Pragmatism has a name, and it's Joe Biden.
When Barack Obama announced his running mate late last week via text message, I nodded. Yep.
Biden is a smart choice. A practical choice.
But also an interesting choice.
First, to the practical. Biden has broad and deep foreign policy experience, something Obama lacks. This is important in the America of the present, the America that is fighting wars in Afganistan and Iraq while the Russian and Iranian governments continue to make disturbing noises.
Biden has a long, Washington-insider history, something which Obama had fought against during the primaries, with all his talk about change and a new way of governing.
Biden also is popular among blue collar workers and Catholics, constituencies that Obama has found tough to woo.
So the choice of Biden is a safe choice. It's safe for most of Obama's liberal constituency as well, without being too scary to conservatives, the way a Hillary Clinton or Dennis Kucinich would have been.
Take the gay and lesbian example. Biden voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, but also said that he thought gay marriage "was inevitable." And he said that in 2003, five long years ago.. He is for civil unions, and voted against the bill that would written "marriage is between a man and a woman" language into the Constitution.
A year ago, when asked about 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell," he responded, "I've been to Afghanistan, I've been to Iraq seven times, I've been in the Balkans, I've been in these foxholes with these kids, literally in bunkers with them. Let me tell you something, nobody asked anybody else whether they're gay in those foxholes. Our allies - the British, the French, all our major allies - gays openly serve. I don't know the last time an American soldier said to a backup from a Brit, "Hey, by the way, let me check. Are you gay? Are you straight?" This is ridiculous."
He voted yes to including sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes. He was integral in helping rid the country of the discriminatory HIV travel and immigration ban.
In short, his positions on gay issues are a lot like - Obama's.
Now to the interesting.
Biden isn't always careful about what he says.
For example, he called Barack Obama "clean and articulate," which has a racist edge. And last year, he declared that he didn't think Obama was ready to be president.
But Obama was able to put aside these insults and slights and look to the bigger picture. Joe Biden is someone he agrees with. Joe Biden is someone he admires. Joe Biden is someone he believes he can work with.
The pick of a running mate is said to have very little impact on an actual election - instead, it's seen as a candidate's first presidential decision, the way to get a small taste of what a candidate's presidency would be like.
What Obama shows here is a willingness to move beyond petty grievances for the common good.
And this is an important trait.
We need a leader who can work with people - in this country and others - who believe all sorts of things and who say all sorts of things.
We need a leader who is not afraid that he will highlight his weaknesses by hiring people who know more than he does in their particular area of expertise.
We need a leader who can bear up under insults and not take them personally.
So, I'm impressed by Obama's choice of Biden. Biden is not who I was hoping for - I was crossing my fingers for the very unlikely pick of Hillary Clinton, or the very possible Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who made it to the final top three.
But Joe Biden is a choice I respect and can live with. And it shows some very interesting things about Obama - that he can be practical when he needs to be, and that he won't just try to surf the unsteady winds of oratory; that he can look at the big picture, instead of being focused on issues of personal loyalty or slights; and that he isn't afraid to be surrounded by people who may know more than he does.
These are the sorts of differences that make a difference. These are the sorts of things that show us the kind of president Barack Obama will be.
11 Comments for “A Pragmatic Pick”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
It’s too easy to shoot down the Audacity of Hope in BarryO’s selection of the formerly-retiring-from-politics JoeBiden. But God Bless Jennifer for at least keeping a stiff upper lip when the ship is sinking fast.
In this week’s USNews&World survey, the pollsters asked the bitter remorse question: If you had another chance to re-select the Democrat nominee, “now that you’ve seen Barak Obama in action, would you pick him or another candidate?”
Clinton got 43%
BarryO got 25%
BillRichardson got 13%
JoeBiden, JohnEdwards and ChrisDodd were in a statistical dead heat.
No one asked about DennyKusinich.
Obama had one chance to make a difference in the race and move it off dead center in what most political pundits saw as a run-away year for ANY Democrat nominee, even the ultimate empty suit… and BarryO chose a guy whose greatest claim to political fame is he steals speeches, lives in his Mommie’s compound (how blue collar is that), was wrong about the surge and Gen Petraeus and –worst of all– is the consummate political insider and career politican in a race that USED TO BE ABOUT changing all that JoeBiden’s career had stood for… and he was so fed up with Washington, he wanted to retire.
I like JoeBiden because he’s honest and he’s a solid family man. But the right and brave pick was Hillary Clinton and that, despite what gayDemocrats would like the world to think, would have moved BarryO from deadcenter to the middle… without driving the ObamaBus over all the people he’ll have to rundown in his rush to the center and moderation.
Biden’s greatest liability is his mouth and his record. But, at least he has a record and his mouth, when moving, amounts to something more than slick, pretty words cascading down the leftside of the street.
It was an uninspired pick from a pack that should have been deeper, should have brought more to the ticket and desperately needed to help ease BarryO off deadcenter.
Heck, BarryO could have picked the equally liberal JohnFKerry and it would have amounted to little more than JoeBiden’s selection.
In this race, gays will throw away their vote if they continue to line-up with slick, empty suits promising nothing but sweet whispers when the election is over.
posted by Rob on
In this race, gays will throw away their vote if they continue to line-up with slick, empty suits promising nothing but sweet whispers when the election is over.
So who should gays vote for? McCain, who’s not likely to sign a repeal of DADT or DOMA? Or should they spoil their vote in protest?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Rob, I’d say that gays who tote the Democrat waterpail need to get some upfront guarantees for action within the 100 days on gay civil rights or they should do what the gay GOPers in the LogCabin had the guts to do –without the endorsement, withhold the vote, withhold the volunteers and make the Democrats understand FINALLY that the gay vote isn’t a lock.
Of course, that would take character and guts. I’m not sure the gayDemocrats have what it takes.
And on DOMA -it isn’t an anti-gay provision; it’s a pro-state provision that doesn’t stop the march toward marriage equality in the states; it just means we need to secure that privilege in a state-by-state contest by marshalling our persuasive arguments for gay marriage equality and making our case to the people.
On DADT, don’t count that as a certainty he won’t repeal it for McCain-the-Maverick. If the military command structure said repeal was appropriate, the policy would be gone in a nanosecond with McCain’s full support… despite all the rhetoric of the gayDemocrats spreading da’ fear of da’ Maverick.
Sometimes, in order to make an omelet, you have to crack a few eggs. All I’ve seen the Democrats do is whisper sweet nothings in the ears of gay voters and we’ve succumbed to their advances with feet up in the air.
posted by Greying Gay Patriot on
Hillary Clinton 2/21/8 on Joe Biden,
“Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That?s, I think, a very simple proposition. And you know ? you know, lifting whole passages from someone else?s speeches is not change you can believe in, it?s change you can Xerox.”
posted by Richard II on
MM;
National exit polling data puts the gay vote at roughly 4-5% percent. This number alone does not give gay voters a lot of power to demand guarantees and the pratical reality is that just about anything that gay people want done — in terms of civil rights — requires winning the support of not just the president and Congress.
This tells voters, especially Independent/Undecided voters such as myself, that when it comes to gay rights we will make small steps forward or backwards.
Not voting is not going to work. The system does not listen to people who do not vote or throw their vote away on a third party candidate.
Of course, that would take character and guts. I’m not sure the gayDemocrats have what it takes.
And on DOMA -it isn’t an anti-gay provision; it’s a pro-state provision that doesn’t stop the march toward marriage equality in the states; it just means we need to secure that privilege in a state-by-state contest by marshalling our persuasive arguments for gay marriage equality and making our case to the people.
On DADT, don’t count that as a certainty he won’t repeal it for McCain-the-Maverick. If the military command structure said repeal was appropriate, the policy would be gone in a nanosecond with McCain’s full support… despite all the rhetoric of the gayDemocrats spreading da’ fear of da’ Maverick.
Sometimes, in order to make an omelet, you have to crack a few eggs. All I’ve seen the Democrats do is whisper sweet nothings in the ears of gay voters and we’ve succumbed to their advances with feet up in the air.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
There’s a problem, Richard2, with your assessment. The 4-5% figure is generally understood by pollsters to be a lowball number; Bob Teeter used to put the number of “honest-to-gosh” gays (his phrase) at about 8% of the natl electorate.
In the 2004 election, with a turnout of 121m voters (about 60% of eligible voters), that would mean the gay vote is roughly 9.7m votes –and if the Democrats get the normal break on the gayVote, that would translate to 7.6m votes… a block of votes that would tip nearly any election in the last 20 years to the Democrats, handily.
The “wielding power/hold accountable” factor isn’t based on the percentage of votes turned out in the election, it’s two other important items.
First, it’s about relationships and having a seat at the power-sharing table within the DNC. Gays have taken a few hits from ScreaminHowieDean on that score in the last 4 years, but they’re still at the table. The problem is, they aren’t fighting for OUR common rights; they’re content to keep their seat right now.
Second, the gayVote is vastly under its true turnout potential. From personal experience, I can tell you that of my gayDemocrat friends, nearly 2/3rds of them did NOT vote in 2004 –at least that’s what they told me. In Michigan, with a anti-gay ballot proposal on the ledger, that was criminal for our side.
Democrats know that gays can turn a higher vote. In critical states, it could also mean winning the electoral college seats needed for a win.
The simple fact is that gayDemocrats DO have the power to wield; they just aren’t doing it effectively.
posted by Rob on
Rob, I’d say that gays who tote the Democrat waterpail need to get some upfront guarantees for action within the 100 days on gay civil rights or they should do what the gay GOPers in the LogCabin had the guts to do –without the endorsement, withhold the vote, withhold the volunteers and make the Democrats understand FINALLY that the gay vote isn’t a lock.
More than fair. If the candidate doesn’t pass the muster, regardless of his party affiliation, then he shouldn’t be endorsed period.
And on DOMA -it isn’t an anti-gay provision; it’s a pro-state provision that doesn’t stop the march toward marriage equality in the states; it just means we need to secure that privilege in a state-by-state contest by marshalling our persuasive arguments for gay marriage equality and making our case to the people.
You’ve lost me Matt. Sure DOMA pleaces states rights on what contracts they should recognize from others states or not, but how is blocking the federal government, responsible for immigration administration, from recognizing same-sex couples, a states issue? Explain.
On DADT, don’t count that as a certainty he won’t repeal it for McCain-the-Maverick. If the military command structure said repeal was appropriate, the policy would be gone in a nanosecond with McCain’s full support… despite all the rhetoric of the gayDemocrats spreading da’ fear of da’ Maverick.
It doesn’t matter what the current military command structure thinks, since the Commander-in-Chief can justly change that structure with realistic leaders rather than ideological ones, and it doesn’t really take a Maverick to accomplish that after the previous president. The data given has already shown the flaws of this policy, and that attitudes have seriously changed for the past 15 years within the lower echelons of the armed forces. Do you really want a leader that has the same mentality as those top brass that ignore this data?
Sometimes, in order to make an omelet, you have to crack a few eggs. All I’ve seen the Democrats do is whisper sweet nothings in the ears of gay voters and we’ve succumbed to their advances with feet up in the air.
Absolutely, which is why I don’t care for Biden, or any of those Democrats that have been an obstacle for gay rights. But Biden has minimal power as a vice-president, and what matters is what policy in our favor the next President of the United-States will likely to sign with minimal fuss.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jennifer contends that JoeyBiden is the “ah-ha” choice of Democrats in need of balancing the top of the ticket’s inexperience and lack of gravitas… and, of course, JoeyBiden is no celebrity in anyone’s book so that won’t take the spotlight off the EmptySuit BarryO.
One of the things that strikes many gayGOPers about the choice of Biden is that the BarryO campaign was even able to make a choice in time for the convention.
Moreover, that Republicans didn’t subject Biden to the same level of smearingly snarky attacks as the gayLeft blogs and Democrat websites have done to McCain’s pick, Gov Palin.
When you think of “change”, the least likely name to come up is Biden. He’s the consummate Washington insider, legendary egomanic and preening politician with french-cuffed shirts. Honest and a good family man… but wow, does he ever stop talking about himself?
Someone here used the famous HillaryClinton quote of Biden that he is “change you can Xerox” after getting caught lifting entire speeches from other, far brighter world leaders.
Given all the sleazing unsupported accusations in the Democrat-controlled media that McCain didn’t vet his veep choice… I wonder if gayDemocrats here recall that BarryO’s first vetter-chairman (the discredited subprime lender CountryWide’s Jim Johnson) had to resign amid controversies over his sleazy backroom antics and peddling favors to Congressional Democrats?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25101650/
I wonder if gayDemocrats remember that when the 1st vetter-in-chief resigned, BarryO picked another vetter-in-chief who quickly got into more trouble because of his sleazy role in Pres Clinton pardoning felon and fundraiser Marc Rich… whose trophy wife hung on SlickWilly’s arm at major WH functions and may have been responsible for up to $14,000,000 in shake down contributions to SlickWilly’s Presidential Hall of Shame.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obamas_vp_search_mistake_114031.htm
DickMorris offered this insider view of his former colleague Eric Holder, Obama’s former vetter-in-chief
“In 2002, a congressional committee reported that Holder was a ‘willing participant in the plan to keep the Justice Department from knowing about and opposing’ the Rich pardon,” he said. “It is one thing to reach back to Obama’s pastor to raise doubts about his values. But it is quite another to scrutinize the record of his first appointee. “It couldn?t be a bigger mistake.”
So as the farLeft and Democrat blogs try to take down Sarah Palin with their own sleazy, widespreading halftruths and fabrications… remember it just might be about getting revenge for the savage stupidity evident in BarryO’s pick of his vetter-in-chiefs.
And, of course, the sense of panic and fear that’s spreading through their ranks as they imagine a dust-up between Palin and Biden –with the scoreboard racking up points for the Palin team.
posted by Brian on
Michigan Matt, I was waiting to see what kind of bounce Sen Obama’s selection of Sen Biden would create.
I know that Bob Dole’s pick of Jack Kemp in 1996 gave Dole a 9% point bounce -the vice president bounce.
I know VP Al Gore got a 5% point bounce when he picked Sen Liberman in 2000.
I know Senator Kerry got a 4% point bounce when he picked ex-Senator Edwards in 2004.
I know then Gov Bush got a 3% point bounce when he picked Republican insider and businessman Richard Cheney in 2000.
So I was expecting at least a 9% point bounce for Sen Obama when he announced Sen Biden. It turns out that his choice of Biden may have cost him votes because McCain drew up dead even in most polls with Senator Obama –after being behind by 4 or 6 or 8% points.
Sen Obama actually may be the first presidential candidate, coming out of his own convention, to lose points in the vice president bounce period.
I’m eager to see what Gov Palin’s selection does for Sen McCain’s campaign. We’ll know either Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Hey Brian, we don’t have to wait any longer. McCain has pulled ahead by 10 points over BarryO’Biden… maybe the ticket needs a little gaydemocrat flipflop? Change it from BarryO’Biden to
Biding O’ Bama good bye?
Yeah, that’s the ticket!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
While Jennifer Vanasco might think BarryO’s pick of JoeyBiden was “pragmatic” and a “smart choice”, there are lots of Democrat insiders who think it was a fundamental mistake to step over the real candidate, Hillary Clinton.
Here’s what Susan Estrich, a long time Democrat political animal and former MikeyDukakis campaign director had to say:
“At a rally in New Hampshire, a questioner actually expressed his pleasure that Barack Obama had chosen Biden as his running mate over Hillary Clinton, a sentiment not universally shared among Democrats. Biden, to his credit, wanted to be sure that no one would later say that he had in any way questioned the New York senator’s qualifications (as he once did his own running mate’s).
“Make no mistake about this,” Biden responded. “Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America; she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America?” That was the place to stop. That was the moment in which you succeed in not making news, which is the usual goal of a vice presidential candidate, unless the news relates to the poor judgment of your opponent, not your running mate.
Biden, however, known for his occasional loquaciousness, did not stop. He then made news, questioning the judgment of the would-be president who had placed him on the ticket instead of Hillary. “And quite frankly,” Biden concluded, “it might have been a better pick than me.””
Biden, as I mentioned at the outset, is genuine in his honesty (when he’s not plagerizing, that is) and he may nailed the #1 factor that leads to BarryO’Biden’s loss on Election Day… BarryO picked the wrong woman for Veep; McCain picked the perfect woman for Veep.