Vice-President: Clinton Sinking, Nunn Rising?

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 15:36


Following the news that former Hillary Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle has been hired by the Obama campaign as Chief of Staff for the Vice-Presidential nominee, there has been quite a bit of speculation about the ramifications of this hiring. While this is purely speculation, I side with Ben Smith, who thinks that this means Clinton is less likely to be the VP nominee than ever.  Doyle was not only fired from the Clinton campaign, but was also talking openly of working with Obama well before Clinton made her concession last week. All in all, it is hard to imagine that this is the person who would be chosen to manage Clinton in the general election.

While the odds of Clinton becoming VP might be sinking, the odds of former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn being chosen appear to be rising rapidly. Here are three quick reasons:

  1. Nunn, like Clinton, was one of the sixteen names on the semi-short list announced last week.
  2. The Obama campaign has surprisingly chosen Georgia as one of its seventeen top swing state targets this year, as it was included in the first wave of organizing fellow deployments. Also, senior campaign officials are talking up Georgia as though it is the new Florida or Ohio.
  3. When looking for advice at the start of his Senate career, Obama apparently sought out, and met with Nunn, one month into his first term back in February of 2005.

At worst, Nunn is in the top ten right now. Personally, I find this prospect extremely disturbing. Consider the following:

  • Putting Nunn on the ticket would be an open admission by Barack Obama that John McCain and Hillary Clinton are right: Obama does not have the experience to be President, and does not cross the "Commander in Chief" threshold. Rather than helping Obama out on the "experience" front, it would emphasize his lack of experience.

  • What has Nunn done in his time since leaving office? It isn't exactly change you can believe in:

    He is a board member of the following publicly held corporations: Chevron Corporation, The Coca-Cola Company, Dell Computer Corporation, General Electric Company.

    Putting a 70-year old, white, southern, corporate dude on the ticket would almost entirely wipe away any notion that Obama is a "change" candidate. Sam Nunn is more status quo than David Broder. He is the least "change" candidate one can find.

  • Less than a year ago, Nunn was openly talking of running against the Democratic nominee in the general election and accepting the top position on the "Unity 08" ticket.

  • The DLC was originally founded in order to elect Sam Nunn President. I'm not kidding.

This may sound hard to believe, but Sam Nunn would be a worse Vice-Presidential choice than Joe Lieberman. It is hard to even think up a more anti-progressive Democratic VP candidate, in every sense of the word progressive, than Sam Nunn. Along with a few other bloggers, I have been spending a decent amount of time arguing against Jim Webb as VP (see Matt and Natasha for more on this), but Nunn really seems like a disaster. Perhaps it is time for a "Stop Nunn" campaign.  
Chris Bowers :: Vice-President: Clinton Sinking, Nunn Rising?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Vice-President: Clinton Sinking, Nunn Rising? | 52 comments
Nunn would be hideous (4.00 / 10)
Like me, a lot of gays and lesbians have given Obama a pass for the McClurkin mess.  But putting Sam "don't drop the soap" Nunn on the ticket would sap me of all my hope and energy for the Obama campaign.  This is the man who led the fight to keep gays and lesbians from serving in the military and did so with offensive rhetoric.  While I would end up having to vote for Obama in November, I would no longer do so with any pride or excitement and certainlhy would not spend any time volunteering or donate money.  We are a captive constituency who basically have to vote Democrat in order not to lose the rights we have obtained.  But we are also a loyal, hard-working constituency and deserve respect from our candidate.  Coupled with McClurkin, Nunn as VP would be a massive slap in the face to all of us.

Add his intolerance of gays and lesbians to Nunn's conservatism and his corporate ties and naming him as V.P. would put the lie to everything Obama has stood for in this campaign.  Which is why I strongly hope this is simply an inside the beltway trial balloon concocted to keep the pundits chattering while the real prospective, PROGRESSIVE VPs are vetted.

Came here to make similar point (4.00 / 1)
See this recent post on Americablog.

http://www.americablog.com/200...

"Don't ask, don't tell" was what disenchanted (actually, disgusted) me with the Clinton campaign right at the start, and reading about Nunn's role in that (and his other anti-gay activities) makes me pretty appalled that Obama is even considering the guy.  I hope some of Obama's internet-outreach folks read these various posts and know the risks they're taking.

And, though it shouldn't matter, I suppose I should note that I'm not gay, I'm not a captive constituency, and I know a lot of people -- many of whom are also not gay -- who care quite a lot about this.  

[ Parent ]
Sam Nunn voted for Clarence Thomas (4.00 / 8)
And to me he's a killer as VP.....

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
That's a killer as a Democrat (4.00 / 1)
 
 If not as an American. Thomas is as appalling a man as has ever sat on the bench.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
Nunn voted for Clarence Thomas (4.00 / 1)
Women....So that's another constituency of the Democratic party he's thumbed his nose at.

Chris didn't note it but naming Patt Solis Doyle today is just the biggest, most public f*** you to Hillary Clinton and his supporters imaginable.....Everyone that I know sees it exactly that way.  Using exactly those words.  Slap in the face is insufficient to describe how they see it.

I don't consider this smart politics.....the announcement could have waited till a VP was announced.  They could have chosen lots...and I mean lots of other people.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Jerome Armstrong thinks this is a sign they are considering her (0.00 / 0)
As Kerry hired an Edwards staffer just before VP nod.

If that is the case...still very bad signalling as the response of Hillary supporters was more like mine than his

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Yeah, Nunn would be bad (0.00 / 0)
With Nunn on the ticket, I would officially go from enthusiastically supporting Obama to "I'll hold my nose and vote for him" territory.
[ Parent ]
Evidence - possible cause (0.00 / 0)
I was at the Clinton victory party in Atlanta in '92 and Sam Nunn was there.  Being a politically unaware and interested in meeting somebody famous, I approached the senator, introduced myself, and thanked him for his service.  As he responded, he seemed to be very uncomfortable about the situation.  He looked like he had something bitter in his mouth and he seemed to look around in a paranoid manner.  I didn't understand why until later.

Signs had been passed out by the campaign,  they read "Clinton Gore" also the local gay community had made there own signs, which read "Gay and Lesbian Vote!" and I suspect that Sen. Nunn had seen these being distributed.

After the results were in, Mayor Maynard Jackson gave a speech and made a special point of thanking "the gay and lesbian voters."  I looked for Sen Nunn at this point and couldn't see him in the hall.  I suspect that he left terrified.  Maybe I am wrong, but I got the feeling that when he realized that there would be a public pro-gay aspect to the rally he wanted no part of it.

The next thing I heard from Sam Nunn, he was publicly denouncing the Clinton gays in the military proposal.  Related in Sam's mind?  Maybe. I always thought so.

[ Parent ]
Positive focus (4.00 / 5)
A "Stop Nunn" campaign is obviously a good idea, but so is a "Stop Webb" campaign. In fact, I could get behind "Stop Bayh", "Stop Clinton", "Stop Nelson" and even a "Stop Richardson" campaign.

Instead of focusing our efforts on preventing the worst possible appointments, we should instead be aggressively promoting the best possible running mates. In my opinion, we should have already rallied around an "Obama-Feingold" ticket, and tried to force this enthusiasm into the mainstream narrative. At the very least, we should be pushing for "Obama-Edwards".

seriously (4.00 / 6)
If we're looking for "Southern," "older," "national security," isn't Bob Graham the perfect pick?
you'd think, especially with Graham's war vote (4.00 / 5)
it's infuriating how horrible ideas surface in DC, get discredited and don't disappear.

The most disenheartening thing was that obama was supposed to be the first President since Truman not indebtebted to Dixiecrat idiots, and here we are having a Dixiecrat seriously considered for VP!!

[ Parent ]
I don't know how seriously (4.00 / 3)
he's being considered, but the fact that to many of us he seems a plausible choice speaks volumes about he mistrust of Obama among some progressives.

Picking Nunn would, in any case, render ridiculous O's claim to be running against triangulation, corporatism, and Clintonism.


[ Parent ]
for me, it's not mistrust, so much as not knowing just who he is yet (4.00 / 5)
what i really just want is some clear, dog whistle sign that he's on our side, rather than all the subtle hints that he's actually a moderate.  

if he picks a real progressive, i'm out there stumping for him.  

[ Parent ]
yes, and we need to push this now. (4.00 / 1)
How on earth Bill Nelson and Sam Nunn are getting serious consideration and not Graham is astounding to me... ASTOUNDING!
[ Parent ]
another vote for Bob Graham (4.00 / 1)
He's #1 for an older white Southern man. Against the war, Intel Committee, good campaigner, popular in Florida--what more could we want?

I know he must have some flaws, but I'm unfamiliar with them.

[ Parent ]
Does he want the job? (0.00 / 0)
Word I heard was that he turned it down when he was under consideration by Kerry.

I agree that he would be a good pick. He's a tad eccentric, but not many people have more credibility on Iraq or intelligence related issues. His popularity in Florida makes him an outstanding pick in terms of the math too.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
eccentric? Bah. (0.00 / 0)
I love the note cards.
[ Parent ]
Who Else Would Have Her? (0.00 / 0)
Yes, the Hillary/Patti split was acrimonious, but they go back a long way, nearly all of Patti's career has been as Hillary's Chief of Staff, all the way back to her time as First Lady of Arkansas.  I just can't imagine anyone else wanting her for that spot.

No, this is either misdirection and the VP is going to be someone totally unconnected to Patti Solis Doyle, or it's Hillary.  Everything else just requires too much tortured logic.

And the very highest probability is that it's exactly what it seems at first glance, Hillary will be the VP nominee.  Intrade seems to agree with me, she's up 10 points there today.

PSD is from Chicago .. (4.00 / 2)
and they .. meaning Obama and PSD .. have connections that go back a few years .. so I wouldn't read too much into the hiring
[ Parent ]
**Shakes Head** (4.00 / 3)
Chris, nothing surprises me about Nunn's rising in the VEEP ranks, but OTH, Obama's camp is doing what George McGovern would advise, and that is to leak out a few names as trial balloons to gauge reactions.

That said, I hate to tell you all, but Obama isn't exactly the most progressive candidate we have, but he's better than the Republican candidate.  The most progressive stepped aside and became a surrogate for Obama: John Edwards.   Obama voted for tax breaks for the energy companies, still supports the building of coal plants, and he picked a Rubinomics economist to direct economic policy team.  I find that alarming, as does David Sirota.

Obama has come too far not to want to win this one, and win it big.  He's not interested in what the more liberal progressives have to say at this juncture (you will note he has only been to the Big Orange once, and Michelle has not been to other blogs and tells folks not to believe bloggers although I think that comment was aimed at Larry Johnson).  

While Obama says he will work with Elizabeth Edwards on health care policy, I seriously doubt he will budge on that issue when he will have to make his first priority to start getting us out of Iraq as the occupation is hurting the morale of the troops, their families, and the morale of the Iraqis.  We have to restore our tarnished name as soon as possible.  Moreover, the war is wrecking our economy, and it is the linchpin of what is causing havoc for gas prices (in addition to competition from the Far East) and running deficits to nations we would not prefer to be our bankers.  Otherwise, our trade agreements can't be fixed very easily either, nor can we do much about immigration reform.  

I think Obama is being realistic about seeing what kind of Congress he will have to work with.  It's possible that Nunn has many old friends on both sides of the isle, and this is one way to get things done.  Personally I think that if Obama wants to pick an old southern white guy, Bob Graham is a better choice.   He voted against the war.


Agree about Nunn (4.00 / 5)
But, since you didn't spell it out thoroughly, let me just add that Chevron is an oil company, GE is an amalgam of corporate media and war profiteers (no conflict of interest there!) and Coca Cola murders union organizers.

Dell makes OK computers.

Even leaving aside his retrograde views on GLBT issues, his conservatism, and that he brings absolutely nothing to the ticket, that list of corporations should really do him in by itself.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

What is it with (0.00 / 0)
Obama and Chevron?

Another person on that list, James Jones, also sits on Chevron's board.

In truth, I wouldn't place too much stock in the list.


Condi Rice (4.00 / 2)
She's the real Chevron joker in the pack!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Is This A Ploy To Make Nader A Spoiler Again? (4.00 / 5)
Every time it seems that virtually progressives will finally enthusiastically join with the Democrats to drive the GOP from power, the Democrats find a way to make Ralph Nader look good.  God knows that Nader spends enough time making himself look bad, but then the Democrats go and do something like nominate Lieberman as VP. Or Sam Nunn.

And why shouldn't Sam Nunn be the new Joe Lieberman?  After all, once upon a time, Joe Lieberman was the new Sam Nunn.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

experience gap (0.00 / 0)
Well, to play devil's advocate, the experience thing is just not going to go away, especially when Obama has the 4th most legislative experience on the November ballot (Barr & McKinney were both in congress for 6 terms, and McKinney was in the GA legislature before that).  You can argue all you want that Nader doesn't have the political or executive experience to run the country, but you can hardly dismiss Barr and McKinney without pointing a finger at himself.

That being said - I totally agree.  Everyone talks about Gore as this savior, but his VP was Liebermann, who hasn't exactly made a hard right turn - he's kinda standing for all the same things he stood for in 2000.  Nunn would be a mistake of equal proportions, and I imagine alot of Obama's progressive cred would go right down the drain.

[ Parent ]
Clinton over Nunn... (4.00 / 3)
Maybe this is just a way to make all of us Obama supporters thankful when Obama finally picks Clinton instead of Nunn.
Nunn: Not. going. to. happen. (4.00 / 4)
Obama made it very clear that there would be no real information in the press about the VP before he makes his pick.  That means the "list" was BS.

I'd be willing to say there's a 95% chance his pick is on Al Giordano's list of Catholic Democrats: Sebelius, Kaine, Richardson, Biden, Schweitzer, Kerry.

He also said (4.00 / 2)
that he's not going to pick someone with the purpose of shoring up his foreign policy/national security credentials.

While an anti-Nunn campaign would be laudable, I don't think it's a possibility we seriously have to worry about.

[ Parent ]
McCaskill (4.00 / 1)
McCaskill, I believe, is also Catholic.
[ Parent ]
And only one and half (4.00 / 1)
years in the Senate.  if you want to really insult Clitnon supporters, pick a woman with much less experience. Sebelius at least has some experience.  Mccaskill was Obama's designated woman surrogate a lot, but will not be VP.
[ Parent ]
Voting Record (0.00 / 0)
Only one and a half years of a voting record. There's a boatload of strategic reasons to pick someone like McCaskill (better "outsider" cred, not much of a voting record to attack, comes from a second tier swing state) and if they're explained to Clinton supporters in an honest and forthright manner, the bulk of them will no doubt accept them.  
[ Parent ]
In a liberal archdiocese (0.00 / 0)
I don't want any more of that silliness about Kerry forbidden Mass on account of a pro-choice vote.
[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)

 Hate to say it, but anytime there's a Catholic on a Democratic ticket we have to put up with the stuff about "running afoul of the Vatican" on abortion and gay rights and a couple of other issues. (Funny how war and capital punishment never seem to enter these kinds of discussions.) It's a distraction we don't need.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
i think a lot of what is going on now is an elaborate bluffing game... (4.00 / 8)
between the campaigns.

Obama is trying to scare McCain into putting resources into the south-east (NC and and Georgia), and into considering someone like Huckabee as VP (which would kill McCain amongst moderates and many Clinton supporters).  Hence all this business about Sam Nunn.    

McCain is threatening to contest Connecticut and is making a lot of noise about New Hampshire (kicked off his campaign there), in a bid to get Obama to pick a New Englander for veep, which would limit Obama's ability to contest the west and south.

McCain also may actually want Obama to pick Clinton as veep, because it would energize his base and give the right the ability to do what they do best: scandal-mongering.  This would explain his somewhat ham-fisted attempts to court ex-Clinton supporters.  

In other words, I don't really think we can take any of the chatter at this point at face value.        

Funny thing is (4.00 / 1)
Obama might not pick Nunn because of his one important progressive vote--against the First Gulf War.
Much ado about nothing (4.00 / 2)
Sam Nunn being the VP choice has about as much chance happening as pigs flying out of my ass.
Gotta agree (4.00 / 2)
I think he's on the short list as a favor to Jimmy Carter, who has advocated Nun for Veep for awhile.

I think the investment in Georgia has more to do with Bob Barr's campaign that Sam Nunn as VP.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
Yeah look at who the sources are... (4.00 / 2)
This is all idle DC chatter being perpetuated ad naseum until the echo chamber effect makes it appear as though Sam Nunn has rocketed to the top of the list. When in effect it's just the idiocy of DC trying to fulfill their own little washington consensus dreams.
[ Parent ]
Maybe not a Stop Nunn Campaign (0.00 / 0)
But to restart the Draft Clark campaign

www.Matthew25Network.com
Cardboard
It Can't Be Nunn (4.00 / 3)
Obama's people aren't that stupid.

Nunn is the worst of all worlds ideologically and in terms of Obama's narrative. He'd also be a gigantic knife in the back to all of the progressive activists who helped Obama win.

Moreover, he's been out of politics so long, I guarantee he'd make a bunch of unforced errors. When he was last in politics, Youtube wasn't even a gleam in its creators' eye.

No thanks. Secretary of Defense? Sure. VP? Not even in the bizarro universe.

And the thing is I doubt he'd really put Georgia into play. There's always been talk in the African American political community stretching all the way back to the 80's that if you could squeeze every black vote out of Georgia, Democrats would be more than competitive in the state. And, the raw numbers bear this out. Similar number crunching has already been done looking at Mississippi's electorate, for instance. And, yeah, McCain's not well liked by conservatives in Georgia and Nunn probably could win some of their votes.

But I think people really need to appreciate just how incredibly lost the Georgia Democratic Party is right now, how Republican the state has become, and how completely non-existent the infrastructure of the party is in the state. I just can't imagine any Democratic candidate having a real chance in Georgia for another 12-16 years. And Obama would be making a gigantic gamble that he could somehow magically change the state's fortunes overnight, and turning his back on some much more prudent opportunities in the process.

Put bluntly: this is as dumb as Republicans believing they can win New Jersey or California.

I think it's laudable for Obama to put resources into Georgia, and I think he can hold it to single digits there (which will help him in the national popular vote). I also think it's important he build some kind of presence there if for no other reason than to try to build some kind of counterbalance to the fundraising and power base Sonny Purdue (who I would wager has a strong chance of being Obama's opponent in 2012) is building in the state.

But putting Nunn on the ticket? That's a fool's errand, and they have to know it.

Georgia Democratic Party (4.00 / 1)
"But I think people really need to appreciate just how incredibly lost the Georgia Democratic Party is right now, how Republican the state has become, and how completely non-existent the infrastructure of the party is in the state. I just can't imagine any Democratic candidate having a real chance in Georgia for another 12-16 years. And Obama would be making a gigantic gamble that he could somehow magically change the state's fortunes overnight, and turning his back on some much more prudent opportunities in the process."

So very true. Not a good sign for a state party when you're only one of four states in the entire country where Democrats lost seats in the state house in 2006.  

[ Parent ]
McKinney (0.00 / 0)
especially with McKinney on the ballot.
[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
After all the brouhaha over Jim Johnson, rather less onerous than Nunn, merely helping select the veep, there is no way in Hell it'll be Nunn. Obama is very conscious of not undermining his own message.

As for Georgia, I'm not sure. Maybe he can't actually win it, but if Obama really will have the tremendous resource advantage everyone thinks he will have, there comes a point of diminishing returns: they could put twice the (already ridiculous amount of) money and effort into the traditional swing states and have the results barely budge at all. Using that resource advantage to widen the map, put McCain on defense everywhere, stretch his campaign even thinner than it already is, and maybe even win in a few unexpected places, is probably a much better use for it.

[ Parent ]
Better Use of Resources (0.00 / 0)
But there are other states where Obama could use his resource advantage to much greater ends, and where Democrats have shown they can win. Democrats have been getting systematically clobbered in Georgia for the past 6 years, and there's nothing that really points to that trend changing anytime soon. In fact, if I was a betting man, I'd say Georgia will be the power center of the Republican Party by 2012. Bush fatigue has gripped Texas and Florida, and if you look at it logically, Georgia is the one place where Republicans are still consolidating power and where they can raise gobs of cash.

If you want to put 10-15 more EVs from a tier two swing state in play, go after North Carolina or Missouri.  

[ Parent ]
I agree with you about nunn. (0.00 / 0)
 
Sam Nunn would be a worse Vice-Presidential choice than Joe Lieberman

That's not change.

One more point (0.00 / 0)
Nunn leaves the party with a power vacuum in 2016, should Obama/Nunn win now. It would be the same situation the Republicans were in this year.

I understand the desire for someone with experience and powerful supporters on the ticket, but I'd rather it be someone who also has a future.

Talk about over-thinking (0.00 / 0)
That's exactly what Sam Nunn represents.  I'm going to cite the Bill Simmons VP of Common Sense approach here.  Picking a VP is just like having the number 1 draft pick in a major sport.  Whether or not there are obvious picks, campaigns, like sports teams, often seem to feel the need to explore all options and in doing run into a major danger of engaging in the type in "group think" that leads to bad decisions that no half informed supporter/fan would make.  

Hopefully, Obama has a Director of Common Sense in his inner-circle that can sit back and say "wait a minute, why would we pick Sam Nunn as our foreign policy VP when we could get just as much out of Biden, Reed, Webb or Clark? When was the last time a regional VP pick actually helped carry a difficult state?  Why are we going to pick a guy with whom there is a 50/50 chance that if we don't win, he will endorse a McCain in four years?"  

Look, IMHO, while I've thrown out names like Reed and Schweitzer in the past, Biden is the Peyton Manning/Lebron James of this draft (as he was in 2004); he's such an obvious and solid selection that he only doesn't get picked if people start over-thinking the selection and convincing themselves that other people have more upside potential (like Ryan Leaf and Darko).  

 

John McCain hates children. Expose McCain!  

Regional pick (0.00 / 0)
Maybe the only time this worked (in modern times) was 1960 when LBJ definitely pulled in Texas (24 electoral votes by 2%) and probably a few other southern states.  (Aaron Burr put Jefferson over the top due to his vote getting prowess in NY in 1800; that choice was politically savvy but otherwise screwed).

Somebody might claim that Al Gore helped in Tennessee in 1992 but Bill Clinton did not need the state and took it rather easily by 4.5%.

[ Parent ]
Negating Obama's age advantage. (4.00 / 1)

Nunn is barely a year or two younger than McCain.  In addition to all the many other reasons he's a dreadful choice,  selecting someone from McCain's generation undercuts one of Obama's great advantages.

Nunn obviously wants the job -- just the other week he made headlines by announcing he was willing to revisit "Don't Ask Don't Tell".  

Picking Nunn as a VP will also make it much harder for a Pres. Obama to keep conservative Congressional Democrats in line: Nunn's instrangience on gays in the military really hurt the fledgling Clinton administration, and rewarding that behavior would set a terrible precedent for Democratic President with an agenda to carry out. 

But it's hard to imagine Obama really wanting someone who on the campaign trail who is 16 years out of date.



John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq
well, he did oppose invading Iraq (0.00 / 0)
according to the Boston Globe article Chris links, Nunn opposed the Iraq war.  i'm not apologizing for his DLC alignment or anti-gay history, just trying to set the record straight on something critical.  (if anyone here's yet mentioned this yet i missed it.)

worse than Lieberman?   considering this, Chris, isn't that a stretch?

btw -- "Nunn for VP" is an old recurring Washington rumor that, particularly in this iteration, will probably die again.  Obama might like Nunn as a policy adviser on arms control et al, but it seems quite unlike him to blow up his own change argument by picking a DC uberinsider who's so old he won his first election when Obama was a kindergartner in Jakarta.

Nunn isn't getting picked (4.00 / 1)
Obama sought out Nunn because Obama has a genuine interest in arms control and has had a close working relationship with Dick Lugar in the Senate on that very issue. That's why Nunn is included. It's a tip of the cap to two old pols and a signal to certain old policy hands that Obama is serious about Russia and  arms control.

Discussing Nunn's views on abortion or DLC politics absent the  arms control context misses the point of the float.

You've already gamed out (correctly in my view) the small universe of possible (ie rational) VP choices. If Obama picks somebody outside that group it will be somebody that possesses many of the same qualities of a Mark Warner or Kathleen Sebelius, just in a novel package, say Rep. Patrick Murphy.

John McCain

Obama is trying to scare us a little (0.00 / 0)
He floats the name of a really bad guy like Nunn, so that when he picks a guy that is only somewhat bad, we feel relieved instead of upset.
Vice-President: Clinton Sinking, Nunn Rising? | 52 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.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
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