AP: Obama's Choice of Biden Shows Lack of Confidence

The Associated Press' analysis of Sen. Barack Obama's pick of Joe Biden to be his VP: It shows a lack of confidence on Obama's part:

The candidate of change went with the status quo. In picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate, Barack Obama sought to shore up his weakness — inexperience in office and on foreign policy — rather than underscore his strength as a new-generation candidate defying political conventions.

The AP lists the non-status quo choices available to Obama, all of whom got glossed over. [More...]

He picked a 35-year veteran of the Senate — the ultimate insider — rather than a candidate from outside Washington, such as Govs. Tim Kaine of Virginia or Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas; or from outside his party, such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; or from outside the mostly white male club of vice presidential candidates. Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't even make his short list.

What it says about Obama:

For all his self-confidence, the 47-year-old Illinois senator worried that he couldn't beat Republican John McCain without help from a seasoned politician willing to attack. The Biden pick is the next logistical step in an Obama campaign that has become more negative — a strategic decision that may be necessary but threatens to run counter to his image.

Finally, someone besides me notices Biden is the ultimate crime warrior:

Chief sponsor of a sweeping anti-crime bill that passed in 1994, Biden could help inoculate Obama from GOP criticism that he's soft on crime — a charge his campaign fears will drive a wedge between white voters and the first black candidate with a serious shot at the White House.

So there you have it. Obama and Biden are going to run a tired, decades-old but tried and true "tough on crime" campaign. I expected it with Obama, as his views on crime were never particularly progressive, but now with Biden, it's enshrined in cement.

I understand and appreciate that not all voters -- and not even all readers of this site -- agree with me that America, Prison Nation, is one of the worst failures of our Government and our democracy. It's regressive and an embarrassment.

Since exposing injustices is the reason this site exists, you can hardly expect me to cheer for this duo. In 2004, I said I wouldn't vote for Joe Biden as dog-catcher.

I'm weighing my options. Let's just say that today, I'm underwhelmed and greatly disappointed. Is McCain and whomever he picks as a running mate any better? Of course not. But if you don't think choosing between two disappointing scenarios is depressing, well, you're not me.

Stay tuned. I'll ultimately decide whether I will vote for the Democratic ticket or vote down ticket only. This site will continue to support the Demcoratic ticket, and keep in mind there aere three authors here and the other two are bound to be more pro the Obama - Biden than I am, but my support is lukewarm right now -- at best.

I can't imagine voting for a candidate I can't clap for. I'll be in the Pepsi Center for their speeches. John Kerry would not have been my pick in 2004, but I respected him and believed he'd make a good President. I became enthusiastic about the ticket when John Edwards came on board. Read these posts of my reactions to their speeches in Boston in 2004. I just don't see how I can even come close to those feelings here in Denver next week.

I'm going to try to get on board, but the ship seems to have sailed without me.

Aside from the crime issue, the Obama-Biden belief that we shouldn't antagonize Republicans, but work to bring them into our party is completely distastefulto me. I didn't vote for my senators and congresspersons to make nice in Congress. I voted for the ones I thought would fight for Democratic ideals, not water them down to be acceptable to people whose policy views I vehemently disagree with.

But that's what we are going to get with Obama-Biden. The three issues I expect them to be good on are judicial appointments, health care and social security. I'm not sure that's enough for me right now, but I'm going to try to make it work.

< McCain Responds to Obama's Selection of Joe Biden | Saturday Morning VP Rollout >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    KUDOS, Jeralyn! (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:52:50 AM EST
    Your passion, honesty, and integrity put the competition to shame.

    well said, and fair n/t (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:54:10 AM EST

    Great post Jeralyn. (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by dskinner3 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:55:34 AM EST
    I only wish I could say it as well as you. I really don't see how Obama can win my vote. Down-ticket Dems and anyone opposing those who assisted in the FL-MI fiasco.

    Bravo Jearlyn. (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:03:11 AM EST

    Zogby poll from july, Biden -16 among dems (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by swiss473 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:07:20 AM EST

    Check out this Zogby VP poll from last month

    Biden was -16 among dems and -5 overall

    Clinton was +32 among dems and +5 overall

    A 50 pt swing among your own party

    Way to go, Senator!

    although zogby a complete hack (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:10:35 AM EST
    and those numbers were probably just made up given his track record. I think we're in for a definite drop in the polls. Well, there maybe a bit of a bounce at the convention, but soon after I think it will drop.

    then again, maybe everyone will love obama biden and I'll have to eat my hat :-)


    Well... (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:11:42 AM EST
    ... at least we now know that Biden thinks Obama is "articulate, bright, and clean" enough to run with him.

    Oh, lord.  This is going to be a fun couple of weeks.

    Really, this site represents... (5.00 / 13) (#18)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:13:22 AM EST
    ... a truely excellent application of useful 2008 blog features.  There's no real graphics bloat to speak of here, no absolute devotion to any side's propoganda, no constant Photoshop cheap shots or other gimmicks.

    And except for those pesky trolls, it seems clear to me that pretty much everyone appreciates how good this site is right now.

    Thank you, Jeralyn.

    Btw, Enjoy the Denver festival!  If Stevie Wonder puts on a show, it will be a special event that marks a special moment in time. (So check it out if you can.)

    EL: I am NOT channeling KO! (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by prittfumes on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:44:55 AM EST
    With that said, I agree with everything you said.
    ... no constant Photoshop cheap shots or other gimmicks.

    Perfect description of a site which shall remain nameless.

    Jeralyn, (5.00 / 13) (#19)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:13:46 AM EST
    A lot of us who are either not voting or voting for McCain ARE Democrats.  We just realize that our chances may be better in 2012 with Hillary again than they are now.  

    Unfortunately, if Obama gets in now, her chances of securing the Dem nomination in 2012 are nil.  Better if we lose now and try again then.

    Better if we lose now? What are you crazy? (1.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Casey from MA on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:48:34 AM EST
    And let McCain nominate 2 Supremes who will be
    anti-choice and anti-woman?

    Forget that!  


    Bone (5.00 / 7) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:28:04 AM EST
    up on Obama's and Biden's record on that issue. Neither is really great.

    The SCOTUS argument doesn't pass the smell test.


    Wait, you're telling me that Obama (none / 0) (#129)
    by Casey from MA on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:36:31 AM EST
    would put an anti-choice judge on the Supreme Court?

    Or that Obama's pick would be equitable with that of McCain and that neither of them is different?


    Who knows (5.00 / 9) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:58:53 AM EST
    what Obama will do. He has no record and a tendency to cave to the GOP or vote present. He said he would filibuster FISA but when push came to shove he caved.

    His legal advisor Cass Sunstein has said that Roe v. Wade was "wrongly decided".

    Here's the difference: You know where McCain is on the issue but with Obama you don't know. Maybe he might pick candidates as bad as McCain but if he did the Dem's would surely approve them. With McCain there's a chance that the Dems might not approve them. That's the kind of choices voters have been reduced to this Nov.

    The Obama campaign mottos seems to be "2% less evil than the GOP". Good luck with that one.


    As I said elsewhere, I'd support Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Casey from MA on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:05:55 AM EST
    is she were the nominee.

    Just sayin'.


    I'd support a Democrat. (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:27:34 AM EST
    I won't support a "democrat".

    DINO for president?  No.  No thanks.


    One person. One vote. (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:30:36 AM EST
    Love those secret ballots.

    That's easy for you to say now. ;-) (none / 0) (#165)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:26:52 AM EST
    IF... (none / 0) (#79)
    by weltec2 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:21:54 AM EST
    Hillary will run again. Have you read anything that convinces you that she will do so in 2012?

    Clinton speeches (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:14:51 AM EST
    I have a funny feeling as the Clinton's are righting there speeches, they will put some interesting sarcastic things in them just to feel better, and then scratch them out. Kind of like many of us do in our posts. Ha, you think what we say here is bad, you should see what we don't say. :-)

    ha, writing... but righting works :-) n/t (none / 0) (#21)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:16:58 AM EST
    so does "their" [speeches] (none / 0) (#118)
    by DFLer on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:27:00 AM EST
    sorry...the grammar police, raising its annoying head /:0)

    I d K about that (none / 0) (#23)
    by sociallybanned on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:20:06 AM EST
    I'd read on politico, that Hilary is going to extreme measures to have Obama supporters to block out the protesting Hilary supporters at the DNC with bigger signs but you know about those reporters, they like to create news than report it, especially these days.

    Muse (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by sociallybanned on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:17:53 AM EST
    In all aspects and to define one candidate over the other...

    Mainstream media at one point, after Hilary had lost the delegate count to be nominated b/c surely she didn't lose the primaries, especially with 18M votes, stated American Democrats wanted change , out with the old and in with the new.  Assuming Hilary is the "old" and Obama is the "new" (in their eyes), I guess Obama believes Hilary supporters like the "old" and by selecting Biden to be his running mate would gain those votes from "Clinton only" supporters.  Frankly, this whole "change" motto and out with the old and in with the new is bluntly ignorant.  First and foremost, Hilary's ideas were more logical and "newer" than Obama and without a doubt Biden.  
    Biden's ideas are way too old and he wouldn't represent "change".  I'm just so glad USA is winning the most medals and are catching in gold right now in the olympics or I would be more pist off.  Right now, I think it's all a joke.  Another Republican will take over the white house.  O well!

    we hear ya, jeralyn (5.00 / 13) (#24)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:29:49 AM EST
    But if you don't think choosing between two disappointing scenarios is depressing, well, you're not me.

    That's been my take on it for quite some time now. I've honestly tried to find some reason to care about Obama and get passed my disgust with the Democratic party in general. But every time I think maybe there's a way, someone pulls another dumb stunt like this. This will be the first Presidential election since I was able to vote (1981) that I can't bring myself to vote for anyone, least of all a Democrat. This is the first presidential election I'm not doing work for the party.

    I'll vote downticket and for anyone who was a voice of reason during the primaries. Other than that, they're on their own.

    Welcome to the sitting it out club (assuming you do).

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 12) (#25)
    by tlkextra on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:31:38 AM EST
    I respected your previous stance and understand your current one. For some of us, our defection was made earlier. My deal breaker was the RBC debacle. What I've appreciated from your site, was despite your differences of opinion with some of your visitors, you never resorted to name calling or editing - unlike some other sites. Some people don't get that just because someone doesn't back Obama, it doesn't make them a member of what has become the definition of PUMA. I never intended to cast a vote "against" Obama. I don't use my vote out of spite. I only vote "for" someone and right now I'm considering Cynthia McKinney or leaving President blank when I cast my vote here in Unincorporated Adams County (Regis). So, I'm actually feeling a little sad for you right now, as I can relate to the dilemma you seem to be feeling. Best to you...

    interesting (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by sociallybanned on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:34:35 AM EST
    I had to visit the stupid site just so I can see them gloat, and discovered a poll.

    A poll states that if Obama loses who will you vote for in 2012 (hilary or Obama) and by a huge margin, it was Hilary!  :)  

    Not surprising news to wake up to (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:41:30 AM EST
    (It's 4AM, and the I didn't sign up for the text message. . .)

    Anyway, what it proves is that the decision not to select Hillary was based on little more than sore winnerism. Biden does not represent "the audacity of hope." And you know what, that's ok with me. But all those people who thought Obama wouldn't make a selection from "old Washington" were really out to lunch.

    Jeralyn, I understand your concerns. I think that Biden is a prop to help on FP credibility (wanna bet that doesn't work?), and nothing more. He's going to be the official state funeral attender and have a minimal portfolio IMO.

    are you saying the VP slot (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:02:07 AM EST
    as it now exists under Obama is defunct?

    i've already responded to one obama supporter this evening who kind of tried to say it didn't mean anything cause the VP role is meaningless, and while i know you're not saying that to an absolute degree, you do seem to be saying... well... don't judge obama too harshly on his selection here because... "Biden is a prop to help on FP credibility (wanna bet that doesn't work?), and nothing more. He's going to be the official state funeral attender and have a minimal portfolio IMO."

    but you know what's funny. i personally don't have the same criticism of biden a lot of people have.  i've actually been defending biden for a long time.  he's a soft power advocate who has a great many intelligent things to say, in my view, on the middle east and terrorism.  even though he did vote "FOR" "THE" "WAR." </omninous music>

    I think it's funny cause if he's just a prop on foriegn policy then that negates the benefit of selecting him.  the possibility that he will be something more than just a prop on foriegn policy.  if he's nothing more than a prop then i'm left with obama, the newbie who stumbles through questions on diplomacy and incites riots in pakistan (cause he doesn't realize that it's not musharraf's job to kill bin laden).

    i hope he's more than a prop on foriegn policy.  obama needs more than a prop on foriegn policy.

    the crime issues are relevant to this blog.

    we do agree on this:  It won't work.  why won't it work?  because you're probably right.   biden was selected as a prop.  obama plans on doing this all by himself.


    The Establishment propped up Obama (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:45:54 AM EST
    Hence, Obama chose an Establishment running mate.
    Both Bush and Obama represented "change" and chose a father figure from the Establishment.

    Well said (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by stefystef on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:50:02 AM EST
    So much for change.

    lack of confidence? (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by boredmpa on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:42:42 AM EST
    Good lord, why don't they call themselves the lemming dems?  It's not a lack of confidence, it's sheer idiocy.

    Biden basically cancels out any and every gaffe McCain makes.  

    But I suppose it makes sense to reward Biden for the cover he gave everyone with the "Beauty Contest" branding.

    Jeralyn, what effect wil this have at the conventi (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Polar on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:05:51 AM EST
    What are the chances that enough people will feel strongly enough about the way things are going to open up the convention to see if the curently presumptive nominee still has the confidence of the party and still has the delegate numbers?  Any chance of a party revolt?

    Its probably good for the convention.... (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:02:06 AM EST
    All of the other choices had the potential to "disunify" the convention.  Remember who will be there -- lots of Obama devotees, and party hacks.  The Obama devotees are going to agree with whatevr The One says, and the party hacks have got to love the Biden pick.

    No, please (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Chisoxy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:14:48 AM EST
    tell us how you really feel.

    Political consideration (5.00 / 10) (#37)
    by koshembos on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:15:02 AM EST
    Many commenters invest their feelings into the comments; I don't want to it.

    The announcement coming at 3am in the morning, while Obama told us that he made up his mind several days ago, is bizarre. What gains does it bring. Is it address at college kids that are now partying at night? It's summer vacation and they are at home getting ready to move back to school. Or may be it was sent out by college kids?

    Biden is not a foreign policy expert. Being in Senate on the Foreign Relation committee doesn't an expert make. Are surgeons chosen by the academic papers they published?

    Biden is a lot of hot air. He does doesn't have a single bone of change in his body. But that's not too bad, Obama hasn't one neither. Obama talks of change but offers none.

    On Obama's part it's a cowardly choice. If he wanted an expert on foreign policy he has Wes Clark. Clark could also obliterate McCain after lunch. But Obama seems too scared to be next to a strong VP even if a strong one will help him immensely. That's another reason he didn't choose Hillary.

    We now have Abbott and Costello running for president on the Democratic side. The Republican have one of their famous every four years belly laughs.

    Taking votes (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:16:11 AM EST
    who thinks this guy is actually for real?

    Another unity ambassador (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:23:31 AM EST
    It doesn't look (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:27:12 AM EST
    like he's brought enough ponies for all of us!

    Promises, promises!


    But (5.00 / 8) (#57)
    by Nadai on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:03:29 AM EST
    he's trucked in enough Pony Sh!t for the entire country.

    So that's what (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:27:47 AM EST
    the smell is! I thought it was change!

    Change (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by chrisvee on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:58:28 AM EST
    you can stew in!

    Must be a pony in (none / 0) (#214)
    by camellia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:01:46 AM EST
    that pile somewhere!

    Wow, you're stooping (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by tlkextra on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:16:12 AM EST
    to name calling as a childish way to dispute others' opinion. Since you've never posted on this site before, I question whether you went to Obama Camp and were told to go out and attack over something like this. What you don't understand, is that for some of us, it was the immaturity of similar tactics that made us first question Obama.  If this is the "change" he inspires in his followers, I personally, "hope" he loses.

    i have a pc (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:19:31 AM EST
    not a macintosh.

    or whatever they're called these days.  I barely know how to convert a .wav to .mp3.

    even axlrod knows you can't astroturf the clinton supporter/elitism meme.

    so think about going back to the clinton supporter/racist meme and then get back to us.

    Its not my party. Not any more. (5.00 / 12) (#46)
    by Manuel on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:27:33 AM EST
    Obama's nomination is the result of a very flawed process and ran a divisive campaign.  Strike one.

    Obama keeps running away from progressive positions on issues (e.g. FISA).  Strike two.

    Obama has not done enough to unify the party (e.g. VP selection process).  Strike three.

    I won't vote for McCain but I may sit this one out.

    You are the (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:58:03 AM EST
    absolute epitome of what it means to be PUMA. There's no official club to join. It's a state of mind.

    I believe Biden was chosen to appeal to seniors (5.00 / 11) (#47)
    by suzieg on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:34:55 AM EST
    simply because he's too far behind with them and he's catholic and popular in southern Penn.

    The person I'm the most disappointed with, is Caroline Kennedy, how could she be part of this travesty? I feel there's some major snobbism/elitism involved - Clintons not blue blood enough or too "nouveau riche" for them!

    Ted Kennedy was really vicious to her about why she should not be selected VP and probably the major reason why she was not vetted by Obama, out of respect for Ted Kennedy... it's all very disgusting.  

    The Clintons must be devastated by the back stabbing they continue to suffer but I wonder if it's not payback, for the Lewinsky's affair, by the party elite who obviously blame him for Gore's loss in 2000.

    I feel so lost right now.... 40 yrs of being a loyal democrat and nowhere to go. I had changed my affiliation to independent, but hoped, down deep, that by selecting her I might be able to come back. I won't, I can't!

    Biden, who sees himself as the next Gertrude Bell - he's so pedantic, the coming months will be intorable - I'm so happy I've stocked up on books, just for this eventual reality - time to shut everything out and start reading....  

    Gawd, another 4 yrs of not watching or listening to my president - I cannot stand either of the 2 democratic candidates therefore will probably vote against them, after 40 yrs of party loyalty! Can it be any more depressing?

    You're not the only one (5.00 / 13) (#49)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:45:37 AM EST
    Seriously. I swear, there ought to be a survivors support group or something. "I was a loyal Democrat for X number of years, and I didn't even get a frakking t-shirt".

    Biden's been a decent senator and has some positives, but as a presidential/vice presidential candidate? Ha. Not so much.

    There's been Clinton hate from day 1, even before the Lewinsky stuff. They were seen as country bumpkins by the Washington elite, including the Kennedys. The Washington Post made all sorts of caustic remarks in 92 about them being bubbas -- despite the fact that they both went to ivy league schools and Bill being a Rhodes scholar and Hillary having worked in Washington for years, somehow they'd just fallen off the turnip truck with a passle of pigs. It was disgusting. Still is.

    Considering all the dirty laundry in the Kennedy family (starting with Joe Sr who was notorious for having affairs/keeping mistresses, including actress Gloria Swanson) to current day scandals, they really have no right to take the moral high ground.

    I plan on just laughing at the idiocy from both parties over the next 70 days or however long is it. And watching a lot of tv/movies/dvds and reading books. I can't even discuss this with my friends because they're still all loyal Obamabots, even the former Republicans. They think I'm some sort of freak for not loving the One and his lame performance. They'll learn the hard way, I guess.


    My observation has been (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by tlkextra on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:59:48 AM EST
    That those who haven't due their due diligence and vetted Obama for themselves are most frequently supporters of him. They haven't been able to see the travesty of the Media during this Election, instead, they believe everything they've been spoon fed.

    whoops- (none / 0) (#58)
    by tlkextra on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:03:37 AM EST
    haven't "done", not haven't "due". Must be time for bed....

    Perhaps Biden was chosen for his policy expertise (1.00 / 2) (#175)
    by NvlAv8r on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:43:44 AM EST
    And his experience.  Of all the Dem choices he probably has the deepest foreign policy experience and does a great job at being an attack dog.  Not my favorite guy, but he will do well in this role.

    I understand you voting against them, not because of policy differences with you but because of your personal feelings.

    Really, everything is not about backstabbing and back-room machinations.  I'm guessing that Obama didn't believe that Hillary would make a good VP.  It wasn't "owed" to her, and there were many others who have more to bring to the table than her.  C'est la guerre.


    What is "owed" is respect. (5.00 / 6) (#183)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:51:44 AM EST
    Any candidate who got that many votes is "owed" at least a public show of respect, no matter what the presumptive nominee feels personally.  That's what a large part of politics is - appearances.

    Jeralyn, come visit us at the PUMA media center (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by goldberry on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:52:24 AM EST
    We won't be in the convention center but that's not where our target audience is anyway.  
    We have until Wednesday to turn it around.  

    I've got the new slogan: (5.00 / 11) (#60)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:26:35 AM EST
    "Two gaffe machines for the price of one."

    I hope the Obama camp has a stellar rapid response team to deal with all the stupid things Biden says over the next few months.

    When the dust settles this may well look like worst VP pick since Eagleton.

    Thank you, I'll just do that! (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by suzieg on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:38:50 AM EST

    I won't be reminding you of your attitude ... (5.00 / 17) (#66)
    by cymro on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:46:03 AM EST
    ... after Obama loses in November. But I hope you will learn something when he does.

    Right on! (5.00 / 8) (#100)
    by stefystef on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:56:46 AM EST
    Thank you cymro for saying what so many of us are thinking.

    "Down-Ticket Only" (5.00 / 9) (#68)
    by Larry Bailey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:59:40 AM EST
    That's a pretty good term to apply to those of us who see the entire Obama VP charade as little more than one last slap at the Clintons -- the silly 3 a.m. texting and the choice of another Democratic Senator who voted for AUMF.

    This seals it for me: I'm skipping the top line on the ballot, voting for every other Democrat (as I've done for 40 years), and letting the chips fall where they may. We appear to be set to pick up 5-6 Senate seats and 10-15 House seats. That'll be enough to stave off another 4 years of GOP control of the Executive Branch.

    lack of confidence, let me add (5.00 / 14) (#70)
    by kimsaw on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:05:47 AM EST
    a lack of political judgment and maturity. To this independent the "can't we all get along guy" is telling 18 million Democrats he can work with Republicans, admired Reagan, is the post partisan leader of the nation and yet he can't work with Hillary Clinton. Speaker Pelosi offers an attitude adjustment is needed from PUMAs. DNC Dean laughingly calls the Republican Party the White Party. And the presumptive leader Sen. Obama thinks brushing the dust off, throwing the finger and texting at 3AM is a unifying cry. This is a political soap opera, a made for tv moment. I just can't figure out whether it's a comedy or psychodrama!

    Biden the Plagiarist (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by nacprof on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:07:23 AM EST

    Out of all the potential candidates, Barak chooses someone who completed his degree by stealing others' ideas and claiming them as his own.  His defense?  He was too stupid to know you are supposed to give credit to the true author.  Please!  Even my community college freshmen know you do not commit fraud to complete a course.

    Overly Harsh (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by bmc on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:24:11 AM EST
    I think that's a little harsh nacprof. Biden made a mistake as a freshman in college and you're branding him with it after all these years?

    C'mon...Joe Biden has achieved much in his lifetime. He was young, stupid, and made a mistake. But it's harsh to judge a man by one mistake. Biden also commuted every single night from Washington to Delaware to be with his children, after his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car crash during his first term, a fact which shows incredible character and devotion. Shouldn't you be assessing a man on the basis of his life's work, and not a mistake he made when he was a very young man?


    And a charming, gracious (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:08:49 AM EST
    and generous loser she is too.

    Now, let's talk about the winner...

    Sending the text at 3:00 AM is bad judgement (5.00 / 13) (#73)
    by mexboy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:09:37 AM EST
    Even if you gave Obama the benefit of the doubt, it is still a political self inflicted injury. It is not the kind of decision a mature leader would make, because of the obvious connection to the 3:00 AM Hilary Ad.

    I haven't posted here in a while because I will not vote for Obama under any circumstances because of...well, everything, and I didn't want to pretend otherwise just to be here. I will however vote down ticket.

    I left the Democratic party because of the way the DP and Obama have handled themselves. I thought I maybe wasn't welcome here anymore, since this is a Democratic site. If that is the case, please let me know.

    Just so you know, I will most likely vote for McCain  so my vote will be recorded as a Democrat for McCain, then switch my registration to independent or Green.

     The damage Obama will do to the Democratic party will be irreparable, if the Democratic party survives this take over attempt, I will gladly register Democrat again.

    Yours/ Ours (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Xanthe on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:15:27 AM EST
      Hope/Change/Unity - and throw in a little "audacity" for Joe Biden -

    I don't know - the signposts are a little saggy.

    I'm fairly new to this site (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by andjustice4all on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:24:45 AM EST
    and though I hate to sound stupid, would someone please tell me what PUMA stands for? I'd really appreciate it.
    More in keeping with this thread, ny brother is an Obamabot; I told him yesterday that Biden would be the one and he thought that was outrageous(as it should be to his serious supporters). They expected change and something fresh and new--and got Biden.
    Wonder how many text replies at 3 am read: WTF???

    His supporters will give (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Xanthe on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:43:51 AM EST
    ordinary pretzels a bad name as they rush to Obama's side for this pick.  It's a lost cause to think otherwise.

    Here's a nice thing about Joe Biden:  He asked his mother to live with his family - when interviewed, he said:  well, we have the money and we are family.  He is not a man of great wealth btw.  So many people put their parents in homes nowadays.  (Hillary is also a good daughter.)

    - probably his economic bent is much the same as the Great Hope.  (No big moves - this will be a moderate administration, I think.)  So ironic.  

    When I think of how Sen. Biden was raked over the coals on progressive blogs on the bankruptcy bill.  Politics really is a snaky thing.

    PUMA is party unity my a** -


    What PUMA stand for... (5.00 / 11) (#204)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:20:31 AM EST
    Its an acronym for "Party Unity My Ass" ... that came from the insistence that Clinton supporters had to back Obama in the name of "Party Unity".

    And what PUMAs stand for is related to that -- the rejection of the "Party unity" argument is based on how Clinton and her supporters were treated by the party during the campaign.  It is obvious that the Democratic Party "fixed" things for Obama (and against Clinton)...

    1. the scheduling of the early states -- it makes no sense for two traditionally 'red' states to be 'early window' states -- but if you look at it from the perspective of finding states where Clinton would be weak, it makes a lot of sense.  

    2. the whole 'new schedule' thing was supposed to get rid of Iowa and New Hamphires' dominant role --but Iowa remained the first caucus (Edwards was beating Hillary there when the schedule was finalized)

    3. the complete elimination of delegates from Florida and Michigan (the rules have specific penalties for going too early that were designed to keep candidates -- and thus the media -- from paying attention to 'rule breakers", i.e. loss of half of elected delegate strength, all superdelegates, and candidates who campaigned in sanctioned states were ineligible for delegates elected from those states),

    4. The failure to penalize Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina for violating the same rule that MI and FL were sanctioned for.  NH was especially eqregious, because it changed the ORDER in which the contests would occur

    5. The complete silence of the Party in the face of false claims of racism against the Clinton (and those claims were coming from some Party leaders themselves), and overwhelming misogyny and sexism aimed at Clinton.

    6. Efforts by Pelosi to undermine Clinton (e.g. just her declaration that a gas tax holiday was off the table)

    7. Bullying/buying superdelegate votes for Obama by the party leadership....

    8. And the piece de resistance -- the complete and utter disposal of any pretext that rules mattered when the RBC stole elected Clinton delegates and gave them to Obama (among other rules violations -- that's merely the easiest to explain and most blatant.)

    It was the RBC meeting that made manifest all the things that were obvious but 'deniable' up until that point.  And it was the RBC meeting that was the true impetus to the PUMA movement... its not about Hillary, its about 'fixing' what is supposed to be a "Democratic" process.  

    The most appropriate parallel is to the 1968 campaign, where Party leaders selected Humphrey despite the fact that he never even won a primary.  Humphrey lost that election because of disgust with the process -- Democrats stayed home, or voted for Nixon, rather than be a part of that process even though they "knew" that Humphrey was a better choice than Nixon.


    Re: (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by fafnir on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:28:53 AM EST
    Jeralyn, I appreciate your honesty and I commend your courage for drawing a line candidates cannot cross if they want to earn your vote.

    Now, Joe Biden in his own words to Republicans at the Columbia Rotary Club in South Carolina, where he pounced on a member's announcement that the club would hold its annual Christmas party at the state Department of Archives and History where members could view the original copy of the state's Articles of Secession:

    "Where else could I go to a Rotary Club where (for a) Christmas party the highlight is looking at the Articles?"

    And this jewel:

    Delaware [Biden] noted, was a "slave state that fought beside the North. That's only because we couldn't figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way."

    Lovely pick.

    (Biden charms local GOP, Dec. 3, 2006)

    McCain Ad on Biden is Out (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by facta non verba on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:31:08 AM EST
    I saw the ad... (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:47:47 AM EST
    It is devastating.
    Not only does Biden criticize Obama, he glorifies McCain.

    It makes me think that the whole Obama phenomenon was orchestrated by Rove, and bought hook, line and sinker by a progressive movement that has gotten lazy.


    wow lentinel (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by DFLer on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:34:58 AM EST
    a progressive movement that has gotten lazy.

    well said, and food for thought for me today


    This campaign is becoming a farce of itself - (5.00 / 10) (#86)
    by carmel on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:37:48 AM EST
    "This Is Spinal Tap - Campaign Version" comes to mind. The Obama campaign gets sillier and sillier with their "be the first to know" text message ploy, which of course was really a way to get voter information. Unfortunately for Obama, Biden is more "status quo" than Hillary, and he's the MBNA Credit Card King, and I might add he's not a woman. Terrible choice because it shows how weak and inexperienced Obama is, especially in foreign policy.

    This reminds me... (5.00 / 8) (#87)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:43:11 AM EST
    The selection of Biden by Obama reminds me of the selection of Lieberman by Gore.

    It signaled Gore's having bought into the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal as being a major factor in the 2000 race. Lieberman's sole qualification was that he had risen in the Senate to condemn Clinton - the first democrat to do so. Hurray.

    Obama is buying into the latest right-wing scenarios. Be tough. Be tough on Iran. Tough on Russia. Tough on Afghanistan, Tough on Crime. Be soft on civil liberties, soft on the constitution, soft on civil rights.

    Then, as now, the American people want peace and an economy that is equitable. They want a single-payer health plan. They want an end to the war in Iraq. They voted for it in 2006 and got nothing. In fact, they got an escalation of the war.

    Gore snatched defeat from victory. He ran against a nobody. A failed governor of Texas who was known to be an idiot. Gore's pick of Lieberman gave the republicans all they needed to undermine him. Obama is following the same dismal road.

    Oh, and (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:45:20 AM EST
    here's some video that's going to have to be WBRMed.

    What a clip. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:29:18 AM EST
    Some more b.s. being slung by Biden.
    Particularly tasteful is Biden saying that he doesn't want to be V.P. but if asked would accept so that he could "help out" the first African-American candidate...

    Also stomach-turning is the advertisement by Boeing that one is obliged to watch before viewing the clip. War is really fuzzy and warm - like a teddy-bear.


    Very disappointed in the choice (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by stefystef on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:47:56 AM EST
    I thought Obama would pick a younger, more managerial VP choice.  Instead, it's old politics again with Washington insider propping up the young, totally inexperienced newcomer.

    I know many have compared it to JFK and LBJ, but Kenney had far more experience in Washington than Obama had and Biden WISHED he had the power that Johnson had in the Congress.

    And Obama used the Iraq vote against Hillary and Biden and Edwards during the primaries, but now Biden is okay???  I was never going to vote for Obama and now I'm more sure of my decision than ever.

    C-Span now playing 1987 video (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:57:30 AM EST
    of Bloviating Biden telling reporter he has a higher IQ than the reporter.
    2 Dem arrogant egotists - on the same ticket!

    Here's the thing - we all lost, (5.00 / 18) (#102)
    by Xanthe on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:59:07 AM EST
    including you.

    More UNITY !!! (5.00 / 15) (#103)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:59:10 AM EST

    New Improved UNITY! (5.00 / 21) (#110)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:14:59 AM EST
    Now with more condescension!

    Disappointed Democrat (5.00 / 15) (#105)
    by sajmba on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:00:41 AM EST
    As an American of Indian descent, I am very disappointed with this pick. If anything it reinforces the feeling that the Obama/ Biden ticket is an anti-Indian ticket.
    Biden on Indians.... "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking" (The guy doesn't even realize that he just said something racist)

    Then Obama's campaign calling Senator Clinton the Senator from Punjab

    Granted our demographic is probably not a huge swing block however it does send negative vibes to our community.
    BTW, for all his talk of change..why embrace a nominee that has 30 years of Washington experience?
    I cannot in good conscience vote Democrat this time.

    Boneheaded bamboozlement. (5.00 / 9) (#111)
    by magisterludi on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:15:18 AM EST
    What a stupid, cynical charade. This stunt is just the latest in a string of stupid.

    The DNC and the Chicago crew can join the GOP in Hell.
    Lord knows they've put us through enough of it already.

    Anyone wanting to start the New Boston Tea Party, give me a shout. I am so IN.

    Angering... (5.00 / 12) (#113)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:17:04 AM EST
    During the campaign, Obama used as a centerpiece of his wisdom that he was opposed to the war in Iraq (sayeth he) as opposed to Clinton, the evil one, who voted for it..

    So - what does Obama do? He chooses a guy who not only voted for the Iraq war, but was head of the Foreign Relations Committee at the time. If anyone should have known better, it should have been Biden. But Biden went around selling the war, saying that he was for it - his only reservation was that the didn't think that the American people had been properly "prepared" for the extended occupation. Thanks Joe. Thanks Barack. For nothing.

    You are used to holding your nose. (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:20:12 AM EST
    If you would like us all to ignore what we see, hear and smell, could your campaign provide us with eyeshades, earplugs and clothespins?

    biden's behavior (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by serif on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:27:48 AM EST
    in the hearings was shameful. Not that he was alone in that but it was when I decided that I would never ( as in never ever) vote for them man.

    Hard times for liberals (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:39:48 AM EST
    This could be a very definative election. Both parties seem on course for a major reallignment. While Obama is dragging the party to a moderate Republican era, a McCain win could wrestle the Republican party away from the fundamentalists.

    It sounds like a corporate lobbyist dream world. There won't be anyone in Washington interested in those pesty social issues that get in their way.

    If this reallignment does happen, I think the Republican's will be the long term winner, because they'll be percieved as the party of principle. Democrat's will look like a poor imitation.

    No thanks keep the change (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Redshoes on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:50:34 AM EST
    Saw that a few months ago [sorry forgotten where].  The choice for many progressives is a very difficult one.  Do you sit this one out and continue to work for progressive candidates so there's a clear and present choice in 2012 between the Democratic and Republican candidates? ("burn down the village in order to save it" theory)  Or do you instead recognize that those at the margins will be harmed if a Democratic isn't in the White House?  ("we're all dead in the long term" theory).  

    In my view, the Democratic party (and the nation), since 1980, has been in a death spiral -- even though there might be an uptick (WJC) the trajectory still heads down.    More than 25 years earlier Ike warned of the danger from the military-industrial complex, he knew of what he spoke.  And now 50 years later we have a Democratic ticket Obama-Biden that makes Nixon-Agnew look progressive.  How'd that happen?

    The reality for anyone believes in progress is that this just isn't the ticket that will lead to a more just society.  But I'm sure the wealth and elite are just fine with that.

    McCain (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:54:15 AM EST
    already has a new ad out where Biden talks about how Obama is unqualified and where he praises McCain.

    I agree with some of the others here that obviously Biden was a desperation pick. The polling has showed him losing state after state and he hopes that Biden will stop the bleeding.

    This is looking more and more like Dukakis/Bentsen every day.

    that new ad (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by ccpup on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:27:31 AM EST
    is truly devastating.  Not flattering for Obama at all -- he looks very angry in the shot they use as Biden slams him -- and Biden doesn't hesitate one second with his assertion that Obama is too inexperienced for the Presidency.

    The ad then cuts to a clip where Biden says American would be better under McCain (or something like that).

    Pretty straightforward, no-bones-about-it, "honest" talk from Biden.

    Wasn't that supposed to be a plus for the campaign?



    Something to think about (none / 0) (#140)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:58:09 AM EST
    Lloyd Bentsen probably got more votes in one election to the Senate than Joe Biden ever has.

    Delaware is SMALL (though Biden is pretty well known in the Philly media market).


    Philly market (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:02:25 AM EST
    and PA might be why he was picked. Obama's campaign might be seriously worried about carrying PA. I don't think Biden will be enough though if they're in trouble there.

    I think PA is pretty much a lock (none / 0) (#151)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:06:44 AM EST
    unless Obama is down 4 points or more nationally. And if that happens, he loses no matter what happens in PA.

    But Biden is from Scranton, which ought to make Paul Kanjorski happy.


    Hey mobius and new day (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by DFLer on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:55:23 AM EST
    Knock knock
    Who's there?
    Orange who?
    Orange you glad you made me cry?

    oh please.... (5.00 / 6) (#139)
    by kempis on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:57:53 AM EST
    I stopped reading after this:

    She played the race and gender card.  Beginning in South Carolina when Bill invoked Jesse Jackson to link Obama to him and imply that SC was a "black" state, neverminding the fact that Obama had won IOWA previous to that.

    There were other factually inaccurate remarks prior to this, like the assertion that the only way Hillary would have won the nomination was to "steal" it, one presumes with Superdelegate support--which is exactly how Obama managed to "win" it despite losing the popular vote by a significant margin from March - June.

    But the above ignores when the race card was played and by whom and why. It was played by the Obama camp all throughout January. The day after the NH primary, Jesse Jackson Jr. said on television that Hillary cried for herself but not for Katrina victims--a totally irresponsible and inflammatory lie which injected race. Then Bill's "fairy tale" remark was construed as racist by Obama spokespeople, including the "neutral" Donna Brazile. Etc. Etc. The Obama camp sent out a 4 page memo to campaign staff in SC advising them to play up Clinton campaign statements like "fairy tale" as "racially insensitive."

    I know because that's when I realized it would be difficult for me to vote for a Democratic nominee who tried to brand his opponent, Hillary Clinton, as a "soft racist" in order to win SC and other Southern Democratic primaries. That was despicable.

    New politics, my *ss.

    I'll hold my nose and vote for him over McCain, but it's Obama and his supporters in the DNC and the media that have inspired me to leave the Democratic party after 32 years. I don't know what this party stands for and I refuse to support it until I do. I'll vote for Obama over McCain because I consider it my duty as a citizen to vote for the better choice, but I won't give a dime to his campaign nor put a sign in my yard nor a bumpersticker on my car. I'd be embarrassed to support such a vague candidate whose supporters seem to be personality cultists rather than principled voters.

    They don't care about your (5.00 / 6) (#155)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:13:40 AM EST
    yard signs or your money.  You're giving them all they want and need: your vote.

    Not I.


    I can respect your choice (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by kempis on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:19:40 AM EST
    In November, I may decide that I can't vote for Obama. Right now, though, I know that I can't enable another Republican presidency.

    It isn't about Hilary. It never was for me (5.00 / 5) (#144)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:00:52 AM EST
    Bringing down the party! That's rich coming from a candidate that has already sold out the Constitution (FISA), wavered on the environment (off shore drilling), clouded the line between church and state and has moved from the anti war candidate to expanding our military presence in the middle east. And he hasn't even been nominated yet. It will be very interesting to see where he takes the party from here.

    (I expect immigration to be the next issue watered down).

    My evil (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by chrisvee on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:06:39 AM EST
    34 year plan to pose as a Democrat just to turn against them in their ultimate hour of need is almost complete -- don't rain on my parade!

    Why is it that (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:07:29 AM EST
    EVERY time Obama makes a goof.... you have to come over here from that orange place and bully people?

    This is really not a very effective way for you to get votes for Obama.

    Is this the "Change We Can Beleive In"? Bully people into voting fo Obama!!

    The 3am Text Message seems to be a deliberate (5.00 / 5) (#161)
    by carmel on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:23:30 AM EST
    swipe at Hillary and the 3am Phone Call ad, and it is the immature, passive aggressive type of swipe that the Obama campaign has perfected. The only other explanation is the campaign could not control their message, and once the news leaked, they were very, very slow in catching up and getting with the message. Who is going to believe that? The Obama campaign responds to these media leaks in under an hour when they need to. Biden is another member of the Harvard Boys Club/Old Boys Club and that's what Obama is really all about. Obama is OLD Washington politics with a media driven propaganda machine to make it look all shiny and new, to hoodwink and bamboozle the adoring crowds.

    "let" him lose? (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:25:14 AM EST
    Yeah, that's about it.  I'm not going to be his mommy.  I will not hold his hand.  I will not pick him up when he falls.  I will not wipe his tears when he cries.

    I'm going to be the mother who teaches her kids as best she can and then lets them succeed and fail all on their own.  We tried to tell them.  We tried to teach them.  We tried to educate them.  We tried.  We watched them ignore us and walk away.

    We've done our part.

    Excuse-me....have a lookie at this site before you (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by suzieg on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:27:33 AM EST
    affirm that he WON the primaries where most of the caucuses were held:


    Obama has always been the status quo candidate (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by esmense on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:33:26 AM EST
    Chosen by (current and former) "insider" leaders of the house and senate.

    From the AP story:

    "He picked a 35-year veteran of the Senate -- the ultimate insider -- rather than a candidate from outside Washington...or from outside his party...or from outside the mostly white male club of vice presidential candidates."

    One could also add "from outside the civil rights movement" as well as anyone strongly and effectively associated with any progressive issue.

    If he himself was strongly associated with any such issues, he would not have received the establishment support he has received.

    If you Obama supporterss (5.00 / 6) (#172)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:38:23 AM EST
    who I won't call clueless bots because it's rude, really think that Obama didn't know the media would clue in when he sent the SECRET SERVICE and A PRIVATE PLANE to pick up Biden then I have a bridge to sell you.

    If he really wanted his texting buddies to know first he would have sent it before he sent the secret service and plane. At that point it was pretty obvious who the pick was.

    Wow (5.00 / 6) (#174)
    by chrisvee on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:42:20 AM EST
    Have straw. Got match?

    For someone who claims to be a Democrat, you sure have a whole lot of Republican talking points about the Clintons there.

    Mirror image (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:55:27 AM EST
    Biden: "I would be honored to run with or against John McCain."

    With - against - whatever.

    Biden: a turkey with a Cheshire Cat grin.

    Thank you for giving me permission (5.00 / 7) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:57:15 AM EST
    to not vote for Obama. I didn't plan to vote for him before your comment but now that I have your permission, I feel sooooo much better about my decision.

    I hope you spread your message through out the country. You are a true representative for Obama and the New Democratic Party.

    I'm going to let him lose. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by talesoftwokitties on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:01:43 AM EST

    Obama smeared Hillary as wanting to kill him... (5.00 / 4) (#198)
    by lambert on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:11:06 AM EST
    ... and if that's not disrespectful, I don't know what is.

    As for the speaking spots, that was forced on them. As, hopefully, much else will be.

    Speaking of the election process... (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by lambert on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:16:02 AM EST
    ... everybody should watch thismovie about the theft of caucus votes in TX and IN.

    WARNING: GIVE IT TIME TO BUFFER before pressing play. Wait, say, thirty seconds, and it will play.

    Whining my sweet Aunt Fanny.

    Waiting until the last minute (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by allimom99 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:29:57 AM EST
    gave the campaign a chance to get the maximum number of unlisted cell #s for fundraising! It really is all about the money. The ticket is a Wall Street slam-dunk - the invesment bank and subprime lenders' darling chooses the lap dog of the credit card industry.

    Entrenched powers - 2  American people - 0

    Great job, DNC. Way to stand up for us poor voters. Cynthia McKinney, here I come.

    Amen to this (5.00 / 3) (#213)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:35:24 AM EST
    .... the Obama-Biden belief that we shouldn't antagonize Republicans, but work to bring them into our party is completely distastefulto me. I didn't vote for my senators and congresspersons to make nice in Congress. I voted for the ones I thought would fight for Democratic ideals, not water them down to be acceptable to people whose policy views I vehemently disagree with.

    Jeralyn. For me, this is not
    "bipartisanship" : this is appeasement. There are fights, like many of the 90's  that were ell worth fighting for, with all out might. Obama was wrong to demean them and Barney Frank calling him on this was right on. Many of those fights were about Democratic Values.

    Negotiations is one thing, giving in and singing the other team tunes is another.

    I guess you missed the part of the article (5.00 / 0) (#215)
    by DA in LA on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:00:16 AM EST
    when you look at the author's name.  You may as well have linked to an Ann Coulter article to make you point.

    Not the original choice.... (4.90 / 22) (#59)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:20:08 AM EST
    I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that Biden was not the original choice -- that the plan was to roll out Kaine or Bayh earlier, and that internal (and then publicly released) polling said that questions about Obama's judgment and experience were killing him, and he desperately needed someone "known" who has "leadership" qualities.

    Biden is clearly a desperation move -- I can't imagine any campaign picking someone who has said flat out that the Presidential nominee is unqualified, and I'd be willing to bet that Biden was "un-short listed" early in the vetting process.

    When Biden said "I'm not the guy" he meant it -- he wouldn't have said that if he had any idea that he had a shot.  He hadn't been told at that point that he was being seriously considered, and that suggests a campaign in disarray.  

    Bottom line, I think that two weeks ago, the decision had been made for Kaine, and then the polls and focus groups started coming in, and what they said was that Obama had serious problems, and Kaine didn't help, and in some way exacerbated, the problems.   Clinton was seriously reconsidered -- and may have been asked but an agreement could not be reached on her role.  It was too late to vet other "experience" possibilities who might have been willing to serve, and Biden wound up being the guy.

    That limb you're out on ... (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:29:06 AM EST
    is firmly rooted to the tree.

    I think you're 100% right.  


    best explanation yet! (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by suzieg on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:51:56 AM EST
    Yeah, I Think You're Right P. (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by bmc on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:14:16 AM EST
    Been thinking the very same thing. Obama wanted Kaine; but the trial balloon floated on Kaine resulted in some second-guessing. That's when Biden got a closer second look. This was a move to protect Obama from his own negatives, nothing more. But it could backfire, since it really highlights Obama's weaknesses. Still, it might generate interest in a campaign that has become so stale, it's painful. Ya never know what will come out of Biden's mouth at any given moment! Ha.

    I guess Biden (none / 0) (#173)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:40:08 AM EST
    will have to do a flip flop with a half twist of his previous remark.

    So depressing.


    Paul, I think you're right (none / 0) (#206)
    by lambert on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:20:57 AM EST
    and that explains the timing glitch.

    The only problem (none / 0) (#212)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:32:11 AM EST
    I have with your theory, is that "I'm not the guy" could've been the same old BS.  I'm not convinced he was just shooting from the hip.

    Maybe he just didn't want people staking out his house for 5 days straight.


    Jeralyn, (4.71 / 14) (#2)
    by Firewalker on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:52:08 AM EST
    what do you think about the Obama campaign sending out the text messages beginning at 3AM (confirmed by CNN). Am I crazy in seeing this as a politically tone deaf dig at Hillary or am I just being overly sensitive tonight? I think I would have found it comical if Hillary had been the VP pick. But after the way things went down (including finding out today she was never even vetted), I completely fail to see the humor. How does this sort of divisive dig achieve unity and win over Hillary supporters?

    Good gawd, were they dunder-headed (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:57:56 AM EST
    enough to actually do that? They sent their text messages at 3am? Seriously?

    I tell ya, the DEMS WANT TO LOSE this election. There's no other explanation for the whole debacle.


    Yes, seriously. (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Firewalker on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:01:12 AM EST
    BarackObama.com got the transformation right at 3 a.m. when Team Obama sent out the text messages. (Mine came in at 3:05.)


    But CNN got it first (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by stefystef on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:12:44 AM EST
    from what I'm reading.  I thought Obama wanted his followers to get the news first, BEFORE the MSM.

    Yeah, right.  Obama made sure his buddies at CNN and MSNBC got the news first.  The news reported at 12:30am, the texts went out around 3 am.

    So much for "new" politics.


    I have always said that..... (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:25:32 AM EST
    ...the one constituency that Obama will never throw under the bus is the MSM.

    brush off of shoulder and shoe, 3am message (5.00 / 15) (#11)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:02:19 AM EST
    no vetting, getting her to tirelessly work while saying she needs to do more. Gosh they're such nice people. With that sort of childish behavior you just know they'd be looking out for you. snark. You know, I think they hate the Clintons far more than any republicans ever did. They want to crush her so badly they can taste it.

    I really really hope (5.00 / 10) (#52)
    by Nadai on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:55:21 AM EST
    that after the convention, both Clintons tell Obama where he can stick his Unity Pony and then go off on a nice, long vacation.  I hear Hawaii is nice this time of year.  Let him do his own d@mn campaigning.

    Stick with the Dem Party (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:21:34 AM EST
    they will. The Clintons will do what they are asked todo to get a Dem in the White House.

    I've always thought that Hillary is campaigning so hard for Obama because she is worried the Repubs will be in the WH. She is a Dem with things she wants to get through Congress.

    I thought I was going to vote for Obama anyhow... but now.. I'm not sure. My state will go Dem ... so my vote isn't going to matter.


    I'm stunned (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Makarov on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:19:17 AM EST
    at the sheer gall of this. The text did indeed go out at 3am, from reading posts on another site.

    After watching the forum in the megachurch this week, and McCain reminding me how horrible he is, I'd decided to vote Dem come what may.

    Obama probably lost my vote tonight.


    Or maybe (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by jtaylorr on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:45:23 AM EST
    we could use some logic and critical thinking.
    The draw of the text messages was that you'd be the "first" to know. But a little after midnight, some news agencies started reporting it was Biden, citing an anonymous source. So in order to make the text messaging ploy not seem like a total failure, the Obama camp sent them out in the early early morning.
    FYI, I got mine at 2:45. So did Nate.

    Not everything is about Hillary.


    I think we see why Obama buried this (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by DCDemocrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:02:37 AM EST
    in a Saturday news cycle.  He wants the great benefits that come from a Biden nomination, and he assumed that all the negativity that the media is spinning about the choice at the instigation of the McCain camp would get buried on the low ebb of the news week.  

    They're very good at managing this stuff.


    Absolutely buried--in plain sight (none / 0) (#74)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:12:09 AM EST
    I need to find my comment from like a month ago when I called Biden.

    My logic was that Obama needed an attack dog, and Hillary wasn't going to be the one.


    Right (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:17:19 AM EST
    apparently - Biden bashed Anita Hill (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:12:26 AM EST
    during the Clarence Thomas hearings?
    I don't remember that but some are saying he didn't believe her account of events.
    Do you know?

    I don't recall that he didn't believe her (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by litigatormom on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:15:19 AM EST
    I do recall that he was utterly ineffectual in running those hearings.  It was a long time ago, but he'd already been in the Senate for 20 years, he should have done better.

    Given that I think the prospect of a McCain presidency is apocalyptic, I'm resigned to voting for Obama, and Biden is probably the best of the "top three" Veep candidates that emerged.  At least he brings significant foreign policy experience to the table. Bayh could put you in a coma from boredom, and Kaine had less experience than Obama.

    Yes, I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.  Yes, I resent the role of the Democratic Party leadership in forming a ticket that is not the strongest one we could have put forth.  

    But President John McCain is completely unacceptable to me.  My revulsion at the prospect of his being president only grows over time. So, lesser of two evils, here I come.

    BTW, I think it was stupid of the Obama campaign to let it leak that Clinton had never even been vetted.  It didn't come out as "didn't need to be vetted because she was the other leading candidate," it came out as "we didn't bother to even consider her seriously."  Not smart.

    litigatormom, owner of one home


    My read on it (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:22:28 AM EST
    is that, having gotten much of the credit for stopping Bork, Biden thought he could easily do the same with Thomas. (Incidentally, this is the problem with Democrats: they always think what worked last year will work this year; Republicans actually learn from their defeats).

    And as for the vote, I'm pretty much where you are, and have been since the nomination was decided.


    Andgarden, (5.00 / 9) (#179)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:49:36 AM EST
    I know that we sometimes pick on your youth, but this is one time where being an adult woman at the time of the Thomas hearings gives one a perspective on them that frankly, only an adult woman could have. Biden oversaw a hearing where Anita Hill became the butt of nasty sexism, including making her repeat telling about an incident involving a soda can and pubic hair. The snickering in the media was awful. After the senate submitted her to humiliation after humiliation, Thomas got his job for life, and she became the topic of the late night jokes. Biden could have stopped it, but he didn't. He may offer Obama some street creds on other issues, but he is another slap in the face to women.

    Don't remember him bashing her (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:49:13 AM EST
    but he wasn't supportive.  His main crime in the hearings was in never calling a couple of witnesses who could have corroborated her story with similar stories of their own.  There's never been an explanation of why he did that.

    I was too young to know what was going on (none / 0) (#202)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:17:48 AM EST
    In those hearing.  I think that the NAACP came out against him?  But was there any Black support for this guy?  Did that complicate the preceedings?

    Yes, I know, I watched. (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by talesoftwokitties on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:57:06 AM EST
    He was a complete *ss.  Trying to act all reasonable - he just sounded pompous and condescending.  And a friggin' wind bag.

    Biden was a horror at the Anita Hill hearings (5.00 / 11) (#199)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:15:07 AM EST
    He folded like an accordian to the Republicans' misogynistic framing of Hill (she was crazy, vengeful, scorned, mentally unbalanced), and when he wasn't doing that was bellowing that no one, no one had done more for women in Congress than he had.  Obama didn't invent that line.

    He as much as anyone is responsible for Clarence Thomas being on the Supreme Court.

    I'm sure there are accounts of it somewhere on the web, but I'm going strictly from memory.

    People have been calling for a Fightin Dem in the WH, but they meant someone who would fight against Republicans, not for them.


    No - He believed her. (3.00 / 2) (#195)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:08:05 AM EST
    The issue was that he didn't want to go there in those hearings.  It was a different time in DC.  The group who found her and convinced her to come forward coordinated a media alert and then Biden was essentially forced to have her testify.  There were people at the time who believed that her testimony made Thomas' nomination more difficult to defeat in the end.

    I watched the hearings.  I am not sure her testimony helped the case against Thomas given the key audience which was a bunch of male Senators - who let's face it probably sympathized more with Thomas than Hill deep down.


    I don't the 3am text was a dig at (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:53:36 AM EST
    anyone - I think it was just really dumb.

    Dumb a la John Kerry's "important" midnight speech.

    I woke up this morning doing my Saturday thing - watched the local NBC station - didn't hear a word about the pick - watched those Today Show people in China play ping pong - I was awake for quite a while before I heard.

    It was only when I switched to MSNBC to see what Olympic sports coverage was on that I found out because Mornng Joe was on.

    It wasn't a dig - it was just dumb imo.


    the irony of that point if view being, (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by sancho on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:08:57 AM EST
    as some here have pointed out, that pelosi is savvy and may not want a dem president. she gets more power that way and hillary would have made her work in her job. it is very depressing.

    and, jeralyn, i for one appeciate very much your advocacy against Prison Nation that is the United States. the choices for presidency just confirm how the odds are stacked against the "defense" point of view.

    thanks again for this wonderful site.  keep the faith.


    I recently read a post by (none / 0) (#48)
    by BernieO on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:44:43 AM EST
    someone who expressed what has been bothering me. If Obama gets elected he could really be a disaster (since he is woefully inexperienced and clearly does not listen to advice). Carter's presidency was a flop - partly through things beyond his control - and it gave the Republicans the upper hand for years. I have a bad feeling that an Obama win could result in the same thing. On the other hand there is the Supreme Court......

    Cass Sunstein (5.00 / 8) (#63)
    by bmc on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:32:44 AM EST
    Would probably be one of Obama's picks for the Supreme Court...that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me. Obama may, in the end, not be much different than McCain in Supreme Court nominees.

    Obama is dangerous to Democrats, because his inclination is to roll over the Democratic Party into Republican-lite look-a-likes. Obama's a corporatist at heart.

    Even Unions are nervous about Obama now. I don't know how progressives could be enthused about this ticket.


    Bloomberg -

    At an Aug. 5 town hall meeting in Berea, Ohio, Obama touted the benefits of a strong dollar, a cause Rubin championed at the Treasury. "A strengthening of the dollar'' would mitigate rising gasoline prices, he said.

    The statement appalled economists aligned with unions, which fear that a stronger dollar would make imported goods cheaper and hurt export sales. "The strong-dollar policy is very harmful,'' says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. "There's some real fundamental differences between the Rubinites and the labor people, and I don't know how you get them on the same page.''



    Dean Baker is a must read guy for me. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by DFLer on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:13:56 AM EST

    Beat the Press:

    Dean Baker's commentary on economic reporting

    and also reports from the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC, of which he is co-director


    Flop? (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by jtaylorr on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:28:06 AM EST
    Negociating peace between Israel and Egypt, establishing Department of Energy, appointing a Fed Chairman who got inflation under control, coming up with the first comprehensive energy plan, actually promoting personal responsibility, staying out of war with Iran, not to mention having zero scandals/controversies and most important of all, he told the TRUTH.

    Flop my ass.


    I'm not bothered with Carter/Obama comparisons (none / 0) (#88)
    by Casey from MA on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:43:25 AM EST
    because there really is none.

    Carter went into DC thinking he was going to change how Washington works.  

    Obama knows better.  He's seen the history of how that didn't work out with Carter.  Obama isn't stupid.  He's likely one of the most intelligent people in Washington today.  

    Now about how the Repubs kept power after Carter for so long - there's a long history to that. It doesn't start with Carter, it doesn't end with Carter.

    It's early foundations were established by Barry Goldwater.  It was cemented in stone by Nixon and Buchanan in the midterm elections of '66 and the Presidential election of '68 - those two used a divide and conquer strategy against the Democrats, using divisive issues to drive wedges in between different Democratic constituencies.  It was later forged by Reagan with his further divisiveness and the flock of Reagan Dems who followed him to the polls.  But, W has seen this house of cards fall and I don't think that McCain can put it back togethere.

    Go Obama/Biden '08!!!!!


    How do we know he's (5.00 / 11) (#104)
    by Xanthe on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:00:40 AM EST
    "one of the most intelligent people in Washington"/he hasn't been there that long.  

    He's smart - but there are plenty of smart people in Washington.  


    How? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Casey from MA on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:27:47 AM EST
    His pedigree is one thing.  He didn't get into Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law based on looks, style, family contributions, or who his family knew. He also served as president of the Harvard Law Review.  A position not to be taken lightly.  He's been a community activist, a university instructor, just to name a few.  He's a phenomenal orator-the likes we havent seen in ages. He's willing to fight for the working classes-something I can guarantee McCain won't be doing.

    I think he's got it.  


    I know all that and (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Xanthe on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:50:47 AM EST
    a lot more.  Well, his father went to Harvard - one of the items floating around right wing sites is that he changed his name to Barack - to tie himself to that man for legacy purposes.  Have you read the background of the Harvard Law Review appointment - it's not cut and dried.  He never published an article.  Yes - a community activist - so was and am I.  Yes, an instructor - again on the right wing sites - a position the Ayre family helped him get. People read these blogs - it's out there and could damage him.

    Phenomenal orator - yes he has given some good speeches.  But to this ear - it's getting old.

    Willing to fight for the working classes - I hope so - my instinct says no - but what do I know - I'm not in his target group. I don't expect much from him on seniors' behalf.  If that's why he picked Biden - or because he's a white guy for white guys who would buy that - we'll see what we see.

    I didn't say he wasn't smart - he's one of many Democrats, Republicans and Marxists who are smart in DC and elsewhere -

    I don't know what he has - he confuses me - but good luck to us.


    Sorry, academic credentials don't mean much (5.00 / 6) (#181)
    by esmense on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:51:41 AM EST
    in the context of successful political leadership. In the world outside of academia, such credentials can offer their holder opportunity, but they can't and don't guarantee success or failure. Only performance (real world achievement) can do that.

    Academic credentials indicate potential -- but for a position as powerful as the American presidency candidates need to demonstrate performance based competence and achievement.


    Look, (5.00 / 13) (#190)
    by frankly0 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:00:14 AM EST
    if Obama were so brilliant at politics and policy, why can he never manage to win his debates? Why is he always fumbling, never really sharp and coherent, never really on top of the issues?

    Why did Hillary (and for that matter, Biden, on most issues) leave him in the dust time and again?

    Answer: because, whatever his abilities, they really aren't in those areas. He can write a speech good enough that people think it sounds really good when delivered (though I have to say I've never been able to get the supposed "brilliance" of the prose. I keep asking people to identify the moving or particularly eloquent passages, and they never seem to produce anything convincing). But take him away from prepared remarks, and he sounds completely muddled and pedestrian.

    All I can say that he is one of the most unimpressive "brilliant" people I have ever encountered. I can only conclude that his intellectual abilities, whatever they may be, are narrow in the extreme, and certainly do not extend to the full set of skills required for a President.


    He's trying to rid the party of the working (4.88 / 9) (#203)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:18:57 AM EST
    classes, not champion them.

    Name one thing he's fought for.  Ever.

    Lawyers with Ivy League degrees are a dime a dozen in DC.


    He's smart (none / 0) (#182)
    by litigatormom on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:51:43 AM EST
    That's one thing I'm not worried about.

    And there are fewer smart people in Washington -- particularly the Senate -- that you'd think, or hope.

    True imbeciles like Cornyn and Imhofe are only the tip of the iceberg.  There's a lot of dull mediocrity in the Senate.


    See I don't buy that (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by Xanthe on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:04:17 AM EST
    he's one of the most intelligent people in DC.  Put it out there enough and people believe it.  But what have I seen really.  Is he shrewd - yes.  Is he politically astute - yes/he and his staff. I know Axelrod from Illinois politics; he's good at what he does. But so is Karl Rove.

    Sure there is mediocrity in the Senate - if not dullness - but there are also hardworking, intelligent senators and congressmen - staff people - people in Federal positions - jurists - military people who have been around and know the map.

    I want to see him work in DC for awhile longer before I buy that line. or watch his presidency for that matter.  You're a litigator, right.  I've worked many years in lawfirms and I know many lawyers who have these shiny reputations and are dolts.  But they have smart associates, junior partners and know how to play the game - of course, eventually.... :)  


    uh-no (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:18:08 AM EST
    >>>>Carter went into DC thinking he was going to change how Washington works. Obama knows better.

    NO! Obama assured his followers he would change Washington.
    Obviously, they were duped - again!


    I vividly recall Carter's presidency (none / 0) (#124)
    by Casey from MA on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:30:28 AM EST
    He went in, brought his people from GA, thinking that he could change Washington DC.

    Obama wants change.  I expect him to make some changes.  Some of his ideals will be accepted; some won't.

    But, he won't go into Washington thinking he can use the Oval Office as his bully pulpit; something that Carter did and resoundingly failed at doing all at the same time.  


    the Carters and Clintons were outsiders (5.00 / 9) (#137)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:56:05 AM EST
    and the Establishment dissed them from the gitgo.
    Now the Establishment has their Establishment nominee.

    btw - practically every presidential nominee espouses "change." But Obama promoted "change" over issues and solutions and most of his followers have never noticed his Empty Suit.


    Wait, wait, let me guess... (4.33 / 6) (#1)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:51:50 AM EST
    Yep, the AP "analysis" is written by Ron Fournier, long-time basher of Dems, and the guy who once e-mailed Karl Rove to say "keep up the fight."

    Yes, clearly this represents the negative spin that can be put on the pick, but I'm not prepared to accept that this is how most people see it until I get a chance to canvass the opinion around the water cooler.

    Let me just make this point, which I hope TL readers will appreciate: an Obama who "lacks confidence" in the area of foreign policy and feels the need to pick a VP who compensates for it is clearly preferable to an Obama who feels so confident in his mastery of foreign policy that he doesn't want any help.  It's one thing to be a little raw, it's far worse to be raw and refuse to acknowledge it.

    Right. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jtaylorr on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:58:56 AM EST
    The characterization that you see of Obama by many commenters here is one of extreme hubris, arrogance, and elitism.
    This analysis, even if critical, totally flies in the face of that meme.

    A fair point (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by bmc on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:17:48 AM EST
    And deserves to be made...I'm very critical of Obama, but I can appreciate the point. I think it has merit.

    But it the economic (none / 0) (#95)
    by Xanthe on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:48:01 AM EST
    issues and health issues that worry me - Moderate/leaning to the right - no big changes is what Sen. Biden signals to me.

    Do you agree, Steve?  


    Not so disappointed (4.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Coral on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:22:40 AM EST
    Big Tent Democrat predicted this choice yesterday, and it doesn't surprise me. As I felt Kaine was a deal-breaker, I'm glad Obama didn't go in that direction.

    At least Biden isn't boring. His language is often fairly vivid. Though I disagree with his foreign policy take, he is knowledgeable and shores up Obama's credibility on those issues.

    I'm not an Obama fan and am still uncertain how I will vote (Green Party is calling and they are on the ballot in my state). No matter what, I won't vote Republican.

    It really depends on how the fall campaign is conducted.

    Ron Fournier? Really? (2.33 / 3) (#9)
    by mrdavedog on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:59:26 AM EST
    You're quoting Ron Fournier? seriously?

    and yes re: the 3am thing I think you're being overly sensitive.

    how can that be overly sensitive? (5.00 / 14) (#15)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:08:17 AM EST
    there is one and only one reason to send those messages at 3am. they thought it would be funny to kick Hillary in the teeth. plain and simple. by saying this I assume you think it's funny too.

    for me, I think that stunt says everything about Obama's character.


    I don't believe I asked you for your opinion, (4.60 / 10) (#13)
    by Firewalker on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:05:22 AM EST
    whoever you are. And if you think sending the text message at 3 AM achieves unity and puts the primaries behind us, well, all I have to say is- Do you work for the Obama campaign?

    "support the Democratic ticket" (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Andreas on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:10:18 AM EST
    Jeralyn wrote:

    I'll ultimately decide whether I will vote for the Democratic ticket or vote down ticket only.

    The decision process did not take very long. One sentence later she writes:

    This site will continue to support the Democratic ticket
    (spelling mistake corrected)

    Not true (none / 0) (#44)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:26:17 AM EST
    Jeralyn doesn't know how she personally will vote. The site is not just hers and, as she points out, there are two other people who write articles here (TChris and Big Tent Democrat) who have their own views on things. While Jeralyn runs TL, it's not just hers and hers alone. What the site does is different than her own personal feelings on the matter. (If Jeralyn, TChris and BTD all decide to sit out this election, that may be something entirely different)

    actually (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:46:43 AM EST
    it's jeralyn's site.

    this was always my biggest issue with markos.  whenever people crossed lines but in a direction he supported, he would say "it's not just my site, it's your site to speak out, this is democracy in action" or something like that, but when people crossed lines in a direction he did not support, then he would say "it's my site, i can ban people if I want,".... etc.

    to me that's a transparent dynamic and i hope TL does not succumb to it.

    this is, first and foremost, jeralyn's site.


    As Vengeful the PUMAs? eom (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Casey from MA on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:46:05 AM EST

    Vengeance is not what (4.66 / 12) (#122)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:28:08 AM EST
    fuels the PUMAs, but be as blind as you like. We really don't care if you understand us or dismiss us.

    What is it then? (1.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Casey from MA on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:33:04 AM EST
    If you don't tell me, then how can you try to change the minds of those who didn't support Hillary?  

    If you don't care, then why should anyone bother to listen to you?  

    There's a thing called diplomacy and negotiations.  Without using those two valuable tools, then how do you expect anyone to take you, or any group advocating a position that might be contrary to yours or mine, seriously?

    I'm asking in all seriousness.


    First (5.00 / 8) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:51:50 AM EST
    of all you need to realize that Obama has repeatedly said he doesn't need or want the support of Clinton voters. He spent months calling clinton voters every name in the book. He's like an abusive husband. A guy who "expects" you to do whatever he wants no matter how many times he punches you in the face.

    The problem is Obama.


    I've seen Obama in interviews and rallies (1.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Casey from MA on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:01:49 AM EST
    warmly accepting Hillary Clinton and the fight she put on.

    Telling his supporters to bridge the divide with Hillary supporters.

    I'll be honest and say I wanted Obama since his speech in Boston in 04.  

    I've been Obama supporter since.  But, that doesn't mean I vilify Hillary supporters or Hillary.

    I think you're miscategorizing him and a whole swath of his supporters with regard to Hillary and hers.


    This is obviously the only political blog (5.00 / 7) (#207)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:23:49 AM EST
    you've visited on the web, if you think his supporters have treated her or her supporters with respect.

    L O L.


    Please provide links... (1.00 / 1) (#156)
    by NvlAv8r on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:15:10 AM EST
    Sorry, I don't think he has called her and her supporters every name in the book.  And if you are trying to bring up opposition to Hillary in the primaries, your argument falls flat.

    Ask the DNC (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:56:41 AM EST
    how their fund raising is going this year.

    There is diplomacy and negotiations and then there is cold hard cash and the constitutional right to vote.

    The art of diplomacy is to give the other side some of what they want in order to get most of what you want.  I'm still waiting for an offer or even an official recognition.  

    My philosophy is:

    He/They ought not have done those things they did.  But He/They did those things they did and now He/They will deal with the consequences.  I didn't make them do those things.  They did them of their own free will.  I'm not going to pretend they didn't happen.  Your mileage may vary.

    I am not a PUMA but..... (5.00 / 7) (#160)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:22:52 AM EST
    ...instead of assuming that they are just fueled by vengeance, I went to a PUMA site to find out what they are about and I think they are mainly about feeling that the DNC and the Obama campaign gamed the system and used undemocratic tactics to arrive at a pre-determined destination. You may or may not agree with that, but it is pretty easy to find out what they are about. TalkLeft is not a PUMA site.

    PUMAs (5.00 / 8) (#171)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:36:46 AM EST
    are about protecting the democratic process. If that process is important to you, then you would have paid attention to how the Democrats have distorted and defaced that process, and you would understand that one does not even have to be a Hillary supporter to be a PUMA. Indeed, many of us were only "tepid" about Hillary's candidacy. However, the mainstream media and the Obama zealots have painted PUMA as a bunch of vengeful, over the hill women (harridans)who can't get past their grief over Hillary's loss. We're tired of wasting our time trying to change that image. It takes time away from our mission. So my comment was, "I don't care that you don't understand." Just as we don't matter to the Obama campaign, people who calls us names don't matter to the PUMAs. Come on board and help to get our party back from those who want to beat the Republicans by sinking to their level or don't. We'll do it with or without you, and at 3 am this morning, Obama made it easier for us.  

    the inferiority complex (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:37:39 AM EST
    presided over all of this.

    he might get to be president.  but i pity barack.

    University of Chicago crowd (none / 0) (#106)
    by Xanthe on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:04:09 AM EST
    at home with Biden.

    It dose and not vetting Hillary shows pettyness. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Salt on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:35:33 AM EST

    "Enshrined in Cement" (none / 0) (#132)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:50:00 AM EST
    Good phrase, especially for Biden.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#153)
    by Bourges on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:11:53 AM EST
    You said it so well --

    I'm going to try to get on board, but the ship seems to have sailed without me.

    Thanks once again for this welcoming, intelligent and balanced blog.

    apparently, Kossacks really believe (none / 0) (#162)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:24:29 AM EST
    Obama sent the text message before the MSM announced it.

    My reaction to Obama-Biden (none / 0) (#169)
    by Politalkix on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:32:22 AM EST
    As an Obama supporter, my head and heart choice would be Obama-Clark or Obama-Sebelius, my heart choice would be Obama-Clinton. Obama-Biden would definitely not be my first choice, I can however definitely understand it from the strategy point of view. Ofcourse many other choices would be significantly worse!

    first poll on impact of Biden as VP (none / 0) (#191)
    by kempis on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:00:31 AM EST
    Not much.

    It makes about as many people less likely to vote for Obama as it does more likely.

    I do think this is an effort to keep PA blue. Biden is a Scranton native and, unlike Obama, genuinely working class in his roots. He'll appeal to many Pennsylvanians. The question remains, will his appeal compensate for Obama's inability to appeal to working class voters in PA and elsewhere. I honestly don't think so, not if they think Obama is inexperienced and incapable of taking strong stands on issues that concern them.

    I guess we'll see....

    Re Thank you Mobius by New Day (none / 0) (#196)
    by On the right on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:08:06 AM EST
    1. First, most of your points are commendable and absolutely true. I entirely disagree with your philosophies about how the country should change-but I agree with what you are saying about how your party is disintegrating over ridiculous and petty disagreements over Hillary.

    2. Honestly, however, I must ask: Are you an American first, or a Democrat first. How must it look to the rest of the world that America cannot seem to offer up ONE person who can confidently rule by themselves? Sen. Obama, by his own admission this morning on the CBS early show, will need "help" governing. So, the president of the greatest nation on earth, needs someone sitting by his side when the big decisions need to be made? I am all for shared leadership and checks and balances, but we are electing someone who should instill confidence. To imply balance on a ticket is one thing--to say "I need help" is another. Perhaps Obama needs more experience and some more training--what even Biden has previously said-before he attempts a run at the highest elected office in our land.

    3. Be an American first and then a Democrat! America should be able to produce at least ONE well-prepared, seasoned, educated elected official to represent us-with checks and balances (that would be the other branches of government).

    YIkes! I disagree with you on every point! (none / 0) (#211)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:30:27 AM EST
    Do you realy believe all this?  RNC delivered the nomination to Obama.  Noone stole anything.  Now Obama wants all MI and FL votes to count.  Only now that he is the presumptive nominee.  I could go on and on.  But heh, everyone is free to believe what they believe and support whomever they support.

    I won't be supporting Obama-Biden.  

    I do wonder why Obama apparently detests the Clintons?  Makes no sense to me at all.  It appears very personal.  

    Hey Dude "where's the change?" (none / 0) (#217)
    by Redshoes on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:53:02 AM EST
    Obama picks a 65-year-old white guy who has spent more than half his life (and pretty much all of his working life) in the most exclusive club in America.  Really, this works for you?  I've got nothing against old white guys, but if you're going to pick one why not Warren Buffet?

    Obama like 'Fickle Fay' in Florida (none / 0) (#218)
    by On the right on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:29:49 PM EST
    All over the place and 'not quite' the hurricane suspected, but full of surprises. Slow as molasses, messy and deadly for people who don't listen (driving, swimming, carbon monoxide), but mostly just a great big bunch of water and air.

    Why Obama? (none / 0) (#220)
    by On the right on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:31:22 PM EST
    Laila, if you are not an Obama cheerleader, and you agree he didn't have enough foreign policy smarts to get the vote himself, why in the world would you support him now? Just to prove that Democrats will vote party even if that means voting for a flawed candidate. Sounds a lot like affirmative action to me. Hillary Clinton had a lot more in common with John McCain on most of the issues any president has a chance to influence in 4 years. Even Hillary knew that.

    Biden does solidify Obama's views (none / 0) (#221)
    by On the right on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:03:07 PM EST
    As Laila had so eloquently, or passionately described in the posts which have since been deleted, Biden does affirm Obama's pro-choice or pro-abortion views. Why the exchange, affirming that and discussing how that affects voter's decisions in this election was deleted, is beyond me. The playing up of Obama's views to an evangelical audience (recently demonstrated by the exaggerated coverage of the Saddleback conference), and how that will play now with his nomination of Biden, was only one tip of what I thought was a very relevant, if passionate exchange. Best!

    Jeralyn, please let me know (none / 0) (#222)
    by bridget on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:34:04 PM EST
    did you delete my post?

    I am pretty sure I made a comment on this particular thread.

    What happened?