Exclusive: Patty Murray Receives VP Consideration

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:12


I have learned from a trusted inside source that the Obama campaign has approached, and held talks with, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) as a possible Vice-Presidential selection.

Murray was first elected to the Senate in Washington State in 1992, the "year of the woman" in the U.S. Senate. Murray would be a reinforcing pick for Barack Obama in that she is one of the few sitting Senators or Governors who opposed the Iraq war from the start, voting against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq. back in October of 2002. Murray also mirrors Obama in that, before her career in electoral politics, she was a citizen activist and community organizer on environmental and educational issues.

Murray also does much to balance a ticket for Obama. As an early supporter of Hillary Clinton, she would give that wing of the party a place on the ticket. Further, in addition to a different policy focus (environment and education), Murray was once dismissed as a "mom in tennis shoes" during her time as an activist. Murray would potentially appeal to many of the same demographics where Senator Hillary Clinton, particularly suburban women, but also those interested in "experience."

Personally, I think that Patty Murray would be an excellent Vice-Presidential pick by Obama, and I am glad that she is under consideration. While she isn't the sort of name that the elite fawning (Bloomberg), testosterone owrshipping (Webb), or conservative obsessed (Hagel, Nunn) punditry will suggest, she has many strengths and very few weaknesses as a VP selection. In addition be serviing as both a balancing and reinforcing selection, she consistently ranks in the top third of the Democratic caucus in terms of progressive voting record. Further, the possibility of two anti-war, community organizers at the top of the Democratic ticket is very appealing.

Patty Murray needs to be on the short list of Vice-Presidential selections. Along with Sherrod Brown, Wesley Clark, John Edwards, and Kathleen Sebelius, she is certainly on mine.
Chris Bowers :: Exclusive: Patty Murray Receives VP Consideration

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Exclusive: Patty Murray Receives VP Consideration | 90 comments
Two senators? (0.00 / 0)
I'd rather go with a gov (Richardson, Sibelius) or someone else who's administered something (Clark).
Why? (0.00 / 0)
We haven't won yet - let's win the election first.  Richardson and Sebelius are major liabilities on the ticket as campaigners.

Clark is a favorite of mine for VP, but Murray strikes me as interesting.  

[ Parent ]
Winning is the point (0.00 / 0)
Senators have a crappy record as presidential candidates. The last one elected was John Kennedy. Of course this year it's senator vs. senator at the top of the ticket, but still I think it would help to have a non-Senator as a running mate.
[ Parent ]
I like it (4.00 / 3)
I much prefer Murray over Cantwell, whose record as the head of the makers of RealPlayer was not particularly stellar.

I see the sense of Sen. Murray on the ticket.

Thanks.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

Blech! (4.00 / 5)
Murray and Cantwell are my senators and I'm not enamored of either of them.  Cantwell royally screwed up with Alito cloture, something I find pretty unforgivable.

Murray is rather undistinguished and doesn't come off as very powerful - a liability if part of the VP's role is attack dog.

Moreover, I've been VERY disappointed with Murray lately, as the only time I encounter her in media is when she's shilling for Boeing and how mistreated they were in the tanker deal.  She is quite absent on FISA, habeus, Iraq.

[ Parent ]
hmmmm (0.00 / 0)
...she's shilling for Boeing and how mistreated they were in the tanker deal.

If nothing else, that would make for an interesting back-and-forth with McCain, who got a lot of shit from Lou Dobbs types when he killed the original Boeing deal that wound up going overseas.  

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers

[ Parent ]
How is Murray (0.00 / 0)
as a debater?  I don't know much about her, but after Chris wrote this I read the about her in the Almanac of American Politics, and was reasonably impressed.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, she's absent (0.00 / 0)
Except in using her position as second-highest ranking Democrat on the Committee on Veterans Affairs to force the VA to get their shit together, admit the truth about PTSD, TBI and veterans/active duty suicides and single-handedly forcing the Republican Senate to fund the VA at the proper levels (even forcing Rick Santorum to admit on the floor that she'd been right about the VA budget) in 2004, yeah, she's not doing much.  True, she speaks out against the war fairly regularly, but she isn't on TV and stuff, so I guess that doesn't count.  
[ Parent ]
either way, it sets up a great mold for the type he is looking for (4.00 / 2)
I'm very encouraged by this type of selection.  I 100% agree with your assessment on the type of VP he should select.  

Sam Nunn?  Jimmy Carter lays the smackdown on why Hillary would be a bad idea and then he pulls his Georgia buddy Sam Nunn out of his ass.  What the fuck. Only die hards like me, you and 1000 other activists even remember Nunn.  Jeez, I love Carter and all but WTF.

OIL (4.00 / 6)
Sam Nunn is on the board of Chevron Oil. This year, that disqualifies him from any election in any party.
[ Parent ]
oh christ, didn't even know that (0.00 / 0)
has Carter lost his bearings?
[ Parent ]
She's not on my list (4.00 / 4)
As nice as it'd be to have a VP who also opposed the war, Murray is too much of a corporate Dem for my tastes. She's never met a free trade deal she didn't like. She voted for Fast Track, normal relations with China, and even CAFTA.

We need more of a populist Dem to help Obama in the industrial Midwest, and Appalachia.  

Fuck, CAFTA??!!?? (0.00 / 0)
If that's true, then it's an automatic disqualification. We already have one party for the corporations and the outsourcers; we don't need two.

Nobody should be seriously considered for leading the Democratic Party if they supported that wage-lowering garbage. Same goes for the Bankruptcy "reform": unforgivable.

Has anyone made a good issues chart for those being floated for V.P.? With columns for Iraq, CAFTA, Bankruptcy, Domestic spying, etc.? That would be a nice quick way to weed out the worst of these bozos.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

[ Parent ]
I think only one (4.00 / 1)
possible option would pass the test, and he's a certain twice-divorced Jew from Wisconsin.

[ Parent ]
It's a small point, but (0.00 / 0)
West Coast Dems are almost all free trade, for local economic reasons.  Port of Long Beach, Port of Oakland, Port of Seattle; trade with especially Asia, but also South America, is a huge part of the local economics.  

That doesn't quite let her off the hook, but West Coast Dems are coming at this from a somewhat different angle than Midwest Dems, who generally are the ones with a good record on trade.

This kindof goes in the same file as the "Obama voted for the energy bill cuz he's from a coal state" matter.

[ Parent ]
Not an excuse (4.00 / 1)
Barbara Boxer, despite her faults elsewhere, is generally on the side of angels when it comes to things like CAFTA and Bankruptcy "reform." You can be an economic populist on the West Coast.

Politicians are not excused for bowing down to corporate interests simply by reason that those interests are very powerful.

CAFTA hurts the working class in every state, including the West Coast. The only difference in California and Washington is that there are also more corporations headquarted in those states that extract short-term profit from exploitative global trade.

To suggest that Patty Murray's vote for CAFTA should be written off because of corporate power in the Pacific Rim is to say, "Oh, yeah, she let that dragon destroy those villages, but you should expect that because the dragon also controls her and feeds her, and it's a really scary dragon."

Fuck that. Reward the dragon slayers.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

[ Parent ]
what's people's sense of Murray's effectiveness as a legislator? (0.00 / 0)
or as a progressive?

opinions are mixed here in Washington.

i do agree that she'd be a way better choice than Cantwell.

Corrupt abuser of earmark spending (0.00 / 0)
She was recently exposed on Bill Moyers' Journal as a particularly bad abuser of pork barrel spending, channeling millions of dollars of taxpayer's money into military equipment that soldiers never use, rejecting it as "worthless junk".

She would, in fact, be a terrible choice.

[ Parent ]
I guess she's OK. (0.00 / 0)
I don't really see her bringing alot to the ticket, though.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.
I would hope (0.00 / 0)
that these comments would be too much of a downside, but I have a feeling...

"We've got to ask," Murray told honors students at Columbia River High School in Vancouver, "why is this man so popular around the world? Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?

"He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful, " Murray told them.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...

Wouldn't be, I meant (0.00 / 0)
Meaning that I think they shouldn't be but I think they will be.
[ Parent ]
Of course, Osama BL (4.00 / 1)
Is the unamed 'man' in the quotation.  

But I don't see why Murray should be taken out of VP consideration for describing the fact of Bin Laden's philanthropy as an effective tactic in his jihad.

[ Parent ]
This was the main line of attack by Nethercutt in the last election (4.00 / 4)
It failed, and failed badly. In fact, the Republican's decision to go with this line of attack effectively ended the race. Murray has won virtually every single campaign she has been involved in by counter-attacking after her opponent goes after her on her credentials or this type of idiotic attack.

At the same time Kerry was slow to respond and attempting to soft-peddle attacks on Bush, Murray had a response ad up against Nethercutt on this issue within 48 hours and absolutely destroyed him with it.

One of my favorite political moments in the past several years was watching Nethercutt forced to run a blooper reel with a week to go in the campaign just to try and salvage some measure of respectability from the whole endeavor. Ending with the line of 'I am not really a monster... really' says something about what Murray can do.

That said, I am not sure she can clear the hurdle of being obviously ready to be president on first blush and I think her selection would not help Obama.  

[ Parent ]
That Was Fun (0.00 / 0)
I voted for Murray that year--living in Washington at the time--and that was a fun election.  It was good times watching Nethercutt's idiotic attempts to blow those comments up into some big deal backfire badly on him.

I'm not entirely sure on what I think of Murray as VP.  On one hand, she doesn't seem particularly dynamic to me, and seems like in ways she might not bring a lot to the ticket.  On the other hand, I would say I'm speaking from a particular perspective that isn't likely to be shared by a lot of women in general and middle-aged women in particular.

I've always liked Murray.  From a policy and ideology perspective, I'm pretty much onboard with her running with Obama.  My concerns are more around campaigning issues.  Still, she's proven herself to be very effective at winning office.  I think she has the potential to be an excellent pick with some definite demographic advantages.

I'm thinking if she does get it, a lot of people will be very surprised.

[ Parent ]
Of course... (0.00 / 0)
the fact that those comments are 100% true won't be a factor in any GOP ads...
[ Parent ]
Yup (0.00 / 0)
I love Patty, but when I heard about this VP talk I immediately flashed to this clip being played 24/7 in October.  She can survive, and thrive, in Washington state with this being thrown at her.  It won't fly in the south, or with people who haven't gotten to know her for the last 20 years.
[ Parent ]
Love It (0.00 / 0)
Obama's got a lot of good choices, picking a female Senator who opposed the war seems like a fine idea. What's she like on the stump?

Doesn't seem like Clinton is that thrilled about being VP, so I really doubt it will be her.

Not a great choice (4.00 / 1)
In terms of the candidate, but it fits with the message and it's hard for the press to criticise it. Especially since they only really want Jim Webb so they can suggest Obama's not a real man.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
Not bad. (4.00 / 4)
    That the Obama campaign is considering Senator Murray as a possible running mate means that they are not paying attention to the bad advice they are getting right now.  It's more important that they not take bad advice, even more important than their specific choice for running mate.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
Earlier OL discussion of Murray (4.00 / 2)
I cross-listed my earlier VP Rundown diary on Daily Kos (here) and some several very thoughtful community members had an insightful comment thread discussion about Murray.  

I had included her in my Top 20 on the rankings, and the consensus in the comments was that Murray had some drawbacks, that Cantwell was arguably stronger but had drawbacks of her own, and finally (what I found most interesting), that Blanche Lincoln from AR had all of Murray's advantages and more.  

I'll transcribe some of these posters' comments below:

"As an alternative to Murray & the Pelosi Club... I propose the following:
     Cantwell is an accomplished business leader.  She has successfully led a company from infancy to billion dollar power.
     She understands the issues regarding environmental policy and when these two elements are combined elevates her to a position of the uniquely qualified to help set and foster policies that will advance our agenda in these areas.
     Further, Maria fully understands the conventions of investment capital, international capital and finance.  Given the great needs in these areas her first hand knowledge and experience will blunt many of the questions that will be put forth.  That is in what way will our nation address the national security concerns that are posed by the current and developing crisis in the financial markets, their impact upon business formation and our ability to grow the new industries necessary to advance our green growth agenda.
     When put side by side with Murray, it is my humble opinion that Cantwell stacks up as a better candidate.
     Maria Cantwell is far from a "Pelosi Lite" and I ask who else has the experience in business, finance & government while being young enough to continue with our efforts from 2016?"
by paul94611 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:00:49 PM EDT

"Patty Murray is a soccer mom who is NOT well liked in WA state that went 70% for Obama (she still supports Clinton out of "loyalty").  Murray may have a hard time keeping her Senate seat next go-around and she is not very smart to boot.  She brings nothing to the table for Obama IMHO.

Cantwell is much better than Murray (at least she is a proven biz exec), but Obama would be much better with a midwestern / southern running mate or possibly someone from the SW (like Richardson or Napolitano)."
by seattlegirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:07:32 PM EDT

"Patty Murray?!?
We love Patty here in Washington, but I don't see her as having the gravitas to be a significant benefit, she's a Clinton supporter as SD currently (and unlike our junior Senator, Maria Cantwell, not a member of the Pelosi Club to the best of my knowledge). I also don't think she has even regional appeal- not that the Pacific Northwest is in danger of being in play."
by wingedelf on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:22:37 PM EDT

And I found this poster's arguments to be intriguing:

(16+ / 0-)
"You left out Blanche Lincoln, who is a better candidate than Murray, McCaskill, Napolitano or Sebelius and has less baggage than Clinton.

  1. More legislative experience than any of the other women - 6 years in the House, 10 in the Senate, and yet not viewed as a Washington insider.
  2. Genuinely from Arkansas - a swing state
  3. Youngest woman to ever be elected to the Senate - looks like generational change. All the others you have listed look like Barack's Mom, not an equal.
  4. Has twin boys, age 12 - they haven't sold board games out of their home, like Sebelius's son.
  5. Married so no lesbian gossip like Napolitano
  6. Husband is an infertility specialist so won't likely be a co-vice president like Bill Clinton
  7. Endorsed Hillary so she is a bridge to the Clintons
  8. Expertise in rural america, agriculture, food, energy and good on health care, childrens care, aging etc.
  9. Very attractive - would look much better with Obama
 10. And then there is the bumper sticker:
OBAMA/LINCOLN 2008

Need I say more."

by suse on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:51:42 PM EDT


There were no comments in the thread in Murray's defense - pretty milquetoast enthusiasm all in all.

A final thought -
In yesterday's post about "media buzz," I did a Google News analysis of 30 VP candidates - as you can see in this table, Murray didn't even show up in the results under searches such as VP Murray or vice Murray.  So if these talks are going on, no members of the press knew about it as of yesterday.

Blanche Lincoln is (4.00 / 2)
one of those people I keep wondering about: why they're not mentioned more. And I hadn't even thought about the bumpersticker! Obama/Lincoln, indeed.
[ Parent ]
One drawback for Lincoln (0.00 / 0)
It would kinda be a thumb in the eye of Clinton supporters to pick a female senator from Arkansas.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
Isn't Lincoln .. (4.00 / 2)
DLC?
[ Parent ]
Voted for the war (4.00 / 3)
and is a bit conservative for my taste on lots of other issues. Just my two cents - if we're going to open up serious discussion to candidates who supported the war, I think we can do a lot better than Lincoln (Edwards comes to mind).
[ Parent ]
Indeed, that's what passes for insight at dKos now (4.00 / 5)
...3. Youngest woman to ever be elected to the Senate - looks like generational change. All the others you have listed look like Barack's Mom, not an equal.
 ...5. Married so no lesbian gossip like Napolitano
 ...7. Endorsed Hillary so she is a bridge to the Clintons
 8. Expertise in rural america, agriculture, food, energy and good on health care, childrens care, aging etc.
 9. Very attractive - would look much better with Obama

by suse

First, the BS. Her 'expertise' in rural America consists of caving repeatedly to corporate interests and being appallingly conservative in ways that belie any interest in policy, certainly any progressive policy. I wish I had the time or inclination to go back and trace whether or not suse or any of the 16 ppl who rated that comment up have ever argued that Clinton wasn't progressive enough, or was too corporate, or that they didn't like her stance on the war. Oh, but let's just get a token chick on the ticket, which seems self-evidently to be the so-called reasoning on this because ...

Obviously, a woman who looks like someone's Mom can't be an equal. It's hard to say what she would look like (inferior, elder, ugly old bitch who wouldn't clear off so no one has to look at her anymore?), but not an equal. Also, it's important that no one be able to lie about her orientation, lesbians are so icky, because that really stopped the gossip about the married HRC. And hey, she's attractive ... because the important thing is that she be a she, be a token bone to throw Clinton supporters who shouldn't be worrying their little heads about the issues, and that she look pretty when she's out campaigning with Obama.

That's just incredibly insulting. It's a disgrace to the blogosphere that it wasn't TR'd, and revolting that someone would be proud to introduce it around as part of an "insightful" discussion.

[ Parent ]
Disgraceful and Revolting (4.00 / 1)
What about:

* More legislative experience than any of the other women - 6 years in the House, 10 in the Senate, and yet not viewed as a Washington insider.
* From Arkansas - a swing state
* Youngest woman to ever be elected to the Senate - looks like generational change.
* Endorsed Hillary so she is a bridge to the Clintons
* Photogenic
* The bumper sticker: OBAMA/LINCOLN 2008

Those don't seem so revolting to me. I'd have to look closer into question about "Expertise in rural america, agriculture, food, energy and good on health care, childrens care, aging etc."

[ Parent ]
Most of that (4.00 / 4)
Isn't even accruate, or aplies ot Murray as well.

*Murray entered the Senate the same year Lincoln entered the House, 1992. Murray, however, was in the Washington state senate for four years before she entered the U.S. Senate. She has more legislative expereince than Lincoln.

*Maybe Lincoln isn't viewed as a D.C. insider because she isn't viewed at all on a national level. Granted, the same can be said for Murray. Niether have any national profile.

*Arkansas is not a swing state. Obama is down by 24 in Arkansas, making it one of McCain's five or ten safest states right now.

*Murray endorsed Clinton. Same thing there.

*Murray was 42 when she was elected to the Sneate, only 4 years older than Lincoln.

So, basically we are left with Lincoln being younger, prettier, and having a better sounding name than Murray. That isn't much to go on. In fact, for a woman, that is a pretty patronizing set of criteria to use. Given Lincoln's conservatism, it is unpallatable.  

[ Parent ]
OK, that's a good reality check, Chris... (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for doing the homework that I should have done in reposting that one.  

I will add that based on some youtube searching today, Lincoln appeared to generate more fire on the stump than Murray, which I hope is a more legitimate criticism.  Murray is simply a weak speaker - on everything from eye contact to the enthusiasm in her voice.  

But I stand corrected about length of tenure and current AR polling (since Clinton led there, I thought Obama might be in striking distance, though I knew he was down).  

[ Parent ]
Well, given the history of Arkansas, (4.00 / 1)
I don't think it's too much to expect that Lincoln could make it a swing state, which might be pretty tremendously helpful, especially given that it looks safe for McCain right now--and that this is possibly a 'wave' year. So maybe the two candidates are much the same, but the edge there is heavily for Lincoln.

Younger and prettier--aka 'more photogenic'--might be patronizing, though I feel the same about male candidates. Give me TV-friendly every time. So maybe the two candidates are much the same, but the edge there is for Lincoln.

Far as experience goes, Murray has a few more years if you include state legislature, Lincoln a few more if you only include federal. Seems a wash.

Murray is ten years older. Still a generational change, but not so starkly reinforcing. Slight edge to Lincoln.

As I said, I'm not really conversant with stands on the issues--that little thing. Judging from this thread, Murray is hardly a shining example of progressivism. Judging from a little Googling, Lincoln is, if anything, worse. So overall, edge to Murray, fine.

[ Parent ]
Less experienced (4.00 / 2)
Lincoln was out of office 1996-1998 to have a child. Murray has been in office continously since 1992. So Murray has more experience either way.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
That's not fair, Natasha, (0.00 / 0)
and it's been a bit frustrating to see you focusing so much energy attacking folks like David Mizner above (and that's definitely not a defense of anything HE'S said on DKos - I'm on Open Left refugee too!), rather than sharing the usual thoughtful dissection of media bias and current events that you usually bring here and on mydd.

Natasha, you've been a netroots hero to me for sometime - I've followed your writing all the way back to IGHIH (I'm a contrib. there too), and the emphasis you bring especially to gender and environmental issues (and the links between them) is exactly the kind of focus I think the netroots community needs.  

So for you to take call it disgraceful, or shameful, for someone to express a list of attributes which they believe make Lincoln a strong VP candidate in her own right - as a substantive leader in the Senate and an eloquent speaker - you judge too quickly.  And you responded to a couple of lines that invoked for you a variety of other abuses that we HAVE seen throughout the blogosphere.  

But don't you lump me in with the mob - I shared that poster's comment because I thought there were points within it that were, as I said, "insightful" - in particular the length of her legislative experience and her geographic connection.  I didn't abridge the comment, though I could have done without the analysis of her appearance or gender orientation, myself.

On the other hand, to me it's a legitimate argument to analyze identity politics in the context of VP selection.  If a poster suggests that Obama should not pick X because they're (black/female/gay/young/old/white/male), and makes an argument that the person's identity characteristics are (reinforcing/distracting/demographically unhelpful/geographically weak), that's different than making an argument for or against a candidate (Clinton, for instance - or Lincoln) simply because one holds an identity-based prejudice.

I think Lincoln is strong on her merits.

Because I hold your opinion in such high esteem, Natasha, I hope that you read this over and reconsider what I found to be a very fast dismissal of my remarks, and more generally that you remember that there are more of us out there fighting the same fight as you, than you think there are.

[ Parent ]
It is disgraceful (4.00 / 4)
Thanks for the compliment, but ... To argue for someone based on very little of substance, particularly in the context of a web community that applied a standard to Clinton that applies even moreso to Lincoln, because she's prettier instead of 'looking like his Mom' is sexist.

Those are sexist remarks and there's no getting around it.

It's like a punch in the gut to read that. Blanche Lincoln is someone who, on the basis of her politics on issues our communities have declared to be important, is one of the worst people in the Dem caucus. But she's young. And pretty. And female; which should mean that Clinton supporters shouldn't notice the rest.

That comment is every sort of bs that women have to face just as they start getting to the same point in their careers that signal, for men, that they've really accomplished something. There's nothing insightful or new about it whatever, and the more substantive points surrounding (geography and length of experience) could have been brought up without the rest.

You didn't have to bring that sexist trash here in order to make your case.

[ Parent ]
Once again (0.00 / 0)
Natasha, if my only crime was that I didn't abridge another poster's comment to exclude less-legitimate arguments in favor of the content I found relevant, then I guess there's little else I can say.

But for you to bring your notoriously sharp and immediate judgment down on my head is not helpful - I'm a member of this community that has, among other things, devoted myself to a very fair critique of both Clinton and Obama, and I've spent the last decade of my life strongly involved in gender justice and GLBT issues.  This last week, I've been actively contributing to Paul Rosenberg's current series about feminist history and lessons drawn, for chrissakes, and I have to be browbeaten by someone I admire deeply about my feminist cred on the basis of quoting another poster.  

That approach isn't how we engage one another to draw together as a community.  It's not that you're wrong about the sexist nature of several of those remarks - but Chris Bowers, higher up in this thread - was able to keep the vitriol to a minimum in debunking some of Lincoln's supposed strengths, and I was more than happy to reply that I stood corrected.  

[ Parent ]
Consider this, then (0.00 / 0)
Would you have even remotely considered, ever, bringing over commentary about an African American candidate that included, as if it were a positive thing, that they were surprisingly eloquent, or that their skin was much lighter than some of the other choices, or that they were really well behaved and hardly acted Black at all? No, no you wouldn't. Would you ever have repeated without qualification commentary about a gay candidate that said, well, he didn't seem like so much of a sissy after all, or that she wasn't one of the scary dykes? No.

You'd have known in all those instances that just running that by certain people would be hurtful and offensive and insulting. And you would probably not have been surprised at all, had someone else done that, to see a member of the targeted community react very strongly to it.

And re Chris: I admire him about as much as it's possible to admire another human being. I wouldn't doubt for a moment that he's committed to feminist ideals. But it's also the case that he's not as personally attacked by that sort of thing, it not being directed at him.

After this primary, I'm frankly in no mood for any of it. I'm tired of being told I'm imagining this stuff. I'm tired of men telling me that they can do a better job at making feminist arguments than I can. And I've completely frakking had it with men refusing to accept that certain things are sexist unless another man wades in and agrees that it is.

I'm sick of the whole damn thing and it makes me feel like I've been completely wasting my life the last few years.

[ Parent ]
For chrissakes (0.00 / 0)
You're assuming that I self-identify as a man, for one.  

And then you're actually making some kind of creepy essentialist case that you shouldn't have to "listen to me make a feminist argument" because now I'mthe one who doesn't have the right physical characteristics!  This really undermines your original argument, Natasha.

I'm sick of this "whole damn thing," too.  You are the first person in four years of posting on the blogs who has decided it was useful and appropriate to cut off at the knees my own right and stake in the feminist movement.  

[ Parent ]
Great idea (4.00 / 1)
If you think that the change we need is selling out to corporations even more.

Otherwise, it's almost as bad as Evan Bayh.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Blanche Lincoln on Youtube... (0.00 / 0)
I don't agree with everything she has to say, but she does bring an inspirational speaking style reminiscent of Obama's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

[ Parent ]
Patty Murray is boring (0.00 / 0)
Ever hear Murray speak on the Senate floor? She never looks up from her notes and always speaks in a monotone.

I much prefer Maria Cantwell. I think her only "sin" is being far too politically "careful" for some progressives. Her background would counter what I think would be the biggest potential opposition combo - McCain-Fiorina (I think it would force us to spend big to defend California.)

Besides, Cantwell has an arm from Center Field that even Ichiro could admire ;)

[ Parent ]
Good sign, even if she's not the pick (4.00 / 3)
I'm surprised that I haven't heard Murry mentioned before, considering that she seems like a pretty good fit in retrospect.

I'm skeptical that she'll be the ultimate choice, but it demonstrates some positive things:

1) Obama is looking outside the stupid CW picks
2) He's looking at some relative progressive people
3) He's looking at people who were clearly against the Iraq war

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

A brief review of Sen. Murray clips on YouTube... (0.00 / 0)
is not very encouraging to me.  She has limited charisma, and her speaking is neither inspirational, nor effectively combative - I'd prefer a VP who can do one or the other on the stump, on Meet the Press, and at the VP debate.  

http://www.youtube.com/results...

I'm With Those Who Say She's Best As An Indication (4.00 / 6)
that Obama is not being caged in by the CW.

But, in addition to the drawbacks others have noted, she's been in the Senate a fairly long time, and hasn't made that much of a name for herself.  I know that the conditions have been adverse for that, but it's still true.

Indeed, that's the problem with most Dem senators.  They've been too damn passive.  One more reason that Feingold stands out.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

I adore Patty Murray (4.00 / 1)
Her grassroots operation in Washington State is first-rate. She's a strong senator for that state, a far sight better than Maria Cantwell.

But as much as I like Murray I have a difficult time seeing her as the VP. She is just not a great stump speaker. As Senator from the Evergreen State she doesn't need to be, but I don't think it would work well on the ticket.

[ Parent ]
Yes, Keep In Mind The Peter Principle (4.00 / 1)
It's one thing to say someone's done a good job somewhere. Not at all the same as saying they should be promoted.  It may well be that they are perfect where they are.  That needs to be considered in talking about any politician.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
That's quite generous (4.00 / 1)
Since Murray got elected with that "mom in tennis shoes" schtick back in 1992 I think she's accomplished little.  

As I noted above, for months now the only time I hear her voice on radio or TV, or read about her in print, is when she's shilling for Boeing.  Otherwise, nada.

She's had plenty of time to demonstrate leadership, and has offered little of substance, IMHO.

Moreover, notwithstanding the effectiveness against Nethercutt detailed above, as a campaigner I think she's monotonous and uninspiring.  She'd offer quite the contrast to Obama, but we already have McCain for that.

While she's certainly better than any rethug, I'd love to see her (and Maria!) replaced with dynamic and effective progressives.

[ Parent ]
Sorry (0.00 / 0)
to keep picking on you, it's not intentional.  But you seem to mistake being on TV or in the media eye with not getting anything of substance done.  She's currently one of the most powerful people in the Senate.  She ain't perfect by everyone's various progressive standards, but she's no slouch, and there's a reason Republicans beat up on her - they know she's dangerous and they have to try and fight back publicly against what she's capable of privately.  

She's not Hillary; she makes no pretension to being a rock star.  She just flexes her muscle where she thinks it'll do the most good, and that rarely makes it into the news.  

If you're wondering who to thank for Plan B being available to women who've been raped...it's Patty Murray.  Like your ports to be safe, and wondering who's doing most of the fighting to get some actual safeguards into our shipping systems?  Look to Patty.  Wondering who's fighting with the VA on just about everything they do wrong (and it's a lot)?  It's Patty.  These aren't things that get you on TV, and no, she doesn't fight all the fights we'd love to see her fight as progressive activists.  But to say she's accomplished little is just misinformed.

[ Parent ]
not a good comparison (0.00 / 0)
"She's better than Cantwell" isn't a very strong argument.

Considering how Washington is trending deep blue, we deserve two more progressive senators.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

[ Parent ]
Very Quick Murray Thoughts (4.00 / 2)
1. Community activist background would make me hopeful that Obama has a plan for continuing to build and empower grassroots community, even as president. That seems to be where he's going,it's what makes him a visionary; it sure would help to have a VP with the same cellular inclination and knowledge. - In fact, her OBL comment is a recognition of the power of community support systems.

2. A few years ago, there was an article about a poll of Senate staffers in which Patty Murray got the most votes as "least bright Senator." Anyone know anything about this? Why would they have thought that?

Community Activist Background (0.00 / 0)
Interesting viewpoint, and sounds great.

Grassroots faith and hope and charity have done very well by Mr. Obama, but his organization is already so good at this I believe another person at it would be superfluous.

Instead, his VP choice has got to bring him some badly-needed help in swing states.  We cannot afford to go into November with Nevada, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida as question marks, and right now it looks like McCain might just take all seven and the 107 Electoral Votes these crucial battlegrounds will bring to the winner.  

28 more EV's and McCain is halfway home.

[ Parent ]
Guh? (0.00 / 0)
You do realise McCain is the favourite to win Indiana and Arizona whoever the VP is, right?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Eh (0.00 / 0)
On the list I guess but I'm not a huge fan. She has a lot of problems. She's a ardent free trader, not much of a speaker, wouldn't really help were it is needed (New south, west, midwest).

Sebelius is a better speaker, brings more electorally to the table, was also anti-war and is more of a reinforcing pick.

It's Edwards, Sebelius, Clark, Warner and Murry for me.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

I'm proud (4.00 / 3)
to have her as my Senator, but as VP, I don't see a lot to recommend the pick, other than the fact that she's more progressive than most of the people whose appear on the short-list (with the exception of trade and pork issues, as some other people have pointed out). With Obama at top of the ticket (and McCain on most Boeing employees' shit lists), Washington is not going to be remotely in play, she doesn't really help us with any broader demographic or region where Obama could use a boost (except maybe older middle-class white women, and I don't know if they'd be placated with the addition of some other random Clinton-supporting woman they've never heard of on the ticket), and mostly she's just booooo-ring. I mean, she makes Sebelius look like a charismatic, intense speaker. Murray's just basically really good at the behind-the-scenes give-and-take of the Senate, and she should continue to stay in the leadership there.

On the other hand, Obama's first priority for a VP might be a good executive officer rather than another show pony, someone he can delegate unglamorous stuff to, who will be able to grind it out effectively without crowding the spotlight or making a lot of waves. Murray would definitely be good at that.

If we're looking for a woman from Washington as VP, Chris Gregoire would be the one I'd go with. She's really exceeded expectations as governor (well, with the exception of the meshugas over Seattle's transportation infrastructure). Only problem is she's running again in 2008, so she's already busy.

the part of the electorate that Mr. Obama must be certain to capture (0.00 / 0)
Is the hispanic part.  Murray or any other northern liberal of any gender or skin tone will not do that.

Mr. Obama must select someone who can speak Spanish and talk with both Mexicans and Cubans in their own language, and who can understand how to mediate between them and the northern liberals.  If he can win over the western border states and Florida it's completely all over for McCain.  If he can get a vice-presidential candidate who can develop a successful policy for immigration along that border and across that watery divide, and gain acceptance for that policy before the August convention, he's in like Flynn.

The whole country, not just the inter-mountain region, wants a positive, not punitive, resolution to the "immigration problem".  And he's got lots of time between now and August to work that out if he chooses the right person to represent him.

That person has to speak Spanish and understand the South Western states.

The Secret Plan (0.00 / 0)
Does anyone think that Caroline Kennedy is planning to pull a Dick Cheney and name herself Obama's VP?
What part of "patronizing tokenism" do the Obama people not understand? (0.00 / 0)
Sebelius, Kennedy, now Murray....

To paraphrase Max Von Sydow, if I was a woman who supported Clinton, I wouldn't be able to stop throwing up.

I think... (0.00 / 0)
you are obligated to defend any statement that implies that folks like Sebelius are somehow unqualified in their own right - anything less than a fair argument can be understood as anti-(Sebelius, Murray, etc.)  sexism.  

I won't minimize any of the appalling sexist trash thrown at Clinton over the past months (and years, and decades) - but we must not compound our error by dismissing non-Clinton VP candidates out of the same kind of prejudicial (pre - judicial) bias that Clinton has faced.

[ Parent ]
Read this thread for arguments against Murray (0.00 / 0)
I've argued against Sebelius before.  Her speech is coma-inducing centrist mush.  Her governorship of a small state does not qualify her to help Obama run the largest bureaucracy in the world, riddled with Bushie dead-enders.

And it is, to put it kindly, disingenuous to claim that the sudden string of women's names being floated for VP are not calculated to get the women's votes.  It's just so transparent as to be insulting.

And one other thing: I amn't "obligated" to do shit.

[ Parent ]
Exclusive: Patty Murray Receives VP Consideration | 90 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox