Edwards For AG, Not VP

by: Chris Bowers

Fri May 16, 2008 at 14:30


I think Paul Rosenberg is one of the best writers around, and I respect his views tremendously. However, I never really agreed with his premise that Edwards should be VP, and now it looks like Edwards does not agree, either:

"No," Edwards said in no uncertain terms on NBC's the Today show when asked about the possibility. "Won't happen....It's just not something I am interested in."

As for another position in an Obama administration, specifically Attorney General, Edwards was decidedly more coy.

"I don't really want to get involved in that speculation," he said. "Right now we have to focus on getting Barack Obama elected to President of the United States, then we'll worry about those things."

Edwards seems like a great pick for VP. While there were some who thought he was overly messianic in his anti-corporate campaign rhetoric (people like positive messages), that strikes me as exactly the attitude we need from an Attorney General.

Also, shouldn't the Attorney General be an elected position? It strikes me that we should have independent law enforcement, not a toady of the executive. Given the problems with FISA and the US Attorney scandals over the past two years, really this should be a no-brainer. Perhaps we should also have an elected position at the Department of the Treasury, or the GAO, since we should have independent oversight of the books, too.  
Chris Bowers :: Edwards For AG, Not VP
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Edwards For AG, Not VP | 57 comments
the politics of it (0.00 / 0)
while the AG servers at the pleasure of the president, i think its politically unrealistic to think the president would just yank his AG if the AG got overly aggressive. And I have to think that we're more likely to get someone like Edwards in the AG slot through an appointment vs through yet another popular nationwide election. But I hear what you are saying, democracy is better than the alternatives.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
It's not a matter of a president yanking an aggressive AG (0.00 / 0)
it's a matter of the president selecting an AG that will never become aggressive.
[ Parent ]
Elliot Richardson? (0.00 / 0)
Come on, it's not that hard to think of a counter example to your claim.  And as noted below, the fact that the position is appointed means that the president almost always appoints someone pliant (Janet Reno being a notable exception).
[ Parent ]
Edwards: AG first, then Supreme Court (4.00 / 7)
After a couple of years as Attorney General, President Obama should use the next opening to nominate Edwards to the Supreme Court.  We need his practical experience, both as a practicing lawyer and as politician.

All the current Supreme Court justices except Thomas were essentially academics (although Ginsburg had a lot of real trial practice early in her career).  What the Supreme Court has lacked is much real world experience, especially of the political type.  Justice Warren is the best example, having been governor of California.  O'Connor was the last politician -- a former state senator -- and even though she came to the court as a strong conservative, her political experience informed her role on the court and she evolved toward the middle over time out of a political need to actually solve real problems in a real world manner -- not that I agree with much of what she decided, but the impulse was there, an impulse lacking in the other academic justices.

This is why Edwards would be a perfect life-time appointment to the Court.

that makes a lot of sense. (4.00 / 1)
and I completely agree!
First we have to acheive some balance on the court first of course... but with Stevens on his way out, as well as Ginsberg probably going I have a feeling we'll be seeing at least two appointments.

And Scalia is 72 too.

[ Parent ]
Supreme Court (0.00 / 0)
I imagine Obama already has a short list for the next Supreme Court Justice and I doubt Edwards is on it.  I would imagine Laurence Tribe is very high on that list.
[ Parent ]
Ageism, Again, I am Afraid (4.00 / 1)
Tribe is or soon will be 68 years old.  As much as President Obama might love to nominate him, I am sure he will look for someone a bit younger.  They are out there, such as Pam Karlan and Larry Lessig -- two of my favorites.
[ Parent ]
Just To Be Clear (4.00 / 5)
I was arguing for the LOGIC of a VP slot for Edwards.

Purely in terms of who I'd like to see there, Feingold is my clear favorite.

And it sure doesn't hurt that he's the Feingold in McCain-Feingold.

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

Nope, too late (4.00 / 6)
You will forever be known as the guy who wanted Edwards.

No one will remember the logic part. Hehe.

[ Parent ]
Square One (0.00 / 0)
If we take Edwards at his word, that ship has sailed.

According to the logic you laid out in your diary and comments, Feingold doesn't quite fit, as you have stated:

"But Feingold has not been in the campaign, and he does not have a strongly identified connection with working class whites.  So this makes him more of a candidate in the mode of Chris's original diary."

So, now that the issue is back to square one - how to proceed, ditch your logic, or find another VP that fits it?



McCain Has a Republican Healthcare Plan for the 21st Century

[ Parent ]
You Misunderstand (4.00 / 1)
What part of " this makes him more of a candidate in the mode of Chris's original diary." don't you understand?

I think Feingold would be fine.

As for my Edwards argument, I was simply reacting to the Edwards endorsement speech, and noting how well it melded his earlier campaign themes with the terms of Obama's.  I put that together with the way it had a particular pitch for reaching out to the White working class, and the signifant edge Edwards enjoyed over McCain in head-to-head polls, and a light bulb went off.

It never meant that Edwards had to be the VP choice--though I do think it pointed up a distinct advantage that I doubt anyone else would bring.  And it certainly doesn't mean that someone else needs to be found who will fulfill the same logic.

Like I said, the logic of Chris's original argument is strong enough on its own.

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

[ Parent ]
I guess I did miss the point (0.00 / 0)
I thought you were claiming that your "reinforcing by balancing" argument provided a framework to choose a better VP than simply going with the "reinforcement" argument. Sorry to be so dense.

I realize, perhaps, that yours was not an "Edwards or no one" position - that's why I'm wondering who else fulfills that logic.

Although I probably shouldn't bring him up in the midst of so many Democrats, I think Ralph Nader fits most of the same logic that pointed to Edwards.  He has great name recognition, a strong connection to the working class and gives no quarter to the corporatists, or fat cats.  He has alot of experience "in the trenches", so to speak.  Gives a good speech.  And, most definitely would benefit from being given an actual platform from which to deliver his message. If one could bring him into the Democratic Party, they might go a long way toward bring some of his supporters back into the system.  Focusing on his long and very positive career as a consumer advocate could do nothing but help the ticket.  Flat out, Nader has actually saved millions of lives - how does that stack up against McCain and his Stay the Course mentality?

He has drawbacks, too - he seems increasingly bitter about how he has been treated by the two parties, especially the Democratic Party, and I doubt that breach could be healed.  If only because he'd run the risk of appearing as a hypocrit by buying into the system he has been railing against.  More important are the very negative views that many Democrats express toward him - he may even be more toxic than Hillary Clinton in some circles.  His age isn't a plus, either.

Russ Feingold is a wonderful guy, Obama could do a lot worse than him as VP.  But, I'd be surprised if the VP is offered to him and more surprised if he accepted it.  


McCain Has a Republican Healthcare Plan for the 21st Century

[ Parent ]
POTENTIALLY Better (0.00 / 0)
You're not so dense.  I was arguing that it could potentially produce a better VP, and stronger overall ticket because of the process of expanding the framework.  But I think that the opportunities to do this are necessarily more limited, and there's no guarantee that what works on paper will actually play out.  It's just that the Edwards endorsement speech gave a really clear picture of what that could look like on the campaign trail.  So it really was a unique situation, but one that I sought to understand in more general terms.

I would certainly not hesitate to make this argument again for another candidate if there were one out there.  So in that sense, you didn't misread me at all.  But I don't think that these sorts of fits you can grow into are all that common.

I, too, would be surprised if Feingold were tapped.  But having him on the ticket against McCain would be the final nail in the coffin for McCain.  

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

[ Parent ]
Prediction (4.00 / 1)
Obama's first choice for AG will be Eric Halter (sp) who was the Deputy to Janet Reno during the last two years of the Clinton Administration, and then served as "Acting" the first few months of Bush II until Ashcroft could be confirmed by the Senate.  

He would have no problem with confirmation -- he was Senate confirmed twice in Reno's DoJ, more important perhaps, he was a career attorney in DoJ prior to Presidential Appointments, He knows the place very well.

He has been involved in Obama's campaign since Day One -- I think their friendship may well go back to Harvard Law days.  Nice combination of low key legal brilliance and super high quality administrative skills.    

[ Parent ]
How do you know .. (0.00 / 0)
Feingold doesn't have a connection with working class whites?  

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
[ Parent ]
Not my words (0.00 / 0)
Those are quoted from Paul, copied from another comment thread.  

I don't know what kind of connection Feingold has to any demographic of voter, to tell you the truth.


McCain Has a Republican Healthcare Plan for the 21st Century

[ Parent ]
If you read tihis site .. (0.00 / 0)
or DailyKos at all .. you know he has a big connection to the netroots   ;-)    ... so that is one demographic .. and obviously he has a pretty good connection with Wisconsin(which is considered a swing state) .. as he he racks up bigger victories each time he's come up for reelection

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
[ Parent ]
It's Not What He's Known For (0.00 / 0)
He has a national profile, to varying degrees with different sorts of people.  So he's definitely on the map, which gives him an opening to show what else he's got.  But this isn't the same as someone like Edwards.

This is one of those times when I'm writing primarily about political perceptions--though not as opposed to reality, just in terms of how people are known and to whom.

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

[ Parent ]
What national profile does Feingold have? ... (0.00 / 0)
it's not like he's ever on MTP or anything .. he's not known nationally like he is here .. if you took a national poll .. I bet he wouldn't have gotten 5% of the vote(meaning before the present primary race started)

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
[ Parent ]
I know that the diaries and commenters talk about him (0.00 / 0)
But, that's kind of a one way street, in my mind.  Not a "connection" proper.  

McCain Has a Republican Healthcare Plan for the 21st Century
[ Parent ]
AG Independence (0.00 / 0)
Electing the AG is one model.  Alternatively the post could be made more independent as with the Fed Chairm (but his term expires with the President who appointed him).

But yeah, however it is done (and there are multiple ways) the job of investigating and criminally prosecuting members of the executive branch, up to and including the President should not be left to someone who "serves at the pleasure of the president"


John McCain is anti-choice

Appointed AG (4.00 / 1)
One thing to think about in terms of what we're trying to accomplish with progressive electoral politics...

We should be making an issue in this campaign, and in the future, of a progressive president specifically appointing an attorney general that will maintain independence - and then follow through on it.  Everyone's had enough of Ashcroft/Gonzalez and their Bush cronyism, ignoring the rule-of-law in truth, and their general BS as AG.

It should be a tenet of progressive politics that we favor good government in the sense of government officials carrying out their duties as laid out in the Constitution.  The attorney general is no exception.  So Barack Obama making an issue of appointing an attorney general that will be an independent enforcer of the law is a winner in my book for this election and in terms of advancing progressive political messages on the real functioning of government.

[ Parent ]
fine as far as it goes (0.00 / 0)
But I'd like to do more than reestablish the norms that existed before Gonzales.  I'm talking about some kind of formal, legally described level of independence.

Since watergate, the pattern has been Dems clean up the mess, Republicans fuck it up again.  I'd like to break that cycle and 2 terms of good governance in itself is not going to do that.

John McCain is anti-choice

[ Parent ]
Elected AG is unconstitutional (4.00 / 2)
An elected AG is blatantly unconstitutional, you'd need to an amendment to get it through.  One of the president's  most fundamental duties in Article II is to execute the laws, and enforcement is his chief means of doing so, hence the justice department.  I'd favor more stringent accountability before Congress, and more open government to prevent anything resembling the rampant law breaking from happening again.

Even if it were constitutional, having an elected AG is likely to politicize things even further.  Imagine if Barack Obama had to contend w/ a Rudy Giuliani refusing to enforce signed, progressive legislation.  That scenario may not be likely now, but partisan differences would surely assert themselves down the road, making it even more difficult make laws effective.

Fix the abuses, make it more transparent, ensure stronger oversight but don't politicize it more than it already is by making it a partisan position.

[ Parent ]
I think... (0.00 / 0)
I think discussion is more academic than what can ACTUALLY be done at this point in time.
[ Parent ]
Why not have VP a Separate Elected Office? (4.00 / 1)
Many states have a separate election for Lt. Governor.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
Co-Presidents (0.00 / 0)
Why not go a bit further - have two presidents, one for international relations, one for domestic issues?

Elected separately.


McCain Has a Republican Healthcare Plan for the 21st Century

[ Parent ]
Let's go further (0.00 / 0)
Elected Supreme Court.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
I know you mean this (0.00 / 0)
to draw attention to the problem of inherent in a process of interpretation grounded by popular opinion and beliefs, but I want to point this out for fear that some will think it's a good idea to elect all public officials, including the dog catcher.

For the record, I can stand only one president at a time, and I prefer a VP 'selected' by the president--not independently elected by either the people or at the convention.

[ Parent ]
Yeah... (0.00 / 0)
God forbid we would have Pres Gore with VP Cheney... Shiver....

Cheney would probably have snuck into his room, ripped his head off, drank his blood to consume his sole.  Then we'd have Pres Cheney... Shiver.

[ Parent ]
Maybe - but not with only two parties (4.00 / 1)
I like the concept of an independent judiciary, so I think they should run without party affiliation, which is virually impossible in our current system

Elected judges still serve for life, right?

McCain Has a Republican Healthcare Plan for the 21st Century

[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
Elected judges have a distinct term, at which point voters get to decide whether they get to stay judges or not.  The precise method varies by state.
[ Parent ]
Disagree. (4.00 / 1)
I see where you are coming from, but the Court system is designed to be independent of public opinion.  Judges are supposed to make their best interpretations of the law without worrying about the political consequences.  I know it doesn't always work that way, but I think that the alternative is worse.

Think about Brown v. Board of Education.  Think about four years ago when the Supreme Court struck down the anti-sodomy statutes.  Do you think that those landmark decisions would have happened if those judges had to worry about being elected the next year?  I sure don't.

[ Parent ]
Electing judges is not incompatible (0.00 / 0)
with a lifetime position.

So there need not be a "re-election" issue at all.

I'd see judicial elections as Special Elections - they come up as needed, not as dictated by some arbitary schedule.


McCain Has a Republican Healthcare Plan for the 21st Century

[ Parent ]
My dream (0.00 / 0)
would be for Obama to realize the error of his ways on health care and make Edwards the Secretary of HHS, explicitly tasked with working with congressional democrats to get universal health care passed and implemented.

Its a lower profile position, but I think that's actually a better forum for Edwards to really pursue his agenda than the AG's office.  Plus, I would like to have an AG with more experience as a prosecutor and a broader legal background more generally.  There are so many things you need to take on as an AG.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

Dean for Sec of HHS! (4.00 / 3)


John McCain <3 lobbyists
[ Parent ]
NO!!!! (0.00 / 0)
Dean is MUCH BETTER in his current role as DNC head.  
[ Parent ]
A Dream to Wake Up From (4.00 / 4)
Experience as a prosecutor is near the bottom of what an AG needs or has usually had.  Criminal law is only a small part of the DoJ, and there is a specific Deputy AG for that.

The AG needs to be smart (very smart), honest, and ethical.  Kennedy picked his brother who had chased Hoffa as an aid to a Senate committee but had never prosecuted a case.  Then Johnson appointed Nick Katzenbach (Yale Law and Rhodes Scholar) who was -- I believe -- a corporate and anti-trust guy but become one of the best AG's ever, during the height of the civil rights movement.

After failures with Mitchell and Kleindienst, Nixon hit a homerun with Elliott Richardson (Harvard, President of Law Review) who had experience as Sec of HEW, but no criminal law experience.

Carter brought us Griffin Bell, a former federal appeals court judge, but no criminal law experience.  Only Clinton, with Janet Reno, appointed an AG with extensive criminal law experience -- five or six terms as a county prosecuting attorney.

So, give us brains and honesty first, then any practical experience in the law, with a dash of political experience, and we should have a good AG.

[ Parent ]
Point taken (0.00 / 0)
Health care is my "thing," so I'd still like to see him or someone similarly passionate about universal health care over at HHS, but you make a good argument about the qualifications for AG.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
[ Parent ]
Universal Single Payer Health Care (4.00 / 2)
Top domestic priority...but the Secretary of HHS will have little to do with making that happen.  Only presidential leadership and a willing congress can.  The HHS Sec will be a major cheerleader for universal health care, but the job is truly one of managing a gargantuan bureaucracy.  While the Democrats have appointed better secretaries than the Republicans, what major accomplishments can be ascribed to Ribicoff, Celebreeze, Garnder (John), Richardson,  Califano, Patricia Harris or Donna Shalala?

I doubt that Edwards is the right guy for this.

[ Parent ]
Not trying to be semantic here (0.00 / 0)
but I truly believe, in this instance, that in fact only congressional leadership and a willing President can. This task is too big and complicated for even the White House to spearhead -- it's a victory that can only be achieved by a large number of willing staffs and exceptional leadership within a much larger Democratic caucus.  
[ Parent ]
Edwards may or may not be the guy (4.00 / 1)
But HHS will have a huge role to play in any massive health reform.  They would be one of the major players consulting with congress on how the bill is written and would doing all of the interpretation of the statutes after the fact and running the programs.  So its essential to have somebody leading HHS who is on board with the vision of universal health care and is dedicated to getting the details right.  

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
[ Parent ]
Yes, Edwards for AG is the natural choice. (4.00 / 2)
It's hard to remember, because it's been so long, but the Attorney's General has been critical for the prosecution of actual BAD GUYS and helping out the little guy.

Sounds like JRE to me.

As for as the Supreme court, obviously way down the line, but I agree... an actual trial lawyer on the court would make some Republican heads explode, but it makes a lot of sense.

If the situation was different Edwards would make a great VP, but that time was in 2004, sadly.

As an aside, I think JRE as AG would be fantastic too, because we could see some actual investigations into all of the many maledictions of the Bush crime family.

Of course we just have to make sure that they don't pull an Ollie North, which the Obama campaign should pretty much expect is going to happen.

Do you think (0.00 / 0)
that Republicans would go crazy over this because Edwards is a scary plaintiff's trial lawyer?  And more importantly, do you think the Dems would fold in the face of it? (Not that I'm  necessarily against Obama picking that fight.)
yes. (4.00 / 5)
and you know what?
Let them!

The case against "trial lawyers" has been a brilliant bout of dust throwing that needs to be put down.

what we need is a couple more wins against these ridiculous frames and distractions to get the courage up.

[ Parent ]
2009 will be different, the majority will be bigger (0.00 / 0)
Progressive nominees should be able to get through, after all, Bush foisted Ashcroft on a Democratic Senate.

Democrats seem to be getting a little bolder lately. With control of the White House, Senate and House, why not try? Make them filibuster.

[ Parent ]
Elected AGs (4.00 / 5)
I'll speak about Wisconsin's experience with elected attorneys general, with an eye on what I believe is extrapolative to other states - and thusly to the federal level.  

In Wisconsin, races for attorney general - and state supreme court recently - have turned into matters of campaign rhetoric on who is "tough on crime."  Which is fine, except that the definition of crime has only been about matters of violent crime, drugs, etc.  It's not been about things like corporate crime - and even things like violations of environmental law have been turned on their head.  Our previous AG, the amazing and awesome Peg Lautenschlager - in my opinion, one of the finest AGs in the nation - prosecuted environmental offenses with zeal and success.  Among other things.  She was a great progressive - even speaking up on things like gay marriage in terms of law and justice.  But in the last race, that she (and Democratic AGs in general) took on environmental and corporate law-breaking was used to frame the race as a matter of unfocused priorities and being anti-business, and by proxy, anti-economic growth.  Bullshit.

So being that fear and scapegoating are powerful in politics, the AG's race became only something of a horrible twisting of law enforcement and the justice system.  Local law enforcement handles most all of the traditional law-and-order stuff - but that was the dominant theme of the AG's race, not who was going to be a good public servant in the enforcement of the rule-of-law.  The AG became known as the state's "top cop."  Poor frame for us to run on - and win for an AG that would take on things like corporate malfeasance.  So we lost the AG's race.

Now my guess is that this happens in other states.  Attorneys General are elected within the campaign messaging frame of street crime, police matters, and the like and not on who is going to be a ready defender of justice and the rule-of-law.  Take this to the national level.  Imagine a national attorney general race where the themes are not corporate crime (a fuzzy judicial issue anyway) or justice as such (incredibly tough to message on in a way that resonates with the public in the face of messages of fear and hatred of "others").  I don't think we have a great shot at winning those races.  Then, you get an AG that pursues a partisan agenda against a president of the other party, and the whole notion of good government and an officer of justice as AG breaks down.

So I'm in favor of an appointed AG - provided that they are appointed to be an independent enforcer of the law.  We shouldn't put ourselves in the rhetorical and framing hole of winning an election based upon who can drag their knuckles through the mud enough to assure people that they're not some DFH worried about some ephemeral concerns as "the environment," "corporate crime," or the Constitution.  

This is spot on (4.00 / 1)
Is Chris Bowers basically saying, "Let's de-politicize the office of Attorney General....by making it an elected, partisan office."

This is the sort of faith in deliberative democracy that got us institutions such as the Electoral College, which was originally conceived of as de-politicizing the process of electing the president.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
what the AG does (0.00 / 0)
Investigating the executive is not exactly the bulk of what the AG does.  The job of the Attorney General includes tons of stuff that is formally executive and doesn't have anything to do with the conflicts of interest that Gonzales et al got up to.  Removing the President's ability to fire the AG makes sense, but separating the position from the formation of the rest of the executive branch doesn't.  A President and AG from opposing parties would be a recipe for disaster.
Edwards for HUD (0.00 / 0)
What really amazes me is that all the focus is on Edward's legal background experience and how that would make him a great candidate for AG.  

But if he really is sincere about fighting poverty, wouldn't it make more sense to make him head of HUD where he can oversee the distribution of billions of dollars to metropolitan and rural areas (and these days the aging suburbs too)?  

He doesn't really strike me as having the best personality for AG.  That's just my opinion, of course, but wedded with his policy advocacy of late it just seems to make more sense to have him run HUD or be secretary of the interior etc.  Maybe not as glamorous as AG, but I think he'd get a lot more done towards fighting poverty and might have an easier time doing it out of the spotlight (if he can handle that last part).  Or hey, maybe he'll shine a much needed spotlight on HUD! Who knows...

really i just want Edwards to do two things: (4.00 / 2)
(1) advocate for progressive positions (he makes Universal Health Care and lobbyist reform sound as American as apple pie)

(2) be as close to the presidency as possible. because he COULD run this country's government, and anything in it.

I know Obama will offer him a good spot, and I know Edwards will consider it in terms of what he can accomplish. If he wanted to stay a private citizen and work in the non-profit sector, that's fine by me. If he wanted to be one heartbeat from the presidency, that's also fine by me.

Not an Election (4.00 / 1)
An independantly-elected AG would turn into a national version of just about every District Attourney/AG election in the country, with a total focus on who promised to throw away the key more often.

We need a way to separate the AG from the partisan process, not make it more partisan.

An independent AG (0.00 / 0)
I agree the AG ought to be independent, but should it really be an elected office? Seems to me that would take us in the wrong direction - it would make it more political, not less.

And wouldn't that require a constitutional change anyway, rendering it a non-starter?

I think a better focus would be on restoring and strengthening the existing checks and balances - like congressional oversight and advise and consent, notably and especially when one party has the triple crown, as was the case for most of the Bush years and will likely be the case next January.

Edwards Has Too Much Baggage To Be VP (0.00 / 0)
He's too much of a known quantity, and what he's known for isn't flattering. He's known for his $400 haircut and for losing in two high-profile national campaigns. I can't see how he'd add anything to the ticket.

By the way, Chris, you shouldn't have to kiss up to Paul Rosenberg while disagreeing with him. I'm sure he's a fine writer, but contrary to his own evident belief, he still puts his pants on one leg at a time. He can be just as wrong as anyone else.

Electing the AG Is Intriguing (0.00 / 0)
I thing it's an interesting idea, and a pretty good one. But it would take a constitutional amendment, because it would essentially carve out a fourth branch of government. I'm not sure I detect any groundswell in 38 of the 50 states for doing that.
Non-political AG, SC (0.00 / 0)
Some may find this counter intuitive, but the real way to make the Attorney General and members of the Supreme Court less political is to require 2/3 support in the Senate.

By giving the opposition party greater leverage you force both sides to go with competent and independent types.

So put more politics up front to reduce politicking later on.

Edwards as Secretary of Labor (0.00 / 0)
I dream of Edwards as Secretary of Labor.  Wouldn't it be great to have a Secretary of Labor that actually cared about labor?  

I know it is a lower level positon than AG, but labor has been neglected for so long.

I would also advise Obama to announce this choice sooner as opposed to later.    Edwards at labor would please a lot of union people including that white working class demographic.  

For AG - I like Leahy.   He knows what a mess we have a Justice and he would kick ass trying to clean it up.   He is not as old as he looks.  

Edwards For AG, Not VP | 57 comments
Donate to Open Left
ELECTION 2008 Presidential Forecast
Senate Forecast
PREMIUM AD

ADVERTISEMENTS



MENU

OpenLeft in your inbox!

 

Or, subscribe to each author individually.
OPTIMIZE MCCAIN About
Tips
McCain
John McCain
QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

OPENLEFT VIDEO WALL
Donna Edwards Thanks OpenLeft


Russ Feingold on the New FISA Legislation


Jon Conyers on Impeachment


Al Franken Thanks Blue Majority


FCC Commissioner Michael Copps on Pearl Jam, Net Neutrality


Darcy Burner on the FISA Legislation

More OpenLeft video...

LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
BUSH DOGS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2008, Powered by SoapBlox