- ‹ previous
- 2737 of 2743
- next ›
Biden's Experience
BIDEN'S EXPERIENCE....Over at the mother blog — a genuinely apt name at this magazine — Jonathan Stein comments on today's paean to Joe Biden from David Brooks:
So Biden is a liberal, not-evil Cheney. I'll agree that's a good thing. I'll further agree that having people like David Brooks on-board with the Obama VP pick is a good thing for Obama. But I won't agree that experience is the primary consideration when choosing a VP. Is Brooks not aware how that undercuts Obama's entire case for the presidency? If we value experience, why settle for a ticket with a VP who has 25+ years of experience in Washington? Why not pick the ticket with the nominee who has 25+ years of experience in Washington?
I imagine I'm probably more sympathetic to Biden than Jonathan is in the first place, but even aside from that I don't think this is right. By picking Biden, what Obama would show is that he's not afraid of experienced colleagues. Think of JFK picking Johnson or Carter picking Mondale as their running mates. It's basically a show of dominance.
And aside from that, there really is some value in Biden's experience. Maybe. All four of the most recent Democratic presidents have chosen their VPs from the ranks of the Senate, and I'll grant that the results have been fairly mixed. Still, the Senate is pretty clearly going to be ground zero for getting Obama's program passed into actual legislation, and Biden has a pretty decent track record of working the legislative process. So on that score it might be genuinely helpful. (Ditto, of course, for Jack Reed.)
My Brooks-related concern would be a little different. Remember how conservatives were singing hosannahs to Obama back before he actually won the nomination? That, um, didn't last long. So call me cynical, but I wonder if Brooks will continue to think so highly of Biden if he gets the nomination? Or will he suddenly discover a column or five's worth of reasons that he's actually a fatal albatross? I'm not saying he'd do that. I'm just saying.
Also Brooks repeats the tired and false cliche that Obama is struggling to connect with working class voters despite, you know, leading McCain among working class voters by a comfortable margin.
I know I'm not the quickest bat in the line-up, but I just noticed the drum to the left of Kevin's name. Very nice touch.
You're not cynical Kevin. You're realistic. That's exactly what Brooks will do. He will connect with his inner weenie and try desparately to be the voice of faux reason as he later disparages Biden, or for that matter whomever Obama chooses.
I don't know, Kevin. This new setup isn't too comfortable. I know you said they're working on re-designing the blog, but they might want to hurry up with that.
Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I always get nervous when conservatives speak well of a democrat.
My first thought after reading Brooks' column this morning was "Hmmm. Brooks wants Obama to pick Biden... he must really think that Biden is a weak choice that will bring Obama down". Call it the concern troll syndrome.
Certainly, Brooks' closing line about Obama picking Biden "for the good of the country" only heightened my suspicions.
Hey, Kevin - decided instead of saying "goodbye" over at WM, I'd say "hello" when you arrived here. I've been reading you just about daily (and I always go back and catch up on whatever I've missed) since the old CalPundit days. So, you've pulled me with you to a MJ bookmark - you should get a raise!
Of the three, Biden, Bayh and Kaine, my choice is definitely Biden. He may not be as liberal as I am, but he's got that wonderful SARCASM thing going...
What about Chet Edwards? His name has resurfaced as recently as today.
Pick Biden if he'll constantly keep McCain on the defensive. Or if really worried about the election, pick Hillary and have her responsible for FL and OH.
Reagan picking Bush, another example.
Kevin -- hate the layout here. Just horrible.
Like the new cyber-space. Looking forward to reading the blog in new area.
Biden will certainly make the campaign fun. I think Obama needs a sharp tongue to fend off the Repubs, and Biden has it.
Goodness. I thought it was a TV antenna. Am I showing my age?
So you look even more handsome over here!
But.....where's the kitty pictures? My Friday is never complete without them....
Or will he suddenly discover a column or five's worth of reasons that he's actually a fatal albatross?
"Blow-dried effete Eastern liberal who likes the French and will surrender often and early."
Of course they're going to do that.
By picking Biden, what Obama would show is that he's not afraid of experienced colleagues.
This is truly an inside baseball reason to pick Biden. Because it will not mean jack to anyone in the real world.
max
['The dread is building.']
I see Al has resurfaced. Can egbert and American Hawkster be far behind?
But I agree! Those deadbeats beset by catastrophic illness need to cowboy up! That IV pole has wheels, so get your lazy ass back to work!
Kevin, I must disagree with you on this. I think Jonathan Stein has correctly summarized Obama's dilemma and he's right that, at this late date, you really have to stick with the "change" message. If you look at Biden's 25-years of experience, Obama actually does come up very short in terms of expertise, experience and track record. He is in his first term in the Senate (where he checked in only to ask directions to the White House), his time as a lawyer, activist and state legislator was not particularly outstanding (in each case he seemed to be punching his ticket on his way to better things) and, in traditional terms, would hardly qualify him for national office. Frankly, I think the most likely reaction of chronic voters to someone like Clark, Biden, or HC would be that Obama pales by comparison.
Whether or not you believe (or ever believed) that Obama is "The One", we Democrats are basically stuck with him. I believe that choosing a relative unknown like Kaine or Sebilius is actually the better choice since he or she will not overshadow Obama and, indeed, complements his "oneness".
It is Obama's "oneness" which arguably makes up for his otherwise unimpressive background and doubtful voting history, wobbly commitment to liberal issues. His personal story, the value of electing a black man to this office and, above all else, his judgment are really all that distinguishes him from the other Democrats and from McCain, too. In the objective terms being used to promote Joe Biden, Obama probably does not measure up to McCain's background, experience and supposed expertise nearly as well as any of the other Democrats who sought the nomination this year. But this is not a problem if we view Obama as "The One". If he is "The One" then his lack of expertise or experience isn't a problem as it would be with an ordinary candidate---as "The One" he has immeasurably superior intuitive abilities and flawless judgment in all matters.
I have never been an Obama fan. Nevertheless, he is our party's candidate and (at this point) is clearly a much better choice than McCain. Frankly, it's too late to stop clapping. In fact, if we don't clap even harder we're going to lose in November.
JFK picking Johnson for dominance?
"TV antenna","drum"?
It appears to be a Chinese cosmonaut.
I don't really have anything to add, but it's late on a Friday and i just want to say that I like you and I think you're the real deal.
Biden's a good pick.
It's clear at this point the Dems need a real ATTACK DOG that has some standing with the public and the media and Biden's that guy. I agree he does the outraged/sarcasm/ I-can't-believe-these-guys shtick better than anyone, and far better than Obama.
I hate to use the sports analogies, but right now the GOP/McCain are a bit fat hanging curve ball just waiting to be belted out of the park but nobody is bringing the lumber. The Dems are just too nice. Even when he tries like yesterday with the McCain/houses thing, Obama just doesn't have the bulldog mentality of a guy like Biden.
The biggest challenge in the campaign, ironically, is for Obama to close the deal not so much on his candidacy but on selling to the electorate the fact that McCain is old, slow, confused, out-of-touch, belligerant, in the bag for the wealthy.... you know the list. The gloves need to come off now - Obama can take the high road and then just let Biden rip McCain to shreds. Nobody else can do that.
Blue Girl-- Opposing bankruptcy reform because of the tiny percentage of people who struggle due to catastrophic medical difficulties is a bit like opposing drunk driving laws because some people can drive safely at 0.10 BAC.
If by "tiny percentage" you mean at least half, then sure. You have a point. Idiot.
I don't really understand the meme that Obama highlights his own waeknesses by picking a strong, experienced candidate.
Its kind of like saying that Richard Rodgers shouldn't have chosen to work with Oscar Hammerstein because that drew attention to Rodgers's deficiencies as a lyricist.
Bwa! Too many capiranhas for 'zinho!
Caipirinhas, that is! Joke's on me!
Its kind of like saying that Richard Rodgers shouldn't have chosen to work with Oscar Hammerstein because that drew attention to Rodgers's deficiencies as a lyricist.
But they're taking complementary roles. Saying Biden's experience would highlight Obama's inexperience treats them as a simple comparison to emphasize McCrazy's supposed experience. McCrazy will talk about them exactly like that; but McCrazy will attack where ever he can find a hole. (And Obama won't be able to escape the idea that he picked Biden to burnish his national security cred.)
The question is, are the tradeoffs inherent in accepting the weaknesses of an Obama/Biden combination worth the gains? I would say no; it effectively plays into McCrazy's hands, neutralizes Obama's strengths and doesn't get Obama any useful electoral bonuses, except in theory, on national security.
If this one is decided on perceptions of national security, taking positions real close to, but not quite the same as McCrazy is a loser. If you want crazy for a national security policy, McCain is your guy.
Viz (not an endorsement, an example):I like following politics. I really, really do. I like it too much, in fact, and as a consequence I devote far too much of my time to reading blogs and wire reports, mulling over the likely extent of your post-convention bounce, and counting the number of words issued by one Andrew Sullivan about your opponent's probably-false-but-who-really-cares POW stories. As a result my mythical dissertation remains just that, and my wife and son grow louder and louder in their worrying about my job prospects. I have, in short, something of a problem, and I need you to help me fix it.So please, please listen to James [Brooks], and pick Joe Biden as your running mate. There is nothing in the world I hate more than watching that arrogant, loud-mouthed prick ramble on and on for dozens of words at a time without pausing for a breath, and if the Alito hearings taught me anything it's that a solid ten minutes of drowning in his shtick will make Kant start to look like Seinfeld. If there is anyone who's going to get my head buried back in those books, it's Biden, and you're the one who can give him the forum to do just that. While I clearly can't promise you my vote, I hope my undying gratitude will suffice.Gonna be listenin' to a whole hell of a lot of that for next three months. I'd rather listen to them whine about Vince Foster.
max
['Oy.']
Early in the primary season Joe Biden got my first political contribution because he is a serious guy who was trying to have a serious conversation about Iraq. I followed with contributions to Obama and am excited at the prospect of both comprising the ticket.
Oh, and I don't like Biden's vote on bankruptcy "reform" at all, any more than I like (my Senator) Schumer's vote giving certain extremely wealthy folks on Wall Street capital gains treatment for income for which the rest of us pay the regular rate. Both senators apparently consider such positions more like ombudsman work for constituents than advancing a position about important national policy, but even then, surely some constituent services can be distinguished from others. But I digress.
McCain's illusory gravitas in matters of war and peace frightens me because the lazy press assumes it and just adds it to the republican's traditional perception of being somehow stronger in foreign affairs, more sure-footed. The democrats always have the burden of doing a better job explaining these big issues but they do have the tougher task: Even when explained well, the analysis can't be confined to a bumper sticker. It is not emotionally satisfying like unadorned bellicosity. And this stuff is genuinely tricky. Look how fractious we are about domestic matters in this country, how uninformed we are in many ways about each other. We know a lot less about Iraqis than we know about ourselves.
I agree Biden's a serious guy. I was very impressed by him during the campaign and especially during the debates. He has lots of experience, surprisingly deep and sensible knowledge of policy issues (especially foreign policy). He's been talking about this issues, working on legislation for years, knows all the key players. I don't always agree with him, but he is impressive. And he's been a player in DC for a very long time.
Okay. But, if those are such valuable qualities in a vice-president, why aren't they crucial in deciding who should be president? If experience and having been a player in DC are important, why vote for the guy with 3 years of experience when you could have a guy with 25+ years?
Because I realized quickly enough into the primary season that Obama had the right approach to this campaign cycle, that Hillary is the audioanimatronic version of Bill--as much as I admire the substance of much of what she does--with, unfairly, all of his baggage and, fairly, all of her own. Because hopeless realists/idealists like so many of us need a candidate who can win. Obama is making me nervous these days but campaigns are organic and things will change for sure. Hopefully, for the better.
A Biden/Obama ticket would be nice too; I'm not against it.
If Biden or another senator is chosen for vp slot, it leaves two open senate seats.
Maybe Obama should pick Leiberman. (a joke).
The VP debates should be fun.
Biden will also unofficially replace Gibbs as Obama's press secretary.
Oerlooked point: Biden is not being selected as Obama's heir, a la Gore under Clinton. Eight years from now he'll be McCain age. So people can still speculate on who will take over for Obama when his work is done.
Maybe Biden can get his friends in the credit card industry to sponsor a credit-card interest holiday right around the time of the election.
Bendover Biden? puhleeze
He has sold out so many times he isn't worth mentioning. Choosing him only underscores the FISA debacle.
"Remember how conservatives were singing hosannahs to Obama back before he actually won the nomination?"
And how they're all denying it now, LOL?
"I wonder if Brooks will continue to think so highly of Biden if he gets the nomination?"
No need to wonder. He won't.
I've always liked Biden and I think he's a good choice. He brings great foreign policy experience to the ticket, he's generally articulate and he's Catholic. Not that I think that religion ought to be a qualifier - but in many of the battleground states Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida to name three, having a catholic on the ticket might help.
Mr. Drum, I feel like you missed the point. Presidential nominees have to put out simplified explanations of their goals so that the short-attention-spanned majority of our population will listen and attempt to understand. Where as having someone that has been in Washington for so long will help Obama change it, his simplified message-which has devolved into one word-is incongruous with Biden. And this fact will be a problem. We will see if the voting population will accept and understand his attempts at explaining his slightly deeper-than-normal move, or if the republican's attempt to illegitimize his pick by simplifying it will carry through.