I’ll let everyone have their say on Tim Kaine from a personal preference point of view. Everyone has people they’d like to see as vice-president or possibly president some day, and it’s understandable to be disappointed if none of those people were just elevated. And, from an ideological point of view, it’s perfectly sane to feel let down if the candidate doesn’t line up with your views on some important issues.
What I’m less tolerant about is the idea that this choice doesn’t make strategic sense because it doesn’t please you or fit your theory of how to win presidential elections. It may not take the party in a direction you wanted to see it go. That does not necessarily mean that it wasn’t a very solid strategic decision.
I’m humble enough to realize that the strategy here is excruciatingly complicated, and this decision had to be made in the most uncertain environment we’ve seen since at least 1968.
I can make a case that this is a base election where the most important thing is to rally the enthusiasm of your core voters, and I can make a case that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to grab huge chunks of the middle and create a Goldwater/McGovern landslide, and the best way to do that is to make it as comfortable as possible for people to crossover from the center-right.
What I can’t say with much confidence is which theory is true, although, contrary to what most progressives think, the latter move is the bolder one with more risk and a higher payoff.
Secondly, progressive outcomes come more surely from large majorities (e.g., the Blue Dog dominated 2009-2010 years) than they do from a smaller more ideologically pure party (e.g., every year since 2010).
Clinton will get more progressive stuff done if she owns the House, and guess what kind of districts she needs to win to pull that off.
What I’m saying is that things are more complicated than rating the ideology of a running mate on some measuring stick. Anyone who is assuring you that this is a loss for progressives is both too confident in their own analysis and too simplistic in how they view the relationship between power and positive change.
So, a little humility is called for, in my opinion.
I’d say Clinton is trying for both strategies with the Kaine pick. He’s a reliable Democrat with an excellent liberal voting record, yet he holds some more conservative views for personal life and can talk to moderate and conservative voters. This is somebody a liberal can get excited about but a moderate conservative could vote for if the alternative is some nutcase in hoc to Russian oligarchs. I wouldn’t have gone for this strategy myself, but choosing Kaine is a plausible strategy and might work. As you say, a little humility is called for and maybe – just maybe – a woman who’s lived in the White House, gotten a major education reform passed in Arkansas, been elected to the Senate twice, won a major party Presidential nomination, and is leading in the polls – might know what she’s doing.
Also, we don’t know what came up in the vetting.
hmmmmm…never thought about the vetting for the others. In this superheated atmosphere there could easily be things that wouldn’t matter (or apparently wouldn’t matter) in other elections.
Personally, I wanted Mark Dayton. But I haven’t been correct in a prediction since 2012.
Looking at some of the announcement rally, you see another reason: they have chemistry. They get along. That is important, it’s something none of us would know (but Hillary would), and it seems she got it right.
As a lot of other people have pointed out, it’s a very similar choice to Biden and that worked out pretty well (apart from a real scare in the replacement Senate race).
bspencer at Lawyers, Guns, and Money certainly liked what she saw.
.
it’s something none of us would know
Not true. This was one time where there were just enough interactions between the two in public that it was easy enough to observe (if one has some ability in that area and mine is no better than mediocre). Right now they’re probably overdoing it for the benefit of the cameras. Not a bad PR decision because HRC needs all public the displays of positive emotions that have some authentic component that she can get.
“Overdoing it?” To look comfortable? LOL
Admit it, they’re a great team, and they look it.
Not a progressive voting record as he is ranked 40th. With an overall -6.45 vs state tilt. They gave him an F.
What does “liberal” mean? His neoliberal voting rank would be pretty high, imo.
http://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate
MINO,
i agree
i also do not see how most fans of Pope Francis would have a positive reaction to this choice, contrary to what BOOMAN proposed in his previous post.kaine is very loyal to the oligarchy and therefore a supporter of income inequality.
good, complex decision-making needs valid information and I think there are many invalid data points in the decision making about kaine
Last I knew he was proud of his balanced budget approach even though that may involve entitlement cuts. Maybe he has changed, but somehow I doubt it. Clinton certainly knows it.
Balanced budget….Jeebus. With “entitlement” cuts, no less. He really is vintage Hooverite.
State governments need balanced budgets as they don’t print their own currency.
Does Kaine support a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution for the Federal government?
Does anyone? Seriously?
Actually, yes, a number of Republican POTUS candidates in the 2016 election cycle ran on passing a balanced budget amendment into the United States Constitution.
A Federal balanced budget amendment was one of Mike Pence’s tip-top priorities when he was in Congress. He talked about it all the time.
As N1cholas pointed out in his comment, States must balance their budgets each year. It doesn’t have anything to do with a radically conservative fiscal vision. If you’re attacking Kaine for having achieved balanced budgets during his years as Governor, you’re making a mistake.
Meanwhile, Clinton’s identified budget priorities have not been scored by the CBO (that can’t happen until she becomes President and confirms her budget proposal), but it appears she would run a deficit upwards of a half-billion dollars if she gets her way. And you can be sure she’ll be politically abused for that level of deficit spending.
‘Politically abused’. A concept to love, my god!
Pete Peterson’s FixTheDebt org loves him. Stephanie Kelton was tweeting the stuff this afternoon. Ugh!!
I didn’t bother to read the comments on
“Picking Kaine is Taking the Pot Off Boil”. I thought the entry laid out the case quite succinctly. Further, the aspect of NOT ratcheting up the polarization by picking a firebreathing bomb thrower.
The VP has recently been empowered by the respective presidents to do stuff. Prior to Clinton, the VP was truly was “not worth a bucket of warm spit”. Without a downballot surge there is no hope of anything good coming from the next 2 years. Without siphoning off quite a few “independent” (read: former republicans) you aren’t going to have downballot surge.
Furthermore, this pretty well makes VA a lock. And without VA the R’s have far fewer chances.
Looks like you set LA and not VA to democratic in that map.
actually, it’s not my map. I didn’t touch it. VA is marked as “tossup” in the map as is.
If you scroll down, you’ll see a link to the winning combinations for each party. According to THIS map, there are 16 combinations of “tossup” states that will win it for Trump. ELEVEN of those involve Virginia. If you take VA off the table, Trump is down to 5 possible routes to the presidency … all of which involve Florida … where 7 of the last 10 polls favor HRC.
Nice map, thank you.
It seems what a candidate should do as much as possible (duh) is remove weapons from the opponent, and not make mistakes.
It seems to me, this pick would strengthen her in Florida. Spanish speaker who has a link to Central America? I think what Kaine does with Virginia he does with Florida.
Like Booman said…it’s more complicated than people want to make it.
.
“Get Off Your High Horse” = This is the best you get.
No, actually, that’s not even tangentially related to anything I wrote in either response piece.
The correct internet phrasing is “tl;dr.”
You’re welcome.
Zombies arise. May in Great Britain. I sure hope it is the last hurrah of neoliberalism’s running itself into the ground.
And now THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE makes a comeback. Thatcher’s Tina, for you youngsters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative
On June 28th I posted this:
Rule number 1 on VP’s: Don’t fuck up
Rule number 2: Don’t name too far in advance of the convention – the data is very clear – it destroys any drama related to the convention and diminishes the resulting bounce.
Rule number 3:Know what problem you are trying to solve.
Rule number 4: See rule number 1
Rule number 1 is still the most important.
She didn’t fuck up. Beyond that VP’s don’t really help much.
As I posted in the other thread – I am unclear how real Clinton’s problems among the young are. She is betting that will solve themselves, and maybe she is right.
But right now third parties are polling better than in any election since 1980 (Perot was less a third Party than a persona). Usually third parties collapse well before the finish line.
We will see if that happens here.
“this decision had to be made in the most uncertain environment we’ve seen since at least 1968.”
80 and ’92 were every bit as uncertain.
On the last point, you seem to mistaking the ability to predict the outcome with an unusual political climate.
In 1980, it was not clear until very late that Carter would lose, and certainly not in a complete landslide. But it was fairly clear that there were two choices: a more conservative than average Democrat vs. a much more conservative than average Republican. People probably worried more about the Kennedy wing showing up than the hardhats defecting en masse, but the election wasn’t some total outlier.
In 1992, the only real unpredictability was Ross Perot’s behavior and how his appeal would cut. Other than that, it wasn’t that much different from 1988. The differences weren’t exotic, but more a matter of the economy and a new kind of Democrat.
1968, however, was complete chaos with assassinations and riots in the streets and at the Democrats’ convention. Humphrey was anointed, and who could say how the left would react or if they be just fractured enough to put the washed up Nixon in charge.
This time around, it’s the Republicans who are coming apart at the seams, but they aren’t starting from the position of strength that the Democrats had coming off 1964.
..little else. Safe, conservative. No real challenge to the conventional wisdom.
I have trouble thinking that it will attract “moderate” GOP conservatives and independents. Time and time again, we have been lured into that type of thinking and it never materializes. After 30+ yrs, Kaine on the ticket will not be enough to overcome hatred and fears about Clintons. It just won’t. Is Trump enough? I doubt it and most likely they will sit out the election. Many would rather not vote than vote for Hillary.
Is Kaine enough to motivate all the younger progressive supporters of the Sanders/Warren type? I doubt it.
As I said, its a bunt. She may have secured Va. A Spanish speaker may help in Hispanic areas, but if Trump wasn’t enough to get them on the Dem side, then nothing is.
Only if Kaine turns into a firebrand campaigner will it shift the dynamic. Nothing in his past suggests that possibility.
Ridge
How about his work on forcing presidents to consult with Congress before committing military force? He’s been passionate and insistent on this, and it’s not a neoliberal attitude at all.
And you think he will be forcing Clinton to do this?
He’ll be representing it in cabinet meetings, as Biden has done (unsuccessfully on Libya, successfully on Syria).
Booman said this:
“Clinton will get more progressive stuff done if she owns the House, and guess what kind of districts she needs to win to pull that off.”
It just amazes me how many posters miss this, or don’t care because PURITY!. It’s very simple…you can’t get much progressive stuff done without the House. To get the House, you’re going to HAVE TO elect people who are called ‘blue dogs”. And to get that far you need to have people on the national ticket that don’t scare the crap out of right leaning people.
Yes, listening to blue dog pontificate is painful. But if you want the House, you need them. In 15 years, maybe not. But now you do.
I guarantee the Trump acolytes don’t like this pick. They wanted a fire breather (or a POC, for that matter) who they could demonize, and use to scare the crap out of dumb white people. That is now removed.
.
I agree and disagree with this.
In the past, we needed Blue Dogs, but the Blue Dog era is over.
We need the seats the Blue Dogs held, but there must be new strategies for winning those seats.
We can talk about why the old strategy no longer works and will not work, but that’s not the important thing.
It’s still true that you can’t culturally alienate these districts and win them. You have to represent them, and there are ways to do that that aren’t 100% taking money from big corporations, engaging in budget hawkery, and punching hippies 24/7.
I haven’t done a survey (I should) but my impression glancing at the candidates up in the 30 critical swing district is they’re not going to drive us crazy like the Blue Dogs did EXCEPT that there’s a lot of support for balanced budgets.
Jeebus, balanced budgets….
A Blue Dog House member will have two yrs and out. The off-yr base is now the left wing.
Tom Perriello provided the template. R+5 district and yet only lost by ~4%…in 2010. While the rest of his caucus ran away from Obamacare, Tom embraced it and campaigned on reforming it.
Now you can say that maybe looking to a losing candidate isn’t such a great example, but it was in 2010. And he wasn’t even supposed to win in 2008, but surprised us all by beating Goode by fewer than 1000 votes.
The Perriello Way
. . . to get re-elected; it’s to make the country better while you’re there . . . “
Ah, if only a non-trivial proportion of Congress-members saw it that way!
You need a message.
That message needs to address the perception that politics is rigged, and the economy is rigged.
As Trump proves – this is the message that cuts in blue dog districts.
Politics is not stuck in time. The way to win blue dog seats isn’t a defense of Simpson-Bowles.
There is a common message shared by liberals and blue dogs that wasn’t in 1994.
And what, exactly, was DWS and the DCCC doing to win those necessary House races? Why do you think some of us wanted DWS fired?!?!?!?!? BTW, Kaine was head of the DNC during the biggest mid-term disaster ever(2010). Notice no one ever brings that up.
I’ll try not to be a demoralized “no one.”
The problem with Blue Dogs (other’n the obvious) is that they lose. That’s why, y’know, we don’t have so many anymore. Back in the day, they could beat Republicans, but now that party sorting is more advanced, voters prefer the real thing. And if Blue Dogs don’t appeal to enough people to win elections, I’m not sure how we’re supposed to stock up.
obvious and straightforward to me:
In usually reliable “red” districts/states, if you can get a blue dog elected (but a real liberal has no chance), do it. Then grit your teeth and bear it by repeatedly reminding yourself that otherwise would have been even worse.
What’s truly maddening, though, is when the Dem establishment (think Emanuel, Israel, DWS) either recruits blue dogs or cuts off at the knees more-liberal challengers to blue-dog incumbents in safely blue states/districts.
I agree with what you say about what’s truly maddening, of course. But my point is that the chance of us getting a blue dog elected in a reliably red district is pretty much nil these days, because there’s no longer any residual pre-Southern Strategy conservative Democratic vote. (And even when lightning strikes, the blue dog doesn’t last long.) But the party clings to this desperate hope, which doesn’t just waste resources but–if you’ll excuse the phrase–dilutes our brand.So while yes, I’d rather have a blue dog than a Republican, I think that is no longer a workable strategy for Getting Things Done.
Do you disagree?
I personally think we need to try to swap out shitty blue dogs for shitty left-wing (ie, not xenophobic) populists. But populism is anathema to the party, which is a curious thing.
I wouldn’t go quite so far as to characterize our Gov. and one Dem Sen. (other’s hard right GOPer, as is our only Rep.) as “blue dogs”, though they’re certainly both very “centrist”-style Dems.
I mostly forgive and tolerate that, because in practical terms, they hafta be. I don’t think there’s any way an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders (or even some examples significantly less left), running openly on their actual beliefs, proposals, and record, could currently be elected here. (That said, there are both pretty strong libertarian and populist streaks, combined with less public rightwing religiosity that distinguish us some from even neighboring western states that tend to be more reliably Repub. Sanders won our Dem primary, as a case in point.)
For example, when campaigning for his first term in 2012, Bullock was (and remains, as far as I’ve heard) pro-death-penalty. Given the solid evidence of racially biased application, the DNA and other exonerations through the efforts of the Innocence Project and others, that position has become morally untenable in my view. But it’s still (or at least was still in 2012) the strong majority opinion, so Bullock pandered to it.
And they’re both pretty obsequious to resource extraction industries, hence pretty squishy on environmental protection, bought-in to “Forest Health” propaganda to justify logging, and still pandering to the coal industry.
Whether they’re technically “blue dogs” isn’t my point. Rather, it’s that Dems in places like purplish (easily tipping red) MT have to take what we can get. This experience probably informs my degree of acceptance of “lesser-of-evil” voting: I’ve never had an option to do otherwise! (If you think this description seems bad, I lived in Oklahoma before here!)
That’s all I’m saying. Dems in red-leaning places just aren’t often going to have any realistic option of voting for our “ideal” candidate. We can and should work towards changing hearts and minds over time until a future when that will no longer be so. Meanwhile, we live in the Reality we live in.
What is it you want to get done with blue dogs? Almost by definition blue dogs are not progressive. Anyway, you got one on the ticket now.
What makes you think Kaine is a “blue dog”? He opposes the death penalty in a death penalty state. He fought the NRA in a state filled with veterans. He’s an environmentalist in a coal state and supported smoking restrictions in a tobacco state. He supports the ACA, Dodd-Frank and pretty much every major initiative of the Obama administration.
I noted a few things below but I would add his notion of deregulating banks.
What’s ‘excrutiatingly complicated’ about a clarion call to expropriate the expropriators?
Thanks for the post, Booman, and thanks, all, for the comments.
One angle that hasn’t been mentioned yet. It’s probably not the most important one, but I think it bears mentioning: a VP candidate who 1) is fluent in Spanish, 2) has lived and worked in Latin America, 3) sent his kids to public schools in a predominantly African-American district, and 4) attends a Black church might have some appeal to significant blocs of “progressives” (particularly young ones).
This.
Not one of those things did he ‘have’ to do. He chose to do each one. Seems to me to show a certain amount of character.
.
I don’t know if sending your kids to public schools in a predominantly African-American district gets many points. It didn’t seem to help Carter one iota. Of course, the media were against Carter from the beginning, so time will tell.
But it’s a reason for us dirty hippies to consider warming to him.
Everyone should read Mike Pence’s wikipedia page. Considering that Trump knows nothing about Congress, governing, compromise, or policy — Pence is the symbol of policy (by Trump’s choice). And the Republican platform? Oy vey. So if you believe this is a binary choice, that Dems will vote third party and Republicans will sit it out at the presidential level in about equal numbers, then it just may be that Clinton made a good choice. He represents responsibility, electability, compassion, environmental awareness, etc. I hope that the Sanders folks keep working to make the party even more left-leaning. But Martin is right, I think, to emphasize that the shift must come from the House. Obama got a good deal done in the first two years. That could happen again.
The question remains…is this a winning pick? It is certainly a centrist pick. The coming election is going to be all about citizen hostility…especially among habitual non-voters, which made up approximately 45% of the potential electorate in 2012. I ask you quite plainly…how many of those voters are going to stay home this time, how many are going to vote for HRC and how many are going to vote for Trump if matters stay just about the same as they are today? No big surprises or scandals, no sudden “accidents,” etc. Does the choice of Kaine motivate non-voters to vote? I don’t think so. Is his Virginia-ness going to change the election ? I do not believe so. In fact,l I believe that the internet has rendered this election the least “regional” election ever in the history of the United States. “All politics is local” said that wise old political hustler Tip O’Neill in the ’70s. True then; not so true now. More accurately, all politics is now personal. News itself is “personal” in the social media age, and…bet on it…Trump has that horse by a tight rein.
We shall see.
Won’t we.
Later…
AG
P.S. Trump chose a VP who looks like he should be on a silver dollar.
Smart.
HRC chose one who looks like he should be a retired grocery store owner.
Not so smart?
We shall see.
So, I’ll bite. Why does Mike Pence look like someone who belongs on a silver dollar? When I look at him, I see a right wing extremist. His silver head of hair in no way mitigates that view of him. Politicians and pundits both become the physical embodiment of their political views. I cannot separate the two.
Once Pence starts speaking, he comes off immediately as a moral scold. He’s not rugged or appealing outside the GOP’s religious right base. He certainly doesn’t help Trump and the Republicans grow their tent or appeal to younger voters. Trump needed to solidify his base, and his choice was probably a sensible one to do that but, as was seen at the Convention, their base is still substantially fractured so the Pence choice didn’t complete that job.
Image, not content. The sum baseline of everything Trump does. Pence? Not a hair out of place. He looks like a portrait sculpture.
AG
He looks perfectly, exactly, entirely establishment. If you’re right about this election being about the image of outsiders, then Grandmother/Greengrocer are going to kick ass all over Bully/Banker.
Possibly.
We shall see, soon enough.
AG
AG says: “HRC chose one who looks like he should be a retired grocery store owner.” And that grocery store owner looks a little like the kid who swiped some penny candy at the counter on his way out. It’s true it was legal to take gifts as Lt. Gov. and Gov. of Virginia, but it looks bad after all the fuss made over Repub. Gov. Bob McDonnell’s gift mania. When the average Jo has to save his dollars all year for a little vacation to Myrtle Beach, SC, Tim Kaine’s free $18,000 trip to the Caribbean just reinforces the disgust people have for politicians. Not popping for your own clothes ($5,000 value), when constituents are shopping at Good Will is alarming. Kaine’s gifts totaled more than $160,000, too.
P.S. Has any noticed how many empty electronics and furniture stores are now occupied by Good Will & Salvation Army?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/tim-kaine-virginia-veep-mcdonnell-clinton-224888
ARTHUR,
Kaine reminds me of Spanky from Our Gang…i can easily see why he would set off vague, general likeability in a not memorable way and why Clinton would truly like him .
Spanky from Our Gang for president in case HRC goes down?
I sincerely hope not!!!
Geez…
AG
Hm. OK, since you asked me “quite plainly”, I’m going with, “about the same” are going to just “stay home this time”, what with “habitual non-voters” being “habitual” ‘n all.
But they are being jolted out of their habitual stance this time, OB. By terrorist attack after terrorist attack. By economic difficulties that have reached the breaking point. By Trump’s noise. By the proliferation of social media that is essentially superannuating mass media.
From Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”
‘Tis new to we as well!!!
Bet on it.
Trump understands this. He is the Caliban of this tragicomedy. (Emphasis mine.)
Like dat!!!
AG
Bet on dat!
Bullshit. This is a terrible choice and it spits in the face of every person who had reservations about her from the left. It basically says that everything people worried about with her is true. If you’ll excuse me now I have to go throw up.
Wow, you’re entitled to be disgusted, of course, but I honestly think you’re overreacting. Does that mean you’re gonna vote for one of the third party candidates or not vote at all?
Eh. I have reservations about Clinton from the left, and this doesn’t spit in my face. Who the hell was dubious about Clinton from the left but also harbored the dream that she’d pick Cornell West?
Very true. She just showed us her future positions and governing philosophy.
Despite all the hand waving from her fans, she is exactly who we knew she was all along. I look forward to watching Dems do to college education what they have done for public education. They have been handed the whip.
Time to jump-start the Pragmatic, Serious Democrats’ Theory of Change!
We’ve got this.
Booman raised either here or in another thread the issue of gaining control of the House by winning potential swing seats, and the sort of candidates that might win.
Worth reflecting on what he wrote. Let’s just say that a Sanders clone is an unlikely winner. I wish that were not true.
Yes, but there’s a reason that the Blue Dogs were decimated, and it’s not because the workers rose up to seize the means of production. And there’s a reason for the deadly Democratic mid-term-falloff, and it’s not because our candidates are insufficiently moderate.
I agree that a Sanders clone wouldn’t win in most swing states. But a good-lookin’ Christian real American who drives a pickup and hates Big Finance and wants to drive a stake in the noxious heart of Wall Street and wants to charge the same for grades 13-16 as we charge for grades 8-12 and who thinks we should stay the hell out of unnecessary foreign entanglements and thinks cops should stop murdering blacks and rednecks, and who loves Jesus? He might not be a shoe-in either, but movements don’t always start with easy victories.
They do, however, sometimes start by rallying around a set of principles.
plan:
Meh… Kaine fits very much with my current theory of the Democratic party: pretty words for the base, concrete actions for the funders. Wall Street is less sad now.
They say he is well liked by his fellow senators, so that is always a desirable trait with the VP choice. Although “well liked” in Senate parlance usually means that they are good about spreading the loot.
The other thing is that, sure he probably helps in Virginia, but only slightly. And if he helps or hurts in other areas is kinda up to how our illustrious media spins the choice (so far MSNBC fully onboard, as expected, others probably to follow) Unfortunately, the choice does tend to reinforce the Clinton as corrupt to the core meme, so it is a very exploitable choice by Trump, if he runs a competent campaign (yea…)
I’ve heard criticisms of Kaine, some of which I share, but “corrupt” has not been one of those criticisms. Don’t see how that label should land on Hillary from this choice.
Wow, really?
Do you understand that, unlike our Supreme Court, most Americans don’t limit the definition of “corrupt” to an explicit quid pro quo caught on grainy FBI surveillance video?
Most Americans see a system that benefits primarily wealthy campaign contributors as fundamentally corrupt, and Tim Kaine calling for more bank deregulation while accepting money from them is just one obvious example. Over the course of his political career, Tim Kaine has accepted huge sums of money from the finance industry.
He’s pro-TPP, pro NAFTA, pro offshore oil drilling. Sure, you can argue he’s the best Democrat you can get from a “conservative” state, that he’s on good gun control, etc… but that’s just going to be noise this election compared to the major issue of government working for us or big money.
Actually most of his “gifts” is travel paid for by campaigns he’s supported (Obama’s being the largest). The only substantial other is a week’s vacation – at a friend’s house, who hasn’t done business with the state.
There’s nothing there.
70% of his donations come from large donors.
He’s taken millions from the FIRE sector…. that’s hardly nothing.
Of course, they all claim to be boy scouts and the piles of money they receive never ever affect their actions. For all I know, he might very well might be one, I really don’t know. Regardless, the opening is certainly there for Trump to take.
I agree, campaign finance needs create problems. But if Bernie had tried to run his financing of Congressional campaigns in Virginia, he would be an ex-Congressmember. The liberal movement can’t unilaterally disarm our campaign funding and hold the power we need to implement the policies we prefer. Fundraising is not corruption in and of itself.
And Kaine’s not pro-TPP. He said if the final agreement doesn’t have worker retraining provisions, he would vote against the unamendable deal. And now he’s with the Clinton campaign, and Clinton is also in opposition to the final language, so he won’t be abandoning his clear position here.
Clinton is also running on significantly increasing financial institution regulations. So where’s the evidence of corruption from her on that issue? And if she’s fully in the bag of the MIC, why does she support the Iran nuclear deal?
Typically, liberals who push back on these points rely on personal animus- “of course Hillary’s lying when she takes X position; she’s bought and sold.” I will repeat until the cows come home that responding to good positions that Hillary takes in this way is enormously flawed as a political strategy.
Of course he’s pro-TPP- he voted for fast track. That was THE vote for TPP.
Sure, to get through the primary Hillary adopted a number of reform positions. Do I believe them? Of course not. She would sign TPP in a minute if she could.
Here is a question for you- did you believe Obama when he said he was against NAFTA?
Or when he said he would re-negotiate NAFTA?
If fast track was the vote for TPP, why isn’t TPP law now?
No, you’re wrong on this. Boehner and McConnell wanted to jam the vote through the week after they got fast track authority through, but they didn’t have the votes. And Congress still doesn’t have the votes, because if they did the bill would be law now.
Here’s Speaker Ryan on February 24th, 2016, literally saying he doesn’t have the votes for it, and stating the agreement would have to go through a whole new round of negotiations:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160217/18442033628/house-speaker-paul-ryan-demands-tpp-be-renego
tiated-neglects-to-mention-it-was-his-bill-that-makes-that-impossible.shtml
The difference between the NAFTA discussion during the 2008 primaries and the TPP discussion now is that NAFTA had been law for over a decade when Obama and the other candidates discussed it, and there would have been a lot of fallout, both positive and negative, if he had pulled us out of the deal unilaterally.
I didn’t put too much weight on Senator Obama’s early campaign promise to try to renegotiate NAFTA because neither Mexico or Canada were expressing openness to renegotiating the deal, and the price would have been awfully high to kill it. Then, as the campaign concluded, the financial crash hit, and the world markets were already so unstable it would have been politically crazy, and probably not economically advisable, to kill NAFTA.
That said, I was caught flatfooted by the way Obama allowed the TPP negotiations to proceed. I’m not entirely opposed to international trade deals, and neither is Senator Sanders.
But they had to figure out a way to keep the terms of negotiations secret while simultaneously bringing a broader set of interest groups to the table. That would have made the necessary secrecy of the negotiations much more difficult to accomplish, but without labor, consumer and environmental rights organizations at the table, their suspicion has been a mountainous political boulder to overcome. Additionally, the GOP Caucuses came to terms with the fact that a vote for TPP meant that they were placing their trust in the hands of the Obama Administration, which is an even more mountainous political obstacle for many of them.
Hillary is in opposition to the current TPP language, and she has repeated her opposition to the Partnership on the stump dozens of times. It’s just too prominent a campaign promise for her to break. She has a progressive agenda she wants to accomplish. The tremendous political damage she would suffer if she signed TPP would make it difficult for her to get the base support she would need to push through the rest of her stuff.
Sounds like spin…
We know Obama was lying about his position on NAFTA because at the same time he was talking smack about NAFTA, his campaign advisors were telling the Canadian government: “that their promise to reopen NAFTA was just empty talk aimed at winning votes in Ohio”
Hillary, being the consummate double-talker that she is, has left herself more than enough wiggle room to sign TPP.
Hillary takes a position you like…
…and you stick both middle fingers up at her and scream “LIAR!!!!!!”
You could make use of Hillary’s opposition to the final TPP language, repeated over and over again during the campaign, to help make sure that Congress never passes it and puts it on any President’s desk, and you choose to flush it down the toilet. It appears that your animus for Hillary must be expressed even when it is actively hurtful to what you claim to want.
I’m asking you to reconsider what is more important. I don’t love Clinton, but I involve myself in progressive politics in order to help people, not just to express my resentments.
I like the choice for 2 reasons. First, he is the man to debate Pence. Kane will have Pence suttering and a mumbling in front to the whole world. Second, the man speaks spanish and is catholic which will appeal to the dem hispanic base.
If Tim Kaine is such a great choice, why was Third Way as giddy as a 16 year old boy in a gentlemen’s club about it?
This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, rocket science.
If the strategy is to carve the shit out of the center-right in order to win a geographically broad landslide election, then a sure sign you’re doing it right is if moderate Republicans and Third Ways types are clapping.
You can argue that you don’t want a landslide or that it would be easier to get a landslide by jacking up college town or Latino turnout, but you can’t argue that the Third Way applauding means that the strategy isn’t having its intended effect.
So the perfect running mate would’ve been Jim Webb–or Marco Rubio.
I think probably Tim Kaine is better than either of those.
I’ll leave it to you to figure out why.
I think he was being a bit sarcastic in trying to make a point.
Because you don’t trust pony-humping rainbow-eyed progressives to be smart enough to vote for the pragmatic, realistic choice of Clinton/Rubio over Trump/Pence. And a few of those silly-billies might not! But imagine how many more conservatives we’d poach with Rubio. And we’d win Florida! Then we’d get supermajorities in Congress and the Clinton/Rubio administration would make dreams come true.
This was a fine choice for Clinton. Strategically smart, and Kaine seems like an okay guy, if I don’t listen too closely to the link seabe posted below. But a) when you ‘carve the shit’ out of a demographic you owe them, and b) why not then carve the shit out of the right-right, and win 72% of the vote?
I’ll leave it to you to figure that one out.
Joe Biden is a man many of us deeply distrusted in 2008, because of his ties to banking industry (inescapable in a Delaware legislator), his low DW-Nominate score, his sincere Catholicism, his clueless-white-dude look. And he’s perhaps been the best vice president in US history.
Many of his characteristics are shared by Tim Kaine. I’m pretty sure Clinton knows what she’s doing on this one.
“clueless-white-dude look”. LOL!
Upgraded just for that. Kinda describes both of them to a tee. Doesn’t make them not worth knowing, or supporting. I know a LOT of them.
Nobody has yet mentioned this about Kaine……he’s a fricking welder! His father is (was?) a fricking welder. That’s a rather big deal. In a very good way. It means he knows, very well, what good hard work is. If he forgets, I’m sure his father/mother remind him. It’s hard, dirty, dangerous work, deserving of respect. Most professional welders I know are right wing crazy kooks that have to be watched like hawks so they don’t burn the whole damn house down, but I’ve done solid work with them.
.
OT, but I’ve been curious for a while. Other than his image as the Cool Uncle, what makes Biden such a great VP?
To me, the most important thing is this–he gave Obama someone he trusted implicitly, but who wasn’t afraid to challenge him. Every president needs one of those (who isn’t a spouse), and I hope Clinton has found hers.
I think the biggest formal roles were managing the implementation of the stimulus program (ARRA) and effectively serving as Secretary of Iraq. There’s lots more listed at whitehouse.gov. I believe he’s had a big impact on foreign policy in general, backing up he president in cabinet against the Stupid Shit Caucus. He’s also played a key role as Obama’s ambassador to the Senate, where McConnell and the other Republicans have trusted him to be able to speak authoritatively for Obama especially since things started to get a little more normal from 2012. Obama could have kept dithering on same-sex marriage forever if Biden hadn’t decided to push it. HIs personal relationship with Obama touches a wide range of things just because he has so many things he knows how to work on that Obama can talk with him about entirely openly. He’s really a BFD, for a vice president.
Not sure it’s possible to be a “great VP” because there’s no defined substantive assignments or performance measures.
What has been good about Biden is that he’s succeeded in maintaining a close relationship with Obama. That has facilitated Obama keeping him in the loop on most matters. It appears that Obama has valued his input and hasn’t given him any obvious bum steers. He’s been a steady hand on the backup wheel.
He might be but the second VP in US history that a President kept continuously well-prepared to take over should the need arise. Cheney was the first, but that was because he was effectively managing the Oval Office from is VP lair.
Two matters that might be exceptions to the above. Ukraine and Hunter Biden. With HRC and her neocon buddies facilitating havoc in Ukraine, Obama needed someone to keep an eye on that. Biden likely contributed to the lack of WH oversight on this issue. Did Biden should have ask his son not to go there because it could easily make Biden look bad? Hunter was free to make his own decision, but Biden had a duty to tell Obama and request assigning someone to monitor the situation. Had the GOP been functioning during the few years, they could probably have given Joe a black eye over it.
Politico Party of Two. I have doubts as to the accuracy of this article. It’s written as if it’s all based on reports from insiders but it doesn’t specifically state that throughout. Suspect there some conjectures and speculations on the part of sources and the writer. But much of it is probably reasonably accurate. Yet, there’s something off or much is missing about Obama’s opposition to Biden running for POTUS. Really a stretch to buy that Obama viewed HRC as a better protector of his legacy than Biden. Sense something else major was in play.
Biden is too experienced not to know that if he were to seriously entertain running for POTUS, he had to begin preparing for that a year before the public had any awareness that he was interested, and it seems as if nothing of that sort was done. Perhaps the participants will tell the real story one day.
If the strategy is to carve the shit out of the center-right in order to win a geographically broad landslide election, then a sure sign you’re doing it right is if moderate Republicans and Third Ways types are clapping.
LOL!! And that wins how many actual votes? Do you think Ana Navarro, to take one example, is really going to vote for any Democrat this fall? We all know that most Republicans are going to vote for Trump, or leave the top space blank, in the fall. And they’ll vote for the Republican the rest of the way down the ballot to stop Clinton.
Envisioning a Republican Congress with HC as President and not a whisper of Liz Warren? She just signaled where she intends to go with the help of the sane contingent. They might even manage Hastert repeal with enough sweeteners and some push from the C of Commerce. That could take the microphone away from the Gohmert faction.
Republicans would be very smart to look half-sane in the next Congress if Trump implodes. A recession is not out of the question in the next four yrs. 2020 could look good to them if they can reassure the squishy middle they can be adults while picking their pockets again.
We COULD find Ted Cruz all prepared to start Armageddon and the End Times in 2020 if we’re real lucky.
I think Trump is going to be crushed and Hillary knows it. She’s looking at data that’s fine-grained like never before in the history of politics. She will have effective surrogates on the campaign trail, including Barack and Michelle Obama, Sanders, Warren, Biden and Bill Clinton. She’ll have Brink’s trucks full of money for targeted ads and the data to figure out how and where to attack. She will ruthlessly prosecute the case against the monster with the religious extremist sidekick.
Trump’s considerable skills with dumbfuck language games is nonetheless narrow and will have less and less impact over time, as the exposure increases. He’s become tedious to watch–far less able to surprise and confound, and if there’s one human on earth who’s guaranteed to make Hillary seem more likable, it’s him. Only she can eff this one up, and she’s determined not to let that happen. Thus Kaine, and the “progressive with results” governance she envisions.
It’s not what most of us here wanted, but at this point it is what it is. Please go ahead and crush him. We will pat you on the back and then start agitating.
And when Obama was trying to strike a “bargain” to undermine Social Security, the party loyalists assured us he was just playing “11-dimensional chess”. Complicated strategizing that should be left to our beneficent superiors.
Of course, before them, Bush II’s people said he must know best what to do in Iraq, having lots of information we don’t.
And the circle of life completes another turn.
What is up with you? Have Social Security benefits been reduced? How many years has it been since the President placed that on the table? Hillary is running on increasing Social Security benefits.
I mean, the corellation you offer here to Bush II’ s Iraq war doesn’t work at all. One outcome happened, the other did not.
And what was one of the options the President got a Republican Congress to accept in that budget deal? 10% across the board cuts to the Defense budget. Yes, the cuts were clumsily executed, by design. Yes, the simultaneous 10% across the board cuts in discretionary domestic programs have been harmful. Still, Obama brought home as part of the 2011 budget deal something that many Democrats have been begging for, DoD cuts. And what response does he get from much of his base? A big middle finger. Pathetic.
You aren’t on Social Security, are you?
If you go a decade with your cost of living adjustments not adjusting with the cost of living, then, yes, your social security has been reduced.
That clearly isn’t the SS benefits cut that Eric was referring to.
But, to respond to your point, Social Security beneficiaries have gained COLA adjustments in seven of the last ten years. In January 2009, the COLA was 5.8%. It was much lower in other years, but that’s what happens when inflation is low.
I expect that Hillary’s push to expand SS benefits is something that you welcome. I know I do.
OT – Maybe my computer is f’d up, or Facebook is, but I’m still getting delegates telling me Bernie is doing to win the nomination.
LOL!
I’m already on record as having said that Kaine is a nearly perfect choice for HRC’s VP. For who and what she is. Totally confirms all of that. Not as inspired and electorally more overtly calculating than Obama’s choice. (One that from the moment he announced it, I’ve given him an A+ on, including the class with which he handled the announcement.) In her case the VP is less important than we’ve been accustomed to over the past couple of decades. (In reality only the past sixteen years, but the PR was good enough in the prior eight years that many (including me) bought it.)
But it does get tiresome to be told that critiquing the public policy positions, decisions, and behaviors of Obama or HRC is simple-minded and a failure to be properly pragmatic and adult and tolerable only for as long as a toddler’s temper tantrum. This is nothing other than “kinder gentler,” reconstituted DFH bashing. And somehow, someway, those that adopt that mode always end up getting it incorrect in the medium and long-term.
Clinton will get more progressive stuff done if she owns the House, …
There must be a secret plan I’ve never seen any evidence of for a progressive agenda and not only to win the House but to do so with candidates not in the pocket of our corporate, MIC, and/or wealthy elite overlords.
The past is no surefire guarantee of the future, but who were the candidates that WJC stumped for (and to a lesser extent HRC stumped for) in 2014 and how did they fare in their elections? Who was the DNC chair in 2010? 261 Democratic House seats as if 1/92 (and many of those seats were still filled by New Dealers). Maybe it’s just been bad luck since then that when a Clinton figures prominently in a federal election that Congressional Democratic candidates don’t do so well.
Some of us have a lot more lived experience having to accommodate ourselves to tolerating the intolerable. We know what that costs us. We also know that giving those in power a small pass leads to more public policies that favor the “haves” and disadvantages the general welfare of the people. Then the passes required get larger and larger. Until:
But too few educated and knowledgeable US citizens take seriously the ethical duty to promote public policies, and those that are chosen to implement them, that maximizes equality and minimizes inequality.
THANK YOU BOOMAN.
I have been fighting this same fight all day on facebook. Honestly, I am at the point where if the crybaby left is against it, i am automatically for it.
these fucking brain dead, entitled nincompoops and their goddamn fee-fees. I have a splitting headache as it is and these dunces make it worse.
If a pro-choice, anti-gun, anti-death penalty VP who came to prominence fighting housing discrimination and was appointed mayor by a majority black city council, who goes to a majority African American catholic chruch isn’t good enough for you, nothing is. What does the man have to do, blow Bernie Sanders? Is that good enough? Nah, probably not: his technique is all wrong.
And are you the controlling boyfriend of the “crybaby” left. We are way past the point of enabling abusers.
BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS.
brendan, if you can’t understand the complaints of the Left then you can’t. Have you read LISTEN, LIBERAL yet?
It’s quite simple. If you cannot understand the complaints of the Left, then you are not to the left, you far enough to the right not to understand. I’m guessing you haven’t gone bankrupt from medical bills, you don’t get stopped by the cops all the time, your job hasn’t been shipped to Bangladesh, your family wedding plans haven’t been interrupted by a drone strike.
Announcing your lack of empathy is fine, if that’s what you’re attempting to do. If you’re attempting to make concerns of the Left regarding H. Clinton and the Democratic Party disappear, then you’ll be continually be frustrated.
Oh, so you’re kicking me out than?
If that’s the case, and you’re serious, I’m GLAD to leave. I don’t want to be associated, AT ALL, with a bunch of self-satisfied, smug, uncompromising morons who are going to find themselves with Trump for president.
Seriously, I have fucking had it with the professional left, a term I used to hate but which I now thoroughly embrace.
Go fuck yourselves. And if you think Im leaving the pond, you are out of your fucking mind.
Tim Kaine is a graham cracker choice – a little sweet but mostly bland. Kaine won’t swing a single vote, that’s not his job. His job is to be dull, boring, and easy to digest.
explicitly into Clinton’s speech introducing Kaine as running mate right now (after each negative criticism of Trumpence, obviously)?
That’s the impression I get.
his Spanish portions!
Is that just me being a linguistic snob (since I can follow along well enough, even though my Spanish is quite rusty now)?
But I think it’s actually because it conveys to Spanish-speakers (calculatedly so? maybe!), “I’m talking directly to you . . . and I don’t care if anyone else understands what I say to you or not! This is between us.”
I think it works.
Yeah, I’ve been noticing that. I agree; it’s working for him and the crowd. It also brings the additional benefit of shortening his speech; if he was having to translate everything into English, this would be unpleasantly long.
One of the things I’m surprised by is how much fun Kaine is having ripping into Trump. He’s rolling out attacks just fine. He’s a pro.
That’s the one inarguable strength of Kaine. I’m not an expert (sadly) but I’m obsessed with the Spanish language. To my amateur ear, Kaine speaks Spanish better than Jeb, who speaks better than Cruz & Rubio, and all of them speak way better than Julián Castro (note my correct usage of the á! impressive, no?).
I like it too. I don’t understand what he’s saying, but that seems fair. It might be time to learn Spanish.
Well, the crowd is going nuts with approval at the Hillary rally, so that outcome isn’t happening. Gotta say that Kaine is very energized and better than I expected on the stump.
big time.
Many loud, enthusiastic boos following negative criticisms of TrumPence.
With same now continuing into Kaine’s speech.
Which is what prompted my comment.
Yeah, I see. Regrets for misreading your post.
Maybe I don’t get Booman’s point here.
I took “Get Off Your High Horse” as directed at progressives who find Kaine’s selection as dismally and predictably neoliberal as Clinton could go without naming the President of B of A as her running mate.
Is this correct, Boo?
As far as political strategy, it’s a pretty safe, conservative strategy. There is the assumption that the left has nowhere else to go, and they’re probably right. I see that Balloon Juice is already slagging Jill Stein, and they’re still punching hippies and getting ready for Hilz’s next round of wars and standing in solidarity with the OUN/B.
The impression I get is that Trump is scoring points with people who saw their jobs go overseas (or their income flatten over the last thirty years). Hillary isn’t. How much Trump can connect the Clintons with NAFTA, GATT et al will determine who wins the White House. I expect Congress to stay the same because Kaine and Wasserman Schultz couldn’t find an electable Democrat unless he or she were actually a Republican.
So expect a closer race than it ever should have been. This is the best you can get in a corrupt, leveraged political party.
I may need a few tanks of laughing gas to get through the next four years.
You have the best beer in the world and legalized mj in Oregon. I don’t think that’s necessary.
True. But laughing gas is supposed to be really good for depression and I expect a big very soon.
I had a period of strong depression a few years ago. Medication helped me through the worst part, and therapy was and has been very helpful in keeping my emotional equilibrium.
What an excellent event they just did! Geez.
Somewhat off topic: For you strong non-Clinton folks, who from the Bernie camp (or any camp) who becomes a Clinton surrogate would you be excited to see and hear once this convention is over? Is there anyone who would positively influence you to vote for this ticket?
I might have voted for the Dem ticket if Warren was on it. I won’t vote for Clinton.
Four more years.
You didn’t answer my question. Don’t you realize that Warren could never have been on the ticket? She would have been replaced with a Republican and she would have lost her strong voice in the Senate. A VP has a different role to play. When Sanders said that he could criticize Obama because that’s what Senators can do when they disagree, that’s right. You should be grateful, I believe, that Warren was not the choice. So go back to my question, please.
Sorry, I must have misread your post but the gist of it that I got through the misreading was what Sanders stand-in could be positively persuasive regarding Clinton’s campaign.
First, I never thought that Warren would be on the ticket, and she IS campaigning for Clinton. But she would have to be on the ticket because then that would open the possibility of her taking over when Hillary steps down, or, you know, whatever.
As to your question, I really am not sure that there is anyone. I know who Hillary is and I know what’s happened to the Democratic Party over the last thirty (fifty?) years, and while I wasn’t all that animated at this time last year, I just presumed it was Hillary, the Bernie run (and a few other geopolitical things) busted me out of the political doldrums. And now I’ve got to figure out a way to back into the doldrums so I don’t end up shouting on street corners at the passing cars.
So my answer is probably no one. I mean, if Trump announces that the rich should be allowed to eat babies everyone would condemn him, and in fact everyone condemns Trump already without him talking up baby-eating privilege.
Maybe someone who is just streetfighting Trump for the hell of it.
It would have been interesting to see Trump’s unhinged responses to Warren’ s attacks on the campaign trail. Apropos that, I keep thinking that the Dem campaign ought to treat Trump as the mad dog that he is: poke him with a stick and let him froth at the mouth. Repeatedly. In prime time.
Don’t give up your hopes just yet; I’m sure Warren will be out on the hustings throughout the campaign jabbing sharp sticks through the bars at the hairy one, and he’ll be furiously reacting. Because he just can’t help himself.
poke
poke
poke
And just wait till one of the debates when Clinton picks up one of the Warren zingers that sent him over the edge and quotes it at him.
ka-BOOM!
(and has already demonstrated this) just as effectively (if not more so?) from her Senate seat as she could as running mate. While still retaining all the advantages of her effectiveness in the Senate.
These were always the best arguments (combined, I’m just guessing, with her own personal preference) for keeping her there.
Good question.
The problem is Sanders occupies a pretty unique space in this country right now. Warren comes to mind: beyond that I couldn’t really tell you.
That was one effect of Sanders running and doing well: he became known in a way you really can’t replace.
Maybe others have ideas, but the others that might be mentioned (Franken eg) have the appeal of a wet noodle.
Bernie people are going to want to hear from people who stood by him.
Thanks. You’re the only person so far who has bothered to try to reply. So I’m a Dem Party person in a fairly small, very Democratic county that went for Sanders by 14.5%. I’m trying to figure out who would be a good surrogate to bring in to try to bring back some of the Sanders or Bust people, or the ones who bought the “rigged” and “corrupt” line so that they’ll see that Jill Stein isn’t their salvation or that staying home isn’t an option either. Turns out, I think, that even if Sanders tomorrow on MTP or on Monday says: “Vote for Clinton/Kaine” they won’t do it. I’m afraid nothing can convince them of the importance of their individual (and their collective) vote.
To me, as a Sanders supporter, what’s important is how the county and district are handling the downballot races. who do you have running for House? for state offices? US Senate happening in your state? any local races? that’s where I’m looking for continuity and the continuation/ expansion of the Sanders agenda. from my experience doing door to door, people become most engaged with the campaign shows an interest in their issues. of course I’ll vote for the dem candidate for prez, but how I view the campaign depends on how the Sanders agenda gets incorporated into the electoral process.
Errol – Thank you, too, for reply. It’s helpful. We are in a solid blue district. Our Congressman will be re-elected easily. Only 1 state-wide race that’s in contention. No senatorial races. So, without exactly spelling out where I live, that’s the backdrop. The party here is ready for Sanders folks who showed so much energy to really get involved, and to assume leadership of the party if they stay active, productive Democrats. So the only way to show that in this election season is by working for Clinton/Kaine. That’s why I’m asking. So many were nowhere to be seen before. They may be dead-enders and my mental energy to win them over might be for naught. But, my original question was: If a surrogate were to be available to come here, who could be persuasive? We’re a small county, so it isn’t going to be Elizabeth Warren, I wouldn’t think. Perhaps a nationally known Sanders supporter who could be convincing in a multi-cultural setting.
re:
Or Bernie hizownself for that matter.
I agree, the odds seem long against either.
But you never know! Unless you ask.
hizownself – favorite word!! you’re on a roll these days, oagua!
myownself(!), too.
Trying to recall from whom I stole that construction.
Guessing, here.
(Before checking, I would have guessed Roy Blount, Jr. Seems just the sort of thing he’d say.)
and, agree, you never know, Sanders or Warren might be around, should try to invite
asked.
when fladem replies I’m sure will have good advice. no need to be specific about where you are. I think the most important thing is to have someplace for all that energy and commitment to go, something to work on. and something personal (not telephoning) personal door to door is great, one meets people, could learn a new region. how easy is voter registration near you? any issues? photo id, etc? are there any contested races near you in the next district or something? an excursion to do voter registration or door-knocking on a weekend. I’m just saying that doing something with other people is key; meeting others exchange ideas, thinking forward. as far as Sanders surrogates goes, events with Sanders surrogates – discussion, something informal with food would also be good, but build in a direction for activity. I recommend getting in touch with the Sanders campaign about surrogates in your area, also about what they recommend doing.
What do you think of Raul Grijalva? Does he have any sway?
really don’t know enough to say
if you’re near Butte, MT invite Amanda Curtis. (or, invite her anyway)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Curtis
Connect with social media.
FB page might be useful…https:/www.facebook.com/brandnewcongressca?fref=nf
What the Sanders campaign highlighted for me is that we need many, many more like him. And they aren’t going to materialize out of the local, state, and national Democratic Party. In fact, those institutions will do their best to thwart anyone that attempts to crash their party.
But here’s the thing. Something quite remarkable was accomplished in the past year. Sanders brought out the people that have been there all along and he did so when all the institutional, media, and big money powers were against him. The instances when that was done before in Democratic Party are close to zero. It’s the next step, to keep whatever this phenomenon is going to achieve real power that’s daunting because it’s so fragile and easily co-opted.
I do have concerns about individuals transferring their time, energy, and money to Stein’s campaign. Not because she isn’t a good and decent person, but because in this election cycle it’s a dead end. Enthusiasm is difficult to maintain over multiple election cycles if real gains aren’t made.
My suggestion is that individuals carefully study and review the current political landscape in their communities. How good or bad is the current local Democratic Party? Doe it have a core of individuals chosen to run in all the local races for years to come? If so, all they want from new members is their time and money. Does the existing local Green Party (if there is one) have any promise? (All too often very small ponds are rife with competing egos and protective of individual turfs as much as larger ponds.) Structure, plan, viable potential candidates? How good or bad is the current local Democratic Party?
There’s no short of people with principles, personal ethics, intelligence, education, curiosity that make for a good elected official. All necessary but insufficient. Three essential qualities IMO are a passion to do the work of public officeholders (and much of it is dreary, tedious, and boring), energy, and ego strength (not to be confused with high personal ambitions which is more often than not the stuff of officeholders that are no damn good for the people). The best people’s politicians have lost at least one and often several races and have that ego strength to bounce back. Find one. Or more than one, target an office that holds the possibility of a win for a new politician. Plan-plan-plan. Find ways to get that person’s name out there and seen long before any actual campaign is undertaken. Be rational and practical because ever dollar and minute that goes into a futile or hopeless campaign is a dollar or minute that’s squandered. (Not saying that the first campaign has to result in a win, but it does require a good enough showing that resources exist for the person’s next campaign within two years.)
A couple of examples. HI House District 1. The incumbent elected in 2014 announced a couple of months ago that illness forced him to withdraw from his reelection. A Bernie supporter/activist jumped at the opportunity. So too did the woman that had held the seat until 2014 when she opted to run for the Senate (a race she lost). She has the name recognition and money from various national organizations that practically guarantee that she’ll win the primary and general election. She’s beatable because she’s on the conservative side of HI Democratic politicians. But only by someone with all the right stuff, including time in a local or state office (someone like Tulsi Gabbard). The Sander’s supporter is much too far away from being such a person.
PA — US Senate. Overall as to suitability to do the job, Fetterman was superior to the other two candidates. If he can build on the public exposure he received from entering the race as the long-shot third candidate, his effort will have been worthwhile. But he may have done a little bit better and ended up with more to build on for his next race if had accepted that conventional personal appearance is an asset. (An observation from American Idol the one season I watched it. The singing talent of one man stood out to me. It didn’t escape the producers who seemed to do everything possible to get him outside his rocker comfort zone, both musically and clothing/grooming. He insisted on doing it his way — and was eliminated mid-way through the contest. He may be satisfied with what he accomplished, but that wasn’t the point of the show.)
“In fact, those institutions will do their best to thwart anyone that attempts to crash their party.”
What I have been asking about is building a stronger local party with these folks. As I’ve said before, I’m in it and I eagerly want the Sanders people. They are distrustful, even at the local level. So far they haven’t really wanted to participate in the work of the party, like down-ticket races; just for Bernie.
Clinton won the nomination, but they refuse to accept that to this day. Maybe they will by Thursday. I’d like to find ways to keep those folks involved, interested enough to spend the time, the energy, etc. to join in, to earn the positions in the party that we old folks are ready to hand to them. We’ve been impressed with the energy, but are turned off by the failure to see the political reality and to blend their ideas and idealism with the political reality of a varied population.
What say you, Marie? Can Sanders turn them into Democrats with a purpose? Or will these folks ever wander the hinterland until some ideal (for them) candidate comes along again? Inside the system? Or outside?
Let me also add something here; your problem is difficult and now is a key moment for this issue. whatever you work out for solving it can be a resource in other places. I recommend calling DFA and talking with them – it’s an issue that they too will want to solve, or find various strategies to address.
OK. Thank you. DFA is supporting a candidate running in our state. Perhaps that’s the way in. We’ll just have to wait and see what transpires. I do feel sure that some of these folks will remain engaged and others will feel that Bernie sold them out or that we, “the establishment,” are trying to co-opt them. The sad part for me, as I said above, is that we’re not interested in co-opting them. They are the future, of course. But if they feel that we are corrupt, that elections were stolen, etc. etc., then there is nothing to do. And it’s not just young people. Ugh! This thread has gone on long enough for now. But thanks, again, Errol. You keep me thinking!
Well, you’re welcome. great news for your situation that DFA is supporting a candidate in your state. give them a call, try to talk with one of the higher ups [they are pretty hands on, so shouldn’t be a problem] and explain the situation. btw i disagree w Marie3’s comment below. people don’t mind doing whatever if they are involved in something they believe in; that’s why it’s important to get them together with each other; they’ll reinforce each others’ interest in the project. also, tell them what you wrote here – that you want them involved, they are the future and would they please give it a try to figure out how to move forward. also, it’s important to keep in mind right now with the DNC emails leak things are particularly fraught, as it were; fladem should have some insights, hope he posts before too long but from what he wrote in his diary I assume he’s involved in that right now
btw i disagree w Marie3’s comment below. people don’t mind doing whatever if they are involved in something they believe in;
Isn’t that what I said?
your entire first paragraph isn’t on my horizon. don’t even think of it that way. have you ever done organizing?
I mean organizing from scratch, not working within an org
This adds confirmation their interpretation:
CNN DNC chair won’t speak at Dem convention following Wikileaks fallout
More. Politico — Top DNC staffer apologizes for email on Sanders’ religion.
DNC CFO Brad Marshall now deeply regrets have written and sent:
Politico
Ah, the BernieBros were so nice; nothing like what the HRC camp has been claiming for the past year.
another thought. the most difficult part may be getting people together the first time. don’t be discouraged if it takes a while and people are reluctant. you probably know one or two, (more would be nice) who are more amenable to the transition to bringing progressives into the party, essentially, and talk with them. don’t worry if you don’t convince everyone, start with a couple, get them to help you plan.
You’re not going to get volunteers for grunt work, often thankless grunt work, to advance the prospects of the institutions, people, and agenda that they rejected and led to them signing on for Bernie. Political volunteer energy, time, and money isn’t fungible.
On the one hand, you’ve identified a necessary long-term project to get to where progressives would like to be. On the other, you want to exploit those and the rudimentary local organization that materialized around Bernie’s candidacy to accomplish your vision/goal. That phrasing is purposely harsh to get you to recognize that you’re thinking “enlist” before it all dissipates and they’re hearing exploitation and co-option.
You want them; you have to inspire them. Is there anything/anyone in your community that inspires or could be made to inspire Bernie supporters? An organizing principle. Bernie set a standard; it must be positive and forward looking. None of that teabag anger, hate, and rancor. Any candidate anywhere that they could get behind and possibly elect? Tim Canova? Wouldn’t a win like that put a feather in their cap? Inspire them to want more of that.
At this moment, there’s little to no space to accomplish much of anything in the remaining months of this election cycle. Accent “next year” — preparing for next year and the year after — as you seek to remain engaged with them. You’ll lose them (or almost all of them) if you push them in anyway to support HRC or work to elect Democrats that they’ve already rejected. There’s not a positive path to advance a long-term plan within the negative confines of this general election. They aren’t responsive to the fear HRC and Trump promote. They don’t want to hear about “lesser evil” or any other repetitive negative crap. Their generation is living the consequences of decades of selling out for lesser evil.
Anyway, who among us has a perfect crystal ball that can run the outcomes of the next four years and thereafter with a President Clinton and a President Trump to know for sure if one would be worse than the other or there’s not much difference between the two scenarios. To grossly overgeneralize, young people have a better intuitive grasp of essentials that are predictive of the future than older people. Respect that and they’ll respect you.
There is a lot here, Marie. I’ll focus on one point. Bernie Sanders, the Independent running as a Democrat, decided to attack on trust, on rigged, etc. He has besmirched not just the DNC but all of us regular folks who in a more general sense believe that the Democratic party is closer to our values than those of the Republican party. We don’t always adore our candidates, but we give money, time, energy to advance the general positions and success of the party.
I’ve been doing the nice thing. I’ve been welcoming these folks by attending some of their meetings, sending very clear signals that “the local party is theirs if they want it and work to take it.” Some have responded with due respect. But most continue on feeling like they’ve been robbed and it’s all corrupt, and we are part of the “establishment,” now a dirty word for people who have worked for years in a different way to try to attain the same goals they seek.
We are a small place, maybe 25,000. The area is very blue. Our turnout is important in the state to offset redder counties. We, alone, don’t make a huge difference. The only place for Sanders people to get a toe-hold is in very local elections: town and county. The local party doesn’t put up candidates for that because anyone running as a Dem in a primary who wins ultimately gets elected. Our influence as a party is thus limited. We really only run campaigns when state-wide or national candidates are on the ballot.
Again, our only real purpose is to drive the vote. We raise our own money to do that and it’s always from the same people. Our campaigns are mainly volunteer and the vols are getting older, four years at a time!
Anyhow, I keep telling the Sanders folks to stay engaged and I tell a story of a town I lived in a decade or more ago, a college town, where the Green Party organized the college kids, got their candidate for mayor elected, and he did some amazing things (for which he got arrested at first but ultimately vindicated).
All I’m saying, I guess, is that there is an opportunity just waiting for them, but they don’t seem to be smart in seizing it. You put the onus on me to inspire them. I put the onus on them to “work the system” to transform it. We are not the DNC. I’ve heard Sanders make the same plea. So I hope that it’ll change after the nomination is complete.
I could give other examples of reaching out, but I have to be limited because I’m trying to protect my location (why, I don’t know, but…). So here’s just one. At our County convention the Sanders folks were dismayed that they would not be allowed to write his name in on the Presidential line in November (they didn’t know that). In our state doing that invalidates the entire ballot. So I called the Sec’t of State candidate who is running and suggested that she might take up with the legislature, if she wins, how to modify that law for future elections. The Sanders people were elated at the prospect. There is a certain getting to know people to have even that small degree of access to make the suggestion, to plead the case. It is a massaging process, not a hammer over the head. Changing laws usually takes years of effort, enduring setbacks, disinterest, etc.
I believe the paradigm for making change has not devolved into stomping and screaming to get one’s way. It’s the art of persuasion, compromise, persistence. And sometimes it’s working for candidates you may not totally like. The Sanders folks, even here in the FrogPond, have so convinced themselves with their rhetoric that Clinton or Kaine is so evil, or misguided, that they will have a difficult time extricating themselves from their rhetorical box. I grieve.
yes, – on my way to a meeting so brief reply. you’re in a difficult situation and I understand your frustration with Sanders supporters and i recall previous posts you wrote about it. Are there one or two you can talk with? bring with you in talking with Sec’t of State, so that Sanders person will see the complexity and become engaged?
Yes, do protect your location!
completely disagree that there’s no space to accomplish much of anything in the remaining months – this is the moment to seque the Sanders supporters into the organization. it is key
Errol,
I’m assuming you’re mostly responding to Marie. You have been very helpful. I’m not giving up. For me this is a problem to solve, which is why I brought it up in the first place. We will survive it. There are many avenues to take. I’ve already done a great deal to attempt to engage the difficult-to-engage. I wish I had more partners in that here, but that’ll come in time. I’m optimistic. I just hope Sanders on MTP today and tomorrow in his speech calls a halt to the rancor and starts turning his people into workers. Is there a way here to send a private communication???
yes, I was responding to Marie. Sounds to me you are on a good track. I suggest getting in touch with DFA about what you’re saying, just because the organization is smaller and you can reach someone higher up; they can put you in touch with Sanders – that’s what I would do, that’s just me because I don’t know ppl in the Sanders org and I assume it’s a busy time to try to get through to Sanders via his organization and DFA will support what you are doing.
I respect very much what you are doing, and I’m happy to offer my feedback any time. re: my comment to Marie, I have founded 6 or so organizations or targeted project groups. – what you’re doing is the most important aspect of the Sanders movement imo. most important thing is patience and asking for feedback as you are doing.
Thank you. Feels good. I had the opportunity today to spend a little time with the SOS candidate. We talked about her DFA endorsement and how to parlay that into engaging some of the reluctant folks. Since voting rights are an important plank of the Sanders and Democratic platform, I’d imagine the hold-outs will be particularly interested in seeing her get elected. We will see one another in a week or so, and it’ll come up again, perhaps with a strategy. This is the work of a party!!
wonderful to hear!!! just great!
No one will change what Hillary Clinton is. She’ll have to win the Iron Throne without our help.
I’ll try to be nice. You have a lot of strength in what you say here. Are you out their being active? Are you doing anything positive? Or just a bomb-thrower?
I don’t know if it’s “positive” to confront prospective Clinton voters with her dismal record of corruption, paranoia, lies, and warmongering. But I think it’s appropriate.
If this reminder is as destructive to your enthusiasm as a bomb, consider whether the fault lies with me or your candidate.
Saint Eric. Though I believe there are issues to be had with Clinton’s record, I think you fail to see the positives, which I won’t enumerate because you won’t take them in. So let’s just leave it at that. You have the last word, if you will.
Then lest my last word be this.
Where you see “issues with Clinton’s record”, I see the corpses of the victims of the war she engineered.
http://www.voanews.com/content/libya-says-nato-strike-kills-civilians-in-tripoli-124151979/140976.ht
ml
The infant in that picture is not an abstraction.And it is infinitely more important than your complicated electoral calculus.
It is an innocent human being who had an entire lifetime of laughter, friendship, and love ahead of it before that life was stolen by Hillary Rodham Clinton and her sick fantasies of “smart power at its best”.
And if you shrug off that murder as the unavoidable byproduct of American hegemony, if you seriously think that outrage over it is something to be sneered at, then we do indeed have nothing more to say to each other.
The Democratic Party is now the War Party.
Is this pick going to motivate unmotivated voters to support Clinton? Arthur asked the question and in my opinion, the appropriate question. I sincerely hope so.
I think white, middle-classed women are going to adore him. Those who are middle right might find this just reassuring enough for them to cross over.
Jim Wright makes the case for Kaine:
http://www.animalendocrine.info/2010/05/has-your-cat-become-irritable-or.html
OOPS!
Let’s try that link again:
http://www.stonekettle.com/2016/07/the-decider.html
You may now commence with the jokes at my expense.
I was like “whaaa? This must be some sort of triple play reference I don’t get.”
That’s a great link, thanks. Not that it will convince those determined to hate everything, but viewed with an open mind, he’s a good choice.
.
I thought it was an avant guarde reference to rickrolling.
LOL
I don’t like Kaine much and I love Warren, just as I love Bernie and don’t much like HRC, but this whole cycle has only gotten me to about 2% of the emotional investment I had in Obama v. HRC in 2008, because (in spite of loving Bernie & Warren more than I ever loved Obama) none of this really matters. Only 2018 matters. To be clear electing SOME democrat over Trump is of epic importance, but which democrat is a moot point because the Congress is such a mess and because nobody has said a single word about the elephant in the room – MIDTERM TURNOUT – the 50 million people who voted in 2012 and stayed home in 2014. Fifty million. 50,000,000.
In summary, Trump has to be beaten – that’s paramount. The rest of it, we’re not even in the game at this point and we still wouldn’t be appreciably better off in 2017 with Sanders & Warren in the WH.
From a purely electoral PoV, I’m not sure if Kaine will be more or less effective than Warren would have been.
I see. And what do you suppose the circumstances would be leading up to the 2018 election with President Trump on the throne?
Listen To Tim Kaine’s “I’m Conservative” Radio Ads From 2005
Down with Kaine. Elect Trump to heighten the contradictions.
Why yes, we can pretend Kaine is a progressive despite his pronouncements to the contrary — even two weeks ago with his letters encouraging banking deregulation — and tell detractors who point this out that they support Trump all at the same time!
Kaine was talking about small banks and credit unions. Warren agreed. It’s simply false that Kaine was advocating deregulation of ALL banks.
Yeah, small banks like Capitol One. GMAFB.
Also, one of his letters (because there are two of them) calling for the monthly calculations as opposed to daily calculations essentially guts the entire regulation. It also goes against Clinton’s call to regulate shadow banking:
Link
Who DO you think is writing these innocent little tweaks that corporate Dems keep suggesting? lol
Only small minded people mock facts and evidence that they find threatening and uncomfortable for their positions. The smallest minded, of course, would censor all communications in all forms that threaten them.
Do you have any awareness of how most of your comments follow the Rush school of how to defeat the enemy? Most unattractive and ineffective as well with those not cognitively handicapped.
I’ve seen, been annoyed by, and confronted on several occasions in direct reply, Joel’s trolling tendencies.
I’ve also seen what I consider thoughtful, worthwhile and substantive comments by him.
I haven’t kept score, obviously, but it’s not my impression that the former comprise “most” of his output (though far too much, imo!), making such a characterization problematic in a way similar to what I object to in some of what Joel writes.
Might be worth clarifying a distinction I make (just in case you’re reading this, Joel!): I have no problem with disputatious, confrontational, even snarkerrific direct replies in response to something one believes merits one of those; as long as they are also Reality-based and at the very least set a VERY high bar for engaging in nasty personal attacks (i.e., the offense must have been egregious by virtually any standard; or better still, avoid such altogether, set that bar so high it can’t be cleared).
It’s the “gosh, what’s wrong with this thread, nobody’s turned it into a HillaryBashFest yet” type of comment that I find incredibly annoying: Pure, hard, nasty trolling that’s NOT in specific, direct response to anything that might arguably merit the derision (or whatever), but just trying to stir up shit. Also impossible for me to imagine that anything that could possibly be of benefit to anyone could ever result from such shit-stirring.
Don’t know what the overall ratio is, but he often attacks my comments in a trollish style and rarely is polite and makes any effort to engage in a substantive conversation. Doubt the latter is more than 5%
It’s Sunday evening in Portland and I’ve just opened my computer for the first time today. It was a fine day, especially the afternoon, when my daughter and I went canoeing.
This will probably go unread by either Marie3 or oaguabonita, but so it goes.
I truly do believe that there are people who see the prospect of a Trump presidency as a heighten-the-contradictions opportunity. (I view the prospect with terror because the man is a sociopath.) That’s all I was trying to get across. Evidently I failed.
oaguabonita, I acknowledge the criticisms, thank you for the clear statement, and will try to do better. I would like to address your specific remark about comment threads that bash Hillary Clinton. Not this week, say, but in recent months, it seemed to me that most of Booman’s posts, regardless of the topic, were diverted to Hillary-bashing. I was not the only person–not by a long shot–to ask that this stuff stop. Such requests made no difference. Under those circumstances, it seemed to me that lampooning what some readers were doing was OK. But I should have done that in my own post.
I’m reasonably sure that Marie3 contributed to those Hillary-bashing comment threads. I kind of doubt she initiated the topical diversions, but she did participate, enthusiastically.
I may not understand what exactly you mean by trolling, oaguabonita–the words get used pretty broadly–but I would ask this: is changing the topic ever trolling?
Marie3, I’ve never knowingly listened to Rush Limbaugh, but have unavoidably heard outtakes. I really don’t think I’m emulating Limbaugh one bit. You wrote of me, “Only small minded people mock facts and evidence that they find threatening and uncomfortable for their positions. The smallest minded, of course, would censor all communications in all forms that threaten them.” The mockery had to do with Trump, as noted above; it was admittedly out of place, but I yielded to temptation. I’m under no impression that Kaine has been a great champion of leftist causes. (But I should have kept my fingers off the keyboard.) And of course I’m in no position on this blog to censor you or anyone else, so your remark in that regard is odd.
I have nothing much to add to the discussion of Kaine as VP. He would be just one of many advisers to a President Hillary Clinton. He seems personally a very decent guy who would be an effective campaigner, especially given his Spanish-language skills.
by “trolling” here. You can follow that (and links within thread) to a wiki definition that supports it quite well, I think. Core element being, in my view, the intent to provoke rather than to learn, enlighten, or exchange ideas.
Marie’s reply suggests she and I have rather substantially different “beefs” with you. I challenged her use of “most”. Her reply seems to say that applied to “most” of your responses directly to her.
If that were the only problem, I would actually think it a big improvement relative to the problem I see, which is trolling the entire board, not confined to direct response to someone you take issue with.
(I also think it’s possible . . . and better! . . . to engage individually with someone in non-trolling fashion. But that’s another matter, and straying from the original and main objection I had with what you [and others!] were doing at times. Plus that’s also mainly between you and her. And in fairness, I don’t see Marie completely innocent on the “trolling” front. Thinking of derisive comments about “Hillbots”, “Hillfans”, etc., occurring in comments that are not addressed directly to the “Hillbot/fan” [by Marie’s lights] in question, but rather denigrating him/her/them while addressing someone else.)
I think the degradation of this place from what I remember before this primary season could be significantly rolled back if people with a complaint would simply constrain themselves to addressing the objection directly to the person they have the complaint with! (Seems very obvious and straightforward to me. Odd that it would even need saying.)
Finally, I’ll just note that I’ve attempted to “practice what I preach”, addressing my objections to what I perceived to be your general trolling of the board in direct replies to you on more than one occasion (here, for example, since I have no idea whether you ever saw that; and it illustrates what I have found most objectionable about some of your comments that I considered “trolling”.)
re: “is changing the topic ever trolling?” I don’t know, nor do I have any idea what you’re getting at by asking it. Since “ever” is so broad, I guess I could venture that if I worked at it, I might be able to imagine a scenario in which it could be . . . but what would be the point?
DAMN, he was VINTAGE Blue Dog.
Not only economic Third Way, but social! He would have voted with Stupak!
I hope to hell we never get to find out if he has really evolved.
One of the 2014 Pete Peterson, Fix the Debt Heroes
And I thought Vilsack would have been worse….pick your poison, fellows.
The benefit of Vilsack would have been he’d be too old to run in ’24. Kaine will still be young enough to run in ’24.
Lillian Segura
Tough people, walk the talk.
Majority Republican legislature. What was he supposed to do? Refuse to follow the law? Could not win that fight.
VA governors can commute sentences. Kaine did just that in 2008 with respect to Percy Walton. Stop giving these people excuses.
Does VA law compel the Governor to sign all death warrants with no options or exceptions allowed?
As there are fewer than 50 jobs in the US that have as a part of the office holder’s duties that of signing death warrants, maybe he should have found another job.
Principles have no opt out clause for a personal benefit. After signing one death warrant and entering office as a supporter of the death penalty, even the corrupt IL Governor Ryan paused, listened, and started a public dialogue about the death penalty. And ended up commuting more than 160 death sentences before leaving office. So, don’t give me this crap that Kaine had to sign eleven death warrants.
And that’s the rub: 13 states give governors the SOLE AUTHORITY to commute sentences, including Virginia. Other states such as Georgia the governor does not have that power, and it is left to the state parole board.
Marie,
Now you are telling me he has a little of Chuckie from Child’s Play in him…not so good for someone who toots being a Catholic…even the very conservative Pope Benedict XVI ranted for the abolishment of the death penalty
Marie,
Now you are telling me he has a little of Chuckie from Child’s Play in him…not so good for someone who toots being a Catholic…even the very conservative Pope Benedict XVI ranted for the abolishment of the death penalty
Wonder if any screen caps were kept? lol
Is Wikipedia Foreshadowing Clinton’s Vice-Presidential Pick?
A certain senator’s page has seen nearly 100 edits this week alone.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/is-wikipedia-foreshadowing-clintons-vice-preside
ntial-pick/492629/
situations, monitor the prospects’ wiki pages; find some way to bet on the one getting heavily edited.
Sounds like a hot tip, probably better than any you could ever hope for at the horserace track.
A strong leader chooses a competent and strong VP who could fill his/her shoes …
○ Leadership Score: 2nd lowest among Senate Democrats
[Kaine ain’t no Johnson of the Kennedy ticket]
○ Letter to POTUS: U.S. support for Ukraine against Russia’s agression
[Supports Joe Biden’s policy on Ukraine and the Middle East – has no foreign policy experience whatsoever. President Hillary Clinton wants no division in the White House from her VP. She will run the show by herself]
Thank you for that link. You might find this one interesting…https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2014
2015 was not typical, so did not use it.
I saw what you did. (I.e., I looked at 2014.)
? Invalid comparison? Do Kaine for 2014 then.
I meant 2015, sorry. The list seems to cover only the last three years anyhow so it’s hard to generalize on any of them, and I’m not sure how much meaning it has, and Kaine as a freshman doesn’t have clout to sponsor much legislation in any case.
Boy, she really has the Ukraine in her crosshairs, doesn’t she? I knew Vilsack was bad news on that, what with the Monsanto connections, but Kaine, too? Not good.
You gotta believe.
I remember as a kid the whole propaganda campaign in the media against anyone who didn’t repeat the official story about JFK. I don’t know if I had an early onset bullsh!t detector, but to me as a thirteen year-old it seemed obvious. But anyone who took an opposing view in public was dismissed as mentally ill. The official story was official state policy and state religion.
The Ukraine thing is deep. Dark and deep. And if you want in the game you gotta believe. Swear allegiance. Dark, deep and ugly.
I doubt this election will go down easily for Hillary and Tim. Trump, though he may indeed be a sociopath and dangerous, has ensured this will likely be a tough fight He will attack her truthfulness, support for Iraq and TPP. No gentleman’s agreement on e mails here. She is guilty for sure of lying, he will say. And he will use populism akin to Sanders to attack her in the Midwest on jobs and loss of manufacturing. Kaine is most definitely not progressive ( and may even be forced to defend his words on budgets and entitlement reform), and he will attack her corporate alliances as further proof, ala Goldman Sachs. Sanders will be needed to hold back the tide I fear, if he signs on. But I agree I am far from expert on these matters. Let’s see how the convention goes.
Just occurred to me everything I might possibly dislike about Kaine–say views on relaxing regulations on large regional banks–is something no vice president is ever going to have any influence on.
And much of what I do like about him–the unaffected, un-pompous decency of him, easy relations with people of all classes, the Spanish and the harmonica–is stuff a vice president really needs, along with his foreign/security policy cred which he has devoted to questioning White House military moves when they don’t have congressional approval.
I think he has potential to be better in the job than Biden, which is saying a lot.
Note the questions are coming from a place where he wants more war, not less.
Not my impression.
Actually I think I’m taking that at least partially back, since he does seem to support Syria no-fly zone. Now I’m a little depressed.
Biden for Secretary of State!
Just re-up Kerry.
Kerry practically dragged Obama into Syria. Did you forget his ridiculous and embarrassing congressional testimony. It’s the only time in eight years that I wrote the White House and told them that they were losing me and that Kerry was completely out of control.
Two days later, Obama took a walk around the WH grounds and decided he needed a way out. And he found it.
Concede in the temperment. At the actual actions of diplomacy Kerry is worth two of HRC imo. Frankly I prefer Obama’s caution over intervention after I was wrong on Libya.
HRC introducing Kaine as a ‘progressive who likes to get things done’ is incredibly offensive to me.
Yeah, it’s the Clintons getting things done that scares me. An atrocious record without vision (or even understanding the implications of what they supported) and compassion for the people.”
Kaine’s pro-bono work on behalf of people who had been denied or kicked out of housing due to race or disabilities is obviously the hallmark of a sellout corporatist. When he won his fairhousing suit against Nationwide Mutual Insurance, you know his heart wasn’t really in it. He was probably taking kickbacks at the time while plotting his ascension to the Vice Presidency. No wonder Hillary chose him.
Would be relevant experience for HUD Secretary.
Professionals stepping in to help people that have been screwed by corporations is honorable. More honorable is advocating for public polices that limit/restrict the ability of such corporations from doing the damage in the first place. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And a mere two or three days ago he spoke of giving bankers more leeway to do harm.
It’s sort of like supporting bombing the shit out of people and later coming in with relief aid.
ya know what? There is one aspect of the VP appointment that hasn’t yet been addressed: What if he becomes president?
I don’t know about anyone else, but I find it absolutely amazing that Obama lived thru both terms. I would have laid $$ on the table without odds that he would have been taken out in the first term, and I wouldn’t have needed long odds on the 2nd term.
HRC has effectively found a male version of herself to take over. With the hatred, gun culture, and lack of anything approaching self discipline on the RW today, you gotta be thinking about what if???
Assassinations in the US arise from the corridors of power. There was no reason for them to kill Obama, and certainly no reason to take out Clinton. She could die in office by natural means and Kaine wouldn’t miss a beat.
I listened to the Hillary/Kaine event on the radio and thought they both sounded great. As one who was not excited about Kaine, I can honestly say I had low expectations and should’ve set the bar much much higher. Kaine really is a great VP choice. Think a lot of folks who are not online (unlike myself) nitpicking one or two aspects of a person’s entire career are going to find him appealing.
I admit some of my animosity comes of his dismantling of the successful Dean era DNC. Locals I talked to warned he did the same thing in Virginia. I at least partially blame him for 2010.
Yes. Booman, it does make strategic sense, according to her strategy. I don’t think I agree with that strategy, that’s all.
I say “I don’t think I agree” because I am “humble enough” to admit that I am not completely sure what it is. But I don’t feel very confident about it.
Humility? I fail to understand why you think humility is called for. Perhaps you had another word in mind. Or are we not entitled to our own opinions and judgments unless we have the same information as those seeking the highest offices? And that information leads to the same conclusions they reach?
Humility comes in accepting that your opinion was not the only one and may not have been the best one. It comes in acknowledging that other people of good conscience can come to different conclusions, and that you don’t have to agree or understand in order to be respectful.
No problem with this. The title of the post, along with the final line struck me as anything but humility.
Andy Borowitz of The New Yorker on Kaine
Excerpt:
“The man’s apparent humanity could spell trouble for his candidacy, as some voters questioned whether he has the capacity for unspeakable evil that is generally considered necessary to win higher office.”