Politico

The Obama VP team has floated Ann Veneman in their discussions with members of congress.  Veneman was George W. Bush’s Secretary of Agriculture from 2001 - 2004.  She is now the executive director of UNICEF.

“You select a strong independent woman who appeals to Republicans and independents, and so that’s hard to beat,” the Hill source said, explaining the logic of the possible choice. “Choosing someone like [Veneman] doesn’t hurt you with the Democrats. It just doesn’t hurt you. But it helps you with Independents and Republicans.”

Maybe.  But that also depends a lot on her positions on many issues.  If she is socially conservative it very well could hurt Obama with Democrats.  Although perhaps the Obama campaign thinks the Democrats will stick with him no matter who he picks.  House Democrats, however, have a history with Veneman:

“Are you serious?” one lawmaker asked vetters when Veneman’s name came up, a second source familiar with the conversations said.

The surprise stems from the fact that, while Veneman was seen as an experienced leader for her department, she often clashed with Democrats on a central battle front of the Bush years: regulation. Venemen was criticized by some Democrats and environmentalists, and praised by agriculture and food interests, for lightly regulating the industries and for encouraging trade and biotechnology during her tenure.

In my opinion there are two reasons you ask about someone to be your VP: 1) You are actually considering that person; 2) You have some specific objective in mind by leaking the name.  If the Obama team is doing the latter, then I’m thoroughly confused as to why.  Perhaps to test the waters about a Republican VP without leaking the actual name?

Obama Veep Team Floats Republican Name - The Politico

Posted By: Nick

 
The subject of McCain’s age has been very touchy.  McCain himself seems to enjoying joking about it in a self-deprecating way, but his campaign has reacted quickly against any perceived age attacks.  Remember that when John Kerry called McCain confused a few weeks ago, the McCain campaign responded that Kerry was trying to attack McCain’s age.

But isn’t it a fair question to ask?  After all John McCain wants to be President of the United States.  He wants to be the guy making all the decisions in the situation room.  He wants a job where he will get no real break, and not a single full night’s sleep for four (if not eight) years.  Why can’t we ask if he’s physically and mentally up to the challenge?

At the age of 72 (which McCain will be when he take office), things can happen.  While McCain’s health records suggest he’s in good shape, his own mistakes while on the campaign trail are starting to cause problems.  In the past few weeks his errors have piled up: He referred to the Czech Republic as Czechoslovakia; he mentioned the Iraq-Pakistan border; he referred to Vladimir Putin as the President of Germany; there are other examples as well.

The McCain campaign has said he’s merely making innocent mistakes; anyone who is out in public speaking as much as McCain is, is bound to slip up occasionally.  This is true, but McCain’s “slip-ups” are happening quite frequently, and perhaps more problematic for his campaign, they seem to be concentrated on the one subject he claims to be an expert about: foreign policy.  The conclusion to be drawn from these mistakes are not good for McCain: either he is not such an expert on foreign policy; or his mind just isn’t quite as sharp as it used to be.  Both are troubling prospects.

Worse, for McCain, the story is gaining steam in the media.  The Washington Post has a piece up today.  The Politico had a story about it yesterday.  Perhaps the worst case scenario for McCain is that voters really start to believe him when he says that we must be cautious who we pick to lead our nation in a time of war; if they buy into the need for a strong commander in chief, they may just decide that we can’t take a risk on John McCain.

Posted By: Nick

 
Bob Novak hit a guy with his car in Washington this morning.  He apparently didn’t even know he hit the guy:

“I didn’t know I hit him,” Novak told Politico. Novak said he was a block away from 18th and K St. NW, where the accident happened, when a bicyclist stopped him and said, “You hit someone.” He said he was cited for failing to yield the right of way.

Seriously?  How do you not notice hitting someone with your car?  Well turns out Novak’s driving is on par with his attitude as a whole:

Novak, 77, has earned a reputation around the capital as an aggressive driver, easily identified in his convertible sports car.

Brilliant.

Posted By: Nick

 
The Politico goes a little Obama crazy with all sorts of stories today:

Ben Smith posts about the security concerns of reporting on Obama’s trip.  And also has a quote from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki in support of Obama’s timeline for withdrawal.

Mike Allen gives the rundown of Obama’s stop in Afghanistan.

John Avlon notes that the left-wingers who supported Obama (and are now upset at his “move to the center”) perhaps never really understood who Obama is.

David Kuhn writes that Obama Keeps Returning to Reagan.

Posted By: Nick

 
Ben Smith posts that former Senator Max Cleland was uninvited from a July 8th Obama event in Atlanta because he is a registered lobbyist.  Cleland is registered to lobby for a company that makes products to help soldiers recover from injuries; he never actually even lobbied for them though; he registered, but never did any work.  But the Obama Campaign’s anti-lobbyist crusade knows no bounds, and Cleland was asked not to come to the event.

Cleland, for those who don’t know, is a war hero.  He served in Vietnam where he lost both legs and an arm.  He served in the U.S. Senate but was defeated in his 2002 reelection bid when his opponent ran ads comparing him to Osama bin Laden.  Since then he has campaigned for fellow democrats, and has continued to speak out on the severe lack of treatment that our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are recieving.

I personally met Cleland when I worked for a congressional campaign in 2006.  Of all the Senators, Governors, Congressman (etc.) that I’ve met, Cleland was by far the most genuine.  Despite being a low level staffer on my very first campaign, Cleland took the time to chat with me, ask about how things were going with our field program, and offer some advice and encouragement.  This is a man that all Americans should be proud of.

But Barack Obama couldn’t share a stage with him.  He couldn’t let Cleland speak in support of his campaign.  He couldn’t have this “lobbyist” at an event with him.

Barack Obama should be ashamed.

Posted By: Nick

 
So Politico has this story up about how the Democrats in the Senate are just about ready to capitulate on offshore drilling.  This is so incredibly stupid on so many levels and serves as a good example of what’s wrong with the Democratic Party.  In my previous post I mentioned that we should cut Obama some slack for compromising here and there if it’ll get him elected.  I don’t want that to be confused with compromising EVERYWHERE and especially on issues like this that Democrats can win by taking the intelligent position.

Offshore drilling is bad policy:

The Environment: This is actually not the biggest reason that offshore drilling is dumb.  But it is a factor in the whole picture.  Oil spills are extremely harmful to the environment and very costly (both in terms of cleanup and in terms of lost tourism dollars for the affected areas).  While technology has improved and spills are less likely, the risk is still there, and the consequences are very harmful.  Oh, and don’t forget the whole global warming thing.  More oil means more warming.

Oil Prices: This is the big issue.  The argument is that if we increase the supply of oil (by drilling offshore), prices will go down.  Basic supply and demand.  Pretty simple logic right?  Except for the fact that drilling offshore will not lower oil prices.  Most estimates are that it will take anywhere from 10-20 years before any oil is coming in from new oil rigs.  In the meantime, we continue our current situation of ever-increasing oil prices.  Furthermore, the amount of oil that will be produced is such a minor increase in world supply that prices will barely change.  Basically it’ll save you a few cents/gallon for gas.  The whole issue is a Republican attempt to sell something that sounds great (More Oil!  Cheaper Gas!) to help their election chances.

Alternative (Green) Energy: Finally, increased oil production only serves to make us less likely to invest in alternative fuels.  None of us like paying $4/gallon for gas (it’s actually closer to $5/gallon here in CA), but the benefit of expensive oil is that it creates incentive to research and develop alternative energy sources.  If we drill offshore, drill in ANWR, convince OPEC to massively increase production, and somehow get oil prices back to a more reasonable level (not likely even if all of that occurs), then suddenly it’s not a good investment to spend money researching alternatives.  It merely prolongs our problem.

National Security: This is an issue that isn’t brought up as much as it should be.  Our military runs on oil.  Other than the nuclear reactors that power our submarines and aircraft carriers, pretty much anything else that moves, moves because of oil.  If oil runs out (or we can’t afford it), then we effectively have no military.  We need alternatives ASAP.  This is something that I would think both parties could understand and work to resolve, but few people are talking about it.

We need to break our addiction from oil and we need to do it now.  Drilling for oil offshore is not a solution, it’s a political stunt that will severely harm our nation in a number of ways.  Democrats need to take the lead on this issue; they need to explain why it’s bad policy, and then they need to offer a clear and intelligent energy plan as an alternative.  Democrats can win on this issue, but only if they have the courage to lead.

UPDATE: Speaker Pelosi does the right thing and strongly condemns Offshore Drilling.

“This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax, it’s an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. “It’s a decoy to punt your attention away from the fact that their policies have produced $4-a-gallon gasoline.”

Good to see someone in the Democratic Leadership taking the right position on this issue.  Too bad Harry Reid won’t do the same.