Given how acrimonious this has gotten, having Hillary on the ticket would go a long way with keeping her supporters in the fold. Of course it might make people like dajafi heads explode.

jerseyhoya wrote:Given how acrimonious this has gotten, having Hillary on the ticket would go a long way with keeping her supporters in the fold.

Certainly could. But I'm not sure it's in his best interest. For him to win, I think he needs to go all in on the new-Washington tip.

Grotewold wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Given how acrimonious this has gotten, having Hillary on the ticket would go a long way with keeping her supporters in the fold.

Certainly could. But I'm not sure it's in his best interest. For him to win, I think he needs to go all in on the new-Washington tip.

That's a good point too. I don't think there's a slam dunk pick out there, and there are a number of reasons that Hillary would make a good pick, but there are probably as many strikes against her. It will be interesting to see what route he goes, cause it should tell us something about what he perceives to be his weaknesses and what sort of direction he'll take his administration.

jerseyhoya wrote:It will be interesting to see what route he goes, cause it should tell us something about what he perceives to be his weaknesses and what sort of direction he'll take his administration.

Agreed. As someone who's been pretty inspired by him thus far, I'll be watching closely.

He could get something like 80 percent of the benefit, and zero percent of the agita, by picking one of Wes Clark, Ed Rendell, Evan Bayh or some other high-profile Clinton supporter rather than Her Highness.

But I still think it should be Webb. He shores up military cred, appeals to the same "working-class whites" that Obama struggles with, and as a former Republican cabinet member advances the whole post-partisan reconciliation theme. He's a "loose cannon" who say some dumb things, but that's also true of McCain.

Can you expand on the loose cannon thing, because it's not the first time I've heard that.

dajafi wrote:He could get something like 80 percent of the benefit, and zero percent of the agita, by picking one of Wes Clark, Ed Rendell, Evan Bayh or some other high-profile Clinton supporter rather than Her Highness.

I think it's something less than 80%. They're all dudes. Though I suppose they're white and supported Hillary. Let's go with 66.67%.

jeff2sf wrote:Can you expand on the loose cannon thing, because it's not the first time I've heard that.

He says some wacky stuff, has a few things in his political (some really strong statements against affirmative action, for one) and personal (lots of allegations of cheating, drinking and fighting) past that could be tricky for Obama, and just generally doesn't seem like a guy who would instinctively take to a second banana role.

To me, the way you handle that is to decide in advance on a portfolio and a relationship protocol. Gore supposedly negotiated regular and inviolable face time with Bill Clinton as well as a few things that he would be the lead on; we forget now because Cheney almost eclipsed Bush in terms of decision-making, but before 2000 it was argued that Gore had been the most impactful and effective vice-president in American history. (Admittedly, that was a low bar to clear at the time.)

Webb is a brilliant guy with clear priorities and some very well thought-out ideas. Whether it's foreign policy or pocketbook issues, he could carve out a big role for himself. And as the former Navy Secretary, he presumably knows his way around a bureaucracy.

There's also that having a decorated combat vet on the ticket somewhat closes the "heroism gap."

He'd be my pick, but I haven't gone through his closets. Maybe there's something worse in there unrevealed as yet.

Webb is, however, a Senator.

If Hillary really is angling for the VP slot, I'd be even more disappointed in her. She has the opportunity to be an effective Senator for decades. Give that up for a nothing job? The last time that happened, it really didn't work out so well. I suppose she could think it would put her in position for 2016, but she'd be 69 by then.

I think that if youre going to a give Hillary a bone to drop out, it should be the next open Supreme Court Justice position.

Sally Quinn: Bill is Hillary's Wright

Also, McGovern has switched his endorsement from Clinton to Obama and urged Hillary to drop out. That's gotta hurt; who knows more about electability than the guy who lost 49 states? :?

Really interesting interview with Bill Moyers this morning on Democracy Now. He said something to the effect "... that our system is now dysfunctional, and that powerful interests are vested in keeping it such ... and that he didn't see any of the 3 candidates having the ability to change that..."

Also, heard clips of an interesting speech my Michael Eric Dyson, given in Oakland last week. Had some interesting points on Obama, and Wright etc...

Seems that there is another meeting about Mich and Florida, 13 Hilary supporters, 8 Obama, and the rest undecided in that meeting. SuperD's can still put her over and if something were to shift with mich and florida...well....

It's not over yet. It might be, but not yet...

Philly the Kid wrote:Really interesting interview with Bill Moyers this morning on Democracy Now. He said something to the effect "... that our system is now dysfunctional, and that powerful interests are vested in keeping it such ... and that he didn't see any of the 3 candidates having the ability to change that..."

The nature of things is that there is no way that the federal government can ever become functional again. I don't think it's caused by special interests; rather, I think special interests are the result of the system that has emerged. There's nothing new here--whether you call it C. Wright Mills's Power Elite or Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex, it's an inevitable outgrowth of an the expansive government needed to run a technologically advanced nation state. You see the same thing happening with the EU--in either case, there's little room for liberal democracy.

However, the alternatives--Russian style kleptocracy or Chinese dictatorship or Zimbabwean anarchy or Venezualean dysfunctional populism have even less appeal.

I think there are two keys--on the one hand, we need to lower our expectations of democratic governance. For better or worse, we're on our own. Related to that, we need to seriously think about federalism and devolution. In a practical sense, solutions are not going to come from beltway types, but from state and local governments and organizations.

dajafi wrote:Sally Quinn: Bill is Hillary's Wright

Also, McGovern has switched his endorsement from Clinton to Obama and urged Hillary to drop out. That's gotta hurt; who knows more about electability than the guy who lost 49 states? :?

Dreadful column by Quinn. Sent her a politely angry letter, which I am sure will go ignored.

Her concern for Juanita Broaddrick might be a bit convincing if she spelled her name correctly. But why should a major media figure worrying about spelling correctly the last name of a woman who accused a president of rape? Details.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Really interesting interview with Bill Moyers this morning on Democracy Now. He said something to the effect "... that our system is now dysfunctional, and that powerful interests are vested in keeping it such ... and that he didn't see any of the 3 candidates having the ability to change that..."

The nature of things is that there is no way that the federal government can ever become functional again. I don't think it's caused by special interests; rather, I think special interests are the result of the system that has emerged. There's nothing new here--whether you call it C. Wright Mills's Power Elite or Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex, it's an inevitable outgrowth of an the expansive government needed to run a technologically advanced nation state. You see the same thing happening with the EU--in either case, there's little room for liberal democracy.

However, the alternatives--Russian style kleptocracy or Chinese dictatorship or Zimbabwean anarchy or Venezualean dysfunctional populism have even less appeal.

I think there are two keys--on the one hand, we need to lower our expectations of democratic governance. For better or worse, we're on our own. Related to that, we need to seriously think about federalism and devolution. In a practical sense, solutions are not going to come from beltway types, but from state and local governments and organizations.

Hmm...

Well, we have the luxury of debating/discussing this -- many who are "outsiders" or under-seige may have a different perspective. Is truly luck of the draw? Where you were born? Color of your skin etc... that determines your reality?

I just wonder if there can be a "course correction" of some sort. Can we get some different players in seats of power? If the Supreme Court was composed differently, if we had a different legistlature and a more populist prez, less fear and imperialism... not a total dismantle, or overthrow, just some adjustments --

Right now, we're heading toward implosion. Maybe not fully in our lifetime, though things have a way of getting momentum and you never know when it will 'tip', but the system now will end up with no middle-class... just a relative few super-priveleged haves, and everyone else...

And govt will have devolved, into nothing much but a sham as a cover for a police-force to protect the priveleged. Not unlike Roman times...

BuddyGroom wrote:

dajafi wrote:Sally Quinn: Bill is Hillary's Wright

Also, McGovern has switched his endorsement from Clinton to Obama and urged Hillary to drop out. That's gotta hurt; who knows more about electability than the guy who lost 49 states? :?

Dreadful column by Quinn. Sent her a politely angry letter, which I am sure will go ignored.

Her concern for Juanita Broaddrick might be a bit convincing if she spelled her name correctly. But why should a major media figure worrying about spelling correctly the last name of a woman who accused a president of rape? Details.

Not sure that's the point Quinn was trying to make.

I got the point she was trying to make - that Bill is an albatross for Hillary that she could have (and in Quinn's opinion, should have) unloaded.

I don't agree, and think the column is just another anti-Clinton hatchet job.

Philly the Kid wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Really interesting interview with Bill Moyers this morning on Democracy Now. He said something to the effect "... that our system is now dysfunctional, and that powerful interests are vested in keeping it such ... and that he didn't see any of the 3 candidates having the ability to change that..."

The nature of things is that there is no way that the federal government can ever become functional again. I don't think it's caused by special interests; rather, I think special interests are the result of the system that has emerged. There's nothing new here--whether you call it C. Wright Mills's Power Elite or Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex, it's an inevitable outgrowth of an the expansive government needed to run a technologically advanced nation state. You see the same thing happening with the EU--in either case, there's little room for liberal democracy.

However, the alternatives--Russian style kleptocracy or Chinese dictatorship or Zimbabwean anarchy or Venezualean dysfunctional populism have even less appeal.

I think there are two keys--on the one hand, we need to lower our expectations of democratic governance. For better or worse, we're on our own. Related to that, we need to seriously think about federalism and devolution. In a practical sense, solutions are not going to come from beltway types, but from state and local governments and organizations.

Hmm...

Well, we have the luxury of debating/discussing this -- many who are "outsiders" or under-seige may have a different perspective. Is truly luck of the draw? Where you were born? Color of your skin etc... that determines your reality?

I just wonder if there can be a "course correction" of some sort. Can we get some different players in seats of power? If the Supreme Court was composed differently, if we had a different legistlature and a more populist prez, less fear and imperialism... not a total dismantle, or overthrow, just some adjustments --

Right now, we're heading toward implosion. Maybe not fully in our lifetime, though things have a way of getting momentum and you never know when it will 'tip', but the system now will end up with no middle-class... just a relative few super-priveleged haves, and everyone else...

And govt will have devolved, into nothing much but a sham as a cover for a police-force to protect the priveleged. Not unlike Roman times...

I think urging ever more dependence on the federal government is doing a disservice to the most vulnerable among us, either they will end up dead or dependent. People need to stand up for themselves. No one else is going to do it.

Secondly, a shift away from federal towards more local control empowers those who currently lack access to the beltway.

http://hillaryis404.org/

Mmm, that's good satire...