The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Dan Balz's Take

Veep Week Speculation Hits Fever Pitch

By Dan Balz
Welcome to Veep Week. That, in truth, is about all anyone knows for certain -- that sometime over the next seven days, Barack Obama will announce his choice of a running mate. In the meantime, enjoy the orgy of speculation.

Obama is said to be operating now with a list of five finalists. Some of the names are evident; some may be more finalists than others.

One is Joe Biden of Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who is prepping for the job with a by-invitation weekend trip to Georgia to assess the situation there. His stock among those not in the know has risen sharply lately; how he is faring with the candidate is not known.

Another apparent finalist is Evan Bayh, the current senator and former governor of Indiana, one of the red states on Obama's expand-the-map target list. Bayh is considered the default safe choice, although he generates some hostility among progressives and antiwar Democrats.

The others? Tim Kaine, the governor of Virginia and the first governor to endorse Obama, appears to be a finalist. It's already been reported that the Obama campaign will be holding a big event in Richmond this week, fueling speculation that Kaine is very, very high on the list. It's also been reported that the choice of former governor Mark Warner as convention keynoter has diminished Kaine's chances of getting the phone call.

If anything has hurt Kaine, it may be that the Russian invasion of Georgia and now the resignation of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf have highlighted the importance of a running mate with foreign policy credentials.

In his speech to the VFW Monday morning, John McCain gave a blistering critique of Obama's position on the troop surge policy in Iraq. Obama may conclude he needs an experienced hand and vigorous campaigner to help lead the counterattack against McCain's foreign policy between now and November.

Another name on the list appears to be Kathleen Sebelius, the governor of Kansas and the daughter of a former governor of Ohio, John Gilligan. Obama is in a difficult position. He dares not have a final list of candidates that does not include a woman, given Hillary Clinton's historic campaign and the importance of the women's vote to his hopes of winning in November. Yet he risks a major backlash among Clinton supporters should he pick a woman other than Clinton.

Clinton, of course, would be the ultimate surprise. She would be a big-league pick for Obama, and a gesture designed to unify the Democratic Party. But given all the questions and concerns about the role Bill Clinton would play during the campaign and particularly in an Obama administration, her selection still appears highly unlikely.

Who else might be on the list of finalists is an open question. The speculation has focused on three people.

One is Chris Dodd, the Connecticut senator and former presidential candidate. The potential strike against him is the home loan he got from Countrywide Financial as part of that company's VIP program. Sources have said that Dodd met earlier with Obama's team to review the details of the mortgage transaction in an effort to persuade them that the interest rate he received was within the boundaries of prevailing rates on the open market.

Another possible finalist is Jack Reed, the Rhode Island senator who accompanied Obama on his recent trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Reed, a West Point graduate, is little known nationally but has earned a reputation as one of the party's most knowledgeable senators on defense and national security issues.

A third possibility is Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and former presidential candidate who endorsed Obama last spring. He would give Obama a boost within the Latino community and in some of the western states that the Democrats have targeted. Plus he has foreign policy experience. But there are few solid indications that he is really on the list of finalists.

When will Obama make his selection? It has long been clear that he would wait until the week before his convention, despite considerable speculation in July that he might move quickly once he returned from his overseas trip. So this week has always been circled on calendars in Chicago as decision week.

What now appears likely is that Obama is rewriting conventional wisdom about the timing of the pick, moving it much closer to the opening of his convention in Denver than recent practice has dictated. Democrats now believe Obama may wait until late this week in order to provide a big punch of energy just as the convention opens next Monday.

A weekend announcement also would help overshadow the other dominant pre-convention story, which is the enduring drama over the Clintons and how they will perform in Denver. Anything Obama can do to divert attention from his relationship with the Clintons and questions of party unity are in his interest.

An announcement on the eve of the convention also suggests that the Obama campaign believes that, in an era of 24/7 coverage and increasingly shortened news cycles, sustaining interest in a vice presidential roll out over four or five days would be difficult.

Four years ago, John Kerry consumed five days with his selection of John Edwards. He unveiled his selection on a Tuesday. The two then campaigned together in New York, West Virginia and New Mexico before ending with a final rally on Saturday in Edward's home state of North Carolina. Obama's roll out may be no more than two days before the scene shifts to convention activities.

Nothing is out of the question on timing, but the odds now favor an announcement no earlier than Friday. If Obama moves sooner, it will mean disrupting a schedule that is already set. He will be in Orlando Tuesday for a speech to the VFW convention, an important event that he probably won't want to overshadow with a vice presidential pick. Then he heads to North Carolina and Virginia for a bus tour on that runs into Thursday.

If there is no announcement by then, the orgy of speculation will be off the charts -- perhaps just as Obama's advisers have planned.

Posted at 1:36 PM ET on Aug 18, 2008  | Category:  Dan Balz's Take
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Obama's Vice Presidential Pick Is Already Staffed | Next: Candidates React to Musharraf Resignation


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Obama's pick will be Richardson. That seems obvious. There are two groups of reasons: (i) Richardson's pluses, and (ii) everyone else's defects. First the defects. Biden can't keep his trap shut, he will outshine Obama, and picking him defeats the whole mantra of kicking out the old in favor of the new. Bayh is a bore and can't even bring Indiana. Kaine is a neophyte whose selection will just emphasize that Obama is in fact a neophyte. Dodd has more problems that just a mortgage, including being a load mouth who will again outshine Obama and defeats the change message. Obama can't pick any woman other than Hillary.

Now Richarson. He has foreign policy experience. He is Hispanic. This is big. It emphasizes the new enough to cover up the old. Plus Richardson specifically repudiated the old in coming out for Obama well before the race was over in a public rebuke to both of the Clintons. What a great way to demonstrate the commitment by both Obama and Richardson to change.

Unfortunately it won't be enough for Obama.

On McCain I think the pick is Romney. I think Romney can help him two ways. First, I think Romney helps in the midwest, and puts Michigan in play, and potentially Pennsylvannia and Ohio. I am not sure McCain can even so win Michigan, but there is a much better chance with Romney than without. And no other candidate will help him significantly in the midwest. I doubt very much that Portman can do that. In any event, McCain is going to win Ohio anyway. And he will probably lose Pennsylvannia, even if he picks Ridge.

Finally. I think Romney offers McCain the best help in governing and therefore, in reverse, in McCain's efforts to rebrand the Republicans as fiscal conservatives. I know the Congressional Republicans don't want to hear this, but the path back to a winning reputation for fiscal integrity necessarily will require an unbreakable an complete commitment to abstain from all earmarks. If I were McCain I would say the following: "I am not an expert on fiscal matters except that I know we spend too much. I have previously proposed a one year freeze on all governmental spending. I have decided that is not enough, and that is clear to me that we need a 4 year freeze on all governmental spending. During that time period we will undertake a top to bottom review of every single program. During that 4 year period no program's budget may be increased, but it can be decreased. I want to know why we again have more than (fill in the blank) 100 job training programs, each with its own well paid director, many staffers and in many cases many field offices. I want to know why we need more than one job training program. And frankly, maybe that should be block granted to the states. In any event, I will instruct Governor Romney to spend great deal of his time in his constitutional role as President of the Senate and as my chief liason with Congress on domestic matters in order shrink the size of the government, to reduce waste and duplication. Governor Romney has vast experience in this very area in the private sector and was amazingly successful in doing so, and in fact is only one among all those who have been interested in the Presidency this year to have any substanial experience in this area."

That is the kind of message that could make conservatives enthusiastic.

Posted by: Oregon Republican | August 19, 2008 11:04 AM


PLEASE WATCH AND SHARE WITH EVERYONE ASAP

"The Last 100 Days"
Hon. James David Manning, PhD.

www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr07-28-08.html

www.dontvoteobama.net

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=1345

CNN & MSNBC’s larger than life Saint Obama seems to grow smaller the closer we approach him and find out the truth that cable news pundits can’t seem to find or report to voters?Obama has lost his small 3pt lead in the national polls his position in the electoral count has deteriorated. Obama has dropped significantly and it’s hard to locate a single instance in a battleground state where Obama has improved in all recent polling data. Whether it was vacation, Putin’s aggressive invasion of Georgia, or some other factor like voters beginning to see that cable news pundits like CNN & MSNBC have not been reporting fair, balanced or in some cases truthful information on both candidates, voters have begun to research Obama on their own and the American TV viewer is learning daily on the lack of true journalism from these cable news pundits?. Proof of that is Obama starts the week leading to convention in his weakest position thus far in the general election. The bad news - obviously - is that Obama appears to have reaped no initial benefit from the tens of millions of dollars he’s spent on advertising over the last two and a half months. All of which strikes me as a bit of a problem at this point. While the cool, composed, no-drama Obama may appear presidential to some it also makes him detached from the many and multiplying crises around him. These are not the most soothing of times for Americans. The economy is shaky. Unemployment is up. Growth is down. Oil prices have hit the roof just as home prices have crashed through the floor. Detroit is facing a full-fledged meltdown. We are still embroiled in two wars, neither of which offers much hope for a happy ending. Al Qaeda is running wild in western Pakistan. And now, like some bad acid flashback, Russia is acting like it wants to restart the Cold War. Obama should try to alter his basic nature or pretend to care deeply about these issues that are not important to him. Obama needs to recognize that unrelenting cool may not be what voters are longing for this election.

Posted by: PLEASE WATCH | August 19, 2008 7:16 AM

HA! Kaine would be a disaster pick. Talk about highlighting Baraks' perceived weaknesses!

Bayh is a safe pick, but not as safe as the left side of the aise.

Can we quit beating in half truths and non facts? Barak should pick Joe Biden. Hands down.

Posted by: Friendella | August 19, 2008 4:43 AM

sleep well.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 19, 2008 12:40 AM

Wait a minute, I am getting a text message on my cell phone..........Bulletin! Obama has announced his VP pick....It is.....JUST KIDDING!!! HAVE A GREAT NIGHT AND GOOD DAY TOMORROW.LOVE AND PEACE TO ALL OF YOU LATE NIGHT BLOGGERS. KEEP IT CLEAN AND KEEP IT HONEST. LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY.

Posted by: cathy | August 19, 2008 12:37 AM

Al Gore did serve in Vietnam.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 19, 2008 12:35 AM

Since we are all into this when, where and who stuff. Think about this one, tomorrow Obama addresses the VFW Convention, unless Faye disrupts it. Wednesday night at the convention is VP night and Honor our Veteran's night. Get where I am going with this? Maybe tomorrow? Maybe a Veteran for VP, maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe someone who is going to become a veteran tomorrow. Whatever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: cathy | August 19, 2008 12:29 AM

Cathy, I like the way you think.

Obama has 264 EVs pretty much locked:

West (77): Calif, Ore, Wash, Hawaii
East (96): NE, NY, NJ, MD, Del, DC
Mid-West (86): Ill, Penn, Mich, Wisc, Minn, Iowa
SouthWest (5): New Mexico

He needs to get to 270, and has 9 great chances to get him there: Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, No Carolina, Georgia and Nevada plus one of Montana/NDakota/Alaska.

Having the DNC at Colorado is huge. Working Va like's he's been is smart. Not having Blackwell as SecState in Ohio is probably worth 2pts. The voter registration thing with young ppl and blacks is big. If Obama can turnout the latin vote in Colorado it's over. So many different ways to close the deal. McCain would have to run a perfect campaign to win- and he's far from it. Messing with Coloradoans about water and Ohio ppl with DHL proves that.

We're just getting started. And this is going to be an epic butt whupping.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 19, 2008 12:24 AM

Fact: Obama is going to come out with a VP pick no one thought he would pick.
Fact: This is a state by state election which means it will take massive voter turn out which McCain has neither the money or the organization to achieve.
Fact: Obama is going to win this election. Not because he is presumptive enough to think he can get the votes of all American's, rather because he is intelligent enough to know he only needs the votes from enough American's.
Fact: Come January 2009, America is going to have a President who has the blood in him of a minority and majority race. That's right, just like the rest of us do. Imagine that!

Posted by: cathy | August 19, 2008 12:17 AM

Bush went to YALE before SAT scores were required as they are today. In the mid sixties it was more important if your father or better yet if your father and grandfather had attended YALE, as in bush's case. It is unlikely that bush would have got into an Ivy League school in the early 80s when Obama started his education. It is much more competitive to get into Harvard Law School than Harvard Business. And bush received a C average at Harvard. Even bush brags that he was not a good student. However you want to vote you have to accept that Obama is smarter and has achieved great success for somebody who grew up in a broken home.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2008 12:12 AM

As I have said before, Bill Richardson would be the best vice-presidential nominee. He has integrity and solid foreign policy experience.

Biden has a tendency to make embarrassing comments. Since his trip to George, he has been sounding like McCain lite.

McCain's best choice, in terms of similar temperament and ideology would have been Curtis LeMay, who was also a belligerent warmonger. McCain is looking and sounding increasingly as Reagan did during his last year in office, often incoherent and confused.

Posted by: Independent | August 19, 2008 12:01 AM

Anybody who's daddy runs a third world country can get into - and out of - The Business School.

Harvard Law is a whole 'nother thing. More work. Tougher work. It's like the difference between an econ major and an electrical engineer in undergrad. Harvard and Yale econ majors don't impress me. MIT engineers have at least half a brain. Harvard Law people too.

Anyhow, the larger point is that Bush, like Gore and Kerry and McCain, was born into his station in life and had a lot of help. Obama, like the Clintons, is a self made person.

People can call Obama an empty suit all they want. But that doesn't make it true.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 19, 2008 12:00 AM

Corruption Anon, you said "George W. Bush was elected. Twice. And it is doubtful that he could have gained entrance to Harvard Law. Even more doubtful that he would have been able to earn a degree there. Unthinkable that he'd be elected President of the Law Review there."

Bush went to Harvard MBA and yale undergrad, so going to harvard law is not that much more impressive. Im no fan of bush, but that is a pretty dumb ass argument for obama.

Posted by: joe | August 18, 2008 11:49 PM

Lynn - I voted for Clinton in the VA primary on the basis that she has demonstrated a real working knowledge of the Senate. However, your original post regarding how the Democratic party nominated an unqualified person betrays animus towards the candidate who beat yours. I don't believe you're angry about him being unqualified. He had 2 years in the Senate. Clinton had 6. Kerry had nearly 20. You're not judging him on experience. You're judging him on the fact that he beat your (and MY) candidate.

Neither Clinton nor Obama has picked up as big co-sponsors of legislation. That's just not how the Senate works.

If you want to talk about how someone can handle an executive position, then you need to consider how three Senators have managed their campaigns. McCain's campaign imploded. It was top-heavy and McCain was reduced to betting everything on a single state. Clinton's campaign is known for internecine warfare, as the recently released memos demonstrate. Both McCain and Clinton managed multi-hundred million dollar enterprises and both blew it. The Obama campaign has been consistent throughout. Of the three, only was has proven to be an effective manager of a major enterprise.

I think a McCain administration would be a mismanaged disaster. Competing opinions. Competing agendas. Obama doesn't brook that kind of dissent. Oh, and Roe v. Wade goes bye-bye if McCain wins. Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts make a rock solid pro-life block. Hey, if you're a cultural conservative, fine and dandy. If you can't get past your candidate losing, then it's just sour grapes.

I liked Hart in '84, Tsongas in '88, and Clinton in '92. I didn't go loudly complaining to everyone in earshot when my candidate didn't win the nomination the first two times. I judged the general election on its own relative to my opinions and values. From your claimed history, voting for McCain is a betrayal of your beliefs. Live with that.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | August 18, 2008 11:39 PM

ttj,

The Rezko-Obama relationship is nothing compared to McCain marrying into the Hensley-Marley-Lansky network.

You are talking about Murder Inc.

And now that the New York Times has referenced it...

Anyhow, it is a free country- and you are free to believe that McCain was telling the truth when he said that our Christian, American army would be greeted by the Arabs as liberators. And that the war would be over quickly. And everything else.

Your guy, McCain, is likely going down. Obama is likely going to be the next President. Anything can happen, but that's how it's lookin'...

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 11:20 PM

Barack Obama will win this election by a landslide because people know and understand that he is a man of character and depth who loves his country to his very core as most Americans do. McCain is an empty shell. Americans won't vote him in. Once they are in the boot with the curtain drawn behind them, they will vote their conscience and that vote will be for Obama. Betcha.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nancy, I had to take your post and change it. It's pathetic, drug-addled Republi-morons like you that will run this country into the ground. If McCain becomes President, we may all as well learn to speak Farsi, Chinese, and a few dialects spoken in the Middle East, because they'll be the countries that are buying us up. When you get done smoking your Cindy McCain designer crack pipe and decide to get into rehab, then you are welcome to come back; until then STFU, you dumba$$!

Oh, and by the way, I was also known as AugustWest1 and chevy55 until I resigned from the McCain campaign today. It was the higher ups who told us to "spin, spin, spin" on these forums, and the truth really didn't matter.

I see that some other moron on the McCain staff is using the ROY SMITH handle. The reason we had to smear Obama is because McCain has nothing going for him. I'll bet someone using chevy55 is out there tomorrow.

This country needs Obama at the helm; McCain will be four more years of Bush.

Posted by: ROY SMITH | August 18, 2008 11:20 PM

Hey Corruption Anon, since you are a betting man, how much do you want to bet that Obama is ready to backtrack on the many promises he's made so far...like the Fisa vote for example? Where was that filibuster? Guess even "smart people" with a Harvard law background can lie through their teeth, huh?. And since you know so much about corruption and organized crime, tell us about Nadhmi Auchi and his relationship with Antoin Rezko. Hello?? Probably just more "boneheaded" associations but surely all quite innocent, you'll say. That bet you mentioned isn't looking too bad.

Posted by: ttj | August 18, 2008 11:12 PM

No, Dan, YOU hit fever pitch.
Your newspaper, like the others, would be lost if it couldn't hit fever pitch with each and every election.
Which is why you'll keep telling us that the polls predict a 50-50 chance for either candidate to win, even though every thinking American knows that a McCain Presidency will spell the end of the nation we founded in order to escape bigotry, corruption, slavery and cruelty.
And if "every thinking American" turns out to be less than 50 percent of the voting population, then we deserve to go to hell anyway.

Now just try to calm down.
Your heart will thank you for it.

Posted by: wardropper | August 18, 2008 10:51 PM

JR --

My thoughts exactly about Wesley Clark. I've been a fan of his since he was a 2004 candidate.

All Clark really needs is coaching on talking more like a politician -- speaking more in sound bites than in great detail, and keeping his foot out of his mouth. I assume he would be a fast learner given good coaching.

His recent pseudo-gaffe sounded silly and over-reaching to people who don't know much about him, but would not have sounded inappropriate coming from a VP candidate with his experience.

And he would be a great asset to any administration. What a great person to be put in charge of the war on terror.

Posted by: Greg | August 18, 2008 10:45 PM

ttj,

George W. Bush was elected. Twice. And it is doubtful that he could have gained entrance to Harvard Law. Even more doubtful that he would have been able to earn a degree there. Unthinkable that he'd be elected President of the Law Review there.

People like Obama. And he's smart.

But, hey, if you feel so strongly about it go over to Intrade.com and bet on McCain, you can buy him at 39cents on the dollar.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 10:34 PM

How is Obama going to square his alleged vote against the war (which happened in a state legislature) with Biden's vote for the war in the U.S. congress? Further, how is he going to make any of his vice presidential choices (who all appear to have more experience than him) take a back seat?

Posted by: ttj | August 18, 2008 10:30 PM

Hard to believe Joe Biden is mentioned as a serious contender. He is a loose cannon; plus he was caught falsifying his resume a few years back. Way too many skeletons.

Richardson is the more intriguing choice since he can bring in the Latino vote; which might be crucial to winning Florida.

Posted by: thorn66 | August 18, 2008 10:17 PM

John McCain will win this election with a laneslide because people know and understand that he is a man of character and depth who loves his country to his very core as most Americans do. Obama is an empty shell. Americans won't vote him in. Once they are in the boot with the curtain drawn behind them, they will vote their conscience and that vote will be for McCain. Betcha.

Posted by: nancy | August 18, 2008 10:09 PM

An Open Letter to the Board:

I know that many of the people who read the Washington Post live in the DC metro area, work for the government, and care deeply about this country.

Please look into this latest reference, by the New York Times, that Sen. McCain married into an organized crime family associated with Murder Inc.

If it is true, he should be asked to step down. Period. Doing it before the convention, for health reasons, would be best for his political party.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 10:07 PM

Heads Up Carnival Half Moon cay is run By CROOKS! and PIMPS!

I was an Employee of the Half Moon Cay Bahamas and what goes on,on that island is a damn shame, Just hoping the Media, THE US based media don't get hold of this story.

Half Moon cay Managers Hire Based on Sexual Favors.

Mr Black the Island Manager Runs the Cay as if the cay is his personal Pimp Lodge.

Carlos The Assistant Island Manager Who "supposed to have the (HIV) Virus have sexed all the chicks and give them favorites, as far as giving them their own rooms on the Islands.

Mr. McCartney the Overall manager based in Nassau is a

"POOR", "WEAK" leader . He has no understanding of how a resort Island supposed to be run.

All of these Broken Bahamian Laws go Unpunished:

(1).Dope Smoking

(2).Sale of Crack Cocaine to the visitors

(3).Prostitution Gay ans Straight / Closet Lesbian and Closet Gays

Of course we all know that it is something in the Bahamas we have to hide! Cant be Openly GAY here, but to discriminate against workers is another thing altogether. The Bahamas supposed to be gay friendly country*?

Hiring Process for the Island Needs to Be revamped to have the Best out of the staff for the Private Island come this fall, PROFESSIONALISM!! INTEGRITY!! HONESTY!!

The Head Staff of the Private Island resort (LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES) have to Come to the Island and set things right.

Young Honest Hard working Males and Femails have either Quit becuace they did not give in to sexual favors for job positions or to simply retain thier jobs!

PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS MATTER BEFOR THE FALL SEASON BEGAIN!!


Posted by: A Bahamian | August 18, 2008 10:03 PM

Meat,

Back in 1960 things were a lot different. Before Vietnam and Watergate the press knew how to keep a secret, and the people believed completely in the integrity of the Office of the President.

Things have changed. When this story comes out.... Read the Phoenix Times article: "Along with his vast land holdings, political, gambling and prostitution ties, Marley built a fortune worth more than $39.2 million by 1980." Hensley worked for a guy, Kemper Marley, who was linked with Meyer Lansky and Murder Inc., a guy who was suspected in the killing of reporter Don Bolles. That Arizona business network may have been killing people. Murder Inc. Damning stuff.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2000-02-17/news/haunted-by-spirits/1
http://www.girlinshortshorts.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-mccain-and-mob.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hensley#Early_business_career.2C_legal_issues

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 10:03 PM

McCain is no hero: he threw away his jet (read his autobiography) after killing over a hundred sailors on the Forrestal. Raised on Capitol Hill, schooled by Roman Catholic priests, rubbing elbows with "Bachelor Senators," he betrayed the mother of his children and is now married to the Mob.

Do a little research. He is scum.

Posted by: Will Jones - Atlanta | August 18, 2008 10:03 PM

One of Obama's earliest and strongest advocates until his FISA vote, if he chooses a Roman Catholic for VP - Biden, Kaine, Richardson, etc. - his slate of Presidential Electors shall not receive my vote.

Let "Forrestal Firebug" McCain get it and Come the Revolution.

Posted by: Will Jones - Atlanta | August 18, 2008 9:57 PM

Rather than stand up to conflict, most of the women trapped in the bodies of the men (below) would rather take a good screwing from the Putin's and Hu's of the world, than to grow a pair.

I know, let's all kum-ba-yah it all away. Can't wait to get in touch with my feelings!

Maybe Obama will pick Ellen de Generate for Veep - after all, she's SO delicious! Plus, it'll pay to have another man in the House!!

Posted by: Wa Wa Wa All the Way Home | August 18, 2008 9:57 PM

An American hero would married into a family with questionable booze practices?

Remember, JFK won. Plus, Americans love beer and booze and admire those who can discipline themselves not to use illegal drugs. You realize you are a loser after you use illegal drugs.

Put a brewski in McCain's hand for the next photo op and he moves up in the polls.

Posted by: Meat | August 18, 2008 9:54 PM

Bruce,

The Times has Republican and Democratic operatives within its ranks, just as the WaPo does.

But a 40 yr old marrying into an organized crime family... that's a scathing indictment by the NYT.

People can disagree about this, but I think this is incredibly damaging to McCain's chances and is much, much worse than Obama's connection with Rezko and Ayers.

Then again, I'm a bleeding heart liberal.

But the Times article suggests that people don't know that about McCain- and that they (and the WaPo) plan on telling the people about it.

We will see how that goes down with the American people.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 9:54 PM

Hey Corruption ANON...

If Obama's sleazy dealings with the rackets (Rezko) and terrorist friends (Ayers)do not matter in this election, why should any of McCain's??? (If they were true) It is more than laughable that you quote the NYTimes....they are an arm of the Democratic party. How do you spell puppet?????

BAD

Posted by: bruce.a.dembroski | August 18, 2008 9:47 PM

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 9:43 PM

There are going to be some Obama supporters jumping from windows come November. They have assumed all along that he is going to win. However, despite the MSM Obama bias and surplus of campaign money, he is only a few percentage points ahead in the polls. Never under estimate McCain - they made the same mistake in the Repug primaries.

Posted by: Nadeem Zakaria | August 18, 2008 9:42 PM

"Veep Week Speculation Hits Fever Pitch"

OK, have you talked to ANYONE who has wondered who Obama is going to name? Because I sure haven't. Point being, this is simply not true. gas prices, everybody talks abot. Obama's VP, not so much.

You don't need to hype good journalism. But crummy journalism requires a NY Post approach. Hence, the title of this piece.

Posted by: gbooksdc | August 18, 2008 9:40 PM

We know that more Senators endorsed Obama than Clinton.

That's a harsh peer review/rebuke.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 9:38 PM

How about a person ready to be a leader should something happen to the President?
Barry should pick somebody with leadership skills...She has worked her whole life off of our taxes, but the spineless lack of leaders in Congress will bow down to her....Hillary..
McCain, (I still cannot believe this man was tortured for 5 years for his country and is up against a non experienced coke/pot user who has sacrificed nothing for this country) should pick either Romney or Sarah Palin from Alaska. Some idiotic women will vote for Romney because of his good looks or Palin because she is a woman. Not a lot of time to understand their policies because these idiot voters have to go back and watch American Idol or Desperate Housewives, etc. McCain should capitalize on this.

Posted by: Meat | August 18, 2008 9:36 PM

We know NOTHING about Obama. No law client records, no records from his time at the Illinois State Senate, no records from his work together with terrorist William Ayers - and a total of 143 days of Senate experience. He's more secretive than Dick Cheney.

Posted by: pgr88 | August 18, 2008 9:35 PM

My old friend Dan Balz is starting to sound a little worried....

Despite ALL of the media attention that the One has received over the past 18 months, he is right where Kerry was in the polls four years ago - only a few percentage points ahead.

As the voters start to turn their attention toward the election, it becomes more and more difficult for the MSM to worship Obama and demonize McCain. The truth actually begins to slip out!!!
You can only put so many fingers in a damn.

By the way, wasn't this the same John McCain that the libs loved when he was a stone in W's shoe a few elections back???

None of Obama's VP picks do him much good because of one very simple, yet DOMINATING fact - the problem with the Dem ticket is at the TOP!!!!!

I love it - the Repubs chose an outright American Hero to run against the most radical subversive presidential nominee in U.S. history. Mark it up ....I pick Condi Rice to stay at State..and let's see, who should we pick for the Supreme Court (since Stevens can barely make it up the stairs anymore) I love Rogers for that choice....ha ha

I can sense much pain and frustration in the WaPo staff.

BAD

Posted by: bruce.a.dembroski | August 18, 2008 9:33 PM

Folks, the fact that the New York Times even printed those words on its letterhead - in closing its argument that people didn't know McCain, but would, because he's being vetted by the NYT and the WaPO - suggests very strongly that the article was not only a shot across the bow for McCain's campaign to stop with the sleazy attacks, but also a strong suggestion that they are going to hit him harder on that soon. You don't get something like that by an editor or a publisher at the NYT. Frank Rich is a known quantity.

That story is going to explode. And it is real. Google: McCain Hensley Marley Lansky Bronfman. Or look at Jim Hensley's wiki.

Phoenix is right near Vegas.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 9:33 PM

Did it ever occur to you people that Dianne72 might be a foot soldier for the Obama campaign. Perhaps it is a tactic to stir up the left and to make the people on the right look bad.

Posted by: Have You Thought? | August 18, 2008 9:28 PM

So as soon as the Post actually does start enforcing a decency policing, it takes very little time for that enforcement to open the door to biased editing of the forum to leave up insults against Clinton supporters or McCain supporters but delete material that is offensive to Obama supporters.

Corruption and bias in this world never cease. Esp. in the deep world of media...

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 18, 2008 9:28 PM

Yes you should read the article because that is NOT what it says , it is in fact an unverified rumor spread in the past by the same Mr. Corsi of swiftboat fame who is currently trying to discredit Obama with a new book. I guess he was shilling for someone else when he wrote that article.

Posted by: megaphone | August 18, 2008 9:26 PM

"http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/opinion/17rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
"“McCain’s personal fortune traces back to organized crime in Arizona.” "

Ah, look here, sleazeball, that remark was QUOTED from a hit-piece that Jerome Corsi -- Swift Boat and "Obamanation" -- wrote back in February. It's plain from the article in the NYT that there is nothing to the claim.

There is NO CREDIBILITY to the quote. There is PLENTY for McCain to answer for, without sleazy attempts to add an unnecessary, transparent smear.

Where did you study, at the Karl Rove School of Dirty Tricks?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2008 9:24 PM

I want to share an important article with folks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/opinion/17rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
"“McCain’s personal fortune traces back to organized crime in Arizona.”

I think everybody should read that article completely and understand that Sen. McCain not only broke his oath and left his first wife for a younger, prettier, richer model- but also in doing so he consciously, as a 40 year old adult, decided to marry into an organized crime family.

The article will make Obama supporters happy because it is really damaging (and damning) to McCain. It is a shot across the bow; and implicit in the article is a promise of more to come.

Given that, Obama will probably feel comfortable enough to pick Kaine.


Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 9:07 PM

As for Obama's VP, if he feels he has the election in the bag then he'll pick Kaine. If he feels he needs to augment his experience with an established guy with foreign policy cred then it's Biden or Nunn.

I think it's Kaine. Public polls are based on small samples, and the Obama campaign is registering so many voters, has so many volunteers and is going to have such a policy and financial advantage that Obama may just decide to go with a VP he feels most comfortable running the country with.

And the fact that Kaine would help in Virgina - and speaks Spanish and can campaign in the Southwest - also helps.

Plus, Obama and Kaine (and both of their spouses) went to Harvard Law. They've got more than just a little bit in common.

And Kaine has been on board since February. Of 2007.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 8:59 PM

Barack Obama will clean Mr. Magoo's 72-year-old clock which he can't read without his glasses. If he could read it, he'd know it was time to stop killing Iraqis to steal their oil and concentrate on saving Afghanistan and killing the actual enemy, bin Laden. Eight years of Big Oil insanity and Obama will assemble those capable of reassmebling our government to functionality and accountablility not to mention LEGAL. It doesn't matter if Obama picks Howdy Doody, he'll win in November because we have had enough of the corporate war machine to gag a maggot.

Posted by: bob II | August 18, 2008 8:59 PM

let Dianne72 rant and spew her, his, its hate. whichever.

Keep up the bad KARMA. Its just gonna backfire come Nov.4th 2008.

Again. OBAMA will be elected our next president of these united states.

Its a foregone conclusion.

Posted by: llewis40 | August 18, 2008 8:52 PM

"He're the rest of our pics.

Vice President - Gov. Bill Richardson
Secretary of State - Sen. Christopher J. Dodd ...."

Your list has too many senators, as much as 9. I don't think the democrats can afford to give up that many senatorial seats, even if they are so-called "safe seats", because one never knows. Moreover, all those seats would lose in seniority too.

As to the timing of the announcement, I think he will make it as soon as he picks a few more people, such as a family pastor, a spouse, and a photogenic family for the prospective Veep. Can't trust these Veep sheep to make their own choices on such important matters.

Posted by: Krishna | August 18, 2008 8:46 PM

Looks like McCain is going to announce his VP on Friday, Aug 29th.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12619.html

The fact that he's announcing on a "take out the trash" day suggests either that he's politically inept or that the pick is going to be controversial. Or both.

Romney the Mormon? Jindal the exorcist? Ridge the baby killer? Portman the Bush budget guy? Or Pawlenty and his mullet?
If McCain is smart he'll pick Mullet Man. But if he were real smart he'd also announce it on a Monday.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 8:38 PM

KS has the perfect formula for driving every HC supporter to McCain. Wait til she releases her delegates, gives a stirring speech for O, and then stick it to her by selecting a less qualified woman governor. That is exactly what every HC supporter expects from your campaign. I am glad to come here and read that my worst expectations from O,is precisely the scenario his most vocals supporters are clammoring for.

Posted by: Leichtman | August 18, 2008 8:34 PM

The post shouldn't ban anyone's remarks. We all have a 1st amendment freedom to say any damn thing we want so long as it doesn't fall into criminal behavior. Being racist or un PC isn't a crime and it has the added advantage of pissing off people who take themselves seriously.

Posted by: megaphone | August 18, 2008 8:20 PM

I actually like the obnoxious posters. Why? First, the vast majority of them are Republican and it is good to understand the true nature of the people in that party. Also, if there's no intelligence test required to vote in an election, then maybe there shouldn't be any censorship on political opinion boards.

For years, the Republicans have denied the reality of racism. On this board you can observe it directly.

The caucus board at the New York Times is properly monitored, so perhaps folks who are a bit squeamish may find that more to their liking.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 8:18 PM

I wouldn't be surprised to see Hillary as Obama's VP pick. Obama campaign could defend it as a "non-surprise" because no one could be surprised that someone with her credentials would be credible VP material. Might be a smart move (though I would LOVE to see BIden on the ticket) since there were really 3 top contenders for the Presidential Race: Obama, Clinton, and that old wrinkly white-haired guy who sees evil in everything and thinks it all needs to be confronted militarily. Having 2 of the 3 on the Dem ticket would be persuasive.

Posted by: Llliberal | August 18, 2008 8:15 PM

Washington Post: I am offended and upset that you will not banned the continued racists remarks by Diane72.
I find her and racism to be offensive and wish you would either ban her or monitor her and her ongoing racism.
she never posts anything that contributes to or is about the article but, just keeps posting the same racist remarks over and over.

Posted by: vwcat | August 18, 2008 8:11 PM

VP selection doesn't matter.
obama is an inexperienced enigma.
He is a person with a questionable past and
he will lose because:
1. Rev. Wright
2. William Ayers
3. Michelle Obama
4. Louis Farrkham
5. Retzko - corruption
6. Marshall Davis the communist mentor
7. Rev. Pfleger
8. Flip-flops
9. drug past
10.Bad father and crazy mother
11.dysfunctional family all over the world
12. John Edwards
13. Little experience
14. muslim background
16. numerous lies (posted at obamaunveiled.com and theaudacityof lies.com)
17. a split democratic party
18. running against an experienced candidate in a time of crisis
19. questionable associations and endorsements - Hamas, black panther party, sharpton etc.
20. he is a bad debater

Posted by: haris bisias | August 18, 2008 8:10 PM

Kathleen Sebelius and it will come on Wed morining of the conventions..why

1)By Then Hillary would have transferred her delegates to Obama..

2)no Mischief making at the convention

3)Free Press and public attention to the conventions..

4)Blunt the Republican convention coverage by campaiging with newly minted VP

Posted by: KS | August 18, 2008 8:06 PM

The people that comment here are mostly disgraceful. Why does the Post allow this trash? Add some captcha, a login system, something to add some accountability to the poison rhetoric that gets passed around as fact here. You people (and you know who you are) should be ashamed of yourselves.

Posted by: Matt | August 18, 2008 8:04 PM

Kaelinds wrote:
How is it that Hillary "deserves" the nomination? She lost, fair and square. People keep accusing Obama of "cheating," but never mention exactly how that was possible. Frankly, I think it's just sour grapes.

Because the crazy unhinged Clinton supporters actually believe she was owed the presidency. Because they think it was 'her turn' and she should have been coronated.
I did say unhinged. They have this wacked out idea that because she was not crowned queen the nomination was stolen as that is the only way they can figure out that more democrats rejected Hillary then voted for her.
Someday they will put their scrambled minds back together and accept that Hillary was REJECTED!

Posted by: vwcat | August 18, 2008 8:02 PM

Hey Leon,

Re: electoral vote projections. Yeah, NH and Mich are the two big holds, but remember that voter registration numbers in both states have been shifting away from Rs and to Ds.

In NH, the guns issue is off the table, and look at the voter registration numbers:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2008071701

There's an additional 4% shift in NH towards the dems.

The swing in Penn is 6%, and with a pool of 8m voters dems have a 1m margin. I don't think Penn is a battleground state any longer. That's what 8 years of Bush's failed economic policies will do!

And Michigan is feeling that hard. I read somewhere that 90% of people in Mich think the country is on the wrong track. 90%.

Obama is playing a winning hand. And he's smart. Kerry's 252 plus Iowa and New Mex should be in the bag. That's 264, 6 short of 270.

Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, No Cackalacky, Georgia, and Nevada are all going to be dogfights.

But if you get to flip a coin 9 times and only need it to turn up heads once, then you are in good shape, statistically speaking.

Having the dem convention in Colorado helps there. And there's growing political leadership and financial support there. Virginia is trending blue, and the blacks will come out in record numbers.

It'll be a lot of hard work, but in many respects running against McCain is easier than running against Clinton- the policy differences are much bigger.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 8:01 PM

I am hoping for Biden or Richardson. Both are great choices.
I would be crushed if Obama picked Hillary. But, sure he is not even considering her given Bill's dubious business dealings and donors to his library.
So, at least it's a safe bet he won't chose the worst pick of all, Hillary.
I would have liked Claire McCaskill but, she is too new to be considered for vp.
Bayh is just too boring and too much of a the 1990s DLC clintonian wing of the party.
ewwww.
I know Obama likes Kaine but, frankly it would be chancy to pick him being so new himself.
So, out of the choices I do think Richardson or Biden would be the best and would be an asset to Obama.

Posted by: vwcat | August 18, 2008 7:58 PM

I'd vote for anyone who puts Palin on the ticket because she's hot!

Posted by: megaphone | August 18, 2008 7:54 PM

Lynn at 6:31 pm, thanks! I couldn't have said it better myself.

This is really far more about the DNC than it is about BHO or HRC.

I can't imagine any other political party that would go through the entire United States having primaries, where voters actually voted in record numbers, and the party leadership ends up with two columns of votes in front of them, with the states that the votes came from (NH, MI, PA, OH, FL, IN, WV, TN), and with the resumes of the two candidates in front of them ...

And they handpick the candidate who (1) got the fewest votes, (2) in the fewest battleground states, (3) with the thinnest resume!

And we're supposed to just fall in line because "The Party" knows what's best for us????

If the party actually cared about our voices, they would assure that the candidate whose name 18 million Democrats shouted -- including Democrats in NH, MI, PA, OH, FL, IN, WV, TN -- would have that name on the DNC ballot. They don't.

I don't vote for political party -- I vote for who I'd hire.

If I'm doing the hiring, I'm hiring Hillary Clinton.
If I'm given the hand-picked choice of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, I'm hiring John McCain.

Thanks again for your post.

Posted by: Jan | August 18, 2008 7:52 PM

Last time Barama's advisor was allowed to make a recommendation, Clinton pardoned Marc Rich and some chinese donor spys.

Why does Barama, his nutty wife and pastor, disrespect white people? What's that about?

Posted by: Nanette | August 18, 2008 7:50 PM

How is it that Hillary "deserves" the nomination? She lost, fair and square. People keep accusing Obama of "cheating," but never mention exactly how that was possible. Frankly, I think it's just sour grapes. Hillary sincerely hopes to win the nomination on the first or second ballot - and if she does, a whole lot of people will stay home from the polls, and McCain will win. Then everyone will say Hillary screwed things up for the Democratic party, because our ELECTED delegates were overshadowed by the APPOINTED delegates - who shouldn't even be considered in the first place.

Posted by: Kaelinda | August 18, 2008 7:29 PM

how painful is this... every journalist that is not also a phone sex worker (Ganon) is on vacation. I will not participate more than enough to note my sea monkey babies are more facinating then this so-called "Fever Pitch". Again, my support of Graham of Florida does not even get a mention... so, I DON"T CARE.

OBAMA '08

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 18, 2008 7:22 PM

I found the wording of this sentence rather peculiar: "What now appears likely is that Obama is rewriting conventional wisdom about the timing of the pick, moving it much closer to the opening of his convention in Denver than recent practice has dictated."

Why is it only "likely"? Shouldn't it be "What is now clear is that . . ."?

I have no idea who it's going to be? I think Bill Richardson would be an interesting long-shot pick, although his name doesn't get mentioned much late. Although I think he may have the same problem that Biden seems to have -- the tendency to speak before thinking. My guess is it's going to be Bayh, but maybe I'm just buying into the conventional wisdom.

Posted by: dcarldc | August 18, 2008 7:19 PM

GO SKINS, Your reply is my point exactly!
And you just wish Barr would get my vote.
Take Care!

Posted by: DEM now IND | August 18, 2008 7:15 PM

After witnessing Obama performing on Saturday without the help of speechwriters and teleprompter, we now know exactly how weak and inexperienced a young man Obama is. I suggest he pick an older man for VP, one who has done more than read books and "organize communities." Someone like John McCain.

Posted by: mhr | August 18, 2008 7:12 PM

Obama should be a man, suck it up and put Hillary on the ticket. Guaranteeing victory in this election should be the #1 democratic priority, and putting HRC on the ticket would both unify the party and make winning the election a foregone conclusion.

None of the candates listed above will guarantee victory in November, If Obama loses he will be known as the guy who squandered the dems best chance for a long time to win back the presidency as well as the guy who made the 'wrong' VP choice that helped him lose the election.

Posted by: DCDave | August 18, 2008 7:08 PM


URGENT MUST-READ, FROM SATURDAY'S WASHINGTON POST:
THE LATEST AFFRONT TO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS


U.S. May Ease Police Spy Rules

The Justice Department has proposed a new domestic spying measure that would make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years.
-
By Spencer S. Hsu and Carrie Johnson


Comment:


CONGRESS MUST PROBE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ABUSES AND OVERTURN THIS DECISION -- BEFORE THIS JUDICIAL "BYPASS" TOTALLY DESTROYS THE RULE OF LAW IN AMERICA

At a time when members of government-funded volunteer "service" and "watch" organizations are accused of harassing, intimidating and possibly physically abusing citizens, the administration's defense is a "good" offense: Just say anything goes.

Local police authority has been usurped and sworn officers who are charged with protecting their communities from crime are being turned into secret agents.

We have descended into a police state; federal grants are funding the police use of dangerous "radiation energy" weapons that fire concentrated blasts of silent, invisible radiation. Victims of organized "gang stalking" allege that these weapons are being used to degrade the lives of these so-called "targets", whose lives are being financially and physically destroyed by an extra-legal "control mechanism" similar to that practiced by the Nazis, the Stasi and the KKK.

These are the "mechanics of personal destruction," using the war on terror as a convenient rationale for imposition of a police state.

Where are McCain and Obama on this? Will the national press corps even ask the question?

For more on "state-suppoted terrorism," "vigilante injustice" and "directed energy weapons," see:

http://members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener | August 18, 2008 7:01 PM

I think DEM now IND is an uninformed, uneducated redneck. Keep you grip on that gun and bible. And, be sure to vote for Bob Barr. And when the Obama/Brennan administration takes office you'll be sorry. Go skins.

Posted by: GoSkins | August 18, 2008 6:59 PM

bayh appears to be too weak,no charisma,no backbone.

Posted by: ron | August 18, 2008 6:55 PM

I'm surprised that the continual discussion on VP which washintonpost has and no mention of Gov Sarah Palin of Alaska's as McCain's most excellent pick.

I guess it's due to the fact that McCain has been hush about it, probably intentionally, and that the media is absolutely scared of a McCain/Palin ticket.

Here are some resources for you:
http:/wwww.palinforamerica.com
http://mccainpalinforprez.blogspot.com
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/palinforvp/ (2600+ petitioners)
http://mccainpalinforprez.blogspot.com/

To Conservatives: Unite! Get behind a McCain/Palin ticket. Get involved, sign the petition, engage the media

Posted by: Paul | August 18, 2008 6:55 PM

I get so bitter and angry when I realize people are still trying to smear Hillary -- who is entitled to the nomination and the presidency.

Hillary understands that it is the far-left members of the Democratic Party -- angry, bitter leftists like me who read firedoglake and are secure in our gender identity -- that will decide this fall's election.

So don't be too surprised if Hillary grabs the nomination next week from Osama Barack -- Hillary is a proven leader, after all, and she is entitled to the presidency.

Posted by: twin_peaks_nikki | August 18, 2008 6:52 PM

Posted by: scrivener | August 18, 2008 6:50 PM

I think Obama should pull the ultimate surprise and pick Colt Brennan. You gotta admit, that would the greatest surprise. He's got the perfect name -- Vice President Colt Brennan. He name alone exudes power, ruggedness, and the sense that he could ride into a situation and kick some butt -- we're looking at you Russia. And he can't be any worse than Dick "9/11" Cheney.

Posted by: GoSkins | August 18, 2008 6:50 PM

Obama, the Presidential candidate, is so inexerienced and UNvetted; he must first vet all candidates for V P and then choose an experienced candidate for the Vice President. This is a-- backwards! And exactly why he will lose.

Americans are NOT the "unintelligent, uneducated rednecks" "clinging to guns and religion" that Obama and his supporters think! And he will find out soon enough when all show up to vote NO to Obama! It does not matter who is his Veep. Obama is NOT qualified to run this country! And it is Obama that is running for President.

Posted by: DEM now IND | August 18, 2008 6:48 PM

Dan,

Bayh is not just a bad choice; it is a disastrous one. If you track Bayh's rise to the Indiana governorship in the early 90s, you will find out a lot more about him than you apparently know.

Track the story of his 1991 Toll Road director, John Piraccini, who was convicted under the RICO act for twisting the arms of businesses for contributions for Bayh. Those two were thick as theives, and even Bayh's father and John Brademas were well aware of his Detroit mafia connections to the Agostino family and the party faithful in St. Joseph County. It's present boss, Owen "Butch" Morgan, is still an integral part of this decade of deception and greed.

But Bayh could not be dissuaded, even by the more cautious of his party. He is cast in the Clinton mold, where truth is hidden way under the blind ambition they mask as "blue collar" empathy. What a ruse. I hope you take a better look at Bayh. He is corrupt, and that is an understatement.

Posted by: ExHoosier | August 18, 2008 6:45 PM

Overexposure is going to be fatal to Obama's candidacy. On the radio today I heard someone remark that they were "baracked to death" by too much media exposure. It seems that many people enjoyed Obama's vacation in Hawaii.

This endless speculation about who is going to be the VP is also getting very tiresome. Let the candidates decide. I just hope Obama picks another Eagleton.

Posted by: alance | August 18, 2008 6:42 PM

A couple of points. Obama doesn't need a unique or interesting VP choice as his own background is unique and interesting enough. He needs safe, white and male to have a chance at capturing the safe , white, male vote.

kaine and Bayh are both boring Governors with no foreign policy experience. Dodd is of course boring, white and male but his own history as Ted kennedy's fellow party pal around DC doesn't make him a sound choice.

Obama's best bets are Richardson or Biden. Looking at the electoral college Richardson is the first choice and qualified all the way around. Besides I think the Democrats have Delaware's 3 electoral votes nailed.

The McCain money from the MOB story being repeated here is bogus. It comes from a story by Corsi that the Obama people know isn't credible.

Obama picking a good VP choice and McCain making a bad choice is one way to possibly get my vote back.

Posted by: megaphone | August 18, 2008 6:41 PM

Some would be tempted to say that Obama doesn't know what he's doing. His campaign has floated various names and they have all bombed. He is obviously doing all kinds of twisting not to have pick Hillary Clinton.

But I'm glad to read that what really is happening is that "Obama is defying conventional wisdom".

Posted by: Alain James | August 18, 2008 6:40 PM

I am amazed by what Senator Obama has accomplished. I have been in this country for 5 years and when I arrived I was struck at how poor and uneducated most blacks are. I could never figure out why most had children out of wedlock, sold drugs, and were in jail. I suppose it is the slave metality from generations ago but at some point they will have to take responsibility. I think that is the reason Senator Obama appeals to so many whites because he isn't 100% black. He has a black face but the mentality of a white person. That makes the vote palatable and they can feel good about themselves. I doubt many of these white voters would go for an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson - just too black and they are for more representative of the black American - not Barack Obama.

Posted by: Rahiq Syed | August 18, 2008 6:36 PM

corruption- I am voting for Barak but I would definately advise against counting our chickens-
NH is a -4 for Barak
MI is possibly a -17 for Barak
Pennsylvania is going to be hard fought-

That makes this much more of a toss up than a definite.

Also- you quote national polls in your case vs. Clinton- she was not ahead in IA since October/November- it is in fact the caucuses and the lack of revotes in FL and MI (which Barak's people blocked- you know they will bring that up in MI) that allowed Barak to beat HRC. Additionally the "youth vote" that everyone claims was a gamechanger was 18% of the total vote in the nominating process, the same as it was in 2000 and 2004.

Don't get complascent. We have to work to keep the right wing from winning another presidency (I don't have the same hatred for McCain as I did for Bush- he just represents the wrong policies)

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2008 6:33 PM

To Chris D ~

On the contrary, this is an ideal time for "internecine warfare." When I registered as a Democrat in 1979, I did so because I generally agreed more with the policies and positions of the Democrats than the Republicans. I didn't promise them my vote forevermore.

In an election year when the House and the Senate are controlled by a Democratic majority it is a perfect time for those Democrats who are sick of having Obama and other unqualified candidates shoved down our throats to rebel and show the party that we can't be counted on to blindly follow the party line.

In your post, you spoke of drama. Nothing could be more dramatic than the claims that Obama will save women, minorities and the poor from the evil GOP. McCain isn't going to overthrow Roe v Wade. He's not going to seed the SCOTUS with far to the right conservatives who place their tortured ideologies above the rule of law. He's not going to single-handedly destroy the planet. He'll be controlled by a Democratic House and Senate. We've handled 8 years of Bush, we can handle 4 years of McCain, who, in spite of the nickname is NOT the same as Bush and is not a "bushie."

What we can't live with is a Democratic party that uses caucusing and superdelegates to choose the candidate the other politicians favor rather than allowing us to vote for our nominee in a manner that is consistent with the voice we'll have in the general election.

I've changed my registration to Independent and I will be voting McCain -- and I hope that all of the disgruntled Democrats will be joining me in that voting choice - because our Democratic party needs a wake-up call. I don't agree with all of McCain's policies, but nor do I agree with all of Obama's. However, I do think that McCain is more qualified to lead and I have more faith in his judgment -- all the more so as it will be tempered by the Democrats.

Posted by: Lynn | August 18, 2008 6:31 PM

John McCain Caught in PHONY POW Story.

"Veterans who lie about their war record are the lowest of the low"
George Bush, January 4, 2003, News Conference.

Another John McCain War Hero Story Exposed as Fake.
John McCain’s POW -Sign of the Cross- story is a fairy tale.
McCain Stole the Story from a Book By Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

McCain began to tell the “Sign of the Cross Story” AFTER the Solzhenitsyn book came out.
As Nancy Reagen once told the LA Times: “John sure tells interesting stories....

In the McCain POW fairytale, a GUARD makes the Sign of the Cross in the sand
In Solzenitsyn’s book, a fellow PRISONER makes the Sign of the Cross in the sand

See Book Link:
http://incommunion.org/articles/previous-issues/older-issues/the-sign-of-the-cross

Earlier this year ABC News caught McCain is yet another lie about his POW days.
See Link; http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/in-pennsylvania.html

Posted by: bobnsri | August 18, 2008 6:28 PM

Corruption Anon -- Okay first of all, I have work to do so I may be a little slower at posting than you are.

Second of all, Bush outsourced energy policy to Enron? Seriously? Enron's heyday was in in the late 1990s and 2000. By mid-year 2001 (just a few months into the Bush term) they were taking a nosedive. What energy policy was outsourced to them?

This is the problem I have with arguing with liberals. You throw out bumpersticker slogans and buzzwords and think that's an arguement. Yelling "Enron" or "Dick Cheney" or "Halliburton" doesn't suffice as an arguement. If you want to talk about Enron we can, although it's a 10 year old story. And if you want to talk about where they had influence, you'd better be ready to talk about the Clinton administration and Gray Davis. Bush was still governor of Texas at the time.

Posted by: Mark | August 18, 2008 6:24 PM

Hey Mark,

Yeah, I'm outta here too and off to the gym. Thanks for partaking in a civil policy discussion. I knew it could happen in here.

"Do it all; do it now" is great. But why haven't we been doing it all, all along? I would contend that Big Oil - and the Enron guys - have been robbing us blind. And that to trust the Republican criminals even more is just asking for trouble.

Anyhow, have a good one.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 6:23 PM

Corruption Anon -- Glad to, but this will probably be my last post of the night. Have more work to do.

Solar panels on the White House? Seriously? I have no idea. Maybe for the same reason I helped my uncle take his down in the early 1990s about a year after we put them up. Because they were inefficient and an eye-sore. How do I know? And frankly, I don't care.

The point of the energy crisis is that supply and demand has gotten schewed. As economies of China and India have exploded, they have demanded much more oil. While at the same time, the global production isn't keeping up (esp. the American supply).

I'm all for transitioning to other energy sources. To me, it's got to be done. Let's exploit the resources we have at home to rid ourselves of the middle east oil. Let's use the wind across the plains and the coasts, solar, switchgrass, geo-thermal, etc (everything but corn -- I don't like food resources being diverted to inefficient energy and having the world's poor unable to afford their food because of it). Let's use it all. But why not nuclear, coal, natual gas, and oil too? And even if your goal is to ween the economy off of fossil fuels, that isn't going to happen for another 50 years.

Expand domestic oil, gas, and coal production today to buffer the transition to a more diversified energy-based economy. Expand our use of nuclear energy for our electricity grid. Create economic incentives for companies to continue bringing new, better alternative energy-using products/technology to market.

I don't understand the logic in limiting our options. Do it all. Do it now.

Posted by: Mark | August 18, 2008 6:17 PM

Mark,

We are supposed to be having a debate about energy independence and you are supposed to convince me that the Republicans - and their friends in Big Oil - have put country first always in pursuing an intelligent energy policy for the US.

So the question remains: why did Reagan tear down the solar panels from the White House? Why did Bush allow energy policy to be outsourced to a bunch of thieves at Enron?

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 6:06 PM

Chris: I respect your sentiments and the fact that you have not been overwhelmed by the O movement. I have an Impeach Bush sticker on my Texas car so don't take me for a W supporter; far from it. I have waited for that magic moment when I could say that O is up to the job and it has yet to happen. We are not childish and silly people which we have been accused of and know exactly what is at stake. McCain is not W as much as we try to make that comparison and while lacking in many policy positions I would agree with, he seems to have more substance than O. We will wait and see if that changes over the next 95 days but at this point it just hasn't happened as much as you might implore. Choosing HC or Biden would likely be a game changer.

Posted by: Leichtman | August 18, 2008 6:02 PM

To AsperGirl:

You have no idea about which you speak. Obama is healthy. He has and will continue to accomplish a great deal.

Posted by: a real diagnostician | August 18, 2008 6:02 PM

You know, just before Tim Russert died, he said that the media "can play a part" in the stories that they cover. It's amazing that for five or seven days, we'll be talking about whether it will be Joe Biden, Chris Dodd or Kathleen Sebelius. We need to be talking about energy. The fact that oil has increased by $100 per barrel in the last eight years is signficant (and that I am excited when I see gas at less than $3.50.

Come on, Post, start covering real stories. Where is McCain on energy? Does he believe in improving road design and mass transit and wind energy or does he think drilling is the end-all? What about Obama? What's he going to do to make us use less energy? Will he require improved vehicle efficiency? Will he support subsidies to ensure that we reduce our reliance on oil? Come on. Cover real stories.

Posted by: teo | August 18, 2008 6:01 PM

Obummer may pick some dried up old white guy, but his heart says, Cindy Sheehan!!!

Posted by: Tupac Goldstein | August 18, 2008 6:00 PM

Corruption Anon -- When did I make a personal attack on you? I was questioning why all your posts were links to someone else's opinions.

And all the Republican racists? What are you talking about? Proof? Are you talking about all the Dems who refuse to vote for a black candidate? Are you referring to how liberals smear black conservatives because they don't tote the "black line"? It's the Republican party that wants to get past race in this country and to live MLK's dream of a colorblind society. The only black person on the SCOTUS is a Republican nominee. The first (and only) two black Sec. of State were in the Bush administration.

Posted by: Mark | August 18, 2008 6:00 PM

I'm going cow tipping tonight, and unless it is Graham of Florida or Leahy of Vermont I will be disappointed.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 18, 2008 5:58 PM

Big Al,

If you really think that McCain is going to win you can go place a bet at Intrade.com for 38 cents on the dollar.

But I'll have to warn you that today's polls are based on outdated turnout models that don't take into consideration the historic turnout among young and black voters that the primary and voter registration numbers strongly suggest. And they don't take into consideration that this campaign kicks into high gear in two weeks. To put November in perspective, Obama was trailing Clinton by 20pts on Jan1 then he turned it on and overtook her, for good, by mid-Feb.'

Beyond that, just looking at the electoral vote patterns: Obama is getting Kerry's 252, plus Iowa and New Mexico. That's 264. He has 9 ways to close the deal: Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, No Carolina, Georgia, and Nevada plus one from Montana/NDakota/Alaska.

Obama is winning this thing. McCain would have to be perfect in those 9 battlegrounds, and he's far from perfect as his recent mistakes in Colorado (with water) and Ohio (with DHL) show. 9 flips of the coin, and McCain has to win them all.

And the Obama people can flood the streets and register every young and black person in sight.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 5:55 PM

WHY A BARREL OF OIL ROSE FROM $24 TO $145 WHEN GOP REPUBLICAN OIL MILLIONAIRES BUSH, CHENEY AND RICE TOOK OVER

GOP Republican Get Rich By Selling America And Using Our Public Office For Private Gains Is Treason against the American People. Big oil inside trading millionaires Bush, Cheney, Rice, and McCain will answer for war crimes.

The White House connection to Big Oil goes too far. Now Chevron's oil tanker named Condoleezza Rice is too much oil conspiracy in the face of the American people.

The double-hulled giant, Condoleezza Rice, is part of the international tanker fleet of the San Francisco-based multinational oil firm, named several years ago Rice because she is a Chevron board member and stockholder.

Rice serves on Chevron's board and Bush Administration.

Far too cozy relationship among multinational energy giants, Bush and his key advisers -- including Vice President Dick Cheney and Rice.

"It does underscore that there's never been an administration in power in this country that has been so close to a single industry, the oil-and-gas industry. You wonder why a barrel of oil rose from $24 to $145 when Oil millionaires Bush, Cheney, Rice took over. You wonder why a gallon of gas rose from $1.50 to $4.50 when Oil millionaires Bush, Cheney, Rice took over. Public Integrity, which first raised the issue of the tanker's moniker last month. "Look at the president and his background, the vice president (who is a former executive at Halliburton), (Commerce Secretary) Don Evans and his oil interests . . . and now this."

Rice closeness to a major oil company. It's not every day that someone has an oil tanker named after her.

Bush specifically request the Condoleezza Rice tanker be given a name change -- particularly since Chevron does business on six continents and 25 countries, and has been sued for alleged human rights abuses in Nigeria.

Last year, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed suit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, charging Chevron aided Nigerian police in attacks on local communities protesting Chevron production activities. A company spokesman yesterday, however, said the incident involved 200 youths armed with machetes, guns and knives who attempted to take over an offshore oil platform, holding workers for ransom and refusing to allow them access to medical treatment.

The Rice tanker came up at the White House briefing in connection with the incident in Nigeria.

Chevron oil giant has no intention of renaming the Condoleezza Rice and noted that board member Carla Hills also had a Chevron tanker named in her honor before she was appointed former President George Bush's trade secretary -- and the vessel has kept the name.

"It's part of a long-standing practice of naming (tankers) after members of the board of directors.

Rice's office did not return repeated phone calls yesterday, but she told Fox TV last year that she has no regrets regarding her Chevron ties.

Rice and the White House decisions directly involving Chevron. "She dealing with issues that are enormous interest to Chevron. "From a public relations standpoint, they're desperately hoping this is one tanker that doesn't run aground. That could be a problem."

Posted by: GOP Oil Conspiracy | August 18, 2008 5:53 PM

Hi Mark,

Thanks for taking the civil discourse challenge!

Let's talk about why the Republicans have known the need for energy independence every since the oil crisis of 1973 but consistently fought against Carter's plan for energy independence. Why do you think Reagan took down the solar panels from the white house? What type of leadership do you think he was providing and why?

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 5:49 PM

Corruption Anon -- You tell me to stop getting my answers from Wiki and then tell me to go read it? Seriously?

What would you like to debate? Taxes? Energy? Health Care? Spending? Consitutional Law?

Posted by: Mark | August 18, 2008 5:46 PM

Lynn the answer is absolutely No. We have read these vile comments from O supporters here for months during the D Primary which continue even now. TYhe O campaign knows about these juvenile supporters but are fearful to stand up to them; something the HC supporters is waiting for. Everyone has asked that they stop and that O supporters show a sentilla of respect for those who are HC supporters and not comfortable with Sen O. This is difficult for most of us and we are still hoping it will be either HC or Biden as VP before coming on board,but most are expecting her to be shafted at the Convention. We expect a show and some lame HC speakers showing their support for O at the Convention,like puppets but we are not interested in pretense or symbolic gestures like a faux nomination vote, but substance.

Posted by: Leichtman | August 18, 2008 5:45 PM

To: Leichtman

This was my first post ever. I'm fairly nauseated by the constant vitriol and drama on this thread and all the others. No I don't think insulting Hillary supporters is effective, nor do I think is tearing down our presumed nominee.

I'm not naive enough to believe we'll all hold hands and sing We Shall Overcome, but I'm also sick of the internecine warfare. If we believe in our ideals as democrats/Democrats, then now is the time to mount up and put a win on the board.

If folks want to be juvenile, shortsighted or vindictive, then please do sign up for another 4 for the Bushies. Our courts will be damaged and tilted for at least the next decade or so, but so much for the ideals and policies we really want to advance.

Oh, but wait, is it really about that? Or is it about something else? I just can't seem to figure it out.

Let's be clear, initially, I didn't like Obama. I thought what many folks think about his lack of experience and the fact that he might just be an empty suit. Then I started paying more attention. I asked myself, could it be any worse for our country than it has been for the last 8 years? More importantly when I surveyed the field of Democratic contenders, I didn't see anyone who impressed me.

As entitlement goes, HRC, to my mind, is first in that line. Everyone assumed that it was a foregone conclusion. As her strategy, if we can call it that, played itself out, she couldn't go the distance.

I don't think Obama, will make the sun shine on America. I don't think he'll heal the deep seated wounds of slavery. I don't think we'll all hold hands and sing Kumbaya! But I do believe that he can shift our collective perspective. And for that he'll get my vote.

And I don't believe it can get any worse. If it does, I'll be the first to dine on crow!

Posted by: Chris D! | August 18, 2008 5:45 PM

my goodness. Almost every one of the propose d veeps are just corrupt political hacks like
Biden, Dodd, Richardson or neophytes like Kaine and Sebilius.

Obama really is nothing but an empty suit, grasping for words off the teleprompter. Oh the inhumanity of it all.

Posted by: fedup | August 18, 2008 5:37 PM

Has Al Gore indicated that he would definitely NOT be interested in the VP slot? Of all of the choices that Obama has, I think that Al Gore would energize voters and demonstrate a serious commitment to change. While Gore isn't thought of as a foreign policy expert, his eight years of experience in Washington -- complemented by eight years fighting the good fight in the wilderness -- make him an intriguing and exciting choice to me.

Posted by: Bryan | August 18, 2008 5:37 PM

Preview your Comment


Lynn--Look up O's Illinois' Senate votes. He got more done in my home state by getting people to work together, Dem's and rep's alike. That's what we need, someone to bring us together, someone to listen to everyone in this country, not just 51% of it. Are you really choosing McCain over him? I ask the question because a lot of people seem to forget everything McCain said he believed in in 2000. He's completely changed his tune. That is someone without character, without shame in saying anything to be elected. You do, however, have the right to vote for whomever you choose, but aren't you tired of the same old thing? And when I say old, I mean old. No offense to my elders, but sh*t I would NOT want my grandparents running this country.

Posted by: rdh381act | August 18, 2008 5:34 PM

Big Al,

Thanks for the reply. I knew we could actually have civil discourse on these boards.

As for paying for the platform, Obama's policies are spelled out in a great deal of specificity here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Hope this helps you ;-)

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 5:34 PM

>>With you in the morning wrote: ""NY Times" via "Drudge" says in the morning. Here's the link. ( http://drudgereport.com/flashom.htm)"

Well, here it comes.

If it's not Hillary, he's doomed to fail. I hope it's not Hillary, because IMO he's going to be presiding over a very, very bad 4 years if he wins.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 18, 2008 5:33 PM

Corruption Anon,
Lets have a discussion chose the topic. Just because you say you have all the answers doesn't mean it is true. You sound as arrogant as Obama. Remember the Dems controlled Congress most of the last half century. No matter the topic, I have just one question: how will you pay for it?

Posted by: BigAl | August 18, 2008 5:28 PM

"NY Times" via "Drudge" says in the morning. Here's the link.

http://drudgereport.com/flashom.htm

Posted by: With you in the morning | August 18, 2008 5:26 PM

C'mon Mark,

Show how smart you Republicans are. Come back from wiki or wherever you are prepping and take one issue from peace, properity, health care, education, energy independence, or the environment and give me one good reason not the think that the Republicans haven't screwed America over for the past 30 years.

Here's a hint: look at the wiki for the Oil Crisis of 1973. 1973!

Big Oil knew better 35 years ago!

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 5:22 PM

AsperGirl,

You are a good writer, although your progressions in regards to your arguments do not always follow a logical and well defined path.

Before you judge Obama and label him as a “Narcissist” perhaps you should do some research into the psychology and philosophy behind the term “Narcissism”.

Did you know that psychologists state that “in adults, a reasonable amount of healthy narcissism allows the individual's perception of his needs to be balanced in relation to others”? That sounds like Obama to me, that is what people are saying about him, that he is open to dialogue and listening to others, which I take as a good thing.

Also read the following excerpt concerning the philosophy of Narcissism and tell me what Political Party this sounds like(hint: its not the Democrats):

“Historian and social critic Christopher Lasch described this topic in his book, "The Culture of Narcissism” published in 1979. He defines a narcissistic culture as one in which every activity and relationship is defined by the hedonistic need to acquire the symbols of spiritual wealth, this becoming the only expression of rigid, yet covert, social hierarchies. It is a culture where liberalism only exists insofar as it serves a consumer society, and even art, sex and religion lose their liberating power.

In such a society of constant competition, there can be no allies, and little transparency. The threats to acquisitions of social symbols are so numerous, varied and frequently incomprehensible, that defensiveness, as well as competitiveness, becomes a way of life. Any real sense of community is undermined -- or even destroyed -- to be replaced by virtual equivalents that strive, unsuccessfully, to synthesize a sense of community.”

Just remember, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones

Posted by: Factory Worker, Akron Ohio | August 18, 2008 5:22 PM

And as for spending $2 trillion dollars to install a democracy in an Arab country that would like nothing more than to vote and kick us out, what kind of Republican logic is that?

Arabs are so pissed they voted Hamas into power. Hello.

And to say that our mostly Christian, American army would be greeted as liberators is just a blatant lie.

McCain and Bush's foreign and economic policies have been a disaster. They have make Putin and KGB Inc. - the oil and arms merchants - richer and has made middle class Americans poorer.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 5:18 PM

Leichtman, does it ever occur to you that perhaps these juvenile comments being made here about senator clinton might actually be perpetrated by mccain supporters? by reading your posts, i get the sense that you are a rational, educated and reasonable person, unlike lynn and aspergirl, who seem to have some kind of weird obsession with obama (true democrats? i think not, since supporting the party is supporting its ideals and core values).

Posted by: lynn's therapist | August 18, 2008 5:18 PM

GOP REPUBLICAN GET RICH BY SELLING AMERICA AND USING OUR PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PRIVATE GAINS IS TREASON AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, MCCAIN WAR CRIMES

The White House, already criticized for its connections to Big Oil, now is facing renewed questions over Chevron's decision to name an oil tanker for national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

The double-hulled giant, Condoleezza Rice, is part of the international tanker fleet of the San Francisco-based multinational oil firm, named several years ago in honor of Rice when she was a Chevron board member and stockholder.

Rice, the former Stanford University provost, served on Chevron's board from 1991 until Jan. 15, when she resigned after President Bush named her to the national security post.

But with California's energy crisis intensifying and human rights groups spotlighting abuses in countries where Chevron does business, critics say the tanker now poses serious diplomatic and ethical issues for Rice and the administration.

Even more sensitive, they say, is the appearance of a far too cozy relationship among multinational energy giants, Bush and his key advisers -- including Vice President Dick Cheney and Rice.

"It does underscore that there's never been an administration in power in this country that has been so close to a single industry -- in this instance, the oil-and-gas industry," said Chuck Lewis, who heads the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, which first raised the issue of the tanker's moniker last month. "Look at the president and his background, the vice president (who is a former executive at Halliburton), (Commerce Secretary) Don Evans and his oil interests . . . and now this."

Rice is a respected diplomat, but "I don't think anyone recognized the extent of her closeness to a major oil company," Lewis said. "It's not every day that someone has an oil tanker named after her."

At a White House press conference this week, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan was asked if Bush should specifically request the Condoleezza Rice tanker be given a name change -- particularly since Chevron does business on six continents and 25 countries, and has been sued for alleged human rights abuses in Nigeria.

Last year, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed suit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, charging Chevron aided Nigerian police in attacks on local communities protesting Chevron production activities. A company spokesman yesterday, however, said the incident involved 200 youths armed with machetes, guns and knives who attempted to take over an offshore oil platform, holding workers for ransom and refusing to allow them access to medical treatment.
On Tuesday, the question about the tanker came up at the White House briefing in connection with the incident in Nigeria. McClellan, the administration spokesman, repeatedly said the issue of the tanker had "already been addressed" by Rice, and added, "she will uphold the highest ethical standards in office."

A Chevron spokeswoman said yesterday that the oil giant has no intention of renaming the Condoleezza Rice and noted that board member Carla Hills also had a Chevron tanker named in her honor before she was appointed former President George Bush's trade secretary -- and the vessel has kept the name.

"It's part of a long-standing practice of naming (tankers) after members of the board of directors," a company spokeswoman said, citing other big ships named George Shultz, David Packard and Kenneth T. Derr.

Rice's office did not return repeated phone calls yesterday, but she told Fox TV last year that she has no regrets regarding her Chevron ties.

"I'm very proud of my association with Chevron, and I think we should be very proud of the job American oil companies are doing in exploration abroad, in exploration at home, and in making certain we have a safe energy supply," she said.

Lewis notes that both Rice and the White House have promised that she will recuse herself from any decisions directly involving Chevron.

"The problem is Chevron operates in dozens of countries all over the world, " he said. "She (is) going to be dealing with issues that are enormous interest to Chevron across the globe -- and you can't recuse yourself from everything."

Lewis said that while some have written off the Condoleezza Rice as a small and humorous footnote to the Bush administration, the danger exists that it could turn into more.

"From a public relations standpoint, they're desperately hoping this is one tanker that doesn't run aground," said Lewis. "That could be a problem."

Posted by: GOP Republican Greed | August 18, 2008 5:18 PM

"Substantive VP" is exactly the sentiment that I have thought, likely lacking in his choice. Let's see if he makes a political choice calculated to win a state,with Kaine, or makes a substantive choice with someone like HC or Biden that has the breath of experience that O is lacking. This choice will speak volumes for his fitness for office. We have heard him chant that he represents the New Politics. While I admire Kaine, he would represent the worst of politics, choosing him entirely to help him with winning Va. Lets hope he is is not intimidated by the concept of selecting strong leaders knowledgable of world affairs, healthcare and how Congess works; with either Biden or HC. Anyone less will prove he is not fit to be POTUS.

Posted by: Leichtman | August 18, 2008 5:16 PM

Further, it is STUPID to keep our people ignorant in a global, knowledge based economy. And it is sick to be one of the richest countries in the world but not have health care for people.

In short, it is stupid to keep our people stupid; and it is sick to keep our people sick. We need a smart, healthy work force.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 5:14 PM

Mark, I am - unlike oh so many racist and misogynist Republicans - quite literate. In fact, I could write at length about more than just the fact that Sen. McCain married into an organized crime family. I could point to his deficiencies that would lead this country further along the warmongering road to ruin. The fact that you are making a personal attack on me for my supposed illiteracy is so typically Republican. Attack the person because you can't win on ideas and policy. What part of the peace, prosperity, health care, education, energy independence, and environment platform do you specifically have a problem with? I think that Big Oil, Big Wars, Big Drugs, Big Health, Big Tobacco, and the Big Three have screwed over middle America due to their greed and corruption. If you care to argue against that, I will gladly kick your butt in that debate. If you choose to stick with personal attacks, I will ignore you. Good day,

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 18, 2008 5:09 PM

Repubicanlies -- The reason you don't want the WP editing the contents on here is that you would be the one they would edit.

I love the name-calling, insults, and generalizations.

"...ignorant, vile and filthy Republicans...they are stupid, dirty people"

Oh, I love this change you can believe in.
These nuanced, articulate arguements from the left are so refreshing.

Posted by: Mark | August 18, 2008 5:08 PM

Republicans took women's rights out of their platform in 1980. Why? For no good reason other than that they could.

And when Hillary Clinton served on Bill's "defense committee" and used every dirty trick in the book to silence as many of the "bimbo eruption" women's voices as she could - in the raw pursuit of power - she revealed her true colors. She is not a feminist. She cares about money and power. Period.

The women's movement will lag until it has a Southern chapter that educates women down there to stop voting for Republican bigots who hate blacks, jews and, yup, women's rights.

Posted by: Born Yesterday | August 18, 2008 5:03 PM

PRESIDENT OBAMA HARVARD LAW PREDICTED TO HEAL AMERICA AND THE WORLD

The match-up between John Last Place McCain and Irish-American Barack Obama Harvard Law is close in nationwide surveys in the United States, but around the World it's no contest: Obama Harvard Law prevails.

A survey of 24 nations taken by the Pew Global Attitudes Project finds high levels of interest in the U.S. presidential election and broad optimism that American foreign policy "will change for the better" after the inauguration of a new president next year.

In 21 of the 23 foreign countries, those polled express more faith in Obama Harvard Law than in Last Place McCain to "do the right thing regarding World affairs." In the other two nations, Pakistan and Jordan, neither inspires much confidence.

"Obama Harvard Law obviously has an appeal that has crossed the waters," says Andrew Kohut, who directs the Pew project. "Some of it may have to do with his being associated with opposition to the war in Iraq, which is consistent with views of people around the World. Some of it may have to do with his charismatic qualities and the fact that he's different than the typical American presidential candidate."

Among the findings:

•Interest is high. Japanese are even more likely than Americans to say they are following the election closely. At least of half of those surveyed in Germany, Australia, Jordan and Britain say they are paying attention. In most of the nations surveyed, a third or more are tuning in.

•Optimism about a new president is broad. About two-thirds of those surveyed in France, Spain, Germany, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania predict U.S. foreign policy will improve after the inauguration. In 20 of 24 nations, more say U.S. foreign policy will change for the better than for the worse.

•Obama Harvard Law is heavily favored. In 21 of 23 countries, more people have faith in the Illinois senator than in Last Place McCain to "do the right thing" in foreign affairs. The two contenders were essentially tied in the United States and Jordan.

In most countries, Obama Harvard Law is also more trusted than Last Place McCain. The contrast was particular steep in Europe, where McBush made his farewell presidential tour. In France, where he visits Friday, 13% say they have "a lot" or some confidence in McBush to do the right thing. Six times as many, 84%, say that of Obama Harvard Law.

If the best the GOP Republican Get Rich By Selling America Party can do is Bush and Last Place McCain, then the GOP Republican Party should be dissolved.

Your choice between Harvard Law Scholar People’s Choice Irish-American Barack Obama Harvard Law or Computer Illiterate C Average Student For Only The Rich Wall Street Thieves Last Place McCain.

Posted by: GOP Republican John McFailure | August 18, 2008 5:00 PM

Emily -- Post of the day. I totally agree.

Corruption Anon -- Are you not capable of forming sentences and coherent thoughts? The only way you seem to be able to express "your" thoughts is by pasting links to someone else's. Very telling. And as far as corruption and scandal go, seriously? Obama's political career was launched by an admitted terrorist who he remains close to today. Not to mention he has been indoctrinated by a racist pastor for 20 years. Yeah, change you can believe in...just not sure it's the change you want.

Posted by: Mark | August 18, 2008 5:00 PM

Emily,

It's probably good that they don't- this way everyone can see how ignorant, vile and filthy Republicans really are.

The again, what do you expect from a party that doesn't want to educate or provide health care - they are stupid, dirty people.

Posted by: Republican Lies | August 18, 2008 4:57 PM

Victoria,

You were never a Hillary supporter and you and your friends most likely didn't vote for her in the last Senate campaign.

But it is you and your friends who can take the responsilbiity for keeping that glass ceiling in tact. I hope one day you lose a job or get less money because you are a woman and then take a moment to think about what you are saying.

If African Americans thought like you did then Barack Obama wouldn't be the candidate. I support there voting for him en masse. I will vote for him in November. But women don't get ahead because you always have an excuse not to support another woman. She is too curt, to this or too that. One reason after another- and look where its gotten you. Still making less than men and still not getting the top jobs.

It is sad.

Posted by: peter | August 18, 2008 4:56 PM

MsRita-

Tom Powell hasn't been black since he was in high-school.

His republican masters look at him as very tanned white.

Posted by: Kase | August 18, 2008 4:53 PM

Karl Rove has Barack Obama nailed, I believe. He's already predicted the "kind" of VP Obama will pick: a political one who will help him win certain demographics or states, rather than a substance one who would help him be a better president once on the job.

I tend to agree.

Obama is shaping up for an "historic presidency" and his sights are fixed not on some Rovian vision of populating all of government with partisans and political wedge meisters. Obama has his historical narrative in mind -- the one he's probably already writing for posterity in his imagination.

There could be nothing more undermining of that hypothetical future narrative than a VP who out-classes him on substance and stature. That is the single biggest real reason why Clinton was always out of the question and why she still is. It's also why Obama would and could pick a political VP instead of a substance VP.

The recent events in Georgia may have changed things tho, so that is a wild card that will continue up to convention day.

But nothing, nothing will come between Obama and his historic narrative, including having a "substance VP" eclipse his dominance once in office. There will be no "Cheney"-like figure who raises questions about who's got the vision.

The only way Obama's narcissism will allow him to pick a "substance VP" is if there is a clear perception that he can't win without it. (Which is actually true).

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 18, 2008 4:40 PM

That VFW convo may not get a chance to overshadow anything, if Tropical Storm Fay follows the expected path.

Posted by: Claude | August 18, 2008 4:38 PM

The fact that Sen. Obama received more Senate endorsements than did Sen. Clinton is very telling. Clearly, her peers have more political respect for Sen. Obama.

And, clearly, for them to publicly back a first term Senator over a person who was de facto co-VP for 8 years. I mean, it's not like they didn't know that there'd be repercussions to not backing a Clinton.

She wouldn't even hug Richardson the other day on stage in NM. Those Clintons hold grudges. The irony, of course, is that Americans who should be more upset with the Clintons for all of their shenanigans - Whitewater, Cattle Futures, Filegate, TravelGate, Vince Foster, Flowers, Lewinsky, etc - have more forgiveness for her than she has for Obama.

Because, you see, Americans have character. The Clintons... not so much.

Posted by: Republican Lies | August 18, 2008 4:35 PM

Obama choosing his running mate within a week of the start of the convention is actually consistent with history. The only exception is Kerry, who in 2004, chose Edwards 20 days before the start of the convention. The data is available at the American Presidency Project:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/vp_selection.php

Posted by: Gerhard Peters | August 18, 2008 4:34 PM

Tim wrote: "You into girl-girl aktion?"

Never tried it. I've gotten a handful of advances. But no attraction on my part.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 18, 2008 4:33 PM

Biden, the tough, no nonsense brains behind the operation.

Obama, the touchy, fell good candidate you love to hate. What a d*&che.

McCain/Biden '08.

Posted by: PAO | August 18, 2008 4:32 PM

I hear McCain is considering "Charles Manson" as VP.

It would lock in McCain's base.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2008 4:30 PM

If it's experience, Bill Richardson has by far the most. Congressman. Extensive experience in the federal government. And a governor. [Senators rarely beat governors in the fall.] Other than that, Biden and Dodd were clearly the most "qualified".


Posted by: Fairlington Blade
-------------------------------------------

I did vote for HRC in the primary. However, had Richardson or Biden won the nomination, I would have transferred my support to them - as you say, both are well-qualified and I like Biden a great deal.

You can't simply categorize voters as sourgrape decision makers because of who they supported in the primary. As Obama supporters have pointed out, many of Clinton's policy points were similar to Obama's. For me, however, the difference was not just in experience, but in character, trust and judgment.

If I had seen any sign whatsoever that Obama could back up his rhetoric and ideals with hard experience, through votes, through authoring bills, through service to committees or even through consistent and trustworthy decision-making, I may have voted for him just because he's a Democrat. That Obama is black also would have made me feel really good about that vote, because, frankly, I'd love to see a minority or female president.

But Obama doesn't have any record at all of being able to actually enact the sweeping changes he's talking about. He seems to make decisions based on his emotional connection to them without knowing all the facts, or without regard to his ability to follow through. I don't trust that kind of decision making and I certainly don't view it as a hallmark of experience.

HRC supporters who aren't voting Obama don't owe any apologies or explanations to the Democratic party or the Obama campaign. It's not as simple as shifting allegiance from one ideology to another. The character, personality, experience and ability of the person running for office is relevant. We are all HR specialists making our decision and we all make it on a combination of resume and interview. Obama passes neither in my estimation.

Posted by: Lynn | August 18, 2008 4:30 PM

Soory Colen Powell will be his VP choice becuse he's the right guy for this job. We will have a Black President and Black Vice President.

Posted by: MsRita | August 18, 2008 4:28 PM

If he doesn't pick up Hillary and can't handle Bill, then he has no business being in that position. How will he handle world problems with being unable to handle the winnest team in the recent democratic party on his side. I WILL vote Nader. He needs a spare to strike as he is not high in polls and Biden is old guard- all showman; Richrdson has sex problems with Edwards, ask his female Lt. Gov. ; and the rest of the choices are uninspired except, ex- Va. Gov. Warner who has bowed out. BO's in trouble and his hubris isn't helping.

Posted by: Tom | August 18, 2008 4:26 PM

Sam Nunn. You heard it here first. Dan Balz is clueless.

Posted by: Alon | August 18, 2008 4:16 PM

Gary - I am a woman and I care about the woman's vote. But I didn't vote for Hillary in the primaries and will be very angry if he chooses Mrs. Clinton. Her air of entitlement and her false cries of sexism when anything wasn't going her way in the primaries, sure soured me and all of my NYC friends as well. We won't vote to re-elect her for the Senate.

Posted by: Victoria | August 18, 2008 4:15 PM

Obama should pick General Henry Shelton

Posted by: mgm | August 18, 2008 4:14 PM

The truth is, that this author knows just about as the rest of us do about the VP pick.

Which is to say, absolutely zero.

Watch Obama to pull a surprise out of the hat.

Posted by: Sally | August 18, 2008 4:13 PM

Joe Biden? Evan Bayh? Tim Kaine? Is this the most boring list possible of VP's?

Mighty slim pickin's there.

Obama is a Muslim radical whose campaign is fading fast... Americans just aren't buying it. We've seen "Rev." Wright too many times and heard his pathetic lies about how Obama "must have missed" that sermon.

Posted by: MarkF | August 18, 2008 4:11 PM

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is a seasoned two-term (state) administrator, and gives a good speech. She's been on the short list all along.

Posted by: oldhonky | August 18, 2008 4:09 PM

For those of you who eat arugula and shop at Whole Foods, shame on you! You should be shopping at WalMart, Costco, and Food4Less like the rest of us poor people. What's that? Most rich people are Republicans? Rich conservative Republicans shop at Whole Foods? Wait... that doesn't make any sense! That totally refutes my whole premise that Obama is an elitist candidate! Oh well, my mind's made up. screw it, logic thinking is way over-rated anyways.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 18, 2008 4:08 PM

If anyone thinks that young voters aren't pissed off about education costs, health care insecurity, the environment and - especially - Iraq, then you're drinking the McCain kool-aid.

And if anyone thinks blacks aren't marching to the polls in record numbers then they are either dumb, lying, or in denial.

Posted by: Republican Lies | August 18, 2008 4:08 PM

Why does no one speak of Joe Sestak as a possibility for VP?

He has everything Obama needs in a VP. Excellent high ranking military career, highly intelligent, life long Pennsylvanian, currently a House Rep. for Penn., speaks well on TV and doesn't take stupidity lying down (see interview with Hannity).

Posted by: OrganOfThought | August 18, 2008 4:06 PM

Today's polls are using outdated turnout numbers. You only have to look at the primary numbers and the voter registration numbers to see that turnout among young and black voters is going to be at historical levels.

The polls are understating Obama's lead by a good 4-5 points. Blacks were 11% of the electorate in 2k4. They are 13% of the pop, and they'll be 13% of the electorate this year. And if Kerry got 88% of them, then Obama is getting 95%. Obama gets an extra 2 points (and McCain loses 1) when you factor in the black vote. And the young voter impact is almost as big.

If the polls say Obama's up by 3 or 4, he's really up by 8 or 9.

Posted by: Republican Lies | August 18, 2008 4:05 PM

I hear Dan Balz is the top choice for VP for both McSame and Obama.

Posted by: Corbetto | August 18, 2008 4:04 PM

my experience of registering unmotivated voters this close to an election nets very few actual votes. usually tarnscient people who don't intend to vote. noble but usually worthless effort. As for Clinton contributions to your campaign b/c he is more qualified ar the better candidate that is not what I hear. Just folks who reasonably want a D in the whitehouse regarless of their qualifications. JK was ahead of W at this time and had broken 50% several times. O is now 1-3% ahead certainly not where his supporters or campaign thought they would be. Stiff and insult HC and her supporters next week and watch his numbers tumble.Anyone who thinks putting her name in nomination is anything more than a token gesture is delusional. None of her supporters I have spoken with feel any different.

Posted by: Leichtman | August 18, 2008 4:00 PM

Leichtman - Obama's gaining donations from those who think that he's a better choice than McCain. This includes, believe it or not, those who voted for Sen. Clinton.

And, if you want to talk about sliding in the polls, you really should head over to real clear politics sometime. Obama's been at 46 +/- 2% for months now, McCain a few points lower. There is a revealing column by David Broder who notes that the Obama campaign is focusing on voter registration, not day to day poll numbers. The latter is a parlor game. The former, as Bush showed in 2004, is the real game.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | August 18, 2008 3:51 PM

I vote for Rick Astley - Rickroll the whole country!
http://internetisseriousbusiness.com/

Posted by: SpaceCat | August 18, 2008 3:47 PM

FEWLS!!

I'm picking Joe Lieberman! Now Y'ALL shut yer traps!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Barack Obama | August 18, 2008 3:46 PM

Pick Clarence Thomas, he's way more qualified and intelligent than the little punk who smeared him on Sunday.

Posted by: Morgo | August 18, 2008 3:45 PM

Hey you have to love Alex H's response nothing more than a canned version of Sean Hannity or Fatboy Rush... Alex you might as well refer to Romney as Amnesty-Mitt, he seems to be another elitist perpetuating the idea that Illegal immigrants are taking jobs most Americans won't do... Hmm, Guess nobody is accepting welfare these days and out country is overfloweth will skilled labor? The only person on either side truly against Amnesty is Ron Paul so get your facts straight...

Also you could apply the same description you made of Kerry to that of Romney minus any time served in Vietnam of course... This is a problem with the Republicans they are mysteriously absent anytime a war is going on, well except for amnesty-John.

One more thing your reference to Hussein when talking about Barack Obama is a weak one after all Hussein did not even have WMD. How do you like my humor? Furthermore, I laugh at this pathetic Rovian tactic of calling Barack Obama Hussein it sheds a light on what a racially aware and hateful group Republicans are and how ignorant most of them can be...

Posted by: Dirk D | August 18, 2008 3:40 PM

Chris just curious how you think insulting Clinton supporters helps your campaign.
Asked you that question 2 months ago here and never got an answer. 10 days before the Convention and his supporters still come here and insult folks their campaign needs to win. Apparently word has still not trickled down down to his supporters.
Do you think calling people losers or Hillbillies helps your cause? If so I would really like a detailed explanation as would the rest of the Clinton supporters here. Incidentally you are aware that O has garnered millions in contributions from her supporters since her withdrawl. Bigger question is why?

Posted by: Leichtman | August 18, 2008 3:40 PM

With McCain picking Romney (Mormon-Polygamist) Does it really mater who Obama picks ?

Posted by: Sad American | August 18, 2008 3:38 PM

Democrats for McCain??? Just because Hillary didn't beat Obama? Or doesn't get chosen for VP? Please, how shallow can any one person with half a brain be? I like Hillary and voted for her in the primary, but this election isn't about Hillary! It's about transforming the country, and hopefully the world, after eight years of presidential ineptitude. It matters to me that Democrats control all the levers of government. It doesn't matter which Democrat wins the big prize, being president.

As a Democrat I am voting democratic because the majority positions of the party align with mine. Likewise with Republican voters when they choose to vote Republican. If anyone is voting for McCain because Hillary or the women's movement was sleighted, then we don't want you in the party anyway. I have no patience for insolent, petty, lazy thinking voters who can't or refuse to see the bigger picture, and neither should the Democrat party.

Posted by: redstar | August 18, 2008 3:35 PM

you are absolutely right Dick it is totally meaningless,a pretend party, that I never asked for, don't care a flip about and does absolutely nothing to sway me to vote for your pretend candidate. Lynn has it right when she calls him totally unqualified. That doesn't change anything by letting her place her name in nomination just like Teddy Kennedy did, who had far fewer delegates, and which the O supporters are too young or immature to know about.

Posted by: Leichtman | August 18, 2008 3:32 PM

Lynn - I'm curious. What do you consider as "qualified"? Note - not Obama doesn't count. If it's qualifications you sought, who did you vote for in the primaries or caucuses?

If it's experience, Bill Richardson has by far the most. Congressman. Extensive experience in the federal government. And a governor. [Senators rarely beat governors in the fall.] Other than that, Biden and Dodd were clearly the most "qualified".

If you went for anyone else, this sounds like sour grapes.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | August 18, 2008 3:32 PM

Please let it be Chuck Hagel. Hell, forget Obama -- make Hagel the Presidential nominee.

Posted by: Arkansas Democrat | August 18, 2008 3:31 PM

asper girl = sore loser/clinton supporter

that war is over, welcome to the new world. if you're going to vote for mccain, be free, but be warned, it doesn't make the world a better place for you!

however, it's time to stop the hate, evolve and move on...

Posted by: Chris D! | August 18, 2008 3:30 PM

It has rarely mattered who the Veep candidate is and, with the exception of Cheney and LBJ, who the Vice President was, once elected.

Posted by: GetRidofEmAll | August 18, 2008 3:28 PM

The above story, in one sentence:

Speculation of Obama's choices for vice president have not changed.

Posted by: Ego Nemo | August 18, 2008 3:28 PM

Bill Richardson as VP and Clinton health secretery? Haha!In your dreams! Will never happen ! Richardson wont be picked as this might piss off the Clintons and Hill will never serve in a minor role.

Posted by: joe | August 18, 2008 3:27 PM

gbook:

"homicidal loonies; death warrant;Hillbilly Nation"

Is that what you think of her and her supporters? No wonder Obama is still sliding in the polls. Count me as one of her Hillbilly Nation supporters who thanks to idiot comments like your's will be voting for McCain.

Posted by: Leichtman | August 18, 2008 3:26 PM

To frankjomamo who said >

Here is why not.

First of all, you don't "get" Virginia just by naming Kaine to the ticket. Further, Obama/Kaine would do nothing to strengthen the foreign policy resume of the ticket.

Suggesting that Obama intends to nominate Biden for Sec. State is silly for two reasons: 1) to reiterate, it does nothing for the TICKET. If anything, constantly pointing to an intent to nominate Biden to Sec. State will raise the question...why didn't you just make him your VP? And 2) it is entirely presumptuous to start naming a cabinet. Obama has already taken heat on this type of thing (e.g. the presidential-style seal on his podium, O-Force One, etc.) This would just feed the notion that Obama is an elite who thinks he's got it all wrapped up, that he's already acting like he's the president before the actual vote.

Posted by: Mitch22 | August 18, 2008 3:26 PM

AsperGirl,

I meant to say that if you include all Obama supporters and Bush supporters, you pretty much get the entire country being elitist. There must have been some sort of HTML bug. This is simply yet another word with valid meaning that has been twisted into an epithet.

Let's consider Biden. Is he not considered an expert in foreign policy. Dare I say it, one of the elite? The same could have gone for Condi Rice even prior to joining the Bush administration.

We appear to have moved from English to statistics. Obama did so so poorly in the debates (0 for 23 from the Dept. of Irreproducible Results) that he managed to win the nomination.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | August 18, 2008 3:25 PM

Responding to:

Obama is very well qualified. He'll be a much better President than the clown you elected in 2000 and 2004.

Posted by: synykyl | August 18, 2008 2:49 PM
-------------------------------------------

I voted for Kerry. And before that, I voted for Gore. Before him, I voted for Clinton - twice. Do you see where this is going?

I'm a lifelong Democrat who is thorougly disgusted with the party's inability to nominate a well-credentialed candidate.

Obama is about the only person who ran in the primaries who would actually make a worse president than Bush. Who ever would have thought that would be possible?

Posted by: Lynn | August 18, 2008 3:25 PM

Veep week speculation hits fever pitch? Among whom? I don't know of a single person discussing who Obama or McCain are going to pick. A fever pitch among bored columnists, who are too lazy to write about something meaningful? Bingo! Such speculation stories and columns serve one purpose: to provide candidates a forum to float trial balloons. And the press just happily plays along. No, Mr. Balz, there's no fever pitch out here among us regular folk. Michael Phelps? Yes. Veep selection, ho hum.

Posted by: Monk | August 18, 2008 3:25 PM

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, AsperGirl, though your definition of elite is overly restrictive. It generally is used to describe the very best of a group. Perhaps you should use something authoritative such as Webster's or the OED.

Now, it's time for a logic lesson. You consider everyone who supports Bush or Obama elitist. Given that there are relatively few switcher (

Mind you, when it comes to my doctor or lawyer, you've got it right that I want the best.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | August 18, 2008 3:19 PM

Naming HRC would be signing his own death warrant; it's not like Arkansas has any shortage of homicidal loonies, not to mention the rest of the Hillbilly Nation, which has taken HRC, she of Wellesley and Yale Law, to its bosom. (And wouldn't Clinton exacting revenge on her enemies, i.e., anyone who supported Obama, be fascinating to watch?)

I like Rendell; he supported HRC and she owes him, and while he opposed Obama, it wasn't personal, plus it trumps Tom Ridge. Being Jewish doesn't hurt in FL. I also like Bob Graham, but he gets no mentions these days (I'm convinced he's THE best choice).

Seems to me VA's budget problems rule Kaine out. Richardson? Meh as a campaigner, plus illegal immigration is THE stealth issue (not that WaPo will ever report THAT), and that cuts against any Hispanic candidate. Biden? Nope. Brings nothing unique to the ticket. Bayh? Ditto, and if Obama can't carry IN without Bayh, he can't win anyway.

Posted by: gbooksdc | August 18, 2008 3:18 PM

I thought it was significant when Senator Obama said on Saturday night that he relies on three people for counsel: his wife, his grandmother, and Sam Nunn. To include Nunn with the two others -- and to do so in church -- strikes me as an enormous clue as to which way he is leaning.

Posted by: Lou | August 18, 2008 3:15 PM

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, AsperGirl, though your definition of elite is overly restrictive. It generally is used to describe the very best of a group. Perhaps you should use something authoritative such as Webster's or the OED.

Now, it's time for a logic lesson. You consider everyone who supports Bush or Obama elitist. Given that there are relatively few switcher (

Mind you, when it comes to my doctor or lawyer, you've got it right that I want the best.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | August 18, 2008 3:15 PM

You nasty little clintie smearheads. enjoy your little girls' pretend tea party. that's what your roll call vote amounts to. losers!

Posted by: Dick Cabesa | August 18, 2008 3:12 PM

I think will get surprised that it is RichRDSON. WOULD BE A BOLD MOVE.

Posted by: dmAC | August 18, 2008 3:11 PM

To You Are Kidding:
No, I am not! It's now time for the key Democratic talent in the Senate to roll up their sleeves to help carry out the new administration's programs by serving IN it, as the example that SENATOR Obama is now setting -- HIMSELF!

Posted by: lockmallup | August 18, 2008 3:08 PM


.
Reflecting his character as a a Kerry-like shallow, arrogant, platitude-spouting, inexperienced, elitist, narcissistic, flip-flopping gas-bag, hussein will likely pick a running mate who is so bland, unknown and undistinguished he won't even have a shadow. That is the only way the empty-suit hussein won't be upstaged.

AMNESTY-JOHN, on the other hand, needs desperately to have a competent, experienced running mate who can take over the Presidency when the inevitable occurs. That makes Romney the best choice.

/

Posted by: ALEX H. | August 18, 2008 3:05 PM

Hey lockmallup - If Obama did go with your picks he's pretty much wipe out the Democrat majority in the Senate. I hope his thinking is a little more broad than your list.

Posted by: Richard | August 18, 2008 3:04 PM

I don't think it's Biden for VP. Besides, I think he makes a far better choice as Secretary of State than VP.
Here's what Obama should do. Since there seems to be concerns about whether he's "ready". Announce Kaine as your VP pick, but also announce that Biden will be your Secretary of State pick. Why not. You get Virginia (which should he win, he wouldn't need Fl or OH) AND allay fears about foreign policy experience.

Posted by: frankjomama | August 18, 2008 2:58 PM

"ELITE" VS. "ELITISM" (WIKIPEDIA)

Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern [1].

Elite (also spelled Élite) is taken originally from the Latin, eligere, "to elect". In sociology as in general usage, the élite is a relatively small dominant group within a large society, which enjoys a privileged status envied by individuals of lower social status.

Elites: Clinton, McCain, Obama, Bush

Elitists: Obama, Bush (and their supporters)

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 18, 2008 2:58 PM

Obama should select McCain as a running mate.

Posted by: kansanbyheritage | August 18, 2008 2:57 PM

Another John McCain War Hero Story Exposed as Fake.
John McCain’s POW -Sign of the Cross- story is a fairy tale.
McCain Stole the Story from a Book By Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

McCain began to tell the “Sign of the Cross Story” AFTER the Solzhenitsyn book came out.
As Nancy Reagen once told the LA Times: “John sure tells interesting stories....

In the McCain POW fairytale, a GUARD makes the Sign of the Cross in the sand
In Solzenitsyn’s book, a fellow PRISONER makes the Sign of the Cross in the sand

See Book Link:
http://incommunion.org/articles/previous-issues/older-issues/the-sign-of-the-cross

Earlier this year ABC News caught McCain is yet another lie about his POW days.
See Link; http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/in-pennsylvania.html


“Alexander Solzhenitsyn, bears witness to the power of the cross. After long suffering in the work camp of Siberia, he fell into despair....He saw no reason to continue living, to continue fighting the system. He thought that the rest of his life was meaningless since he would most likely die in this Siberian prison. His life made no difference in the world. So he gave up.
Laying his shovel on the ground, he slowly walked to a crude work-site bench and sat down. He knew that at any moment a guard would order him to stand up, and when he failed to respond, the guard would beat him to death, probably with his own shovel.
As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly, he lifted his eyes and saw a skinny, old prisoner squat down next to him. The man said nothing. Instead, he drew a stick through the ground at Solzhenitsyn’s feet, tracing the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.
As Solzhenitsyn stared at the sign of the Cross. And through the power of the Cross, anything was possible.
Solzhenitsyn slowly got up, picked up his shovel, and went back to work. Nothing outward had changed, but inside, he received hope.”

Posted by: bobnsri | August 18, 2008 2:55 PM

Ok, for a second consider who you want it to be, not who you think it's going to be... this is the question the vetting committee should be asking themselves, because it's votes that determine the next president...

My pick, Bill Richardson. Why? He's the HW of Democrats. Former Energy Sec, Gov of NM, Former UN Ambassador...brings the Latino vote.

McCain's argument of inexperience suddenly goes out the window. Think JFK and LBJ for a sec too... history repeats itself my friends, sometimes for worse, but this time it should be for the better...

Posted by: Who do we want it to be? | August 18, 2008 2:54 PM

The Headline is not accurate.

No one I know out here in the REAL world give 2 ****s about who gets picked for VP.

Only the little world of DC pays any attention--and the media who has nothing else to report (to them the rest of the world is non-existent apparently)

Posted by: dc-20008 | August 18, 2008 2:52 PM

His short list is one big boring group, so who really cares.

Posted by: dee dee | August 18, 2008 2:51 PM

Dream Ticket you know it makes sense.

Posted by: walker1 | August 18, 2008 2:50 PM

>>Jackson Landers: "Elitist nominee? You mean the guy who owns 8 different mansions and flies on his wife's personal corporate jet from one mansion to the next? The elitist who has been a Washington DC insider for the last 25 years? Because that would be John McCain."

There's a difference between an "elite" (which Obama and McCain and Clinton all are) and an "elitist". Obama's infatuated with his own affectations of elitism.

E.g. that "arugula" comment where he told poor rural whites that he's seen how the price of arugula in Whole Foods has soared. What's that all about?

Even if he was "elite" enough to not realize that not everyone shops at Whole Foods, he was being phony and lying about the price of arugula. The price of organic and boutique green produced hadn't budged in years (at least by the time of that speech). They don't use potash & other chemical fertilizers and insecticides that have soared in price, and organic fields don't compete with corn and wheat fields; it takes years to make a field organic certified.

An "elite" would think of food inflation in terms of what he buys at Whole Foods.

An "elitist" would lie about the price of arugula to poor whites who don't know that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 18, 2008 2:50 PM

... Sad that the best the Democratic party can hope to offer us for this election is a qualified and experienced VP candidate. ...

Obama is very well qualified. He'll be a much better President than the clown you elected in 2000 and 2004.

Posted by: synykyl | August 18, 2008 2:49 PM

For the Clinton Supporters considering McCain:

The Republicans right now are pushing to redefine abortion to include the use of contraceptives. ( Do a search for "bush" and "birth control" in your favorite search engine ).

Is that what you want for the next four years?

Posted by: wolf | August 18, 2008 2:48 PM

Colin Powell? Maybe a team-of-rivals (joint Dem/Rep) ticket is what Obama needs. I'd think it would be compelling to hear Powell say, "I helped get us into this war and I will join President Obama and helping us get out of Iraq."

Posted by: Nate | August 18, 2008 2:46 PM

The way I see it, no matter who Obama picks at this point he will still lose the election.

He simply let voters know too much during the primaries, and his legacies of Chicago and do-nothing senatorial time spent will not help, but hinder. I won’t even go into the Wright and Rezko controversies…

Being from VA, I can also tell you that if he selects Kaine or any other democrat that has such low state constituent approval ratings due to No-Bid Backroom Deals, he mind as well just stay home and don’t bother continuing his presidential bid.

His only chance in winning at this point is dropping off the face of the earth and hope that McCain messes up royally….

Posted by: HaHa | August 18, 2008 2:38 PM

MItch22 is right...the fervor over biden would have been tamped down by now because it would be incredibly hurtful I think with the amount of positive feedback that seems to be encircling a Biden choice.

It's Biden...Obama's campaign isn't that "un savvy" to let it burn this bright and this long"

Posted by: dl | August 18, 2008 2:38 PM

Asper Girl,

'TOP 10 WAYS TO TELL YOUR ELITIST NOMINEE HAS NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER'

Elitist nominee? You mean the guy who owns 8 different mansions and flies on his wife's personal corporate jet from one mansion to the next? The elitist who has been a Washington DC insider for the last 25 years? Because that would be John McCain.

5 years ago, Barack Obama was a back-bench state legistlator in Illinois struggling to pay the bills like everybody else. No family fortune, no solver spoon in his mouth.

One of these candidates has spent most of his life as a regular American guy. The other has spent most of his life as a millionaire many times over, eating at the trough of power and jet-setting from one mansion to the other.

In short, you've got it backwards.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | August 18, 2008 2:34 PM

My expectation is that the choice has come down to Biden and Dodd. I think Dodd will get the nod only because Obama is very comfortable with his style and see that he can campaign and then help once elected.

Posted by: Bill Manor | August 18, 2008 2:31 PM

Two-term Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano's name is surfacing as a prospective last-minute VP pick. It has been said that "she has all of the savvy as Clinton, but none of the negatives." Watch Obama praise Napolitano on this YouTube clip (Barack Obama - Impromptu Speech), shot during a campaign stop in Las Vegas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPQp-GFXYSM

Posted by: sheik69 | August 18, 2008 2:29 PM

I really have not heard anyone make the case that the two (2) Democrats most "worthy" are Leahy and Graham... White haired vote assured (Florida) and Foreign Policy up the ying yang. But of the assembled chosen for us by conventional wisdom... Caine I have found the most quick witted.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 18, 2008 2:27 PM

with your list of names. Aren't you. You have NINE Democratic U.S. Senators on your list. Obama is NOT going to gut the Senate to fill the cabinet. About the only one that could happen is Mary Landrieu and then only if she loses her Senate race.


Posted by: You are Kidding | August 18, 2008 2:24 PM

Re Mitch22

Thanks for your bitter remarks on my completely innocuous post!
1)No one knows for sure he's not being vetted, but you did answer my question pretty well. Considering all it took was a confirmation from Kaine that he was being vetted to send him to the top of the list for a week, I guess this is the gold standard.
2)You might not like him, but he remains popular and well respected.

Posted by: Zach | August 18, 2008 2:23 PM

This is just one of the craziest, most bizarre and most hypocritical things I have ever read:

"...he risks a major backlash among Clinton supporters should he pick a woman other than Clinton."

I'm not disagreeing with the author's point. I'm just saying that it's crazy.

Posted by: Dave | August 18, 2008 2:23 PM

I love it - yet another article that basicaly says "We don't know 'ship'."

Posted by: Justin | August 18, 2008 2:21 PM

I just hope, hope, hope he'll defy all the pundits' prognostications, wait until the convention and pick Hillary.

Not because I like her but because it would do two very good things:

1) Bring the Clintons and their army back into the fold; and

2) Put on his ticket someone who can kick butt and name names. I would love to see Hillary unleashed on her "good friend" John "Wet Start" McCain.

Posted by: Cal Gal | August 18, 2008 2:12 PM

"But there are few solid indications that he (Gov. Richardson) is really on the list of finalists." - Really?
Then why is he speaking on VP Selection night, Dan - a solid indicator, in our opinion.
He're the rest of our pics.

Vice President - Gov. Bill Richardson
Secretary of State - Sen. Christopher J. Dodd
Secretary of the Treasury - Austan Goolsbee
Secretary of Defense - Sen. Jim Webb
Attorney General - Attorney General Jerry Brown
Secretary of the Interior - Sen. Barbara Mukulski
Secretary of Agriculture - Sen. Tom Harkin
Secretary of Commerce - Sen. Daniel K. Inouye
Secretary of Labor - Cong. George Miller
Secretary of Health and Human Services - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development - Sen. Sherrod Brown
Secretary of Transportation - Rep. James L. Oberstar
Secretary of Energy - Sen. Mary Landrieu
Secretary of Education - Cong. Ruben Hinojosa
Secretary of Veterans Affairs - Cong. Corrine Brown
Secretary of Homeland Security - Sen. Charles Schumer

Posted by: lockmallup | August 18, 2008 2:12 PM

If Obama doesn't pick gavin Newsome for Veep, I'm voting for Barr.

Posted by: Angry Dem | August 18, 2008 2:09 PM

It's obvious the Obama team has heard and understands the old joke, "How do you keep a turkey in suspense?" "I'll tell you tomorrow."

Posted by: muD | August 18, 2008 2:09 PM

McCain will pick Tim Pawlenty. pawlenty flew to DC to appear on Face the Nation. He had no other business here. He's gonna be the one!!!

Posted by: Robert | August 18, 2008 2:09 PM

I'm picking Joe Lieberman fewl!

Posted by: Barack Obama | August 18, 2008 2:09 PM

All signs point to Biden! And--just a guess here--I would think that the Obama camp would send some sort of signal to tamp down the Biden speculation if it's not going to be him. And they haven't done that. The only "negative" about Biden is that he's been around a long time and that there's a contrast there to Obama's "change" message. But change happens at the top of the ticket. Picking a seasoned VP like Biden shows that Obama understands the need to surround himself with experienced and capable advisors.

Also, would the Clark people just give it a rest finally? It's not going to be Clark. Nobody likes him. He's not even being vetted.

Posted by: Mitch22 | August 18, 2008 2:07 PM

Sad that the best the Democratic party can hope to offer us for this election is a qualified and experienced VP candidate.

Posted by: Lynn | August 18, 2008 2:02 PM

Al Gore is the obvious choice. Any doubts about Obama's experience would be dramatically offset by Gore, who would bring less baggage than the Clintons.

Would he do it? If he cares about his country, he should answer the call.

Posted by: JR, Boston | August 18, 2008 1:57 PM

I've been a long-time supporter of Wesley Clark for VP. There seems to be a lot of really good reasons to choose him: Military experience, foreign policy experience, similar ideology, age, religion, not a Washington insider, popularity - especially in the south. He balances out the ticket better than any other candidate. And yet, in all the VP speculation articles, a candidate like Dodd, who has no realistic chance at the nod, is mentioned, while Clark is always left off the list. I know he had that semi-gaffe a few months ago, but that should hardly disqualify a man with so much to offer. I don't mean to be antagonistic at all, but I'm just a little baffled trying to explain the lack of conversation around Clark. Is there any insight you could offer? Thanks!

Posted by: Zach | August 18, 2008 1:57 PM

It is incredible how Barack Obama is not even considering Hillary Clinton.

I guess, Obama does not care about the women's vote.

Democrats for John McCain in 2008.

Posted by: gary | August 18, 2008 1:55 PM

Obama's VP pick will be Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, and energy expert and early opponent of the war in Iraq, and a former State Attorney General.

Posted by: John | August 18, 2008 1:52 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company