHT be an electable ticket. No way would Obama with all his talent be stupid enough to go for VP.

    Reply

  44. Carroll says:

    Get out the barf bags and let the pandering begin.
    No matter who you elect you will still have your pocket picked and children killed for the greater glory of the Israeli cultist.
    Foreign policy which is the only one that is going to matter in the long run to America’s welfare will be deceided by Israelis ..so sayth ..the Jewish Lobby.
    The panel was asked to score the candidates on the following issues, on a scale of one to 10, with one being “worst” for Israel and 10 being “best” for Israel. The first four questions deal with ongoing events and so will change each month; the fifth is a general question that will be asked each time:
    1. How much of an effort will the candidate make to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
    2. To what extent does the candidate view Israel as a strategic asset?
    3. How much of an emotional connection does the candidate have to Israel?
    4. How willing would the candidate be to use military force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
    5. How “good for Israel” is the candidate?
    The results: ..here..
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=759107
    And of course the very patroitic jewish American advise to vote for who is best for Israel.
    Rosner’s mid-term diary: On the mid-terms, the Mideast, the Jewish voters and Israel
    Title: American in Israel — Register To Vote!
    Name: Michoel Dobry
    All U.S. citizens living in Israel, eighteen years of age and older, are urged to exercise their right to vote as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. You may do so by filling out a Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) for an absentee ballot. Americans in Israel should spare no effort to ensure that they are represented in Washington by those who will work for the best interests of the People of Israel living in the Land of Israel — not Hamas, Nasrallah, or any other terrorists.”
    I don’t know how this kind of treason in America will end but I think it will be something that shakes the foundations in this country when it does.

    Reply

  45. Boricua says:

    We can’t have Hillary Clinton anywhere around the 2008 ticket if we hope to win then. TrueBlue, it’s not the Republican smear machine that’s convinced liberals that Hillary Rodham Clinton is unelectable– it’s Hillary’s puzzling and infuriating policy stands themselves. She was a big supporter of that horrendous bankruptcy bills that basically condemns poor and unfortunate Americans (facing medical bills or hit by a natural disaster) into debt slavery. That alone disqualifies her from high office.
    Hillary has also been among the most pro-war of all the potential Democratic candidates. She’s basically gone out of her way to alienate the Democratic Party’s progressive base.
    Sorry, but Hillary is a dead-end disaster for the Dems as a Presidential candidate. Barack Obama might be tough as our nominee. John Edwards would also be impressive. I like Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer in many ways, maybe even Wes Clark. Brian Schweitzer and Bill Richardson are potentially tough dark horses. Basically, Edwards and Obama are probably our strongest horses for 2008. Hillary shouldn’t be in either the #1 or #2 slot– I’d go for Edwards/Obama then.

    Reply

  46. Carroll says:

    How about Haig/Brzezinski? How about borrowing Prince Charles and having some real royalty? How about anyone that can summon up the balls or hormones to tell the fricking truth, kick ass and clean out the DC cess pool?
    Huummm?…would you like some of that?.. or would you rather have your usual 100% sugar cake with the candy hero candles on top so you can whine another 8 years while you watch the remake of this same Mafia/Isrmerica movie all over again?
    Former Reagan era Secretary of State Alexander Haig:
    AL HAIG, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, first, I think that this is a conflict that’s essentially political. It’s not just purely military. It’s political and religious and ideological. And it was driven by the so-called neocons that hijacked my party, the Republican Party, before this administration…
    BLITZER: Name names, Mr. Secretary. Who are you talking about?
    HAIG: Well, I’m talking about…
    BLITZER: Because a lot of our viewers hear the word “neocon” and they don’t know what you’re talking about.
    HAIG: Well, they’re a group of people who are ex-Democrats. Many of them hovered around the Seattle Conservative Democrats some years ago, who…
    BLITZER: Who specifically are you referring to?
    HAIG: I’m talking about Wolfowitz. I’m talking about Richard Perle. I’m talking about some newly-made ones. I’m talking about the former editor of the Wall Street Journal.
    These people are very, very deeply embedded in Yale and certain intellectual circles. And for years, they’ve been against NATO…
    BLITZER: But did they hijack the strategy, the policy, from the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States?
    HAIG: Yes.
    BLITZER: The secretary of state, the secretary of defense?
    HAIG: Well, no, not the secretary of state, but he sat there and had to be a passenger on a train that he wasn’t driving?
    BLITZER: Was Rumsfeld a neocon?
    HAIG: I wouldn’t say he was. I wouldn’t say…
    BLITZER: But was he in charge of the military strategy?
    HAIG: No, no. The outcome of the strategy was to create democracy with a bayonet.
    BLITZER: Is Cheney a neocon?
    HAIG: I think so.
    BLITZER: So he’s part of that neocon conspiracy, or cabal, or whatever?
    HAIG: Those around him were, if he wasn’t.
    BLITZER: And they could basically influence the president and dictate to the president what to do, in terms of going to war against Saddam Hussein?
    HAIG: Well, I’m not here to talk about that. There were a lot of influences on the president, but he’s the president, and he’s responsible.
    BLITZER: So what do you think of this argument?
    Because you hear it all the time, Dr. Brzezinski, that there were these group of of neoconservatives in there, like Paul Wolfowitz, who has the deputy secretary of defense; Richard Perle, who wasn’t even in the government but he was an outside adviser, who were effectively shaping U.S. strategy.
    Do you buy that?
    BRZEZINSKI: I buy a great deal of that. I think Al Haig is absolutely right. We had, at the top a president, who was essentially uninformed about foreign policy, and then top policy-makers like Rumsfeld and, of course, Cheney who are, kind of, traditional, quote, end quote, “realists,” hard nosed types.
    But the guys who provided the strategy and made the argument that we have to go into Iraq, that we have to link the war on terror with an attack on Iraq, were the guys that Al Haig is talking about.
    They provided strategy. They provided the argument that we would be greeted as liberators, that this would be a cake walk. And they have devastated American national interests as a consequence. … ”
    There won’t be a single dem or repub “opportunist” who will have the guts to tell the public the truth about how this country went wrong, or the ethics to put the country ahead of their own personal ambition. The only person I have heard even “allude” to wrong way America is Hagel and my own little repub congressman, Jones who has gone after Perle and his neocon ilk all by his lonesome.

    Reply

  47. bluemoon says:

    Sure..why not run a lightweight people pleaser with no substantive legislation from the Senate… again. Why not eat the seed crop?
    Um. Wes Clark could be available, Dems. Don’t screw it up… again.

    Reply

  48. Jimmy Macik says:

    Any ticket with Clinton or Gore on it = lack of personality, high negatives, not to mention a self-botched run in 2000 and a reminder of how old names have unfair advantages.
    Come on…if Hillary never met Bill, she’d never be where she is. She doesn’t have it. And Al Gore’s daddy launched him. Now John Edwards or Barack Obama, for example, they made it on their own.
    We’ve got 3 or 4 other people running who are far more likeable than either of these two icebergs……
    One thing is for certain: Obama has a book to promote. Colin Powell played the book promotion game well in ’96. Alma let him know she didn’t want him running long before that.

    Reply

  49. Carroll says:

    Dems———-> this way to the sheep pen.
    Repubs——–> this way to the hog trough.
    Ya’ll be good little boys and girls and trot right along behind your next cardboard cutouts…ya hear.

    Reply

  50. Robert Morrow says:

    Here is my view on Obama running for President vs. Hillary clinton being nominated: IT IS FINE WITH ME!
    This is extremely healthy for the Democratic party, not that I care about the Democratic party. Obama, as far as I know, has none of the criminal background that Hillary and Bill do. So I consider this an upgrade for the Demos.
    The Demos need to get rid of the Clintons for their sake, Republicans sake and the good of the USA.
    I think your dream ticket would be Mark Warner/Obama. Your nightmare ticket would be Hillary anywhere on it. Do I agree with Obama on almost any political issue – nope. But at least he is not a sociopath.
    This Obama boomlet is extremely healthy for all Americans.

    Reply

  51. Alex says:

    Bloomberg & Obama might do it for me.
    Can’t say Hillary would convince me to vote for her.
    Gore might if the 2006 version showed up, not the 2000 version.
    Every other Dem on list today pretty much is uninspiring for now.

    Reply

  52. RichF says:

    I’d say Feingold/Obama–but that really doesn’t cut it, does it?
    No matter who you put out in front, Obama doesn’t have a record to run on. Ultimately, that’s not a bragging point.

    Reply

  53. jen says:

    Clark/Obama!! 😀

    Reply

  54. Brian says:

    Obviously not nukes, but many casualties.
    This was in my email. I apologize for the length, as it includes a list of the wounded and evacuated:
    > Forward Base Falcon Disaster
    >
    > by Brian Harring
    >
    > [image: Baghdad’s sky is illuminated by huge explosions in the Iraqi capital
    > (pic AAP)]
    >
    > Late on the evening of October 10, 2006, Iraqi resistance groups lobbed
    > mortar and rocket rounds into the immense ‘Forward Base Falcon,’ the largest
    > American military base in Iraq, located 13 km south of the Green Zone in
    > Baghdad. In addition to accurate mortar fire, Grad and Katyusha rockets were
    > also used.
    >
    > Falcon base was designed to house a large contingent of American troops,
    > mostly drawn from the 4 th Infantry Division, stationed at Fr. Bliss, Texas.
    > At the time of the attack, there were approximately 3000 men inside the
    > camp, which also was filled with ammunition supplies, fuel, tanks and
    > vehicles.
    >
    > Iraqi contractors had assisted in the construction of the camp, which
    > occupied nearly a square mile and was surrounded with guard tower-studded
    > high concrete walls, and it is now apparent that the Resistance movement had
    > been given important targets from “sources familiar with the layout” of the
    > base.
    >
    > After the initial shelling, fuel and ammunition stores began to erupt with
    > massive explosions that could be heard, and seen, miles away inside the
    > Green Zone where U.S. military and diplomatic units were heavily guarded.
    >
    > The explosions, all of them termed “immense” by BBC reporters, continued
    > throughout the night.
    >
    > In response, US aircraft indiscriminately rocketed and bombed various parts
    > of the city, BBC and AFP correspondents eported, trying to knock out the
    > launch sites of the rockets
    >
    > The BBC’s Andrew North, in Baghdad, said the explosions started at about
    > 2300 (2100 BST) and were becoming “ever more frequent” as the huge fires
    > spread throughout the base, punctuated by tremendous explosions as more fuel
    > and ammunition dumps ignited.
    >
    > “Intelligence indicates that civilians aligned with a militia organization
    > were responsible for last night’s mortar attack,” said Lieutenant Colonel
    > Jonathan Withington, spokesman for the U.S. 4th Infantry Division.
    >
    > An after action report, issued by the Department of Defense, stated
    > that: “*On October 10, 2006, at approximately 10:40
    > p.m., a 82mm mortar round, fired by militia forces from a residential area
    > in Abu T-Shir, caused a fire at an Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) at FOB
    > Falcon. The ASP, containing tank and artillery rounds, in addition to
    > smaller caliber ammunition, set off a series of large explosions. About 100
    > troops from the 4th Infantry Division were reported to be stationed at the
    > base at the time, but no injuries were reported.” (Emphasis added.) *”The
    > damage to the area will not degrade the operational capability of MND-B
    > (Multinational Division Baghdad),”
    >
    > When the flames had been brought under control on the morning of the 11th of
    > October, primarily because the entire camp had been gutted, nine large
    > American military transports with prominent Red Cross markings were observed
    > by members of the foreign media taking off, laded with the dead and the
    > wounded.
    >
    > Over 300 American troops, including U.S. Army and Marines, CIA agents and
    > U.S. translators were casualties and there also were 165 seriously injured
    > requiring major medical attention and 39 suffering lesser injuries 122
    > members of the Iraqi armed forces were killed and 90 seriously injured
    > members of same, were also evacuated to the U.S. military hospital at
    > al-Habbaniyah
    > located some 70km west of Baghdad.
    >
    > Satellite pictures and aerial photographs from neutral sources showed that
    > Camp Falcon suffered major structural damage and almost all the U.S.
    > military’s supply of small arms ammunition, artillery and rocket rounds,
    > tons of fuel, six Apache helicopters, an uncounted but large number of
    > soft-skinned vehicles such as Humvees and supply trucks were damaged or
    > totally destroyed. Foreign press observers noted “an endless parade” of
    > military vehicle recovery units dragging burnt-out heavy tanks and armored
    > personnel carriers to another base outside Baghdad.
    >
    > Many of the walls and towers of the camp were damaged or leveled as were
    > many of the barracks, maintenance depots, and there was considerable damage
    > to the huge mess halls that could hold 3000 soldiers, the huge recreation
    > center with its basketball courts and indoor swimming pools and all the
    > administration buildings
    >
    > Although official U.S. DoD statements indicated that there were no deaths;
    > that only a hundred men were inside the base guarding billions of dollars of
    > vital military equipment and that there were “only two minor injuries to
    > personnel,” passes belief and certainly reality is more painful than
    > propaganda.
    >
    > Not only has the U.S. military machine lost much of its armor and transport,
    > and its *entire* reserves of ammunition and special fuel, but the casualty
    > list for only the first day is over 300

    Reply

  55. TrueBlue says:

    Gore/Obama is a winner. Honestly, I can’t think of a Repuglican ticket that could beat it.
    Clinton/Obama? Good, but the right wing machine has been waiting for Hilary for a long time. They have already convinced the media, the moderates, and even most liberals that she is unelctable.

    Reply

  56. David says:

    A U.S. ammo dump blew up in Iraq, at Camp Falcon.
    The first video was posted by an Iraqi news service. The largest explosion comes at about 3:57 into the video:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7753921336651131261

    Reply

  57. ucfjoustudent says:

    I can’t see him being the VP, you’d have the same dynamic between him and Hillary as you had with Edwards and Kerry, the VP is far more electric, engaging, and engergizing than the top-of-the-ticket candidate, who’s far too didactic and won because of perceived benefits [Kerry’s “electability” and Clinton’s cash] than genuine devotion.
    Obama’s skills as a politician and speaker, based on the Benjamin Wallace-Wells piece a few years ago in the Washington Monthly, make him a liability as a VP candidate because his running mate will be totally outshined. I’d flip the ticket, let Hillary run as the VP and use her cash and network to buttress Obama.
    You don’t hide the star in the background. Imagine ’92 if it was Gore-Clinton and you tell me whether they would have won. That’s what you’d get with a Clinton-Obama ticket. I’m not saying he’s ready, but if he’s going to run, it won’t be as VP. Of course in two years when I’m totally wrong and you’re right, I’ll buy you a latte at the Starbucks on Conn and R.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *