comment #1

televisiontears says ...

When I look for solid, unfiltered, and objective opinion, I look to Robert Novak. Man's a beacon of benevolence and understanding worthy of the highest regard.

Come on, Wells. Obama's won (I know because Time magazine told me so). You can rest. I get the feeling you're gonna be disappointed when you don't have the dead horse of Hillary to beat anymore.

comment #2

Redmond says ...

I think a Hillary VP offer is inevitable. That's just good politics. It unites the Dems and secures the racist voters that won't vote for Obama. (Though I don't believe they'll vote for McCain. Safe bet is they would just stay home.) He gets Hillary on board. Everyone makes nice and it's on to kick the shit out of Geezer Geezerton.
Excellent comparison of JFK picking LBJ. Sometimes you gotta take one for the team. Just as long as Obama doesn't let her have Cheney-esque power.

comment #3

MovieBob says ...

He'd be stupid not to offer, she'd be stupid to take it. This much is true: The Clintons are only still "in this" because they know NOW what most of the party/country/planet won't know for awhile yet: That Barack Obama is going to crash and burn like no Democrat candidate since McGovern, and when he does the party will go crawling back begging her to take the wheel - the only question is whether he does it NOW before the convention and she gets to win in July, or if he does it by losing - spectacularly - to McCain and she has to wait until 2012.

For now, file this away and save it for the "things some guy might've been right about after all": Assuming Obama is the nominee, he will lose to McCain by around 35-40 states (it won't be QUITE the system-shock that McGovern's drubbing was because thanks to the info-age everyone will be able to see it coming a month or two in advance.) McCain will spend the entirety of his presidency talking loud about gained-ground and victory while quietly dialing-down active troop levels in Iraq until it's essentially a "base-presence" a'la Korea. This will be touted as a "win" in Iraq, and will prevent the Republicans from being saddled with ANOTHER Nam-like sheepish-pullout-followed-by-tragic-slaughter - the sole motivation for his run in the first place. Iraq-proper will remain the Mad Max-ian warzone it's been for centuries, but Americans will cease to give much of a damn. In late 2011 McCain will reveal the worst-kept-secret of modern politics: that he will not seek re-election. Hillary will re-emerge and run essentially UNOPPOSED against McCain's successor, whom she will likely CLOBBER having spent four solid years building a war chest and making sure that every Dem with power to spend regards The Lesson of Obama the same way she does.

comment #4

Mgmax says ...

The more interesting part of Novak's piece is that he's helping float Ohio Gov. Strickland's name. Because Strickland was a Hillary supporter. So he's obviously working to get in good with Obama now, but the fact is, he's exactly what Obama needs-- regular white guy to let nervous white voters (the kind Jeff hates) know Obama's okay. Strickland was even briefly a minister and held a couple of other Methodist positions, so he's extra reassuring about the whole church of black power nuttiness thing.

comment #5

cobhome says ...

I don't think Hillary brings any positives to a ticket - she has more than demonstrated her ability to be divisive and petty - she is disliked in the senate so will be of no help to Obama in getting legislation passed - Ted Kennedy is right - Obama should pick someone who has values consistent with his - otherwise his time in the white house will be dogged by the inevitable plotting and scheming ( real or imagined) of the Clintons - Strickland seems a good choice - hope he is being considered

comment #6

AH says ...

Gov. Strickland is an interesting choice and Senator Obama should go for a governor and not someone from the Congress, which means no Senator Clinton.

Having said that, this race is not yet over, regardless of what the media says. The most important thing for Senator Obama to do is to continue his primary campaign till there is a result. However, he should have some of his people start preparing the general campaign strategy, which I understand is already being done.

comment #7

Walter Sobchak says ...

When I look for solid, unfiltered, and objective opinion, I look to Maureen Dowd. Woman's a beacon of benevolence and understanding worthy of the highest regard.

comment #8

gruver1 says ...

MovieBob and Walter Sobchak are, no offense, a couple of delusional, seriously bitter pissheads. Shafts of light from an early to mid '60s Anthony Mann or Nicholas Ray movie are shining down from between the clouds and they're going, "Just you wait -- it's going to rain hailstones very soon, and serpents will slither on the ground!" They're like Royal Dano's "Elijah" character in John Huston's Moby Dick but without the accurate prophecy. Both are choosing not to come up any higher but rather get us all down in the hole that they're in.

comment #9

Arizona Joe says ...

It would be great if Obama could pick Mrs. Clinton without the baggage. But she keeps on accumulating baggage as time goes forward. It's a difficult decision, because the VP choice will be a factor.

Comparing Obama to McGovern is ludicrous. In 1972, with McGovern and Nixon. it was a battle of ideologies while America was still a super power vying against a feared but feckless Soviet Union. Even with inflation, the average worker had it pretty good. Americans had the highest standard of living. Blue collar hard hats could afford to cotton to Nixon's platform and plans and tough talk.

Now, there has been slippage. Food and energy cost more than ever. Foreclosures are the highest since the great Depression. People are scared. People sense the country is going in the wrong direction.

Race will be a factor. But come fall, there will be so many disaffected people in Kansas and the rest of the red states that Obama will prevail.

comment #10

vp19 says ...

If the only way to appeal to the Clinton crowd was to name Clinton the running mate, I'd say go for it, But there are so many other choices available for Obama that would appeal to most of that clientele -- without running the risk of alienating your own core by choosing the polarizing Hillary. I'm thinking of the likes of James Webb or Wesley Clark.

comment #11

D.Z. says ...

"John F. Kennedy didn't pick Lyndon Johnson for vp because he loved the guy or admired everything about him."

Yeah, and look what happened to JFK in Dallas after that. Like-wise not a good idea for Obama.

"Obama definitely needs the older, under-educated women who voted for Hillary."

Then pick Barbra Boxer.

Bob: "Barack Obama is going to crash and burn like no Democrat candidate since McGovern,"

It seems like everyone else but Obama has crashed and burned so far...

"Assuming Obama is the nominee, he will lose to McCain by around 35-40 states (it won't be QUITE the system-shock that McGovern's drubbing was because thanks to the info-age everyone will be able to see it coming a month or two in advance.)"

You do realize the information age is why Obama's gotten to this point, right?

"McCain will spend the entirety of his presidency talking loud about gained-ground and victory while quietly dialing-down active troop levels in Iraq until it's essentially a "base-presence" a'la Korea. This will be touted as a "win" in Iraq, and will prevent the Republicans from being saddled with ANOTHER Nam-like sheepish-pullout-followed-by-tragic-slaughter - the sole motivation for his run in the first place."

Yeah, him saying Iraq was safe while wearing a bullet-proof vest *really* boosted his ratings.

"Iraq-proper will remain the Mad Max-ian warzone it's been for centuries, but Americans will cease to give much of a damn."

Um, it hasn't been like that for centuries. The state of Iraq was also made up, too. I swear, OSS was accurate about Western understanding of the region.

"In late 2011 McCain will reveal the worst-kept-secret of modern politics: that he will not seek re-election."

You're assuming McCain will be live long enough to make 2011.

"Hillary will re-emerge and run essentially UNOPPOSED against McCain's successor, whom she will likely CLOBBER having spent four solid years building a war chest"

Before or after she pays back the millions in debt she owes?

Mgmax: "black power nuttiness"

Yeah, McVeigh-style white power nuttiness is so much better...

comment #12

Nate West says ...

The political masterstroke would be for Obama to offer the VP slot to CHELSEA Clinton.

comment #13

Walter Sobchak says ...

No offense taken, Jeffrey!

comment #14

MattyCurtis says ...

My respect and admiration for Obama has gone up considerably over the past four weeks. His basic decency and imperfect humanity have shined brightly as he dealt with the Wright furor while constantly aiming to elevate the conversation and focus on truly important stuff. I look forward to him trouncing McCain in the debates and ultimately on election day.

Any respect and admiration I may have had for Jeff Wells and this blog has gone in the opposite direction. His political writing is pure hackery and a big black mark on an otherwise interesting blog. Does anyone here think that Obama would approve of Jeff's snide, deranged and hostile tone on all things Clinton? But even worse than the immature and unreasoned hatred is that it's just not very good or interesting reading.

comment #15

Walter Sobchak says ...

Okay, maybe a little offense taken. (Pisshead?)

I don't mean to always sound like a Grumpy Gus. I must say, however, that I am constantly entertained by your child-like musings on politics. You are a bit older than me, (oops, sorry... sore subject), and yet hearing you talk about Mr. Obama reminds me of our 6th grade election for class president all those years ago. ("Anyone who doesn't vote for Fred Travis is a nerd!", or "I'm totally not going to the Spring Fling with Sara Hand. She's campaigning for Molly Drake. No wonder, her parents voted for Mondale.")

Assuming I'm not punted for not becoming "one of us! one of us!", I'll make it a point from here on not to rain on the Obamania parade too much. It's just hard not to.

Sure, I know he'll single-handedly make gasoline a buck a gallon, he'll provide cool, free stuff for all of us, he'll bring home all of the soldiers the minute he steps into office AND he'll keep Jim Belushi from ever again appearing on network television, but I'm just a pisshead so it's a little difficult for me to "see the light".

Seriously, Wells, I bust your balls not because you support Obama. I do it because you act like anyone who doesn't see him as the new messiah, (I heard he plays a mean pinball!), should be shunned from honorable society.

There is no one I know who I'm more politically opposed to than the poster on here who goes by the name "christian", (where is he, by the way?) and yet I don't seem to have a problem with him. Perhaps because he's smart and argues the issues. He doesn't act like a ten-year-old rooting on his favorite football team. Even D.Z., (that's right...D. friggin Z.!) presents his case in a less puerile manner.

And yet when you write about film you seem to suddenly grow a brain.

By election time will you have banned all non-Obama believers?

So long suckers!

comment #16

televisiontears says ...

MattyCurtis, I think we'll all be in a bit of shock when it's McCain vs. Obama on the debate floor. As decent a candidate as Obama is, he's proven time and time again that he can't debate to save his skin. Perhaps it's his lack of debate experience, but McCain will hang back, cool and collected and watch him humiliate himself. I say this as an Obama supporter (in theory).

Not that it matters. Half the friggin' voting poplulace couldn't give a shit and a fuck about debates. "Don't watch 'em, don't care." Case in point: Kerry whoopin' all over The Bush in the '04 debates.

It's all the spinsters. It's all soundbytes. It's all pointless.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

television: "As decent a candidate as Obama is, he's proven time and time again that he can't debate to save his skin. Perhaps it's his lack of debate experience, but McCain will hang back, cool and collected and watch him humiliate himself."

McCain doesn't have time to be calm when he has to be a cheerleader for a war no one supports.

"Case in point: Kerry whoopin' all over The Bush in the '04 debates."

Actually, Kerry only got it right once, and then backed down afterwards.

comment #18

BurmaShave says ...

Only problem: God forbid, let's not even go ther, but: LBJ became President. Haven't we been talking for months about what a disaster she would be?

comment #19

MovieBob says ...

"MovieBob and Walter Sobchak are, no offense, a couple of delusional, seriously bitter pissheads."

Bitter and pissed, DAMN RIGHT I am. And the Cult of Obama is why. I thought this was the year. I thought this was the year the Democrats FINALLY graduated from College, got haircuts and decided they were ready for the Grownup Table. The surest win since the post-Nixon age is sitting there on a silver platter waiting... and they've opted to blow it off to spend one more semester sitting on the grass in the Campus Commons listening to a bad poet wax the romantic about "hope and change." This ISN'T a ray-of-light movie, it's real life - and in real life starry-eyed idealistic empty-vessels like Obama LOSE elections to long-in-the-game oldsters like McCain.

Liberals (or at least the ones with sufficient brains to do so) should be down on their knees thanking THE GODS that The Right actually thought they were going to get their shit together this time. The peculiar dynamic of the Republican nomination this year was ALL ABOUT the fear of facing down the Hillary Onslaught - hence, John McCain: The hardliner-despised moderate-centrist who could ONLY have been chosen as the best available anti-Hillary weapon. Obama? He'd have lost to clowns like even ROMNEY or Huckabee. Thanks to THEIR overestimation of YOUR maturity, the "WORST" result of this election will be a moderate-rightie who plans to close Gitmo and went gunning for Rumsfeld. Consider that bullet dodged.

comment #20

messiahcomplexio says ...

I thought liberals didn't believe in God?

comment #21

messiahcomplexio says ...

...oh sorry, you said "Gods". Yeah, a bunch of us are Polythemists. Its the new fad going around Hollywood. Everybodys doing it.

comment #22

fitzthecat says ...

One would think that with the word Hollywood in your blog title along with ads that we are forced to look at there would have some tilt toward - wait for it - Hollywood. Instead we get incessant rants implying that anyone who isn't a rabid Obaman is terminally stupid or morally corrupt. I'll probably vote for the guy, but I'll also be aware that there are many who have a different opinion and are good people. Sayonara, asshole.

comment #23

MattyCurtis says ...

Frtizathecat wrote: "Instead we get incessant rants implying that anyone who isn't a rabid Obaman is terminally stupid or morally corrupt."

Implying? I'm pretty sure Wells has come right out and said that in so many words. He's truly "in the tank" and in a state where his candidate can do no wrong and any other candidate can do no right. Kind of pathetic.

comment #24

Dave Polands Gut says ...

The last thing she wants is the VP slot. She'd rather watch Obama lose and run in 2012.

comment #25

Dave Polands Gut says ...

it is hilarious that in the one year the Democrats cannot lose they put up the most Far Left, liberal candidate with a resume as hollow as meaning in an Uwe Boll film.

I do respect them for finally being themselves and putting the most liberal candidate up they can. They must be sick and tired of lying to appease "dumb voters".

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Bob: "in real life starry-eyed idealistic empty-vessels like Obama LOSE elections to long-in-the-game oldsters like McCain."

And yet Clinton '92 and JFK managed to win.

Poland: "it is hilarious that in the one year the Democrats cannot lose they put up the most Far Left, liberal candidate with a resume as hollow as meaning in an Uwe Boll film."

What has McCain done, besides being beaten by 'Cong?

comment #27

Krazy Eyes says ...

I'm surprised Wells isn't all over the Bob Barr presidential bid announcement this morning. The McCain camp has got to be in major damage control mode this afternoon to make his potential candidacy go away and, if it doesn't, the Republicans are going to have their very own Nader this election.

He's exactly the type of candidate who is going to peel conservative voters away from McCain.

comment #28

MovieBob says ...

"And yet Clinton '92 and JFK managed to win."

Two very different men from Obama: Clinton was no idealist, he was a cynical-as-hell operator of the first order AND he had more style in his thumb than Obama has in his whole body. JFK had a legacy and a military record backing him up - and he STILL only squeaked and (likely) had some questionable help tipping Chicago.

comment #29

Mr. Buckles says ...

MovieBob, while you have an answer for everything, might I point out one thing. If the democratic party wanted to "sit at the grown-ups table", Hillary then wouldn't be your candidate. It would be someone else, like Evan Bayh or say... Mark Warner.

Like it or not, the Dems put up two historic candidates this year, neither of which you could call safe bets, the kind of bets that would normally not sound grown-up if you take all the math into account.

comment #30

D.Z. says ...

MovieBob: "Clinton was no idealist, "

So universal health care isn't idealistic?

"AND he had more style in his thumb than Obama has in his whole body."

All he did was play the sax.

"JFK had a legacy and a military record backing him up - and he STILL only squeaked and (likely) had some questionable help tipping Chicago."

Perhaps, but he still left a lasting impression by the end.

comment #31

MovieBob says ...

Mr. Buckles
"MovieBob, while you have an answer for everything, might I point out one thing. If the democratic party wanted to "sit at the grown-ups table", Hillary then wouldn't be your candidate. It would be someone else, like Evan Bayh or say... Mark Warner."

In the words of the average voter: Who and who? ;)

The Democrats aren't complete fools - they know star-power counts in these things, especially when roughly 50% of the country (probably more when you get right down to it) disagrees with most of your platforms. To put it in the most broadly-simplified terms possible: the Dems are monolithically anti-WAR, period - while most of the country (like it or not) LIKES war in theory... they're just anti-LOSING. The need for celebrity and/or novelty to offset stumbling-blocks like that is the reason why even Al Sharpton has a better chance of getting a presidential nomination than Bayh. Same goes for Republicans: A guy with Bush's skills and experience wouldn't have been nominated for dogcatcher if his name wasn't Bush.

comment #32

Mr. Buckles says ...

Movie Bob,

You've been down too long and you need to come up for air as it is clearly affecting your judgment.

Evan Bayh is a known quantity in politics. You make this retroactive assumption that Obama was really well known before he got in like he was Al Gore or something. He had a name based upon a speech and a book, but the brand wasn't what it is now in terms of star power.

We could argue about whether Bayh is as charismatic and could win (I have no opinions), but the point is electoral math based upon the same town talk white bread strategy that has been sitting at the grown-ups table. Ron Paul was a household name? Huckabee? Clinton when he won? Catch my drift?

You are clearly in the Clinton camp. Like it or not, she was never a safe bet. She has always had a trust/credibility issue. Own that reality.

Also, how the F--k could you say the dems are monolithically anti-war. Care to revisit the Iraq war votes? If only they were back then, we wouldn't be stuck in the mess we are today.

The facts just don't abide.

comment #33

D.Z. says ...

Bob: "To put it in the most broadly-simplified terms possible: the Dems are monolithically anti-WAR, period - while most of the country (like it or not) LIKES war in theory...they're just anti-LOSING. "

Um, no. If that were the case, the Republicans would still have a majority. The Dems don't like war, but will support it, if they deem it necessary. In this case, though, most of them deemed it necessary to getting re-elected, which is why they're getting purged. The American public likes wars which serve humanitarian ends, not wars which serve faceless corporations.

Buckles: She was a safe bet until she started spewing Republican talking points.