The Crystal Ball Syndrome – Obama / Biden

It never ceases to amaze me how those on the right seem to think they know more about 'the opposition' than the other side knows about itself...

Wingnuts (both the high and the low) are so self confident, self assured and self righteous they don't feel a need to discuss their own candidate and spend all their time mudslinging.

I hope that after they lose both the White House and 15 + seats in congress that they are able to reflect back on their behavior and realize that it was one of the major reasons behind the lost... America expects and deserves better.

Tony, It wouldn't have mattered who Obama picked for VP, the fall campaign "will be centered on distraction and innuendo" regardless of who the running mates are, and it will be even more negative - regardless of who is even running for prez. We the people have made that possible by responding to BS over substance, so we can hardly blame the candidates. Biden is the smart choice, now we'll see how smart the voters are. After 00 and 04 I don't hold out a great deal of hope, which is to say, there is a significant portion of the electorate who are lucky to even be able to match their socks in the morning.

It has become painfully obvious that the democratic party is just plain tired of Hillary Clinton and the War in Iraq and the Neocons and the Conservatives and the GOP and not being in power.

Barak Obama should change his change message to

NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Jspencer

Lets be honest about this.

Obama selected an OLD WASHINGTON INSIDER WHO VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR.

He might as well selected John McCain for his Running Mate. That is the point that everyone is making......he is a clone of McCain. As for me I have always liked Joe Biden. Hes a good guy who gets things done, but this is more about Obama's judgment then about Biden.

Neocon, I think the opposite of my rather brutal honesty would be the advocating of glitz and pandering, while playing up the virtues of our bright and discerning electorate. So...who would you have preferred to see as Obama's choice?

Bill Richardson.

The true message of Washington outsider agents of change with the caveat of both contenders being a minority in the United States.

As it is now I think Obama embraced once again the DNC's choice instead of his own. I firmly believe now that Nanny Pelosi, Harry Reid and Howard Dean are running the show and not Barak Obama.

He is nothing more then the proxy put forth by the DNC to regain power and as his numbers have ebbed the agent of change became a desperate attempt to stop the leaking.

Richardson would have been good. There was a growing and compelling narrative to suggest that Obama bite the bullet and pick Hillary as well, though she brought her own raft of issues and questions to the ticket. Tim Kaine, even with his shallow amount of experience, looked like the obvious choice. He would have taken Virginia from being "in play" to a very solid "leans Obama" and McCain's path to 271 would have suddenly become much steeper. Plus Kaine is a REAL "outsider" and not a beltway fixture, fitting the narrative of the campaign. He was also on Obama's side on Iraq and a number of other issues. I never liked Sebelius as a choice, but even she would have been better than Biden IMHO. The unknown dark horse Chet Edward would have even been preferable to Joe, given his bona fides on the economy and his time on the appropriations committee, among other seats.

Another bizarre non sequitur of a post from Tony.

You do realize that
a) Biden was required to file for the Senate many months ago, and
b) It is common for the VP to run for Senate too (Lieberman did it).

Also, Biden may have been like the old McCain - the maverick one. But Biden is perfectly positioned to say, "I used to like McCain before he sold out to Rove and Bush."

The fall campaign will be centered on distraction and innuendo.

I realize this point has already been made here, but honestly.

The spring was full of complaints about somebody's middle name.

The summer has been full of comparisons to Paris Hilton.

And now the autumn of distraction and innuendo is going to be the fault of Joe Biden?

We have been led by Republicans for eight years.

No one will defend the performance of Republicans.

What else do Republicans have to run on if not distraction and innuendo?

GeorgeSorwell said: "What else do Republicans have to run on if not distraction and innuendo?"

I agree, to quote Porky Pig... "That's all Folks"

Obama made the best, strongest choice. Biden addresses foreign policy concerns that Americans have about Obama, where Obama is weakest, and in so doing, has exploited Iraq, _the_ hottest political issue this year (and seizes what momentum is present from the 2006 elections). Biden was the intellectuals' favorite for President.

I heard about it this morning, and reacted: "Foolproof choice. The strongest candidate, takes care of foreign policy, exploits Iraq. The Obama campaign has gotten back on its feet."

Neocon: If those who had clout in the 1990s still have any, the DNC's model choice would have been Evan Bayh, in my view. Note that he had strong negatives among the libs and Dems, notably among Obama's core people (white "progressives"). Bayh logically would have been the DNC's choice even more than Clinton would be.

Clinton would have been a utilitarian choice, namely to lasso those uncommitted Clinton voters, one-fifth of whom threaten to defect to McCain. Obama apparently felt it was worth that risk to seek stronger support in other ways; besides, how many Clinton voters _really_ will vote for McCain and by extension the GOP when they have the chance to carry the Dems to even better accomplishments in November?

Biden's rep for odd statements here and there may or may not become an issue; was is going to be revealing is if we stop hearing Concerns and Fears about McCain's Temper (as well as an end to stupid ageist remarks). (The hypocrisy of the Change [tm] people choosing an insider and DC fixture is not a big issue; Dems are known for being hypocritical and the issue should be framed entirely differently, anyway. Biden has much to offer and was the intellectuals' preference for President, don't forget.)

"the TKO the Democrats have just given themselves"

On the contrary, Obama first had to avoid making a bad choice, which he did. His choice of Biden may not be claimed to be a knockout of a success, but libs and Dems can be ebullient right now (something else that was part of my reaction this morning). If not a knockout, Dems get to smile with confidence with this choice.

We can expect the liberal media to gloat over this choice. I wonder how they'll view McCain's eventual choice. (Does anyone in lefty-land really care?)

The simple facts are that for the last 2 years we have been led by a democratic controlled congress that has done nothing and has an approval rating lower then GWB's.

Congress voted 537 to 1 to give Bush the authority to hunt down and kill terrorists no matter where they lived and the democrats simply turned this around and lied willy nilly to get power.

The people are getting wise to their obstructionist ways and I think your seeing it in numbers that should have Obama leading by 25. Instead we are tied. Now the DNC is stepping in and making Obama choose an insider so they can continue to have power over a Maverick Obama.

Power begits power and Obama's cute message of change is over. Its now time to get serious so lets pull in the big DC Insider gun and get er dun.

I will say again that Biden would have been a good choice for Hillary. The old guarde, lunchbucket Democrats. Its obvious that he wants to connect with those voters that Hillary connected with, without adding Hillary to the ticket.

Its a gamble, We shall see. if Obama's ratings go up 10 points in the next couple days then he landed a coup by reclaiming Hillary disaffected voters. if not hes in serious trouble.

Simply put watch for McCains numbers to drop by 4 percent and Obamas go go up by about 4 percent thus giving him a 10 point lead. This will be the Puma types rejoining the Obama/Democrats. There is no doubt this choice was a desperate or smart choice for going after Clinton/Puma voters.

We know the cartoon crowd is going to vote Democratic again. The rest of us are intrigued by Obama's choices and non-choices. The choice Obama made was a sound and in my view, the best one.

Neocon, The simple facts are:

1 - It was impossible for the Democrats with a razor slim margin in the Senate to do anything... the Republican minority stifled everything we tried with filibusters (anyone remember the "Nuclear Option" the wingnuts threatened the Democrats with when the tables were turned?) and other procedural hanky-pank.

2 - The electorate (both left and right) are angry at congress for not following the will of the people... If you subtract the 18% 'I'll never change my mind' Neocons you'll see that Bushes approval borders in single digit territory.

3 - The congress voted 537 to 1... blah... blah... blah... Sure they did Neocon but their votes were based on the lies told them by the Bush Administration. Get real.

The vote came 1 week..................................ONE WEEK after 911.

There was hardly time for lies to spread or for Bush to rig the evidence.

Neocon, I stand corrected I was thinking "Iraqi Authorization" not the initial authorization to get the terrorists.

My mistake... Now how about replying on the first and second points I made in response to your "Simple Facts" comment.

Obama has to extend his "outreach" to the many voters who don't object to and in some cases prefer establishment types in the party and DC insiders, so they can hope to see power expressed as well as possible in their (libs' and Dems') favor, and Biden not only is the best person to have been chosen for this, but while he also was a pro-war voter, this is compensated by his foreign policy expertise and is the best way to combine outreach with exploitation of Iraq this campaign season.

I do not share Superdestroyer's imminent doom predicted for the GOP, but Obama just increased the load on poor John-Boy, whose VP choice will now be compared and evaluated relative to Obama's as well as on its own merits and it can be easily excused if some begin playing funeral dirges for McCain and the GOP somewhat early for a while as they react to Obama's choice.

The will of the people were to end the war? They voted the Democrats into office on the promise that the democrats made to the people that they would end the war.

Steve I do remember many votes to fund the war that the democrats could have easily blocked. There were no filibusters on those votes. Up or down vote. Fund the war or dont fund the war.

They chose to fund it. They should have voted to not fund it. They were voted into office to end the war. How do you end the war if you keep funding the war and keep it going? You don't. Thus Americans are concluding........Democrats want the war to go badly so they can run on ending the war with more deceitful tactics.

As for Bush. There is no doubt that he is not popular. That however is a result of the war on terror which has totally absorbed this nation and taken from it the will and the desire to do things to strengthen our nation and our peoples.

Immigration.............Harry Reid said "One more vote and if we cant get a bill then I will table the bill so we can go back to passing more resolutions on Iraq."

Drilling.........Nanny Pelosi says she will not bring a vote on drilling up for consideration even though the people are demanding it.

I could go on but the fact of the matter is that never in the history of America has politics become so polarized on both sides for the pure SPITE of it.

Remember I am not only anti Iraq but anti Afghanistan as well. But I am tired of the lies from BOTH sides.

"The electorate (both left and right) are angry at congress for not following the will of the people"

You're absolutely right, Steve K. The 1996 elections were not only Thumbs Down on current foreign policy (the screwed-up occupation of Iraq, namely) but also on the Congressional GOP. I retain my view that this is still the sentiment held by most Americans. So long as the GOP (not only McCain) doesn't offer a positive and an attractive alternative to the Dems, there's no reason not to expect the Dems to do even better than in 2006.

* Will Obama beat McCain by at least 62-38?

* Will the Dems get 60+ per cent in the Senate? (House is a big bonus.)

* Will the Dems also do well in state & local elections?

The only way the Dems can blow this election is by moving too far to the left.

*** DON'T GET OVERCONFIDENT OR DELUSIONAL ABOUT AMERICAN VIEWS ***

I absolutely dread the prospect of either party holding the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress. (We saw how well that worked out for us in the 2002 to 2006 era. Enough said.) I anticipate not much better if the Dems pull off the same. Having that unhappy situation plus a SUPER majority in both houses would be, IMO, a disaster.

I'm not all that worried about it happening, though. I believe the Dems will pick up more seats in the Senate, but nine looks like an awfully lofty goal, and those predicting a blowout victory for Obama may be counting chickens before beaks are visible. I agree that he *should* be winning this thing, but particularly with this weekend's events, it looks as if he's really trying his hardest to hand it back to McCain.

Jazz,

The problem with your claim of one party holding the White House and a Congressional majority is you apparently view the people doing so as completely interchangeable. I don't care that much for Reid or Pelosi but I'm not about to say that they are just the same as as Delay and Frist. In additiion there is no way I'm about to compare Obama and Biden to Bush and Cheney. The actual people involved and their goals, beliefs and policies do matter. I'm getting very tired of the simplistic mindset that insists that this isn't so, that all politicians are the exact same regardless of party, etc. It reminds me of Nader's claim that there is no difference between the parties and we've seen how well that prediction panned out for the last 8 years.

Well, Jazz, when Reagan was elected and there was no longer rubber-stamp treatment by the White House of whatever the Democratic Congress wanted, all the hens started clucking about how hamstrung, inhibited, cripped, and most of all how bad "divided government" was in the 1980s, and there was a desire to see "fusion of powers" and all kinds of other things such as the "team ticket" accompanied by a prohibition of "ticket splitting," for example. Why can't (Democratic) members of Congress serve also as Secretaries of this or that executive department? Why can't the winner of the White House have his or her party awarded additional, majority-ensuring seats in Congress. Et cetera. Enough of this "divided government" (when the Dems were no longer firmly in command)!

As to Obama's choice, I felt it was the best and most logical he could make. Obama had to, after all, engage in outreach to those who don't put "change" at the top of their wish list but want to ensure power in Washington is as fully able to get what they want as can be had. Plus Biden's foreign-policy expertise counterbalances his pro-war vote, which after was was the great majority's. We'll just have to see if this choice achieves the goal of unity that was one of Obama's.

* * *

Separate issue: One other thing I thought of was that Obama faces Clinton voters who aren't sold on Obama, some of which are expected to vote for McCain. But just as the Religious Right is vastly exaggerated in the hearts and minds of many, so may be the fraction of the Dem uncommitted and certainly the risk that they'll defect to McCain. Both groups are likely to be feared much too much.

Jim, I've never claimed there were no differences between the parties. There are vast gulfs. You're the one who is oversimplifying on that count. My complaint lies with the fact that "too much of anything is still too much." Your assessment seems to be based on a belief that any ideas held by conservatives or Republicans must, by definition, be bad for the country and any idea held by progressives or Democrats must be good. Therefore, a Dem president and congressional supermajority must, by extension, be really REALLY good. I happen to disagree. I find that - as long as we're stuck with this self destructive two party model in Federal government - Washington operates best when the two parties are forced to at least attempt to play nicely together, compromise, and act as checks and balances on each other. The Democrats have some good proposals. They also have some other, more radical positions that scare the bejesus out of me, as do the Republicans.

That's why your assessment of my position as to why I would rather see a divided house is inaccurate.

We've had Republicans running the executive for eight years.

How does everyone think that has worked out for our country?

If you think Republicans have performed poorly in control the executive branch, why would you vote for them to retain control of the executive branch?