Actually, Biden makes sense as a running mate, in the same way that Cheney made sense for Bush, and even that Bush Sr made sense for Reagan. The VP isn't just the tiebreaker in the Senate; the VP is often the President's stand-in for foreign affairs, going out to deal with things when the President can't be in two places at once. So it makes sense that if you think you're not quite as strong in area A, that you find a VP who is strong in that area. If Obama's strong point is domestic (and it seems, to me, to be) and he could use bolstering in foreign policy, then there just isn't a Dem that can really rival Joe Biden -- regardless of whether or not Biden is long-time DC or not.
After all, the idea is that VP conforms to the presidential vision (much as Bush Sr did to Reagan's economic vision despite disagreeing with it strongly!), yet at the same time brings something to the table to make up for any lacks. There is no doubt that Biden brings two things to Obama's table: a strongly pro-union stance with historical working relationship with the unions, and a massive amount of foreign policy experience. That's all over the Dem talking points when Biden's selection was announced, and that's par for the course -- Reagan did the same when he announced he was picking Bush Sr, Clinton did it when picking Gore, Mondale did it picking Ferraro, etc., etc., and so on.
Which is why it would make sense to me that McCain -- having said that economics isn't his strong point -- might seek to round out his campaign by picking someone with strong economic expertise. Or maybe strong expertise in energy policy, there's another area he could probably use someone to bolster him, speaking objectively. But he didn't. He picked someone who, as far as I can tell, doesn't really contribute much but, uh, maybe photo-ops. It just doesn't strike me as a very wise choice, and worse still, it's a choice that seems like a boatload of fail.
(I should say even more to the point: I'm used to politicians taking the "this is my VP" announcement as a way to be a bit on the, hrm, humble side -- well, as humble as anyone can be considering they're going after the biggest and most important political position in the free world and I say that of any politician regardless of stripe. But still, traditionally, VP-pick is when you say, "this is where I'm not the strongest, but it's okay! look who I've picked! this person totally closes every last chink in the dam, no worries, folks!" Y'know?)
I guess what really bothers me is that -- and I 'spect you know this as well as I do, since that's how it so often works -- if Palin goes down, she'll be the one humiliated as she's racked over the national coals... not McCain. I doubt any firestorm will do much more than slightly singe him, at best, and I can't help seeing that as quite unfair. Probably not rational on my part, but still.
no subject
Date: 2 Sep 2008 04:25 am (UTC)After all, the idea is that VP conforms to the presidential vision (much as Bush Sr did to Reagan's economic vision despite disagreeing with it strongly!), yet at the same time brings something to the table to make up for any lacks. There is no doubt that Biden brings two things to Obama's table: a strongly pro-union stance with historical working relationship with the unions, and a massive amount of foreign policy experience. That's all over the Dem talking points when Biden's selection was announced, and that's par for the course -- Reagan did the same when he announced he was picking Bush Sr, Clinton did it when picking Gore, Mondale did it picking Ferraro, etc., etc., and so on.
Which is why it would make sense to me that McCain -- having said that economics isn't his strong point -- might seek to round out his campaign by picking someone with strong economic expertise. Or maybe strong expertise in energy policy, there's another area he could probably use someone to bolster him, speaking objectively. But he didn't. He picked someone who, as far as I can tell, doesn't really contribute much but, uh, maybe photo-ops. It just doesn't strike me as a very wise choice, and worse still, it's a choice that seems like a boatload of fail.
(I should say even more to the point: I'm used to politicians taking the "this is my VP" announcement as a way to be a bit on the, hrm, humble side -- well, as humble as anyone can be considering they're going after the biggest and most important political position in the free world and I say that of any politician regardless of stripe. But still, traditionally, VP-pick is when you say, "this is where I'm not the strongest, but it's okay! look who I've picked! this person totally closes every last chink in the dam, no worries, folks!" Y'know?)
I guess what really bothers me is that -- and I 'spect you know this as well as I do, since that's how it so often works -- if Palin goes down, she'll be the one humiliated as she's racked over the national coals... not McCain. I doubt any firestorm will do much more than slightly singe him, at best, and I can't help seeing that as quite unfair. Probably not rational on my part, but still.