Your Democratic debate guide, the under the bus version

This should be a goodie.

Hillary Clinton can call Bernie Sanders a gun nut (because he is), Sanders can call Clinton a Trans-Pacific Partnership hypocrite (because she is, as Perry details) and if Joe Biden doesn't officially enter the race by then, Beau Biden's last tears can sit in a jar on stage (since they told Joe to run).

Cynical? Me? Noooo.

Not because Hillary Clinton has more campaign positions than Bill had sexual positions.

Not because Bernie Sanders not only IS a gun nut, but he's actually a Democrat who's a selective war hawk and more. (Or "less," to riff on Ted Rall, as I did).

Not because the Democratic rogues gallery is so geriatric that if Biden runs, he still wouldn't be the oldest candidate.

Not when other Dem possibilities are weak tea, indeed. And that includes the Al Gore weak tea.

To complete the debate lineup, we'll have an empty suit named Martin O'Malley, a saltine named Jim Webb, preferably the traditional version (think about it, on both parts of that), and a man looking like Lincoln Chafee who, unfortunately, will be Lincoln Chafee. (Al Gore will be backstage with a massage therapist.)

And your debate drinking game?

Shots for either "Benghazi" or "socialist, as I note in my more serious guide as well.

If not Hillary, then whom (for Democrats)?

Per the poll on the right, a post of mine from last week, a post of PD's from last week, and this Huffington Post piece, what if 2016 is 2008 redux for Hillary Clinton? She's got a fresh semi-scandal on hand with her email server, done to avoid both the real and fake parts of the "vast right wing conspiracy" and also done for Clintonian secrecy. (Ultimately, this seems more a Hillary than a Bill thing.)

I agree with Perry that there's enough "real" in the email scandal, plus, enough Hillary Clinton mindset in the issue, and the fact that it's going to be a "drip, drip, drip" for at least a couple of months, that she's officially entering damaged goods territory. Bernie Sanders, per Puff Hoes, is drawing crowds, doing the right thing with Black Lives Matter (if/when they let him), etc. If not the frontrunner, he is in "serious contender" territory.

Is he a winner? (Not in terms of electability, but first in terms of actually getting the Democratic nomination, then in terms of desirability.)

First, other candidates.

I've already said I don't get anybody visiting this website, if they know my political views, and, per that poll, favoring Jim Webb over Clinton. Ugh.

O'Malley? I've noted, without a specific blog post, that a fair amount of today's Baltimore policing issues stem from his time as mayor. If Black Lives Matter wanted to disrupt anybody's campaign, it should probably start with his.

Biden? I blogged about the optics of how he's sticking his toes in the water, among other things; he has now met with Elizabeth Warren, a sign that he's sticking more toes in the water, and perhaps trying to position himself as the electable midpoint between Clinton and Sanders. He'd be incrementally better than Clinton, probably, but that's about it.

(Update, Aug. 24: He's running, it seems more and more.)

Al Gore? I shot him down a month ago, even before more massage therapist rumors started coming over the transom.

Sanders? I've noted that he's not all he cracks himself up to be. On foreign policy issues, a "tell" will be if he votes against Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. For me, that could be a semi-bright line as to whether I'd vote for him, or for nobody, in the Democratic primary.

And, as I noted on the Biden piece, while not listing Gore's age, Lincoln Chafee is the only announced or hotly rumored candidate who's not eligible for Social Security. Biden and Sanders are both 70-plus.

Meanwhile, Nate Silver and his 538 gang provide an analysis of Sanders' chances. It's more off the cuff than scientific, but I agree with the issue that Sanders needs to increase his black support to have a real chance in the primaries. A black supporter of Sanders in South Carolina says it's about name recognition and familiarity as much as anything. Probably at least halfway true.

And, I also agree that Biden's not likely to enter unless Clinton's "drip, drip, drip" picks up.

Which gets to a longer-term question: Where's the Democratic bench? Jerry Brown in California's in the geriatric set and the original neolib governor. Andrew Cuomo in New York is skating on the edge of state-level scandal. Colorado's John Hickenlooper, if the GOP wins 2016, will probably move to the front of the line of 2020 Democratic candidates, if he wants. And he'd be 68 then. Jay Inslee of Washington, just maybe, but on age, he's a year older than Hickenlooper.

Name any other Democratic governors that catch your eye. Or senators. If Kamala Harris replaces Barbara Boxer, she's a possible, but 2020 would be a Senate election year for her, too.

Finally, if you're a Democrat, do you even really want it other than ego? Depending on what oil prices and the Chinese economy look like a year from now, you could be starting your presidency battling a recession, plus trying to figure out the half of Obamacare that's yet to be officially implemented, and other things.

What's with the love for Jim Webb?

Just over a month ago, after Bernie Sanders had entered the Democratic presidential race, along with Martin O'Malley and Lincoln Chafee, but before the then-rumored Jim Webb did, I put up a poll with their names and the previously-rumored Brian Schweitzer.

I made it a multiple choice poll, where people could select any candidate they'd vote for in Democratic primaries before Hillary Clinton. (See poll at right.)

Almost every voter here has chosen Bernie. No surprise.

What IS a surprise to me is that Webb's gotten almost as many votes as the other three combined.

He's the one person on the list that I'd put behind Hillary.

First, he's a former Republican, and I don't think he's gotten rid of all of his Republican "sensibilities" yet.

Second, while I like his emphasis on socioeconomic class as part of what we should consider in affirmative action, I don't think it should replace race-based efforts. Not yet, for sure. And I have a suspicion he does feel that way.

Third, as far as Republican "sensibilities," I think he, as a Son of the South, still clings to some Lost Cause ideas about the Civil War. He's been the least vocal of the four announced candidates about the Confederate flag. (As far as getting quoted, both he and Chafee are fighting to get more media oxygen, it should be noted, but for Chafee it's worse, because he doesn't stand out as different from Clinton or Sanders on an issue like this.) He's even indicated support for some Southern "honor" ideas.

Southern honor ideas ... that justify the Confederate flag, that can lead to "driving while black" and related issues of policing and more.

Speaking of, of course, Webb wasn't at the Netroots Nation, so he hasn't been called out on Black Lives Matter, but I'd venture his response would be beyond just "politically incorrect."

And, I don't know about Schweitzer, but, of the other four, Webb was last to the table on most gay rights issues.

So, any of you Webb supporters, what gives? Is this just that blind of Hillary hatred, or is there enough you actually like about him to want him to win?

Say it ain't so, Joe (Biden)

"Et tu, Joseph?" Hillary Clinton whispers

Rumor is that Vice President Joe Biden is eyeing a possible 2016 Democratic presidential contest with ever-wider eyes. And, reportedly, with an ever-more-cynical angle to testing the testing of the waters.

That's one reason to "just say no, Joe," or for Democratic primary voters to "just say no to Joe."

Others?

Biden's possible a shade more liberal than Clinton, but no more than that. Among his various political positions, he like her supported the Iraq War. He's not made any separation between himself and his current boss on the Patriot Act. (Would be nice to hear Bernie Sanders talk more about that, too.)

That said, Biden would certainly make the race more lively.

Hillary Clinton comes off as way too buttoned-down.

Bernie Sanders seems like a scolding schoolteacher at times. (And, yes, some may like that, but in general, Americans don't care for that. See "Jimmy Carter, 1980" and "malaise." [And, yes, I know he never used that actual word.])

And Lincoln Chafee feels like a bland former liberal Republican.

Biden's unscriptedness — gaffes and all — would make the race much more fun, and spare the lamestream media from having to play up a Sanders-Clinton "horse race" this early in the contest.

And, if he entered the race, and actually got some traction, I expect we'd see an explosion of both his gaffes, and his unscrupulousness. (Neil Kinnock, anybody?)

Something else Biden would do?

Make Democrats look even more geriatric.

He's 72. Sanders turns 74 in a month. Jim Webb is 69.

Hillary Clinton looks a bit young now at 67, doesn't she?

And, at 62, Chafee's a young pup, relatively.

Let's tackle that age issue as it relates to Bernie Sanders.

At the risk of being accused of age discrimination, do we really want as president a person who will be older at the start of his presidency than Ronald Reagan was at the start of his second term?

As for timing? I think Biden has to either shit or get off the pot by Labor Day. Stay tuned.

Jim Webb makes it official on the Democratic Prez side

The former Virginia senator and Navy Secretary before that has become the fifth Democrat to enter the presidential campaign, following Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley and Lincoln Chafee.

Webb is probably, overall, the most socially conservative of the candidates, as shown by his stance on some of the issues. He is talking about class-based economic issues more than Clinton, and with more conviction, but he was arguably the last to the gay marriage table of the five Democrats, and by some degree. He opposed the Iraq War, but that is about the only other plus, and, unlike Sanders, or Chafee, wasn't in the Senate to cast a "no" vote on it.

He's got a bad environmental record, and he's made no real effort to make it better. And, his stance on Confederacy-related issues, as well as the flip side of the image of promoting class-based affirmative action, will kill him with black Democrats.

I've not yet voted on my own poll, shown at right, but, assuming Greens don't need my help and I were to vote in the Democratic primary, I would NOT vote for him ahead of Clinton.

No Democrat soup for you, Bernie Sanders!

Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders

MSNBC reports that potential Democratic alternatives to Hillary Clinton, namely, officially Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Democratic Sen. Jim Webb and outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, are getting no love from either national Dem muckety-mucks or from MoveOn.

Let's break this all out.

First, why doesn't MSNBC mention former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer at all? As I've blogged about before, he's dropped a few hints about a possible run, and if not as much of an enviro as a Sanders, is certainly as much anti-establishmentarian as him or Webb, and more so than O'Malley.

Second, MoveOn? That's exactly what you need to do. Elizabeth Warren knows about timetables for presidential campaigns. In other words, "no means no."

Third, Sanders is officially an Independent as a Senator. He fully caucuses with Dems, yes, but still. It's a reasonable reason for him to get a bit of a cold shoulder. That said, he ought to take Howard Dean's non-support as a badge of honor.

Fourth, as far as campaign building? It's true that Sanders comes from a small state. It's also true that Webb's been out of politics for a while (and I don't think has the temperament for a presidential campaign). Nonetheless, contra national Dems' sniffing, as reported by MSNBC, I know we had similar comments about an Illinois state senator, no matter his stage popularity, in 2006 at year end.

As for me? Sanders would be someone for whom I'd vote Democratic, not Green. Webb? I'd have to hear him suss some things out more. Webb, despite his populism on some economic issues, has indicated little about what the government's role is in addressing those issues. O'Malley? He's got the "presidential look" more than the other two, but he might be too establishmentarian.

Schweitzer the unmentioned? If he weren't so weak on environmental issues, I'd definitely vote for him in the general election. I'd still vote for him over Hillary in a primary.

Back to an earlier point, though.

If Bernie does run, how much will it hurt him in Democratic primaries being an Independent as a senator? I think it's a question he has to figure out, at least to some degree, before running.

Obama and the ghost of 1968

Will yet another undeclared war launched by President Barack Obama potentially make 2012 his 1968, as in the 1968 of LBJ?

Steve Chapman, in a good column, argues it's at least a possibility.

Liberal Democrats are already pushing to get us out of Afghanistan by the end of this year, even as Obama wants us there until 2014.

With U.S. troops, still around 100,000, in Afghanistan next January, while snow is on the ground in Iowa and active voters are caucusing in Des Moines and Waterloo, will Obama get a Eugene McCarthy? If so, whom?

Chapman says yes to that first question, too, and speculates Russ Feingold from his left. Or maybe Jim Webb from his right, and rear.

Webb, I kind of doubt. Feingold? Iowa IS next door to Wisconsin.

Other than Feingold, Denny the Dwarf Kucinich could mount another challenge, but, the "seriosness" factor would hurt him, unfortunately.

Howard Dean's not that liberal, and he's on Obama's side. No current or former Democratic governor jumps off the pages at me.

Libya - $100 million a day and counting

True, $100 million a day may, at first, be chump change to the U.S. budget. But, with no exit strategy, with Europeans' military presence still thin and likely to remain so, $100 million a day for maintaining Libya's no-fly zone to protect largely discordant tribalists will add up soon enough.

And, it's no more likely that Gadhafi will accommodate Obama's "suggestion" to step down than Saddam Hussein did for Arab leaders before Bush's invasion.

It's no wonder the military action has attracted Congressional foes from straight-shooting Republican Sen. Richard Lugar through centrist GOP-turned Dem Sen. Jim Webb to liberal Rep. Dennis Kucinch.

"There needs to be a plan about what happens after Kadafi," Lugar said. "Who will be in charge then, and who pays for this all? President Obama, so far, has only expressed vague hopes."

Per the top-linked story, soon, Team Obama will have to ask for a "supplemental," and the sparks will fly. Non-sensible GOPers will probably still be divided on the issue, tea partiers opposed but some neocon types supportive, and Dems won't be fully unified either.

Beyond that, why Libya, vs., say, Yemen? Is it, in the end, about the oil? It's kind of hard to argue against that — another parallel with Iraq.

Jim Webb not seeking re-election; why not?

He doesn't say why, at least not in this story, but it doesn't really surprise me. And, yeah, I'd agree that Tim Kaine is the likely Dem frontrunner — if he's interested. He may well not be.

I suspect that, although he doesn't expressly identify as a Blue Dog, the former Republican has some social issues with Obama, and, at the same time, he may have some civil libertarian issues with him, too. After all, that was a part of his 2006 campaign.

Jim Webb as Obama Veep? Feh - updated on Hong Le Webb

He does, obviously, offer Barack Obama “cover” on military issues and clearly puts Virginia in play. But, what else?

He was a registered Republican until after the Iraq War started, has no track record of any kind, let alone a liberal one, on domestic policy, and comes from a military family.

Also, at least as of 2006, he stlll supported the reasons we got into Vietnam in the first place. And, he has claimed, and never renounced the claim, that Democrats of the early 1970s “sold out the troops” in Vietnam. (Indeed, I halfway suspect he stil thinks Nam was “winnable.”)

And, still per Wiki, some women may remember what got brought up during Webb’s 2006 Senate run, that, while teaching at Annapolis, he penned a 1979 article entitled “Women Can’t Fight”

Now, in the Senate campaign, he eventually rounded up some female flack for cover, but I think it was pretty thin. I think he’s enough of a military traditionalist he still believes what he wrote nearly 30 years ago.

Plus, I think it’s an open question as to how much Webb actually opposed the Iraq War vs. how much he opposes our current operation of the war.

None of that says “Politics of Change” to me. And, the women’s issue certainly won’t help Obama solidify the support of Hillary Clinton supporters.

Besides, military service means nothing to Swift Boaters, unless Webb will be FAR more aggressive than John Kerry.

Correction: Per commenter Bo, I had the wrong Hong Le (not Webb) originally linked. Hong Lee Webb's law firm is here and her personal profile is here.

Of course, this firm is worse than the McKenna Long that Hong Le (not Webb) works for, that I mistakenly placed Hong Le Webb at.

I don’t know what Hong Le Webb does, exactly, in her securities/insurance/finance law work, but her company defends asbestos manufacturers, among other things:

Our experience in countering plaintiff's tabloid-type conspiracy claims of alleged corporate wrongdoing, putting profits ahead of safety, corner-cutting, and concealing harmful information allows us to coordinate winning defense themes, trial strategies, and to identify and prepare corporate and expert witnesses.

Dykema also defends Big Pharma, hospitals and docs against medical malpractice, etc.

In her own areas of securities and insurance, Dykema says it offers help with …

Proxy contests and dealing with dissident or activist shareholders.

In other words, it helps shut people up.

And, it even does subprime litigation, as in defending subprime mortgage brokers, etc.

In other words, Hong Le Webb could be Cindy McCain of a sort for all we know.

Finally, there’s the pander effect.

Webb just changed parties two years ago. He was sworn into his first elective office less than 18 months ago.

First, if he was as concerned about economic equality, as well as Iraq, as he claims, why didn’t he switch parties quicker?

Second, the time frame I just mentioned makes this look like a pretty naked lusting after the job.

Yes, I know every politician has an ego, etc., but this seems pretty high on the scale.

Final argument on Webb, to riff on George Wallace: Dems are not going to out-military the GOP.

I’m still thinking Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is Obama’s best bet. A female Veep would do a lot for intraparty Democratic healing.

Obama cannot ‘outmilitary’ the GOP

That is, in case you don’t get it, a riff on George Wallace pledging nobody would “out-nigger” him in future Alabama gubernatorial contests.

Specific to now, I apply it to Barack Obama’s vice-presidential search.

Wesley Clark is yesterday’s news and brings nothing to the table.

Jim Webb, as I blogged earlier this week, brings too much non-liberal stuff to the table.

So, IMO, though I am still quite likely to vote Green or not at all, if Obama wants to tack in the right left direction, he’ll skip both of these two.
Obama cannot ‘outmilitary’ the GOP