So who will Obama choose as his VP nominee?  The list has been shrinking almost daily, as several figures took their names out of the running either willingly (see Warner and Webb) or through bumbling (see Clark).  That still leaves several, none of whom this blog would possibly presume to rank, even though it now will.  In order of least- to most-likely, Bachmannalia’s top 10 potential Democratic VP choices:

10. Chuck Hagel – Fascinating figure who has broken with McCain and the Republican party over the war in Iraq.  Military credentials, business acumen, and gravitas, as well as a combative spirit great for a VP are all here.  So what’s not to like?  Well, he’s a Republican, and is conservative on a number of issues that the base might just rebel against.  Sure, he’d show that cross-party unity thing, but he can do that in a Cabinet position too.  Still, he’s one of this blog’s faves, simply on personality (and not too often on the politics).

9. Bill Richardson – Great guy, very knowledgeable, served in every possible branch of gov’t – state, federal, national, legislative, executive, international, etc. (no judiciary yet though…).  He’s Hispanic to boot, which would play well in several competitive states.  However, while he should certainly be considered for the Cabinet, he’s just not a terribly inspiring figure, and might not serve the Veep’s greatest role – attack dog.

8. Ed Rendell – Popular governor of a very important state who would lock Penn’s votes up for Barack.  However, he’s likely to get them anyway, and while Rendell is a great politician, he’s also a frequent foot-in-mouth guy and one who doesn’t quite exude presidential authority.  Shore up the Clinton supporters in a different way.

7. Chris Dodd – His name has surfaced recently, which is somewhat surprising.  Solid senator, definitely a fighter on the campaign trail, and one who would relish the role.  But he’s from New England (same reason Jack Reed, who’s gravitas is excellent, is unneeded), and has recently gotten himself caught up in the housing issues.  Would rather see him continue to fight for Obama from the Senate floor.

6. Kathleen Sebelius – Insanely popular governor from a solidly Republican state (that she would not put in play), and a woman with executive experience in crossing the aisle and pushing great programs (lots of green energy sprouting up in Kansas).  While I hate the CW, it is true that any woman other than Hillary might be seen as a slap in the face to Clinton supporters.

5. Sam Nunn – Sure, he’d bring experience and might put Georgia in play, but this guy is old (more so than is necessary to counterbalance Obama’s youth) and has been out of the scene for a while.  He’s pretty conservative for a Dem, which isn’t necessarily a problem, but he’s more of a pet-issue (nukes) kind of guy now, right?  National Security Advisor, anyone?

4. Hillary Clinton – Why so high?  Wasn’t the so-called “Dream Team” more of a “Scream Team” just a month ago?  Yes, but that was a month ago – might as well have been 10 years ago in politics.  Hillary would, sans baggage (see below), be an ideal choice – brilliant, great fighter, savvy, etc, and certainly would bring her supporters in droves to the polls.  It also seems that Barack and her could work together, as they have been doing so recently.  However, three things still hold Clinton back from the #1 (or rather, #2) spot.  1) Bill Clinton – he’s a wildcard, both on the trail and potentially in the executive offices.  2) While Clinton would rally the Dems, would she also rally the Republicans?  3) Has it been long enough that it wouldn’t seem like Obama was bending to Clinton’s maneuvers for the Veep spot towards the end of the primaries?  It has to at least look like it was his decision, afterall.

3. Tim Kaine – Personal fave, as I’ve met the guy (sorta).  Also a personal fave of Obama’s, and I’d guess would be his #1 choice if based purely on “who would I like to work with each day?”  While that is of course one of the most important factors, Obama is in the special situation of needing more experience on the ticket to quell the fears of some less-spirited Dems.  Kaine, while a popular governor of Virginia and another fantastic example of someone who works across the aisle, just doesn’t have that experience yet.  I really like the guy, especially for his stance against the death penalty (YOU COULD LEARN SOMETHING HERE, BARACK!), but I’m just not sure it would happen.  Of course, if Barack chose Nunn with the idea of a one-term VP…

2. Evan Bayh – Much more exposure recently, and a big Clinton supporter.  Much better pick, IMO, than Rendell on those grounds.  Again, somewhat CW, but simply LOOKS like a president.  Might be enough to swing Indiana, which would be nice, but I’m not sure of that.  Lots of experience, as a senator and governor, so that would certainly be a plus.  Biggest question is whether the two get along.  Because if they do, Bayh is a strong choice.

1. Joe Biden – Crazy that he’s up here, but really the guy only has one weakness in this process (though it may prove essential).  For the plusses – he’s a natural attack dog and would absolutely relish the campaign.  He’s an incredibly respected politician and one of the foreign policy gurus of the party (and the nation).  He doesn’t bring any region into play, but that is a much overrated point.  Most importantly, he and Obama are apparently great friends, and he’d certainly defer to the President as he seems to know what his position would be.  So what’s not to like?  Well, there is this little thing about him being potentially antithetical to the whole “Change” message, as he’s been in DC for decades.  But his other strengths, plus his relationship with Obama, make him the head of my list.

So many others could have been here, including Al Gore (create a new cabinet post for the guy and let him get all Inconvenient on the country) and other less notable figures (all the generals seem so boring…).  But I got other things to do, so there you go.

Go to a state’s death chamber.

Well, now don’t go and do anything that would get you SENT there, that’s for sure.  But see if you can arrange a tour with a warden.  I guess you’d have to have a good reason to go, so go get a criminal justice or a journalism degree first.

Ok, done yet?  No?  I’ll wait a few more years.

… twiddling thumbs…

Ok, now go see it.

Back yet?  Good.  Pretty messed up place, huh?  So sterile.  So antiseptic.

Oddly, Virginia’s has a pair of flip-flops underneath the gurney.  Guess you don’t want the guy’s feet to get dirty before he dies.

Obama has come out strong today in Mississippi, flatly rejecting Clinton’s overture for a spot as her Veep. As was noted on this blog, any sign of acceptance of such an idea would be the end of this campaign.

And Barack did the wise – and correct – thing and rejected the idea. Moreover, he turned it around on Clinton. Why should she, being second in the delegate count, the state count, and the popular vote count, be courting him as a Veep? Shouldn’t the frontrunner be the one making such calls?

The nerve of the Clintons will never cease to amaze.

Recent hints and lately, outright suggestions, by Hillary Clinton have made Democrats swoon – a joint ticket – labeled “unstoppable” by Bill – of Clinton and Obama.

Oh what a joy! cry Democrats collectively.  Hillary’s experience plus Barak’s passion!  The Clinton political mindset with the Obama grassroots energy!  A woman AND a black man on one ticket!

And for supporters of Hillary Clinton, this might be a feasible suggestion.  But can’t people see why Hillary is projecting this idea?  She clearly sees what has happened in Ohio and Texas recently – after a string of victories, Democrats started looking at Obama and said, “Do we REALLY want to elect this guy?”  Many probably still said yes, but they felt cautious and went with Hillary.  She would likely have won Ohio regardless, but without that last second questioning this blogger suggests that Obama would have taken the Texas primary along with the caucus.

So why the joint ticket suggestion?  Because it gives the more cautious Obama supporters a way out of their angst.  “Vote for me, because I’ll bring him along for the ride,” says Hillary, quite convincingly.   Sure, she leaves it open to a final determination, but anyone that believes she would be willing to take the VP spot is delusional.

So what should Barak do?  Well, he needs to fight back – and hard.  Any hint or tiny piece of evidence that he would take a VP spot (even if that is true) will only push more people into Hillary’s camp.  The same suggestion when he was the candidate with momentum did not have the same effect.

Stepping back and saying for a second that Hillary does win Pennsylvania and the superdelegates turn the election for her — should Obama take the proffered role?  That is a difficult question.  It could set him up for a run in 2016, but that run would be as an experienced near-elder statesman, not as the youthful candidate of change he is now.  And let’s all be honest – Hillary already has her Veep in Bill.  When so many VPs in history have noted the powerlessness of the position (Mr. Cheney being a notable exception), who would really want to place themselves even further down the advisory totem pole?

It was bound to happen of course. Everyone knew it would come from Republicans as soon as he emerged as the frontrunner with his string of post-Super Tuesday victories. But now lots of Democrats and Independents are sniping at Barack Obama, suggesting that he is all rhetorical flourish and no substance, or some sort of delusional figure with a messianic complex.

This blogger, for one, is not fooled. It is merely jealously being spouted by the critics.

Why? Because Barack Obama truly could change the politics of the country. Would he be able to get everyone to sit under a tree and sing Kumbayah? No. But he would be an icon for people across the country, young and old, white, black, and brown, male and female — for everyone to rally behind.

This blogger knows full well that in saying such things, he is getting behind an image. And that is FINE. Many – perhaps most – Obama supporters realize they are backing a vision, an ideal, less so than a set of policies. (As has been argued throughout the mediasphere, the policy differences amongst the Democrats truly are marginal). But that is all the more reason to support Obama. For too long this blogger has voted for candidates just because the other side was worse, or because one primary candidate seemed better suited for a general election, or whatever. Obama is the first candidate this blogger has ever truly believed in. And it makes him giddy.

Critics say that supporting an image or an ideal is naive and destined to lead to diminished hopes and, potentially worse, dangerous consequences for the country or the world. This blogger doesn’t buy that argument. Obama is a brilliant man in addition to being an almost transcendent speaker and he is certain to weigh choices carefully (in contrast to the current occupant of the White House). He will surround himself with bright minds, which will work so long as he is willing to cut them out when they go astray (something the loyalty-enamored Bush could never do, to the world’s detriment). And his instincts and values seem set to make the right choices, even when they are difficult or unpopular.

So maybe the backlash is good, in the end. Maybe it will permit Obama to show a side his glowing speeches miss – his steel and his strength.

Well, I can’t believe I let it slide so much.  January 2008 was the first time this blog has gone un-updated since it was launched, with great fanfare, back in who-remembers-when.  A long-ass time ago, that is when.

But more importantly — could the seemingly impossible happen?  Could the dream ticket actually happen?  Clinton and Obama?

This blogger says, sadly, no.  But he really wants it to happen.

Here’s the problem.  Relativism was one of the supposedly nasty “isms” that conservatives reacted against during the 20th century.  The idea that one should look at and appreciate differences between cultures without necessarily making a judgment on them was seen by many as a dangerous concept.

The reaction against relativism (at least in this context) was bad enough.  But the scary thing is that now conservatives are using relativism for their own ends.

In an interview with NPR, NASA administrator Michael Griffin said that he definitely believes that global warming is occurring.  (Good first step, I suppose).  However, he followed that statement by suggesting that it would be awfully egocentric of humans to suggest that the current climate is the best climate for the planet, and that consequently steps should be taken to halt the process of global climate change.

Wow.  How dare we as humans suggest that our impact might just be throwing the Earth a major curveball.  And like Pedro Cerrano in Major League (until the end, when they get the KFC), Earth can’t hit a curveball.  In case you hadn’t noticed, Mr. Griffin, ocelots and lichen don’t impact the global climate like we do.  We are really changing things, and if it might be “better” for the world in a different climate, it certainly won’t be for the millions of refugees moving away from the coast or for the residents of arid nations thrown into conflicts over shrinking resources.

But that would be so awfully judgmental of us.  How dare we.

The average price of gas in D.C. is a half penny short of the all-time record high (adjusted for inflation) set in 1981.  Lots of folks are up in arms at the gas companies for the high rates.  Congress wants to go after OPEC.  Advocacy groups are asking refiners why prices are so high when there is no natural disaster or extreme military disruptions.

Well, here at Bachmannalia, we aren’t blaming the gas companies.  We’re not blaming OPEC.  We’re done with all that.  Fossil fuels are limited-supply pollutants and we need to shift away from them entirely.  But who cares about that right now.  Bachmannalia is tired of hearing about how bad the companies are or how selfish the countries are with all the oil.  Why?  Because it doesn’t achieve anything.  Gas companies continue to make money, so why not charge high rates?  Good for them.

This profit-taking gets to the core of the issue: the American consumer.  WE are to blame for the high rates.  If we stop buying gas, the companies can’t charge so much.  But we won’t.  We need our cars, we believe, more than we need our money (or our clean air, forests, etc.).  True, in some areas and for certain classes in society public transportation is ineffective or unfeasible.  That is a defect in our society.  But for many of us, we just choose to drive — and to drive big.

Let Exxon, Shell, BP, and Valero take their profits – they deserve them.  After all, we’re practically asking them to fleece us dry.  At least until the wells dry up, that is.

A sign of the times, I suppose.  The editors hope that you too noticed the important news of the week, just announced today and then quickly buried towards the back of the news pile, as all stories are that (a) don’t bleed or (b) don’t involve Paris Hilton.

Anyways, it turns out that an internal FBI audit has discovered that there have been serious misuses of the provisions for obtaining private information as outlined in the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.  Over 1/5 of the letters and other pieces of information obtained were not even kept in the records.

This shocking news is just the sort of scary scenario that the growing power of the government in this day and age can lead to.  (Wow, that last sentence was horrible!)  What I mean is, the rights of the people are being disregarded.  The danger in all these laws was not just the law itself – some could be justified by the needs of the day (though we here still disagree with most of them).  But when such laws are enacted in a climate that breeds disrespect for the rule of law and in a country where the president clumsily bungles his way through wars and “diplomacy,” both national and international, what else can we expect but abuse?

Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland, published an editorial concerning the use of capital punishment and expressing his opposition to the practice in today’s Washington Post.  While not always the most eloquent piece ever, it is quite cogent, succinct, and, I believe, compelling.  Please read.