Hope your right Tom!

I think Joe (whom I also admire and just plain LIKE more than I can say) has already said what he's going to be doing -- and I think he's doing it. Way back there was a short "60 Minutes" segment with the two of them and they said that in their long meeting, they discussed the option of Biden having his own 'portfolio' and Biden himsself said he did not want that. What Joe wanted was to 'be there', right next to the President, when and where the big decisions were being made.

I get the feeling that, increasingly, that's what he's doing and will be doing in the future. People who I consider to be accurate and pretty well-informed (Chuck Todd, Howard Fineman) have said unequivocally that Biden was all in favor of the Clinton selection and that if he hadn't been, she wouldn't have been offered the job. -- And if you notice the body language and actual language, lately, Obama is becoming increasingly comfortable/companionable with Biden and making more references to "Joe and I", and "what we want to do." (I'd suspect Obama isn't someone who trusts easily or instantly -- but everything I've known or heard about Biden is that he is someone people learn is very trustworthy.)

So the lack of a specific, high-profile job is at Biden's own request. And in the last few days, esp with the decision to have him present and speak at the Monday event, I get the feeling that Joe's primary job right now is making sure folks aren't putting one over on Obama and giving him the benefit of all his years of knowledge of specific people and types of people who are now gravitating to him (Obama) in droves right now. In other words, he's got Obama's back - that's his job. It doesn't let us see as much of Biden as I would like (which would be a LOT!!!), but I can't think of a more important, and valuable, role for him to fill right now.

Thanks for your post. Nice to know I have company.

Re: Afghanistan ..... Biden has been saying for a long time that Pakistan is the biggest threat to us/source of worry, not in the sense that it is an enemey but that the instability in that country and its various connections to the other players in the area creates a sensitive and very combustable situation. (This was before the new government took over --- I'm going back to things that he said during the primaries, way back to the very beginning - CBS Couric series of questions and several TV appearances I caught. He may have modified his overall view, although it's probably too early to do so.) Haven't been reading Cole in a while (should start again) but if he's saying Al Quaeda isn't in Afghanistan, then where? Pakistan. Two separate questions as I can see it: 1) going after Al Quaeda where it is (which Obama has said he will do) abnd 2) as you say "saving Afghanistan from itself". The only comments I can recall Obama making are based on the assumption that bin Laden and the nucleus of AQ is in Afghanistan. If the facts indicate that's not the case, I would expect his plans to be reworked.

One could argue that we are obliged to help stabilize Afghanistan because we went in there and tossed up their existing government, but I've not heard him make that argument or express that view.

It's just such a relief to think that the people in charge of things will be asking questions, getting facts, and listening to informed opinion (which includes Biden's) before making decisions and taking irreversible steps!! Don't expect them to be right all the time ..... do expect them to *think* before acting.