How can McCaskill best help Obama?
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-Mo) has been very active lately in her support of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, (D-Ill.).
The Missouri Democrat has readily appeared on nationwide television and radio broadcasts, touting the benefits and reasons why Obama should be the nation’s next president.
According to a story in Wednesday’s Post-Dispatch, her increasing prominence as one of a handful of top surrogates in Obama’s presidential bid is increasingly being asked to appear on TV and campaign-trail appearances, as well as behind-the-scenes advice.
“She’s someone we have no hesitance in putting on TV or on the road because she understands and reflects the message of this campaign perfectly,” said David Axelrod, Obama’s chief campaign adviser. “She makes sense. She doesn’t sound like the typical Washington palaver.”
“She was with him early. She reaches out to women, which he needs to do after defeating Hillary Clinton and she’s from a swing border state,” said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
Peter Fenn, a Democratic strategist not affiliated with the Obama campaign, said McCaskill’s surprise endorsement last January helped cement her role in the operation.
All this has created new rumors about her prospects as a vice presidential candidate, and she’s repeatedly appeared on lists of possible choices.
Will Claire McCaskill be a plus or a minus for Obama’s campaign?
D Walker, aren’t you the person that claimed that the Saudis have a trillion dollars in demand deposit accounts here in America? Did you ever post a link to that? I Googled it but couldn’t find what you claimed…
As was said to Aaron needs to be said to D Walker. America is still the best place to invest in the world when comparing return verses risk. Property right, the rule of law, and individual rights are the same for all investors regardless of where they are from. No other country defends these rights so critical to investment as America does. To think that Obama is going to lower the price of gas simply because he is President completely ignores the basic facts of economics.
And don’t fret the weak dollar too much D, it has actually been a help to our manufacturing sector because it makes our exports cheaper in other countries.
Hey, “flutter”, your comments indicate that you are close-minded to entertaining the idea of a black president. You should realize that open mindedness is partly about realizing your own limitations as a human person, sensory limitations included. But sometimes our senses give us false information, and we learn that there is no knowledge that cannot be questioned or doubted. When we “stereotype”, we are acknowledging that life is complicated, and we want to see life in its most simple terms. It’s easier that way! Life is not black and while, flutter. It’s grey, and you’ll be less hostile and much happier when you understand that.
To answer Kurt’s question (sorry I went off topic again, it’s habit for me):
I don’t see what Claire would bring to Obama’s ticket except less baggage than Hillary. There are people out there with more experience than Claire. The only reason I could see her getting the nod is if he wants a white woman on the ticket who is NOT well known. A Feinstein or a Hillary is soo strong a personality with too much history to do Obama any good, so it that sense an unknown white woman to pander to the soccer moms makes sense.
Tim,
“wars tend to be better for economies”
Kind of like saying… wars create jobs as soldiers!
Dont look now, your ignorance is showing. That simple statement alone goes to show you are dumb as a brick.
Every war since the history of man has been lost for one reason alone….
NO MONEY, FINANCIAL RUIN.
When you can’t pay people to fight, the war is lost.
Get a clue and quit spewing your ignorant BS.
Do a search for “The broken window fallacy”
Go read a book, or a hundred.
No wonder our economy is tanking, people like you are the problem.
Alice,
Dont be so hard on Tim, sounds like he’s just a kid. He will learn.
I started laughing as well when he said war is good for the economy.
You are right about war, its a money game. And we are losing.
At a cost of $720 million PER DAY the American economy certainly cant last 100 years, even until 2020 as McCain now says.
How poor do Americans want to get over this war?
Do they want to be chasing rice trucks down the street for “Freedom for Iraqis?”
I dont think so.
Ryan, well said.
Aaron, the dollar has been up the last week, particularly since the Fed hinted at raising interest rates next week. Does that count for “any sign of getting better”? If the Fed does raise rates the dollar will strengthen further. Also, the EU’s growth rate appears to be slipping based on Q2 data, which no doubt means the Euro will begin to come back down some against other currencies (including the dollar obviously). I guess your Wall Street buddies didn’t tell you about those signs, eh?
Aaron, I Googled what you said, nothing popped up. If you could post a link to a specific story I would be happy to read it.
If Iraq was strictly for the Oil, why would we take the 14th highest producer of oil? Kuwait is 11th and they are a lot smaller, and quite frankly they love us after we liberated them during Desert Storm. Why didn’t we just take Kuwait? Canada is 7th and we wouldn’t even need the navy to ship us there. Mexico is 5th, we could just drive there too. Why Iraq? Maybe it’s because the whole “Iraq was just for the oil” idea has been shot down time and time again on every corner of the internet and print media to the point that most people don’t bother trying to use it anymore…
Tim,
Aaron is talking about a basic economic principle.
The broken window theory is in EVERY SINGLE BOOK ON ECONOMICS, WRITTEN IN THE LAST 30 YEARS.
If you knew ANYTHING about economics you would know it like you know your name. You wouldn’t need to do a google search for it.
Economics for dummies:
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
Tim,
You missed it. The reason Aaron claimed “Iraq was about oil” was you cited the latest book by Alan Greenspan, “The Age of Turbulence”. In that book, Greenspan states:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil. “
Tim,
Please go to school. If you cant afford it.. head to your local library!
Schooling, is good for the mind, body and our nation.
No, I did catch (or at least I assume that I caught) where he was pulling that from, but the amount of written material to the contrary of that notion suggests that was not the case. Unfortunately Greenspan did not elaborate on that sentence in his book if I remember right…