Early Saturday morning Senator Barack Obama selected Senator Joseph Biden to be his running mate. Democrats, as one would expect, praised the choice. Others were quick to criticize it, arguing that selecting a 36 year Washington insider contradicts Mr. Obama’s message of “change” and is an admission by Mr. Obama of his inexperience.
There is no question why Mr. Obama chose Mr. Biden: blue collar Catholic voters are a key swing vote – Mr. Biden has blue collar roots and is Catholic; Pennsylvania is a key swing state – Mr. Biden was born in Scranton, PA; white working-class men supported Mrs. Clinton en masse over Mr. Obama and are trending toward Mr. McCain – Mr. Biden has a long record of supporting union members and working class men. It came as no surprise when these facts were highlighted and repeated ad nasuem at the new ticket’s first public appearance on Saturday. The only question then is whether, on balance, Mr. Biden was a good pick for Mr. Obama? No. Here’s why:
1. Selecting Mr. Biden Contradicts Mr. Obama’s Message of “Change”
The cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s campaign is the idea of ”change.” Mr. Obama positioned himself as the candidate who, if elected, will change Washington. His stump speeches are filled with myriad references to the gridlock and inertia caused by petty partisan bickering in Washington. Indeed, Mr. Obama’s campaign’s mantra is “change we can believe in.” Selecting a running mate was Mr. Obama’s opportunity to prove that he would not be guided by political expediency but rather by a principled belief in change. Mr. Obama’s selection of Mr. Biden, a 36-year Washington insider and partisan warrior, flatly contradicts Mr. Obama’s message of change and proves that change is not something that Mr. Obama believes in.
The facts are these: 1) Mr. Biden was elected to the Senate at age 29 - when Mr. Obama was 11 years old; 2) Mr. Biden has served in the Senate uninterrupted for 36 years - longer than many of Mr. Obama’s most ardent supporters have been alive; 3) Mr. Biden has had no other real job – blue collar or otherwise – prior to his election to the Senate in 1972; 4) Mr. Biden has twice unsuccessfully run for President (1988 and 2008); 5) as a former Chairman and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Biden turned the appointment of federal judges into a partisan battleground creating a crisis on our federal bench; 6) Mr. Biden voted against the first Gulf War, voted for the current war in Iraq and declared the troop surge advocated by Mr. McCain a “failure.”
Incredibly, Mr. Obama continues to purport to be the agent of change – proclaiming on Saturday that “time for change has come” and “we cannot have more of the same” and once again “it is time for the change that the American people need.” The more he makes this argument, the less credibility he has. Mr. McCain has and will continue hit Mr. Obama hard using his running mate’s own statements.
2. Mr. Biden’s Words Will Hurt Mr. Obama
Mr. Biden is a renowned gaffe machine. Compounding Mr. Biden’s natural propensity to verbally shoot himself in the foot is the length of his Senate record and the public statements made during the his two failed presidential runs. There exist innumerable statements that the McCain campaign can use against Obama-Biden. Mr. Biden repeatedly questioned whether his running mate has the necessary experience to be President. On Mr. McCain, he praised his leadership and experience, particularly Mr. McCain’s experience on foreign policy. Worse for Mr. Obama are the statements and gaffes Mr. Biden has yet to utter.
Also, there is the issue that both Messrs. Obama and Biden have plaguerized speeches during their Presidential campaigns. Mr. Obama’s just words speech was given without attribution to supposed friend Deval Patrick. In 1988, Mr. Biden plaguerized a speech given by British Labor Party candidate Neil Kinnock – that derailed his campaign. Assuredly, this will be brought up.
3. Selecting Mr. Biden was an Admission of Inexperience
Mr. Obama has worked hard to assure Americans that he has the requisite experience to be President. To show his foreign policy/statesmenlike qualities – Mr. Obama embarked on a world tour that by all accounts hurt him more than helped. Despite his arguments and photo-ops to the contrary, Mr. Obama’s primary and general election opponents pounded him for lacking experience. Instead of standing firm and selecting a person who embodies the hopeful change Mr. Obama offers, confident that he has the needed experience, Mr. Obama relented. His selection of Mr. Biden is an admission that he is not experienced and needs help.
The visual of the two suggests Mr. Obama is not ready and needs an elder guide. It is as if Mr. Obama is a student driver who needs the seasoned Mr. Biden to sit close by to ensure that he doesn’t make a wrong turn. Funny that Mr. Obama slipped announcing Mr. Biden as the “next President…” before correcting himself.
Moreover, Mr. Obama selected Mr. Biden from a position of weakness. The argument that Mr. Biden is the most qualified candidate for the job is not true. Not when the job is running on the ticket of “change” and “post-partisanship.” Messrs. Richardson, Nunn or even Bayh would have brought similar foreign policy heft to the ticket – while seeming fresh, different and new – without the partisan baggage. Mr. Biden was selected in large part because the McCain campaign has put Mr. Obama on the defensive and the Obama campaign needed someone who could fight back. Mr. Obama needed an agent of attack, not an agent of change. He needed a good debator, one who is not shy of a fight. His platform of change and reform took a backseat to the political need for a political fistfighter – and a fistfighter he got.
4. The Timing of the Announcement Demonstrates a Lack of Confidence
Any doubt as to how uncomfortable Mr. Obama was with the selection is resolved by its timing. Mr. Obama announced the pick in the middle of the night, on a weekend and just two days before the Democratic convention. The Obama campaign knew that people don’t pay close attention to the news on weekends and that the Democratic convention and closing ceremonies of the Olympics would compete with news of his selection. Mr. Obama’s clear intent was to limit the amount of time the media and Mr. McCain’s campaign would have to criticize the selection. A candidate proud of his selection announces on a Monday and basks in a weeks worth of free media. A candidate ashamed of his selection – one who knows that it contradicts his campaign’s stated mission of hope and change – one who knows that it undermines his position on Iraq – one who knows it’s risky – announces it on a Saturday morning when few are paying close attention.
Further, announcing the selection at 3 A.M. suggest that Mr. Obama was taking a jab at Mrs. Clinton for the now infamous 3 A.M. call ad. True or not, Mrs. Clinton’s supporters perceive the timing as disrespectful – further fueling the exodus to Mr. McCain. If true, how childish.
5. Mr. Biden Offers Little Electoral Benefit
Mr. Biden is from Delaware a solidly blue state with only 3 electoral votes that would have gone for Mr. Obama without him. The Obama campaign is banking on Mr. Biden’s appeal in neighboring Pennsylvania – where he was born. It’s questionable whether Mr. Biden will have any impact there – although his strong ties to unions and supposed “working-class” background may add value. Interestingly, the Washington Post observed that selecting Mr. Biden added little electorally. Rasmussen found that only 39% thought Mr. Biden was the right choice – even more worrisome for the Obama campaign was that only 33% of women thought it was a good choice.
To his credit, Mr. Biden performs well with members of his age group – those 65 years and older. He is also a staunch supporter of Israel – which plays well in Florida’s retirement villages. It is unlikely, though, this will be enough. If electoral benefit was the deciding factor, Mr. Obama incorrectly concluded that Mr. Biden would help more than Mrs. Clinton who easily won Pennsylvania, as well as Ohio and West Virginia.
On balance, Mr. Obama’s selection of Mr. Biden was not good. It contradicted Mr. Obama’s core message of change, proved his lack of experience, demonstrated a lack of confidence and was electorally unwise. Selecting Mr. Biden was a gift to the McCain campaign.
5 Comments
August 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm
MM,
Unfortunately, your analysis is right on. With his pick, Obama just threw that message of change right in the toilet. After years of hardline Republican voting, I must confess a message of change was very intoxicating. Lately I’ve felt like I have been forced to choose between the lesser of two evils at election time, and the choice between candidates left something to be desired. I feel like that more now than ever. Frankly a true agent for change, regardless of platform or policy, was looking rather attractive. But not now. What a hoax. Welcome to the ‘real world’ and the art of getting elected.
I would love for someone fresh and new, unencumbered by years baggage from the Senate floor and leftovers from compromises and ‘deals.’ Someone who actually ran a business, and was forced to deal with rising labor costs, high taxes, health insurance premiums, illegal aliens, etc. Someone who balances their own checkbook, doesn’t do business with shady characters, doesn’t cheat on their spouse, doesn’t have more aides than Vince Chase’s entourage, and actually knows how many houses owned.
How did Max Weber say it? “There are two ways of making politics one’s vocation: Either one lives ‘for’ politics or one lives ‘off’ politics. He who strives to make politics a permanent source of income lives ‘off’ politics as a vocation.”
I know its probably easier to actually get something done when you have a few years and some seniority in a powerful committie, but 15, 20, 30 years in Congress is a freakin’ joke — how can anyone have the guts to claim that as a career in public service? It was never meant to be a vocation for Hell’s sake! Maybe McCain and Biden both live ‘for’ politics, but shame on them for living ‘off’ politics for a vocation…and how embarrassing for Obama to believe this is how he can best achieve change.
I’m waiting for Oprah to have the good Senator from Illinois on her show and challenge the accuracy of his book, “The Audacity of Hope.” Because just like James Frey did to her with “A Million Little Pieces,” don’t you just feel like you got duped?
Well as for me, I’m bitter and frustrated…so I’m going home to cling to my guns and religion while I wait to hear from McCain about his choice. At least I won’t have to keep my Blackberry by my bed on Friday night.
August 27, 2008 at 1:56 pm
MM
I’m disappointed. Normally your analysis is solid, coherent and, most importantly, tells me something I don’t already know or provides insight into a topic from a perspective I hadn’t considered. Hence — you have some use to me. Otherwise, I have Wolf already.
But this time around, all I’m reading is a list of pros and a detailed breakdown of the cons. All the VP candidates had pros/cons. Biden is no different. The cons do not necessitate that Obama/Biden will lose and nor do the pros guarantee success. It reads more like a biased op-ed piece from a conservative.
I’m more curious to hear about how this influences McCain’s pick. How does Romney/Pawlenty/Lieberman compare against Biden? Who is the better debater? Who has more ammo to go after the other selection (for all of Hillary’s slams on Obama that McCain is using, Romney has hit some homers on McCain too)? And ultimately, will it make any difference at all?
And separately, as I stand up for my left-leaning bastion of reasonable civilians, what do you think of:
a. What if Colin Powell ends up backing Obama? How big an endorsement is that from a bigtime military guy?
b. I think the polls are pointless. They look at likely voters which doesn’t include any newbies this time round. With strong evidence that Obama has brought out more newbies than McCain, doesn’t this mean the polls should really tilt more in favor of the Dems to be truly accurate?
c. Why do national polls matter anyway? Polls driving the electoral college map show a much stronger advantage for Obama than the national ones (w/o even counting newbies). Would you concede that your headline extolling the virtues of McCain’s lead over Obama ignores what’s really happening under the numbers? You’re a smart guy — but maybe just a smidge biased?
I humbly suggest you rename your blog to “Common Sense Republican Politics”. More apt, don’t you think?
Take care,
SJ
August 27, 2008 at 3:01 pm
SJ-
Thanks for the comment. Quick response now, detailed one later. This post was simply my analysis on Mr. Obama’s choice of Joe Biden – not necessarily an analysis of how it effects Mr. McCain’s selection – though I think it does. I plan to write a post on that soon – assuming I can find the time. I’ll address your other points later. Thanks again I thought you made some good points.
-MM
August 28, 2008 at 8:10 am
[...] Resources On the Selection of Senator Joseph Biden [...]
August 28, 2008 at 9:08 am
SJ-
Further to my pervious comment – I’ll address the points enumerated in your comment from yesterday. First, there is no question that my analysis of candidates and issues is colored by my world view. However, I try to analyze these things from various perspectives – including that of the average informed voter.
When analyzing Mr. Obama’s selection of Joe Biden – I felt it more productive to analyze the pick from the point of view of the electorate and the opponent. What good would it serve to compare the pros and cons of a candidate who was selected with others who were not? I did that in a previous post of potential candidates. I will do the same for Mr. McCain’s selection.
It is not that I harped on his negatives or got “lazy” as you suggest. I highlighted issues that undoubtedly will surface – while, I must point out, omitting others because I don’t know enough about them (i.e. CooperSimmons’ $1 million investment in Mr. Biden’s son’s venture). As much affection as you may feel towards Mr. Biden, you cannot reasonably argue that his selection undermines Mr. Obama’s purported message of change. Further, you cannot argue that it was made from a position of strength.
Mr. Obama abandoned his message. He could have followed the Clinton or even Mondale, VP model and selected someone who complements his message of change. Instead, he followed the George W. Bush model and selected someone who fills a void in his resume and provides assurance to an electorate uncertain of his experience. Indeed, JFK’s selection was made for electoral reasons, rather than to augment his resume.
My responses to the excellent questions/points you raised are as follows:
“a. What if Colin Powell ends up backing Obama? How big an endorsement is that from a bigtime military guy?”
This would be huge. Mr. Powell is a game changer for both candidates. He has more influence on this election than many think. His endorsement of Mr. Obama would sway a large swath of independent voters. However, I don’t think he’ll endorse Mr. Obama over his good friend Mr. McCain. Mayor Willie Brown is wrong to assume so. In fact, I’ve heard some rumors in GOP circles that there’s an outside chance Mr. McCain would nominate Mr. Powell as his VP – if so – this would be game over for the Dems.
b. I think the polls are pointless. They look at likely voters which doesn’t include any newbies this time round. With strong evidence that Obama has brought out more newbies than McCain, doesn’t this mean the polls should really tilt more in favor of the Dems to be truly accurate?
Polls do tilt more towards Dems. They have on average a 15% advantage with regard to party affiliation votes. However, the presidential race is a different animal – which is why so many Dems are concerned. Agreed that Mr. Obama will bring out a large number of new voters. But, new voters tend to be unreliable versus, say, Senior Citizens who turnout out in the highest percentage. Further complicating poll results is the fact that a large number of Mr. Obama’s younger supporters do not have land lines and polling operations – to the extent they’re conducted via the telephone – do not call cell phone numbers. This trends favorably for your guy.
c. “Why do national polls matter anyway? Polls driving the electoral college map show a much stronger advantage for Obama than the national ones (w/o even counting newbies). Would you concede that your headline extolling the virtues of McCain’s lead over Obama ignores what’s really happening under the numbers?”
I disagree that I extoll the virtues of poll leads. What I do is highlight objective evidence of momentum – which is an all important factor in elections – and why national polls matter. As noted above, the key to these polls is not the slight fluctuations in lead but the fact that Mr. Obama is polling way below the party affiliation figures – suggesting the party faithful may be having buyers’ remorse and independents favor Mr. McCain.
“You’re a smart guy”
. The simple fact that you’re reading this blog and taking time out of your life to consider and debate these issues proves that you are too. I really appreciate it.
Thanks, I agree
“but maybe just a smidge biased? ” Yes, more than a smidge biased. I am a proud Republican and I disclose that up front so people can account for that in my analysis.
-MM