Marc Ambinder reports that Kathleen Sebelius is planning to endorse Barack Obama but wants to wait until after the State of the Union address because she's scheduled to deliver the Democratic response (seems appropriate, maybe she can give Bill Clinton a lesson on etiquette). This further re-enforces the point that the clear sentiment among Democratic elected officials in the red areas is that a Nominee Obama or a President Obama would do more to expand the Democratic Party's geographical reach.
« Straight Talk | Main | Mapping South Carolina »
Sebelius
27 Jan 2008 06:35 pm
Comments (57)
I have to say, between McCaskill, Napolitano, and Sebelius, Obama really has a nice cadre of white female supporters to use as surrogates (hopefully) in Super Tuesday states. If the SC exit polls are any indication, that's one demo he's going to have to make serious inroads in to have a real shot at putting Hillary away.
Kennedy, Sebelius, Bill's misfire, and--of course--doubling Hillary up . . . All make this a pretty damn good news cycle for Obama.
I'd bet that the national polls will be showing a statistical dead heat by Wednesday or Thursday.
A second observation. The SC win, immediately followed by C. Kennedy's endorsement, then E. Kennedy's endorsement, then Sibelius. There will still be a week before Super Tuesday, and you'd think they'd want to save something for the news cycles later in the week.
So I'm guessing they have something big to announce before the end of the week.
This further re-enforces the point that the clear sentiment among Democratic elected officials in the red areas is that a Nominee Obama or a President Obama would do more to expand the Democratic Party's geographical reach.
Or that nobody's particularly looking forward to eight more years (and twenty four in total) of being under the Clinton thumb. That would account for the Blue State endorsements as well. If nothing else, maybe we're seeing initial rumblings of an opposing faction.
Sebelius helps in Ohio as well. Her dad, John J. Gilligan, was the governor.
I think a certain faction of the party sees the Clintons as Stalin-like loyalty purists who rule with an iron fist and take out revenge upon any who cross them. So what are they going to do?
Overthrow the monarchy.
Does anyone doubt that Obama would do more to build the party everywhere, including but not limited to the "red states"? Even in "blue states" it seems clear that he would bring in a lot more new people.
I light-heartedly endorsed the idea of an Obama/Sebelius ticket back in December '05 on Ezra's blog, but it's interesting to see the idea getting serious consideration. Clark as VP would bring national security credibility to the ticket, and also might be seen as an olive branch to Clintonistas. It would be good to move away from the idea that "national security credibility" meant acting like a Warcraft II dwarf demolition squad saying "I love blowin' stuff up!" after you clicked on it a few times.
How credible are these claims of the Sebelius endorsement, though? If they're completely credible, then it seems to me that they're tantamount to an actual endorsement, and thus Sebelius's attempt to maintain intra-Democratic neutrality until after the SOTU response is a hollow sham. If they're not credible at all, I don't see such political rumors as much better than random speculation. Are they somewhere between -- it seems likely that Sebelius will endorse Obama, but not completely certain, so that it isn't functionally equivalent to an actual endorsement?
This is the point where endorsements matter in steering the conversation. The Obama camp has had a great day today: they win big in South Carolina, they have the "A President Like My Father" endorsement from Caroline Kennedy, the have the Ted Kennedy endorsement Monday, and then they have Selibus who will have just had her profile raised by giving the democratic response to the State of the Union.
The Clintons are doing the best they can to change the conversation to Florida by Tuesday. It'll be interesting to see what the Obama camp does to dilute the Florida results for Democrats.
Julian, I kind of appreciate Sebelius' gesture; she'll be representing the whole party that night, and it'd be unseemly to do that as a clear partisan of one candidate. Sure, it's also self-interested -- her endorsement will have more horsepower after the SOTU response raises her profile a little -- but after seeing the role Bill seems to have invented for himself, this seems like a page out of Dale Carnegie by comparison.
Last comment and I've done. (Even three in the same thread is unhealthy.) Per my second post, I believe Obama has saved something for the news cycles for later in the week. Otherwise, why bunch the endorsements so close together?
My prediction is not Gore's endorsement. Instead, to help with New Mexico and hispanics before Super Tuesday, Bill Richardson. If Bill is going to endorse anyone, he'd do it before NM votes, wouldn't he?
My alternative guess: Biden.
Julian Elson:
If you want national security what about Jim Webb?
I'm an Obama supporter, and I'm glad Sebelius is endorsing him, but how classy is it if she's leaking it to Marc Ambinder the day before the SOTU?
NOTE: the above reads like an endorsement of Clark as VP. It wasn't -- I'd actually rather see Sebelius. I was just idly rambling about other VP possibilities.
The Sebelius thing has been pretty heavily rumored for quite a while now, but if I recall correctly, it was said that Sebelius getting the SOTU response from Nancy Pelosi was conditional on agreeing to not endorse anyone beforehand.
I'm an Obama supporter, and I'm glad Sebelius is endorsing him, but how classy is it if she's leaking it to Marc Ambinder the day before the SOTU?
I kinda doubt the leak is coming from the governor's shop.
Oh... I hate to pull a Petey and do a double post, but to add to my point that I don't think Sebelius is the one leaking her endorsement: Ambinder has a post up confirming that when he was getting denials about the Teddy endorsement, those denials were coming from the Clinton campaign which, at that point, genuinely believed Teddy wouldn't endorse. The Obama people, Ambinder says, were steadfastly refusing to hint at anything. Meanwhile, once it finally became clear that Teddy WAS going to endorse, CNN reported that the leak came from the Clinton campaign, which presumably wanted to deflate some of the impact of the announcement. It wouldn't surprise me if they're doing the same thing here with Sebelius.
Does anyone doubt that Obama would do more to build the party everywhere, including but not limited to the "red states"? Even in "blue states" it seems clear that he would bring in a lot more new people.Posted by DTM | January 27, 2008 7:12 PM
I do. He has not been selling the party, rather, he's been strongly selling nonpartisanship/bipartisanship. And many of those voters are interested in either his personality as a leader or in the non-partisan/bipartisan message. They are not the type to get out and vote in mid-term elections.
In any case, that's the job of the chairman of the DNC, not the chief executive of the United States, who is supposed to represent all the people of all parties.
"In any case, that's the job of the chairman of the DNC, not the chief executive of the United States, who is supposed to represent all the people of all parties."
Meh. Presidents always have control of their parties.
Last horse-race comment:
Let's say Red-State Democrats support Obama because of his rhetorical inclusivesness. So do I. I also like Obama's foreign policy judgment, but aren't they worried about his relative inexperience? About the grating accusations of racism that his supporters make against Bill and Hillary? About the fact that so much pressure is being put on him to be something he cannot possibly be and for people to recognize him as such (it would be silly of him to say, I'm not that great, but it does seem to be going to be a big let-down)?
I do. He has not been selling the party, rather, he's been strongly selling nonpartisanship/bipartisanship. And many of those voters are interested in either his personality as a leader or in the non-partisan/bipartisan message. They are not the type to get out and vote in mid-term elections.
Not entirely. He's been selling the ephemeral idea of "change," and pushing the concept that the only way to enact that is to get involved and for the people to push to make something happen. Now, a cynic can believe he'll never actually present anything that he wants to change, but presumably if he becomes president he'll have a legislative agenda he wants to enact and everything he's said indicates that he'll try to involve the people in moving that agenda forward. If he can invest the public in particular causes and in encouraging them to continue to go out and vote to make the changes he wants to enact, to pressure their congressmen, and that sort of thing... that's certainly useful. It is its own type of party building.
artappraiser,
First, I think your assessment of Obama's message is wrong: it is true that Obama is suggesting that Democrats can best further their agenda by adopting a less divisive style of politics than some are advocating, but that isn't the same thing as advocating nonpartisanship.
Second, I think political realignments are a bit stickier than you suggest. At first they were called "Reagan Democrats", but eventually they were just Republicans. I suspect it would be the same thing with "Obama Republicans": eventually they would just be Democrats. And record turnout at caucuses and primaries, particularly among new voters, is almost always going to be a good thing from a party-building perspective.
Third, for good or ill the President is also the de facto head of his or her political party. That is arguably not how the Framers wanted things to work, but it is how things turned out. And in practice, if a President wants to move his or her agenda forward, he or she has to be thinking about how to get co-partisans elected as members of Congress and indeed at the state level as well.
I disagree with art that Obama is just selling nonpartisanship/bipartisanship. He's selling that, but he's also selling liberal change. He takes it as a given that that's what a majority of the people want, which I think is true. Accordingly, he treats opposition to his liberal policies as dis-unity. It's the reverse of the Republican treatment of opposition to hawkish foreign policy as un-American and opposition to social conservatism as elitist decadence. If he wins, he'll be set up to demonize hard right obstructionism as same old Washingtom partisanship/sucking up to special interests. It's not "transcending politics," it's winning politics.
No one is accusing Bill and Hillary of racism. They are calling Bill and Hillary out for playing on people's fears.
As a Kansan and a huge Sebelius supporter, I must temper any talk of her being VP. Having her as VP would be of very little use on the ticket. She might bring in some women, but women are likely to vote Dem anyway, although Sebelius might bring in some independent women. But she won't help carry Kansas. Her ability to turn out Ohio votes, where her dad was governor, is not likely to have much impact.
She also really doesn't have any major accomplishments in her time in Kansas. Much of that is due to having to face a very conservative legislature, but it also doesn't help her add to the ticket resume.
Obama would definitely have to go with someone with some foreign policy gravitas, or someone who could carry a swing state. Bill Richardson seems like a no brainer in my opinion.
It's hard to overlook what a terrible job Richardson did campaigning for president, though. That can't have endeared him as a VP prospect to any of the frontrunners, swing state popularity or no. He was downright hapless.
It's hard to overlook what a terrible job Richardson did campaigning for president, though.
Also, as I've said before, Richardson is basically the Latino candidate able to win the votes of Latinos...in the minds of East Coast non-Latinos who don't know anything about Latinos...
Yeah, Richardson is a bad VP choice on so many levels. I suspect that he'll get on board in exchange for the Secretary of State gig. That'll be his price. And he might be okay at it. From what I've heard about Richardson, he's basically a schmoozer, and New Mexico is decidedly short on schmoozeworthy individuals. Being a governor is a good gig, all things considered, but Richardson seems like the kind of guy that wants to be on Face the Press every week, the kind of guy who wants to be somebody in D.C.
His endorsing Obama would be a big deal. Endorsements from Senators are good press and all, but endorsements from governors are important. Governors usually have quite a bit of pull in their states, and they usually have political operations in place that can be used to help their preferred candidate. Senators usually don't have such operations because they only run for reelection every six years. And governors aren't going to want to endorse a candidate just to have the candidate lose in their state--that just makes them look weak. So Obama will have some advantages in Massachussetts, Arizona, Virginia, and Kansas at least.
I can accept the designation of Obama’s message as “non-partisan”. But Obama is certainly not running as a centrist. He is appealing to some Republicans to cross over, that is true. But what he is asking them to do is cross over and help us do some long-deferred progressive Democratic things: reform health care, put more money into public education, invest in infrastructure, protect American workers, protect the national and global environment and transform our energy system.
So why would they do this? Because Obama’s crossover appeal at the issues level is to a not insignificant number of Republicans who were stunned by several spectacular Republican failures during the Bush term: particularly the failure of government action during the Katrina disaster, which produced a global spectacle that was a national embarrassment. These kinds of failures of inaction, coupled with highly selective activism from the radical cultural right and recklessly extravagant squandering of resources on a war built on lies, have caused a certain number of current Republicans to re-assess their commitments to the philosophy of government and non-government that now dominates the Republican party.
So then if Obama is asking people to do the same things that other Democrats want to do, what is especially appealing about his candidacy to non-Democrats? What Obama is offering these people is not really any significant compromise on progressive issues, but mainly a direct appeal to their consciences along some simple, basic respect. The Reagan comment was instructive. He didn’t say, “I’m going to pursue Reagan-like policies,” but really just indicated “I’m not going to be hating on Reagan.” These are just small gestures of respect and reconciliation that go a long way to breaking down walls that might keep wavering Republicans from turning into Democrats. The religious dimension has also been hugely important. Part of the “red state/blue state” cultural barrier is due to religious Americans with a bit of a defensive chip on their shoulders who view many Democrats as militantly secular intellectual snobs with contempt for the religious. Just by being able to meet these people of a plane of mutual respect, Obama is helping to break down that barrier, without having to compromise at all on the Democratic commitment to liberty of conscience and institutional church-state separation.
What Obama is offering these people is not really any significant compromise on progressive issues, but mainly a direct appeal to their consciences along some simple, basic respect. The Reagan comment was instructive. He didn’t say, “I’m going to pursue Reagan-like policies,” but really just indicated “I’m not going to be hating on Reagan.”
After the SC speech, I think the Reagan comment fits in a slightly different way. He's saying, in essence, 'let's not just draw a line under the G.W. Bush years, but the Clinton and G.H.W. Bush years too.' The pick-up point is 1989 or thereabouts -- a semi-mythical 1989, given that plenty of Obama's young supporters were toddlers at the time, but the point is to invoke a point before Bush-Clinton-Bush.
Clinton's "coalition" - 1) white women, 2) people who are scared to support a clearly superior black candidate, and 3) white women who are scared to support a clearly superior black candidate - just isn't going to add up to a victory in a national election. After all the attempts to tag Obama as just a black candidate, it seems that Hillary is the one who is relying most heavily on identity politics.
Obama may not be a centrist but his raison d'être is not to enact progressive policies. He is running to change the nature of politics and unite the country. He is processed not policy focused. His brain trust thinks this will enable him to enact progressive policies later on but there is a real possibility that an Obama presidency will lead to no more than technocratic improvements and an era of good government. This will be a vast improvement of the last eight years but it is in no way transformative.
How many endorsements from established party politicians can you get and maintain your credibility as a deliverer of change?
This is not meant to be inflammatory, it barely rises to the level of snark given that I don't know the Atlantic's endorsement policy. But unless I missed the announcement this site came down on the pro-Obama side in a way that would suggest disclosure.
In the course of this election everyone is going to choose sides. Clearly Matt has chosen his. Nothing wrong with that but let's not pretend this is a neutral analytical site. It's like Fox claiming ' Fair and Balanced'
This is kind of silly.
But unless I missed the announcement this site came down on the pro-Obama side in a way that would suggest disclosure.
Disclosure? You disclose when you have a conflict of interest. National Review had disclosure issues after their endorsement of Romney because he had given them lots and lots of money. What's there to disclose here? Unless Yglesias or one of the other writers is being funded by one of the candidates, is affiliated with one of the campaigns, or is expecting some sort of quid pro quo, their analysis should speak for itself.
Nothing wrong with that but let's not pretend this is a neutral analytical site. It's like Fox claiming ' Fair and Balanced'
It's not like that at all. Fox pretends to be fair and balanced in presenting supposedly objective straight news coverage. Offering subjective analysis and opinion is never done (should never be done?) under a pretense of objectivity. I don't think any of the opinion writers here have ever pretended to be sources of news.
Try not to look so damned bitter that people are writing things favorable to a candidate you don't support.
And thru it all, blow j*bs, impeachment, a 60 million dollar wingnut witchhunt, Bill Clinton keeps a persistent 60 % approval rating. And now people are aghast that he has pointed out that in fact, Obama is black and a candidate. Yes, it's unseemly that the person is a former dem President who is acting out of self-interest. But two things. Would you rather Obama not be outed in the primary and get the nod and have Repubs unload with viciousness not yet experienced on the planet. And if you ask most black people if a black man can win the Presidency at this point in time you will see much doubt in their faces. BClinton's race baiting Obama was minor league stuff and though it's uncomfortable to watch, it's also necessary and wise it's done now by someone who is not a racist, despite the concern trolling ad nauseum going on by the wingnuts and others.
The safe bet is to vote for Edwards who will win if nominated. The other two maybe, maybe not.
maybe she can give Bill Clinton a lesson on etiquette
When did Matt Yglesias become the new Miss Manners?
Some prominent bloggers (MY, Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum) are not acquitting themselves well during this campaign. The unthinking nonchalance with which they sign on to the conventional narrative (OMG Clinton's a racist!) is nauseating.
John Cole and Matt Stoller see what's really going on; few others do. For all their bitching about Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, they display many of the same faults.
Obama needs to nab one of the California senators. Are there any rumors on that front? Has HRC locked either of them up?
Some prominent bloggers (MY, Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum) are not acquitting themselves well during this campaign. The unthinking nonchalance with which they sign on to the conventional narrative (OMG Clinton's a racist!) is nauseating.
Drum has kept himself pretty distanced from that whole thing, actually. He (rightfully) dismissed the whole "fairy tale" quote out of hand, he said the MLK/LBJ thing was overblown, and he really only called racism on the "Well Jesse Jackson won South Carolina" remark. In any event, he's hardly been signing onto any conventional narratives -- he's insisting that Clinton is more electable than Obama, he's been a pretty firm supporter of hers throughout most of the primary, and he's constantly derided the "kumbaya schtick."
Marshall... he's bought into the race baiting complaint more strongly, but still with a lot of reservation and he's continued to say lots and lots of positive things about the Clintons. He's been more aggressive on the idea of Bill Clinton, as the de facto leader of the party, getting down and dirty in a primary campaign. That's another issue entirely.
Yglesias is the only one of the three that's been really snarky towards the Clintons on a whole range of issues. At the same time, it hardly is beneficial to just conflate all of these people/arguments and classify them as "unthinking" when in most cases the arguments have been couched in the form of thought-out and reasoned positions, not just a signing onto of the conventional wisdom.
Obama needs to nab one of the California senators. Are there any rumors on that front? Has HRC locked either of them up?
Feinstein's a solid Clinton backer. Boxer's not endorsed, and I've heard no rumors of her planning to, though she seems more likely to go to Obama than Clinton if she does wade in. I'd question whether or not either of them have enough sway to count for anything with endorsements, though. While popular senators, they're not particularly big gets and I don't know that they'd have the ability to move a lot of votes.
Shorter nightjar:
Bill Clinton was maybe a little racist to Obama, but it didn't matter because the Republicans will be more racist. Also, I can't vote for a black man because the Republicans are too racist and mean.
nightjar
"I've long heard she's a superstar, but if McCain's the Republican nominee, I don't see her as Obama's VP nominee, since (I guess, what do I know?) he'd want someone with foreign policy experience. But rumors that she might be the VP pick will help, I think, with women voters, since it would diminish the angst they might feel in voting against the first viable woman candidate.
Posted by Ryan Scott | January 27, 2008 6:48 PM"
I wouldn't be completely surprised by him picking one of the Sanchez sisters in California (I always confuse the two of them) due to 1) strength on Asian policy (she has been active on American-Asian foreign relations in part due to representing the most Vietnamese-Americans in Congress), 2) being a woman 3) being Latin and 4) endorsing him. She also has decent overall national security credentials as well. Of course, this is still a long shot.
I would bet that if both Feinstein and Boxer endorse, Clinton and Obama will split them. Feinstein is more conservative (after all, she has won awards from the Rotary Club, which tend to not go farther to the left than conservative Democrats and as far to the right as Pinochet that one time). Boxer, meanwhile, called her vote against the war her proudest vote in Congress. Too bad she isn't a little younger, otherwise she would be great VP material. I would have liked seeing Feingold also being a potential VP, but I doubt that a Midwesterner would choose another Midwesterner, despite the fact that a lot of Republicans I know seem to like and respect Feingold even when disagreeing with him.
Overall, the big endorsements in California are more likely be local-level stuff due to the Governator sitting in Sacramento, such as House reps, community leaders, mayors, ect.
Also, MY and Andrew Sullivan have both endorsed Obama. Drum endorsed Clinton, but had second thoughts after stuff like the drug dealing insinuations, but is still leaning Clinton.
The Clintons (and we have to see them as a co-running duo at this point) are clearly counting heavily on winning by exploiting Hispanic dislike of black people. That's a racist tactic, sorry.
I thought Bill was an excellent President. But the Clintons' cultural moment is over. Had Obama never existed, maybe this would be Edwards's moment (hi Petey), but you know, he's the guy who lost last time around. We need to move forward, not back.
Had Obama never existed, maybe this would be Edwards's moment (hi Petey), but you know, he's the guy who lost last time around. We need to move forward, not back.
This is one of the real tragedies of Hillary's not going away: I would have liked to see an Obama vs. Edwards primary. I was hoping I'd get one after Iowa, but no luck. I could happily vote for either of those two. Even if he didn't win, Edwards would toughen up Obama in ways that matter more to me (talking about policy and party values here) than the divisive, dishonest crap HRC's campaign has been flinging.
Incidently, I also like both Edward's and Obama's spouses better at this point too.
erm -- The Kennedy endorsement is clearly intended to chip away at Clinton's Hispanic base. Kennedy is well-regarded among Hispanics and, more importantly, will campaign on Obama's behalf in key strategic states. Not to mention that his strong liberal credentials may help to quiet elements of the left flank that are tempted to think of Obama as Republican-Lite.
ALSO: There may be at least one more big endorsement to come, according to Al Giordano, who claims to have correctly predicted Kerry & Kennedy:
“The Iowa victory, in fact, provoked a traffic jam of national Democratic party leaders and politicians that have phoned in to jump on the Obama bandwagon. At this point there are so many piled up in the in-box that it’s a logistical nightmare to schedule the timing of the endorsements.”
Okay, let’s drop another hint for those taking notes: What famous Tennessean might we see soon from California to New York Island, so soon after getting out ahead of his party’s presidential candidates to support gay marriage?
In a way I think we do have an ongoing Obama-Edwards primary. Obama is just winning it, and in fact Edwards hasn't recovered since Obama beat him through massive turnout of new people in Iowa.
For every Ted Kennedy, there is a Robert Kennedy, Jr. For every Caroline, there is a Kathleen Kennedy.
Why are you playing along with Obama's silly attempt to create a sense of momentum with these meaningless endorsements?
Jayhawk Max is right, Kathleen Sebelius won't bring the Sunflower State into the Democratic column. Kansas, like other Plains states, is willing to elect Democrats statewide but doesn't vote for Democratic presidents. The story is the same in Oklahoma, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. And if the VP doesn't bring her state's delegates then she shouldn't be named.
I'm a big Sebelius fan, but her rise to power in the state has to be viewed in the context of the state GOP. The party is controlled by Christian conservatives who want the government to teach creationism and to seize medical records to ascertain which women have had abortions. These people are the worst of their kind and disgust suburban moderates to the point that they vote Democratic. The activists also force competent politicians out of the GOP and into the Democratic Party. Sebelius has been smart enough to capitalize on this environment. That's proof of her political savvy, but not proof that Kansas will vote for a Democratic president.
Get back to work, Matt.
In today's Times, Bill Kristol borrows some MY and Sullivan talking points to slam the Clintons. He seems to want Obama to win. What does Matt's "decoder ring" tell him about whom Kristol thinks is the tougher Dem opponent in November?
"Nominee Obama or a President Obama would do more to expand the Democratic Party's geographical reach."
As long as Barack Obama as President leaves policy just as it is now. Sheltered little prep school Matt knows all about how conservative think.
Well, it's clear that Krugman disagrees. He's out with yet ANOTHER hit piece today. I don't know whose sullied his reputation more during this cycle - Krugman or B. Clinton.
Maybe "Reality Man" really does want Obama to lose fifty states...
I'd say that picking either of the Sanchez sisters for VP is just nuts. Loretta is the famous one and also the one from the heavily Vietnamese district. But she's regarded as a total nit-wit, and was named as one of the most "misbehaving" members of Congress by Roll Call or something. Also, she's endorsed Hillary.
Linda Sanchez has endorsed Obama, but has only been in Congress a few years, and (as far as I know) isn't known for much of anything. As an obscure former union official, the only reason she won the multi-candidate Democratic primary for an open seat was that everyone got her name confused with that of her very famous sister, whose nearby district is in the same media market.
California certainly does have some influential and well-regarded Latino officials---nearly all of whom have endorsed Hillary---but I'd hardly put either of the Sanchez sisters in that category.
In today's Times, Bill Kristol borrows some MY and Sullivan talking points to slam the Clintons. He seems to want Obama to win. What does Matt's "decoder ring" tell him about whom Kristol thinks is the tougher Dem opponent in November?
And Pat Buchanan trashes Obama nightly on the cable news, and seems to want Hillary Clinton to win. Who can keep track of all the games conservatives are playing.
Ben
This here's politics not beanbags. I'm a pragmatist who wants to win. Bill Clinton making it known that Obama is a black candidate is not racist, say like a tv add with a half naked white siren seducing a black man. If Obama is the candidate, I will proudly vote for him. And as for republicans being "too racist and mean", I'd say those are the best qualities for a party of perverts, hypocrites, and war criminals [along with every other type of criminal].
Dan,
Well, since Pat Buchanan opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, as well as the war the neocons now want to start against Iran, I find him *much* more agreeable than Bill Kristol.
Krauthammer has been losing his shit over Obama because he's afraid that conservatives won't realize he's a partisan liberal Democrat, for what it's worth. K & K just mean shit in one hand and shit in another. One doesn't smell better than the other.
"This is one of the real tragedies of Hillary's not going away: I would have liked to see an Obama vs. Edwards primary. I was hoping I'd get one after Iowa, but no luck. I could happily vote for either of those two. Even if he didn't win, Edwards would toughen up Obama in ways that matter more to me (talking about policy and party values here) than the divisive, dishonest crap HRC's campaign has been flinging.
Incidently, I also like both Edward's and Obama's spouses better at this point too.
Posted by sweaty guy | January 28, 2008 2:23 AM"
That would have been a really interesting dynamic. Plus, any woman, never mind a sick woman weak with cancer, like Elizabeth who can verbally bitchslap Ann Coulter and make even Chris Matthews realize she's an idiot is ok in my book.
Comments closed February 10, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I've long heard she's a superstar, but if McCain's the Republican nominee, I don't see her as Obama's VP nominee, since (I guess, what do I know?) he'd want someone with foreign policy experience. But rumors that she might be the VP pick will help, I think, with women voters, since it would diminish the angst they might feel in voting against the first viable woman candidate.
Posted by Ryan Scott | January 27, 2008 6:48 PM