I think it bothers me that people won't look fairly at the situation in order to make real changes there. That is true people in the U.S./Israel/and Palestinian territories. I would rather Biden were more even handed especially since he may play a huge role in foreign policy, but I don't think other choices for the job would have been radically different. Furthermore, I hope that Biden may have the wisdom to learn some while on the job.
Meh. Bush holds the most important position in washington...i don't think that's any evidence that he's smart So, if he is one of the greatest minds of our generation on foreign affairs, what policies, legislation, ideas has he led that would be evidence of that? I'm asking the question seriously, even though I'm not supporting Obama. I want to know why this is such a great choice. In Biden, I see a guy who has sat around in Congress for a generation and has not really accomplished much. That's what most Congressmen do, but that doesn't inspire much confidence. Not being a failure at your job is very different than being a success. And I'm not gonna lie, but the handful of stupid racial remarks that have come out of his mouth don't sit so well, either.
For the 1st time I remember I agree with most of Junior's post. This is the pick of someone who assumes he will win. Biden might be the best choice for once the ticket is won (moving things once in government). But it is not exciting at all, and a gamble (assumes he is going to win, maybe he is counting on knocking McCains block off in debates). I don't think Biden helps at all with major demographics. He isn't in a swing state, and I don't think he has big appeal to blue collar whites (Deleware is a fairly well off and isolated state), Hillary's women, Latinos, etc. As an aside, Biden has often come off to me as whiney when I see him speak. If he was going with someone to help the "experience factor" and someone who voted on the side of the war, Hillary, or even John Kerry, would have been better. They also have been through the wringer already, no potential new big skeletons and have been incoculated to Rove's and co's tactics. Hillary's vote for the war one might even say is a tad more defensable given her re-election situation (could say the same for Kerry given his presidential target). Kerry like McCain is also a war hero, and McCain defended him against the swiftboat liars. I also would have liked Richardson or a Virginia new blood guy (Keene, or even better Mark Warner). Al Gore maybe. (I do like Biden than the potential Evan "Bla" pick, that's about it of the main candidates). Or some other senator who voted againt the war (Feingold, Leahy?, the Rhode Island moderate Republican who turned Indy). I say poor pick. Should have been Hillary, and if not her, someone more fitting his themes (change, one who boldly and rightly signed "no" to the war authorization despite pressures and opinion against). Hopefully this doesn't cost him the election or a few extra congressional seats by an unethused base.
I agree with DS. I think this is a terrible decision. Biden doesn't bring anything to the campaign that's good and lots of old mistakes of his own that will undoubtably be rehashed in the election. Good guy? Sure. But a bad choice. His strongest trait is being experienced and he'll never balance out that gap between Obama and McCain. He just can't do it even absent the VP vs Pres distinction. Obama would have been better off with Hillary for the experience point as she's perceived as such at least, or picking someone that has continuity with the whole 'change' message.
Hayes, you have to admit that it wouldn't matter who Obama chose as his running mate, the VP selection would be getting micro-analyzed and hammered just as Biden is getting the business today. Any of the people who's names were tossed around would be "getting the business." That's just how the political climate is today. And Hillary Clinton? While I think she would have been a strong choice both politically and governing as VP, and may have been able to help Obama in more states than Biden will, the "negative reaction" would have been in multiples of 10 or more compared to Joe Biden. Deserved? I don't think so, but you would find ten people here who think the opposite to my one, without even breaking a sweat. Besides, I like Joe Biden. Impeach Bush/Cheney.
Biden's strongest trait is how he reacts to BS that gets passed around during a campaign and calls it what it is. Obama will dance or.... in words, strongly disagree, when things are said. Biden is much more visceral. I'm not sure how well he does on the (political) attack, but his defense is superb.
Is this a bad thing? Is the purpose of a VP to help you win or help you lead? All along, Obama's focus has been on winning in a way that ends up with the best possible administration. I totally disagree. Biden's strongest +/- ratings are with older voters - those are the voters most nervous about a young guy from a different generation taking over the country. His background is entirely blue-collar white. He's very popular in the Scranton-type PA area, which is an area Hillary did so well in. Biden certainly doesn't help with Hillary's women - but no one but Hillary would have done that. Obama doesn't have a problem with Latinos - his support there is substantially more than Kerry's was. They have dealt with the sleazy tactics - and both have gotten slaughtered. Hillary is absolutely hated by Republicans and disliked by moderates. Kerry lost an election that way. Why would they make good choices for that reason? Biden gets you the positives of "experience" without the negative baggage of Hillary (personal tension between them, energizing an unenthusiatic GOP base) or Kerry (loser label). Gore would have been great, but by all accounts, he was not interested. Kaine doesn't bring any demographics at all. He doubles down on change, but Obama already has the "change" voters, so that doesn't alleviate the "experience" voter concerns. Sebelius may help with Hillary women, but same other problems as Kaine (though I liked the Sebelius pick due to the woman opening McCain has now). There's always a choice between shoring up perceived weaknesses and doubling down on strengths. In an election like this, the main concern with Obama is perceived readiness. Without that, he blows away McCain. I think addressing that is a good decision. It's similar to the Cheney role for Bush in 2000. The base is already enthused. Biden costing congressional seats or creating an unethused base is nonsense.
I like Biden as a straight talker but I just don't see this guy strengthening the ticket. I see the whole bad cop/good cop routine that Obama is setting up but how are you the anti-war, change candidate and pick a running mate that voted for the war and has been part of the status quo for decades? Biden even at one point suggested a freakin partition of Iraq. WTF? I don't like it. If you were going to choose this type of running mate you might as well have chosen Clinton. I sure hope this works out.
I don't even understand this argument. The VP is essentially an advisor. If you're running on change, are you not allowed to have advisors who have experience in government? How does having a 2nd in command who has government experience suddenly mean you're not wanting to bring change? Bush was the change candidate in 2000 and benefitted from Cheney in the election. What's the difference?
What I find amusing are all the people saying it was a bad pick and he should have picked Hillary (especially those of our republican brothers). But as Deckard said, can you imagine the comments of a Hillary VP choice? I’m sure Obama appreciates all the concern, but Biden will do just fine! Thank you very much.
My point of view is that the whole "castrate any Democrat who voted for the war" line is beyond tired. I wasn't crazy about using it during the primaries and I'm certainly not crazy about it now, with all due respect. How can a host of people here who support Obama on the one hand say what you are saying, and with the other hand accuse George W. Bush of misleading America and the world about the reasons for voting for that resolution? The Congress was misled, just like everyone else. Many expected the "war resolution" to be a tool for making Saddam allow UN inspectors to go wherever they desired to insure that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The resolution was meant to be a sword held over Saddam's head to make him cooperate. Actually going to war was seen by many to be an act of last resort, not realizing that Bush was up to his neck in war planning the whole time. The whole "he/she voted for the war so they are a worthless human being who should be put in a camp for the mentally challenged" is and has always been a political strawman. That's my opinion, anyway. Yes, no one should have trusted Bush. Guess what... you are talking about most of Congress and a huge percentage of Americans. They were fooled. I wasn't, but I was in a minority. Another thing. Don't you realize that these politicians were and are imperfect human beings? Why do you think it's damned near impossible to get a decent person to run for office? They are placed under a media microscope, magnified by the denizens of the internet, that gleefully plasters the slightest flaw or past action on literally hundreds of media outlets. It's a wonder anyone bothers being a politician. (sorry for the rant, but this has been bugging me for a long time... I'm sure just about everyone disagrees with me!) Impeach Bush/Cheney.
The formidable OBAMA BInlaDEN duo has already seen a dramatic move in the polls since they announced Biden's place on the ticket. OOPS, wrong way! Hillary 2012, all you Hillary supporters!!! Keep hope alive! http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/24/election.2008.poll/index.html DENVER, Colorado (CNN) -- It's a dead heat in the race for the White House The first national poll conducted after Barack Obama publicly named Joe Biden as his running mate suggests that the battle for the presidency between the Illinois senator and John McCain is all tied up. In a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Sunday night, 47 percent of those questioned are backing Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominees, with an equal amount supporting his Republican opponent, McCain. "This looks like a step backward for Obama, who had a 51 to 44 percent advantage last month," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Even last week, just before his choice of Joe Biden as his running mate became known, most polls tended to show Obama with a single-digit advantage over McCain." So what's the difference now? It may be supporters of Hillary Clinton, who still would prefer the New York senator and former first lady as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Watch are Clinton backers on board? » Sixty-six percent of Clinton supporters -- registered Democrats who want Clinton as the nominee -- are now backing Obama. That's down from 75 percent in the end of June. Twenty-seven percent of them now say they'll support McCain, up from 16 percent in late June. "The number of Clinton Democrats who say they would vote for McCain has gone up 11 points since June, enough to account for most, although not all, of the support McCain has gained in that time," Holland said. Clinton and Obama battled throughout the primary season, with Clinton winning more than 40 percent of the delegates. She suspended her bid for the White House and backed Obama in early June, after the end of primary season. The majority of registered voters, 54 percent, say Obama's choice of Biden, D-Delaware, as his running mate is an "excellent" or "good decision." That number jumps to 73 percent when just asked of registered Democrats. But it drops to 59 percent when narrowed to Clinton supporters. Watch more on the new VP candidate » "It's not that there's anything wrong with the choice of Joe Biden. A majority rate the Biden selection as excellent or pretty good. Voters think he is qualified to be president, and with the exception of Al Gore in 1992, the public ranks Biden as the most qualified running mate in recent times," Holland said. Watch more on Biden and the road ahead » "A lot of Americans don't know who he is, but his favorable rating is 13 points higher than his unfavorables. But Biden is not Hillary Clinton, and it's possible that is enough to have moved some of her supporters away from the Democratic ticket, at least temporarily," says Holland. Among all Democrats, only 38 percent say Obama should have selected Clinton as his running mate. Still, 74 percent of all voters questioned in the survey said Obama's selection of Biden as a running mate won't have any effect on their vote for president. The poll was conducted on Saturday and Sunday, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for all voters. For registered Democrats, it is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points, and for Democrats who still support Clinton for the party's nomination, it is plus or minus 7.5 percentage points. HILARITY
I just learned that Joe Biden's middle name is ROBINETTE. Oh this is almost too good to be true! Better than Forbes, Hussein, or LaVaughn! Well, almost better than Hussein. HO HO HO
