Russ Feingold.

Posted at June 6, 2008 7:07 PM in response to Obama's Veep-Hunting Team Gears Up

I really can't believe we're talking about Chuck Hagel as a possible VP candidate on a progressive blog. Hagel is a deep, deep red Republican with some seriously Stone Age positions; I do *not* want him a heartbeat from the presidency. Nunn is actually much, much better on the issues that matter than Hagel, who really only has his opposition to the war and general badass persona to add to an Obama administration.

I'd much prefer a reformed Republican, like Webb (well, I guess deformed-reformed Dem-Rep-Dem, but whatever). Sadly, I think he may not be in the cards because of the perceived ticking-off-militant-Hillary-follower-putative-feminists issue.

Posted at June 6, 2008 7:05 PM in response to Obama's Veep-Hunting Team Gears Up

While I'm generally a Kathy G fan, that post, coupled with the subsequent comments, only bolsters my appreciation of Webb as a potential VP pick.

Posted at June 5, 2008 5:22 PM in response to Jim Webb Auditions As Top Obama Surrogate

And video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yJn4VtgJ5A

Posted at May 22, 2008 12:40 AM in response to Hillary: I Might Take Fight Over Florida And Michigan To Convention!

Umm no - this is not an issue you just let go of. I argued back then fix it now and just do a freaking revote. Obama's campaign blocked it every opportunity because they want to protect the lead at any cost - ncluding the cost of disregarding millions of voters.
Oh please. Obama's campaign *conceded* the best reasonable result to Hillary in the interests of moving on, as I commented above.

Obama's campaign didn't block a revote. The Michigan State Democratic Party did:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/new-michigan-primary-its-really-most-sincerely-dead/index.html?hp

While Obama's campaign said that there would be "questions" as to how such a re-vote could be implemented, that is a MOOT POINT and thus doesn't work to block a revote in any way.

Throwing around a bunch of incorrect facts doesn't help, and is exactly the kind of thing I'm suggesting we avoid in the interests of moving on. I have no interest in dealing with the manufactured drama coming from people stating the kind of nonsense that you are putting forth here.

And yes, I'm sorry, it's nonsense. The Clinton campaign has argued that either of the following outcomes is okay for Michigan:

1) Honoring the results of the so-called "primary," which was held a) with only Hillary and no other candidates on the ballot (I believe we call that a "Mugabe ballot"); and b) in violation of DNC rules; or

2) Giving Michigan to Hillary 100%.

In contrast, the Obama campaign has suggested a 50/50 compromise split... given that a re-vote is impossible.

Posted at May 22, 2008 12:26 AM in response to Hillary: I Might Take Fight Over Florida And Michigan To Convention!

Tena: Just to be clear, my comment about trolls was directed at eowhatsisname.

Posted at May 21, 2008 11:41 PM in response to Hillary: I Might Take Fight Over Florida And Michigan To Convention!

dijamo said:
I have acknowledged Michigan is a much closer call as Obama was not on the ballot."A much closer call"? You're kidding, right?
I always argued for a michigan revote, but Obama's camaign made every attempt to block a revote/fire house caucus. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/florida_dems_circulating
Except, of course, that the link you put up refers to FLORIDA, not MICHIGAN.

Obama's campaign actually proposed a solution to the MI problem that was actually favorable to HILLARY, and her campaign turned it down:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/hillary_campaign_says_no_to_ne.php

Enough already. Can't we just let this go and move on?

Posted at May 21, 2008 11:38 PM in response to Hillary: I Might Take Fight Over Florida And Michigan To Convention!

Rstephen:
.That's about the most lame and pathetic excuse I've ever heard for not voting in a perfectly legal state election.It WAS NOT A LEGAL STATE ELECTION. For one thing, it was a primary, not an election. For another thing, it was not legal. Period. Illegal according to DNC rules. DNC determines how primaries are carried out, and they are carried out SOLELY how (or if) the DNC says. End of story.

There were scores of issues and candidates for office on the ballots in both Florida and Michigan, and voting is the patriotic duty of every American citizen.There were NOT "scores of... candidates" on the ballots in Michigan. HRC was the only one. So yet another outright false statement (I'll credit you with enough to not call it a lie).

dijamo: Wrong about HRC's appearance in FL. She was in Miami the evening BEFORE the primary... two evenings, in fact.

From the AP:

"Hillary Clinton arrived at Lucky Strike Lanes on Miami Beach for a fundraiser Sunday night greeted by a smiling Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, who told a throng of reporters he was “thrilled to be here to endorse Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States."

TenaX: You're right. I'm not your mother. Nor am I trying to tell you, or anyone else, how to act.
I *have* been reading this blog regularly since its inception, but really felt no need to chime in until this ridiculous scrum of a primary (I believe the term is "lurker"?). I may be most annoyed at the trolls, but I'm willing to agree with the troll-baiters either, okay?

Posted at May 21, 2008 11:32 PM in response to Hillary: I Might Take Fight Over Florida And Michigan To Convention!

All that said: Socialism, and more specifically the ridiculous conflation of socialism/Marxism with the communist totalitarianism of the 20th century, whether Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, serves as a wonderful strawman for libertarians to burn in effigy in argument after argument. The "coercive," or in a less sinister incarnation, "nanny" state is blamed for all of society's ills.

Obviously, this ignores a number of basic facts on the ground (the need for reasonable social policy, for instance). But it also ignores the fact that private institutions can be just as oppressive and unfair as public ones.

That said, I certainly think that reframing liberal doctrine more explicitly around "freedoms" and the difference between freedoms and social policy isn't necessarily a bad idea. The real problem that liberals have on the ground is having to deal with the unholy coalition of social conservatives and economic neoliberals that the American conservative movement has built. Either that coalition comes apart (as it seems to be doing!), or we figure out how to ignore both sides.

Posted at May 21, 2008 11:13 PM in response to The Liberal-Libertarian Divide

MrGOH: In short, that's because libertarians are poor economic scholars.

I have several libertarian friends, and I can tell you that they trumpet free-market ideology as just that: an ideology. My own economic credentials (BSc.(Econ) and MSc.(Econ), a career in venture finance) get shut down while they harp on the same basic supply-demand pablum that anyone who has studied economics absorbed, and moved beyond, in high school.

No understanding of public goods, or externalities, or bargaining costs, or information costs. No ability to appreciate market share or any of the vast number of strategies for creating and exploiting economic rents. Not even the remotest shred of a paradigm with which to address concentration of capital. No answer to the basic challenge: "Point me to a successful society based on libertarian economic principles unmoderated by governmental power or regulation." They're even rabidly opposed to unions, which is about the greatest hypocrisy ever given that they support social freedoms. Never mind that a scenario in which labor is unable to exert bargaining power is MONOPSONY, something that distorts markets as badly, and to the detriment of a greater number of persons, than does monopoly.

Granted, I consider my Marxist-socialist friends equally silly, but they don't have a capitalist power base that implements their rhetoric to amass power.

Posted at May 21, 2008 10:55 PM in response to The Liberal-Libertarian Divide