Greetings all. We just had a wonderful two+ weeks at the Oregon coast, where the weather was magnificent, and the ocean blue and green and relatively calm. We also had a chance to take a scenic train ride, and to visit our nephew stationed for the summer in Fort Lewis before he deploys to Fort Benning, in preparation for...somewhere not here.
Upon our return home from our trip, I received an email from a local friend, not quite "here in our little town of Anatevka," berating fox network for its smears and borderline threats against Obama. fox gets only small letters for having such little integrity in its alleged "fair and balanced" reporting and its frankly racist and dangerous editorializing. I think that one function of this blog is to share other people's and other organizations' legitimate irritation with some of the garbage perpetrated on air. I've signed the petition whose link is included, and I include the email and the link in today's blog.
--- triton ---
Here's Marguerite's forwarding of the email and petition:
------ ------ ------
Hi,
FOX's smears against Obama are out of control--have you heard about them? I just signed a petition telling FOX that their use of racism and prejudice is not okay. Would be great if you signed too.
First, a paid FOX commentator accidentally confused "Obama" with "Osama" and then joked on the air about killing Obama. Next, a FOX anchor said a playful fist pound by Barack and Michelle Obama could be a "terrorist fist jab." (Seriously!) And then, FOX called Michelle Obama "Obama's baby mama"--slang used to describe the unmarried mother of a man's child.
Nearly 100,000 folks have signed a petition that will be delivered to FOX. Can you sign too? The more names, the bigger the impact. Here's the link.
http://pol.moveon.org/stopthesmears/?r_by=13009-7676660-Rm8jjyx&rc=confemail Thanks!
------ ------ ------
Monday, June 30, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
#31 Racial Rumors Resurface: an Alliterative Allusion to Asses Online
The racists haven't taken very long to show themselves, anonymously of course, but they're blogging and posting and creating "false rumors [on] the Internet and right-wing media outlets -- including one recent assertion that Obama's wife Michelle has been caught on tape slurring white people." These racists cite "reports, by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh among others, that a videotape existed showing Michelle Obama using the derogatory term "whitey" in the couple's former church.... No such tape has surfaced despite frenzied speculation by right-wing pundits and blogs...." [quoted from online AFP News]
Obama's people have set up a website to respond to such rumors, including the rumor that he's actually a Muslim. This last, despite all the publicity about the problems his Christian minister has caused by putting mouth in motion before engaging brain.
The website is http://www.fightthesmears.com/, and it should allay earlier fears that Obama would not be able to stand up to the kinds of inane, racist, vicious attacks that are increasingly expected from extremists. He is standing up, and he's also replying in a calm, cool manner.
I really think the Rush Limbaughs of our country will be hurting John McCain by the unfounded religious and racist rumors they're spreading. Overwhelmingly, Americans are fair and decent, and I expect significant numbers will rally to Obama's side in this election, at least in part because of the vileness of the attacks. And the young people who came out in large numbers for the caucuses can only be further motivated to vote in November to strike back at the reactionaries who have begun these most recent attacks.
On an entirely diffferent election topic, one I did not highlight in the title of this post--mainly because the title was already too long, and this new topic doesn't lend itself to continued alliteration--a friend of mine emailed me with some concern about Jim Webb's past. Thank you. It was something that I was not aware of, and now am, but I still feel comfortable if Webb were to become the VP candidate. Nonetheless, what he said in 1979 would likely emerge, so let's deal with it now.
In 1979, Webb wrote in an article that women should not be enrolled in the military academies, that women should not/could not lead men, that women should not be in combat roles, but instead should be in behind-the-lines support roles. He didn't always phrase his oral comments quite so nicely. At one point, it was reported that he said something like (not an exact quote), "Being allowed to enroll in a military academy is a horny woman's dream."
George Allen brought all of this up when Webb challenged him (successfully over several days, we may remember) for the Senate in 2006. Webb has a clear record of recanting this position and wording long before Allen introduced them into the campaign. Ironically, and stupidly, Allen had more recently said publicly that women should not be allowed to enroll in Virginia Military Institute (VMI) because such a practice would "change the nature of the institution." I don't know what Allen was thinking when he brought up Webb's comments: that no one would look up Allen's past comments?
Webb candidly admitted that he would not have said such things in 1979 had he been "more mature." And his subsequent record in official positions (such as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan) clearly shows a more enlightened Jim Webb.
If Webb were to be selected to be the VP candidate, and if this part of his past were to be brought up, I think the Democrats could use it to show that John McCain is looking to the past rather than the future, and that the Democrats are the candidates who can lead the country out of the morass that dubya and his allied Republicans have created.
-- triton --
Obama's people have set up a website to respond to such rumors, including the rumor that he's actually a Muslim. This last, despite all the publicity about the problems his Christian minister has caused by putting mouth in motion before engaging brain.
The website is http://www.fightthesmears.com/, and it should allay earlier fears that Obama would not be able to stand up to the kinds of inane, racist, vicious attacks that are increasingly expected from extremists. He is standing up, and he's also replying in a calm, cool manner.
I really think the Rush Limbaughs of our country will be hurting John McCain by the unfounded religious and racist rumors they're spreading. Overwhelmingly, Americans are fair and decent, and I expect significant numbers will rally to Obama's side in this election, at least in part because of the vileness of the attacks. And the young people who came out in large numbers for the caucuses can only be further motivated to vote in November to strike back at the reactionaries who have begun these most recent attacks.
On an entirely diffferent election topic, one I did not highlight in the title of this post--mainly because the title was already too long, and this new topic doesn't lend itself to continued alliteration--a friend of mine emailed me with some concern about Jim Webb's past. Thank you. It was something that I was not aware of, and now am, but I still feel comfortable if Webb were to become the VP candidate. Nonetheless, what he said in 1979 would likely emerge, so let's deal with it now.
In 1979, Webb wrote in an article that women should not be enrolled in the military academies, that women should not/could not lead men, that women should not be in combat roles, but instead should be in behind-the-lines support roles. He didn't always phrase his oral comments quite so nicely. At one point, it was reported that he said something like (not an exact quote), "Being allowed to enroll in a military academy is a horny woman's dream."
George Allen brought all of this up when Webb challenged him (successfully over several days, we may remember) for the Senate in 2006. Webb has a clear record of recanting this position and wording long before Allen introduced them into the campaign. Ironically, and stupidly, Allen had more recently said publicly that women should not be allowed to enroll in Virginia Military Institute (VMI) because such a practice would "change the nature of the institution." I don't know what Allen was thinking when he brought up Webb's comments: that no one would look up Allen's past comments?
Webb candidly admitted that he would not have said such things in 1979 had he been "more mature." And his subsequent record in official positions (such as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan) clearly shows a more enlightened Jim Webb.
If Webb were to be selected to be the VP candidate, and if this part of his past were to be brought up, I think the Democrats could use it to show that John McCain is looking to the past rather than the future, and that the Democrats are the candidates who can lead the country out of the morass that dubya and his allied Republicans have created.
-- triton --
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
#30 Ted Strickland Says He Won't Run
It wasn't quite William Tecumseh Sherman up there saying, "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve." But both Sherman and Governor Ted Strickland are native Ohioans, and apparently neither hankered/hankers to run for the highest or second-highest office in the land. News reports this evening indicate that Strickland has removed himself from consideration for the VP slot on an Obama ticket.
From a mathematical point of view, Strickland was my first choice to serve as the VP candidate, since he would have an excellent chance to carry Ohio's 20 electoral votes into the Democratic column in November. Well, there's still Sherrod Brown, a longtime Ohio representative in the House of Representatives and a first term Senator elected in 2006. With a Democratic governor, the Democrats would hold Brown's seat in their senate majority should Brown become VP. But, despite his more conservative credentials than Obama has (and who in the Senate does not have more conservative credentials than Obama), Brown is not well known outside of Ohio.
Governors tend to become known, since there are only fifty of them, and anytime something happens in a state (hurricanes, earthquakes, whatever), the governor is always quoted for news reports. Similarly, long time senate members, and especially senate leaders, become well known because their names frequently pop up in the news. So do the names of senators who do notorious things. Like tapdancing in a men's room stall in the Minneapolis airport. The leaders and the shakers may be mentioned as possible running-mates; the dancers, probably not.
A senator who is new to his/her senate position but who has served in other public capacities; a senator who has switched parties in the past for ideological reasons rather than reasons of expediency; a senator who has defeated an incumbent in a nationally publicized senate race where the incumbent opens mouth and inserts foot (George Allen anyone?); a senator who makes the rounds of talk shows and is otherwise interviewed (for a newly published book, for example, something along the lines of, oh, say, "A Time to Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America," published last month); a senator whose background places him/her in a clear position to counteract the other party's candidate (to counter John McCain, for example, a candidate who is a Naval Academy graduate and a former marine in Viet Nam); a senator from a state with a Democratic governor who would appoint a Democratic replacement should the senator be elected VP: this is the kind of senator who might serve as a VP candidate, and might appeal to significant segments of the American populace. And it's even better if he represents a state that has been pretty strongly Republican in the past but seems to be moving toward the Democrats recently. Such a candidate might be able to swing the state to the Blue side come November.
We should look to see if there's any senator who fits that description....
-- triton --
From a mathematical point of view, Strickland was my first choice to serve as the VP candidate, since he would have an excellent chance to carry Ohio's 20 electoral votes into the Democratic column in November. Well, there's still Sherrod Brown, a longtime Ohio representative in the House of Representatives and a first term Senator elected in 2006. With a Democratic governor, the Democrats would hold Brown's seat in their senate majority should Brown become VP. But, despite his more conservative credentials than Obama has (and who in the Senate does not have more conservative credentials than Obama), Brown is not well known outside of Ohio.
Governors tend to become known, since there are only fifty of them, and anytime something happens in a state (hurricanes, earthquakes, whatever), the governor is always quoted for news reports. Similarly, long time senate members, and especially senate leaders, become well known because their names frequently pop up in the news. So do the names of senators who do notorious things. Like tapdancing in a men's room stall in the Minneapolis airport. The leaders and the shakers may be mentioned as possible running-mates; the dancers, probably not.
A senator who is new to his/her senate position but who has served in other public capacities; a senator who has switched parties in the past for ideological reasons rather than reasons of expediency; a senator who has defeated an incumbent in a nationally publicized senate race where the incumbent opens mouth and inserts foot (George Allen anyone?); a senator who makes the rounds of talk shows and is otherwise interviewed (for a newly published book, for example, something along the lines of, oh, say, "A Time to Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America," published last month); a senator whose background places him/her in a clear position to counteract the other party's candidate (to counter John McCain, for example, a candidate who is a Naval Academy graduate and a former marine in Viet Nam); a senator from a state with a Democratic governor who would appoint a Democratic replacement should the senator be elected VP: this is the kind of senator who might serve as a VP candidate, and might appeal to significant segments of the American populace. And it's even better if he represents a state that has been pretty strongly Republican in the past but seems to be moving toward the Democrats recently. Such a candidate might be able to swing the state to the Blue side come November.
We should look to see if there's any senator who fits that description....
-- triton --
#29 It's the Math, Stupid. And the Charisma. And the Impulsiveness.
No, I'm not really calling anyone stupid. I'm just playing on James Carville's 1992 "It's the Economy, Stupid" line. And yes it is still the economy, but it's also the math. And Obama's advisors may be forgetting that ever so briefly right now.
The most recent VP rumors are that Obama's advisors are vetting retired military folk. Fine. But if they choose a retired military man (yes, I said "man"), he needs to be able to carry some specific state(s) that the Democrats need to carry to win the 270 electoral votes. Say, did I mention Jim Webb of Virginia recently? What's that? Only every other post? Oh. Okay.
Wes Clark has been mentioned. I really liked Clark four years ago, but his campaign never really got off the ground. Something about lack of charisma. Man, but the Democrats have a lot of folk without charisma. Luckily, so do the Republicans. Folk like, oh, John McCain.
Here's an article I read online:
“McCain’s speech, his “Kermit the Frog” green backdrop, even his physical appearance were fodder for scores of worried e-mails and phone calls Tuesday and Wednesday between Republican donors, operatives and lobbyists."...“'They were appalled at the environment the candidate was standing in and his performance,' said [one Republican] strategist. 'It’s a serious problem — the contrast is so clear that it’s demoralizing. And it deflated our balloon last night. When the guys on Fox are trash-talking, you know it’s bad.'”
Last evening on CNN I saw McCain delivering a prepared speech to I-don't-know-or-care-whom. He was standing behind the lectern, and began the speech looking to his right. As if on cue, he turned to the center of his audience, then as if on cue turned to the audience on his left, then back to the center, and finally back to his right. He repeated this pattern during his speech. It almost seemed as if he had a little ear microphone and someone quietly directing him: "Face right, now turn straight ahead, now to the left, now turn back to the center, now to your right."
About five seconds in each direction. Just enough to make him look like a robot. It was not charismatic.
But wait, there's more.
Another article, this one on May 29, from Michael Scherer of TIME:
"Back in Washington, the anxiety level of Republicans is rising. 'The McCain camp is now acting without much rhyme or reason,' says a prominent consultant. 'And it all goes to the top.' Another Republican campaign strategist, in a thinly veiled reference to McCain, says, 'Somebody is behaving impulsively is the point.'"
While McCain's forces try to raise the spectre of inexperience about Obama, McCain seems to have neither the charisma nor the disposition for a long-haul run for the presidency and, so far at least, Obama does. All is fluid, however, and I don't yet know what role the Evil Karl Rove will play, if any, in the McCain campaign. If the Evil Karl Rove gets involved, the center will not hold, and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. In other words, as Yeats titled it, the Second Coming is at hand. And it ain't a good second coming.
The Evil Karl Rove and Racism:
Not that the Evil Karl Rove is a racist, no, these are separate topics, but I couldn't resist the alliteration. Also, the juxtaposition of the two words is precisely the kind of damnation that the Evil Karl Rove used in 2000 against McCain in the primaries and in 2004 against Kerry in the election: innuendoes and word associations. I am concerned that the Evil Karl Rove may play a bigger role in this election than we want to see. I don't want to see the Evil Karl Rove at all. The man's an evil genius. I lay much of the blame for our suffering from dubya's poor policies with the Evil Karl Rove, just for getting him elected twice.
Separate from the Evil Karl Rove's possible entry into Republican campaign strategizing, I'm very concerned that racism may play a bigger role in this election than we yet think--quiet, underlying, implied racism. Racism may be the silent beast throughout this campaign, occasionally raising its ugliness as it did in the exit polls in Pennsylvania.
And we may not know til the votes are in. Even November's election-day exit-polls may not elicit the honesty of Pennsylvania (ugly honesty though it was), and so, until the votes are counted, we may not have a sense of the extent to which voters cast their ballots not for a candidate but against the race of one-half of one of the candidates.
As Jim Webb--still my favorite personal choice for VP, and former military man himself--said a short while ago (and I'm paraphrasing): "Why do people refer to Barack Obama as being the first African-American possibly to become president? If he's elected, why not refer to him as the fourteenth Scots-Irish to become president?"
That puts a person's race and the presidential race in their proper perspective. Thank you Senator.
-- triton --
The most recent VP rumors are that Obama's advisors are vetting retired military folk. Fine. But if they choose a retired military man (yes, I said "man"), he needs to be able to carry some specific state(s) that the Democrats need to carry to win the 270 electoral votes. Say, did I mention Jim Webb of Virginia recently? What's that? Only every other post? Oh. Okay.
Wes Clark has been mentioned. I really liked Clark four years ago, but his campaign never really got off the ground. Something about lack of charisma. Man, but the Democrats have a lot of folk without charisma. Luckily, so do the Republicans. Folk like, oh, John McCain.
Here's an article I read online:
“McCain’s speech, his “Kermit the Frog” green backdrop, even his physical appearance were fodder for scores of worried e-mails and phone calls Tuesday and Wednesday between Republican donors, operatives and lobbyists."...“'They were appalled at the environment the candidate was standing in and his performance,' said [one Republican] strategist. 'It’s a serious problem — the contrast is so clear that it’s demoralizing. And it deflated our balloon last night. When the guys on Fox are trash-talking, you know it’s bad.'”
Last evening on CNN I saw McCain delivering a prepared speech to I-don't-know-or-care-whom. He was standing behind the lectern, and began the speech looking to his right. As if on cue, he turned to the center of his audience, then as if on cue turned to the audience on his left, then back to the center, and finally back to his right. He repeated this pattern during his speech. It almost seemed as if he had a little ear microphone and someone quietly directing him: "Face right, now turn straight ahead, now to the left, now turn back to the center, now to your right."
About five seconds in each direction. Just enough to make him look like a robot. It was not charismatic.
But wait, there's more.
Another article, this one on May 29, from Michael Scherer of TIME:
"Back in Washington, the anxiety level of Republicans is rising. 'The McCain camp is now acting without much rhyme or reason,' says a prominent consultant. 'And it all goes to the top.' Another Republican campaign strategist, in a thinly veiled reference to McCain, says, 'Somebody is behaving impulsively is the point.'"
While McCain's forces try to raise the spectre of inexperience about Obama, McCain seems to have neither the charisma nor the disposition for a long-haul run for the presidency and, so far at least, Obama does. All is fluid, however, and I don't yet know what role the Evil Karl Rove will play, if any, in the McCain campaign. If the Evil Karl Rove gets involved, the center will not hold, and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. In other words, as Yeats titled it, the Second Coming is at hand. And it ain't a good second coming.
The Evil Karl Rove and Racism:
Not that the Evil Karl Rove is a racist, no, these are separate topics, but I couldn't resist the alliteration. Also, the juxtaposition of the two words is precisely the kind of damnation that the Evil Karl Rove used in 2000 against McCain in the primaries and in 2004 against Kerry in the election: innuendoes and word associations. I am concerned that the Evil Karl Rove may play a bigger role in this election than we want to see. I don't want to see the Evil Karl Rove at all. The man's an evil genius. I lay much of the blame for our suffering from dubya's poor policies with the Evil Karl Rove, just for getting him elected twice.
Separate from the Evil Karl Rove's possible entry into Republican campaign strategizing, I'm very concerned that racism may play a bigger role in this election than we yet think--quiet, underlying, implied racism. Racism may be the silent beast throughout this campaign, occasionally raising its ugliness as it did in the exit polls in Pennsylvania.
And we may not know til the votes are in. Even November's election-day exit-polls may not elicit the honesty of Pennsylvania (ugly honesty though it was), and so, until the votes are counted, we may not have a sense of the extent to which voters cast their ballots not for a candidate but against the race of one-half of one of the candidates.
As Jim Webb--still my favorite personal choice for VP, and former military man himself--said a short while ago (and I'm paraphrasing): "Why do people refer to Barack Obama as being the first African-American possibly to become president? If he's elected, why not refer to him as the fourteenth Scots-Irish to become president?"
That puts a person's race and the presidential race in their proper perspective. Thank you Senator.
-- triton --
Sunday, June 8, 2008
#28 Vice Presidential Musings on Richardson, Strickland, Webb, Kaine, Ritter, Salazar, Brown and Bayh
You may remember that I was a strong supporter of Bill Richardson to be the presidential nominee. I am not a strong supporter of him to be the Vice Presidential nominee, even though his presence on the ticket might help relieve some of the Hispanic opposition to an African-American at the top of the ticket. Two reasons I oppose him as the VP candidate: (1) he would bring only five electoral votes from New Mexico; (2) the Clintons view him as having "betrayed" them by coming out for Obama; and yesterday he indicated that Hillary and Bill had lost the current campaign because of the "sense of entitlement" that they projected while she ran.
With his domestic experience currently as governor and previously as part of Bill's cabinet, and his international experience as UN ambassador and negotiatior, Richardson would make a strong Secretary of State possibility. I think Hillary would make a strong Secretary of Health and Human Servies, but would she be willing to sit in the same room much less work in the same cabinet with Richardson?
Obama has a slightly different problem from McCain. Obama projects vigor, yes, but he also projects youth and inexperience. McCain projects oldness and tiredness; he'd like to project the wisdom that allegedly comes with age, but I haven't seen that yet. His handlers have some work to do. Would Obama do well to choose as his VP candidate someone fifteen to twenty years older than he? If so, Ohio's governor Ted Strickland would work well (though he was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton): he will be 67 by election time. Virginia's senator Jim Webb is 62, and can counter McCain's Vietnam experience: Webb is an Annapolis graduate and served in the Marines in Vietnam.
Or, if Obama wants someone only a decade or so older, he has more choices. Virginia's governor Tim Kaine is 50 years old, and was an early Obama supporter; Colorado's governor Bill Ritter will be 56 by the election; Colorado's senator Ken Salazar is 53 already (and might help bring some of the Hispanic vote to the Democratic ticket); Ohio's senator Sherrod Brown will be 56 a few days after the election; and Indiana's senator (and former governor) Evan Bayh is 52. Bayh, incidentally, was a national co-chair of Hillary's campaign.
However, Strickland, Brown, and Bayh are all midwesterners, and the presence of any one of them on the ticket would not provide the 'geographical balance' that either party generally prefers. Of course, as I've pointed out previously, Clinton/Gore had no geographical balance either. An additional problem with Bayh is that the Indiana governor is a Republican: were Bayh to be elected Vice President, the governor would appoint a Republican to fill his position, and the Democrats would lose a senate seat, a loss they would have to make up by replacing a Republican in some other state's election.
If Obama is looking for a VP candidate not from the midwest, then Kaine or Webb from Virginia, or Ritter or Salazar from Colorado (either could be a favorite-son candidate at the convention this year in Denver) could serve, and would provide greater geographical balance.
[For more in-depth discussion of all of these good people, see my posts # 7-9.]
Advantages to Strickland or Bayh: as strong early supporters of Hillary Clinton, either could be an additional means of healing the rift between Obama and Clinton, and might enable Hillary to campaign more strongly and convince her supporters to vote more readily for Obama. Disadvantage: both are from the midwest.
Advantage to the elite eight discussed above: they'd all be excellent candidates and would add, in different ways, to the ticket.
-- triton --
With his domestic experience currently as governor and previously as part of Bill's cabinet, and his international experience as UN ambassador and negotiatior, Richardson would make a strong Secretary of State possibility. I think Hillary would make a strong Secretary of Health and Human Servies, but would she be willing to sit in the same room much less work in the same cabinet with Richardson?
Obama has a slightly different problem from McCain. Obama projects vigor, yes, but he also projects youth and inexperience. McCain projects oldness and tiredness; he'd like to project the wisdom that allegedly comes with age, but I haven't seen that yet. His handlers have some work to do. Would Obama do well to choose as his VP candidate someone fifteen to twenty years older than he? If so, Ohio's governor Ted Strickland would work well (though he was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton): he will be 67 by election time. Virginia's senator Jim Webb is 62, and can counter McCain's Vietnam experience: Webb is an Annapolis graduate and served in the Marines in Vietnam.
Or, if Obama wants someone only a decade or so older, he has more choices. Virginia's governor Tim Kaine is 50 years old, and was an early Obama supporter; Colorado's governor Bill Ritter will be 56 by the election; Colorado's senator Ken Salazar is 53 already (and might help bring some of the Hispanic vote to the Democratic ticket); Ohio's senator Sherrod Brown will be 56 a few days after the election; and Indiana's senator (and former governor) Evan Bayh is 52. Bayh, incidentally, was a national co-chair of Hillary's campaign.
However, Strickland, Brown, and Bayh are all midwesterners, and the presence of any one of them on the ticket would not provide the 'geographical balance' that either party generally prefers. Of course, as I've pointed out previously, Clinton/Gore had no geographical balance either. An additional problem with Bayh is that the Indiana governor is a Republican: were Bayh to be elected Vice President, the governor would appoint a Republican to fill his position, and the Democrats would lose a senate seat, a loss they would have to make up by replacing a Republican in some other state's election.
If Obama is looking for a VP candidate not from the midwest, then Kaine or Webb from Virginia, or Ritter or Salazar from Colorado (either could be a favorite-son candidate at the convention this year in Denver) could serve, and would provide greater geographical balance.
[For more in-depth discussion of all of these good people, see my posts # 7-9.]
Advantages to Strickland or Bayh: as strong early supporters of Hillary Clinton, either could be an additional means of healing the rift between Obama and Clinton, and might enable Hillary to campaign more strongly and convince her supporters to vote more readily for Obama. Disadvantage: both are from the midwest.
Advantage to the elite eight discussed above: they'd all be excellent candidates and would add, in different ways, to the ticket.
-- triton --
Friday, June 6, 2008
#27 Unintentional Humor from John Edwards
In Madrid, Spain, today, John Edwards said he was not interested in becoming the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate. "I already had the privilege of running for vice president in 2004, and I won't do it again," he was quoted as saying.
That's a relief. Of course, no one else was interested in having him run again either. He did a lousy job four years ago, and carried...let's see, how many states for John Kerry? Oh. Right. NONE.
But at least he followed up his non-interest in becoming VP with an oddly phrased, and possibly though unintentionally contradictory, compliment about Barack Obama. Edwards praised Obama as a "visionary," the El Mundo interview said. Then Edwards added, "We don't live in a dream world and we have a lot of work to do." I have no doubt Edwards thinks highly of Obama; that statement is confusing at best, however. He needs to choose his words more carefully.
Ted Strickland, Democratic governor of Ohio and a very strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, is one of the first Clinton supporters to come out for Obama. I've been a fan of Strickland on the ticket because he would help Obama carry Ohio, likely a "must" state for the Democrats to carry. If Obama does put Strickland on as VP, it will be a doubly good move then: moving Ohio's electoral votes closer to the Democratic column AND mollifying Hillary and thus helping to bring her supporters closer to supporting Obama.
Of course, I also like several other VP candidates. Edwards is not one of them. But at least he has an inadvertent sense of humor.
-- triton --
That's a relief. Of course, no one else was interested in having him run again either. He did a lousy job four years ago, and carried...let's see, how many states for John Kerry? Oh. Right. NONE.
But at least he followed up his non-interest in becoming VP with an oddly phrased, and possibly though unintentionally contradictory, compliment about Barack Obama. Edwards praised Obama as a "visionary," the El Mundo interview said. Then Edwards added, "We don't live in a dream world and we have a lot of work to do." I have no doubt Edwards thinks highly of Obama; that statement is confusing at best, however. He needs to choose his words more carefully.
Ted Strickland, Democratic governor of Ohio and a very strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, is one of the first Clinton supporters to come out for Obama. I've been a fan of Strickland on the ticket because he would help Obama carry Ohio, likely a "must" state for the Democrats to carry. If Obama does put Strickland on as VP, it will be a doubly good move then: moving Ohio's electoral votes closer to the Democratic column AND mollifying Hillary and thus helping to bring her supporters closer to supporting Obama.
Of course, I also like several other VP candidates. Edwards is not one of them. But at least he has an inadvertent sense of humor.
-- triton --
Thursday, June 5, 2008
#26 Why in the Blazing Saddles is no one else
talking about Hillary Clinton as a possible Secretary of Health and Human Services in an Obama administration? It's THE MOST LOGICAL position for her: she tried (unsuccessfully) to get health care reform when Bill was president, but now, fourteen years later, there's so much more pressure on Congress to pass some form of universal health care. We know even better now that many people cannot afford private health care, and don't have it through their employment (if they even have employment in this "bush"-league-disaster of an economy). Congress, especially if it's a more heavily Democratic Congress, has to look more favorably on a Hillary-inspired plan.
And Why in the Blazing Saddles is anyone putting public or private pressure on Barack Obama to choose a VP running mate sooner rather than later? Time was, the VP candidate was chosen at the convention. There should be no hurry for the Democrats. Let John McCain choose his VP person, and then the Democrats can determine who would best counter McCain's choice and complement Obama on the ticket (hint: someone from Ohio, possibly Florida, or a southern state like Virginia).
Of course it would be idiocy for McCain to choose his VP candidate first. There's absolutely no need for him to do anything right now. The Republican convention occurs after the Democratic convention. If McCain does nothing, nothing at all, the Democrats will be forced to choose their VP candidate no later than their convention, after which time McCain can make his choice public in early September.
But the press apparently has nothing else to talk about in its news reports, so it hashes and rehashes garbage about what Hillary would or would not bring to the ticket, or who else might be a possibility.
Too bad there aren't other news stories out there. Like cyclones in Myanmar and earthquakes in China, and attacks on Western diplomats in Zimbabwe, and.... oh. wait.
Here's a news story to take VP choices off the top of the news: "US boycotts Beijing Olympics because of Chinese Leaders' Handling of Earthquake Victims' Parents." That'd do it. Ain't gonna happen, but it would top the hourly news reports. You can tell how upset I am at China's quality control, not just in pet food and toys exported to us, but in their own shoddy school construction.
Barack -- if you're reading this, two points of advice: (a) offer Hillary the position of Sec'y of HHS, not the VP slot; and (b) don't tip your hand; allow John McC to tip his first. He's an impulsive guy anyway, so he won't be able to wait and wait and wait until September to announce his VP choice.
And now, as promised:
Electoral Vote Projections (538 total) as of 6/5/08 --
I've made one significant change, moving Ohio from out-and-out tossup to questionably-leaning-Democratic because of the recent auto factory closure announced there. Economic conditions will probably (and unfortunately) deteriorate even further in the industrial midwest, and the likely result will be more people voting for change. To the extent that Obama represents change and can continue to label McCain as "four more years of bush," Ohio I believe is leaning toward Obama. And Michigan, already leaning Democratic, is likely leaning more so, also based on announced auto factory closures. Of course, Obama will need to appeal more to the blue-collar and woman base that Hillary was able to, but I think with her help and his own campaigning abilities, he will do so.
The results are below: I have the Democrats up to 260 electoral votes solid or leaning toward them AT THIS TIME in the campaign. These numbers have to be fluid, however, since an October or earlier surprise by the bush administration, orchestrated to help McCain, could seriously change the numbers.
Alabama 9 R
Alaska 3 R
Arizona 10 R
Arkansas 6 T (R?)
California 55 D
Colorado 9 T
Connecticut 7 T (because of Lieberman)
Delaware 3 D
DC 3 D
Florida 27 R (T? depending on D's VP)
Georgia 15 R
Hawaii 4 D
Idaho 4 R
Illinois 21 D
Indiana 11 R
Iowa 7 T
Kansas 6 R
Kentucky 8 R
Louisiana 9 R
Maine 4 D
Maryland 10 D
Massachusetts 12 D
Michigan 17 T (D? maybe even more strongly D because of auto factory closures)
Minnesota 10 T (depending on the R’s VP)
Mississippi 6 R
Missouri 11 T(R?)
Montana 3 T
Nebraska 5 R
Nevada 5 T
New Hampshire 4 D
New Jersey 15 D
New Mexico 5 T (D?) (depending on what Bill Richardson does)
New York 31 D
North Carolina 15 R
North Dakota 3 R
Ohio 20 T (D? because of auto factory closures there)
Oklahoma 7 R
Oregon 7 D
Pennsylvania 21 D (T?)
Rhode Island 4 D
South Carolina 8 R
South Dakota 3 R
Tennessee 11 R
Texas 34 R
Utah 5 R
Vermont 3 D
Virginia 13 R (T? depending on the D’s VP)
Washington 11 D
West Virginia 5 T (R?)
Wisconsin 10 D
Wyoming 3 R
175 R
62 T leaning toward R or R leaning toward T
- - -
237
197 D
63 T leaning toward D or D leaning toward T
- - -
260
41 T very much up for grabs
-- triton --
And Why in the Blazing Saddles is anyone putting public or private pressure on Barack Obama to choose a VP running mate sooner rather than later? Time was, the VP candidate was chosen at the convention. There should be no hurry for the Democrats. Let John McCain choose his VP person, and then the Democrats can determine who would best counter McCain's choice and complement Obama on the ticket (hint: someone from Ohio, possibly Florida, or a southern state like Virginia).
Of course it would be idiocy for McCain to choose his VP candidate first. There's absolutely no need for him to do anything right now. The Republican convention occurs after the Democratic convention. If McCain does nothing, nothing at all, the Democrats will be forced to choose their VP candidate no later than their convention, after which time McCain can make his choice public in early September.
But the press apparently has nothing else to talk about in its news reports, so it hashes and rehashes garbage about what Hillary would or would not bring to the ticket, or who else might be a possibility.
Too bad there aren't other news stories out there. Like cyclones in Myanmar and earthquakes in China, and attacks on Western diplomats in Zimbabwe, and.... oh. wait.
Here's a news story to take VP choices off the top of the news: "US boycotts Beijing Olympics because of Chinese Leaders' Handling of Earthquake Victims' Parents." That'd do it. Ain't gonna happen, but it would top the hourly news reports. You can tell how upset I am at China's quality control, not just in pet food and toys exported to us, but in their own shoddy school construction.
Barack -- if you're reading this, two points of advice: (a) offer Hillary the position of Sec'y of HHS, not the VP slot; and (b) don't tip your hand; allow John McC to tip his first. He's an impulsive guy anyway, so he won't be able to wait and wait and wait until September to announce his VP choice.
And now, as promised:
Electoral Vote Projections (538 total) as of 6/5/08 --
I've made one significant change, moving Ohio from out-and-out tossup to questionably-leaning-Democratic because of the recent auto factory closure announced there. Economic conditions will probably (and unfortunately) deteriorate even further in the industrial midwest, and the likely result will be more people voting for change. To the extent that Obama represents change and can continue to label McCain as "four more years of bush," Ohio I believe is leaning toward Obama. And Michigan, already leaning Democratic, is likely leaning more so, also based on announced auto factory closures. Of course, Obama will need to appeal more to the blue-collar and woman base that Hillary was able to, but I think with her help and his own campaigning abilities, he will do so.
The results are below: I have the Democrats up to 260 electoral votes solid or leaning toward them AT THIS TIME in the campaign. These numbers have to be fluid, however, since an October or earlier surprise by the bush administration, orchestrated to help McCain, could seriously change the numbers.
Alabama 9 R
Alaska 3 R
Arizona 10 R
Arkansas 6 T (R?)
California 55 D
Colorado 9 T
Connecticut 7 T (because of Lieberman)
Delaware 3 D
DC 3 D
Florida 27 R (T? depending on D's VP)
Georgia 15 R
Hawaii 4 D
Idaho 4 R
Illinois 21 D
Indiana 11 R
Iowa 7 T
Kansas 6 R
Kentucky 8 R
Louisiana 9 R
Maine 4 D
Maryland 10 D
Massachusetts 12 D
Michigan 17 T (D? maybe even more strongly D because of auto factory closures)
Minnesota 10 T (depending on the R’s VP)
Mississippi 6 R
Missouri 11 T(R?)
Montana 3 T
Nebraska 5 R
Nevada 5 T
New Hampshire 4 D
New Jersey 15 D
New Mexico 5 T (D?) (depending on what Bill Richardson does)
New York 31 D
North Carolina 15 R
North Dakota 3 R
Ohio 20 T (D? because of auto factory closures there)
Oklahoma 7 R
Oregon 7 D
Pennsylvania 21 D (T?)
Rhode Island 4 D
South Carolina 8 R
South Dakota 3 R
Tennessee 11 R
Texas 34 R
Utah 5 R
Vermont 3 D
Virginia 13 R (T? depending on the D’s VP)
Washington 11 D
West Virginia 5 T (R?)
Wisconsin 10 D
Wyoming 3 R
175 R
62 T leaning toward R or R leaning toward T
- - -
237
197 D
63 T leaning toward D or D leaning toward T
- - -
260
41 T very much up for grabs
-- triton --
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
#25 The Three Speeches
Yes, yes, I know. This post was supposed to be about the current status of electoral votes. But that discussion will have to wait, in the light of the three speeches given this evening. The three were studies in contrast, not just because one was by the presidential candidate who locked up the Republican nomination months ago, the second by the unrepentant Democratic runner-up, and the third by the history-making Democratic candidate. No. The three are major contrasts because of the tone and the look and the implications.
John McCain did his candidacy no favors tonight. He looked old and tired, not helpful appearances in his case. The commentators had trouble letting go of the blank green screen behind him, but I think that may have been a goof by McCain's people. Perhaps computers were supposed to project for the television audience images of the imaginary supporters sitting behind him on stage, but for some reason the computers failed.
I'm kidding of course about his imaginary audience. But he didn't look good, and green is not too many people's best color. McCain can't afford too many photo-ops where he looks old and tired.
Hillary.... What can I say? It had been leaked all over the press that she wasn't going to concede tonight, and indeed she didn't. But her speech was self-aggrandizing to the point where she wrenched her arm patting herself on the back. Oh, sure, she brought into her speech the eighteen million people who voted for her, out of the thirty-five million total who had voted in the Democratic primaries. Anyone want to do THAT math -- she made it sound as if she got more votes than ALL the other Democratic candidates combined. And what was she trying to accomplish by asking all eighteen million to email her with advice on what course she should follow now. That isn't a question. She's trying to apply pressure on Obama: "I have control over these people's votes," she seemed to be saying. But toward what end: put her on the ticket? pay off her $20 million campaign debt? step down as the nominee and give it to her?
If there had been any doubt in my mind whether Obama should consider her as his running-mate, her speech tonight would have resolved that doubt: stay away from her, far far away.
Now that advice may fly in the face of everything I've said on this blog: that it's all about the math, getting to 270 electoral votes; and the VP choice is likely to be instrumental (or at least a good choice will be instrumental) in getting to that number. But it doesn't really contradict what I've written many times in the previous twenty-four posts. I don't believe people will vote for Hillary. She has not made herself likable during much of her shrillness in the campaign, and she came off petulant again this evening.
Besides, Obama doesn't need her on the ticket. He probably needs her stated support, but she and Bill have behaved so badly--and her handlers have run such a poor campaign for her--that he would do well to choose someone from a truly tossup state rather than someone with her amount of "baggage." Nasty way to talk about an ex-president, you say? Wait til dubya leaves the White House.
And, as I mentioned in the last post, she would make a fine Sec'y of Health and Human Services, in which capacity she would have a legitimate shot at creating universal health care. The promise of this cabinet post might get her on board the Obama campaign.
Barack Obama may not need much more than that from Hillary. By selecting the same venue for his speech tonight as the Republicans have chosen for their convention in early September, Obama is signaling that Minnesota is his state, even if the Republicans go with favorite-son Tim Pawlenty as their VP candidate. I have maintained that Pawlenty would be a smart choice for the Republicans, and it is, because it would put Minnesota into play. Pawlenty is the governor, and the state also elected a Republican, Norm Coleman, as one of their senators. Obama's people seem to be warning the Republicans not to try to make the state a battleground in the election.
Seventeen thousand people jammed into the arena, and fifteen thousand more watched huge monitors outside. They, and we, were rewarded. Obama's speech tonight was brilliant. It didn't quite have the charisma that Bill C's best speeches had, but it had enough charisma to get people's juices flowing. It was delivered beautifully, but just as importantly it had substance, it was far more specific than any speech I had previously heard from him, and it laid out what I hope will be his approach during the upcoming campaign.
"I honor John McCain for his outstanding service" to the country, Obama said, "even if he denies mine." That's not the exact line, but it epitomizes Obama's position that he will not attack McCain personally, but he will also not sit back and take blows to the head without retaliating more subtly. That answers those people who questioned how Obama would handle personal attacks.
More outstanding were Obama's point by point specific references: on the economy, with examples of individuals whom he's met during the primaries; on judging the candidates on their positions on substantive issues, and not on the cliched tests of religion and patriotism (and he phrased it so much better than I have just done); on a paced withdrawal from Iraq, in which the Iraqis will be increasingly responsible for their county's wellbeing, rather than McCain's "hundred years" of occupation (which has actually been taken out of context, and exaggerated); on education and the environment; and on taking pride in making the world better for all our children rather than for a few wealthy individuals.
If Barack Obama can maintain this intensity and this rhetorical power throughout the campaign, John McCain will have great difficulty winning. Hidden, even subliminal, racism may play a role in the voting totals, but Obama's ideas and style give him a strong initial advantage in the upcoming campaign.
And so, barring some other exciting intervening event, next time a look at the electoral vote possibilities at this time.
--triton--
John McCain did his candidacy no favors tonight. He looked old and tired, not helpful appearances in his case. The commentators had trouble letting go of the blank green screen behind him, but I think that may have been a goof by McCain's people. Perhaps computers were supposed to project for the television audience images of the imaginary supporters sitting behind him on stage, but for some reason the computers failed.
I'm kidding of course about his imaginary audience. But he didn't look good, and green is not too many people's best color. McCain can't afford too many photo-ops where he looks old and tired.
Hillary.... What can I say? It had been leaked all over the press that she wasn't going to concede tonight, and indeed she didn't. But her speech was self-aggrandizing to the point where she wrenched her arm patting herself on the back. Oh, sure, she brought into her speech the eighteen million people who voted for her, out of the thirty-five million total who had voted in the Democratic primaries. Anyone want to do THAT math -- she made it sound as if she got more votes than ALL the other Democratic candidates combined. And what was she trying to accomplish by asking all eighteen million to email her with advice on what course she should follow now. That isn't a question. She's trying to apply pressure on Obama: "I have control over these people's votes," she seemed to be saying. But toward what end: put her on the ticket? pay off her $20 million campaign debt? step down as the nominee and give it to her?
If there had been any doubt in my mind whether Obama should consider her as his running-mate, her speech tonight would have resolved that doubt: stay away from her, far far away.
Now that advice may fly in the face of everything I've said on this blog: that it's all about the math, getting to 270 electoral votes; and the VP choice is likely to be instrumental (or at least a good choice will be instrumental) in getting to that number. But it doesn't really contradict what I've written many times in the previous twenty-four posts. I don't believe people will vote for Hillary. She has not made herself likable during much of her shrillness in the campaign, and she came off petulant again this evening.
Besides, Obama doesn't need her on the ticket. He probably needs her stated support, but she and Bill have behaved so badly--and her handlers have run such a poor campaign for her--that he would do well to choose someone from a truly tossup state rather than someone with her amount of "baggage." Nasty way to talk about an ex-president, you say? Wait til dubya leaves the White House.
And, as I mentioned in the last post, she would make a fine Sec'y of Health and Human Services, in which capacity she would have a legitimate shot at creating universal health care. The promise of this cabinet post might get her on board the Obama campaign.
Barack Obama may not need much more than that from Hillary. By selecting the same venue for his speech tonight as the Republicans have chosen for their convention in early September, Obama is signaling that Minnesota is his state, even if the Republicans go with favorite-son Tim Pawlenty as their VP candidate. I have maintained that Pawlenty would be a smart choice for the Republicans, and it is, because it would put Minnesota into play. Pawlenty is the governor, and the state also elected a Republican, Norm Coleman, as one of their senators. Obama's people seem to be warning the Republicans not to try to make the state a battleground in the election.
Seventeen thousand people jammed into the arena, and fifteen thousand more watched huge monitors outside. They, and we, were rewarded. Obama's speech tonight was brilliant. It didn't quite have the charisma that Bill C's best speeches had, but it had enough charisma to get people's juices flowing. It was delivered beautifully, but just as importantly it had substance, it was far more specific than any speech I had previously heard from him, and it laid out what I hope will be his approach during the upcoming campaign.
"I honor John McCain for his outstanding service" to the country, Obama said, "even if he denies mine." That's not the exact line, but it epitomizes Obama's position that he will not attack McCain personally, but he will also not sit back and take blows to the head without retaliating more subtly. That answers those people who questioned how Obama would handle personal attacks.
More outstanding were Obama's point by point specific references: on the economy, with examples of individuals whom he's met during the primaries; on judging the candidates on their positions on substantive issues, and not on the cliched tests of religion and patriotism (and he phrased it so much better than I have just done); on a paced withdrawal from Iraq, in which the Iraqis will be increasingly responsible for their county's wellbeing, rather than McCain's "hundred years" of occupation (which has actually been taken out of context, and exaggerated); on education and the environment; and on taking pride in making the world better for all our children rather than for a few wealthy individuals.
If Barack Obama can maintain this intensity and this rhetorical power throughout the campaign, John McCain will have great difficulty winning. Hidden, even subliminal, racism may play a role in the voting totals, but Obama's ideas and style give him a strong initial advantage in the upcoming campaign.
And so, barring some other exciting intervening event, next time a look at the electoral vote possibilities at this time.
--triton--
#24 Obama has clinched, says AP
Online news reports from the Associated Press indicate that Barack Obama--the first term Democratic senator from Illinois, with little domestic policy experience and no foreign policy experience; with a difficult construct from his erstwhile connection with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago; with no military experience and a strongly-stated but ill-defined anti-war position about Iraq; with problems appealing to blue collar white voters--has clinched the Democratic nomination to run for president.
How can someone with so much going against him have a chance, one has to ask.
Well, someone with fewer qualifications won twice, another can answer; and we all know how george w bush has done.
Luckily, Obama is smarter than dubya, has better people working for him than dubya has, and is apparently less greedy than dubya's vice president and handlers have been.
Seriously, folks, Barack Obama may or may not become a good president, but the one we have now is an unmitigated disaster. dubya's policies (as I've tried to show in posts 19, 20, and 21) have been bad for America and for most Americans. That's why, today, dubya's approval rating stands at 28%. There should be exclamation points after that sentence. Let us remember that in any given presidential election, 40% of the voters will vote Democratic regardless of the candidate, 40% of the voters will vote Republican regardless of the candidate, and 20% of the voters are the folk the two candidates are actually fighting over. Thus it is that 30% of core Republicans have forsaken dubya (the 40% of total voters who "always" vote Republican minus the 28% of total voters who still approve of the job dubya's done; that's the 12% of total voters who normally vote Republican who think dubya's not doing well, divided by the 40% who normally vote Republicans regardless of who the nominee is). I don't apologize for the math. Math is important in this election, very important. It's almost a Sesame Street scenario: "This election has been brought to you by the number 270."
John McCain may already have won back some of that 12% but he starts behind Obama--behind virtually any decent Democrat--mathematically. And today's news indicates that Obama actually is polling ahead of McCain, even before the Democrat has received enough delegates to be nominated, and months AFTER McCain had garnered enough delegates to become the Republican nominee.
Barring a large number of racist individuals who are keeping their racism to themselves (and there may be a large number, but if they don't admit it we won't know until November), Obama should be favored to win. Can he lose it? Sure. By screwing up, or by being screwed up, either by another guilt-by-association as with Rev Wright, or by misspeaking (which McCain is more likely to do than Obama is), or by Hillary not rallying her supporters behind Obama. These are possibilities, but Obama's campaign is so well organized and he and his supporters are so articulate the odds favor their not screwing up badly.
Picking the wrong Vice President candidate is still a major possible screwup, however. Hillary should not be chosen. Not chosen. No. Hillary should be promised a position in his cabinet should he be elected. Secretary of Health and Human Services would be perfect for her, and would give her a chance to push for universal health care with what we hope will be a significant majority in both the House and the Senate. A significant point on the side here is that NY has a Democratic governor who will then appoint a Democrat replacement for her in the Senate. The Democrats cannot afford to lose Senate seats by appointing to the cabinet senators from states with Republican governors.
Similarly, Bill Richardson could be a strong possibility for Secretary of State. God knows , and so do many voters, that he has international policy experience, both from his service in the UN and from his subliminal negotiations abroad.
I still come back to Ted Strickland (my #1 choice), Bill Nelson, or James Webb (my heart-on favorite) as VP candidates. Their three states are tossups, and the presence of any one of these as VP candidate on the ticket could move his particular state into the Blue column in November.
Next time: where the electoral votes stand in June, with five months (less, by the time I post) to go.
--triton--
How can someone with so much going against him have a chance, one has to ask.
Well, someone with fewer qualifications won twice, another can answer; and we all know how george w bush has done.
Luckily, Obama is smarter than dubya, has better people working for him than dubya has, and is apparently less greedy than dubya's vice president and handlers have been.
Seriously, folks, Barack Obama may or may not become a good president, but the one we have now is an unmitigated disaster. dubya's policies (as I've tried to show in posts 19, 20, and 21) have been bad for America and for most Americans. That's why, today, dubya's approval rating stands at 28%. There should be exclamation points after that sentence. Let us remember that in any given presidential election, 40% of the voters will vote Democratic regardless of the candidate, 40% of the voters will vote Republican regardless of the candidate, and 20% of the voters are the folk the two candidates are actually fighting over. Thus it is that 30% of core Republicans have forsaken dubya (the 40% of total voters who "always" vote Republican minus the 28% of total voters who still approve of the job dubya's done; that's the 12% of total voters who normally vote Republican who think dubya's not doing well, divided by the 40% who normally vote Republicans regardless of who the nominee is). I don't apologize for the math. Math is important in this election, very important. It's almost a Sesame Street scenario: "This election has been brought to you by the number 270."
John McCain may already have won back some of that 12% but he starts behind Obama--behind virtually any decent Democrat--mathematically. And today's news indicates that Obama actually is polling ahead of McCain, even before the Democrat has received enough delegates to be nominated, and months AFTER McCain had garnered enough delegates to become the Republican nominee.
Barring a large number of racist individuals who are keeping their racism to themselves (and there may be a large number, but if they don't admit it we won't know until November), Obama should be favored to win. Can he lose it? Sure. By screwing up, or by being screwed up, either by another guilt-by-association as with Rev Wright, or by misspeaking (which McCain is more likely to do than Obama is), or by Hillary not rallying her supporters behind Obama. These are possibilities, but Obama's campaign is so well organized and he and his supporters are so articulate the odds favor their not screwing up badly.
Picking the wrong Vice President candidate is still a major possible screwup, however. Hillary should not be chosen. Not chosen. No. Hillary should be promised a position in his cabinet should he be elected. Secretary of Health and Human Services would be perfect for her, and would give her a chance to push for universal health care with what we hope will be a significant majority in both the House and the Senate. A significant point on the side here is that NY has a Democratic governor who will then appoint a Democrat replacement for her in the Senate. The Democrats cannot afford to lose Senate seats by appointing to the cabinet senators from states with Republican governors.
Similarly, Bill Richardson could be a strong possibility for Secretary of State. God knows , and so do many voters, that he has international policy experience, both from his service in the UN and from his subliminal negotiations abroad.
I still come back to Ted Strickland (my #1 choice), Bill Nelson, or James Webb (my heart-on favorite) as VP candidates. Their three states are tossups, and the presence of any one of these as VP candidate on the ticket could move his particular state into the Blue column in November.
Next time: where the electoral votes stand in June, with five months (less, by the time I post) to go.
--triton--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)