Edwards for Obama

Marc Ambinder thinks he's uncovered the Mystery of Barack Obama's 6:30 p.m. "major endorsement." A top staffer is out of the office today. And…

What's Wendy Button, Edwards's longtime speechwriter, been doing lately? I hear she's been writing a secret speech… (Her facebook profile includes this entry for 3pm: "Wendy just finished writing the speech.")

How come Edwards's brain trust -- all of them -- are unreachable?

Who's on this flight?

That's some pretty good reporting. A little while after Ambinder posts a link to a lear jet flightpath from North Carolina to Michigan, the Associated Press reports that Edwards will endorse Obama.

reason's coverage of Edwards, never very positive, is collected here. The network chatter right now seems to focus on Edwards' appeal to white voters, and indeed, Clinton's recovery of late has come from downloading Edwards rhetoric and booting it up on her system. Something that really drives a stake into Hillary: Edwards has delegates. He has a mere 19 left over from the four primaries he participated in, but he has, at the lowest estimate, 13 delegates from currently-disqualified Florida. If Clinton succeeds in seating all of Florida's delegates as elected in the state's non-contested primary, she'll net only 28 delegates more than Obama and Edwards combined. Joe Trippi's fantasy about his ex-client as a kingmaker isn't that far-fetched.

Comments

[Pro Libertate]

John Edwards, Man of Jello. His endorsement is about as relevant and important as, well, John Edward's. Yes, I mean the psychic.

[Neil]

Two empty liberal Democrat suits with paper-thin records. They truly deserve eachother.

[Bramblyspam]

No news here. Obama is obviously the nominee, and the democratic establishment is going to line up behind him.

[Jim Gannon]

PL, the psychic is John Edward (no "s"). Though, I completely agree with your point.

[Jim Gannon]

Please ignore my post; I didn't see the apostrophe, doh.

[Pro Libertate]

Neil/thoreau,

I agree completely. The Democrats should be ashamed. At least McCain has given us a record of reasons not to like him. These mystery candidates should never, ever see the light of day. If we've learned nothing else, we should at least have learned that words are worse than useless in judging presidential (or any other kind of) candidates.

Jim Gannon,

My apostrophes are stealthy, it's true.

[Neil]

John McCain has a long and distinguished record of public service and true achievement.

Obama OTOH is nothing without his prepared speeches.

[J sub D]

Obama/Edwards 2008.
The deal is done. That is my prediction.
I'll crow if I'm right. I'll be an insufferable ass. I feel this one.

[Pro Libertate]

To be sure, I don't think that everything McCain's ever done is bad, and I even hold out a slight chance that he won't be abysmal on domestic policy. However, he's played on the wrong side too many times for me to trust him, and I think he jumps for the military solution too quickly to be president.

J sub D,

I don't think so. Obama will need major bolstering--expect an experienced VP. One who makes you wonder why the ticket isn't inverted.

[Adamness]

Obama/Edwards 2008.

Nah. Two senators with limited 'experience' isn't a good idea. Not to mention Edwards is a proven loser. Maybe he'll get AG or something, but Obama needs a governor, military guy or someone other than a two-term senator.

[R C Dean]

Edwards really blew his timing on this one. About 10 days ago, right before the NC/Indiana primaries, it might have actually mattered if endorsed someone. Now that the Big O has it in the bag, its nothing.

[Jay J]

Wow Senator Edwards, that's very courageous of you, now that the race is more or less over...

[ChicagoTom]

About a month ago, he said he wasn't gonna endorse cuz he wasn't happy with either of their platforms.

I am guessing the endorsement is more of a nudge to Hillary to get the fuck out of the way

[joe]

I'm with RC; I don't know what he's thinking. I figured, once he refused to endorse anyone in March or April, that he was going to go to the convention with his delegates.

On the other hand, John Edwards and Barack Obama have actually run elections, so it's within the realm of possibility that they know about this than Mr. Dean and myself.

[Dwayne Mayor]

"Obama will need major bolstering--expect an experienced VP. One who makes you wonder why the ticket isn't inverted."

Not sure I agree with this. I much rather have the gentleman orator in the front seat, as the representative head of the nation vs. an uninspiring, "experienced" candidate who rightly, ought to be relegated to the VP position. Besides, Obama has demonstrated the character and intelligence necessary to choose very able advisers, so the "experience" argument is a moot point. Pericles, the eminent orator, didn't have much experience either and Athens passed through its golden age under his wise rule.

[Dwayne Mayor]

Ditto for Lincoln. There is a far stronger link between rhetorical ability and a successful presidency than number of years as political jobholder as testified by some 6,000 odd years of human civilization. The greatest leaders, the masters of men were almost invariably the greatest orators, not the most experienced.

[joe]

I think Jack Cafferty just put his finger on it; this is about trumping Hillary's press the day after West Virginia.

She went around taping interviews for tonight's nooz and chat shows. And now this.

So, what do you lead with: the #3 candidate endorsing the guy with a tight lead, or West Virginia?

[Bramblyspam]

Endorsement, yes. Veep candidate? I don't think so. Obama's campaign will be all about change, new ideas, and reaching out to everyone. I expect the veep candidate to reflect that.

Here's what I'm seeing in Obama's VP candidate:
- older white male
- anti-war, but not necessarily for immediate withdrawal
- someone with ideas, not a partisan hack
- consensus-builder with a track record of accomplishment
- not a longtime DC establishment politician

The ideal candidate would be a governor of perhaps ten years, probably from someplace out west.

Hmm. Bill Richardson, anyone?

[Tacos mmm...]

I don't think so. Obama will need major bolstering--expect an experienced VP. One who makes you wonder why the ticket isn't inverted.

Presidents are supposed to be figureheads. Or, at least they were.

[Neil]

Bill Richardson isn't white.

The smart choice would be my governor, Mike Easley.

[Neil]

Does he automatically get his delegates?

I don't know the Democrat rules.

[joe]

I like a steady, even if unspectacular, hand on the tiller for VP. In case of the president's death, resignation, or incapacitation, there could very well be a huge national emergency going on. There will certainly be a political crisis.

For this reason, I never liked the idea of a junior officeholder being picked for VP. I think Edwards was a terrible choice for Kerry, too cute by half. I want someone who can sit in the big boy chair and be ready from Day 1 just in case. I weight this even more heavily for VP than for president, who is going to take over in a much smoother fashion, with a nice long lead-up. I put more weight on ideology, policy, and vision in a presidential candidate, while I'd be more willing to bend on those in a VP.

Someone like Richard Cohen or Ike Skelton would be better than Obama/Edwards in my mind, even though I'm probably closer to Edwards poitically, and recognize his immense political appeal.

[joe]

Does he automatically get his delegates?

I don't know the Democrat rules.

First, the Edwards delegates come together and talk about their feelings...

[Neil]

How about Jim Webb, Joe?

[David Weigel]

If you combine Richardson and Obama, you get one white guy. (They both had white mothers.)

[Elemenope]

Hmm. Bill Richardson, anyone?

Been saying that shit for goin' on a year now. He's *the perfect choice*, IMO. Complements Obama very well, and is from a part of the country that is really a toss-up come election time.

[Rick Barton]

Edwrds as VP candidate? Nothing says working class white folks like John Edwards....

"Don't leave, I'm on your side. Ya know I hate those corporations....Careful son, don't muss my hair."

So to get this stupid war ended, looks like we're gonna have to put up with the likes of these idiots. Too bad the Dems in congress won't use their majorities to end the war by simply not voting to fund it. Course then they couldn't use the war for their own political purposes this election.

joe:

so it's within the realm of possibility that they know about this than Mr. Dean and myself.

It's hard for me to imagine Obama and Edwards knowing more about much of anything of interest than you two. That's cuz I've read lots of what you guys have written and I've also watched Obama and Edwards on TV some- well, as much as I could without getting into a masochist trip.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Edwards always seemed kind of "slick and disingenuous" to me. Even for a politician. That said, him endorsing Obama would be good news from my perspective.
I would like Richardson as VP on Obama's ticket.

[joe]

Webb would be another example of the type I'm talking about, and has a lot of other virtues as a running mate.

[thoreau]

Neil/thoreau,

WTF?

[Rick Barton]

thoreau,

Yeah, I was kinda wondering too..

[thoreau]

joe-

I can believe that the decision to endorse today instead of, say, next week might be because of West Virginia. But the decision to wait this long? I think he blew his timing. He could have endorsed Obama a few weeks ago and maybe nudged a few votes in Indiana. I don't know how much following Edwards has there, but with a 51-49 margin, it couldn't have hurt. Aside from the endorsement there would have also been the momentum conferred by having a few extra delegates and an endorsement that might move a few super-delegates as well.

[NP]

John Nichols actually caught Edwards' slip of the tongue a couple of days ago.

[zoltan]

Dwayne Mayor: What about Reagan and FDR? They kinda demolish your argument.

[SIV]

So to get this stupid war ended, looks like we're gonna have to put up with the likes of these idiots.

Why do people think Obama is going to "end the war"?

[Rick Barton]

He voted against it.

[Art-P.O.G.]

What about Reagan and FDR?

I thought they were both fairly strong orators. Although I'm used to hearing mostly sound bites and I'm also used to listening to a president who sounds like he suffers from dyslexia or some speech pathology.

[Neil]

Obama won't end the war. He can't, its impossible. Too many consequences frm that.

Liberals will be whining about how he never accomplished that come 2012 in the unlikely event Hussein is elected.

[Pottsy]

To me, Edwards has always been the Smiler from Transmetropolitan.

[Neil]

Bottom line:

The voters will remember what life was like under the last two Democrat Presidents and vote accordingly.

Clinton: Embarassing scandals, a face of weakness to the foreign wolrd, and refused to take Osama prisoner even when he was offered him on a silver platter.

Carter: Gas lines, inflation, hostages, appeasement of terrorists, unemployment, and a weakened America.

[zoltan]

Art, I mean they were strong orators but that certainly didn't make them good or great presidents. Now that I think about it, though, Dwayne might be saying all great presidents/leaders would be good orators, but not all good orators are good leaders. Of course, along with his examples of Lincoln and Pericles, you could add Hitler. Not a great person, but a pretty efficient leader.

[Neil]

Before the liberal Democrat hacks trot out the Clinton economic myth:

1) The 90s weren't as good as the '80s

2) There was a severe economic downturn that began well before Clinton left office that Bush, armed with tax cuts, reversed into the Bush Boom

[zoltan]

Hey Neil, check out the year of my birth: 1987.

[Rick Barton]

Bramblyspam:

anti-war, but not necessarily for immediate withdrawal

Yeah cuz after only five years we wouldn't want to do anything hasty.

older white male

What? So you're saying that a Lesbian Asian atheist doesn't motivate the right demographic?

someone with ideas, not a partisan hack

And he should always remember to take his vitamins too.

[Elemenope]

The voters will remember what life was like under the last two Democrat Presidents and vote accordingly.

Ha. Ha ha. Hah hah hahhhh! Hah, hah [choke] HAAAAAH [gurgle] hahha...

He. He heee hah haaaah. [Gasp]

Hehe.

I'm sorry. WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY ABOUT THE MEMORIES OF VOTERS? Please repeat it; my conscious mind was temporarily obliterated by hysterical laughter.

[Bramblyspam]

It's Neil again. What do you expect?

Of course the voters will remember all the unspeakable horrors of the Clinton and Carter presidencies, while conveniently forgetting everything that has happened under Dubya.

[Neil]

Reagan was the greatest thing to happen to this country in the last 50 years, like it or not.

Carter was a weakling, and Clinton was too busy getting involved in corrupt sex scandals to get bin Laden.

He WAS offered bin Laden by the Sudanese govt in 1997. Google it.

[Neil]

George W. Bush will be like Harry Truman.

Despised in his own time, but fondly remembered by history for his hard but correct decisions and eloquent statements.

[Rick Barton]

Neil,

We Republicans should hope that they remember Reagan and forget GW Bush. The best vs one a the worst in modern times.

This year it's Bob Barr or some Libertarian nominee who'll get my vote for Pres. They're lotsa true limited government Republicans to work for for other offices-at least here in Colorado.

[Neil]

FDR is to Reagan as George W. Bush is to Harry Truman, Rick.

[Elemenope]

Despised in his own time, but fondly remembered by history for his hard but correct decisions and eloquent statements.

I will remember George W. Bush fondly as the man who destroyed the Republican party.

That will *certainly* go down in the history books. 1854-2008; not a bad run. It took a man of such talents as Bush to end it.

In retrospect, seeing what he did to the Rangers should have been a big clue.

[Rick Barton]

Neil:

George W. Bush... fondly remembered by history for his hard but correct decisions...

Get the f**k outa here. Umm LOL

...and eloquent statements.

That's gota be a joke, right? Neil??

[Neil]

Its not a joke.

From the beginning George W. Bush was deadly serious.

And so am I.

[Bramblyspam]

Speaking of eloquent statements...

[Mark]

Neil, are you serious? He'll be remembered for his "eloquent statements"? What planet have you been living upon?

[Neil]

They laughed at Harry Truman, too, Bramblyspam.

[Rick Barton]

But eloquent?? Cmon, Neil. You might wanna establish some credibility some day or something.

[Neil]

Rick, he made correct decisions.

He was the right man to be our Commander-in-Chief after the Islamofascist confronted us.

Remember his speech before Congress after 9/11? That was for the ages.

[Neil]

Hes also kept us safe. Kept us safe for nearly 8 years.

No 9/11s since then.

Why do you think that is? I credit George W. Bush for keeping us safe from Islamofascism.

[Bramblyspam]

Heh, Neil, you're reminding me of another Bush speech for the ages.

Yeah, that one's a low blow, but funny all the same. 🙂

[Neil]

What DID you think of his great, Churchillian speech after 9/11 Bramblyspam?

I'll tell you what: a Democrat-controlled federal government = many more 9/11s.

[Rick Barton]

Bramblyspam at 9:09pm,

That's an interesting speculation in that vid.

BTW, I just happened upon this while I was checking that one out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&NR=1

What's up with that?

[Neil]

I'll admit it, though, Carter did give one excellent speech.

[Rick Barton]

Neil:

Rick, he made correct decisions.

He was the right man to be our Commander-in-Chief after the Islamofascist confronted us.

Like Hell! He let the neocons con him into attacking Iraq-A wasteful tragedy.

[joe]

Some people believe in the Easter Bunny.

Neil thinks he was a Reagan delegate at the 76 convention.

[Neil]

I was born in '70, Joe, so that would be impossible.

But I remember Reagan fondly. Greatest President in my lifetime.

Who do you think was the greatest President in yours Joe?

[Neil]

Wrong link.

This was one great speech Carter made. Possibly the only good speech he made.

[Kolohe]

From the beginning George W. Bush was deadly serious.

Well he has been seriously deadly.

[joe]

Greatest in my lifetime?

Geez, we've had a run of stinkers.

Clinton? Ford? Neither of them screwed anything up too badly.

[Bramblyspam]

The reason why the U.S. hasn't been targeted since 9/11 has nothing to do with Bush. Al Qaeda made a strategic decision to target our European allies while leaving the U.S. alone.

There is good evidence that this shift in Al Qaeda's scheme was the product of deliberate choice. In December 2003, the Norwegian intelligence service found a lengthy Al Qaeda planning document on a radical Islamic Web site that described a coherent strategy for compelling the United States and its allies to leave Iraq.

It made clear that more spectacular attacks against the United States like those of 9/11 would be insufficient, and that it would be more effective to attack America's European allies, thus coercing them to withdraw their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and increasing the economic and military burdens that the United States would have to bear.

In particular, the document weighed the advantages of attacking Britain, Poland and Spain, and concluded that Spain in particular, because of the high level of domestic opposition to the Iraq war, was the most vulnerable.

"It is necessary to make utmost use of the upcoming general election in Spain in March next year," the document stated. "We think that the Spanish government could not tolerate more than two, maximum three, blows, after which it will have to withdraw as a result of popular pressure. If its troops still remain in Iraq after these blows, then the victory of the Socialist Party is almost secured, and the withdrawal of the Spanish forces will be on its electoral program."

We all know how that turned out. Bombing Madrid and London was no problem at all. If you seriously think that it would be any harder to bomb targets in the United States, you're dreaming.

Al Qaeda's strategy isn't to blow up stuff in America, it is to bankrupt us by bleeding us dry with massive war expenditures.

The October video, released just before the U.S. election, offers a glimpse into the jihadist strategy. "We are continuing in the same policy to make America bleed profusely to the point of bankruptcy," said bin Laden. His logic is simple: To bring the U.S. to suffer a fate similar to that of the Soviet Union, the terrorists need to drain America's resources and bring it to the point it can no longer afford to preserve its military and economic dominance. As the U.S. loses standing in the Middle East, the jihadists can gain ground and remove from power regimes they view as corrupt and illegitimate while defeating other infidels who inhabit the land of Islam.

Three methods comprise Al Qaeda's economic war against the U.S. The first is the destruction of high-cost qualitative targets by low-cost qualitative means. The 2001 attack on the World Trade Center is a perfect example of how terrorists can get more bang for their cheap buck. Bin Laden cited estimates that Al Qaeda spent $500,000 to carry out the attacks of September 11, which caused America to lose more than $500 billion. "Every dollar of Al Qaeda defeated a million [U.S.] dollars," bin Laden concluded.

That strategy, needless to say, is working like a charm, thanks to Bush.

[Neil]

Joe, you really don't think Reagan was a great President?

Not even George H.W. Bush? Liberals seem to be warming up to his legacy lately.

[joe]

thoreau,

I think that Edwards, for his own reasons, didn't want to endorse anybody until the race was over, and that after May 6, he agreed to endorse Obama. At that point, the speech was planned for today, to grab the media cycle.

I'm of the opinion that Obama's campaign has been carefully managing the announcement of endorsements for maximum media effect throughout this campaign. For example, John Kerry and Janet Napolitano endorsing him on the same day - that turned what would have been two local stories into a national story that lead the news.

[Pro Libertate]

zoltan,

Bad example. The 1987 crash had about zero significant effect on the economy. We recovered very quickly. It's still touted as the classic "Main Street vs. Wall Street" moment.

80s vs. 90s. Well, I'm begin to believe that the recovery in the 80s--from the malaise of the 70s--was far more significant than the bubble(s) of the 90s. And let me say right now that I don't think presidents have jack to do with the economy, not in any major way, anyhow.

[Edward]

These stupid mainstream parties can't come up candidates that have the brains, charm, and penetrating isights of a Ron Paul or a Bob Barr. An African American who came from nowhere to graduate from Harvard law school and a successful, wealthy trial lawyer from humble origins. Geez! Ron Paul has delivered thousands of babies!

[joe]

Neil, he was such a mixed bag.

Reykyavik, El Salvador. Taming inflation, exploding the national debt.

He did more good than either Clinton or Ford, but he did a great deal more bad, too.

He's certainly a "Great Man," if you buy into that theory of history, but his flaws and errors are too large and glaring to make a saint out of him.

I was thinking about George W. Bush. He's looking better in hindsight, as Republicans go, but that's really just in comparison to the Worst President in American History.

[Rick Barton]

Hey, I really did meet Reagan in 76. Here's my recollection of it. (Previously published in a Reason fundraising letter):

It was in 1976 when he was trying to wrest the GOP nomination from Ford that Reagan came to Colorado to give a speech in Ft. Collins. I drove up from Denver to hear him and after the speech, when he and Nancy got to me in the receiving line they found a wide eyed kid who was jazzed that he cited "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek in his talk. He told me he also really liked Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty"! This, of course, put me in orbit and I then mentioned that I enjoyed the points he made in an interview with Reason. (It was in that interview where he made his "libertarianism is the kernel of conservatism" quote.) I remember he then said, I swear, "Well" "I'll have to look at that again". (Remember when the "well" was the stock in trade of any Reagan impression?) As I shook their hands in an enthusiastic farewell, Nancy assured me that "Ronnie loves that little magazine".

[joe]

The 90s boom lifted something like 10x as many people out of poverty as the 80s boom. There's a reason why our urban problems continued to get worse throughout the 80s, even during the economic good times, and turned around in the 90s.

[Edward]

Rick Barton obviously had a schoolboy crush on Reagan.

[Juan]

Clinton? Ford? Neither of them screwed anything up too badly.

Nahhh.... this one's too easy. 🙂

[joe]

In case it wasn't clear, Neil, I meant you believed in the Easter Bunny, and thought he was a Reagan delegate in 76.

Tap tap tap. Is this thing on?

[Edward]

Nancy regularly consulted an astrologer. What a stupid cow.

[joez audience]

You suck!

[Neil]

Nancy Reagan was a great First Lady.

She combated the scourge of drugs in our cities.

Joe, Clinton couldn't keep the boom going because of his 1993 tax hikes. Thats the real reason the economy came crashing down in 2001.

But George W. Bush, armed with tax cuts, turned things around for the United States.

BTW, it was no small task that George H.W. Bush prefomred guiding us through the end of the Cold War and the changing wolrd order of 1989-1991. If we had a lesser President, Ukraine and Kazakhstan would be nuclear powers and Kuwait would be the 19th province of Iraq.

[Rick Barton]

Edward:

Rick Barton obviously had a schoolboy crush on Reagan.

The notion of ideas mattering doesn't occur in Edward's brain.

[Neil]

BTW Joe today you qute ABC and CBS polls.

The ABC poll included "adults". Not voters "adults".

CBS poll? LOL remember Rathergate?

Obamas "lead" is somewhere between +1 and +3.

[Kolohe]

Nancy Reagan was a great First Lady.

She combated the scourge of drugs in our cities

She batted one for three (at best) at combating the scourge of drugs on Different Strokes.

[MSC]

Joining this thread a bit late, but here's another vote for Webb as VP. He's served in a republican administration so he can tout the fact that he reaches across party lines. He's also a hick.

And for all of us that really believe in the 2nd amendment, Webb regular goes shooting at the NRA range and has a CCW. He's one of the guys who "clings to his guns."

[Art-P.O.G.]

Kolohe, I know what you're saying. I always thought people's family members and friends have more of a chance of keeping them from being drug addicts than the First Lady does.

[Tim]

I have to say, I'm impressed here with Marc Ambinder's reporting, particularly his use of Facebook and Flightaware to firm up his speculation.

[Bramblyspam]

Neil:
What DID you think of his great, Churchillian speech after 9/11 Bramblyspam?

I almost missed that question. I take it you were referring to this, yes?

IMHO, Bush's post-9/11 speech was neither great nor Churchillian. It doesn't even remotely compare with Reagan's "tear down this wall". Now THAT was a good speech.

[Edward]

I know what "ideas" about Reagan were floating around in your head, Rick. Hey, this is the 21st century, man. No need to hide your feelings. Reagan was very attractive in a vapid sort of way.

[John C. Randolph]

John McCain has a long and distinguished record of public service and true achievement.

Tell it to Ross Perot and the POW/MIA families.

-jcr

[Pro Libertate]

Weren't Clinton and Ford both basically neutralized by opposition Congresses? Gridlock seems to give us better results than single-party control, doesn't it?

I don't think the tax increases had much to do with 2001. First, the bubble began to burst. Second, the cyclical recession was due. Third, we got freaked out by some planes flying into things.

I think it's hard to not credit Reagan for doing some good things. People forget how bad many things were in the 70s. Of course, part of that was the zeitgeist--Carter was big into deregulation, too, as odd as that sounds today.

[Edward]

Send me into orbit, Ronnie! Ooooooooo!

[joe]

At the time the dot com bubble burst, the economy was running so strong that the Fed was raising interest rates to cool thing off.

So much for the "1993 tax increases strangled the economy" theory.

Bush's speech was only deemed "Churchillian" because the country was so desperate for Churchill.

Watching that thing now, it's tough to relate to that reaction. He just sounds like George Bush.

[Rick Barton]

My prediction is that Obama takes Edwards for his VP candidate.

[Ayn_Randian]

Rick Barton - no way, man! Edwards doesn't even really have a demographic any more.

If Gov. Strickland hadn't explicitly said "NO" to both candidates, I almost guarantee he'd be the VP choice.

[LarryA]

I don't know the Democrat rules.

That's okay. Neither do the Democrats.

I like a steady, even if unspectacular, hand on the tiller for VP. In case of the president's death, resignation, or incapacitation, there could very well be a huge national emergency going on. There will certainly be a political crisis.

I'd agree, except that the only relevant criteria actually used to select VP candidates is "can they get votes."

Hmm. Bill Richardson, anyone?

Richardson would be an excellent pick for one huge reason. From his Wikipedia: "In 2003, Richardson backed and signed legislation creating a permit system for New Mexicans to carry concealed handguns. He applied for and received a concealed weapons permit, though by his own admission he seldom carries a gun."

I might even get behind him.

Webb would be another example of the type I'm talking about, and has a lot of other virtues as a running mate.

Also NRA A+ with CHL.

80,000,000 gunowners would lock the election and send Republicans to the showers. Unfortunately I think Chicago-bred Obama is incapable of understanding this.

[LarryA]

The more I think about it...

National Rifle Association endorses Democratic VP candidate

That would be a headline.

[Edward]

I predict an Obama/Clinton ticket. It will cause many former subscribers to Ron Paul's newsletters to keel over from apoplexy, and that will be a good thing in itself.

[Guy Montag]

Sen. Obama is doomed.

Early endorsement by Sen. Kerry, now this.

Perhaps he will announce Al Gore as his running mate before the convention?

[Neil]

LOL Im thinking Marion Barry for VP Guy.

[Rick Barton]

Ayn_Randian,

I'm thinking that Obama likes Edwards pitch to lower middle-income voters (Even though it's nonsense). Also, Edwards would serve as a foil against Huckabee's appeal to south and mid-south state voters should McCain pick him. (If McCain does pick Nuckabee, it will be an insult to small government types)

Yeah, that kind of help with Ohio would probably be irresistible for Obama.

[Edward]

As irresistable as Ronnie's smile?

[Edward]

What we want in a president:

Scientific literacy

"Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources."
Ronald Reagan

Philosophical depth

"Facts are stubborn things."
Ronald Reagan

A clear understanding of the separation of church and state

"Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged."
Ronald Reagan

A sound grasp of economics

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself. "
Ronald Reagan

A willingness to use the police

"I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary."
Ronald Reagan

A libertarian position of drugs

"Let us not forget who we are. Drug abuse is a repudiation of everything America is."
Ronald Reagan

Compassion

Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders.
Ronald Reagan

[joe]

Rick Barton,

Jim Webb can make that pitch to downscale voters just as credibly as John Edwards, and his name conjures up "Marines" rather than "haircut."

[joe]

I don't know what to make of Obama's position on gun laws. He's being cagey, but there's no way to know for sure what direction that goes.

Although, when a Democrat is cagey about his position on guns during the primary, that tends to suggest one direction over the other.

[Rick Barton]

joe,

Yeah, Webb does seem like he might be a stronger choice for Obama.-Not as much name recognition as Edwards but also, perhaps, not as much antipathy from Biz folks. Do you see any downside to him?

I think I might be changing my prediction for Dem VP candidate from Edwards to Webb. A few days ago it was Hillary.

[Edward]

More important, who will Bob Barr pick? Borat?

[joe]

Rick,

Do you see any downside to him?

There is a possibility - not a large one, but one that can't be completely ignored - that Webb is, in fact, batshit insane. People whose judgement of character I respect report getting weird vibes from that dude.

[Edward]

Speaking of batshit insane,

"Within the covers of the Bible are all the answers for all the problems men face." --Ronald Reagan

Save money wasted on books!

[Rick Barton]

joe,

Whoa! Yeah that could be a draw-back (remember the Eagleton episode?) Like what kind of weird vibes?

[Matthew]

Edward,

Pray nobody does that to you.

[effay]

Way to go out on a limb here John by endorsing the nominee. I'm sure that took a lot of thought.