Chuck Norris.
Think about it. The evildoers Obama doesn't destroy can be kicked to death by Norris.
You get the trailer park/Jesus freak vote as well, as well as all those who Jeff Foxworthy described as rednecks ("If an episode of Walker Texas Ranger changed your life ...").
Henry Cupcake Rollins could kick his ass. http://www.henryrollins.com/
of the discussed front runners, biden is the least odious.
however, there's nothing more odious than the thought of "president mcCain".
nothing.
Minstrel Boy:
Worse than 'President Cheney'?
Okay, my wild and crazy suggestion: Caroline Kennedy.
Sebelius.
I must compliment the continued internal discipline of the Obama campaign as to the selection. If they can keep the lid on until the text message gets sent, that will really be something.
Tough call.
I liked Clark, and that Obama basically kicked him out of the tent, is a minus for Barack, in my book.
"least odious" is not an unfair qualification, to me. :o)
Prolly; Biden.
Despite some career gaffes, I think he's harmless enough, and he WAS speaking the truth, years ago, when he said that partition in Iraq is what's for dinner. That was accurate and sorta ballsy, too.
like richardson...probably biden or soemone not on any radar.
Re-thinking Biden...
His willingness to pour a billion more bucks into Georgia is just...wrong.
and so is Obama for saying the same thing.
Who's to say that it won't be Clark and we've all been head-faked?
I can dream, at least, right?
What does everyone think of the negotiated troop withdrawals? Since McCain seems to want to stay there for one hundred years, doesn't this undermine him? Or is there something more insidious that I'm missing--perhaps to rob the Obama administration of taking the credit for initiating the withdrawals?
Anybody? Anybody?
Ultimate guide here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
commen...008.barackobama
Last night on Countdown, Wolffe pointed out that even the 'short list' is only a short list in the heads of pundits. It's all sourced back to pundits, and there's really no sourcing of it close to Obama.
I agree that the message discipline is extraordinary, and it's a good sign for Democrats who are able to wield that much control. Usually it's more like herding cats.
It certainly keeps the press talking about Obama's choice much more than McCain's. By the end of next week, though, nobody will really care.
I also hope that Bayh is just a head fake.
DWT made a compelling case that it's Clinton. Easy enough to change the DNC schedule, I'd guess. Altho I'd hate to have to admit that Nader was right.
Biden makes the most logical sense from a meta strategic point of view. His Senate seat is guaranteed to stay in Dem hands as DE has a Dem Governor. Be a chance to appoint some younger up-and-comer to Biden's seat and move on.
Bayh would mean the IN Senate seat goes Repug as the governor is Repug. That alone is a compelling reason not to pick Bayh as it's not like he's head and shoulders above all the other candidates.
Personally I like Clark and Richardson. But for reasons I don't entirely fathom, they don't seem to be short-listed.
My own darkhorse candidate is Chet Edwards who happens to be my own Congressman from the TX-17th (Waco and surrounding towns). Chet would bring a whole lot of strengths to the ticket. Very strong on veterans affairs. He does all the heartland baptist stuff better than any Dem I've ever seen yet he's not a conservative blue dog type. He's the guy to turn loose in the heartland. Course the TX-17th would never again be held by a Dem as this is the most highly Republican district in the country currently held by a Dem. So it goes, TX will be redistricting in 2 years anyway.
Clark would be great
Sibelius would be great, but don't know about foreign policy, if that's an issue.
Biden would be acceptable, but doesn't do much either way.
Please, no one who tacks to the right like Bayh. This is no time for trying to accommodate asshats who won't vote for Obama anyway. He did that with that stoopit Rick Warren appearance last week.
tanbark: Re-thinking Biden...
His willingness to pour a billion more bucks into Georgia is just...wrong.
and so is Obama for saying the same thing.
gotta feed the military-industrial complex (and there will be NO change coming from Obama)
LC, good ask.
My take; with Iraq dangling from McCain's and the GOP's necks like a 6 year old dead chicken as we head into the meat of the campaign, they HAVE to give some kind of half-assed lip service to a "date". It will, of course, be a game of chicken, with the Iraqi goverment. But I think THEIR threat of mustering up a parliamentary majority demanding that we get out, will outweigh bush's threat to do it instanter, and leave the place at the mercy of the factions, immediately. That has no cred, at this point. For the jingo's who dragged us into this, fending off the denouement is the name of the game. In fact, at this point, the "plan" for the petro-turds is simply to use our military and the U.S. Treasury to try to string it out until they can toss the pinless hand-grenade into the democrats laps.
I think, and fervently hope, that Obama is going to go after McCain with both barrels over Iraq. I believe it is going to be THE issue, after the conventions.
The voters will not be happy about anyone continuing an open-ended committment to the shitmire. And Obama, with that 2002 speech, and the fact that he doesn't have the authorization vote on his record, is in perfect position to capitalize on the clusterfuck in general, and specifically, that bush's payola setup for the insurgents is coming unravelled.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/s...tory/
49538.html
The Shiite-dominated government is tired of watching bush arm, fund, and train their old oppressors, the Sunnis. They're tired of seeing bush play factional musical chairs, and all that bush has left is to threaten them with a guick exit, leaving them to the possibilities of bloody civil strife. Ominiously, I think the Shia are very close to being willing to take their chances with that.
That's what Maliki's recent raids on the "Awakening Councils" are about. He's saying: "WE will decide who we want in the Iraqi security forces; not george bush or David Petraeus."
Getting back to the thing of a formal agreement on withdrawal; the problem for bush is that the Shiites who control most of the government, and the parliament, both know that they can get a better deal from Obama, who doesn't have quite the same vested interest in seeing Iraq morphed into our 51st state.
Given that, and I believe it's true, where is the incentive for them to sign a SOFA (status of forces agreement), or to cut sweetheart oil deals with Big Oil?
What can bush offer Malika and the Shiites that will make them tie Obama's hands on an agreement with the specifics that BUSH wants; namely, long-term bases, and firsties on Iraq's oil?
I think that's pretty much the question. At this point, I don't know if there IS anything bush can
offer them. The provincial elections that were to have preceded our election are not going to happen this year. That's something else that will occur on the next president's watch, if at all.
It really is a house of cards, with the Sunnis, like good Mafioso, knowing when they've got a "mark" in bush, and demanding a raise in the protection money, at the same time Maliki and the Shia are getting tired of bush's buying get-out-of-Dodge time by empowering the Sunni insurgents.
Pick your metaphor:
Rubber band stretched to the breaking point...
Angry red zit, ready to pop...
Trying to prop up a rotten building until you can stick the next owner with it...
Gonna be a hell of a two-and-a-half months.
Biden, Kaine or Schweitzer. Why? Cause Al Giordano says so.
Mayberry Machiavelis
A good name for these people and the shitmire they have created. I remember laughing the first time I saw the phrase--after eight years, it's no longer funny.
On some unconscious level, my mind still refuses to believe that the Iraq war, the busting of the economy, and all the other evils were deliberately done. Some part of me want to think the neocons are super incompetent and not super evil.
LC: that's an ongoing debate;
...were they arch-fiends who cobbled up this misery to swing amurka into the grip of right-wing paranoia and arrogance and try to enhance the "validity" of their twisted worldview?
Or were they just a bunch of corporate peckerheads who could fuck up an anvil?
I think some of both.
Seeing as how Jenna Jameson lacks the necessary foreign policy gravitas, a Vice President Seka would solve a lot of electoral problems.
How about Kucinich for VP? 
Its Clark. No question.
But, if it's not then I agree with aviva and Caroline Kennedy works for me. Or Cupcake.... either one.
I really think it has to be Clark though.
Biden is kinda a boob when he talks alot of the time. He has his moments, but I just don't think so.
Its Clark.
I'd agree with driftglass, but I don't know what the hell he's talking about.
oh yeah, before the spelling police git me again "It's". There
Heh, Drifty's 'veiled' reference to porn stars as VP harkens to whores in da white house!!!
I think.
And he's got a point . . . politico's as whores is NOT a new concept . . . almost as old as the olderest profession . . . but then, it's the chicken and egg thing . . . who came first, the whores, or the politico's?
My money's on the whore's, cuz THEIR customers and clients ALWAYS come first!!!!
Drifty, yer a cad, ya know . . . and now I'm one, too. Sigh. 
The Hillary flacks are doing their weekly rehab on her, dragging her out of the closet like she was some inflatable beach toy, as they cling to some hope of a miracle that will let her snake the nomination-process in Denver.
Veep is the back-up option for a lot of them, I do believe.
And, her brother Tony, who's a bit of a...maverick...(giggle) has been schmoozing with some McBush honchos about supporting St. John.
Here's the piece, in the UK Telegraph.
It's funnier than hell, a "good read" for sure. :o)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ohn-
McCain.html
Perverse me :o) ;
the thought occurs that Hillary Clinton may be MOST politically valuable to Barack Obama, for him to take a giant, PUBLIC, crap on her head, to demonstrate to the voters his political courage.
(No smileface big enough...:o) )
Like a lot of the regulars here at the GNB, I don't like some of the positions that Obama has lately taken, BUT!...mixing it up over at Digby's, with Hillary's energizer-bunny supporters who keep trying to inflict her on us for veep, I googled up Obama's speech on October 2nd, 2002, in which he showed us, with brilliant logic and passion, why he's about to become the democratic nominee for president.
He made it 8 days before Clinton and 28 other Senate democrats laid down like dogs and gave bush the authorization to drag us into Iraq, using enough bullshit and patrio-koolaid to fill an Olympic pool.
My 2c; those 29 futurists need not apply for the veep spot.
Here it is:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ba...a'
s_Iraq_Speech
His words shine like gold.
And when I see the clip of Hillary saying that she and McCain have the stuff to be commander in chief, but not Obama, all HE has is this speech, I feel like screaming at the monitor:
"What have YOU got now, you bushCo lickspittle?"
Commenting by HaloScan
