Obama Chooses Biden as Running Mate - MSNBC

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lisab
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ap
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
55 replies · 8K views

Discussion

Physics news on Phys.org
Wow, he sounds like the "Anti-Obama" in that article. I would say it's a wise choice, if he's that opposite Obama on those issues, it would be a good balance.

But with both of them having problems with being too verbose, this might be a nightmare. Two people that can't come to the point. :-p
 
Last edited:
Wow, it leaked! Who'da thunk it! They kept their lips so tight about it, too.

Free bagels for all!
 
Everything you wanted to know about Joe Biden, but were afraid to ask. Did I forget to post this political background project link in my election thread?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/joe-biden/

Just go to "On the issues" and click on each issue and you will get their statements.

There is also a link to their voting record. A great site to sum up a candidate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I couldn't be happier ... given the context, I mean ... or I think that's what I mean.

Now what would make for a Cabinet Dream Team? Some suggestions from me:
State - Chuck Hagel
Defense - stick with Bob Gates
Energy - Bill Richardson
Interior - Kathleen Sebelius
Education - leave Margaret Spellings in. You'll never find anyone with a cooler name. :-p
VA - Jim Webb (though he'd probably decline)

How's that sound?
 
Senator Biden was very critical of Obama's qualifications to be CiC when Biden was vying for the position himself.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jpNkxhHYmi98B3GBk8AZqtJeWohgD92NQM4G1


On the same day he announced his second bid for the presidency, Biden found himself explaining why he had described Obama as "clean."

And there's the 2007 ABC interview in which Biden said he would stand by an earlier statement that Obama was not ready to serve as president.



I suppose something has happened between then and now to change his mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
isly ilwott said:
I suppose something has happened between then and now to change his mind.

Yes. Obama got a majority of the nomination delegates.

Whether he is ready to lead, Biden is ready to follow as VP. Otherwise what chance does Biden have for higher office?

Not choosing Hilary I think is a big mistake. The 2 of them pulled as many votes in the primaries as they might need to insure election. Presented with a solution, why leave the result in doubt?

This choice is as puzzling to me as Bush the elder choosing Quayle the idiot.
 
I'm glad Joe's first name isn't Ben------





(Obama-Ben Biden)
 
Gokul43201 said:
Yes, he got to know Obama better.
Yeah, and if he's elected, we'll all get to know him better.

We should take lessons from the Cuban experience with Fidel Castor...and his CHANGE. He was a promising young messiah once also. He brought sweeping socialistic change to his country...and now people die at sea trying to get away from the country he has shaped.
 
LowlyPion said:
Not choosing Hilary I think is a big mistake. The 2 of them pulled as many votes in the primaries as they might need to insure election. Presented with a solution, why leave the result in doubt?

This choice is as puzzling to me as Bush the elder choosing Quayle the idiot.
Choosing Clinton would have been by far the larger blunder and might have cost the Dems the 60-40 majority they hope to get in the Senate. Many Republicans are none-too-happy with McCain and that will suppress voter turn-out for him in the general election, boding ill for Republicans down-ticket. (Have you noticed a record number of Congressional Republicans deciding to "spend more time with their families"? They fear a trouncing this fall.) If Obama had chosen Clinton, her presence on the ticket would have turned out Republicans in record numbers and shortened the Dem's Congressional coat-tails. It's one thing to have a primary battle within your own party, and another thing entirely to try to win a general election in which voters from all parties have the opportunity to vote for or against you. The votes against Clinton would probably have wiped out any additional votes she could have brought to the ticket. Talk to some older Republicans - they spit out Clinton's name like it's poison.

If she had been the VP selection, you can bet that the GOP and their attack machine would right now be airing ads about Whitewater, huge profits in cattle futures, Rose Law firm billing records, Vince Foster's death, Bill's infidelities and Hillary's knowledge of them, etc, etc. Obama would not be able to keep the campaign on-message against such an onslaught of negativism and his staffers knew this. Despite their praise of Clinton, saying things like "she'd be on anyone's short list", she was NEVER in the running for VP. Obama's people are way too smart to step into that trap.
 
turbo-1 said:
If Obama had chosen Clinton, her presence on the ticket would have turned out Republicans in record numbers and shortened the Dem's Congressional coat-tails.

... Obama's people are way too smart to step into that trap.

The last 8 years of Republican ship wreck, turning surpluses into deficit, enriching the rich, involving the country in foreign adventurism, ... I'd say not even Republicans have a taste to see their own in power any longer.

I'm no great fan of Hilary's, though I think she is as sincere as it ever gets in politics, but the fact of the matter is she represents a constituency that will not necessarily translate wholly to Obama-Biden.

As to Obama's people being smart ... in chess when you arrive at a known point that forces a win, I would think the smart thing is to take the solution and not muck around by selecting a political hack like Biden that may be more a liability than a benefit.

Kennedy chose Johnson and the two were not ideologically or personally all that compatible, but without the calculus of the constituency of both Nixon would have been president in 1960.
 
LowlyPion said:
Not choosing Hilary I think is a big mistake. The 2 of them pulled as many votes in the primaries as they might need to insure election. Presented with a solution, why leave the result in doubt?
Three problems with that logic:

-It assumes that they'd get both pools of votors when many polls showed a good fraction of people would not accpet their candidate being on the short end of a "dream team" ticket.
-In the Democratic primaries, only Democrats voted (in most of them).
-In the Democratic primaries, there were no Republicans to choose from.

So how do we really know how many votes each would bring in?
 
LowlyPion said:
The last 8 years of Republican ship wreck, turning surpluses into deficit, enriching the rich, involving the country in foreign adventurism, ... I'd say not even Republicans have a taste to see their own in power any longer.
That's just fantasy combined with wishful thinking, LP. Look at some polls for goodness sake! If it is really so bad and McCain would just be four (8?) more years of the same disaster, why are they polling within four percentage points of each other? (on average) http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/poll-tracker.htm

I see this from a lot of democrats - they see the result of this race as a foregone conclusion, while the reality is that it has a long way to go and is frought with potential pitfalls (for both candidates).

After we know who'se on both tickets and the conventions are over (and their bounces taken into account), we'll have a better idea of where we actually stand.
 
Last edited:
russ_watters said:
So how do we really know how many votes each would bring in?

Ultimately there is the common foe that unites the two.

Seeing an end to the Karl Rove Dick Cheney years, is surely enough prize to ensure cooperation. The fact is that one of them had to come out on top and the two of them do represent slightly different constituencies within the Democratic party.

People in both parties cannot answer that they are better off now than they were 8 years ago and another 4 years is not likely in the cards regardless. Keeping the passion of the two constituencies from the primary process involved however would look to provide the energy that the Republicans can no longer hope to muster in the general election.
 
LowlyPion said:
As to Obama's people being smart ... in chess when you arrive at a known point that forces a win, I would think the smart thing is to take the solution and not muck around by selecting a political hack like Biden that may be more a liability than a benefit.
Obama's people are very smart, and they chose what was best not only for Obama's chances, but for their party as a whole (including trying to elect a filibuster-proof majority to the Senate). Why do you think that Bill has been acting so petulant and pouty? The Obama VP selection committee never even asked for his wife's financial records (as was required of all VP hopefuls), and Obama hired the Clinton campaign manager (Patti Solis Doyle) that Clinton fired, and promised her that she would be chief-of-staff for the incoming VP candidate. The Clintons have known since very early on that she was not going to be on the ticket, and they know why. Too much baggage. The fact that Clinton repeatedly compared Obama unfavorably to McCain should have been enough to keep her off the ticket, even without the baggage.
 
russ_watters said:
That's just fantasy combined with wishful thinking, LP. Look at some polls for goodness sake! If it is really so bad and McCain would just be four (8?) more years of the same disaster, why are they polling within four percentage points of each other? (on average)

I see this from a lot of democrats - they see the result of this race as a foregone conclusion, while the reality is that it has a long way to go and is frought with potential pitfalls (for both candidates).

Getting out the vote as always will be the thing that matters. Denying the passion of one group doesn't look like good politics to me.

As to why they might be polling within 4 points, that's a good question. But whatever the reasons, the hard facts will be sitting on voters shoulders in the voting booths, with respect to the economy and foreign policy. These Bush years have not been kind to America and ultimately McCain doesn't look like change - especially if Republicans embrace the Rove tactics of past elections.
 
I find this to be weird and don't quite know what to think of it.

Obama says Joe Biden is ready to be president

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling his running mate, Joe Biden, "a leader who is ready to step in and be president."
:rolleyes: I guess Obama doesn't think he'll make it for 4 years? What kind of a signal is he sending?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/ap_on_el_pr/veepstakes
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Evo said:
I find this to be weird and don't quite know what to think of it.

:rolleyes: I guess Obama doesn't think he'll make it for 4 years? What kind of a signal is he sending?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/ap_on_el_pr/veepstakes
He will be the biggest assassination target ever to take the White House. He is fully cognizant of that. I hope that's not the message he is sending with that statement, but it's got to be on peoples' minds, and may need to be addressed, however subtly. Even now, prior to the convention, the SS detail guarding him probably sees bull's eyes painted on him everywhere he goes. Their job cannot be an easy one - it only takes one loon with a lucky break to take out someone who is in the public eye so frequently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Considering the whole WORLD hates GW and he has not been assassinated, I highly doubt Obama will be.
 
Evo said:
I find this to be weird and don't quite know what to think of it.

:rolleyes: I guess Obama doesn't think he'll make it for 4 years? What kind of a signal is he sending?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/ap_on_el_pr/veepstakes

If Biden becomes VP, we should hope that Obama serves his full term.

The same prayer I've been saying 8 years that Bush should finish his term and not subject the country to unfettered Cheney.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cyrus said:
Considering the whole WORLD hates GW and he has not been assassinated, I highly doubt Obama will be.
Vastly different demographic, Cy. Who hates Bush? People who hate war, torture, unnecessary killing and suffering - sane people, who would not assassinate him.

Who hates Obama? How about right-wing fringe groups including white-supremacists? Which group is more likely to produce an assassin?

If the public is won over by Obama and his family, the risk of assassination increases. That's unfortunate, but I believe it is true.
 
turbo-1 said:
Vastly different demographic, Cy. Who hates Bush? People who hate war, torture, unnecessary killing and suffering - sane people, who would not assassinate him.

Who hates Obama? How about right-wing fringe groups including white-supremacists? Which group is more likely to produce an assassin?

If the public is won over by Obama and his family, the risk of assassination increases. That's unfortunate, but I believe it is true.

Not really. People all over the WORLD hate bush. I'm sure he's a prime target whenever he visits any country outside the USA because locals hate him.
 
LowlyPion said:
Not choosing Hilary I think is a big mistake. The 2 of them pulled as many votes in the primaries as they might need to insure election. Presented with a solution, why leave the result in doubt?
Why leave it in doubt, when you can assure a certain loss by picking Hillary.

Greg Bernhardt said:
Wishful thinking or do you have good reason to believe this?
Do you have a good reason to believe that Biden wasn't merely using tough words against a political opponent? Did Biden provide any specific details, explanation or analysis of why Obama was unprepared?

PS: All the folks digging up what Biden had to say about Obama in the Primary had better hope that McCain doesn't pick Romney now... but I can't imagine he will. If there's one thing for sure, it's that McCain can not trust Romney as far as he can throw him.
 
Last edited:
rewebster said:
(Obama-Ben Biden)

:smile:

that would make for pretty good bumper stickers. sort of like the Bush-Satan 2004 stickers of 4 years ago.
 
Gokul43201 said:
If there's one thing for sure, it's that McCain can not trust Romney as far as he can throw him.

well, who can? better think twice Gokul, you might be bumping into the ultimate flip-flopper (you can recognize him wearing an empty suit) if you be moving to MA.
 
Biden brings a lot of experience to the ticket, particularly on foreign affairs.

As for Obama being inexperienced, he's got way more experience than Bush had at the beginning. Obama is intelligent and keen to learn, Bush was not and is not.


I hope that the Obama and McCain campaigns do not waste time bashing each other, despite the unfortunate fact that that seems to be effective in winning elections during the past two+ decades.


What I want to hear is the positions on policy, particularly energy, national security, and the general welfare. The next president not only had to mend the damage done by Bush with respect to foreign relations, but he must assert fiscal responsibility and stabilize the economy. Taxes should be raised, or government spending must be cut on the order of 20%. The deficit spending abuse must end!
 
I'm not really a fan of Obama, I'm just pro choice, pro gun control, pro gay marriage. I would probably vote for Satan if he was the Democratic choice because I know an independent is not going to win, so I won't waste my vote.