Obama's Running Mate

[strandinthewind]

August 19, 2008

Obama Ready to Announce Running Mate This Week

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama has all but settled on his choice for a running mate and set an elaborate rollout plan for his decision, beginning with an early morning alert to supporters, perhaps as soon as Wednesday morning, aides said.

Mr. Obama’s deliberations remain remarkably closely held. Aides said perhaps a half-dozen advisers were involved in the final discussions in an effort to enforce a command that Mr. Obama issued to staff members: that his decision not leak out until supporters are notified.

Mr. Obama had not notified his choice — or any of those not selected — of his decision as of late Monday, advisers said. Going into the final days, Mr. Obama was said to be focused mainly on three candidates: Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware.

Some Democrats said they still hoped that he would choose Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, or Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, who has been under steady consideration by Mr. Obama’s campaign.

By all indications, Mr. Obama is likely to choose someone relatively safe and avoid taking a chance with a game-changing selection. A similar strategic choice now faces Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, who has been under pressure from some Republicans to make a more daring choice.

Mr. Obama’s advisers said he all but reached his decision while on vacation in Hawaii. They said it was the end of what proved to be an unexpectedly intense process, condensed because he did not want to start actively vetting potential running mates before Mrs. Clinton quit the race in June.

By contrast, Mr. McCain, who had wrapped up the Republican nomination months earlier, began his process in late spring.

That gave Mr. Obama’s team of lawyers less time to review candidates, and several Democrats said it appeared that the list of candidates who were deeply vetted was limited to about a half-dozen people. (Campaigns typically check the background of candidates who are not necessarily in play, as a way of gaining favor with various constituencies or to keep the other party off balance.)

The team of advance workers and aides involved in planning the rollout — timed to galvanize Democratic voters as Mr. Obama heads to Denver next week for the party convention — have not been told who Mr. Obama will be selecting.

If all goes according to plan, the announcement will be made with text and e-mail messages to supporters early in the morning, in time to capture coverage on the morning news shows and take advantage of a full day’s news cycle.

Mr. Obama and his running mate will begin, perhaps that day, a visit to swing states. Plans call for them to be on the trail together for much of the time between the day of the announcement and the day Mr. Obama arrives in Denver, a week from Wednesday, but their most intense campaigning together will come after the convention.

Mr. Obama’s schedule calls for him to awaken on Tuesday in Orlando, Fla., and by the end of the day be in Raleigh, N.C. By Wednesday, he is scheduled to be in Virginia. The Obama campaign has cautioned against reading anything into his schedule, saying it could be changed in an instant to accommodate the plan to introduce the running mate.

Aides said the announcement would come at the earliest on Wednesday morning.

Mr. Obama’s advisers said they wanted to time the announcement to get maximum publicity going into the convention, after a stretch in which Mr. Obama was on vacation in Hawaii and Mr. McCain made good use of having the political stage largely to himself. Vice-presidential announcements are one of a handful of moments when the presidential candidates are given a clear grab at the public spotlight, and both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have put much thought into the timing of their announcements.

If Mr. Obama is looking to build excitement going into the convention, Mr. McCain’s aides have looked to announcing his choice right after the Democratic convention, which ends Aug. 28, a Thursday, as a way of stepping on whatever bounce Mr. Obama enjoys from his nomination.

The Republican convention begins the following Monday.

Democrats close to the process said the ability to turn up information on the Web had made it easier for Mr. Obama’s search team — Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder, a former deputy attorney general — to plumb the backgrounds of prospective running mates with relatively little notice. In addition, because so many of the candidates were senators, they were required to file annual financial disclosure reports.

Mr. Holder and Ms. Kennedy have been working largely out of Mr. Holder’s law firm in Washington, using lawyers in his firm and others — many of whom are veterans of the process from having worked for Senator John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000 — to check the backgrounds of the potential candidates.

Mr. Obama was briefed frequently throughout the proceedings — receiving updates by telephone and e-mail — and came to Washington for a handful of meetings with a small group of senior advisers in the law offices of Covington & Burling, where Mr. Holder is a partner. With the vetting concluded, there was no activity on Monday in the firm’s suite of offices on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Unlike in previous selections, Mr. Obama has been largely spared the obligation of staging elaborate cloak-and-dagger processes to interview prospective running mates because he has been campaigning with them in close quarters, giving him a chance to get to know them.

The rampant speculation during the selection process encompassed many of the best-known names in the party, including Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

The big choice for Mr. Obama, advisers said, was the extent to which he needed to choose someone who would fill perceived holes in his résumé — lack of experience, particularly in foreign policy — versus a candidate who would reinforce his promise of change or one who might help him win a contested state.

Mr. Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, clearly fell into the category of helping Mr. Obama on foreign policy, while Mr. Kaine is a relative newcomer to national politics and would reinforce the notion of change. Both Mr. Kaine and Mr. Bayh would help Mr. Obama in a state that Democrats are trying to put in play.

For all the attention to Mr. Obama’s deliberations, it is by no means assured that his choice will make a big difference in the outcome of the campaign.

“Vice-presidential candidates can make a marginal difference,” said Matt Bennett, the co-director of Third Way, a Democratic advocacy group, “but they rarely matter in terms of winning a state or region — as Mike Dukakis and John Kerry found out. And a weak candidate doesn’t really drag the ticket into the drink — as George H. W. Bush found out.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/us/politics/19veep.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

[strandinthewind]

August 19, 2008
Political Memo
The Lingering What-If Question: Clinton?
By PATRICK HEALY
No power brokers in the Democratic Party are openly campaigning for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as their vice-presidential nominee this year, and even Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides have stopped talking her up. Yet privately, some Democrats continue to see her as exactly the partner that Senator Barack Obama needs.

Clinton supporters have tried to make this point in recent weeks, winning language in the party’s convention platform that acknowledged Mrs. Clinton’s history-making candidacy, and praising her as a smart, seasoned policy wonk who could add ballast to Mr. Obama’s message of hope and change.

Indeed, a recent New York Times/CBS News poll of convention delegates found that 28 percent preferred Mrs. Clinton for vice president — by far the largest bloc supporting a candidate. (More than a third offered no opinion; 6 in 10 of Clinton-pledged delegates wanted her, but only 3 percent of Obama delegates named her.)

“I’ve gotten literally hundreds of letters over the last week from women saying they would still love it if she were the nominee, or if he would pick her,” said Geraldine A. Ferraro, a Clinton supporter and the only woman to be on a major-party ticket, as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 1984.

Now if only the two former rivals could get past ... oh, where to begin?

Think back to high school: In interviews on Monday, Clinton aides said they thought Mr. Obama did not like Mrs. Clinton. Clinton aides also said they thought Mr. Obama thinks Mrs. Clinton does not like him. And, like him or not, she is skeptical that he can win, her aides continue to say. Bottom line, chemistry might be a problem here.

While Mrs. Clinton, as running mate, might shepherd her blue-collar supporters in Ohio and Pennsylvania to the ticket, her earlier criticisms of Mr. Obama before those same voters might undercut a unity message. And what her fans see as “seasoned” experience is what many Obama supporters rejected during the primaries as “old Washington tactics,” a phrase that Mr. Obama has used to describe Clintonian politicking.

The Obama camp would also have to figure out former President Bill Clinton’s role in the months and years to come — a tricky task, perhaps, given that the arrangement of his speaking role at the convention was a protracted, somewhat clumsy affair.

“There’s a case for Hillary to be on the ticket, but the real question is, Is Bill a voice for the campaign and the administration, and what do you do about disclosing all of the donors to his foundation and his library?” said Robert Shrum, a veteran strategist of Democratic campaigns, referring to donor lists that the Clintons would not release during the primaries.

As for Mrs. Clinton, she is increasingly looking at the advantages of staying off the ticket, whether to run again in four or eight years or to capitalize on her presidential run to become an enduring national voice for women and working-class Americans.

“Picking her would have a groundswell impact on Democrats, but not picking her will leave her to have a new role leading on her issues — and supporting Barack for president,” said Alan Patricof, a longtime fund-raiser and friend of the Clintons.

An uninformed observer could be forgiven for assuming that next week’s Democratic convention in Denver was an Obama-Clinton affair: Michelle Obama speaking on Monday night, Mrs. Clinton on Tuesday, Mr. Clinton on Wednesday and Mr. Obama on Thursday. Women’s groups are also planning a parade and rally in Mrs. Clinton’s honor for next Tuesday in Denver. (A Clinton spokeswoman said Monday that she did not know whether Mrs. Clinton had been invited.)

If Mr. Obama does not select Mrs. Clinton, this four-night lineup will simply serve as another reminder that steps are needed to heal the wounds of the long primary season fight.

“I think the convention will help bring the wings of the party together, especially the fact that Senator Clinton’s name will be put in nomination for a roll-call vote; that will make a big difference,” said former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, a Clinton supporter. “As for picking Senator Clinton as vice president — that’s Senator Obama’s decision.”

That last line has been the official Clinton talking point this summer; even Ann Lewis, Mrs. Clinton’s former spokeswoman and one of her most unabashed champions, declined to comment on Monday about whether Democrats still wanted Mrs. Clinton as the running mate.

While never the most subtle bunch, Mrs. Clinton and her aides have maintained a low profile this summer, given that campaigning outright for the vice presidency has rarely paid off. Recently, as it became clear that Mr. Obama was nearing his choice, Mrs. Clinton’s aides stopped talking publicly about the vice presidency altogether.

Mr. Obama has given little indication that he is preparing to pick her — even though, her supporters note, she could help him in swing states and with key blocs of voters, and she could help raise millions of dollars. One donor to Mrs. Clinton attended a recent Obama fund-raiser in New York that netted about $500,000; if Mrs. Clinton had been the headliner, the donor wagered, it would have reaped $1 million.

Some Democrats do not rule out the possibility that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton could be playing it supercool, only to increase the splash of seeing Mr. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, reach out to his old bête noire, Mrs. Clinton, the junior senator from New York, to become the first black man and the first woman to seek the White House as nominees.

“If he determines that Hillary after all is the best choice to help him to win and to govern,” said Dan Gerstein, a Democratic consultant in New York, “they are capable of pulling off what would be the greatest head fake in American political history.”

Dalia Sussman contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/us/politics/19clinton.html?pagewanted=print

[gldstwmn]

I don't think it matters who he nominates at this point. I don't think Obama is going to win this election and it was a huge fukcup on the part of the party to nominate him. I know this is going to get me into some **** with some of my political peers around here. :sorry:

[strandinthewind]

I don't think it matters who he nominates at this point. I don't think Obama is going to win this election and it was a huge fukcup on the part of the party to nominate him. I know this is going to get me into some **** with some of my political peers around here. :sorry:

I think he stands a chance. If he gets Hillary as VP, I think that only helps his chance and people will vote for him just because she is on the ticket. I cannot think of anyone else I can say that about.

But, I agree, the D's screwed up by making him the nominee.

[gldstwmn]

I think he stands a chance. If he gets Hillary as VP, I think that only helps his chance and people will vote for him just because she is on the ticket. I cannot think of anyone else I can say that about.

But, I agree, the D's screwed up by making him the nominee.

It doesn't even seem that Hillary is a contender for VP. Everyone got so hellbent on change. They act like the Clintons were some political dynasty. He was the only two term Dem since FDR. I don't necessarily see that as dynastic. They're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. :shrug: How many people can honestly say now that Kerry wasn't the guy? And what would have become of Edwards? Would he have been so self destructive had he not lost? It seems like all of the lessons of successful politics that we have learned in the last 20 or so years are for naught. The Republicans are at least consisitent in that once they find what works for them, they do it to death.

[DavidMn]

I have heard the name Evan Bayh from Indiana. I think that would be an excellent choice.:nod:

[KarmaContestant]

I don't think it matters who he nominates at this point. I don't think Obama is going to win this election and it was a huge fukcup on the part of the party to nominate him. I know this is going to get me into some **** with some of my political peers around here. :sorry:

I can see how one might think that. ^^

I think he was the best candidate, and I'm very confident that he will win. That could be because I live in a liberal city (Denver) that is primarily Democratic, and I'm influenced by my surroundings. I know the rural parts of Colorado are mostly Republicans.... Frankly, I don't know how anyone could vote otherwise and still feel good about themselves as a human being. *shrug* Knowing that the Republican party stands for greed, the wealthy, elitism, corruption, special interests, environmental destruction and nothing else kind of makes it seemingly impossible that they have any supporters.

And yet they do. WTF?

On topic, *crosses fingers* I'm hoping against all odds that Mrs. Clinton is Obama's running mate.

Oh! I'll be at his acceptance speech too in Denver next Thursday, got my ticket on Saturday!

[gldstwmn]

I can see how one might think that. ^^

I think he was the best candidate, and I'm very confident that he will win. That could be because I live in a liberal city (Denver) that is primarily Democratic, and I'm influenced by my surroundings. I know the rural parts of Colorado are mostly Republicans.... Frankly, I don't know how anyone could vote otherwise and still feel good about themselves as a human being. *shrug* Knowing that the Republican party stands for greed, the wealthy, elitism, corruption, special interests, environmental destruction and nothing else kind of makes it seemingly impossible that they have any supporters.

And yet they do. WTF?

On topic, *crosses fingers* I'm hoping against all odds that Mrs. Clinton is Obama's running mate.

Oh! I'll be at his acceptance speech too in Denver next Thursday, got my ticket on Saturday!

You lucky bastard! I got an email saying I was put on the wait list. :rolleyes: I didn't know you were still in town. For some reason I thought you had moved.
Anyway, I'm voting for Obama because that is the conscientious choice for me. And I hope Hillary would be his VP choice but today the word is it's Biden. And I hope against hope that he wins.

[omigodstevie]

Frankly, I don't know how anyone could vote otherwise and still feel good about themselves as a human being. *shrug* Knowing that the Republican party stands for greed, the wealthy, elitism, corruption, special interests, environmental destruction and nothing else kind of makes it seemingly impossible that they have any supporters.

And yet they do. WTF?

On topic, *crosses fingers* I'm hoping against all odds that Mrs. Clinton is Obama's running mate.

I totally agree.

[iamnotafraid]

I'm crossing my fingers that it will be Stuart Smally or Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Now that's a Democratic Ticket!!!

[strandinthewind]

I'm crossing my fingers that it will be Stuart Smally or Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Now that's a Democratic Ticket!!!

Touche' :laugh:

Well, Byrd (born 11/17) is older than McCain, which could get Obama the AARP ticket :laugh: :rolleyes:

And, wasn't John Edwards closer to La Smally, certainly the hair :shrug:

[BombaySapphire3]

I don't think it matters who he nominates at this point. I don't think Obama is going to win this election and it was a huge fukcup on the part of the party to nominate him. I know this is going to get me into some **** with some of my political peers around here. :sorry:

:wavey: one of those peers checking in..I think Hillary is too polarizing to have won this election for some reason she galvanizes the right even though Obama is to the left of her..She has her hardcore devotees mostly women I know ,but there are those who are on the left side of the Democratic part that just do not like her ..I would include myself in that number ..I 'm not saying she would be a bad President. I believe she would be a good one, she has many of the qualities it takes to be one.It is mostly just a personality issue to me and I know that may be wrong.Obama is a politician despite how he may portray himself as being a Washington outsider and not a typical politician.I support him because I think he has the best chance of healing our rifts internationally .Really after the disasterous Bush administration any Democrat should be able to win .Obama is more nuanced than middle America is accustomed to and there is also the race issue I can not forget what happened to Tom Bradley here in Ca. So yes I have my fears that grampa McCain and his horrible running mate ( insert name of rightwingnut here --------)will win and continue the downward spiral of our nation ..I truly hope that does not happen and that all Democrats and progressives can come together in our nation's time of need and elect Barack Obama President.

[David]

I want four more years of Bush, so I'm voting for Bush.

[strandinthewind]

:wavey: one of those peers checking in..I think Hillary is too polarizing to have won this election for some reason she galvanizes the right even though Obama is to the left of her..She has her hardcore devotees mostly women I know ,but there are those who are on the left side of the Democratic part that just do not like her . . . .

But, I think the point is you would have voted for her had she won the nomination. And, if you were pissed that she did not win and said you would never vote for Obama, if Hillary were his VP, you'd likely change your mind and vote for that ticket. So, to me, it is a win/win if Hiallary is on the ticket as VP. Again, I do not think a significant number of Hillary haters will not vote for Obama out of spite.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2008/08/20/news/sc_times_trib.20080820.a.pg1.tt20brazil_s1.1888751_top5.txt

Local Clinton backers, McCain adviser meet

A brother of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and local Democrats who backed her unsuccessful presidential campaign socialized privately Monday with a top surrogate of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

The private gathering featured Carly Fiorina, Mr. McCain’s top economic adviser, and took place at the Dunmore home of political consultant Jamie Brazil, a longtime friend of Mrs. Clinton’s family who has signed on as paid national director of Mr. McCain’s Citizens for McCain Coalition.

The attendees included Tony Rodham, Mrs. Clinton’s youngest sibling, his wife, Megan, and their two children; attorney Kathleen Granahan Kane, who coordinated Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign in Northeast Pennsylvania during the primary election; and Virginia McGregor, sister of Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty.

With the Democratic National Convention less than a week away, the gathering raises questions about the support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama can expect from former local supporters of Mrs. Clinton, who dominated at the polls in the Northeast in the April primary election. Mrs. Clinton won 74 percent of Lackawanna County Democrats to Mr. Obama’s 26 percent.

Ms. Fiorina’s daylong local visit, part of a two-day bus tour of the state, was aimed at talking disenchanted former supporters of Mrs. Clinton into supporting Mr. McCain. The private gathering was not a fundraiser.

“I think there’s going to be a groundswell of support for McCain,” said Lackawanna County District Attorney Andy Jarbola, a Republican and one of the people who attended. “I think a lot of Hillary supporters are going to be for McCain.”

Efforts to reach Mr. Brazil, Mr. Rodham and a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton were unsuccessful.

Ellen Mellody, the Northeast spokeswoman for Mr. Obama’s campaign, declined to comment on Mr. Rodham’s presence at the meeting, but said Mr. Obama’s backing by Mrs. Clinton and Gov. Ed Rendell is supplemented by growing local support.

“We’re seeing huge support and momentum throughout the region,” Ms. Mellody said. “Currently, we have over 1,000 volunteers, many of which are independent Republicans and former Clinton supporters and volunteers. We expect to sign up hundreds more in the coming weeks. We have three offices open in the region, and we are opening two more shortly.”

Mrs. Kane said her presence at the gathering should not be read as a sign of support for Mr. McCain.

“I don’t know. I’m not sure. I’m trying to get as much information as I can on both of them,” she said when asked if she’s backing Mr. McCain. “I would have loved to see her as president. We still have a week to go. You never know what’s going to happen at the convention. I think she would be a fantastic choice (for vice president).”

Mrs. Kane said she didn’t read Mr. Rodham’s presence as a sign he’s supporting Mr. McCain.

“No, it definitely does not. The reason he was there was because he and Jamie are very good friends,” Mrs. Kane said. “I think that was just a social call.”

Mrs. McGregor declined to say if she’s supporting Mr. Obama but said she attended because Mr. Brazil is a friend.

“I was always a fan of Carly,” she said.

Mrs. McGregor’s appearance also is no indicator of the position of her brother, Mr. Doherty, she said.

“It didn’t mean anything,” said Mrs. McGregor, who ran Mr. Doherty’s successful 2005 re-election campaign. “I’m just a housewife. I’m a nobody.”

Mr. Doherty has publicly endorsed Mr. Obama.

Ms. Fiorina spoke briefly about Mr. McCain’s economic policies but mostly mingled with her audience, Mr. Jarbola said. About 20 people attended.

After dropping by Mr. Brazil’s home, Ms. Fiorina addressed a public event at the Ramada Inn in South Abington Township. About a third of the audience was Democrats, based on a show of hands Ms. Fiorina requested.

Ms. Fiorina peppered her Ramada remarks with references to Mrs. Clinton, an oddity considering many of the attendees were Republicans who detest the New York senator.

Mr. Brazil is a longtime close friend of the Rodham family and a friend of Mr. Rendell, who also supported Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Rendell is endorsing Mr. Obama, although he has said he will vote for Mrs. Clinton when her name is placed in nomination at the convention next week.

Lackawanna County Recorder of Deeds Evie Rafalko McNulty, a Clinton convention delegate who plans to support Mr. Obama after the convention, lamented Mr. Rodham’s appearance at Mr. Brazil’s home for the private get-together with Ms. Fiorina.

“Poor Hillary,” she said. “You can pick you friends, but you can’t pick your family.”

[strandinthewind]

I think it was just a social call. Clearly, they do those kinds of things and the article said they were friends, etc.

But, that could be what La Dowd refers to in this, for want of a better term, anecdote:

August 20, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Two Against The One

By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

In the dead of night in a small hideaway office in the deserted Capitol, a clandestine meeting takes place between two senators with one goal.

They grin at each other as they lift their celebratory shots of brutally cold Stolichnaya.

“Our toast to The One,” they say in unison, “is that he’s toast.”

“Obama should have picked you, Hillary,” John McCain tells her. “It isn’t fair, my friend. But it just makes it easier for me to whup him.”

“Don’t worry, John, I’ve put it behind me,” Hillary replies. “I’m looking toward the future now, a future that looks very bright, once we send Twig Legs back to the back bench.”

They chortle with delight.

“He’s a bright young man, but he got ahead of himself,” McCain says. “He needs to be taught a lesson, and we’re the ones to do it. Have you seen the new Bloomberg poll? Obama’s dropped and we’re even again. The Bullet’s getting all the credit, but you and I know, Hillary, that it’s these top-secret counseling sessions we’re having. And thanks again for BlackBerrying me the Rick Warren questions while I was in the so-called cone of silence.”

“Oh, John, you know I love you and I’m happy to help,” Hillary says. “The themes you took from me are working great — painting Obama as an elitist and out-of-touch celebrity, when we’re rich celebrities, too. Turning his big rallies and pretty words into character flaws, charging him with playing the race card — that one always cracks me up. And accusing the media, especially NBC, of playing favorites. It’s easy to get the stupid press to navel-gaze; they’re so insecure.”

“They’re all pinko Commies,” McCain laughs. “Especially since they deserted me for The Messiah. Seriously, Hill, that Paris-Britney ad you came up with was brilliant. I owe you.”

Looking pleased, Hillary expertly downs another shot. “His secret fear is being seen as a dumb blonde,” she says. “He wants to take a short cut to the top and pose on glossy magazine covers, but he doesn’t want to be seen as a glib pretty boy.”

McCain lifts his glass to her admiringly. “If I do say so myself, while the rookie was surfing in Hawaii, I ate his pupus for lunch. Pictures of him pushing around a golf ball while I’m pushing around Putin. Priceless.”

“I have a little secret to tell you about that, John. Bill made it happen. He loves you so much. He called Putin and told him that if he invaded Georgia, he could count on being invited to the Clinton Global Initiative every year for the rest of his life.”

“Wow. Should I call him? I saw your husband’s kind words about me in Las Vegas on Monday, saying I’d be just as good as Obama on climate change.”

“I think he’d like that,” Hillary smiles. “He’s still boiling at Obama. And you don’t have to worry about my army of angry women. We’ve spread the word in the feminist underground — as opposed to that wacky Obama Weather Underground — that ‘catharsis’ is code for ‘No surrender.’ My gals know when I say ‘We may have started on two separate paths but we’re on one journey now’ that Skinny’s journey is to the nearest exit.”

“But Obama’s says he’s finally ready to hit back,” McCain says, frowning. “He’s starting a blistering TV campaign and attacking me for attacking his patriotism.”

“Now, John, you know that every time he tries to get tough, he quickly runs out of gas. Sometimes in debates, he’d be exhausted by the third question. He must use up all his energy in the gym. He doesn’t have any stamina, and he certainly doesn’t have our bloodlust. Besides, you can throw that Mark Penn stuff at him that I couldn’t use in a Democratic primary about how he’s not fundamentally American in his thinking and values. While he’s up on his high-minded pedestal, you’ll scoot past him in your Ferragamos.”

“How can I ever thank you, my friend?”

“You can announce that you won’t be running for re-election because you’d be 76, and you can pick somebody really lame to run with, like your pal Lieberman. That means one term for you, and two for me.”

“It’s a deal,” McCain says, sticking out his hand to shake on it. “That was inspired to snatch his convention away — makes him look so weak. Listen, why don’t you stop in Sedona on the way to Denver? Wear a black wig and I’ll spirit you up to the cabin for the night. I’ll catch a catfish in the mill pond and grill it for you. It will be an adventure.” There’s a knock on the door. Jesse Jackson sticks his head into the meeting.

“Is it over?” he asks his co-conspirators.

“Yes, he’s over,” they respond in unison.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[gldstwmn]

I just got home from running some errands and saw the Secret Service cruising around ( I live pretty close to Invesco Mile High, where Obama will give his acceptance speech).

[strandinthewind]

I just got home from running some errands and saw the Secret Service cruising around ( I live pretty close to Invesco Mile High, where Obama will give his acceptance speech).

Perhaps it's time for the foil to go on the windows?

A little lead might not be a bad idea either!

:p

[gldstwmn]

Perhaps it's time for the foil to go on the windows?

A little lead might not be a bad idea either!

:p

Such a card you are. Or is it cad? :p

[Stephanie]

ooh I fancy greed and wealth you guys are talking about!

I agree with the initial thought of this thread, obama is fading.

[BombaySapphire3]

ooh I fancy greed and wealth you guys are talking about!



well if you fancy greed I can completely understand why you are supporting a Republican.

[strandinthewind]

ooh I fancy greed and wealth you guys are talking about! . . . .

LOL - I hate taxes and love money too :cool:

Interestingly, according to the Treas. Dept., unless you make over about $200,000 a year, Obama's tax plan will not make you pay more taxes, to wit (emphasis supplied) :

August 22, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Now That’s Rich

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Last weekend, Pastor Rick Warren asked both presidential candidates to define the income at which “you move from middle class to rich.” The context of the question was, of course, the difference in the candidates’ tax policies. Barack Obama wants to put tax rates on higher-income Americans more or less back to what they were under Bill Clinton; John McCain, who was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them, says that means raising taxes on the middle class.

Mr. Obama answered the question seriously, defining middle class as meaning an income below $150,000. Mr. McCain, at first, made it into a joke, saying “how about $5 million?” Then he declared that it didn’t matter because he wouldn’t raise anyone’s taxes. That wasn’t just an evasion, it was a falsehood: Mr. McCain’s health care plan, by limiting the deductibility of employer-paid insurance premiums, would effectively raise taxes on a number of people.

The real problem, however, was with the question itself.

When we think about the middle class, we tend to think of Americans whose lives are decent but not luxurious: they have houses, cars and health insurance, but they still worry about making ends meet, especially when the time comes to send the kids to college.

Meanwhile, when we think about the rich, we tend to think about the handful of people who are really, really rich — people with servants, people with so much money that, like Mr. McCain, they don’t know how many houses they own. (Remember how Republicans jeered at John Kerry for being too rich?)

The trouble with Mr. Warren’s question was that it seemed to imply that everyone except the poor belongs to one of these two categories: either you’re clearly rich, or you’re an ordinary member of the middle class. And that’s just wrong.

In his entertaining book “Richistan,” Robert Frank of The Wall Street Journal declares that the rich aren’t just different from you and me, they live in a different, parallel country. But that country is divided into levels, and only the inhabitants of upper Richistan live like aristocrats; the inhabitants of middle Richistan lead ample but not gilded lives; and lower Richistanis live in McMansions, drive around in S.U.V.’s, and are likely to think of themselves as “affluent” rather than rich.

Even these arguably not-rich, however, live in a different financial universe from that inhabited by ordinary members of the middle class: they have lots of disposable income after paying for the essentials, and they don’t lose sleep over expenses, like insurance co-pays and tuition bills, that can seem daunting to many working American families.

Which brings us to the dispute about tax policy.

Mr. McCain wants to preserve almost all the Bush tax cuts, and add to them by cutting taxes on corporations. Mr. Obama wants to roll back the high-end Bush tax cuts — the cuts in tax rates on the top two income brackets and the cuts in tax rates on income from dividends and capital gains — and use some of that money to reduce taxes lower down the scale.

According to estimates prepared by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, those Obama tax increases would fall overwhelmingly on people with incomes of more than $200,000 a year. Are such people rich? Well, maybe not: some of those Mr. Obama proposes taxing are only denizens of lower Richistan, although the really big tax increases would fall on upper Richistan. But one thing’s for sure: Mr. Obama isn’t planning to raise taxes on the middle class, by any reasonable definition — even that of the Bush administration.

O.K., the Bush administration hasn’t actually offered a definition of “middle class.” But in May, the Treasury Department — which used to do serious tax studies, but these days just churns out Bush administration propaganda — released a report purporting to show, by looking at the tax bills of four hypothetical families, how the middle and working class would be hurt if the Bush tax cuts aren’t made permanent.

And when the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities looked at the report, it made an interesting catch. It turns out that Treasury’s hypothetical families got all their gains from the so-called middle-class provisions of the Bush tax cuts: the Child Tax Credit, the reduced tax bracket for lower incomes and marriage penalty relief.

These all happen to be provisions that Mr. Obama proposes leaving in place. In other words, the Bush administration itself implicitly defines the middle class as consisting of people making too little to end up paying additional taxes under the Obama plan.

Of course, all the evidence in the world won’t stop Republicans from claiming, as they always do, that Democrats are going to impose a crippling tax burden on ordinary hard-working Americans. But it just ain’t so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/opinion/22krugman.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1219403607-5SfIuhUCvM5Rz4AEaJtkPA
_______________________________________________

Note -- I am for the fairtax (www.fairtax.org) -- but, I think people just assume Obama is going to raise their taxes to some horrible, unsustainable level when that just is not true. If you make over $200,000 a year (which I think hardly qualifies you as rich and I'd raise it to $500,000) -- you will be taxed at about the level you were in the Clinton era, which was the era when the US had trillions in surpluses as opposed to the trillions in debt W got us into -- mind you, that took spending the triollions in surplus and then borrowing that much (roughly). To me, it is a no brainer historically which party is better for the economy. So, if I am going to be that greedy, I am voting D.

Of course, your love of Tori Spelling makes us kindred spirits :cool:

[BTFLCHLD]

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and over fifty for Miss America? :rolleyes:

[dontlookdown]

Hill would be a great choice to rally the Democratic Party.
But ultimately Joe Biden is the wiser pick.
He's got a great resume and would make a fine president.
Hillary's baggage is filled to the brim with sketchy Bill Clinton business deals.

[ajmccarrell]

LOL - I hate taxes and love money too :cool:

Interestingly, according to the Treas. Dept., unless you make over about $200,000 a year, Obama's tax plan will not make you pay more taxes, to wit (emphasis supplied) :

August 22, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Now That’s Rich

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Last weekend, Pastor Rick Warren asked both presidential candidates to define the income at which “you move from middle class to rich.” The context of the question was, of course, the difference in the candidates’ tax policies. Barack Obama wants to put tax rates on higher-income Americans more or less back to what they were under Bill Clinton; John McCain, who was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them, says that means raising taxes on the middle class.

Mr. Obama answered the question seriously, defining middle class as meaning an income below $150,000. Mr. McCain, at first, made it into a joke, saying “how about $5 million?” Then he declared that it didn’t matter because he wouldn’t raise anyone’s taxes. That wasn’t just an evasion, it was a falsehood: Mr. McCain’s health care plan, by limiting the deductibility of employer-paid insurance premiums, would effectively raise taxes on a number of people.

The real problem, however, was with the question itself.

When we think about the middle class, we tend to think of Americans whose lives are decent but not luxurious: they have houses, cars and health insurance, but they still worry about making ends meet, especially when the time comes to send the kids to college.

Meanwhile, when we think about the rich, we tend to think about the handful of people who are really, really rich — people with servants, people with so much money that, like Mr. McCain, they don’t know how many houses they own. (Remember how Republicans jeered at John Kerry for being too rich?)

The trouble with Mr. Warren’s question was that it seemed to imply that everyone except the poor belongs to one of these two categories: either you’re clearly rich, or you’re an ordinary member of the middle class. And that’s just wrong.

In his entertaining book “Richistan,” Robert Frank of The Wall Street Journal declares that the rich aren’t just different from you and me, they live in a different, parallel country. But that country is divided into levels, and only the inhabitants of upper Richistan live like aristocrats; the inhabitants of middle Richistan lead ample but not gilded lives; and lower Richistanis live in McMansions, drive around in S.U.V.’s, and are likely to think of themselves as “affluent” rather than rich.

Even these arguably not-rich, however, live in a different financial universe from that inhabited by ordinary members of the middle class: they have lots of disposable income after paying for the essentials, and they don’t lose sleep over expenses, like insurance co-pays and tuition bills, that can seem daunting to many working American families.

Which brings us to the dispute about tax policy.

Mr. McCain wants to preserve almost all the Bush tax cuts, and add to them by cutting taxes on corporations. Mr. Obama wants to roll back the high-end Bush tax cuts — the cuts in tax rates on the top two income brackets and the cuts in tax rates on income from dividends and capital gains — and use some of that money to reduce taxes lower down the scale.

According to estimates prepared by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, those Obama tax increases would fall overwhelmingly on people with incomes of more than $200,000 a year. Are such people rich? Well, maybe not: some of those Mr. Obama proposes taxing are only denizens of lower Richistan, although the really big tax increases would fall on upper Richistan. But one thing’s for sure: Mr. Obama isn’t planning to raise taxes on the middle class, by any reasonable definition — even that of the Bush administration.

O.K., the Bush administration hasn’t actually offered a definition of “middle class.” But in May, the Treasury Department — which used to do serious tax studies, but these days just churns out Bush administration propaganda — released a report purporting to show, by looking at the tax bills of four hypothetical families, how the middle and working class would be hurt if the Bush tax cuts aren’t made permanent.

And when the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities looked at the report, it made an interesting catch. It turns out that Treasury’s hypothetical families got all their gains from the so-called middle-class provisions of the Bush tax cuts: the Child Tax Credit, the reduced tax bracket for lower incomes and marriage penalty relief.

These all happen to be provisions that Mr. Obama proposes leaving in place. In other words, the Bush administration itself implicitly defines the middle class as consisting of people making too little to end up paying additional taxes under the Obama plan.

Of course, all the evidence in the world won’t stop Republicans from claiming, as they always do, that Democrats are going to impose a crippling tax burden on ordinary hard-working Americans. But it just ain’t so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/opinion/22krugman.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1219403607-5SfIuhUCvM5Rz4AEaJtkPA
_______________________________________________

Note -- I am for the fairtax (www.fairtax.org) -- but, I think people just assume Obama is going to raise their taxes to some horrible, unsustainable level when that just is not true. If you make over $200,000 a year (which I think hardly qualifies you as rich and I'd raise it to $500,000) -- you will be taxed at about the level you were in the Clinton era, which was the era when the US had trillions in surpluses as opposed to the trillions in debt W got us into -- mind you, that took spending the triollions in surplus and then borrowing that much (roughly). To me, it is a no brainer historically which party is better for the economy. So, if I am going to be that greedy, I am voting D.

Of course, your love of Tori Spelling makes us kindred spirits :cool:

True the tax increases will not fall on the middle class by way of TAXES specifically, however the middle class will end up paying for it anyway. Krugman's argument is strictly ceteris paribus and shortsighted. Like with minimum wage increases, tax increases force prices up. So, we will still end up paying for it with less jobs, lower wages, less raises, and higher prices. It happens every single time you raise taxes.

[strandinthewind]

True the tax increases will not fall on the middle class by way of TAXES specifically, however the middle class will end up paying for it anyway. Krugman's argument is strictly ceteris paribus and shortsighted. Like with minimum wage increases, tax increases force prices up. So, we will still end up paying for it with less jobs, lower wages, less raises, and higher prices. It happens every single time you raise taxes.

And - you were just singing his praises the other day :wavey:

Interestingly, the economy and just about everyone and the US economy (read surplus) was doing great during the Clinton year tax rates. Moreover, prices were hardly stagnant (hello $4.00+ for a gallon of gas) under the W tax cuts, which greatly favored the wealthy by percentage -- kind of blows your argument out of the water :shrug:

[Musicman408]

Dude, I really wish it would turn out to be Hillary. In my opinion, she is the best choice for him politically, since many of her supporters refuse to support him and will vote for "McSame" (yes, I did just come up with that by the way. :laugh:

[BombaySapphire3]

Dude, I really wish it would turn out to be Hillary. In my opinion, she is the best choice for him politically, since many of her supporters refuse to support him and will vote for "McSame" (yes, I did just come up with that by the way. :laugh:

I saw a poll yesterday that 21% of her supporters will vote for gramps ..This boggles and bewilder's my mind .Do these people not care about the ramifications of the Supreme Court appointees from a McCain administration like Roe vs.Wade being overturned?! among so many other things.I don't think he will pick Hillary but at this point I don't mind if he does.He could set her lose on McCain and the Republicans. She can get down and dirty like he seems to be unable to.BTW congrats on your 18th and don't forget to vote!:woohoo:

[BombaySapphire3]

Well it has been offered to and accepted by Joe Biden kind of a curmudgeon but I like him . He seems to balance out the ticket well as he is very experienced at 65 ..Still 7 years younger than gramps McCain.:laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Lame! :distress:

[ajmccarrell]

And - you were just singing his praises the other day :wavey:

Interestingly, the economy and just about everyone and the US economy (read surplus) was doing great during the Clinton year tax rates. Moreover, prices were hardly stagnant (hello $4.00+ for a gallon of gas) under the W tax cuts, which greatly favored the wealthy by percentage -- kind of blows your argument out of the water :shrug:

Kindly explain the connection between tax cuts and $4.00 gas? You can't because there isn't a connection. Besides, the president doesn't set gas prices. He has no magic button under his desk. If we had done what he asked 7 years ago to start drilling again in places where we know there is oil, we wouldn't be in this mess. Your argument is so full of holes and you draw connections that aren't there that it is laughable. I KNOW you are smarter than this. Gas prices are market driven. As supply goes down, prices go up and vice versa. This is econ 101 or just plain common sense.
Also, the economy is not the position of the US government. The position of the US government is simply that. The economy is usually measured by GDP which is in no way connected to whether or not the government has a surplus. All a surplus means is that the government has too much of our money. Please, before expressing an opinion on the economy, at least take econ 101. You really sound stupid.

[strandinthewind]

^^

No, a surplus is a good thing. Put it this way, instead of lying to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and then spending the trillions in surplus and then borrowing trillions of additional dollars to fix the boo boo -- W could have:

1. Maintained the war in Afganistan, they attacked us after all;

2. Built at least 10 VA Hospitals to replace the crumbling ones we have now;

3. Built a mega infrastructure for wind enegry, which mostly is harnessed in remote areas, to be used throughout the power grids of this country.

Every American would have benefited this way and hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs would have been created in this scenario -- and there would have been a few billion left over for a rainy day, like to address the recession that closely followed Clinton's exit from office and likely began while he was in office due, in part, to the .com and Enron esq. meltdowns. That is why a surplus is a good thing; saving always is. Also, it is impossible for the best of us to plan to break even and really nor should the govt.

So, when there is excess money on this scale, it should go back to the people via the three example I gave. That way, the "additional" money is spent on something for the good of the pople that the govt. would have to pay for anyway, but did not think could be in the budget in the first place.