Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Biden. Really?

VP choice a letdown after talk of new politics

Rocky Mountain News

Published August 24, 2008 at 8:03 p.m.
Updated August 25, 2008 at 2:03 a.m.

Text size  

More DNC Editorials

More stories »

Joe Biden.

Thud.

If you're going to make an uninspiring choice for your vice presidential running mate - and Barack Obama is hardly the first presidential candidate to have done so - at the very least the choice should be safe. It should not put your message at risk.

But Joe Biden is not entirely safe, as anyone who has followed his career knows all too well. The Delaware senator is a walking verbal gaffe waiting for the right opening.

It won't be a stupid gaffe if it happens, because Biden is anything but dumb. It will be a careless verbal slip, the result of Biden's tendency to say whatever pops into his head without mentally editing it first.

So if Biden is not safe, what does a career politician who personifies the entrenched Washington status quo and is a conventional liberal on almost every important issue, from the economy to defense, bring to the Democratic ticket? A ticket, remember, based on the premise of change and transcending partisanship?

The stock answers: Biden brings foreign policy expertise and Middle American roots (Scranton, Penn.) Fair enough, we suppose. Yet speaking of the second claim, we've seen little evidence that Biden on the campaign trail establishes any special connection with the blue-collar Democrats and independents that Obama has been trying to woo. Indeed, they tend to be precisely the voters most likely to be turned off by the long-winded pomposity to which Biden is occasionally prone.

The Democratic ticket now has two senators - both lawyers - who went into legislative politics at a fairly young age and thus have no serious executive experience. They both have compiled distinctly left-of-center voting records, with the difference being that Biden's extends back decades as opposed to a few years.

For example, not only can Biden boast of having opposed the Bush tax cuts, he also was one of only 21 senators in 1986 who balked at the historic tax reform that flattened rates and simplified the code. For that matter, in 1981 he even opposed protecting taxpayers from being pushed into ever-higher tax brackets by inflation - in an era, remember, of surging prices.

Obama knows this history, presumably. Yet he must have concluded that Biden's foreign policy credibility - he's chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and by all accounts a serious student of the issues - is the campaign's overriding need at the moment given McCain's angle of attack.

Whether Biden will be able to reassure Obama-leery voters with his background and expertise involving world affairs of course remains to be seen. Voters tend to ignore vice presidential candidates for the most part - and we'd be surprised if this campaign turned out to be an exception. Then again, John McCain still has something to say about that as he prepares for his own announcement on Friday.

Comments

  • August 25, 2008

    12:26 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    bassman writes:

    My friend, an Obama precinct captain likes this pick because it will provide some foreign policy credibility to the ticket. I didn't realize it at the time but, it's actually a concession that the dems are terrified of McCain's role in the surge. Biden was a bad pick. He is a powerful member of the most unpopular congress in our history. So much for the change message. He has a fairly liberal voting record. So much for the centrist, "let's work together" message. He brings no electoral college gain as Delawre is heavily democratic. He is very prone to gaffes. Very bad for a VP. See Quayle, Dan. His prior plagiarism issues refocuses attention on Obama's minor issues with this. Clinton was the best choice but, Obama couldn't work with her. If he can't work with one of his own, how will he be able to work with Republicans.

  • August 25, 2008

    1:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    bryantp writes:

    Amazing, really. If verbal gaffes disqualify you, then McBush (renegotiate water rights...yes..er, no...er and I don't know how many homes I have and Shiite/Sunni - is there a difference?) is already gone.

    Tell the whole story.

  • August 25, 2008

    6:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    vudumom writes:

    I usually don't watch Leno and other late night comedians, but I can't wait until they start in on Biden. He is a comedian's dream.

    I can see that Obama chose someone that is a total opposite of himself. Biden is inarticulate and dirty.

  • August 25, 2008

    7:25 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    JYP3500 writes:

    What is Barack & his minions thinking? Pick Hillary and you unite the party and win the election. Pick (attack dog) Biden and divide the country and lose the election. If this is representative of Barack's critical thinking & decision making ability, he deserves to lose.

  • August 25, 2008

    7:41 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    pak writes:

    Birds of a feather...

  • August 25, 2008

    7:53 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    danirobi writes:

    I laughed when Obama picked Biden...a guy who steals speeches and claims them as his own and makes racist comments about Indian Americans? Yeah all that talk fo "change" you just picked a career politician who has done nothing to "change" DC.

  • August 25, 2008

    8:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SPUD writes:

    Obama talks change--it isn't going to be the way it has been in the past. Soooo--he picks an old, white, tax and spend liberal from the east coast. With change like that it seems like the same Dems.

    BOHICA! BOHICA!

  • August 25, 2008

    8:10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    T1anda writes:

    Joe Biden is a Washington insider and not the "freshness and newness" that made Obama appealing to some starry-eyed followers in his early campaign.
    Obama lashed out HARD on Hillary's judgement for voting for the Iraq War resolution that Biden was also a signatory to. Biden himself, has said, less than one year ago, that Obama would NEED"ON THE JOB TRAINING" if elected president. Biden is an awful pick. Obama just hammered the final nail in his and the Democrats coffin.

  • August 25, 2008

    8:18 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    yeastyc writes:

    This pick actually made me less likely to vote for Obama as an undecided, unaffiliated voter. I don't like McCain, and I was always wary of Obama, but Biden? He spent all day knocking all these people as "Old School Washington," Clinton included, but then he picks one? It shows me that he will do whatever it takes to get votes irregardless, I will likely be "wasting" my vote on a candidate other than a Republican or a Democrat for my own conscience....

  • August 25, 2008

    8:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Marshdale writes:

    I, as most of you was not exactly thrilled with his choice of Biden either. However, I think we need to keep in mind that Biden probably appeals to a little bit older voter and may strip some of those votes from McCain. Not only that ,Biden next to Ted Kennedy the other mavrick in the democratic party. He will stand up to the dirty right wing tactics of McSame and the republicans. He won't have any trouble doing that.

  • August 25, 2008

    9:37 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    McShameOnYou writes:

    I know for a fact that most of the comments on this ridiculous article are from members of McCain's smear team. They linked this silly article (because it's one of the few they could find that criticized the fantastic pick of Joe Biden) on their new little smear-web-site and then filled the comments with their own ridiculous spin. They're pretending to be Democrats upset with the pick, pretending to be a Hillary supporter upset with the "snub"... give me a break. Why don't you FOCUS ON TELLING ME WHAT MCCAIN WILL BRING TO THE OFFICE instead of just tearing down OBAMA? It truly shows you have nothing positive to say about fear-monger McCain. QUIT LYING about OBAMA. This ex-Hillary supporter thinks you're despicable and I could not be happier to throw my support to Barack and the wonderful Joe Biden.

  • August 25, 2008

    9:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BJG writes:

    Obma could have chose Biden for his Secretary of State, if he wanted his experience, but instead he chose him as his running mate...go figure. I really think the arrogance of the BHO people and the man himself, will cause him to lose this election.
    When you choose a running mate who wasn't even a serious contender for the nomination, that either shows bad judgement, arrogance, or a need to blame someone else when you fail. Biden is a likely "fall guy" with his history of gaffs.

  • August 25, 2008

    9:53 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    fntsymtn writes:

    As with all VP picks, this one is basically meaningless. For the most part, the Vice President has really only been good for a few "sound bites" or a follow-on ticket.

    From a democrat's perspective, Biden provides some much needed experience to a very immature ticket. From a republican's perspective, Biden's selection will open up a seat in congress (although, they probably have no chance to pickup up that seat) that could be filled with a centrist.

    I do find it interesting that many of the people who complain about the names that are used to describe Obama turn right around and do the same when referring to McCain ... childish.

    I'll probably find myself in the same boat as you, yeastyc, because neither of the candidates is deserving of my vote. I do not feel like either of them is trustworthy. All politicians are untrustworthy, but it's nice to have doubt about it prior to voting for them. Hard to vote for someone who has lied to you before election day.

  • August 25, 2008

    10:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    lj629 writes:

    When is the last time the Rocky Mountain News endorsed a Democrat for President? (Crickets) Can anyone name an Obama VP pick that the News would have lauded? Of course not. The Rocky Mountain News would have criticized any Democratic VP choice because they will ultimately, and predictably, back McCain and whoever he picks as his VP in the November election.

    The News continues to push Republican candidates despite the fact that over the last eight years the Republicans have sold out their base by growing our government bigger, increasing government spending, turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, shipping American jobs overseas, getting our people killed in a war they chose to start on false pretenses, and shredding our privacy rights by illegally spying on Americans while Osama Bin Laden remains free. Wake up! The Republicans have had eight years to show us the wonderful benefits of conservatism and a reality check shows that it's all talk. Take a look around... do you really want four more years of what the Republicans have given us with the last eight?

  • August 25, 2008

    10:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Rickenator writes:

    What a jerk. Is this a guest journalist? Worthless column - - no doubt a Republican afficionado who has supported George Bush and his limited vocabulary for eight years. Talk about gaffes - - GW's entire Presidency has been one big gaffe. Can't wait to see McCain's VP choice - - and all the commercials blasting his candidacy (presuming it's Romney).

  • August 25, 2008

    10:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    FreeToChoose writes:

    Yawn

  • August 25, 2008

    10:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    bobbyb writes:

    Hands down the worst VP pick since Dan Quayle.

  • August 25, 2008

    10:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mark79trans writes:

    So this is the independent Obama touted as his Veep pick? The thought that Obama sees Biden as an independent who will challenge him should scare everyone. What a nightmarish ticket to say the least. I knew it was beyond Obama to give the thumbs up to somebody like Congressman Chet Edwards.

    The only redeeming quality of Biden is his work on Domestic Violence. Everything else is a complete mess!

  • August 25, 2008

    1:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rjnova writes:

    Contrary to what has been said, Biden had to be surprised Obama would select him to run for VP. Otherwise, he would have taken time to have his hair transplant revised so he would have a hair line.

    Now with both lawyers prone to foot in the mouth I think there will be some enjoyable moments before Election Day listening to their philosophical waxing. Neither has the least sense to know their tax increases at this time would tank the economy.After what the Congress has done to food prices and housing industry with their sub-prime mortgages we do not need these two.

  • August 25, 2008

    2:29 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    vudumom writes:

    I'm voting none of the above. I would have leaned left if Obama would have chosen Lieberman. I'm not sure if Obama could have chosen him. To me that would have been the Democratic dream ticket.
    As for the Republican side I don't think there is anyone McCain could choose as his running mate that would get me to vote Republican.
    Within the next few years Americans need to seriously start a 3rd party. It's time has surely come and is sorely needed.

  • August 25, 2008

    3:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    sunshinestate writes:

    Very poor editorial.
    Hopefully the public is now sharp enough to see past a "verbal slip". I certainly see past this 'editorial'.

    Vote "D" and join the NRA

  • August 25, 2008

    4:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    How has George Bush's "executive" experience prior to entering politics helped him manage this country well?

    The truth is, Obama and Biden are self-made men who made it to the top without the benefit of being born into privilege. That says a lot, but of course the RMN editors will never acknowledge it. Instead, they'll try to turn it into a liability somehow.

    On the other hand, Bush was born with a silver spoon up his nose, and every business venture he ever made was funded by his Daddy's rich friends. Perhaps that's why most of them flopped. He didn't have to work for what was handed to him, thus, he placed little value on anything. He knew there would always be another well-funded venture waiting in the wings for him. Yet, the RMN has consistently endorsed this man as our leader. I suppose they admire his "executive experience."

  • August 25, 2008

    4:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    BuffDriver writes:

    Dream ticket...half h-word, full h-word, two donkeys (rhymes with h-word).

  • August 25, 2008

    4:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    RockyMtnMac writes:

    Tbone - When a democrat majority prevented drilling domestic oil and put an end to refineries in the USA, we became completely dependant on foreign oil. When the price of oil went through the roof (and what was the price under a republican run congress again?) the cost of fuel for trucks went through the roof too, hence...... THE TRUCKERS ARE CHARGING 3-4 TIMES MORE TO HAUL YOUR STUPID PRODUCE TO FEED YOUR FACE!!!!! So to answer your incredibly intelligent question, CONGRESS AFFECTED YOUR FOOD PRICE. Now, let's all try to remember this when we go to vote instead of "McCain bad / Obama good..... drool..."

  • August 25, 2008

    10:19 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    RockyMtnMac writes: "Tbone - When a democrat majority prevented drilling domestic oil and put an end to refineries in the USA, we became completely dependant on foreign oil."

    No, that happened when prolific Texas oil fields started to dry up. At any rate, while some areas in the US have been banned from drilling, Democrats hardly prevented domestic drilling in general. We do a lot of domestic drilling, in fact, we're the third largest producer of oil in the world.

    But...are you saying you believe that if we drill offshore of Florida and in ANWR, we can produce enough oil in America to sustain 100% of our consumption here?

  • August 27, 2008

    12:50 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    davis_x_machina writes:

    The poster above who dismisses Biden as "not a serious contender for the presidential nomination" seems to forget that the republicans went through how many serious contenders- near dead Fred, ru (noun,verb,9/11)dee, Mitt, hucksterbee before settling on 5th choice John Sidney(noun,verb,POW) MCain the III. I hadn't realized that being a serious contender for the presidency was a prerequisite for consideration for the second slot.I'm still trying to figure out how getting shot down, fished out of a lake by two North Vietnamese farmers and frog-marched off to a POW camp to start a stint as the POW songbird qualifies one for anything much less foreign policy experience creds.I guess the Hilton was in a foreign country maybe that's where that logic(?) starts.
    I'm guessing the republicans were hoping for someone like Hillary who would simultaneously inflame their base and jumpstart their donation drives. Despite that any change toward intelligence and real experience in governing, like Biden's is a change from what we've had these past eight years. Once more I'm somewhat amazed at how quickly the wingnut talking points get disseminated and start being worked into commentary at all levels.