Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 23, 2008
By: Neil Sinhababu

MARINATING THE VEEPSTEAKS....Thanks to Kevin for inviting us, and for putting up the post below! I don't know if any of the guestbloggers own cats, so I was worried that I'd have to take a picture of myself laying around with costume ears and a tail to satisfy Friday catblogging obligations.

With that embarrassment averted, why don't we do what political junkies do, and talk Veepstakes? I'll start by suggesting some general strategic principles for progressives as they approach the 2008 VP nomination. (I'll be assuming that Obama wins. If Clinton wins, she should pick the Penrose triangle for Vice-President -- who better for an impossible situation than an impossible object?) Everybody thinks about electability, but these considerations are important too:

Think about 2016. Intrade is giving Obama a 60% chance of winning the election. Assume -- conservatively, I think -- that he has a 50% chance of winning re-election and that his VP has a 50% chance of getting the nomination in 2016. That multiplies out to a 15% chance of today's VP selection being the person who we're all donating to in 8 years when wise Democratic stewardship of the economy has doubled our annual income.

So don't just pick VP candidates because they'll appeal to one of this year's swing voter blocs du jour, or compensate for a perceived Obama weakness. Giving somebody a 15% chance of becoming our nominee (even barring tragedy) is a pretty big deal, so be sure to support somebody who would be an excellent presidential candidate and an excellent president.

Think about what they'd do in office. Despite its general lack of official powers, the Vice-Presidency turns people into top-notch political celebrities who command huge media attention. (Cabinet positions, on the other hand, have lots of power but don't come with quite the same celebrity.) Who would use this particular kind of power most effectively to make things better in America and the world?

Furthermore, the VP will be a key member of Obama's inner circle. Let's hope for somebody who has the right tactical instincts and who will represent progressive views effectively in those discussions. Obama's VP certainly won't end up with as much influence as Cheney has, but it'd be surprising if the VP ended up being totally sidelined.

Don't disrupt Obama's excellent foreign policy message. Just as Clinton made the economy a solid Democratic issue, Obama has the potential to make foreign policy a solid Democratic issue for a long time. He's bold in standing up to GOP foreign policy attacks, and he predicted many of the problems with invading Iraq in advance.

We need a VP pick who won't get tied into Kerryesque knots trying to justify mistaken support of the war, and who will be able to go on the offense on broad strategic questions. This isn't just important for winning the election, it's important for establishing the Democratic Party for the long term. And it isn't just about Iraq, it's about a general approach to foreign policy. (Obviously, I've been reading Matt Yglesias' book.) Somebody who voted against the war is best, somebody who wasn't in Congress but never supported it is good, and somebody who voted for it but repented and now thinks it was a total disaster is okay too. What's important is that you have a forceful advocate for Obama's foreign policy message.

If I actually tell you about my favorite and unfavorite VP picks in this space, the discussion is going to be all about them and not about these general ideas. So why don't we save that for later?

Neil Sinhababu 7:36 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (66)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Obama should announce that he's chosen Howard Dean to select his running mate.

Then Dean should come back a week later and say:" I pick me!"

Posted by: Joey Giraud on May 23, 2008 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

whoo, hoo! i've never been first before!

answer: Jim Webb

Posted by: marydem on May 23, 2008 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Mary, I'm sure you'll get another chance later...

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf on May 23, 2008 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

drats! i knew that would happen...

Posted by: marydem on May 23, 2008 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

What about considerations of the Senate? E.g., picking a senator who would be replaced by a Republican?

I don't see it happening, but Edwards has my vote.

Posted by: John McCain: More of the Same on May 23, 2008 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

That too, uh, John McCain.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf on May 23, 2008 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I preferred the days when the Vice Presidency wasn't worth a bucket of warm piss.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on May 23, 2008 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

*snicker*. Sure, sure. I hope Obama has his November concession speech ready.

Posted by: Al on May 23, 2008 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

Webb has a problem: some interesting passages in a book, based on other cultures' practices, that would make the right wing noise machine go into hyperdrive. If you don't already know, trust me, you don't want to.

Posted by: Henry on May 23, 2008 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

Well I was an Edwards supporter in 2003/2004 and 2007/2008 so I would like to see him picked...again.

Thank god my son is not that Al!

Posted by: Al's dad (not that Al) on May 23, 2008 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

Warm *spit*, dr sardonicus...

Posted by: anonymous on May 23, 2008 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

Phil Bredeson, Governor of Tennessee. Older, looks older than Obama. Business background. Great domestic experience, especially with health care. Popular in the south - would help carry Virginia, maybe Georgia AND North Carolina (think Heath Schuler when you think Tennessee.) Best of all, he is a tactical fighter, immediate results type. This lets Obama do what he does best - strategic vision and changes in national dialogue.

Posted by: orion on May 23, 2008 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

I would like to see Chuck Hagel. I think it will probably end up being Evan Bayh.

Posted by: Nathan on May 23, 2008 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Now that Senator Clinton has shot herself in the foot and then placed the foot in her mouth yet again, with a reach out to her (and her husband's) formidable network, and yet also a reach out to Southerners and vets, Obama could look to Wesley Clark as a way to heal some wounds in his party without turning off the activist base and still possibly attract some new crossovers from independents and republicans. Clark didn't run so well four years ago but he was also a new comer with no name recognition then. He's learned a lot since then. He also opposed the war (despite some post invasion remarks)from the beginning.

Posted by: carsick on May 23, 2008 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

"I've been reading Matt Yglesias' book."

That book has been comprehensively exposed as a tawdry fraud, here:

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/bc0403jk.html

Which deeply devalues anything you might have to say, no?

Posted by: am on May 23, 2008 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

I would love Edwards too, but it aint happening. It would be so great though, Elizabeth Edwards living at the Naval Observatory.

I'd take Webb, but he doesn't really make me swoon. I too would take Strickland or Rendell, even Byah. Biden would be great. Clinton isn't in the stars.

That's all to say, Obama-Clark '08

Posted by: bend on May 23, 2008 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

My pick -- long-serving US Rep Nita Lowey.

Who was denied the 2002 nomination for the US Senate from NY by an inexperienced, media-darling interloper.

Must have been sexism.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on May 23, 2008 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

I'd like to see a Real Vice president, like Crocket and Stubbs. Ba-da, Ba-da-ba-dee, Da, Ba-da-da.

Posted by: absent observer on May 23, 2008 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

I really really really want Maxine Waters as VP, Sec. of State,Sec. of Def.AG or let her be ALL of them at one time. Obama could just lean back and relax while she brought Warm Piss out of anybody who opposed them. I'd sit back and yell "You Go Girl"! Thats my dream.

Posted by: R.L. on May 23, 2008 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

Neil, you missed one - well, partially:

Think about what they'd do if they had to take over the Presidency in mid-term.

This is why it can't be Chuck Hagel. If the President should be brought down by anything from cancer or heart attack to the assassin's bullet that Hillary so blithely referred to today, the ascension of the veep shouldn't cause a major change of direction for the Administration.

While Hagel's come around to the right side on the war, he's still a rock-ribbed conservative with respect to almost everything else. President Hagel would have zero interest in pursuing Obama's domestic goals.

You've got to think about whether the veep would be a decent backup QB if anything untoward were to happen. Mondale could have taken over for Carter, and Gore could have easily stepped in for Clinton. While there's no one out there who's as excellent a fit for Obama as Gore for Clinton, there are a good number of people who'd be more than sufficient to take over an Obama Administration and keep it moving in the direction Obama would want.

I personally think Edwards would be great (on this point, and with respect to the other three points Neil listed), but I doubt Obama will choose him.

Posted by: low-tech cyclist on May 23, 2008 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

That's right, ltc. In this post I was highlighting things that don't come up quite as often as they should in VP discussion, which is why I left it out. I feel that people do think about that issue about as much as they ought to.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf on May 23, 2008 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

am: No, actually it doesn't. He can read whatever book he wants, and doing so doesn't devalue his view. The fact that James Kirchick didn't like Yglesias' book doesn't surprise anyone or have any broader connotation. I can't possibly imagine what you could be thinking.

Posted by: doug on May 23, 2008 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

Intrade is giving Obama a 60% chance of winning the election.

Somebody is counting some chickens.

Posted by: Lucy on May 23, 2008 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

am, anyone so stupid as to think that "9/11 changed everything" cannot possibly have anything of value to say about a book on foreign policy. I will admit that your referencing such an idiot does not, in any way, devalue your contributions to this board. But then that's because you long ago demonstrated that you have nothing of value to offer and today's proffer merely provides redundant confirmation of that fact.

Posted by: the on May 23, 2008 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

I think Hagel might make a good Sec. Defense of State.
By the way, the ObamaClark.com domain is owned by a researcher for Democracy Corps in DC. He's owned it since 2004 when he was director of communications for the DraftClark campaign. It comes up for reregistration in June of this year.

Posted by: carsick on May 23, 2008 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

typo above
"...Sec. Defense OR State..." Not "of".

Posted by: carsick on May 23, 2008 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

I automatically dismiss any political analysis that includes "Intrade is showing...". Those non-prediction non-markets are absolutely useless for anything except fleecing rubes, and it is past time for reality-based folk to stuff them down the memory hole.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on May 23, 2008 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, the Kirchick review completely misstates important portions of the book. There's this sentence from Kirchick, for instance:

Yglesias cites careerism as the sole motive for liberals’ support for the Iraq War.

Yglesias actually cites two other motives -- humanitarian motivations and national security concerns -- and spends several pages discussing them.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf on May 23, 2008 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

Webb would be good, assuming he survives the vetting that Henry's comment warrents be done BEFORE he is nominated. I am one who thinks the next four to eight years a lot of Sh*& hits the fan (things like unsustainable national debt, peak oil, unsustainable health care system etc). So we need a combo who can lead our country through some very trying times. That takes precedence over 2016!

Posted by: bigTom on May 23, 2008 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

Cranky,
Generally when I dismiss something out of hand I don't waste time solely addressing it in a comment. Why do you? (Don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question.)

Back to the matter at hand:
Beyond Clark, I think Dodd would make a good VP though I expect he wouldn't run for president after 8 years in office.
He's shown he understands the issues, has a sense of perspective and humor, and is willing to step up for principle even when he's alone (see telecom amnesty). He also knows how to work in the weeds of the legislature and across the aisle.

Posted by: carsick on May 23, 2008 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

Assume -- conservatively, I think -- that he has a 50% chance of winning re-election and that his VP has a 50% chance of getting the nomination in 2016. That multiplies out to a 15% chance...

No it doesn't. Math is hard.

Posted by: BL on May 23, 2008 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

Bill Richardson. He comes from the Western U.S. which is the future of the democratic party - not the South, which is its past. Richardson will help in New Mexico which is an important swing state and could also make a difference in Nevada and Colorado. Richardson is genuinely progressive (unlike Webb)and is a respectable presidential candidate in his own right and would be as good a pick as any for 2016. Richardson was also proved to be a good campaigner during the early primaries and he will help Obama with Hispanics, an area where Obama needs help, and will also help draw Hispanics to the democratic party which, again, is a good way to build the party for the future. Richardson has strong foreign policy and national security credentials which should help shore up Obama in that area and his positions are consistent with Obama's approach to foreign policy in general and Iraq in particular.

Posted by: Arne on May 23, 2008 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

AZ Gov. Napolitano does not have the foreign policy experience, although she did send the national guard to 'protect' the border. She knows how to play to the anti-immigrant mob, was a childhood friend with Cheney's Addington and she is a woman. She also would like to be president.

Maybe one of the criteria ought to be Obama's VP represents that change theme.

Posted by: Brojo on May 23, 2008 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

Arne,
I disagree. Richardson did not do well in the early primaries. He did worse than Clark in '04 and Clark had no prior running experience. I do like Richardson though. I agree about bringing some demographics but this post was about not looking at just demographics.
He'd be terrific in the cabinet.

Posted by: carsick on May 23, 2008 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

Think of the Senate balance too - maybe pick a Republican to emphasize the broken paradyms, if by chance they became President the Congress and public opinion would force them to carry out a progressive agenda. Either Snowe or Collins from Maine, maybe Lamar Alexander so Bredensen can appoint Harold Ford to finish out the term.

Posted by: loki on May 23, 2008 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

I can't believe the numbers of self-proclaimed liberal democrats that would like to see Chuck Hagel.

That Hagel is even being discussed tells most democrats what they need to know about Obama.

Posted by: Bad Moon on May 23, 2008 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

Neil, forget the cat suit. We're serious about cats here and would easily spot a fraud. You seem like a nice person and we wouldn't want you to get hurt.

I clumsily made the case for Webb earlier today. His writing didn't seem to hurt in the Va. Senatorial election but if that seems to be a killer issue I like Clark. Either of them, I think, meet the criteria you outlined in your post.

We're going far enough out on a limb, nominating a black man with a funny name and elitist manners. As an American, I'm embarrassed to say this, but realistically, for an Obama-[whoever] ticket to have any chance at all, [whoever] has to be a white guy with solid military credentials. Webb and Clark both have that, and both were against the Iraq war.

Posted by: thersites on May 23, 2008 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, how come we never see Al and Kevin in the room at the same time. Huh???

Posted by: thersites on May 23, 2008 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

loki
Picking a North Eastern republican woman for the VP would be a bit like saying to the electorate, "Hey, I know you've never eaten sushi and you're considering the raw tuna but we'd like to tie a live squid to it too." Too much to absorb when people want to feel comfortable about their choice not like their going all in with 14 at the blackjack table. (too many metaphors?)

Posted by: carsick on May 23, 2008 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

This might sound crazy, but what about Elizabeth Edwards?

Posted by: sarah on May 23, 2008 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

typo again:
"...not like THEY'RE going all-in..." Not "their".

Posted by: carsick on May 23, 2008 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

If Clinton wins, she should pick the Penrose triangle for Vice-President

Well, what if an assassin's bullets severs the Penrose triangle and converts the object from impossible to possible. Just saying.

Posted by: B on May 23, 2008 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

sarah,
Nice thought but her cancer is terminal and will require energy depleting treatments even if she defies the odds. Maybe "Healthcare Czar" would fit her intellect and interests and current abilities.

Posted by: carsick on May 23, 2008 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

Friday Werewolf-blogging? Hmmm, pictures. :)

Posted by: md 20/400 on May 23, 2008 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

I'd add another thing to consider: No Senators from Red States! We cannot risk losing a Senator, and picking someone like Webb will do just that. Whatever his qualifications are, we need to understand that a Republican will likely take his seat in the Senate if he's not there. We can win the White House without him, so is it really worth it?

Posted by: fostert on May 23, 2008 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, that was a really bad math argument. It's also irrelevant since this is actually a knowable number! Just look it up like I did!! Whoop! Whoop!

We're on Prez #43 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush)
but were on VP #46 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_cheney)
14 VPs have gone on to be Prez (http://www.usatrivia.com/Vpstats.html)

So, here's the really hard math part again...

14/46 = 30.4%

Posted by: pjf on May 23, 2008 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

I still think Congressman Joe Sestak would be a good VP choice. He's a Hillary supporter so it would help mend a few riffs with that crowd. He's rather Progressive. He's from PA which would put that out of play for McCain. He's a white dude, that seems to be big these days. He was a Vice Admiral in the Nav which might negate McCains Navy experience. He's new to Washington, I see that as a good thing. Finally, being in the House, we can afford to lose his seat, unlike Jim Webb's seat in the Senate.

Posted by: tom.a on May 23, 2008 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

pjf,
I may be wrong in my math but...
If Obama has a one of two chance of winning and 30% of winning campaigns' vice presidents have ended up as presidents wouldn't that put the contending VP choice at 15%? Half of 30.4%?

Posted by: carsick on May 23, 2008 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

Has nobody mentioned Sam Nunn yet? Famously bipartisan former senator from Georgia with huge credibility re: national security. He's also very active on nonproliferation of chemical, biological, & nuclear weapons, this last one being a particular interest of Obama's -- whom he publicly supports. Sorry if I'm repeating what anybody said already, but I didn't see it in a quick scan of the comments.

Posted by: junebug on May 23, 2008 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

Dammit. Elizabeth Edwards is so feisty & eloquent, I had practically forgotten all about the cancer. A smart female with working class appeal who speaks wonderfully & is incredibly tough. I like Sebelius, but I don't think she fits this quite as well.

Although Webb is in some ways an excellent strategic choice, he is also a loose cannon, and I'm not certain if that's really what Obama wants/needs right now. Also, he doesn't seem to have the presidential temperament if we're thinking down the road...

I think Wes Clark (if he would accept) would be an excellent selection.

Posted by: sarah on May 23, 2008 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

Despite its general lack of official powers, the Vice-Presidency turns people into top-notch political celebrities who command huge media attention. (Cabinet positions, on the other hand, have lots of power but don't come with quite the same celebrity.)

I disagree. The cabinet positions always have more direct power, but the 'celebrity' (and thus the associated power thus derived) is entirely a product of the specific occupant of either position. Al Gore did not exceed either Rubin nor Reno in celebrity or power during the bulk of the Clinton Administration. (Heck, Gore was short in both to *Hillary* Clinton in the first year or so of the Clinton presidency). More obviously, Quayle was way deficient in both power and celebrity to most of whomever held the 'big 4' of the Bush Cabinet - especially Cheney and Baker.

Posted by: Kolohe on May 24, 2008 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

And going back further, there's Kissinger vs the parade of VP's that he served with.

Posted by: Kolohe on May 24, 2008 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

Think about 2016 ... so be sure to support somebody who would be an excellent presidential candidate and an excellent president.

Please, let's not. Assuming the VP would have a 50% chance of winning a POTUS election immediately after serving as the VP is unrealistic; history argues against it. Moreover, the record of those who ascend from VP to POTUS has also been, in general, less than stellar. The suitability of the VP as a POTUS candidate in 2016 should be the last, and a very marginal, consideration.

Posted by: on May 24, 2008 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

sorry, previous post was me.

Posted by: has407 on May 24, 2008 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

the record of those who ascend from VP to POTUS has also been, in general, less than stellar.

True! And I think that's because people paid insufficient attention to how good Veeps would be as presidents and candidates.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf on May 24, 2008 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

Neil the Ethical Werewolf: And I think that's because people paid insufficient attention to how good Veeps would be as presidents and candidates.

No question it's important to consider the VP's ability to assume the position of POTUS, and their ability to advance the ticket in an election. However, that's a far cry from considering the VP as a potential future candidate in their own right

When selecting your VP, would you as POTUS candidate sacrifice any advantage today in order to advance that VP's chances to capture a hypothetical future benefit for that VP? I wouldn't, unless my election as POTUS was virtually guaranteed. Any other decision would not advance the interest of anyone except the opposition.

If you can get both a VP that advances the ticket today, and positions that VP for a run in the future, wonderful. If that's not the case, then the priority should be advancing the POTUS candidate in this election cycle.

Thus my assertion that the VP's future chances should be a last and marginal consideration.

Posted by: has407 on May 24, 2008 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

I like Webb, even though he's to the right of me on some issues. I think he can be very effective at appealing to some of the same groups that are having a problem with Obama, and I think he can help Obama broaden his message. I've seen several interviews with him lately and I'm very impressed.

As for the objections raised in this thread: he's written six novels. There are some passages that could be used by the noise machine. However, this would backfire: Webb isn't the kind of guy who quails in the face of attacks. He'd give as good as he gets, and it's the traditional role of the VP candidate to kick butt (a task that John Edwards, who I like a lot, failed miserably at in 2004).

The other objection is that he's a loose cannon. I think that even to raise the objection is a reflection of traditional Democratic timidity. Webb's the kind of politician who knows who he is and who speaks consistently. A tricky politician, like HRC or McCain, fabricates so much that either an excellent memory or a compliant press corps is required to keep the lies straight. Webb might get in a bit of trouble by being too blunt, but that's a lot more forgivable by the public than being caught being too tricky. And the guy has a military background; he knows he'd be the #2 man on the ticket.

I saw Webb on Olbermann talking about the background of the Scots-Irish people who populate Appalachia, their role in the labor movement, and why they feel resentful of identity politics. But he went on to talk about a politics that could bring the black and white working classes together to address economic inequality, doing something about the exploding pay gap between the CEO and the average worker. I got the feeling that if Webb and Obama got together and really understood each other, they could create a complete political transformation, on the scale of FDR's coalition.

Posted by: Joe Buck on May 24, 2008 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

What foreign policy? We're broke.

Posted by: CSTAR on May 24, 2008 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK

Warm *spit*, dr sardonicus...

I stand by what I previously typed.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on May 24, 2008 at 2:35 AM | PERMALINK

Good analysis, Neil. I don't think that I am going to miss Kevin so much while he is on vacation.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on May 24, 2008 at 6:57 AM | PERMALINK

Obama has the potential to make foreign policy his special area. It would've been nice if maybe he'd held a hearing of his gift wrapped committee for this purpose...

Posted by: on May 24, 2008 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Good christ, some of these comments make one want to drink while banging one's head into the wall.

First, it's Crockett and TUBBS.

Second, Joe Sestak is the craziest and most hated employer on Capitol Hill, a title he has earned in less than just one House term. Take it from me. He needs professional medical help.

As for the comment, "This lets Obama do what he does best - strategic vision and changes in national dialogue" if it weren't so pathetic it would be funny. Really. What in the name of the Virgin freaking Mary in Barry's short and undistinguished career suggests he has a "strategic vision" or has "changed the national dialogue??" Now, if you mean he talks pretty, yes he does. But if that's his strongest criteria to be President we are fucked woefully.

Posted by: Pat on May 24, 2008 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK
Now, if you mean he talks pretty, yes he does. But if that's his strongest criteria to be President we are fucked woefully.

I always thought this was the strangest criticism--what do presidents do exactly if not talk for a living? Isn't that more or less the central work of their job? They talk to set an agenda, talk to get people to discuss their ideas, talk to get differing parties to speak to one another, talk to persuade, etc. As far as I can tell that is pretty much all GOOD presidents do. I know after 8 years of Bush we might have forgotten that having a president who can communicate effectively is rather crucial.

We know Obama can write from his books and he has certainly proven that he can think quite well, from his campaign we can see that he can organize and YES, HE CAN ALSO TALK.

For pete's sake, both of them have devoted the past year and a half to TALKING.

Posted by: zoe from pittsburgh on May 24, 2008 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, I realize your standards are probably pretty low, in that you apparently choose to live in Pittsburg, Zoe, but are you actually saying that all someone needs to do to be President is know how to talk? I'm not sure if you've noticed, Zoe. EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW TO TALK. That's my point, there Zoe. All the man has ever demonstrated accomplishment at is talking. He's never accomplished anything. Is that all it takes to be President?

Posted by: Pat on May 25, 2008 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

when wise Democratic stewardship of the economy has doubled our annual income.

lol

Posted by: Brian on May 25, 2008 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Great site. Keep doing.

Posted by: codeine tramadol safe together buy on July 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly