Booman Tribune ~ Comments ~ A Sincere Answer

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

A Sincere Answer | 100 comments (100 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: A Sincere Answer (4.00 / 2)

If Obama were to nominate a woman like Governor Kathleen Sebelius to be his running mate, I imagine there would be almost no resentment at all.

Oh please. Women are not fungible.

Kathleen Sebelius isn't a substitute for Hillary Clinton and in fact Obama would make a HUGE mistake with women if he were to even hint that he thought so. I will go so far as to predict the opposite of you -- if Obama picks a woman as a VP candidate without a really good argument on her merits as to why she could be president on day one - there will be a huge backlash against him by women.

It would indeed be evidence of sexist thought on his part.

by maryb2004 on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 07:07:08 PM EST

Re: A Sincere Answer (4.00 / 5)

I agree if it's painted as wanting a woman on the ticket.

But since the Democrats themselves picked Sebelius to respond to the President's state of the union, they must think she has some special qualifications. If she IS qualified, I certainly wouldn't advocate against it.

What really bothers me is the same thing I hear over and over from Hillary supporters:

If she loses, there'll never be another chance in my lifetime for a woman president.

I'm always slow to respond to this, because the mind trips when confronted with such idiocy. We have a TON of strong women in this party who would all make fine presidents someday. If Obama wins and gets two terms, and then the Republicans take the presidency for two terms - that's only 16 years out. There are a lot of women in their forties now who would be fantastic in 16 years.

We'll have a woman president when the right woman comes onto the scene. Hillary has never been the right woman. She's a throwback to a past many of us do not wish to return to.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

by Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 07:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

Of course it will be painted as 'the woman' on the ticket - by the Republicans if by nobody else.

At this point Hillary supporters are attached to her. To make a choice of VP that is obviously supposed to be a Hillary substitute is going to do nothing more than remind them that it isn't Hillary. It doesn't heal wounds - it re-opens them.

It would be like saying that you aren't worried about true blue Edwards supporters being upset that their candidate didn't win. And one thing that will make them less upset is that you are going to pick a southern white man as your VP. Well, they might not have been upset until it became clear that you were dissing their candidate by assuming that one southern white man was as good as another.

by maryb2004 on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 07:57:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (4.00 / 2)

you are vastly overstating the Hillary-specific attraction of her female vote.

by BooMan on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:01:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See, I don't think that's true (none / 0)

I think this is part of the problem - a misunderstanding of how much some people really passionately support Hillary. My Latino friends (especially the females) are head over heels for Hillary. It's not ONLY that she's a woman...

by sciencetype on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See, I don't think that's true (none / 0)

yes, I said that she has devoted supporters. So did Dean.

by BooMan on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:42:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"so did dean" is an insult, now? (none / 0)

boo, explain that one to me. regardless of the BHO/HRC wars, that one rubs me the wrong way. why is a comparison to Dean a "bad thing?"

by chicago dyke (anheduanna at yahoo.com) on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 11:44:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "so did dean" is an insult, now? (none / 0)

Agree. But maybe he meant that passionate supporters aren't enough?

Booman, please explain.

by Heart of the Rockies on Fri Mar 7th, 2008 at 12:13:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "so did dean" is an insult, now? (none / 0)

it's not a bad thing.

Who did Dean's supporters vote for in the general? How many of them didn't vote because they were still mad about losing the primary?

Just because Clinton has passionate supporters that really like her personally, does not translate into Maryb's hypothesis that they will sit home if Obama selects a female running mate. On balance, most Clinton supporters would see that as a good thing.

by BooMan on Fri Mar 7th, 2008 at 01:03:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 0)

Lots of Dems have passionately supported a candidate and then move on to vote for the eventual nominee.

I think most Dems will vote for the eventual nominee unless that nominee is seen as winning the nomination in an illegitimate way.

It doesn't do to diss them because they originally supported someone else. Most of us have supported someone else in some election.

The problem is the fear that Hillary will win the nomination by destroying another Democrat and that way of winning would be seen as illegitimate. It's one thing to run a hard campaign and make the other candidate show his or her mettle. It's another to destroy them by helping the Republican candidate who will run against them in the fall.

I haven't yet decided if Hillary really would do that. But her McCain comments are not a good sign.

by maryb2004 on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:52:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, (none / 1)

The problem is the fear that Hillary will win the nomination by destroying another Democrat and that way of winning would be seen as illegitimate. It's one thing to run a hard campaign and make the other candidate show his or her mettle. It's another to destroy them by helping the Republican candidate who will run against them in the fall.

Right, that's exactly the problem here. The "Hillary wins, Obama loses" and "Obama wins, Hillary loses" scenarios aren't symmetric. This entire discussion is predicated on the idea that the only way Hillary can win is by going extremely negative on Obama. Right now, Obama's more electable by a hair (head to head polls against McCain). And if they continue the worst-case-for-Obama pattern of 50/50 delegate splits like March 4th, he wins handily.

In other words, if Obama wins, he'll have done so through the same largely clean, positive campaigning he's used thus far. He'll hopefully resist the pressure to go negative, and stick to "fair game" attacks and defensive measures. This will alienate a minimal amount of Hillary's base (basically, the hard-core who believe that Obama was using sexist attacks from day one) and nominating a qualified woman could be an excellent way of patching up Obama's relations with the remainder. The Obama campaign would, of course, have access to the polling and demographic data that would let them actually make this decision.

If Clinton wins, she'll presumably have to do so by going all-out on Obama, and unloading smears, lies, and deceit. This will alienate large chunks of Obama's base, since Democrats are supposed to be above that kind of Rovian slime. We're not just talking the hardcore, we're talking all the people he drew in with talk of change and a new type of politics.

Now, if Clinton can manage to win without going hard-core negative and demonstrate an adoption of the same new type politics, it's possible that she wouldn't alienate Obama's base. But I think that's highly unlikely. Her only win condition seems to be lies (like the NAFTA smear), racism, and fear.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:16:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, (none / 0)

Great post.

by SaltyDawg on Fri Mar 7th, 2008 at 09:39:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (4.00 / 3)

Maryb, I'm not sure where you live, but here in California we have two female Senators: Barbara Boxer, who I've supported since the mid-80s when she entered Congress, and Dianne Feinstein, whom I've opposed since she ran for Mayor in SF after Moscone was assassinated. My representative was Tom Lantos and everyone I know wants to see Jackie Speier replace him.

I guess I'm saying that women in office aren't any kind of novelty out here.

And the gender of a politician guarantees nothing. So what's the great attraction to H. Clinton? She's a centrist politician who didn't stand up against the war. I'd much rather see a Boxer in the White House than her. But I'd lean to Clinton over Feinstein.

There is nothing magical about having a woman as President, or a black man for that matter. I hear weird icon-worshipping and a lot of anger against Obama for standing in Clinton's way. Clinton can't win the nomination now. Obama's got the pledged delegates and it is my belief that most Party leaders now want Clinton to concede to avoid wrecking the Party.

I've always wanted a progressive in the White House before I die.

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

I sincerely doubt it. I don't think it would be interpreted as some kind of commodity trade.

by BooMan on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 07:18:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

Are you kidding me? It absolutely would be seen that way by the women who have come out specifically to support Hillary.

by maryb2004 on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 07:52:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

you can give me any subset of people to justify anything, but it's not a significant or election-swaying consideration.

Many women are convinced that Clinton is their last chance to see a woman president in their lifetime. A vice-president Sebelius would give all but the most infirm some hope again. And that would salve a lot of disappointment.

by BooMan on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 07:59:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 1)

You are completely wrong on this whole issue.

Many women are convinced that Clinton is their last chance to see a woman president in their lifetime.

Yes, perhaps this small subset would be assuaged.

Most women are going to get over the fact that Hillary isn't the nominee. UNLESS the candidate disses them as a group by insulting them with the idea that putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket is a substitute for Hillary.

I know it's hard for you to understand, but most of the women who vote for Hillary like Hillary. But they probably would get over having Obama as the candidate unless he insults them. Like this.

If he did this I would seriously wonder at his tone deaf ear.

If Hillary gets the nomination should she just put some black elected official on the ticket and that will assuage the Obama voters? Of course not. It wouldn't work and worse it would backfire. Same for the situation you posit.

by maryb2004 on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 1)

It depends on whether or not the VP is qualified.

Kennedy picked Johnson, Dukakis picked Bentsen, Carter picked Mondale, Johnson picked Humphrey...etc.

The history of picking from the wing of the party you have just defeated is long and justifiable.

Right now we don't have ideological/regional splits, but gender and race splits. It's only patronizing if the candidate isn't worthy on their own merits.

Sebelius endorsed Obama and has been talked about as a VP possibility for over a year. It would be a wise choice, and shouldn't be seen as some sop, but an effort to show respect and reunite the party.

And it would be seen that way. If he picked a backbencher with no executive experience (a Dan Quayle or Geraldine Ferrero) then, yes, it would be seen as patronizing.

As for Clinton, her problem would be finding a suitable alternative to Obama, but picking Deval Patrick, for example, would help her get the black vote out. But, he's probably too inexperienced, so the gesture would be less successful and seen as more of a naked affirmative action move. But that is only because of the difference in experience.

by BooMan on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:22:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

We're just going to have to disagree on this.

I hope to god Obama doesn't take this advice.

by maryb2004 on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:27:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 1)

let me get this straight.

are you now disqualifying Sebelius from the veepstakes because of her gender?

by BooMan on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:30:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

yep

by maryb2004 on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:33:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

that seems unfair to Sebelius (and several other worthy candidates), but if that is how you see the strategery you are free to see it that way.

by BooMan on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (4.00 / 2)

Of course it's unfair. But politics isn't fair.

I want to see Obama win. I think it would be disastrous for him to pick any woman who is not Hillary as his running mate. I don't think he should pick her either, but he can't not pick her and then pick another woman.

In the same way that she can't not pick him and then pick another black person.

It would be seen as a statement that people in the identity category of the principal opponent are fungible. It would be seen as an insult. No matter how qualified that person was.

by maryb2004 on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:47:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

OK.

I see what you're saying here, now. I'm not sure i agree but i see your line of thought.

If Obama picked an obviously qualified person that had a way with words I think people would get over the maneuver pretty quickly. It would all depend on if he picked quality.

by Bright Creature (kelpie (no spam filler) . b @ gmail . com) on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 1)

The problem, Maryb, is that Hillary Clinton has eliminated herself as a Veep for Obama. She has been running a campaign that says that the black man is not competent to be President. She can't run with him anymore.

Remember? He had only a speech in 2002 but she and John McCain have all that experience. I'd say now she's got a better chance of being McCain's VP than Obama's.

And it's her choice by running that desperate campaign she ran the last couple of weeks.

In any case, if you are offended by Obama's Veep choice, so be it.

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:06:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

huh? (none / 0)

Her campaign said a black man is not competent to be President? I must have missed that.

by sciencetype on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:08:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: huh? (none / 0)

The black man.

I presume she would be able to be another black man's Vice President, if there was another black man who led in the delegate count. If she didn't say he wasn't qualified.

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:45:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

Well, I said above that I didn't think he should pick Hillary as his running mate so I'm not sure where we disagree.

Are you saying that he should pick a woman who is not Hillary so that the Hillary supporters will feel better? If so, I disagree with you.

by maryb2004 on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:10:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

It'd be seen as an insult to the Clintons, and it take the mantle of representing feminist aspirations away from Hillary. So, yes, it would be insulting. To the Clintons. And to those that really really identify with her and them.

Personally, that makes it all the more delectable to me. But only a tiny percentage of people have that kind of identification with Clinton personally. It wouldn't be seen as an insult by most people at all.

By November, low information voters will have forgotten a Clinton was ever on the ticket at all.

by BooMan on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:06:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

You are letting your Hillary Hate cloud your judgment.

You actually want to insult Hillary and her supporters? Right. Because that's the way to get your candidate elected in November. uh huh.

So basically you do want to use Kathleen Sebelius. You don't think she's the most qualified person to be VP. You want Obama to pick her to stick it to those damn Hillary supporters. It's not her - it's that she's a woman. Any woman. They are all fungible to you.

Lovely.

by maryb2004 on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:17:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

wow.

I said none of that.

I personally would relish seeing the Clintons relegated to the Land of Obscuria, but that has nothing to do with why I think he should strongly consider a qualified woman. I think he should because it will help unite the party, even if it pisses a small percentage of people off.

by BooMan on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:33:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

well, that's how I interpreted this:

So, yes, it would be insulting. To the Clintons. And to those that really really identify with her and them.
Personally, that makes it all the more delectable to me.

I'll take your word on it that my interpretation was wrong.

I disagree it would help unite the party. We're back to the beginning. We disagree.

by maryb2004 on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 1)

Even if she were very qualified?

I'm having trouble seeing your argument. If the chosen VP running mate were a woman and worth her salt then they could run her on her own merits, instead of always playing the gender card.

As a woman and a feminist myself, I've never understood the notion that we have to elect -any- woman to the job for there to be movement toward equality. If the woman ain't qualified or even if she isn't the best candidate for the job.. then she shouldn't get it. Period.

But now it seems to me that your saying it's Hillary or no woman at all. Did she become the "everywoman" in this election?

At the very least, it seems that there's a "either or" dichotomy being set up here. Either we elect a woman or we irrevocably piss off women. Or, elect a black man or risk alienating the black vote.

It would probably be much easier, and in the long run smarter, to vote our minds and hearts and then get pragmatic about whoever does win the primary. Neither one of them would be any worse than McCain

by Bright Creature (kelpie (no spam filler) . b @ gmail . com) on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:48:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

I'm thinking of it only as a political matter not as a matter of a woman being qualified. Truthfully I have no idea if Kathleen Sebelius is qualified. I know she gives boring speeches. That's about it. She may be qualified but why is she more qualified than someone else? I have no idea.

As a political matter, Obama needs the women who voted for Hillary to vote for him. She isn't everywoman to those women - she's the exact opposite. She's herself. They believe she is the best person for the job. They like her. They probably would vote for him, after a post-nomination cooling off period. Most voters do. But I think as a political matter that he risks alienating them if he appears to pick a candidate because she's a woman. As if picking a woman would appease them because any woman is the same as Hillary. They aren't out there for any woman. They are voting for Hillary.

In a political campaign you don't take risks like that with a large voting block.

by maryb2004 on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:05:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 1)

I don't think you should discount how many women wouldn't want McCain picking Supreme Court justices. I know that will be my prime motivator if Clinton is the nominee.

"Life is always better with clean pants."

by CabinGirl on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

I hope that's everyone's motivator. But it won't be.

I'm a single issue voter in November. That's why I want to maximize the vote for the Dem candidate from all quarters. To make sure he/she wins.

by maryb2004 on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (4.00 / 2)

One of my friends at work told me that he wouldn't be able to vote for Hillary in the general. I told him, here, take this into the booth with you.

He changed his mind and grudgingly said he'd vote for Hillary if it came to it. But that he would print that out and take it with him to make sure he stayed on the straight and narrow.

Tengo un sueño.

by ejmw (ewitham (at) umich (dot) edu) on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:40:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Supreme Court (none / 0)

I'm with Anonymous in rikyrah's Jack and Jill Politics post on this one.

For crying out loud the Supreme Court is so far to the right already, that it does not matter who is elected, its going to be "conservative and right wing' for the next 50 years.

I've never bought the Supreme Court as a reason to vote for Clinton. It's not like they're fair and not conservative now. No matter who she picks, and I guarantee it won't be a liberal jurist, we'll still have a conservative Supreme Court. So what then? We get to play Degrees of Conservatism? Fun.

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:59:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Supreme Court (none / 1)

I think we are just going to have to disagree on this one then. The court does have a conservative lean right now, but the next justices in line for retirement / death are part of the more liberal wing and are all that is keeping it even semi-sane. There is no way that Hillary would appoint anyone even close to as conservative as John McCain would.

Of course none of this is likely to matter anyway, since Hillary isn't going to be the Democratic nominee.

Tengo un sueño.

by ejmw (ewitham (at) umich (dot) edu) on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 10:08:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know people disagree (none / 0)

I don't see the so-called liberal judges being that liberal or that useful. For the past 14 years, I've been utterly disgusted by the verdicts handed down by the Supreme Court, watching was few real rights and recourses I had dwindle down to almost nothing. That was with so-called liberal judges. I don't pretend that the legal system I would navigate would be the same as the one you would have to navigate. I look at it with that jaundiced eye.

I told you I'm a cynic.

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

by fabooj (fabooj [at} mail [dot} com) on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 10:42:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Liberal" justices (none / 0)

I don't believe that we currently have any truly "liberal" justices on the SC. But, The Alitos and the Roberts are so far right that the center looks left.

McCain will continue that trend.

Visit me at Tunnel Traveller

by Teacher Toni (tacoralatyahoodotcom) on Fri Mar 7th, 2008 at 06:46:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Supreme Court (none / 0)

Well, I couldn't disagree more on any issue.

But since it becomes academic if Obama gets the nomination there's no point in going into all the reasons. If, however, Hillary gets the nomination you're gonna get tired of me talking about it. :)

by maryb2004 on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 10:23:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

You're probably right.

IN any case i couldn't see him picking any other woman besides Clinton anyway. It would be too much like a slap in Hillary's face.

by Bright Creature (kelpie (no spam filler) . b @ gmail . com) on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:33:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

What if Obama chose Janet Napolitano, Gov. of Arizona, for VP? She would bring clout in southwestern states and would complete a historic ticket.

Personally, I'd like to see VA Senator Jim Webb as a running mate for Obama. His style contrasts nicely with Obama. He wouldn't mind mixing it up with the Republicans and he'd bring a nice number of electoral votes with VA, a swing state.

by SaltyDawg on Fri Mar 7th, 2008 at 09:53:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

The woman who first shares the WH had better not deliver to her gender what Alberto Gonzales delivered to the people of his heritage.

Obama's choice of a VP, woman or not, will receive cudos and support the minute they deliver good govt. at that juncture no one will whisper they miss HC

by mainsailset on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:57:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

I agree 100,000% It would be an insult to us women.

You select a VP on merit, not gender. You may as well ask Obama to select Hillary.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 08:08:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

Actually, most VPs are chosen for how many votes they can deliver to the ticket. With the exception of Cheney, who actually was President while Junior was choking on pretzels, most Vice Presidents cut ribbons until the day the President doesn't come back from the parade.

Myself, I'd like to see Edwards on the ticket, myself, although I don't know if he could help dent the South for Obama.

by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:10:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And remember (none / 0)

Cheney chose himself, so he doesn't really count in this math anyhow.

Tengo un sueño.

by ejmw (ewitham (at) umich (dot) edu) on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:13:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Sincere Answer (none / 0)

Let's flip it. What if Hillary had a black vp, other than Obama? How many white supporters would desert her?

by Heart of the Rockies on Thu Mar 6th, 2008 at 10:54:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A Sincere Answer | 100 comments (100 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Recommended Diaries

Israel thumbs its nose at Obama, again
by shergald - Mar 18
14 comments

Friday Foto Flogging
by AndiF - Mar 19
56 comments

Thursday Dog Bog (with Toy Box)
by keres - Mar 18
16 comments

US General: Dutch Gays in Military to Blame for Massacre...
by Oui - Mar 19
7 comments

Senate Races Without a Democratic Candidate Yet
by Senate Guru - Mar 16

"Sic Semper Tyrannis"
by Oui - Mar 18

Juan Cole avenges former IDF Corporal Jeffrey Goldberg
by shergald - Mar 17
2 comments

Recommended World Diaries

Thursday Dog Bog (with Toy Box)
by keres (AU) - Mar 18
16 comments

US General: Dutch Gays in Military to Blame for Massacre...
by Oui (NL) - Mar 19
7 comments

"Sic Semper Tyrannis"
by Oui (NL) - Mar 18

Recent Diaries

Will Bloggers Rescue the Lehman Story?
by danps - Mar 20
1 comment

Meet Shayna Bailey, Slow Food International
by borderjumpers - Mar 20

Saturday Painting Palooza Vol.241
by boran2 - Mar 20
2 comments

Getting Water to Crops
by borderjumpers - Mar 19

Friday Foto Flogging
by AndiF - Mar 19
56 comments

US General: Dutch Gays in Military to Blame for Massacre...
by Oui - Mar 19
7 comments

"Sic Semper Tyrannis"
by Oui - Mar 18

Israel thumbs its nose at Obama, again
by shergald - Mar 18
14 comments

Innovation of the Week: Providing an Agricultural Answer to...
by borderjumpers - Mar 18

Thursday Dog Bog (with Toy Box)
by keres - Mar 18
16 comments

Juan Cole avenges former IDF Corporal Jeffrey Goldberg
by shergald - Mar 17
2 comments

1,000 Words About Uganda
by borderjumpers - Mar 17

It's Just A Kiss
by Forgiven - Mar 16

Senate Races Without a Democratic Candidate Yet
by Senate Guru - Mar 16

Creating Game Plans for Investment and Policy to Improve Food ...
by borderjumpers - Mar 16

1,000 Words About Zimbabwe
by borderjumpers - Mar 15
2 comments

Journalistic Standards of the Progressive Media
by rootless2 - Mar 15

AIPAC Calls Spat a Distraction from Iran
by Oui - Mar 15
16 comments

Pentagon Official Ran Private AfPak Spy Network
by Oui - Mar 15
7 comments

2 Deadly Shootings with Memphis Police Handguns
by Oui - Mar 14

More Diaries...

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile