I tried to quit blogging :P this week, but when I saw this headline from the indelible Sam Stein I just couldn't resist.

Look I know this could mean Biden, but common, Obama couldn't pick Biden.  Surrogate yes, Cabinet yes, Senate Leader sure.
Obama needs somone to throw some kidney shots to prep for his uppercuts.
But common now, for all the Clark fanboys (me included) this is music to our leeebral ears!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/11 /a-vp-hint-vps-convention_n_118148.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/11 /a-vp-hint-vps-convention_n_118148.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/11 /a-vp-hint-vps-convention_n_118148.html

There's more...

The discussions about who Obama will pick as his running mate are heating up the closer we get to the convention. While this happens every cycle, it is even more heated in this one, primarily because of the closeness of the primary race.

While no one really knows who he will pick, everyone has their own preference. Where it really gets complicated is when it comes to Hillary supporters.

Many Hillary supporters say she is the only choice. If she isn't on the ticket then they won't vote for the Democratic nominee for president. These are the 'pick Hillary or else' crowd. Other Hillary supporters don't think she should accept even if offered the slot. Their argument seems to be that it would be a step down for her. These are the 'top-spot or nothing' crowd. Still others will accept someone other than Hillary as long as it isn't another woman. I guess these are the 'Don't insult Hillary' crowd. Lastly, there are Hillary supporters who are planning on voting for Obama no matter who he picks for his running mate. These are in the 'I just want to win' crowd.

Like I said, it gets really complicated.

There's more...

Well, the General will return from his brief respite (or time under the bus depending on your perspective on Bill Burton's press release) from the national media spotlight with an appearance on Morning Joe tomorrow.  Clark is probably the most "unifying" non-HRC VP pick, so it should be interesting to hear what he has to say tomorrow about the "right-wing freak show." Armando should be jumping up-and-down over at talk left.

There's more...

  I've read a lot of diaries recently that involve taking Obama to task for repudiating Wes Clark's comments. I have one thing to say in response (not that I am in any way a member of any campaign). Why is Senator Obama wrong? Why not issue a statement mentioning that they were conveyed inartfully and don't represent your views?

  Here's where my argument is coming from. Wes Clark is no longer a political novice, has not been hiding under a rock for the past 10 years, what was he thinking? I will post face this with the fact that I agree with almost all of what he said, but really, he took the bait here. Have you people who have questioned Obama not fighting this harder not been watching the past 20 years? This was a classical set up and one I am pretty sure anyone speaking for Obama has been warned to avoid. And since Clark was on, at least partially, as an Obama supporter, that means that whether he was right or wrong, whether it is our disgusting media or not, at the end of the day, he is partially responsible for the media being able to run with this. I understand the basic response is "but he was right", and while I agree, he needs to know this is how these elections are played. It's sad, it's disgusting, but he stated the words that caused a 3 day negative news cycle (pathetic as it may be with everything else going on in the world) for the nominee, and unfortunately, as such, he obviously didn't state his point clearly enough and did some diservice to the campaign, that's just a fact unfortunately, whether we agree with Wes or not. Just my 2 cents

There's more...

Over the last several days, I've read many diaries and countless posts with a bitter, even fuming, tones toward Obama for some of the policy statements he's made. Of course everyone has their own reasons for being pissed, but there seems to be a fair bit of common ground as well. Where is this anger really coming from?

I've seen so many posts (the "I told you so" posts) in which a person who said they had supported Clinton in the primary was frustrated that the Obama-primary supporters really could not see Obama for what he was and only now realize that Clinton was the better choice. Is it fair to identify this anger at Obama's perceived shift to the center actually just residual primary anger. After all, I haven't seen too many Obama-primary supporters coming out saying "gosh, I only wish I knew this about him, I would have supported Clinton instead!." I have only heard Clinton-primary supporters saying that that's what Obama-primary supporters must be thinking, right? To be clear, I'm sure that some of Obama's primary supporters are disappointed at what they perceive as a shift, but I believe most just see him playing to one of his strengths as a candidate- his attempts at post-partisanship. Because he has highlighted that quality all along, many Obama-primary supporters like myself are more surprised by the surprise than by the supposed shift. After all, being agreeable with republicans doesn't just mean being nice to them, it means finding some common political ground, which is in the center.

Maybe I'm wrong about the misplacement of primary anger, but it sure smells that way to me. Really, I wish we, as democrats could get past it already. There's a universe of difference between Obama and McCain on crucial issues. I'm not trying to say that people voicing their frustration or anger at Obama's positions is a bad thing. It's ok, and part of the process of (hopefully) helping him hear his supporters and helping us hear ourselves. But, I do think it's unproductive to mask primary anger as anger about his current positions and therefore be super-duper pissed about something like Obama wanting to channel some money to the needy through faith-based organizations.

There's more...