McCain VP announcement to come this week.

[Sinn Fein]

According to Drudge... He's met with Giuliani and is meeting with Bobby Jindal this week. I'm pretty sure he also was with Romney last week.

[martianvirus]

I still don't like the guy, but i'll still vote for him because he's better then that negro. I hope he picks someone good.

[MrBogey]

Please don't grab Jindal. Please just ask for advice.

[Begbie]

Whoever it is...I'm sure a certain someone on here will be checking every anti-McCain rag and blog to come up with his proof on why this VP is a disaster, was a failure in school, and flip-flops on everything.

[Sinn Fein]

My preferences:

1) Jindal
2) Giuliani
3) Romney

[Vyce]

I have my doubts it will happen this week.

I don't see the point in naming the VP until AFTER the Dem convention, where Obama has to name his choice. The only plausible theory I've seen as to why he would announce it early would be if it's possibly Romney, so that Mitt can get his fairly impressive campaign fundraising capabilities into motion. But even still, supposing that's true, why couldn't Mitt do that anyway and the formal announcement not come at a later date?

Edit: I really like Jindal, but truly, it's not his time. Jindal would be a good choice for the GOP nomination for president in 8 years (no matter who wins this November), but not now.

[thetick130]

My preferences:

1) Jindal
2) Giuliani
3) Romney

While I fully agree with the selection (I love Bobby), I do not think this would be a good idea. He has done so much for that state in such a little amount of time that it could seem like he's cutting and running after a year in office. He might also just be a little too young and may need a few more years. Not talking about age limits, but rather increasing his public image to more than just Conservatives and LA. Maybe the other two would be better candidates for this year. (My choices for the nom were Giuliani and then Romney also)

[South Jersey]

My preferences:

1) Jindal
2) Giuliani
3) Romney

I also like Jimdal but he's "not ripe" for the veep spot. Rudy would be my choice. Just for the debate entertainment value alone. Not to mention, there's nothing like having two hotheads in charge to keep the sand monkeys in check.

[Begbie]

My preferences:

1) Jindal
2) Giuliani
3) Romney

Nope sorry.

Jindal finished in the bottom 25th percentile of his 6th grade elementary school class. That just proves how reckless he would be as a VP. We can't make that mistake.

And forget Giuliani, he played a key role in the top secret planning of the 9-11 attacks.

And Romney? Well, Romney crashed a car in 1968 which led to the death of one person. He was also in two fender benders and some old lady pulled out into his car in 1994. That's 4 cars damaged...total recklessness.

[Zona992006]

Whoever it is...I'm sure a certain someone on here will be checking every anti-McCain rag and blog to come up with his proof on why this VP is a disaster, was a failure in school, and flip-flops on everything.

Hiya doin?

God Damn I hope he picks Giuliani or Romney. That would be fantastic either way. :icon_cool

If Giuliani, there would be no need to do any anti VP threads. He is just too easy..
and Romney? People are so understanding of the Mormons. :clap:

As far as Jindal...
http://bech-tech.net/jeets/wordpress/wp-content/campusshutdown/BobbyJindal.jpg

He will at least do fine in here. I mean his age, his experience, his minority (non white) status......it did well for Obama in here!
Nuff Said

[FellowTraveler]

I have my doubts it will happen this week.

I don't see the point in naming the VP until AFTER the Dem convention, where Obama has to name his choice. The only plausible theory I've seen as to why he would announce it early would be if it's possibly Romney, so that Mitt can get his fairly impressive campaign fundraising capabilities into motion. But even still, supposing that's true, why couldn't Mitt do that anyway and the formal announcement not come at a later date?

Edit: I really like Jindal, but truly, it's not his time. Jindal would be a good choice for the GOP nomination for president in 8 years (no matter who wins this November), but not now.

Nah...It would be a good week for it. Take some of the news coverage off Obama while he is overseas (it would be fantastic if he stayed overseas).

[South Jersey]

Hiya doin?

God Damn I hope he picks Giuliani or Romney. That would be fantastic either way. :icon_cool

If Giuliani, there would be no need to do any anti VP threads. He is just too easy..
and Romney? People are so understanding of the Mormons. :clap:

As far as Jindal...
http://bech-tech.net/jeets/wordpress/wp-content/campusshutdown/BobbyJindal.jpg

He will at least do fine in here. I mean his age, his experience, his minority (non white) status......it did well for Obama in here!
Nuff Said

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/ObamaSharpton.jpg

Just wondering? How many times do you re-edit every post you put up?? :haha7:

[DonTheTrucker]

With Jindal as VP, I wonder if I can call the White House when my Dell computer breaks down?

[BloodyDiaper]

My preferences:

1) Jindal
2) Giuliani
3) Romney

I wish it could be all three :icon_bigg

But The Exorcist will be the most fun...

[Zona992006]

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/ObamaSharpton.jpg

Just wondering? How many times do you re-edit every post you put up?? :haha7:

I do that because when I make a point, the only thing a person like you can do is, look for typo's (or comment on why I edit my posts).

It has happened before because I type really fast and really inaccurately. When you find a typo, bam...youuuu gootttt meeeeee.

I know, I know, spellcheck. (Sometimes I forget).

Edit: Understand now?

[Razor Roman]

I think this time around Romney would be the solid pick... solidify economic conservatives, heck McCain can even put Romney out there front and center as a "groth czar", to try and streamline and modernize government, cut bureaucracy, lower taxes, and help the economy grow. Romney would also bring the enthusiastic support of many conservatives and help with fundraising. He's great at giving a prepared speech and off-the-cuff. He might also help bring Michigan into the GOP corner (that and the fact that they've had at least 2 ABYSMAL Democrat governors)

As most of you know, Guiliani was my choice for President in the primaries, but I don't think he's a good #2. He carries a lot of baggage with him. If he was the #1 guy he can shrug it off, defend it, etc, but as #2 it makes it look like you picked a bum candidate. Plus, Guiliani's appeal this year, in my own mind, was the same type of "law-and-order" type of appeal Nixon had in '68, running against the crazies and hippies. McCain has a similar appeal, especially on dealing with terrorism and foreign issues. Guiliani turned the economy of NYC around not so much by dealing with economic issues in a brilliant fashion, but by making the city safe and welcoming to business and consumers again. I see Guiliani in McCain's cabinet as Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General.

Jindal is too young, and you see what happens when you throw someone who's too young and inexperienced to a hostile press corps (Dan Quayle).

[Zona992006]

This whole VP thing in a nutshell:


A senior adviser said the report is a "head fake" meant to distract attention from Obama's headline-grabbing overseas trip.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/22/veep.talk/

[Razor Roman]

This whole VP thing in a nutshell:


A senior adviser said the report is a "head fake" meant to distract attention from Obama's headline-grabbing overseas trip.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/22/veep.talk/

and if it was the other way around... Brilliant political strategy?

[CougarHunter]

Jindal said he was out. :(

[Vyce]

and if it was the other way around... Brilliant political strategy?

It is a brilliant political strategy. Managed to take some of the headlines / spotlight off Obama for a bit this week.

It's very sad when the Daily Show has the most apt criticism of the media to be found. Anyone check out that skit they did the other night where they played on the fact that the media basically already thinks Obama is president and is completely in love with the guy?

[BloodyDiaper]

It is a brilliant political strategy. Managed to take some of the headlines / spotlight off Obama for a bit this week.

Not really. It's doubtful that Obama could have got more headlines/spotlight if McCain had decided to stay home all week and watch Matlock reruns.

If anything it hurts McCain because unless he really goes through with formally announcing which clown will lose with him in November, the story will be about how his head-fake not only failed to upstage Obama but also reminded everyone what a dumb move it was for McCain to taunt Obama into taking an incredibly successful trip.

[abudabit]

He'd better pick someone soon before he goes senile or dies.

[nataskaos]

I hope his pick is as exciting as the rest of his campzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........








btw, I hate both of the clowns currently running. so bugger off with your partisan horse shit.

[Vyce]

Not really. It's doubtful that Obama could have got more headlines/spotlight if McCain had decided to stay home all week and watch Matlock reruns.

If anything it hurts McCain because unless he really goes through with formally announcing which clown will lose with him in November, the story will be about how his head-fake not only failed to upstage Obama but also reminded everyone what a dumb move it was for McCain to taunt Obama into taking an incredibly successful trip.

Incredibly successful trip in who's eyes?

The media's sure - but they're so utterly in Obama's thrall that you've got guys like Matthews practically writing love letters to the guy every evening.

Early poll data that I'm seeing don't show this trip giving Obama any sort of bounce in the polls (and that's even from poll data where Democrats are OVERsampled).

Even supposing it did him any good, I don't think that'll last once more people get clued in to the fact that Obama cancelled an opportunity to meet with military servicemen in Germany - including troops wounded in the war - in order to stage a political rally and go shopping in Berlin.

1:42 p.m.: SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that Obama has cancelled a planned short visit to the Rammstein and Landstuhl US military bases in the southwest German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. The visits were planned for Friday. “Barack Obama will not be coming to us,” a spokesperson for the US military hospital in Landstuhl announced. “I don’t know why.” Shortly before the same spokeswoman had announced a planned visit by Obama.

Obama noted that in a break from his whirlwind schedule, "we've got some down time tonight. What are you guys gonna do in Berlin? Huh? Huh? You guys got any big. plans? ...I've never been to Berlin, so...I would love to tour around a little bit."

[Zona992006]

and if it was the other way around... Brilliant political strategy?

I really dont know...I have no practice with Obama pulling that type shit.

[abudabit]

He was gonna pick his VP but he forgot.

[Zona992006]

He was gonna pick his VP but he forgot.

Well, I guess that depends...

[BloodyDiaper]

Incredibly successful trip in who's eyes?

Incredibly successful in the eyes of the Obama campaign due to the fact that Maliki pretty much endorsed Obama's plan for withdrawl. The McCain campaign had hoped its goading Obama into a trip to Iraq would set a trap - he would either have to aknowledge the recent progress and risk being labled a flip-flopper or refuse to change his position and look out of touch with the facts.

Instead Obama was shown as being on the same page as the Iraqi government and McCain is now the one in a trap. The McCain campaign also knows it was an incredibly successful trip for Obama for the same reasons, which is why they dishonestly tried to make an issue of the cancellation of the visit to the troops in Germany.

On the VP front it looks like McCain will make a huge blunder if he picks Multiple Choice Mitt:

Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Evangelicals warn against Romney on ticket
Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)
Prominent evangelical leaders are warning Sen. John McCain against picking former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate, saying their troops will abandon the Republican ticket on Election Day if that happens.

They say Mr. Romney lacks trust on issues such as outlawing abortion and opposing same-sex marriage and because he is a Mormon. Opposition is particularly powerful among those who supported former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in the Republican presidential primaries earlier this year.

"McCain and Romney would be like oil and water," said evangelical novelist Tim LaHaye, who supported Mr. Huckabee. "We aren't against Mormonism, but Romney is not a thoroughgoing evangelical and his flip-flopping on issues is understandable in a liberal state like Massachusetts, but our people won't understand that."

The Rev. Rob McCoy, pastor of Calvary Chapel in Thousand Oaks, Calif., who speaks at evangelical events across the country, told The Washington Times, "I will vote for McCain unless he does one thing. You know what that is? If he puts Romney on the ticket as veep.

"It will alienate the entire evangelical community - 62 million self-professing evangelicals in this country, half of them registered to vote, are going to be deeply saddened," Mr. McCoy added.

...

An evangelical leader who, though he has close ties to Mr. McCain, confided to The Times that polling suggests that putting Mr. Romney on the ticket likely would cost Mr. McCain 7 percent to 10 percent of the evangelical vote - enough to spell defeat for Mr. McCain in a close race with Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/29/evangelicals-warn-against-mccain-romney-ticket/

[Vyce]

Incredibly successful in the eyes of the Obama campaign due to the fact that Maliki pretty much endorsed Obama's plan for withdrawl.

Except, of course, Maliki himself, through his spokesman, already stated that his remarks were misinterpreted and distorted. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/index.html?section=cnn_latest)

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.”

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

Wiser minds than you - and by that, I mean VMS - already explained this quite well: Maliki is in part playing politics, and in part being a "traditional" Arab businessman by haggling over the negotiations for us to stay there in Iraq for 16 months or LONGER. But the idea that Maliki supports Obama's position is horseshit, which Maliki HIMSELF has already shot down. Maliki holds the same position that he has been supporting, the same one that the White House has been supporting, i.e. that we can bring the troops home IF CONDITIONS ARE MET, and not before.

Which, BP, is a position that Obama HIMSELF seems to be adopting, since he's now admitting that troop levels in Iraq need to be "entirely conditions based":

Richard Wolfe (Newsweek): You’ve been talking about those limited missions for a long time. Having gone there and talked to both diplomatic and military folks, do you have a clearer idea of how big a force you’d need to leave behind to fulfill all those functions?

Obama: I do think that’s entirely conditions-based. It’s hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now.

Jesus. All of this support from your side for Obama, and he's even swerving YOU on the issue of removing troops from Iraq.

which is why they dishonestly tried to make an issue of the cancellation of the visit to the troops in Germany.

Dishonestly?

Obama fucked up with that one, sorry.

And you know he fucked up, because even media outlets like the NYT and MSNBC refuse to carry his water on this one:

NYT: (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/us/politics/29truth.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

Before his visit to Ramstein Air Base, which is near the medical center, was canceled, the plan called for reporters to stay behind at an airport terminal while Mr. Obama and one adviser met with the troops. Why? The Pentagon does not allow reporters and photographers inside Landstuhl…

[O]ne question remains: Why didn’t Mr. Obama leave his aides behind, even the retired general, and make the visit by himself?

“Even him going alone would likely be characterized by some as a political event,” Mr. Gibbs said in an interview on Monday, adding, “He decided not to put the troops in that position.”


Except, of course, Obama had already made a political event of meeting with troops in Iraq & Afghanistan earlier THAT week, and injured troops at Walter Reed only a few weeks prior.

MSNBC (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/25/1225016.aspx):

In his official capacity as a sitting US senator, Obama has every right to stay in touch with America's men and women in uniform. According to Pentagon officials, the problem was that Obama's request to visit Landstuhl included two members of his campaign staff -- retired Major General Jonathan S. Gration and Jeff Kiernan. US military officials in Germany informed the campaign the two political operatives would not be permitted on base.

Pentagon officials say Gration was the campaign's point of contact at Landstuhl in arranging Obama's visit and "got torqued" when he was told he would not be permitted to join Obama. It was Gration who later suggested to reporters that the Pentagon short-circuited Obama's visit.

Are there some in the Pentagon or military resentful because Gration has climbed on board the Obama campaign? Did Gration overreact? As a former policy director for the US European Command, he would surely be disappointed -- if not offended -- by being excluded from the visit. It's also been my experience that even retired generals do not want to hear the word "no."

Whatever the reason, Obama and the troops he would have visited have both missed a unique and historic opportunity. According to one Army lieutenant colonel, "Everyone was excited about Obama's visit. It's a shame."

But don't feel too bad, BP. Since they want to see him elected, don't expect the media to beat up on Obama for fucking over the troops in Germany. They'll make sure that this story dies and is forgotten by the end of the week.

[THE FEZ MAN]

its a shame the bush ruined the political careers of tom ridge and colon powell, i like those guys and i think either one would make a great VP/ president

[BloodyDiaper]

Except, of course, Maliki himself, through his spokesman, already stated that his remarks were misinterpreted and distorted. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/index.html?section=cnn_latest)

You've made it clear that you never get tired of being wrong, but this is embarassing even by your "standards." If you paid any attention to the story after 7/19 you would know that it turns out there was no "misinterpretation" or "distortion" of Maliki's comments. On 7/21 the NY Times reported:

The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Mr. Maliki’s words had been “misunderstood and mistranslated,” but it failed to cite specifics.

“Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate,” Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. “I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation.”

But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

The same story also reports that the Bush Administration leaned on the Iraqi government to issue a "clarification" (aka walkback) on Maliki's comments:

Mr. Maliki's interview prompted immediate concern from the Bush administration, which called to seek clarification from Mr. Maliki’s office, American officials said.

Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., said that embassy officials explained to the Iraqis how the interview in Der Spiegel was being interpreted, given that it came just a day after the two governments announced an agreement over American troops.

...

Diplomats from the United States Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Mr. Maliki’s advisers on Saturday, said an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss what he called diplomatic communications. After that, the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine’s rendering of the interview.

But even Bush's touching appreciation of Iraqi sovereignty couldn't change the fact that Maliki received a copy of the interview before it went to press and his office approved it for publication:

German magazine Der Spiegel caused quite a commotion this week by printing an interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki in which he endorsed Obama's Iraq plan by name. Some tried to downplay the significance of this endorsement by saying that Maliki had been misquoted by the magazine. But it turns out that Maliki actually got a copy of the interview before it was printed and had the option to make any changes. A writer at Der Spiegel sent us this tidbit of info:

The reason the magazine scores so many high level interviews is that the editors agree to allow the subjects to "authorize" the interviews before they go to press. It wasn't just a slip of the tongue, in other words: Maliki not only endorsed Obama's plans for withdrawing from Iraq, but his office then explicitly approved the endorsement before it was printed. The denials, then, were doubly facetious. Spiegel couldn't say so, though, without revealing its embarrassing authorization policy.

Der Spiegel has gotten flak in the past for this policy. According to Ingrid Kolb, director of the Henri Nannen School for Journalism in Hamburg:

The long interviews that Der Spiegel publishes with famous public figures, their so-called talks, are known for this ... They can go back and forth a dozen times, with each side bringing their argument a bit more to the point, refining it, improving it. In a best-case scenario, it serves the interests of both sides.

So much for Maliki's message being lost in translation.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/22/maliki-s-endorsement-not-lost-in-translation.aspx

Since Maliki's original comments stand, and the walkback was obviously nonsense, you have people like Dan Bartlett explaining the significance:

July 25, 2008
Categories: Iraq

Bartlett: Maliki's move a game-changer

Former Bush White House communications director and counselor Dan Bartlett yesterday offered a strikingly candid assessment of what Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's support for Barack Obama's troop withdrawal plan means for the campaign.

“Time will tell, but the al-Maliki comments about a timetable is very close to a game-changing event," Bartlett told my colleague Daniel Libit in an interview. "That was incredibly damaging [to McCain],because it neutralized one of [Obama’s] biggest liabilities."

Bartlett, part of President Bush's original cadre of Texas loyalists, left the White House in 2007 and now works for a public affairs firm.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Bartlett_Malikis_move_a_gamechanger.html




Wiser minds than you - and by that, I mean VMS - already explained this quite well: Maliki is in part playing politics, and in part being a "traditional" Arab businessman by haggling over the negotiations for us to stay there in Iraq for 16 months or LONGER. But the idea that Maliki supports Obama's position is horseshit, which Maliki HIMSELF has already shot down. Maliki holds the same position that he has been supporting, the same one that the White House has been supporting, i.e. that we can bring the troops home IF CONDITIONS ARE MET, and not before.

See above - Maliki does support Obama's position. The White House apparently has trouble with that, which is why they tried to get them to walkback from the comments he approved for publication. As for the point that Maliki is just playing politics and negotiating - who argued otherwise? Even if Maliki himself would welcome McCainesque pemanent bases being built over the next 100 years, he knows that the Iraqi people won't stand for an extended occupation.


Which, BP, is a position that Obama HIMSELF seems to be adopting, since he's now admitting that troop levels in Iraq need to be "entirely conditions based":



Jesus. All of this support from your side for Obama, and he's even swerving YOU on the issue of removing troops from Iraq.

Obama's position has been consistent - he favors withdrawl ASAP but he will base his decision ultimately on the facts on the ground when he takes office.

Dishonestly?

Yes.

McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence

By Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 30, 2008; A01



For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.

The attacks are part of a newly aggressive McCain operation whose aim is to portray the Democratic presidential candidate as a craven politician more interested in his image than in ailing soldiers, a senior McCain adviser said. They come despite repeated pledges by the Republican that he will never question his rival's patriotism.

The essence of McCain's allegation is that Obama planned to take a media entourage, including television cameras, to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during his week-long foreign trip, and that he canceled the visit when he learned he could not do so. "I know that, according to reports, that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers," McCain said Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

The Obama campaign has denied that was the reason he called off the visit. In fact, there is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902286_pf.html





Except, of course, Obama had already made a political event of meeting with troops in Iraq & Afghanistan earlier THAT week, and injured troops at Walter Reed only a few weeks prior.

Liar. He did not make a political event out of those meetings and did not bring reporters to any of them.

[abudabit]

I don't trust the government at all when the military is involved. It's safe to assume that the heads of the executive branch or military are lying when they report anything until proven otherwise. That's what happens when you lose all credibility. Why anyone would want to work for those branches is beyond me.

If Maliki asked for us to leave, then days later renounced his statement, it is safe to assume that he renounced them under duress.