« Obama campaign leaks: Clinton for SCOTUS and Gore to play key role in an Obama administration | DaddyD's Blog
Obama campaign leak: Hillary for SCOTUS, Gore to play key role in an Obama administration
I lied. But, did that get your attention?
Of course.
Isn't this what Obama should do at this point - take hold of the narrative and dominate it with game-changers like this?
The Clinton-for-Supreme-Court idea would outflank the McCain campaign's shrewd (but dangerous) Palin VP pick.
Gore hits on two fronts: fire-up the Democratic and environmentalist base, plus, tap into the regrets many Americans have about voting for Bush 8 years ago.
And, it's not like Hillary or Gore have to accept. Just as long as Obama engages the two of 'em in real conversations and makes real offers. The goal is to string the rumors and hints out for the next 6+ weeks.
He could also hint at Bill being the next US Ambassador to the UN. (Not a bad way to get the whole Clinton wing of the party fired up as well.)
Time to take the initiative. Hope Obama does something like this. If you happen to bump into him, could you mention it for me?
Of course.
Isn't this what Obama should do at this point - take hold of the narrative and dominate it with game-changers like this?
The Clinton-for-Supreme-Court idea would outflank the McCain campaign's shrewd (but dangerous) Palin VP pick.
Gore hits on two fronts: fire-up the Democratic and environmentalist base, plus, tap into the regrets many Americans have about voting for Bush 8 years ago.
And, it's not like Hillary or Gore have to accept. Just as long as Obama engages the two of 'em in real conversations and makes real offers. The goal is to string the rumors and hints out for the next 6+ weeks.
He could also hint at Bill being the next US Ambassador to the UN. (Not a bad way to get the whole Clinton wing of the party fired up as well.)
Time to take the initiative. Hope Obama does something like this. If you happen to bump into him, could you mention it for me?
Advertisement
I absolutely HATE when people do that. It only proves you do not have the intellectual decency to create a title interesting enough to click on. I will make sure I do not open any of your future posts. I am sure many will agree.
September 11, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I usually agree about trick titles, in this isolated case, it's probably okay, since it reinforces the actual content of the post.
On the main idea of the post: You can't really "offer" anyone a seat on the Supreme Court. It's not the same sort of appointment as Cabinet positions. I guess you could say, "If someone keels over, I promise to nominate you, and then we'll see what the Senate thinks about it." But to say you'll "put" a specific individual on the Supreme Court if elected would be a little awkward. I've never really understood the "promise Hillary SCOTUS" idea.
And Obama already said, during the primary campaign, that he'd love to have Gore as a high-level advisor on climate change, etc. Not sure this would be huge news if he said it again.
September 12, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that's exactly why I did it that way. The whole point was to have the reader live the experience for just a brief moment, to personally feel what it would be like if Obama did something like that. Thanks for being smart enough to notice.
September 12, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the SCOTUS "offer"... sure he can. He says, "Hillary, if I become president, I'll offer you the first seat that opens up on the Supreme Court. You want it?" She says yes or no. It is like a cabinet position in that the president makes the pick, and the Senate approves.
September 12, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it -- give people a vision of a sort of "Super Team" of smart serious people ready to get the country back on a good track.
September 11, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it! I've always thought it would a great idea for Bill Clinton to be put on the Supreme Court, as it would drive the neo-cons crazy, and Scalia and Roberts right up the wall, but Hillary would work well too. She and Ruth Bader Ginsburg could double-team Clarence Thomas. Just picture that fat-head Scalia forced to sit all day listening to Bill or Hillary expound on a constitutional point. LOL
Bill Clinton as UN Ambassador, is a smart move too, if he'd take it. He might consider it a step down in prestige. However, the precedent for an ex-President being named to the Supreme Court is already there.
September 11, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is stupid. Nobody decides this sort of thing before the election. There isn't even an opening on the Supreme Court right now. No, Obama shouldn't do this. Also, you shouldn't have posted it multiple times. Once was more than enough.
September 12, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
What sort of thing? Candidates have frequently leaked who they'd put into key cabinet positions - Bush did it in 2000 with Powell, and it helped reassure voters. Granted, a seat on the SC isn't a cabinet position, but so what? The point of leaking information like that isn't about anything other than getting votes you might not otherwise get. Just because these appointed roles have never been offered before doesn't make it stupid, nor does your saying it make it so.
Furthermore, what does it matter if there isn't an opening now? (And, if there was, that would be Bush's pick.) Change on the Supreme Court is more likely than not over the next four years. People have been predicting since 2000 that John Paul Stevens, 88 and/or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, would retire (or die) since Bush's first term in 2000. They are the oldest two justices —
and make up half the court's liberal wing. To address what is a pressing concern for many Democrats in this way wouldn't hurt.
McCain is running a radical campaign of lies and smears - and it appears to be working. What's required is a radical campaign response. Could this work? Maybe: it got you to read my post twice, didn't it? LOL.
September 12, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What sort of thing? Candidates have frequently leaked who they'd put into key cabinet positions - Bush did it in 2000 with Powell, and it helped reassure voters. Granted, a seat on the SC isn't a cabinet position, but so what? The point of leaking information like that isn't about anything other than getting votes you might not otherwise get. Just because these appointed roles have never been offered before doesn't make it stupid, nor does your saying it make it so.
Furthermore, what does it matter if there isn't an opening now? (And, if there was, that would be Bush's pick.) Change on the Supreme Court is more likely than not over the next four years. People have been predicting since 2000 that John Paul Stevens, 88 and/or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, would retire (or die) since Bush's first term in 2000. They are the oldest two justices —
and make up half the court's liberal wing. To address what is a pressing concern for many Democrats in this way wouldn't hurt.
McCain is running a radical campaign of lies and smears - and it appears to be working. What's required is a radical campaign response. Could this work? Maybe: it got you to read my post twice, didn't it? LOL.
September 12, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What sort of thing? Candidates have frequently leaked who they'd put into key cabinet positions - Bush did it in 2000 with Powell, and it helped reassure voters. Granted, a seat on the SC isn't a cabinet position, but so what? The point of leaking information like that isn't about anything other than getting votes you might not otherwise get. Just because these appointed roles have never been offered before doesn't make it stupid, nor does your saying it make it so.
Furthermore, what does it matter if there isn't an opening now? (And, if there was, that would be Bush's pick.) Change on the Supreme Court is more likely than not over the next four years. People have been predicting since 2000 that John Paul Stevens, 88 and/or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, would retire (or die) since Bush's first term in 2000. They are the oldest two justices —
and make up half the court's liberal wing. To address what is a pressing concern for many Democrats in this way wouldn't hurt.
McCain is running a radical campaign of lies and smears - and it appears to be working. What's required is a radical campaign response. Could this work? Maybe: it got you to read my post twice, didn't it? LOL.
September 12, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What sort of thing? Candidates have frequently leaked who they'd put into key cabinet positions - Bush did it in 2000 with Powell, and it helped reassure voters. Granted, a seat on the SC isn't a cabinet position, but so what? The point of leaking information like that isn't about anything other than getting votes you might not otherwise get. Just because these appointed roles have never been offered before doesn't make it stupid, nor does your saying it make it so.
Furthermore, what does it matter if there isn't an opening now? (And, if there was, that would be Bush's pick.) Change on the Supreme Court is more likely than not over the next four years. People have been predicting since 2000 that John Paul Stevens, 88 and/or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, would retire (or die) since Bush's first term in 2000. They are the oldest two justices —
and make up half the court's liberal wing. To address what is a pressing concern for many Democrats in this way wouldn't hurt.
McCain is running a radical campaign of lies and smears - and it appears to be working. What's required is a radical campaign response. Could this work? Maybe: it got you to read my post twice, didn't it? LOL.
September 12, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, the posting issues on this site are of mammoth proportions.
September 12, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink