Sunday Night VP Candy

by: tremayne

Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 23:04


Certainly the speculation will end soon but there are a few new nuggets to report tonight. First, a growing sense that Obama will make the announcement within the next 3-4 days:

"Obama cannot announce during the Denver convention and it makes no sense in terms of the news cycle to announce during a weekend,” said one Democrat with no ties to the Obama campaign. “So I would be very surprised if he left it later than Thursday."

Wednesday or Thursday is emerging as the most likely time but not everyone agrees. Jim Geraghty thinks tomorrow makes sense. That would rule out Joe Biden who is in embattled Georgia right now. Biden, though, could certainly make it back in time for a Thursday announcement.

Obama will be in Virginia on Wednesday and, seemingly, Thursday. He has an event scheduled with Mark Warner in Martinsville on Wednesday, an event Tim Kaine says he is too busy to attend. As for Thursday, Kaine is acting coy:

But Washington Post reporter Shailagh Murray reported today that Obama also plans to be in Virginia on Thursday, although the stop has yet to be officially announced by the campaign. Kaine said he doesn't know if he will see Obama on Thursday. Obama could announce his vice-presidential candidate sometime this week.

"Schedules are in flux," Kaine said. "Only the Martinsville event has been announced, but Wednesday I am really tied up wall-to-wall with this cabinet community day."

Meanwhile a cameraman has been tagging along with Kaine filming things for the Obama campaign. Hmmm.

And if you're nonplussed by all of that, here's a serious (sounding) argument for why the ticket will be Obama-Gore. No, really.

Update: More speculation based on unnamed sources here (includes more Gore candy).

 

 
tremayne :: Sunday Night VP Candy

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Sunday Night VP Candy | 67 comments
Obama schedule (0.00 / 0)
He will also be in Raleigh on Tuesday for a town-hall meeting (FYI).
Mike Easley? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Mike Easley would really be out of LF ... (4.00 / 1)
I've seen commenters here say that he really doesn't like campaigning ... and that he isn't all that Progressive .. heck .. his term is up .. and he wouldn't even challenge Dole .. so I don't see why he'd want to be VP all of the sudden
[ Parent ]
i don't think having Easley on the ticket (0.00 / 0)
would do much for Obama in NC.
[ Parent ]
No. Just coincidence. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Brad Miller? (0.00 / 0)
(Or: he's just trying to do events in NC so he can win the state.)
[ Parent ]
And the news section at FDL .. (0.00 / 0)
has a thing about Chet Edwards playing attack dog on McCain's record .. in the weekly radio address yesterday .. sounds like Pelosi won't give up on that yet either
nate silver (4.00 / 1)
has Chet Edwards as a "buy" for those gambling on such things. But only because Edwards odds are so long (0.9%). I think his chances went down further after John Edwards little problem came out. Unrelated Edwards I know, but who needs the voter confusion.
[ Parent ]
link (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
hah (4.00 / 1)
Hadn't thought of that. Crazy how politics works that sometimes little stupid things like that actually need to be seriously factored into decisions.
[ Parent ]
[Offtopic] (0.00 / 0)
Random suggestion: You guys may want to consider altering your page template to put a link above your wide/left-side ad block to the unfit for publication PDF, or this media matters article.

An ad for the Corsi book is in your rotation.

God, I'd love to see Gore as VP (4.00 / 7)
I think Obama needs a signature issue, and by picking Gore he can make energy/climate change that issue.

But of course I'm just dreaming.

Gore would be fantastic (4.00 / 4)
But I don't see him doing it. He'd have to give up a lot of his current businesses, and he's already been VP before. I think the ticket would be almost unstoppable, but I just don't see Gore doing it.

Biden would excite me. Just the thought of him ripping McCain sends shivers up my spine.

[ Parent ]
Signature issue - never heard the phrase (0.00 / 0)
However, now that I have, I think you're absolutely correct.


DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org
[ Parent ]
Obama/Gore08 (4.00 / 2)
Gore would be an excellent choice for a number of reasons.  He would certainly excite the base, and you just know the democrats in Florida would flock to the polls to make sure their vote was recorded this time.

It also helps that Gore was right on the issue of the war, and he has become the face of global warming.  Who better to be a spokesperson to refute the McCain drill-drill-mentality than Al Gore?  Gore also represents a time of American economic prosperity without all the Clinton baggage.  In Gore, there's foreign policy experience beyond anything McCain offers.  There's knowledge of energy, global warming, the economy, and tech issues.

Some might ask why Gore would want to get into the political ring again, but I think it's safe to say that being VP in 2008 with Barack Obama would certainly be different than being VP a decade ago with Bill Clinton.  Gore would viewed as the wise sage, and a valued partner with Obama.

Admit it.  Just the thought of an Obama/Gore ticket excites you.

[ Parent ]
energy/climate his "signature issue" in this election? (0.00 / 0)
There's a recipe for disaster. It's the economy (again), stupid. Krugman gets it exactly right.


[ Parent ]
pretty easy (4.00 / 2)
to tie energy to economic issues as the Obama "Hands" ad does fairly well. Also, if people believe the Iraq war is about oil, it's pretty easy to demonstrate how spending a trillion dollars "there" is bad for people "here."
[ Parent ]
Not only that, but can't Americans consider the economy down the road? (4.00 / 1)
Why can't politicians talk to Americans like they were adults, instead of spoiled children? Certainly, most adults with children have to do some long range planning, at least if they're planning to help their children get through college. So it's not like it's an impossible task to appeal to mature Americans, whose horizon extends beyond this week's grocery bills and this year's vacation.

Maybe you can't make a case for turning the economy green utilizing only sound bites and 30 seconds commercials, but you can invite Americans to visit, say, a web site where long term goals are more carefully explained (hopefully with streaming video options).

If you think about it, "drill here, drill now" is not only irresponsible, it also presumes that great numbers of Americans are either so dumb or so impatient that this is really some sort of good priority. Baloney. Even if most Americans are not going to read any books by Al Gore, they can still be reached and educated, provided it's made clear to them that their long term future, plus that of their children, is what's at stake.

Is that so hard? If you want to provide enough teasers in advertising campaigns to get Americans to think both big and long-term, one obvious way to approach it is to compare America to other modern countries. If Americans were more aware of what has already been achieved in other countries, then they wouldn't buy excuses from politicians about why things can't be just as good here in the US.

E.g., in the case of health care, were this to be the signature issue (which it won't be), an advertising campaign would present teasers to information of the type you can see online at pbs.org. Specifically, Frontline's Sick Around the World series:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/... . So, an Obama - Al Gore team would hopefully throw together something as compelling as the Frontline series, but narrated by Obama and Gore, and direct the public in that direction. The goal is to share their vision, and to convince the public that, if nothing else, they've at least done their homework. The sweet spot between detail and glossy presentation is, IMO, something like what you see in the Frontline series. Of course, thanks to the web, hyperlinks to white papers and charts and graphs are a no-brainer, for those who want more details.

Obama and Gore would leverage such efforts by continually reminding Americans that they want them to make at least a modest effort to familiarize themselves with specifics of their goals, and that if they vote in ignorance, based only on sound bytes and radio talk show host demagoguery, then they have only  themselves to blame.  

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

[ Parent ]
Since (4.00 / 4)
1984, the trend has been to name the VP between 3 and 5 days before the convention.  The exception, Kerry naming Edwards nearly 3 weeks before the 2004 convention did not work out well.  

Here are the dates for every nominee since 1976:

I would guess anytime between Thursday and Saturday, and it will to some extent depend on the Olympic Schedule.

My guess is McCain names his Saturday or Sunday.

And my guess (0.00 / 0)
is that it is a Virginian who is not named Kaine.
[ Parent ]
Biden would be good too. (4.00 / 1)
I think he would calm a lot of peoples nerves (from multiple camps).  
[ Parent ]
Who's left? (0.00 / 0)
It's not Warner and it's not Webb, so who's left in Virginia for it to be?

Rick Boucher?  

[ Parent ]
Location has little to do with it (4.00 / 3)
Kerry named Edwards in Pittsburgh. It'll likely be done in Virginia because it's an important state, not because the running mate is from there.
[ Parent ]
Warner? .. (4.00 / 1)
Webb? .. Webb said no .. and it would be awfully hard for Warner to give up a gimme Senate seat .. and hard on the Virginia Democratic Party
[ Parent ]
I have no inside information (4.00 / 4)
but I can read a map, and Obama can too.

The best choice is to change the race by choosing someone who can change the theme of the campaign.

Clark has self-destructed, Gore is not available, Clinton is not pickable, so that theory is out.

So the next choice is to nail a state on the map.  My guess is Indiana now looks out of reach (exit Bayh stage left) and the state that really changes the race is Virginia.  Kaine doesn't have enough experience, and is too controversal,  so they need Webb or Warner.  Each says no - that is what everyone always say about the Vice Presidency - right up until they are offered it.

My personal choice would be Bob Graham.  

[ Parent ]
Ha... (0.00 / 0)
HA HA HA HA HA HA ROTFLMAO...

Thanks for that.  I needed that laugh.

[ Parent ]
Clark didn't self destruct .. (4.00 / 3)
if anything .. Obama threw him under the bus .. and for one .. given what we know .. I have to wonder if Clark was even on Obama's radar for VP
[ Parent ]
I think Gore would be an absolute home run. (4.00 / 9)
Who else has tremendous experience but also outsider status and, for lack of a good single word, "being right about damn near everything", a worldview and narrative which mesh almost perfectly with Obama's (see: The Assault on Reason), an overarching message to complement and give better definition to Obama's (see: An Inconvenient Truth), and great national familiarity?

The greatest obstacle to an Obama-Gore ticket remains Al Gore, and that's unfortunately a pretty formidable one. So we'll see.

BTW, the fact that he's announcing the pick directly to his supporters via text message and email gives me hope that the choice won't be a terrible one. What better way to shoot yourself in the foot and deflate all the energy behind you than to directly announce Evan Bayh to your most committed supporters? (But FISA was much the same story, so that hope is mingled with apprehension.)

I just really think that if Al Gore wanted to get back into politics (4.00 / 4)
then he would have run for President.  He's built up a bunch of goodwill, he has always been a solid fundraiser, and his name rec would have put him near the top of the contenders from the beginning.  Obama would have gotten no oxygen as the media looked to push the 'clash of the titans' narrative in Iowa.
[ Parent ]
I don't really understand (4.00 / 3)
how picking the former Vice President to be Vice President jives with the whole "change" thing.

Why not pick Hillary then?  

[ Parent ]
That's a really simplistic view of "change" (4.00 / 1)
Why is "change" always explained as incompatible with anything that happened before even the good stuff?

I can't think of anybody whose as far removed from the current politics and policies of the Bush Whitehouse then Gore. I fail to see how choosing Gore wouldn't be more change then picking anybody else.

[ Parent ]
dude he was vice president for 8 years (0.00 / 0)
if you're running an anti-establishment themed campaign, just from a sheer messaging standpoint, it's hard to pick a former vice president for two terms.  as for your other comment about gore being "as far removed from the current politics..." -- look outside the box.  there are probably scores of prominent public figures who are farther from bush than gore is (chomsky, wallerstein, thomas frank, etc.).  yeah the guy's doing a good job mobilizing people around environmentalism and offering progressive critiques of the bush administration on things like the war - that doesn't make him the banner of the left as a non-politician.
[ Parent ]
Gore is a brilliant man of honor _THAT IS CHANGE (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
no (0.00 / 0)
Abdolkarim Soroush is a brilliant man of honor.  Gore is someone who has impressed with his postpolitical career, but still has some failings (like not learning the key lesson - you can't just talk about issues - you have to understand that there are interests involved as well and learn how to defang them).
[ Parent ]
I understand that there are other people who are also for change (0.00 / 0)
... about 250 million Americans for example. However not all have vision of this scope, experience in leadership of this scale or the trust of the American people.

So the list of people with Mr. Gores VC for this job is slim. Among the list that understands the crises we face, who knows people who know more than he does, who is a huge boon to Mr.Obama's ticket is slimmer still.
Your line that says


that there are interests involved as well and learn how to defang them
perhaps means he doesn't know that the forces arrayed against us, against him, are venal? Gore doesn't know that?

Are you sure thats your strongest argument against his nomination?

Perhaps you need someone who frowns mightily while passing legislation and organizing Treaties. Personally I don't need bellicose anymore. I don't need any posturing.

There is a lot of posting that has more to do with style than substance, so many who seem from their stools on the sidelines, that don't yet realize, we need to work everyday to defeat the forces of the Republican Nightmare that has almost destroyed America.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
I disagree with that (4.00 / 1)
Obama has been pretty critical of the Dem establishment since he left politics.  Remember, he opposed the war before the fact, and he endorsed Dean in 2004.  He's gone forward with single issue advocacy that is significantly to the left of the Democratic mainstream.  

It's a very different sort of situation than Clinton, who has pretty much been the Dem mainstream over the past six years.

[ Parent ]
You meant Gore. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
what everyone seems to forget about Gore - (4.00 / 2)
He's a lousy politician. Not a very good campaigner. Remember the debates in 2000? Hell, that whole campaign, for that matter. Or even more recently, his praise for McCain's climate change policy?

Yes, he is a great moral mountain of a man for working hard to educate the public on global warming. But beyond that...

[ Parent ]
mheh It's not as if a McCain VP candidate will be better in a debate. (4.00 / 2)
Point about Gore is that he's usually pretty good in actually being right ;)

If you want a VP that knows his stuff and can be relied on to give advice actually worth a damn, Gore would be as good as any.

[ Parent ]
If Gore focuses on the environment, his passion will win the day (4.00 / 3)
He can be just average on everything else, and he'll still be just fine.

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org
[ Parent ]
Very recent diary on Gore as VP here: (0.00 / 0)
There was a recent diary on Al Gore as VP:

http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

I repeated the suggestion that, since Al Gore is no longer "in love with politics", he and Obama can secretly agree that Gore only commit to server for 1 year. Of course, if Gore finds that he is having a blast, he can stay on.

You see, it is better to have loved and lost, and then loved again (even if only for 1 year), if your name is Al Gore, then to have never loved a 2nd time, at all. :-)

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

[ Parent ]
That's a horrible, cynical thing to do (0.00 / 0)
you're basically asking Gore to lie to the american people about his intentions.
[ Parent ]
No, not really (0.00 / 0)
Unless, perhaps, you mean lying by omission. This is a gray area, and I could see some people taking it as such. However, I in no way am suggesting that Al Gore tell people that he's firmly committed for 4 years. Normally, the question does not come up, but if it did, he could just deflect it.



DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

[ Parent ]
Another option is to be completely open about it (0.00 / 0)
Gore could say that he's committed to a year (or maybe 2 years), and that he will only consider staying longer if he sees good progress on environmental issues. Otherwise, what's the point?

My assumption is that, if good progress is indeed being made on environmental issues, then Al Gore will be having a blast, and will not want to leave. OTOH, if there is no real progress, then Gore can make the claim that maybe somebody else will be more effective, and that he is doing the whole environmental/climate issue a favor by stepping down.

In the mean time, he will be holding Obama's and the entire group of Democratic Congress persons' feet to the fire.  

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

[ Parent ]
Its silly - Gore wouldnt run and quit (0.00 / 0)
Gore wants to serve - Period.

He didn't like running and feels burned by the process, but there is no more qualified man for the job of VPOTUS

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Biden's office made it clear that (4.00 / 2)
he will be back almost immediately:
"Aides said Biden would be back in the U.S. by Monday." Meaning, today.

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...

Also, this unsourced bit of fluff in that blog post:

A relative newcomer to international diplomacy, Obama is believed to be considering a selection of an elder statesman among Democrats to reassure international leaders concerned about how the 47-year-old Obama would handle global crises.

That's new. Anyone heard anything like this line of thinking recently?

sounds like (0.00 / 0)
someone talking out of their ass. Unless they got some exclusive with Angela Merkel and Sarkozy that we were unaware of where they disclosed such concerns to powerhouse journalist Paul Kane.
[ Parent ]
Yeah... (0.00 / 0)
I'm sure Axelrod, et al. are really scheming hard to try and get Germany's whopping 0 electoral votes.
[ Parent ]
there is another theory... (0.00 / 0)
It could be they're scheming hard to try to make sure the country will actually be well governed after the swearing in ceremony...

And then Germany actually starts to matter...

They may actually be better people then we give politicians usually credit for. They might actually care more then just getting elected.

[ Parent ]
Why can't he announce it during the convention? (4.00 / 1)
I'm not saying he should, but he certainly could. And there's a prime spot for it:

Wednesday morning. The news will totally overshadow the roll call that day, which would probably make the Obama folks happy. Yes, it doesn't give much time before the VP speech, but VPs used to be named the day of their speech all the time. And if the decision is made the night before, the speechwriters can work all night long and have it ready to go first thing in the morning.

DemConWatch

For one thing (0.00 / 0)
it will keep hope alive for Clinton supporters during the convention that it will be her only to have them shot down mid-convention.

Unless it's Hillary, there is going to be a protest of unknown quantity that needs to be quelled by the convention.  

[ Parent ]
You mean the 25 PUMA's? .. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Don't underestimate them (0.00 / 0)
If there are 25 PUMA then I like know them all.

There are plenty who won't vote for Obama no matter what, and there are plenty who's vote relies on him picking her, and there are even more who's vote relies on picking someone like Bayh.

The PPP Ohio poll shows there are more than 25.  

[ Parent ]
Really frigging amazing, isn't it? (4.00 / 4)
McCain completely spits in the face of his base, and he still gets 90% of their support, while a guy who wins fair and square has got these ridiculous holdouts for some sort of petty revenge...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Amazing (4.00 / 1)
but not shocking. This is America, what do you expect? Rationality?

That's the main problem with the progressives. That's why we really can't exert influence and grow our movement...because we can't accept the masses out there are irrational and lack common sense.

They aren't going to just "get it"  

[ Parent ]
To be fair (0.00 / 0)
It isn't just the Clinton wing of the Democratic party doing this, the portion of the base that, you know, posts here seems to do nothing anymore but talk about how Obama is betraying them... the question to ask here of course is whether Obama is doing more or less to cater to his base at this point then McCain is...
[ Parent ]
ever heard of tact? (4.00 / 2)
There will be a 1000+ Hillary delegates that are there to support Obama. They wont be dead enders but they will be pro Clinton regardless. It would be tactless of Obama to rub it in their faces.
[ Parent ]
hmmm (4.00 / 1)
If there's no news by Thursday then I'll put my chips on Clinton.
[ Parent ]
I agree... (0.00 / 0)
...in some ways, I hope she gets it... all her supporters that were on vacation in February, but suddenly fell in love with her in march can get all happy...

Problem is, is it careful what we wish for?  The Republicans have got a load of ammo on her a mile wide... she only was able to redeem their image, when they declared a Georgian-style cease fire to help her overthrow Obama and send the party into chaos...

Two months isn't very long, but it's long enough to get her unfavorables up to 80% (she ended her run at 60%)....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
If we lose with her (4.00 / 2)
it's better than losing without her. If she's on the ticket and crap comes out about her that costs us the election, then at the very least, the Clintons would be gone and we won't be to blame.  
[ Parent ]
Especially since they can tell the person earlier (0.00 / 0)
and just not make the announcement.  I could see this as a sort of 'make the convention more meaningful' type of thing.

I still think the announcement should have been made before the Olympics, though.  Get a bounce heading into the Olympic dead zone, and then you have two people to run around and do fundraising during the dead time (not to mention that Obama would have had his VP to use as a surrogate while he was on vacation), and then come back, and be ready for the convention.  Doing it this close to the convention only gives you one bounce.

[ Parent ]
but Kerry only got one bounce (0.00 / 0)
He got one for Edwards and nothing for the Convention.

See fladem on Convention bounces.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
I think the VP already knows .. (4.00 / 1)
and has been working on a speech .. the campaign is just being very tight lipped about it .. Clemons says they've already decided .. so the people who know aren't saying squat
[ Parent ]
even if it were announced to the public the night before, (0.00 / 0)
the chosen nominee would still need to have been told days earlier than that. you're right that a speech can be put together in 12-18 hours, but the nominee needs to REHEARSE it, multiple times, before giving what could be the most important address of his or her career.

That would mean the nominee's and his/her staff's movements--or lack of movements--would quickly tip off the Veep watchers, and the choice would be blown. So I think the announcement really has to be 5 days before the VP night, at the latest.

[ Parent ]
It has worked well in the past (4.00 / 2)
and it helps build drama during the convention.

I personally would wait as long as possible.  

[ Parent ]
I doubt it would be necessary... (0.00 / 0)
With the Roll call and Clinton's name thrown in I'd think there would be more tension then normal already.
[ Parent ]
he should announce the day before the convention if possible (0.00 / 0)
to get an extra day of juice out of it.
Sunday Night VP Candy | 67 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