Prediction: Dean will announce runningmate on Thursday

[RageAgainstTheirMachine]

I am a stong supporter of General Clark's so I have no insider knowledge but here is my prediction on Dean's "big announcement" on Thursday:

Acknowledging the importance of the African-American vote in the Democratic primary and of the South in the general election and fearing the surge of Wes Clark's candidacy and Clark's strength in the South, I predict Howard Dean's big anouncement on Tuesday will be to announce Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. as his runningmate.

[liberalcapitalist]

1. I don't know, too much negativity attached to Jackson name

n/t

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meegbear]

5. Bitter?

Jeez. BREATHE!!

[w13rd0]

8. He's referring to Jr., the Congressional rep...

...not Rev Jackson. But no, don't think that's going to be it.

[Beaker]

3. candidates don't announce "running mates" until they get nominated.

It just isn't done, and would reflect poorly on Dean.

[hlthe2b]

14. Yeah, though I like the unconventional, this would scream:

Amateur!

[Beaker]

not to mention arrogant and pompous.

come to think of it...it may be right up Dean's alley to do so.

[RummyTheDummy]

49. Hahahahahaha......so true.

NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Reagan Announced That Richard Schweicker Would Be His Running

Mate in 1976 before the R convention.... He was running neck and neck in delegate count with Gerald Ford and he thought taking a moderate or liberal R would improves hin chances of winning the uncommitted delegates...

It failed....

[bearfartinthewoods]

34. yup...i can't figure out yet if it would be deemed

'an arrogant act that flies in the face of the party' or 'an act of desperation to hold onto the lead'.

either way it's not going to happen.

[AngryYoungMan]

4. Too early!!

WAAY too early. Clinton picked Gore after the Primaries.

Anyway how are Dean and Clark going to become each others' veeps if they're both still running? :)

[Tripper11]

6. This may be a bit of a stretch..perhaps not...

but last night I was discussing this very thing with a friend at work, and I suggested Moseley Braun. We had been talking about how a woman president would really do this country a lot of good, and have Braun as VP was a start in that direction.

[Beaker]

9. Carol Mosely Braun is a DISGRACE!

any ticket that bears her name is doomed to failure.
Her horrid tenure as a one-term senator from Illinois was embarrassing for our party, and my state.
She should drop out of the race, and crawl back under her slimy rock...to stay this time.

[gottaB]

19. speaking of slimy rocks

--never mind

[Stuckinthebush]

33. Details?

Slimy rock? My goodness that is harsh. She seems to be a very intelligent, warm, capable person. Why the massive amounts of negativity?

[Beaker]

39. The fact that she couldn't win re-election in Illinois says a lot-

Here is a piece that outlines some of the reasons why. The article/editorial it references is by Carol Marin, an extremely respected journalist in Chicago:

http://www.blogstudio.com/archpundit/12_15_02___12_21_02_Archpundit.html

Mosely-Braun Takedown

Carol Marin is one of the more respected, if not heavily watched, news people in Chicago and she sets out the case against Carol Mosely-Braun.

Some choice graphs:

One example. Before freshmen senators go to work in Washington, there is an orientation program to help them learn the lay of the land. You skipped it. Rather than roll up your sleeves right away and show you were both symbol and substance, you hopped a flight to Nigeria and paid your respects to the dictator of the most populous country in Africa, Gen. Sani Abacha. Despite Abacha's hideous record on human rights, including the assassination of his enemies, you remained a periodic visitor to the country and you were the lone member of the Senate and the lone member of the Congressional Black Caucus who opposed sanctions against that repressive regime.


Then there was the campaign finance mess. The Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service argued that you and your campaign manager and then-fiance, Kgosie Matthews, spent as much as $270,000 of campaign donations on Armani outfits, jewelry, Jeeps and vacations. Three times IRS investigators tried to impanel a grand jury. But the Justice Department did something experts say it virtually never does in this type of case. Citing "insufficient evidence," it refused to grant the IRS the subpoena power it requested in order to gather the evidence. You dismissed the whole thing as a witch hunt.


That's all in the past, of course. So what about today? Two words: Bill Shaw. Voters only have to look at this most recent election to scratch their heads and ask, "What were you thinking?" OK, as President Bill Clinton's ambassador to New Zealand, you'd been away for awhile. But why would you choose the Nov. 5 election to mark your re-entry to Chicago politics with radio and newspaper ads supporting Bill Shaw, of the politically notorious Shaw brothers, over Rev. James Meeks for a seat in the Illinois Senate? This is progressive politics?


Adding to this fine column, let's not forget when she left her position in Cook County she fired the entire staff on one of the last days and replaced them with political hacks. This was gratuitous even by Chicago Standards.

And the best example of poor policy and strategy analysis was getting the Trib company a big tax break. Why a giant corporation needed it is unclear other than someone was trying to curry favor with the editorial board. But that didn't work. The Trib blasted her for it...

Like I said originally- the woman is a disgrace to Politics, Blacks, and women...she used to be a disgrace to the people of the State of Illinois, but we fired her sorry ass.

[gottaB]

44. Stupid lies--You should be ashamed

1. For believing them.
2. For repeating them.
3. For not having the good sense to vote for her in 1998 despite your misguided suspicions, and then trying to make it seem like you did a good thing. That's just embarrassing.

Now what was that about slimy rocks--oh, yeah, never mind.

p.s.

Bold Enough For You?

Seriously, if you can talk without shouting, I'll take any of those bogus claims. To name just one, that Braun was "the lone member of the Senate and the lone member of the Congressional Black Caucus who opposed sanctions against that repressive regime." That's flat out false. Braun supported the UN sanctions and the sanctions supported by President Clinton. She did not support a unilateral oil embargo, which was one of the sanctions supported by the CBC. Her reasoning was sound and totally consistent with US foreign policy interests. To impose a unilateral embargo against Nigeria would have been singularily harsh, as Nigeria posed no threat to the United States, had no nuclear weapons program, and was not sponsoring terrorism or acting in other ways to undermine US security. Such a move would have made Nigeria the dimplomatic equivalent of North Korea or Iraq. Braun argued that the US must be consistent in its impostion of sanctions, for reasons that should be obvious, so that therefore we should ban military ties and certain diplomatic ties with Nigeria, but not single them out for harsh economic penalties. That is so reasonable it hurts to have to point it out. And it's completely consistent with the kinds of things she says about diplomacy and trade and human rights today, for instance regarding Cuba.

Look, I really really doubt that your concern with Braun is foreign policy. But you're taking a demonstrably untrue statement, adding some innuendo, some insults, some venom, a half-truth for good measure, and then concocting this nightmare image of a candidate who would betray the best interests of her constituents and her nation and all of humanity and for what? Pure Sleaze? Puh-lease. It doesn't make sense. Think about it.

Recently I saw a picture of Braun shaking hands with Kenneth Kaunda. Well, there was a time when his single-party government wasn't such a shining example of democracy in Africa. It took some pressure, but eventually he yielded to the demands for democratic government and was elected out of office. Don't you know these things take time? How long did we have to wait for Daniel arap Moi to step down? Like I said, though, I don't think this is really a concern of yours. Because you would take the same picture and interpret it as Braun warmly embracing a disgraced and shameful tyrant. It's ridiculous.

How many of Africa's leaders were freely and fairly elected during the reign of Abacha? We had like one clearly democratic ally in South Africa, and that was a new democracy. But South Africa wasn't going to go along with an oil embargo against Nigeria. Oh, Mandela was on board for other sanctions and diplomatic pressures, but not an oil embargo.

So tell me, what position was the right one for the Clinton administration? Oh, and this should be obvious, but if Braun were the "lone" member of the Senate opposing the oil embargo, then don't you think it would have been passed and made into law even if it meant over-riding a veto? That's just an asinine thing to argue, that she was the lone member holding some odious position and causing all these problems in Nigeria. Give me a break.

[Beaker]

46. Lies??? Sorry, but I was THERE.

I was an Illinois citizen during CMB blessedly short tenure in the U.S. Senate, and witnessed each incident that Carol points out, and that you have the audacity to call "lies".
If the woman was such a saint in your eyes, tell me, why couldn't she win re-election in the same year as Bill Clinton did in Illinois?
She should drop out of the race yesterday, and please let the door hit her on the ass on the way out.

[gottaB]

48. Audacity--You repeat bald faced lies and you talk of audacity?

Lie: Braun was "the lone member of the Senate and the lone member of the Congressional Black Caucus who opposed sanctions against that repressive regime."

Fact: Braun was not the only member of the Senate to oppose the unilateral oil embargo supported by the CBC.

Fact: Braun supported sanctions against Abacha.


Your source is lying. You are lying by repeating it when you know it is false. Are you sticking to this version of the truth? I'm not going to engage with you in election analysis or speculations about your motives for making stupid decisions in the voting booth unless and until you answer for this lie. Do you stand by this demonstrably false assertion that you have cited? If that's your standard for discussion, I think you mentioned something about a slimy rock....

[Beaker]

51. Are you saying that CMB supported ALL sanctions against Abacha?

and are you further saying that there were no instances where CMB was the lone hold-out, sanction-wise?

Is that what you're saying...?(I just want to be clear on what your position is)

BTW- were you a regitered voter in Illinois while Carol was embarrassing us in the U.S. Senate?

[gottaB]

53. dare I say we're making progress?

Now we that we have admitted to a distinction between some and all we're well on the road to talking sense and being honest. No, Braun did not support all proposed sanctions against Nigeria's government. But beyond the distinction between some and all, you have to look at who's doing the proposing. She did support all of the sanctions agreed to in the UN. She did support all of the sanctions imposed by the Clinton administration. She did not support all of the sanctions recommended for consideration by the CBC leadership. These are not distinctions that your source makes. Without these distinctions, there's no truth to the statement that Braun did not support sanctions against Abacha's government.

In the second case, that of being a "lone hold out," I actually have seen the sources for that, and it's a mischaracterization and a complete distortion to use it the way you and your sources have. The truth is that when the joint committee convened Braun was the lone member of the CBC who sided with the administration's policy. Her critics charged that she cast the "deciding" vote. Let's look at that claim objectively. How did it come to pass that Braun's vote was decisive? Because in order for one vote to make a difference in congress, there would have to be an oppositing side. Logically. So who decided that Braun's vote was the decisive vote? A loose coalition of interest groups that believed she was swayable because of her strong record of supporting human rights and her interest in African affairs.

Well, I do believe it's good and proper for interest groups to put pressure on senators and representatives. If you want to take Amnesty International for example, I support their work and agree with almost everything they have said regarding Nigeria. That doesn't mean I would allow them carte blanche to craft US foreign policy. There are other compelling considerations, issues of strategy, and broader concerns about the exercise of influence in the world that must be taken into account. Braun was articulating those concerns in 1994, just as she does in general to this day.

Thus on the question of Braun being a "lone hold-out," what we have is clearly have is an agenda item of some activist groups being appropriated by Braun's political opponents and presented as a fair and balanced assessment of her record as senator. It is not that. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous to say the least.

BTW, no I have never been a citizen of Illinois. During most of those years I lived in Bloomington, Indiana. I voted for neither Lugar nor Coats, although I did and still do respect the former, partly because of his intelligent grasp of foreign policy, but also because we shared some thoughtful correspondences.

Do understand that I would not be mentioning your personal voting preferences except that you made it an argument. You suggested that the fact that 52% is it of Illinoisan's who voted in 1998 preferred Fitzgerald to Braun is proof of Braun's turpitude. It is not. If that's your contention, I think it's fair for me to point to the obvious counter argument. But really, I'd rather we didn't get personal, so if you want to drop that line of argument I'm with you 100%.

Finally, on being embarrassed. Aren't you the teensiest bit embarrassed by Peter Fitzgerald? Look at what Braun gave you: funding for educational infrastructure, pell grants and the student load interest deduction, balancing the budget, funding for rail transport and for mass transit, putting a check on outrageous ATM fees, competetion in the banking industry, ethanol, fighting some stupid cattle tick, airport security that did *not* involve racial profiling, and on and on. You would trade all of that for some debate-shy, worthless millionare just because Rush won't make fun of him? Or this source you have cited who has said at least two untrue things--and we haven't even begun going through the list.

I beleive earlier you mentioned that Illinois voted for Clinton. Well, some of those Illinoisans should have listened to him when he campaigned for Braun, because everything he was saying about her, the work that they accomplished, and the importance of her seat, all of that was true and certainly not something to be embarrassed about.

[Beaker]

56. what's peter fitzgerald got to do with it?

Just because I couldn't in good conscience vote for CMB doesn't mean that i supported peter fitzgerald- and I don't see what his tenure as senator has to do with CMB's total unworthiness to the office of President.

And just because you don't like the light that Carol Marin's statements cast CMB in, doesn't make them untrue. But then, you can't say that they're untrue, all you can say is:
"it's a mischaracterization and a complete distortion to use it the way you and your sources have..." which pretty much translates into:
"Guilty as charged."
Are you just trying to make people dizzy with all that spin?

As I said, I LIVED thru CMB's truly embarrassing Senate tenure(all the more embarrassing because I did support and voted for and placed my trust in her, and she betrayed that trust) I followed the events in the news day after day-

But since your obviously campaign-driven distortions of CMB's record & history have me interested, tell me- how have you been instructed to spin her cozy relationship with kgosie matthews? And what was her excuse for skipping the Senate's "freshman seminar"?

[hang a left]

20. What about Graham? I hear he's not gonna be busy in the near futrure.

[CMT]

7. I don't think so

I don't think he will announce any running mate. But an interesting theory anyhow.

[mandyky]

10. Where did you hear about a big announcement?

The SEIU is making their decision on endorsing Dean or noone on Thursday, but other than that where did you get the idea Dean was announcing anything on Thursday?

I'd like him to release his shortlist of VPs just for Ss&Gs.

[depakid]

18. It's in Dean supporters' inboxes. (n/t)

!

[Hep]

22. Huh?

The email indicates to me that SEIU is going to endorse him on Thursday, not that he's going to choose a running mate.

[cjbuchanan]

11. I don't think it will be running mate day

I think it has something to do with union endorsements.

[elfwitch]

12. before you all freak...

Aside from it being totally the wrong time for anyone to be annoucing anything like that, it would be a bad idea for him or ANYONE to annouce a woman or minority as a running mate in this election. (Bear in mind that I am a woman and a minority). This election is way to important to be experimenting with the formula. Anything that the other side could use to stir up their racist, mysoginist, etc. base would be used with big fat smiles on their faces. Whoever wins the nomination would be best to steer clear of opening themselve up to the zealot and freaks any more than necessary. The best thing any of them could do is pick a Northerner if they are from the South or a Southerner if they are from the North.

[eissa]

27. I totally agree elfwitch

Like you, I am also a woman and a minority. If this were a Reagan/Mondale kind of election where we all knew what the outcome would be, then I would completely encourage and support a woman or minority as a VP. Unfortunately, it appears that next year's election will be as close as the 2000 one; let's not take any chances.

Dean/Graham 2004

[Some Moran]

Myth!

Mondale/Ferarro(sp?) had the lead for a brief period.

[Some Moran]

47. Myth!

Mondale/Ferarro(sp?) had the lead for a brief period.

[Skwmom]

38. You are right - this election is too important which is why

Dean should not be the nominee.

[elfwitch]

41. I'm going to disagree...

To a certain degree I think a couple of them (including Dean) have a fair shot at winning the big prize. Whoever wins the nod needs to be aggressive in two ways. They need to play ball just as hard as the (R) set, no room for nice or fair play with these people. Second they need to point out loudly and clearly all of the horrible things that have been done to us in the last three years and show how they would reverse, repeal, or re-engineer the policies that are crippling us as a nation. Be bold and show how you plan to make things better. With the right team on board, any of the front-runners could do it. My fear is that all of the front-runners (Dean included) appear wishy-washy and callow. Nobody really seems willing to stand their ground and say, "Hey the guys in charge now have screwed us all! I am not going to allow that continue, and this is how..."

The ones that currently have Congressional seats seem a bit too timid to really put themselves out there and take a hard stand, possible for fear of losing their seat if they don't win the nomination or the election. The ones that don't have incumbencies to protect seem to be scared of being labeled inexperienced and therefore don't say to the public, "Sure I don't have a lot of national experience, but neither did *. I will hire only the best people to help me make sure that the interests of ALL Americans are protected."

It is really easy to pick on the guy in front if you are behind. Most people make themselves feel better by tearing down the other guy. It's like saying, "Yeah she's a super-model but she is dumb as a post!" to make yourself feel a little better about being frumpy.

I understand everyone has their favorite. I have a favorite too. But being snarky about the guy who isn't your favorite makes us all look like a bunch of spoiled brat children. This is especially so when people drum up stupid personal attacks or begin trying to level charges of racism or elitism against each other.

Support your guy with all your heart. Do your best to get him the nomination. But don't do it by being a dink about the other guys. Instead of telling people that everybody but your guy is a jerk, why not tell everyone why your guy isn't one? Or better yet, tell people who don't know about any of our guys why any one of them would be better than the JERK currently in office.

Just my dos pesos!

[Ripley]

He will not annouce a running mate.

Sheesh, do you also believe Hillary is going to jump in the race any minute now?

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Nope

The "big announcement" will be that the Dean campaign has decided not to take matching funds.

[Selwynn]

15. You don't announce a running mate until after the general convention...

...when you receive the party nomination.

EDIT - I don't mean "you're not allowed to" I mean "it isn't done and wouldn't be professional at this point - it is unprofessional and discourteous to the other candidates."

[UrbScotty]

42. Bush and Gore announced theirs the week before

Candidates for VP have to be nominated at the conventions, just like their would-be bosses.

[Democrats unite]

17. I'm hoping the announcement will be...

we are storming the White House and taking back America!

[LoneStarLiberal]

21. It's Gonna Be the SEIU Endorsement

I don't think it will be a running mate this soon.

Why will it be anything other than the SEIU endorsement? That seems to be the big enchilada on the table right now.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

23. I don't think so

SEIU votes Thursday I believe. Dean is making the announcement in a speech on Wednesday I believe, then sending it out in an email. Unless I'm confused, which I very well could be. :)

[DianeK]

24. way to early

for an announcement concerning a running mate but not too early for us all to speculate. certainly graham has something going on or he would not just give up his democratic seat..not sure what that is all about but i am sure that he has been talking to someone and felt secure enough to make an announcement that he would not be running again

as for thursday, i don't think it is about the union support because they are not even voting til thursday and trippi seemed pretty sure about this..i think it may be a new and innovative way to energize the base...always surprises with them

[tsipple]

25. OK, My Top Predictions

In rough order of likelihood:

1. Something related to SEIU.
(big gap)
2. Matching funds status.
3. Carol Moseley-Braun endorses Dean.
4. Dr. Judith Steinberg starts campaigning with Dean. (She's said she would start at some point in the not-too-distant future, and certainly for the general election.)
5. Another union surprise.
6. A big endorsement (e.g. Jimmy Carter, Al Gore).
7. Running mate.

Reason #5923 why Trippi is a genious. We're all going to be guessing for the next 48 hours.

[Nazgul35]

26. Perhaps Senator Graham...

is going to endorse him....

just a thought....

[polpilot]

45. You win the prize. Graham will either #1 endorse Dean or #2 announce

as Dean's running mate. I believe it to be #2.

Dean/Graham '04...

[Guaranteed]

55. I thought Graham was backing Kerry. nt

[Orangepeel]

28. Oh, please. No way.

It isn't going to be anything that spectacular. Trippi is just building excitement (and doing an excellent job of it). IIRC, the last time there was an announcement with this much fanfare, it turned out to be that they'd raise online funds in an amount to beat one of Cheney's lunch fundraisers.

The poster who predicted the announcement that he won't take matching funds is probably closer to the mark.

(on the other hand, I hope that I'm pleasantly shocked and it is something really, really stupendous).

[RetroLounge]

29. Oh please, this is such crappola.

Lets "SPECULATE" something we all know is rediculous, then prompt all the Dean Bashers to bash each and every speculation.

Just another Bash Dean circle jerk, IMO...

(p.s. It'll be the SEIU announcement...)

[mzmolly]

30. Nope, hes opting out of campaign financing....

Though I wouldn't mind JJ Jr. as a running mate at all ;)

[tom_paine]

31. No way. This breaks with precedent so strongly

I cannot imagine him doing it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it and not before.

[unfrigginreal]

32. My guess is either...

the SEIU endorsement or a Congressional Black Caucus endorsement.

[aquart]

35. Why would Dean be so ridiculous and presumptuous?

[MGKrebs]

36. I remember rumors in September

that there would be a major shake-up in the campaign (not just Dean, but the whole shebang) in October. Maybe they are just running a little late.

[beyurslf]

37. Guesses?

1. No matching funds
2. SEIU endorsement

Running mate is later (maybe March/April)?

What about Gov of AZ for running mate? I like what I have seen of her. I don't think we should write off a woman/minority. Jackson Jr could be good too. I don't know a lot about him so I can't say for sure. I have friends in ABQ who love the Gov there and say he is very popular.

[xxqqqzme]

40. we need all the

Dem governors we have. Let Richardson stay in NM,do his good deeds, build a reputation then sun 4 the Senate.

[HFishbine]

43. Maybe

this is Newsguyatl's October surprise.... He could have been off by a few weeks.

[Hippo_Tron]

50. Announcing your running mate before you get nominated...

Is like announcing your cabinet, your judicial nominees, and your other appointments before you get elected.

[robsul82]

52. Totally obvious...

...Clark's dropping out and joining the Dean campaign as Dean's VP nominee. DUH!

;)

Later.

RJS

[Guaranteed]

54. I thought it was gonna be opting out of the campaign limits nt