Could Biden be the guy?
-
- August
- 19
Sen. Joe Biden was joking this afternoon when he told reporters camped out at his Wilmington, Del. house that he’s “not the guy,†his office tells reporter Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service.
“The guy’’ he was referring to? Barack Obama’s presidential running mate.
Biden’s comment was made as he drove by reporters in a white pickup truck with a set of golf clubs inside.
His spokeswoman, Elizabeth Alexander, said that the Delaware senator was repeating a comment he’s made before because he doesn’t expect Obama to ask him to take the job.
Biden also said he expects to be at home Saturday when Obama holds a rally in Springfield, Ill.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, August 19th, 2008 at 7:41 pm by Brian Tumulty.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
| 
Email This
it has to be biden
Who could Obama pick but another member of the mafia? Of course it’s Biden. The Godfather ordered it.
We Republicans should only be so blessed that it’s Joe Biden whom Obama picks.
Prior to his aborted 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Biden ran for the office in the 1988 primaries, and, briefly, in 1992. His plagiarism of Brit Neil Kinnock cost him dearly in 1988, as you’ll recall.
In the last century, neither party has won the presidency with a vice-presidential candidate who had lost in any previous years in a run for the presidential nomination. (LBJ in 1960 and GWHB in 1980 had run for the presidential nomination and lost ONLY in the years in which they were chosen to be veep candidate; likewise Walter Mondale, in 1976.)
As Casey Stengel would say, “You could look it up.”
If Obama chooses Biden, get thyself to a London bookmaker and bet McCain to win.
Unless McCain picks Lieberman.
Obama better consider that if he picks Biden, he won’t be able to shut him up for four years.
Biden, would be a terrible pick for some of the reasons that Tim mentioned. Additionally, Biden had a pathetic run this year for President, which was notable for calling Obama, “clean” and for using a canned line to out of nowhere insult Giuliani. His foreign policy bonifides are completely overrated. He opposed the first Gulf War and he was vocal in his opposition to the surge, instead saying Iraq was lost and we needed to partition it.
It is odd that Obama has all these fairly popular governors to choose from and instead is focusing on three candidates with significant weaknesses.
Unfortunately, for Republicans the VP pick doesn’t mean all that much.
Walt is correct about Leiberman—though I do admire him, and he is as incorruptible as any elected politician could be hoped to be, Sen. Leiberman brings too much baggage (as Biden does for Dems) to be a formidable vice-presidential pick. Sure, Leiberman is a “romantic ideal”—but we live in cold, practical times.
But Ian—au contraire! Whomever McCain picks means a LOT in his seeking to also thwart history (“eight consecutive years of one party,” “oldest candidate for first term,” etc.)
McCain’s ideal choice would be a governor (executive experience) from EAST of the Mississippi, with no scandals in his/her past, preferably 46 -54 or so, regardless of stance viz Roe v. Wade.
This is still “fantasy” presidential speculation for us, though.
If the economy isn’t out of the tank by mid-October—and its resurgence isn’t articulated well enough by Washington—the “non-incumbent” party will win. You may bet James Earl Carter’s infamous “misery index” (so supremely articulated by RWR) on it.
The ten of us here on these boards won’t decide the election. Forty million American centrists will, in twelve states outside of New York.
A demographic to watch for in coming months: “single moms.” They are, in 2008, what “soccer moms” were in 1996. And they are the most “threatened” of any voting demographic group.
Another dynamic which will be debated for years to come, should Obama lose: the “Tom Bradley factor.” Watch out for those lyin’ white liberals—and for the unrequited Hillary supporters who are right out of “Basic Instinct.”
McCain is behind in michigan and new hampshire..that changes
with Romney…its the only way McCain wins
I was a Romney delegate here in NY CD 18, and proud of it. Had we Republicans not embraced a “winner-take-all” national primary system, I might be on the way to Mpls., instead of to Cape Cod, next week.
I suppose Gov. Romney is who I had in mind when I made the previous post.
Mitt Romney is the sort of ethical, successful candidate we need as a v-p nominee with my war hero, John McCain.
Leadership for our country in the 21st Century.
Now: wags will come out of the woodwork to assault former-Gov. Romney over his 1994 campaign against Sen. Kennedy. The “gay rights,” the “abortion,” etc, ad infinitum.
But, they can be repudiated easily.
Which California governor-
later to be elected president twice- said “A mother should not be held hostage to her unborn baby,” as he signed the nation’s most progressive abortion bill into California law?Give you a hint: this event occurred in 1967. The governor had been elected the year before.
Roe v. Wade was enacted in 1973, written by a Republican Supreme Court Justice with the support of both Republicans and Democrats on the high court. Its essence was in protecting doctors who were called on to perform that most ugly act—often times to save the mother.
Years later, even “Roe” renounced her support of the eventual decision—but law is law.
More on this anon.
But, Romney would seem, indeed, to be the best vice-presidential candidate we Republicans could nominate. He could in fact be a most able person to step into office if needed.
Tim, other than LBJ, no VP in the past 50 years has made a significant positive difference. Even Lloyd Benson did nothing to keep Dukakis from sinking.
Romney’s not a bad pick and I believe he would have made a better nominee than McCain but his adult life was spent as a venture capitalist. In an election that focuses on the economy having someone on your ticket who knows economics is a good thing but having someone who took over companies and fired many employees to improve the company’s bottom line is a negative. Romney, is a solid pick but hardly a game changer.
Ian:
You are correct about v-p pick. John Nance Garner said it best.
Don’t know why there’s a strike-through in my allusion to RWR’s executive decision of 1967, above. But, alas, we do not own these boards. (The California governor who signed the abortion legislation was, of course, Reagan; and he WAS elected president twice.)
And you and I don’t have to be James Carville or Alan Greenspan to understand that the economy will drive the election result this November.
Here’s to our having fun until November, when normal life resumes for those of us making a living.
Tim
I was not a mitt romney supporter in the primaries
but bay buchannan and mary matalin were….they represent
the social right and fiscal right of the republican
party..it is where McCain still needs help…he cannot
afford to put a pro choice democrat like lieberman on
his ticket…he cannot put tom ridge on for the same
reason..McCain has the following weakneses..he is old
he has no executive experience, he has little economic
experience…he is loosing michigan …he has money
problems compared to obama..Romney solves all of the above
A correction, and a comment:
First, I erred in “GWHB.” I meant, of course, “GHWB.” His wife, who still likes me, would smack me across the chops for this egregious misspelling.
And: Hubert Humphrey, my favorite REAL liberal prior to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, DID in fact run in primaries in 1960, thereby invalidating my previous “last century” comment concerning vice-presidential nominees who were previous losers in presidential primaries. (None of them were ever elected, ibid.) HHH remains the ONLY person in the last century to win office as a VP having lost previously as a presidential candidate prior to the year in which he was chosen as vp.
Pls. forgive me.
Now: I have liked Patrick Buchanan for some years, probably since he served in the Nixon White House—but only because of his poise as a would-be defense lawyer, viz Edward Bennett Williams, not as a passionate defender of former Nazis. We all recall (I’m sure;>) the famous issue of National Review in 1992 wherein Bill Buckley (RIP, my hero) asked, “Is Pat Buchanan anti-semitic?”
Anyone who harbors any ill will towards Jews is not entitled to win this year’s election.
Nor, is any American presidential candidate who does not treat Black Americans as (at least) equals in any way fit to inherit the Oval Office.
So: we get on to the next angst. Gays.
As a “libertarian” conservative Republican, I am in favor of gently confronting any remaining homophobes and showing them the error of their ways. Gays are not at all any threat to us Americans, certainly not to either of my children. It’s those folks who are inhibited in their sexuality—and, therefore, not comfortable enough to be “out”—who are potential dangers to our kids.
I am a “supporting straight member” of the Log Cabin Republicans here in the Hudson Valley. (I am a “breeder.”)
Okay! Let the conventions begin! lol—there hasn’t been a good national political convention since 1976, in Kansas City.
Hey, Tim, don’t count Lieberman out just yet! This from the Washington Times…
”
Officials with John McCain’s campaign made a series of conference calls Monday and Tuesday with supporters nationwide to say that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman may be named as the Arizona senator’s vice presidential running mate, immediately sparking a frenzied effort by some state Republican officials to come up with a strategy to head off such a move, The Washington Times has learned.
One of the concerned state GOP officials told The Washington Times that he talked with two “high-level” campaign officials who said “Lieberman is a very real possibility.””
Maybe I’ll go light a candle and pray for this to really happen. The only thing that could be better for Obama than McCain naming Lieberman would be if he named Bobby Jindal.
Walt—
As I mentioned, the McCain/Lieberman ticket would be the “romantic ideal” of two wise men. But Lieberman may be more attractive as a member of a McCain cabinet, or as a future Supreme Court nominee. After all, he was a splendid attorney general of Connecticut.
But: a ticket with two senior citizens in 2008 might not be as successful as one might hope. (In the future, as baby boomers, such as me, reach retirement age, that demographic might indeed win.)
Jindal is an interesting suggestion, yet his youth might hinder him. (A billion people in India might find him attractive.)
I’ll go conservative in my “wish list.” Truth is, I wish Romney had been the nominee.
Obama is tanking in every battelground state as we speak
the real question is whether John McCain wants to send
a message to the independent voters of this nation
that its time to end the bitter partisan politics
that has plagued us for the last decade..He takes
a big risk naming a pro choice liberal democrat who
agrees with McCain only on the need to fight Radical Islamic
fundamentalists..on almost every other issue its a bad
fit…the conservative base would go nuts…but that is
a risk the McCain people need to assess…and frankly
I personally could not support a ticket with a two
neocon foreign policy guys on it…that would be a deal
breaker for me because it would be Kagen, and the rest
of the neocons calling the shots..and they are just plain
wrong
McCain Takes Lead Over Obama
Reuters
posted: 1 HOUR 48 MINUTES AGOcomments: 894filed under: Election News, Barack Obama, John McCainPrintShareText SizeAAAWASHINGTON (Aug. 20) – In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama’s solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.