Vice-President: Obama Must Be Looking At Kaine

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 16:13


Obama visited his campaign's vice-presidential selection offices today. And, in case you hadn't heard, Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia, is being seriously vetted:

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has told close associates that he has had "very serious" conversations with Sen. Barack Obama about joining the Democratic presidential ticket and has provided documents to the campaign as it combs through his background, according to several sources close to Kaine.

The only people who are confirmed in the vetting process right now are Chris Dodd, Tim Kaine, and Kathleen Sebelius. Keep in mind that Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are confirmed as not part of the vetting process. In fact, Terry McAuliffe has recently all but confirmed that Clinton will not be the Vice-Presidential choice. Given the short list that was leaked recently, that leaves only Evan Bayh as a remaining, fourth possible short list member.

So, Dodd, Kaine, Sebelius, and maybe Bayh are the probable real short list. I would definitely prefer Dodd and Sebelius over Kaine, given that the former two have a more progressive record on virtually everything. About the only value I can see to picking Bayh and Kaine is that they would probably help Obama in their home states, Indiana and Virginia respectively. If Obama were to win the Kerry states (where seems like a virtual lock), plus Iowa (where he seems a virtual lock), plus either Indiana or Virginia, then he would reach 270 and 272 electoral votes, respectively. So, I suppose there is an electoral math argument to be held in their favor, even though Obama just said he wouldn't use that as a criteria in his selection.

Of these four choices, I simply have to conclude that Kaine must be the Obama campaign's top choice right now. The reason is that the Obama campaign also put Jim Webb on the short list, except that Webb refused to submit vetting papers and took his name off the list. If they put two people from Virginia on the list, two people who have a combined eight years in statewide elected office (1.5 and 6.5, as Kaine was the Lt. Gov before he was Governor), then they are really, really, really looking for someone from Virginia. Given that Obama is already narrowly ahead in Virginia, given that Obama has never trailed in Iowa since he announced his campaign, and has led in every single poll of every single Kerry state for two months, it is possible that selecting Kaine would serve as electoral checkmate on McCain.

It would also signal that Obama has no intention to govern as a progressive. As such, it would be difficult to muster up enthusiasm to work for the ticket. By contrast, Obama / Sebelius would be fine, and Obama / Dodd would be exciting. If these are the final three choices, and I think there are good indications that they are the final three choices, I really hope that Obama doesn't go with Kaine. Unfortunately, right now, it looks like he probably will.

Update: The Washington Post claims that Bayh and Biden are being vetted, which contradicts Biden's statement on the matter two and a half weeks ago. I won't go into detail, but I would prefer Biden to Bayh and Kaine. But it isn't an appealing set of choices.
Chris Bowers :: Vice-President: Obama Must Be Looking At Kaine

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Vice-President: Obama Must Be Looking At Kaine | 136 comments
You know what that also means .. (0.00 / 0)
right? .. Kaine will be the front runner in '16 .. will Kaine really turn VA blue? ... I wonder what polling Obama's campaign has .. that must show Obama kicking McCain's ass in VA .. if Kaine is on the ticket
I wasn't paying attention last time around (0.00 / 0)
Did stories show up about how Edwards was at the top of the list before he was chosen in 2004? Ditto for Lieberman and Gore.
[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure (4.00 / 3)
Everyone saw Edwards coming and nobody saw Lieberman coming.
[ Parent ]
Huh. So its a wash then? (4.00 / 3)
I guess we shouldn't assume anything at this point then. But if Kaine is chosen we better spend the next eight years building up a progressive (or at least a mainstream Democrat) to take him on for the nomination.
[ Parent ]
Gore as well (4.00 / 2)
Gore was even more unexpected then Lieberman because it went against every established bit common wisdom about the VP choice around.

[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure Lieberman was well known to be one of the final three (4.00 / 2)
If I recall correctly, in 2000, the short list came down to Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards.  If I also recall correctly, Edwards and his people were pretty actively pushing the information that Edwards was on the short list.
[ Parent ]
Biden not being vetted? (0.00 / 0)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Bowers's link is to a 6/11 blog post.  The above article cites sources that say he is being vetted.  I'm going to say we don't really know and I'd throw Biden back into the mix.  Still not as exciting as Dodd, but I like Biden a lot more than Bayh or Kaine.  Still I agree, this Kaine thing is reaching a tipping point whereby Kaine becomes the presumptive VP.  Hat tip to The Field for calling this a couple weeks ago.    

Biden is being vetted (4.00 / 2)
According to First Read and someone else, maybe Marc Ambinder.

I wouldn't rule Biden out just yet.

Kaine or his people seem to be talkig a great deal.  It makes me wonder.  I can't see what he brings in terms of an understanding of how to get around the obstacles in DC, which should be one of Obama's main concerns.  And I don't see him as a plausible Pres at this point.  And I want top klnow where he stands on birth control, which is really the wedge issue for me.  I want someone who is a strong champion of womens' rights to control their sexuality, not someone who thinks St Augustine had the right idea.

Jon Corzine attended Obama's economic meeting.  He is a Gov and has been a Senator with ties on Wall Street from his days at Goldman Sachs.  If, asa I said on a lower thread, it takes a thief to catch a thief and Obama wants to make the economy a priority, what about him?  I think he's pretty liberal, but I haven't heard his name.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
I don't know if it's Kaine that is talking. (4.00 / 1)
Virginia is right next door to DC and usually looked at by the DC press as their adoptive "local" politicians. That's why so many Virginia politicians get so much "inside track" mentions in these sort of speculations or others. Every major Virginia politician gets talked up:

Allen, Warner and Gilmore for possible runs for the nominations of their party even though none stood any chance of winning. And Kaine, Webb and Warner for the VP spot.

It's just the regular, normal DC focus on Virginia politicians.

[ Parent ]
question (4.00 / 1)
If Obama picks someone who is anti choice...like Kaine or Bayh, does that make you feel differently about Obama...

after his "mental distress or mental illness comment" and now his silenceon Bush's executive order defong some forms of birth  control as abortion.  I keep wondering why it's so hard tosay they will just rescind this order among otheres like the international gag rule.

It really tells you something when Joe Biden is the best....a nice man, kind,and charming even..but the epitome of muddled middle.

In every way a progressive should prefer Hilllary to any of the supposed final 3.

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

[ Parent ]
Hillary is also being vetted (4.00 / 2)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

I think that we ought to limit our speculation to Obama's criteria and our own knowledge of the candidates, and not bother with who is or isn't being vetted, because according to the original news about Kaine suggests that he hadn't actually spoken to the vetting team, while there are other reports about Biden and Clinton being vetted (but not necessarily meeting with the vetters either).  All this leads me to think that we have no particular reason to think that Kaine is more in than anyone else.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
How is more Sebelius more progressive than Kaine? (4.00 / 1)
I can believe it - I just don't know enough.  What is the evidence?
A quick one from the top of my head: (4.00 / 1)
She pro-choice, He's pro-life.  
[ Parent ]
Are you sure? (0.00 / 0)
Kaine is not pro-choice? I would hope that would be an automatic disqualifier.  
[ Parent ]
He's one step away (4.00 / 2)
He opposes banning abortion, but he also supports a lot of punitive restriction on it like parental notification.
[ Parent ]
I don't think that's a big deal (0.00 / 0)
Considering that more Americans support parental notification than disapprove of how George W. Bush is handling Iraq.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Not a big deal? (4.00 / 3)
I don't know about you but I'm not really cool with the idea of curbing reproductive freedom just because it polls well.

[ Parent ]
That's actually not true... (4.00 / 2)
Both Sebelius and Kaine are personally pro-life and politically pro-choice.

Sebelius on abortion.

Kaine on abortion.

They essentially have the same position on abortion.


[ Parent ]
Pretty disingenious -- (4.00 / 1)
the article says "he is personally opposed to abortion but will abide by the federal laws that make it legal."

So Kaine saying he will follow the law. I mean, that's good news and all, but isn't it kind of an entry level requirement, that a politician should promise not to openly break the law? I know the Republicans have debased our country beyond recognition, but this is ridiculous.

The important question is, what happens when people try to change those laws? Will he fight for us, like Sebelius did, standing up to her own bishop, or will he take a powder?

Because I'm pretty sure he is telling us, in his weasely little way, that he will not be on our side when the fighting comes.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
How big an issue? (0.00 / 0)
Choice is a big issue,  But it is less of a big issue if the Pres doesn't make it one (and I have no reason to think Obama would) and in a Congress with comfprtable margins in  both houses it is highly unlikely any anti-choice issues will come up for votes.  Obama would hopefully rescind the gag rule for international aid agencies (Mexico City policy) but would he puch for federal (Medicaid) fundiong for abortions?  Perphas as part of comprehensive health care reform, certainly not as a standalone, given all the other problems.

It's really where Obama stands that matters, and the VP won't be a shoo-in if we can elect a few strong Dem governors between now and then.

The problem for me is that he isn't plausible as a Pres, and we have to worry about something happening to Obama.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
It's an issue of trust, (0.00 / 0)
for me anyway.

I just can't trust a pol who can't get this, who doesn't understand why it's wrong.

Don't get me wrong, Obama has my vote. But if someone like Kaine is his heir in '16 then yeah, I'm keeping my eye out for that primary challenger.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
His statements about "mental distress" has already made it an issue (4.00 / 1)
The right will take it and use it to try to restrict the reasons for 2nd term abortion.  Under Roe and Doe women have no restrictions onwhy they want an abortion prior to the  3rd trimester....only in the 3rd can abortion be restricted while taking into consideration the life and health of the women...and health was defined broadly in Doe as "physical, emotional, psychological, familiat age related ...."

The right will do what they did with a narrow procedure like D and X and use it in the states to make laws saying women have to have a good reason ...like only their physical health to have an abortion.  This is what you get when you decide pander to right  wing evangelicals.  and we will get it...I have watched them for decades while I have been involved in the reproductive rights movement..... And by choosing someone with a half heartedly commitment to only parts of Roe then you are sending a very clear signal you will be silent while the right rampages in one state after another.

And then there is the  new executive order which say you can't  discriminate agaisnt those who on the grounds of conscience object to abortion and abortion is defined to include multiple kinds of birth  control. Obama has said nothing about rescinding it.  Pelosi made a statement as did Sen Clinton and Murray....but the only one who really matters is Obama and he has said nothing

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

[ Parent ]
I think I'm being fair here. (0.00 / 0)
If you look in how they actually define being "personally pro-life and politically pro-choice" in the political landscape you'll notice that Sebelius and Kaine do differ enough they support to let my point stand.

And I'm saying that even though I'm not that big a fan of Sebelius. Mainly because while I don't see any negatives in adding her on the ticket I don't see any positive reasons to do so either.  

[ Parent ]
Let's take one issue (4.00 / 6)
One of the most important out there. Coal.

http://gristmill.grist.org/sto...

That's Kaine. Corporate coal kind of guy.

http://gristmill.grist.org/sto...

That's Sebelius. A kickass progressive.

I'll let a Virginian make the case

http://www.raisingkaine.com/sh...

Virgina's progressive activists HATE Kaine because he betrayed them.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Obama's record on coal (4.00 / 2)
is very mixed, unfortunately. He pushed liquid coal in the Senate, and his environmental platform contains an explicit pledge to fund development of "clean coal", which, of course, doesn't exist.

So Kaine's record would be consistent with Obama's in that regard.


[ Parent ]
You're right; this is troubling (4.00 / 2)
There are two Obama energy policies that make me mad. Coal is one of them, and ethanol is the other. Yeah, I'll still knock on doors for him even if he doesn't back off from these, and maybe again it's a matter of political expediency.

With the sort of realpolitik available to our leaders, coal won't go away until the market pushes it away. Let's hope that's soon. It used to make me scream that in the 21st century, most megawatts of new electrical generation come from coal, and that this is expected to continue until at least 2030. Even now, when I think about it, I get pissed off. But I can't get the candidate I want (this country won't vote for Chomsky) so I want to make a difference within the bounds of what's possible.

So I'm a vocal advocate of a massive buildout of parabolic solar troughs, wind and nuclear power, because they're clean and scalable. Wind (in some places) and nuclear (everywhere) are economically viable, and will be economically the best options when the price of coal goes up. Solar-thermal will hopefully follow not far behind, but we can't afford to sit on our hands till then. So what needs to happen is that the price of coal needs to go up. For that, we need to increase the safety standards in US mines, we need to make higher carbon taxes (it's too much to hope that we make coal consumers responsible for damage caused by all the other shit their smokestacks), and we need to outlaw hilltop removal.

Coal (at the current price) will not be available for that much longer, and we should try to hasten its growth in price. And I don't think that extra money would be offensive to the states where coal is mined!

Anyway, this is a long-winded way of saying that only the market will bring us out of the 19th century, not our politicians. Consider that in the 8 years of Al Gore's residency in the White House, the portion of our power generated by coal way up. What we need to focus on is how to nudge the market with smart policies.

[ Parent ]
Some evidence... (4.00 / 9)
- she blocked expansion of a coal plant by the state's largest energy producer
- she opposed a (successful) same-sex marriage ban
- she added 'sexual orientation' to the state's anti-discrimination policy
- as State Insurance Commissioner, she blocked the proposed merger of two giant medical insurance companies (she also refused to take campaign contributions from insurers during her tenure)
- she vetoed a voter ID law and a concealed weapons law
- she is endorsed by Planned Parenthood and has repeatedly vetoed legislation to restrict access to abortions.

However...
She is broadly for gun rights, and she does NOT support same-sex marriage. Considering she has a 60%+ approval after two terms as governor of Kansas, I can only imagine there are other right-leaning stances she has taken over the years. She has tried to raise taxes, mostly for education funding, but I think Republicans have stopped her every time.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
In fairness (4.00 / 3)
Quite a few of us liberals think that pro-gun should be considered liberal.*  Just sayin'.  In Kansas, it makes no sense to be big on gun control.  There aren't the urban centers that tend to build up gun control legislation.

* I think it's more urban vs. rural than liberal vs. conservative anyway.

[ Parent ]
Gun control should rarely be a dealbreaker anyway (4.00 / 5)
The Brian Schweitzer view of "you control your gun, I'll control mine" is normally fine. The only problems are when support for gun rights is used as an excuse not to crack down on firearms smuggling, possession by those who are likely to use their weapons in anger and the like.

If they're willing to take the position that one has a right to own guns but also a responsibility to use them responsibly, and if they're further willing to put some small amount of legal pressure behind those responsibilities, that shouldn't be a problem.

The average hunter is no threat to society.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
It's the grey market that's the problem. (4.00 / 1)
Places like Bullseye Shooter Supply "lose" hundreds of guns every year, just disappear them right off the books, and face no penalty for it.

Bullseye got in trouble only because one of their "lost" guns was used by the DC sniper, and there too many dead bodies there to ignore. But they faced only civil charges, not criminal, and as far as I can tell are still in business.

From what I've read the ATF had them under investigation for years, they knew they were grey market but could not shut them down because the way the laws are written, their hands are tied.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Indeed (4.00 / 1)
Something like that is not a gun rights issue. It's a law and order issue. And when gun rights does become a problem is when a candidate uses the "if guns are outlaws then only outlaws will have guns" canard, when in fact we should be concentrating on making sure said outlaws lack access to guns.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
urban pro-gun liberals too (0.00 / 0)
i get pretty tired of this assumption that all urbanites on the left only want only police to have guns. there are plenty of us urban leftists who oppose gun control. the gun control lobby is gravely mistaken about the assumptions its making about the support it has. which is why its howling over the recent scotus decision fell on def ears.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Private citizens should have guns (4.00 / 1)
Most police officers shouldn't.

Of course, that's not going to be feasible any time soon. America has a real problem with gun crime and you can't expect officers to deal with whilst literally out-gunned. But in an ideal world I think I prefer the British system, where only specially trained officers have guns and every bullet must be accounted for, to the American system, where a tired or scared cop can accidentally shoot the wrong guy. And that's without factoring in community politics...

Truth is, I'm much happier with private citizens having guns as a philosophical principle. They aren't (or at least shouldn't be) intending to kill someone. Whereas if police officers are firing guns, they're shooting at people.

And I don't think I'm that unusual. Truth is, the NRA will demagogue this issue every step of the way, because there is a hell of a lot of middle ground they do not want to get on to.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
The NRA is all about the grey market. (0.00 / 0)
The gun manufacturers make money by selling guns to criminals AND to people who are afraid of criminals.

They give a percentage of this money to politicians to keep the whole thing going, no matter how many people have to die.

One of these days we will see Democrats with the guts to stand up to them and put an end to it, even if (with Obama, Kaine and Sebelius) today is not that day.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
It's funny. (0.00 / 0)
While I know you're right, the majority of urban leftists tend to favor gun control.  Funny enough, it was when I was living in Boston that I ended up moving my own opinion to being radically pro-gun.  (I believe in the right of private citizens to own assault rifles.  I consider this to be a very liberal position.)
[ Parent ]
You do know (0.00 / 0)
that Liberal and libertine are not the same thing?

Just checking.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
And I suspect... (0.00 / 0)
...that you're confusing libertine and libertarian.
[ Parent ]
No, (0.00 / 0)
Liberalism is the belief that all people are created equal. It is the pursuit of "liberty and justice for all."

Libertarianism is the belief in "Every man for himself, and devil take the hindmost."

Libertinism is the pursuit of personal pleasure at the expense of all else. As in, "but I need an assault weapon because it makes me go all tingly down there!"

True, the last two are often found to go hand-in-hand, but neither is compatible with Liberalism. They are fundamentally Conservative vices.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Re (0.00 / 0)
Yes.  I believe that the right own the means of protecting oneself is a fundamental personal and collective right.  It is the final defense against tyranny, one that I hope that I never have to see employed.
[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 1)
it's a good thing your gun stopped the Republicans from stealing the 2000 election and prevented the invasion of Iraq. And continues to keep the government from spying on Americans without a warrant. Or locking people up without cause. Or torturing people.

I mean, if it weren't for your gun keeping us all safe I'd hate to think what kind of things the government might be getting away with!

Wanker.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Dude! (0.00 / 0)
You don't have to be insulting.  Besides, I don't own a gun presently, and I didn't own a gun in 2000, not that it would have saved us or anything.

I don't think that the government has reached the point, nor is it close to reaching the point, of armed insurrection being the only way out.  That's a different level of abuse of power and suppression of the populace.  In order to reach that point, we'd have to be like Zimbabwe or some similar place.  You can disagree with me, yes, but seriously, what the hell was the point of calling me a wanker.  Geeze.

[ Parent ]
Well - I rated that a troll (0.00 / 0)
No good reason to call people names because they hold different opinions than your own.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Hmmm... she sounds a lot like Obama (4.00 / 4)
I still think it's Sebelius. Kaine hasn't managed to get much done here in VA (in sharp contrast to Warner) and I doubt that women concerned about protecting choice are going to take too much solace in the above described distinctions.

I think Kaine is more vulnerable to Republican attacks and MSM nitpicking. "What has he accomplished?!" "He's no Mark Warner!" , etc. What's Sebelius vulnerable to -- the slap in the face to Clinton and Clinton supporters. And then if they get over that, what? Her son made an offensive board game. And then what? Too liberal for Kansas? Well, no, since they seem to like her.

[ Parent ]
What's this about a board game? (0.00 / 0)
I used to live in Kansas and all my friends out there think she is fantastic. I agree that Kaine does not appear to be a very popular politician in Virginia, and Sebelius is the most popular politician in KS. So she has that going for her...

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Her son created a boardgame (2.00 / 2)
about prison either called Don't Drop the Soap or with Don't Drop the Soap references. It was apparently pretty tasteless.

Sebelius publicly defended him and the game. I don't think there's much more than that to it.

[ Parent ]
Kaine (0.00 / 0)
Kaine was an early endorser. It may be that the two men have a very good rapour, that may be the main thing Obama wants in his VP.

Kaine was Mayor of Richmond before Lt Gov, so he has a great deal of political and governing experience, albeit at the state level.

Obama can put Hillary on the Supreme Court, that'll give Scalia something to think about. Or maybe Al Gore.

ha, ha (0.00 / 0)
yes and sit them next to each other.
[ Parent ]
I don't get your thinking (4.00 / 1)
I really don't. Unless I am mistaken you have said that Kathleen Sebelius would be a "slap in the face" to Clinton suporters but yet you think a anti-choice conservative should be Obama's VP.

I just don't get it.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Mayor of Richmond doesn't mean that much (0.00 / 0)
My understanding is that during Kaine's tenure the mayor was merely a chairman selected by the councillors of the city and had few real executive responsibilities, being more of a primus inter pares role.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
He was selected by his fellow city council members and was never elected city-wide. Doug Wilder was the first directly elected mayor of Richmond.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
As do, apparently, Obama and Sebelius. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Maybe Obama Read Whistling Past Dixie (0.00 / 0)
Wherein Thomas Schaller advocated putting a southerner (or two) on the presidential ticket.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
I dunno... (4.00 / 1)
Would they really allow speculation to leak out so unchecked like this?  I have a feeling Kaine is more of a decoy; get the press attention on Kaine then announce a surprise pick.

Although I suppose they might simply be trying to increase his national profile a bit before eventually making the announcement...

True... (4.00 / 2)
Obama has the power to choose a politician - any politician - and raise their profile dramatically by floating their name as a VP pick. If I were him, I would use that power.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
I think it's contrary to the Obama style (4.00 / 7)
To have Kaine talking so much.  Or his aides.  Makes me suspicious.  Maybe it's a fake-out.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Yep (0.00 / 0)
You and I are going to have to have a virtual cup of coffee one day.  We see eye-to-eye on too many things. :)

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
I can only hope you ae right (0.00 / 0)
as I said- I donated to him when Raising Kaine endorsed him back in 2005. But righ tnow looking at his record, I am even less inclined to support him. He seems like a horrible choice and would do damage .  
[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.00 / 1)
I think there's a good chance he's just doing Kaine (who is a friend and endorsed him in early 2007) a favor by raising his profile nationally. Hell, I think there's a good chance of this being true for anyone being floated as a possible pick by the media, but the Kaine people talking so much would suggest that he knows and is playing along.

Essentially, Obama could well end up choosing someone the CW thinks is likely (personally, my bet is still on Sebelius); but he could just as equally end up choosing anyone else. We know next to nothing.

[ Parent ]
me too (4.00 / 1)
but since Obama folks don't ever ever talk out of school then this must be approved O talking points. unless it is designed to throw folks off the vp scent for some reason? i have decided that it is calculated, but for what outcome i am not so sure.
[ Parent ]
Either that or Kaine ran his mouth (4.00 / 3)
Neither possibility speaks highly of his chances.

It's Sebelius.

[ Parent ]
It doesn't even bother me (4.00 / 3)
that Kaine isn't progressive... that guy just isn't national stage material. He's in WAY over his head.

And of course there is absolutely zero evidence he will help in VA.

I can't stand Bayh but at least that guy can play.  

Kaine is not a threat to Obama's powerbase (4.00 / 2)
I see Kaine as essentially a signal by the Obama camp that they are looking to put a bland figure in charge who won't upstage Obama.  I think they are also looking to put someone in there who won't be a second Cheney, as someone like HRC or Biden might.  Cheney has carved out a lot of powers for his office and I think the Obama camp is concerned who inherits those.  We may learn after all the smoke clears that Cheney was indeed a  co-president.  
[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 1)
I suspect Obama wants someone who older white Democrats can relate to, who has at least some executive experience, who supports him fully, who's from a swing state, and who won't cause drama. People are getting up in arms about him "not being progressive enough," but we have to remember that before Cheney, VPs did NOT generally set the President's agenda.
[ Parent ]
That's not what my problem is .. (4.00 / 2)
my problem is what it does eight years from now .. I'd like Progressive to be able to plan ahead 3 steps ... to look forward a bit and see where we went to be in x number of years
[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 1)
At least if it was say, Sam Nunn, he wouldn't be able to run in 2016.
[ Parent ]
No VP choice could ever be another cheney. (4.00 / 2)
The only reason Cheney is so powerful is because he's got the complete and utter trust of Bush.

The powers of the VP are pure derived from how much (s)he has the presidents ear. Any president that has any interest in actually governing instead of just feeling important won't have such a powerful VP as Cheney.

With Obama the most powerful position a VP could have is Al Gore like: Be allowed to help implement the President's agenda instead of setting it.

And if the VP isn't liked by the president the VP will be granted just enough responsibility to handle blunt scissors at ribbon cutting ceremonies and will only have as much freedom to misspell potato as much as he wants.

A second Cheney isn't on the agenda here.

[ Parent ]
Cheney had loads of oval office experience (0.00 / 0)
he went in already knowing how to get the wheels of power turning in his direction...which turned out to be a very bad thing for the country.
[ Parent ]
Agreed for the most part (0.00 / 0)
But there has been zero transparency from 4th branch for the last 8 years.  I think one of the ways Cheney was able to assume so much power was by bureacratic maneuvering and knowing how to manipulate the levers of the executive like some sort of evil mad scientist.  Some of this might need to be undone and some of it might not be incredibly easy to undo, especially in areas of national security.  Just sayin'- until the smoke clears I'm not so sure the office of the Vice President hasn't been constitutionally altered in some significant ways.  
[ Parent ]
I don't think so. (4.00 / 1)
The fact that he knows so much about manipulate the levers of the executive makes him an expert in the bureaucratic inter office fights. Making that the other cabinet members can't sabotage his plans. But he gets to set those plans in motion in the first place only because Bush agrees with him.

And no. office of the Vice President hasn't been constitutionally altered in any way. The fourth branch won't survive any challenge for the supreme court. His national security apparatus is completely bound to him and almost completely unofficial. The parts that are official haven't actually changed. He tried to, but failed. If Cheney leaves, the unofficial aspects will disappear with him as they're completely derived from his personal contacts and the fiat of the president.

Cheney is extremely powerful Vice president, but not because of he's Vice president but because he's Cheney.

[ Parent ]
Hope you are right (4.00 / 1)
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/...

This article suggests there may be some other stuff out there.  I disagree with your attitude of "nothing to see here, move along" as soon as Cheney is no longer VP.  There will be executive orders that need to be undone.  There will be informal practices that are now "precedent" that need to be undone.  And the Office of the VP isn't the same as before Cheney took control.  All this stuff is relevant to the issue of who Obama puts in office.  

[ Parent ]
Not as much as you'd think. (4.00 / 2)
Those kind order regarding attendance to who gets to visit to what meetings are automatically rescinded as soon as a new president is sworn in. They are tied into the forming of a cabinet and the new administration gets to redesign it's power structure. While most of the roles and function are tied to tradition and functionality each new administration makes huge changes tied to which persons will get what job.

Such an untraditional arrangement regarding the VP as listed in that article are only continued if the President expressly wants it to. He doesn't need to take action to undo it. He needs to take action to prolong it.

And if you look at the list provided by Bolton you'll notice that each and every item on that list is wholly dependent on the presidential approval, They were made possible by the express backing of Bush himself. It wasn't his office that gave him those powers it was his access and influence with Bush.

It makes my point. The powers of the VP is completely depended on the actions and wishes of the president. In that article it were the actions of Bush that empowers Cheney. So the question is not who Obama is going to name VP, it's What kind of VP would Obama would want and allow.

So you shouldn't look to what kind of person the VP is going to be, you have to look at what kind of person Obama is.

Is he the sort of person to want an Cheney figure or not? If not, even the most competent, scheming and diabolical VP can't get the power Cheney had.

[ Parent ]
Appreciate the debate (0.00 / 0)
AM much wiser for it.  And I think you are right that this ulimately is about Obama, not who gets picked for the VP job.  On the rest, we'll agree to disagree.  
[ Parent ]
Very well said (0.00 / 0)
and, that is something that gets quite overlooked - Obama said he wants the VP to do stuff - weighty stuff, but he looks like he's quite determined to be in charge (instead of the other way around).

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Not as bad as it seems. (4.00 / 2)
We already knew that Obama wasn't going to be a true blue progressive, and that our real hope for progressive change lies in Congress. Also, the VP does not in any way determine how a president will govern. He could just be going for checkmate. If there is reason to believe that Kaine would push Virginia in his direction, like Edwards did North Carolina, that might be reason enough. A southerner may also help in North Carolina and Georgia. It really could be checkmate.  

The truth about John McCain.
our real hope for progressive change lies in Congress (0.00 / 0)
its so depressing when you put it that way.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Then you have no hope at all considering the analysis (0.00 / 0)
of the most likely make up of the next congress- it will still lean Blue Dog.
[ Parent ]
Not so fast, Chris (4.00 / 5)
I think you're overestimating the extent to which a Kaine selection projects Obama as governing from the center, or at least as a non-progressive.

To be sure, Kaine has some moderate (though not exactly conservative--he governs as a pro-choice official, for instance) issue stances, but his political identity, for all of our hand-wringing, cannot be labeled as "conservative" or "moderate."

The guy is a strong Catholic and opponent of the death penalty, thus making clear he is a genuine "pro-lifer" and not the bullshit conservative crap we are accustomed to from Bush Dog Democrats who "vote their district."

Also, his identity is a progressive one (and I think this stuff matters)--he is a fluent Spanish speaker and his career was grounded in local, urban civil rights work. Obama and he have a lot in common, then, mainly that they are community-organizer types who come from big city politics and believe in movement building. This all seems very progressive, 50-state-esque to me.

To be sure, Kaine is no Russ Feingold. But it does seem that he opposed the war from the start, and he seems willing to stand up to the Right when necessary.

Look, I have not just made the case that Kaine is a progressive. But I think Obama is picking someone exactly like he described, someone he knows and is comfortable with (shared background in work, both with roots in Kansas, symbolism that we all know Obama loves), who will stand up for the things he believes in and express clearly his values (both men have taken politically unpopular stances when it might have cost them, Obama on Iraq in '02 and Kaine on the D.P in '05), and an outside the beltway change agent who has shown effectiveness at the state level.

Obama wants to shake things up. I don't see how a Chris Dodd (sucking up to us on wiretapping but generally a corporate Democrat, in my view--Countrywide, Iraq vote, the list goes on) would do that.

But I do agree that Kathleen Sebelius would be the more progressive pick. I like her, too.

P.S. If Chris Dodd fans are out there in force, please (I mean this seriously) tell me why I should think he is anything other than a FISA hero. What makes him a more-than-one-issue progressive?

Where does Kaine stand on Labor Issues? (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
For me (4.00 / 1)
leading the opposition to the Contras in the 80's made him a hero.  But no much lately (I can't square his opposition to the Contras to the vote for the Iraq War...
[ Parent ]
The Washington Post (god help us) put out an article about two years ago (4.00 / 4)
called "The Radicalization of Chris Dodd" (or something like that).  It was about how a few trips to Iraq -- including one on which he met a really talented junior officer who impressed the hell out of him, and whom he was trying to slot into some useful job in politics, until he got blown up -- caused Dodd to leave the "safe liberal" caucus in the Senate and sortof move into the "edge liberal" caucus.  In other words, Dodd started being a serious legislative leader on anti-war bills, started cosponsoring bills with the outcast Feingold, etc.  In the last three years, Dodd has been a real significant player on both Iraq and constitutional issues, and has been throwing his weight to the most progressive end of every argument in those fields.  That's why people are in love with him.

It is very different from the Dodd of say 98 or 2002, but he's taking his Chairman of the Banking Committee self and putting it into our trenchlines.  And he seems to be doing it mostly out of conviction, because honestly, "sucking up to the netroots" is a pretty laughable concept, and he's losing a lot more status than he's gaining with this stuff.  He may be more of a force to be reckoned with than he was when he was in the go-along-get-along caucus, but joining the DFH side of the argument generally doesn't enhance your career prospects.

And if Obama chooses Dodd, it will be because Dodd has become a very rare synthesis of Chuck Schumer and Russ Feingold, and Obama wants both of those elements in the VP chair to help guide him.  Choosing Dodd would reflect a commitment to govern as progressively as is possible while still understanding reality and power and wealth and what it takes to actually pass a legislative agenda.

That's my take on who Dodd is and why people like him.

[ Parent ]
Kaine's positions (0.00 / 0)
Could someone please clarify Kaine's political stance on various issues? Chris doesn't have the best track record in his characterizations of Kaine. Let's review what we know about Kaine:
  • Abortion. He is personally against abortions but politically pro-choice.
  • Sex education. He is supportive of abstinence education but believes in "evidence-based" approaches to sex education.
  • Gun control. He is strongly supportive of the 2nd Amendment and is against additional gun control laws in Virginia.
  • He has a moderate, religion-inflected rhetoric.

Now, does that sound very different from Obama?

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
Where does Kaine stand on labor issues (4.00 / 1)
VA is one of the most anti-labor states. Has Kaine done anything about that?
[ Parent ]
tried to appoint a pro-union labor czar (4.00 / 1)
This is the best I can do.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
Well that's good (4.00 / 2)
But what's this about?

""It really serves as an employment agency," said Del. Tim Hugo, R-Centreville, who said he feared LeBlanc would engage in "de facto unionization," despite Kaine's support for the state's right-to-work law."

Would he be willing to repudiate this? Or at least come out for the Employee Free Choice Act? I realize Southern politicans often make comprimises in this area (hell Edwards support NC's right to work law when he first ran for senate). So I'm not playing gotcha here. I just would like to know if he's really super opposed to it, or if he could easily say "I support the employee free choice act".

[ Parent ]
dunno (4.00 / 1)
I agree, it is puzzling. Here's a governor who says he strongly supports the state's right-to-vote statute, yet appoints the anti-right-to-vote former president of the AFL-CIO as Secretary of the Commonwealth.

These might help: link link

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

[ Parent ]
guess what (0.00 / 0)
The president makes the decisions and sets policy, not the VP. As long as Kaine promises to appoint liberal judges if he were to be in that position, I'm totally fine with him. He seems like a good Democrat in the southerner/Bill Clinton mold.

With Dodd we would lose a Senate seat and a great Senator. I'd rather tap Kaine than Dodd, because VP's really don't affect much.

[ Parent ]
A couple of others (4.00 / 1)
reading straight from the alamanac of american politics:

Opposes the death penalty, but allowed 4 to proceede.

Key focus was on managing growth (critical in Northern VA)
Delivered the response to Bush's State of the Union in 2006

Refused to sign a constitutional state amendment banning same sex marraige

In 2007 major accomplishement was 1.1 Billion dollar transportation package without a major tax increase (he borrowed 3 Billion to finance it)

[ Parent ]
What the heck is the Almanac of American politics and (0.00 / 0)
where can I get one?
[ Parent ]
What does this mean in terms of VA (4.00 / 1)
and having a Republican Lt. Governor?

Wouldn't that kind of screw the state party? It's a pretty big deal to have a party change in the governor's office. Even if it is only for a year. But again, if the lt. gov did become guv because Kaine became VP, then he would definitely have a big leg up in terms of winning a full term in 2009.

Doesn't seem like a good all-around strategy. Unless you don't care one bit about the VA Democratic Party and the citizens of Virginia.

Momentum in VA (0.00 / 0)
I suspect there's enough of a blue momentum in VA, in terms of demographics and changing attitudes.

Yes, a Kaine move to VP would leave the Virginia state house in R hands for a year. But I'd be quite hopeful that it would be for just a year.  

[ Parent ]
Our Lt Governor, Bolling, is as conservative (0.00 / 0)
as they come. Larry Sabato had a good post (don't remember where I saw it referenced) on the havoc this would play on VA Dems. Of course, he made the useful qualification that Kaine is likely gone either way -- if he doesn't get VP he'll likely be offered a cabinet position.
[ Parent ]
Yeah it kinda would (0.00 / 0)
The rumor is the AG and LG (both Republicans) have decided that the AG will run (he currently is) but if the LG somehow becomes governor before the primary the AG will drop out in favor of Bolling so there can be a unified party behind the incumbent governor. Seeing as there is a big primary on the Democratic side that would pretty much screw our chances at winning and hurt the state party.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
Kaine (4.00 / 1)
I've been a fan of Kaine from the start of this Veep speculation. My main reason is that if Obama wins VA, then he'll almost definitely win the White House. Being the governor of Virginia, Kaine can be a big help in turning Virginia to the Obama column. Not only will it probably excite some Virginians that their governor is on the ticket, but Kaine will be able to with the machine politics, just like Rendell did for Clinton in Pennsylvania and Strickland did for Clinton in Ohio. In fact, if I were Obama, I would just have Kaine campaign in Virginia for Obama fulltime, no need to go to any other states.

Kathleen Sebelius would do very little, if anything, for Obama electorally speaking. She's not gonna carry Kansas for Obama and being an unknown figure she's unlikely going to be able to help turn other states into Obama's column.  Moreover, Obama would risk a backlash against the Hillary supporters.


Spanish (0.00 / 0)
Kaine's fluency in Spanish could be a big plus, too. I'm curious what his accent is like and how Latinos would respond to it.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
He was a missionary in Honduras, I think. (0.00 / 0)
Don't know how anglicized his accent is though.  It should be reasonably good if he was actually doing mission work for any real length of time.
[ Parent ]
Re: Spanish (0.00 / 0)
I played this clip for my fluent girlfriend, and she said that while he had a clear gringo accent, his fluency was impressive and would be appreciated by Latinos in the U.S.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
Is Kaine .. (0.00 / 0)
more nationally known then Sebelius? .. probably not .. and what backlash?  How many Hillary supporters are that small minded?  Did Hillary break one glass ceiling just to install another one?
[ Parent ]
Sebelius (0.00 / 0)
How many HRC supporters are that small minded? Enough to cause "outrage" which will surely get the media's attention and further speculation that the party is not united.
[ Parent ]
Haven't we learned that we can't .. (0.00 / 0)
let the MSM make our decisions for us?
[ Parent ]
As I wrote in the quick hit (0.00 / 0)
that had over 30 comments, I would add one thing: it also suggests they are less concerned with the need to shore up Obama's foriegn policy credentials.

I would say this: why not Mark Warner? Yes, I know he has said that he isn't interested.  But you know what: if Obama sat him down and looked him in the eye and said I need you and your country needs you, he would accept.

Some detail on Kaine from the Almanac of American Politics:
Harvard JD, 1983 (Obama was in the class of '86)
Went on a nine month Jesuit mission
Opposes the death penatly

Kaine SAID THAT HE WAS PERSONALLY OPPOSED TO ABORTION, BUT WOULDN'T SEEK TO CHANGE THE LAW OR INTERFERE WITH A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

Warner .. (0.00 / 0)
well .. it would undermine us in the Senate .. that's why .. what was a Warner gimme .. becomes a close contest
[ Parent ]
Worth the trade (4.00 / 1)
because I think Warner is a better candidate.
[ Parent ]
Yeah but losing Kaine in VA (0.00 / 0)
ruins us here in VA. And Warner would absolutely stinkin' guarantee VA for Obama. And probably a few other states once he's unleashed on the circuit.  
[ Parent ]
but we'd lose a guaranted Senate .. (0.00 / 0)
and any hope of getting 61
[ Parent ]
that's an inaccurate description of his view on abortion (0.00 / 0)
he would support limitations such as notice, etc and others that can come down the pike later. So when people say he supports it, but sorry I don't believe it. It's not my big issue, but for others it is. I think having someone l ike this on the ticket in a year in which the Democratic nominee has alreadhy come under fire for his failures (at least perceptionally on women's issues) is just plain DC CW gone bad. And as for Obama liking the guy- I got to say this isn't a ringing endorsement for me of Obama's management style . This isn't a fan club rally.
[ Parent ]
i get the virginia part (0.00 / 0)
but will kaine serve as an effective attacker?  which might be even more necessary since Obama doesn't seem to want to do it, for whatever reasons of his own.  
May Not Want An Attack Dog VP (0.00 / 0)
It's totally plausible that he'd want to leave the negative stuff to surrogates and the DNC, and keep the campaign's hands as clean as possibe.
[ Parent ]
I disagree (4.00 / 2)
The reason is that the Obama campaign also put Jim Webb on the short list, except that Webb refused to submit vetting papers and took his name off the list. If they put two people from Virginia on the list, two people who have a combined eight years in statewide elected office (1.5 and 6.5, as Kaine was the Lt. Gov before he was Governor), then they are really, really, really looking for someone from Virginia. Given that Obama is already narrowly ahead in Virginia, given that Obama has never trailed in Iowa since he announced his campaign, and has led in every single poll of every single Kerry state for two months, it is possible that selecting Kaine would serve as electoral checkmate on McCain.

with every single part of this. Webb was on the list because he is a personally compelling candidate. Kaine is on the list because he is great friends with Obama, and Obama wants someone with executive experience. To conclude from this that the Obama campaign wants a Virginian on the ticket is quite the stretch. Further, VP candidates do not very often carry states (the sole exception might have been Kennedy-Johnson), VP candidates with low approval ratings (as Kaine has) especially do not carry states (Webb, for his part, was elected by a margin of well under 1%), and I don't think the Obama campaign is dumb enough to believe otherwise. If they really wanted someone with coattails in Virginia, they would be going for Mark Warner, who at least has a chance in hell of having some.

Obama may still pick Kaine as his VP, but if he does, it won't be because of Virginia.

True (0.00 / 0)
If winning Virginia was the ultimate motivation, Obama would choose Mark Warner without blinking.
[ Parent ]
The shortlist (4.00 / 2)
as almost everyone is reporting is Biden, Bayh, Kaine and Sebelius. No one serious thinks Dodd is on the shortlist and you know what? I'm glad of that. He stood up on FISA but he also rammed through the horrible banking bill and is pretty much the consummate Washington insider. To be honest I'd rather someone who is at least a effective surrogate like Biden.

Kaine and Bayh are terrible choices. I think you are WAY overreacting on the not governing as a progressive thing though. The best thing we can do now is make it clear that Kaine and Bayh would not be good choices and make clear why.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

You can't say that... (4.00 / 4)
You are ASSUMING an awful lot that picking Kaine or Nunn would say that Obama wouldn't govern as a progressive.  The one thing that has been true of OBAMA at all levels is he likes to have A LOT of different view points.  While I don't know if he will govern as progressive as many on here (including myself) would like, I wouldn't just assume he will govern in a moderate or conservative fashion.  I would say you will see him in between Progressive and moderate, which is how he has been in the Senate.  I will bet money he will be more progressive than Bill Clinton was whoever he chooses as VP.  

Dodd would be my top guy, but Dodd also has the Countrywide issue as well.  I still think we may see a headfake on this... Obama has been good at faking out the media on a lot of things.    

This is just what I was thinking (4.00 / 1)
Obama has said quite clearly that he wants voices around him that will challenge him, and I believe him on this. His background in Chicago, where he was surrounding at U of C and Hyde Park by conservatives as well as some radical liberals, reflects this. So do his criticisms of the Bush administration for being beholden to an unchallenged ideology. Were he to name a moderate VP to the ticket, it may signal, if anything, that he self-identifies more as a progressive than anything else.

That said, I'd prefer Sebelius or Dodd (or Edwards, above all). But I definitely wouldn't say that naming Kaine is a signal that he doesn't intend to govern as a progressive.

[ Parent ]
I realize this might get me "Troll" rated (0.00 / 0)
There's such a focus on the VP, I have to wonder -

I understand this is the first "executive" decision - at least the first one that will be analyzed for "Presidential" qualities.

But I wonder.

Is there a "back of the mind" fear of an assassination of a President Obama, thus increasing the importance of the VP choice?

No. (0.00 / 0)
I never considered that.
[ Parent ]
Actually, there should be. (4.00 / 2)
I forgot about the assassination angle sometime after the Potomac Primary.  When Hillary brought it up again in June (RFK), I hadn't thought of it in months.   But it is relevant again now.

Both McCain and Obama are more likely than an average president to die in office.  VP stakes are higher.  People tend to remember that Re: McCain, but not so much Re: Obama.  That is kindof a mistake.

On the other hand, I doubt Obama has forgotten.

I think that's another reason he'll choose a Senator, because the two governors are just not that DC-savvy.  Also it should be a disqualification for Bayh, because President Bayh WTF.

I'm afraid Dodd is just being floated as a thank you note for his early endorsement.  Although has anyone noticed that Richardson is not getting the similar thank you note?  No one is even pretending he is under consideration, which strikes me as odd.

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1)
That's just one of the reasons I originally wanted Al Gore.  Someone who the Right would really think twice about.  Kind of an insurance polciy, like Cheney.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Who is the Democratic version of Cheney? (0.00 / 0)
I appreciate the insights. One thing that scares the heck out of me is the number of results I get

when I googled "assassinate Obama"

Apparently, it was in the top 100 search terms, at least for a while.

The best insurance for such would be a VP who R's are afraid of, perhaps someone rigorously partisan. But the VP candidate has to be someone compatible with Obama's post-partisan theme.

While my personal preference is Obama-(Gary)Hart, names that comes to mind are

Russ Feingold
Leon Panetta

and yes, Al Gore, but I'm pretty sure he'd say no.

[ Parent ]
Not great, could be worse (4.00 / 3)
None of the candidates are great. Sebelius is dull and is probably only progressive for Kansas. Dodd may be good on civil liberties, but he's not going to be great on the economic issues that are going to increase in importance. Kaine isn't even popular in Virginia, so I don't see the upside. I'm still hoping for a pick out of left field (emphasis on the left) but at the end of the day, my one burning desire is this: please don't let it be Bayh.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
Why would he not govern as a progressive? (4.00 / 2)
Would Al Gore have been a centrist just because of Joe Lieberman? Was JFK too right wing because of LBJ?

Let's not start getting all teary-eyed because the VP isn't from the left wing of the Democratic party. I think it is MUCH more important that our presidential prospect, Obama, is from the left wing.

Bayh would worry me, but the others are just fine with me. Right now I have Biden and Sebelius as my top two picks., with Kaine coming in third (of the short list candidates).

RE: Gore (4.00 / 2)
Yes, Gore was a very centrist politician in those days. Although everyone already knew that, he didn't need Lieberman to signal it.
[ Parent ]
he needed Lieberman (0.00 / 0)
for several reasons. First, Lieberman was solid on the environment, complementing Gore's strengths.

The censoriousness and moral crusading that made him so obnoxious were assets in 2000. Bush was running a moralistic campaign, pushing conservative positions on hot-button social issues, posing as a clean-living Christian cowboy, and making promises to restore "honor and dignity to the White House"--a not-so-veiled slap at Bill Clinton's sordid personal scandals.

Gore's candidacy was severely hampered by those scandals, and he needed some way to counter that effect without compromising on issues like abortion and gay rights.

So he picked someone who could appeal to those voters who were open to Bush's moralistic policies. And Lieberman, who had criticized Bill Clinton's conduct in the Lewinsky scandal, fit that bill.

It was a necessary evil, and it worked, because Gore closed a sixteen-point gap in the polls to prevail.

[ Parent ]
you're right (4.00 / 2)
insofar as Obama's VP choice won't affect the way he governs. Unless he picks someone like Cheney who serves as the true power behind the throne, but that is not likely.

But Obama is a moderate. He will run the country from somewhere just slightly left of center.

However, being a "moderate" in George Bush's America means going along with the subversion of the rule of law and the idea that America is waging an endless "war on terror" that requires constantly increasing the size and power of our already bloated military. And that's not really anything to look forward to, except insofar as it is much less bad than the disaster of a McCain presidency.

[ Parent ]
My ranking of the Big Four (4.00 / 1)
Sebelius
Biden
Kaine
Bayh
Pretty much been saying this for weeks... (4.00 / 2)
Obama doesn't seem like he's going to make a good VP pick... there's just no one on that list that's very exciting.  I suppose if Dodd is really on the short list (and most of the speculation seems to be excluding him), he'd be my top pick... then Sebelius... then maybe Biden, Bayh, and then Kaine.  Incidentally, even though I think she's no longer being considered, I think Clinton probably squeezes in somewhere among Biden and Bayh... maybe even above both of them.  Considering that Clinton was pretty much completely off of my preferred list, you can see how bad this list sounds to me.  

Maybe that's sort of the theory... get everyone worked up about a shitty list, then announce Clinton... get more of her supporters on board, and Obama supporters breath a sigh of relief that, at least he didn't pick someone shittier (and at least we'll have a fierce campaigner).

It's not something I like to say but: (4.00 / 1)
The amount of people who really care about such things enough to be actually influenced by a VP choice are just far to small a group to make all those tactics worthwile. Even for most of the political junkies like us the VP choice will be less important then promoting the right bill at the right time.

As a strategy just giving the media one of their preferred candidates would pay off much more. You think the list is shitty, The media thinks the list is just dreamy.

For us it's about a specific agenda. For the media it's a personal friend/contact/acquaintance. The campaign will do the math, Somebody we're not that enthusiastic about can win us over by backing our agenda forcefully, see Dodd's rise in our esteem during this election season. But somebody with a lesser rep in the media, can't suddenly develop the necessary network to be effective there should the need arrive.

[ Parent ]
Agreed. The netroots have a short memory (4.00 / 1)
I remember during the special election when we praised and championed Stephanie Herseth for SD-AL.  Didn't turn out as expected, with Herseth one of the worst Bush Dogs out there.  

We are coming up in an era where the netroots are maturing into a constituency, like the environmental groups or labor unions that are part of the ways certain politicians stay in power and get things done.  Donna Edwards is an example of this.  

We are being more savvy about who we select and candidates are being savvier about sending the signals that they would like to be a champion of the netroots.  

[ Parent ]
Going Off The Reservation (0.00 / 0)
I still believe there's a very good chance Obama goes off the reservation and picks someone we aren't talking about right now. I'd be shocked if they didn't consider Schweitzer or McCaskill, for instance, and both of those choices excite me more than Kaine.

These guys have just been too savvy this point to pick such an anticlimactic clunker like Biden, Sebelius, or Kaine. Biden's the only one of the three that has any charisma, but he looks like a slick crook, has been in Washington forever, and has a touch of foot-in-mouth syndrome.

Corzine? (0.00 / 0)
If he's looking for help formulating an economic reform package--?  He was both a Senator and a Governor and a Wall Streeter, and h's failrly progressive, I think.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
ANOTHER proclamation. "Obama will NOT govern as a progressive"? (0.00 / 0)
WOW!

If he picks Kaine that is your proclamation......

I am speechless.  What have you been smokin' lately?

Obama Campaign Runs a Tight Ship (4.00 / 1)
It may be that the VP ends up being someone from this shortlist but the Obama campaign has run a very tight ship up to this point and I see no reason to think they are doing anything different at this point.

On what basis can we say that the very public attention to Kaine and Webb, for example, is nothing more than letting the people of Virginia know they care about them and take the state very seriously?

These leaks may be extended trial balloons that are intended to weed out criticism early, but why assume so and then go and make radical assumptions about Obama's governing strategy from this?

[ Parent ]
Sorry... that was not meant as a reply to you Blue Franco (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
that's ok (0.00 / 0)
I enjoyed the post
[ Parent ]
To be fair to Kaine (4.00 / 2)
I think he is more progressive than John Edwards was when he was in office.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com
No he is not (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
No!!!! (0.00 / 0)
If Obama's going to go milquetoast moderate, he might as well go for Bayh, at least he helps with the experience gap.

I may even take Bayh over Biden, who I like but whose loose-cannonism makes me a little nervous.

I'll take Biden over Bayh .. (0.00 / 0)
unless you mean Birch Bayh    ;-)
[ Parent ]
Vice-President: Obama Must Be Looking At Kaine | 136 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