Warner "was subject to fairly intense pressure by Obama advisers" to be VP vetted

[wyldwolf]

Marc Ambinder reports that the selection of Mark Warner to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention "comes on the heels of a secret, last-minute effort to convince Warner to submit his name and record for vice presidential vetting."

Warner "was subject to fairly intense pressure by Obama advisers to allow the team of Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy to open an account and begin their work."

However, Warner resisted, "citing, as he has done publicly, family concerns and his public pledge to Virginians."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/a_virginiacentric_convention.php

[TwilightGardener]

1. OK--this frightens me, because it says that Obama is not happy with his

current VP frontrunners.

[Thrill]

4. I don't think its that. Warner is a strong politican, Rising star, and has a ton of money

And would no doubt win VA for Obama. Bottom line is he would of been the best VP candidate no matter who is out there

[jobycom]

7. Maybe, maybe not.

It could mean that, it could just mean that Obama had asked his committee to vet Warner and they were pushing him on their own. Or it could be some convoluted plot to make Warner seem more important, or who knows?

When JFK picked his VP, he first offered the job to LBJ, but let it leak that Ralph Yarborough was his second choice. Some historians say that JFK wanted Yarborough, and only offered the spot to LBJ to appease his followers, expecting LBJ to turn it down. Yarborough claimed otherwise. He said JFK wanted LBJ, but knew he would turn it down, so he and Yarborough together leaked the Yarborough rumor, because LBJ and Yarborough were such rivals that LBJ would never let Yarborough by Vice President. There's even a third possibility, that JFK wanted either one of them (both were from Texas), and told both what they wanted to hear just to make them both happy, because he knew one of the other would be his pick.

Politics is never straightforward.

[salonghorn70]

9. It Doesn't Frighten Me

but I agree that the VP process may be more open that what we have thought.

[TheWraith]

10. Why would it say that? That some other people wanted Warner to submit his name?

Even if it's true, and who knows if it is, it means nothing about Obama's choice. Hell, Warner might have made this thing up himself to raise his profile.

[book_worm]

2. so be it. He would probably be the VP candidate if he would allow it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. F that noise. Senator Gilmore is not a good prospect.

Jim Gilmore makes Bush look like Bertrand Russell.

And who knows... Warner may help Obama in VA as much being on the ballot for senate as being VP.

[Perky]

5. In Va Obama's coattails are shorter than Warner's

for sure.

[cbc5g]

6. It's too bad too because Warner on the ticket would have easily given Obama Virginia

[truthN08]

8. I don't understand this

Why would anyone turn down an opportunity to be Obama's running mate? It just doesn't make since. I hope this is media speculation.

[Gabi Hayes]

11. what 'sources?' huh? ambinder is just another RW shill, who just parrots the narrative:

Yesterday, The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wrote:

The Republican echo chamber has been sounding full tilt about Barack Obama's Jimmy Carter-esque turn as advice columnist to Americans about energy. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity spent part of their broadcast mocking Obama for urging Americans to inflate their tires to help conserve gasoline.

Obama had a point, and the auto industry recommends the same thing as do governors Schwarzenegger and Crist, but nevermind; the ridicule fix is in. An effective GOP shot.

Ambinder doesn't address -- or even raise -- the question of why this is "an effective GOP shot," but the answer is simple: Because the media, Marc Ambinder included, treat it as such.

As Ambinder's Atlantic colleague Matthew Yglesias wrote in response:

The upshot is deemed to be ... success for the echo chamber, "an effective GOP shot." But why? Maybe the attack will be reported in a way that's helpful to Republicans. But why should it be reported that way? Why should slamming Obama for offering sound, bipartisan, industry-endorsed advice be an effective attack?

Yglesias is right, but he could have gone further by pointing out the other ways the media could cover the attack.

They could cover it by pointing out that it is a bogus attack, that Obama is right and that the GOP is either ignorant or dishonest. If they covered it that way, surely it wouldn't be an "effective GOP shot" -- it would blow up in the Republicans' faces. And why not cover it that way? Covering it that way would clearly be better journalism than simply repeating the GOP's bogus ridicule as though it has some basis in fact.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808010008

media matters is your friend

[wyldwolf]

12. lol

[FrenchieCat]

13. Old news!

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/14/Mark_Warner_No_VP_for_me/UPI-43911213497022/

dated June 14th.

[wyldwolf]

14. your link doesn't address the points in the OP

[Skwmom]

15. There was a piece in the Washington Post or some other newspaper about

Warner visiting some pick-up club while his wife was out of town (the reporter "surprised him" when they ran into him and he said he was there with a bunch of guys). It could have been innocent, but later he announced he would not run. So maybe there are some private matters that he didn't want exposed by the Republicans (or competing Democrats in the primary).

Stuff like this (if true, big IF) doesn't help Obama but that's probably the point. Journalistic integrity is going the way of the dinosaurs.