Today Carville, while being interviewed by Wolfie, weighed in on the VP decision Obama will be making. Instead of tooting Hillary's horn, he made a suggestion that I have been promoting.

Al Gore.

Yep.

Apologize for the drive-by diary, but with all the Hillary, Webb VP diaries littering the right hand column. I thought I would weigh in myself.

I understand the VP selection is a critical point in this election. We need someone that's not to cool, not too hot, but just right.

Speculating on whether Hillary, Webb, McCaskill, Clark, Edwards, etc, etc is fun and I have engaged in it myself.

Watch this "Letter to a Superdelegate" that is addressed to all the voters of PA. Lawrence Lessig has made a very compelling view that should be convincing to all Democrats.

One of the best lines of the debate - and the one David Plouffe highlights on the Obama website was, ".. our problem is not a lack of good ideas, it’s that Washington is a place where good ideas go to die."

This harks back to one of the mottos of The University of Chicago, where Obama used to teach. This school is such a party school (NOT!),  there are T-shirts that say "The University of Chicago, where fun comes to die!"

I know, not really a diary, but I think it's pretty funny and I thought you might like to know the origin (an origin) of this phrase.

I know it is putting the cart before the horse. Way before. But I wanted to float this crazy idea to see what response this would get in this part of the internets.

Before I begin a disclaimer. I raise this as an idea. And not necessarily a good idea. When did we hear that before…

...to get us out of the mess we are in.

- almost 4000 soldiers and marines lost and 2 trillion dollars wasted on a foolish war
- terrorist groups determined to kill innocent civilians and destroy our way of life
- accelerating climate change
- ballooning deficits
- unstable global economy
- inadequately distributed/available health care
- growing inequality
- violations of the constitution, the geneva convention, civil liberties
- unfair and unreliable voting systems and incomplete participation

Just the other day, in LC Johnson's hit piece,  I commented that one reason Obama appeals to me and many  others is that he is toning down the partisan BS and arguing for sensible policies. In doing so, he has also appealed to many independents and even some republicans. This strikes me as a good starting place to actually get something done for America and her people.  I was also saying that he could wipe the floor with any of the potential Repub nominees. The one fly in the ointment, I suggested, was the potential for a 3rd party run by someone like Bloomberg.

I am not a lawyer. However, all the juicy info coming out of the Libby trial not only clearly debunks the lame "I heard it from Russert" defense, but also leads me to believe Libby may well be guilty of the IIPA (see below).

From the testimony I have heard, Libby knew that Plame was covert, and he had access to that info through his official access, and he intentionally disclosed it.

My question is, can information and testimony used in the context of his perjury trial be used to seek a further indictment on another count? Secondly, if the case looks as clear as it does now, why didn't Fitz charge him with the greater charge?

As the pundits put in their last words, the general consensus is the house is safe and the senate in on a knife's edge. This article in todays WaPo states

The Senate poses a tougher challenge for Democrats, who need to gain six seats to take control of that chamber. A three-seat gain is almost assured, but they would have to find the other three seats from four states considered to have tossup races -- Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri and Montana.

Lurker penning his first diary here....

I am not as up on the Lamont campaign as others here, though he seems like a sincere, well meaning Democrat. His campaign is picking up steam and he's got some great ads on. His debate performance was adequate, not great, but certainly not stellar. His is not the same kind of kick 'em in the 'nads, straight shooter like Hackett. He is still trying to be too careful for my tastes.

But there is one question that I haven't seen Lamont or anyone else ask of Lieberman - that's not to say it hasn't been asked, I just haven't seen it...

 "In retrospect, was Nader's third party run in 2000 good for the country?"