Biden is another US Senator. You checked lately on the success of a two Senator ticket? Would have to go back 48 years to find one.

Plus, Obama can get the cred on international and defense that he needs with Wesley Clark, and a bonus there is Clark was a Clinton supporter.

Kevin,
If you are bored, I have some background research you could do for me - not too hard, just a few triple integrals involved.

How's Inky's bio coming?

Obama/Feingold!

Also, yes, this does matter. I want a VP who's smarter than I am, with better judgment when it matters most--and even who's smarter than Kevin is. Half of the Democrats in elected office voted against the war, right? Rewarding that behavior seems wise.

Except I'd also love to see Obama/Edwards. So yeah, they can be wrong, but we need evidence that they've learned.

It's not so much a litmus test as much as it would pretty much undermine Obama's message.

There's no reason we need to highlight his weaknesses either. The VP has to be called every time there's a foreign matter? I don't think so.

The VP has a certain job in the campaign. Being a major policy player in the coming administration can be, but is not necessarily one of the job descriptions. Certainly none of those policy roles can contradict the president.

In the campaign, the only litmus test would be, on balance, does this person help us win.

I think someone who was pro Iraq war hurts because it undermines some of what gave Obama so much traction.

Is this a brief for Jim Webb? Well, I guess so.

But if we aren't having litmus tests on something as important as Iraq, then I don't see how we can have Dem-only-relevant litmus tests for the issues that supposedly hurt Webb.

But do you really want to send a message that supporting the war was not just a mistake, but something so heinous that it makes you unfit for higher office? I don't think so.

There's a bit of straw poking out of that one, Kevin. Lemieux didn't "say unfit for higher office" he said "blurs the message of the Democratic candidate"

I do think "anti-war from the beginning" should be a litmus test for both president and VP until we're out of Iraq. Don't muddy the message.

I like your optimism, Kevin, though I think you're probably off on Arkansas.

Kathleen Sebelius remains my top choice for VP. Foreign policy was my only misgiving about her, but I'm reminded that governors engage in quite a lot of foreign policy in their own right. I think she'd be great.

Excellent that Strickland took himself out of the running. Not that he would have been a bad choice, but it's very helpful to have unwilling candidates eliminated up front.

But do you really want to send a message that supporting the war was not just a mistake, but something so heinous that it makes you unfit for higher office? I don't think so.

Considering the consequences of that decision, yes.

My brother lives in Colorado and voted for Dubya twice.

He just informed me that he is voting for Obama. My head nearly fell off. I don't think my brother has ever voted for a Democrat.

I agree that the AUMF isn't that big of a deal, as long as the person admits it was a mistake... which Biden has emphatically done.

I also agree that the VP isn't going to have much of an impact on the race, which is why I want it to be somebody young enough to be able to be the party standard bearer in 8 years... so nobody in their 60's. So no Biden and no Webb. I'm leading towards Brian Schweitzer or Bill Ritter.

"This might officially make me the most optimistic Obama supporter in the world, but there you have it."

Going by Intrade and recent polling, Obama is the favorite in all of the listed states except Arkansas and maybe Virginia (he's tied in the latter). With respect to Colorado and Iowa, I said this last night, but not only will Obama win them, but I think a number of Kerry states will be closer than those two (MI, NH, maybe WI).

I ask the Iraqis forgiveness for voting for Clinton in the primary.

The definition of a "financial panic" is when all correlation coefficients converge on unity.

The definition of "landslide election" is pretty damn similar. Kevin is not a cockeyed optimist. Indeed, if we have an Obama landslide (a plausibility, not a probability), the easier task will be compiling a list of states that DON'T go for Obama. Utah, Idaho, and . . . uh . . . I'm not certain.

"do you really want to send a message that supporting the war was not just a mistake, but something so heinous that it makes you unfit for higher office? I don't think so."

Simple answer, yes. Who would such a "message" be being sent to anyway? Not the voters.

So yeah. Starting a war, which every sane person would have expected to kill at LEAST a few tens of thousands of innocent people, starting such a war against someone who posed almost zero threat to the US.... starting such a war is criminal. Bordering on evil.

Yeah, how boring.

Put the crack pipe down Kevin! Obama cant win...when will the liberals learn; people dont vote their self-interest. Conservative know this...Hillary's girl are pissed off. Many will vote for McBush and some will stay home in protest...

Maybe the difference is between a litmus test, and and important consideration. For a litmus test, anyone who flunks it is unconditionally throw off the island. OTOH getting an important consideration
isn't unconditionally fatal, but does count against the overall grade. In Biden's case, the bankruptcy bill is an additional negative. So if we penalize two grades for the war, and one for bankruptcy, the best Joe can hope for is a D. Not fatal, but it should put him pretty far down the list.

Hey Kevin,

A war isn't some minor disagreement about tax policy or something. It's a )@#($)@#(* WAR. You know - where tens of thousands of people are killed, literally trillions of dollars spent, huge amounts of property destroyed, etc. It's disqualifying. Period. And it's not close nor should it even be controversial. There was no damn good reason for the war and it had huge costs in both dollars and lives.

Hey Kevin,

A war isn't some minor disagreement about tax policy or something. It's a )@#($)@#(* WAR. You know - where tens of thousands of people are killed, literally trillions of dollars spent, huge amounts of property destroyed, etc. It's disqualifying. Period. And it's not close nor should it even be controversial. There was no damn good reason for the war and it had huge costs in both dollars and lives.

Hey Kevin,

A war isn't some minor disagreement about tax policy or something. It's a )@#($)@#(* WAR. You know - where tens of thousands of people are killed, literally trillions of dollars spent, huge amounts of property destroyed, etc. It's disqualifying. Period. And it's not close nor should it even be controversial. There was no damn good reason for the war and it had huge costs in both dollars and lives.

Whatever his other virtues or faults, Sen. Biden could serve effectively as President if he had to. That's the most important test for any running mate, and unless Sen. Obama is sure he needs one specific person on his ticket to decide a very close election it is the one he ought to use.

There are and will be any number of groups within the Democratic Party urging him to "rule out" this or that person for having failed some litmus test or other. Part of Obama's task in persuading the public that he can be President will be demonstrating that he can stand up to organized interest groups. Frankly, I don't know that he can -- which is not to say I think he ought to choose Biden, only that no one with Biden's record ought to be ruled out because some Democrats won't think he's perfect on the issues important to them.

To echo what was said above, this --

do you really want to send a message that supporting the war was not just a mistake, but something so heinous that it makes you unfit for higher office?

really misses the point. It's not that it renders the person unfit for higher office; it that it makes Obama's message -- that his judgment was better than McCain (or Clinton's) on this most important of all issues -- far less clear and convincing. Given the importance of the issue, and the message, this seems like a pretty clear call to me: don't pick someone who wasn't against the war.

It isn't a "unfit for higher office" problem; it's a "don't send mixed messages on one of the key political messages of the campaign" issue.

(Now, I do think that eliminating anyone who was against the war is a very defensible position on its merits, since it was not only a ruinous call and, ultimately, a pretty clear one, but a call of such importance that banning people who got it wrong would have very good effects on future politicians considering whether or not to vote to authorize aggressive wars. But what I think isn't the point here: this isn't what Lemieux, or anyone else, is saying. It's just a matter of message discipline.)

SF

Do we really think that being opposed to the war in 2002 should be a litmus test for VP consideration in 2008?

Yes.

Christ, if we can't even say that people in support of a policy that needlessly killed thousands, and created millions of refugees, shouldn't hold public office, then is there any consequence one might reasonably favor for these people? Seriouisly, why is it when it comes to foreign policy it is somehow un-American to try to hold anyone accountable?

something so heinous that it makes you unfit for higher office

I am pretty certain the Nazi Party is still outlawed in Germany. I guess the Germans are not as forgiving of their stupid and violent politicians as Americans are.

Since Scott Lemieux thinks the Duke Students ARE guilty, and that whatever they have experienced (false charges, humiliation, financial ruin for they and their parents, ruin of their college career) is a good learning experience for them, and that all of this is justified because womenz are teh oppressed by all men,

Well, pardon me, if I couldn't give a shit what that asshole has to say.

As for Biden, it's his bankruptcy bill behavior that disqualifies him. His war opinions just make him an Yglesias, Marshall, Kos, .... Drum?

I just learned of 270towin.com, which is an interactive map showing the electoral college. Lots of fun to play.

If we're going to use litmus tests, then we should ask those folks who were opposed to the war WHY they were opposed... Only those who came to the conclusion based on keen intellectual analysis were really correct.

Those who are opposed to all possible wars and those who didn't think we should give the President the benefit of the doubt in a tough time were wrong even if this war did nonetheless turn out to be a bad decision, and even if this President was not worthy of our trust.

I'm curious which of these groups tends to the most gloating. Probably not the intellectuals.

Joe Biden's biggest foreign policy initiative of the last few years was the partitioning of Iraq. Iraqis hated it. It's pretty damn imperialist to suggest we have the right to break up their country and it's an invitation to civil war.

Couple that with his "leadership" on the bankruptcy bill and Joe Biden is out. Nominating him is no way to change the way we do business in Washington.

It's not that supporting the war in 2002 makes you heinous and unqualified for office. It's that supporting the war makes you pretty goddamned gullible and stupid. Heinous people have run countries successfully throughout history but stupid and gullible pols screw things up most of the time.

I'm generally in agreement But there's one nit I'll pick: AR won't go for Obama. He has a better shot at FL and possibly NC, but short of a blowout, them's the only three Southern states he's likely to get.

And I'd add that I think he'll take MI, WI, IA, NH, and MO too.

I'd caution that, as I expect the oil bubble to peak around Labor Day (maybe during the Republican convention?), the numbers are likely to look better by then. But if - as I expect - the prices drop in Sept and Oct, the race will tighten up a little in some of the swing states. But it'll be too late to save Mcsame.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed and hoping Obama wins AZ too.

You want the VP to be reinforcing. It is much easier to push back on Iraq when you aren't saddled with the "but you voted for it" problem.

This isn't about ideological purity it is about message consistency. When Bill Clinton chose Gore as a running mate he wasn't signaling that all Democrats had to be southern DLC baby-boomer white males, after all. Instead, he put out a well defined product with a consistent message.

Okay, I'll bite, Kevin. AR sure doesn't appear to be skewing suburban or white collar like segments of southern Atlantic seaboard states like VA & NC -- leastways, not at the same rate. And, while the percentage of African-Americans in AR is still greater than the national average, it's not as high as deep South states like AL, GA, & MS -- places where Obama might stand a better chance at an upset. Are the Clintons going to work that hard for him in their home state? Even if they did, would Arkansans be even half as willing to vote for Obama as they seemed to be in the hypothetical Clinton-McCain matchup? What gives? Wherefore AR?

Wesley Clark.

He's not the attack dog Biden is and not nearly as smooth a speaker, but he has a certain gravitas and can support Obama's "third way" in foreign policy since he and Obama think alike on this score.

And although I agree that a VP choice rarely influences voter choices, I think this could be one of the exceptions given the uniqueness of the candidate.

I do think there are lots of white, security-minded voters who have a natural inclination to side with McCain since he makes them feel safe - even if he doesn't in reality. This is where the whole "strong and wrong" comment from Bill Clinton comes in. As much as I buy Obama's vision in Iraq and foreign policy in general, I'm not sure he's the best messenger for that to persuade skeptical voters. Now if you had Wes Clark on the campaign trail, even Joe Biden would work, I think you could do a better job "selling" that approach and nabbing a lot of those McCain-leaning voters.

And for the record, folks are wayyy overanalyzing this. Do you think for average, not-paying-attention-until-the-fall voters the selection of Biden and his vote in 2002 would really muddy the Obama message? I think Biden when asked the question "then why did you vote for the war" would knock it out of the park and highlight the rank incompetence and duplicity of Bush, and by extension McCain.

Arkansas ! Now you've fully drank the Kool Aid. I'm a loud Obama supporter but c'mon.

I think the notion that somehow the American public consciously avoids a ticket with two senators is wrong. Edwards didn't cost Kerry the election because he was a Senator.

I favor the Sam Nunn/ Joe Biden, senior statesman VP pick. One of the things that the VP pick does influence is the media narrative. If the media believes that the McCain experience is neutralized because Obama picked one of these two elder foreign policy/national security mandarins, then that becomes the conventional wisdom.

If the McCain experience argument is neutralized heading into the convention then Mccain has nothing left. As much as Karl Rove is despised, there is one tactic he employed that makes sense. Namely, go after the other candidate's strength.

I fully accept the premise that the one sphere in which the President has the most control is the national security/foreign affairs realm. That's what McSame is banking on. Obama is showing that he is not going to back down on this issue with McCain. If he has a heavyweight VP pushing this argument and neutralize the perceived McCain advantage then the contrast with respect to the economy, taxes, healthcare, climate change, etc. become more apparent. These are also the issues that Democrats command the largest advantage.

Finally, this strategy shores Obama up with the key demographic for the election -- women (esp. white women). Note that in 2000 women made up 52%of the voters and Gore had a 11 pt. advantgae resulting in a 500K popular vote lead. In 2004 with women making up 54% of the electorate, Kerry could only manage a 3pt. lead against GWB and ended up losing by 3M votes.

These so-called "security Moms" voted against the Democrat mainly out of national security/terrorism concerns. That's the group and method we have to target. Adding Hillary or Sebelius or any other accomplished woman does not mitigate the concerns of the 'security Moms.'

Someone like Nunn or Biden will.

Question is who does Obama want? an Al Gore, a Dick Cheney, or a John Nance Garner as VP? The VP doesn't have to be someone the Prez likes, just an assist on the ticket.

Carrying one's own state would be helpful, but that doesn't always happen.

Jim G wrote: "... we should ask those folks who were opposed to the war WHY they were opposed... Only those who came to the conclusion based on keen intellectual analysis were really correct."

The leader of the Congressional opposition to the 2002 authorization said this:

"Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States ... Unilateral action on the part of the United States, or in partnership with Great Britain, would for the first time set our nation on the bloodstained path of aggressive war, a sacrilege upon the memory of those who fought to defend this country. America's moral authority would be undermined throughout the world ... The United States must recommit itself to the U.N. Charter, which is the framework for international order. We have a right and a duty to defend ourselves. We also have an obligation to defend international law. We can accomplish both without going to war with Iraq."

-- Rep. Dennis Kucinich, November 2002

That's pretty straightforward. I will leave it up to you to decide whether it represents "keen intellectual analysis" or just plain common sense.

My question to Senator Biden or any other VP contender who voted to authorize Bush to invade Iraq would be: how come Dennis Kucinich knew this, and you did not?

OH, IA, VA, CO, NM -- I agree. AK, no way, unless Hillary is the VP. But NV and MO are definitely in play.

Iraq in 2002 was not something reasonable people could disagree about. We knew there were no WMDs, we knew there was no Al Qaeda, we knew (as did PNAC) that it would be a quagmire. And we knew that we would kill millions of Iraqis.

You were wrong, and your cutesy "Yeah, yeah, Drum" mea culpa doesn't lessen my guilt for being part of this national conspiracy of murder into which we've all been sucked.

So should this be a veep litmus test? No. This should be a legal test of guilt in a modern Nuremberg trial.

Where's an effective world court when you need one.

Do we really think that being opposed to the war in 2002 should be a litmus test for VP consideration in 2008?

Perhaps not, but that's not what the excerpt you cite says, anyhow. It says that it makes no sense to pick a candidate whose main alleged value is onthe foreign policy front if they were a war supporter in 2002.

It doesn't say that war position in 2002 ought to be a litmus test for the second slot on the ticket, only that the wrong position on that key foreign policy issue ought to be disqualifying if "foreign policy" is the only thing the candidate brings to the table, which is a very different argument than the piece seems to be making.

There's an awful lot of rank-and-file Dems who supported the war, and this implicitly suggests that they should all still be in purdah even if they came to their senses years ago.

Someone who "came to their senses" is not someone who now opposes the war, but someone who now acknowledges that based on the information known at the time it was a mistake to have supported the war. Many former war supporters fall into that category, but AFAIK neither Biden nor Drum are among them.

I think Obama's going to win anyway, so I think he ought to pick the v.p. he can best work with, not worry about short-term election calculations that never amount to anything anyway.

I do think he should pick someone who can lead the party in eight years. Unlike Cheney, many veeps win their party's nomination for the top of the ticket later on. I'd like to see someone who's likely to continue the Dem hold on the White House rather than turn it back to the Republicans.

Biden will turn 74 in 2016, and for that matter, H. Clinton will turn 69. My guess is that's not the kind of new leadership that voters will be looking for at that time. A somewhat fresher face would be welcome.

That said, the AUMF vote really does matter. It was probably the single biggest reason that Clinton lost the nomination. Edwards recanted his vote, but it was still a problem for him. Obama didn't have to vote and that helped him appear cleaner than the other candidates in the eyes of many voters. The vote matters to voters and it ought to be a consideration in picking a veep.

Biden is another US Senator. You checked lately on the success of a two Senator ticket? Would have to go back 48 years to find one.

This would be somewhat more significant if there were a more recent election where a ticket headed by a Senator won but didn't have another Senator in the #2 spot. As it is, every winning ticket headed by a sitting Senator in the past 50 years has had a Senator in the #2 spot.

Iraq now being our 51st state, who do you think will win there, McCain or Obama?

Has Biden ever conceeded that he made a mistake in his war vote? Expressed regret? Explained it in some fashion that makes it more palitable now? (Part of Hillary's problem, it seemed to me, was her unwillingness to admit the vote was a mistake.)

Has Biden ever conceeded that he made a mistake in his war vote? Expressed regret? Explained it in some fashion that makes it more palitable now? (Part of Hillary's problem, it seemed to me, was her unwillingness to admit the vote was a mistake.)

Totally agree with Francois.

I was there, marching in NYC before the invasion. Hundreds of thousands marched globally. It was NO SECRET HOW STUPID THE INVASION WAS AND WHERE THE NEO-CONS WERE COMING FROM. We were proved right but, feh, who gives a shit, right? Money was made, lives were lost, egos were bruised. Oopsie.

As far as I'm concerned, any pundit who went along with the invasion has shit for brains and no analytical skills. Either that or they're so naive as to be useless. Hope they learned something. (ya think?!!!!)

As far as Biden goes...bendover Biden. Have you not followed his career? Geesh. What a good candidate he would be. (Not.) Now you're just pissing me off.

This is sage advice. Stick with it. If you want someone who supports the war, you might as well appoint Lieberman.

But do you really want to send a message that supporting the war was not just a mistake, but something so heinous that it makes you unfit for higher office?

Unfit for higher office? Not necessarily. Unfit for the vice-presidency in 2008, when the most important issue is (a) getting out of Iraq, and (b) not making the same mistake in Iran? Yes.

At this time, there's a very important message that Democratic voters need to send to Democratic senators: if you have presidential ambitions, supporting Republican wars is out of the question.

>>>>

Georgia.

(Sigh.)

Do we really think that being opposed to the war in 2002 should be a litmus test for VP consideration in 2008?

Yes. We are still occupying Iraq. Nearly every politician and pundit allowed on TV talk shows wants to occupy Iraq forever. It will be really hard for Obama to get any cooperation on withdrawing the troops. His administration has to be completely committed to withdrawal. The election has to be seen as a mandate for withdrawal.

Add Nevada to the list. We now have more registered dems than republicans and Bush didn't win by a lot here last time. The race thing could be an issue, but people are pretty fed up with the status quo.

I'd much rather hear Joe Biden apologize for his support of bankruptcy "reform" in 2005 than his vote for the Iraq war (which also sucks).

Really, why pimp for this guy? He isn't as repugnant as Lieberman, but then again neither is slime mold.

Only those who came to the conclusion based on keen intellectual analysis were really correct.

This is a really ambiguous metric!
Anyone whose reasons included "... that brain-damaged dry drunk cokehead can't be trusted to competently execute a 1 car funeral procession"
would fall into both the intellectual and "gloating" categories.

Well Biden is a fairly knowledgeable man in the foreign policy arena, so maybe a secretary of state possibility but not VP, a little too much baggage.

Speaking of those who authorized the AUMF I'd say if half the "rank and file" Democrats voted for it I'd view that as reinforcing the call for "more and better" Democrats. The legislative branch will never regain its co-equal status unless it owns up to its responsibilities. Congress abdicated its role by authorizing that travesty. Giving any President, let alone W, a "do whatever you want card", is not fulfilling their own oaths to defend our Constitution. If Obama picks a currently elected Democrat for VP I would hope that its someone who's already shown enough wisdom to chose correctly and the strength of character to do the right thing, even if unpopular, in a crisis.

We've got a lot to fix in this country, where in the last 7 years we've discovered that we can have secret laws, secret evidence, secret witnesses, secret Presidential directives and, of course, unlimited spying and secret detentions. Then there is the economic burden that has been foisted on our descendants for several generations. Let's select our government from those who have a history of good choices.

I agree with the comment by "gussie", I want my elected officials to be smarter, wiser, and more knowledgeable than me, and still able to learn. Those are things I'm reasonably certain I have over the current resident in my White House (and no I never wanted to drink a beer with that spoiled frat boy cheerleader).

Being in favor of a war of aggression

equal to

Being in favor of a warcrime.

Not that hard to figure out really. That rationalization still workin out for you Kevin?

I am getting bad vibes. Someone is going to post something negative about me. Ignore them.

One can judge where one stood on being either for or against the Iraq war based on how they feel NOW about allowing those people who voted for the war to be given a pass on this critical decision. There were many people way back when the Iraq war was just about to start SHOUTING that they did not feel Iraq had WMD. But some were not listening.

I am not in the mood to give a bye to those who judge wrong.

I wish people would shut up about Sam Nunn. How are we supposed to make the case that McOld is too frigging senile if we put grandpa on the ticket, in the 'apprentice president' slot?

That said, I agree the selection probably doesn't make a huge difference to Obama's electability. No one currently planning to vote for Obama is going to change their minds because of who he picks as his running mate. And very few undecides are going to make up their minds on that basis either.

However, I think any of the three Virginians could shore up his support in Appalachia. And since we want both Warner and Webb in the Senate, that leaves Kaine. A governor, I might add.

After your rhetorical second graf, not counting the blockquote, Kev, why did you even bother writing this post? Getting a little SoCal heat-addled?

Some people say that one of Inkblot's ancestors was a Persian.
Worse, he's a secret Zaroastrian.

"But do you really want to send a message that supporting the war was not just a mistake, but something so heinous that it makes you unfit for higher office?"

Yes. Supporting the murder of >500,000 innocent people disqualifies you for office -- higher or lower.

Because you asked.

I went out and bought a new Miata at Ahura Mazda and now some idiotic dog is accusing me of being of persian descent and a member of a non-christian religion.

Snort. If Lassie had noticed I have short hair and a long nose. Persians are long-haired and have perky upturned noses.

Kevin : This might officially make me the most optimistic Obama supporter in the world...

You're not the most optimistic Obama supporter, not by a long ways. You haven't proclaimed him the Messiah yet.

I voted for Obama, too, but this shit gives me the willies.

Seems like the Messiah is starting to get some press scrutiny. The MSM isn't being nice today.

Of course "in favor of the war" as used above is somewhere between ignorant shorthand and mendacious propaganda.

Nah:

1. Too many gaffes.

2. Too conventional; too many Senate votes.

3. No executive experience.

Mark Warner; Lamb; Sebelius; maybe Clark or Richardson.

"That kind of insistence on ideological purity strikes me as a good way to lose votes, not gain them." - Kevin D.

I think this is missing the point. I agree that it's not reasonable to send all Democratic war supporters to "purdah," but it sounds to me like you are internalizing this in an overly personal way. We aren't talking about all Dems, we are talking about one position where matching ideology strikes me as fairly important. Picking a pro war Dem undermines one of Obamas strongest playing cards on foreign relations - that he was right from the start. It would also be nice to see some concrete examples of positive support for the ones that did get it right. From my perspective, it still looks a whole lot like the ones who were right are still sitting on the fringes of the discussion. After all, the right decision here would have saved, literally, 100s of thousands of lives.

Previous war support is certainly not the only issue to consider, but all things being equal.....

Do we really think that being opposed to the war in 2002 should be a litmus test for VP consideration in 2008?

Yes. Next question.

"Each successive American president is the perceived antidote to the one who came before him."
--Walter Mondale

"This should be a legal test of guilt in a modern Nuremberg trial."

I agree. This should be in the Hague. I don't think "crime against humanity" is too complicated here. If any country other than the US did this, it would be obvious to all our schmuck journalists.

I think he should choose Jeremiah Wright.

Booman Responds to Kevin:

Note: I really hope Kevin responds to this but since I wrote it here, my money is on no.

"My answer: Yes

It's as if Mr. Drum missed the entire primary as well as the 2004 and 2006 elections.

...In essence, Biden's reaction to the quagmire in Iraq is to have U.S. troops preside over the forced uprooting and resettlement of millions of Iraqis...

Biden's plan fits into a category called The Banality of Evil,

But even if you don't agree that the tripartite partitioning of Iraq would be a war crime, it is would still involve the necessary ongoing occupation of Iraq for another decade or four.

Selecting Biden is a non-starter for the precise reason that Biden supported the war... ...[and] solutions that amount to digging the hole bigger, at best, and that constitute a recipe for enduring national shame, at worst.

We are spending way to much time pondering WHO Obama should have as his VEEP. Now that a player has exited stage right (Johnson) folks are OUTRAGED that
Obama would have influence peddlers in his midst.

Give me a break. How many right wingnuts remember (or care) that Bush's VEEP committee had one Dick Cheyney on it? He single-handedly decided that HE should become George's VEEP. Not a peep from the MSM about Cheyney's influence pedaling. In fact, we basically let the dude set up a "shadow" government.

You can't get all high-minded over Obama's VEEP process while forgetting the strange sequence that led to Dick as George's running mate.

So let's ignore the VEEPstakes for now. It really is a distraction from the election. We do not want another POWERFUL and evil fella or gal in that position.

Well, if we want to really make sure that hawks look closely at starting wars, we need to hold them to the fire for when they were wrong.

If Obama's main case is that he was right, he should find someone who was if not equally right, at least not a proponent of the war.

And I'm saying this as someone who didn't support the war but didn't find it a compelling case for voting for Obama.

We should have an undocumented immigrant for VP candidate to show we as a nation have moved beyond racism.

The next four years, we're going to see herculean attempts at blame-shifting by the Republicans over Iraq. I have no desire to hear, every Sunday morning on every Sunday morning talk show until 2012, "Look, his own vice president voted for the war."

The top of an Obama administration really does need to come into office without that stinking albatross around their necks, so they can honestly say they are fixing somebody else's complete disaster.

From a Native American point of view, all presidential and VP candidates since 1789 have been undocumented immigrants.

Sorry, the unsigned comment was mine.

I think I'm even more optimistic than Kevin. And I wouldn't be surprised if 28 years from now, political pundits will 'still' be debating how the Republican Party should go about getting back those 'Obama Democrats.'

Maybe Obama needs to recruit from the House of Representatives. How about Congressman Peter DeFazio, he has always been very anti-war - And I know he is from Oregon but still DeFazio has done alot of great things.

"I do think "anti-war from the beginning" should be a litmus test for both president and VP until we're out of Iraq. Don't muddy the message."

BOB GRAHAM!!!!

Anti-war from the start! Told everyone who would listen! Not crazy! Can deliver Florida! Experienced!

Hello? Anyone?

You want someone qualified to be president, long time foreign policy experience, brilliant speaker, brilliant attack dog, brilliant negotiator?

Maxine Waters.

Yeah zero chance, and the U.S. is still too racist to elect two African-Americans. But she has the same chance of Obama picking her as a lot the other choices mentioned on this thread.

I agree that Bob Graham is the best choice.

Kevin supported the war and would like at least the tacit possibility to be Vice President. But, no. Supporting the war was silly, even in 2002, and unprincipled.

"I just don't see that. Do we really think that being opposed to the war in 2002 should be a litmus test for VP consideration in 2008?"

Yes.

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions. (Sorry, Kevin, you don't make the cut.)

I am simply thankful the campaign of Obama has revived the progressive movement and continues to challenge the ideology of the right, its rhetoric and inanity.
Historical memory tells us that in time a vice president will be named.
Obama brings back the notion of goodness and meaningful discussion--which represents a techtonic shift as opposed to the tired cult of Rove, Bush, and McCain

Bob Graham is nearly as old as McCain, so unless you wish to echo the Cheney example, I suggest looking for a younger version.

I'm optimistic.

Obama takes blues, plus the almost or recently wavering blues (IA, NH, NM, OR, FL), plus MT, VA, OH, NV, CO for 355 electoral votes and 29 states. He comes very close in AZ, TN, NC, and GA and surprises people in TX.

The most important factors in order;

1) Eight-year flip; many states reliably change parties every 8 years, some by fairly consistent margins.
2) Economy; close states go Democratic.
3) Unpopular war; more bias toward Democrats.
4) Massive GOP fatigue-- the biggest disgust for Republicans since Hoover.
5) Race and Age; Obama loses some Dems because of his race, but gains many more independents and Republicans because of his values and judgment. If age becomes more of a factor, e.g. McCain does something really senile, the popular vote margin will just grow.

States that flip parties every 8 years by 5 points or more are given to Obama. Iowa is a good example. Experts say they’re battleground states because they were close last 2 times, but since 1980 this state and some others (like MT) are reliable flippers. I give states that have been trending blue, (VA, CO, OH, and NV) to Obama. The only shaky blue state is Wisconsin. They’re trending red over a long period. Also, LA seems to defy typical patterns like the 8-year flip, plus the depopulation of New Orleans makes it less predictable. TX seems to be trending toward the 8-year flip pattern.

Oh yeah, having a great candidate doesn't suck.

Damn right it should be a litmus test.

What's wrong with insisting on competence? No one who advocated war, and that includes Kevin, Josh and several other "liberal hawks," should be forgiven until the dead people are alive again.

How do you sleep at night if you supported the war?

Picking Joe Biden is a non-started because last I checked he was still JOE BIDEN. And frankly, that just doesn't pass the "Not Joe Biden" litmus test that I think we need to demand from our Vice Presidental candidate.

Honestly, I don't get why anyone thinks Joe Biden would be good for the campaign. I can see him as a cabinet member, but VP? Who thinks anyone outside of Delaware has the slightest interest in voting for Joe Biden? Because they don't. He's Joe Biden. I don't care how he voted on the war, you just don't overcome a handicap like being Joe Biden.

But do you really want to send a message that supporting the war was not just a mistake, but something so heinous that it makes you unfit for higher office?

Uh, yes? In fact, Obama should say that exact sentence every single time a TV camera is trained on him. Everyone understands that there's a category of screwup in every job that's so bad that it effectively ends your career.

In addition to having supported the invasion and subsequent occupation, with no change of policy that I'm aware of, Biden has been the chief promoter of the idiotic, dangerous, and wrong wrong wrong policy of "soft partition".

So he would be a terrible, terrible pick as VP given the touchiness of the Iraq policy situation and the importance of the issue.

And wasn't he a big backer of the bankruptcy "reform"? Like any senator from Delaware...

[Do readers claim that] supporting the war was not just a mistake, but something so heinous that it makes you unfit for higher office?

No, you idiot. But inability to recognize the error and face up to it certainly is. Especially when the case against war was so obvious, and could be arrived at from multiple angles. For example:
* no nukes, per El Baradei and Blix.
* no Al Qaeda connection
* no threat to the middle-east
* Oil--Saddam was a better oil supplier than any we'll get now
* there are worse human rights violators elsewhere, and anyway bush is president of the US, not iraq
* ...

I've no idea where Biden stands on this, and I don't care--unless he's veep.

"But do you really want to send a message that supporting the war was not just a mistake, but something so heinous that it makes you unfit for higher office?"

Yes, yes I do.

"But do you really want to send a message that supporting an optional war against a country which has no capability of attacking you was not just a mistake, but something so heinous that it makes you unfit for higher office?"

Since you put it that way, Kevin, yes. Liberal hawks advocated what the country formerly known as America defined at Nuremburg as a war crime.

Amit Joshi: In Biden's (pitifully limited) defense, Blix and Baradei had not made their judgments at the time of the AUMF vote. The inspections came later. It was perfectly reasonable, at the time of the vote, to conjecture that Saddam was probably running a nuke program. The problems were that it was never more than a conjecture, and no existential threat to the US even if it were true.

IMHC (in my humble certainty), Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards all voted for the AUMF for one reason and one reason only. They believed that failure to approve this war crime would foreclose any chance to become President. The fact that this was their motivation makes it triply imperative that Obama draw a line in the sand that says: Oh, no. Sometimes, just sometimes, voting in favor of a criminal war may actually reduce your chances of making it into the White House. So next time, try voting your conscience instead of your ambition.

It is to Kevin's credit that he didn't share that low motive. But his lousy judgment and seeming indifference to essentially every tenet of Just War theory are still sufficient that I would advise Obama to keep his name, too, off the VP search list.

But do you really want to send a message that supporting the war was not just a mistake, but something so heinous that it makes you unfit for higher office? I don't think so.

Anyone who supported the war for the reasons stated at that time has a predisposition to wantonly use US military force for economic or political imperialism, and that, it seems to me, ought to disqualify anyone from consideration for the VP slot.

Good evening. O, it is excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant. Help me! There is an urgent need for sites: Airbrush tanning st louis. I found only this - airbrush tanning business. Airbrush tanning, croatia is one of those knees where you also know to value production and learn every bed certain. Airbrush tanning, there are many tips of aging spots foremost in the skin. THX ;-), Nathan from Turkmenistan.

This page seems to get a large ammount of visitors. How do you promote it? It offers a nice individual twist on things. I guess having something useful or substantial to give info on is the most important factor.