An interesting piece, and an interesting thought. Anything is probably possible this year!

Obama represents change and bipartisanship only in his rhetoric. Look at his (however limited) record - he is the most predictable liberal vote in the senate. (According to David Brooks on the NY Times, a computer program can vote for Obama)

He plays it safe, stays out of contentious issues and goes along with the party line.

My guess - he'll pick some left of center, retired military general (who is critical of the war) to give him some credibility on the war issues. I heard Gen. Anthony Zinni's name being floated around somwhere.

While I don't disagree with your premise that a bipartisan ticket would be salubrious for the national body politic, I am compelled to point out a delicious irony in your article, to wit:

In one sentence you quote Obama's memorable remark, saying,

"What better way to demonstrate that "we are not red states and blue states, but the United States of America" than to put a Republican on the ticket?" (emphasis added)

And yet, in your very next sentence,

"Hagel would undoubtedly help in winning over more Republicans and Independents and should help to turn some red states a bright shade of blue." (emphasis added)

Thus highlighting that, despite Obama's high-minded rhetoric, we are all still partisan, deep down.

But, a good article even so, and a good (if somewhat unlikely) idea, as well.

I am compelled to point out a delicious irony in your article.

Actually, I don't think it's as delicious as you may perceive it to be. The first "red/blue" usage
was a reference to Obama's desire for a more bipartisan political environment, while the second "red/blue" usage was just about the mechanics of winning the election, which is, after all, the goal of all the candidates.

And yet, the desire (whether yours or his) to "turn some red states a bright shade of blue" is partisan, which was my point.

Well, if by partisan you mean a desire on my part for Obama to win the election, then I guess you're right.

Yup, that's what i meant...

Clinton attacks two points of Barack Obama foreign policy:

(1) that we should actively engage both our partners and our advisories in the world... an important distinction is that engaging does not mean tea parties, slaps on the back and watching colorful folksy ceremonies meant to procure cultural assimilation between our country and another - it means active engagement meant to spell out clear differences and to point out behaviors that need improvement or simply will not be tolerated. It is spelling out long term 'road maps' that will be mutually beneficial for both parties. Not at all easy... but a must none the less.
--- America can most certainly sit down at a table and converse from a position of strength with any nation on the globe. To surrender to fear and not actively work toward a more civilized world community in the future is to simply be handing our posterity a future of barbarism. Barack Obama is 'dead on' in his assessment in leveraging America's great reservoir of national character in order to achieve a better future for those who come after us - for our children. We have seen what the opposite approach has done for America.

(2) Instead of wasting America's blood and treasure on the Iraq blunder - Obama has LONG (more than 5 years) argued that we must use America's might to prosecute those responsible for September 11th in the Afghanistan theater of war. This 'theater' includes the mountainous regions of western Pakistan where Barack Obama has stated that 'if the Pakistanis will not go after our enemies than we will'---
We have just done this via long range guided weapons attacks and have 'eliminated' the '3rd in command'. This is the approach that Mr. Obama has advocated... and again - his JUDGMENT had been correct.

Clinton can talk about her 'experience'- but when it matters Barack Obama gets it RIGHT !

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

"Clinton can talk about her 'experience'-"

Like her "experience" in living with a serial adulterer and looking the other way...?

This is just as nonsensical as the speculation about McCain and Kerry, which was basically an attempt to smear McCain and is still being used for that purpose. There was no substance to it, and McCain had apparently never even considered it, despising Kerry as much as most sensible people.

As for Hagel, I'm sur he'd like to be VP, but the speculation that he might team up with Obama is just bizarre. There are all sorts of Republicans with a wide range of beliefs, but they do mostly share a common revulsion for socialism and that's what Obama is selling.

Dave

Dave,

Are you opposed to the concept of a bipartisan ticket, or just this particular example of a possible ticket? Check out this Lanny Davis piece in the WaPo. He makes a compelling case for the idea of a mixed ticket and predicts that the Dems and maybe even the GOP will come up with one. He says if one party has a mixed ticket and the other one doesn't, that party will win.

Personally, I don't see McCain picking a Dem to run with because it would drive the already foaming-at-the-mouth conservatives completely over the edge. But I have no trouble believing that Obama could do it, and do it to his advantage.

And why would Hagel decline an opportunity to endorse McCain while praising Obama? I wouldn't be surprised if feelers have already been sent out to Hagel.

Of course, you may be right. I think it's probably a longshot that we'll end up with a mixed ticket, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it does happen, especially in the current political environment.

this would be a dream ticket for me. I really like Hagel and wish he would have ran for prez. I like Barack too but for different reasons. putting these two together, no one can beat this ticket and what a great 8 years america will have

Dave said...but they do mostly share a common revulsion for socialism and that's what Obama is selling.

So Obama's a socialist now? Is that where the right is going to go now that "liberal" has lost its ability to scare people? I guess if "socialist" doesn't do the trick, you could always up the ante to "communist." That's a golden oldie that should freak people out quite nicely. Obama, the communist Muslim. Okay, got it.

Well thought out and written piece. Thanks Doug! I look forward to reading more from you in the weeks ahead.

Please ignore Dave as much as possible. He's got his maniacal mission and won't let the truth get in his way.

However, I enjoyed your response to his comment. Pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Thank you sir, for your kind words. If it's serious political analysis that you're looking for, be sure to check out my epic essay entitled "Mitt Romney's Cure for Masturbation."

Bennett, I'm curious what you think my 'maniacal mission' is.

So Obama's a socialist now? Is that where the right is going to go now that "liberal" has lost its ability to scare people? I guess if "socialist" doesn't do the trick, you could always up the ante to "communist." That's a golden oldie that should freak people out quite nicely. Obama, the communist Muslim. Okay, got it.

The key thing for me is the truth. There's no truth to Obama being a muslim while it is absolutely true that he's a socialist and was at one time an active communist. As for being a liberal, I'm fine with liberals. Obama isn't one.

But the point on the bipartisan ticket is that Obama would alienate the far left democrats with Hagel and also drive away moderates and even some Republicans who would otherwise vote for him. It's a plan for losing.

Dave

It occurs to me that Obama picking a Republican running mate would be the equivalent of admitting that the Dems have moved so far to the left that it's not possible to balance Obama with anyone from within their own party. That'd going to scare voters.

Dave

I don't see how Obama can lose - after all, he will fix your computer (and more!)

Dave said: There's no truth to Obama being a muslim while it is absolutely true that he's a socialist and was at one time an active communist.

Well, I see you've gotten a ticket for the "Smear Obama" express. Thanks for giving us a preview of coming attractions. If you have some actual evidence of this smear that didn't originate in some underground right-wing sewer, feel free to enlighten us. And if it has anything to do with Frank Marshall Davis, save your breath.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
(Joseph Welch to Sen. Joe McCarthy, June 9, 1954)

It occurs to me that Obama picking a Republican running mate would be the equivalent of admitting that the Dems have moved so far to the left that it's not possible to balance Obama with anyone from within their own party.

If by "admitting that the Dems have moved so far to the left," you mean "pretending that they've moved to the left." The Dems have been moving deep into the center since at least 1996, probably before.

Also, re #16, I've heard the bit with Obama's mentor being a communist - the tired old "guilt by association" fallacy - but this is the first time I've heard anyone say that Obama himself was "at one time an active communist." I presume you've got some tidbit of support for that accuation, Dave?

Obama seems to be collecting endorsements of all kinds of loosers and nuts. Farrahkhan to John Kerry to Chris Dodd today.
I understand the nominee usually has no control over it, but he should at least not make a big deal of these endorsements.

Obama is also coveting Edwards' endorsement..does a two time presidential nominee loser and one time VP loser really make a difference?!
What is up with associating with loosers?
And if I were the potential democratic nominee I'd stay as far away as possible from John Kerry. And Obama seems to let Kerry speak for him on news networks. If the last election proved anything, it was don't let Kerry open his mouth.

But then I suppose Obama was against Kerry's endorsement before he was for it..

What is up with associating with loosers?

That's rich...calling John Edwards a loser. Most people, even those who don't agree with his politics, would recognize that the man has had an extraordinarily successful life.

It's been my experience that those who feel compelled to denigrate successful people usually do it because it makes them feel better about their own less-than-successful lives.

But then I suppose Obama was against Kerry's endorsement before he was for it.

Lame. Really lame.

It can't be long now until we hear that Obama is really a neo-nazi and a serial-killer(to go along with being a communist drug-dealing anti-semitic Muslim terrorist.)

I think a number of his detracters on the right want the beatable Clinton to run against rather than him, and will say anything and twist the facts shamlessly to slander and smear him and get her nominated.

haha!
Not that you would understand but I meant politically. Chris Dodd could not get a single delegate for himself..what exactly is he going to do for Obama?
And Edwards is a political loser by all measures.
His campaign was a joke. The guy had a socialist populist bullshit message and told everyone what they wanted to hear and what did it get him? 26 delegates; even though he had been basically working on his candidacy for over 6 years. That's a looser with a capital 'L'.

And let me venture a guess into your psychology..you arent a fan of Bush/Cheney..even though both were quite successful in their personal/business/political lives.
And yes I've heard all the - failed businessman/got in due to father's influence - arguements..so save it.
Giuliani was very successful in his career too but I consider him a total loser in presidenital politics.

But it was thrilling to hear your insights into my psychology :)

It can't be long now until we hear that Obama is really a neo-nazi and a serial-killer(to go along with being a communist drug-dealing anti-semitic Muslim terrorist.)

He also took my ball in recess and wouldn't give it back!

Propa,

Yeah, I got it. He lost a couple of elections, so in your eyes he's a loser. A worthless human being apparently. Let's ridicule him and run him out of town on a rail. What a loser.

And yes, we all know that Bush and Cheney are winners. How could anyone possibly have anything negative to say about these two selfless servants of the people. They surely will go down in history as the saviors of mankind. Say Amen.

"#26 -- Doug DeLong
...
Yeah, I got it. He lost a couple of elections, so in your eyes he's a loser. A worthless human being apparently. Let's ridicule him and run him out of town on a rail. What a loser. "

Not a very nice way to talk about Our Own Dave Nalle.

Michael, I think that the history of Obama's association with CPUSA, Frank Davis and the DSA ought to be taken very seriously. There's an article at AIM which is a good place to start.

As for accusations against Obama, the fact that some of them are ridiculous - mostl originating from the Clinton campaign - doesn't mean that we should blow off those which are authentic and serious. He may not be a muslim, but he does have other very unsavory associations.

Dave

Is that the best you can do, Dave?

One of my high school teachers ended up in prison for running a protection racket. Should I have gone down too because I was taught by him?

Is that the best YOU can do Dreadful? The analogy makes no sense to the issue at hand.
We don't look at the son if the father turns out to be a killer.
But if a person seeks out a mentor, is taken under the mentor's wing and admires the mentor and if that mentor turns out to be a communist/con-man/racketeer or whatever the case may be..then yes the disciple certainly deserves to be looked at.
So Obama being associated with the communist doesn't make him a commie but it certainly is a legitimate reason to take a look in that direction. It might be futile but there is nothing wrong in it.

I bet you'd be the first person to point fingers at any Republican congressmen who ever shook hands with Jack Abramoff even if that congressman never saw or spoke to Abramoff again. Guilt by association is completely legit there.

Dr. D., he wasn't Obama's teacher, he was a close family friend and personal mentor. Their relationship was not instructor-student. It was much closer than that.

Now if we called Obama a neocon because he lectured at the university of Chicago, that would be more of the kind of thing you're talking about. After all, the neocons taught at Chicago and so did Obama, ergo he must be a Neocon.

Dave

Dr. D., he wasn't Obama's teacher, he was a close family friend and personal mentor. Their relationship was not instructor-student. It was much closer than that.

The Guilt By Association fallacy is not made less fallacious by virtue of a closer association.

Saying that someone was "at one time an active communist" (emphasis mine) is an allegation that inherently implies evidence. "Active" suggests that he was a documented member of CPUSA, or that he was a documented participant in activities or events sponsored by that party.

The association with Frank Marshall Davis, regardless of how close, doesn't even amount to circumstantial evidence. Come on, Dave, surely you can muster up a better argument than this.

Michael, I can also go at it from the other direction. Read Obama's political writings and his current political positions. He is clearly currently a socialist, and if you read his autobiography it's pretty clear that he's evolved to that position from one which would be considered pretty much communist.

As for being a card-carrying CPUSA member, did I ever say that Obama was criminally stupid? That would be like volunteering to have the mark of cain on your forehead.

Dave

Dave:

So basically, the only actual 'evidence' you can offer us to back up your claim that Obama was once a communist is that you say he was?

Michael is right. By casting aspersions based solely on his erstwhile association with a prominent communist, you've arbitrarily removed from Obama the ability to think for himself and to develop politically.

As for him being a socialist - come on. You've lived in Europe. You should know better than most of your compatriots that what Americans think of as 'socialist' barely even qualifies as radical in the rest of the world.

I bet you'd be the first person to point fingers at any Republican congressmen who ever shook hands with Jack Abramoff even if that congressman never saw or spoke to Abramoff again.

Keep your money in your pocket, Anon.

"Read Obama's political writings and his current political positions. He is clearly currently a socialist, and if you read his autobiography it's pretty clear that he's evolved to that position from one which would be considered pretty much communist."

Wow Dave, a new low! Your "current" argument is "clearly pretty much"... horseshit.

You must have had serious back room training at a corporate ad agency.

"Tell a lie convincingly, and then tell it again and again until the stupid people believe you and start repeating it back to you."

It's still a big load of crap.

Dave,

When I referenced "underground right-wing sewers," Accuracy in Media is exactly what I was talking about. They are a right-wing smear machine who love to accuse people of being communists and whose founder, Reed Irvine, once famously demanded that Walter Cronkite be fired for being a "communist dupe." From their Wikipedia page...

"Critics say AIM's attacks on the media seem to have little to do with actual misrepresentation or inaccuracies in media accounts. They assert that Irvine and AIM is quick to attack groups that do not fit in the group's ideological niche. Donald Graham, the publisher of The Washington Post, alleges that Irvine tends to "throw around accusations about people being communists. AIM has also been vigorously defensive of former Senator Joseph McCarthy, referring to his critics as "liars" and "communists," and defending his legacy, claiming that he never once fingered an innocent person in his accusations during the red scare he helped to fan."

Frank Davis was a respected writer, poet, journalist and labor activist who got caught up in the communist witchhunts of the '50s when anyone who was left of center was accused by McCarthy and his ilk of being a communist. I thought we had progressed farther than that as a country. I guess it's making a comeback, though.

Come on, Dave. You accuse Obama of being a communist and then as use this kind of garbage as evidence. You're a smart guy. Raise your game.

So basically, the only actual 'evidence' you can offer us to back up your claim that Obama was once a communist is that you say he was?

Hell, Truman destroyed people for far less.

Michael is right. By casting aspersions based solely on his erstwhile association with a prominent communist, you've arbitrarily removed from Obama the ability to think for himself and to develop politically.

'Erstwhile' hardly describes the relationship, which appears to have been profound and deeply influential. But I did say that Obama has evolved away from that early influence, rather clearly. I'm damned sure I never said anything remotely like that Obama currently advocates anything like communism.

As for him being a socialist - come on. You've lived in Europe. You should know better than most of your compatriots that what Americans think of as 'socialist' barely even qualifies as radical in the rest of the world.

Obama isn't running for president of the rest of the world, and I don't see any reason why we should tolerate an incremental slide into the hell they are living in.

Dave

Hell, Truman destroyed people for far less.

I'm no fan of Truman either, Dave. Your point?

'Erstwhile' hardly describes the relationship

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

"erstwhile
[...]
: in the past : formerly"

Pretty straightforward.

Obama isn't running for president of the rest of the world, and I don't see any reason why we should tolerate an incremental slide into the hell they are living in.

I'm not going to rise to this as I'm pretty sure you enjoy making those sorts of remarks just to see who you can upset.

"I'm damned sure I never said anything remotely like that Obama currently advocates anything like communism."

But your primary goal of making the association between Obama and Communism was achieved...

Cheap shot.

Michael, I can also go at it from the other direction. Read Obama's political writings and his current political positions. He is clearly currently a socialist, and if you read his autobiography it's pretty clear that he's evolved to that position from one which would be considered pretty much communist.

That's a far, far cry from "he was at one time an active Communist," Dave. You're backpedaling - and backpedaling hard.

As for being a card-carrying CPUSA member, did I ever say that Obama was criminally stupid?

No, you said that Obama was "an active communist." If he wasn't a member of the communist party, how was he an active communist?

At this point, you're dismantling your own argument.

"I have here in my hand a list..." -McCarthy

"...it's pretty clear that he's evolved to that position from one which would be considered pretty much communist." -Nalle