Okay, since every blogger here has had their shot at VP speculation, I thought I would give it a shot. I know most people are sick of the speculation, but I think i have a pick that has not been posted here yet. Picture this (Parts taken from Lynn Sweet via Ben Smith at Politico):

The Obama team, in the run-up to the Democratic convention, will showcase the new Obama ticket Saturday in Springfield at the Old State Capitol, where presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) officially kicked off his campaign in February, 2007. State of Illinois authorities have beens asked permission by Obama folks to reserve the historic spot at noon.

So, approximately 1 pm Eastern time, in what is the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln, music begins playing and a huge banner unrolls reading "Obama / Lincoln 2008"! The symbolism of this unveiling at the place where Lincoln stated "A House Divided Cannot Stand" and began the journey towards ending slavery would be incredible.

My super double-secret inside sources have confirmed that Obama's VP choice is going to be no other than former Illinois Congressman and President Abraham Lincoln!!  Apparently there is a video that these sources promise me exists (they haven't seen it but this  guy they know totally has) in which the nominee and his wife Michelle (along with Louis Farrakhan) express their desire to have an Obama/Lincoln ticket.

Today is the 143rd anniversary of the firing of Walt Whitman from his day job as a government clerk by Lincoln's Interior Secretary Harlan, a prairie fundamentalist who objected to scandalous poetry, Leaves of Grass, being Whitman's.

Here is an insightful essay on the event from the perspective of the dear dead days of impeachment, which at this distance looks less important as a cultural indicator than Whitman's firing does...

A question has come across my inbox today, and as I am wont to do I began to answer my email friend (who I’ve known, by the way, since we both posted on the John Edwards blog). More or less 100 words into the reply it occurred to me that this was a question best answered in front of a larger audience.

The question? My friend is having trouble committing to Obama.

Why? I’m paraphrasing, but it would be fair to say that the sudden emergence of Obama’s "handlers" was a factor...and although it’s not in the note, I suspect the fact that Obama has "tacked to the center" recently on various issues is part of the problem as well.

It’s a great question...and in an effort to provide a great answer I’m going to offer a few words of my own—and then I thought we might reach back a bit into history and see if there might be something we can learn.

Having come to the metaphorical tee and taken the first shot, let’s head down the fairway and see where that ball might be...and where we can get it to go.

David Brooks tries in his column today to do something I've warned about before. He tries to claim Theodore Roosevelt as a conservative, which he most definitely is not. TR was a liberal, period. I've written about the need to claim liberal Republicans as our own. This is crucial for us as we frame American history as a march, however uneven, toward the triumph of the progressive values we share, and progressivism as being rooted in American history going back two centuries (rather than simply being seen a deviation from 'traditional values' that cropped up in the oft-[unfairly] derided 1960s). Why is this important? Because progressivism has been a winner in the big picture since 1776, and we need to portray it as being a winner. Doing so makes it more likely that progressivism will continue winning. Winners win. Losers lose. It's that simple.

See more after the jump.

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Abraham Lincoln

Just for fun, for a snark, I was thinking the other night about American politicians from the past who would have to be unacceptable to true progressives today--those amongst us who love the Constitution and will defend it at all costs. True patriots, actually--yes they are. Those who say that Obama's FISA stance is a deal-breaker. Most won't contribute or volunteer, some won't even vote for him. So I wondered: What other politicians from our history did things that would have to have been deal-breakers for our good progressives today?

I came up with quite a list, and posted it in a comment here. The list included many of our major founding fathers, plus most of the liberal icons from the 20th century. Since then I've thought up a few more. Many of these gentlemen indeed would be eliminated on the basis of a single issue (to answer a question in one of the replys to my comment)--but those issues are doozies. Once I really thought about it, it wasn't a snark anymore.

Full disclaimer: I am not an actual historian, although I am a history buff. I'm no Constitutional scholar. Ergo, I welcome additions, flames, corrections and constructive comments from those with more expertise than I on these subjects. Here goes:

Ron English is an agit-prop artist who has done innumerable interesting and politically charged art installations of various natures throughout the years.  Recently, he created an image he called 'Abraham Obama', and you may have seen or heard of it already.  But if not, its definitely worth taking a look at.

Well, two days ago he performed his latest installation, a giant 100' x 12' pop-art banner of 'Abraham Obama' in Boston, MA.  The image is pretty striking, its basically Lincoln's hair, forehead and beard, with Obama's face underneath.  What that means or what to make of it is certainly open to interpretation...

Obama is understood to have a bit of a Lincoln fixation. Perhaps that's why, while reading through Obama's June 30 speech on patriotism, I was struck by a little cold-eyed, split-second qualification to a paragraph's paean to Lincoln. Here it is:

Abraham Lincoln did not simply win a war or hold the Union together. In his unwillingness to demonize those against whom he fought; in his refusal to succumb to either the hatred or self-righteousness that war can unleash; in his ultimate insistence that in the aftermath of war the nation would no longer remain half slave and half free; and his trust in the better angels of our nature - he displayed the wisdom and courage that sets a standard for patriotism (my emphasis).

and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

ALL MEN.

That should have included Brandon Mayfield, but the FBI lied about his fingerprint. For those lies, and more, it cost us $2 milion.

That should have included Steve Hatfield, but Attorney General Ashcroft called him a person of interest. For those words and more, it cost us $4.6 million.

That should have included John Walker Lindh, but we denied his repeated requests for a lawyer, and we stripped him, blindfolded him, bound him, and held him  in a shipping container.  For that treatment he got 20 years, but it cost us our honesty

That should have included Jose Padila and Yaser Esam Hamdi.  Hell, it should have included Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

we hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . .

Words, only words . . .

Recently much of the discussion on this board has centered around Obama's position on issues such as FISA as well as other issues in which many members of this community feel he has betrayed his strongest supporters. The sense that I get is that it is not the specific issues that people are concerned (though the issues themselves are important) but to larger extent what it means about Obama as a candidate and future leader. The question is asked, are we heading towards another Bill Clinton style Presidency full of triangulation a little accomplishment? Every speech he gives, every comment he makes is heavily analyzed by those who would take both sides of this question. Before we judge Obama we must wait until we see how he acts when in power with congress solidly behind him. Comparing the campaigns of leaders such as Lincoln and Roosevelt with what they later accomplished shows why this is the case.

In the hype leading up to this general election Barack Obama has been compared to everyone from Jesus of Nazareth to John F. Kennedy, with every RFK and inspiring leader in between thrown in for good measure. Of all those comparisons Obama's greatest historical parallel is Abraham Lincoln, his fellow Illinois mate. It isn't because of their state sharing or their emphasis on intellectual eloquence. It also isn't because both came to their presidential campaigns with little elected experience and took their party's nomination from a party stalwart from New York with dedicated partisans (for Abe it was Seward and we all know who it was for Obama). It isn't even because he faced an opposing party in the general that was shattered and splintered into tiny pieces and had been in power for too long. All of those parallels are there in the history books, but it isn't why I think Obama is a Lincoln rather than a Kennedy.

How convenient that the peculiar perspective of the oil-obsessed Bush administration can now be put to use advising the Iraqi government on its contracts with big oil.

The contracts themselves are not huge. They are like the keys on a coveted ring that will begin opening the doors to Iraq’s vast oil reserves. As The Times reported Monday, "At a time of spiraling oil prices, the no-bid contracts, in a country with some of the world’s largest untapped fields and potential for vast profits, are a rare prize to the industry."

A prize, yes. But at what cost?

Bob Herbert asks us that question in his column today, entitled ‘Oh Happy Day’ because he tells us that is what one would here sung in the executive suites of oil companies after the deals they just made in Iraq.    The question is what achieving the happy day for the oil companies has cost the rest of us.

Just over 150 years ago, Abraham Lincoln warned us that "a house divided against itself cannot stand". While the image of national disunion, prophetic as it was, was what captured the national imagination, his actual message was not that the house would fall, not that the Union would crumble, but that

It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it... or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States...

His speech was a call to action, a warning that the Union was on a path that would lead to that which the North felt was inconceivable, the full legalization of slavery. It was a warning of the course the Republic was on, unless direct and strong action was taken to avert it. Sadly his speech was not strong enough to rally him the support needed to attain the Senate, let alone achieve his goal. Rather, it wasn't until the house actually began to fall, that states seceded, that a war was fought, that he achieved his goal and then paid its price.

I can easily imagine the horror he felt...

I've always been a liberal; even a rather radical liberal in my youth. But now I have to rethink all of that. I think I am becoming...it's hard to say it out loud...a conservative. It's been a frightening thought. I've been fighting it off for awhile. I've been trying to ignore it. I thought of trying to call it by a different name, to see it as just an aberration. I even considered joining a 12 step program that would help me rid myself of these awful obsessive thoughts. But now I have to face it squarely. I think I am really becoming a conservative. Not one of those neo-cons or fundis, but a real conservative.

To free my soul and go on I need to confess it publicly. Here, at D-Kos, may not be the best place to do this, it being such a liberal blog, but perhaps that's a good thing. I'll take my battering here, among old friends, rather than expose myself to Rush, or O'Reilly, or Hannity. I don't think they'd really understand anyway.

I was furious after reading Senator Obama's statement on the FISA Bill.  Righteously enraged, even.

I live in the desert.  It often makes me cranky, but when I get righteously enraged, and need to protect others from my presence, the desert serves that purpose well.  So, the dog and I headed for the desert.  The desert is blooming.  Moss roses in yellow, orange and red were everywhere.  Prickly pear, paintbrush, and carpets of tiny little purple, blue and white things whose names I've never known.   For a few short weeks each year, the desert is truly beautiful, awash in the colors of the rainbow, a vivid reminder that life goes on, even under the harshest of conditions.  A few short weeks - the rest of the year, the desert is just intent on killing you.

I'm still fuming, but I love Frank Herbert, the desert is blooming, and I've been thinking ...  

The Candidate-Nominee Crossover
The first article in this series described how some of the most astute political observers were "blindsided by Hope" and Barack Obama’s historic victory, convinced America would continue to be ruled by Freak Show politics.  Eleven organizational principles guided Obama’s campaign for the nomination, which relied heavily on grass roots and community organizing tactics.  The successful "early states" strategy provided enough momentum to carry Obama over the finish line, a race he won by the only measure that counted: delegates.

This article offers a candid assessment of the campaign’s challenges as Obama goes from being a candidate to the nominee.  Obama will adapt his management approach to the general election campaign, internalizing electoral strategy as an important part of the corporate culture.  The internal challenge is melding a grass roots movement with the Democratic Party establishment and limiting expenditures on paid political ads and services.  The external challenge is to avoid inevitable

And...not the one who is on everyone's mind. I was reading a letter in the Strib about inexperienced presidents. It was short, sweet and to the point (I'd like to think the letter of mine they published in December was as well):

We should remember that Abraham Lincoln, arguably the greatest president in U.S. history, had less experience in government than Barack Obama has. But he had compassion, intellect, a commitment to be ethical and the courage to make decisions that made sense to him. Obama certainly has the intellect, compassion and ethics that are needed for the White House. …

And I got to thinking: there seem to be some parallels here.