Obama selects Joe Biden

[Sean]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92NROBG0&show_article=1

I'm thrilled with the choice, personally. :D

[Troy McClure]

I participated in the text message delivery. The text is as follows:

'Barack has chosen Senator Joe Biden to our VP nominee. Watch the first Obama - Biden rally live at 3pm ET on www.BarackObama.com. Spread the word!'

The message came at 12:53am Phoenix time.

I'm happy Senator Biden is the nominee. Now, it's business time. Jason

[IsiliRunite]

The only thing I have against Biden was that he said, during congressional hearings on the subject, that stun grenades used during the siege of the Branch Davidian compound weren't strong enough to blow your hand off if activated and not disposed of. LOL Not really surprising that a democrat isn't too familiar with items of self defense, but he doesn't shy away from acting like an expert on the topic.

Based on this and other instances, this guy reminds me of me 5 years ago, and that is sad because I am only 19 years old. Back then, I used to believe that much of things that I today realize are opinions, potential models, or hypothesis about the world were facts that did not have to be reasoned through and proven with observable evidence. In other words, I may not dislike too many of his policies, but I am disappointed about how self-righteous and crabby he seems to be. I haven't seen anything to make me believe he is "thinking" as much as he is merely re-arranging his prejudices. In America, though, this isn't too uncommon; we have 2 of the one billion view points represented 99.9% of the time as the "obvious" choices.

Something to concern everyone: Mr. Biden was visably annoyed during the debates with members of his OWN party; how able is he to work together and understand the points of view of people he most likely thinks are total fucking morons, in the Republican party? (added the bold just to remind you that I don't think any Democrat or Republican is a "moron" just because they are a Democrat or Republican)

Wish he could read/acknowledge the supreme wisdom of the constitution, too; he is very anti-second amendment. It is often too easy to side with the constitution, thankfully, but if you'd like to throw up a thread and duke it out I am game.

[Deckard]

Some interesting points there IsiliRunite. Despite that, I'd say it still represented a fairly safe (or at least safe as in 'reasonably predictable') choice. Although they're more well-known, a Kerry, Clinton or Gore would have been very shocking.

Oh and this was predictable too...

The McCain camp called the choice of Mr Biden an admission by Barack Obama that he was not ready to be president. "Biden has denounced Barack Obama's poor foreign policy judgement and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realising - that Barack Obama is not ready to be president," McCain campaign spokesman Ben Porritt said in a statement.

I don't know; to me, that just seems even more opportunistic and ungracious than even I expected from them (cue: quip from jOHN about Republicans' nastiness knowing no limits... ). I fear that's going to be one of the problems that this choice highlights - people will be wondering why the experienced, and somewhat more reassuring guy - the (if you'll excuse the phony phrase) commander-in-chief - isn't the one at the top of the ticket. (Do people really generally vote for them as teams, joint strengths?) Not to mention people are already drawing the comparison between Obama's desire to separate himself from Washington insiders, and, umm, this Washington insider.

Btw, let's hope they don't get him writing any speeches (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2607505/Joe-Biden-plagiarised-Neil-Kinnock-speech.html). (Some have referred to his tendency to waffle. Well he certainly took inspiration from the master on that one...!)

[cacophony]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92NROBG0&show_article=1

I'm thrilled with the choice, personally. :D

well you know i'm thrilled. he was my presidential choice and i've finally gone from lukewarm about this election to hopeful.

i was woken up this morning by an email with this news as the subject. a fantastic way to wake up, if you're someone who supported biden in the primaries and still believe in his platform.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Word up.

[Sean]

Oh and this was predictable too...

The McCain camp called the choice of Mr Biden an admission by Barack Obama that he was not ready to be president. "Biden has denounced Barack Obama's poor foreign policy judgement and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realising - that Barack Obama is not ready to be president," McCain campaign spokesman Ben Porritt said in a statement.

I don't know; to me, that just seems even more opportunistic and ungracious than even I expected from them.What's strange to me about this line of attack is that isn't Romney the most likely VP for McCain, or at least one of them? So if he picks Romney, won't there be a wealth of comments from when he was campaigning against McCain that the Democrats could use exactly the same way? It just seems like the Republicans are setting themselves up on this one...

I fear that's going to be one of the problems that this choice highlights - people will be wondering why the experienced, and somewhat more reassuring guy - the (if you'll excuse the phony phrase) commander-in-chief - isn't the one at the top of the ticket. (Do people really generally vote for them as teams, joint strengths?) Not to mention people are already drawing the comparison between Obama's desire to separate himself from Washington insiders, and, umm, this Washington insider.I'm guessing that they'll begin addressing much of this in their first joint appearance in a couple hours. It'll be interesting to see the plan of attack unfolding.

well you know i'm thrilled. he was my presidential choice and i've finally gone from lukewarm about this election to hopeful.Yeah, I always associate Biden with you since you were the first one who really drew my attention to him earlier in the primaries. I figured you'd be pleased.

[gambit]

Good choice in my opinion. But did anyone notice how much idiotic coverage Obama's VP choice got? They had cameras set up at like three people's houses for days! Even after Bayh and the VA Governor (forgot his name) were confirmed to not be the VP.

Good choice by Obama; lunacy by the media.

[cured]

Rush Limbaugh was hoping Biden would be selected because the republican slime machine has a lot of quotes to use against him. Political coverage is high school to an exponential degree and there are plenty of retards out there who's vote will be decided on sound bites that have absolutely nothing to do with policy. Gotta love this country.

[Troy McClure]

What's strange to me about this line of attack is that isn't Romney the most likely VP for McCain, or at least one of them? So if he picks Romney, won't there be a wealth of comments from when he was campaigning against McCain that the Democrats could use exactly the same way? It just seems like the Republicans are setting themselves up on this one...


Agreed, but McCain's campaign doesn't seem to have a strategy laid out for more than 3 days. So I don't think it's a surprise. Romney and McCain really butted head on some stuff during the debates.

Example 1 from June 15th South Carolina debate via New York Times:
This week their arguments over immigration prompted Mr. McCain to suggest acidly that Mr. Romney’s solution might be “to get out his small-varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn.”

McCain also made it a habit to try to portray Romney as a flip-flopper and of wanting to set a time-table for withdrawal from Iraq.

--Jason

[kagenaki koe]

there are plenty of retards out there who's vote will be decided on sound bites that have absolutely nothing to do with policy OR FACTS

appended;)

[Sarcasmo]

I think I might need help coming back from the camp of people who see this as a bad choice. Obama's whole campaign has been about the need to get away from politics as usual and make some changes, and he selects a running mate that's just as establishment as they come, seeing as Biden's been in politics longer than many of us have been alive. Plus, I can't help but see a little insecurity in Obama in picking someone who seems to be everything he's not, namely an international relations and foreign policy guru. It just seems like it highlights, instead of offsets, his weaknesses. To top it all off, Obama's campaign, until a few weeks ago, was surprisingly positive and free of the nastiness that McCain was all too willing to indulge in. Now he's brought in someone who's no stranger to negative attack ads, and who's more than willing to go toe to toe in the mud. Call me cynical, but it also seems to me that the choice of a politically institutionalized white male is a good damned way for the Democratic establishment to keep Obama from trying to stir the shit TOO much. I don't know. I need help understanding this one.

[gambit]

I think just about anyone Obama picked was going to be someone who was a long established politician. I don't think picking someone with as little or less Washington experience than himself would help his campaign any. Obama has been gradually moving towards the center ever since he won the nomination, and I think Biden is a way to soften the edges around him for some of those people (including Hillary supporters) who still aren't sure who to vote for.

[cacophony]

I think I might need help coming back from the camp of people who see this as a bad choice. Obama's whole campaign has been about the need to get away from politics as usual and make some changes, and he selects a running mate that's just as establishment as they come, seeing as Biden's been in politics longer than many of us have been alive. Plus, I can't help but see a little insecurity in Obama in picking someone who seems to be everything he's not, namely an international relations and foreign policy guru. It just seems like it highlights, instead of offsets, his weaknesses. To top it all off, Obama's campaign, until a few weeks ago, was surprisingly positive and free of the nastiness that McCain was all too willing to indulge in. Now he's brought in someone who's no stranger to negative attack ads, and who's more than willing to go toe to toe in the mud. Call me cynical, but it also seems to me that the choice of a politically institutionalized white male is a good damned way for the Democratic establishment to keep Obama from trying to stir the shit TOO much. I don't know. I need help understanding this one.

i would suggest you look into biden's history and voting record before you write him off as a washington insider or tool of the establishment. the man has had a long and extremely honorable career.

seems like a silly set of priorities to throw the baby out with the bathwater if all you're interested in is the "zero experience = change" concept. a long career doesn't automatically make someone incapable of forging changing and positive policies.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

i would suggest you look into biden's history and voting record before you write him off as a washington insider or tool of the establishment. the man has had a long and extremely honorable career.

seems like a silly set of priorities to throw the baby out with the bathwater if all you're interested in is the "zero experience = change" concept. a long career doesn't automatically make someone incapable of forging changing and positive policies.

He just wants to be able to get his hard drugs and thinks Demo don't do them. Or something.

NEWS FLASH Sarcasmo! Daddies shouldn't be doing hard drugs, so looks like your partyin' days are limited. Wait a minute, there are some daddies that do hard drugs, but they are like the pervert breed of the definition.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

uuuuum, OK, with this, am I in trouble or is she cheering me on?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/24/democrats.convention/index.html

[Sarcasmo]

i would suggest you look into biden's history and voting record before you write him off as a washington insider or tool of the establishment. the man has had a long and extremely honorable career.

seems like a silly set of priorities to throw the baby out with the bathwater if all you're interested in is the "zero experience = change" concept. a long career doesn't automatically make someone incapable of forging changing and positive policies.

Don't assume that I haven't looked into his career. I take into consideration that his biggest financial backer his entire career has been MBNA, that over his 35 years in office, has received $214,000 in campaign contributions from them, and was the key architect of what Sen. Chris Dodd called "one of the worst bills ever," the bankruptcy law which shifted the risk for engaging in predatory lending practices from predatory lenders to the borrowers, which has had a huge impact in our current housing foreclosure crisis. He's an architect of another incredibly important piece of legislation; the Anti-Drug Abuse law of 1986, which included mandatory minimum sentencing that can be credited with a world record prison population. While I don't hold his vote authorizing the Iraq war against him, he's voted for every single funding bill that Bush/Cheney has thrown his way. Not to mention his vote to reauthorize the PATRIOT act after it was due to expire. I probably should have brought all this up in my original post, but it was late and I was tired. I'm just a little concerned that after Obama got to where he is on the perception that he wasn't another cog in the machine, he chooses a running mate that's as entrenched as they come in Washington.

[cacophony]

...a running mate that's as entrenched as they come in Washington.

i'm not yet interested in coming back full time to this forum so i'm not going to debate all of the little points. i will say that there isn't a single politician in washington, regardless of the duration of his/her career, where you couldn't find votes to disagree with. the longer a person's career, the more opportunity they have to do or say things you don't agree with. no one is your mirror image. you just have to decide who matches up as well as is possible. if biden doesn't match up for you, then so be it. you don't have to like his record. but it seems silly to make his longevity your sticking point. using words like "entrenched" and "washington insider" says nothing about your opinion of his record. it just says you're equating short-term careers with more integrity. which makes very little sense.

if you have a problem with his record while in office, then make that your problem. don't just vex about how he's been in office for 35 years as though experience automatically means corruption.

[dubman]

so we've seen a lot about biden and to me it all seems pretty decent in a nervous sort of way. like it could be something great or terrifically awkward, but i remember seing him on the daily show some years ago that made a lasting impression and why i might be biased because it was just too good.

stewart: see here's what i like about you... you dont care. you've been around for 35 years and you you will say things that politicians normally have to be so cautious about, is it timidity?

biden: well, you do have to be careful because i've gotten myself into trouble before. hell, i might have been president if i hadnt said that i had an uncle who was a coal miner. turned out he never even been in the coal mines! i mean, i tried all that crap...
but i actually thought it! i'm from scranton, pa so i figured there had to be one somewhere in the family...

stewart: nothin, huh?

biden: nothin! i mean, i- it was an engineer! it was a stab in the dark and i found out he graduated from lehigh.

edit: oh i found a link to the vid actually (google: biden, daily show, i tried that crap): http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=127038&title=Sen.-Joe-Biden

[kagenaki koe]

I'm just a little concerned that after Obama got to where he is on the perception that he wasn't another cog in the machine, he chooses a running mate that's as entrenched as they come in Washington.

you make it sound like Biden will be in charge of Obama.

[Sarcasmo]

i'm not yet interested in coming back full time to this forum so i'm not going to debate all of the little points. i will say that there isn't a single politician in washington, regardless of the duration of his/her career, where you couldn't find votes to disagree with. the longer a person's career, the more opportunity they have to do or say things you don't agree with. no one is your mirror image. you just have to decide who matches up as well as is possible. if biden doesn't match up for you, then so be it. you don't have to like his record. but it seems silly to make his longevity your sticking point. using words like "entrenched" and "washington insider" says nothing about your opinion of his record. it just says you're equating short-term careers with more integrity. which makes very little sense.

if you have a problem with his record while in office, then make that your problem. don't just vex about how he's been in office for 35 years as though experience automatically means corruption.

Ugh...as loathe as I am to admit it, you're right.:mad:;) I don't trust longevity at all any more. I don't trust either of the big two parties, and I don't trust the way government has been run for the last 30+ years. I'll admit to prejudice on this one. We'll see where it all goes in about 2 years, huh?

[cacophony]

by the way i stumbled across this today and thought it was relevant to a point you made about campaign contributors.

obama's biggest contributors:

Goldman Sachs $653,030
University of California $576,839
JPMorgan Chase & Co $414,760
Citigroup Inc $408,299
Harvard University $407,219
Google Inc $404,191
UBS AG $389,294
Lehman Brothers $361,482
National Amusements Inc $360,703
Moveon.org $347,463
Sidley Austin LLP $329,776
Microsoft Corp $326,847
Skadden, Arps et al $320,550
Morgan Stanley $307,221
Time Warner $305,538
WilmerHale $275,132
Jones Day $272,755
Latham & Watkins $270,595
University of Chicago $268,285
Stanford University $258,388

joe biden's top contributors over time (since 1989)

MBNA Corp $214,050
Pachulski, Stang et al $195,375
Young, Conaway et al $174,729
Law Office of Peter Angelos $156,250
Simmons Cooper LLC $146,600
Kreindler & Kreindler $120,252S
kadden, Arps et al $113,225
Baron & Budd $108,050
Weil, Gotshal & Manges $103,450
Weitz & Luxenberg $93,750
Comcast Corp $83,000
Thornton & Naumes $79,100
Girardi & Keese $75,800
Saul Ewing LLP $73,385
Adler Group $71,450
Blank Rome LLP $68,150
Richards, Layton & Finger $67,800
Reaud, Morgan & Quinn $63,700
Cozen & O'Connor $62,636
Grunfeld, Desiderio et al $62,100

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Wonder who Janus contributes to?

[beh]

by the way i stumbled across this today and thought it was relevant to a point you made about campaign contributors.

obama's biggest contributors:

...
University of California $576,839
...


why is my *public* education system (read: taxes) making ANY contributions to a politician?

(From an Obama supporter.)

bh

Edit: Unless it's from private individuals associated with UC.

[cacophony]

i wondered about that. but i think the way it works is that the faculty can pool money and donate in the name of the school. so the donations are actually contributed by faculty rather than coming from the school's budget.

i may be wrong about that, it's kind of a tough topic to google.

i was also wondering if it's similar to the way corporations donate. i used to work at home depot corporate and they have this rule where all employees are required to weigh in before an election to say who they would want the company to support financially. seems fishy to me, that an employer can ask you your voting preference, but it literally is a mandatory thing. they then donate proportionately according to how the employee base weighs in. it's like you're putting in a voucher for a candidate. i'm fuzzy on why they do it this way but apparently it's how they get away with sending so much money to support campaigns, because they can point to the employee base and say they're funding according to the will of the people rather than the board of directors.