Election Central Saturday Roundup
Report: Hillary's Biggest VP Impediment Is Bill
Jill Iscol, a donor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, told the Los Angeles Times that Barack Obama personally told her that Hillary Clinton was under consideration for vice president, but Bill Clinton's presence makes things "complicated." He said once you're a president, even if you're a former president, you're always a president," Iscol said.
Report: Hagel, Reed To Join Obama For Iraq Trip
Multiple news outlets have now reported that Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska conservative who has turned vocally against the Iraq War, will be accompanying Barack Obama on his upcoming trip to Iraq. Also along for the trip will be Sen. Jack Reed, a Dem point man on foreign policy, but Hagel's presence is far more interesting -- might he become a mirror image of Joe Liebemran, crossing party lines to support the Dem for president?
Both Nominees Taking The Day Off
Both presidential candidates are taking the day off today. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain have any public events scheduled.
Sebelius Not Denying VP Talk
In an interview with CQ, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius said that was not ever vetted for the vice presidency by John Kerry's team in 2004 -- but did not make the same statement about the Obama campaign this year. "Any discussion about this process is being done by the campaign itself," Sebelius said.
German Pol: Obama Shouldn't Speak At Brandenburg Gate
The leader of Bavaria's conservative party says Barack Obama shouldn't speak at the Brandenburg Gate, and accused the leftist foreign minister of pandering to the candidate. "Obama didn't do anything for German unification," Erwin Huber told the newspaper Welt am Sonntag. "That's not a criticism, but as a result there is no reason to grant him such a privilege."
Poll: Obama Leads In Missouri
A new Research 2000 poll in Missouri gives Barack Obama a 48%-43% lead in this swing state, with a ±3.5% margin of error. Most recent polls have given McCain the lead here, but the pollster's analysis in this case indicates that economic insecurity is increasingly driving voters into the Democratic column.
Possible Spoiler Candidate Files In Louisiana District
Some bad news for House Dems: Louisiana state Sen. Michael Jackson, who lost the special election Democratic primary to Rep. Don Cazayoux in a conservative district this spring, has filed to run in November as an independent. Jackson could potentially pick up African-American voters who might otherwise go for Cazayoux, thus splitting the vote in favor of the Republican in a district that Democrats just picked up.
Damn. Why do people in Missouri hate the Constitution so much?
July 12, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
They don't all hate it ... only 43% of them.
July 12, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leading in Missouri says the new poll, after so much pandimonium over the latest newsweek poll.
It's apparent he's running close in MO, and while MSM will lead McCain's agenda, Obama's ground operation will take him over the top.
July 12, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, but, Karl Rove says the Republicans have a much better ground organization, and Obama won't possibly be able to compete with that!!!!!
Oh noes!!! The sky is falling! Karl Rove said so!!!
July 12, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever we may think about Rove, he knows
what he is talking about.
July 13, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone check whether Louisiana state Sen. Michael Jackson has recently received a bunch of GOP donor support? That is often the case when a politician files to run as a third party in order to siphon off votes and help the GOP candidate against the Dem.
July 14, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the biggest poll related story this week was the respected Pew poll which shows Obama leading in Kerry states by a wide margin AND leading in the battleground states but a near 10 point margin too.
These horse-race national polls are close to useless since the president is chosen by the electoral college. Who cares if McCain gets 45% nationally if most of his support is coming from the deep red states and he won't come close in the electoral college.
It seems as though this race is being reported as if it is a lot closer than the "reality on the ground".
July 12, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand. Why would journalists do a thing like that?
July 12, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The evangelicals must be happy about the
polls. They'll want George Bush's
programs to continue and expand.
July 13, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are you, Ralph Nader? Still can't tell the difference between the Dems and the GOP after 8 years of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Ashcroft/Rice/Gonzalez/Brownie at FEMA/Johnson at EPA/etc. ???
July 14, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
And that 43% really only hates the Fourth Amendement.
July 12, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those whiners in Missouri don't realize that it's all in their heads.
Losers.
July 12, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
An obvious outlier that doesn't take into account the Newsweek poll, the FISA vote, Bernie Mac's comments or Mark Halperin's Page which says we will look back at this week and it will mark the predicted downfall of Obama so that we can all rejoice in a McCain victory and four more years of GOP rule!
Phil Gramm's comments mean nothing because, after all, McCain saidf he doesn't agree with them.
My friends, that's change we can believe in...hee-hee-hee.
July 12, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
especially those older and disabled missourians, who enable the disgrace that is social security.
July 12, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who else has spoken at the Brandenberg Gate? Have they all had a role in German unification? If not, did Erwin Huber object?
July 12, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the morning of Monday November the 24th 2003, several hundred Falun Gong practitioners from countries all over Europe gathered in front of the famous Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. The morning was dark and overcast to begin with, and the air felt a little thick and heavy. Practitioners began to practise the Falun Gong exercises and hold banners and placards, whilst many others handed out materials to passing tourists and locals. Many Chinese tour groups arrived during the course of the morning. Their original intention was of course to see the Brandenburg Gate. But the sight of several hundred Falun Gong practitioners moving in harmony as they practised the gentle and beautiful movements, or sitting peacefully in meditation, surrounded by banners which condemned the persecution of Falun Gong, was the true attraction. Many people from the Chinese tour groups were clearly very surprised to find this additional tourist attraction. Many accepted materials from the practitioners.
--------------
The lengthy milk strike in Germany was brought to an end Thursday afternoon after more than 7,000 people demonstrated at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate for higher milk prices.
After hosting a number of speakers from across the Europe, Romuald Schaber, head of the BDM association of German dairy farmers, ended the 10-day-long milk strikes by calling farmers to start up deliveries again that evening.
-----------
The real issue here is that the right wing does not want Obama to displace Reagan on the list for 'greatest' Brandenburg Gate speeches.
Which is why they frame it as a unification issue as that was the topic for Reagan.
Obama's speech will obliterate any record of Reagan who was not known for great speeches to begin with but the bar is so low and Reagan is all that the right has.
July 12, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I really want to see Obama at the Brandenburg Gate. Mostly because I detest Bavarian conservatives.
July 12, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not exactly a region where conservatism has a lot to be proud of.
July 12, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really hope Obama makes his VP Chuck Hagel, Bill Richardson or Kathleen Sebelius.
and I can't wait to see the footage of Obama with Hagel and Reed touring Iraq and maybe Germany.
This will provide a nice balance to the McCain and Lieberman connection we've seen in recent weeks.
July 12, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not Hagel for Veep; any other defense/foreign policy role, but not Veep.
What about Tim Kaine?
July 12, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton always being a President is only part of the problem for Hillary to be in consideration for the VP.
Bill has basically been a global lobbyist since leaving office and vetting him will not be successful...he has too much baggage for Hillary to be the VP on the ticket.
July 12, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't take this Hagel business lightly. He is on track for *at least* SecDef, maybe Veep.
(I know, I know, "No Republicans!") But this is what I see happening.
July 12, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It'll be secdef, not veep. I'm comfortable with secdef. But I doubt many Dems would be comfortable with Hagel as veep.
July 12, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, id love to see Hagel working with Obama when Obama wins but i don't think VP is the spot for him.
July 12, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I tend to agree with you both.
July 12, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have felt for some time Hagel was going to be part of the Administration. Obama has stated he would not be a one party President. I like Chuck Hagel for having the bullocks to stand up against his party regarding Iraq.
July 12, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you 100%, Amelie.
It took the height of balls for Hagel to buck Bush on Iraq. Notice how no GOPers have dared criticize him about it, either, preferring to quietly ignore him -- they're too damned scared to trash a Vietnam war hero. And Obama is smart enough to know this. Anyone who thinks Hagel would stand silent in a corner like Kerry while he was bashed publicly is sadly mistaken.
And again, I call everyone's attention to the wonderful way Hagel roasted C. Rice over the coals in that Congressional hearing last fall, going on about the lost blood and treasure in Iraq. My jaw dropped at the time and I still recall it with wonderment.
July 12, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with all of the comments above.
Hagel, unlike Grampy McSame, is a true "straight talker." He would be a real plus in an Obama Administration.
July 12, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hagel is a very intelligent, articulate, and courageous internationalist. In that realm I would enthusiastically support him for any role he might play in an Obama administration. Unfortunately,his economic policy positions are quite regressive, so he would not be of benefit to Obama in a domestic politics role.
July 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary supporters, please note: Talking to the press about what Obama told you privately is NOT a way to help Hillary get the VP slot.
July 12, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
+ 1
July 12, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially if all you are going to do is express sour grapes, despite the fact that he took time out of his busy schedule of, you know, running for president to talk to you PERSONALLY.
You just can't do enough to please some people.
July 14, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are MANY reasons Hillary would make a horrible VP, and Bill doesn't even come close to topping that list:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/06/why-no-nightmare-ticket-lets-count.html
July 12, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe so, but it's a good story to tell her, ain't it? ;-)
July 12, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another brief thought: it really is a smart line, 'cuz what can she say? "I've talked to Bill and he'll definitely stay in the background"? To say that such is not remotely credible is one of the all-time understatements! Doesn't pass the laugh test, not be a mile.
July 12, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more terrible reason to get rid of HRC:
The Denver Group: Keeping the Democratic Party democratic, created by Georgetown Law professor Heidi Li Feldman and freelance advertising man Marc Rubin, ran an ad in Friday's Chicago Tribune declaring:
"Senator Clinton's name must be put in nomination. Her supporters must be allowed to make speeches on her behalf of her candidacy. There must be an honest roll call vote, not a symbolic one, so superdelegates can cast their votes honestly, for either candidate, as their judgment, conscience and democratic principles dictate."
Feldman told the Huffington Post that the goal of the Denver Group "is to insure substantive and legitimate selection of the nominee." DNC chairman and other party leaders "should be taking responsibility for making sure it's a legitimate procedure. They cannot demand that people simply unify around either one of them."
July 12, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
They can go screw themselves.
To the winner goes the spoils; the loser and their apologists have no right to demand anything unless and until the Obama campaign deigns to grant them a role or an audience.
July 12, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for a really great link.
July 12, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome Analysis. Thanks for the link.
July 13, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
i see mcsame still taking weekends off damn that sound like bush........ if any reporter ever photo mcsame clearing brush on his property its over..........
July 12, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
DRAMA IN THe Making:
"Maybe, just maybe, a bunch of delegates to the Democratic Convention in Denver will change their minds at the last minute. Maybe there is an outside chance that between now and the last week of August a critical mass will decide that Barack Obama is not their guy -- that, to the surprise of one and all, Hillary Rodham Clinton is to be the 2008 nominee after all.
That is the thinking behind a small but determined band of Hillary backers, some of whom have formed a 527 fundraising committee that has already run one $9,700 ad in the Chicago Tribune, and plans more in the weeks to come."
Hillary is just waiting to turn out the DNC in Denver.
She is such a sore loser.
July 12, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton isn't a sore loser. A minority of her supporters, on the other hand, not only are sore losers, but they are talkative sore losers.
If her supporters, like those you highlighted, keep this up, and Obama should lose, they, and Clinton, by extension, will receive a great deal of blame, and, I would guess, Clinton's presidential career would be over. One would imagine that Clinton knows this as well as anyone. Hell, Taylor Marsh has been making this same point!
So my guess is that these stories will start to fade away.
July 12, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary is not a sore loser, than she should pubically renounce and reject any such efforts of this type done in her name on her behalf.
I won't hold my breathe waiting for her to step up to the plate and do the honorable thing in the name of party unity.
Because she is inDEED a sore loser.
July 12, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/12/sticking-a-wrench-in-the_n_112303.html
Here is the link to the group intent upon disrupting the Democratic convention. I personally think they are not supporting HRC or Obama, they are supporting McCain.
I sound like a broken record, but this kind of detraction from our one goal in November is so typical of some so called "Democrats", it will be hard enough to deal with the Republicans and now this.
Can you hear McCain now, "Even those in his own party don't feel he is qualified to be President".......
I am so discouraged.
July 12, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be discouraged.
Gramps has many problems with his own party so that he couldn't make that type of statement with a straight face, or without being called on it.
July 12, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, feel better.
July 12, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not discouraged about November. I do think the Party is schizo right now. It's like an animal that's been in a cage so long that it bites anyone who tries to let it out.
July 12, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's Clinton in 2008 or 2012.
The SDs can and should keep a clear head until Denver. Obama is weak and a liability. The choice is either a President McCain if he stays or a President Clinton if he is rejected. He should be thanked for his effort and rejected if the Democrats want to retake the White House.
July 13, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are in dreamland. Hillary bowed out extremely gracefully; I don't see why some of her supporters still refuse to follow her lead.
July 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chuck Hagel will not allow himself to be used the way Lieberman is. I don't think Obama would even try to play that game with Hagel either. I don't think Hagel would work as Obama's VP because he's too socially conservative and with Obama moving to the center, the activist left of the party is already feeling used and shunned. If Obama stayed further left, then Hagel would have at least made more sense to add certain balance to the ticket(but still wouldn't have been a good choice).
Hagel should be Barr's VP candidate if anything. Hagel is just a Republican who hated the Bush White House, but he's still a Republican.
July 12, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa, what a *good point* this is:
"Obama didn't do anything for German unification," Erwin Huber told the newspaper Welt am Sonntag. "That's not a criticism, but as a result there is no reason to grant him such a privilege."
As a 24/25 year old community organizer in inner-city Chicago, what did young Obama do for German reunification? Zilch! Barely out of school, he was worried about helping the poor instead of fighting to strengthen the Fatherland! Germany was reunited in 1989 when Obama was 27. Where was he at these historic times?! Why, the cad was in his second year of law school instead of standing with the German people! True, the reunification was very easily done without much American help, but it is the principle of young Obama putting his education before a united Germany that matters here!!
July 12, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Modest Proposal.
Hillary should leave Bill, since it is no longer a real marriage, and then Senator Obama could put her on the ticket.
I would have no objections to such a ticket. Bill is clearly the real obstacle and only Senator Clinton can remove it. She should.
July 12, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the blackout on coverage of McCain's gaffe in Pittsburgh? It is all over the sports blogs. Joe six pack was not only lied to---it was in that smarmy, sickening phony "I am a war hero and nobody else isn't" attitude that McCain likes to use.
The Pittsburgh front four???????// I wonder if he is being labled a flip flopper, or just an incohernent confused old geezer in cheesetown.
Wake the fuck up and report it!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 12, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even FoxNews covered McCain's Pittsburgh Steelers gaffe. His campaign is the Pander Express. Anyone good with design want to edit the fast food chinese restaurant's image:
John McCain’s campaign claims he made an “honest mistake” when he incorrectly told a Pittsburgh reporter that he rattled off the lineup for the Pittsburgh Steelers when under pressure to give up names by his Vietnam captors.
McCain was being interviewed by the Pennsylvania TV station KDKA Wednesday when he started talking about how the Steelers “really made a huge impression on me, particularly in their early years.”
He recalled how, when he was being held in Vietnam as a prisoner of war, he “named … the defensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers as my squadron mates” under interrogation.
But ABC News’ Jake Tapper noted that every other recounting of the story, including that from McCain’s book “Faith of my Fathers,” involved the Green Bay Packers’ lineup — not the Steelers’.
A senior McCain adviser told FOX News it was not intentional, and that the story from over 40 years ago is a non-issue.
FOX News’ Mosheh Oinounou contributed to this report.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/11/mccain-mixes-up-packers-and-steelers-in-pa-interview/
July 14, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, damn that opportunistic Obama. He should have spoken up on German unification when he had the chance.
Also, Hagel is reportedly on the verge of endorsing Obama.
July 12, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and can we start calling this kerfluffle Brandenburg-gate yet?
July 12, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response, gerbils Graham and Lieberman will scamper from McCain's backside chattering furiously...
July 12, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, guys, this endorsement story *must* be true. Otherwise, what, Hagel is going on this *monster* photo op to the Brandenberg gate ... well, for what reason? He always wanted to see the gate, maybe? If he was not about to endorse, why would Obama invite him? Likes the guy's company?
July 12, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's unclear whether Hagel will be along for the whole ride. He may just be accompanying Obama for the Middle-East part.
July 12, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hagel might be on track for Secretary of Defense, MAYBE but less likely, Secretary of State. Having said that, most of the likely Dem nominees for Secretary of State are in the Senate, where it would be a shame to lose any seats.
Those people still pitching Hagel for VP should familiarize themselves with his voting record on domestic issues, i.e. it ain't gonna happen.
July 12, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may know better, but to me the Senate's obvious SecState candidates are Hillary and Biden. As to Hillary, Wikipedia informs me that some David Paterson (one "t") is New York's governor following Spitzer's difficulties. Would he name her replacement under New York law?
By the wonders of Wikipedia I also divine that the Governor of Delaware is one Ruth Ann Minner (two "n's"). Would she replace Biden under Delaware law?
Anybody know?
July 12, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't answer definitively whether governors always get to pick the replacement.
As you are undoubtedly aware, Biden has frequently been mentioned for State. Hillary seems more likely for a cabinet position such as Health and Human Services where she could presumably have more influence on the push for universal health care, provided she is inclined to leave the Senate for something less than the VP slot.
July 12, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO WAY, as aptly put in
Lux's link above:
"I think it is a safe assumption that anyone who brings up the idea of a cabinet position for Hillary has the Department of Health & Human Services in mind for her. This sounds reasonable because she is all about health care right? Wrong. She has tried to brand herself as a expert on health care, but in reality she is far from an expert. She has no educational background in medicine or public health policy. She has never held a job in any field related to health care.
The closest thing she has to experience in health care is a failed pet project in the 90s, and her current assignment on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions. But does that make her an expert? Not even close. Does that qualify her to be Secretary of Health & Human Services? Most definitely not. Is she equipped to manage "one of the largest civilian departments in the federal government, with a budget that accounts for almost one out of every four federal dollars and more than 67,000 employees"? From the looks of how she ran her campaign, not a chance. Listen, with all due respect to Hillary, she just isn’t qualified. You know what? I’m not either, that’s why I’m not going to get put in charge of health policy for the entire United States.
The cabinet is meant for EXPERTS, the best of the best, so the president can have the very best advice and so the federal government can run as smoothly as possible. Bush didn’t understand this, or didn’t care, so he put his corporate cronies in charge of everything, no matter how unqualified they were, and we’ve seen disastrous results across the board. Obama is not an idiot, he wants the best people supporting him, and so there is no room to be handing out Cabinet positions as consolation gifts for people who are bitter about losing the presidential nomination"
July 12, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you find your perfect world where the government runs as smoothly as possible, send for me. Bush was worse than most but even excluding him, there is little historic precedent for putting actual experts in the major cabinet posts. Success or failure of cabinet secretaries (or presidents) hinges largely on their ability to delegate responsibility to the right people.
Of course, going back to your original assertion regarding Hillary, the clearest example we have of her ability to delegate is her campaign and by all accounts, she made a mess of that.
July 12, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least if she lacked expertise in healthcare and had reasonable administrative skill her being in that cabinet position would be reasonable. But the fact that she lacks both expertise and executive skills screams...INCOMPETENCE. Sooo, nope she can stay in the Senate whether neither administrative nor executive skills are essential to doing a reasonably decent job.
July 12, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur.
July 12, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's looking to score a few Falun Gong pamphlets.
July 12, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect Edwards is still on the VP short list. The economy, which is of increasing concern to voters was the focus of Edwards bid for the nomination. If elected VP, Dems wouldn't have to give up a red state Senate seat, plus Edwards might enhance the tickets appeal to blue-collar voters.
July 12, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is very right and it is interesting how Edwards himself back-tracked from his nearly Shermanesque dismissal of this a few short months ago. Now he'll "help in any way." May not be coincidental.
July 12, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes; advice from a Bavarian Conservative. Bavaria; the stronghold of Adolph Hitler.
The words "Bavarian Conservative" still gives me Goose-Step Bumps!
July 12, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. Just don't ask them about "the Turks."
July 12, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the fairest of them all...
I think Chuck is mas macho.
July 12, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Hagel is the lumbering, lovable Barney Bear to Lieberman's endomorphic Droopy. We are definitely getting the better end of the trade.
July 12, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Virtually every state poll out there shows Obama doing better and better. The Newsweek poll and espcially the demographics they used are all over the shop. How can a poll change the dynamics it uses to weigh national opinion so rapidly in the space of 3 weeks and expect anyone to take it seriously? Obama is polling well in places like SD and Montana and his momentum is slowing? Additionally this poll does not reflect the week Mccain just had. That Social Security and Gramm comments combined are going to haunt Mcclame well into November.
July 12, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Newsweek poll results may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for Senator Obama. It might help to bring all those carpers to their senses because the assumed that they could afford to attack their own candidate. Lets hope that this dose of reality gets most of them to realize that they do not have house money to play with.
July 12, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may also get the media to step down from panic mode if they think it's tight race. The last thing they want is either guy to run away with it.
July 12, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good point. The closer they think it is, they might not shy away quite so much from hitting McCain. They'll still shy away, but maybe not as much.
July 13, 2008 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even though I'm positively besotted w/ Obama, I don't see a compelling reason for a speech at the Brandenberg Gate. Like the acceptance speech in the football stadium, it feels like a bit of a reach.
Imagine how it would feel to us, if a candidate for the German presidency came over here and made a speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
Personally, I'd like to see the Obama campaign figure out a way to get better and fairer coverage in the media, on a day to day basis. I could be wrong, but I don't think that Obama will get a lot of milage out of the Brandenburg and convention events. Many media outlets barely covered the 75,000 person turnout at the Portland rally, even though it was of historic proportions.
July 12, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree. I don't understand why Obama is even giving a speech in Germany. Instead of Obama being greeted overseas by foreign leaders photo-op being enough it seems like his first trip over is starting a small international incident. He's a junior Senator running for US President, he's not even a peer of the foreign leaders he plans to meet and it seems that he wants to outshine Merkel and be greeted as a rockstar.
July 12, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Brandenberg Gate controversy is an invention of the media which has been greatly exaggerated by the blogosphere. I suspect the Obama campaign merely inquired whether it would be possible to deliver a speech at the Brandenberg Gate. I haven't heard anything suggesting that they had their hearts set on it.
July 12, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's Brandenburg-gate...
July 12, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct, of course. Please forgive me.
We also would have accepted "What is the Brandenburger Tor?"
July 12, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to worry. After having to put up with Bush's do it my way, bluster, for eight years, Europe will love Senator Obama's message.
July 12, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not worried about whether Europe will Obama, they probably will. It's the American media he has to worry about.
My guess is that they will either punish him or damn him with faint praise for the Brandenburg Gate thing. The press loves, "man of the people" stuff; they flip for Gary Cooper like, aw shucks personalities. It doesn't matter if it's fake, as long as the candidate follows the pre-conceived narrative.
They're like kids wanting to hear the same bed time story, over and over again.
July 12, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will be tough for the US media to diss Obama's appearance when you know it will generate thousands of Germans chanting "O-BA-MA!"
what can they do, compare it to a Hitler rally?
I don't think even the corporate media in this country is that stupid.
July 12, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me three. I don't think the gate thing is a good idea. Especially for domestic us election issues. He should just do meet and greets with the foreign leaders and that's it. It doesn't look good and will be used by the republicans to paint obama as the european candidate. The vast majority of the us electorate won't like it. Look what the us thinks of the un, which isn't fair and is due to republican bs, but it is what it is.
July 12, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans will attack him on anything he does. Why are we falling into that trap, and getting so afraid of them. If he only does what the Republicans will not raise some faux outcry about, then he might as well just sit out the election.
Why be so afraid of something innovative. I say go for it, Senator Obama. Use your speech making skills to heal the international wounds created by the arrogant ignoramus you would be replacing.
July 12, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts exactly!!!
July 12, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding Bill Clinton being Hillary's biggest obstacle to becoming VP.
Don't agree. It's as if this person is insinuating that Hillary, herself, is not a flawed VP candidate. She is.
Beyond every reason that's piled up in the last year, Hillary has an utter lack of respect for Obama. It's as if the Clintons thought of him as a busboy. And after her attempt to reverse the primary outcome via Michigan and Florida, she has an utter lack of respect for voters and the democratic process.
Did anyone catch the special report on CNN last night regarding Hillary's viability for VP? It reminded me why it's called the Clinton News Network.
July 12, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's as if the Clintons thought of him as a busboy".
Racebait much? Dude, if you don't think Hillary should be VP, try another approach. Just a thought.
July 12, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Busboy is racist since when? That's right it's not. What does it say about somebody who calls racism when it wasn't there?
July 12, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me whatever you want to call me, as if I could care one iota. I stand by my comment, and I think thinking folks know what I'm talkin about.
July 13, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had no intention of race-baiting. If it seemed that way, I'm sorry. But seriously, busboy as race-baiting? Since when?
July 13, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I accept what you say and more than just at your word, because you've been around here awhile and I respect your comments even if we probably disagree quite a bit. Busboy (although I was once one) are generally minorities (certainly where I live), and busboy includes the word "boy" in it and I find that it was a curious choice. If you want to argue that the Clintons don't respect Obama, I might even agree, and I think it's a more appropriate way of making your point.
July 13, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the MSM (including CNN)are talking up a Clinton VP slot hoping they can influence her selection, and then put the relationship under a microscope and take any actual or perceived discord between Obama and Clinton to extreme levels of exaggeration. A good controvery makes a good story and sells advertising.
There is a long list of reasons why Hillary should't be VP, Bill is just one of them. I think choosing ANY other Senator for VP would be a mistake. Obama should choose someone with executive experience and foreign relations credentials . . . Bill Richardson would be my choice.
July 12, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm more open to the idea of having Hillary on the ticket than I was a couple months back. I still believe her negatives outweigh her positives. I think it is safe to assume that Caroline Kennedy and the Obama campaign have compiled detailed lists of both.
July 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I also think they want Hillary as VP, because she and Bill are so polarizing and scandalicious. They are guaranteed to be controversial and therefore bring in viewers.
July 12, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not too thrilled about the idea of having another Republican be the SecDef. Are there no Democratic candidates for that cabinet post? Do we always have to have the GOP there to further the idea that they are the Daddy Party and should always be in charge of national defense, even if/when there's a mandate for Democrats?
And I didn't realize that only those who personally assisted in unification (whatever that means) can ever speak at the Brandenburg Gate. I guess after a sufficient amount of time there won't be anyone left alive, German or otherwise, qualified to speak there.
July 12, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the f is Jill Iscol passing along her private conversation w/Obama to the press? As for "wait and see" on contributions, why doesn't she "wait and see" how far progressive women's viewpoints will get with a McCain administration?
July 12, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No presidential candidate, to my knowledge, has ever given a speech overseas in such a high profile circumstance. Seems to me that, from an electoral perspective, it will either propel Obama to new heights, or it will flop like a lead balloon. I kind of think the latter will be the result, because it seems a little presumptuous. Even if he does it before thousands of adoring Germans, lots of folks back home might not want to take kindly with Europeans suggesting whom we Americans should be voting for. I think going overseas as a serious presidential contentder is the key. That means photo ops with world leaders and reports of serious and substantive meetings. That shows him to be presidential I submit, and that has political legs. A rockstar thingie in Berlin at a site where only ELECTED presidents have spoken, seems to me to be over the top.
July 12, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm inclined to agree and I think the announcement was a trial balloon (like the NASCAR suggestion, which they've now back offed on).
July 12, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems completely ridiculous to me to give any credence to this "HRC still in the running for VP" story based solely on the word of a single HRC supporter. This is strictly in the gossip category.
July 12, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Hillary supporter I hope to God she is not the VP pick.
Obama will go down to defeat in November and being on that ticket would be the worst thing for her.
Much better for her to follow the Reagan model of 1976. Endorse the nominee, keep your distance, watch him go down to defeat, organize for another run in four years. She will be able to say "I told you so".
July 12, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to know that you are a PUMA, and want McCain to fill the next two or three openings on the Supreme Court. So why are you a Hillary supporter, since it is clear that you do not give a damn about stopping the Right Wingers from taking complete control of the Supreme Court.
July 12, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the clintons won't win the primary in 2012 either. The clintons can say I told you so all day long, but the 18 mill that voted for obama will blame them for the loss because she refused to concede defeat in February when she lost, she drug him through the mud and the clintons caused him and the dems to waste a couple of hundred million dollars unnecessarily dragging out the primary after they lost.
Sorry to burst your clinton bubble, but they are old news. She'll be lucky to keep her senate seat. I guarantee that her primary challenger will be flush with cash in 2012, because there are a ton of people pissed at the clintons. I for one will donate the max to the primary challenger.
July 12, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not gonna happen, because Obama is going to win. But besides, Hillary had a ceiling of 44% in the primary -- that's where she was last fall, with six other candidates in the race, and that's where she was (or slightly lower) this spring after five of the six had dropped out (see http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php). How would she do better next time?
July 12, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well.... he is not qualified.
If republicans had nominated a candidate as unqualified as Obama you guys would all be screaming bloody murder.
Resume; community organizer, state senator, 1 year in US senate before running for president.
The bar has been lowered for him and if he had been a republican you guys would be laughing at him.
July 12, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And clinton was that much more qualified?????? She had a couple more years in the senate, BFD, and she accomplished nothing except give a rubberstamp for a gd war? Obama accomplished more in the senate than she did. Maybe you think that she was more qualified because she was dodging sniper fire in bosnia. Oh, that's right that was just another lie. Pathetic.
July 12, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you still did not explain why you are a Hillary backer, she who is a Democrat and backing Senator Obama, and why you want the Republicans to complete their take over of the Supreme Court. You are giving off the musty smell of some mangy flea bitten PUMA!!!
July 12, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"but the 18 mill that voted for obama will blame them for the loss because she refused to concede defeat in February when she lost"
Spoken like a true Cult follower.
When Obama goes down to defeat in November you will be blaming Hillary. Not the Messiah. Alfter all he can do no wrong.
Blaming Reagan for Ford's defeat did not hurt Reagan's career one bit. He went on to a landslide victory four years later.
After Obama goes down to defeat he will be just another; Humphrey/Mondale/Dukakis/Kerry
July 12, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I'll be blaming the clintons and so will alot of other dems. However, odds are you will be whining after november because obama won't lose, unless there is more sabatoge by the clintons. Keep on whining like your dear leaders the clintons. You better get used to it. Talk about a cult following. I think that you are projecting.
July 12, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"but the 18 mill that voted for obama will blame them for the loss because she refused to concede defeat in February when she lost"
Spoken like a true Cult follower.
When Obama goes down to defeat in November you will be blaming Hillary. Not the Messiah. Alfter all he can do no wrong.
Blaming Reagan for Ford's defeat did not hurt Reagan's career one bit. He went on to a landslide victory four years later.
After Obama goes down to defeat he will be just another; Humphrey/Mondale/Dukakis/Kerry
July 12, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"but the 18 mill that voted for obama will blame them for the loss because she refused to concede defeat in February when she lost"
And another thing. Why do you think she had an obligation to concede in February?
Do you have any knowledge of history?
Did Reagan concede in February? Did Kennedy concede in February?
Did Gary Hart concede in February?
Did any candidate in the history of this country concede in February when the race was close?
Reagan and Kennedy did not concede until the convention. But we must apply a different standard for the Evil Hillary.
Oh, and we want the votes of Evil Hillary's supporters and we want their money. After that we want Evil Hillary and her Racist Husband to go live in exile.
LOL!
July 12, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, missed that one. Because it was over in february, that's why. For the good of the party and the country the clintons should have stepped aside. Any decent pol would have. However, the clintons didn't because they don't care about the dem party or the country, they only care about themselves. On kennedy, what happened to his future presidential aspirations? Oh that's right they vanished. The b-movie actor caused ford to lose and kennedy caused carter to lose. Just because the republicans didn't hold it against the b-movie actor doesn't mean dems won't hold it against the clintons. On hart, hart wasn't trying to destroy mondale, like the clintons were trying to destroy obama. Big difference.
July 12, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you happen to notice anything those historical races you listed all had in common? Anything? Anything at all? No? Well keep working on it. When crack that code, you'll find the answer to your question.
July 12, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
If her supporters, like those you highlighted, keep this up, and Obama should lose, they, and Clinton, by extension, will receive a great deal of blame, and, I would guess, Clinton's presidential career would be over.
Right. Just like Reagan's presidential career was over after he took the fight to the convention, gave Ford an unenthusiastic endorsement, refused to campaign for him.
I am sure Hillary will do everything she can to avoid Reagan's fate.
LOL!
July 12, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew reagan and your dear leader is no reagan. Too funny.
July 12, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you still did not explain why you are a Hillary backer, she who is a Democrat and backing Senator Obama, and why you want the Republicans to complete their take over of the Supreme Court. You are giving off the musty smell of some mangy flea bitten PUMA!!!
July 12, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
this was posted from pittsburgh at the post dispatch website (not by me) what is the deal with your blackout on McCain b essing joe sixpack in Pittsburgh, where Obama has all that trouble with regular guys? what is the problem with reporting this?
McCain's war story about the Steelers was front page news here today.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08194/896622-66.stm
McCain's mind no steel trap in recalling Steelers
Saturday, July 12, 2008
By Timothy McNulty, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Arizona Sen. John McCain stuck his Terrible Towel in his mouth this week.
In a local television interview Wednesday, Mr. McCain recalled his love of the Steelers, saying he slyly gave the names of Steeler defensive linemen to Vietnamese interrogators while a prisoner of war in 1967.
There are couple huge problems with that statement: Mr. McCain wrote in his 1999 best-seller "Faith of My Fathers" that he actually gave interrogators names of Green Bay Packers offensive linemen.
And besides, the Steelers of the late 1960s -- before the Steel Curtain and after the retirement of Hall-of-Fame lineman Ernie Stautner -- were so unsuccessful, few people outside their immediate families would claim knowing them.
The campaign for the probable Republican presidential candidate said the comment was an "honest mistake" and blamed bloggers for insensitively stirring up the matter.
Asked Wednesday by KDKA-TV's Jon Delano what first comes to mind when he thinks of Pittsburgh, Mr. McCain said, "The Steelers. I was a mediocre high school athlete and I loved and adored sports but the Steelers really made a huge impression on me, particularly in the early years."
Sitting by his wife Cindy, the senator then told a story about his 51/2 years as a POW.
"When I was first interrogated and really had to give some information because of the pressures, the physical pressures that were on me, I named the starting lineup -- defensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers -- as my squadron mates."
Mr. Delano asked Mr. McCain, age 71, if he could name them now.
"No, unfortunately, I couldn't, but I certainly could then," Mr. McCain said.
You can hardly blame the senator for not knowing them. The biggest Steelers fan you know probably couldn't name the defensive line of the 4-9-1 Steelers in 1967 -- the year the Navy pilot was shot down over Hanoi -- of Chuck Hinton, Ken Kortas, Ben McGee and Lloyd Voss.
In "Faith of My Fathers," Mr. McCain describes being interrogated after crashing his plane, then -- after being discovered as the son of a Navy admiral -- being sent to a hospital for treatment. Under threats of ending the treatment, the interrogators demanded inside military information.
***MORE***
The senator's mixup with the Steelers "was an honest mistake," a campaign spokesman said yesterday. "If bloggers want to make fun of John McCain because he forgot which team he used under torture, that is their right."
The campaign for Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama had no comment.
***MORE***
July 12, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's amusing is the way they use "bloggers" toward the end as a synonym for "whiny liberal assholes." A new entry in the Dictionary of Conservative Codewords.
July 12, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know kjoe
I have this uneasy sense that the media is going to treat McCain's memory lapses the way they treated gender for Hillary. Barck could not pounce on her or push back agressively less they claim he was being a male dominating a female...and somehow or another I am getting the distinct feeling that it will be the same if Obama emphasizes McCains glaring memory flaws as gaffes...the press will claim he is mistreating an 'old man' or 'senior citizen'...and the over 60 vote will come out in support of McCain just like the females were supporting gender.
Obama has such a hard row to hoe and a fine line to walk.
I hope Obama puts out an ad where he riffs on McCain like Edwards did on Hillary here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq7CAIsSd44
July 12, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Won't resonate as much, though, because the over-60 vote is probably more wary of McCain's age than any other demographic. Also, every time the media ask the ageism question, it just reminds everyone how old McCain is. Ageism just isn't nearly as incendiary a charge in this country as sexism is.
July 13, 2008 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are right based on this gallup poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108712/McCains-Age-Seen-More-Problem-Than-Obamas-Race.aspx
July 13, 2008 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the Pittsburgh Pander!
July 12, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, now why isn't there more press on this stuff? I know why, but still. This is awesome stuff. I can feel a landslide coming in November. Obama is awesome. Check out this link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080712/ap_on_el_pr/obama_contrast
And what do the pumas have to say about this. The clintons couldn't do half of this stuff because they were part of the problem. Landslide is coming in November.
July 12, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the 26-out-of-30-years comment. This is a great way to knock McCain's attempts to be mavericky, and to for Obama to use his relative inexperience in Washington as a plus as he did in the primaries.
July 13, 2008 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, Michael A, thanks for the link.
That is the best press coverage of Obama's campaign I have seen all week, and especially so from an AP writer.
I really liked this descriptive of what is occurring on the trail, as it is my sense of things as well, despite it being omitted and overlooked completed by the talking heads on cable and the networks. Perhaps the Sunday shows this week will pick up on Obama's new tone and aggressive demeanor on the trail since jettisoning HRC in the primaries.
Great analysis from AP:
a seemingly unfazed Obama tore through the week with McCain in his sights, giving the impression that he's becoming at ease with his newfound role, and, perhaps, running for president on the whole. At times, he came across witty and hip, relaxed and confident, and much more comfortable than he was during the heat of the primaries.
Perhaps it's because there's now a measure of clarity in the race, with an opponent from the other camp with a completely different take on the issues. Perhaps it's because polls show Obama slightly ahead while McCain has seemed unable to lay a glove on him. Perhaps it's because the campaign days are lighter — at least for now.
If the primary race taught him anything, it's not to take anything for granted or coast through the next few months. That may be one reason why the Democrat seemingly has been relentless in contrasting himself with McCain.
July 13, 2008 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone catch Novak's latest column?
It's hilarious!
Listen to this spin:
"Old Democratic hands believe Sen. Barack Obama's decision to deliver his presidential nomination acceptance speech at the 75,000-seat Denver Broncos football stadium Aug. 28 ignores a lesson from 48 years ago.
"The last presidential nominee to deliver an outdoor acceptance speech was John F. Kennedy in 1960 at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. That diminished the impact of one of his best campaign speeches, in which he unveiled the "New Frontier." The then-100,000-seat Coliseum was only half filled, and the sound was imperfect.
"Technical advances in sound projection have been made in the last half-century, and Obama has been particularly effective in large outdoor venues. Nevertheless, Democratic pros feel the safer course for Obama would have been to give the speech in the 19,000-seat Pepsi Center, where the convention is being held.
I laughed my ass off after reading that.
July 12, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Buckeye...Novak is just ludicrous.
I still can't figure out what is wrong with Obama giving his speech at Invesco. I think it demonstrates that he plans to be the people's President.
By giving his speech there he is allowing thousands of families to have the opportunity to witness what is clearly going to be a historic moment.
Obama is right to expand the venue so that as many Americans as possible can have the experience of seeing a President speak. Up until his campaign the common man and little guy had no chance of seeing a President because it was too expernsive.
Novak and the networks just do not want the nation to see how much this man inspires the masses and the crowds that come out voluntarily. There was exceptionally poor coverage of the Oregon rally, which was 70K strong!!
I hope Obama goes to Invesco, fills it up and let's the world know America once again has a LEADER full of wisdom, strategic vision and the acumen to accomplishment greatness at home and abroad.
The nation needs this as well due to all the fearmongering that we have been cowered with in the past 8 years. America needs Obama more than Obama needs us. Yes, he wants our votes but it is us who will suffer most as a nation if he does not win the Presidency.
Obama is letting Americans know that this is their government and that they can take it back and that frightens the corrupt corporate powers and infrastructure that has usurped our government.
Even the networks are threatening not to cover the event, because of cost. Can you believe that?
Please, they run 24/7 news cycles on missing girls and Brittanys breakdown, but now when we have a political event of great significance they all of a sudden can't find a budget for it...right.
July 13, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Wisconsin Green Bay Packer fans will be pissed because McCain pandered to the Pittsburgh Steelers.
I don't know which is worse, McCain forgetting that it was the Packers not the Steelers which suggest that he is going senile or that he pandered to get in good graces with Pittsburgh.
July 13, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to believe McCain would forget which team he used or the names of the players. It raises several concerns, including whether this story is even true. Watching how easily McCain has lied recently, I am beginning to doubt the whole McCain persona more and more. No matter how much the MSM love him, I'm just not seeing a man of good character and honor.
July 13, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not hard to believe that McCain would forget anything that occurred while he was being tortured. Most people can't recall what they say or do under stress and he was a POW.
The man has PTSD as well as geriatric diminished brain function..a highly volatile, erratic and unpredictable condition for someone to be Commander in Chief. Particularly, when they spent their youth being a rebel and maverick just for the sheer hell of it. Old habits are hard to break and especially so when their is diminished brain capacity.
McCain does not have the executive temperment or leadership judgement to become our President.
July 13, 2008 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, semi off topic. However, for all those mcbush backers and former clinton people who want mcbush they should read this intelligence analysis from the former head of the cia unit on international terrorism. Do we want 4 more years of the same or do we want a rational leader who will lead our country finally into the 21st century. Comeon people, think!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102710.html
July 13, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink