And so is the world.

Hillary Clinton ?@HillaryClinton 8 minutes ago
.@TimKaine's guiding principle: the belief that you can make a difference through public service.


Hillary Clinton ?@HillaryClinton 22 minutes ago
.@TimKaine is a relentless optimist who believes no problem is unsolvable if you put in the work to solve it.
VIDEO

Hillary Clinton ?@HillaryClinton 30 minutes ago
I'm thrilled to announce my running mate, @TimKaine, a man who's devoted his life to fighting for others. -H

Hillary en español ?@Hillary_esp 21 minutes ago
Encantada de anunciar mi candidato a la vicepresidencia @TimKaine quien ha dedicado su vida a luchar por los demás-H

marriage as between one man and one woman, hallelujah. He signed it after having promised to veto it while running for Governor.

Nevermind that your point is moot now.

So, pointing out something bad someone has done now doesn't matter?

That's not rational, it's not honest, it's hackery.

Why bother discussing anything if all you want to do is repeat a partisan conclusion?

I've heard various good things about Kaine and want to hear more. I want to hear bad, accurate things as well.

If a politician breaks a clear promise once, I have an issue with that and think it shows they're more likely to do it repeatedly.

I don't know if the claim is a fair criticism of Kaine but I'd like to hear more on it, not attack the people who have something to offer.

There's a difference between supporting the party and supporting the party to an extreme with blinders and ignoring the facts that aren't always positive. Saying that any discussion of a problem with Kaine is the same as voting for trump is obnoxious and false.

but I am the man today that has made every effort in his life to recognize what is appropriate behavior and action...

when I was 18 I did some pretty stupid stuff..... for example.... the nickname of one of the high schools was the Rebels and in 1968 the name was changed to the Panthers... and protest broke and we drove our cars around town with our confederate flags flying... and yes, I flew my confederate flag proudly....

i made a mistake....and I've made other mistakes... but I'm not the man today that made that mistake in 1968 and I hope I'm judged on the man I am today....

so who is Tim Kaine today...? I don't expect him to be everything I am... I was adamantly against the war in Iraq.. Hillary was for the war but when I look at Mr. Trump, there will be no hesitation when I vote for Hillary in November..

Watch this movie...

But I also don't think forming an opinion on Kaine is done by saying "he's not Mussolini's VP, all you need to know about him."

If I like him more, he'll be an added reason to vote for Hillary. If I dislike him, I'll vote for Hillary despite him.

I agree with you that pointing out history is the way to discuss.

There are a few more things on that awful amendment that should be pointed out as well:
1. Then Governor Kaine didn't sign the Amendment into law (is intimated up above). He signed SB526 for the amendment to be put on the November Ballot. This Bill submitted by the Virginia legislature was absolutely, 100% veto-proof. Up to the point that SB526 was voted and placed before him, he'd stated that he would veto it and worked against it. This energized the heavily Republican legislature against him to make certain the bill was veto proof.
2. The bill, as written was one the worst and most awful bill ever written to date with regards to LGBT marriage rights. It took the additional steps of disenfranchising alternative legal methods that couples could use. It nullified medical power of attorney, living wills, last wills, DNR orders in any situation where the Dr., or attorneys felt that the documents were drawn up in a manner to simulate marriage rights.. REALLY horrendous bill.
3. As bad as that language was, if Governor Kaine had gone ahead and Vetoed the bill, knowing that the numbers were there for a Veto Override, it would have empowered the state legislature to change the language and make it even worse. That threat was there.
4. Even though he did sign and put it on the ballot, Governor Kaine DID actively campaign against the measure all the way up to the November election where the people of Virginia passed it by 59% making it a ratified amendment.

Even as a gay man myself, in a marriage that I'm proud is finally legally recognized by my country, I have to say back then, had I been in Governor Kaine's seat.. I'd have signed SB526 as well in that environment.

I won't criticize those who have issue with Kaine for his part in amendment either. Much as I do think he did what he had to do, it is still his signature on an awful document that is definitely on the wrong side of history. I do think they should look at the whole picture and consider the environment of the time though.

When I see 'promised to veto it and then signed it', alarm bells go off.

Your explanation of the history is very helpful and puts him in a much better light.

LGBT and gender issues
In 2006, Kaine campaigned against an amendment to the Virginia State Constitution to bar same-sex marriage,[149] and in March 2013, Kaine announced his support of same-sex marriage,[150][151]

I really miss Ann and Molly

but I am not thrilled with this choice, either. It' reminds me of Gore's VP choice. although I don't think Kaine is as rotten as Lieberman is. OTOH. I wasn't thrilled with Obama's choice, either. But, I love him now. I hope Kaine will change my mind the way Biden did.

We'll have to work harder to make sure we are happy peasants as opposed to dead ones.

I don't think either Clinton or Kaine see us all as "peasants", but if that's what you want to believe, you go right ahead.

I'm also a Liberal, so I've always enjoyed the singular privilege of being beaten up from both directions. Liberals are NOT the "mushy middle". We are the party of consensus, as are Democrats, and as such we stand in stark contrast to ideologues of all stripes. There's nothing mushy about that.

Enjoy the convention. You'll be seeing the posiitive aspects of the pick and our party.

Welcome to DU....

are only alike in that they were both Dems at the time they were chosen as running mates.

I am quite optimistic that you will change your mind.

of positive thinking!

I mean look at those two, they're best friends.

But, by the time election day rolled around, I was firmly in the "Biden is a great choice" camp. I think he was the best choice.

Booker would have been smart.

even less optimistic ...
Trump is gonna turn out the egotistical dumbshit vote and our side isn't gonna be motivated by anyone on the ticket... great. we saw what happened in 2004 when we pushed the idea of 'bush is an idiot, anyones better' .. as true a that was, just didn't work. ugh.

I'd hoped for someone without all that anti-gay history.

Last edited Sat Jul 23, 2016, 12:26 PM - Edit history (1)

in my neck of the woods, as there remain some unreconstructed elements in Tim Kaine's Virginia. Kaine's position has evolved. Can yours? Must your supporters pass a purity test? Did I have to be black to support Civil Rights back in the day? There were those who said, "Go away, White Boy, this isn't your fight", but they were fortunately a small minority. Having been gaybashed myself, called "queerboy" and "buttyman", I refused to defend myself by pointing out that I am not gay, any more than more than I would say, "Don't shoot me! I'm not black!", or "Don't burn me up! I'm not a Jew!" We're all evolving. Seen any "separate but equal" bathrooms lately? Want to?

Purity test is a phrase for extremism. When it's used to simply attack someone for values - like not being an anti-gay bigot - it's a weapon against values.

No, you don't have to be black to support civil rights.

Otherwise, your defense of evolving is fine. It's a very correct question to ask, 'ok, so there's a history of anti-gay, has he evolved?'

And hopefully the answer is yes. But the answer is not to say that asking is a 'purity test' and attack anyone who asks it.

Me gusta Tim Kaine!

i lov it when people from a losing campaign give advice to a winning campaign!

Just shut up! Your candidate lost! You can't advocate for any issues now! Shut up, did I say that yet?

You know, a better response to advice from Bernie supporters trying to help Hillary win is, 'thanks, teammate'.

let me repeat fucking stupid choice. Go ahead and jury me I don't care, they'll get my vote, but I talked to a Bernie supporter today, who won't vote for Hillary, no way, no how & this choice ain't gonna bring him over.

There are a few of them around. They're not worth the effort.

And several admitted even if Sanders was the vp pick they still wouldn't vote for her.

And we'll welcome that one back any time.

...Hillary has Bernie and Warren on her side and there is every chance those two will get important positions if she's elected--also Hilary has already moved leftwards, making many of Bernie's points her own. Either that is enough for voters like your friend, or it's not--but clearly the party thinks they've gotten most such voters. What Hillary doesn't have are republicans and independent sorts who are dithering over whether to vote for Trump. It would be a coupe to win them over. This guy could do that. He's religious, he's white, he's male, and yet he also appeals to Hispanics and Africian Americans--not scaring them off.

For men saying that Hilary doesn't appeal to them because she's cold, etc. here's a "warm" friendly guy--the "have a beer with" buddy they want to vote for. For religious people who don't feel she's one of them, here's a former Jesuit student who is one of them. And, frankly, he's a white male for worried white men feeling left out (hey, Obama had himself VP like that).

Putting it simply: Hillary needs to lure in voters she does NOT have. Bernie, Warren, Corey...they may have gotten your friend's vote, but the question is, how many votes would she not get in exchange for your friend's vote? She has to win. She has to pick a VP that lures in the voters she doesn't have, not.a VP that appeals to voters she, for the most part, already has. So. Is this a gamble, yes. Any VP choice on her part was going to be. But I don't think it's a stupid gamble.

This selection props up the status quo.

What will become of down ticket Democratic candidates? Are they under the bus now?

Who's going to turn out the vote for more of the same?

And if Republicans control the House and the Senate for 4 years then Hillary may have to do their bidding to avoid impeachment.

First, our standardbearers' selection is the only way to FIGHT the status quo;

Second, Congressional candidates have always been the masters of their own message, with both the ability to tailor their message to the needs of their constituents, as well as the ability to benefit from their party affiliation;

Third, while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee continues to benefit from the talents of the superb professionals who managed BHO's brilliant online campaign last time around, and also contributed to twenty-two Congressional victories in the midterm elections, all politics is local (Yes, Melania, I wrote that. Honest.), and all local victories are ultimately won by regular folks like you and me, at the riding, district and state level.

Fourth, you have cut to the heart of the matter: Only a Democratic majority resulting in a Democratic President and Congress can return the American people their right of representative government, and restore their faith in the system. Great points. You rock!

...They want stability. I know Trump *seems* be "change" but what has he been saying this whole time? "I will restore America..." Meaning, "I'll put it back exactly as you liked it BEFORE all those nasty changes." That's what Republicans want. It's why the party exists as it does in this day and age. Because most Americans want to feel that their churches will remain standing and their values will be respected. They want to feel they won't lose their jobs to an immigrant, and that strange or foreign or different types of people will be kept out of their neighborhoods.

That is the status quo most Americans want. What is different about democrats is that they are often Americans who don't get any of that. This status quo is applied to others, not them. So they demand a change to get their fair share of stability--and often are fair minded enough to want it for others as well. Sometimes, like most here, they even have a vision of a status quo that goes beyond that. But keep in mind, Hillary won, not Bernie. So most democrats DO want the democrat version of "status quo," not radical change. As for those of us who want more radical change, we certainly don't want Trump. His "Law and order" means cops putting away any one who don't meet republican status quo. So Hillary has our votes (for the most part) and doesn't need a radical VP to keep them.

But she could use the swing voters. They might like that "law and order" promise of Trump's, but still be unsettled by Trump. If Hillary can lure them to her camp, say, "Yes, I'm in agreement on some changes, but we're not turning everything you know upside down..." that makes it more likely she'll win.

And yes, I get your worry about the down ticket candidates being thrown under the bus. But do you really think Senators Warren and Bernie are going to keep quiet? Do you really think they can't muster a (hopefully) democratic congress against Clinton if she forgets her promises to them? I think tossing progressives under the bus would be a very bad and stupid move on her part, and I think she knows this and will do her best to keep progressives satisfied. Keep in mind, however, that Trump doesn't have to worry about that. He can throw anyone he likes under the bus. So, progressives have power over Hillary and can change the status quo. Maybe not instantly, but steadily. They've already proven that in the primaries. But if Trump is in office, all that progressive power means diddly.

I hereby nominate Moonwalk for a star. Do I have a second?

I'm not undermining the importance of a VP...this guy could become president. BUT, if nothing happens to Hillary, it's a far less powerful post than being a senator. He can't vote in the Senate unless there is a deadlock. He has no presidential powers. In fact, he has only as much power as the president wants to give him.

Warren, Bernie, et al, are far more powerful as senators. If they were made VP, they'd lose all their power to affect change. UNLESS something happened to Clinton. Once again, it's a gamble, but it's not a stupid one if it gains voters while keeping the progressives in their congressional seats. Each vote in congress will count when it comes to putting new Supreme Court justices on the bench.

met him at a baseball game last night. Federation League his son & my nephew are on the same team and we live in the same suburb, which is very heavily a Democratic zone.

...vote for Trump than Hillary. The Daily Show had an interview with them. They were Bernie followers, but now that he's out, they've switched to Trump. Really. They hate Hillary and her choice of VP makes no never mind. They don't want her for president, period. If this person is one of those, then Hillary could have picked Warren or Sanders and he still would have steadfastly said, "Won't vote for her." If, on the other hand, a choice of Sanders/Warren would have changed his mind...well, either we have to give him up for loss, or hope that he is persuaded by either Trump's awfulness or Hillary's more inclusive platform to change his mind.

What we do know is this:
Neither Warren nor Sanders has a son in the military (Votes from Military)
Neither Warren nor Sanders has a religious background (Votes from Catholics, and support from other more religiously conservative types)
Neither Warren nor Sanders can lure the South/Midwest votes (Kaine was originally from Kansas and was Mayor, Gov. of Virginia and so could appeal Midwest/Southerners)

AND both Sanders and Warren are more useful in the Senate pushing their progressive arguments there. Remember, if either of them were made VP, they couldn't vote in the Senate or even argue and debate there. They couldn't be on committees, or object to committees. They're really more useful in the Senate.

So. Given all this, do you really still think this move is "stupid" because it could lose us this one guy's vote? Like I said, it's a gamble, no doubt about it. However, I don't think it's a stupid one. If she gets three-votes for every one vote she loses with this choice, then it's was a very smart choice.

Progressive, no matter how much he says that he is one.

If he wants to throw his vote away on a third party candidate - or worse - vote FOR Trump-Pence who epitomize everything that "Progressives" loathe, then he is too stupid to be voting at all.

is not agreeing with Bernie. He knows that we cannot let Trump get elected and if not voting or voting for a third party candidate will not help.

There is NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING more important than keeping Trump out of the White House.

Trump is dangerous and frankly, scares the bejeezus out of me. We can not afford to have Trump and Pence near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I thought W and Cheney were bad (and they were), but this is a whole other thing. The thought of Trump having the nuclear codes keeps me up at night. Dictator much?

On the bright side, I am actually pretty stoked that Hillary chose Tim Kaine for her running mate. He is a solid choice (was a city council member, mayor, governor and is currently a senator...that's serious credentials!).

Virginia has a Dem governor so G-d willing Hillary wins in November, McCaulliffe will, in all likelihood, appoint a Democratic senator (if Booker, Warren or Brown had been selected, the NJ, MA and OH governors, respectively, would have appointed Republican senators).

Living in Richmond, I'm particularly excited to see Richmond put on the map!

I'm with Her (and him)!

TPP and bank deregulation.

I think she is securing big donors with this safe pick.

Time to line up and get organized for the GOTV movement.

as long as democrats vote, we WIN

I learned a lot about Tim Kaine, and I think he's great!