| magicalfreddiemercury 23.08.2008 10:10 |
So what's the consensus on Joe Biden as Obama's pick for Vice President? |
| thomasquinn 32989 23.08.2008 11:33 |
I consider it a good choice; Biden's experience on Foreign Affairs gives Obama good coverage on his exposed flank. I think he can help beat McCain, and I think he will make a good VP afterward. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 23.08.2008 19:01 |
Seems like a good choice for Obama. Like Caspar pointed out, Biden has the foreign policy experience that was the primary weakness the Republicans loved to point out. Plus, Biden also makes a great attack dog, which is basically the purpose of the VP candidate prior to the general elections, and with his blue-collar reputation he'll help bring those voters to Obama; he was having trouble winning them over from Hilary. But Biden does have a tendency to be a lighting rod for stupid comments; they did call him the Gaffe Machine for a while. And it might prove a problem to Obama's message of Change since Biden is the epitome of a Washington Insider, with three terms in the Senate. But it's the best choice he could have made I think. I mean, with so many people pushing him to chose Hilary. Thank GOD he didn't do that; that would not have been a good move! |
| Treasure Moment 23.08.2008 21:57 |
Hey historygirl, you REALLY think it matters who wins? you cant be that naive can you? |
| john bodega 24.08.2008 01:33 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Hey historygirl, you REALLY think it matters who wins? you cant be that naive can you?Instead of repeating the same crap over and over again, could you possibly spend some time thinking of a more intelligent way of wording it? Watch some George Carlin. He did a great bit once on how we don't have elected leaders; we have 'owners'! If you'd quit being such a repetitive turd, and start writing something with some substance, there's a remote possibility that you might see (someday) a person writing "I agree with Treasure Moment". |
| Treasure Moment 24.08.2008 03:05 |
Zebonka12 wrote:what can i say instead of the obvious? i just said it doesnt matter who wins cause thats how it is.Treasure Moment wrote: Hey historygirl, you REALLY think it matters who wins? you cant be that naive can you?Instead of repeating the same crap over and over again, could you possibly spend some time thinking of a more intelligent way of wording it? Watch some George Carlin. He did a great bit once on how we don't have elected leaders; we have 'owners'! If you'd quit being such a repetitive turd, and start writing something with some substance, there's a remote possibility that you might see (someday) a person writing "I agree with Treasure Moment". |
| john bodega 24.08.2008 07:52 |
You're on a forum dude... forums are for discussions. Why don't you back up what you're saying; why not tell people WHY you think the way you do? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 24.08.2008 08:07 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Why don't you back up what you're saying; why not tell people WHY you think the way you do?Personally, I'd rather he didn't. Not again. He's posted it dozens of times too many already. FACT. As for Biden, I also think he's a good choice - though a chancy one. He's a hot-headed in-your-face kind of guy. I guess as a counter to Obama, that can be a good thing. If you consider Obama's limits in the area of foreign policy (and who isn't considering that?), Biden's experience there is his golden ticket to the V.P. slot - but the spin will be (and already is) that choosing Biden shows Obama's lack of confidence in this area. I think it shows common sense - where expertise is required, you don't wing it, you bring in an expert. And Biden has his own agenda - to make individuals safer. No grand scheme, just a simple focus that encompasses so much. If his work on the Violence Against Women Act is any indication of what he'll do as VP, I think we'll be in pretty good hands... I just hope he can learn to keep his mouth shut when necessary. |
| Treasure Moment 24.08.2008 08:26 |
Zebonka12 wrote: You're on a forum dude... forums are for discussions. Why don't you back up what you're saying; why not tell people WHY you think the way you do?Its very simple, corporations and organized religion have teamed up and this group of elite bankers OWN everything and pull the strings behind the scen and they own all the major candidates, its very simple logic. |
| thomasquinn 32989 24.08.2008 11:02 |
Treasure Moment wrote:People thinking like that make for 95% of the problems in the world.Zebonka12 wrote:what can i say instead of the obvious? i just said it doesnt matter who wins cause thats how it is.Treasure Moment wrote: Hey historygirl, you REALLY think it matters who wins? you cant be that naive can you?Instead of repeating the same crap over and over again, could you possibly spend some time thinking of a more intelligent way of wording it? Watch some George Carlin. He did a great bit once on how we don't have elected leaders; we have 'owners'! If you'd quit being such a repetitive turd, and start writing something with some substance, there's a remote possibility that you might see (someday) a person writing "I agree with Treasure Moment". |
| thomasquinn 32989 24.08.2008 11:03 |
Treasure Moment wrote:It would be, if it were true. It's not. Close to it, but not that bad just yet.Zebonka12 wrote: You're on a forum dude... forums are for discussions. Why don't you back up what you're saying; why not tell people WHY you think the way you do?Its very simple, corporations and organized religion have teamed up and this group of elite bankers OWN everything and pull the strings behind the scen and they own all the major candidates, its very simple logic. |
| Smitty 24.08.2008 11:14 |
LOL, Treasure Moment's watched Zeitgeist one too many times... As for the VP pick, Biden's an excellent choice. I'd go into more depth, but I'd just be echoing what everyone's been saying. |
| Treasure Moment 24.08.2008 11:59 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:its not my opinion, its a FACT.Treasure Moment wrote:It would be, if it were true. It's not. Close to it, but not that bad just yet.Zebonka12 wrote: You're on a forum dude... forums are for discussions. Why don't you back up what you're saying; why not tell people WHY you think the way you do?Its very simple, corporations and organized religion have teamed up and this group of elite bankers OWN everything and pull the strings behind the scen and they own all the major candidates, its very simple logic. |
| Treasure Moment 24.08.2008 11:59 |
Smitty wrote: LOL, Treasure Moment's watched Zeitgeist one too many times... As for the VP pick, Biden's an excellent choice. I'd go into more depth, but I'd just be echoing what everyone's been saying.well that documentary has alot of very valid points. |
| john bodega 24.08.2008 12:32 |
So did Bowling for Colombine but for every valid point in a Michael Moore film, there are one or two valid points he completely ignores. For your own sake, have an open mind! |
| Smitty 24.08.2008 16:46 |
Treasure Moment wrote:It does have a lot of very valid points. But what it lacks is a lot of very valid evidence, especially in the last two parts.Smitty wrote: LOL, Treasure Moment's watched Zeitgeist one too many times... As for the VP pick, Biden's an excellent choice. I'd go into more depth, but I'd just be echoing what everyone's been saying.well that documentary has alot of very valid points. But hey, this thread is about Obama's VP, so let's keep it on topic. |
| Saint Jiub 24.08.2008 18:13 |
I guess the USA is forward thinking enough to have an Afro-American president, but still too backward to have a female vice president. Instead Obama picks a guy that has difficulty writing original campaign speeches, and feels it necessary to "borrow" from past speeches. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 24.08.2008 18:32 |
Gym Bitch wrote: I guess the USA is forward thinking enough to have an Afro-American president, but still too backward to have a female vice president. Instead Obama picks a guy that has difficulty writing original campaign speeches, and feels it necessary to "borrow" from past speeches.I don't know Biden inside and out, but if this is the worst they have on him, well, it's a hell of a lot better than the skeletons of so many others. As for a female vice president - I'm guessing if he picked any woman other than Clinton, he would have lost all the ground he gained. And, Hillary as his running mate would have been too controversial, not to mention completely opposite his stated goal for 'change'. You can't get change if you bring in more of the same. I'm a Hillary supporter yet even I didn't want to see her as his running mate. If the election was held several months ago, maybe they would have had a chance to win the White House. Hillary furor has wound down. People want something new, something they can hope to believe in. Biden is always chopping at the bit - he WILL get things done. Obama wants to go down in history as more than being the first black president - he wants to be a great president who also happened to be the first black president. The two together want the opposite of what we've had for the past eight years. That alone should secure them the top spots in the country. But then... I have to wonder... is the USA really forward thinking enough to vote for a non-white president, regardless who his VP might be? |
| Treasure Moment 25.08.2008 02:11 |
Smitty wrote:its is on the topic, its about how it doesnt matter which puppet gets elected.Treasure Moment wrote:It does have a lot of very valid points. But what it lacks is a lot of very valid evidence, especially in the last two parts. But hey, this thread is about Obama's VP, so let's keep it on topic.Smitty wrote: LOL, Treasure Moment's watched Zeitgeist one too many times... As for the VP pick, Biden's an excellent choice. I'd go into more depth, but I'd just be echoing what everyone's been saying.well that documentary has alot of very valid points. |
| Micrówave 25.08.2008 11:14 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: I consider it a good choice;Well, that's a shock. I assume you don't like him because he was FOR the invasion of Iraq. It's because he flip-flopped and jumped on the critique ship after America decided they weren't really 100% behind this thing. That's it, right? |
| Micrówave 25.08.2008 11:18 |
This is not a shot at magicalfreddiemercury, just a shot a politics in general.
Watch what you can do with this:
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: As for Biden, I also think he's a good choice - though a chancy one. He's a hot-headed in-your-face kind of guy. I guess as a counter to Obama, that can be a good thing.As for Cheney, I also think he's a good choice - though a chancy one. He's a hot-headed in-your-face kind of guy. I guess as a counter to Bush, that can be a good thing. If you consider Obama's limits in the area of foreign policy (and who isn't considering that?), Biden's experience there is his golden ticket to the V.P. slot - but the spin will be (and already is) that choosing Biden shows Obama's lack of confidence in this area.If you consider Bush's limits in the area of foreign policy (and who isn't considering that?), Cheney's experience there is his golden ticket to the V.P. slot - but the spin will be (and already is) that choosing Cheney shows Bush's lack of confidence in this area. Uncanny, isn't it? Here's to four more years! |
| Maz 25.08.2008 12:22 |
While I agree that substituting Cheney for Biden does sound familiar, one thing should be noted as major differences between Bush and Obama. Bush's major advisers (like Cheney, Rice, etc) were in fact holdovers from the elder Bush's presidency. In essence, Bush Jr. surrounded himself (or insulated himself, depending on your politics) with voices from the past. Taking your father's Sec of Defense and making him your VP is slightly different than taking a former critic and giving him the slot. |
| Micrówave 25.08.2008 15:46 |
Maz wrote: Taking your father's Sec of Defense and making him your VP is slightly different than taking a former critic and giving him the slot.You're right. Cheney has/had a lot more experience at the executive level than a wild ass senator. So, I'd say Bush made a good choice. Who knew he'd become the incarnation of Al Haig? |
| iron eagle 25.08.2008 16:17 |
personally i think the choice will cost him the election biden may be an attack dog--but his mouth has gotten him in trouble more then one time.. then we will have this: the republicans will reply over and over again Biden in the primaries saying that Obama was not yet ready to be President..... then two weeks later on meet the press standing by that assesment.... totally understandble why he chose him--namely to shore up his lack of foriegn policy experience-- but short of a miracle i think he messed up |
| Holly2003 25.08.2008 16:34 |
He should've asked Arnie to be VP. Then their campaign slogan could've been: "I'll be back and I'll be black" |
| Lisser 26.08.2008 00:11 |
iron eagle wrote: personally i think the choice will cost him the election biden may be an attack dog--but his mouth has gotten him in trouble more then one time.. then we will have this: the republicans will reply over and over again Biden in the primaries saying that Obama was not yet ready to be President..... then two weeks later on meet the press standing by that assesment.... totally understandble why he chose him--namely to shore up his lack of foriegn policy experience-- but short of a miracle i think he messed upI completely agree with this post. |
| john bodega 26.08.2008 02:14 |
Nah, his slogan should be : "I've got your black". |
| YourValentine 27.08.2008 09:11 |
Maybe my question is naive but here it is: Biden won about 10 000 votes in his 2008 Presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton won 18 Million votes. Wouldn't it have been the obvious choice to ask Clinton? Why risk to alienate half of the party? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 27.08.2008 09:22 |
YourValentine wrote: Maybe my question is naive but here it is: Biden won about 10 000 votes in his 2008 Presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton won 18 Million votes. Wouldn't it have been the obvious choice to ask Clinton? Why risk to alienate half of the party?Hillary is a polarizing figure and her husband occupied the White House for eight years. Having her as VP would alienate those that hate her - and there are a lot of them - and it would counter Obama's message for change. Biden's foreign policy experience is paramount, and he's a pit bull senator who doesn't do things "Washington's way" but rather HIS way. For that reason, he represents less of 'the same' than Hillary. I do see Hillary having a role in Obama's administration, though - maybe as Secretary of State. I just think as VP he made a better choice with Biden than he would have with Clinton. |
| Lisser 27.08.2008 09:31 |
Obama would be overshadowed big time if he were elected with her as his VP. People would say, just like they did when Bill was President, that Hillary is really the one who runs the country..it would probably be true too. I agree with Magical...Hillary will be involved in Obama's administration if he is elected. I don't think he'll be elected though. |
| YourValentine 27.08.2008 11:26 |
I don't understand this "change" thing. Change what? Change the people who run the country? You cannot have an administration full of inexperienced newbies, so Obama NEEDS to picks some people who are in some way involved with the Clinton administration because the last Democratic president before Clinton was Carter and his people must all be close to 90. Also, I do not see what was so wrong about the Clinton administration, he balanced the budget and he had an approval rate of 65% when he left office. What has changed since then? Now you say that Hillary would lose the election - but if you count all votes (including the two states that do not count because they voted at the wrong time) Hillary Clinton won the majority of the Democratic votes. If I were a Hillary voter I would be mad as hell now and I think many are. It's just not smart to ignore such a big part of the party. Obama manouvered himself in a position where he cannot win: Republicans won't vote for him, a part of his party won't vote for him and Hillary Clinton will have every right to run next time because she was not invited on his ticket. |
| Micrówave 27.08.2008 11:32 |
If Obama picked her, she would undermine every thing he did. They clearly had different agendas throughout the race and it got pretty heated between the two. He doesn't want someone second-guessing him in the press, which is exactly what Hilary would do. And, let's be obvious. The first Black President is enough to shoot for. Americans wouldn't go for the first Black President and the first Woman Vice President in the same election. |
| Music Man 27.08.2008 11:35 |
I still don't think the Republicans have a chance in hell at winning this election. Obama could pick Rupaul as his running mate and still win. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 27.08.2008 12:18 |
YourValentine wrote: I don't understand this "change" thing. Change what? Change the people who run the country? You cannot have an administration full of inexperienced newbies, so Obama NEEDS to picks some people who are in some way involved with the Clinton administration because the last Democratic president before Clinton was Carter and his people must all be close to 90. Also, I do not see what was so wrong about the Clinton administration, he balanced the budget and he had an approval rate of 65% when he left office. What has changed since then? Now you say that Hillary would lose the election - but if you count all votes (including the two states that do not count because they voted at the wrong time) Hillary Clinton won the majority of the Democratic votes. If I were a Hillary voter I would be mad as hell now and I think many are. It's just not smart to ignore such a big part of the party. Obama manouvered himself in a position where he cannot win: Republicans won't vote for him, a part of his party won't vote for him and Hillary Clinton will have every right to run next time because she was not invited on his ticket.Despite how good many believe Clinton's presidency was - and I'm one of the 'believers' - it was rife with partisan fury. Much of what he wanted to get done, namely health care, didn't get done because of one upping between the parties. That's why Bush openly lied (the first time) and said he was a uniter not a divider and he'd unite the country after Clinton's terms in office had ended. The nation is now bitterly divided even moreso than before. People don't just dislike the Clintons, they hate them. Then, Obama's campaign spun them as racists and those wanting to vote for the first black candidate had an easy reason to switch their backing from Hillary to Obama. The chance of them switching back is as slim as the chance of some of Hillary's supports switching to Obama - though she made a brilliant speech last night to entice people to do so. I doubt Obama could have done as well to convince his followers to support Hillary if she'd been the nominee. The "change" is new attitude. With Hillary as VP, it's hard to imagine the government running any differently than ever before. With Obama and Biden - a not-yet-jaded, first-term senator and a 'my way' seasoned senator, there is a chance for things to be different. Or, at least, the impression is such. As for Obama putting himself in a position where he cannot win - I don't agree. While not everyone is FOR him and Biden, a solid chunk of the country is against the status quo. A McCain administration will continue that status quo. That puts Obama - with a foreign policy expert as his partner - in a very good position to win, IMO. |
| Micrówave 27.08.2008 12:38 |
Music Man wrote: I still don't think the Republicans have a chance in hell at winning this election. Obama could pick Rupaul as his running mate and still win.Well, that would "swing" my vote. magicalfreddiemercury wrote: The "change" is new attitude.... there is a chance for things to be different... A McCain administration will continue that status quo...Wow. You must know something that no one else on the planet does. You know that Obama will be a "change" and McCain will be the same. I hear that argument EVERY four years since 1980, when I was first becoming aware of politics... But you're telling me this time is different? How are you so sure of this? Since you know this stuff, can you also tell me: 1. When property values will start to rise (specific date, please) 2. What's going to happen to the interest rate, exactly, for the next 6 months 3. What countries are going to cause world problems that the US is going to have to go fix 4. How well is Cosmos Rocks going to chart later this year |
| Lisser 27.08.2008 13:46 |
I'm going waaaaaaaay out on a limb here but I don't think Obama wants to win. I think he is scared as hell that he has gotten this far. He knows he's got no experience, he knows he's gotten this far on him not being the "normal" candidate, he is a superstar for this. Again....waaaay on a limb but I sense fear and an "oh shit what do I do now" factor. Joe Biden has the experience yes, but Hillary had the votes and she has experience. That can't be denied. Kennedy chose his vice president bc he knew it would win the election for him even though they hated each other vehemently. Biden even attacked Obama while he was running for the Democratic nom as having no experience. Something just tells me that Obama is not making good choices already and maybe it's subconsiously on purpose. Call it silly but that's me.. :) |
| AspiringPhilosophe 27.08.2008 14:22 |
@ Barb Magical has it right. Hilary is far too polarizing a figure. Most of the politicos don't like her because she made too many enemies during her husband's administration trying to get things rammed through (like Health Care Reform) that never did get through. Besides, it's not the job of the First Lady to create policy; so that pissed off the politicos. Believe it or not, even many feminists don't like her because she stayed with Bill after he cheated. Granted she's got tons of female supporters, but some of the die-hard feminists won't stand for her because she couldn't walk away from Bill. Then there's the little matter of Hilary doesn't want the number 2 slot. She's going for number one, come hell or high water. Her close supporters and advisers have said that she has every intention of running in 2012. Even if Obama were to offer her the VP slot, she would CONSTANTLY be butting in, constantly trying to undermine him to get what she wants accomplished. That's what she was trying to do to her HUSBAND when she was only first lady. Putting her in the VP slot would be a major mistake. In the end, I'm not sure it matters who Obama chose. He's going to win this thing in a walk out in all likelihood. If the Democrats can't win now, when there is such palatable disgust with the Republicans party, then they will cease to be a major player in politics forever. |
| Micrówave 27.08.2008 16:05 |
Chelsea Clinton has a much better chance at President than her Mom does. Hilary is done. Perhaps this "change" is not visible to everybody, but I think I see it clearly now. I watched the Democratic Convention this year in HD. That must have been it! Clearly you can see a Beacon of Hope. The Wave Of Change is also quite apparant. |
| iron eagle 27.08.2008 16:42 |
catholics distrust obama... whoa biden is catholic..hmmmmmmmmmmm another reason to pick him...yup here comes the 'change' its called the same ole stuff just in a different party.. i dont this this election is a walk away by any means... lets see what kind of a bounce he gets when the convention ends--after his VP pick he dropped 4 points and they are running neck and neck now... never mind you still have about 40% of Hilary fans ready to vote for MCcain still.. microwave been hearing the same since i became aware of politice years ago everyone is going to fix social security make america stronger bring values back yadda yadda you just got to filter the bull and the things we want to hear out to figure out the truth as far as bush being the uniter--we have the democrats to look to for the washington syndrome getting worse- it was payback time for the impeachment-- the 'stealing' of the election and so on... they get the house back and still they cant get anything done....their approval rating is lower then bush's.... |