Long time readers of The Chief Source may remember Bob and I taking a trip this past December to New Hampshire to volunteer for Barack Obama. On our last day, we drove up to Nashua to see long shot candidate John McCain at a small pub across from the capital. There were about 40 people there to see the Senator. He shook everyone's hand in the place, stopped for a few pictures, and then gave a short stump speech. After he blew out, Bob and I stuck around to finish our cups of coffee and game of dominoes. As we were leaving, Bob went to use the restroom and I stood in the front by the bar watching the TV hanging from the ceiling.

As I looked around the bar at the patrons, I noticed sitting at the bar having a beer was former Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge. He had obviously come in with McCain's entourage and decided to stick around. I'm sharing this story because Ridge's name is being bantered around as a possible vice presidential pick for John McCain. Last December, McCain was a long shot to be his party's nominee. It is when times are bad that you learn who your friends really are. I'd think the fact that Ridge sided with McCain when it wasn't the popular thing to do would give him a leg up over some of the other candidates to be the vice presidential pick.

Back in 2006 I started breaking down the candidates for President. I had Obama and McCain from the start. I even stuck by my picks when they did not look so good in the second half of 2007. I also predicted that McCain would wrap up victory quicker than Obama, despite common logic saying the GOP would take longer, due to their crowded field. Moral of the story: I am genius. So listen up while I tell you about the odds for the Democratic VP.....

Wesley Clark: This was my pick for Obama back in 2006 and I am standing by it. He is incredibly well-versed on all the key issues and has the proper demeanor for a VP candidate. Plus, his military resume is much greater than McCain's supposed experience. He is a Hillary supporter, but its not like he would say no. And it could maybe heal some of the divide with those that have coherent problems with Obama.
Odds of being VP: 20%

Hillary Clinton: No better way to bring in the sour Hillary backers. Plus, she does bring a stark contrast to Obama on some issues, and a balance of opinions is something I think the Obama White House will pride itself in, unlike the current administration. However, I think the only way this could happen is if Bill were forced to only campaign in Hawaii, or maybe work on the Dems living abroad....what a trainwreck that guy has been.....almost as bad as her advisers.
Odds of being VP: 15%

Bill Richardson: Bottom line, he is the best qualified. He brings experience from all realms. And he would be a great help in the states Obama needs to do well in (New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada). He was not very good in debates, but the VP debate doesn't really matter. However, I think having a black guy and a Hispanic guy maybe to much for a lot of Americans to handle. In a non-racist world, I go Richardson, but things are not perfect and I worry that just enough Americans will not be comfortable with two candidates with pigment (interestingly, Mitt Romney's creepy bronzed pigment causes me to be prejudice against him).
Odds of being VP: 14%

Ted Strickland: Even though he has a good resume, I don't like him as the pick. Maybe I am still bitter about him running around Ohio with Hillary. But the fact is, he probably tips Ohio to Obama, so he has to be considered a top-tier choice.
Odds of being VP: 13%

Phil Bresden, Ed Rendell, Mike Easley: All three are popular governors and pretty conservative Democrats. Bresden (TN) is still undeclared, but he will not bring Tennessee, so I am not sure if he makes sense. Rendell (PA), a Hillary-backer, was pretty civil towards Obama, unlike Easley (NC), who took a bunch of unnecessary shots. Plus, Rendell would take away any chance McCain has of winning Pennsylvania. Then again, I sort of like the idea of McCain wasting his time and resources in Pennsylvania, only to lose by 6%.
Odds of being VP: 7%

Michael Bloomberg: Great pick and probably the only scenario Obama wins Florida. Problem: with all that smarts on the ballot, nobody will want to have a beer with them.
Odds of being VP: 6%

Joe Biden, Chris Dodd: They would both be solid picks, especially Dodd. Between the two, Dodd brings as much experience, has no chance of saying something insane, and has a normal haircut.
Odds of being VP: 5%

Jim Webb: Popular amongst us young bloggers, but probably not a good pick. However, with him and McCain both rumored to have bad tempers, the odds of a fist-fight determining President go up.
Odds of being VP: 4%

Sam Nunn, James Jones: Just heard both of their names for the first time on ABC's This Week. They bring the national security angle, but unless Wes Clark is caught with a prostitute, I would just assume go with Clark, if a national security figure is the angle. Side note: this was the first time I have watched ABC since that absurd debate, and all I know is that I cannot stand Cokie Roberts. I would rather date George Will than have lunch with Cokie Roberts. She just says things and never supports them with any fact. She is the worst commentator on the major networks.
Odds of being VP: 3%

John Edwards: Maybe if he had the guts to endorse him after he dropped out, but he sat back, instead of taking a risk (a minor risk, at that, since Obama has had the thing virtually won since mid-February). What a sham that whole New Hampshire debate stunt was, slamming Clinton and acting like he and Obama were the only viable choices.
Odds of being VP: 2%

Al Gore: We all dream for it, but it won't happen. It is truly remarkable he has stayed out of actual politics since 2000. I mean, if he wasn't planning on running for office after 2000, why didn't he fight harder to get the Presidency....he did actually have more votes, nationwide and in Florida.
Odds of being VP: 1%

The Field: Includes General Zinni, Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel, Warren Buffet (attention John McCain: his books can be found at all major bookstores), Kathleen Sebelius, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer (not really an option, but I really like her), Janet Napolitano, Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh, Tom Daschle, me (I would obviously just deny anything controversial I have said on this site....and we would have to concede North Carolina, due to my comments on the Duke kids), George Clooney, Jon Stewart, some politician from the Pacific Northwest, the governor of Colorado (i don't even know his name so this list should stop), and others.
Odds of being VP: 10%

I know we post a lot of video clips on this site, but if you are interested in the Democratic Primary you need to watch this sketch.

"I am a sore loser. My supporters are racist. I have no ethical standards." These were the slogans of the monologue delivered by Amy Poehler in her satire of Senator Clinton. My jaw dropped as I watched this sketch. I've watched it over and over trying to make sense of it. Part of me laughed because the writing was excellent, her impression is funny, and the topics covered were right out of the past week's headlines. The other part of me felt there was something about this sketch that didn't seem right. I understand that SNL was playing off of Senator Clinton's comment last week which suggested that many of her white supporters would not vote for Senator Obama in the fall. Senator Clinton definitely needs to clarify those remarks. However, the words "my supporters are racist" on the screen with Senator Clinton's face as a back drop is a powerful visual. I don't like to see a fellow Democrats or anybody for that matter unfairly called racist. In our society, that is a serious charge regardless of whether it is supposed to be funny or not. I'm surprised that SNL decided to go that route and as a supporter of Senator Clinton's (except as the Democratic nominee for president), I'm disappointed they did.

What makes this more confusing to me is earlier in this primary season the real Senator Clinton appeared on the show for a cameo with Poehler. It was nice appearance, funny, and seemed to illustrate a good relationship between SNL and their home state Senator. This past February, Senator Clinton went so far as to encourage skeptics to watch Saturday Night Live as support for the unfair treatment she claimed she was getting in the debates. At the time, I was kind of pissed that they were giving Clinton such flattering sketches while Fred Armistead's impression of Obama was just plain bad. Now, SNL is kicking Hillary when she is down.

I suspect this sketch is going to be discussed a lot in the upcoming week. Regardless of your opinion on it, there is no denying SNL's relevancy in politics.

We know that as Governor of Texas, Bush liked to execute people. It was this approach to the death penalty that was my number one reason for opposing Bush in 2000. He cared so little for human life that he even laughed about some of the executions. He also had no problem executing the mentally retarded and juveniles. Fortunately, in 2005 the Supreme Court explained that Bush's conduct is unconstitutional, not that Bush cares about that silly document.

Well, here is another area that John McCain agrees with Bush. This week, while throwing a bone to the wild dogs of the far right about judicial activism, McCain expressed his favor for the unconstitutional execution of juveniles. He was silent about the mentally retarded, but you would have to assume he wants them dead, too. McCain explained that even the conservatives on the Supreme Court were fools for not letting kids be executed.

Hence, it seems McCain is calling for their decision to be overturned....so he is calling for judges to actively strike down a law....so he is campaigning on judicial activism.....huh?

Either way, McCain wants us to be the only nation on the world with the death penalty for juveniles. Further, only 21% of Americans agree with McCain's hope to execute children. Another example of how McCain is really McBush, and how McBush is really the hell out of touch with the American people.

UNRELATED: I would like to wish all mothers a Happy Mother's Day (except Barbara Bush, because I don't care for her). Unfortunately, this week the House Republicans seemed to attempt to cancel Mother's Day. Fortunately, the Republicans plan was stopped and we are all free to enjoy the rest of the day.

Editor's Note: I was just reading an article over at Politics.Ohio.com from conservative friend Ben Keeler, and part of it criticized the windfall profits tax being proposed on the oil companies. I started typing a long comment, and realized I should probably just make this a whole post. So here are my thoughts....

I will agree that a windfall profits tax may not be the best approach. Instead, I think the winning solution (and one that the Dems will eventually adopt) is to quit subsidizing the oil companies! A windfall profits tax will allow the Haneeler Republicans to make their annoying argument about how all Dems do is raise taxes (which is not true...and when they do, it has worked).

So instead, lets jam an argument back up the throats of these oil goons. Lets call them what they are: WELFARE WHORES. It worked for Ronald Reagan (see: attacks on Welfare Queen from Chicago), so it can work for Democrats. The oil industry receives upwards of $50 billion a year in corporate welfare (via subsidies). The Republicans argued against a lady in the Cadillac getting a welfare check, so I am sure Hanneeler would have to be against the most profitable companies in the history of man receiving welfare checks.

So I do hope Obama drops the call for a windfall profits tax and instead calls for an end to Welfare Whores....or maybe Welfare Pimps....or to play right off of Reagan, how about Welfare Kings!

While I am certainly not upset with Laura Bush for involving herself in the crisis in Burma, I can't help but think - where were you in August 2005? I have always thought the the administration could have somewhat redeemed itself if Mrs. Bush had dedicated herself to some aspect of rehabilitating Louisiana or Mississippi. Mrs. Bush has said that the response to the cyclone is the most recent example of the junta's failure to meet its people's basic needs. Two of Mrs. Bush's other ironic quotes about the cyclone victims:

"this is an opportunity for the Burmese regime to show it does care about the welfare of its people."

"the government's performance in the lead up to the storm shows Burma's leaders are inept."

I recall that a few days after Hurricane Katrina hit, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin gave a similar speech in which he criticized the Bush Administration for the insufficient reinforcements they provided. I also recall that Bush didn't even call off his vacation until more than a day after the hurricane hit - AND she criticizes another government for failing to show that it "cares" about its citizens?

Mrs. Bush has rightly criticized the Burmese government for impeding relief efforts. I was similarly incensed when I read reports of the impediments to the dispersion of relief supplies to the hurricane victims. You may remember that FEMA was accused of DELIBERATELy slowing down the relief process by (1) interfering with the Astor Hotel's plans to hire 10 buses to carry 500 or so guests to higher ground, (2) turning away 3 Wal-Mart trailers loaded with water, (3) preventing the Coast Guard from delivering 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel, (4) blocking more than 50 civilian aircraft responding to separate requests for evacuations from hospitals and other agencies, and on and on.

I know these two disasters are of vastly different proportions. Nonetheless, I am amazed that she can be so critical of Burma's response without at least giving some sort of caveat such as acknowledging that the Bush Administration "learned a great deal" from its response - or lack thereof - to Hurricane Katrina. The Administration's response was a disaster in itself. Who knows how many Americans died because of our government's ineptness? Does she think we forgot?

Politics aside, I encourage you to consider making a donation to one of the many organizations working to help the families of the thousands of victims and the hundreds of thousands of homeless. You can help the victims by making a donation to one of the agencies listed here which is preparing supplies to be delivered as quickly as possible.

West Virginia is looking very good for Senator Clinton. The latest Rasmussen poll shows Senator Clinton at 56% and Senator Obama at 27%. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia has been in the Senate a long time. Just about everything in the state is named after him. There are bridges, a telescope (pictured right), a dam, buildings, and tons of other structures built with government money that bear his name. Byrd has yet to endorse a presidential candidate in the Democratic Primary and West Virginia votes next week. I'd imagine both campaigns are heavily courting Byrd's endorsement. It would be a great press bump for Clinton because it would help her shore up her support with West Virginia voters. It is important to note that West Virginia has the lowest percentage of citizens with a bachelor's degree in the United States. If the Clinton campaign is looking to connect with less educated voters, then West Virginia is the place to shine. Byrd's endorsement would also be great for Senator Obama. It would help him limit the damage in West Virginia and show that he can put together a broad coalition. It is also an opportunity for Senator Byrd to use his seniority to influence the outcome of the race.

Throughout this campaign I have tried really hard to be pro-Clinton (only). Some of you say that I haven't made a good enough case for her election. I'm not that worried about it. Those of you on that side of the fence are not coming over to mine and I've accepted it. I've put most of my energies into reaching out to undecideds and GOTV.

But what I've tried to avoid is Obama-bashing. I've said on many occasions that I don't dislike him and will vote for him should he be the nominee. But if he wants my support, and the support of other Clinton voters, he has to make some changes.

Now many of you will say that he is perfect the way he is, inspiring hope in the minds of new voters: offering a new kind of politics. But the polls don't lie. 1/2 of Hillary's voters in Indiana yesterday said that they would not vote for Barack in November. If he wants to win the general election, he is going to have to change his tune.

Obama needs to make up his mind about the kind of campaign he wants to run. He could stay on his message of new-politics, determined to reform Washington-- which when going up against McCain may work, especially since he is Bush Jr's Jr. But this means that he will actually have to walk the talk. Don't say you don't take money from lobbyists, when you've accepted $134 million from individuals with special interests. $15 million from lawyers and law firms, $9 million from investment and banking professionals, and over $3 million from healthcare, pharmaceutical, and hospital employees. I don't want to get into a debate about the definition of "registered lobbyist" here, but the statement that he doesn't take special interest money is simply untrue. Everyone has an interest and that's why they donate to political campaigns.

Beyond the money issue, if he truly wants to run a new kind of campaign void of negative advertising and cheap shots, stop this silly crybaby campaign against the American Leadership PAC. They are not purposely going against the FEC by spending issue advocacy money for Hillary or against Barack-- if he wants to be mad at anyone, point fingers at the FEC for not being proactive enough in their rulings against 527 dollars or advocacy of any kind paid for outside the legal hard dollar limits. He is setting a precedent here, asking for trouble from McCain and the RNC the minute an issue advocacy group starts spending money on Obama's behalf for the general.

Please stop this oratory parade of rhetoric and pontification. To get the Hillary Clinton voter on his side, he needs to stop talking about hope and start talking about action. I've heard him talk endlessly about the economy and how people deserve to live the American dream-- sure Hillary's gas tax break is only a measly $30 or so for the summer, but hey-- I could use an extra $30 bucks. I can think of a lot that I'd rather do with it than sink it into my gas tank, and I think most of middle America would agree with me. They need to hear about real solutions, realistic programs, and we want logistics! And if Clinton's are not bold enough for him, than create some new plans. He doesn't have any real results or record, so people need to see a substantive, concrete plan.

And this elitist bullshit has got to stop. One reason I loved John Edwards is that he continually talked about the gap between the haves and the have nots and made me feel like he really understood the plight of the have nots-- even though he was a major have (this is of course, up til the $400 haircut episode, and such). For some reason, when Barack talks about his mother and father and his humble roots, it just doesn't sit well with me; it comes across as phony. Show me who Barry is.

I've never seen BHO speak in person, and usually I get wrapped up in the excitement in the room with a big timer, but watching him on tv is painful. He needs to look directly into the camera when he's making a speech-- every time he looks to the side like he's gazing off into the sunset, I feel like I'm watching a cheesy made for tv political movie. It also turns my stomach every time he points his finger to emphasize his points. Didn't his mother teach him that to do so is rude? He also goes for way too long. Get to the point, make it, emphasize it, motivate the masses, then go away. I can't bear to listen to the long list of anecdotals (from either candidate) any longer. One or two is more than sufficient. More is just excessive.

Please don't misread this message: I am still supporting Hillary Clinton and will until the end. I still believe that she is the right choice for president and the right choice for this nation. I believe in her, I trust her, and I think her plan is better. I also think she has a better shot of winning in November.

Which is why Obama should listen to some Hillary fans. Like me.

Obama suprised everyone, winning North Carolina by 15%, and finally the media is declaring Hillary is done. I am quite annoyed I let so many people waste my time with silly arguments that Hillary still had a chance. I felt like it was 2006 and I was talking to delusional Ken Blackwell supporters. As I have been saying, she has been done since February 12, but now everyone living on planet Earth has come to the reality: Barack Obama, against all odds just a year ago, has won the Democratic Party Nomination.

Now it is on to months more of silly arguments with those claiming McCain has a chance. Well, here's the thing: Obama will definitely beat McCain. McCain agrees with George Bush on every major issue, and I am confident America does not want more George Bush. Meanwhile, Obama has not only been on the right side of vital issues, but also has a unique capacity to unite Americans. Accordingly, Obama will handily defeat McCain.

Congratulations to Barack Obama and all that have worked in support of him. Check this great highlight of the victory that started it all.