So....Will Biden Be VP?

how I believe many may will react as they develop their choices. It is indeed a speculation, and merely my opinion of which, among the several likely possibilities, may come to dominate the process for most voters.

But what has impressed me most, for years, is his staff. He knows how to pick ‘em, and that’s no small thing. Brilliant people come and go in DC, but rarely do they also have the ability to pick quality staff the way Biden does. His folks always are among the brightest from a policy standpoint, but also possess a sophisticated political acumen. It’s a rare but valuable combination. I’ve had the privilege of working for, and with, many of these folks, and count them among my friends. I’ve always gotten the sense that their boss respected them for their abilities and listened to their ideas rather then them simply having to implement his. They were encouraged to push hard and dig deep on issues. They were challenged by Biden, but in a good way. The Boss reads, talks to experts, and asks questions. He challenges his staff and calls them to the carpet. Why? Because the most important thing is to get the answer right and to be honest about the challenges we face.

As a result of having a staff that is so good, Biden is almost never behind the curve of policy developments. He’s proactive, not reactive.That’s a huge strategic advantage, and as a result, becoming a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is a badge of validation among foreign policy folks. Further than that, you’ll hear from many foreign policy experts how closely they work with Biden. They’re not making it up. Biden counts on a broad range of people to get the job done right. Many, many people feel they have influence on his approach and as a result when the final product is announced, they feel invested, but the view is all Biden, and usually better. Biden collects the best. Simple as that.

This translates in a big way to an executive branch position. If Obama-Biden is the winning ticket, lots of people will be brought in to reverse the reckless policies of the past 7 years and put America on the right track. With such a small window of time and so much to do, picking the right people is critical. Biden recognizes talent, and has learned how to pick people with sound policy judgment but who can also navigate the interagency, and the multiple political roadblocks thrown in the path of even the purest of intentions. This could be his greatest contribution to an Obama administration.

If Obama-Biden takes command on January 20, it will be with the most talented people available to implement what needs to be done, not just the people who campaigned well.

A persuasive and appealing post up until you wrote this;

occom bill wrote:

All together; I think it will prove a sufficiently strong ticket to overcome the latent bigotry that so few want to acknowledge.

You are here demonstrating precisely the same unfounded prejudgements of the intents and motives of others of which you accuse them.

Too bad. I really had high hopes for him following his race speech some months back.

Not what you said though. You were saying that this was an impression you believed "large numbers of potential voters already have about him." That's obviously not a belief that's borne out by the data.

I dunno. Why not just refrain from unsubstantiatable assertions in the first place, if you dont feel like checking 'em? {shrug}

Wrong George. This rebuttal has become a popular way to neutralize the simple fact that latent bigotry will have some impact on voting. You present it more eloquently than most, but it's still bullshit.

....Precisely the same unfounded prejudgments my ass.
One (mine) is a rational recognition of a simple matter of fact (latent bigotry). The other is an irrational decision based on irrational bigotry. They are not even remotely similar, George, let alone "precisely the same."

Your defense amounts to a somewhat complicated straw man: Someone points out that some portion of the anti-Obama crowd are bigots... and that this will need to be overcome to win. This is a simple matter of fact, George. You race in to show that it is presumptive and false to accuse all anti-Obama people of being bigots. This is true, of course, but I've yet to see anyone present that argument, save righties like yourself erecting straw men in order to bury the simple truth that latent bigotry is advantageous to the McCain campaign.

I find it offensive because you are essentially giving the bigots a pass in the process... and that was before you decided to compare my rational fear of latent bigotry to the irrational fears of the bigots themselves. Again; this is not even remotely similar, George, let alone "precisely the same."

In half the elections in my lifetime; a very small percentage of the electorate changing sides (be it for rational reason or something irrational like bigotry), would have been sufficient to sway these elections. This is a rational concern, George.

It is not "precisely the same" type of reasoning employed by bigots. Correct yourself.

All together; I think it will prove a sufficiently strong ticket to overcome the latent bigotry that so few want to acknowledge.
GObama!

Oh, I see, your (original) assertion that if Obama loses it will certainly be a result of the bigotry of the electorate is a rational insight into the motives of Americans, while my assertion, that this too involves the same prejudgement of the motives or worth of others, is necessarily irrational.

All together; I think it will prove a sufficiently strong ticket to overcome the latent bigotry that so few want to acknowledge.

I simply don't agree.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Your defense amounts to a somewhat complicated straw man: Someone points out that some portion of the anti-Obama crowd are bigots... and that this will need to be overcome to win. This is a simple matter of fact, George. You race in to show that it is presumptive and false to accuse all anti-Obama people of being bigots. This is true, of course, but I've yet to see anyone present that argument, save righties like yourself erecting straw men in order to bury the simple truth that latent bigotry is advantageous to the McCain campaign.

In the first place I am not a "rightie": I am simply myself, and I believe it would be more decorous of you to resist the liberal application of such categorical labels to others. Someone might even accuse you of latent bigotry.

In the second, it is not at all evident that the net effect of "latent bigotry", both black and white, will yield a disadvantage to Obama. You postulated a very narrow margin in the result, using that to demonstrate the plausibility of your argument. Given the difference between the historical and the likely current distribution of the votes of blacks, such a difference could well be delivered by them. In short there are effects here that work both to his advantage and his disadvantage. Given the widespread and enthusiastic support for him, and the fact that so far it appears to follow the predictable political, economic and demographis lines in the electorate, I believe there is a very good case to be made for the proposition that racism is not a prominent issue in the campaign.

I did allow for the possibility of racism being offered as the reason for a defeat in an unusually narrow outcome, and the impossibility of proving the negative with respect to this or a host of other explanations for it. If you wish to retreat to that, then I can have no objection.

However, I believe your rather broad prejudgement of actions not yet taken by American voters is unmerited.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I find it offensive because you are essentially giving the bigots a pass in the process... and that was before you decided to compare my rational fear of latent bigotry to the irrational fears of the bigots themselves. Again; this is not even remotely similar, George, let alone "precisely the same."

I don't think I am giving anyone a pass. I am merely refraining from prejudging the intent of people in the case of actions they have not yet taken. It is conceivable that the outcome of the election could indicate that racism was a likely significant factor, based on some statistical analysis. In such a case I wouldn't deny it. However, I don't think it appropriate to assert in advance that, if Obama loses, racism is the necessary explanation. THAT IS irrational.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

In half the elections in my lifetime; a very small percentage of the electorate changing sides (be it for rational reason or something irrational like bigotry), would have been sufficient to sway these elections. This is a rational concern, George.

Here I agree. However in each of these close elections it has been impossibble to pin down with even overwhelming confidence (if not certainty) exactly what were the motivatiuonal factors that determined the result. You are postulating that the motives are knowable in advance.

It is not "precisely the same" type of reasoning employed by bigots. Correct yourself.

Cool.

Obama's speech introducing Biden just now was no letdown at all - he created a powerful narrative for why he chose him. Now, let's see if Joe Biden can follow it up with another good speech; it will be important for him to do so.

Ccloptichorn

OCCOM BILL wrote:

All together; I think it will prove a sufficiently strong ticket to overcome the latent bigotry that so few want to acknowledge.
GObama!

Typical Bill, open mouth, accuse somebody of his obsession, racism or bigotry, he almost never misses an opportunity.

Laughing out loud...and yep. You can almost stick a fork in it

At no point have I ever accused George of racism or bigotry, moron. Even as stupid as you are; you should be able to admit racists and bigots will be voting in November.