Clarke is definitely better than Webb, both in terms of credentials and in terms of being a good candidate. That said, I think it's fair to take him out of the running at this point, since Obama has denounced Clarke's (100% correct) remarks.

The really sad thing about the whole Clarke thing is watching the interviewer being astonished at the idea of what Clarke is saying. It's not like Clarke was trying to diminish McCain's past, but being president does not involve flying a jet and being tortured. It's a totally different role, and just because McCain managed one doesn't mean he's fit for the other.

What exactly are Obama's qualifications?

At least McCain shows he is willing to work with the Dems. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman......... where is Obama-(R)?

I used to be a proud Democrat because the party had shared the same values and ideals I did. But not Obama, not the current crop. The current crop is as far left as the Neo-Cons went right. Does the Democratic Party really want to sell it's beliefs to the far left and go so far left that just as the Neo-Cons chased out their moderates the "Progressives" will chase out theirs?

Obama's VP better be a moderate and wisely chosen. One who is a uniter, not a divider. It probably won't matter as the office is nothing really except a tie breaker in the Senate if need be or a heartbeat away from President.

My prediction: Obama is more of a divider in this country than W and his VP is ruined politically.

Qualifications to choose a vip? Wel, he's the Democratic nominee. He needs to pick one.
How well did compromising with Republicans go for Hillary Clinton? Not well. Obama isn't stupid. He knows that Democrats want a Democratic leader, not some weak Republicrat who compromises on those ideals and values that liberals and progressives hold dear.
This is, of course, based in nothing. Based on polling and statistics (a.k.a. the evidence available), Obama is not a divider.

Pan, if you go to The Library of Congress you can easily search for the bills that Obama has co-sponsored. Many, many of them have Republican co-sponsors. I started to compile a list, but it because tedious becuse there are so many.

Here are two WaPo articles that talk about his performance in the IL state legislature. Again, solid records of bi-partisan work, including one bill that was passed unanimously.

This one is anecdotal.
This one is "news".

Here's a quote from Republican State Senator from IL, on the Fox website, of all places:

“People on both sides of the aisle would find him to be someone who would reach across to find out why people think the way they do,” said William Mahar, a former Republican state senator. “He wouldn’t talk just to people who agreed with him.”

In short, I think that your perception of Obama as a legislative unilateralist is unfounded.

I have never seen the mainstream corporate media and the democratic national leadership shift so far to the right, as it has this month:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/0...-wesley-clark/

John McCain uses Swiftboater Bud Day to attack Wesley Clark
By: John Amato @ 5:00 PM - PDT

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/0...thing-on-fisa/

Special Comment: Olbermann Challenges Obama To Do The Right Thing On FISA
By: Logan Murphy @ 7:00 PM - PDT

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/0...lagers-attack/
When Villagers Attack….
By: John Amato @ 3:00 PM - PDT

The media should start their own McCain Defense PAC to help John McCain. They do it every chance they get. Maybe Joe Klein can be the chairman of the board. Where were all these media trolls and Villagers when John Kerry was swiftboated for winning medals in Vietnam? They sure didn’t mind those very real attacks against his service.

Wesley Clark on Face the Nation: CNN accuses Clark of “Swiftboating”

Fox’s Henneberg deceptively cropped Clark interview.

Duncan is absolutely correct...

“Gonna be a long election season.”

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/0...t-in-say-what/
Bush praises McCain for Expansion of the GI Bill that he had no part in: Say, what?
By: John Amato @ 1:00 PM - PDT


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/0...woods-or-news/

A Question of Priorities: Tiger Woods or News?
By: Nicole Belle @ 12:15 PM - PDT
My buddy Media Bloodhound had a simple question: why was the announcement that Tiger Wood needed reconstructive knee surgery so important that it led the CBS Evening News for a full 4 1/2 minute segment (out of 22 minutes of broadcast time)? It wasn’t as if it was a slow news day. Look at some of the stories MBH found that day that CBS opted not to do:

Israeli Defense Officials Confirm Cease-Fire with Hamas to Begin Thursday
Baghdad Insists on Right to Veto US Operations
Bill Extending Jobless Benefits Is Blocked By G.O.P.
Baghdad Blast Leaves 51 Dead, And the Shiites Call for Revenge
Notes Show Confusion on Interrogation Methods
One-Third of People Shot by Taser Need Medical Attention
Chinese Quake Toll, 69,172, Is Just a Guess
Senators Deny Knowing Of Home Loan Favoritism; Senate Ethics Panel Is Investigating
More Illegal Crossings Are Criminal Cases, Group Says
Conflicts Displacing More People
UN Says 5 Million Could Go Hungry in Zimbabwe Due to Drop in Food Production, High Inflation
Man with Deadly Skin Cancer Saved by New Treatment
Sudan: Darfur Groups Urge U.N. Action
US Targets Venezuela-Based Hezbollah Helpers
Taliban Take Afghan Villages In South in Prelude to Battle
Three Men Charged for Politkovskaya Murder: Investigators
New Florida Rules Return More Than 115,000 Ex-Offenders to Voting Rolls
Pakistani Fury Over U.S. Airstrikes Imperils Training of Frontier Force

So MBH contacted Rick Kaplan, Executive Producer of CBS Evening News, and this is his pathetic answer:

“The Tiger Woods injury story was of major importance and we felt we needed to devote time to it as the lead. Tiger is arguably one of the world’s premiere athletes and his career is in some jeopardy with Tiger halting playing the sport for the year. It was certainly the most talked about story of the day, and the biggest story in most national newspapers. Our story contained implications for sports, millions of fans, and many aspects of business; which have by and large been revolutionized by the Tiger Woods phenomenon.”

If you want to know why such thin gruel often passes for serious news on network television, Mr. Kaplan’s statement perfectly underscores the warped priorities of corporate media.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/0...-hears-it-too/

UPDATED with video: Obama criticizes MoveOn.org in patriotism speech: Wesley Clark hears it too…
By: John Amato @ 11:15 AM - PDT

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/0...-robert-gates/

Is Obama Considering Keeping On Robert Gates?

Et Tu, Pan ?

Once again, the facts triumph over emotion.

I do like pan's McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold examples since McCain has now taken positions against both in order to appease the far right base.

Almost as much as I like McCain taking credit for the 21th Century GI bill that was included in the recent Iraq funding bill since he was the leading opponent of the bill in the Senate.

Oh, I don't know about that. I think it's firmly founded in his belief that Obama's no good. The AMPLE evidence to the contrary makes no difference, given the tenacity of that belief.

I opened a new thread for this.

ABC News

Political Radar: Webb to Remain in Senate, No longer VP Candidate

It's not going to be Webb. Personally I'm with a lot of you here, I think we would be a politically perfect VP for Obama, but alas. I even read his book because a few months ago I was convinced it was going to be him.

Now I have no idea. Sebelius is as good a guess as any.

I think Clark is pretty likely- they seem to be going with a security theme, and he can back Obama up on that. Plus, he's a Washington outsider, and won't outshine Obama.

I'm not seeing a female VP- that might piss off Hillary supporters. The campaign probably polled Hillary supporters about that, though, so they'd know more than me about what Hillary supporters think.

However, I'd really like to see Biden get the role. He was one of my favorites from the Democratic primary debates, and came off as the most knowledgeable of the candidates. He voted for the war, though, and he's been in Washington for a long time, so I don't know if he'll fit in with Obama's change message. Still, he seems to have a lot of good experience and common sense, and he seems pretty likable to me.

Clark made comments that pretty much took him out of the running several weeks ago, IMO.

So Clarke and Webb are out. I wonder if Obama can convince Powell....

Everyone is saying Biden, though. He's got the foreign policy chops and could fill that supposed hole in the Obama ticket, but I dunno. I like Biden, I mean I'd have him over for a BBQ, and he said he'd accept on Meet the Press a few months back, but I can think of stronger VPs. I'd rather see a military name on the ticket with Obama.

Mark Warner is giving the keynote at the Convention.

Today's hubbub is John Kerry. geeez

Yeah, don't see that happening.

So I guess we will find out tomorrow who it is. But, do you think Obama and his staff are the only people to know? Or do you think there will be a bunch of Obama-[insert VP name here] signs, commercials, an web material going out tomorrow too. Meaning that the media/tabloids should have dug deeper and could have found out. Or is the media in on it and agreed to keep the secret?

They need to get the Apple fanbois on the case... they tend to know what will be released before it is announced.

It's brilliant marketing. The Obama team is really in tune with its audience. McCain...not so much.

At least two sources are stating it's Bayh:

SFGate: Politics Blog : Obama-Bayh bumperstickers being printed?

Gawd I hope not. Don't get me wrong I'll not be voting for McCain regardless. But Bayh? Ugh! I can see it now "Bayh, Bayh Obama." The signs will be everywhere.

Sounds like a lock, but I'll wait to hear it from Obama tomorrow.

I got an e-mail, I'd say it's a lock.

Much rather have him then Bayh.

Text message and email: it's Biden. :)

What a stupid way to announce who the VP is going to be. And at around 5 in the morning, or at least after 3 am and before 8 am...

I agree. Yesterday the Obama camp was saying the texts would come while the "nation was wake" Umm, what nation? China?

"Katie bar the door" ... it's Biden (Biden says that a lot)

Some interesting statements by Joe Biden regarding Obama...

"The idea of nominating someone without unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy would be a tragic mistake." Biden said during a radio interview in August 2007

"Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries? Absolutely, positively, no." Biden asked in August 2007, referring to Sen. Obama's reported willingness to meet with leaders of rogue states.

"The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."
From the candidate debate in August 2007, when Sen. Biden was asked about his previous criticism of Sen. Obama.

I wonder what changed Senator Joe Biden's mind... perhaps dreams of "Vice President" Joe Biden.

The good news is that Biden also said: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy... I mean, that's a storybook, man."

This all brings to mind some saying regarding strange bed-fellows.

Here's McCain's response



ouch

Sorta like GHW Bush's statements about Reagan during that primary...or Edwards statements about Kerry during the primary...or go all the way back to LBJ's statements about JFK.

Nothing new..when a candidate selects someone who was in the primaries.

But, I'm sure we will hear every Biden comment about Obama..again and again and again (and we will see the same if McCain happens to select Romney)

IMO, Biden is a good pick...experienced, respected and he can be very aggressive when necessary.

Yeah I don't see this as a problem. If the story doesn't just die (which it probably will) Biden just needs to say I have got to know Obama and his possitions better and I was wrong in the past.

If being wrong in the past is a major issue i'm sure the dems can point to McCains statements about us needing to attack Iraq days after 9/11 or the fact that McCain said Iraq would be easy (pararphased).

Yes... and we should also point to all the Democratic and Republican Senators and Representatives that said similar things about Iraq after 9/11 (Obama was only a State Senator at the time) as we examine who to send or replace in Congress this Fall.

What do you think you are? You think Obama is "the most liberal member of the US senate....or....you believe he is "the candidate for change".

Obama stated that household income above $250,000, is wealthy, yet in the NYC metro area, one of the wealthiest in the US, only 5 percent of households even have income above $200,000.....and the average household income there....above average compared to the national average, is less than $47,000.

$250,000 annual income is "enjoyed" by less than the top 5 percent of US households, indeed, the 2006 census shows 3,020,284 households in the "New York city, NY, New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area", with only about 5 percent of those households.... 156,621, with income above $200,000.

If you think Obama is "too liberal", or that he will "bring change".....consider what he says.....consider his choice for his running mate, and consider that you might be right of center in your political leanings, and not even realize it yet.

Is it unreasonable to think that your view is out of touch? The 2007 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances release is delayed....until after the election, because the 2004 survey showed that the top ten percent owned 70 percent of all US wealth, and the bottom 50 percent owned just 2-1/2 percent. The latest survey will show an even wider disparity between haves and have nots. Hence, it is better to conceal the 2007 SCF stats until after a candidate for NO CHANGE, either Obiden or McSame, wins in November.

People....the GINI coefficient wasn't much higher in Venezuala when Hugo Chavez gained the backing of the poor, than it is now, in the US. In some countries the elite are pragmatic enough and less corrupted by greed to know enough that, at some point, the sheeple will discover that they are sheeple, and then they get angry and sometimes, even violent.

Saying someone is the most liberal Senator is like saying that someone is the tallest person who was born with dwarfism.

Biden isn't an unreasonable choice, but he's not the choice I would have made. Despite my personal objections, it's clear that anyone or anything running against McCain deserves my consideration.

host, the change you seek just isn't going to happen without violence.

The change others are seeking is much more incremental and has more to do with different flavours of ice cream.

To continue the analogy, while most are looking for a different flavour of ice cream, you would like to reinvent mealtime as we know it. This is why few understand where you are coming from.

revolutions do not simply happen---they involve (and express) a political vision of an alternate arrangement---if you can say that the history of the political left came out of the french revolution without repeating it, the difference lay in the understanding that the french revolution effectively ate itself, that what motored this eating of itself was a series of groups which came to power each of which claimed to locate or embody the revolution.

in the present, there is no coherent viewpoint that looks forward. there is no revolutionary politics. there is not even a coherent notion of what revolution might mean. such is the pulverized state of affairs which confronts folk who see in the existing order mostly a farce, a brutal, tragic idiotic farce and imagine that the only way forward is forward.
there are legion viewpoints that run away from the present: to reinforce this very american tendency to substitute past for present, there are many options, most one or another variant of hyper-nationalism, more therefore one or another variant of fascism--some heavier, some more lite.

i see more a process of structural breakdown coming with a main experiential correlate in a sense of suffocation: the inhabitants of a building watch television footage of their building burning so they can "know what's happening"
mediated in this fashion, the present is already the past.
mediated in this fashion, there's no possibility of radically altering what is because (a) the features of the existing order which are ideological are collapsed onto features of objects in the world because there is no making of the world, only a reception.
mediated in this fashion, the present is already the past.
the room is taped shut: windows locked, doors bolted.
we'll sit in chairs until the smoke comes and we drift off to sleep.

so people prefer incremental change because they see on television and read in the papers that incremental change is change itself. if they believe that, then it's true, yes?

incremental change in a situation of incoherence gets you what exactly?

well, it's hard to say, isn't it?
but the reverse, which is refusing even that, seems a bad idea: we have the history of the ideological war on america waged by the right since the late 1970s to demonstrate that.

if there's to be a more radical possibility, it has to be built.
building that possibility is not going to happen on a messageboard.
this is not the world.
this is a fragment of the world.

===============
i am not surprised that biden is obama's running mate.
despite everything said above, i think obama is preferable to another republican administration. maybe it's no more than prefering a slower mounting of smoke in the room to a faster one.
but there is the possibility that the present is open, that the future can be otherwise, and that on it's own makes me think that slower mounting smoke is preferable.

Biden is a very good pick..... won't change my vote, but I do like Biden and think he would make a good president or VP.

I think in some ways it is a strong pick that can help Obama with some voters but..... ummm .... Otto's posting of McCain's ad pretty much shows it will probably hurt Obama more.

Surely, the Obama camp isn't stupid, they'd have have to known that ad would be coming. That ad will hurt him far more than putting Biden on the ticket will help him.

I truly wonder if he is trying to lose before he gets nominated.

The ad will be old news by next week..... particularly if McCain picks Romney and the Democrats respond with the same silly "gotcha" game.

While Obama focues on his pollicy agenda, Biden will be the pitbull out on the stump every day reminding the undecideds how McCain voted with Bush over 95% of the time....and he has the credibility to make it stick.

how important are adverts in shaping your viewpoint?

Yeah Rush, Fox and an endless supply of right wing blogs will provide the right leaning folks with talking points. This would have happened regardless of who was tapped.

Air America, Olbermann and the left wing blogs will do the same when McCain announces his pick.

I think in the end these types of ads have little effect on the average voter.

Election time really is silly season time in the US.

Yeah elections have turned into a football game where people picked their sides a long long time ago and the only thing that matters is betting the other side any way you can. The worst of it in politics it seems like there are a lot more of those rowdy fans who cheer when an opposing player gets hurt. The US political system is very close to breaking and in my opinion in its current state it only divides the public and makes them think that their neighbor is their enemy. Its all a bit Orwealian.

For me not much at all, but that ad is funny and I think it will be effective for some. Will it decide the election? No, but it will affect a few votes.