Barring some unexpected catastrophe (or an even-they-can't-be-so-stupid self-destructive rules change by the Democratic National Committee), it looks like Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President in November. 

Which means I can put my "permanent" Obama banner in the sidebar. Not that I expect (or even desire) to sway anyone in particular -- but given that it's my blog, and something I feel strongly about, it seems the right thing to do.

I've not done it to date because, ultimately, I'd rather have either of the "Final Two" Dems over the GOP candidate. Obviously I've had a preference -- but I really didn't want to add to the internecine party warfare by proclaiming it too persistently. Now that things appear settled (caveats above), I can advertise my pick with it being directed toward the actual election, not the nomination struggle.

So, there it is.

By the way, I really like the Obama logo/text/color scheme shown here and above. It's (literally) a breath of fresh air (compared to most campaign logos), subtle, classy, strong but not shouting. Alas, most of the Obama bumper stickers I've seen end up with the "O" logo in a field of DARK ELECTION BUMPER STICKER BLUE! with WHITE! and RED! type. Which clashes nastily with the logo (one color too many, at least). The current swag looks a bit better, and there's a white-background one that may be just the thing I'm looking for. (Yes, I may actually get a political bumper sticker this year -- something to counterbalance the likely slew of McCain stickers that my district will start sporting soon.)

So, now comes the next question: who will Obama (and McCain) select as their veeps? Unlike a lot of elections, I think the selection could make or break each campaign.

Filed under :: Elections 2008

(Fingers crossed, eyes closed...) Not Hillary! Not Hillary! Not Hillary!

Really, there are progressives who pander less. Like, most of them. Anyone who was in favor of the gas tax holiday, or who chuckled about "obliterating Iran" should be ruled out.

The general consensus amongst the punditry is that Hillary's not on the list. It would be difficult to reconcile a "message of change" when bringing in someone who exemplifies past politics.

I don't think it's what either of them wants. But, then, what do I know?

But the veep sweeps this year will be key, not only in terms of addressing groups on each side that may be wavering (McCain needs to appease the Religious Right; Obama needs to beef up his military/foreign policy/white cred), but also as a very real possibility as a successor (McCain, who's liable to drop dead any moment; Obama, who faces a greater chance of assassination than anyone since, well, Kennedy).

I stand by my hope of an Obama/Edwards ticket. Edwards would deliver almost all of the voters that Hillary would without tainting the campaign with her 'old-school' politics shadow.

Edwards would also give Obama more cred with the further left elements of the Dems without so frightening the Republicans into panic mode.

Frankly, if the Republicans conduct a fairly aboveboard campaign they'll lose in the fall, and lose large, with a large swing in the house and senate as well, but that's likely to be a short-term loss. If they go with their usual 'out for blood' style campaign they may set their party back by as much as a decade.

I don't care for current Republican politics, however I live in dread of ANY single party holding a super-majority. Our system works best when both parties have to negotiate to get what they want. Then they do occassionally have to pay attention to what their constituants really want.

1. I agree an Obama-Edwards ticket has a lot of appeal, though I honestly know some Republicans who *would* treat it with a panic. It would give Obama a "White Southern" element, but wouldn't diversify his experience or policy areas as much as might be desired. It would be potentially a good fit.

2. It will be interesting to see what the GOP, as a whole, does. There are plenty of out-for-blood types already sniping from the sidelines, and the shadow of Karl Rove still hangs over the party style. That said, my sense is that McCain would rather not run the campaign in that fashion. Will he be able to exercise any restraint on them? If not, what will the impact be? There's plenty of FUD already about Obama in a lot of quarters of the general population, and the demagogues and hatchet men might be able to fan those flames very effectively (again, the VP selection plays a factor here).

I think the GOP is most likely going to lose big in Congress, but the presidential campaign is a lot more up for grabs than I expected it to be -- largely because McCain is positioned to grab some of the moderate/centrist vote a lot better than any other Republican candidate that was likely (and that's where the VP choice will make a difference).

3. I tend to prefer inertia and friction in government, too, as a general rule -- though of late that's led to more gridlock than compromise. I wouldn't mind seeing at least two years of all-Dem Executive/Congress to make up for the last 8 years (esp. the first 6 of those) (and since the GOP will still most likely have enough votes in the Senate to use the filibuster tactic), but as a general rule, I'd rather have a mixed government in the White House and Capitol Hill -- esp., let's say, with the Dems in the presidency and in control of one of the Houses. That seems "fair and balanced" to me. :-)

I honestly do not see a republican pres considering $4 gas, quagmire in IRAQ, rising food prices, etc...seems like discontent in general will continue to grow, not good for someone who supports Bush. You would think the religious right would wise up since the repubs have basically paid lipservice to their issues.

I think that a Democratic landslide in all areas is needed to bring the republicans back to the center..maybe then some things can be accomplished.

I honestly do not see a republican pres considering $4 gas, quagmire in IRAQ, rising food prices, etc...seems like discontent in general will continue to grow, not good for someone who supports Bush.

You'd think, wouldn't you? Part of the equation will be the extent to which McCain can be a Bush supporter to the party faithful but a Bush dissenter (on at least some key issues) to everyone else. And whether the GOP apparatus can make Obama look like the greater of two evils.

You would think the religious right would wise up since the repubs have basically paid lipservice to their issues.

Hope springs eternal. I don't think McCain will get the level of support that Bush, for whatever reason, did -- but most of the RR will still vote for McCain over Obama.

I think that a Democratic landslide in all areas is needed to bring the republicans back to the center..maybe then some things can be accomplished.

It all depends on whether the electorate pulls the party, or the party pulls the electorate.