« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Why Biden Works
Biden is a great choice for a number of reasons. These are just a few.
Foreign Policy/National Security: What's absolutely clear is the advantage Obama is now going to hold in the realm of Foreign Policy. McCain cannot touch the Obama Camp. on that issue anymore with any real success. Biden is one of the most knowledgeable people in the USA on issues of National Security and Foreign Policy. It's not even a debatable point. Anything McCain will say, Biden can counter. He'll be an adviser to Obama, telling him what to say in response. It's beautiful.
Demographics: To be blunt, old people like Biden. See for yourself. Having talked to older voters myself at previous times, I definitely think the numbers are spot-on. With him now on the ticket, I can only imagine Obama's numbers with older voters will increase. PA is probably no longer a swing state because of it, and Obama most likely has a better chance in FL, too. Considering his numbers haven't been bad there, it wouldn't surprise me to see a 1-2% increase in the state. That could be enough to swing it for him.
The Attack Dog: McCain has gone completely negative. Obama has kept himself in a positive light. More people think of Obama as a positive campaigner compared to McCain. But it's impossible to deny that without properly and forcefully responding to McCain's attacks, Obama will be in bad shape. Biden can fill that role, and do it wonderfully. Simply put, Biden doesn't take any shit. And that's a very good thing. He can do the attacking that Obama can't, and he will be more effective than Obama ever could be in the realm. As an attack dog, Biden is the perfect pick.
Good for the Liberals: If you don't think so, look at the response Evan Bayh received when he was tested. Biden, on the other hand, voted against the FISA Amendment, has renounced his vote for the Iraq war as a mistake, and has been very, very vocal in his opposition to the Bush Administration.
He Speaks His Mind: It can be a drawback in public, but this is exactly what Obama needs. He needs an adviser who isn't a yes-man, and who will tell it like it is. If Obama's doing something wrong, there's no one better than Biden to let him know. It's undeniable that Obama is young and has been learning as he goes along. Having Biden by his side with ensure that he makes less mistakes and hits more of the right notes. It's a brilliant combination when you really think about it.
There are, of course, plenty of other great reasons. I was simply hitting on my favorites, and the ones I think will aid Obama best.
Biden is not perfect. But personally, I don't think anyone would have been. Some people will be unhappy with this choice. Those who are smart will realize the positives far outweigh the negatives. Biden was not my first choice, but he's absolutely a great one.
I'm totally on board.
<A
HREF="https://donate.barackobama.com/page/smartproxy/www.barackobama.com/images/vp/vp_splash_wlp.jpg">Obama/Biden '08!</A>
Comments (129)
I'm totally on board, too. I've been hoping for his all week.
My only regret was I made no monetary bets on it, more's the pity.
I'm happier right now than a pig in shite.
OBAMA/BIDEN 2008!!!!!
August 23, 2008 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
HAHA! I'm glad. =)
August 23, 2008 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
That link didn't work. Dammit.
Well...
Obama/Biden '08!
August 23, 2008 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Superb post! I couldn't be happier too. Can't wait to hear Biden start gunning for McCain. This will be sweet.
OBAMA/BIDEN ! Yeah, baby!
August 23, 2008 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hard to hear that over the noise of the commercials replaying Biden cutting down Obama, saying he's not ready to be prez, and praising John McCain. Just waiting for the replay of his Obama is articulate and clean-cut gaffe.
I am not disappointed, but I am not all that excited either. If it weren't for the Russian-Georgian war, I don't think he would have been picked.
August 23, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it weren't for the Russian-Georgian war, I don't think he would have been picked.
I would agree with this. But I don't think that lessens the positive impacts Biden will have.
And I think that the continuous playing of Biden's quotes about Obama will die down quickly. Obama was smart to announce it when he did. The media will be too caught up with the start of the convention to focus on that stuff.
August 23, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope so. I trust Obama implicitly. I am on board. I was hoping for a governor, but I understand the difficulties there.
August 23, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was hoping for a governor too. As I said, Biden was not my first choice, but the longer I ponder on it, the more I'm getting excited about it.
Check out this article on FiveThirtyEight that Nate just posted: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/can-biden-out-hillary-hillary.html
It certainly makes Biden seem like a great choice by the numbers.
August 23, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The numbers regarding the idependents are quite promising.
August 23, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's the best part of it, and it kinda destroys the argument for Clinton in my opinion.
August 23, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was surprised by her high favorable rating among Republicans in contrast to the lower score among independents. But they of course wouldn't vote for any Dem for President whether her, Obama, or fill-in-the-blank.
August 23, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It makes me wonder just how many of the Clintonites here on TPM still pushing for her are actually Dems.
August 23, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Chrono. Thanks for the link. The "all Dems" poll gives a general sense - but the key is in the detailed breakdown. The 538 piece starts by saying that, fundamentally, if Obama raises his numbers JUST amongst Democrats, he wins. Which I think is fairly solid, given the rising numbers of Dems, right? The key then becomes, NOT overall favorability ratings amongst all Dems, but favorability amongst those presently NOT supporting Obama. And any poll will show many of these are former Hillary backers. So, yes, you're gonna find the highest % of critics precisely amongst former HRC backers. Does Biden help here? Maybe some.
August 23, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're quite welcome. Your point is well-taken. Obama just needs to raise his numbers with Dems. Biden appeals to a lot of Dems. that aren't currently on board, in my opinion. But also aside from Dems, Biden appeals to Independents. If Obama can increase his support among those two groups, then as Nate rightly points out, he'll win.
I personally think Biden can bring a lot of those voters to Obama.
August 23, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden's past positive comments about McCain (e.g., those made in 2005) will be easily neutralized by talking about all the ways McCain has changed (for the worse) since he decided to run for president again. And his initial skepticism about Obama will make him a more believable source when he talks about why his opinion has changed.
Biden was NOT the pick Republicans were hoping for. He will eat the lunch of whoever McSame picks for VP during the VP debate, and has enough authority with the MSM that he may help move the debate on foreign policy into territory beyond the fact that McCain will somehow make a great commander-in-chief because he was a POW a long, long time ago. No perfect picks were available, but Biden has many strengths. Who would have been a stronger alternative? Biden will come back strong against the on-going Republican efforts to bully and BS. A good pick by Obama.
August 23, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Biden's past praise for McCain is a great target if McBush's campaign chooses to use that.
The answer is simple... "you're not that John McCain anymore -- the guy who denounced 'agents of intolerance, called for election reform and campaigns of civility, voted against the Bush tax cuts. Now you are a second coming of George Bush and a prodigy of Karl Rove."
August 23, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, good comment.
August 23, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to admire him. He didn't want it. He loves being Chairman of the Foreign Relations committee. It puts him in an awful dilemma with his senate seat which is up this fall. Don't contest it, Obama loses and he's got nothing?
I really feel for him.
I'm so glad it's him though. He can't win it for Obama, but at least he may gain the votes of people who wanted to vote Democrat but were nervous about Obama's lack of experience.
August 23, 2008 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel he does nothing but give Obama the creds that were already there. Biden ran for Pres and lost, and backed out gracefully. He knew he did not have the backing of the Dem crowd that Obama had, and he withdrew and stayed himself all these months, fighting his fights, traveling his travels, and doing his thing.
I love the guy, and I'm truly happy.
August 23, 2008 4:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I trust Obama's judgement. So while I think Biden provides a thoughtful voice, great insight on a number of issues, and could prove to be a valuable advisor, I don't believe that Biden's role will be "telling him what to say". I'm confident that that kind of President - VP relationship will end with Bush/Cheney.
August 23, 2008 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I trust Obama's judgment, as well, but having Biden at his side will be like having the Encyclopedia Brittanica in your cell phone when you're taking a test!
August 23, 2008 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
We certainly don't need another Bush/Cheney Pres/VP relationship, but Obama/Biden would never be that because Obama has a brain and is strong. However, no one is good enough to follow only their own advice. Everyone needs reality checks and other opinions. It is a sign of Obama's strength that he recognizes that and wants a VP who will give him that.
August 23, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is strong. I like that meme. I am going to let you use the orange pom poms. I don't usually do that, but you've earned them.
August 25, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. If you got that from what I wrote, then I apologize. I didn't mean to make it sound that way. Obama wanted someone who he could discuss things with, openly, and give him a real voice, and a voice of opposition if need be. I think Biden is perfect for that.
August 23, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden works for a lot of reasons. He's a good governing pick. But I suspect right now, what the campaign needs most is his anger.
Here's Obama's framing from last week: "I want somebody who is mad right now, that people are losing their jobs. And is mad right now that people have seen their incomes decline, and want to rebuild the middle class in this country. That's the kind of person that I want; somebody who in their gut knows where they came from and believes that we have to grow this country from the bottom up."
Key word: "mad." We're trying to send a populist message right now, and that kind of message needs to be fueled with a little anger in order to come across as authentic. You don't want to seem shrill or self-righteous. Anger wrapped in a cynical, deflating sense of humor is what you need. That's exactly what Biden can provide.
August 23, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and for all of the focus on Biden's foreign policy experience, it may very well be on the meat and potato front that Biden can really help out, especially in the Rust Belt. The Democrats need to show how angry they are about the how the people have been screwed by the Republicans. And Biden can do this and can speak with authority about McCain.
“It’s the Economy, Stupid: TAKE TWO”
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
August 23, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
100% agreed, Alex. It's the anger. Working class & Catholic is good, PA links too, foreign policy, etc. But someone needs to be able to combat McCain AS McCain - not as we'd like him to be. The #1 problem with a lot of what I'm seeing here so far is that it's only 1/2 the picture, since... McCain now gets to make HIS VP pick. So far, we're looking at what Biden adds to Obama, adding this constituency or state - but not recognizing that you only get to pick one VP, and then... the other guy gets a turn.
So here's the question that's nagging me - and I LIKE Biden, and have since 1987. Biden may be able to bring much of what HRC would have brought to the table, albeit through other means. He's a fighter, big name, etc. BUT. McCain & Rove are carnivores. And their screamingly obvious move is to put Biden not up against Romney or Pawlenty, but against... a woman. Off the top of my head, I'd say we gain some working class, and get better attack capabilities vs McCain. But then THEY gain with women. Which - partisanship aside - makes me feel like the VP stakes could be a draw, if not a net loss for us. My hope is that McCain misses this chance & that Biden goes full attack against McCain and throws him off his game, into that blustering, shoot-from-the-lip, loose cannon thing he does. But it's iffy right now.
August 23, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be quite honest, I doubt McCain has the balls to name a woman. And I think he's already decided who it is. He was waiting to see who Obama would pick, but I think he had 2 or 3 potentials lined up. I think he probably knows for certain at this point.
The reason I don't think it's a woman is because no big-name women have really been floated around for McCain, aside from Carly Fiorina. But personally, if McCain chooses her, he's not going to come across too well. She hasn't done the best job as a McCain surrogate, and she's largely untried and untested politically.
He's running on experience. She has some, but what political experience? None. She's a crap shoot.
Anyway, like I said, I don't think McCain has the balls. He'll name someone safe, I think. Pawlenty or Romney.
August 23, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the dude's life. He has the GALL (forget the "balls") to do damned near anything. why? Because he's got a huge ego, and huge ambition. Loves being the "maverick," right? Hell, he sold out a first wife, sold out his "principles," will seemingly say or do anything. Now. Would choosing a woman line up with that image? Oh yeah. He's a maverick, breaks the rules... AND having a woman riding shotgun would boost the old ego. Would she then have to DO anything? Well, be Rove for a minute. Would he rather have someone kinda inexperienced, plastic, a bit manipulable in the Oval... or an independent-minded, experienced person? After W, this one kinda answers itself. Pick an inexperienced woman who is then BEHOLDEN to you. Think the Dems can attack Her for being IN-experienced? Nope. How does McCain justify it? Easy. He's the President, she's the junior partner, just needs seasoning. It's an ugly film. We'll see if McCain wants to run it.
August 23, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to Hillary, if he picks a woman, she can be questioned as anyone else could. McCain isn't going to take that risk.
He's been down in the polls all summer, until very recently, where he's still struggling to overtake Obama. He has yet to. With the Conventions kicking off, Obama's going to have a huge positive boost for the nest week or so.
Then comes the Republican Convention. True, McCain says he's a maverick, but tell me once during this election that he's stayed true to that label. He hasn't, and it's going to cost him dearly.
McCain has to play it safe, and if he doesn't, it's a sure way to lose. Putting a woman on would also bring to light practically every misogynistic thing he's said, like the famous c**t remark, or the Chelsea Clinton joke. And McCain will burn for it.
But like I said, what woman would he nominate? Other than Carly, who would just fail?
August 23, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got questions with this Chrono. Personally, I think he'd pick a woman in a flash if he thought he had a candidate who had some ability - all he's got is Carly & the Alaskan Governor. But beyond that, you say:
1. He's still struggling to overtake Obama. Look, the fact that he's even close is cheerful news for him & he STILL has that nasty "in-the-booth-racism" thing that ain't gonna show in the polls. Obama needs his superior ground game just to make up the points he's gonna lose to that.
2. McCain hasn't stayed true to the maverick label?? Damn sure he has. He's just a maverick WITHOUT CONVICTIONS OR PRINCIPLES. He doesn't care. He tells the world to fuck off. He'll fight anyone. He'll reverse course and be bad-tempered while doing it. In short, he's got maverick style, without any deep convictions. This move would fit right in with that.
3. McCain has to play it safe?? Disagree entirely, as - I think - pretty much every political analyst in the country would. McCain HAS to play it UNSAFE. He and the Republicans have NO fundamentals working in their favor, right? Just look at those Britney ads. Those weren't "safe." They were risky-nasty.
4. Which leaves us with your final question - WHICH woman would he nominate? If he could've picked Condi, it would've been done in a flash, and doncha think he woulda rung up a lot of votes for that? But this is the Republican problem - they are literally SO repulsive that they have very few qualified women candidates who can now step up. Which is why it is still most likely to be Romney or some other stiff. All I'm saying is, given the chance, look out... McCain could pull the trigger on this.
August 23, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take issue with a number of your assessments.
1) The fact that he's gained ground means he has to gain more, because he HASN'T overtaken Obama, especially when looking at the electoral math, which is what really matters. If he pulls some dumb-ass stunt, he could destroy all the work he's put in and lose the grounds he's made without any chance of gaining any more. Obama's ground game is already greatly superior, and that's one aspect that truly isn't being reflected properly in the polls. I'm sure McCain realizes it, and it's why he went into a strategy of ad-blitzing.
2) He hasn't. McCain has gone completely with far-right conservative base on practically every single issue. Even his energy policy, which was once commendable, has been tainted by that fact with his huge push for drilling. The "maverick" image was always a political and policy one. It didn't have to do with his real "decision-making" abilities, or lack there of. He has a temper and makes hot-headed decisions, but that's a part of his image that has been separate from the "maverick" part of it.
3) I'd like to see all those political analysts and their opinions. Whether McCain has played it safe until now isn't the question. It's what he does from here on out. If he doesn't wanna fuck himself over, he'll play it safe and pick a Romney or Pawlenty. The Britney/Paris ad was not playing it safe, and honestly, I think it's going to backfire on him in the long run. To put it bluntly, he blew his load too soon. He's already being perceived as negative by many, MANY more people than Obama, and that number will continue if he keeps trying stunts like that.
4) They're impulsive but not stupid. They're going to weigh their options like politicians always do, and putting a woman on the ticket isn't going to help. Condi might have, but Obama could jump on it by tying McCain right back to Bush, in a VERY big way. I already dismissed Carly Fiorina, and I doubt he's going to pick some unknown Alaskan.
Listen, I could be wrong, I admit that. I'm just saying, if I were in McCain's shoes, here's what I think the smartest thing to do would be. You seem to be saying, "he WILL do this" -- maybe I just give McCain and the Republicans too much credit.
August 23, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said, a regular Republican stiff is "still most likely." But the "Woman VP" card has been left on the table, and the Rep's wanted Obama to go first, so... I'm just saying, this is what I would do/advise if I were them.
2) Wrong. You're thinking like a Democrat - like policy matters. McCain has shifted on his policy & this may upset us, but for the public? Hell, 80% don't know anybody's policy positions. It's the fact that McCain has a maverick IMAGE, and it drives we Dems nuts when that seems to be all that the MSM cares about, right Well, what better way to keep that independent image going than to out-gun Obama and choose a woman?
3) Why would he play it safe NOW? When he tried that during the primaries, he died. Against Obama, he's taken some risks, and done fairly well. YES, they could all blow up on him. In fact, I think Obama should AIM for that - trigger an "unstable" "dangerous" maverick moment. But McCain is the gambler, right? He DOES like to roll the dice, and risk all.
4) You simply assert that "putting a woman on the ticket isn't going to help." Why? Because the Dems would start in on all his complex anti-women policy positions and that he swore at his wife? All I can say is you have a lot more faith in the still-undecided voter segment than I do. Think about this Chrono. ANYONE who is still undecided, after 8 years of this shit, is either VERY particular, or.... dumb as a fucking post, and easily swayed by astoundingly irrelevant factors. And though most pollsters won't say this, this IS the bottomline for a very large % of the remaining independent & undecided voters. People often talk as though these voters are some cagey group of conflicted people. They ain't. Imagine. Most of them haven't even begun PAYING ATTENTION yet. I shouldn't say this out loud, but the candidates know that many of the votes they're left chasing are - effectively - ox-ignorant, and often, hold quite deeply irrational & conflicting views. McCain picks a woman? Hell, I'd wager he gets a lasting net gain - even after the inevitable anti-women losses - just from this crowd.
August 24, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
2) The thing is, the "maverick" narrative has pretty much fallen apart. He says it, but it hasn't stuck since the primary. Even though he had that "the original maverick" ad, it totally backfired. It didn't gain any traction. So even if we're strictly talking about image, he's pretty much blown it. I admit that choosing a woman could be seen as a bold choice, but at this point, with the whole Hillary mess, I think a lot of people will see it for what it is: a gimmick, especially when the top choices are all white men.
3) He won the Republican primaries. Unless you're talking about not really attacking Hillary or Obama. I don't think that was playing it safe. More like playing it stupid. I would agree with the assertion that McCain likes to roll the dice, but I find it hard to believe he wants to roll the dice on his VP decision. It's a major choice. Rolling the dice and risking something with an ad, and with one's VP choice are very different. McCain is struggling to keep a lot of the base Bush had in 2004, like Evangelicals for example. They're still going strongly for him, but not as strongly as you'd expect. I don't necessarily see how a woman benefits anything except shock value for him, and a huge slap in the face to Hillary.
4) I think that stuff would come out a long stronger than it has. And he'd be open to a TON of scrutiny he doesn't need right now, not in that way. And like I said, he wouldn't be immune to attacks and the like because she's a woman. Hillary made sure of that. Treat a woman like any other candidate. The way it should be, of course, but let's not kid ourselves that McCain and his running mate would get a pass because of her sex.
The other issue is, like I said, who would he pick? Picking a woman is one thing. Picking a qualified one is another. I don't see anyone qualified for the spot, and no one that would benefit him by any other metric than... they're female. And if he's picking her strictly BECAUSE she's a woman, then he's going to regret it.
I agree with a lot of the points you make, but I disagree that picking a woman, any woman, would be extremely beneficial to McCain, or enough to possibly swing the election. And frankly, I think that most of the women going to him because of it would be votes Obama never would've gotten anyway. Obama doesn't lose even if McCain gains, and I have huge doubts that McCain would gain as much as you seem to think.
Still, would certainly be a bold move.
August 24, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn -
Your analysis, as always, is insightful... with one missing link.
Voters really don't forget that the VP choice might end up being the president.
McCain is old, has had cancer and has a volcanic temper -- not a good combination for longevity. Therefore, will voters -- even those who wanted to vote for a woman in this lifetime -- really want to take a chance on Fiorina becoming the president? No way.
August 24, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so fucking smart.Really. Thank God you're on our side.
August 23, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you talking to me? Haha!
August 23, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another reason Biden work is that he comes across as personable and likeable. I've only ever seen him on television, but I've always gotten that impression. This would counter the ridiculous impression some people have that Obama is somewhat pompous and aloof.
August 23, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Biden is a darn good choice.
August 23, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Enjoy this, folks. It doesn't happen very often that you get a presidential ticket with two people who are
-- genuinely smart and dedicated leaders,
-- also charismatic speakers, and
-- with hands about as clean as they come in politics.
I've been waiting my whole adult life for this ticket. A lot of resignation along the way. A lot of boring compromise candidates (Hi Walter!), or sexy but deeply compromised candidates (Hi Bill!), or thoughtful candidates with an image problem (Hi Al!)
I'm going to enjoy every minute of the next eight years. We'll hit some obstacles, and lose some battles, but this is no longer "okay for now." This is the real deal. This is about as good as we're going to do in my lifetime.
August 23, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. It's absolutely true. Democrats have suffered for years with tickets that they resign themselves to. Here's a ticket we can finally be excited about. And I personally couldn't be happier.
August 23, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, anytime you can pick up three electoral votes it's good news.
August 23, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get on board please. Or go somewhere else.
August 23, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I also disagree with Bev's analysis here, she doesn't have to go somewhere else. She is not the only one who has mixed feelings about this pick.
When I think of change I just don't think of someone who has been a Senator since he was 29. And when I think of VP, I don't think of someone who is on record harshing on Obama left and right.
And I certainly didn't want someone who voted for the war. I wanted a clean ticket. It isn't clean when one voted for the war, even if he has repented.
Don't get me wrong, I actually love Biden. I have forgiven him for his war vote just as I forgave Kerry. I just love him more where he is, and not so much as V.P.
But I trust Obama. I never believed for a second he would pick that douchebag Bayh. I am a little disappointed Richardson never seemed to be in contention, but there is obviously more to that story that we are just not privy to.
I am on board, just not dancing in my living room.
August 23, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make good points. Biden voted for the war and that was wrong, and now he's paying the ultimate price--watching his son go off to fight it. At least he is making a sacrifice unlike those fuckers in the White House right now, who started the war. Let's keep remembering who started the war and who doesn't want it to end.
August 23, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No offense, but if you're truly suggesting that Obama pick his running mate based on Electoral Votes, you're living in a fantasy land. That worked out SO WELL for Kerry with Edwards, didn't it?
Name me a time a VP actually delivered a state and prove to me how they did it. Otherwise, I suggest you don't make fallacious arguments. ;)
August 23, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Johnson. Truman. Taft. Gore. Do I really need to prove this? I'm assuming you've read enough about politics to understand how this is done.
August 23, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so yesterday. Times have changed, the electoral map has changed.
August 23, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh stop already. So yesterday? How old are you, 18?
August 23, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
58
August 23, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Told her, he-he. Me, too, by the way, but I'm feeling pretty damn young tonight after the roll-out today.
August 23, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prove to me that they actually won any states for the President. Then, prove that those states swung the election. Just mentioning VP candidates doesn't a winning argument make.
The entire concept that a VP could win states came in 1960 when Johnson supposedly won Texas for Kennedy. It was media speculation, and as far as I know, there isn't a lot of evidence to suggest that Johnson's presence alone is what delivered those states for Kennedy.
Past Johnson, the entire concept gets sketchy. Gore is a really bad example, since Clinton already appealed to the states that Gore would've helped him with.
The argument is just a bad one, and there's not enough evidence to concretely make it. But by all means, continue if you really want to.
August 23, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you read anything? Seriously, why should I have to explain 200 years of politics to political junkies? If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you. Do you really think Kennedy picked Johnson because he liked him? He chose him because he could deliver the south - and the same with other vps.
I support any dem ticket because I'm a dem - but that doesn't mean I have to pretend it's a good ticket among other dems.
August 23, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You give minimal information about one of the people you mentioned: Johnson. And you don't even explain anything except "he picked him cause he could deliver the south" -- there were other reasons. Johnson was a hugely powerful politician at the time. Kennedy picked him mainly because there would have been a HUGE backlash against him. But of course, you knew that was the main reason, right?
So, still waiting for you to explain the others. If you don't and/or can't, then I'll assume you just don't know what you're talking about.
Sorry, but you got yourself into this. You made a claim, now support it. If you're in a debate, you don't just say, "You're a political junkie, I don't have to defend my claims" -- it doesn't work that way. Epic fail.
August 23, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get me wrong. You can choose to disagree with Biden as VP. That's up to you. But if you're going to, come up with a better argument. Delivering states is not the only, nor even the primary, point of picking a VP. I'd rather have a competent #2 (which Biden is), than someone who's just going to MAYBE deliver their home state, like John Edwards and Al Gore did so beautifully.
August 23, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Bev, I've been trying to figure this one out myself. When I asked about the last time a Presidential candidate picked a VP to fill gaps in his resume, the only one people could point to was Bush/Cheney. Retrospect I think. At the time, I don't recall anyone thinking Cheney was more than some old, safe guy who had no Presidential aspirations and could be dumped anytime Bush felt like it. But not a comforting precedent any way you look at it.
My take is that the Biden pick confirms that this isn't about winning the election. It's about taking over the Party.
August 25, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only one on this list that I'll buy is Johnson. Kennedy did need him to help with the South.
Roosevelt was in his fourth election when Truman ran with him as an unknown Missouri senator. Roosevelt could've run with Bozo the Clown and been re-elected.
When did Taft ever run for VICE President? For that matter, when did any of his descendants? I don't show any member of the Taft family ever appearing on a POTUS ticket in the second spot.
Gore didn't deliver anything Clinton wasn't going to win on his own. My proof: Gore LOST Tennessee - his home state! - in 2000.
August 23, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great addition, eastside, and thank you. It's true. Johnson started this "myth". Since then there's really no proof that a VP has ever delivered a state for a Presidential candidate. And Johnson was exceptional because he was powerful. Kennedy chose him partly because he feared the backlash for NOT choosing him, Johnson being Senate Majority Leader at the time.
August 23, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Bill Clinton won Tennessee (and I don't remember if he did), I'd say he carried it himself since Gore didn't carry it in 2000. Sad but true, Gore didn't carry his own home state.
August 24, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every time I think of that, I scream too.
August 25, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Biden has been one of the most powerful and articulate supporters of the core objectives of neoconservative foreign policy-- from the Iraq Invasion, to the Middle East, to the Georgian invasion of S. Ossetia.
His choice as VP will help immunize Obama against any attacks that he might represent an alternative foreign policy worldview.
Excellent political calculation.
August 23, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. I'm from the Mid Atlantic region and Biden is a favorite with oldsters in this area, including my mom who is now fully on board with Obama. He's honest, takes no shit, Catholic, smart, blue collar background, has a son who was just deployed (that's not a positive for the Bidens, but for politics), has his mom living with him, and rides the train to work. He captures the white blue collar vote and he can take on McCain with ease. He will help with PA, RI, NH, Ohio, Indiana, and probably Florida.
August 23, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Biden isn't good for the liberals. He's a fiscal conservative who is responsible for rewriting the bankruptcy laws in favor of the banks and he's mostly been a foreign policy hawk.
August 23, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
He isn't good for the ticket. If anyone is perceived to be an east coast elite it's Biden, no matter what his real politics are. Excellent way to lose Ohio, PA and Mich.
August 23, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding me?? East Coast elite? Where do you live?
August 23, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've GOT to be kidding. Biden, elitist? Get serious.
August 23, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, get your head out of Hillary's (or Bush's)ass and come up for some air. Born and raised in Detroit, I can tell you Biden is a favorite among working-class midwesterners. He's loved by organized labor and revered for his "no bullshit" manner. This is a great choice, he's a bit hawkish for my taste and I hate the bankruptcy bill he touted,( I feel ya Destor), but compared to the other contenders he's the best by a country mile. Just watching him shred the bountiful hypocracies of the neoCons hapless agenda alone will be worth the price of admission. I trust Obama as much as I can trust any politician, and he's been nearly flawless in strategy and execution so far, so let's just see how this one works out. I would urge all my fellow progressives to get behind OBAMA-BIDEN 08. Donate/canvass/register new voters/talk with undecideds etc.The "silly season"is over now, let's get it on and take back our country! Yes We F*cking Can!
August 23, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this depiction of him, it's good. I don't actually know if he is good on labor as far as his record is concerned, but I do think he has a rep as being so just from his talk and manner!
And I've read BevD's comments on him around the site, and I am surprised at those and don't understand where she's coming from. I could understand her not liking him policy-wise, but the argument that he will bring no important votes, I don't buy that at all, quite the contrary.
For instance, I think his choice as VP will reassure a lot of Appalachian types who were still quite wary of Obama being a hoity toity intellectual elite guy and voted for Hillary because she would bring back Bill. (They like the good ol' boy side of Bill as well as his economy.) I think those types will know exactly who Biden is from the way he talks and acts, and believe from that that he understands him, and that will reassure them about their fears about Obama, including about race (those with lingering racist sensibilities, I think they think like this: is this a black guy I can trust or one of those I can't? Someone like Biden, he is exactly the sort of personality that serves to vouch: this is one of those black guys that you can trust, precisely because he talks pugilist working class, not politically correct or nerd speak.) The hawkish slant, which like you, isn't my ideal as far as handling all situations, that's part of that culture--it's why Reagan appealed to the same demographic as opposed to Carter.
Sometimes I do sort of get the sense it's maybe some west coast types that don't like his style, that it's his whole personality that bugs them?
I agree that elitist is a ridiculous term to paint him with if you've spent any time getting to know him and his image/personality. Like you mentioned with the neo-cons, his image is more like the really smart working class guy who made it and who knows how to beat up on all those intellectuals.
It's hard to explain how, but east coast, now that, on the other hand, could be applied in some ways--it's because he's got the working class urban culture of white east coast Boston/New Jersey/Brooklyn type of places going on, you know, the cop on the beat in the old movies, the tough urban working class kid from "Dead End Kids," or the whole Bruce Springsteen type of culture. Lots of midwesterners like those type of east coasters while they find many others hard to tolerate.
He's really a very Pennsylvania kinda guy, is what it really is, mho--I put Pennsylvania culture as a cross of Ohio and New Joisy.
And I think a lot of Midwesterners and mid-Atlantics about on the fence about Obama will be reassured by Biden's personality, attitude, and opinions. Not of mention lots of older undecided snowbirds in Florida. West coast, especially rural west coast, that's where I think he might not help much with independents and swings.
August 23, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's an older white guy, aa. Why complicate it? One picture is worth a thousand words, no?
August 25, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Biden was opposed to FISA, he's described by On The Issues as a "populist-leaning liberal", and has a liberal voting record. If liberals don't get on board for him they're probably extremists who want Kucinich.
August 23, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kucinich? You mean the guy who talked about running with Ron Paul? He's a conservative DLC-type. I'm holding out for Rosa Luxemburg.
August 23, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try telling that to the screaming far-left liberals. I go to school with them. It was hard to avoid the Kucinich obsession there during the primaries. Made me kinda sick.
August 23, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Douchester23, maybe you and your pissy little posse can put together another big protest like you did with FISA. Why, just look at what a huge dent you guys put in Obama's July fundraising!
Er, oops. That little wankfest didn't amount to jack, did it?
Keep shpankin', Douchester!
August 23, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think destor really deserves that -- unless I missed something.
August 23, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya think?
August 23, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, he doesn't deserve it. See that comment box you wrote in? There's a red link there, it says "Comment Policy"? Read it.
Destor's been active poster here way before Feb. 2008, when some other "douchebags" discovered it en masse and decided for some reason that the site was only appropriate for political advocacy of single candidates. Destor gets it, that it's also for discussing issues and political analysis.
And funny, for some reason I think Barack Obama gets it too:
Seems to me the suckers might be the ones donating to Obama's campaign who think Obama is someone who doesn't want anyone disagreeing with him? Ya think?
Obama, Sept. 2006, to New York Magazine:
August 24, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
DKos can suck my balls.
August 24, 2008 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment contains more strawmen than a Civic Theater audition for The Wiz.
Spare me. also, the Comments Policy whining. Douchebag23's a serial offender.
August 24, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do some more of the milkshake and long straw. That's your best stuff.
August 25, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Biden is one of the most knowledgeable people in the USA on issues of National Security and Foreign Policy."
Exactly. Biden proved just how knowledgeable and thoughtful he was during the lead-up to the Iraq War.
On February 17, 2002 Biden unequivocally backed Colin Powell's pivotal deceptions, declaring:
"In his masterful presentation to the UN Security Council on February 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell presented irrefutable evidence that Iraq is in material breach of its obligations as spelled out in various U.N. resolutions, including last fall’s resolution 1441...Secretary Powell had to make that case and he did so in just the right manner. He did not exaggerate. He did not use any rhetorical flourishes..."
Of course Powell had "irrefutable evidence"; of course, Powell "did not exaggerate". And as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations commitee, Biden made sure that no unknowledgeable or unqualified persons clouded the issue with alternative viewpoints.
Biden wisely refused to allow chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter, for example, to testify before his committee.
Ritter "Sen. Joe Biden is running a sham hearing. It is clear that Biden and most of the Congressional leadership have pre-ordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts, and are using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq. These hearings have nothing to do with an objective search for the truth, but rather seek to line up like-minded witnesses who will buttress this pre-determined result."
Biden is precisely the kind of "genuinely smart and dedicated leader" that will guide Obama in the right direction and shield him from any attacks that he doesn't understand the true US role on the world.
August 23, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those were mistakes -- mistakes that help explain why Obama is on the top of the ticket.
If you want a world without mistakes, a world where everyone is 100% in agreement, my advice is to stop paying attention to politics. Take up Sudoku.
August 23, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. I can't do Sudoku to save my life. Excellent point. I am so friggin' tired of watching the Democrats eat each other alive and lose. Maybe some of the people posting here aren't Democrats, thus the constant negativity and tearing down. But those of us who want change, progress, and optimism need to band together. I think there are probably some Democrats who just cannot let go of the Clinton style of campaigning, which they co-opted from the Republicans. They want Obama to campaign and act like the Clintons, whose time has come and gone. Always some sadness with the end of an era, but that's evolution.
August 23, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink