August 23-24, 2008
Aug 23 00:40 Biden Is Obama's VP Pick? Aug 23 08:21 What Biden Brings to the Ticket Aug 23 09:16 Best Headline of the Morning Aug 24 02:09 The Hillary Factor Aug 24 09:42 All Obfuscation All The Time Aug 24 10:31 From Sizzle to Fizzle?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Biden Is Obama's VP Pick?
According to this ABCNews article , it appears as though Joe Biden is Sen. Obama's running mate. Here's what ABC is reporting:
Earlier this week, when I thought Tim Kaine might be Obama's pick, I thought that Republicans couldn't do better than Gov. Kaine. I stand corrected. Joe Biden is God's gift to Republicans. First, let's stipulate that Sen. Biden is one of the true gentlemen in Washington. He's also a thinker. Unfortunately, he hasn't been on the right side of history in foreign policy.The United States Secret Service has dispatched a protective detail to assume the immediate protection of Sen. Joseph Biden, (D-DE), a source tells ABC News, indicating in all likelihood that Biden has been officially notified that Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), has selected him to be his running mate.
Sources also tell ABC News that two others said to be finalists for the position of Obama's running mate, Sen. Evan Bayh, (D-IN), and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, have been told they have not been selected for the vice presidential slot.
Kaine flew to Denver earlier today, is in Denver tonight and has no plans to leave in the next 24 hours. Bayh is at his Washington, DC, home with his family.
Biden was last seen minutes ago at his Wilmington estate where his extended brood is gathering.The Obama campaign would not comment, but Obama mentioned Biden twice in speeches on the trail this week, both times heralding his legislative leadersip in East Asia.
At the VFW convention in Orlando, Florida, on Tuesday, Obama said , "we must help Georgia rebuild that which has been destroyed. That is why I'm proud to join my friend, Senator Joe Biden, in calling for an additional $1 billion in reconstruction assistance for the people of Georgia."
And in Chesapeake, Virginia, Friday night, Obama heralded Biden's efforts to provide economic assistance to Afghanistan. "I joined with people like Joe Biden to increase a billion dollars of investment," he said .
Take, for instance, that he's the guy that wanted the United States' diplomats to tell Iraq, a sovereign nation and a potential American ally, that they should split into three seperate nations. What gives us that right? That's awfully presumptuous. It's also extremely arrogant. Let's also understand that Sen. Biden is afflicted with diarhea of the mouth. The more he talks, the more manure that's spread.
NRO already has the material for the ads that the RNC and the McCain campaign can run ridiculing Sen. Biden. It's an embarrassment of riches.
UPDATE: CBS News just sent out the news that Biden will be Sen. Obama's running mate. Nice scoop, CBS. You're only a couple hours late.
UPDATE II: While this article on Sen. Biden doesn't make up for all the slanted reporting that the AP has done on the Bush administration, it's a delightful opening, especially coming from the AP:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama selected Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware late Friday night to be his vice presidential running mate, according to a Democratic official, balancing his ticket with an older congressional veteran well-versed in foreign policy and defense issues.There's no question but that Sen. Biden's long-windedness is due to his over-inflated ego of himself.
Biden, 65, has twice sought the White House, and is a Catholic with blue-collar roots, a generally liberal voting record and a reputation as a long-winded orator.
Anyone who watched his questioning of then-Judge John Roberts knows what I'm referring to. He started his allotted time by talking about balls and strikes and how a Supreme Court justice is so much more than that. That went on for almost half his time. Finally, he started asking questions. When then-Judge Roberts started giving a detailed explanation, Sen. Biden asked him to shorten his answers because he was running short on time.
That didn't sit well with Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who said in ruling against Sen. Biden that it wasn't Judge Roberts' fault that Sen. Biden had talked too long.
Here's the other delicious part of the article:
The official who spoke did so on condition of anonymity, preferring not to pre-empt a text-message announcement the Obama campaign promised for Saturday morning.Thank God that this official didn't pre-empt Saturday morning's "text-message announcement." That would've been a disaster.
Posted Saturday, August 23, 2008 1:09 AM
Comment 1 by Ted at 23-Aug-08 12:43 AM
Biden - the perfect foil for Palin!
Comment 2 by TwoPuttTommy at 23-Aug-08 07:32 AM
"First, let's stipulate that Sen. Biden is one of the true gentlemen in Washington."
Agreed. And noted that ust a few sentences later, you demonstrate you are not.
Gee, Gary - that's so "gentlemanly."
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 23-Aug-08 08:23 AM
Gee, Tommy, that hurts so much coming from you.
Comment 4 by Walter hanson at 24-Aug-08 04:32 AM
Tommy:
Bidden is no gentlemen. He uses the time to question judges like John Robberts to give speeches and when the judge has the nerve to try to answer the question he interrupts to give more speech time.
Stipluation isn't agreed to.
Stipluation I agree to is that Two putt Tommy is no gentleman and therefore doesn't know what a gentleman is!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
What Biden Brings to the Ticket
Now that the news is out about the Obama-Biden ticket, it's time to ask what Sen. Biden adds to the ticket.
The instant Sen. Biden joined the ticket, he became the foreign policy expert of the ticket. That isn't a compliment. When the man that put together a plan that would've divided a sovereign nation into three countries is the foreign policy expert, you know that the ticket doesn't have much credibility on foreign policy. What makes Sen. Biden's plan worse is the fact that he tried forcing this down the throats of a nation that we hope becomes an important ally in the Middle East.
This also underscores the fact that Sen. Obama's foreign policy resume is the thinnest of any presidential candidate in my lifetime. I can't confirm this but I think Sen. Obama holds the distinction of being the only senator in history to chair a subcommittee that didn't call a policy hearing of that committee . I'm referring to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs. Here's what Salon.com said about that subcommittee's responsibilities:
Ritch points out that as subcommittee chair, Obama could have examined a wide variety of urgent matters, from the role of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq to European energy policy and European responses to climate change, and of course, the undermining of the foundations of the Atlantic alliance by the Bush administration. There is, indeed, almost no issue of current global interest that would have fallen outside the subcommittee's purview .This speaks volumes about Sen. Obama's disinterest in foreign policy. Why should voters think that anyone that disinterested in this important subcommittee will be a good steward of foreign policy as president?
My point is that anyone that Sen. Obama had picked, with the exception of Gov. Kaine or Gov. Sebelius, would've had a better grasp on foreign policy than Sen. Obama. By alot. Just because Sen. Biden is the foreign policy guru of this ticket isn't confirmation that he's as knowledgeable on foreign policy as Sen. McCain. He isn't.
Another thing that Sen. Biden brings to the table might be lethal but it isn't serious. Sen. Biden's penchant for shooting his mouth off will have campaign handlers as worried about Sen. Biden's impromptu meanderings as they'll be worried about Sen. Obama's gaffes. That's saying alot.
On the positive side, Sen. Biden is a blue collar kind of guy, one who might appeal to Catholic voters, too. That said, I don't think his abilities in this area are enough to make Pennsylvanians forget Sen. Obama's statement that rural Pennsylvania voters cling to their guns and religion because times are tough.
This is an incredibly light ticket, one whose flaws will become apparent in the weeks to come.
Posted Saturday, August 23, 2008 8:29 AM
Comment 1 by Gary Gross at 23-Aug-08 01:47 PM
Now to the REALLY BURNING QUESTIONS:
1. Did John McCain get the surge right?
2. Did John McCain correctly diagnose Russia's invasion of Georgia?
3. Is John McCain right in pushing for fast tracking Georgia, Ukraine & other former Eastern Bloc countries into NATO?
Slips of the tongue happen. I don't get too worried about that. I look at the quality of the candidates' decisions because that's all that matters.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Aug-08 01:50 PM
Here's some questions for Sen. Obama:
1. Why should a country that got invaded "show restraint"? Isn't that like blaming the victim?
2. Why did Sen. Obama give his speech in front of a symbol of Hitler's oppression of his people?
3. When will someone give Sen. Obama a history book so he has a clue about it?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 23-Aug-08 09:02 PM
Di-Guy, You're clueless. It isn't too early to tell who was right about Russia's invading a sovereign country. It's easy to tell that it was an act of war. PERIOD.
Furthermore, Biden's half-baked plan of seperating Iraq into 3 countries is both presumptuous & dangerous. Iran, Syria, Russia & Turkey would find that a dangerous thing, which would lead to a much bigger regional war. How is that a smart thing to do? talk about slips of the brain. Yikes.
Best Headline of the Morning
I just visited DailyKos to see what the rabids are saying about Biden. I was totally unprepared for this headline :
AP Conservative shill Ron Fournier: Biden pick shows lack of confidenceThe first thing I thought was "Ron Fournier is a conservative shill"? The next thing I did was ask whether there's proof of anyone at the AP being a conservative. Then I realized that, to the KosKids, anyone slightly to the right of Ted Kennedy is a conservative. Here's how MrBurns17 starts his diary:
Let's see... how could lil' Ron spin this Biden pick without getting into too much hot water? Sure those liberals threw a fit over his chummy emails to Karl Rove, but... what Ron worry? He'll just pen an opinion piece, throw a softball to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill o'Reilly, and let them do the dirty work. Not that these lackeys of the radical right needed any help, but why not throw them a bone anyway? Typical conservative greed and bigotry have managed, through another well funded smear campaign, to push Obama's poll numbers down and bring another corporate proxy (actually two if you count Mitt) one step closer to occupying the White House. So now that we've established that Obama is too "exotic", and too "liberal", it's time to paint him as "weak"...I wonder what MrBurns17 will do when he finds out about Biden's extensive ties to lobbyists . Will that information push him over the edge? Coming to think of it, I can't be certain that he didn't already go over that edge.
Tune in later today for more episodes from the galaxy the KosKids inhabit.
Posted Saturday, August 23, 2008 9:18 AM
Comment 1 by Chuck at 23-Aug-08 08:50 PM
I give you credit for even being able to go to the Kos site. I've tried Huffington a couple of times. These people are completely psychotic.
I've read the article, it didn't really attack the choice as much as point out some obvious problems with it. The problem with the extreme left whackjobs is they are so in the tank for Obama there is no questioning him. Whatever he says or does has to be right according to the Obamatrons.
The Hillary Factor
On the day when Barack Obama introduced Sen. Biden as his running mate, the thing that nobody in the Dead Tree Media is talking about is how Obama's dissing of Hillary will bring more division to the Democratic Party than ever before.
The fact that Hillary wasn't given a token vetting won't sit well with the PUMA crowd. That'll have profound effects on this race going forward. Here's proof that Sen. McCain plans on aggressively puruing Hillary's supporters:
Erasing any doubt that McCain has his sights set on Clinton voters, the new ad uses Clinton's own words to suggest that Obama passed her over because of the tough campaign she waged. The ad is titled "Passed Over."It's inexplicable why Sen. Obama didn't even vet Hillary as a goodwill gesture to her supporters. By not vetting her for his veep pick, he's strengthened their resolve to not vote for him. Sen. Obama already faced an uphill fight winning enough support from Hillary voters before this. Now he's made it that much more uphill.
"She won millions of votes. But isn't on his ticket," an announcer says. "Why? For speaking the truth."
The ad then shows Clinton criticizing Obama for speaking generalities ("You never hear the specifics); for his connections to Tony Rezko ("We still don't have a lot of answers."); and for being too negative. The announcer comes back on. "The truth hurt. And Obama didn't like it."
If I'm in the PUMA movement, I've had enough incentive to not vote for Sen. Obama for months. Why not sit this out, let Obama get defeated, then let Hillary have another shot in 2012? Sen. Obama's disrespect towards Hillary just steels PUMA's resolve.
The Lady Logician pointed out that the McCain campaign was airing this advertisement this shortly after Sen. Obama's veep announcement indicated that Sen. McCain had put this together long before Sen. Obama's announcement.
The polling I've seen shows that 20+ percent of Hillary's supporters are steadfast in refusing to support Sen. Obama. If he was blowing Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama might be able to get away with that. With the race being a dead heat thus far, Sen. Obama's margin of error is practically nonexistent.
Posted Sunday, August 24, 2008 2:12 AM
Comment 1 by Kafir at 26-Aug-08 04:19 PM
Fully agree, but you might want to change "If he was blowing Sen. McCain," to "If he was blowing Sen. McCain out of the water,"
Just a suggestion...
All Obfuscation All The Time
One of the biggest problems facing Sen. Obama is that he can't tell people what he really believes. That's because he'd lose badly if he told people what he's voted against. The bad news for Sen. Obama is that John McCain is using his weekly radio addresses to put the spotlight on those things. This week's address was no different. Here's one such thing Sen. McCain focused on:
Often, too, Senator Obama's carefully hedged answers obscure more than they explain, and this was the case in his conversation with Rick Warren. Listening to my opponent at Saddleback, you would never know that this is a politician who long since left behind any middle ground on the abortion issue. He is against parental notification laws, and against restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortions. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation to prevent the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion. Senator Obama opposed that bill, voting against it in committee and voting "present" on the Senate floor.It's possible to be considered mainstream while being pro-choice. It isn't possible to be considered mainstream if you're vehemently pro-choice, anti-parental notification. It isn't possible to be considered mainstream if you've voted to keep partial birth abortion intact. It certainly isn't mainstream to vote against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. That's a more militant position than Barbara Boxer's and Ted Kennedy's. Forgive me if I don't consider Sen. Boxer's and Sen. Kennedy's positions on abortion rights mainstream.
In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for babies who survive abortions - living, breathing babies whom Senator Obama described as, quote, "previable." This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law, and Barack Obama voted against it.Sen. Obama did his best to hide this information, even telling a CBN reporter that NRLC were liars. David Freddoso then produced the specific language of the bill. Mr. Freddoso then produced the documentation that showed Sen. Obama voted to amend the bill to include the federal neutrality clause. Finally, Mr. Freddoso produced the documentation that showed Sen. Obama voted against the Illinois bill after the bill was amended to include said neutrality clause.
At Saddleback, he assured a reporter that he'd have voted "yes" on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Even though the language of both the state and federal bills was identical, Senator Obama said people were, quote, "lying" about his record. When that record was later produced, he dropped the subject but didn't withdraw the slander. And now even Senator Obama's campaign has conceded that his claims and accusations were false.
That's why I've said with regret that Sen. Obama is a barbarian, albeit a smooth-talking barbarian.
Michael Barone reminds us that Sen. Obama still hasn't elaborated on his relationship with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers:
For Obama, the outsider who gained the trust of the insiders, the position is different. He was willing to use Ayers and ally with him despite his terrorist past and lack of repentance. An unrepentant terrorist, who bragged of bombing the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon, was a fit associate. Ayers evidently helped Obama gain insider status in Chicago civic life and politics-how much, we can't be sure unless the Richard J. Daley Library opens the CAC archive. But most American politicians would not have chosen to associate with a man with Ayers's past or of Ayers's beliefs. It's something voters might reasonably want to take into account.Sen. Obama's ties to Ayers probably don't cause hesitation with the lefties of the East and Left Coasts but I'm betting that people in the Heartland, where this election will be decided, care alot about this connection.
People responded positively to Obama's message of Hopeandchange. People stopped responding positively to his message when they compared his message with his actions, his relationships and his obfuscations.
Once we got to the general election portion of this campaign, people wanted specifics on how he'd fix the economy and how he'd bring down gas prices. He hasn't delivered. They wanted to know that they could trust him with national security issues. They were disgusted with how badly he mishandled the Russian invasion of Georgia.
Rather than offering reassurances, he's brought more questions. That isn't how a relative unknown gets elected. When Bill Clinton won in 1992, he had a blueprint for fixing the economy. Sen. Obama hasn't offered anything remotely resembling that.
I suspect that that's because he can't afford to tell people what he'd really like to do.
Posted Sunday, August 24, 2008 9:47 AM
No comments.
From Sizzle to Fizzle?
This Gallup poll suggests that Sen. Obama's choice of Sen. Biden won't give him much of a bounce going into his convention. That polling begs the question of why the Obamessiah would pick Biden. First, here's some of the poll's findings:
Q: Does having Joe Biden as his running mate make you more likely to vote for BArack Obama this November, less likely or will it not have much effect on your vote?The first question I had was how this stacked up historically. Here's Gallup's answer:
A: 14 percent say they're more likely, 7 percent said less likely and 72 percent said it wouldn't have any effect. Seven percent didn't have an opinion.
This results in Biden potentially having a net positive impact on voter support for the Democratic ticket of +7 percentage points, small by comparison with other recent vice presidential selections.In historical terms, this indicates that the pick is pretty underwhelming. This confirms for me the notion that this was a desperation pick, that Sen. Obama's bungling of the Russian invasion of Georgia forced him into picking Sen. Biden. (Personally, I would've picked Sam Nunn but that's another story.)
- A net 17% of nationwide registered voters said they were more likely to vote for John Kerry in 2004 on the basis of his selection of John Edwards as his running mate (24% more likely and 7% less likely).
- A net 12% of voters reported being more likely to vote for Al Gore in 2000 on account of his choosing Joe Lieberman (16% more likely and 4% less likely).
- A net 18% of voters indicated they were more likely to vote for Bob Dole in 1996 on the basis of his choice of Jack Kemp to complete the ticket (26% more likely and 8% less likely).
- A net 25% of voters were more likely to vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 on account of Al Gore (33% more likely and 8% less likely).
There's an old saying that the two happiest days that a boat owner has are the day he buys it and the day he sells it. The point is that buyer's remorse exists. How long will it take before Sen. Obama regrets picking Sen. Biden? How long will it take Democrats to regret picking Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton?
Picking Sen. Biden was a mistake. Had Sen. Hopeandchange wanted foreign policy credentials without Biden's history of gaffes, then he should've picked former Sen. Sam Nunn.
I pity the poor political handlers for Obama-Biden. Pre-Biden, they only had to worry about Obama speaking off the cuff. Now they have to worry about both candidates speaking off the cuff because they're gaffe machines.
Finally, I'd suggest that the +7 rating for Sen. Obama is the high water mark, that that figure will drop before the votes are tallied. That isn't how it's designed to work.
Originally posted Sunday, August 24, 2008, revised 25-Aug 2:44 AM
No comments.
