*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (3 Viewers)

[kaa]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12592.html

McCain reopens the national security gap

By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 8/17/08 5:22 PM EST

July's NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll found that three in four Americans believe McCain can "handle" the role of commander in chief, while only 19 percent said he "cannot," compared to a 50 percent to 42 percent split for Obama.

Less than two years after Democrats finally bridged the decades-long gap between the parties on national security issues, Republicans have opened it right back up — a shift likely tied to the party's new standard-bearer John McCain and the perception of improvements in Iraq.

The reemergence of the national security gap comes amid the first headline-grabbing world conflict of the 2008 campaign — the Russian invasion of Georgia that highlights the potential for a dramatic military event to upend the political landscape, and likely aid McCain.

July's NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll found that three in four Americans believe McCain can "handle" the role of commander in chief, while only 19 percent said he "cannot," compared to a 50 percent to 42 percent split for Obama.

When asked which party is more capable of "dealing with the war on terrorism," 40 percent of respondents to the latest NBC/WSJ poll said Republican while 29 percent said Democrat. The parties had been effectively tied as recently as January of this year, and the 11-percentage-point gap is the largest since 2004, the last year these numbers shifted so dramatically and, not coincidentally, the last presidential election year.

When violence between Russia and Georgia escalated to war earlier this month, McCain’s first statement demanded that "Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory."

Obama’s first statement, by contrast, delicately avoided the question of responsibility. "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war," he said. Later that day, Obama blamed Russia for the invasion. By Saturday, the Democrat had moved still closer to McCain's position: "Russia has escalated the crisis in Georgia through its clear and continued violation of Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

To Zbigniew Brzezinski, former President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, the moment had echoes of the 1980 race between Carter and Ronald Reagan.

Carter, the sitting president, played defense on national security issues throughout the race, as he was dogged the Iran hostage crisis, conservative criticism that he was too conciliatory on issues such as renegotiating America’s lease on the Panama Canal, and rhetoric like that in a 1977 speech in which he famously spoke of "an inordinate fear of communism."

"Reagan was able to polarize the situation verbally and to some extent McCain is doing just that vis-a-vis Obama," Brzezinski said.

Brzezinski added, "I thought that the first comments" by Obama "were perhaps too general and didn't perhaps address sharply enough the moral and strategic dimensions of the problem." Obama's later statements, he said, struck the right tone.

"In the meantime, McCain was able to leap into the timing gap," Brzezinski continued. "Timing in all these things, timing, tone and ability to crystallize the issue sharply, is what is important."

Over the past week, McCain has has offered a Reaganesque tone, declaring that "we are all Georgians" and that "it's very clear that Russian ambitions are to restore the old Russian Empire."

I wonder if people still think McCain is not running a strong campaign.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12592.html

McCain reopens the national security gap

By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 8/17/08 5:22 PM EST

July's NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll found that three in four Americans believe McCain can "handle" the role of commander in chief, while only 19 percent said he "cannot," compared to a 50 percent to 42 percent split for Obama.

Less than two years after Democrats finally bridged the decades-long gap between the parties on national security issues, Republicans have opened it right back up — a shift likely tied to the party's new standard-bearer John McCain and the perception of improvements in Iraq.

The reemergence of the national security gap comes amid the first headline-grabbing world conflict of the 2008 campaign — the Russian invasion of Georgia that highlights the potential for a dramatic military event to upend the political landscape, and likely aid McCain.

July's NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll found that three in four Americans believe McCain can "handle" the role of commander in chief, while only 19 percent said he "cannot," compared to a 50 percent to 42 percent split for Obama.

When asked which party is more capable of "dealing with the war on terrorism," 40 percent of respondents to the latest NBC/WSJ poll said Republican while 29 percent said Democrat. The parties had been effectively tied as recently as January of this year, and the 11-percentage-point gap is the largest since 2004, the last year these numbers shifted so dramatically and, not coincidentally, the last presidential election year.

When violence between Russia and Georgia escalated to war earlier this month, McCain’s first statement demanded that "Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory."

Obama’s first statement, by contrast, delicately avoided the question of responsibility. "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war," he said. Later that day, Obama blamed Russia for the invasion. By Saturday, the Democrat had moved still closer to McCain's position: "Russia has escalated the crisis in Georgia through its clear and continued violation of Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

To Zbigniew Brzezinski, former President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, the moment had echoes of the 1980 race between Carter and Ronald Reagan.

Carter, the sitting president, played defense on national security issues throughout the race, as he was dogged the Iran hostage crisis, conservative criticism that he was too conciliatory on issues such as renegotiating America’s lease on the Panama Canal, and rhetoric like that in a 1977 speech in which he famously spoke of "an inordinate fear of communism."

"Reagan was able to polarize the situation verbally and to some extent McCain is doing just that vis-a-vis Obama," Brzezinski said.

Brzezinski added, "I thought that the first comments" by Obama "were perhaps too general and didn't perhaps address sharply enough the moral and strategic dimensions of the problem." Obama's later statements, he said, struck the right tone.

"In the meantime, McCain was able to leap into the timing gap," Brzezinski continued. "Timing in all these things, timing, tone and ability to crystallize the issue sharply, is what is important."

Over the past week, McCain has has offered a Reaganesque tone, declaring that "we are all Georgians" and that "it's very clear that Russian ambitions are to restore the old Russian Empire."

I wonder if people still think McCain is not running a strong campaign.

For all the talk of McCain momentum over the last month on energy first and then national security, you'd think he might actually take a lead in the polls. I'm actually hoping that McCain takes over the lead for a bit in Sept so he will start to get the front-runner treatment from the press, instead of 2/3 of the stories being about Obama and whether or not he can handle the job.

 

[cstu]

McCain reopens the national security gap

So he's switched from calling her #### to national security, eh?

 

[cstu]

I had no idea that Rick Warren was holding a nationally-televised forum featuring Obama and McCain until about 75 minutes ago when I was randomly channel-surfing while my wife hogged the computer.

Having finished watching Obama's interview, I thought he did an extremely good job handling some pretty good questions. I think even his supporters would acknowledge that he struggled with the "abortion" question, but he's walking a minefield on that I suppose that's understandable. Otherwise, I thought his answers were generally pretty strong, approaching masterful once he got past the abortion issue. This was definitely the "good" Obama on display, the guy that makes people such as me, who deeply dislike his worldview, like and respect Obama anyway.

Very nicely done IMO.

Did Obama seriously answer a question about abortion by saying "that's above my pay grade"? I missed this last night but heard about that comment. I know it's a tough issue, but geesh. Not sure that you get to defer those kind of decisions if you're the President."Mr. President, we have this abortion bill on your desk. You need to either sign it into law or veto it."

"Uh, this is above my pay grade, so I'm just going to go ahead and forward it to God's desk."

I just heard it. It was about specifically defining when babies get human rights. He was basically saying that he's not able to answer that question absolutely, but would rather work with people of various views to compromise.

And you and I both know this isn't an acceptable or realistic answer in today's world. I found the response to be as irresponsible as McCain's "in the 21st century..." comments. I was disappointed in Obama's answer here.

His point was that he's not qualified enough to make that decision. I don't think anyone is.

He doesn't have to make a decision....just take a position. The repubs are going to have a field day with this. Probably be just as annoying as the Rev Wright situation. Problem is, he, as a leader of this country should be prepared to make a decision on this whether or not he feels like he's qualified. I would have been fine with him saying that in general he's xxx on the issue but sometimes he can see the need for it or that it's applied incorrectly. To completely dodge it was disappointing to me.

You know how he feels about abortion so why are you nitpicking his answer to a question which was deliberately set up to make him say something that could be used against him? He had nothing to gain by answering that question. If it's that big of a deal to you then you weren't going to vote for him anyway.

To assume that abortion is a trivial enough to use the bad "if it's that big of a deal to you then you weren't gonna vote for him anyway" shtick is pretty bad IMO. Abortion is a big issue for a lot of people. Me? Not so much since we have such a cluster@@@@ in this country right now, but it's on the platform. I don't believe the question was intended to do anything that you suggest. I believe the question was asked to get his position. He's been fantastic with these questions that people really don't want the answer to. He's had no problems telling teachers that it's time for a reality check and he's had no problem going into Michigan and telling people to get off their butts and get working. I don't see why he would run from this question, but he did and something about that bothers me a little bit He could have easily answered the question by saying he doesn't like the concept of abortion but he also understands that it's the woman's right to choose. Dancing around it was the worst of all the options in front of him IMO.

He's actually said that exact thing in other settings, but I understand the criticism. I can only surmise that he didn't think going into his typically long answer about it in front of that crowd was going to do him any good. I do agree that making a joke about it was the worst way to answer.

 

[kaa]

If this country elects McCain, then it means it was forgotten the lesson of Nixon. The lesson is you do NOT elect moderates to the White House. They have no strong beliefs and are driven by personal ambition. Nixon didn't have strong beliefs, and only got up on his hind legs when threats to his power were identified. That drove him to wiretaps, spying, burglary, etc.

Electing McCain means we for some reason have decided to value moderates again. Maybe its because many of us are too young to remember the damage moderates like Nixon can cause. For too many people, if it didn't happen in their lifetime, it doesn't matter. Society sometimes has to learn hard lessons over and over again. So if they have never personally experienced a destructive moderate, they think they can ignore it. Unfortunately, McCain is probably worse than Nixon.

 

[timschochet]

If this country elects McCain, then it means it was forgotten the lesson of Nixon. The lesson is you do NOT elect moderates to the White House. They have no strong beliefs and are driven by personal ambition. Nixon didn't have strong beliefs, and only got up on his hind legs when threats to his power were identified. That drove him to wiretaps, spying, burglary, etc.

Electing McCain means we for some reason have decided to value moderates again. Maybe its because many of us are too young to remember the damage moderates like Nixon can cause. For too many people, if it didn't happen in their lifetime, it doesn't matter. Society sometimes has to learn hard lessons over and over again. So if they have never personally experienced a destructive moderate, they think they can ignore it. Unfortunately, McCain is probably worse than Nixon.

I probably shouldn't waste my time refuting Kaa's continual erroneous statements, but it's getting to be just too much fun now to stop:Richard Nixon was nothing like John McCain. Nixon was dishonest as the day is long, and had a history of being a dirty politician stemming back into the 1940's. McCain's had one questionable ethical moment, the Keating 5, in his entire very long career. Nixon was a centrist, and his centrism resulted in the greatest accomplishments of his presidency: the visionary trip to China, formation of the EPA, Detente. There is no relationship between his "moderate" behavior and his crookedness.

 

[Gopher State]

Daschle says he won’t be vice president

Wire reports • August 18, 2008

WASHINGTON – Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle said Monday he has given Barack Obama’s presidential campaign personal information needed to vet potential vice presidential nominees.

But Daschle, former Senate majority leader and a close advisor to the Democrat, says he is confident he is not Obama’s choice, adding that there is no chance Obama will pick him.

“I did give (them) documents a long time ago, but these matters have been resolved for a long time now as far as I’m concerned,” he said in an interview with the Associated Press.

Presidential candidates routinely ask potential vice presidential nominees for personal information, including records and documents, before selecting a candidate.

Daschle said he doesn’t know who Obama’s pick is, if it’s been decided or when it will be announced. He said he imagines the only person who knows is the person who has been chosen, and that’s not him.

“Nope,” Daschle said when asked if there’s any chance he’ll be selected.

Given the fact that the Democratic National Convention is only a week away, “one would have to assume that it’s going to be this week,” Daschle said.

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota has been mentioned as a possible running mate for Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain. A spokesman for Thune said Monday that the senator has not been asked to turn over personal documents to McCain’s campaign.

Daschle would of been a good pick for Obama, strong midwest, smalltown values.

 

[The Commish]

I had no idea that Rick Warren was holding a nationally-televised forum featuring Obama and McCain until about 75 minutes ago when I was randomly channel-surfing while my wife hogged the computer.

Having finished watching Obama's interview, I thought he did an extremely good job handling some pretty good questions. I think even his supporters would acknowledge that he struggled with the "abortion" question, but he's walking a minefield on that I suppose that's understandable. Otherwise, I thought his answers were generally pretty strong, approaching masterful once he got past the abortion issue. This was definitely the "good" Obama on display, the guy that makes people such as me, who deeply dislike his worldview, like and respect Obama anyway.

Very nicely done IMO.

Did Obama seriously answer a question about abortion by saying "that's above my pay grade"? I missed this last night but heard about that comment. I know it's a tough issue, but geesh. Not sure that you get to defer those kind of decisions if you're the President."Mr. President, we have this abortion bill on your desk. You need to either sign it into law or veto it."

"Uh, this is above my pay grade, so I'm just going to go ahead and forward it to God's desk."

I just heard it. It was about specifically defining when babies get human rights. He was basically saying that he's not able to answer that question absolutely, but would rather work with people of various views to compromise.

And you and I both know this isn't an acceptable or realistic answer in today's world. I found the response to be as irresponsible as McCain's "in the 21st century..." comments. I was disappointed in Obama's answer here.

His point was that he's not qualified enough to make that decision. I don't think anyone is.

He doesn't have to make a decision....just take a position. The repubs are going to have a field day with this. Probably be just as annoying as the Rev Wright situation. Problem is, he, as a leader of this country should be prepared to make a decision on this whether or not he feels like he's qualified. I would have been fine with him saying that in general he's xxx on the issue but sometimes he can see the need for it or that it's applied incorrectly. To completely dodge it was disappointing to me.

You know how he feels about abortion so why are you nitpicking his answer to a question which was deliberately set up to make him say something that could be used against him? He had nothing to gain by answering that question. If it's that big of a deal to you then you weren't going to vote for him anyway.

To assume that abortion is a trivial enough to use the bad "if it's that big of a deal to you then you weren't gonna vote for him anyway" shtick is pretty bad IMO. Abortion is a big issue for a lot of people. Me? Not so much since we have such a cluster@@@@ in this country right now, but it's on the platform. I don't believe the question was intended to do anything that you suggest. I believe the question was asked to get his position. He's been fantastic with these questions that people really don't want the answer to. He's had no problems telling teachers that it's time for a reality check and he's had no problem going into Michigan and telling people to get off their butts and get working. I don't see why he would run from this question, but he did and something about that bothers me a little bit He could have easily answered the question by saying he doesn't like the concept of abortion but he also understands that it's the woman's right to choose. Dancing around it was the worst of all the options in front of him IMO.

He's actually said that exact thing in other settings, but I understand the criticism. I can only surmise that he didn't think going into his typically long answer about it in front of that crowd was going to do him any good. I do agree that making a joke about it was the worst way to answer.

I know...that's why it bothers me. It's not a huge deal, but still bugs me.

 

[NCCommish]

Daschle says he won’t be vice presidentWire reports • August 18, 2008 WASHINGTON – Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle said Monday he has given Barack Obama’s presidential campaign personal information needed to vet potential vice presidential nominees. But Daschle, former Senate majority leader and a close advisor to the Democrat, says he is confident he is not Obama’s choice, adding that there is no chance Obama will pick him.“I did give (them) documents a long time ago, but these matters have been resolved for a long time now as far as I’m concerned,” he said in an interview with the Associated Press.Presidential candidates routinely ask potential vice presidential nominees for personal information, including records and documents, before selecting a candidate.Daschle said he doesn’t know who Obama’s pick is, if it’s been decided or when it will be announced. He said he imagines the only person who knows is the person who has been chosen, and that’s not him.“Nope,” Daschle said when asked if there’s any chance he’ll be selected.Given the fact that the Democratic National Convention is only a week away, “one would have to assume that it’s going to be this week,” Daschle said.Sen. John Thune of South Dakota has been mentioned as a possible running mate for Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain. A spokesman for Thune said Monday that the senator has not been asked to turn over personal documents to McCain’s campaign.Daschle would of been a good pick for Obama, strong midwest, smalltown values.

Daschle would have been a fairly easy target for the GOP. I can't imagine him as the VP candidate.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I had no idea that Rick Warren was holding a nationally-televised forum featuring Obama and McCain until about 75 minutes ago when I was randomly channel-surfing while my wife hogged the computer.

Having finished watching Obama's interview, I thought he did an extremely good job handling some pretty good questions. I think even his supporters would acknowledge that he struggled with the "abortion" question, but he's walking a minefield on that I suppose that's understandable. Otherwise, I thought his answers were generally pretty strong, approaching masterful once he got past the abortion issue. This was definitely the "good" Obama on display, the guy that makes people such as me, who deeply dislike his worldview, like and respect Obama anyway.

Very nicely done IMO.

Did Obama seriously answer a question about abortion by saying "that's above my pay grade"? I missed this last night but heard about that comment. I know it's a tough issue, but geesh. Not sure that you get to defer those kind of decisions if you're the President."Mr. President, we have this abortion bill on your desk. You need to either sign it into law or veto it."

"Uh, this is above my pay grade, so I'm just going to go ahead and forward it to God's desk."

I just heard it. It was about specifically defining when babies get human rights. He was basically saying that he's not able to answer that question absolutely, but would rather work with people of various views to compromise.

And you and I both know this isn't an acceptable or realistic answer in today's world. I found the response to be as irresponsible as McCain's "in the 21st century..." comments. I was disappointed in Obama's answer here.

His point was that he's not qualified enough to make that decision. I don't think anyone is.

He doesn't have to make a decision....just take a position. The repubs are going to have a field day with this. Probably be just as annoying as the Rev Wright situation. Problem is, he, as a leader of this country should be prepared to make a decision on this whether or not he feels like he's qualified. I would have been fine with him saying that in general he's xxx on the issue but sometimes he can see the need for it or that it's applied incorrectly. To completely dodge it was disappointing to me.

You know how he feels about abortion so why are you nitpicking his answer to a question which was deliberately set up to make him say something that could be used against him? He had nothing to gain by answering that question. If it's that big of a deal to you then you weren't going to vote for him anyway.

To assume that abortion is a trivial enough to use the bad "if it's that big of a deal to you then you weren't gonna vote for him anyway" shtick is pretty bad IMO. Abortion is a big issue for a lot of people. Me? Not so much since we have such a cluster@@@@ in this country right now, but it's on the platform. I don't believe the question was intended to do anything that you suggest. I believe the question was asked to get his position. He's been fantastic with these questions that people really don't want the answer to. He's had no problems telling teachers that it's time for a reality check and he's had no problem going into Michigan and telling people to get off their butts and get working. I don't see why he would run from this question, but he did and something about that bothers me a little bit He could have easily answered the question by saying he doesn't like the concept of abortion but he also understands that it's the woman's right to choose. Dancing around it was the worst of all the options in front of him IMO.

He's actually said that exact thing in other settings, but I understand the criticism. I can only surmise that he didn't think going into his typically long answer about it in front of that crowd was going to do him any good. I do agree that making a joke about it was the worst way to answer.

I know...that's why it bothers me. It's not a huge deal, but still bugs me.

But he did say that, didn't he? He talked about women making decisions after consulting with their pastors, husbands, and family members. :X I don't know - his answer seemed pretty mainstream to me. I think lots of liberals struggle with the abortion issue, especially Christian democrats.

 

[bigbottom]

But he did say that, didn't he? He talked about women making decisions after consulting with their pastors, husbands, and family members. I don't know - his answer seemed pretty mainstream to me. I think lots of liberals struggle with the abortion issue, especially Christian democrats.

I'm more a universalist than a Christian, but I certainly struggle with the abortion issue.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Great opinion piece from Krugman. I'm hoping this theme starts to come together at the convention. They need to start hitting McCain on the economy and hitting him hard.

It’s the Economy Stupor

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: August 17, 2008

By rights, John McCain should be getting hammered on economics.

After all, Mr. McCain proposes continuing the policies of a president who’s had a truly dismal economic record — job growth under the current administration has been the slowest in 60 years, even slower than job growth under the first President Bush. And the public blames the White House, giving Mr. Bush spectacularly low ratings on his handling of the economy.

Meanwhile, The Times reports that, according to associates, Mr. McCain still “dials up” Phil Gramm, the former senator who resigned as co-chairman of the campaign after calling America a “nation of whiners” and dismissing the country’s economic woes as nothing more than a “mental recession.” And Mr. Gramm is still considered a top pick for Treasury secretary.

So Mr. McCain would seem to offer a target a mile wide: a die-hard supporter of failed economic policies who takes his advice from people completely out of touch with the lives of working Americans.

But while polls continue to show that the public, by a large margin, trusts Democrats more than Republicans to handle the economy, recent polling shows that Barack Obama has at best a small edge over Mr. McCain on the issue — four points in a recent Time magazine poll, and he is one point behind according to Rasmussen Reports, which does automated polling. And Mr. Obama’s failure to achieve a decisive edge on economic policy is central to his failure to open up a big lead in overall polling.

Why isn’t the Obama campaign getting more traction on economic issues?

It’s not the Republican offensive on offshore drilling. It’s true that many Americans have apparently been misled by bogus claims about gas price relief. But as I’ve already pointed out, Democrats in general retain a large edge on economic issues.

Nor is there any valid basis for the complaints, highlighted in Sunday’s Times, that Mr. Obama isn’t offering enough policy specifics. Delve into the Obama campaign Web site and you’ll find plenty of policy detail. And the campaign’s ads reel off lots of specific policy proposals — too many, if you ask me.

No, the problem isn’t lack of specifics — it’s lack of passion. When it comes to the economy, Mr. Obama’s campaign seems oddly lethargic.

I was astonished at the flatness of the big economy speech he gave in St. Petersburg at the beginning of this month — a speech that was billed as the start of a new campaign focus on economic issues. Mr. Obama is a great orator, yet he began that speech with a litany of statistics that were probably meaningless to most listeners.

Worse yet, he seemed to go out of his way to avoid scoring political points. “Back in the 1990s,” he declared, “your incomes grew by $6,000, and over the last several years, they’ve actually fallen by nearly $1,000.” Um, not quite: real median household income didn’t rise $6,000 during “the 1990s,” it did so during the Clinton years, after falling under the first Bush administration. Income hasn’t fallen $1,000 in “recent years,” it’s fallen under George Bush, with all of the decline taking place before 2005.

Obama surrogates have shown a similar inclination to go for the capillaries rather than the jugular. A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by two Obama advisers offered another blizzard of statistics almost burying the key point — that most Americans would pay lower taxes under the Obama tax plan than under the McCain plan.

All this makes a stark contrast with the campaign of the last Democrat to make it to the White House, who had no trouble conveying passion over matters economic.

In his speech accepting the Democratic nomination in 1992, a year in which economic conditions somewhat resembled those today, Bill Clinton denounced his opponent as someone “caught in the grip of a failed economic theory.” Where Mr. Obama spoke cryptically in St. Petersburg about a “reckless few” who “game the system, as we’ve seen in this housing crisis” — I know what he meant, I think, but how many voters got it? — Mr. Clinton declared that “those who play by the rules and keep the faith have gotten the shaft, and those who cut corners and cut deals have been rewarded.” That’s the kind of hard-hitting populism that’s been absent from the Obama campaign so far.

Of course, Mr. Obama hasn’t given his own acceptance speech yet. Al Gore found a new populist fervor in August 2000, and surged in the polls. A comparable surge by Mr. Obama would give him a landslide victory this year.

But it’s up to him. If Mr. Obama can’t find the passion on economic matters that has been lacking in his campaign so far, he may yet lose this election.

Link

 

[Moe Green]

Daschle says he won’t be vice president

And 28 Americans are absolutely heartbroken.

 

[tommyGunZ]

thanks for passing along AOD. Krugman is always on point.

 

[flufhed]

Daschle says he won’t be vice president

Wire reports • August 18, 2008

WASHINGTON – Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle said Monday he has given Barack Obama’s presidential campaign personal information needed to vet potential vice presidential nominees.

But Daschle, former Senate majority leader and a close advisor to the Democrat, says he is confident he is not Obama’s choice, adding that there is no chance Obama will pick him.

“I did give (them) documents a long time ago, but these matters have been resolved for a long time now as far as I’m concerned,” he said in an interview with the Associated Press.

Presidential candidates routinely ask potential vice presidential nominees for personal information, including records and documents, before selecting a candidate.

Daschle said he doesn’t know who Obama’s pick is, if it’s been decided or when it will be announced. He said he imagines the only person who knows is the person who has been chosen, and that’s not him.

“Nope,” Daschle said when asked if there’s any chance he’ll be selected.

Given the fact that the Democratic National Convention is only a week away, “one would have to assume that it’s going to be this week,” Daschle said.

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota has been mentioned as a possible running mate for Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain. A spokesman for Thune said Monday that the senator has not been asked to turn over personal documents to McCain’s campaign.

Daschle would of been a good pick for Obama, strong midwest, smalltown values.

Really?? TOM DASCHLE??Which of his qualities attract you most, his divisiveness, his weannieness, his irrelevance, or his failure as a leader for the Democrats?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Daschle says he won’t be vice president

Wire reports • August 18, 2008

WASHINGTON – Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle said Monday he has given Barack Obama’s presidential campaign personal information needed to vet potential vice presidential nominees.

But Daschle, former Senate majority leader and a close advisor to the Democrat, says he is confident he is not Obama’s choice, adding that there is no chance Obama will pick him.

“I did give (them) documents a long time ago, but these matters have been resolved for a long time now as far as I’m concerned,” he said in an interview with the Associated Press.

Presidential candidates routinely ask potential vice presidential nominees for personal information, including records and documents, before selecting a candidate.

Daschle said he doesn’t know who Obama’s pick is, if it’s been decided or when it will be announced. He said he imagines the only person who knows is the person who has been chosen, and that’s not him.

“Nope,” Daschle said when asked if there’s any chance he’ll be selected.

Given the fact that the Democratic National Convention is only a week away, “one would have to assume that it’s going to be this week,” Daschle said.

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota has been mentioned as a possible running mate for Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain. A spokesman for Thune said Monday that the senator has not been asked to turn over personal documents to McCain’s campaign.

Daschle would of been a good pick for Obama, strong midwest, smalltown values.

Really?? TOM DASCHLE??Which of his qualities attract you most, his divisiveness, his weannieness, his irrelevance, or his failure as a leader for the Democrats?

His South Dakotaness. Gopher is convinced that embracing "small town America" values is an important trait. Nevermind that his champion of this cause, Hillary, embodies nothing in this area.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Biden as VP now over 42 on InTrade.

 

[Sammy3469]

Biden as VP now over 42 on InTrade.

Sell Mortimer, Sell

 

[NCCommish]

Biden as VP now over 42 on InTrade.

That pick would make me uneasy.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Biden as VP now over 42 on InTrade.

That pick would make me uneasy.

What about Joe bothers you?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Biden as VP now over 42 on InTrade.

That pick would make me uneasy.

I'm sure none of them seem ideal. Everyone's got issues. I'm actually thinking this might be his best bet.

 

[Sammy3469]

Biden as VP now over 42 on InTrade.

That pick would make me uneasy.

I'm sure none of them seem ideal. Everyone's got issues. I'm actually thinking this might be his best bet.

I still think its one of the VA guys or Sebelius.

 

[NCCommish]

Biden as VP now over 42 on InTrade.

That pick would make me uneasy.

What about Joe bothers you?

His tendency to shoot himself in the foot with his mouth is the first to come to mind. I'm not a fan of his work in creaing the Drug Czar to further the prosecution of the failed War on Drugs. I also generally consider him to be a Bush enabler on Iraq.Not to sure this guy is my idea of the appropriate running mate the more I think about it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

big Joe Biden fan here. I hope he's the pick.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Biden as VP now over 42 on InTrade.

That pick would make me uneasy.

I'm sure none of them seem ideal. Everyone's got issues. I'm actually thinking this might be his best bet.

I still think its one of the VA guys or Sebelius.

I voted for Kaine and was happy to see him elected, but I really don't like him in the VP role. He adds basically nothing, and I don't think the idea that a VP brings a state really works.

 

[NCCommish]

big Joe Biden fan here. I hope he's the pick.

And he was that close.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

or Sebelius.

Nope. No idea who it will be - but "white male" is pretty much a lock.

 

[Joe Biden Fan]

big Joe Biden fan here. I hope he's the pick.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

big Joe Biden fan here. I hope he's the pick.

And he was that close.

Somewhere Obama just went " Yeah . . . . No."

 

[flufhed]

Daschle says he won’t be vice president

Wire reports • August 18, 2008

WASHINGTON – Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle said Monday he has given Barack Obama’s presidential campaign personal information needed to vet potential vice presidential nominees.

But Daschle, former Senate majority leader and a close advisor to the Democrat, says he is confident he is not Obama’s choice, adding that there is no chance Obama will pick him.

“I did give (them) documents a long time ago, but these matters have been resolved for a long time now as far as I’m concerned,” he said in an interview with the Associated Press.

Presidential candidates routinely ask potential vice presidential nominees for personal information, including records and documents, before selecting a candidate.

Daschle said he doesn’t know who Obama’s pick is, if it’s been decided or when it will be announced. He said he imagines the only person who knows is the person who has been chosen, and that’s not him.

“Nope,” Daschle said when asked if there’s any chance he’ll be selected.

Given the fact that the Democratic National Convention is only a week away, “one would have to assume that it’s going to be this week,” Daschle said.

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota has been mentioned as a possible running mate for Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain. A spokesman for Thune said Monday that the senator has not been asked to turn over personal documents to McCain’s campaign.

Daschle would of been a good pick for Obama, strong midwest, smalltown values.

Really?? TOM DASCHLE??Which of his qualities attract you most, his divisiveness, his weannieness, his irrelevance, or his failure as a leader for the Democrats?

His South Dakotaness. Gopher is convinced that embracing "small town America" values is an important trait. Nevermind that his champion of this cause, Hillary, embodies nothing in this area.

This is what has always bugged me about Gopher. Does he not know that Hillary, his great champion of the small towns, was dragged kicking and screaming to Arkansas by her husband? She never wanted to be a small town lawyer - she always had her sites set on the big time. I mean, she was educated at elite Northeastern schools, went to Washington to be a laywyer, followed her husband to Arkansas, rode his coattails to Washington, and now sits as a Senator from New York.

 

[flufhed]

Biden as VP now over 42 on InTrade.

That pick would make me uneasy.

What about Joe bothers you?

His tendency to shoot himself in the foot with his mouth is the first to come to mind. I'm not a fan of his work in creaing the Drug Czar to further the prosecution of the failed War on Drugs. I also generally consider him to be a Bush enabler on Iraq.Not to sure this guy is my idea of the appropriate running mate the more I think about it.

Agree, but he is the safe choice, which may make him the right choice for Obama. I love Sebellius, but the Hillary nazis will have an absolute hissy-fit if she is the choice.

 

[Sammy3469]

Biden as VP now over 42 on InTrade.

That pick would make me uneasy.

I'm sure none of them seem ideal. Everyone's got issues. I'm actually thinking this might be his best bet.

I still think its one of the VA guys or Sebelius.

I voted for Kaine and was happy to see him elected, but I really don't like him in the VP role. He adds basically nothing, and I don't think the idea that a VP brings a state really works.

I was actually thinking more Warner or Webb, but what do I know.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

big Joe Biden fan here. I hope he's the pick.

And he was that close.

Somewhere Obama just went " Yeah . . . . No."

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Biden as VP now over 42 on InTrade.

That pick would make me uneasy.

I'm sure none of them seem ideal. Everyone's got issues. I'm actually thinking this might be his best bet.

I still think its one of the VA guys or Sebelius.

I voted for Kaine and was happy to see him elected, but I really don't like him in the VP role. He adds basically nothing, and I don't think the idea that a VP brings a state really works.

I was actually thinking more Warner or Webb, but what do I know.

I would have thought Webb was a good bet a month or so ago when he was basking in the afterglow of the new GI Bill passing and before he essentially took himself out of the running.

 

[commisholio]

I like Biden better than Kaine or Bayh. I think I'd prefer Wes Clark. Wes Clark is obviously not going to happen, which I think is a shame. I like that guy a lot.

 

[Fennis]

Daschle says he won’t be vice president

And 28 Americans are absolutely heartbroken.

Daschle has 28 family members?

 

[Clayton Gray]

big Joe Biden fan here. I hope he's the pick.

And he was that close.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Biden is the guy who I would select if I was allowed to pick Obama's running mate.

1. He increases the likelihood that Obama will lose the election, which is good IMO. He doesn't add a major state (like IN or VA) to Obama's camp, and he's a good bet to make one or two major gaffes between now and November.

2. If Obama does win, Biden is a guy who I'd be very comfortable with as VP. I respect his foreign policy views a lot, which is one of if not the main area where I'm worried about an Obama administration. Biden is one of my favorite Democrats, so it would be nice to have him in the executive branch if the Dems have to win this go-around.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Biden is the guy who I would select if I was allowed to pick Obama's running mate.1. He increases the likelihood that Obama will lose the election, which is good IMO. He doesn't add a major state (like IN or VA) to Obama's camp, and he's a good bet to make one or two major gaffes between now and November.2. If Obama does win, Biden is a guy who I'd be very comfortable with as VP. I respect his foreign policy views a lot, which is one of if not the main area where I'm worried about an Obama administration. Biden is one of my favorite Democrats, so it would be nice to have him in the executive branch if the Dems have to win this go-around.

Huh? Can you explain the disparity between these two points? With nuance, please.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Biden is the guy who I would select if I was allowed to pick Obama's running mate.1. He increases the likelihood that Obama will lose the election, which is good IMO. He doesn't add a major state (like IN or VA) to Obama's camp, and he's a good bet to make one or two major gaffes between now and November.2. If Obama does win, Biden is a guy who I'd be very comfortable with as VP. I respect his foreign policy views a lot, which is one of if not the main area where I'm worried about an Obama administration. Biden is one of my favorite Democrats, so it would be nice to have him in the executive branch if the Dems have to win this go-around.

Huh? Can you explain the disparity between these two points? With nuance, please.

I'd prefer that Obama lose, but if he's going to win, I'd like his VP to be somebody who I like and who provides a grown-up POV on foreign policy. Biden is therefore the perfect selection IMO.

 

[adonis]

Biden is the guy who I would select if I was allowed to pick Obama's running mate.1. He increases the likelihood that Obama will lose the election, which is good IMO. He doesn't add a major state (like IN or VA) to Obama's camp, and he's a good bet to make one or two major gaffes between now and November.2. If Obama does win, Biden is a guy who I'd be very comfortable with as VP. I respect his foreign policy views a lot, which is one of if not the main area where I'm worried about an Obama administration. Biden is one of my favorite Democrats, so it would be nice to have him in the executive branch if the Dems have to win this go-around.

Huh? Can you explain the disparity between these two points? With nuance, please.

I'd prefer that Obama lose, but if he's going to win, I'd like his VP to be somebody who I like and who provides a grown-up POV on foreign policy. Biden is therefore the perfect selection IMO.

We need more nuance.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

To put it a little differently, Obama picking Biden would be kind of like Bush picking Cheney. Cheney didn't do much to help the ticket win, but he was the kind of selection you might make if you were just focused on governing once you got into office. Similarly, I don't think Biden helps Obama much in terms of winning the election, but he'd certainly an asset to a potential Obama administration.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Biden is the guy who I would select if I was allowed to pick Obama's running mate.

1. He increases the likelihood that Obama will lose the election, which is good IMO. He doesn't add a major state (like IN or VA) to Obama's camp, and he's a good bet to make one or two major gaffes between now and November.

I'll take the over.

 

[adonis]

To put it a little differently, Obama picking Biden would be kind of like Bush picking Cheney. Cheney didn't do much to help the ticket win, but he was the kind of selection you might make if you were just focused on governing once you got into office. Similarly, I don't think Biden helps Obama much in terms of winning the election, but he'd certainly an asset to a potential Obama administration.

So you don't buy the bit about it not mattering where the VP is from?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

To put it a little differently, Obama picking Biden would be kind of like Bush picking Cheney. Cheney didn't do much to help the ticket win, but he was the kind of selection you might make if you were just focused on governing once you got into office. Similarly, I don't think Biden helps Obama much in terms of winning the election, but he'd certainly an asset to a potential Obama administration.

So you don't buy the bit about it not mattering where the VP is from?

From an EC standpoint, it definitely matters where a candidate is from. If Obama picked Evan Bayh, for example, his presence on the ticket plus Obama's strength in the NW corner of the state would probably be enough to turn it blue. That's 11 (?) electoral votes that could potentially end up being big. On the other hand, Biden brings a lot more to the table (IMO at least) in January 2009 once Obama is sworn in. It would be a nice pick, and it would mark the first time since 1988 that I didn't at least strongly dislike either of the guys on the Democratic ticket.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Quoted on Andrew Sullivan's blog:

"Obviously, I favor Senator Obama's energy positions, and Democrats have been by and large the more forward-leaning actors. But John McCain has the best record of any Republican running for president on the energy issue and on climate change," - Bill Clinton.

:neckpunch:

 

[Fennis]

To put it a little differently, Obama picking Biden would be kind of like Bush picking Cheney. Cheney didn't do much to help the ticket win, but he was the kind of selection you might make if you were just focused on governing once you got into office. Similarly, I don't think Biden helps Obama much in terms of winning the election, but he'd certainly an asset to a potential Obama administration.

So you don't buy the bit about it not mattering where the VP is from?

From an EC standpoint, it definitely matters where a candidate is from. If Obama picked Evan Bayh, for example, his presence on the ticket plus Obama's strength in the NW corner of the state would probably be enough to turn it blue. That's 11 (?) electoral votes that could potentially end up being big. On the other hand, Biden brings a lot more to the table (IMO at least) in January 2009 once Obama is sworn in. It would be a nice pick, and it would mark the first time since 1988 that I didn't at least strongly dislike either of the guys on the Democratic ticket.

You didnt dislike Dukakis?

 

[adonis]

Quoted on Andrew Sullivan's blog:"Obviously, I favor Senator Obama's energy positions, and Democrats have been by and large the more forward-leaning actors. But John McCain has the best record of any Republican running for president on the energy issue and on climate change," - Bill Clinton.:neckpunch:

Good old Slick Willy at it again.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

To put it a little differently, Obama picking Biden would be kind of like Bush picking Cheney. Cheney didn't do much to help the ticket win, but he was the kind of selection you might make if you were just focused on governing once you got into office. Similarly, I don't think Biden helps Obama much in terms of winning the election, but he'd certainly an asset to a potential Obama administration.

So you don't buy the bit about it not mattering where the VP is from?

From an EC standpoint, it definitely matters where a candidate is from. If Obama picked Evan Bayh, for example, his presence on the ticket plus Obama's strength in the NW corner of the state would probably be enough to turn it blue. That's 11 (?) electoral votes that could potentially end up being big. On the other hand, Biden brings a lot more to the table (IMO at least) in January 2009 once Obama is sworn in. It would be a nice pick, and it would mark the first time since 1988 that I didn't at least strongly dislike either of the guys on the Democratic ticket.

You didnt dislike Dukakis?

Nah, he seemed like he was probably an okay guy. Admittedly, it's been a while.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Interesting take on McCain's "intellectual curiosity", or lack thereof.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/caf...cain/index.html

By Jack Cafferty

CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Russia invades Georgia and President Bush goes on vacation. Our president has spent one-third of his entire two terms in office either at Camp David, Maryland, or at Crawford, Texas, on vacation.

His time away from the Oval Office included the month leading up to 9/11, when there were signs Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America, and the time Hurricane Katrina destroyed the city of New Orleans.

Sen. John McCain takes weekends off and limits his campaign events to one a day. He made an exception for the religious forum on Saturday at Saddleback Church in Southern California.

I think he made a big mistake. When he was invited last spring to attend a discussion of the role of faith in his life with Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, McCain didn't bother to show up. Now I know why.

It occurs to me that John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. "It means I'm saved and forgiven." Great scholars have wrestled with the meaning of faith for centuries. McCain then retold a story we've all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand.

Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce. While saying it was his greatest moral failing, he offered nothing in the way of explanation. Why not?

Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day.

He was asked "if evil exists." His response was to repeat for the umpteenth time that Osama bin Laden is a bad man and he will pursue him to "the gates of hell." That was it.

He was asked to define rich. After trying to dodge the question -- his wife is worth a reported $100 million -- he finally said he thought an income of $5 million was rich.

One after another, McCain's answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush has -- virtually none.

Where are John McCain's writings exploring the vexing moral issues of our time? Where are his position papers setting forth his careful consideration of foreign policy, the welfare state, education, America's moral responsibility in the world, etc., etc., etc.?

John McCain graduated 894th in a class of 899 at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. His father and grandfather were four star admirals in the Navy. Some have suggested that might have played a role in McCain being admitted. His academic record was awful. And it shows over and over again whenever McCain is called upon to think on his feet.

He no longer allows reporters unfettered access to him aboard the "Straight Talk Express" for a reason. He simply makes too many mistakes. Unless he's reciting talking points or reading from notes or a TelePrompTer, John McCain is lost. He can drop bon mots at a bowling alley or diner -- short glib responses that get a chuckle, but beyond that McCain gets in over his head very quickly.

I am sick and tired of the president of the United States embarrassing me. The world we live in is too complex to entrust it to someone else whose idea of intellectual curiosity and grasp of foreign policy issues is to tell us he can look into Vladimir Putin's eyes and see into his soul.

George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure. And the part that troubles me most is he seems content with himself.

He will leave office with the country $10 trillion in debt, fighting two wars, our international reputation in shambles, our government cloaked in secrecy and suspicion that his entire presidency has been a litany of broken laws and promises, our citizens' faith in our own country ripped to shreds. Yet Bush goes bumbling along, grinning and spewing moronic one-liners, as though nobody understands what a colossal failure he has been.

I fear to the depth of my being that John McCain is just like him.