Who Are Potential Vice Presidential Candidates for Obama and Clinton?

[Gokul43201]

Yes, and next to Webb, Obama would look inexperienced. I think that the former Secretary of The Navy counts as experience, as does his being a highly decorated Viet Nam combat veteran (the Navy Cross, Purple Heart). From 1977 to 1981 he worked as staff on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs and for three years served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.

When I mentioned political inexperience I was talking about the ability to go through a full political campaign without causing a giant blunder along the way. In that sense, Webb is greener than Obama, and he's very outspoken. Vetters will worry about something like that.

 

[Gokul43201]

In my view that's not a negative: I'm a former Republican. And then there are all of those disenfranchised Reagan Democrats [many are blue-collar workers], who, being conservative, may tend to shy away from Obama.

I don't think being a former Republican is that much of a drawback. I think Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell carry heavy positives due to their being (former?) Republicans.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But Webb has been in politics for less than a fifth of the time that Obama has. His political inexperience may be his biggest weakness.

Yes, that is a problem. But as Chemistree pointed out, he does have a great deal of very respectable leadership experience. My main thought is that he provides extensive military experience, which might be Obama's biggest weakness. And his war hero status would certainly help to quell McCains claim to the military high ground.

Since this candidacy is political poetry: The notion of two Jr Senators taking the White House by storm is yet another one for the history books.

And regarding Chemistree's comments, I was struck by just how good Obama and Webb looked together. Again, rather than making Obama look bad, I think he provides balance.

It seems to me that Webb's perceived verbal liability could be the biggest problem. Obama cannot afford to have someone who might say "anything" and potentially torpedo the candidacy. I don't how big of a problem this might be, if at all. In fact Webb won the election because his opponent had a big racist mouth.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think being a former Republican is that much of a drawback. I think Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell carry heavy positives due to their being (former?) Republicans.

As for Powell, I'm afraid that I go cynical on that one: Two black guys? I think that would be the kiss of death.

Has he been mentioned? For a time his name was floating.

 

[russ_watters]

Now there's an interesting debate: who is "blacker", Powell or Obama? One of the things I like about Powell is he is above the concept of race - which is reason enough for him to stay off of Obama's team.

 

[turbo]

Now there's an interesting debate: who is "blacker", Powell or Obama? One of the things I like about Powell is he is above the concept of race - which is reason enough for him to stay off of Obama's team.

Powell is hinting about supporting Obama over McCain, though - not because he is black but because he may be the better candidate.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080613.BCPOWELL13/TPStory/National

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Powell is hinting about supporting Obama over McCain, though - not because he is black but because he may be the better candidate.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080613.BCPOWELL13/TPStory/National

I thought that was a given, and not because of race.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Now there's an interesting debate: who is "blacker", Powell or Obama? One of the things I like about Powell is he is above the concept of race - which is reason enough for him to stay off of Obama's team.

I don't know what that means.

 

[mheslep]

His son was fighting in Iraq, but he refused to show Bush any respect, and right to his face, because he is personally appalled by Bush's reckless abuse of power and rush to war.

That is not accurate. Bush and Webb did have a testy exchange on a visit to the Whitehouse right after he took office, but it was about Bush asking about Webb's son - Webb objects to politicians mixing up politics and servicemen.* Later Webb said, "we both had a bad day" and took his son to meet the President after return from Iraq.
http://search.everyzing.com/viewMedia.jsp?dedupe=1&res=242647810&index=7&col=en-all-public-ep&num=10&e=19928350&start=0&q=%22obama%22+-youtube&expand=true&match=query,channel&filter=1

... need to read his bit and see how damaging it would be to the female vote. I haven't heard him speak to this point.

Why? Whatever he said was 20-30 years ago, he changed his position publicly long ago, and there's certainly no continuing trend of the same.

I watched a press moderated debate between Allen and Webb for the 2006 campaign on a local cable channel here. I watched with only one thing foremost in mind: who was going to be more serious about discussing the war and other major issues. The media was obsessed with chicksh!t on both them: Webb had the 25 yr old thing on women in the service, Allen had a one word 'macaca' comment on the stump that nobody could even define. I was waiting for one or the other of them to diverge from the issues to chase the crap which would have made me vote instantly for the other. Webb never brought up macaca, but eventually the lousy moderator asked him about it. He answered ~ 'none of my concern, that's for Sen. Allen to address. ' Period. Then Allen directly attacked Webb on the 25 yr old article. Game over, voted for Webb. Webb is a serious man. He's not in Congress to hear himself talk and make vague promises.

Webb describes himself as a writer first, so read his books if you want to know him, esp. Fields of Fire

*Something he share's with Sen McCain btw - you will _never_ here McCain initiate a conversation on his son's service in Iraq.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That is not accurate. Bush and Webb did have a testy exchange on a visit to the Whitehouse right after he took office, but it was about Bush asking about Webb's son - Webb objects to politicians mixing up politics and servicemen.* Later Webb said, "we both had a bad day" and took his son to meet the President after return from Iraq.
http://search.everyzing.com/viewMedia.jsp?dedupe=1&res=242647810&index=7&col=en-all-public-ep&num=10&e=19928350&start=0&q=%22obama%22+-youtube&expand=true&match=query,channel&filter=1

He had avoided meeting him and publically insulted the President to his face. He declined to have his picture taken with the President. Also, he didn't say that it wasn't an insult, he said that the exchange was more complicated than that. To make ammends, he did later take his son to meet Bush. And 100:1 says that happened because the party leaders told him that you can't just insult the President and walk away; not even Bush.

In your own link, he talks about his motive to run as a Democrat - Bush.

Sen. Jim Webb thinks legal action against the Bush administration may be needed if the president pursues a long-term military presence in Iraq without Congress' approval.

"I'm not convinced we don't need to have a lawsuit ready," Webb told the Huffington Post. "This is a classic separation of powers issue. I started to talk to people about this today."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/11/webb-suggests-legal-actio_n_86128.html

Washington - One of the US Senate's harshest critics of the Iraq war, Jim Webb (D) of Virginia, is warning that the strategic agreement the Bush administration is negotiating with the Iraqi government will hamstring the next president's ability to change course on the war.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0320/p02s01-usmb.html

Webb accused the president of taking the country into Iraq "recklessly" and forcing it to endure "a mismanaged war for nearly four years."

"Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary; that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism; and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable," Webb said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301080.html

Why? Whatever he said was 20-30 years ago, he changed his position publicly long ago, and there's certainly no continuing trend of the same.

It's not that I care. The question is whether this will cost him support among women.

I watched a press moderated debate between Allen and Webb for the 2006 campaign on a local cable channel here. I watched with only one thing foremost in mind: who was going to be more serious about discussing the war and other major issues. The media was obsessed with chicksh!t on both them: Webb had the 25 yr old thing on women in the service, Allen had a one word 'macaca' comment on the stump that nobody could even define. I was waiting for one or the other of them to diverge from the issues to chase the crap which would have made me vote instantly for the other. Webb never brought up macaca, but eventually the lousy moderator asked him about it. He answered ~ 'none of my concern, that's for Sen. Allen to address. ' Period. Then Allen directly attacked Webb on the 25 yr old article. Game over, voted for Webb. Webb is a serious man. He's not in Congress to hear himself talk and make vague promises.

Webb describes himself as a writer first, so read his books if you want to know him, esp. Fields of Fire

*Something he share's with Sen McCain btw - you will _never_ here McCain initiate a conversation on his son's service in Iraq.

That may be, but he still despises Bush. And like Obama, Webb understood before the fact the stupidity of Bush's war. And just like Obama: He isn't against all wars, he is just against dumb wars. These guys are not the raging liberals that the Republican spin masters desperately want you to believe as true of all Democrats.

 

[mheslep]

He had avoided meeting him and publically insulted the President to his face.

Speculation.

He declined to have his picture taken with the President.

Fact.

... And 100:1 says that happened because the party leaders told him that you can't just insult the President and walk away; not even Bush.

I say its 100:1 against Sen Webb doing anything just because party leaders told him to do so.

In your own link, he talks about his motive to run as a Democrat - Bush.

In Webb's words in the link "I don't think that's a fair description."

In the audio link, Webb clearly says he has been a Democrat -all- his life, a Reagan Democrat. He was invited to run as a Rep. years ago for office and declined. He goes on to give a highly insightful and coherent description of the changes in the Democratic and Republican parties over the last 40 years, describes how the Dems went from the antiwar party to anti-military party for a long time; he describes long term manipulation of emotional issues 'God, guts, guns, gays, abortion and the flag'; he references Bush administration 'blunders' in Iraq and Katrina. He finishes this line saying he decided to stand for office at this time because he was worried about the health of his country, and wanted to 'bring some strength back into the Democratic party.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/11/webb-suggests-legal-actio_n_86128.html

...Edit by Evo: The Huffington Post is a biased blog and is not acceptable per the guidelines.

That may be, but he still despises Bush.

This is only your own speculation on the inner thoughts of Sen. Webb, along with your other pejoratives 'stupid', etc. Sen. Webb has not made statements like that in the audio clip link or in any of the links you provide.

...These guys are not the raging liberals that the Republican spin masters desperately want you to believe as true of all Democrats.

These guys? Don't lump Sens. Obama and Webb together as if they have the same policy bent down the line. Sen Webb has fairly moderate domestic positions for his party; I've not seen 'desparate Rep. spin masters' calling him a liberal. But by almost any definition Sen. Obama's voting record in the Senate is liberal, or else the word has no meaning at all.

 

[mheslep]

I note Sen Obama declined to sponsor Webb's well written Iran bill,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00759:@@@L&summ2=m&"
Sen Clinton is a sponsor.

SUMMARY AS OF:
3/5/2007--Introduced.

Prohibits funds from being obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above Iran's territory or within Iran's territorial waters except pursuant to a specific congressional authorization enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Exempts from such prohibition military operations or activities: (1) to directly repel an attack launched from within Iran's territory; (2) to directly thwart an imminent attack to be launched from within Iran's territory; (3) in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter enter into Iran; and (4) connected with U.S. government intelligence or intelligence-related activities.

Requires the President within 24 hours after determining to use funds for such a military purpose to report to the Senate Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations and the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

I leave my main criticism for the Senate Democrats in general on this one. Here is a well crafted bill to have the congress retain its rightful constitutional powers on matters of war, that goes out of its way to not infringe on the powers of the Commander in Chief. Yet they torpedoed this in committee, and all the while honk and bay at the administration about Iran:

MAJOR ACTIONS:

***NONE***

 

[Gokul43201]

I note Sen Obama declined to sponsor Webb's well written Iran bill,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00759:@@@L&summ2=m&"

As did the 18 other members of (21 strong) Foreign Relations Committee, including all the Republicans on it. Maybe there were genuine problems with it that are not apparent in the summary? Maybe Obama decided there were specific details in the bill that belonged more in the expertise of members of the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee? Maybe there was another bill proposed that he thought did a better job? Why did Republicans in the Committee not cosponsor? What about the ranking members? Who exactly torpedoed the bill in Committee, the Dems or the Reps? What happened to the House version: H.R.3119? Why didn't that get anywhere either? In any case, a declination to cosponsor a bill can mean dozens of other things than a disagreement with the bill.

I note Jim Webb declined to co-sponsor Obama's Veteran's bills, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:12:./temp/~bdk6MV:@@@D&summ2=m& , which enjoyed much broader bipartisan support than S.759.

 

[mheslep]

As did the 18 other members of (21 strong) Foreign Relations Committee, including all the Republicans on it.

One does not expect members of the opposing party to co-sponsor a bill when the author's own party does not get on board. There are sometimes bi-partisan co-authors of bills, seldom are there initial co-sponsors.

Maybe there were genuine problems with it that are not apparent in the summary? Maybe Obama decided there were specific details in the bill that belonged more in the expertise of members of the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee?

Attributing inaction or delay to poor choice of committee might be fine for a bridge to nowhere bill but not for issues of military force/separation of powers/Iran. Bill was introduced 15 mos ago, time's up.

Maybe there was another bill proposed that he thought did a better job?

Perhaps, but I've not heard of anything even remotely related.

Why did Republicans in the Committee not cosponsor? What about the ranking members? Who exactly torpedoed the bill in Committee, the Dems or the Reps?

Same answer as above, and the minority does not have the power to unilaterally torpedo a bill, at least not in committee.

I note Jim Webb declined to co-sponsor Obama's Veteran's bills, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:12:./temp/~bdk6MV:@@@D&summ2=m& , which enjoyed much broader bipartisan support than S.759.

Different circumstances: Webb had a competitive bill, S 22; he knows far and away more about Vet. affairs than anybody else in the place. Webb's bill recently succeeded in the Senate and House as an amendment to the Mil Construction/Vets Affairs Act, and the President is likely to sign it. There is no such alternative to Sen. Webb's Iran bill, as far as I know. He's the only guy I see in the Senate doing anything other than talk about Iran.

 

[Gokul43201]

He's the only guy I see in the Senate doing anything other than talk about Iran.

Then I guess you haven't heard about Obama's http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:36:./temp/~bdkiS6:@@@P which passed the House by a 98% majority (back in 2007) and is being held up in the Senate Banking (...) Committee by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)?

I don't blame you. One Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) who did not co-sponsor this bill (though at least a dozen other Republicans, from Brownback to Snowe, did) hadn't heard of it either. This same Sen. McCain was recently speaking at the AIPAC conference and proposing bold new ideas, like disinvestment!

http://redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=39d0aa4a-d623-4841-a8c0-702d66cd6108

 

[mheslep]

Then I guess you haven't heard about Obama's http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:36:./temp/~bdkiS6:@@@P which passed the House by a 98% majority (back in 2007) and is being held up in the Senate Banking (...) Committee by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)?

No, interesting, I'd never heard any reference at all. And I don't buy that Shelby can takes all responsibility for holding any bill; Dodd's the chairman, if he wanted it out, out it would go.

At a quick look I like the bill except for the 3rd paragraph in the summary:

Authorizes a state or local government to adopt and enforce measures to divest its assets from, or prohibit investment of assets in, persons included on the most recent list.

That seems a little nutty. Disinvestment of state/local funds or a federal prohibition all fine, but to allow individual states to go and setup their own blanket foreign prohibition laws? The Supremes tossed an attempted Massachusetts prohibition law on Burma, unanimously.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-474.ZO.html

I am also unable to to find any comment by the bill's author as to his own opinion of why the bill is stalled.

 

[Gokul43201]

No, interesting, I'd never heard any reference at all. And I don't buy that Shelby can takes all responsibility for holding any bill; Dodd's the chairman, if he wanted it out, out it would go.

After a quick search, I couldn't find anything clear on this. This is the best I have - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=898322&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1
http://breakingtoday.com/wire/?p=179

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Speculation.

Stated in your own link.

Fact. I say its 100:1 against Sen Webb doing anything just because party leaders told him to do so.

Fair enough. But I suspect that your youth betrays you. And it is possible that he was originally more hostile than intended and had second thoughts. It is also possible that his kid wanted to meet Bush.

In Webb's words in the link "I don't think that's a fair description."

He didn't say it was false.

In the audio link, Webb clearly says he has been a Democrat -all- his life, a Reagan Democrat.

he references Bush administration 'blunders' in Iraq and Katrina. He finishes this line saying he decided to stand for office at this time because he was worried about the health of his country, and wanted to 'bring some strength back into the Democratic party.'

Correct, as I said.

As for the Huffington Post, we talked about this, but I think Evo was working on some new guidelines.

This is only your own speculation on the inner thoughts of Sen. Webb, along with your other pejoratives 'stupid', etc. Sen. Webb has not made statements like that in the audio clip link or in any of the links you provide.

"Reckless" and "Abuse of Power", or violating the separation of powers, pretty much covers it. Webb clearly stated that he opposed the war all along.

These guys?

Well they sure like each other.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are you suggesting that as a loyal and patriotic American hero, he really believes that McCain is the best man; that he really doesn't think Obama would make the best President, but he will support him anyway; that he is only doing this to strengthen the Democrats based on some vague principle?

If he was that wishy-washy, I wouldn't want him anyway, but he's not.

But in way I think you are right. Neither Webb or Obama are mindless ideologues, so the mutual preference is clearly based on the perceived quality of character, leadership skills, and the ability to get the job done.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But today, Hagel was the talk of the town.

 

[Cyrus]

Ron Paul For Vp!


Ahahhahaah

 

[mheslep]

Stated in your own link.

Nowhere in the interview does Sen W. say he 'avoided' meeting the President or 'publicly insulted' him. The only thing that is said regards 'avoiding' is the picture, one of those standard "we're smiling and we all get along" newly minted Senator & Pres. pictures.

Fair enough. But I suspect that your youth betrays you.

Well thanks if that implies my thinking is not jaded (yet), but I suspect I'm older than you. I also have followed Webb for 25 years, studied his novels in college, and closely watched his Senate campaign.

"Reckless" and "Abuse of Power", or violating the separation of powers, pretty much covers it. Webb clearly stated that he opposed the war all along.

You keep putting words in his mouth. He says 'reckless', says he always opposed the war. He certainly makes clear that he became a Dem. and ran for office for many long and evolving reasons, and not solely because of a single minded obsession w/ 'Bush', as I summarized above.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is the most convincing argument I've read for choosing Hillary as veep.

* The chatterers insist she will be a drag on the ticket and bring the Republican base to the polls in huge numbers. If it is not obvious to the chatterers yet, they should pay closer attention the vicious anti Obama tirades by right wing bloggers and conservative talk radio show hosts. The Right will come to the polls all right...to vote against Barrack Obama in droves with or without Hillary Clinton.

* A drag on the ticket. Please. Hillary Clinton immediately expands the electoral map putting states in play that are currently out of Obama's reach; West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas. She helps move toss up states to leaning Democrat; New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada (if Obama breaks north of 60% of the Hispanic vote he wins all three, Clinton helps get him there). Clinton helps solidify weak Democratic states including Pennsylvania and Michigan; she can bolster Obama's lead in Ohio and probably makes Florida competitive which it is not currently. Any other VP candidate that can expand the map like this? Not even close.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/its_not_even_close_obama_shoul.html

 

[turbo]

I don't buy it, Gokul. Putting Clinton on the ticket could sink Obama. The conservative base of the GOP is none-too-excited about McCain and their lack of enthusiasm bodes ill for the GOP down-ticket, as well. If you want them to go to the polls in record numbers, just add Clinton to Obama's ticket - their visceral hatred of Clinton will drive them to the polls.

Obama needs to use all his time and energy to make his appeals to the voters in the general election. He can't afford to constantly be on the defensive, fighting off Swift-boat attacks on Clinton. (Whitewater, cattle futures, Rose law firm billing records, anti union Wal-Mart representation, Vince Foster's suicide, etc). Clinton claims to have been vetted, but the right-wing smear machine is licking its chops hoping that Obama takes the bait and picks her for VP.

 

[BobG]

* A drag on the ticket. Please. Hillary Clinton immediately expands the electoral map putting states in play that are currently out of Obama's reach; West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas. She helps move toss up states to leaning Democrat; New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada (if Obama breaks north of 60% of the Hispanic vote he wins all three, Clinton helps get him there). Clinton helps solidify weak Democratic states including Pennsylvania and Michigan; she can bolster Obama's lead in Ohio and probably makes Florida competitive which it is not currently. Any other VP candidate that can expand the map like this? Not even close.

* Chatterers insist Clinton will be a distraction to your campaign. Exactly what does that mean? That she will be on another page and therefore step on your message? Ridiculous. There is no more disciplined, on message politician in America than Hillary Clinton. But the argument raises a question; why would she want to step on the message? If the message doesn't succeed then you don't succeed, then Hillary doesn't succeed. Why would she want that?

* If you are elected Senator, so the charge goes, the Clintons will be constant problems for you. Hillary will promote her own agenda and Bill will wander the West Wing subverting your presidency. Absurd. When you get sworn in as president your stature will dwarf the Clintons. You have the Oval Office, Air Force One, and loyalists staffing the White House that wouldn't listen to Bill Clinton unless you insisted on it. I'd be surprised if he was in the White House more than a few days each year.

* As for Hillary subverting you, see above. Her political future will be dependent on your success; therefore she has every interest in promoting your agenda. The alternative (without her on the ticket) is much more problematical. She will be a huge force in the Senate with her own base and agenda. Would you rather have her out of the tent on the Hill permoting her own ideas or in your tent promoting yours? Not even a close call.

* By putting Clinton on the ticket you marry up the best money and organizational operations in the history of the Democratic Party. It wasn't her national organization that screwed up it was her supposed brain trust. With her money people committed, a $400 million dollar budget is very doable. Does any other VP choice have an organizational and money base like that? Not even close.

I disagree with the first paragraph. She puts Arkansas into play, but not WV or KY. She adds Nevada, but Obama is more popular in NM and CO than Clinton is. She probably does help in the rust belt, but Florida (with Crist's help) is going to McCain. She helps, but Beckel exaggerates the amount of help.

A lot of the negatives against her might be overstated. Defanging a dangerous opponent by making them VP is an old tradition that usually works (unless the President dies, putting some maverick like Teddy Roosevelt into office). If Clinton has future ambitions on the Presidency, VP isn't a good spot to launch those ambitions from. The first Bush endured 8 years of claims his manhood had been stolen by being Reagan's VP and he was the only VP in recent years to go from VP to Pres by election instead of succession.

My thinking is that she isn't ready to bring "the best money and organizational operations in the history of the Democratic Party" into play just to spend 8 years in Obama's shadow. Cheney already broke the mold by being a very influential VP and it's hard for me to think Clinton would accept the slot if she didn't think she could continue that new trend. She's not going to subvert an Obama Presidency, but he has to deal with her whether she's his VP or in the Senate.

She's probably the only VP candidate in either party that could bring that much power to the position. Ford tried to - that's why Bush 41 wound up as Reagan's VP instead of Ford.

 

[mheslep]

Main drawback: Senator Obama's Candidate of "Change" mantra goes out the window if he brings the Clinton's back into the Whitehouse in the 21st century.

 

[Gokul43201]

Webb's not in the game anymore.

Senator Jim Webb, the Virginia Democrat, former Navy Secretary and once and forever Marine, said unequivocally today that he was not interested in serving as Senator Barack Obama’s running mate.

“Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country,” Mr. Webb said in a statement. “Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for vice president.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/in-case-you-ask-webb-declines-veep-role/

 

[turbo]

Webb's not in the game anymore.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/in-case-you-ask-webb-declines-veep-role/

That's really good news. Webb's temperament and energy lend themselves to legislative activities, and the Dems need to retain his seat if they want to have the ability roll back some of the crap Bush has been laying on us.

 

[LowlyPion]

... the Dems need to retain his seat if they want to have the ability roll back some of the crap Bush has been laying on us.

I'd say retaining seats is more of a Republican worry this go round.

I think almost regardless of the Presidential winner, just about every Republican is at risk. The negatives on the economy, war, gas, etc. is a pretty swift current to be swimming against this year for incumbent Republicans.

I sense the national mood as being how could the Dems do worse than the Republicans have.

 

[mheslep]

...I sense the national mood as being how could the Dems do worse than the Republicans have.

Here's some more data for your sense of national mood

Democratic Congress approval ratings:
Approve: 18%
Disapprove: 73.5
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
18% is the lowest ever recorded, matching the '92 check bouncing Congress

 

[WarPhalange]

You do know that Republicans make up about half of the Congress, right?

 

[BobG]

Here's some more data for your sense of national mood

Democratic Congress approval ratings:
Approve: 18%
Disapprove: 73.5
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
18% is the lowest ever recorded, matching the '92 check bouncing Congress

Some perspective on Congressional ratings: Congress Approval Ratings

The difference is that Republicans liked a Republican controlled Congress. Democrats and independents have quickly become disillusioned about the possibility of a Democratic controlled Congress doing any better. Now everyone hates Congress instead of just independents and Democrats. In fact, approval among Democrats is even lower than among Republicans and independents.

 

[Gokul43201]

I personally thing approval ratings are mostly a bunch of hooey. Yes, Cheney probably has the lowest approval rating of any VP in the longest time, and he probably doesn't give a hoot. I almost admired him when he said "So what?". That's called having a spine. A terribly twisted one, but a strong one, nevertheless.

Congress' approval ratings were at historical highs (84% approve) just after 9/11 - for no real action that they can claim credit for. Oh wait, I forget: there was the landmark "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" that made everyone feel just so awesomely protected!

 

[WarPhalange]

Cheney's a public servant. Saying "so what" to the public means he should get fired, not applauded.

 

[Gokul43201]

Cheney's a public servant. Saying "so what" to the public means he should get fired, not applauded.

That's what elections are for. If you want all details of governance to be determined by opinion polls, then you don't really need an Executive branch.