JOE BIDEN! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Well, I guess Barak Obama could have picked someone with a more grating personality, but Hulk Hogan was busy with his new show. Joe Biden! Are you kidding me? Is Barak hoping that Biden will help him win Delaware and bring strength to his campaign in the liberal NorthEast? Is he hoping that Biden’s spectacular personality will help him win over the Evangelical vote in the South?
I know that Joe Biden brings experience to the Obama campaign, but I can’t think of to many other liberal Democrats that have a more grating personality with mainstream and swing voters than does Joe Biden. I also can’t think of any other liberal Democrat that has such proficiency with an insulting phrase as Biden.
Remember that back during the campaign Biden said Obama was “clean and articulate”, which some of the fanatical left and reactionairy media callled veiled racism.
Remember that Biden said “You can’t go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts in Delaware unless you have an Indian accent.”, which some took as an affront to Indian-Americans.
Biden is like Harry Truman, on a drunken bender. He gives ‘em hell, then tops it off with a good insult to their mother. I’ve said in this space before that I think Hillary is still hovering in the wings just waiting to see if Obama screws up his nomination with some major gaff. This could be it. Not so much that picking Biden is a gaff, but Biden is sure to increase the possibility for a major blunder. Remember that anything can happen at the convention and Obama only has enough delegates because of the commitment of super delegates, who can vote for whoever they want at anytime they want. Come to think of it, that may be the real reason behind picking Biden. After decades in the Senate, he’s got a lot of political chips he can cash in. A lot of them with the very super delegates who could hand the nomination to Hillary.
If picking Biden is a defensive move by Obama, which it is by any measure, McCains prospects are already looking better.
Ted Says: August 23rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Biden — the perfect foil for Palin!
The Other Side Says: August 23rd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
i don’t think any democratic pick for vp was going to satisfy buck.
biden is one of the only senators to make under $1 million dollars. he has a tragic past and can speak to everyday americans. this can help obama move past the “elitist” charges (which are baseless, mccain is the elitist in this election). biden will dismantle the republican vp in the debate.
how can mccain’s chances look any better? he’s had frequent gaffes and is on the wrong side of every issue.
Andy Says: August 24th, 2008 at 3:24 am
This is gonna be great! Seeing the two of em together is an exposition what a loser odd couple looks like. I hope they let Biden talk (then again, no one has been able to stop him, including himself) because he is sure to release some doozies.
dooz Says: August 24th, 2008 at 5:26 am
I’m waiting for the Democrats’ bumper stickers to come out: “Machine Hack/Plagiarist ‘08″. So where is all this “change” Obama has been talking about?
other side's only friend Says: August 25th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I agree with Other side on a few things
1) Had Obama picked anyone, this site would still be laughing and calling names. Spot on “other side”
2) Biden’s personal wealth is negligible at best. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_biden) his personal wealth is less than McCain and Obama and I would guess McCain’s VP pick. Which will help the Democrat’s connect with the everyman.
3) Biden has 14 more years experience than McCain, does it matter what state he’s from, he still has been the lead of several important Senate Committees.
Having said that, McCain is only on the wrong side of an issue if you’re on the opposing side. And Obama is an elitist with triple the amount net worth of Biden.
In the end, I am extremely interested in McCain’s choice as it is possible that the VP may become the President if McCain gets two terms.
Kolran Says: August 27th, 2008 at 4:45 am
Wikipedia isn’t a credible source, I could go change that, and get a real name.
RIBudda Says: August 27th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Have mercy on us all! Consider: here’s Mr. Obama preaching the mantra of “Change - Change - Change,” with no concrete definition of what that change will be - except of course it may be construed that he’s going to “tax the rich” (define “rich”) who already pay over 50% of the national income taxes; tax the “windfall profits” of the “big oil” companies whose profit MARGIN is about 8% and whose after-tax profit is in the neighborhood of 4.5%. Contrast that after-tax profit with, say, big pharmaceutical companies who make in the neighborhood of 25% after-tax profit. He’ll also massively increase the entitlement programs that we taxpayers are called upon to support by our sweat and toil. You think we have a national debt now? “Just you wait, Henry Higgins.”
AND, after all this change speech, who does he select as his running mate? Don’t see much change there, ol’ buddy.
Oh, and one more thing…when is/are the national media going to pick up on the continual quoting from Sol Linsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” and the other Marxist/Socialist teachers at whose feet he learned the ideals that he preaches?
Just askin’
The Other Side Says: August 28th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
why do conservatives continue the line of “obama is the most liberal senator?” its been proven false (the media won’t pick up on what ribudda said because its wrong). but i guess thats why everyone was lambasting him for “flip-flopping”. nevermind that fact that he has been fairly consistent, if he begins as a far-leftist then “moves” towards the middle, its horrible.
ribudda mentions all of the tax increases that obama proposes and conviniently forgets to mention the tax cuts to 95% of americans. both candidates don’t have balanced budgets and will add to the national debt. however, mccain’s policies will add more (iraq is very expensive).
and obama has ideas. they may be long and dry, but to say that he has no “definition” is wrong. fyi, the change mantra has been working for him so its a good idea to continue with that. obama has been more correct on foreign policy than mccain. he’s on the right side of every issue. if republicans are so confident of their positions on the issues, then why are they running factually incorrent and pointless attack ads?
ribudda Says: August 29th, 2008 at 4:54 am
Other - actually it won’t be picked up by the media, because the majority of the media in the US is no longer interested in non-partisan, unbiased, factual reporting. Gone are the days when the story was the most important thing that you could print and the truth of the story was well researched, edited for its content, and the reputation of the editor(s) and the owner of the media outlet rested on their integrity. It didn’t matter the liberal or conservative leaning of the story, it was the truth of the story that mattered. Remember the banner of The New York Times - “All the news that’s fit to print.” A reputation was made by that newspaper that you could trust the truth of any article that they printed. If there was an error, it would be corrected right up front where the correction could be found.
Now the NYT is a tool of the liberal owners and editors, and its motto is more on the order of “All the news that fits, we print.” Retractions and corrections are back on page D13. There’s no wonder that the majority print press all around the states is losing readership. There’s no “there” there. TV reportage is no better for the most part.
And don’t tell me that there is no substance to the questions that have been raised by Mr. Obama’s association with known Marxists, Socialists, and Communists. These are documented by his own words, and verified by research into his past.
And lastly, how can one possibly maintain that “I never heard that from him,” after attending for 20 years the church that Jeremiah Wright pastored? Puh-lease!
The Other Side Says: August 30th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
ribudda, i agree that the media is doing a terrible job with the coverage of this election and has turned into ratings whores. but there has been favorable coverage, or non-coverage, of mccain this election and too much scrutiny of obama. the coverage is making it seem like there are conservative agendas being played out (why do karl rove and bill kristol still get analyst jobs?).
also, what in obama’s policies or statements make him appear socialist? who is doing the research? i’ve never heard anything besides conservatives labeling him as far left.
the jeremiah wright saga is over. it was overplayed at the time and has no bearing on this election (same as rezko). guilt by association is a desperation move.