« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A dissenting view on the Biden selection

By: civil truth (Diary)  |  August 25th, 2008 at 12:45 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I’ve been encountering much glee at Redstate over the choice of Joe Biden as Obama’s running mate, but I cannot join in that glee.

While not a spectacular pick (if indeed Obama has such a pick available), Biden is a solid defensive pick. And given the overall Democratic tide this year, defense is a rational tactic at this time.

First, VP candidates rarely win elections; in the end, it comes down to voters selecting between the two Presidential candidates. Even VP debates have not impacted voter choices for President. Rarely, a poor VP pick can seriously damage the ticket (e.g. Thomas Eagleton), but Biden is not such a candidate, especially with the media covering his flanks, calling his verbosity and pomposity profundity, and deep-sixing his gaffes. On the other hand, also, under media protection, Biden will be able to take some sharp shots at the Republican ticket with impunity.

More fundamentally, though, selecting Biden is mostly a reflection of internal Democratic politics, shoring up Obama’s support with the Kennedy wing (and their deep pockets) and other establishment Democrats, while betting that Hillary will not continue to obstruct and that the vast majority of PUMAs will vote for him in the end, finding themselves constitutionally unable to vote for a Republican.

This analysis is quite reasonable on the part of Team Obama, and given the Democratic base’s response to Obama’s obfuscations to date is probably an accurate assessment, despite all the screams of anguish right now, especially if the McCain team continues to overplay their hand regarding Hillary, trying to use her primary statements to attack Obama, thereby forcing Hillary to publicly come to Obama’s defense.

Overall, despite what I’ve been reading from most commentators here, I don’t see a serious downside. Most voters aren’t going to care much, for instance, about the cognitive dissonanace between Biden’s long tenure in the Senate and Obama’s “Hope and Change”. It’s still going to up to Obama himself to make the sale or to fail to do so. Despite some distractions he may cause, I don’t see Biden getting in the way of that fundamental task before Obama.

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Susannah

    I agree that Biden is not a weak pick. I mean, despite the fact that he is gaffe prone, he is generally pretty likeable and is a very good debater. That said, I do think that Hillary would have been the best pick for Obama because she would have brought some voters over that are loyal to her, but who wouldn’t vote for Obama–lucky for McCain, Obama’s too proud to pick her.

    However, Biden was smart enough to stay neutral during the Democratic primary and not take sides, so he would be palatable to some Hillary supporters (unlike say Richardson or Kerry). So therefore, if Obama wasn’t going to pick Hillary, then Biden or Bayh would have been his best, least offensive choices. The problem for Obama, is that most other VP candidates (no matter who they are) are more experienced then he is, so they point out his biggest weakness–i.e., lack of experience.

    • civil_truth

      Hillary could have pulled in more voters, but the dissention between the two camps regarding running a campaign could have turned the Obama campaign into a running Abbott and Costello act.

      Not to mention that Hillary’s obvious superior qualifications would embarrassingly reveal’s Obama’s lack therof.

      Again, from what I can tell from the outside, Biden has the best chance of holding the largest factions within the Democratic party together. And the press will bury his speaking gaffes, or even redefine the meaning of gaffe – we’ve already seen the Newspeak behavior on the part of the media regarding Biden (even to the point of redefining the doctrines of PC speech).

      • civil_truth

        Or in regarding to the 2008 campaign, if Biden makes a gaffe and the MSM completely ignore it, how big of a splash will it make. I just don’t see loose lips on Biden’s part sinking Obama’s campaign (short of the “dead women or live boy in bed” kind of gaffe).

        And as far as bringing in voter blocks, while Biden doesn’t clearly swing any states (except possibly helping in PA, but I’m dubious it will matter enough), Biden does help hold together several major Democratic factions. And if Obama can’t hold enough Democratic factions together, he then would be reduced to hoping the Republicans self-destruct worse.

        • SteveLA

          I think one of the things that has the forces of “The One” worried, is that the MSM is starting to turn. The MSM went too far in the bag for Nobama, and they are having to get tough to show they are fair.

          Look for Biden’s gaffs to get full reporting, makes for drama which sells more advertising time.

          • Swamp_Yankee

            That’s why I didnt differentiate the two. I dont think the media is going to cover old gaffes or that people will care much. But if he says something stupid in a debate or on the campaign trail in October, it could be explosive.

            Keep sipping from the flask old Joe.

  • gamecock

    I don’t see a downside for the Dems. I did think that Rendell would be better but I guess he needed some foreign policy help.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    I too think Biden’s negatives are somewhat overhyped, but on the positive side:

    1) e didnt bring in any state, demographic or block of voters for Obama.

    2) He is gaffe prone. I dont think some of his old stuff is going to matter much, but we got ten weeks for a couple of new Biden bombs. He is not a disciplined speaker. He could really say something damaging.