"A Clinton-Obama Presidental Bid?"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Agencies have broad latitude to make their own rules; they need to not run afoul of Congress, but short of that Congress tends not to get too involved.

An agency that writes a rule that runs afoul of a constituency that has strong ties on the Hill is asking for a major budget cut. Or, in extremis, a change in legislation.

I really think you DONT understand the realities of life in domestic agencies.

Bush exceptions? You think when legislation is passed wrt to the detailed activities of HUD, HHS, Transportation, Commerce, etc Bush writes "exceptions"?

You may be focused on the Patriot Act as "domestic policy" Thats NOT the stuff that the majority of folks running around DC deal with on a regular basis.

[Ramo]

I wouldnt mind Clinton-Warner.

He running for the Senate. Not going to happen.

Clinton's looking for a Governor with moderate credentials in a swingish state. So someone like Strickland, Kaine, Richardson, Easley, or Vilsack is where she's going with her "it the competence, stupid" narrative. Clark, someone I'd find far more preferable, is an outside possibility. I'd put money on Strickland, though, since he could deliver Ohio, and thus the election.

[Jon Miller]

I still have hopes that Hillary won't win it. But then, I can't tihnk of a Republican I would vote for.. it would have to be an anti-Republican republican (all the Bush groupies need to go out, and I wouldn't expect a new republican admin to do that).

JM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


He running for the Senate. Not going to happen.

Clinton's looking for a Governor with moderate credentials in a swingish state. So someone like Strickland, Kaine, Richardson, Easley, or Vilsack is where she's going with her "it the competence, stupid" narrative. Clark, someone I'd find far more preferable, is an outside possibility. I'd put money on Strickland, though, since he could deliver Ohio, and thus the election.

I know Mark Warner is running for Senate. And taking the seat is important, but if push came to shove, and Clinton wanted Warner, I dont think the Senate Dems, or the DNC, or anyone else could stop her. I mean the GOP may be beatable anyway, right now theyre talking Tom Davis for the seat. Im not sure who else would run for Senate on the Dem said, off the top of my head.

Kaine doesnt have the competency ooomph that Warner does around here - hes bogged down in various tax and transportation conflicts with the legislature. I cant see him for Veep.

I still think Richardson is the best shot, if Hillary can get over his running against her.

Vilsack would seem to possible, but not a great choice for regional ticket balancing. The Upper Miss valley has been trending strong Dem for a while.

BTW, is Vilsack Catholic? Kaine is, and of course Richardson.

Evan Bayh WAS governor of Indiana before entering the Senate.

[Ramo]

People were talking up Creigh Deeds and Don Beyer (Lite Guv way back when) before the Warner swap. Davis (after being roughed-up by Gilmore - or better yet, Gilmore) may be beatable, but not when the candidate's campaign starts after the DNC convention.

Now that Warner has announced, I can't see him going back on it. He'd seriously piss off the entire Dem establishment in DC and VA. And in all likelihood, a Senate seat is going to be much more important to Clinton's agenda than padding her victory margin.

I agree that Vilsack is a crappier choice than the other four.

But it's questionable that Bayh could deliver Indiana, and he's not a particularly exciting candidate. She'd probably also like to avoid his baggage on Iraq (he's been voting against Feingold-Reid, for instance). Strickland's a much better choice.

One other possibility is Ritter (another Catholic BTW).

[Apocalypse]

In this election, if there is a really good VP, it might decide my vote (otherwise I will just vote Libertarian).

With a Catholic VP....I would like one that would basically stand up and just express that Christians don't all have the same views. A big example being evolution which Catholics are supposed to believe in. Another example is the belief that gay people actually are not bad people hating them is a bit hypocritical when people who have sex outside of marriage themselves bash them. I am not strongly Catholic by any means, but it would be nice to be able to break up somewhat the religious right. Too many Catholics side with them because they don't know better (worst example ever being Rick Santorum).

[DinoDoc]

@ Apoc: If you plan on voting Libertarian, how can there be anything other than someone taking over Hillary's mind and using it as a sock puppet forcing her to be more in line with your beliefs that could bring you to vote for her?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
He running for the Senate. Not going to happen.

Clinton's looking for a Governor with moderate credentials in a swingish state. So someone like Strickland, Kaine, Richardson, Easley, or Vilsack is where she's going with her "it the competence, stupid" narrative. Clark, someone I'd find far more preferable, is an outside possibility. I'd put money on Strickland, though, since he could deliver Ohio, and thus the election.

Kaine doesn't get out of office until 2009.

[Ramo]

And...? Richardson, Obama, and McCain don't get out of office until 2010, Clinton till 2012, etc. No one's forcing them to stay in lower office, although VA's Lt. Gov is GOP so that factors into things.

[Kuciwalker]

It's Kaine's first term of governor and he'd only be 2 years into it.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

People were talking up Creigh Deeds and Don Beyer

(Lite Guv way back when) before the Warner swap. Davis (after being roughed-up by Gilmore - or better yet, Gilmore) may be beatable, but not when the candidate's campaign starts after the DNC convention.

In the unlikely event she wraps it up very early, that might be less of an issue.

Now that Warner has announced, I can't see him going back on it. He'd seriously piss off the entire Dem establishment in DC and VA. And in all likelihood, a Senate seat is going to be much more important to Clinton's agenda than padding her victory margin.

I dont know that she, or the DNC, is as confident of a presidential win as you are.

I agree that Vilsack is a crappier choice than the other four.

But it's questionable that Bayh could deliver Indiana,

I dont know, I havent seen the polling. Its true Indiana hasnt been trending as Dem as Virginia has. I dont know if he has any appeal in Ohio. He certainly has the combo of his gubernatorial AND Senate records.

and he's not a particularly exciting candidate.

Ive liked the Bayhs since 1976 (I was present at the NDC convention in NYC that year, when Bayhs candidacy began its downhill slide, as the NDC went with Udall over Bayh, in large measure cause of Udalls earlier opposition to the war in Viet Nam. That ended up giving us Jimmy Carter, and thus Ronald Reagan. history is fillied with ironies)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's Kaine's first term of governor and he'd only be 2 years into it.

If Obama can run for Prez .........

[Kuciwalker]

Obama is "special"

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


An agency that writes a rule that runs afoul of a constituency that has strong ties on the Hill is asking for a major budget cut. Or, in extremis, a change in legislation.

I really think you DONT understand the realities of life in domestic agencies.

I workfor an agency. So, yes, I get it. I'm not saying that agencies are laws unto themselves; but I am saying that they have broad latitude to establish and implement policy (and, even when directed by detailed legislation, have a broad role in helping craft such legislation).

Bush exceptions? You think when legislation is passed wrt to the detailed activities of HUD, HHS, Transportation, Commerce, etc Bush writes "exceptions"?

Well, yes:

Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

That's the opening of this extensive article on the practice.

[Zkribbler]

That is the clearest showing of impeachable offenses I have seen against any U.S. President, ever!

Too bad Cheney is Vice President.