In a VP analysis diary in May that looked at five good and bad choices, I wrote:

I don't mean to be harsh here, but Biden and Richardson were the gaffe brothers of the 2008 Democratic pool, so putting either on the Presidential ticket would signify a complete lapse in vetting and judgment.  No resume could be thick enough for me not to acknowledge that basic fact.

I wrote other things as well, but I'm not going to repeat them here because that would be counterproductive (I wouldn't have quoted anything, but I needed to show where I was coming from on this).

The fact is I'm not happy at all with the choice - BUT, I trust Obama, as I have observed him displaying better judgment on a consistent basis than any Presidential nominee in my lifetime.  So I strongly disagree with one decision of his - it was bound to happen eventually, and if I were to let a single disagreement change my opinion of the countless times we've agreed, I'd be just as foolish as the people I've chided in the past for doing the same thing.

The next time Obama makes a compromise that you're unhappy with, keep the following sentence in mind:

Obama is unique because he is an authentic, multi-ethnic, former Constitutional Law Professor with a strikingly calm demeanor and excellent negotiating skills, who is likeable and trustworthy even to many voters who hated every major party politician they ever saw.  

Why does this matter so much?

We have an administration that has...

1. taken lying to a new level

2. shredded the Constitution

3. destroyed our standing around the world for a good fifty years if nothing drastic is done to reverse it

4. only gotten elected because they were able to successfully characterize their opponents as unlikeable or inauthentic, and because voter turnout was not as high as it could have been in order to provide a large enough victory not to be stolen

When one steps back and looks at these four staggering problems in historical terms, objectively speaking, it seems we are at a moment where we're in dire need of a Presidential candidate who...

More below the fold...

New numbers from Pew via MSNBC this morning report that a staggering 38% of Americans have trouble paying for food.

We live in a society where the wealthiest Americans have trillions of dollars between them, and the rich have only gotten richer; we've spent nearly a trillion dollars in Iraq, and hundreds of billions more bailing out major financial institutions and giving oil companies tax breaks.  And yet, 38% of Americans, the overwhelming majority either hard working adults or children, have difficulty affording basic sustinence to survive.

More below the fold...

According to the MSM (even the usually good McClatchy), Barack Obama, for speaking with the even-handed temperament he has always been known for, is therefore suddenly changing positions on offshore drilling.  Once again, the traditional media makes one wonder whether they have more than one brain cell to rub together.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," he said.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done,"

Obama A Pragmatist and Not An Ideologue
Idiots Worldwide Shocked!

Alas no - the headline for the above McClatchy piece is actually "In major change, Obama says he'll support offshore drilling".  It makes you wonder if these journalists would benefit from critical e-mails being sent to them as much as they'd enjoy a ball of yarn to bat at.

But it gets worse...

One of the repercussions of John McCain learning to go online has come to light today:

According to FEC records, and to the dismay of GOP strategists, John McCain accidentally made a contribution to Barack Obama's campaign late last month, reportedly while learning how to navigate political sites online.

A consultant close to the McCain campaign, speaking anonymously, said that McCain intended to engage in an online debate with Obama by going on his website, but none of the Obama videos would pause for his rebuttals.  After McCain clicked on the donate button, intending to write an extensive screed on how he had donated far more of his life to America than Obama had, he saw no problem with giving the computer his credit card number - after all, it was just his own computer.  It was only after monthly donation figures were released by both campaigns, and after several hours of top McCain advisors working together with the candidate, that they were able to piece together the puzzle.

Updated 12:45 EST - More of the article below the jump:

For those of you who have tried to bring a conservative voter over to Obama, you know that the normal arguments like Iraq withdrawal or universal health care often don't work.  

In future such endeavors, this list will help; whether they say they most want the next President to be pro-Constitution, or anti-wasteful spending, or qualified CEO material, or anti-tax, or pro-growth, or fiscally responsible, or pro-military, or pro-free speech, Barack Obama is a better choice than John McCain by all those metrics.

1. Obama Is The Most Qualified Candidate On The Constitution In History

2. Obama Is The Most Credible Reform Candidate To Run For President  

3. Obama Is The Only Competent Executive Running

4. Obama Is The Better Tax Cutter

5. Obama Is The Pro-Growth Candidate

6. Obama Believes In Pay-As-You-Go  

7. Our Troops Prefer Obama  

8. Obama Is More Pro-Free Speech On Campaign Finance

9. Many Conservatives Support Obama

10. Only Obama Slayed The Dragon


Details below...

There have been some hideous affronts to the Constitution by previous Presidents throughout our history.  However, I feel I can confidently say, and without hyperbole, that the Bush Administration has been the worst to the Constitution in history; as opposed to cases in the past where one could argue there was overreaching due to a crisis, this is the one case in US history where the people who did this clearly had a fundamental disagreement with Constitutional freedoms and separations of power to begin with, only using a crisis (9/11) to justify what they had always hoped to do in the first place.  It is a systematic assault on our freedoms, our country, and our way of life, the type of which we have never seen.

After each affront to our Constitution over the last seven years, I have found myself faced with the choice of either throwing my hands up and saying we're all screwed, or having faith in the Constitution's ability and proven history as a living document to overcome previous abuses, and trying to figure out the straightest logical path there.

The latter choice, the only reasonable option, does not involve withholding a second of volunteer time or a penny of donations that was already intended for any Democratic candidates for Congress or President.

Why below the fold...

This morning, MSNBC's lead story was about how Obama's core supporters are doubting his integrity.  Later, referring to John McCain, NBC Political Director Chuck Todd said "suddenly it seems like everything is starting to come together for him".

It should have been impossible for the stumbling McCain campaign - with every political wind tilting against them and a huge new media communications deficit - to get all the progressive, conservative, and traditional media outlets to agree on the same negative narrative about his opponent - that he's a lying flip-flopper - and yet that is exactly what has happened over the last two weeks.

Every Senator plays an important role in the crafting of laws, and has a duty to uphold the Constitution.  When one is in an elected office and seeking a higher office, how seriously one takes their job can say a lot about how they will perform.

A Senator, however, is utterly benign next to the power of a President - especially a President with the powers established over the last fifty years, ESPECIALLY a President with the exponentially greater powers established over the last seven years.  If there were any doubt what the Presidency can accomplish even when facing an opposition party Congress, this weekend, if not the year preceding it, shattered those illusions.

This is not a diary intended to discuss who I or anyone else think might be a good choice for VP, the sort of which there have been so many; this diary considers what might actually happen, and welcomes your input as political observers as to how you think this will all shake out.  

I took a different approach than I even have in the past in contemplating this question today when I thought less about what the VP search typically entails, and more about what specifically Barack Obama as an individual would likely consider (to the extent that one's educated speculation can surmise about another's).  From that perspective I came up with the following metrics:

I have suggested the following in a comment or two over the last couple months, but I believe this topic warrants a full diary as we coalesce around our nominee and prepare a defense against inaccurate and detrimental media narratives.  One consistent behavior of the punditry throughout the primary season was to attribute any strength of Clinton to a weakness of Obama, and then to spend hours debating exactly how much that weakness hurts him; I have no doubt in my mind that GOP strategists will heavily rely on continuing these narratives between now and November to poke and jab at Obama, as they provide an already established and "safe" way to indirectly touch upon the identity and cultural reasons not to vote for someone, reasons that the Republicans are dying to get their hands on without fingerprints.

Therefore, all Obama supporters must be ready with the following clear response:  

In my opinion, the following five candidates outlined in this diary - in no particular order - are top tier choices for Barack Obama's Vice Presidential pick, all with their pros and cons.

The criteria for determining the list was as follows:

Consistency With Obama's Message and Record on All Major Issues
Charisma/Likeability
Ability to Make a Case Clearly and Concisely
History of Being An Effective Campaigner
Executive Experience
National Security Experience
Electoral Benefits
Ability to Run in 2016

I've always been a Contessa Brewer fan since she's been at MSNBC (and to the extent that I've mentioned that before in a comment or two, I've been met with the sound of crickets), but today I was reminded again why she is my favorite news anchor, and regarding a broader issue that I think is relevant enough to warrant an actual diary.

Hillary Clinton, as many of you have probably already heard, was touted at a campaign media appearance by a supporter as having "testicular fortitude", and the comment received a good amount of coverage on MSNBC this afternoon.  Aside from the incredible and unfathomable head trip it is to have a phrase popularized by the WWF adopted just a few years later by the first viable female candidacy for President, there was a genuinely disturbing aspect to this comment, and Brewer jumped on it right away, asking numerous guests during the hour some variation of the following question: "Why do they have to compare a woman's strength to male genitalia?"

No one really gave much of a good answer, of course, but the question is right on the money: why should strong women, who have been both pivotal and essential to human civilization throughout history, need to cast themselves in a male image to be perceived as strong?  

I have to say, I understand why Obama hasn't really drilled in this point because he'd rather be on the correct side of the change vs. experience dichotomy, but it's a sad day when a candidate with twenty-five years at the federal, state, and local level and dealing directly with Constitutional law is considered less experienced than a former first lady with seven years at the federal level and a corporate law background, simply because she has more national POLITICAL experience in the partisan mudfight; it's kind of appalling that this edge in political experience has been cast as a policy advantage, when Obama is in fact the one with the vast advantage on policy experience.

This is a response to a diary on the recommended list, where it was suggested that the fact some Obama voters would not support Clinton in the general is a combination of hubris by Obama and hubris by his supporters here on dailykos.  This is extremely deluded - which in itself would not enough for me to write a diary in response - but it is also very dangerous and counterproductive to the cause of getting Democrats elected, which is the purported purpose of such a diary in the first place.

When considering Obama's Nevada victory and what it means to the overall race, I think it's best to first observe the facts of what happened yesterday, which were a matter of dispute between two dueling diaries on the rec list last night.  Each of the following are facts, not opinions.  

* There was no popular vote total reported in Nevada.

* Obama won 11 Nevada counties and Clinton won 6.

* Two delegate numbers came out of the Nevada election.  Clinton won more caucus delegates 51% to 45%, while Obama won more delegates to the national convention 13 to 12.

* Only the delegates to the national convention have any impact on the nomination.

* Every campaign, including the Clinton campaign, put out statements for days before Nevada about how this is a delegate race, and only delegates to the convention count.  They said this because it's true, and it's still true.

* The delegate count to the convention as a result of primary voting thus far has Obama ahead of Clinton by 2 delegates, 38 to 36, as explained below.

* Iowa: Obama 16, Clinton 15 - New Hampshire - Obama 9, Clinton 9 - Nevada: Obama 13, Clinton 12.

More below the fold...

Barack Obama recently responded to the controversy in the African American community regarding Hillary Clinton's comments about Martin Luther King.  After the tone of the Democratic primary race has gotten a bit compromised over the past week, and threatened to go in a direction none of us would like to see, Obama's statement helps push us back towards the straightforward yet fair tone we would hope to see in a contentious yet civil campaign:

I started reading and posting on blogs about a year and a half ago, inspired to change my lifelong unaffiliated registration to support Ned Lamont in the Senate primary.  Just over a year ago, I began posting here; I never switched my party affiliation back, knowing that I wanted to have a say in the upcoming Presidential race.  

Obama appealed to me quite a bit around the time I heard the first rumblings of people asking him to run for President; however, the field was large, and very strong.  I'd always though thought if voters had picked Edwards instead of Kerry in 2004, there would have been no Bush re-election, and I liked his 2008 platforms even better; Dodd was my Senator that I had always had a positive opinion of; Clinton brought with her the revolutionary concept of the first female leader of the free world; Richardson and Biden had lengthy resumes; Kucinich and Gravel fearlessly pushed the party more towards progressivism with every word they spoke.  I realized that I had no reason to rush to pick a candidate right off the bat, and that waiting allowed my vote to be among those courted throughout the campaign.