September 11th, 2008 • 14:09
Biden: Hillary a Better Pick Than Me
Political Radar: Biden: Hillary a Better Pick Than Me.
Was this a gaffe by Biden?
I don’t think so, and here’s why: Yes, Hillary Clinton may very well have been a better, more qualified pick than Biden for the veep spot, but, that’s based on resume.
If Clinton were veep, she’d overshadow Obama (in much the same way Palin is overshadowing McCain, except it’d be more of a negative shadow) and the GOP would galvanize immediately in an effort to keep another Clinton from getting anywhere near the White House.
Clinton might have been a better pick, although entirely unrealistic.
-Tyler
7 Comments
Leave a Reply
Sep 11th 2008 • 16:09
by Steve Urquhart
I think Sen. Biden’s comment — which, of course, was intended to be friendly and complimentary — is getting some traction because it is painfully true.
My unscientific belief is that the race would have been over, had Sen. Obama selected Sen. Clinton.
People do want change. A candidate’s VP selection arguably is the first act of executive leadership. It is the first draft pick for the official leadership team. The pick of Sen. Biden indicated strongly that Sen. Obama is less about Change than merely changing the party that is leading. Biden’s main strength is that he’s been there for quite a while. Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, is a gravitational force, with the core strength necessary to affect change. Because of that, she is a lightening rod. She’d stir some opposition, but she’d inspire commitment and energy. A candidate would rather have that than someone who isn’t even a sparkning rod.
Sep 11th 2008 • 23:09
by Federal Farmer
I think that Biden was definately Obama’s best VP pick; I stil don’t agree that Hillary would have been better than Biden for the position.
Biden may have a long and humorous history of “eating crow,” which some fear may hurt the Obama campaign. I tend to agree with some in Obama’s camp that claim Biden’s weakness for gaffes make him more “human” to voters. While his mistakes may make fodder for the pundits, I think that when in the context of a speech or event where Biden has the control, such gaffes are easily disregarded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/politics/12biden.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
Sep 12th 2008 • 09:09
by Cameron
Biden has a lot of crow to eat.
Sep 12th 2008 • 09:09
by Jason Williams
I agree with Tyler on this one. Hillary may have given him an edge in certain ways against McCain’s Palin pick, but the public sentiment toward the Bush, Clinton, Bush, (?) Clinton possibility was spoken clearly during the primaries. Also, Palin wasn’t the game changer we are being led to believe (more on this in a front page post later).
The argument that the Biden pick somehow represents a lack of change is laughable coming from the right, with the McCain/Palin ticket planning to extend the policies of the last 8 years without question. Biden’s comments were simply honest. She has the “experience” that many are propping up as the ultimate factor in deciding which party leads us into the next decade.
The irony of all this experience talk is that if challenged to define what experience makes a person “qualified” to be president, they suddenly fumble in trying to explain. Biden was showing respect, nothing more. Also, propping up the office of VEEP in this way is ridiculous. It’s inconsequential in the face of the issues and policy we should be vetting the candidates on.
Sep 12th 2008 • 11:09
by Tyson
A Hillary VP pick would have probably solidified my vote for McCain. Right now, my decision leans toward Obama, but I haven’t made a solid decision yet because I don’t want one party in control of all of our checks and balances. Policies of the president only go so far as the checks and balances allow, and I don’t want it to be easy for one party to pass whatever they want. We all are living with the results of that sort of situation in the wake of Republicans being in control.
Maybe an Obama presidency would send a message to both parties: “stop messing with us or we will vote you out” But I realize that is just wishful thinking.
Sep 12th 2008 • 11:09
by Tyson
A real wake up call would be voting in a party that was neither Democrat or Republican.
Sep 12th 2008 • 11:09
by Jason Williams
Even as someone fond of the campaign style Obama has organized, and the ground machine he has built, Tyson, I completely agree with you. I get tired of the “we need a third party” sentiment, but that is only because third parties cannot seem to ever take themselves seriously enough to offer up a real candidate. When (if) that finally happens, it will challenge both major parties to re-assess in a way they are rarely forced to do. Reform rarely comes from a party in office, or legislation that sees the light of day, it happens in the lead up to elections. Obama (for me) represents that moreso than McCain, not because of his platform, because of how he has organized his run (i.e. engaging unprecedented numbers of voters in the process), but a viable third party candidate would achieve even more. For activists bent on such ends, we are left with working “from the inside.” A third party could challenge that face on.
It’d put us light years ahead of where we are now.