Dr. Vendre un Canard a Moitie ([info]blackpepper) wrote,
@ 2008-08-17 21:16:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
All In -- a last look at VP picks
You should be getting your text message any day now. As such, many people have been making their last, best guesses as to who will be Barack Obama's running mate -- trying to figure out exactly what the campaign's strategy will be, since the VP pick gives an idea of what they think their own strengths and weaknesses are. The betting markets say Bayh, Biden and Kaine are the likeliest. Here are my guesses:



1. Gen. Wesley Clark -- a southern guy and Clinton ally, he has more military cred than McCain, and he was against the war from the beginning.




2. Sen. Joe Biden -- he's smart, knows foreign policy, would make a good "attack dog" veep; there seems to be a growing consensus that he's the likeliest pick.




3. Gov. Brian Schweitzer -- he has been my favorite dark horse for the last few months. I have this nagging suspicion that Obama might pull him out of the hat. He's affable, avuncular, articulate, progressive; hails from a new, albeit small, swing state (Montana); and he gels with this whole "new politics" vibe of Obama. You can see that rhetoric in full display in this video. I would love to see this guy get it, but the foreign policy expertise is lacking.




4. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius -- people seem to think she would make a great candidate, although I'm not sure why. Sebelius has done good work as the progressive governor of a very conservative state (Kansas), but she seems a bit stiff and does not seem to help on the variables of foreign policy, winning a swing state, etc. If Kos and Nate Silver think she would be a good pick, though, there must be something to it. (That being said, my friend Antonio noted that Obama-Sebelius sounds like a character from Star Wars.)




5. Sen. Hillary Clinton -- as hard as it would be to do this now, picking her might completely nuke McCain out of consideration by rallying the discontented in Ohio, Florida, etc.

(Post a new comment)


[info]vicariously_i
2008-08-18 01:56 am UTC (link)
A lot of Military folk don't care for Clark because of the handling of the Kosovo conflict, even though Milsoevic was conducting his own form of genocide. But, then again, most military folk will be voting McCain anyway.

Biden's the logical choice, though my fingers are still crossed for you-know-who.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]blackpepper
2008-08-18 02:50 am UTC (link)
Yeah, you still can't discount Webb... it's possible.

Apparently, Obama has a 6-to-1 advantage in donations from active military personnel. And he is leading about self-identified Christian voters. These facts never lead the media to say McCain has a "military problem" or a "Christian problem." At least Clark didn't get a whole lot of soldiers killed in the Kosovo adventure, unlike Johnny Mac and his incredible sense of "judgment" in Iraq.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]zzzing
2008-08-18 12:48 pm UTC (link)
Obama is a supreme politician. Issues are almost meaningless when it comes to VP this year. He's already handicapped by his race, so he won't pick a woman, and he won't pick Schweitzer because he's too fat. Cringe if you want, but these are very real considerations that I'm absolutely sure they're talking about. It'll be Biden all the way, I have no doubt. If someone gave me 100 dollars, I'd bet 99 of it on Biden, and just keep the other 1 because, hey, free dollar. Obama will win the election and Biden will be the VP, stamp it, mark it, put it in the mail, it's already done.

also,
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2008/08/two-paths-for-libertarian-party.html

Here's some David Friedman to expand your view this politico season a bit so you don't get republocrat tunnel vision. it's common in an election year.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]blackpepper
2008-08-18 06:59 pm UTC (link)
I think the Obama phenomenon is rooted in the effort by constituencies in the Democratic party who felt taken-for-granted to exert greater influence on the coalition - some part of organized labor, MoveOn, the academics, etc. The niche that revolted with Nader and returned to support Dean has been amplified by the Obama campaign, which does hail from the left flank of the Democrats, however much BHO may try to alter that image in the next few months. People like me support him as a conscious political strategy to try to influence one of the the two major parties, just like the Libertarians and Socialists have done at other times. We feel like this is the most auspicious moment for that kind of strategy.

What do you think Barr's impact will be?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]vicariously_i
2008-08-18 07:47 pm UTC (link)
"People like me support him as a conscious political strategy to try to influence one of the the two major parties"

That's about dead-on, Alex. If the party system cannot be abolished (or expanded as far as exposure for the other parties), then the major parties--with their own built-in check and balance on each other--need to acknowledge that the American Public cares less about their lines in the sand and more about results. It just so happens that Barack Obama has come up in the Democrat party, and (I feel) he's using them for exposure just as much as they're using him for notoriety and an alley for the White House. There are some things I don't agree with Obama on (Windfall profits tax, A more PC stance with nations like Iran), but as far as the ideas for shaping up the U.S. as far as internal improvements and International image are concerned, he is one of the most promising politicians I have ever seen. Plus, I think his "lack of experience" translates into "lack of corruption", at least when it comes to bipartisan compromise and collaboration.

I would love to see a ticket that featured more big-name options than just McCain and Obama in November, because I think that the public needs exposure to more diversity when it comes to the most touted office in the land.

But, then again, a lack of solidarity within a party leads them into the same problems the Libertarians have been having all along. Though the numbers of people my age (20-25) who are considering themselves Libertarian are increasing, even if they don't "understand economics" or "have a higher I.Q. on average"; people like the basic principle of "leave accountability up to the individual", no matter on what level it is. If this trend continues, and semi big-name people (like Ron Paul) keep on coming out of the woodworks, the Libertarian party could expand greatly. (personally, I find it kind of funny that the libertarian party would associate as a collective, given the nature of their principles).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]zzzing
2008-08-18 08:36 pm UTC (link)
"leave accountability up to the individual" is a huge misunderstanding of libertarianism; its actually the most dangerous misunderstanding, because it makes people think libertarians are these heartless freaks. The point is not to let the poor starve, or get rid of safety nets...economic safety nets are essential in a society, we need them. Honestly, I think welfare, for instance, is a fantastic idea; most libertarians do too. there are people out there who get the shit end of the stick, this is a fact, and its not because they're not trying hard enough, its not because they're stupid, it's because they were born into a shitty situation, and they need help. I recognize this just like anyone else does.
But government welfare doesn't work. it funnels money through layer after layer of waste and corruption, whereas companies like KIVA.org do it in the free market, better. There is no competition for government welfare, its influenced by lobbyests from big corporations who have more influence than voters. Thats the whole point of libertarianism, not this dog eat dog, let the poor starve mentality. thats probably the most important thing that people have to understand about libertarianism, it's not anti-poor, or anti-helping, or even anti-welfare...its anti-monopoly.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]zzzing
2008-08-18 08:51 pm UTC (link)
do you think there will be more Ron Paul type politicians coming up? I can't really see anyone like him on the horizon.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]vicariously_i
2008-08-18 09:10 pm UTC (link)
I don't think there's anyone quite like him in Washington. But his influence is being felt amongst young conservatives who don't jive with the crass nature of everything McCain (and Republican), and at least some of those people are eventually going to go into public office. Also, even though Hillary's train has been derailed (no matter what she thinks), there are still a lot of supporters for Paul who simply don't think McCain's a viable answer...and you can't shut them up. Kind of like how the Dems did with Obama, the Republicans need to find a conservative leader who isn't so abrasive, or stubborn. Some would say that is the nature of the Neo-con, and I wouldn't disagree.

Regarding Libertarians: I like the idea of Libertarianism, and think it is far more humanistic than most of the alternatives. But my major qualm with it is that it has always seemed to ride on the assumption that people want to progress themselves (or humanity) with the fruits of their own labors, and that, when given the opportunity, people will always err on the side of a positive moral judgment. That's why I feel that a free-market economy wouldn't work, in the long run: because a market wouldn't "take care of itself" if there were no strict guidelines or punishments. I agree that there are a lot of people that abuse Welfare, government this and that, and that a byproduct of government spending/control is self-justification, but I also believe that if it wasn't in place, there would be a lot of dead, sick and homeless because of general apathy/lack of funds.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]zzzing
2008-08-18 08:47 pm UTC (link)
I think Barr will get fewer real voters than his polls are showing. They'll come more from the republican side, obviously, but he'll get a good amount from the dems too, mostly from converted dem to Ron Paul supporters.
Optimistically, he may damage the neo-cons influence in the republican party and soften it a bit, but other than that, I don't really see him doing much of anything. I think Obama is so ahead at this point that he doesn't even need Barr to draw republican voters away from McCain to win.

I think he'll just be a blimp on the radar of the larger political scene, and his only real impact will be the huge rift he's created in the libertarian party.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]zzzing
2008-08-19 02:32 am UTC (link)
blimp on the radar?
BLIP

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]blackpepper
2008-08-19 01:17 pm UTC (link)
a blimp in hipster glasses

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]blackpepper
2008-08-19 01:17 pm UTC (link)
at least he might draw some attention to your cause, which has been lacking in the last few years (at least until the paul phenomenon).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]zzzing
2008-08-23 06:36 pm UTC (link)
his cause isn't my cause

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…