The Biden "Bounce"

Well, we have now seen 3 polls taken fully after Joe Biden was named as Barack Obama's VP choice and the news is not good. First we have the CNN poll which has a tie.

Today the Rasmussen and Gallup trackers are fully post -Biden as VP. Ras has a tie. Gallup has McCain up 2.

Perhaps the Convention will help. But it seems clear that Joe Biden did not. UPDATE - This is not a knock on Biden. He can not be Hillary Clinton. This is a knock on Obama for not maximizing his chances to win in November,

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Can Obama Dems, The Media And The Left Blogs Get OverThe Clintons? | Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Furthermore, I think McCain (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:43:39 PM EST
    has successfully negated the Obama cash advantage.

    Obama hasn't really expanded the map, just changed it a little bit. McCain can stay on TV in Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia as long as he needs to.

    From (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:54:52 PM EST
    what I have read, Obama never really has had a cash advantage if you take into consideration the money the RNC has and the GOP 527's. Obama was really dumb to lop off the ability of Dem 527's to do their work.

    One of my biggest bones of contention (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:17:34 PM EST
    was and is how big a deal was made about public funding and how some(I'm talking to you Markos) fail to see how 527s actually seem to do a much better job reaching voters with their ads.

    the entire thing hinges on (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:15:26 PM EST
    Obama making a good impression at the debates and somehow needling McCain about some trivial thing nad making Mccain sign or huff and puff.

    My god, it's a cliff hanger.


    debates are not Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by jpete on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:54:39 PM EST
    strength.  Oddly enough.

    It also hinges on (none / 0) (#149)
    by joanneleon on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:05:05 PM EST
    how effective McCain's personal attacks are, and what external events might occur between now and the election.  For instance, the whole Georgia/Russia thing seems to be impacting the race, though I have no real idea why it was made to be such an important issue by Biden.

    That assumes (none / 0) (#180)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:16:12 PM EST
    Obama doesn't get petulant when McCain gets a zinger in.

    That cash advantage didn't help (4.38 / 13) (#5)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:45:59 PM EST
    against Hillary in Ohio, PA, and other key states.

    No amount of advertising will convince people that chicken s**t is chicken soup.


    Well let's not pretend (2.75 / 4) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:49:38 PM EST
    that people are being rational by picking McCain over Obama. They are not.

    The problem is that Obama is apparently not equipped as a politician or a strategist to deal with the fact that people who by all rights should be supporting him are not. And the money, even if it could help there, will likely now not be a factor.


    if you're afraid, (5.00 / 12) (#19)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:57:51 PM EST
    as a Voter, that you're weeks away from having your job outsourced or that you'll soon be choosing between buying groceries or prescription medicine, soaring rhetoric and promises not backed up by any discernible experience will sound justifiably hollow in the face of decades of experience and the reputation for being a straight-talking "maverick".

    Add to that the fact that one of the Candidates feels entitled to your vote (certainly enough to go on vacation and choose not to visit your State 'cause, you know, you'll vote for him anyway) while the other one is working hard, shaking your hand and sincerely ASKING you to consider voting for him -- and, oh, here's what I'll do for you --, and the decision seems to almost make itself.

    The DNC is basing their whole strategy for an Obama Win on an assumption.  Assuming we Democrats will fall in line, assuming John McCain will automatically be seen as Bush III, assuming sentient people are so angry with Bush that they'd immediately vote for anybody but.

    Election Day 2008 will be Exhibit A in how assuming something is never a good strategy.


    Let's not pretend your emotional prejudice ... (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:06:12 PM EST
    ... is the definition of rationality.

    You've never presented a rational proof of this declaration ... and if you bothered to attempt constructing one, you'd probably realize you were mistaken.


    Do you think (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:09:38 PM EST
    Bush tax cuts are good for the country?

    The question for me is (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:20:43 PM EST
    Do I think Obama will do a better job?

    Right now, the answer is a resounding no.


    based on what (none / 0) (#95)
    by Jgarza on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:40:47 PM EST

    Non-responsive. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:23:19 PM EST
    I think Bush tax cuts (none / 0) (#89)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:37:41 PM EST
    are bad for the economy and there are any number of charts to prove it.  Thus, I find it rational to support someone who will not continue those policies.  Point, Obama.

    Are you that certain (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    that someone who touts Reagan is gonna be good with economic policy. How about someone who fusses at his own party about regulation when we have a crisis due to lack of regulation? How about someone who sent his economic policy advisor out to make hay out of the fact that Clinton wanted to expand funding for programs like Oil for Seniors rather than just hand out hundred dollar bills to citizens to spend as they wish?

    I find Obama questionable, at best, on economic policy.


    Boy and Howdy! (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by magisterludi on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:18:11 PM EST
    The Chicago School crap is what turned me off to Obama in the first place and made me take a serious look at Hillary.

    I changed to Hillary after initially supporting Obama.


    why is McCain an irrational choice? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Klio on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    serious question.  

    I mean, I'm not planning on supporting McCain -- have never voted R and don't plan to begin this year -- but why is choosing McCain irrational?

    Of course, I'm not yet supporting Obama either :-(


    Um, because he's a Conservative Republican (3.00 / 3) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    who intends to enact policies that are bad for America.

    Do you really need anything more than that?


    Yeah but (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Nadai on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:08:29 PM EST
    there are a lot of conservative Republicans who like those policies.  For them to vote for McCain isn't irrational, it's reasonable.

    Sure there are some people (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:24:14 PM EST
    but the vast majority don't really even get it.  As andgarden points out, the majority  these people are choosing between a candidate that will do nothing to actually improving their live and one that will probably do something to improve their lives.  But they are not making the rational choice.

    Sure, you could argue that there are people that actually say they would rather have tax cuts for the rich and suffer themselves out of some principled belief in supply-side economics, but it doesn't happen that way most of the time.  Truth is, they just don't get it and Obama isn't getting them, either.


    It isn't just tax cuts for the rich (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Nadai on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:39:53 PM EST
    I'm not a conservative, at all.  But the people who are aren't all a bunch of brainwashed idiots.  It's possible for people to have different priorities than mine and still not be stupid or misguided or irrational.

    Selling drugs to make money is rational (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:18:51 PM EST
    Obama has never fought for an issue because it's not in him. To Obama there are no Republicans and no Democrats, just Americans.  I'm sure he'll be happy if I vote for McCain, just as long as I didn't support Hillary.

    I am not saying that they are (2.00 / 1) (#128)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:55:02 PM EST
    brainwashed, I am saying that they are clueless.  If you care to, this is a great piece from 2004 about the undecided voter.

    The take away is that people aren't so much conservative as they are just pretty stupid.

    I am not taking away from anyone's deeply held beliefs.  If one is a conservative or a liberal, that's fine.  What I am criticizing is the irrationality and complete failure to reason by these clueless people.  I am further criticizing the fact that Obama should be reaching out to them on their terms, and winning them, but he isn't.


    Well, is it rational to vote for people (5.00 / 8) (#145)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:04:11 PM EST
    who call you stupid and then demand your vote?  Condescend to you and then resent the fact that you haven't bought a case for them that they didn't bother to make?  Promise you 'Change' but fail to say change to what?

    Obama's not a known enough quantity to think that insulting potential voters would be significantly offset by his overwhelmingly inspiring bio.

    There are a lot of perfectly rational reasons to vote for the person who asks for your vote, even if he's a known bad quantity.  People may quite reasonably think they'd rather go for a definitely not great thing over the guy who has a large chance of being great, but also a large chance of being an inexperienced disaster.  Or they may reasonably feel that the guy who isn't condescending to them is more likely to work in their interests than the one who is.  People are just funny that way.


    taxes (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by jedimom on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:52:34 PM EST
    I am not trying to campaign for mccain here but since you are saying it is irrational to vote for him I will give just one quick example..

    McCain is proposing DOUBLING the child tax credit from 3500 to 7000 per child no income limits

    Obama is only proposing a 1000 tax break for the middle class which IS subject to income limits, and his payroll tax hike for SS, and the cap gains/dividend hike will hurt some folks like my mom, who is over 50k in income but needs the cap gains hits she takes when she sells stocks to pay for the property taxes

    so there ARE rational reasons for voting McCain..

    and these would be POCKETBOOK issues the Dems keep claiming people are voting against, what with their low information and all...


    The rational case for McCain (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by Manuel on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:35:23 PM EST
    Obama is unwilling to make the contrast with the Republicans.  Indeed, he seems sincere in advocating a post partisan style of government ("The Republicans have been the party of ideas") that many think won't serve the country well.  If you beleive that issue contrast is necessary and that compromising too much is unacceptale, having a Dem congress oppose McCain policies may well be preferable to an Obama muddle.  I am not all the way there yet but Obama, thorugh his actions, has not convinced me.  As Hillary said during the campaign.  "There are some fights worth fighting".  What is Obama willing to fight for?  Is there anything that isn't negotiable.

    That's right. (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by alsace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:18:53 PM EST
    Given a choice of the Republican or the Postpartisan who easily adopts Republican positions, the authentic Republican can be an understandable pick.

    Exactly (5.00 / 7) (#202)
    by mm on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:29:37 PM EST
    And I'm afraid that the number one issue Obama will use to show how post-partisan he is will be Social Security, making good on his ridiculous and idiotic decision to attack Clinton's character over her firm and stalwart refusal to buy into Tim Russert's and republican hysteria over the SS "crisis".  

    I need more from the democrats (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:57:44 PM EST
    I need to see our democracy is being protected. FISA, Patriot Act, freedom to vote without strong-arming, the democratic process remains as democratic as possible, and I need to see strength of character.

    Do We Have the Obama Cash Figures for July? (none / 0) (#133)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:57:14 PM EST
    If Biden could bring in votes (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:43:43 PM EST
    He wouldn't have dropped out after Iowa.

    That just can't possibly be right (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:59:06 PM EST
    Caroline Kennedy said last night that we were so incredibly fortunate to get someone like Biden to agree to take the VP position.

    The polls simply have to be wrong.


    If only Obama had picked HRC (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by bjorn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:44:22 PM EST
    I think a lot of people have changed their mind about her and have a profound respect for her now.  I am sure she will reinforce that this evening with a great speech.

    I agree (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:50:15 PM EST
    but she's not going to be on the ballot this Fall.  Obama is.  

    But unless he starts morphing into Hillary Clinton and impressing people on-the-stump with his far-ranging knowledge of policy and hammering the specifics of what he's going to do to change YOUR life for the better, one Hillary Clinton speech during a Convention in August is not going to be enough to seal the deal.

    It's all on Obama.


    Re: (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by az on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    Mccain is going to win the election.

    I know I might be going out on a limb here and I support Obama , but it is clear to me he hasn't made the pitch , much less the sale.


    McCain on Leno (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by gaf on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:18:18 PM EST
    I haven't really ever seen McCain in action much. I didn't follow the 2000 republican primaries.

    McCain on Leno comes across a very charming, stable person, fully in control. McCain has a very good chance, I feel.

    This should have a been a year where we could had a landslide. A Clinton-Obama ticket with Hillary at the top would have a been a landslide for us. Sadly it wasn't to be.


    The Leno show is always (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:30:05 PM EST
    very telling to me.  I like to look at how Jay relates to the guests.  

    When Leno had Ann Coulter on his show, he barely looked her in the eye and read off index cards.  You could tell that he really didn't like her even though she was trying to be engaging.  

    When he has people on like Hillary, Laura Bush, Bill Clinton, John McCain, etc., Leno is always relaxed and talkative.  You can tell he likes these people and they like him too.  


    McCain... (none / 0) (#97)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:42:14 PM EST
    ... can indeed be quite charming sometimes.

    I remember when he was on the Daily Show, and Jon Stewart was giving him a rough time over his decision to talk at Falwell's "university". Jon's final question was something about if it was hard to talk to Falwell while suppressing the urge to throw up, and McCain quipped "I'll send him your love."

    Even though I was really disappointed in McCain at the time, I couldn't help but laugh.


    Biden Dip (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:52:24 PM EST
    They named the VP so late hoping that the "Convention Bounce" would hide the "Not Hillary Dip".  Not working.

    Let's not be too negative (5.00 / 12) (#15)
    by BrianJ on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    Maybe Hillary and Bill's speeches will lug Obama back into a significant lead.  Maybe Obama will finally combine style with substance in his acceptance speech.  Maybe Obama supporters will allow the roll call to happen and for Clinton supporters to express their pride in their candidate without insults.

    And maybe it'll be 30 degrees with light snow in Gehenna tomorrow.


    Maybe the media needs to stop (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:02:28 PM EST
    trashing the Clintons and prolonging the message that the Clintons are trying to steal Obama's thunder, and that he is being so gracious and accommodating by allowing either of them a place in the speaker's lineup. Maybe Obama could stop behaving in a way that makes the media's analysis appear accurate.

    yep (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by souvarine on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    That was my guess as to why the announcement was so delayed.

    Joe Biden is a nice guy (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:53:10 PM EST
    but he's not Hillary.  

    There were 18 million people who wanted Hillary for the top spot.  She should have been the automatic pick for the second spot and the fact that she didn't get to publically turn it down didn't sit well with a lot of people.  

    McCain/Clinton 2008 (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Desired User Name on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    Me and friends were very worried that McCain would offer HRC the VP slot. He'd know full well she'd turn it down and so there'd be no real RISK for him, but it'd make McCain look like a rock-n-roll dude, a hero, a mensch, a mac daddy. It could have seriously crippled Obama.

    Luckily McCain and the Repubs aren't that THEATRICAL. or are they?


    McCain can be theatrical (none / 0) (#79)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:32:07 PM EST
    plus, he likes Hillary.  

    I think she'd turn it down too, but you never know.  


    What's that the kids say? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Desired User Name on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM EST

    Honestly if I were a shady Repub I'd of had this in the works immediately! Even floating the idea of him picking Hills, floating that around would have done severe damage to Mr.Obama.

    Well, I am glad I don't work for the other team and I am also not

    "Republican for the stay"

    like some Hill supporters are...

    In Imaginary Land:
    If Hillary was offered and DID accept a McCain ticket slot, um, wow, the insanity would ERUPT, explode, implode...it'd be the biggest circus ever and oddly enough it'd fit right in with the entire situation I've witnessed thus far.

    I just pray for NO Huckabee
    and please NO Romney.


    I think FOX News (none / 0) (#169)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:11:45 PM EST
    would be thrilled!  ;-)  

    McCain is not that stupid. (none / 0) (#152)
    by prittfumes on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    Of course Hillary would not have accepted, but merely asking her would have meant saying bye-bye to the religious right which he could not afford to do.

    actually... (none / 0) (#162)
    by AlSmith on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:08:16 PM EST
    If you  google "carly clinton meet" you can see that there have been quite a few meetings between "McCains top female surrogate" and Hillraisers and Clinton loyalists.

    Like this: Carly meets with Tony Rodham.

    I dont see how they can put anything together. Made more sense as a swerve to force Obama to pick Clinton. But who knows?

    Maybe McCain locks up the election and the deal is that he is a one termer and Clinton runs as incumbent VP in 2012? Retires her debt too?

    Who knows anymore...


    What's funny is that (none / 0) (#183)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:17:17 PM EST
    if you go over to websites that really really hated the Clintons in the late 1990s, a lot of them came around to Hillary in the end -- when she wouldn't give up and she just kept on fighting.  They went from hating her to admiring her.  Some of them liked her better than McCain.  

    I never thought I would ever see that, but I did.  To me, she could easily come back in a few years and become President.  


    Wait 'til the VP ... convention (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:54:06 PM EST
    I never thought the VP announcement was going to give a boost. And it's hard to see that the convention will do much either. Though there was a front-page story on DailyKos yesterday talking about 15 points after the convention.

    No Kool-Aid for me thanks. I never understood the logic of it. McCain gets a VP and a convention too.

    Whoa! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    15 points?  Sounds like a 40 state sweep, to me!

    No! The 15 point bounce was from McCain (none / 0) (#33)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:08:58 PM EST
    et. al. to inflate expectations.  The only mentions of the 15-point bounce on Daily Kos yesterday were snarks or a discussion of how pathetic the Repubs were to think that anyone would believe there would be a 15-point bounce.  

    I will admit (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:11:52 PM EST
    ... that that particular story was a bit hard to parse, and your interpretation of it may be correct.

    That said, the wait for the convention/VP announcement idea has been given a lot of play there without irony.


    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:52:40 PM EST
    that some of the diaries there are divorced from reality concerning the election.  I, for one, don't want to hear fantasies that my candidate is ahead in some poll so the election is won.  I prefer the "my candidate is behind by 5 points and we need to work harder" motivation.  That's why I come here.

    Here's the story in question ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:40:25 PM EST
    ::sigh:: (5.00 / 12) (#14)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:55:27 PM EST
    I wish the words "We told you so" felt sweeter to utter than they do.

    it may not be much (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    but its what we have got

    Yeah (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    that's what I've been saying for the last 7 1/2 years, assuming people would have learned from their mistakes. Instead, they're going bugf*ck nuts, pulling the same cr@p -- only for the other side. Although both sides look pretty much the same to me these days.

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


    Nader is looking better (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:08:12 PM EST
    to me all the time.  I cant believe I am saying it but its true.

    Can't stand him, m'self (none / 0) (#38)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:12:15 PM EST
    Bob Barr on the other hand, has possibilities. I wish I could vote for McKinney but she's too close to Farrakhan for my personal liking.

    I cant really stand him either (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:34:38 PM EST
    except that he is right a lot.  on many issues.
    I only said that compared to the other two stooges he is looking better.  
    he just is.

    btw (none / 0) (#165)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:09:07 PM EST
    I have already emailed a few Naderite friends I have flogged in past elections cycles.
    with apologies and encouragement.

    I would but... (none / 0) (#191)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    most of the former Naderites I know are now in the tank for Obama. They didn't even take their own advice.

    I guess it could have been worse (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:57:05 PM EST
    Imagine the dip if Sen. Obama had picked what's-his-name from Texas.

    Glass half-full...

    Imagine the joke (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by jb64 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:24:50 PM EST

    "Because we already printed the bumper stickers"


    Well (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:57:42 PM EST
    I think Biden will be helpful in the long run.  He doesn't have some huge personal following that will instantly line up behind Obama because he's on the ticket, that's true.  He does make the ticket more attractive to some voters - most notably seniors - but it's a long process of gradually becoming more comfortable with Obama.  I still think it's true, even though it doesn't show up in overnight polling.

    Now, of course I think Hillary would have been more helpful than Biden, but that's water under the bus at this point.

    but seriously (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    how many people do you think will change their vote for president based on the VP.  (other than Hillary I mean)

    I couldn't give you a number (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:13:14 PM EST
    but when I look at my grandfather, or other older Dem voters I know who are concerned about this new guy that doesn't seem to cross the experience threshold, I think the presence of a well-known, respected Dem as part of the team gives them comfort.  I believe it matters.  It matters more than other years because it's not often we run someone as unknown as Obama who traditional Dems don't have a comfort level with.

    Your Words Are Nice and Thoughtful (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:33:04 PM EST
    But Biden is a pea-shooter where an elephant gun is needed.  I agree that he will win over some people in some segments.  But man, we could'a been contenders

    or someone like McCain (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:21:42 PM EST
    who people like your grandfather know well and are simply not that afraid of.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:26:01 PM EST
    My grandfather has voted for every Dem since FDR, so I don't think it would be that easy for him to vote for McCain.

    But it's simply amazing to me how many long-time Dems who pull that lever time and time again just aren't comfortable with Obama.  The usual suspects say it's race but I think it goes much deeper than that.  It's very disconcerting to process.


    well (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:30:21 PM EST
    talking to the arkansas (somewhat conservative) dems I hear from, I think race has almost nothing to do with it.  I didnt say nothing, I said almost nothing.
    it is far more about the way the process has been run (they see many Bush parallels) and the way the Clintons were treated.
    this may to some extent be regional but I dont think so.  old line democrats are angry at the treatment of the Clintons.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#87)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    I think there are two groups of Democrats who are skeptical about Obama, the ones for whom it's a Clinton-based thing and the ones for whom it's not.  There may be more of the former group in Arkansas for obvious reasons.

    But I mean, I don't think my grandfather has any particular affinity for Hillary Clinton at all, I don't think it would matter to him if there had even been a primary.  He's just looking at this nominee and he's not sure about putting this inexperienced guy in charge of the country.  So I think Biden doesn't help much with the people for whom it's a Clinton thing - in fact the failure to select Hillary surely hurts with that group - but for the rest, I'm sticking with my theory.  Poll after poll has shown that these older Dems are the ones who Obama has the most trouble convincing.


    My mother and I differed on our selection (none / 0) (#61)
    by Casey from MA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:22:54 PM EST
    of candidates.  

    I am 38 and voted for Obama; she is 77 and voted for Clinton.

    We both voted for Bill in '92 and '96.

    But, she's voting for Obama because she has been a lifelong Democrat and knows how poorly the Republicans have run this country in the near and distant past.  

    Considering this, it's too early to forecast how well Obama or McCain will do since we've not even finished up with both conventions.  

    I suspect things will fall in favor of Obama in the long run.  We shall see.


    BUT women live longer than men and a lot of us (none / 0) (#157)
    by jpete on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:07:24 PM EST
    are so sick of being excluded.  Plus, he still acts like he's about 16 too much of the time.

    Nobody (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:14:05 PM EST
    changes their vote based on VP or we would have had President Dukakis in 1988.

    The big difference (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:24:39 PM EST
    is that Bush was a super-known quantity and thus his VP was much less relevant than Obama's.

    People in 1988 were basically voting for Reagan's third term.  This is a different election.


    Tend to agree... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    It's too early to tell how it will all shake out and, while lots of women are upset about the not-Hillary VP pick, Biden hasn't even started campaigning yet with Obama so we don't know how things will play out.

    I hope Biden has some positive effect. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    I wonder how well he campaigns though.  His background is appealing, but does he have a personal touch?  Once upon a time Bill Clinton hugging people wasn't some prelude to a joke, but a really effective and unique political gift.  I suppose the Obama camp is going to go without it.  I wish they had chosen a proven small town campaigner.

    Speaking Only For This Senior (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:07:40 PM EST
    Biden does not make the ticket more attractive. He is in the pocket of the credit card companies whose practices are IMO harmful to the poor and middle class.

    if you can say anything good (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:09:47 PM EST
    about Biden it seems to me that he does not make the ticket look any less attractive.  as Kaine or Nunn or some others would have.
    just MO.

    I agree. (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:16:34 PM EST
    Biden's really not that bad of a pick. The real problem with Biden is that he reaffirms the narrative that McCain is pushing--Obama is unqualified, can't be Commander in Chief, etc. Biden has been in Washington longer than even McCain. Kills the anti washington argument too (though I thought it was kind of a silly argument for Obama to be making since he's a product of washington himself).

    If you say so (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:22:32 PM EST
    but my grandmother, who has been through an actual bankruptcy, still gets constant credit card offers from dozens of companies.  I can't say enough about the generosity and good will of these fine corporate citizens.

    I think he is less harmful (none / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:53:14 PM EST
    than any other pick.

    There ya go (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST
    When I was in college, there was a local politician whose bumper stickers said "No Worse Than The Rest."  And he won, so there ya go!

    Seniors? (none / 0) (#146)
    by jpete on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:04:26 PM EST
    Definitely not me.  What's his appeal to seniors?

    It was Joe Biden (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:10:12 PM EST
    who persuaded McDonald's to sell coffee to seniors at half-price.  Well, not really, but I'm going to try and spread that one around.

    did anyone ever really expect (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    a Biden bounce?

    Obama's team did... (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by MonaL on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    I did not.  Frankly, I'm getting tired of being right all the time.

    Not dropping was the bounce (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    OT, just in, 'The Slogan We Needed to Change' (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:12:23 PM EST
    It's no longer "Change We Can Believe In".

    It's now "The Change We Need".

    It's better. (none / 0) (#104)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:45:06 PM EST
    But I'm afraid that "change" has overused. Obama has had a lot of media exposure so far, and people have seen that word a lot already.

    I'd been happier if it had been "a new direction for America" or something like that (I'm sure that's been used before, it's all so generic).


    per Limbaugh - (none / 0) (#130)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:55:41 PM EST
    NYT article tomorrow - the Dems will try to increase support for Obama by portraying him as a "common man."

    The media pundits (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:14:15 PM EST
    told Obama and his people that he needed somebody with "foreign policy credentials", so he picked Biden.  Who could be better than the chair of the Foreign Relations committee?

    Problem is, actual people don't really care about foreign policy credentials.  Did anyone actually wake up the day after Biden was chosen and breath a sigh of relief, "I sure am glad that Biden is on-board, I was worried about Obama's foreign policy credentials!"

    Of course not.  Oh well, it plugged up that one imaginary criticism by the pundits.  Now they'll just move on to something else.

    You are so right.... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    ...the media pundits also told Obama that Hillary would be a bad choice. He needs to stop listening to them.

    I have a serious question... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Casey from MA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:27:59 PM EST
    ok, so he doesn't select Hillary as his VP candidate.

    Is that so bad?

    Would you rather she be the VP, or a Senator from NY who can wield her power from the legislative branch?  Or perhaps, even, the Secretary of State for a Democratic administration?  Etc, etc, etc.

    The VP slot is a nice one.  But, considering the past, it's not nearly as sweet as some may like to think barring, of course, Cheney whose been running the show from the get-go.


    Well the topic of this post is not what I would... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:31:41 PM EST
    ...rather. It's about what the smart political choice for Obama should have been. In that regard I do agree with BTD. As for what would have been best for Hillary, obviously I think it would have been best if she'd been the nominee this year. I'm not looking to any future date. Too much can happen in the interim.

    its really not about that (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:33:11 PM EST
    it about respect.  respect she earned and deserved.
    respect that was shown to Jesse Jackson when he was "not really considered but completely vetted" and has been shown to practically every other serious candidate since forever.

    It is bad because (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:39:26 PM EST
    he did not maximize his chances to win.

    Look, the people at this blog are grownups.

    You should not try the patronizing approach.

    I treat them like adults and tell them they are wrong if they plan to vote for McCain. I tell them how damaging I think the PUMAs have been to the primary and caucus issues we probably agree about. Just tell them straight why you think so.

    IT is not about Hillary. It is about winning.


    It's obvious everyone here are grownups. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Casey from MA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    Stop accusing me of patronizing anyone.  I'm only here to ask questions or offer my opinion, granted it's completely anecdotal in most cases.  

    That being said, I want to see a Dem in the White House regardless of who is the candidate.  


    I thought your comment was patronizing (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:47:38 PM EST
    BECAUSE you were trying to convince people that it wasa GOOD thing for Hillary that she was not chosen.

    The grownups here do not care about that. They care about winning and think NOT choosing Hillary made it harder to win in November,

    I stand by my characterization of your comment.


    Simply put, you're off base. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Casey from MA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    The VP slot is a nice one.  Yep.

    But, if you don't consider the election, then the VP slot is not that big of a deal.  

    It's more ceremonial than anything else.  There are a couple of instances where it has power.  But, by and large, a person of Hillary Clinton's stature can do SO much more elsewhere within government.  

    There is more to politics than simply elections.


    Apparently (none / 0) (#154)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:05:57 PM EST
    you did not read my comment.

    I could not care less if Hillary is bored for 8 years as the VP and is stuffed into a closet.

    I care about winning THIS election.

    Obama should have picked her because she would have helped him win.  


    I read it. (none / 0) (#190)
    by Casey from MA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:19:41 PM EST
    You're only in to win.  

    I'm in to win and have powerful individuals running the show, including her and he.  

    Wins aren't generated only with a VP selection.  You seem to be fixated on that.  Don't put all of your eggs in one basket.  

    She can be a powerful force leading the charge of the surrogates, campaigning for a Democratic victory, shoring up support, using her tremendous appeal to bringing out the vote.


    Politics (none / 0) (#160)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:08:00 PM EST
    Everyday people are looking at the here and now and don't see the VP role as ceremonial(why would they after 8 years of Cheney?) Obama folks can try to sell this as she is destined for bigger things but the argument isn't gonna fly without concrete proof that she is indeed going to get that position(and do not even talk to me about some fairy tale coup where she replaces Reid).

    Hillary wouldn't be in an Obama admin (none / 0) (#138)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    Teddy made that quite clear last night.

    And OT, Plouffe: 'national polls don't matter' (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:17:44 PM EST
    Sorry, that's OT as in 'On Topic' (none / 0) (#54)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    considering the trend in national polls (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    (which seemed to matter a lot when he was ahead)
    this spin is hardly surprising.

    And there are now 18 states that 'matter' (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    Is it me? (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    Or is the country shrinking rapidly?

    what happened to the other 39? (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by sancho on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    More Bounce To The Ounce (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Desired User Name on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:17:52 PM EST
    TO ME it seemed nutty to think Biden or any of the "short list" VP choices would provide a real BOUNCE because the masses have never really heard of any of them EXCEPT Hillary. The bounce from Hillary Clinton as VP would have been thunderous and reverberating, HUGE. At least that's what I think.

    Biden is "likeable enough" and I'm sure he'll woo over some people as soon as they start paying attention to the race again, but not many are...I mean c'mon, many people ignore it all until a few weeks or days before the actual election.

    If only everyone was as tuned in...then we'd have a REAL REVOLUTION and a truly big bounce, it'd knock us out of orbit. It would, it would.

    No one's polling me (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:18:58 PM EST
    That's the problem.

    We'll have to wait and see (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by wasabi on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:23:10 PM EST
    We'll have to wait and see if Biden can bring in some of those voters whose main issue with Obama seems to be a lack of "gravitas".  I don't know what percentage of the Dem holdouts fall into this category, but there may be quite a few as the holdouts tend to be older voters.  I'm not buying the pitch of folks like Senator Sherrod Brown's wife (Connie Schultz) who claims all those folks born prior to forced integration won't vote for Obama because they never had to actually get comfortable with a black person.  Ugh.

    When did forced intergration start? (none / 0) (#92)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:40:08 PM EST
    Remember the Titans (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:46:36 PM EST
    took place in the 70's if I remember correctly(Here in Va). That said, despite all the hoopla, I haven't heard a single person who has said they won't vote for Obama based on his skin color. They have plenty of reasons but color has not been one of them despite the propaganda being placed out there that says otherwise.

    Ugh (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    Once again if Obama loses it's no ones fault other than Obama. Are they clueless about his baggage? It seems to me that instead of worrying about Clinton they should starting riding Obama to be a better candidate.

    The real untold story about this is that the O bloggers will be put out into political oblivion if Obama loses since they were the ones that wanted him. It shows that they have a severe lack of judgement when it comes to picking candidates who can win. You know, instead of looking at themselves and realizing their lack of judgement, it's just easier to blame Hillary. It's a fool's game but apparently they want to play it.

    "The Biden Bounce".... (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:28:51 PM EST
    is that what you call it when you sell some blown glass and get bounced into the federal pen...The Biden Bounce?

    Ha! You end up Biden your time like Tommy Chong (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:34:54 PM EST
    Pelosi: 'I'm very comfortable with those polls' (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:32:29 PM EST
    She's counting on new voters - and the myth that they're excluded from likely voter models.

    and Pelosi may be correct - (none / 0) (#177)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    Dems are vastly outpacing Repubs in voter registration and Repubs aren't promoting voter registration.

    and Pelosi may be correct - (none / 0) (#179)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:16:02 PM EST
    Dems are vastly outpacing Repubs in voter registration and Repubs aren't promoting voter registration to the same degree.

    But you have to deduct the voters (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:57:10 PM EST
    under the bus. They might be signing up a lot of new voters, but are losing a lot of the old faithfuls who have always been there for them and showed up at the polls. So it might be more Dems, less voters.

    I doubt anything can give (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by mg7505 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:33:25 PM EST
    either candidate a significant bounce at this point. But each has a lot of voters to lose.

    Folks talk about being turned off by Republicans and Bush specifically. But Bush and the Repubs won in 2004 -- so Obama's supporters must not only associate McCain with Bush, but prove that he's even worse. Can Joe Biden successfully lead that kind of attack? So far I haven't seen any evidence to prove he can. Pundits are suddenly praising him now that he's Obama's #2, but Biden's words still aren't moving anyone in memorable or important ways (unless you count the gaffes...)

    Izakoff (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:42:27 PM EST
    I saw a clip of Michael Izakoff of Newsweek saying that Hillary Clinton, when she makes her speech tonight, should be good, but not "too good". In other words, she had better dumb herself down a little. I have never seen this type of suggestion made to a man.

    It's going to tough for Clinton not to radiate her natural intelligence.

    Izakoff and like-minded talking heads will probably just have to endure it.

    I think that is exactly what happened (none / 0) (#161)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    to Michelle Obama.  She is a dynamic speaker.  But, I didn't think she was dynamic last night.  Too mild and "handled."

    There is a rigidness in the Obama camp (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:49:34 PM EST
    "I want it to work my way!"

    Meanwhile, [Trippi finds "More Clinton Angst At Convention Than I Expected"]

    I wonder how much he "expected" (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:54:46 PM EST
    I mean, after all, its only half the party.
    give or take.

    Well, he also expects Clinton to fix the problem (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:27:24 PM EST
    so I think his expectations are not a very accurate gauge all 'round.

    Power (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:24:56 PM EST
    This entire thing, including Pelosi's latest "get over it" to Clinton supporters, feels like it's about trying to bend people to their will.  These are not people who like to be questioned or challenged.  I think that's what this is really about now - entitlement and privilege.  How dare some housewife from Ohio question Nancy and Howard?  

    That's what this all seems like to me.  Otherwise they'd suck it up and do what it takes to unite the party and win.  But they don't like being questioned or challenged, especially not by regular people.  We might get it in our heads to start asking for more than simply respect for the centrist candidate of our choice.  Next time we might demand that the government not spy on us or single payer universal healthcare.  Can't have that.  


    sorry, (none / 0) (#115)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:50:04 PM EST
    To me this is sexism (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:05:01 PM EST
    at it's worse.  They did not take her supporters, us and our views seriously ever.  They were convinced we would just toe the line.  How disgusting. it all is.

    the other tow (none / 0) (#178)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:15:50 PM EST
    Two Problems (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:51:31 PM EST
    I agree with Steve M that in the long run Biden is likely to help Obama with some seniors.

    But I think Obama is struggling for two additional reasons - he's not doing well enough among women and he's not focusing on the economy.  These are not unrelated since women tend to vote domestic issues more (and tend to make less $).  Biden does not help him with either of these two groups.  Biden doesn't have a great record on women's issues (36% lifetime NARAL rating, Anita Hill, sexist comments) and he also isn't known for his economic policies (D-MBNA).  In fact, Biden is more likely to continue the trend of having this election be all about foreign policy.  That's not good for Obama, IMO, because it's playing to McCain's strength, Obama's weakness, and doesn't pull in women voters (and Dems win with women, period).  

    There might have been other non-Hillary selections that would've helped Obama with these two groups, but none were ever on his short list.  The only name floated that covered all the bases - seniors, women, and economy - was Hillary Clinton and we now know she was never really considered.  

    No wonder the Obama people can't get over the Clintons.  If he loses, his VP decision is going to loom very large.

    One More Thing (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:54:36 PM EST
    On a personal note, let me say that it gives me hope for the Republic that the American people did not swoon over Joe Biden.  

    I agree (none / 0) (#159)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:07:37 PM EST
    although Biden has a major selling point in the Violence Against Women Act.

    It's hard to disagree with the folks who still hold a grudge over the Thomas hearings though.


    Not so sure (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    It's pretty easy as a politician to be for something like VAWA - I mean it's not like anyone's eager to be a member of the "Wife Beaters and Rapists Caucus".  However, what's hard to do is to stand up against more nebulous acts of discrimination or misogyny - those who do are often called "whiners" or "wannabe victims".  (As we were constantly reminded his year)

    On the tough fights, Biden has been absent or worse.  If Biden were a real advocate of women, he'd of condemned the casual sexism of the media rather than run and hide like most of DNC leaders (and it's not like he hasn't had the opportunity to appear before cameras in that time.)


    good points! (none / 0) (#198)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:23:07 PM EST
    >>>>The only name floated that covered all the bases - seniors, women, and economy - was Hillary Clinton and we now know she was never really considered.  

    During the primary, Obama pushed his anti-Iraq War speech in 2002 - then chose a warhawk for VP.
    What about the Economy??!?
    Most likely fundie conservatives will cease their opposition to Romney's Mormon credentials.


    Hillary supporters wanted a Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:53:13 PM EST
    It's just that we don't want any Democrat.  Speaking for me, I see Obama as another Bush. Like Bush, he is inexperienced, full of himself, insecure, etc. etc.  It's the candidate that's a problem, not the fact that he is not Hillary.  Put Biden on top of the ticket, and I will leave McCain instantly. Note: Biden would not have gotten my vote in the primary, but like Kerry, he would have gotten my vote in the general election.

    You have to wonder why it would surprise anyone (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by joanneleon on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:03:02 PM EST
    given Biden's performance in the first primary and his hasty exit.

    Also, he's being painted as the populist, and he is anything but a populist.  As for the "change we can believe in," well I guess enough has been said about that.  The guy has tried for president twice and didn't come close.  He comes from a small state with three electoral votes.  What did they expect, really?

    People all over the place knew that Clinton should have been the choice.  I think this is another question mark in the judgement column for Obama.

    It's not even the overall numbers (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by facta non verba on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    it's the favorable versus unfavorable ratio. Obama's unfavorable rating is way up. That spells trouble in my view.

    Meanwhile McCain has another ad out using Hillary.

    New McCain Ad -- Hillary's Right

    By my count that's four ads using Hillary or her supporters in a McCain or RNC ad.

    What's wrong with that McCain. (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    ...He's not helping. ;-)

    If Obama loses.... (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by jeffhas on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:13:45 PM EST
    all of his supporters will be swept away by the tide.

    Losers DO NOT write history.

    I personally believe the only way to get rid of Dean, Pelosi, Brazille, et al, who control the party right now is for Obama to lose.

    If he wins, they will think they can trot out any hand picked candidate of their choice in the future, their policy of destroying the Clinton wing will have been approved.

    It has always been about destroying the Clintons.  If they win, they will get to write the history, and the Clinton legacy will most likely be of some middling President that was nothing more than filler.

    They may not realize it - but hopefully they do - their entire careers rest on Obama's election.

    ... so they better hope he wins, because if he loses, they will be GONE BABY GONE.

    Joe is going to create (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:22:56 PM EST
    his own bounce by tearing up. Biden gets emotional.

    No, it doesn't make you more like Hillary.

    BTW last night CNN said that ballots had been handed out to all the delegates on the floor to nominate Barack, Hillary and Joe Biden.

    Hillary should have dropped out after Iowa if you could get on the ballot at the convention.

    YIKES....sez it all...to my mind, biden was (4.00 / 3) (#6)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:48:59 PM EST
    a desperation pick after obama was turned down by better picks imo.  And, it is just getting interesting.  Once biden starts shooting from the lip, the obama camp could go into a free fall.

    And the Biden pick reminds me (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by abfabdem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:21:08 PM EST
    too much of Bush/Cheney--you know, the lightweight guy on top and the experienced pol as VP.  Do we have to go through this again?  

    Who turned down Obama? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Casey from MA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:16:59 PM EST
    And where did you get that information?

    Lexis Nexis?  Politico?  Dialog?  The NYT?  Just curious.


    Let me rephrase....there are those that (3.00 / 3) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:26:27 PM EST
    said they would not take the job if it was offered...:)

    Fair enough. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Casey from MA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    I'm a stickler for information.  I'm a librarian after all.  

    To put up a line like you did proved cause enough for me to ask where you found it.

    Best regards and lets work for a Democrat win in '08!  


    Let's at least wait for his speech (none / 0) (#17)
    by DemForever on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:57:15 PM EST
    before conclusively deciding he's a drag on the ticket.

    Talk of bounces and what not... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Casey from MA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:13:02 PM EST
    Bounces from VP selections and conventions are not necessarily indicative of election results in November.  This is even more complicated because the Dem and Rep conventions are held so close together.  

    Take a look here for an analysis of convention bounces:


    and here for a VP bounce analysis:


    Then, take it all with a grain of salt.  Thanks!

    The rationalization (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    will certainly rain down now and Poblano is one of the best apologists no question.

    You know... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Casey from MA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:35:10 PM EST
    you and I are on the same side here.

    Neither of us wants to see a McCain victory.

    So, you say Poblano is an apologist.  Okay!

    And now what?  

    I'm not being a dick here.  I like what you have to offer.  Just trying to figure out where you're going with all of this and what you think might be a good avenue to take considering your opinions on this topic, in particular, and the election, in general.


    I say it because I believe it (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:40:41 PM EST
    I think all the Left Blogs practice cheerleading and rationalizing now.

    It is the role they have chosen.

    I do not say it with rancor. I played that role myself in 2006.


    You do realize (none / 0) (#51)
    by s5 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    that a VP pick is more than a "pop" or a one time PR event, right?

    The pick is a one time event (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:23:08 PM EST
    The effects of Biden himself will play out the rest of the way of course.

    But there is an independent pick effect as well.

    This  not anything Biden did or did not do. It is who he is NOT.

    I blame Obama for this, not Biden.


    Well I think your wishes cames true (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jgarza on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:42:48 PM EST
    Hillarys die hard supporters aren;t going to vote for a ticket without he on it.  We will loose in November. Lets be democrats and villify Obama while republcians screw us over.

    I'm hyped!

    Excuse me (5.00 / 7) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:45:53 PM EST
    I provided my advice for months.

    Do not act as if I am just saying it now.

    And you are damn right I blame Obama for this.

    Winning is what matters. He ignored that.


    Or, a scarier thought, he just didn't get it. n/t (none / 0) (#171)
    by jpete on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    sometimes (5.00 / 8) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    you have to destroy the village in order to save it.
    I think we are saving the democratic party.
    thats MO.  you are entitled to yours.

    Don't you mean.. (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:46:36 PM EST
    Let's continue to run a crappy campaign and blame Clinton and her supporters when it fails?

    did anyone expect a bounce with Biden? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:42:53 PM EST
    Obama could have pulled off the PR event of a lifetime by naming Hillary, instead he went with a 3 a.m. announcement for Biden.  I have not read anywhere that the O team expected a bounce but if they did with Biden, well that would be insane. Instead we have a fractured party with a ho hum vp and a candidate who debates rather poorly.  In my estimation he needs to build back to a 7-10 point lead to cover for his debating deficiency.  then again, 9 months ago I thought axelrod was entirely out of his league and he pulled it off.  

    Axelrod pulled it off (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:45:21 PM EST
    he pulled it off by using a bunch of dirty underhanded slime tricks that worked great in a democratic primary but certainly will not work in a general election.

    Let's not forget (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:52:51 PM EST
    Donna and Howie's part in this debacle. Nothing says fair like telling 15% of the voters in one state "we don't give a crap that you voted for her, your votes belong to THE ONE." Oh and allowing the GOP to punk you on FL. There is gonna plenty of blame to go around and Clinton ain't even gonna be anywhere on my list.

    Axelrod is considered (none / 0) (#118)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:52:24 PM EST
    a star strategist.  He was probably waiting for someone like Obama to keep the creative juices flowing.

    time will tell I guess (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:55:40 PM EST
    One thing about Biden (none / 0) (#106)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:45:38 PM EST
    that I didn't know is that he is one of the least wealthy members of the Senate.  His early disclosure put his wealth at between $100,000-$150,000.

    Opensecrets says it is anywhere between $-302,980 to $277,997.  He's at the top on the poorest list. Here's a guy that lists among his liabilities student loans for his son.

    Apparently, because he has always been in public service, he just hasn't saved that much money.  And he clearly doesn't come from money.  The interesting thing is that it seems that some people use the Senate to enrich themselves (see Ted Stevens), but Biden doesn't seem to have done this.

    Anyway, this makes me like him a bit more for some reason.

    Credit card Joe Biden (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:51:35 PM EST
    doesn't have any money? Nothing sadder than an aging "peddler of the flesh" who didn't save for their retirement.

    He's got a good pension, though. (none / 0) (#139)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:02:11 PM EST
    eh (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:00:24 PM EST
    I don't know about that.  Being a U.S. Senator is hardly like being a county commissioner.  He pulls down about $170,000 a year (plus pretty sweet benefits).  I'm not sure folks who make $40,000 are going to be able to relate.  In fact a lot of them will probably wonder why he's in debt.  While it's nice he's not enriching himself and all, he's hardly a pauper.  

    Considering the credentials of his wife (none / 0) (#153)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:05:51 PM EST
    does she file her taxes separately? Is she maybe owning property in her own name just so Joe doesn't HAVE to disclose it?

    She teaches at a community college! (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:11:16 PM EST
    His wife is (none / 0) (#176)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:14:41 PM EST
    a teacher, isn't she?

    I'm not saying that he (none / 0) (#166)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:09:18 PM EST
    is poor.  I am saying that, for a Senator, he is not typical at all.  I just tend to like people a little more if they aren't living off of a huge trust fund or their spouses money.

    If John McCain or John Kerry or any number of other senators want to send you to college, they could just write the check.

    Biden has to take out a loan.  That is a difference, I think.


    Could that be right? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:01:24 PM EST
    ...that sounds seriously low.

    I think it could be right (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:03:13 PM EST
    did you see Carvilles comments?

    "Well if this party has a message it has done a hell of a job of hiding it tonight I promise you that," Carville said.

    "David Gergen said this a short time ago, that in the first two hours what is the message?" said Cooper.

    "And you know what? David didn't get to where he was in life because he's stupid  He was exactly right. I look at this and I am about to jump out of my chair...There's no message coming out of here, there is no sense that the party has a sense of urgency, and we've only got four nights this is 25% of the whole thing."


    Not possible (none / 0) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:03:20 PM EST
    That report is not even a possibility.

    It is much much higher than that.

    At least 20 million more likely 30 million.

    I dont know (none / 0) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:05:58 PM EST
    I tried to watch it and fell asleep before the main event.

    It says network channels (none / 0) (#172)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:13:39 PM EST
    On the East Coast it was 10PM and Michele was not on until after 10:30 on a Monday night. If you add in the 'cable channels' then I think the numbers are more to your way of thinking.

    Biden and seniors (none / 0) (#144)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    In one of the polls I read, Obama's biggest problems was with older white males. I'm not sure Biden can take them from McCain. McCain comes of as one of their buddies from the war. Unless they're die hard Dem's I would think they'd lean towards McCain. As was stated earlier in post, people aren't always rational in their voting. (They thought Bush was better to have a beer with)!

    I try to stick to just one measure (none / 0) (#147)
    by Gabriel on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:04:26 PM EST
    In this case (national polling) I look at pollster.com and realclearpolitics averages. That way I don't rely on any one poll.

    I also look at EC projections, from pollster.com and fivethirtyeight. Probably the best sources out there.

    I agree that choosing HRC would have given him a bigger jump.

    Biden ok but Hillary would have been a sure thing (none / 0) (#156)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:07:08 PM EST
    Before I was born, my parents lived near Biden in Scranton on Washington Ave. I tell my big brother he might have known him in their strollers. He has always come across as wordy (Maybe like me) but intelligent and making sense. I believe Obama realized that he was in deep waters without oars on the foreign policy front and Russia was making loud noises over there.

    Biden proposes to split up Iraq into 3 sections but before it gets there, I suspect that the Bush administration is going to make the deal with Iraq and set a firm withdrawal date and treaty. That will take Iraq off the immediate table.

    Biden went to Georgia and came back wanting to give them a $$$bil. The homeless in Denver got haircuts. People are nervous that the cold war will start again but I don't think throwing money at a situation is the immediate answer. Sure doesn't have Russia shaking in their boots. Neither does that US warship off their coast either. And who can help with the economy? I don't think Biden can or otherwise he would not have been the credit card bankers best friend. Of all the people, other than Hillary, Biden was probably the best choice because of his experience. But Biden is old street DC politics and when I mention that to 'Obama people who wanted change' they ignore that and go on as to how Hillary is not doing enough to get Obama elected. I wonder if the media and Obama supporters realize how that sounds. Like, without Hillary, they can't do it alone.

    O no. Their credibility goes further (none / 0) (#163)
    by jpete on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:08:49 PM EST
    down.  And I thought they had hit bottom.

    It's time to (none / 0) (#164)
    by sleepwalker on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:09:01 PM EST
    "get over it". You need to go to the GE with the ticket you have - not the one you wish you had. It's Obama/Biden, win or lose.

    I'm voting McCain, and you can 'get over it'. (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:14:41 PM EST
    I'm not voting for either (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by sleepwalker on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:24:12 PM EST
    Obama or McCain. I just think that there has been enough whining. Obama isn't listening to any of us. That's been perfectly clear for months. Why waste bandwidth? Sit back and watch. I've bought a case of popcorn.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:19:04 PM EST
    Telling people to "get over it" has worked so well so far. Keep truckin' with that winning strategy.

    I agree with andgarden (none / 0) (#181)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:16:16 PM EST
    Obama's positions are very similar to Hillary's....

    McCain is a doctrinaire conservative (having abandoned his-around-the-edges maverick positions.)

    The deposition lingo isn't impressive or clever....There is no obligation to answer your questions the way you phrase them.  

    So let's see if it is higher (none / 0) (#182)
    by abfabdem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    tonight because Hillary is speaking.  I know I am tuning in just for her.

    Is this really happening? (none / 0) (#189)
    by AlSmith on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:19:05 PM EST

    So if Obama loses where are we for 2012? Usually the people who did well before are front runners but are we really scratching all the top three
     -Obama: eliminated because he is a loser
     -Clinton: eliminated because she blinked morse code messages to the voters that caused Obama to lose
     - Edwards: Persona non grata
     - Richardson: Still whatever he was this year
     - Deval Patrick: just kidding
     - Reid: No way
     - Pelosi: Would probably want to run but no way

    The other choices would be Biden and Kerry. Not that they would have to be too old but they wouldnt be spring chickens either.

    It would be very odd for us to cross Clinton off in this scenario. Who else would have national stature other than maybe Dean?

    Disillusioned Obama Supporter (none / 0) (#195)
    by murrieta on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:22:13 PM EST
    Mea culpa here. Was a firm Obama supporter. But what I have seen after his clinching the nomination have almost made me into a PUMA. Biden is just the latest example (FISA, guns, death penalty, etc are others) that have me feeling used. If it wasn't for the Supreme Court possible vacancies - I would prefer McCain for 4 years to Obama for 8. As it is, I probably will vote Nader or Green in November..

    those numbers (none / 0) (#196)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    of course make me wonder how this Convention's viewership compares with earlier Conventions.  Like 2004, 2000, 1992, etc.

    BUMPY LUMPY (none / 0) (#206)
    by Desired User Name on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:40:48 PM EST
    The biggest advantages BIDEN has OVER Hillary are:

    1.)Biden has been in the DC mix for decades (a Washington Insider much longer than Hill)

    2.)Biden is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee (had a great deal more info on Iraq War than Hillary did, but voted for it)

    3.)Biden has a regular scrotum ( Carville claims Hill has 3 balls or was it 2, I forget how many nards/cajones folks say she has! 2 is normal so Biden is normal.)

    Oh wait a minute #1&2 is what Obama ran against.Ooops.

    #3 is merely anatomical mythology, not "proven" about Hills but suspected as FACT for Biden.

    Okay 1 out 3 is good for Obama and should be a bump? or at least TWO LUMPS.

    Obama blew it! (none / 0) (#210)
    by bailey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:22:57 PM EST
     Why on earth is Hillary not on the ticket? Mr. good judgement didn't want her millions of supporters. Arrogance is deadly, and Obama just lost my support. She wasn't even considered. Have also been hearing reports that neither Michelle or Barack returned any of Hillary's calls during the vetting. This is so disrespectful. No class! If I'm this upset, I doubt I'm the only one who's vote Obama lost.