« Biden’s Most Important Role For Obama
Biden: A Great Pick in Spite of the Concerns »



What Drew Obama to Biden?

August 23rd, 2008
By DAVID SCHRAUB, Assistant Editor

Print Print

My wonderful co-bloggers already have several posts giving their takes on how the Biden choice will affect the presidential race (Tony Campbell thinks it’s an awful choice; Jazz Shaw thinks the GOP will love it; Dorian de Wind and Robert Stein love it; and Shaun Mullen shouts out for his home-state boy).

As for me, on the political side I’m decidedly meh. I’ve been persuaded that it was unreasonable of me to expect Biden to vote against the credit card industry on the bankruptcy bill, him being from Delaware and all, so that’s my big sticking point out of the way. There are some folks I would have preferred (Sebelius, Clark before Obama unwisely threw him overboard, Levin) but also some folks significantly more worrisome (Bayh, Kaine, Webb). So, meh. Biden is, in a lot of ways, a gamble. He can be unbelievably witty and an excellent debater, but those same qualities make him gaffe-prone.The question is whether he’ll be on his game this primary season. Cross your fingers.

But anyways. I’m more interested in what drew Obama to Biden in the first place, less as a question of politics and more what he would bring to a prospective Obama administration. Personally, I think this post by Moira Whelon offers a clue:

But what has impressed me most, for years, [about Biden] is his staff. He knows how to pick ‘em, and that’s no small thing. Brilliant people come and go in DC, but rarely do they also have the ability to pick quality staff the way Biden does. His folks always are among the brightest from a policy standpoint, but also possess a sophisticated political acumen. It’s a rare but valuable combination. I’ve had the privilege of working for, and with, many of these folks, and count them among my friends. I’ve always gotten the sense that their boss respected them for their abilities and listened to their ideas rather then them simply having to implement his. They were encouraged to push hard and dig deep on issues. They were challenged by Biden, but in a good way. The Boss reads, talks to experts, and asks questions. He challenges his staff and calls them to the carpet. Why? Because the most important thing is to get the answer right and to be honest about the challenges we face.

As a result of having a staff that is so good, Biden is almost never behind the curve of policy developments. He’s proactive, not reactive.That’s a huge strategic advantage, and as a result, becoming a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is a badge of validation among foreign policy folks. Further than that, you’ll hear from many foreign policy experts how closely they work with Biden. They’re not making it up. Biden counts on a broad range of people to get the job done right. Many, many people feel they have influence on his approach and as a result when the final product is announced, they feel invested, but the view is all Biden, and usually better. Biden collects the best. Simple as that.

If there is one thing we know about Obama, it’s that he respects expertise. One of the earliest elements about Obama that put him on folks radar screen (besides his oratorical gifts) was the top-notch crew of advisers and staffers he was putting together. Joe Biden’s eye for policy talent, and his willingness surround himself with them, is something that I believe Obama respects and admires. Indeed, I think it is in large part how he envisions his administration in response to the catastrophe of the last eight years. Unlike Obama and Biden, President Bush has distinguished himself by being overtly-hostile to the opinion of experts. Obama, I feel, subscribes to the belief that the way to get the best results is to surround yourself with the best people, listen to their counsel, and then make a decision knowing as much information as possible. Biden fits into that framework to a T.

A lot has been made over Biden’s long Washington pedigree as a disabling point against him serving with Obama. I’m not buying it. Obama isn’t rallying against experience for its own sake, nor does he represent the revenge of the younger generation against the follies of age. Obama’s fundamental argument is that it’s not about the pedigree, it’s about the results. It’s about getting it right. Biden — nobody will deny this — comes equipped with the knowledge to help get it right.

I understand the instinct to analyze Biden from a solely political lens. You have to win an election before you can make policy, after all. But while politics is all well and good, when it distracts us from whether or not somebody in office will make the nation better, I think it’s a sign we’re taking our eyes off the ball. I think the Biden pick was an example of Obama making a politically riskier pick (in terms of what effect Biden would have on the campaign trail) in exchange for superior policy decision-maker. Is that not something that’s worth considering when we cast our ballots?

Cross-posted to The Debate Link



This entry was posted on Saturday, August 23rd, 2008 at 10:42 am and is filed under Vice President, Newsweek Blogitics, Joe Biden, Barack Obama. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 3 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    This is a really intriguing perspective.
    • ^
    • v
    Biden was the best choice, the strongest choice. He was the smart libs' and Dems' overwhelming preference as Presidential candidate. He addresses the foreign policy concerns Americans have about Obama and naive, idealistic people who likely lean much too far to the left. He not only exploits Iraq, but extends Obama's reach into establishment-type voters who don't want radical changes in DC and were part of the great majority of voters who supported the war when it was initially launched. No better person could be sought to address Dems' as well as swing voters' concerns about Iraq, the #1 political issue among those who care about politics. "First, do no harm," but don't stop there, and Obama didn't stop there.

    Clinton as a choice would have made Obama seem to be knuckling under to the Clinton crowd (even more than to the Dem establishment). Many Clinton voters are undecided and a fifth reportedly will defect to McCain. It was worth the risk. Will the voters who voted for Hillary Clinton (many facing a tough choice) really vote for McCain?

    Kaine had his fans but wasn't well enough known. In the end -- Yawn.

    Bayh screamed "Establishment" and party apparatus _and_ "empty suit" without any rock star celebrity status to appeal to people (Obama's initial problem this year). Yawn. (Not only the play-pen crowd but many others didn't want him as VP.)

    Sibelius was the play-pen crowd's favorite for reverse sexist reasons even more than was Hillary Clinton (who had a broader group of supporters all along) but had many fewer fans and people who even know about her than Kaine. Yawn.

    Richardson appealed to intellectuals along with Biden but overall was no stronger than Bayh (for different reasons, not the same kind of liabilities). Yawn.

    Levin was a lousy Bush-basher; so long, better swing voters would have said. Again, first do no harm. Levin would have not only been no asset, but a liability.


    Biden was not only the strongest and best-for-these-times choice, but the logical choice. "Good move -- in fact, the best move." Obama did things right; now it's McCain's turn (he can wait to reveal his "move" at the convention to put some kind of life into it and briefly into the GOP). It puts McCain under the most pressure now. The question most Americans have, is, will McCain's choice matter much, if any?
    • ^
    • v
    David, yes, great perspective- thanks! It's great to hear that both Obama and Biden believe in competence and hard work.

    DLS, great (and I think accurate) wrap-up on the top VP contenders. Thanks!
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Biden’s Most Important Role For Obama
Biden: A Great Pick in Spite of the Concerns »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.