So....Will Biden Be VP?

@OCCOM BILL,

Kudos, Bill - for maintaining such a cogent stance in the face of such an onslaught of obfuscation and obvious obliviousness.

1 Reply

@parados,

The McCain campaign has already begun to use some of the quotes in ads which I believe are effective.

In one clip, Biden confirms to a reporter his view that Obama is not qualified to be president; in another he praises McCain.

On the one hand, there is the obvious message: Even Obama's selection for VP thinks McCain is more qualified.

On the other, is the only conclusion one can draw from the arguments, "It was in the primaries, all the candidates do that." and "Biden and McCain have served together in the Senate for 20 years, he was being collegial:" Biden is a classic Old Style politician, and engages in just the sort of hackneyed routines and rituals Obama contends he is seeking to change.

It really is the height of hypocrisy for Obama supporters to exult over his promise to bring change to politics and then so readily dismiss each and every time he resorts to Old Politics as nothing more than the "price of admission."

What exactly about American politics do you think he has changed?

Using text messaging to announce his VP selection?

Presumably he would employ these changes during his race for the White House as opposed to waiting until he has won. If not, what is the point?

It is the oldest political con in the world to assure supporters that using the very same tactics one deplores to win an election is necessary if the promised changes are to, eventually, be made.

1 Reply

@snood,

Thanks Snood.

George: You need look no further than Okie to see why the type of denial you are employing annoys me. Three paragraphs he writes without acknowledging the simple fact that latent bigotry exists and that it will work to the detriment of Obama. While I fully expect this type of idiotic denial from Okie; I don't expect anything of the sort from you.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I can tell you who I was worried about - Hillary Clinton.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Presumably he would employ these changes during his race for the White House as opposed to waiting until he has won. If not, what is the point?

Huh? You really can't see how a politician could govern differently despite campaigning the same?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It is the oldest political con in the world to assure supporters that using the very same tactics one deplores to win an election is necessary if the promised changes are to, eventually, be made.

Be that as it may; if your polling numbers say you may never have the opportunity to effect change in office if you don't campaign in the proven effective manner; what is the most logical thing to do? If you were running the campaign; what would you advise?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Me too... and I'll toast with you our mutual relief we've dodged that bullet.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

O'Bill wrote:

Huh? You really can't see how a politician could govern differently despite campaigning the same?

No I can't Bill, but perhaps you can provide us with an example of one, or do you believe Obama is going to be the first?

I know you are impressed by his rhetoric, but do you really believe that his words speak louder than his actions?

As for the proper response to the Con:

The end doesn't justify the means.

He is not, after all, the Messiah. If he doesn't win the presidency in November, America will survive. While it may very well be to him personally, it isn't essential, to us, that he become the President. We don't need him to win at all costs.

People who temporarily sacrifice their principles usually have a very difficult time recovering them, and there is absolutely no empirical evidence that Obama is capable of this particular trick.

One can argue that this is the dilemma we face with all candidates and, to some extent, that is true, but in Obama's case it is his promise, not his track record that he is selling. He is, comparatively, a blank slate and if he can't live up to his promises during the first opportunity he has had to act upon a national stage, why do you assume he will do so once elected?

There is always the possibility that he will end up, if elected, being one of our greatest presidents, or merely a competent one, but why does anyone (who is not a partisan Democrat or ideological leftist) believe this is more likely to be the case with Obama than McCain? Because his speeches give people a thrill up their leg?

Situational ethics are always interesting.

We shouldn't torture people who are sworn to destroy us, even if by doing so we may save lives, but our politicians should do whatever it takes to get elected because we really need their particular brand of bullshite, and can rely on them to shape up once in office.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I'm hearing a criticism of Obama for picking Biden that strikes me as particularly strained. The meme is "Obama emphasizes his weaknesses by picking someone who is strong where he is weak."

Come again? If Obama had picked, say for instance, someone very like himself - another liberal leaning black junior senator (I don't know if there is one), he would've been jumped on for not being diverse in his choice, and for trying to combine two "firsts". If he picked Clinton, his judgement would've been questioned for having someone next to him that potentially outshined him, and also for trying to combine two "firsts". Leave alone why he wouldn't pick Sebellius.

He did exactly what every other serious nominee has done in the past - he picked someone whose resume and reputation he believed would compliment his own. He picked someone who could potentially attract some of the electorate he has had trouble attracting.

The target on McCain's back is huge - he has in the past, and continues to this day, to support the failed policies of George W. Bush. He is demonstrably out of touch with the struggles and concerns of the average American - who in the world can't say how many houses they own?

It appears the Republicans have trouble finding cogent criticism of Obama, so they make shyt up.

Hey, I've got a question - how do you post to a thread without having "RE: <someone's post>" in front of your post?

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn,

Who will you be voting for then?

0 Replies

@snood,

I agree, snood.

By the way you can do "reply to all" -- it's an option in the column at the left, near the top.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

O'Bill wrote:
Huh? You really can't see how a politician could govern differently despite campaigning the same?

No I can't Bill, but perhaps you can provide us with an example of one, or do you believe Obama is going to be the first?

I know you are impressed by his rhetoric, but do you really believe that his words speak louder than his actions?

You aren't trying Finn. Some King's throughout history were better than others... and I doubt you could demonstrate a pattern of this having anything to do with their path to power. Pretty much every four years someone's chanting change. Care to demonstrate how that correlated to their time at the helm at all, let alone provided you grounds for prediction? I've interviewed hundreds of job applicants and can tell you first hand that there is not necessarily any correlation between interview performance and actual job performance. You are flouting common sense to pretend otherwise.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

As for the proper response to the Con:

The end doesn't justify the means.

He is not, after all, the Messiah. If he doesn't win the presidency in November, America will survive. While it may very well be to him personally, it isn't essential, to us, that he become the President. We don't need him to win at all costs.

Finn... you make it sound as if he's out there capping his opponents for crying out loud.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

People who temporarily sacrifice their principles usually have a very difficult time recovering them, and there is absolutely no empirical evidence that Obama is capable of this particular trick.

One can argue that this is the dilemma we face with all candidates and, to some extent, that is true, but in Obama's case it is his promise, not his track record that he is selling. He is, comparatively, a blank slate and if he can't live up to his promises during the first opportunity he has had to act upon a national stage, why do you assume he will do so once elected?

You have yet to demonstrate any correlation between the series of interviews that is a campaign and job performance. I don't need a bouncer to kick my ass during an interview to show he's capable of doing the job. I get it that you don't like his resume. I (apparently) place more stock in judging a man than I do his resume before hiring than you do. This warped idea that everything Obama does in route to the White House has to angelic is not something I see coming from anyone who's actually considering voting for him. It makes for fine talking point rhetoric, but it's really just so much nonsense.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There is always the possibility that he will end up, if elected, being one of our greatest presidents, or merely a competent one, but why does anyone (who is not a partisan Democrat or ideological leftist) believe this is more likely to be the case with Obama than McCain? Because his speeches give people a thrill up their leg?

You want the truth? I like them both... largely because I believe both have the integrity to make up their own minds based on the information presented to them. I prefer Obama because I believe he has a much sharper mind.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Situational ethics are always interesting.

We shouldn't torture people who are sworn to destroy us, even if by doing so we may save lives, but our politicians should do whatever it takes to get elected because we really need their particular brand of bullshite, and can rely on them to shape up once in office.

I haven't seen any of Obama's campaign tactics as anything worse than any other candidate, let alone the F-911/Swift-Boat variety. And you're talking to the wrong Obama fan with that line anyway. In the "terrorist who knows the nuke plan" scenario; I don't much care what tactics are used to get the info out of him. Hell, let the Israelis go Roman on him for all I care. I'll worry about civil liberties while millions of lives aren't hanging in the balance. The proverbial child who needs to die in order to cure all of the world's disease is a goner too. :wink:

0 Replies

Thanks Barack. Your "gaffe" at the end of your introduction for Biden has sure made news. Folks who would not have paid any attention to your speech now seek it out to hear the "gaffe."

They also get to hear Biden as he outlines why he has changed his mind and decided you were the one to back and not his friend John McCain.

It has worked out so well, a cynic might think it was intentional!

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

you sound bitter, are you one who has found it impossible to let go of your dreams of Hillary?? I am getting a bit tired of the Hillary cult heckling Barrack, it is past time to tune them out, nothing new to say, and nothing but sour to offer.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

you sound bitter, are you one who has found it impossible to let go of your dreams of Hillary?? I am getting a bit tired of the Hillary cult heckling Barrack, it is past time to tune them out, nothing new to say, and nothing but sour to offer.

Yeah, that's it. Butrflynet the Hillary Cult Heckler. Laughing

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You haven't read many of my posts in the politics forum if you think I ever supported Hillary.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Don't put him down too harshly, Bill At least he doesn't call me a kool-aid drinking Obama cultist like many others here do.... and that is just as far from reality as him thinking I ever was a Hillary supporter.

By the way, that wasn't the voice of bitterness in that post. It was laughter at how easily Obama's "gaffe" got McCain's camp to spread the news of Biden's snub of McCain's politics.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I can tell you who I was worried about - Hillary Clinton.

I have no doubt this is true. I also have no doubt that Obama was as well, and that's why he didn't pick her.

I think a Obama/Clinton ticket would have won, easily, but who wants to have to hire a food taster for the next 4 years?

Biden is a good choice and he and Obama are going to clobber McCain this fall.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

Yes Okie, it was a powerful speech. It was a speech that McCain isn't even capable of making. In fact, it was so good, that you don't have any actual content within to attack, and are left nipping around the edges at stuff like what you posted, like a little yappy dog. Is that the sort of image you want to project?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@snood,

Here are criticisms of the Biden pick from a purely objective political point of view:

1) He's not Hillary Clinton. She would have helped him win in November far more than Biden will. She and Bill would have given him fits after he won, but win first and then worry about how to control the Clintons.

2) He won't be helping Obama win a key state. The best one can hope for from a VP candidate is a chance to win his or her state based on "favorite son" status. I appreciate that the Obama campaign hopes Biden will help in PA, but that's a long shot. He certainly won't hurt though.

3) Biden is notorious for speaking first and thinking second. I like him for it, and I think other voters will as well if he doesn't pull any real boners. The trouble is that as soon as Biden's mouth opens, he is in danger of a major gaffe. As a Senator and hopeless candidate for president, these gaffes have never really amounted to much, but now he's in The Show, and when he slips up, it will make the headlines.

4) He's no Change Agent. He's a Washington Insider if there ever was one, and while, by all accounts, he seems to be a decent and likeable guy, references to he and his family sitting around the kitchen table and wringing their hands over the economy and their financial situation rings hollow at best.

5) He voted for war in Iraq. I know, that's not precisely what he voted for, but that's the way Obama characterized Clinton's vote for the resolution. Maybe it won't matter to Democratic voters, but it does open the door for a lot of difficult questions (Of course Obama is probably rightly relying on the press to never ask these difficult questions).

Obama should have went with Clinton, but since he didn't, Biden is not all that bad a pick.

It is true that no matter who he picked, Republicans would have interpreted the selection in as negative light as they could manage. Obviously the same will be true with Democrats when McCain announces his pick for VP. When they do, will you be categorizing their ploy as "making up shyte?"

Somehow I doubt it.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

If and when Obama loses in November there will be two competing explanations among Democrats:

1) Americans are, in the majority, racist

2) He should have picked Hillary for VP

(#1 will win)

2 Replies

So....Will Biden Be VP?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know