Daily Kos: Bobbing for oranges better than Bob Graham: You and what teeth?

[seafan]

One of the most concisely penned diaries I've seen in support of Bob Graham for VP:


Bobbing for oranges better than Bob Graham: You and what teeth?

by sirclown
Sat Aug 16, 2008

Did that make any sense? There are many delicious VP prospects but none juicier than Florida's Bob Graham. Check your own VP choice against Bob and taste the difference. For example...

Tim Kaine, Kathleen Sebelius, Brian Schweitzer?
All very good picks. Bob Graham was a governor too. For two full terms of a big ass state. But, this is a scary world and unlike those other choices, all of whom I like, BG has 18 years in the senate including chairing the senate intelligence committee. Does the VP need that? Not necessarily. Does it help? Obviously. Does it help McCain's experience argument? Read the next one.

Evan Bayh?
Bob Graham is also a popular senator/governor from a swing state. But his is the one with 27 electoral votes (biggest on the table) instead of 11 and he won 9 elections to Bayh's 5. And Bob forfeits no senate seat. And he voted against authorizing Iraq. Obama, while saying he appreciates Graham's experience, can stick doggedly to the good argument that good judgment is the ultimate criteria in qualifying someone to be president.

Joe Biden?
Joe's quite a strong choice. I admit this is a toughie but Graham's nay on authorizing the war is easier to incorporate into your campaign than trying to explain why Joe misjudged the Bush Administration. In a few ways, Bob Graham is less controversial than Biden who is also great.

John Edwards?
Edwards's detailed diaries might be more problematic than Graham's. Especially the entries Andrew Young wrote in Edwards's handwriting.

Wesley Clark?
He made the leap from American war hero to political internet hero. Clark is a very intriguing choice. But he's a man who, unlike Bob Graham, criticized Obama during the primary. And yes I question his political skills after he slipped off message in his CBS interview. Even if his point was valid, the strategy isn't supposed to be "Let's take a closer look at McCain's experience and tear it down." It's the rather easy "Who cares what quality of experience John McCain has if it comes with low-quality judgment about consequences of military action? George W Bush now has 8 years of the most relevant experience to be commander-in-chief: being Commander-in-Chief. Should we be cursing term-limits?" Clark did oppose Iraq but also with a contradictory paper trail that will demand annoying parsing. Do you think the media will be cooperative with that situation? As opposed to Bob Graham who can say yep, I knew this was an awful strategic decision. Barack Obama knew it was an awful strategic decision. Bush and John McCain thought we'd be greeted as liberators. Now decide who you want to make decisions.

Hillary Clinton?
Mrs. Graham can be trusted not to fly off the handle and spit and scream at a reporter's face and create an insane controversy on November 3. Probably. Don't know her.

Jack Reed?
Ah! This is a good one. But his lack of interest does seem pretty real. He'd be a strong pick but Graham offers executive experience and more effect in a swing state as perks.

So what do you got? Diaries? Is this really something people will care about right now? How about, "One of the good things about having such thorough diaries is I can go back and prove I never dumped my wife for a multi-millionaire." Same age as McCain? How exactly will that cause Obama to lose votes to McCain again? But Senator Obama, you picked a running mate McCain's age. Isn't McCain's age the best reason not to vote for him? No, but thanks for teeing that baby up for me. Hurt by contrast? Eh. It would be like finding out Mark Spitz is advising Mike Phelps before deciding to bet on him. And guess which political couple might be even more enthusiastic campaigning for Obama-Graham and banking themselves some blue love if 2016 looks like an open primary? And speaking of enthusiasm, BG neither saps it for women nor gives more to conservatives. A safe pick. He doesn't even have to commit to a 2nd VP term until exactly 4 years from now.

Good consiglieri for Obama? Yes, sir, Robert
Able to be president if he needed to? Yes, maam, Graham.

Plus, with the contrast standing next to Bob Graham's Florida tan, racists might not even realize Obama's black.

Be sure to read the comments for more links to information.


Like this: "What I Knew Before the Invasion", by Bob Graham, November 20, 2005


And http://www.radnofsky.com/blog.php?items_id=1238">this:

The cafe format permitted a lengthier explanation than in the debate's 90-second answer, so I discussed the classified intelligence contrasted with unclassified at the time of the Iraqi war vote in October 2002, when Sen. Bob Graham begged his colleagues on the floor of the Senate to read the 90 page classified NIE on WMD (as opposed to the 25 pages of declassified materials).

"Friends, I encourage you to read the classified intelligence reports which are much sharper than what is available in declassified form," Sen. Graham reports stating on the floor of the Senate in October 2002.

"We are going to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United States." He warned: "Blood is going to be on your hands"

Sen. Graham has explained that the classified version did not support the later claim by George Tenet that the WMD issue was a "slam dunk." The former Florida senator has also explained that the 25-page declassified document didn't accurately represent the classified NIE; "gone" were the assessments of Saddam Hussein's intentions to use WMD, omitting "a huge component" selectively removed.

And Graham has said the "slick" 25-page document was "substantially different" from the classified document, and selectively put forth risks in favor of invading, while omitting other key information. A "livid" Sen. Graham had complained to George Tenet of the "wildly different impressions" created by the two documents. Sen. Graham's book "Intelligence Matters" recites the contemporaneous evidence available to Sen. Hutchison, had she read it as requested: Saddam Hussein was not going to attack us unless we attacked him. We know the far greater terror risks were known then and served as the focus for the Graham Amendment: war on Al-Qaeda, Abu Nidal, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Liberation Front, and Hezbollah. And, he explains the rational priorities known then: finishing the job in Afghanistan, with General Franks's honest assessment of where the war on terror needed to be fought, known in February of 2002 (Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen) at a time when General Franks disclosed that the intelligence on WMD in Iraq was 'weak.'

I've supported Graham since he was Governor of Florida, and there is absolutely no one finer to serve as Obama's wing man.



Some earlier threads:

Now HERE's a great VP pick for Obama. Florida's all time most beloved politician: Bob Graham


FL Sun-Sentinel:For Obama's vice president:What about Bob? Graham, that is


Clarification on authorship of the Patriot Act of 2001:


WMD Commission Members led by Bob Graham to Visit European, International Security Partners


For those who remember with thinly veiled suspicion that Senator Graham attended a meeting with Pakistan's Chief of Military Intelligence Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad in Washington on the morning of September 11, 2001:

11 September: Terrorist Attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. At the time of the attacks, Lt General Ahmad was at a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees Sen Bob Graham and Rep Porter Goss. Also present at the meeting were Sen. John Kyl and the Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., Maleeha Lodhi.

Here is Lt. General Ahmad's schedule that week in D. C.:

Schedule of Pakistan's Chief of Military Intelligence Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, Washington, 4-13 September 2001


Summer 2001: ISI Chief Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad transfers $100,000 to 9-11 Ringleader Mohamed Atta.

4 September: Ahmad arrives in the US on an official visit.

4-9 September: He meets his US counterparts including CIA Head George Tenet.

9 September: Assassination of General Massood, leader of the Northern Alliance. Official statement by Northern Alliance points to involvement of the ISI-Osama-Taliban axis.

11 September: Terrorist Attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. At the time of the attacks, Lt General Ahmad was at a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees Sen Bob Graham and Rep Porter Goss. Also present at the meeting were Sen. John Kyl and the Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., Maleeha Lodhi.

12-13 September: Meetings between Lt. General Ahmad and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Agreement on Pakistan's collaboration negotiated between Ahmad and Armitage. Meeting between General Ahmad and Secretary of State Colin Powell

13 September: Ahmad meets Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Global Research

(But, few or none of those who say they suspect Graham of nefarious activity at that breakfast meeting are asking John Kyl, George Tenet, Dick Armitage, Colin Powell or Joe Biden the same questions of their meetings with Ahmad.)




The Investor's Business Daily weighed in this week:

Graham A Dark Horse

None of these candidates would likely have an electoral vote impact. But Bob Graham, the former Florida governor and senator who headed up the Senate Intelligence Committee, might.

Obama's chances in Florida look better than in Georgia, so Graham "makes a lot more sense than Sam Nunn," Pomper said.

With Graham on the ticket, "either you win Florida, which ends the election, or you make McCain spend a lot of time and money in Florida," Sabato said.

Choosing Graham, age 71, might also please loyal Clinton backers. Graham would be too old to run for president in 2016.

Elevating Sebelius to No. 2 over Clinton could undercut Obama's efforts to have a unified convention and party, Sabato says.

"It would be seen as a dissing of Hillary," he said.

Bayh, who backed Clinton in the primaries, might be more acceptable to the Clinton camp, Sabato says.

Even more than anti-war voters, Hillary voters should be a concern for Obama, Whalen says.

Recent polling shows a large number of undecided voters, many of them Democrats.

"I kind of believe they're Hillary supporters," Whalen said.

But the upside of putting her on the ticket is offset by the downside her presence would have in motivating conservatives to vote for McCain, according to Whalen.

Pomper thinks placing a woman on the first ticket headed by an African-American might be a stretch too far.

"The Democrats' biggest voting defect is white men," Pomper said.

Not putting a woman on the ticket also carries risk.

Conservatives are pushing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate for John McCain. Despite Clinton's historic candidacy, it's possible that Republicans will have the only woman on a national ticket.

Whalen also sees some risk for Obama in "picking somebody bland and predictable."

Already, Obama has tacked toward the center in the typical way of a general election candidate, Whalen notes.

"He looks more and more like a conventional politician," he said.

And so did the LA Times:

For Obama, an obvious choice is Bob Graham, also born in 1936. The former Florida governor and U.S. senator (and more recently a professor at Harvard) is a renowned expert on intelligence policy and a marvelously articulate speaker. His own 2004 presidential bid fizzled, but in part for a commendable reason: Unlike John Kerry and Howard Dean, Graham unequivocally opposed the Iraq war all along.

More often mentioned as a running mate for Obama, former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia resembles Graham in age (69), region and national security expertise. But Nunn lacks Graham's charisma and breadth of experience, and although he too opposed a war, it was the wrong one: He opposed the Persian Gulf War of 1991, President George H.W. Bush's geopolitical masterpiece that saved not only Kuwait but the United Nations.

For Obama, the conventional choice of an electoral successor creates a dilemma. He does not want Hillary Clinton hanging around the White House (with her connubial baggage) for eight years, and he knows that her formidable talents would help him more in the Senate or the State Department. But if he chooses any other plausible electoral successor, he unfairly hurts Clinton's prospects in 2016, infuriating her present fans. Even more than McCain, Obama has no good alternative to the choice of an elder statesman.

A presidential candidate who picks as a running mate a seasoned spare too old to play presumptive heir gains an advantage. If both candidates do, the country gains.

With Bob Graham as Obama's vice president, this is our opportunity, finally, to get it right.

[dansolo]

1. I like Bob Graham a lot

He would most likely be a one-term VP, but I think he would bring a lot to the table.

[KittyWampus]

2. He was my pick but nobody seems to care about him

[seafan]

4. It confounds me as well, cryingshame. Here's to hoping Obama does, though.

He could not do better.

[seasat]

3. I orginally supported Graham in 2004.

In addition to those other reasons, he's a first class wonk with an encyclopedic knowledge about foreign affairs and government. He'd be a real boon in pushing legislation. He is probably the only person that Obama could pick that might swing Florida his direction.

[iamjoy]

5. Graham Is Not Perfect

This will be used against him:
"We are going to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United States"

The Republicans contend that since we haven't been attacked since 9-11, their strategy worked. Please don't tell me all the reasons why this is nonsense, I get it, but that's the soundbite and they will hammer Graham on it if he is our VP candidate.

Also, I don't know what the writer at LA Times is smoking, but Graham is a little deficient in the charisma department.

And he has some sort of heart issue, right?

Of course, I am playing devil's advocate here. I think Graham would be a wonderful choice for Obama. He can remind us about the ongoing struggle in Afghanistan and how if we'd stayed out of Iraq, we could have finished the job with the Taliban. He could remind us of Iran becoming stronger as a result of Iraq falling.

Obama has enough charisma for the whole ticket.

Cheney had heart problems too, it didn't seem to stop people from voting for the ticket.

[seafan]

6. 'Perfection', whatever that means, is neither definable nor desirable. It is illusory.

People want different things in a political candidate. To right wingers, George W. Bush has been their halo-bathed messiah.


To finish addressing your points:

1. National security will never be used as a weapon against Bob Graham.

2. Yes, we have been attacked by terrorist(s) since September 11. As we speak, the FBI is busily changing its story of their fabricated case to fit the convenient suicide of yet another man blamed for sending anthrax through the mail. Interesting how the FBI insists that this man was guilty without a judge and jury to look at the evidence, and expects us to believe it.

3. He had a leaky valve replaced in his heart in early 2003, with tissue from the heart of a Holstein cow. (He used to raise Holsteins, loves to talk about them, and knows more about them than most people.) His physicians told him that valve would last 20 years or more.

4. Charisma? Bob's charisma is that he's smart as a whip, has a memory like a steel trap, has a proven track record as an executive, is looking out for our safety and is unsurpassed in integrity in his political career and personal life. Not too many politicians we could ever say that about.



There really is no legitimate argument against Graham.

[wmbrew0206]

7. Another poster and I mentioned Bob Graham as a VP last wek.

I have to assume that there is something in his personal history that rules him out and that is why he is not being vetted.

Clark and Graham seem to be tailor made for Obama and they are not in the running.

[seafan]

8. Graham has been vetted four times: 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004

From the thread FL Sun-Sentinel: For Obama's vice president: What about Bob? Graham, that is, post # 7

Many are called for the quadrennial vice presidential sweepstakes but few are chosen. And some are called again, and again, and again.

Former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Graham knows what it's like to be always the groomsman and never the groom. The 71-year-old Democrat was vetted four times for the No. 2 job -- in 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2004.

Graham compared it ``a courtship, where without sending too strong a signal of your affection, you're trying to let your potential partner know you think they're pretty special.''

Bloomberg

He's clean.

[wmbrew0206]

9. That is not what the article says

He has been looked at four different times and not chosen four different times.

When you have the background Graham does, ie Senator, Governor, w/ NS cred, and come from the biggest swing state and your not picked four times something is probably up.

I think this time around it is probably just his age. McCain has age issues and Obama would prefer to keep it that way rather than taking that argument away by picking someone just one year junior than McCain.

[seafan]

10. The article stands. Graham has been vetted 4 times.

With the last two vice presidential choices by the democratic presidential nominee, the outcome has become progressively worse. And, our national security and state of the nation have also.


Sticking with the historical facts is my intent.

[wmbrew0206]

11. I don't want to get into a pissing match here, but what is your definition of "Vetting"

To me, being vetted means that you have been screened of any possible scandels and shown that you have none and are selected.

Bob Graham has not been selected. He has been asked for vetting information, but since he has not been picked we cannot assume that he has been cleared of any potential scandals.

According to Bob Schrum, Richardson was asked for vetting information and complied, and then quickly withdrew his name from consideration. Shrum says that he thinks Richardson just wanted to say he had been considered. Schrum also said that Richardson had womanizing issues and that is why he was considered seriously.

So, by what you have said, Richardson could say that he has been vetted\. Richardson could claim to be vetted but in fact was not selected because of questions of a scandel.

[seafan]

13. To evaluate for possible approval/acceptance. (There's no guarantee of being offered the job.)

In this case, that final decision depends upon what the presidential candidate's needs are in a running mate as to which applicant gets the job.

[wmbrew0206]

14. I see your point. I just feel that you can say someone is "vetted" becuase the have

been asked for information and been considered but not chosen.

[book_worm]

12. Graham would be a very solid pick and put Florida into real contention

as well as helping in NC and VA.

[seafan]

15. A kick for anticipation of The Big Announcement, whomever it will be

:party:

:toast:

:kick:

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_zyFwKsLKQhg/SHVXPH7ciWI/AAAAAAAAAI0/BJBi9KSecgc/US+Senator+Bob+Graham.jpg


&imgrefurl=http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/DXKkEvadeqGDzSRy4RM7xA&h=1012&w=1000&sz=28&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=qEK_EHLxoobGNM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=148&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsenator%2Bbob%2Bgraham%2Bobama%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG">Link, July 4, 2008

[seafan]

16. Reading the tea leaves....

Still waiting for Obama's announcement.


Hat tip to DU'er Hope and Change for finding this:


From Karen Tumulty at the Time blog

The question I asked Obama was what his choice of a running mate would tell the country about Obama himself. Here's what he said:

Hopefully, the same thing that my campaign has told the American people about me. That I think through big decisions. I get a lot of input from a lot of people, and that ultimately, I try to surround myself with people who are about getting the job done, and who are not about ego, self—aggrandizement, getting their names in the press, but our focus on what's best for the American people.


I think people will see that I'm not afraid to have folks around me who complement my strengths and who are independent. I'm not a believer in a government of yes—men. I think one of the failures of the early Bush Administration was being surrounded by people who were unwilling to deliver bad news, or who were prone to simply feed the president information that confirmed his own preconceptions.

So let's do some deconstruction, read some tea leaves, and try to figure out who Obama is--and isn't--talking about:

I try to surround myself with people who are about getting the job done, and who are not about ego, self—aggrandizement, getting their names in the press...

Okay, so the first qualification he mentions is someone who won't be all that interested in getting his or her name in the media. That would seem a high bar for the famously voluble Joe Biden to clear.

I think people will see that I'm not afraid to have folks around me who complement my strengths...

Obama is both gifted and precise in the way he uses language. Here, interestingly, the word he chooses is "complement," not "supplement" or "augment." This would suggest that this choice will be someone who has experience or expertise that Obama himself lacks, rather than a pick--such as Bill Clinton's of Al Gore in 1992--that reinforces his message. My guess here is that is not good news for either Governor Kathleen Sebelius or Tim Kaine. Though both have executive experience that he doesn't, their chief political assets are much the same as Obama's, in that they bring an ability to blur party lines.

I'm not a believer in a government of yes—men. I think one of the failures of the early Bush Administration was being surrounded by people who were unwilling to deliver bad news, or who were prone to simply feed the president information that confirmed his own preconceptions.

This may well be the most telling part of his answer. It sounds as though he is offering a rationale for picking someone who has disagreed with him in the past on something big, and the Iraq War immediately leaps to mind.


(seafan note: FISA and offshore oil drilling might qualify.)


All that put together, if I were to guess who it would be based strictly on what Obama himself has said, I would say the pick is either Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana (low profile, both executive and foreign policy experience, but a supporter of the Iraq War), or a surprise whose name has not been circulating on the pundits' short lists.

And of course, we'll know the answer soon.

This all looks like a well-orchestrated head fake to me.

[seafan]

17. Bob Graham on American Morning

A look inside the veep vetting process:Bob Graham on CNN's American Morning


Video

McCain lobbied his Democratic friends to vote to authorize the (Iraq) invasion, even berating them, several Democrats said. “He was very forceful,” said former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla. “He told me the issue was over: ‘We ought to get on with the vote, stop this meaningless pontification.”’

Link

Look out, McCain. You'll never stand up against the original fact finder.