I wondered if he'd announced yet. According to Katharine Q. Seelye of the NYT (Yeah, I know.), he hasn't.

Obama said he wanted somebody who is ‘prepared to be president’ and who will be ‘a partner with me in strengthening this economy for the middle class and working families.’

He said he was looking for not just a partner but a sparring partner. ‘I want somebody who’s independent, somebody who can push against my preconceived notions and challenge me so we have got a robust debate in the White House.’

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/
oh-come-on-already/?hp

vasleft and Paul L. prompted me to recall a post I'd read. Can't find the precise post I'm thinking of, but this one at FiveThirtyEight comes close.

The Case for Hillary.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/case-for-hillary.html

And, Digby has also given the idea an airing.

The Choice That Dare Not Speak Its Name

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/choice-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-by.html

I wish I could find the precise blog post that vasleft and Paul called to mind. The argument went along the lines of (paraphrasing freely)...

We know the Republican attack machine will be in full assault mode soon. Of all the supporters who know how to fight back and are primed to do so, Hillary's supporters are in a class of their own. They would be very good allies for Obama and the Democrats to have going into the general election.

As much as I worry about the damage the vitriol, within and among various Democrats going into the GE, is doing, I take my hat off to those who supported Hillary throughout. Talk about tenacious and unwavering. They really are a class unto themselves.

Hey Glenn, seen this? Love to see your take. Personally, I'm pissed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/washington/21fbi.html

New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: August 20, 2008

WASHINGTON — A Justice Department plan would loosen restrictions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion, Democratic lawmakers briefed on the details said Wednesday.

The plan, which could be made public next month, has already generated intense interest and speculation. Little is known about its precise language, but civil liberties advocates say they fear it could give the government even broader license to open terrorism investigations.

Congressional staff members got a glimpse of some of the details in closed briefings this month, and four Democratic senators told Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey in a letter on Wednesday that they were troubled by what they heard.

The senators said the new guidelines would allow the F.B.I. to open an investigation of an American, conduct surveillance, pry into private records and take other investigative steps “without any basis for suspicion.” The plan “might permit an innocent American to be subjected to such intrusive surveillance based in part on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities,” the letter said. It was signed by Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

[...]

How did it happen that a man is "liberal", or "moderate", or "conservative" based on his favoring or disfavoring going to war against people who have not harmed us; or, in fact, could not do so?

[snip]

These days, I am told that only "far-left" types are anti-war. What's up with that? When did being moderate or conservative guarantee that a man loved to kill backward natives in foreign lands?

-- heru-ur

Have you so soon forgotten how "radical" and "liberal" and DFH one needed to be in order to disagree with and protest America's dalliance in Vietnam?

The primary brought out the soft underbelly of bigotry within the TV stations owned by GE. The misogyny was disgusting and made them unwatchable. Rachel Maddow has done what she has to do to get where she wants to go. That's simply reality. I lost all respect for her when she joined the bully boys of MSNBC in the daily bashing of Hillary. Is Chris Matthews' leg still tingling? Or did he, like some others, lose his tingle once the general election campaign started?

Rachel Maddow's rise to prominence "not to be trusted?"

She has gotten to where she is today by virtue of her brilliance. She is astute, assertive, amusing (and amused), not to mention unflappable. Rachel doesn't let the right-wing baloney talking points stand-- she calls things as they really are, which is almost unheard of in the bloviator realm.

I am ecstatic to hear that Ms. Maddow gets her own show. I may even have to think about signing up for cable!

A TIME writer (Jay Newton-Small) referred to Evan Bayh as being "much more moderate" than Obama without blinking an eye. Which prompted some serious (but metaphoric) head-scratching on my part on multiple levels (again, metaphorically).

-- kovie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

And it's not just used by the vast right wing conspiracy either. It is being used masterfully by the Imperialist Party (both dem and gop) to cut the heart out of the center(at least those dumb schmucks who are pro-diplomacy-and-freedoms).

But beyond that, the reaction also highlights the pitiful pretense of high-minded objectivity that people like Zimmerman have adopted in order to glorify themselves.

"Objectivity", like the terms "patriotism" and "treason", has been bled of any genuine meaning thanks to the last seven-plus years. Madam Zimmerman epitomizes this sad reality.

I'm frankly amazed Glenn can write about this as coherently as he does, never mind respond to some of the idiot comments as calmly and clearly as he does.

Next time someone asks you what a concern troll is, point them to The New Republic.

Please explain to me why you will not face up to the fact that Hillary had a campaign team fighting among each other that gave her a lot of bad advice that she decided to follow. Obama did not force her to make bad decisions or neglect to stand up and take charge. Obama and his team ran a better planned, organized and executed campaign than she did and they did it in all 50 states. Hillary and her team threw everything but the kitchen sink at Obama and some of what was thrown stunk. Why is that Obama’s or Rachel’s fault? Why shouldn’t those decisions be called into question? Why couldn’t Hillary ever admit that she is human and makes mistakes? She did what RWAs and you are doing now, blame everyone but your own team.

For you to then totally disregard all of Rachels’ intelligent insightful comments because she said what you perceive as something unfair to Hillary is patently ridiculous. Hillary has given up the war, if you love her so much, then show some respect and follow her lead. The blaming everyone and everything makes you look silly. Is that really how you want to be perceived?