Biden: The Latest Insult
Joe Biden? Joe (D-MBNA) Biden? The architect of the bankruptcy "reform?"
More than anyone, I'd expect John Marshall to be outraged by this. During the bankruptcy reform debate, TPM tried to rally the opposition, the same way it rallied opposition to social security privatization. It's one reason that the Warren Reports are featured here at TPMCafe. So I'd expect some outrage from professor Warren, too.
It's really depressing and insulting that Obama would pick such a conservative Democrat as his running mate. When he allowed his campaign to be associated with anti-gay bigot Donnie McClurkin during the primaries, I was angry and got shouted down around here for it. I shouldn't demand purity, I was told. Fair enough. I don't demand it. I can forgive missteps like that and I did. Then there was the FISA about-face. I was really angry when our nominee not only broke a promise but voted to expand the government surveillance powers. But again, I got over it. It's not right to demand purity, after all.
Then he spoke out basically in favor of faith based initiatives, implying not that the Bush policies are wrong on this, just that they're badly run. I disagree. But it's a disagreement I can live with.
Now... Biden? I'm having a tougher time with this one. I would never vote for Biden for president, so why would I want him to be veep? This choice also raises a deeper question about Obama. Accepting that he's not a pure lefty and that a pure lefty wouldn't make a credible candidate I still have to wonder if this ever takes the liberal side when deciding on a big issue. I don't demand purity, but I do demand that the guy sides with me at least some of the time.
Biden is a terrible choice. In isolation, he's a terrible choice that I can live with. But Obama's consistent disregard for the liberal wing of the party has gotten really old.
More than anyone, I'd expect John Marshall to be outraged by this. During the bankruptcy reform debate, TPM tried to rally the opposition, the same way it rallied opposition to social security privatization. It's one reason that the Warren Reports are featured here at TPMCafe. So I'd expect some outrage from professor Warren, too.
It's really depressing and insulting that Obama would pick such a conservative Democrat as his running mate. When he allowed his campaign to be associated with anti-gay bigot Donnie McClurkin during the primaries, I was angry and got shouted down around here for it. I shouldn't demand purity, I was told. Fair enough. I don't demand it. I can forgive missteps like that and I did. Then there was the FISA about-face. I was really angry when our nominee not only broke a promise but voted to expand the government surveillance powers. But again, I got over it. It's not right to demand purity, after all.
Then he spoke out basically in favor of faith based initiatives, implying not that the Bush policies are wrong on this, just that they're badly run. I disagree. But it's a disagreement I can live with.
Now... Biden? I'm having a tougher time with this one. I would never vote for Biden for president, so why would I want him to be veep? This choice also raises a deeper question about Obama. Accepting that he's not a pure lefty and that a pure lefty wouldn't make a credible candidate I still have to wonder if this ever takes the liberal side when deciding on a big issue. I don't demand purity, but I do demand that the guy sides with me at least some of the time.
Biden is a terrible choice. In isolation, he's a terrible choice that I can live with. But Obama's consistent disregard for the liberal wing of the party has gotten really old.
Advertisement
Huge recs, destor.
Biden is the Democratic Chuck Hagel.
Only with fewer social skills.
August 23, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The Democratic Chuck Hagel," nice one.
Joementum 2.
August 23, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is not a liberal. He is leading the conservative revolt against the Norquist Republicans. A large component of the Left has joined with the movement after witnessing years of the Nader effect.
The question that the ensuing campaign will answer is whether Biden will truly leave all he has got on floor for Obama or be the egotistic uber-wimp Lieberman was for Gore.
When making deals with the devil, make sure the checks clear.
August 23, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Biden is not a "conservative" in any sense, nor in the "right wing" of the Democratic party. He just happens to represent Delaware very well.
The bankruptcy bill is the worst piece of legislation Biden has been part of and pretty damn bad in its own right. But it hardly makes him any sort of a conservative.
August 23, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The terms conservative and liberal fail to separate important differences in the view of what role the U.S. should play in the international community. Consider Biden's performance during the run up to the Iraq war. Byrd (who certainly is more conservative than Biden) voted against the "approval" while Biden voted for it. The linked article locates the peculiar place Biden inhabited during the debate:
But it was a blank check, for the reasons Biden so cogently explained earlier in the debate.
I think he is a good choice for VP because his experience reflects a sentiment that is strong in the country; we gave the Bushies the benefit of the doubt and they pissed into our gaping mouths.
August 23, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good source on that situation. Also:
"The Bush administration rejected an effort Biden undertook with Senator Richard Lugar to pass a resolution authorizing military action only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts."
I support the idea that this is as much about governance than just a political move. Analysis of previous election results has showed that the VP selection rarely affects the EC results enough to win. I think Biden is as good a candidate to do that as any in the running. I particulary never supported two minorities on the ticket. One is enough.
I also did not support HRC for any position on the ticket, because I never respected the DLC, her Senate record/accomplishments, and her inevitable baggage bringing out the GOP base. (Just because you are vetted doesn't mean the low info, heads in the sand folks ever changed their minds.) I think there is a big difference between the DLC centrism and the Obama/Biden ability to work across the aisle for effective legislation. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com has looked at the #'s among independents, swing voters. Biden gets more support from all of them than any of the others.
The generous support of Hagel, Lugar, Specter and other GOP for Biden, gives potential for the currently anecdotal reports of Republicans making the switch to Obamacans with this decision becoming significant at the November polls.
Personally I think Biden's record will attract women (Violence Against Women Act) elderly and blue collar. He is an example of the kind of politician who does make a good difference in DC. (Not perfect - nobody is.) And personnally,
Biden is More of a Maverick than McCain
Any hour, any day, any year.
August 23, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I particulary never supported two minorities on the ticket. One is enough."
Are you describing half the population as a "minority?"
August 24, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's an excellent quote you found there, clearly demonstrating that Biden has a brain, but doesn't necessarily use it when casting votes in the Senate.
The Arlen Specter syndrome.
August 24, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
My head feels about to crack apart!
I hated the BAPCPA, one of the two worst bills to become law in the last 10 years.
I want to win in November, Biden has some skills in that area and will be an effective running mate.
Ok, Obama/Biden 08 wins the conflict.
I am more concerned with the myriad of microrepairs that need to be done in the agencies than the big plushy Issues that make it to the MSM. When Obama/Biden win, than the unglamorous repair work that is far far below their pay grades will commence. The Democratic governing culture will sweep back into power and we will be cleaning those little lobbyist business cards and flag lapel pins out of top drawers in executive desks all over town. That's the real change we can believe in.
It was never, NEVER, about Hillary or Barack or their running mates...
They are just the hood ornament on the Democratic Party Government Car.
August 23, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent.
August 23, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Bev.
We often confuse politics with governance. The former has candidates, the latter has appointees.
Politics has become entertainment. Governance is where the real policy is made.
August 23, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I'm at a point where I'm sick of the entire process - and this is from someone who was a delegate to the conventions once and a volunteer twice. It's a one party system - the incumbents party.
August 23, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a choice between Ford and General Motors and what Americans really need is Toyota.
August 23, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I think that Obama/Biden offers governance better than all three a new effective, well designed, energy independent model.
August 23, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you so much Lux that I am willing to ignore your use of "myriad of."
August 23, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crikey's, you're right! You shouldn't have cut me the slack!
August 23, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw...Des is just completely devastated because he/she held out hope that Hillary would be the surprise VP. (the reference to mcclurkin gives that away) Geez des....get over it already. Hillary would have never made it through the vetting process. At least Biden's hands are clean.
August 23, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, I'd have been very happy with Hillary. But... had it been Richardson or Feingold I'd have put up a very happy post today.
It's not that I'm impossible to please. It's that Biden doesn't please me.
August 23, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson or Feingold?
Richardson doesn't vet. Feingold doesn't win.
Balancing a presidential ticket is not about ideological purity. In all the parts of our system, this is absolutely the *last* place where you should look for ideological consistency.
Fellow progressives: We should fight for liberal Congresspeople. Kick Lieberman out of the caucus. Fight for liberal mayors, and governors. Fight in presidential primaries to make sure we've got someone who is at least close to the center of gravity in our party.
All of those are reasonable ways to drag the party further left. But when you're balancing a presidential ticket you have *got* to aim for breadth.
Anyway, go ahead and vent. But I promise you, when we look back -- ten or twenty years from now -- we're going to remember this as a high point. We haven't had a lot of tickets this good, and it may be decades before we do it again.
August 23, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we'll know in sooner than 20 years, Alex. In a few months we'll know if this ticket has the breadth and appeal you've described or if Obama just repeated Al Gore's mistake with another man named Joe.
August 23, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was talking about policy.
About politics, we'll know a lot sooner. I think two weeks from now, after both conventions have taken place, we'll know how easy or hard it's going to be to win this.
August 23, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
His history w/ the credit card cos. bugs me, big time.
Bit Biden is not going to make the VP debate into a lovefest like Lieberman did, that's for sure.
On the whole, I see him as being a pretty good running mate, and a pretty decent vice president.
August 23, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
He'll get a pass for the credit-card thing. Reason: most of those companies are based in Delaware. If Biden voted against their interests, he'd be the former senator from Delaware.
August 23, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's kind of like Obama's stand on ethanol.
August 23, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, I find it hard to get excited about Biden too. I was originally hoping for Richardson, but honestly, I backed away from him as I heard him speak more. He just wasn't strong enough in front of the cameras. Hillary has too much baggage (most of it named Bill). Feingold, I think, would have been interesting and maybe a very good choice, but he's untested in national races and therefore a bit risky. Plus, he doesn't have quite the same experience in foreign policy as Biden is credited with having. Biden doesn't thrill me, but as I think about it, he may really be the most pragmatic choice for the campaign. It's too bad the Democrats don't have stronger options to pick from. But given the options they do have--and the need to pick someone with experience and not another newbie--Biden really isn't too bad a pick. Let's give him a chance.
August 23, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not exactly sure what the point of this thread is... catharsis?
Obama has weaknesses that he needs to shore up. Bottomline, Biden helps offset that. He can connect with "regular" folk in ways that Obama cannot. He has the all important foreign policy experience that the "pundits" assure us Obama lacks.
If this anyway helps the perception that Obama is shoring up his weaknesses and is pragmatic on recognizing this, what's the beef?
Who would you rather he pick? I assure you that person's weakness can be picked apart much the same way you select the bankruptcy issue as a sole disqualification of Biden's selection.
August 23, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just not sure why Biden helps. Do you really believe this hype about his foreign policy expertise. He was as wrong about the Iraq war as anyone when we started the thing. Which kind of undermines Obama's "superior judgment from the start" argument.
August 23, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
He helps a) because he's very good at projecting the kind of anger a lot of voters feel -- a commonsensical "come on here, people!" He can use that to project a populist message and rip into the right.
b) Because his hot-headed sarcasm balances Obama's tendency toward Olympian cool.
c) Because in spite of that sarcasm, the media say he's wise and experienced. Whether or not this is true, it reassures some older voters.
d) And because in spite of his age, his reputation is unconventional enough to support Obama's claim to be offering a "new kind of politics." You may disagree. But I'm talking about image, here.
August 23, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analysis.
August 23, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that he's a Catholic with a blue-collar background from the mid-Atlantic states can't hurt either.
August 23, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nor the fact that Jewish voters trust him.
August 23, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Biden has since admitted that his vote on Iraq was the wrong choice. Biden helps Barack more than any of the other VP choices. Someone needs to get in the game and expose the GOP propaganda when it surfaces and no more could do it better than Biden.
Hillary would not have worked out because there is only one president at a time. Obama needs room to govern and that would be impossible under the constant scrutiny and critique of the Clintons. Hillary will get her chance in 8 years (not 4)and picking Biden doesn't increase her competition from a Warner, Bayh or Kaine.
August 23, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hype? The guy reads, studies, and has worked on this area for years. He's warm, friendly, sometimes goofy, liberal, blue color, smart -- what more do you want? He's Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) in pants.
August 23, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's really just that he's been around for a long time and therefore is a known quantity who can play the role of the experienced statesman to counter Obama's newness. Plus he's generally inoffensive and likeable. Even when he says stupid things, as he sometimes does, it comes over as sort of charming.
Feingold would have been a much more interesting pick (and I really like his politics, so I would have been delighted with him), but he isn't as well known nationally as Biden, he's very liberal (by today's watered-down standards, at least), and he's Jewish. So there'd be a lot of ways the Republicans could try to make Feingold look out of the mainstream, as they are already doing with Obama. Biden is a safer pick given the "novelty" of the lead candidate because he's the exact opposite of Obama--familiar and about as mainstream as you can get. As Obama said, he was picking someone who complemented him, not supplemented him.
All that said in defense of the pick--I'm not inspired by it and am starting to wonder if there's really any hope for real change in this country. Maybe it's actually better if McCain wins so the Republicans are forced to take responsibility for the decline and fall of our great nation. If Obama/Biden win and they can't turn the country around (a tall order), the Democrats will be blamed for the disaster that his been created by the Reagan-Bush-Gingrich-Delay-Thomas-Scalia era Republicans. If there's no hope to improve things, I'd rather see the real villains get the blame.
August 24, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Destor, on Biden's foreign policy experience--there's a reason in my first post I used these words: "Plus, he [Feingold] doesn't have quite the same experience in foreign policy as Biden is credited with having." [Italics added for emphasis.] Conventional wisdom says Biden has foreign policy experience. I've never been convinced of the depth of that experience, however. It seems to me that his biggest strength is that he knows a lot of foreign leaders and seems to be well-liked by them. And of course, he's also been on the right committees in the Senate. But that doesn't necessarily prove anything about his policy-making ability. Still, it's something. In fact, in today's climate, being liked by foreign leaders is an awful lot.
August 24, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can only remind people so many times that Obama is not a liberal or a progressive.
The guy brings foreign policy experience to the ticket? Who the hell cares but pundits and tank wonks besides which the man spent his entire career in the senate and has no foreign diplomacy expertise at all.
The strategy doesn't seem to have changed from the primaries to a general election strategy - concentrate on the youth vote and new voter registrants and hope they turn out to vote. How many times do you have to tell people, "it's JOBS, stupid".
August 23, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
** Edit** "If this in anyway helps..." - Oh for an edit button
August 23, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I started to post more about unity, biting tongues, etc. but it suddenly came to me that this is a good thing. This race is going to be won or lost in the middle. You guys can scream about it all you want, but it's the truth. This is a totally polarized country, with a messa people on one side and a messa people on the other side. No matter which side wins NOTHING GETS DONE. We live the same 4 years over and over and over. The only place where progress can be made is in the middle. If the left wins, the middle scoots just a little left. If the right wins, the middle scoots a little right. The left screaming that Obama has sold out helps in the middle, so keep screamin'
I'd prefer that the middle scoots a little left rather than right, but hey, what do I know?
August 23, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really, really should watch Bill Moyer's interview with Andrew Bacevich if you haven't already. The only thing that ever gets done are protection bills for industries.
August 23, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your message is extremely ironic, given your name, SI. :)
August 23, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Destor. God knows I fought tooth and nail against Hillary because of her voting record and now Obama picks someone who is more BeltwayInsider-DLC-Republican-lite-NeoCon than Hillary ever was.....
August 23, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a bitter pill, sure. I don't think I'm surprised, though.
Obama has been centrist from the start. I never understood his appeal to the left, being considerably far left myself. He's been creeping right since he won the primary. This is just another rightward sashay.
If he wanted to win this by a landslide, he wouldn't have picked Biden. That pick ensues a close election.
Pity.
Bottom line? He's still a far better alternative to McCain, so the point is kind of moot.
August 23, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly so.
August 23, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's crap, Qwerty. What planet do you live on? He -- unlike Clinton who has only excused her vote and blamed someone else for it -- has expressed regret over his Iraq vote.
Besides that, he voted AGAINST Kyl-Lieberman.
Translation: at least he learns lessons. Clinton gave Bush the red light a second time.
August 23, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, I simply refuse to accept that you believed for so long any of this had anything to do with anything progressive or left wing.
Corrente said yesterday, that Obama finally decided that to win against the Republicans his campaign has to become like them.
August 23, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Just.. wow.
August 23, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unbelievable.
August 23, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You referring to the Dominican gold in boxing?
August 23, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the Cuban boxer punching the ref.
August 23, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kick to the face...that was Karate, not boxing.
August 23, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know where you are all from but Biden is well liked and respected in the MidAtlantic/Northeast. He has tremendous appeal with older people and with blue collar workers. He's not rich, he's Catholic, he has had his share of tragedy (his wife and young son were killed in a car accident), his son was just deployed, he brought his mom to live with him when she got old and sick, and he takes the train to work. All of that means a lot to a lot of people who are far more conservative than all of you and who Obama needs to attract. Biden will help him in PA, Ohio, RI, NH, and Florida. The retirees in Florida know Biden and like him. He knows McCain and can take him on. This is a really smart choice. I know it will take a few days for the Clinton supporters to finally extinguish that flame. I see great things for her in an Obama Administration. Whine for awhile, then turn your attacks back to McCain, who has said he will find places for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in his Administration. Heads out of butts now.
August 23, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"All of that means a lot to a lot of people who are far more conservative than all of you ..."
Well, I can't argue you with you there!! Now, all we need are some candidates to represent us.
August 23, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If "some candidates that represent us" could truly be elected, we'd be talking about President Nader right now. The kind of "candidates that represent us" will not be elected in our lifetimes. Obama is as good as it's going to get, folks! Please swallow hard and realize that a glass half or two-thirds full of drinkable water is much better than a glass full of sewage!
There are not enough progressives in the world for us to get by without most all of them. Including the ones who often seem to prefer, despite the consequences, the fantasy of going down fighting in glorious defeat behind a banner of idealistic purity. For a change of pace, why don't we instead experiment with actually winning an election and seeing if a smart person with decent values can change some things for the better in the country. It seems like it's worth a try.
August 23, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The kind of "candidates that represent us" will not be elected in our lifetimes."
It's that kind of defeatism that guarantees you've lost the election even if your party wins.
August 23, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden is going to lose Ohio, Michigan and PA.
August 23, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's fucking from PA. Are you crazed?
August 23, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gore lost Tennessee although he was 'fucking' from there.
Perhaps you need to look up the word "crazed" and adjust from there.
August 23, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In deference to Al Gore and his accomplishments, and his crusade for the environment, he has slightly more charisma than the average statue. When he gets passionate, he does well, but I don't recall him being passionate, and I know he didn't run a campaign that could have connected with his home state.
Joe Biden, however, has charisma. He looks, and sounds, like an average joe (so to speak). He could walk into any bar, shop or restaurant in PA, OH or MI, sit down and start chatting.
On the personality front, he strikes me as a good complement to Obama. On the intelligence front, in spite of the occasional gaffe, no one seems to think he's an idiot.
It might be the most dynamic Presidential ticket in the last half century.
August 24, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I love comments like these. No reasons, no facts. Just a bald oracular statement that no one is supposed to dispute.
August 23, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know. Bev was doing it in my post on Biden, too. Refuses to back up such claims, too. It gets a little tiring, but whatever.
August 23, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am going to ask you again, politely, why I should have to "back up" the fact that candidates choose vps to get electoral votes? Don't you read about politics? Haven't you studied politics?
August 23, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll have to provide support for your contention, because the facts appear to go completely against it.
LBJ was picked for the South, specifically Texas.
But please - PLEASE - cite another case where a VP was named specifically for winning a state.
August 24, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eh? Why would Biden hurt our prospects in Ohio, PA, and Michigan? Biden will help in Ohio, Michigan, and PA, not lose them. Regardless of Gore losing Tennessee (which appears to be part of Tennessee's drift into a Republican stupor), Biden will especially help in PA.
Not only would Hillary have been a bad choice for reasons others have mentioned, she didn't want to be considered for VP, at least not at the cost of have all Bill's finances vetted.
All the possibilities had pluses and minuses; Biden had the best combination of what Obama needs in a running-mate.
August 23, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD: I guess you didn't see Ed Rendell raving about what a fantastic pick Biden would be for rallying Dem support in PA.
August 23, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
>yawn
Scroll.
You don't know shit about Ohio.
August 23, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The choice of VP nominee, assuming it is someone most of America has at least heard of, is not nearly as important as the behavior of the team, once assembled.
This principle rules out Clinton.
Biden is a smart-mouth, but lately he has become a better-controlled one, and he does not lose track of his main thought while voicing subordinate clauses.
He has good relations with the press, naturally enough, given his propensity for (skill at?) emitting telegenic sound bites on cue.
He (as posted above) has maintained his "Regular Joe" image, with the occasional gaffe as part of it.
It would be nice of all those who whine about this explain who they think should have been chosen instead, and why.
August 23, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're being logical. Stop it.
August 24, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
were there really any decent choices? Clark would have worked for me. Bayh would have meant abandoning ship. Dodd would have been fine (but what does he bring?). Sorry, but the rest were distinctly unexciting and unappealing to me (I am not a great fan of the Dems to begin with).
August 23, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Hi Des. It’s been a while)
Always look on the bright side of life, dee dum, dee dum, dee …
Biden’s bailiwick is foreign affairs. From what I’ve seen of him if he is sent to help resolve some crisis like Georgia/Russia, by the time he stops talking everyone will have forgotten why they wanted to go to war in the first place.
August 23, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or better, that they agree to peace to shut him up.
August 23, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be reluctant to have someone in uniform in the WH but Clark would have been an acceptable pick, if he decided against Sebelius. At least Clark has been consistent in his foreign policy comments and observations, and he has more cred on Iraq than Biden.
August 23, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why I never bought the Obama hype. It's a one-party system, and we only get to choose the lesser of two evils.
August 23, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got your man then, JM Calhoun.
August 23, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. It's a fallen world. Nothing under the sun is perfect.
But everything depends on the distance that separates those two evils. Once you put executive tyranny and extrajudicial torture in one pan of the scale, it's kind of hard to put enough in the other pan to make it even budge.
Until you discover a perfect world, I think I'll take the lesser of two evils.
August 23, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If this is the best of all possible worlds, what are the others?"
August 23, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wherever it is, it isn't in this galaxy...how are ya, kid?
August 23, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm good Bev, thanks. How's your kid, still stateside, I hope.
August 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
very astute and even coercive argument. Agree.
August 23, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be impossible for progressives to say anything except for cheering Biden. When they endorsed Obama in the primaries, they invested themselves in a candidate. It's no longer about the issues at this point. I think the issues will come back sometime after the election, depending on the speed of disappointment with whoever's in the WH
August 23, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly it's not impossible for progressives to say anything except for cheering Biden. For instance, see the post on which we're writing comments!
August 23, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are treasonous comments, Alex - people are taking note, and after victory we will be summarily disciplined.
August 23, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thought I was talking about progressives...
August 23, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
A movement is only a movement when it is bigger than an individual. When you become invested in an individual, it's a fight over influence and who's the bigger shit.
And there is a difference between progressives and "progressives".
August 23, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a little ridiculous. It seems as if some people want to try to stretch any and everything to try to make Obama seem like a conservative. Biden, a conservative democrat? Not likely. I wonder if you actually know Biden's record, or if you're just talking out of your ass.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm
And it's funny that you'd say such a thing after so many far lefties screaming cheers for Biden.
Oh well, I guess you're never going to please anyone, especially those looking for the negatives and faults rather than the positives. Good luck with that. =)
August 23, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to say that I'm a fan of yours, but since this isn't HuffPo and there's no system in place, I just have to say I really always look forward to reading your posts.
August 23, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the reality check - if only more people would do their research! One thing I value, in candidates and compatriots, is a basic commitment to obtaining a full, nuanced understanding of the issue at hand. Deciding that X or Y is a "true" liberal based on one vote or two votes - no matter how egregious those particular votes - strikes me as politically naive, at best. If I judged based on their worst votes only, no politician would ever live up to my particular standards; even the putative "best" liberals have made calls I thought were bunk (e.g., Feingold's support for Ashcroft as A.G., or his support for Clinton impeachment proceedings, or ... whatever. Not that I expect Feingold's perfection, but since he seems to be some caricature of the ideal progressive, he makes a useful example).
So, Biden's not perfect? Duh. He got bankruptcy wrong and FISA right. He messed up about how to craft the Iraq policy (hence his vote in 02), but he wasn't wrong about the situation or possible implications of an invasion (as pretty much everything he said then has played out since). He's not a conservative or a hack, nor is he a knight in shining armor. He's a decent, intelligent, Democratic politician who has spent his 30+ years in the Senate genuinely focused on governing. By all accounts, he hasn't abused his position to enrich himself personally, and he hasn't allowed ideological interests or partisan dogma to shut down his capacity for independent, critical thought. For me, these qualities count WAY more than his "liberal" rating.
I'm a friggin Marxist. Nobody in the U.S. government gonna agree with me very often. I want to know I'm electing people with brains, who aren't starting wars to make themselves rich. I want to know that my elected representatives are thinkers, negotiators, and leaders who consider the interests of all Americans - even if their conclusions about "what's best" are not my own. And I want to know that they are open to debate, and to reality testing, rather than just spouting off based on a few cherry-picked details that help them confirm what they already feel. Ideological purity is a recipe for fascism, and a luxury few people can afford. I'm not talking about "selling out" or triangulation - I'm just saying that we've got to find the flex.
August 24, 2008 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looking at how Obama handled the DNC after securing the nomination says that there is going to be no question as to who is President and who is VP.
Obama didn't want a Yes Man, but someone to help him craft a strategy that will actually get implemented. They're close enough so Obama is assured that Biden will stay loyal to the President's agenda, which is the role of the VP.
I don't think looking at this or that voting record of Biden's indicates the direction of the Obama administration.
August 23, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not classify Biden as a conservative. I have fewer concerns about his conservative impulses than those of Obama. However, he represents his state - an epicenter of credit card and banking industry. I would wish otherwise, but his role in the bankruptcy bill was in service to his state's parochial interest over the interest of the general public. However, on other issues, Biden is a good liberal and a fighter. I want a fighter.
August 23, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget that Biden's support for the bankruptcy bill was indeed serving his state's parochial interests balanced against making an empty vote against the legislation since the measure would have passed no matter what. Clinton didn't vote. It was an egregious bill, but to castigate someone for one vote is ridiculous. Biden is a great choice.
August 23, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's important to remember that Delaware is also a rural state--the chicken farmers and truck farmers often get forgotten under the shadow of the banks in Wilmington. The state decides not to charge the taxes, not Biden. Thus, that's where the banks go. The point is that Biden has always served the interests of everyone in his state, and the banks create jobs, infrastructure, etc... that are essential to Delaware. His vote on the bankruptcy bill was politically important--that's what his constituents wanted him to do.
August 23, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. It was politically important to Biden, but substantively not important because the vote wasn't even close. It's unfortunate - it was a terrible bill, but judging a senate career over one vote is unrealistic and ridiculous. I'm bored with the nay sayers. This is the best ticket (and most progressive) that the Democrats have had in many years.
August 23, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe how full of shit some of you are. Let me make this simple........Obama didn't pick a pussy!!!!!
August 23, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The credit card companies are very happy today.
August 23, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama didn't pick a pussy." Exactly right. This is the way the game is played in the US today; we've got to show we can play it and win it, too.
Biden is an excellent choice, despite this or that perceived blemish on his record. He's a politician; so is Obama. As we learned in Politics/Government 101 in college, the goal of a politician is first to get elected.
Destor, what the heck is a libertarian Democrat? I can't wait to hear. Must admit that your professional wrestler avatar is puzzling: You're a physically adept blowhard actor? No, that can't be right.
August 23, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone who cares as much about the 4th amendment as the 2nd?
August 23, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right, pick a liberal weenie -- maybe Dennis Kucinich? -- and watch as the Republicans bitch-slap the Democratic ticket and win the the White House one more time.
August 23, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
destor:
I'm a realist. Senator Biden was a solid, pragmatic pick. But I hear you. I know what it means to vote the right way on matters and I understand what you and other folks who put issues before personality are feeling right now about this pick and the overall Obama campaign. Most of your readers, I'm afraid, could care less what Senator Obama's record is (to the extent one exists), or what Senator Biden's record, is. This is a personality-based campaign. Like it or not, Senator Obama is where he is because he is Senator Obama; I'm not saying it's a kool-aid thing, but it sure as hell ain't an issue thing. I'm afraid your words of principle ring hollow to folks who have placed their trust in a man because they think they know this man, and they think that he is different.
I'll say it again; I'm a realist. To me, Senator Obama is a means to an end and nothing more. I'm not impressed with his background or his positions or lack thereof on issues. I'm his guy because he is the Democratic nominee. But I know a principled person when I read one, and that is you and some other folks on here, and in the midst of this campaign circus, I want you to know that I appreciate folks like you who decline to lose sight and will always stand on principle.
Bruce
August 23, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know Bruce that I am a solid dem and will vote dem in every election, but this pick is really, really stupid. Obama doesn't need help with the NE, he needs help with the rust belt states and the working class - this election is going to be about jobs and the fact that Biden is so close to credit card/financial institutions isn't going to go over well in the midwest states. People in Ohio, Mich, Pa, Kentucky and Indiana are so pricariously close to the edge of financial ruin that people in the other states just cannot grasp it. "It was worse than a tragedy, it was a mistake".
August 23, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev:
I hear you Bev. I think the Obama campaign believes that Biden will shore up Pennsylvania, and by extension places like Ohio and Michigan. I'm not sure if Biden's the guy that is best at helping to shore up that portion of the base, but with the non-consideration of Hillary, and with Strickland expressing disinterest, I guess the feeling is that Biden has "populist" appeal and foreign policy credentials, and that these attributes make him the best fit under these circumstances. I do find it odd, of course, that the breakout is one day before the campaign on the weekend. Seems to me that the campaign wanted minimum play before the convention. We'll see.
Bruce
August 23, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Adding to what Bruce said, the polling suggests that, among traditionally Democratic voting blocks, Obama has the most trouble with working-class Catholics. Biden is a Catholic with working-class roots. That may be helpful in the upper Midwest and "Mideast" states with large working-class Catholic populations (though I'm not 100% sure Biden comes over as all that working class, so I'm not 100% convinced he'll be all that helpful with this demographic.) Biden, I think, is also popular with Jewish voters. While Obama still has very strong support among Jewish voters, there was some weakening of that support among older, more conservative Jews. Biden may help there and therefore could make a difference in another swing state, Florida.
August 24, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
F*ck principles, it's all about getting Obama in now, isn't it? Even if he were to bomb Iran tomorrow and praise the Surge, I bet there will be threads gushing about how those really brilliant moves will "get us back into the WH."
Anyone trying to point out the irony like Benjamin the Donkey on Animal Farm will be drowned out by "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Baaaaad."
August 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is what it is about broadly, I not sure that selling your soul to beat the devil is a wise policy. I empathize deeply with destor and those of you who feel betrayed, I do too, but I was pretty cynical about Obama from the start.
However, as I said above, Obmama/Biden is preferable to McCain/anyone. It's about having a Republican incompetent crony government vs. a Democratic professional wonkish government. The country tends to do better with wonks.
August 23, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I agree with you.
August 23, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gawd. I guess everyone else but you is a stupid idiot, eh Qwerty? I can't figure out if you're serious or just venting. And if you're just venting, what you're so pissed about.
Or maybe you're right. Everyone is delusional and stupid, and wouldn't care if Obama bombed Iran the day after he took office, or appointed another Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, or decided torture was OK after all, or that the only use for the paper the Constitution is written on is wiping of the drill bits used to drill for oil any place Big Oil wants to drill. Please!
August 23, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Or maybe you're right. Everyone is delusional and stupid, and wouldn't care if Obama bombed Iran the day after he took office, or appointed another Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, or decided torture was OK after all, or that the only use for the paper the Constitution is written on is wiping of the drill bits used to drill for oil any place Big Oil wants to drill."
Obama doesn't seem to care that his VP choice went along with all that - Iraq war-hawking, Banks & Credit Card Corporate whoring, the most Conservative judges appointed to the SC - so WHY should we, RIGHT????
Judiciary Committee Hearings, 1987 & 1991
Massimo Calabresi
The two most contentious confirmation hearings in recent Supreme Court history came on Biden’s watch: the nominations of Robert Bork in 1987 and Clarence Thomas in 1991. Biden led respectful hearings for Bork, but the voting — widely considered to be on personal views rather than professional qualifications — set a fractious partisan precedent. Biden was criticized for not bringing Anita Hill’s accusations of sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas before the committee until after they leaked in the media.
August 23, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Bruce. I see where you're coming from. Obama's a means to an end to me too. But as you know, some of us just can't keep silent on this stuff. It's like he's trying to make me hold my nose when I vote for him.
And it's funny to see some of the defenses of Biden, the DLC-ist Washington insider from the very people who once criticized Hillary as "then establishment."
To the extent that some of Biden's new defenders even commented on him during the primary, I wonder what they said? I don't recall people around here being exactly disappointed when the guy's campaign fizzled.
August 23, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, it's quite reasonable for you to disagree with Obama's proposals and choice of VP. What puzzles me is the term "insult." If Obama were to say, "Destor23 is a troll," or "Progressives are assholes," I would agree that you had been insulted. But how does his selection of a VP candidate constitute an insult? If McCain chooses Romney, will you be insulted?
Arguably, Obama has an obligation to represent his constituents, so I suppose that you could argue that in failing to represent the interests of progressives, he disrespects them, which is sort of an insult. But of course, he has many constituents, and I don't know what proportion of those are Biden-hating progressives. If he were to have selected someone more liberal, would that have constituted an insult to his conservative supporters? I also note that to my knowledge, you didn't actually vote for him, so you personally are not yet one of his constituents. Arguably, he has more obligation to the Robamicans who voted for him in the primary than to you.
But this obligation thing seems a bit strange in any case. He didn't promise to select a progressive VP. He didn't promise to be a very progressive President. In fact, he promised unity, which many of us interpreted to mean that he would promote a pragmatic, centrist agenda. You would be right to feel betrayed if he broke promises that caused you to vote or volunteer for him. If for example, you voted for him on the assumption that he would accept public financing, I could understand some sense of betrayal.
I hope that you'll still vote for him of course. But you should vote for him with the full awareness that he is pragmatic and centrist. He will not always push progressive issues. And unless he later violates a campaign promise which formed a basis for your vote, you shouldn't feel insulted when he doesn't support the issues that are most important to you. Unless he calls you a troll.
August 23, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for Hillary, it's true. I'm in a super Tuesday state. But as you parodied, I did start supporting and defending Obama way before my candidate dropped out. But, that's a bit immaterial.
He's the Democratic nominee. He owes us all now. It's not that he doesn't always push the progressive agenda. It's that he never seems to. Aside from voting for him as, has been said earlier on this thread, "a means to end." I'm willing to do that. But... come on... he hasn't done much to earn the progressive vote.
August 23, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, but I'm not as progressive as you, so it doesn't bother me. I'm cool with Biden. Nonetheless, though I hear your frustration, I don't get the sense of insult or betrayal that you present. Democrat does not equal progressive, except in a broad sense. Why do you take Obama's lack of emphasis on progressive issues as an insult?
PS I acknowledge your early endorsement of Obama, though I recall that it was due more to your disappointment in Clinton than in your enthusiasm for Obama.
August 23, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh, you might not read this before the thread goes away so maybe I'll try to start it as a metatopic later but... you nailed it... Democrat doesn't equal progressive. You're absolutely right.
But, and here's where we need to discuss... Democrats need progressive votes. And, for the most part, they get them and when a tiny minority of progressives do something like, say, vote for Ralph Nader in 2000, those progressives are then unfairly blamed for "costing us the election."
I'm actually sympathetic with the "you cost us the election crowd" because they are likely correct. But, they never seem to have an answer to a very simple and fair question: "What policy initiative that you know is important to progressives and that might be controversial or unpopular with people from the center on right did you champion in order to win the progressive vote?"
Obama has asked me to be more tolerant and to work with the other side and to get over partisan divides. That's cool. But (and I'm deliberately exagerating here) it might be time for Obama to stop asking what he wants of me and to start asking what I want of Obama.
August 23, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, try thinking of a Venn diagram instead of a spectrum.
We have a lot of different interests. On mass transit & the environment I'm pretty radical. On tax policy, center-left. On affirmative action, blandly centrist. And so on.
We take action where our different spheres of interest overlap. That's going to mean that we're never as radical as the people obsessed with a given issue might like. I'm not going to get all the environmental legislation I want. But it doesn't necessarily mean that any one group of us is always getting what it wants, or always losing out.
I realize there's some truth to the spectrum model, but it's a limited truth, because people who are very "progressive" about one issue don't necessarily have equally radical views about all the others. And thinking about politics as a one-dimensional spectrum tends to make people feel disenfranchised.
August 24, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, you are missing the point:
Let's put it this way: Gore didn't surround himself with people who had policy papers stretching back to the 90's about why we needed to invade Iraq and set up a Pax Americana in the region. Bush did. And you can see the results.
Oh, yeah: Gore probably wouldn't have pressured NASA into tweaking and/or censoring results showing that global warming was indeed happening.
Sometimes it's not about policy, it's about temperament and general reactions. It's safe to say that the country is much worse off now then had Gore cleanly won the election.
By the way, the Clintons are hardly progressive. They let two trends continue that Reagan/GHWB started:
a) energy sloppiness and piggishness
b) financial sector eating up our economy so that in 2000, BEFORE GWB, our manufacturing was in serious decline.
Yes, there were budget surplus -- because of the hi-tech explosion and a lot of stock trading. And yes, Clinton reduced the size of the Federal Government -- because of standoffs with the GOP and having to shut the government down.
Basically, I didn't see Clinton initiating much after the gays in the military fiasco and handing over the health care issue to Hillary. Both were disasters. Much of the rest of his 6 years in office was simply competent governance business as usual -- which can be done by both sides of the aisle.
August 24, 2008 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce.
Your lofty dismissal of Obama's background is illuminating.
I'm a whistleblower who faced the repercussions from the machine (the University of California bureaucracy and my vengeful, macho asshole of a boss) that I took on and beat. I know the real life costs of sticking to your principles and this keyboard kvetching doesn't even come close to the real deal.
You are absolutely correct about words of principle ringing hollow.
August 23, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey lally. Sorry but I don't understand your point, although I have no doubt and am not at all surprised that you would be someone to stand on principle, regardless of consequence. My thing is that I can appreciate folks who stand on principle and understand that I nonetheless am a pragmatist who does not always stand on principle in the political realm. As to Obama, lally, what can I do? I can support him and still express an abslolute and genuine and good faith inability to understand what it is that makes him special, something beyond other politicians. I don't understand why someone like you appears to take exception to that. Am I misreading you?
August 23, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce.
My point is that "principles" as demonstrated by words typed on a keyboard are basically worth bupkes. Including my own.
That you, Bruce, can't even give Barack Obama any credit for what he has made of his life, GIVEN HIS BACKGROUND, implies that your partisanship has clouded your ability to be fair. I have never cared much for Bill Clinton but am impressed with what he has achieved, GIVEN HIS BACKGROUND.
I would never ascribe my own difficulties with Obama's approach to ME policies to some notion of "principles" that I hold dear. That characterization suggests some sort of moral superiority that simply does not apply.
Even my sojourn into the lonely land of whistleblowers had nothing to do with "principles". It was all about forcing the powers that be to follow their own damn rulebook when it came to paying us the wages that were our rightful due. What's more pragmatic than that?
On second thought, perhaps my refusal of a boyfriend's offer of help through his brother who sat on the U ofC Board of Directors could be construed as "principled" in some universe or other. ;>}
August 23, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Partisanship? Please lally. I will vote for Obama before you will. I'm an unapologetic Demcocratic hack. That's not the point or my point. My point is not that Senator Obama is not an accomplished man. He is a brilliant man and he has gone places no African American politician has been to before. He is someone we should all be proud of. I don't question his qualifications to be president and I support him unequivocally. But my point is that there is nothing in his background that separates him from any other politician, including the politician, Hillary Clinton, who was lambasted by some of Obama's most feverish supporters and villified for being the kind of politician that Senator Obama now demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is as well. That's not partisanship; that's the truth, and that's why destor and, if I may, folks like bluebell are disheartened. He's no different that the Hillary you detest lally. And if I can't post something like that on here to someone like you without being accused of partisanship, then this place has become a wasteland for cheerleaders of a guy and nothing more. I am a pragmatist, but I don't want to be a dittohead on the left. And, lally, you don't want to be one either.
August 23, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh bullshit.
You and I are both "partisans", Bruce. Get that log out of your eye and get the hell over it.
August 23, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying there is a partisan divide between former supporters of Clinton and "original" of Obama?
August 23, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Friends, I know there's a disagreement here but is partisanship really such a bad thing? Those other guys have a party too and pretty much everything they believe is wrong.
August 23, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evidently, some consider the term "partisan" to be inherently negative to some degree.
IMO, the following wiki definiton works well for the TPM community;
* "Partisan (military) - As a name for irregular forces or detached light troops, engaged behind the front line"
August 23, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Jesse Jackson once said to my absolute delight (I love this line): "When you take text out of context you have pretext". On partisanship, I am as partisan as they come: I vote Democratic always--I don't vote green and I don't vote GOP. Yes, I'm partisan.
When I pledge my unequivocal support as a voter and as a contributor to Senator Obama, I am not "partisan" if I point out that, at least since he shored up the nomination, he has acted as "political" as Senator Clinton has or will, and that there is nothing in his background or record that separates him from any other politician I know. That ain't partisanship; that's acknowledging truth so that we can move on already from this debilitating notion that some Democratic partisans are holier than others--based on the false premise that some Democratic partisans supported a politician named Clinton, and others supported a non-politician named Obama.
I don't believe in the tooth fairy anymore either and that doesn't make me a partisan. And I believe that we can talk about politicians like grownups should at the TPM Cafe, and that also doesn't make me a partisan vis-a-vis other supporters of the Democratic nominee. I do confess fatigue over this notion that some Democrats donned the right-colored hats during the primaries; it's fake.
Of course, through it all, I remain one of lally's biggest fans, even though we almost never agree on anything; she's too partisan!
August 24, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Nor is it partisan to point out that one group of Democrats supported a candidate in the primaries who was groovier than the other final candidate. It's for the reader to decide who was who! :)
August 24, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lally, I started out leaning toward Edwards, but began supporting Obama as soon as it was apparent that Edwards was going nowhere. I was strongly against Clinton because I thought she was leaning too much to the right on security issues and the so-called war on terrorism. But I think Bruce has a very good point. Obama's record is thin, and where he really stands on many issues is still unclear. This isn't a criticism of Obama. His record is thin in large part only because he's young and his career has been short. At the same time, Obama has sent weak or mixed signals at times that leave some of us wondering exactly what Obama believes in or whether he holds to any strong principles. I thought his initial defense of Rev. Wright with his strong speech on race was very impressive. That made be feel very confident about Obama and cemented my support. But I honestly have been a bit disappointed in his campaign since then. It seems to me that he's avoiding doing anything controversial, that he's playing it very safe. I fear he's doing what every other Democrat has done since the Republicans became the dominant party: trying to pass under the radar and not make too many waves. The problem with this strategy is that the Democrats start to look weak and ill-defined. Their "brand" (to use a marketing term) gets muddled and eventually can be controlled by the much-less-timid Republican spin machine. When the Democrats fail to define themselves, then the Republicans seize the opportunity to define the Democrats the way they'd like to define the Democrats. I don't think Obama has done a good enough job definining what he stands for. In the absence of that self-definition, the Republicans are defining him as someone who'll raise your taxes, who is a light-weight celebrity, who has no experience, and is unready to lead. Obama meanwhile stands for what? I'm not sure. Does he want to drill or not drill for oil? Is he going to withdraw troops from Iraq or not? It's really hard to tell. Change is nice. But being the "change" candidate may not be enough. A lot of Americans are asking "change to what?" If the Republicans are giving the answer to that question and not Obama himself, believe me Americans aren't going to vote for the change the Republican-defined Obama will represent.
August 24, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lally, god bless you. And god bless you again. And by the way, have I met you in Princeton?
August 23, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to believe people keep it up with ludicrous metaphors such as "the difference between Ford and GM". Anyone who thinks that GWB and Al Gore or John McCain and Barack Obama are no more different than Ford and GM is living in the imaginary, self-created world of their own mind. The perfect presidential or vice presidential candidate (and person) does not exist, and wouldn't win a single primary or caucus if s/he did. The perfect is the enemy of the good. For the good of the country and the rest of the world, we need to win this election.
August 23, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
A virtue is the means between two vices.
August 23, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone really have the delusion that te republicans are going to let this campaign be about issues. I love the idea of someone who can call them on their bullshit while maintaining a smile.
August 23, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes t of d., I agree 100%.
August 23, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
To speak as frankly as Joe Biden for a moment, destor's post is full of shit.
For what it's worth, Biden is a liberal, liberal, liberal. The third most liberal in the Senate, making even Finegold look conservative.
August 23, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, funny how Kerry was "the most liberal" according the the neoconnish National Review in 2003, isn't it? He doesn't even make the top ten now.
I am a little tired of letting the right define the left. They are full of shit, usually.
August 23, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amusing. Call me "full of shit" and then cite a National Journal survey that TPM has already criticized as being basically meaningless. Okay.
August 23, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The survey may not be terribly meaningful, but let's turn the tables: there are two votes that make Biden seem too conservative to you: the Iraq war vote (one that Clinton also made) and the bankruptcy bill vote (which Clinton absented herself for). The bankruptcy bill vote was a gift to Biden's corporate constituency (Delaware is the state where most corporations are "citizens").
Eight years: two bad votes. Okay what else?
August 23, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a gift to the very people who are, right now, foreclosing on people's homes. That means nothing to you?
August 23, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
People who are now foreclosing on people's homes were unconstrained by a governing class that was totally in the plutocratic tank. Not just Biden, the whole sorry, c-------ing lot of them. Not that this was reported through the MSM. That "long newspaper spoon" only delivered don't-worry-be-happiness.
Do not doubt that I am *very* disappointed in Biden for so blatantly bending over for the bankers, but who had his back, anyway? The public? The public is a bunch of MTV or Sports Center addicts, who, if they heard that Network fellow urging them to be mad as hell and not take it anymore, would change the channel.
You may be mad as hell, and I may be mad as hell, but the "the masses" are subject to cutting-edge electronic opiates. Remember "Marijuana toothpaste: 44% more cavities but you don't give a damn!"? Well, how about American Governance: picking your pockets and killing your children but WTF, check out this pantsless celebrity!!
August 23, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument, that those being foreclosed upon have previously supported the regime run by the foreclosers is... devasting and true.
But that's kind of why I can't let Biden off the hook. People have flat out said to me in this thread that this bankrupcty sell out doesn't matter because he's a Delaware senator who'd have lost his job if he didn't kow tow to corporate interests. They say it like it's okay. In defense of "a new kind of politics."
The whole thing sickens me.
August 23, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the biggest gifts to those foreclosing on people's homes, and the root of the subprime mortgage crisis (arguably) was the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999, signed by President Clinton (whom I admired and respected and voted for, but certainly not for that one of many errors in judgment). I am not a fan of the bankruptcy legislation, but I won't judge Biden on that one vote, just as it's probably unfair to judge Hillary Clinton solely the sponsoring of unconstitutional flag burning legislation, and being absent from that bankruptcy bill vote. (Being absent was better than voting for it when it was sure to pass anyway? How, in effect?)
August 23, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you can still declare bankruptcy pretty easily. Take it from one who's in proceedings right now.
August 24, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those were two MAJOR eff-ups that screwed most Americans, don't you think??? He also voted to confirm Condi Rice as Sec'y of State, but then again, Biden's strength is foreign relations, so, you know, that makes PERFECT sense.
And if Joe Biden sold out Joe Six-pack to please his plastic corporate overlords in Delaware, what comes next?
Joe Biden's about as authentic as the plugs in his hair and the cpas on his pearly white teeths. In other words, the guy's a fraudulent douchebag.
August 23, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And John Wilkes Booth only shot one President.
August 24, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Change," "Hope" ... Why They Must be Talking About Joe Biden!
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08232008.html
August 23, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Click this link to get a free Obama/Biden sticker:
http://pol.moveon.org/barackstickers/?id=-1460238-uKvcHBx&rc=manual_forward
August 23, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Biden has serious political skills and is really a tremendous asset in the Democratic Party's bid to recapture the Presidency.
I have no worries on his ability to pull his weight and to handle the press corps with humor and his trademark wit. And how he will handle Mitt (or anyone else the McCain camp chooses)-- well its not going to be pretty!
What I am hoping for more than anything, is that the Party will, just this once, use at least 40% of its latent power to WIN THIS THING! This means bringing out the human assets. Biggest by far are the Clintons.
August 23, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. As was stated way up this page, the crucial issue is replacing the GOP bureaucracy that, to this day, is punching holes in our country's well-being (consider its latest attempts to undermine women's choice via alternative clinics that are fronts for anti-choice propaganda). Beyond that, it's what happens in the house and senate that is crucial. And we need a pen in a Democratic president's hand to sign those bills into law. Obama and Biden are the necessary political front men for a transformation of the country via those they install in the administrative branch and those who are their colleagues in the legislative wing.
August 23, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose progressive purists would define this as "going backward". I simply don't see an alternative to reversing the damage that the current radical residents have inflicted on us.
Is it enough for progressive hearts that new ideas will get implemented for energy sources? From this thread, it sounds as if those naming themselves progressives are very narrow in their focus. I will celebrate openly when the torture executive orders are REVERSED. And I will celebrate every damned reversal. Maybe that's not progressive....but it will do for me.
And to get there this ticket has to WIN and I think that's exactly what will happen. The whiners and nay-sayers won't stop that victory.
Thank (insert favorite noun) for that!
August 23, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you entirely, cube3u. What it means to be a progressive in this environment is to bring the country back to its basic principle so that we can start dealing with issues like energy, health care, and the environment. Those are the issues I cite as being progressive, and we can make good progress towards them under an Obama administration. I think Obama/Biden is a winning ticket and I fully expect that once the campaign is in full swing (in the weeks following the convention), we'll see the fruits of all the labors that began with Dean's 50 state effort after the 2004 debacle.
August 23, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said it much better than I did.
August 23, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
To elaborate on the blue tie red tie a little: First, it's symbolic messaging that the Republicans use extensively but in this instance. It is, really, pure Obama: Combining opposites in service of a superordinate goal or value. It's also smart and humerous, yes?
August 23, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Notice Biden also doing the rolled-up shirtsleeves. Good populist, labor-organizer type look.
August 23, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
HEY ANYBODY KNOWS WHERE MCBUSH GETS THEM $500.FERAGAMO SHOES FROM?AND THE GOVERMENT ISSUED 1980 BRICK PHONE FROM?IAM LOOKIN FOR IT?
August 23, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do people respond to Republicans pretending to be Democrats?
August 23, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor: You need to get over HRC's failure. You cannot honestly claim to be a liberal and to have supports HRC. There's nothing "liberal" about Billary. Finally, we have superior, progressive candidates with a brain and without the southern, racist bias of Billary. Finally, we have candidates who are not going to bend over for angry old white women of the 20th century who will be dead in 2012/2015 and who are going to represent America's best, the best and the brightest of the 21st well past mid-century. The 20th century is over by years. Now, is the time for new generation (I wish I were of that generation; but, alas, I am way too old) to rescue this country from my generation's psychopathy of the Vietnam bullshit. So, get over Destor... HRC is of no importance in American history... Barak Obama is the future of American history.
August 23, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Merlot, I have to disagree with you. There is no discontinuity in the thread of our great Party's history. We, as modern Democrats trace our origins to what started in 1932 and has yet to play itself out. Hillary and William Clinton are great figures in our ongoing story and as truely Democratic as you or I: the Party owes them a tremendous deal, and they in turn will continue to contribute to our successes.
I will neither write the Clintons or their generation out of our party's vibrant and ongoing journey.
August 23, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear. Way too much talk about generational succession. We owe a tremendous amount to people who fought the good fight in the 60s and 70s, and 80s, and 90s. I'm not going to blame them because they had the bad luck to be fighting at a time when Nixonian polarization, and racial prejudice, made things difficult for the Left. For that, I blame the Right.
Moreover, Obama's policy stances are not really *profoundly* different from the Clintons'. There are stylistic differences -- but in terms of governing philosophy, I see a lot of continuity.
August 23, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the "generational arguement"
In this case, in the rise of the digital age...it seems to me that the best hope for us all are folks who get the importance of 'now' over how it was done 'then'. I know the history buffs and professional students will have a field day with this...just kindly bear with a politcal noob for a minute.
People from previous generations had no access to the internet, no blogs to bounce ideas and opinions off of, nothing but what the network news and newspapers told them. It was tightly controlled at best, now this digital age of instant access allows for a much more informed (or uninformed depending on the source) citizen...there are challenges that the "old guard" cannot fathom simply because they don't understand the iPod generation.
Obama is so popular because folks instictively feel that he understands the needs of this generation moving forward...In contrast John McCain is popular with the people who are dreaming of days gone by, or at best, only interested in the status quo.
Side note in keeping thread continuity:
I think Biden is the perfect counter to Obama's forward-thinking, a reality check when Barack's head gets stuck too high in the clouds.
August 24, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Biden's lifetime voting record almost mirros Obama's.
Obama gets a 87% progressive rating, Biden a 86% rating. Obama the 27th most progressive senator, Biden the 30th most progressive.
in reality, both are also very very close to where John Kerry is politically who is #25.
except that I feel both are far superior.
people who are more conservative than biden, but who most people would label as 'liberals' include Diane Feinstein #31, Bingaman #36, Harry Reid #39.. and then there is Evan Bayh #44 who the same people whining about Biden wanted who comes in to the RIGHT of Sen.Byrd who is #43.
the bottomline is Biden and Obama are both solid progressives, and just cause you dont agree with them on a couple issues, doesn't mean you should throw them in the garbage.
source: http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&scoreSort=lifetime
August 23, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Same people whining?"
Just to be clear, if Obama had chosen Bayh, I would be having a true conniption fit and there's no way I'd vote for him.
And yes, Bayh is the Clinton kid in all this. But it doesn't matter. The issue is that Biden is a bad choice. I'm not objecting on Clinton's behalf. I'm objecting because I would never vote for Biden to be president and so there's no reason for me to support him being first in line.
August 23, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor,
What *would* you have done if Bayh was chosen? You are pretty level-headed. Do you see this election as a form of purity test or one of trying to end the GOP dominance in the White House.
In 2000, many people who voted for Nader kept saying that there wasn't much difference between Bush and Gore. I hope that the lesson of that election (stolen or not) has put to rest the fallacy of that train of thought...
August 24, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
POW Card played AGAIN tonite by McCain - in interview w/ Katie Couric answering a question on the "house" issue"
“I am grateful for the fact that I have a wonderful life,” McCain said. “I spent some years without a kitchen table, without a chair, and I know what it's like to be blessed by the opportunities of this great nation. .."
August 23, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden is a terrible choice for VP.
He reinforces Obama's lack of military experience and his "brainiac" image.
He is boring and uncharismatic, therefore dampening the tickets' appeal to the young and new voters.
He comes accross as a quintessential Washington insider, a Senate "lifer".
He has a mamby-pamby personality, further hurting Obama's "overly intellectual" image.
His "Foreign policy expertise" means exactly nothing to most voters.
He talks WAY too much, frustrating even the people interested in politics.
Overall, Obama needed an "Anti-Biden". His choice of VP appears to be a choice of the same brilliant Democratic strategists who have brought us Gore/Lieberman and Kerry/Edwards. Failed pairings that led to failed elections.
I do not want to say this, but Obama's terrible VP choice is likely a harbinger of an upcoming loss to a nearly mummified candidate named McCain.
August 23, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I mean...just...WOW. This is some seriously weak sauce here.
But, just to entertain this line of "thought"...who would you have picked? A resurrected FDR or JFK?
August 24, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Man, bet you were disappointed to see how wrong you were after Biden's speach yesterday.
Wait, you posted this after that.
I guess Republicans see what they want to see. It's much easier being sheep for the rich oil men that way.
August 24, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am laughing my ass off at these comments.
The Hillary supporters seem to forget that the Clintons are at the epicenter of the financial sector (it's call Wall Street) and are hip deep in that world. The financial sector surpassed manufacturing as the key sector of the economy in the 1990s under Clinton. Clinton never did anything to reverse the general trend set in place by Reagan and Bush I.
How do you think Chelsea happened to work at a leading hedge fund -- as her first job?
Sure, Biden favors his state. Just like Hillary -- who makes policies that Wall Street likes. Just like Ted Kennedy. Any any Senator. Do you know why?
IT'S THEIR JOB.
They don't represent the nation. They represent their state.
However, people should keep applying these purity tests. That way we can make sure that no impure Democrats get into office.
Clearing the way for the GOP.
By the way, at least Biden admitted he was wrong about Iraq. I still haven't heard Hillary utter those words.
For those of you who believe the bankruptcy act was the worse piece of legislation coming down from Congress, how quickly you have forgotten the Patriot Act.
At least with bankruptcy, you have some say in the matter.
August 23, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo. You are aptly named.
August 24, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
destor, destor... sorry if I caused any offense. It was this particular POST only that I found worthless, not your posts in general, or you personally.
Whatever faults the National Journal survey has, my broader point still stands: Biden is widely considered as part of the LIBERAL wing of the Democrats in the Senate, save a couple of important votes. Who on Obama's short list was MORE liberal? Was Dennis Kuchinich short listed? I submit, none of the candidates were super liberal.
Biden is FROM the liberal wing of the Democratic party, and it's laughable to say that he's an INSULT to it. IMHO.
August 23, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of the candidates had problems and positives. On balance Biden's positives outweighed his negatives. His vote for the bankruptcy bill sucked, but defending his state is understandable. Of all the choices he brings the most and costs the least.
August 23, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nailed it.
August 24, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Attention Russ Feingold fans,
I think you should put the following in your pipe and smoke it for a while.
In an August 18 article for The Nation, Feingold told the reporter that he did not think he was what was needed in a V.P. for Obama, that he himself would not "balance the ticket."
Instead he offered this advice for a V.P. pick for Obama:
from VEEPSTAKES: Feingold On Why He's Off the List by John NicholsSo do you trust Feingold's political judgment or don't you? And if it's the case that he just doesn't get it, then why do you like him? You think he's politically stupid but you still like him? :-)
August 24, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is Biden the ONLY democrat with a Foreign Policy cred and how is his record after voting for every Clinton-Bush war? So far, his greatest success seems to be "uniting" the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis with the "Biden Proposal".
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=311637
August 24, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like him because he takes strong stands on the issues that matter to me like Iraq and FISA. He knows and I know that he would never be put on the ticket because the Democratic Party won't take a strong stand on anything.
But I have another suggestion this morning: BERNIE SANDERS!
August 24, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
So the Pigs are feeding at the SAME Wall St-K Street-AIPAC trough, but hey, do you want Farmer Jones to come back? Cue the Sheep.
PUMAs! PUMAs! PUMAs!
August 24, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, AIPAC comes into this, slyly. Want to elaborate on that little aside?
August 24, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
==Wow. I mean...just...WOW. This is some seriously weak sauce here.==
Well, refute it, then.
==But, just to entertain this line of "thought"...who would you have picked? A resurrected FDR or JFK?==
Do you mean to suggest that out of many, many Democrats out there, Biden was literally the BEST choice?
Does one has to get back to FDR or JFK to beat BIDEN today as a VP pick?
August 24, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
==So do you trust Feingold's political judgment or don't you? And if it's the case that he just doesn't get it, then why do you like him? You think he's politically stupid but you still like him? :-)==
Probably not.
At the same time, Biden has NO credibility on military issues (which Fiengold means "military service") - outside of Washington he is just another mamby-pamby Senate Democratic lifer, like Ted Kennedy.
His "foreign policy credentials" are a liability in middle America, not an asset.
His lack of military service is likewise a liability.
It is well known that Republicans were salivating at the prospect of Obama/Biden ticket - two wordy, "braniac" Senators with no military experience running in time of war.
In fact, it is only in "think tank town" that the Biden VP candidacy is even discussed with any semblance of respect. Outside of Washington, regular folk are sratching their heads...Someone should be selling recordings of Biden's speaches as a sleeping aid.
Again, a terrible choice.
My theory, is that Obama, somehow has fallen prey to the Democratic "electoral machine" who has distinguished itself recently by loosing two "in the pocket elections" back to back. They are apparently going for three.
August 24, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Sure, Biden favors his state. Just like Hillary -- who makes policies that Wall Street likes. Just like Ted Kennedy. Any any Senator. Do you know why?
IT'S THEIR JOB.
They don't represent the nation. They represent their state."
THINK CLEARLY for a moment here....how is Ted Steven or any of those other Republicans siphoning earmarks and pork barrel projects to *their state* WORSE????
August 24, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
So it is not the *behavior* that is the problem here, voting for the narrow interests of your state and lobbyists against the interest of larger American population is perfectly acceptable if it's done by your *own* Party, the Democrats. That's just "business as usual", "politics", etc.
August 24, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, welcome to reality.
By the way, voting the interests of your state supposedly helps the residents of that state. That's why everyone wants term limits for everyone ELSE'S Senator.
August 24, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this clear, your reality is that it's not about principle, integrity, honesty, reform, changing Washington's corrupt culture here. Voting against the interest of the average American, i.e. you, me, Destor, etc. is perfectly fine and understandable if you're a Democrat beholden to your Lobbyists and shoving the pork back to your State at the expense of taxpayers and the greater good of the country. It's the fact that Republicans do it that's a problem. It should be *our* pork, our corrupt politicians running the racket. Yep, welcome to Animal Farm.
August 24, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, of course not.
But Washington is corrupt because WE made it that way. And that includes all the vast "poor people" who are constantly discussed here that need "saving". Many of the blue collar workers in OH and PA we heard about wouldn't vote for Obama for skin color. Many of the blue collar people in the South believe in faith-based, not scientific, solutions to problems.
In other words, how can I even worry about helping those people -- because the solutions are beyond their present way of thinking. And yet they vote stupidly.
We get the government that the general public deserves.
Who do you think is a saint in the Senate? Let's pick Ted Kennedy. Champion of the poor? Or guy who killed a girl and literally got away with it because of political influence.
See?
Power corrupts.
Read some political history. Start here:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
Here's an except:
And Lincoln was probably one of the most principled politicians that the country produced.
Time for you to grow up.
August 24, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hope, Change,.... lalala...." at least clearthinker, I respect you for finally admitting that it's really not about all that fluff, but replacing their mafia with our honchos.
August 24, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I said no such thing. But to someone with a child's view of the world, it's all black and white so you can't possibly understand how the world works.
If the "average" Delaware citizen didn't think Biden was bringing home the bacon, they would have voted him out.
I know *very few* people who vote against their own selfish interests in view of the common good -- and the ones that I that do, tend to be *very* wealthy and vote Democratic.
Frankly, I want *tougher* bankruptcy laws. I want no bailouts on foreclosures -- that goes for homeowners, banks, EVERYONE.
You want real reality? Neither candidate is ready to tell you that the American standard of living, as we know it, is OVER. No amount of "alternate fuel" etc, will keep our present way of living going on. But most people in this country are children and really don't understand sacrifice until the roof is falling in. Because if you think that $5/gal gas is expensive, you ain't seen nothing yet.
But I digress.
You have a choice, friend:
Vote for Obama/Biden
Vote for McCain/his running mate
Vote for a 3rd Party
or
Don't vote
Figure out what you want to do. That's the reality that you have to deal with in this particular election at this point.
August 24, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you clear thinking SnowBall, you have been most convincing. You don't have to spell them out for me, I know my choices, and I'm writing in Ron Paul. Lesser of both evils doesn't cut it for me, but most of all I resent disingenuity, hypocrisy and fake populism - well, we weren't REALLY going to change Washington, you know, but we need those votes so we just throw around a bit of the same stuff Bush was hawking "compassionate conservative" "America First" stuff, "Hope" and "Change Washington", wink wink, nudge nudge....
August 24, 2008 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if you really had the courage of your convictions, you would write in yourself because I believe you are less corrupt than Ron Paul easily -- since you haven't been to Washington DC.
By the way,
Ron Paul is against Roe v. Wade (he's against abortion - period) and against raising gas mileage standards for cars.
And here is a piece he wrote:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm
where he states:
which only proves he has as little grasp of US History as you have indicated by your naivety.
This is what you consider better than the choices put before you by the major parties, right?
August 24, 2008 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
For every progressive vote you lose, good luck with your effort to win one from the regressive.
August 24, 2008 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you are voting for Ron Paul, you weren't progressive. In fact, I see you taking a vote away from McCain.
August 24, 2008 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
dimitry wrote:
Man, bet you were disappointed to see how wrong you were after Biden's speach yesterday.
Wait, you posted this after that.
I guess Republicans see what they want to see. It's much easier being sheep for the rich oil men that way.
August 24, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume that everybody gassing off here (me included) who wants an Obama/democratic win is contributing money to the campaign and/or taking other concrete steps toward that end.
If not, then get to work.
As for often casually-written threat "if he does this or that, then I'm definitely not voting for him," it seems to me that this is the posture of someone outside the process who wants to be wooed versus someone who wants to make things happen happen. There are deal-breakers, but I haven't really seen anything like that here.
August 24, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just made another $200 donation to get my "first-edition" Obama/Biden T-shirt.
August 24, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink