Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Veep Tea Leaves: Saturday, Saturday!

Barack Obama will kick off a pre-convention tour on Saturday at the Springfield (Ill.) state House, an announcement that set off wild speculation (surprise, surprise) that the Illinois senator will debut his vice presidential pick that day.

Our reporting suggests that the two events -- the Springfield rally and the timing of the vice presidential pick -- are not directly related.

The first is the leading edge of what will be a multi-state tour featuring Obama and his eventual running mate. "Senator Obama will also make stops next week in several battleground states before arriving in Denver," read a newly minted release from the Obama campaign.

The vice presidential rollout, according to our reporting, is operating on an entirely different schedule. That is, an Obama vice presidential pick could come as soon as tomorrow morning and as late as Saturday but, either way, the event in Springfield should not be read as an indicator that Obama will unveil his vice presidential pick that day.

The longer Obama waits to reveal the identity of his vice presidential pick, the more likely it is to be a so-called "safe" pick -- a known commodity unlikely to step on the message leading up to the start of the Democratic National Convention on Monday.

The last thing the Obama campaign wants to do is mess with the intricate stagecraft of the convention by having an alternate storyline centered on the vice presidential nominee kicking around during those four days in Denver. And, picking someone who is not well known nationally -- Gov. Tim Kaine (Va.) or Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (Kan.), for example -- greatly adds to the possibility of the sort of unanticipated campaign narrative Obama is hoping to avoid.

Following that line of thought would suggest that the pick will be either Sen. Joe Biden (Del.) or Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) -- both of whom have been in the veepstakes since its inception this summer. Both men have been vetted -- in varying degrees -- by the national media and would not likely arouse any the same sort of deep dig into their backgrounds as an unknown or surprise candidate would surely warrant.

Having said all of that, the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. Obama could well announce his pick tomorrow, giving supporters and the media five days to chew it over and debate it before the convention even starts.

All reporting -- and we emphasize all -- on the veepstakes at this point should be taken with a lump of salt. As we have said time and time again, VERY few people know the specifics of who is out/who is in and when and where the announcements will be made.

Hopefully, for all of our sake, this will all be over soon.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 19, 2008; 5:50 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008 , Veepstakes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Veepstakes: How Long Will The Secret Hold?
Next: The Chase for 60: Stevens' s "Toast" Ad

Comments

I wonder...there's no way the announcement comes on Friday or Saturday. Why? Because people don't watch TV on Friday night and Saturday.
http://www.yishanteashop.com/

Posted by: SieWhange | August 22, 2008 6:09 AM | Report abuse

How about RON PAUL ?? Wouldn't that just put everyone in a spin tizzy?? I wish...
Okay, I'll pick.....Hagel or Biden. Just help us please Barack!

Posted by: girlvid | August 21, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Boycott CNN!

Posted by: holywoodog | August 20, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

AsperityGirl says: Scientists who study social systems from a behavioral analysis perspective based on what systems have to do, as opposed to liberal arts people who comment and pin on current events from a rhetorical/semiotic social analysis perspective (like the media) can see that it's inevitable that Obama will lose.
_________________________________
Thank you AsperityGirl, for the unsubstantiated gobbledegook. I suppose you want your message to give the impression of authority. You fail to mention the names of the "scientists" who say Obama will lose. You can't quote drunks you met at the bar as experts.

There are real experts who have studied and forecast presidential races. One is Ray Fair, Economics Professor at Yale who predicts and Obama victory 52.2% to McCain's 47.8%. Macroeconomics Advisors' model (which has been correct 12 of 14 times) predicts McCain will only get 45% of the vote to Obama's 55%. A third study, from Douglas Hibbs, economics professor of the University of Goteborg in Sweden predicts 52% for Obama.

The link: news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080801/pl_nm/usa_politics_economy_dc_2

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

>>"As the elaborate scenarios are spun out, one wonders what bloggers who still dream of HRC on a national ticket are going to do."

I don't think there's any point to putting HRC on the ticket now. She'd just be dragged down into the (pick your metaphor: train wreck | sucking whirlpool of failure | cesspool of dysfunctional impotent left wing liberals now dominating the Democratic discourse).

Her only real self-interest at this point is trying to help Obama win as much as possible (it's still possible), rehabilitating herself and Bill from the damage inflicted on her by the left-wingers and media during primary season, and positioning herself for winning next election cycle against McCain.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 20, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Heak if you have a cell phone you never get called. I have a phone and I check my machine like once a day. If you don't have my cell number then I have no reason to talk to you.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

correst, see below:

This time, it's Zogby's turn to confuse the masses. His latest Reuters/Zogby poll, based on a sample of 1,089 "likely voters" drawn from listed telephone numbers, conducted Aug. 14-16, 2008, shows McCain over Obama by 46% to 41%.

Two days earlier, Zogby reported substantially different results.

--------
That is the worst poll of all. That is the "likely voter"They throw out almost all young people because they believe they will not vote. They throw out your vote in you didn't vote in the last election and so on. This election defies all that. Those people who historically may not have voted in the past will vote in this election. This election is unique and that poll is useless. Pretty much all it counts is older people who are home when they call and who vote every election. I don't know why they even report that poll.

----------
New poll out this morning-Obama is 5 point DOWN! With his"aura"waning and inexperience showing allover the place against a veteran like McCain he better pick some one like Hillary who will add someweight to the ticket-not nobodies like Buyah(spelling?)Sebelius(who?)BTW, whats up with that"McCain doesnt know what he is up against"comment from a beginner nobody? Maybe OK in Chicago but a stupid line to use against some one with McCains background.

Posted by: J | August 20, 2008 9:28 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 11:09 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

That is the worst poll of all. That is the "likely voter"They throw out almost all young people because they believe they will not vote. They throw out your vote in you didn't vote in the last election and so on. This election defies all that. Those people who historically may not have voted in the past will vote in this election. This election is unique and that poll is useless. Pretty much all it counts is older people who are home when they call and who vote every election. I don't know why they even report that poll.

----------
New poll out this morning-Obama is 5 point DOWN! With his"aura"waning and inexperience showing allover the place against a veteran like McCain he better pick some one like Hillary who will add someweight to the ticket-not nobodies like Buyah(spelling?)Sebelius(who?)BTW, whats up with that"McCain doesnt know what he is up against"comment from a beginner nobody? Maybe OK in Chicago but a stupid line to use against some one with McCains background.

Posted by: J | August 20, 2008 9:28 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Blarg, the Zogby poll was also completed on Sunday. More recent polls (LA times, Rasmussen, Gallup) show Obama ahead. Of course, the McCaniacs and Shillaryites don't care about facts, so they will trumpet the Zogby results as if there are no others.

Posted by: RealChoices | August 20, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Those Zogby national polls are junk. They're inconsistent with every other poll, including other Zogby polls from a day or two earlier.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_loopy_zogby_polls.php

Posted by: Blarg | August 20, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Bill Bradley would be an excellent choice. However, given the dumbed down ignorance of the U.S. population at large, the ticket would be viewed as "way" too intelligent. It is a sad reality that many Americans are threatened by cerebral, sophisticated leaders, preferring the Class Dunces like Bush and McBush.

Perhaps Barack will pull an August surprize and select Colin Powell. It would be an amazing, unbeatable ticket. Forget the bullsh_t that people would never vote for two African Americans because those bigoted morons have no intention of voting for One African American.

Posted by: shiva7 | August 20, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Obama better not pick Hilary ,so she is free and powerfull after he looses. The dem party is going down because of this arrogant caucaus winner.

Posted by: ashwin patel | August 20, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

If anyone wants to know the real Obama and just how self serving he is then read this article: http://tinyurl.com/5gubz6 He lets his own brother live in squalor (on ONE DOLLAR A MONTH!) in the slums of Kenya while he earns over a million dollars a year. Where the heck is his humanity for his own flesh and blood? Obama is a phony plain and simple. I can't see how anybody could vote for this selfish a person. I'm ashamed for this country for having this hypocritical person as the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: obiewan | August 20, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

all of this is gainign strength by the bad timing of this announcement about VP.

Lets get on with the fight...

the marriage is more important than the wedding ...

that's not impatience that is annoyance at the announcement having more importance than who is best for the position.

Posted by: dl | August 20, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

It's started... the insanely self-destructive game-playing and grandstanding over energy policy by the highly partisan Nancy Pelosi and the evasive, prevaricating energy policy statements by Barack Obama are starting to pay off. In about three short weeks those posturing partisan phonies have undermined the fall of energy prices that we needed.

Buy KOL, FCG and USO, 'cause energy prices will soar again and the dollar will collapse. (Note: I'm not a stock analyst and any comment on my part to go out and buy a stock is just sarcasm and for the purposes of commentary.)

Obama's inability to take any clear position and prevaricate and posture as if he's above the discourse specifics, is disastrous in a time of crises. HIs inability to make specific answers even in response to questions about himself, his beliefs and his life experience at Saddleback is part of his larger inability to take a clear and competent stand in anything, like energy policy, Iraq, or other issues on which he's flip flopping and attempting to be on all sides of the issues while sounding superior and transcendent. His affectations of leadership and elitism are empty posturing, as Saddleback made clear.

At this point, it doesn't matter who Obama picks as VP. He's gonna lose.

As I have said for what is months now, Clinton should try to team up with Obama, but should steer clear of the train wreck. There is no good in nominating someone so rhetorical, with a record of nothing but professional no-accomplishment and non-commitment to any real project outside himself.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 20, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

So science has discovered the inevitability principle of nominating Barack Obama! Wow, my whole concept of the universe has been stood on end! Of course, those pesky liberal arts people kind of screw things up actually believing the better man can win. Well, let's see how scientific the analysis becomes when McCain reverts to form and blows it--He's always at his best when he is behind and if I were his advisor, I'd be worried by the poll numbers that he is peaking just a little soon. But we'll see. Being an airy, liberal arts kind of guy, I have only my memory and experience to go on (no actual, scientific-type skills, to be sure) and I seem to remember a lot of hyperventilating last Summer about how if we nominated Hillary, we were just HANDING the election to the GOP.

Posted by: dch | August 20, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

If anyone wants to know the real Obama and just how self serving he is then read this article: http://tinyurl.com/5gubz6 He lets his own brother live in squalor (on ONE DOLLAR A MONTH!) in the slums of Kenya while he earns over a million dollars a year. Where the heck is his humanity for his own flesh and blood? Obama is a phony plain and simple. I can't see how anybody could vote for this selfish a person. I'm ashamed for this country for having this hypocritical person as the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: obiewan | August 20, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The Dems have a few days to dump the empty suit narcissist freshman senator and nominate the candidate who has received more primary votes than any other candidate in Democratic party history.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 20, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

No, these are all national polls today (Gallup is not out yet):

National - Rasmussen Tracking Obama 47, McCain 46 (Obama +1)
National - LA Times/Bloomberg Obama 45, McCain 43 (Obama +2)
National - Reuters/Zogby Obama 41, McCain 46 (McCain +5)
National - Reuters/Zogby Obama 39, McCain 44, (McCain +5)
National - Battleground Obama 46, McCain 47 (McCain +1)

Obama is cratering, as he must and will. This was inevitable. Scientists who study social systems from a behavioral analysis perspective based on what systems have to do, as opposed to liberal arts people who comment and pin on current events from a rhetorical/semiotic social analysis perspective (like the media) can see that it's inevitable that Obama will lose. It's the more concrete thinkers among former Clinton supporters who are so deeply resistant to Obama's nomination this year. You're just handing the presidency to the Republicans.

Now, if the Clinton-Obama primary contest is any indication, the mainstream media will go into convulsions of paranoid, pathological hate speech against McCain, throwing the kitchen sink at him to try to eviscerate Obama's rival for him. The media will lead the presidential contest right into a sewer of verbal abuse and hate speech thinly veiled as op-ed commentary and sneering election event coverage. This after, of course, the media pushed the inevitable loser candidate on the rest of the Democratic electorate as usual, as they do every election cycle.

The media, as the most vocally dominant part of the Democratic Party base, is also its biggest liability, dominating the primary process, twisting reality so the lesser candidates are nominated over the better candidates, and leading Democrats to lose election year after election year.

I felt confidence last week finally making a projection on the outcome of the general election this year, and I'll repeat it now:

"a bloody, ugly and humiliating train wreck for the Democrats"

With the funeral being picked over by the dim-bulb, shrieking left-wing media and the furious incoherent jabbering of sociopathic groupthink from the cult members of DailyKos.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 20, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

"New poll out this morning-Obama is 5 point DOWN!"

What poll? Down 5 points where? If you mean the Rasmussen Ohio poll, think again. Obama may be down 5 points in that poll, but last month he was down 10 points! Post a link or stop lying.

Posted by: Blarg | August 20, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

New poll out this morning-Obama is 5 point DOWN! With his"aura"waning and inexperience showing allover the place against a veteran like McCain he better pick some one like Hillary who will add someweight to the ticket-not nobodies like Buyah(spelling?)Sebelius(who?)BTW, whats up with that"McCain doesnt know what he is up against"comment from a beginner nobody? Maybe OK in Chicago but a stupid line to use against some one with McCains background.

Posted by: J | August 20, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Outside the Box wrote:

Check the polls. The supers are. The Dems cannot afford to lose.

My Comment:
The ONE sure way for the Democrats to lose is to nominate someone other than Obama, the candidate that won the nomination fair and square following the rules of the party in place at the time of the primaries. This would result in the immediate and permanent defection of a large chunk of voters from the Democratic Party. Some (in fact most) would simply not vote believing that their vote really doesn't mean anything while the rest would go off and join some other party.

Outside the Box wrote:

McCain's pulled ahead in one key survey of the electoral vote. Gergen on CNN pronounced tonight that it looks like McCain can win.

My Comments:
Yawn. One survey of the vote. Obama hasn't started the campaign yet. He knows that it is too early and that getting real traction against Michael Phelps, Nastia Lukin and Sean Johnson makes no sense. From here out, however, the US really doesn't have many good Olympic stories. The other key factor is that Obama continues to bring in big bucks toward his election campaign. (In part because lots of Obama supporters, every time that they read a stupid statement such as yours, give more money).


Outside the Box wrote:
Hillary's people comprise half the delegates.

My Comment:
Wrong. Sen. Clinton's people comprise less than half of the delegates. Obama has over a 100 delegate pledged delegate lead.

Outside the Box wrote:
All it takes is a couple hundred supers previously committed to her to abandon Barack. They've got good reason.

My Comment:
They have good reason to commit political suicide? I don't think so. The rage and anger from the Obama supporters would be significant and justified. The rules of the game and the rules of the game. And sore losers like the vocal superminority of Clinton supporters need to understand this. Would she have won if the Rules of the Game were different? Perhaps. BUT THE RULES OF THE GAME WERE NOT DIFFERENT.

No hallucination, but wishful and naive thinking on your part?

Posted by: Someone's Still Hallucinating | August 20, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

The big surprise is going to be what fantasy scrivener is going to post relentlessly after the conventions.

I hope Obama choses Biden, because none of the others know anything about foreign policy and none of the other have a strong enough personality to get into the fray with McCain and Romney/Lieberman/whoever.

What ever happened to Richardson?

Posted by: nclwtk | August 20, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

To bhooers;To bad you criticize those who supported John Edwards, when it appears that you must support a man who cheated on his first wife who was disabled by a car wreck and had his three children. Obama is still the one for the job.You don't send the fox(John McSenile) to clean up the hen house(Bush's mess).Connie from Indiana

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

As the elaborate scenarios are spun out, one wonders what bloggers who still dream of HRC on a national ticket are going to do. When the reality has settled and Jack Reed or Jim Webb is chosen for VP, will they finally remember why it is that SHE (or any candidate) was running in the first place? Will they go to their grave believing that this was the year that democracy finally saw its nadir simply because their candidate did not get the nomination?

Or will they step back, take a deep breath and start thinking again? Obama and Hillary share virtually identical programs. The difference? Obama won. That's all. No conspiracies, no secret pact that could explain how "such a thing" was possible. I remind everyone where we were several months ago. There were more candidates for President than you could shake a stick at, and ALL the Democrats were giving speeches that I listened to carefully. When I heard and evaluated the ideas, there was no doubt in my mind that ALL of them were head and shoulders above the Republicans. Then I tried to imagine each one of them doing the actual job of governing--of putting together a competent Cabinet--of repairing relations abroad--of looking the American public 'in the eye' and explaining policy. Only one convinced me.

It's still a long road and I would be reluctant to draw ANY conclusions about this race until it really starts. Once it does, I am going to resist the impulse to project my own feelings upon either candidate and impute what may or may not be in their hearts. That is the real challenge. I may want to believe that because McCain has embraced all kinds of positions I thought he opposed, he has previously unsuspected blackness in his heart, but reason tells me that he is doing what anyone would do who wants to be elected after eight years of his own party messing things up. Likewise, i might be tempted to impute all kinds of fantastic qualities to the candidate whose ideas correspond to mine, but reason tells me that he is, after all, just a man. And the US is just a collection of 300 million people who still get to choose their own leader.

I believe that, when day is done and the fateful night arrives, Hillary will do more than pay lip-service to the election of Obama. I also believe that many Americans, even some Republicans, are going to realize that an Obama Presidency is not nearly as scary as the prospect of a Reagan Presidencey seemed to us back in 1980. Can we hope for more in this age? I doubt it.

Posted by: dch | August 20, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

RBJ had the very poor judgement to support a lying scoundrel who was cheating or his dying wife, so his views should be met with huge grain of salt.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 20, 2008 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Whoops... the below was from me to scrivener.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 20, 2008 6:47 AM | Report abuse

I agree with you about Hillary Clinton. The fools haven't figured out yet why some of her core supporters are so insistent on her. Meanwhile, they continue their dumb narcissistic games, covered by the chattering journalistic flies that swarm around them as if they are recording posterity but then publish articles that push their own biased and ignorant world view.

When the next Great Depression hits, they'll all be sucking their thumbs and wondering why, and they won't even remember Hillary Clinton's platforms and implementation strategies, because they never covered them in the first place, being focused on covering her cleavage, thighs, husband and coming up with new inventive, degrading woman-executive-bashing memes.

Posted by: scrivener | August 20, 2008 6:47 AM | Report abuse

It is still going to be Biden.

I laugh at all these comments and Biden saying "I'm not the guy" with a huge smile on his face.

Again to go with a Kaine at this point would catastrophically dumb 2 fold because of his lack of any leadership with foreign policy in today's exceedingly crazy situation...

and the fact that Biden has been predominantly embraced by 90% of the people Obama is looking to to vote for him.

He is not that egocentric or dumb to not pick Biden.

lol

If he were ...he wouldn't have gotten this far...unless it is all suddenly gone to his...and I don't think that's happened.

lol

Posted by: dl | August 20, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

First, can we PLEASE stop all the HRC talk?!?
Whether you lose by one vote or 100,000, you lose. Hillary lost as a consequence of her mistakes and failed gambles - and because she, well, is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Voters gazed through the disguise and saw the uncompromising, love-it-or-hate-it entity (not to mention a two-headed one with Bill always in tow).
If you were from another country and heard Hillary campaign this spring, you'd have thought SHE was the neocon. She sounded more Republican than the actual GOP nominee (who now is a mouthpiece for the Bush cronies he publicly berated just eight years ago).
There is a fine line between moving to the center of the political spectrum and selling out your progressive base. Hillary not only crossed that line, but tripped over it and never recovered. She gambled and she lost.
Look, the Clintons were great for their time, but did little - if anything - for the progressive movement.
Bill Clinton presided over a wonderful period in America. We had eight years of peace and prosperity. A balanced budget. A surplus. Low unemployment. Low gas prices. The '90s were as fruitful for the middle class as the 2000s have been for the very powerful and obscenely wealthy.
However, Bill Clinton's years were not a success in the eyes of true Democrats. Unfairly exposed or not, Bill's personal flaws forced a pathetic legacy that reads not of healthcare, jobs or security, but merely personal survival.
As much as I didn't want to admit it, as much as I campaigned for John Edwards, Obama is simply the right man for this time. He can do great things.

He can begin to lift us from the quagmire caused by an administration that will no doubt be judged by legitimate historians and objective observers as the most destructive, incompetent and deceptive in our republic's short lifespan.

That is something we Dems, PUMAs and thinking Independents can - and SHOULD - all agree upon!!

Vote Dem.

Posted by: RBJ | August 20, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

The big surprise will be that it's a pick virtually no one mentioned- Chet Edwards D-TX. He's presidential, his character is flawless, his support for people in uniform is unwavering- he is the dark horse from the belly of the Beast- Crawford Ranch.
He's been on Budget and Appropriations Committee, he's relatively young,56, but experienced- with 19 successful years in congress. Chet could help turn TX blue.
Pelosi touted him first in June and then more recently but it flew largely under the radar because Chet isn't well-known. But he will be! And anyway, Elvis only had sidemen!

Posted by: Tom Satriano | August 20, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

Obama has said his VP will be a man, refering to his VP as "he" consistently in Raleigh, NC today. Joe Biden has told reporters "I'm not the guy." That leaves out Biden & Sebelius (not to mention Clinton). That leaves Bayh & Kaine as the favorites...perhaps Chet Edwards as a darkhorse. My guess is that Obama will enforce the messege of change outside of Washington & go with Tim Kaine. If that's the case & Obama goes with Kaine, McCain can still go with Pawlenty or Lieberman as a good match. I do not see Tom Ridge as a great pick for McCain. Romney is an interesting choice deeming McCain & Romney personal distain for one another. Romney also laid alot of people off sending jobs overseas to help hardshipped companies survive & eventually thrive. Not a good note for Michigan & Ohio.

Obama/Kaine or Obama/Bayh vs. McCain/Pawlenty or McCain/Lieberman

My guess: Obama/Kaine vs. McCain/Pawlenty

Posted by: reason | August 20, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

COUNTDOWN TO APPEASEMENT
The “APPEASEMENT KID” will be picking his ‘WITHDRAWAL PARTNER’ and they will then go on an ‘APPEASEMENT TOUR” to Denver.
They will fly ‘APPEASEMENT ONE” and ‘WITHDRAWAL TWO” be waiting for the VP with Nancy Pelosi as it’s pilot.
To save on fuel Nancy will use her “Hot Air” to fill it up.
VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
ps. Keep your eye on the investigation of Schumers “BRAIN”Hank Morris and how he made 25 Million Dollars, Yes that is 25 Million Dollars. For more info “GOOGLE” Hank Morris.

Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | August 20, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

The VP will be a surprise, and not an unpleasant one (meaning Hillary won't be the one chosen). I think Biden will be in another role, like Sec. of State.

Obama is lucky to have so many good choices.

Outside the Box should check the polls. Obama has been consistently ahead. If the Clintons somehow managed to stage a coup, the Dem's numbers would plummet, and there would be rioting. Instead of posting impossibilities, Outside the Box should spend time organizing fundraisers to help Hillary to pay off her enormous campaign debt. Otherwise it will be difficult for her to pay for a re-election campaign for her senate seat.

Posted by: Sunshine | August 20, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

AsperGirl:

So right you are. Look at the price of a box of corn flakes. Or a loaf of bread. The media covers the horse race, and ignores the issues. Obama is a huge disappointment on the issues. So is McCain. That's why I hope Hillary brokers the convention, but has enough insight to know that the party will not nominate her.

All she has to do is convince a couple hundred supers that Obama is looking like a loser. What party nominates a candidate who has lost a huge lead and now is running behind his opponent in almost all of the key battleground states? It's insanity to do that, when in fact the primaries WERE a draw? Hillary won the popular vote, and Obama's early caucus victories were overshadowed by his defeat in 13 of the last 18 primaries.

There's going to be a huge surprise coming... if state chairmen are cowled by the Obamanists into forcing pledged delegates to sign loyalty oaths, as has been rumored, it is the SUPERS who will revolt. I'm still thinking it's a done deal... and that this delay in Barack naming his veep is because he offered it to Hillary, and she refused. That's just speculation, but it would explain the delay in the process.

Posted by: scrivener | August 20, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

Hey Someone's:

Check the polls. The supers are. The Dems cannot afford to lose. McCain's pulled ahead in one key survey of the electoral vote. Gergen on CNN pronounced tonight that it looks like McCain can win.

Hillary's people comprise half the delegates. All it takes is a couple hundred supers previously committed to her to abandon Barack. They've got good reason.

No hallucination, but wishful and naive thinking on your part?

Posted by: Outside the Box | August 19, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Outside the Box wrote:

She probably has the delegates to keep him from securing the nomination on the first ballot.

My comment:

Huh? Under what possible calculation does she have the delegates to keep him from getting the simple majority necessary to be nominated on the first ballot? The only way that this happens is a massive defection of the superdelegates and a defection of some Obama delegates. This simply does not happen. If it were to happen at this point MANY Obama supporters, including this life long Democrat would walk away from the party. Unless something totally damaging comes out (essentially a Larry Craig sized scandal) it isn't gonna happen. (And Obama's continued money raising power shows he has lots of support).

Anyone who thinks that Sen. Clinton has the delegates to prevent a first ballot nomination is hallucinating.

Posted by: Someone's Hallucinating | August 19, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

TO Philip Meyer at 10:28 p.m.:

What if Hillary just wants to keep Obama from getting the nomination because she sincerely believes he will drag the entire party down to defeat?

She probably has the delegates to keep him from securing the nomination on the first ballot. What if at that point, Barack realizes it must end in a draw -- and each of them pledges their delegates to Al Gore in a unity move?

And Obama is Gore's pick as veep as a consolation prize...

And what does Hillary get? The role as kingmaker, a ticket to the Supreme Court, and a possible run for POTUS in 2016, when she'll still be younger than McCain is now.

Posted by: Outside the Box | August 19, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

BUT WILL THE ELECTION EVEN MATTER? Not when government-supported "vigilante injustice" squads are "gang stalking" American citizens, making a mockery of the law:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/get-political-vic-livingston-opinion-expose-state-supported-vigilante-squads-doing-domestic-terrorism

WHAT IF THEY COULD SHOOT YOU
WITHOUT LEAVING A TRACE? THEY CAN.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/zap-have-you-been-targeted-directed-energy-weapon-victims-organized-gang-stalking-say-its-happening-usa-1

Posted by: It IS Happening Here | August 19, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Justin, go, please, just go. vote for McCain because he is not picking that divisive and old guard Hillary. she is from the past. No the now and future.
She is old hat.
And most of us do not want that woman on the ticket.

Posted by: vwcat | August 19, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

I live a few hours from Springfield. My husband and i went when Obama announced that cold feb. day in 2007.
We are planning to go this Saturday and join in the festivities.
About the only way we will not go is if Obama deeply disappoints us and does something foolish like pick Hillary for veep.
But, we dont' think Obama will saddle himself with that Billary circus and drama and so, we are looking forward to a great Saturday afternoon and lots of cheering.

Posted by: vwcat | August 19, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not the guy" = meaningless. That is, by definition, true of everyone, until they are the guy. Short of an actual announcement, Biden is "not the guy."

You are only "the guy" once you become the guy. Before becoming the guy, you are not the guy. Ergo, Biden currently is not the guy.

But...Biden will be (and should be) the guy. Just give it a couple days.

Posted by: Mitch22 | August 19, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

If he does not choose Hillary Clinton, then I will vote for McCain.

If he wants to win and he wants party unity, then go with the WINNER that is Hillary Clinton....otherwise we will all be saluting President McCain in November.

HILLARY CLINTON FOR VP OR ELSE

Posted by: Justin | August 19, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Will Barack surrender to the Clintons and make Hillary co-President?

As VP speculation reaches a fever pitch one dangerous name as resurfaced with a vengeance, none other than that of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Today new pro-Hillary speculation emerged even from unlikely sources. John Nichols was quite critical of Hillary during the primaries but now he suggests she is a strong candidate for Vice-President. In an article yesterday, he said “Obama needs a running-mate with foreign-policy "stature"” and the two he names are Joe Biden and Hillary. Biden is an obvious choice give his chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Hillary makes it because her “international credentials are actually a good deal more solid than even her advocates recognize” without mentioning what those supposed credentials are. He suggests it is all timing, an early (pre-convention) pick favors Biden, a later pick (presumably after the convention has started) favors Hillary. Ralph Nader also opined that Obama has to pick Clinton to unify the party.

Of course, people have been aggressively pushing Hillary as VP for months. First there are the disgruntled anti-Obama Clinton supporters have a demand “Pick Hillary or else line” as much in spite as anything else. Also, pro-Clinton hacks masquerading as objective media pundits continue to chant “Hillary for VP.” CNN’s David Gergen and Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis have continued to push the “Obama needs Hillary to win” line. There are huge flaws in this argument. First, the evidence to back up this claim all seems to be rooted in a Fox News poll in July showing Obama-Clinton enjoying a larger lead against a hypothetical McCain-Romney ticket than Obama enjoyed against McCain in a matchup of only Presidential candidates. If there is more recent polling data to support this assertion, they don’t mention it. What recent polling data does show is Obama enjoys a consistent if narrow lead over McCain. As of today, the polling data over at RealClearpolitics.com shows Barack over McCain from 1 to 5 points. No current poll shows McCain ahead. If Obama can win on his own, why does he need Hillary? It isn’t just an academic question because picking Hillary would come at a VERY high cost.

Obama has been exceptionally gracious to the Clintons, given the obnoxious behavior of Bill Clinton and Hillary’s supporters. While Hillary has been publicly supportive of Barack, she has done little to restrain her supporters’ overt hostility to him. The Clintons will already have very prominent speaking rolls on two nights of the four-day Democratic convention and Hillary may get a third when the roll call vote is held. What would it say if the Vice-Presidential candidate ends up with more speaking time than the Presidential candidate? By all accounts, Bill Clinton has refused to open the donor list to his Presidential library to Barack’s Vice-Presidential vetting team. To pick Hillary after that would make a mockery of the process. Hillary’s supporters have already said she should have clearly defined “responsibilities.” Since when does a Vice-Presidential aspirant make demands of the Presidential nominee in public? Finally, there is Hillary herself, who said the Vice-President “can’t be fired.” What should be clear is Hillary would not be Vice-President but a co-President or at least a greatly empowered Vice-President with an independent power base that gives her the ability to chart a course of her own. Let’s just hope Barack realizes this if he is seriously considering her as his “Vice”-Presidential nominee.

http://nohillaryvp.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Philip Meyer | August 19, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

While Rome burns, the fools fiddle.

I've been complaining about Obama's corn ethanol biofuel program support for some time. I've posted my entire "pamphlet" here. Yet the shallow, cynical political reporters continue to ignore the problem of his corn ethanol biofuels support and the mainstream media in general has stopped reporting on the problems of this program ever since Obama's strong support for it emerged earlier this year.

The chickens are about to come home to roost.

It won't be long now.

The disappointing, shallow self-interest, and cynical focus on advantage of our politicians is only exceeded by that of Johnson or by reporters who cover those politicians through the additionally distorting lens of bias.

We're about to be crippled on two fronts: a corrosive, malignant inflation and energy prices that are about to blowout again.

It's going to be harder to stop, each time. Meanwhile, the narcissistic fools in control and the chattering classes who swarm around them, will squander away the time we have to act intelligently to stop the train wreck.

The Fed is doing what it needs to stoke inflation, and inflationary pols like Barack Obama (supporting corn ethanol) and George Bush (Iraq war deficit spending) are helping out.

Inflation Is a Clear and Present Danger
By Brian Wesbury
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910289433951323.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 19, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

No doubt that Obama will have his Veep well in hand by the time his new election tour kicks off with a running mate. Kaine will be well prepared by the time Saturday rolls around...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | August 19, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully the veepstakes will be over soon.

Given Obama's campaign keeps mentioning Kaine, Bayh & Biden I'm getting the impression it will be someone else. Nothing like a good surprise (Cheney, Gore were much better picks than Edwards)

Posted by: JayPe | August 19, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

I still think there is a curve ball coming from Senator Obama instead of a safe pick fast ball like Kaine, Sebelius, Bayh or Biden who the pundits are predicting are the finalists. I think that evoking the spirit of Abraham Lincoln, Obama surprises all of you and goes with Sen. Chuck Hagel.

Posted by: charles laffiteau | August 19, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama will pick Jimmy Carter

Posted by: 08DemMistake | August 19, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Allegedly, BO vetters have put together one more veep "long" list. Some surprises here: Bayh was disqualified for wearing a substandard "hair system" (come on, Hair Club can hook you up). Then Biden was DQed for referring to himself in the third person (as Bob Dole and all NFL receivers do). With that, the list follows, and, yes, Mrs. Wm. J. Clinton is still on the list.

1. Tim "King" Kaine
2. Chet Edwards
3. Claire McCaskill
4. Kathleen Sebelius (Chris's earlier photo of her scared away some BO vetters but Drudge's more flattering pic of KS today brought them back; still, a disturbing resemblance to Mr., er, Coach, er, Mrs. Pat Head)
5. Reese Witherspoon

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
304,907,761. Retief Goosen
304,907,762. Howie Mandel
304,907,763. Isabel Sanford
304,907,764. Brian Kilmeade
304,907,765. Portia de Rossi
304,907,766. Paul Harvey
304,907,767. Robert Blake
304,907,768. Piyush Jindal
304,907,769. Trace Adkins
304,907,770. Ernest Borgnine
304,907,771. Pat O'Brien
304,907,772. Richard Simmons
304,907,773. William "Willie" Aames
304,907,774. Richard Greico
304,907,775. Kimbo Slice
304,907,776. Aunt J. (syrup entrepreneur)
304,907,777. Mayor Michael A. Nutter
304,907,778. Ward Connerly
304,907,779. R. Kelly
304,907,780. Irve Lewis Libby
304,907,781. Mrs. Wm. Jefferson Clinton

Posted by: Broadway Joe | August 19, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

The New McCain
He stood 5’9" with the lift in his shoes
Everyone knew which side he’d choose
Exxon John
Now John couldn’t stand being Left in the lurch
Especially at the interview in the Saddleback Church.
Once John was a man who honored ethical compliance,
But he just couldn’t take staying put in that "cone of Silence"
Exxon John
John used to be a Maverick who was shrewd and keen
But now John McCain has gotten just plain mean
The truth has fallen victim with his new-found persona
But nothing he can do will damage Barack Obama
Exxon John

By LK

Posted by: Lou Katz | August 19, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

One thing you can be sure of is that Biden will NOT be the one to tell us who is in and who is out in the VP search. He may say "what he believes" to be the case, but he won't be giving any official word on that decision at an impromptu press briefing standing outside of his home.

The campaign will be making the only official announcement about who is and who is not "in" for the VP pick. I think we should remember that and ignore all of these "rumors". Remember, MSNBC's ratings are directly related to the degree to which they speculate on this decision. The more they speculate, the more people watch.

PG

Posted by: PeixeGato | August 19, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Maybe he meant he's not the guy who shot JFK. I'm not so sure.

Posted by: capilony the IIIrd | August 19, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Biden is lying. Obama may have wanted Kaine or Sebellius, but then again he didn't expect to be tied with McCain in late August. Remember how the "wise men" in Washington predicted a double digit lead. I have a strong feeling it will be Hillary after all. Obama is waiting until the last minute to announce because he wants to be 100% sure Bill Clinton will not embarass him with a new scandal. Once he is sure, he will announce the Obama/Clinton ticket and the dems will finally come together, resulting in a double digit lead for the first time.

Posted by: BillBolducinMaine | August 19, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Lloyd Bentsen said the same thing just before he was picked. Biden's comments mean nothing.

And, there's no way the announcement comes on Friday or Saturday. Why? Because people don't watch TV on Friday night and Saturday. And you can bet Obama's multi-million dollar media operation is not going to roll out the red carpet while nobody is looking.

Posted by: Ted Pearlman | August 19, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

I wonder why Biden is out! If so, who is in.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

McCain is posting some strong poll numbers today. He gains nationally (+10% in LA Time poll), takes back lead in FL and expands lead in NC. Good thing for Obama that his VP pick/convention are coming. Full roundup: http://campaigndiaries.com/2008/08/19/how-significant-is-the-tightening/"

Posted by: Dan | August 19, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

according to msnbc...Biden just told reporters gathered outside his home "I'm not the guy."

Posted by: joemcginnissjr | August 19, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company