The Perfect Storm

By American Street

Consider our prospects for November. In addition to an economic meltdown and an illegal and endless war, and a still-free Osama Bin Laden, there’s fresh reports that Iran’s not adding to the Iraq arsenal, the Middle East may yet explode to send oil prices into orbit, and could Republicans make matters worse?

Yes, they can. They can go on record against honoring Moms.

But even with that, I think it wise to heed the cautions Krugman’s providing.

With 6 months to go till Election Day, the last thing we need are early victory celebrations. What we should refocus our attention on is the downticket races: Senators and US reps, governors and Secretaries of State. The Netroots are far more effective building greater foundations, not just for six months from now but well into the future.

Let’s get to it.

Comments

(53)

Not firightened at all

Spend the next six months worried about these things and YOU WILL MANIFEST THEM. None of us has the sligthest control over any of these events so take a deep breath and move forward.

My republican, 40-year military parents switched parties to specifically vote for Obama and their enthusiasm for him is stunning to me. They said they will specifically not vote for Hillary, but now that Big O seems to have things packed up its not really an issue. By the way Hillary - stop acting like GW and see the writing on the wall - are you that blind? The more you 'resolve' to continue the primary, the more you seem like GW - on the Black & White path of idiocy and stubborness - this says you're presidency would be much the same).

So chill on out - there is NOTHING you can do in the slightest to affect teh global events that may be at hand - not a damn thing. At this point, whether its Hillary or Obama, we simply have to rally behind that candidate - the supreme court alone is enough to show we must not have McCain in office. This is the chance and if Dems f*&^ it up this time - I will foreever be an independent and probably just never vote again (Ok, maybe not but I'll be mad).

Liberal: [Latin,liber ("free, not slave")]. It is widely associated with the word "liberty" and the concept of freedom; "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" (Wikipedia,2006)

By Redneck Leftist May 9, 2008 - 4:21pm

At this point, whether its Hillary or Obama, we simply have to rally behind that candidate
----------------------
D'oh! And just when you had me at "hello"...
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

Jim Webb

Hillary is still in this. She is too powerful,
and vote-heavy, not to carry this to the convention.
If Obama had pulled a bigger lead,
this scenerio would have played out different.
But he didn't...
Obama supporters are trying to huffington and puffington, and blow her house down.

Thats no way to treat Hillary. She deserves the utmost of respect...from all.
She's more powerful then mccain, bush (who should resign) and the previous president (cumstain).

By dewbie dubai May 9, 2008 - 5:07pm

Yes. Poor Hillary. Fuckin' spare me.
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

I'm the one who hasn't voted yet.

I'm the one who needs the break.
Don't underestimate the importance of this end game. This party has to live with Hillary, and her supporters, long after the convention.
Play it cool. Like Obama.

By dewbie dubai May 9, 2008 - 5:16pm

The only important part of this end game is Hillary deciding whether or not the name Clinton will ever be a respected voice in a Party that is passing them by. And that decision comes in the manner by which she exits the race she has lost. Will she do it gracefully, attempting to curry the favor she has clearly lost along the way? Or will she do it bitterly, leading to real and lasting damage?
I must tell you, personally speaking: respect is earned and not blanketly given.
What they earned they lost with me.
The manner in which they end their silly fucking game will determine whether they can earn it back.
Please. Please don't tell me I have to show respect for someone who has clearly shown others no respect.
And enough with the "hillary's a victim" nonsense. It's terribly ridiculous.
If she is, she's nothing more than a victim of her own self-centerdness...
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

I wish it were that one-sided...but one factor still resides

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll10-2008may10,0,6816866.st...

As long as this is this reality--
Then we're seeing three viable parties emerging here...too early to tell.

Oh give me a break - who the

Oh give me a break - who the H is Sebelius? She might be a great person and potential leader, but Hillary is known and has basically half the loyal Dem voters behind her. You want to win this thing? You don't think a bunch of Hillary supporters will be P-O'd if Obama doesn't pick her as his running mate? She's also very good with the details - like figuring out how to pay for things (something sorely needed with this current admin).

Obama/Clinton 08

By gg4usa May 10, 2008 - 12:16am

Why would Obama want Clinton on the ticket?

I think its a bad choice.

By f u bush2

Yeah, really, what's obama need clinton for?
He can already beat mccain without her. It would
be overkill to the max.
And why would she take the lowly VP position,
when she could whip up the commercial for the
"Hillary Party" in a weekend?
The publicity would be self-perpetuating.
And getting the new party on the ballots before
November....a breeze.
And visa-versa. if Dems don't give Obama the nod,
BANG, the "Obama Party" is on the November Ballot.

More than just a first time african-american president.
More than just a first time woman prez.
No...much more devastating to the political landscape than that...at last, a third party with viable teeth....

A lot of Obama supporters

are anti Clinton voters. After 16 years of Clinton bashing from the right wing, that is a large group. Putting her on the ticket will alienate many of those who masde him, the Candidate.

By gg4usa May 10, 2008 - 12:16am

You don't think a bunch of Hillary supporters will be P-O'd if Obama doesn't pick her as his running mate?
------------------------
I have no doubt that angry, petulant, spoiled, presumptive cultists for the Hillary personality will throw an even bigger hissy fit than they're throwing now if she doesn't get picked.
But that's just the reality we're all going to have to deal with. Cause she's not getting picked.
Wrap your head around it now, and get the crying done and over with...
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

An Obama/Sibelius ticket is to..."mid-westerny".

Pick a southern woman. Balance.

By dewbie dubai May 9, 2008 - 5:23pm

Don't look now, but many of the 2008 swing states that Dems are putting on the map are...
.
.
.
wait for it...
.
.
.
in the midwest.
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

whoa there galoot

The bulk of Dems live closer to an ocean. Love the corn belt, but let's share the reality.

By dewbie dubai May 9, 2008 - 5:47pm

Sure. I'll share some reality.
Pull up the 2004 map, flip MO and IA from red to blue: Game. Set. Match.

Want some corn?
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

Well get me up early, and warm up the combine.

It only shows the hidden latent movements of
a burgeoning new party movement of those
dissatisfied with bush, gore, and kerry.

The republicans either cheated...or a lot of people stayed home the last couple of elections...

No way the repubs could have pulled off a victory...even on their best weekend:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll10-2008may10,0,6816866.st...

"Party X" is what's going on.

It is alive, and it is bigger than the republican party. And it is almost bigger than the democrat party. Maybe bigger...

The democrats need to keep this friend happy, and in the family. Or face it in battle come '12.

"the last thing we need are early victory celebrations"

Indeed. Well said.

While I will readily admit to typing of impending and inevitable doom for Republicans in the course of ridiculing and mocking our resident dittotrolls, the truth is I think we have a tougher fight on our hands than many of us expect. The almost presumptive certitude is dangerous, and it would be my hope that we don't allow it to contribute to creating a sense of complacency.

Yes. We. Can... if we work for it.
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

Hillary's Chances: Growing Chorus Says It's Not Going To Happen

Hillary's Chances: Growing Chorus Says It's Not Going To Happen
May 9, 2008 04:28 PM

The chorus from major news outlets saying Hillary Clinton's candidacy is almost impossible is growing louder as the Clintons continue to push on. The AP reports on the nine superdelegates Barack Obama picked up today. Clinton picked up one. This morning, ABC declared that according to their delegate tallies, Obama had won more superdelegate support than Clinton for the first time. This afternoon, AP's tally showed Obama within half a superdelegate of Clinton.

When asked about Clinton this morning on NBC and MSNBC, former Democratic contender John Edwards said, "it's very difficult to make the math work." Edwards has yet to make an endorsement.

...

Look Folks

folks,

We need to support Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton. It's obvious she is being led by the Hill clones on her side. I admire the fact that she is making history as the first female president. And I know that some women are voting for her just on the premise of that. It's a valid thing. My mother (who is black) voted for her in Chicago just because she said she wanted to her (in her lifetime) the white house. I on the other hand was a staunch Republican up until 4 yrs ago. Now I see America in the state it’s in and I want to slap myself every time I remember that I voted for G.W! Now I a choice here in San Antonio radio of what all conservative talk shows. But I am smart enough to sift through all the bullshit of the Hannitys, Limbuaghs, Savages, and the Pragers to name a few. I know my next president will not be perfect nor be as experienced. But Being a 20 yr vet and serving 3 times in Iraq, I really have to say that truthfulness is key for me. I fully expect for the next president to make mistakes whether if it’s McCain or Obama. But if you lie, i.e. WMD’s in Iraq, the VA crisis to name a few, infuriates me and my military brethren.

We need to set whoever the next president is by supporting him/her by telling him/ her NOW what the real issues are. And I am sure a Rev. (on both sides of the fight) the word “bitter” and “guns” is NOT the issue. The issue (in my opinion) is fear. Most Americans don’t like what we not only don’t know, but is different. Borack Obama is different. Let’s face it there are a lot of folks who can care less about what is issues are. They are simply stuck on stupid about his race. You all heard it yesterday when Sen. Clinton said it on USA Today. Was she wrong? No. Politically incorrect? Yes. She is only saying what Sen. Obama pointed out last March in that speech (BTW I was politely sold when he gave that speech) about race in America. We still have a long way to go. And the comments that some of you are making is indicative of that. My question is this. What are you/we teaching our children? What are we saying in the privacy in our own homes? We have to believe what there and what’s factual. I can care less about some “Operation Chaos”. I care about the America that will be here after I am gone that my 7 y/o twins is going to face I say that because they are biracial as Mr. Obama is. And yes they are starting to get the “you’re different rhetoric in school. I am 42 years old. So I have seen my fair share of both direct and indirect racism. Now its indirect racism executed at the voters both. Just because you assume he is Elitist. Heck Sen. Mc Cain’s wife is worth over 100mil. And so are the Clintons. So let’s talk about whets really wrong with our country. I don’t agree with everything that both potential candidates have, but I like some of their views. For example, I believe in staying in Iraq but not for 100yrs. I am realistic. We do need to get the hell out of there. But as a soldier that fought I can speak for most over there now. We want to turn it over to the lazy assed Iraqi government. I also agree with Sen. Obama by having phased redeployments. But not as soon I am afraid. Yes when I was over there, I wanted to be anyplace else but there. It is not defeat as the republicans who never served say. In short we need to unite this country and catch up to the rest of the world!!

Why are you people playing "Who's The Veep"??

For Christ's sake, CLINTON IS STILL WORKING WITH McCAIN TO DIVIDE THE NATION ALONG RACIAL AND CLASS LINES.

WHY??... Think about it... WHAT, ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID??

WHAT TWO CANDIDATES ARE IN THE POCKETS OF TRANS-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS DEDICATED TO KEEPING YOU ENSLAVED??

DUH!

AG, If you're going to frame this by contributors

You will add Obama to the same list.
He has the same diamond poodle leash
as the others.

He is more corporatist than I would like

but a much larger percentage of his funding has come from small donors and the cutting off of the lobbyists is a real step in the right direction. Maybe not great, but definitely better.

Cand_dat_e_____Cont_ribut_ors

You'll have to remove the "_" from the links, and paste them into your browser to read (AAR censors the site, more than likely because the corporations that back the candidates, AND AAR want to keep you in a mushroom state---in the dark and fed manure).

mccain T_op Contr_ibuto_rs:
http://www.op_en_secre_ts._or_g/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00006424&cycle2=2...

clinton To_p Contr_ibutors:
http://www.open_secr_ets.o_rg/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00000019&cycle2=200...

obama T_op Con_tributors:
http://www.open_secr_ets._or_g/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00009638&cycle2=20...

repub pa_rty:
http://www.op_en_secrets._o_rg/parties/contrib.php?cmte=RPC&cycle=2008

dem pa_rty:
http://www.o_pen_sec_rets._o_rg/parties/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cmte=DPC

These and more like to back all sides:
Go_ldman Sa_chs
J_PM_organ_Chase &_Co
Cit_igrou_p_

I checked the site

It confirms my statements.

Yes, but did you try to post the address to this blog?

You can't.

Okay, obama's trying, because he takes $200 contribs
with his $200,000 contribs.

clinton's trying by using her own money.

Gold_man Sac_hs is a sweetheart for supporting
the entire political process....yeah royt.

See mommy, I'm a mushroom!

So now

running out of money until you have to dip into your own pockets is a good thing. She didn't do it by choice. She did it when the corporate donors dried up and she didn't have those millions in small contributions That fuel Obama's campaign.

Thats true.

The big contribs are wary of clinton's future. Understandable.
After all, they've fed her quite well, up to date.

A lot of Obama's small contribs are corporate member collectives.
Gladys, Mort, Jack, Jim, Pete, and Saul, all work for Sachs and Morgan,
and each give $200 to Obama. $200 the boss gave them to give to Obama.

Its a farce . A shell game. Same big-brother maggots.
The puppet master has many strings...

But we take what we can get, and hope we can groom it.
Good luck, America.

Meanwhile, contributor info sites are verboten by the mushrooms to
link to. Achtung! You vill not look behind the curtain!!! DO YOU
UNDERSTAND, HERR MUSHROOM!!!

As I said

He is more corporate than I would prefer, but still less so than Hillary. There is certainly some of what you say going on, but virtually none of the direct kind. And a whole lot of unconnected grass roots support. Baby steps.

A little less than Hillary

He's a little less in the corporate pocket.
His head is sticking out of the pocket.
He has a free hand out side of the corporate pocket.

This is why you've been burning her hems for the past umpteen months, on this subject?
Its called throwing mud and making it stick.
Its called demonizing beyond reality.

Obama does it a little bit less.
Thats sets him miles ahead of the pack.

I hope your correct.
Because I'm going to be riding his presidential ass about it for years to come, if your not.

I haven't been throwing mud at her

for being a corporatist. I have been doing so because of the way she has run her campaign. Her desperation and ambition has had her slinging mud in the worst republican tradition. Tacitly endorsing McCain over Obama was the heght of disloyalty.

At the outset (really after Edwards dropped out) I moved to the Obama camp bevause I felt he was more electable due to the new voters he brought to the table. At that point I said that if Hillary were the nominee I would support her wholeheartedly. Her conduct since has eroded that support. I would still vote for her over McCain, but I'm sure there are a lot of others who wouldn't.

Its just another "clothespin on the nose" election, gt

4 years of snail-crawl recession, and we get
some new partys and some new faces.

No obama crossing the delaware.
No hillary on the aircraft carrier (with a bulge).
No mcain, period.
Maybe cheney and bush in court or international tribunal. A little to entertain through the dark years ahead...

No

this is a lot better than that. Obama was not my first choice but he is light years better than any republican. The repubs have screwed the economy royally. a snail vcrawl recession would beat hell out of the depths I'm afraid they would send us to, but I don't expect that, at least not lasting 4 years.

Obama has at least publicly stated that he would encourage his justice depeartment to pursue investigations into criminal activity in the WH. Hillary hasn't.

No, it's not

Its business as close to usual as can be orchestrated by the corporate "history manicurists".

President Hillary: Keep up appearances and muddle through.

President Barack: bush is the blame and not the corporations, who supported his junta. Hands are slapped. Some jail time. We must move
on to new business...etc.,etc. business as usual.

Nothing forgiven...all forgotten.

a step in the right

direction is a step in the right direction.

just don't trip

bush ate up our window of exploration, along with the budget surplus. We have no more time to lose on error.

.

.

Obama should pick Edwards as

Obama should pick Edwards as a running mate. Hillary would be like a weight around his neck.

VP and Prez

Thank you, FourteenAces, for your thoughtful response, personal experiences and your service. I do believe Obama is the nominee and in a number of states, he'll lose precisely because of racism. But there's enough for him to win despite that.

As for the VP, it's trickly. I think Claire McCaskill would be a good choice for electoral college reasons, BUT not this time. It would be a direct slap at Hillary to choose any woman with a shorter resume. Which yields very few: Boxer? Too liberal. Feinstein? Sure, but no added help in the electoral column. Maybe Pat Schroeder, an oldie that m,any tought would be first, and she's from winnable Colorado. I can think of none but those two.

For guys, Kitzhaber (healthcare, swing OR), Richardson (Latinos, swing NM), Casey (swing PA, but an abortion opponent, so no), Bob Graham (swing FL, opposed Iraq War), Mark Warner (swing VA), would be high on my list. Kitzhaber and Warner could do especially well in debates, too.

By KevinHayden May 10, 2008 - 3:24am

Regarding your list of a possible VP to run with Obama, I take issue with Feinstein. She voted, along with Hillary, for the quagmire in Iraq. I was from the San Francisco Bay Area before I moved to Germany. My family marched along Market Street to oppose the war (before it even started). Feinstein is not fit to be a Senator for California and I don't want her anywhere near the White House (should anything happen to President Obama or her own run in 2016). Feinstein would only undermine one of Obama's central arguments with regards to having better judgement, by opposing the war in Iraq. Therefore, anyone who voted for the war should not be on an Obama ticket.

Obama should chose

Senator Bernie Sanders as his running mate. The Republicans have already claimed that Obama is the most liberal senator, so they won't be able to point out that Obama chose a more liberal running mate.

I would very much look forward to vp debates, as Bernie would eloquently make the same cases that Kucinich was repeatedly quashed in doing so during the presidential debates. Once the American people were introduced to a real straight talker that is easily accessible, ie every Friday on Thom Hartmann's show, and as soon as they understood he was a real advocate for the remaining 94% of the American population, he would win millions of hearts and minds.

The issue of race would become irrelevant, because even the most ignorant ones among us would understand that Bernie would advocate for them. He would also put in perspective how much the fascist Republicans were not and never would.

Clinton would be exactly the wrong choice as a running mate. We don't need a corporatist first in line for the presidency when the neocons have a habit of killing off their competition. This neocon habit is also a good reason to get rid of Pelosi, so she can't protect the assassinators by refusing to investigate it should a terrible tragedy like this occur. We already know the secret service withdrew protection at a Democratic debate in Texas. I am hopeful Obama will purge all of the current secret service assigned directly to him and hire those he knows well when he wins the presidency.

I am not interested in a running mate that will draw specific interest groups, I want one that will draw many people across many special interest group lines. Bernie is the guy to do this. For the racists and sexists out there, Bernie is also a white guy.

By KevinHayden May 10, 2008 - 3:24am

It would be a direct slap at Hillary to choose any woman with a shorter resume.
------------------------
Tough. Candidates for veep ought not be excluded/included because Hillary might pitch a hissy.
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

Bernie Sanders - as much as I would love to see that

it isn't likely. I hate the idea of running to the center for the general, but the ticket does need to be balanced. Doubling up on the midwest makes some sense. but I think adding the South or southwest makes more. That gives you Edwards, Richardson, Napolitano, and Clark. There is a lot to be said for bringing Hillary's followers in here. I think she would be a mistake, but Clark and Rendell answer that as well. Overall I think the best bang for the buck here is Wes Clark.

Yes, gt, a sane military presence to handle the Iraq endgame.

Clark in VP position may be undersuited.
Maybe he would except Sec. of Def.
Be in more with the day-to-day pullout strategy.

some where in there

I expect he will have a role.

By gt6 May 10, 2008 - 9:22am

Overall I think the best bang for the buck here is Wes Clark.
-----------------------
I guess. If you want four years of a Clintonista veep actively working against the President's interests...
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

consider who mccain's running mate is

Then decide who to cut from the Obama VP list.

Is Mitt tied to the 400 Morman 10-year-old girls
being raped by the church elders in Texas?

Like Obama, is Mitt guilty by religious association?

Mitt

probably not. That is a splinter group. Mitt is pretty mainstream Mormon, tied to the leadership in Utah from what I hear.

No matter, there is plenty wrong with Mitt without it.

m_a_rk __gr_e_en __is a

cor_por_ate dong-su_cking, big-brother magg_ot like
the rest of them.

--a_aa_zz_z_1_1_1

Hello?

Why are you guys still blaming the republicans? The dems have had the control of congress for enough time to at least try to fix things. Why haven't they pull the troops out of Iraq yet? They do have the power to do this. They control the funds. Why have oil prices increased over $30 a barrel since they took power? Pelosi promised lower gas prices......oh yeah, it was an election year. Why haven't they fixed the mortgage mess? Which, by the way isn't as bad as everyone thinks. If you have an indicator that is sitting at .1% and it increases to .2%, is this a 100% increase or an increase of one tenth of one percentage point? If you want it to sound really bad, its a 100% increase. If you want to minimize the way the increase sounds, then it's the latter. It's the choice of the media really. We just need to put the blame where it belongs. Yeah, you can keep blaming Bush but Pelosi and Reid are the ones sitting on their hands.....

moany says what?

Whats a republican, moany?
Oh...you mean that leftover residue that
couldn't get anything done, with eight years
of total control of government and billions of
dollars to waste on nothing important?

Why are you still wasting your time even discussing those goners?

Next.

They're still finding NON-IRANI...uhhhhh....U.S. weapons in Iraq


By the way they quietly buried the "Iran Weapons" story,
odds are the new found weapons captured from the insurgents are:

1). Leftovers from the ancient "rumsfeldt Weapons Sales" to saddam.

2). The lost caches of Iraqi weapons, not secured during the initial invasion, because bush had them all out looking for non-existent WMD's instead. Later they found the neglected arms caches were emptied, under they're noses
(bush, played by Captain Parmenter).

3). The missing 30% of the entire U.S. fresh armaments, unwittingly supplied to the insurgence, by general petraeus (bush's understudy for Captain Parmenter).

4). U.S. weapons supplied to Black Water, and sold on the black market to the insurgence.

Take your pick...its all neocon ignorance...

Comments

(53)