It's Joe Biden!
It's official. Barack Obama has selected Senator Joe Biden to serve as his running mate.
"Barack has chosen Senator Joe Biden to be our VP nominee," the text message, sent at around 3 a.m. ET, said."Joe and I will appear for the first time as running mates this afternoon in Springfield, Illinois -- the same place this campaign began more than 19 months ago," Obama said in an e-mail sent to supporters Saturday morning.
"I'm excited about hitting the campaign trail with Joe, but the two of us can't do this alone," he wrote. " We need your help to keep building this movement for change."
Visit BarackObama.com to learn more. Discuss.
|
August 23, 2008 |
in the news | Comments (95 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: BOHICA | Aug 23, 2008 6:43:55 AM
"Although it's not a done deal, the idea of Obama choosing Joe Biden as his running mate is kind of like getting underwear for Christmas. You know that you can use it, but it's not exactly what you were hoping for."
-Tbogg 8/19/08
Posted by: V | Aug 23, 2008 7:13:23 AM
To bad that Obama sold out. If he had picked Richardson, or someone like him there would have been no problem. To pick JOE BIDEN? Where is the change?
You need to check the voting records as well as look at all the money Biden wants for military to continue. You would have thought people would have gotten tired of being put out on the streets to help the corporations keep taxing us to death.
Are people that brainwashed? What has government given us for all the money they have taken from us? Do we have health insurance, can we afford our homes, do we have savings, do we get a pay raise every year? The answer for most Americans is NO.
We seem to forget they reflect us, not reverse. They have set up their little empires and have gotten rich off the sweat and tears of Americans. I work as much as I can to keep the bills paid and food on the table, if there is a medical emergency, where do I get the money to cover that?
Government has tried everyway they can to let older people play with their Social Security in the stock market.
I am very angry and see no change other than people continuing to live in a country where politicians, government workers, and corporations reap all the benefits and we get stuck bailing out their misdeeds.
There is no hope for this country and with Biden sitting on the other half of the ticket where is the change? For the first time in my life I will be voting against the Democrats. My vote will not be wasted though, I will check out the smaller groups and check out their position. This is the year, I take myself out as a Democrat :(
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Aug 23, 2008 7:18:29 AM
and with V's departure, we lose the "lack of perspective" and "Obama ignores my personal wishes" demographic. let's all bid V better luck in the move to the higher plane of moral and intellectual superiority we lack. please be kind to us in your new role as Benefactor of the Universe.
Posted by: David McDonald | Aug 23, 2008 8:01:56 AM
Aren't you the same people who rejoiced when the democrats took office last November, saying things like "Now we'll see cange!" Wake up! Aint nuthin gonna change until you do!
Posted by: Oregon Independent | Aug 23, 2008 8:24:20 AM
Calling Biden a change agent is like calling the Rolling Stones a boy band. Both were true in '72.
I don't see that he adds much to the ticket -- though I felt that way about all three of the supposed finalists. On the plus side, he's been thoroughly vetted.
Here's hoping he has changed speech writers since 1987.
Posted by: Only 36% rating from NARAL | Aug 23, 2008 8:26:22 AM
No public funding for abortion; it imposes a view. (Apr 2007)
Supports partial-birth abortion ban, but not undoing Roe. (Apr 2007)
Accepts Catholic church view that life begins at conception. (Apr 2007)
Nominees should agree on constitutional right to privacy. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Rated 36% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Aug 23, 2008 8:36:17 AM
Joe's okay with me. It would of been interesting if he would of picked Senator Clinton but the news media would of been too obsessed with the Bill Clinton scandal angle. She might of been more of a distraction than a help, unfortunately.
He brings much needed foreign policy experience to the ticket and will be a much more hard nosed effective campaigner than the last two VP picks, John Edwards and that nobody named Lieberman.
Posted by: JoeBama | Aug 23, 2008 8:52:07 AM
Not a great pick.
JoeBama will now have to scale back their rhetoric on McCain being old, which I thought was fairly effective.
The question is will Biden continue being in love with himself and his voice to drone on and on and on with reporters. It's a given that the R's will attack JoeBama as the candidates that will talk everyone to death.
Kaine or Bayh would have been tons better.
Posted by: ryan | Aug 23, 2008 9:06:29 AM
Oh V...
I'm not sure where to begin. I guess by pointing out that you can't change anything if you don't get elected. I have absolutely no respect for people who say they'll opt not to vote because the options don't include EXACTLY what they're looking for. Way to participate in democracy.
So, rather than get someone closer to your views elected, you choose to increase the likelihood that someone with views further away from your own gets elected. Brilliant.
My advice? Grow up. You didn't get a pony. Vote anyway. Not voting has FAR worse consequences.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 23, 2008 9:09:13 AM
Biden has made so many asinine statements (common with people with a propensity for verbosity) there can only be two explanations for his survival. He is an insider and the people of Delaware are not the brightest. A couple of years ago Biden was on "Meet the Press" discussing the frustration people were having with the war in Iraq (for which he voted). Biden's solution was for Bush to go on national television to explain the facts to the American people and tell them what was really going on. This after two years of Bush and his administration lying to the American public. Now go figure. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Posted by: ryan | Aug 23, 2008 9:10:51 AM
by the way...
Biden's not my choice, but then neither is Obama. None of my choices would ever have had a snowball's chance in hell of getting more votes than a "centrist", so I'm not going to whine about it. Do I wish things were different? Oh yes. I'll do something about it by voting down the whole ticket.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 23, 2008 9:14:14 AM
Echo what Deborah Barnes said.
Biden has plenty of drawbacks, but he is flat out likable. And I don't know if it's charisma or something else but he has a real talent for coming across like he's totally on top of an issue and is being bluntly honest with you about it at the same time. I've never seen anyone who can match Biden for slinging politician's double-talk while making it seem like he's just telling it straight.
Ideologically I understand the discomfort with Biden.
Politically he's pure gold, IMO.
I do agree with JoeBama about his age, though. But on the bright side of that, Biden is the VP choice whereas McCain is the Prez candidate and the dynamics of that is very different IMO.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Aug 23, 2008 9:14:49 AM
I hate to admit it, but I think Obama made the best pick available. Although I guessed Bayh in Kari's Punditology Pool, events in Georgia convinced me foreign policy (beyond Iraq) was likely to be a bigger issue than anyone previously thought and moved Biden into the top spot.
As for the fear that picking a Washington insider steps on Obama's message of change, I remember the last time we had an outsider running for President while calling for change. Jimmy Carter was smart enough to balance his ticket with Walter Mondale, who helped him win a close election in what everyone predicted would be a strong Democratic year.
Now my only hope is that the Clinton's will play the spoilsport role, which Begala and Carville already seem to be suggesting with the "Obama never vetted Hillary or asked either Bill or Hillary for their advice."
I actually expect Hillary to be a team player (in public at least), but watch out for Bill. A longshot example: Does he threaten to pull out of his Wednesday speaking spot after all? Bill Clinton passing up a national TV audience is hard to imagine, but that would be the clearest signal that he (and by attribution, his wife) feel they've been dissed.
Posted by: Oregon Independent | Aug 23, 2008 9:18:49 AM
I'm not sure where to begin. I guess by pointing out that you can't change anything if you don't get elected.
Ryan, that is true. But take the telecom immunity bill that Obama voted for. Barack voted for it and then asked us to believe that he only did it because he needs to get elected and didn't want to leave an opening that the Republicans could exploit. Once he is elected, he assures us that he will "do the right thing". Several House Democats told me the same thing when they voted for the anti-immigrant driver's license bill in the special session.
But here's the question: If you don't campaign on the issues that you would like us to believe that you will support "when it matters", can you really be said to have a mandate on those issues? Moreover, why should we trust you? Fool me once...
I'm voting for Obama. I canvassed for him last weekend. But this campaign has disabused me of the notion that there is such a thing as a change agent when it comes to mainstream presidential politics.
Posted by: Dena | Aug 23, 2008 9:25:02 AM
Pleased with the smart choice. Good chance he'll make mincemeat of McCain's VP choice at the debates. I no longer look to NARAL for approval ratings. In your own list he has two views that are not aligned with NARAL: Public funding of abortion; opposes partial birth abortion. Pro-Choice votes in 12 of your 14 points.
Posted by: Chris #12 | Aug 23, 2008 9:30:03 AM
Didn't Joe Biden vote for NAFTA, Defense of Marriage, and the Iraq War? I know, I know--everyone voted for the war--but NAFTA? Gonna be a tough pill to swallow...
Posted by: ryan | Aug 23, 2008 9:42:35 AM
Oregon Independent, I do agree with you. It's my lack of illusion about politicians that allows me to vote at all. I'm holding my nose while I do it, in hopes that someday it will be easier to do. Call me cynical, but I never trusted Obama to begin with. I've not experienced any disillusionment. I'll vote for the candidate who is closest to my ideals. To be surprised by one's candidate "selling out" is to be naive.
Posted by: genop | Aug 23, 2008 9:43:51 AM
Biden. No nonsense, blue collar, fighter. 36 years in the senate starting at age 29. Yeah, his voting record will be all over the map. So what. I would suspect his ideals have evolved. He's bare knuckles to Obama's velvet gloves. Good choice.
Posted by: dartagnan | Aug 23, 2008 9:44:51 AM
"It's a given that the R's will attack JoeBama as the candidates that will talk everyone to death."
The R's would attack ANYBODY Obama picked, so why worry about it? We have to stop letting fear of what the Republicans will do dictate our decisions.
I'm still sorting this out but my first instinct is that Obama made a smart move by going with a safe, well-known guy with a lot of experience to counter McBush's "inexperienced" argument. Biden also is a good attack dog and he can sink his teeth into McBush while Obama stays above the fray and looks presidential. And I think if there were any significant skeletons in his closet they would have been found by now.
Posted by: dartagnan | Aug 23, 2008 9:47:56 AM
"My advice? Grow up. You didn't get a pony."
LOL! "V" is the kind of spoiled child who supported Nader because Gore wasn't liberal enough and put Smirky McChimp in the White House eight years ago. Will these people ever learn? Doesn't look like it.
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 23, 2008 10:00:40 AM
The 36% voting record on abortion was given 5 years ago, and Biden has been much, much better since then.
Posted by: LT | Aug 23, 2008 10:02:13 AM
I was excited by the choice of Biden, but would also have been happy with Richardson or some of the other choices.
Folks, read what Jack Roberts said to understand one reason Biden is a good choice. Another reason--he connects with the blue collar working class folks in places like Scranton, PA and Delaware. He has impressed many people over the years not only with rhetorical skills. Yes, he's made some boners, but I'll take outspoken over "don't ask such detailed questions--just shut up and believe what we say" any day of the week! He has quite a life story. This is a man who has continually gotten re-elected, survived family tragedy, survived serious illness, made no more than his share of dumb political mistakes and questionable votes (you want perfection?--go get yourself elected and establish a "perfect" voting record), and is a real joy to listen to in a committee chair position, on TV, in a presidential debate.
Let me remind you that some of the folks here unhappy with Biden as a status quo candidate were also the folks who took issue with Darlene Hooley's voting record. Our district suffered almost a decade of Denny Smith and one term of Jim Bunn, but then Darlene was elected and is retiring undefeated. Her voting record may not have always pleased Portlanders, may not have always pleased every single constitutent. But she has been a tireless advocate for her constituents, esp. in recent years for veterans.
I think Biden will be a tireless advocate, and a more gung ho "attack dog" VP candidate than we have seen in awhile among Democrats. He is the insider Walter Mondale to Jimmy Carter . Remember, folks, that ticket won against a much more moderate and appealing Republican presidential candidate named Ford than McCain is--when McCain's voting record and public statements get the kind of scrutiny which will be coming up in the fall, he will be less appealing to ordinary folks. And who does he pick now who will be able to challenge Biden in a VP debate?
Biden will be a good governing VP also, and a lot better than Cheney!
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 23, 2008 10:21:48 AM
I know, I know--everyone voted for the war
Actually, most Democrats in Congress didn't vote for the war. Biden (and pretty much every other Congressional name dropped for the possible VP pick) was in the minority of Democrats who sided with the Republicans and the administration on Iraq.
In the Senate, the Democrats voted 29-21 in favor of the Iraq AUMF, but in the House the Democrats voted against it 81-126. Nearly 60% of the Democrats in Congress (110-147 or 43%-57%) made a better decision than Joe Biden on the Iraq war. Nearly 60% knew better than to give George Bush free rein to invade another country without better evidence of a clear and present danger.
But Biden was in there pushing for the war from the very start.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 23, 2008 10:23:21 AM
he has a real talent for coming across like he's totally on top of an issue
He has a real talent for being wrong on issues he claims to be totally on top of.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Aug 23, 2008 10:48:07 AM
Biden's a very smart guy. Beyond that, I'll play by the Thumper Rule.
Posted by: paul g. | Aug 23, 2008 11:01:17 AM
LT, this is not possible! We totally agree.
I think Biden is a great choice. After Georgia, it was clear that Biden would be the pick. Obama simply had to pick someone with solid foreign policy credentials. This knocked out virtually all the other contenders.
Biden brings smarts, savvy, and experience. He's a part of the establishment but has never engaged in the kind of back room dealings that everyone criticizes Schumer, Emanuel, and others for.
This will be Biden's time to shine. He's never been quite right for the head of the ticket, but he'll be fantastic as a veep choice.
(Bill B. you have it completely backwards--the citizens of Delaware forgive Biden his malapropisms because they've known for three decades that he is intelligent, indepedent, and a fighter for their interests).
Posted by: RW | Aug 23, 2008 11:03:35 AM
What is the Thumper Rule? O yeah: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
Or at least excoriate intelligently.
Time to focus on who it is we's taking to the dance, never mind who we were yearning for. Is everyone gonna continue taking the guy apart for the fun of listening to the crash of Legos and the rumble of Tonka trucks, or shall we research who he really is and get busy on the local level politicking for a win? We CANNOT have another round of more of the same. I WILL shoot myself or STAY in Belgium next time.
Posted by: davidg | Aug 23, 2008 11:04:09 AM
A curious anomaly the political pundits never seem to focus on:
Since Franklin Roosevelt, the Democratic Party presidential nominee always initially picks a sitting US Senator as his vice-presidential running mate. Now Obama follows the pattern.
The only exception was Mondale, who picked Congresswoman Ferraro in 1984. McGovern initially picked Senator Eagleton in 1972; Shriver was a second choice after Eagleton dropped out.
Why do the Democratic presidential candidates always fixate on US Senators as running mates? I don't think there is any cosmic reason for it. But it's a sure bet if you are looking for one.
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 23, 2008 11:05:10 AM
The R's would attack ANYBODY Obama picked, so why worry about it? We have to stop letting fear of what the Republicans will do dictate our decisions.
Bingo.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Aug 23, 2008 11:07:39 AM
Kevin:
JoeBama will now have to scale back their rhetoric on McCain being old, which I thought was fairly effective.
Bob T:
That's a good thing, then. I thought one of the "European"
things y'all say we lack here is seeing people over 65 as our wise elders just getting started, that we toss 'em out at 65 as being incapable of much of anything. That was one of the good things about Reagan -- while people were saying he wouldn't live to the end of his first term he actually showed that most others his age should be considered for that office.
Now I see the Dems are back to supporting agism in all its
ugliness. Gee, what else is new.
Bob Tiernan
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 23, 2008 11:14:44 AM
While Biden voted for the initial war resolution, he pulled a renegade move and called for its repeal once Hussein was deposed and once it was determined that there were no WMD's...in keeping with the terms of the initial resolution.
He's been an outspoken advocate for the people of Darfur, and he has been extremely vocal against the Bush administration's use of torture.
He was also one of the first sponsors, a tireless advocate, for the Violence Against Women Act.
He may not do everything I like, but I'm really quite happy over-all....
Posted by: Chris #12 | Aug 23, 2008 11:20:35 AM
Darrel--
Thanks for correcting me on that, I was thinking of the Afghanistan vote. It makes me wonder why Chuck Currie and others describe Biden as a progressive. He's bad on trade (generally only voting against free trade agreements when they come from Bush), he voted wrong on the war, he voted wrong lots of times.
Posted by: steve novick | Aug 23, 2008 11:26:06 AM
Joe Biden saved the country from Robert Bork as a Supreme Court justice; since Bork was replaced by Anthony Kennedy, there is a very good argument that if there were no Joe Biden, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned. By contrast, here's what I just found on the web about McCain and Bork:
Either way, he’s probably hoping that the press won’t bother to actually write about his record on judges as exemplified by, say, his 1987 support of Robert Bork [PDF]:
I would like to explain why I am going to vote of favor of confirmation [of Robert Bork], and why I do so without any hesitation …
I have no problem with my colleagues voting against Bork if they truly believe he is unfit for the Supreme Court – although I personally cannot conceive of how you could reach that conclusion … I believe Robert Bork will be an outstanding Justice and contributor on that Court … Robert Bork deserves our support and will be a great Supreme Court Justice.
In his endorsement, McCain delivered a lengthy defense of Bork’s controversial views, stating that Roe v. Wade is "the clearest example of judicial 'legislation'" and that the rules it set out are "nonsense." Nor did McCain appear to be a fan of the right to privacy, stating that it was entirely "created by Justice Douglas in the Griswold case."
Posted by: ryan | Aug 23, 2008 11:27:41 AM
Bob, I'm not sure Reagan is a good example of why we should respect our elders as capable.
Posted by: Joe Hill | Aug 23, 2008 11:30:56 AM
Obama has been doing everything he can do reassure American elites that he will not oppose the American empire project, that he will not materially change the systems of power and wealth distribution. Biden is another brick in that wall.
That said, the Biden pick is better than most of the others he could have plausibly chosen, given his constraints. Maybe Richardson would have been a little better - maybe. Other than that, everyone else mentioned that I'm aware of was well to Biden's right.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Aug 23, 2008 11:40:50 AM
dartagnan said, "'V' is the kind of spoiled child who supported Nader because Gore wasn't liberal enough and put Smirky McChimp in the White House eight years ago. Will these people ever learn? Doesn't look like it."
Won't you right wing Democrats ever learn? GORE WON and he failed to fight for his victory due to his corporate bosses' opposition to it. And this election is also being stolen right in front of your eyes, if you had them open. Biden, not quite as liberal as Lieberman was in 2000, will aid the theft.
Read these and weep:
(Wh)Oregonian: Nader backers use ploy to get spot on ballot
John Zogby explains:
"Just as party leaders pack their bags for Denver, our latest Reuters/Zogby poll finds their nominee in some trouble...Interestingly, Obama's margins among what had been his strongest demographic groups dropped by as much as 12 points. These include Democrats, women, city dwellers and younger voters - those ages 25-34. Also, Obama has lost his lead among the swing Catholic vote, dropping 11 points to McCain over a month."
Just as I predicted, those who had assumed that Obama was a progressive during the primary are feeling betrayed. The Obama "brand" is tainted, and being "less insane" than McCain will not be a winning message.
V: dartagnon and the other mouseketeers have shown you how the DP feels about you and other real progressives. Work for Nader and you'll feel proud to have contributed to a progressive campaign, whether or not he wins.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Aug 23, 2008 11:53:35 AM
Hey, somebody should contact Steve Novick and let him know some nut is posting comments here under his name.
First he loses a close Senate primary, now this! Life is unfair.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 23, 2008 12:12:09 PM
While Biden voted for the initial war resolution, he pulled a renegade move and called for its repeal once Hussein was deposed and once it was determined that there were no WMD's...in keeping with the terms of the initial resolution.
The problem with that is, there was no evidence that there were WMDs in the first place. THe administration never provided any actual intelligence that Iraq had WMDs because -- surprise! -- there weren't any. Biden may have been one of the smarter, faster rats to flee the ship whose hull he helped gnaw a hole though, but that's hardly a basis for praise.
It doesn't take a huge intellect to know that a military invasion of a country the size of Iraq was going to kill a lot of people. Without any evidence of WMDs, Biden (and a lot of others) condemned a huge number of people to death on no evidence.
Biden supported the invasion because he'd been right there with Joe Lieberman and others calling for military action against Saddam Hussein for years before the invasion. He helped prepare the ground for what Bush and Cheney did.
Posted by: ryan | Aug 23, 2008 12:17:36 PM
Work for Nader and you'll feel proud to have contributed to a progressive campaign, whether or not he wins.
You mean the guy who took all the Republican money last time? Who never learns?
Have fun. I hope all that pride makes up for McCain's SCOTUS picks.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Aug 23, 2008 12:30:03 PM
Is there better evidence of the need for election reform than Democrats' efforts to keep Nader off the ballot and Republicans' efforts to promote his candidacy?
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 23, 2008 12:38:30 PM
In his speech, Biden just called Obama "Barack America." That's the kind of tongue-slip I like to hear. Biden contrasts Obama very nicely. A good call.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Aug 23, 2008 12:56:00 PM
Here's what your own David Sirota has to say about Biden;
"Obama's willingness to anoint a senator who voted for two landmark travesties - the Bankruptcy Bill and Iraq War - gives us some disturbing clues about the Illinois senator's attitude toward the economic progressive movement and the antiwar movement. It also shows how much work those movements have in front of them - and how, in particular, the antiwar movement's strategy of focusing all attention on Republicans has actually helped create the situation whereby the Democratic Party feels perfectly comfortable rewarding supposed Serious Foreign Policy Voices like Biden even after they voted for the war." (What Biden Means)
ryan: I advise you to read Obama's legal advisor and apparent first choice for the supremes Cass Sunstein's positions on blocking any prosecution of Bush for "non-egregious" crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance, supporting John Roberts for Chief Justice, or supporting the Bush theory of inherent authority to spy on Americans without warrants (Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of “Non-Egregious” Bush Crimes and Sunstein An Advisor To Barack Obama) before you conclude that Obama is significantly better on court appointments.
Furthermore, I think you should consider more carefully Obama's right-of-center positions on trade, increasing military spending, FISA, withdrawal of all U.S. personnel from Iraq to home, single payer health care, nuclear and ethanol, corporate crime and welfare, impeachment of war criminals, unionism, Wall Street securities speculation, even-handedness in dealing with Palestine/Israel, and living wage.
A vote for McBama is a vote for Bush.
Posted by: RW | Aug 23, 2008 12:56:47 PM
Rousing speech, good cadences, content-rich if you like that kind of stuff. Scary. I am trenchant about remembering who the hell is talking to you and why. The speechwriters plus ever-strong Obama delivery got some emotion going here.
As to Nader, for all that I "believe in him" as a myth I grew up with, I recall contacting his offices when in OK related to drug-trafficing Sheriffs (later indicted for sex with minors - another story "everybody knows"), and being put on a dizzying array of politically-correct junkmail lists... that never stopped until I left the state! ... and no contact back viz the local need.
Nader's folks cauterized that receptor site but good.
Posted by: Joe Hill | Aug 23, 2008 12:58:39 PM
ryan, t a, etc. etc., I believe you're missing the point when you criticize those who are not jumping on board the Obama express.
Try and see this from another point of view please.
This present administration has stolen two elections. They have entered into an illegal war. They have killed at least hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraquis and Afghans, they have spent trillions on this enterprise, they have enriched their cronies, they have violated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in breathtaking ways, and they laugh at Congress.
From the Democratic party's nominee we hear nothing intelligible about this. Nothing.
What we hear is a vaguely post-partisan, let's-get-beyond-all-this kind of rhetoric. Nothing about taking back our country from the war criminals and greedy little hustlers who now talk in the name of America. Nothing about fundamentally drawing down the military adventurism and the immense-beyond-imagining military budgets that have bled us dry. Nothing about reversing the flow of wealth to the top .1% - you know, the folks that can't recall how many houses they own. Nothing about turning our nation's path from the dark side of history to something we can be proud of - or at least not have to pretend that we're from Canada when we're traveling in Europe.
If Obama is going to win and make the win a real mandate for change, he has to stop with the Clintonian incrementalism. He has to break with the Evan Bayh DLC Republican-lite enthusiasts. He has to run a defiantly populist campaign that will allow him to toss the Blue Dogs under the bus. (ugh - I didn't like that last image, but you know what I mean . . . )
Most of all, he has to stand with the best of the Democratic tradition, with the best parts of Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson, Barbara Jordan, Tom Hayden, Shirley Chisholm, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders (well, he caucuses with the Dems), etc.
Does the Biden choice move him toward that? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe he'll be like Bush, and run on nothing and then unveil an ideology after the election.
But in the meantime, please don't blame those of us who are disappointed in the Democratic party for not standing for Democratic values, and who are casting about for alternatives.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 23, 2008 1:09:42 PM
... he has a real talent for coming across like he's totally on top of an issue
He has a real talent for being wrong on issues he claims to be totally on top of.
And he is very lucky that most of the American people are taken in by his style, which suggests that the Obama campaign has adopted style as a major part of its strategy. Look up and open your eyes and you'll find a couple of naked emperors or Trojan horses from the corporatocracy.
(Bill B. you have it completely backwards--the citizens of Delaware forgive Biden his malapropisms because they've known for three decades that he is intelligent, indepedent, and a fighter for their interests).
Forgiving Biden for his malapropisms must be habit forming. Presumably, they also forgave him for his shameless plagiarism of a speech by Neil Kinnock of the British Labour Party. And yakking away at senate hearings instead of asking penetrating questions, thus letting people off the hook. Did fighting for the interests of Delaware citizens include voting for the war on Iraq? Could be, I suppose if some of them are working for the war armaments industries and not the families of Delaware military who might have been killed or maimed in Iraq. Biden is independent? You have to be kidding. He is either part of the party oligarchy or one of its consiglieri.
Having said the above, I will concede that Obama and Biden will be less problematic than McCain and whomever he chooses for an accomplice.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Aug 23, 2008 1:17:19 PM
Harry,
Obama and Biden are certainly safely within the dominant political consensus. Such is US politics. Presidential candidates who are "electable" are never agents for radically progressive change. Beginning there, I cannot help seeing significant advantage in the Democratic version of dominant consensus.
The chance of a US presidential election ending imperialist foreign policy or corporate hegemony are close to nil. I can understand your inability to vote for such flawed Democrats, but many progressives who see the world not very differently than do you cannot ignore the differences a Democratic administration would bring, imperfect as it would be.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 23, 2008 1:34:37 PM
Something about Biden rubs me the wrong way a little, and as several have mentioned there are some real stinkers on his record, but the Poole Rankings of the 110th Senate show Biden tied for 10th most liberal member of the body, tied with...Barack Obama. (In the 109th he was 29th, Obama 21st). On an aggregate basis he's certainly not a "conservative" choice like Webb might have been.
I think Obama's problem was that his change options weren't good enough. Kaine, Chet Edwards (and my personal choice Kathleen Sebelius) would have been interesting calls indicating some new kind of paradigm, but Kaine is not exactly Joe Progressive and Edwards is a Texas Democrat. That would have fed the change message of "post-partisanship," but not a change to a less triangulated and center-right governance. Sebelius actually manages to be fairly progressive AND a great coalition builder, with the added bonus of being persuasive of others, but despite those strengths she's even more obscure than Kaine and does less demographically for the ticket.
With all of the considerations in play, I have to think that "is he ready" is THE salient question people will be asking themselves about Obama this fall, and a VP choice that forced people to ask the same question again ("are THEY ready?") would have been bad for the ticket. Of the "experience" options he had, Biden's probably the best choice. There's no doubt he could do the job of President if something happened, and that makes the contingency of Obama easier to contemplate for a lot of people I think.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 23, 2008 1:38:24 PM
This - from Media Matters - will soften my criticism of Biden's use of words from Neil Kinnock. Biden got a lot of flack at the time for a speech he made in which he failed to attribute credit to Kinnock. Apparently, on other occasions he did give the appropriate attribution.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Deborah Barnes | Aug 23, 2008 6:00:05 AM
I am very pleased with this choice. Biden's outspokeness, knowledge of international affairs, and his ability to come across as someone who "gets it", will mean a strong win in November.
Plus, he's always been great while being a guest on "Meet The Press"...