Jack Reed as Obama surrogate (and veep contender?)

Yesterday, we noted the suggestion, by the Baltimore Sun's Paul West, that Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island would be a strong vice presidential pick for Sen. Barack Obama.

Today, perhaps coincidentally (and perhaps not), Reed -- whose national profile until now has been equal to the position of his home state as the smallest in the U.S. -- appeared on ABC's "This Week" as a surrogate for the Democrats' presumptive nominee.

Take a look at the video, then tell us: How'd he do?

-- Leslie Hoffecker

Comments

[Wm Tate]

By trotting Sen. Reed into the friendly company of George Stephanopoulos (Of course, what Big Media outlet is not friendly to the Big O?), it certainly looks like the Obama camp gave him the best possibile opportunity to prove his worth as a Veep candidate--other than going on MS(Most Slanted) NBC, of course.

-Wm Tate,
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

[Girl with the bushy armpits]

Wether it's Jack Reed or Harry Reed...incompetence is
what stands out .On a discussion about the Iranian
nuclear threat Jack Reed changed the subject to Pakistan, ignoring the real threat that Iran represents.,much like Obama who would prefer to
befriend that monster Amahdinejad. I thought senator
Lieberman made Reed look like a total ignorant and a
poor liar.

[Unsollicited advice]

Paul West is a lousy adviser on veeps as Jack Reed
demonstrated today.Despite all the soft balls that
the accomodating Stephanopoulos threw at him,Reed was
unable to score any points. To consider such a light weight as a running mate would be further proof that
Obama is allergic to strong caracters and will only go for
a submissive sycophant.

[Major Mojo]

Stephanopoulos let Lieberman blather on at the beginning of the segment, and then when he turned it over to Reed, he proceeded to interrupt Reed right away. I wouldn't call that a softball by any means. If anything, Stephanopoulos was completely deferential to Lieberman, and Reed, who by nature isn't nearly as confrontational, put his thoughts on the table in a measured manner.

He covered Iran well enough in the discussion, contrary to the comment above, and also pointed out the fact that the U.S. going into Iraq in the first place was completely taking its eye off the ball, and was in jeopardy of doing the same thing yet again by ratcheting up all of the rhetoric and efforts solely in the direction of Iran, in the face of actionable intelligence in Pakistan.

What's wrong (or incompetent) about that?