Nunn:Lieberman

Do they really think that putting a Southern White Guy on the ticket as VP will get rednecks to vote for Obama?  Those people are going to vote Democrat even if Jesus Christ is on the ticket.

MKK

Arrrgh.  Those people *aren’t* going to vote Democrat…

Proof reading is your friend.

MKK

I would think Jesus being on the ticket would make them even less likely to vote Democratic.  Come on, they’re really going to vote for a long-haired Jew who wants them to love their neighbors and help the poor?

That’s a bit of an obscure name, anyway… when did he run, 1988?

There is an interesting discussion of another Southern white messiah, Jim Webb, here.

That’s a bit of an obscure name, anyway… when did he run, 1988?

Jesus is an obscure name?  Man, you don’t get out much, do you, norbizness? 

For that matter Jesus didn’t run in 1988, it was 36 and he lost court decisions at both the Sanhedrin and Roman appellate court levels.  Like Gore, but with a less salubrious retirement.

Nunn’s bigotry certainly disqualifies him, but what I don’t get is the idea that Obama is weak on defense. He was right on Iraq and was vocal about it when it wasn’t popular to be opposed to the war. That’s strength, not the bullshit saber-rattling that seems to pass for strength with so many people. If Obama needs to shore up a weakness, it’s on women’s issues and LGBT concerns, not national defense.

Incertus,
Yeah, I don’t get the Obama weak on defense either.  Moreso, I think that if he picked somebody “strong on defense” he would seem to be saying he was weak on defense.

He’s got to pick somebody to help him win Ohio, and in Ohio it’s the economy, stupid.

Another convincing argument against Webb as VP.

Nunn opposed Gulf War I while having national security cred, so he might make sense in the twisted reasoning of Washington Democratic consultants. 

In other words, he is almost certainly the wrong choice.

I don’t think he’s even on the long list.  I’ve always like Wesley Clark, he seems to fulfil the whole southern white military dude thing, plus he actually opposed the war, and is a Clintonite so it’s a sort-of unity ticket. And he seems to be a decent human being with genuine progressive views. But I’ve been wrong before.

Obama’s strength in foreign policy is that he is strong in opposing the foreign policy establishment “elites”.  As he says, he’s about changing the mindset that got us into the Iraq war.

Nunn More Black!

Offthestreeter:  That’s an interesting idea.  Further confirmation of the Wes Clark is a decent human being thing: this picture.  That’s actually a kind of icky site but it was the first link I could find to the pic.

MKK

I’m in agreement with those that say that the whole “shoring up Obama’s defence and foreign policy cred!” is a bullshit theme.  It is a made-up weakness, and it suits only the DLC consultant fools’ and the GOP’s reasoning.

That’s an interesting idea.  Further confirmation of the Wes Clark is a decent human being thing: this picture.  That’s actually a kind of icky site but it was the first link I could find to the pic.

Nice! Didn’t even know about that, although I knew he was good on LGBT issues, or at least as good as a mainstream Dem is going to get.

It is a made-up weakness, and it suits only the DLC consultant fools’ and the GOP’s reasoning.

Sadly I don’t think that’s entirely true. But I don’t think we should push it so hard that we nominate someone who supported the Iraq War, or someone who represents the more odious aspects of military culture like Jim Webb.

I don’t think I even realized Nunn was a D.

I don’t think I even realized Nunn was a D.

By most relevant definitions, he isn’t, at least not anymore. He’s a fricking dinosaur who was tied in with that Unity 08 nonsense as I recall. He’s Joe Lieberman without the limited social cred the latter used to have.

Sorry, Offthestreeter, I am going to respectfully disagree with you.  Very much so, as a matter of fact.

First, Obama’s foreign policy experience is no worse than many other men who have gained the presidency: Truman, FDR, JFK, Reagan and LBJ spring immediately to mind.  Furthermore, he is head and shoulders above where Bush was in 2000, and the majority of those who had no problem with Bush’s qualifications are the ones who are peddling, buying and freebasing the “not experienced enough!” drug.  Bush was elected despite being visibly ignorant-to-wholly-clueless on foreign policy issues and information before the election and visibly, tragically out of his depth since; Obama hasn’t shown one tenth of that smirking stupidity yet the same people who fluffed Bush for seven years are screaming that Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing.  Bullshit, thrice sounded.

Second, the large minority for this bullshit storyline is those Dems who want oh-so-desperately for the electorate to forget that they were staggeringly wrong and Obama bluntly right on the biggest foreign policy issue of the past twenty years: the Iraq war.  If you buy into the notion that the man who was right doesn’t know foreign policy and the people who were wrong do then you have bought snake oil.  Clinton, for example, and many hawk Dems want you to buy that notion almost as much—or more—than the Republicans do.  This is especially so in light of the fact that many of the Dems who were the most spineless water carriers for or appeasers of Bush on the Hill are Hillary supporters: Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer spring immediately to mind.  Criticizing Obama’s foreign policy chops is another way of distracting attention from their shockingly quiescent conduct whilst in opposition and since.

Third, Obama represents—and has been visibly clear about—a rationalist, cooperative, foreign policy in which allies, diverse contacts and negotiation are key component parts.  There are large swathes of the American foreign and defence policy curia and think tanks and punditry whose meal tickets rest very heavily on those policies remaining aggressive, unconsidered (in the literal sense) and high-sticker-price.  A sensible, restrained, patient America aware of its own limits and weaned off of violent hubris threatens—at least—the end of an awful lot of Beltway meal tickets.  An America which isn’t fighting two wars and eagerly planning a third is an America that has an awful lot fewer generals’ stars, quasi-imperial administrative and juicy talking head positions to go around.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the foreign/defence policy argument is more subtly insidious, because it buys into the facile notion that the President not only has to understand all of this stuff, but know it all it going in.  Among Obama’s demonstrated strengths are his ability to listen to learn quickly, wise counsel , follow good advice and change course when circumstances require it.  Such a person is ideally suited to the Presidency, and no job provides as much access to information and counsel as the Presidency.  Indeed, Bush’s stratospherically arrogant self-assurance that he Knows It All is one of the most glaring elements of his failed and bloody Presidency; he never met good advice he didn’t hate, ignore or stifle if it interfered with his preconceived certainties.  The “Obama doesn’t know defence or foreign policy!” storyline is thus not only objectively wrong and far less significant in context of past presidents, it is also an argument which seeks to distract attention from qualities that Obama does possess that will be needed in abundance by the next President and which have been so tragically and murderously lacking in the current one.

sorry.  typo:
“ ... his ability to learn quickly, to listen to wise counsel ... “

Jim Webb only just made the Senate and belongs there for now (if not for good, given that he’s semi-old.)

But while we’re on VA, what about Tim Kaine?

Seeker, I agree with everything you say, apart from the fact that you’re giving the swing voters far too much credit. We’re going to be hearing about McCain’s war heroism a lot. I don’t think that makes him particularly qualified to lead the country but...people are dumb. That’s why I like the idea of throwing our own version of McCain at them to blunt that advantage, if we can find one.

“We’re going to be hearing about McCain’s war heroism a lot.”

Clinton didn’t serve in Vietnam but beat two WW2 heroes, and AWOL from the Champagne Brigade Bush beat Kerry (dang Swift-boaters, and I still think Republicans set up Dan Rather to help conservatives rally around him in the wake of the memo thing.)

Also, neither candidate made a big issue of it in ‘00 but Gore’s military service was more distinguished than Bush’s too (he was drafted into ‘Nam, even if only as a reporter.)

So I’m feeling pretty good about this pattern (and yes, let’s assume Gore and Kerry did lose in this pattern, since they were not inaugurated, and frankly should have not put themselves in a position for anything Blackwell/Katherine Harris/SCOTUS did.)

he might make sense in the twisted reasoning of Washington Democratic consultants.

In other words, he is almost certainly the wrong choice.

Obama needs to follow the Seinfeld/Costanza rule:  do the opposite of what you think.  When George says or does the opposite of what his instinct or his logic tells him to do, he wins!  When he does what he thinks he should, he loses.

The DC elite are George Costanza.  To win, you have to do the OPPOSITE of whatever they think is right.  They still want to sell Repub-lite.  They still think Hillary should have been inevitable, and therefore, think that Obama should “move to the middle” and be more like Hillary.

Ignore them, or better, listen and do the opposite.

Clinton didn’t serve in Vietnam but beat two WW2 heroes,

In ‘92 and ‘96, during what neocons like to call “our holiday from history” between the Cold War and the Glorious War on Terror. We all know that’s ridiculous but sadly there are people who don’t. In the post-9/11 environment people still respond to things like the “3am phone call” ad. I think Barack can win without military cred on the ticket, I’m just saying I think military cred would make it easier. And not, I should stress again, to the point that we should compromise progressive principles, i.e. Webb or Nunn.

Bush beat Kerry (dang Swift-boaters, and I still think Republicans set up Dan Rather to help conservatives rally around him in the wake of the memo thing.)

Also, neither candidate made a big issue of it in ‘00 but Gore’s military service was more distinguished than Bush’s too (he was drafted into ‘Nam, even if only as a reporter.)

Oh, and Republicans don’t need military/toughness cred, they have it by virtue of being Republicans.

Kerry had several others problems: his Senate record was poor, his personality was tough to sell and veterans HATED him because of his postwar activities. And Obama is not Clinton. A more experienced governor from a mora conservative state would really provide a better competition against him. Senators are poor choices for Presidency, and Dole´s veterans record can´t change that.

And sure that Bush´s Veteran Status helped him trouces Dukakis in 1988.

^^Well, Dukakis did serve in the army for 2 years in Korea (granted, it was one less year than Bush41 and wasn’t as decorated, and it was several years after the actual Korean War.)

“his Senate record was poor”

How so?  When people use “x candidate/record/etc is poor” without any justification it comes across as nothing more than a baseless talking point from the opposing party.

I honestly LIKED Kerry because I identified with both his strengths AND weaknesses.

“Oh, and Republicans don’t need military/toughness cred, they have it by virtue of being Republicans.”

Unfortunately this is perceived as true.

“In ‘92 and ‘96, during what neocons like to call “our holiday from history” between the Cold War and the Glorious War on Terror. We all know that’s ridiculous but sadly there are people who don’t. In the post-9/11 environment people still respond to things like the “3am phone call” ad.”

What I don’t like is that Repubs simultaneously point out the embassy,etc. attacks (along with lies about “al-Qaida grew while Monica blew!!11!!” and “he let Osama get away!!11!!") during that time to say Clinton’s security record was worse than the GOP’s, while saying that 9/11 (which, of course, in their eyes does not hurt Bush’s security record) caused “history to resume again” as you said.

What I don’t like is that Repubs simultaneously point out the embassy,etc. attacks (along with lies about “al-Qaida grew while Monica blew!!11!!” and “he let Osama get away!!11!!") during that time to say Clinton’s security record was worse than the GOP’s, while saying that 9/11 (which, of course, in their eyes does not hurt Bush’s security record) caused “history to resume again” as you said.

Your problem, my friend, is that you are trying to argue logically.

In all fairness, Nunn is most likely being considered because of his work on nuclear non-proliferation. His views on gays in the military are wrong, but fortunately not his only legacy.

“How so?  When people use “x candidate/record/etc is poor” without any justification it comes across as nothing more than a baseless talking point from the opposing party.”

He was only two years of service in the Senate. Many people will not vote for him simply because they don´t know what to expect from a Obama Administration.

“I honestly LIKED Kerry because I identified with both his strengths AND weaknesses.”

Yes, but 49 million people did not.

And that´s why Democrats lose Presidential Elections: only inexperienced Liberal Senators from Liberal States that NEVER faced a tough ellection are acceptable for many Democrats. Then, they manage even to lose states where both US Senators, the majority of US Representatives, the governor and both Houses of the Legislature are Democratic, like West Virginia and Arkansas.

Look, we have a tough US Senator from a Southern State that was against the First Gulf War but he is not acceptable because of some cultural/feminist/gay issue. That´s the way to go!

I didn’t realize that Kerry only served 2 years in the Senate, and since you’re trying to change the topic and say Obama fits that (you weren’t in the original statement--you said “Kerry had several others problems: his Senate record was poor,” after which I responded and you rebutted it) he also has twice as much as that.

“Look, we have a tough US Senator from a Southern State that was against the First Gulf War but he is not acceptable because of some cultural/feminist/gay issue. That´s the way to go!”

What, and Repubs don’t also kick candidates to the curb over being from MA, being formerly pro-choice/pro-gay, etc.?

“I didn’t realize that Kerry only served 2 years in the Senate”

Yes, that´s Obama. But at least Obama has more to show in these two years than Kerry in ten.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200410060835.asp

“But then,” Wheeler writes, “there was also another type of senator I would run across in the elevator or see in the chamber — the ones I could never associate with any deed or even articulated thought that had any lasting effect. The thought would dash through my head, ‘Oh, yeah, he’s a senator too; forgot that he was even still around here.’ John Kerry was such a senator.”

“What, and Repubs don’t also kick candidates to the curb over being from MA, being formerly pro-choice/pro-gay, etc.?”

That´s the point. Having the lefty equivalent of the Religious Right is a no winner here.

“But at least Obama has more to show in these two years than Kerry in ten.”

I suppose using proportionality and reading the first sentence of your link, it would follow that you’d say Obama has more to show in his four Senate years (what’s “these two?") than Kerry in his 20+.

So I’m supposed to use a hit piece from *National Review* for crying out loud, originally published a *month* before the 2004 election for heaven’s sake, with a cherrypicked quote from someone who may well have been an impartial observer but quit his post before Kerry was elected, to judge Kerry?

I’ve noticed that the Republican brass says “x Democrat candidate is a poor presidential candidate and they’ll lose because of that; if they’d picked anyone else they’d have a shot at winning and even my vote, but they didn’t” EVERY election.  You really think they’d say something different with 99% of the other candidates Dems could pick in those cases?

Also, I’m convinced that the “Kerry was a bad candidate but I’ll hold my nose and vote for him” mantra seeped into the Dem side only because they heard people say it (usually with no justification) so many times from Republicans.

“So I’m supposed to use a hit piece from *National Review* for crying out loud, originally published a *month* before the 2004 election for heaven’s sake, with a cherrypicked quote from someone who may well have been an impartial observer but quit his post before Kerry was elected, to judge Kerry?”

1-) It´s not a piece from National Review, it´s a syndicated column by Bruce Bartlett, that would become the most famous critic of Bush on the Right. Some months later he would pound heavy criticism of Republicans.

2-) Wheeler is no partisan hack. He even published articles on Counterpunch.

“You really think they’d say something different with 99% of the other candidates Dems could pick in those cases?”

So why Democrats are competitive in LOCAL races in Tennessee, North Carolina, Arkansas, West Virginia, Virginia, Montana and Missouri but not on Presidential levels?

“Also, I’m convinced that the “Kerry was a bad candidate but I’ll hold my nose and vote for him” mantra seeped into the Dem side only because they heard people say it (usually with no justification) so many times from Republicans.”

Yes, Kerry barely won, even having running a disastrous campaign.

But that´s a matter tatic when you have the incumbency. And it doesn´t work all time.