It is all over the blogs today. Apparently it is hilarious that his grandmother's maiden name was used in his father's and then passed down to him. Passing down an historic family name is for sissies.
The thing about Hillary or Kerry is their bottom (unfavorability) is already defined. Biden's is not. He has been in the spot light here and there, but nothing compared to Hillary or a former VP/P candidate with all guns on them. And Hillary was hardly slaughtered despite a concerted effort to do that. And In Kerry's case I think a lot of people reflect that, man, he got a raw deal. He deserved better and we would have been better off with him. Also, I kinda think it would be a good thing for the VP to take some attention off of Obama. Counter-intuitive in some ways but I think it might be right for this situation. Obama has been hammered as the front runner for many months now. A VP choice who takes some flak might not be a bad thing. That is the kind of thing pundits and opponents do (attacking a VP)--but doesn't stick much with the populace. So in effect you can bring on Hillary's supporters, but if the opponents spend all there time attacking her that may be a good thing politically. I don't know about this. Hillary did have nearly half the demo votes. And I don't understand it personally, but I do not see them automatically going to Barack. Some may go to McCain, others may stay home. I am surprised at the bitterness, but it is real. Bringing not just the presidency, but a filibuster proof senate may be at stake, and that would really open up the potential accomplishments. I am not using it as a litmus test. Like I said Clinton or Kerry would have been OK with me. (Clinton IMO by far the best of those with those votes, probably Kerry next, than Biden) But this was not a trivial vote. Having balls and judgment means something. I wouldn't have wanted my name to go down in history as signing off on that. And there was what 15 or so senators (off hand Feingold, Leahy, Kennedey, couple of Repubs too) on the record against the most damaging political/international/economical/humanistic decision our gov made in many decades. So not a litmus test, but this is far from trivial. Better to have someone who voted against authorization, and if not that, someone who wasn't in a position to vote at all but was publicly against it (Obama). And if Barack was taking someone on record for authorizing the war, at least have someone who brings their own army with them (Hillary).
I think the problem here is that while their bottoms are defined, they are also very low. Neither Clinton nor Kerry are particularly popular with swing voters. And their upside is also fairly defined. I would equate it to sorta playing not-to-lose rather to win. I think with Biden, you have a lot more upside (and a lot more downside). Oh certainly - there is the bitter group. But to be honest, I see them as irrational. The solution to them is not appeasement - that's been what's going on for a long time. In May it was "they deserve to see her finish the race". Then in June it was "they need time". In July, it was "Obama needs to help pay off her debt to show gratitude (for what, I'm not sure). In Aug, it's become "they need to vote for her for catharsis". This idea that they have to keep being appeased (in this case, with the VP spot) is crazy - they'll just keep demanding more, in my opinion. (I'm talking the crazy supporters, not Hillary herself) And Obama shouldn't have his administration hamstrung by being forced to have Hillary/Bill looking over his shoulder in the White House. At some point, they just need to be clearly told (preferably by Hillary, but at least by someone staunchly on their side), "Hey. We lost. Get over it!". That's what will actually start the process of them getting over it. I think if that were to happen - and hopfeully it will this week - you'll see them on board get on board much more quickly. But Hillary supporters, even if they choose to go against Obama, will still vote for local Dems. Obama is leading the charge on this by building the grassroots of the party and putting together the biggest ground operation in political history. This is a good article on that: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=its_his_party_08
I would have rather seen Hillary picked. As much as I don't like her, I think she earned the VP spot with the 18 million votes she got, and had Obama picked her, they would have been a shoe in for the presidency. No way McCain could have won against an Obama-Clinton ticket.
Experience is fine but how much of a change candidate are you when you're running with someone who has 20+ years in Congress, the very body of government we seek to push change through? I suppose it's a fine line.
Honestly I think it's important not to have revisionist history on this issue. Bush pushed this vote for authorization right before election time. He was playing politics with war, a game of chicken if you will, and the Democrats blinked. To say that Democrats, having seen Bush's modus operandi to that point with Bush/Cheney constantly dropping Iraq into the discussion of 9/11, actually thought that he was going to let the UN and the inspectors work it all out is just crazy talk in my view. The whole thing was a sham. Who the hell authorizes war before all the facts are known anyway? While the whole world debated war right up the last minute, the US Congress was sitting on its ass talking about everything but the war. The whole thing smelled like $#@& and I hope history never forgets how it all went down. I will never forget Robert Byrd pleading for the Congress to grow a pair and to stand up to this power grab by the Bush administration. That vote was a defining moment in American history and the Democrats who authorized Bush, the most incompetent man to ever run this country, to go to war in Iraq failed the nation. I don't think that can be overstated.
So much for the republican 3Am conspiracy theory -- via TPM -- CNN Forced Obama Campaign To Send Out Veep Text Early There's been some chatter to the effect that the Obama campaign sent out its text announcing Joe Biden as veep pick at around 3 A.M. on Saturday morning as a tongue-in-cheek reference to Hillary's infamous ad. Not so, says the Obama campaign. Turns out they rushed out the text hours earlier than intended because CNN had broken the story: The notion that the Obama camp would indulge in such a gag at a time when it's working overtime to win over Hillary supporters was always a daft one to begin with.
Not a litmus test, but I agree with CometsWin to a large degree. This was the biggest singular votes in most of these politicians lifetime. To Biden's credit (I think putting it on himself moreso than Clinton has) he flat out admits it was a mistake on his part. * 21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR). * 1 of 49 Republican Senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI). * The only Independent Senator voted against the resoution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT) Of these I would have liked Feingold, Bingaman, Conrad, Graham, Leahy & Chafee to be in the pot for VP. Against McCain, Feingold could have been a brilliant counter. Conrad has a fairly independent streak as well. Chafee has always been about the best Republican around, talk a way to launch a call for bipartisanship and bringing people together. Let's also remember 61% (majority) of house Democrats voted against. Lots of people knew it was a terrible move AND drew the line in the sand on it. Hillary, Biden, Kerry, Bayh, Dodd, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin, Lieberman, Reid and Shumer are some of the notable Dems who didn't. And Biden, Dodd, Lieberman and Feinstein were probably the safest politically of them to say "nay" and didn't. Again, not a "litmus test", but not inconsequential in highlighting their judgment and backbone. I really thought Hillary was the best of the "yea" candidates for VP. But of the senators at that time I would have been really intrigued by the "Nahs" of Feingold, Conrad, Graham, Leahy or Chafee. Richardson or Mark Warner--obviously with no official vote on their records on it (like Obama), were two other of my favorites.
