Biden?

Discuss. Open weekend thread.

Posted at 8:00 am in Current events |
 

53 responses to “Biden?”

  1. coozledad said on August 23, 2008 at 8:11 am

    I can’t imagine it helping, but then again, I’m always wrong about these things.

  2. Howie said on August 23, 2008 at 9:28 am

    This undecided independent is now less likely to vote for Obama. What is the opposite of veep bounce? Haven’t the dems already said no to Biden for 5 or 6 election cycles?

  3. alex said on August 23, 2008 at 9:52 am

    I won’t second-guess Obama, but I’m glad he’s not taking Bayh. Not because I think Bayh would be a bad veep choice, but because our Bush crony governor would appoint one of our two most noxious congressmen, Souder or Pence, to Bayh’s seat, and either of those two are just like the smell of cat piss in a carpet—absolutely impossible to get rid of.

    Biden doesn’t excite me but he doesn’t turn me off either. Obama would’ve done better with Richardson, I think. It’ll be interesting to see who McCain picks. He needs to throw a big bone to the far right without alienating moderates, and that’s going to be tough.

  4. brian stouder said on August 23, 2008 at 10:00 am

    Biden looks to me like a very safe choice – the equivalent of a safe running play in football (as opposed to a chancey long pass play), or a layup in golf (as opposed to going for the pin, and risking flying the green). Honestly, I was hoping for Evan Bayh, even though I knew that giving the Republicans a Senate seat on a silver platter made HIS selection unlikely; and leaving him aside, a surprise choice like Hillary Rodham Clinton was beginning to look better and better to me, probably thanks (in no small measure) to Pam’s increasingly pursuasive arguments in her favor.

    Indeed, the first thing she and I discussed after reading the news was – what happens if McCain picks a woman?

    I think John McCain has a huge opportunity next week, to ‘go for the pin’ and name (say) Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas as his running mate. She is a known quantity with a solid debating style from a big state…..and I think she could get him into the White House….and ironically enough, put her self on the path to the presidency – thanks to disaffected HRC supporters (and ultimately, thanks to Senator Clinton’s own tireless efforts)

    The fall campaign would consist of grinding over all but Obama’s lengthy senate careers and votes, and in the end…..which ticket will still have enough fizz to win? A woman running with McCain is the one scenario that scares me; Obama/Biden won’t be a pushover, but McCain/credible woman would be the Republican’s best choice

  5. Judith said on August 23, 2008 at 10:01 am

    Joe Biden–experience and intellect. And Biden is always ready to present his views and well as to debate them. Biden is one of the few long-serving senators who has not amassed wealth during his terms. He will add to the concept of a Lincoln-like ticket with his life print.

  6. Judith said on August 23, 2008 at 10:02 am

    Why are my comments subject to a thirty-minute “editorial option” when others do not seem to be?

  7. brian stouder said on August 23, 2008 at 10:06 am

    Judith – I think they all are. I fixed two mis-spellings on my 10 am post just now

  8. Judith said on August 23, 2008 at 10:25 am

    Thanks, Brian! I could read your 10 a.m. post just after I submitted my 10:01 a.m. one. So I thought yours went right through while mine was invisible to everybody until edited.

  9. James said on August 23, 2008 at 11:03 am

    Has this been confirmed, aside from the AP report?

    I have a wacky vision of him coming up with Chuck Hagel at the last minute, and the whole Biden thing was a feint.

    I can dream, can’t I?

  10. Judith said on August 23, 2008 at 11:11 am

    Just check out http://www.barackobama.com

  11. nancy said on August 23, 2008 at 11:44 am

    Everyone can edit their own comments, but no one else’s, which is why you’ll see “edit this” on your own, only.

    Biden. Sigh. I iz disappointed. But Alex is right. Better Bayh in the Senate than Souder or Pence.

  12. Judith said on August 23, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Thanks, Nancy,
    As you can see I am not proficient on the use of the computer!

    Sylvia Smith first wrote about the dilemna of a Daniel’s appointment to the Senate to fill Bayh’s seat. And Alex’s point of Souder or Pence is very chilling to consider!

  13. Mark West said on August 23, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    I have a pre-release copy of Biden’s acceptance speech: “Four score and seven years ago…” Already been done? No, he wrote it first!

    Odd choice in my book.

  14. Catherine said on August 23, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    I’m giving Biden the thumbs up. But, what Brian said about McCain choosing a woman. Elizabeth Dole or even Condi Rice would be other interesting choices for him. Although it’s beyond me, how any self-respecting woman could agree to be on a ticket with a man who called his wife the c-word (sorry, after 40-whatever years I still can’t say it).

  15. Gasman said on August 23, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    I think Biden was possibly the best choice for several reasons. First, he has been the ONLY person in Washington to enunciate a sensible plan for Iraq. Last year he was advocating a loose federal system with strong semi-independent regional states. I’m willing to bet you 1000 to one that an Iraqi state based upon the present map will be short lived- thank you George. Once Sadam was gone, there was nothing to bind Iraq to its historic borders. Iraq’s borders were an artificial construct drawn up by European powers without regard to language, religious, and ethnic differences in the region. Biden recognizes this and has suggested a path toward more stable states that would provide for the least amount of bloodshed. If the goal was to provide a stable Iraq with the same borders, we’ve pretty much blown it. Look at the former Yugoslavia; with Tito gone, there was nothing that could hold it together save another ruthless dictator. So will go Iraq.

    Biden also has a brain and is not afraid to use it. He is also no shrinking violet and is unlikely to suffer the idiotic campaign b.s. of the McCain camp. They still think that they can win a contest for who is the least elitist, just as soon as they get a firm count on McCain’s homes.

    As for Richardson being a better choice, don’t you believe it. Buffet Bill has been our Gov. for several years now and he was my LAST choice – save for Hillary. Richardson is smart enough, but for twenty years I’ve said that Richardson was running for president. He isn’t exactly dishonest, but he hasn’t made a single decision ever that he didn’t weigh against his White House bid. If it happens to coincide with the best interests of New Mexicans, great. If not, well too damn bad for us. The Buffet Bill moniker was bestowed upon the Gov. by me for a rather insensitive incident in 2004. Lieberman was throwing a party in Albuquerque and the Gov. had his state police escorts and driver top 110 m.p.h. on the highway so he could be first in line at the buffet. Never mind the hapless New Mexicans in his path. Damn the torpedoes! He’s also been known to use the National Guard helicopters for other such trivial nonsense. I find him a might regal. He also appears to have no ideological underpinning other than to be pro-Richardson. That said, he is infinitely preferable to the top to scumbags we have now.

    My beef with Hillary is solely based upon her weaselly conduct regarding the war in Iraq. She had an opportunity to exhibit real leadership and courage and she blew it. Had she opposed the war from the start I am firmly convinced she would be the Democratic nominee and not Obama. I know that I would have been her most ardent supporter.

    Biden will do just fine. We absolutely need someone that the rest of the world will take seriously and can help repair the damage done by President Cheney and his yapping poodle W.

  16. Dexter said on August 23, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    I have felt it would be Biden for a long time, and Biden it is. What a contrast to Cheney he will be!
    I would call Obama/Biden openly hostile towards Iran, and Biden has this 3-way division plan for Iraq as we all know, so this will be interesting.
    I caught Ahmadinejad on with Charlie Rose; Rose baited him but Ahmadinejad held his ground in stating he wants world-wide total nuclear disarmament, and to use nuclear power only to power the countries.
    Remember, Obama is really mistrustful of Iran’s leadership, and Biden wants to shake the hell out of Iraq, so this will be worth watching.
    We all know Lieberman (McInsane’s poodle) has screamed into our living rooms how Iran should already have been bombed, and I feel a McCain/Lieberman win would ensure a January 21 bombing of Iran.
    Do you believe Ahmadinejad only wants to light up Iran’s electric plants and not make bombs? I wonder who can prove Iran really wants to make bombs , or who will create an atmosphere of Iran-hatred, spiced with lies that we need to bomb Iran.
    McCain and his buddy Lieberman are on the record…this is one reason why we must forget 21-year old plagiarism and aneurysm old-news stories and elect President Barack Obama/Vice President Joe Biden.

  17. Dorothy said on August 23, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Dexter, ya took the words right out of my mouth. Thanks for saying it so well.

  18. Laura said on August 23, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Biden? Feh. He’s kind of a blowhard, imo.

  19. Cynthia said on August 23, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Biden? The Repulbicans are going to have a field day with this pick. The man whose judgement we’re all supposed to trust isn’t showing much. Here’s a good article about Biden from 2001. The man’s a flake.

    http://www.tnr.com/columnists/story.html?id=ba9b09bb-ed01-4582-b6ec-444834c9df73&k=93697

  20. Cynthia said on August 23, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    Here’s another article about Biden from Time magazine after Biden’s plagiarism escapade while running for Pres in ’88:

  21. derwood said on August 23, 2008 at 4:05 pm

    Biden is a good safe choice. He is 65 and would serve for 8 years(assuming Obama is in for 8 years) without the issue of him running for President at the end of 8. I could be wrong, but I don’t see Biden running in 2016 at age 73…but hell McCain is doing it.

    Bayh would have been good but losing the Senate seat killed his chances.

    back to MSNBC

    daron

  22. brian stouder said on August 23, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    Cynthia – I think both your articles point up strengths of Biden, rather than weaknesses. The first one (from New Republic) highlights a Trumanesque (in the best sense) quality, wherein he will give a person hell, and do it with a smile on his face. As Truman said “I don’t give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it’s Hell.”, and that’s precisely what Biden rightly did with those presumptuous, uniformed airline industry lobbiests (Amtrak and commuter rail service in general stands to benefit many more work-a-day Americans, EVERY day, than airline subsidies ever will).

    The second article, from Time, nicely mows the overblown “plagiarism” charge back down to size

    Biden in the past had given credit to Kinnock, but in Iowa he introduced the fiery rhetoric by deceptively claiming, “I started thinking as I was coming over here . . .”

    A missed attribution after repeated, correct attribution, is very different from “plagiarism”.

    Biden strikes me as a scrappy politician and speaker, and a happy warrior….and it is reassuring to know that if the opposition wants to reduce the presidential election down to an alley fight, that my man Obama has a runningmate beside him who will not hesitate to kick the living shit out of all comers, and do it with a smile on his face!

  23. Judith said on August 23, 2008 at 5:08 pm

    Well written, Brian!!! And I agree the strengths of Biden come through in those articles!!!

  24. coozledad said on August 23, 2008 at 5:27 pm

    We’re still registering a lot of first time Democratic voters in a Republican stronghold. And we’re following up with the county board of elections website because the Republicans have let it slip that their only strategy down here is voter suppression. The appointment of Hans Von Spakovski to the US Commission on Civil Rights is ample demonstration of that.
    [talking points memo]

  25. MichaelG said on August 23, 2008 at 6:41 pm

    Von Spakovski. The Bushies are relentless, aren’t they? What does it say when L. I. Libby walks free while Marion Jones rots in jail, her plea for presidential mercy unacknowledged?

  26. Gasman said on August 23, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    In rereading some of the earlier posts, I think that some of you are extremely insulting to Hillary’s supporters. Do you really think that they would be swayed by McCain choosing Elizabeth Dole or Kay Bailey Hutchinson? Hutchinson is a blonde Hitler in drag. As someone who did time in Texas, I would rather eat my own spleen than to see her as V.P. Both Dole and KBH project a certain gentility, but then so did all of the belles while their slaves were sold, beaten, or worked to death. As long as you appear to be charming who cares how appalling your politics.

    The three things that Hillary has in common with Dole and KBH are two boobs and a vagina. If that is the extent of their support for Hillary, then they are idiots. As I stated in my post above, if Hillary had shown courage and opposed the war, I would have been her biggest supporter. I contend that the decision to wage an unjust war in Iraq was the single greatest foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. I am all for having a woman president, but not just any woman, and certainly not any of the three just mentioned.

    Only a peawit votes based upon a candidate’s genitalia.

  27. brian stouder said on August 23, 2008 at 8:41 pm

    Suddenly, I ‘get’ why you sign yourself ‘Gasman’!

  28. Gasman said on August 23, 2008 at 9:13 pm

    I’ve never been one to remain silent, however, I have been relatively and uncharacteristically quiet since Jan. of 2001. My wife is a foreign national and I have seen retribution meted out to nobodies who happened to have a visa or green card simply because they, or a family member, or even their government hadn’t taken a deferential enough tone to Bush. My in laws have been rousted at the Canadian border. Why? Because it’s obvious that the next great threat to our national security comes from septuagenarian Canadians.

    Upon instructions from the White House and the State Department, border guards have been instructed to engage in a low level hassle campaign of Canadian citizens. Why? Because Canada had the audacity to be a truly free nation and to exercise its right to chart their own course. It happens more often than you’d imagine. If you know any Canadians, ask them.

    I have great hope that a new non-Republican Administration will bring us back from the brink of a fascist dictatorship where schmucks like me don’t need to be afraid to speak out for fear of the deportation of a spouse.

    I have found my voice and I damn well am going to use it.

  29. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on August 23, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    Speak all you want, Gas, because there ain’t no fascist dictatorship on offer. The choice is how much paternalism of what sort we’ll settle for, and we disagree on the relative tell-you-what-to-do-ism of the two major parties.

    Little platoons, folks, little platoons. Some prefer the attentive care of a large institution if its based far enough away (but the devil is in the detail of delegation), and think community influences are always stultifying, provincial, and need smashing to reach true liberation. Those are the ones who feared the little platoons of Burke and Tocqueville, and welcomed the Little Corporal.

    And recall that Beethoven angrily scratched out Napoleon’s name to change his great symphony to “Heroic/Eroica” when he saw what that kind of liberating paternalism does to creativity and culture and community.

    I know, the early 19th century isn’t the best place to draw illustrations for the 2008 election. And Obama isn’t Bonaparte. But we really ought to be over our early 20th century fear of Babbitt and embrace our inner hobbit — push decisions where you can to the local sphere, and limit power in the federal government. I’ll vote for Democrats who lean that way.

    (Indiana folk who want to prove me wrong quickly, if not comprehensively, can simply say two words — “township trustees.” My case is flawed if only on that simple argument.)

  30. Gasman said on August 23, 2008 at 11:28 pm

    Jeff(tmmo),
    Add to that “school boards.” Politics doesn’t get more local or pissy and incompetent. When I look to local and state governments from Indiana (Ft. Wayne), Michigan (Detroit), Texas (Dallas), New Mexico (Albuquerque and Santa Fe), I don’t see government improving as it becomes more proximate. That is an old saw closely linked to the oxymoronic term “state’s rights” which of course are non-existent. In my experience the least efficient, most incompetent, and most corrupt governments tend to be the most local.

    I’ll also stack the record of liberalism against conservatism any day. What are the great lasting achievements of conservatism? I can think of none save some of the worst financial and foreign policy debacles in our history. When you list those accomplishments that have brought us greater liberty, they are probably liberal in conception and leadership, starting with the very notion of our democracy.

  31. brian stouder said on August 23, 2008 at 11:40 pm

    OK Jeff – “Township Trustees”.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you very much.

    And, Gasman –

    I have great hope that a new non-Republican Administration will bring us back from the brink of a fascist dictatorship where schmucks like me don’t need to be afraid to speak out for fear of the deportation of a spouse.

    Hmmmmmm, let’s see. The last president (non-Republican or otherwise) who ordered the summary round-up of American citizens, people who had done nothing wrong at all, other than being born the wrong race, it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and tens of thousands of innocent Americans ended up as detainees.

    By way of saying, Al Qaeda’s 9/11 surprise attacks killed more people than Japan’s strike against Pearl Harbor – so maybe one can take a breath and reconsider our recent history, at least a little bit

  32. Gasman said on August 24, 2008 at 12:39 am

    Jeff(tmmo)
    And George Bush’s actions has led to the deaths of more Americans than the actions of Osama Bin Laden. There is no excuse for the wholesale violations of rights by Roosevelt. It is another example of what happens when we debase our values and slip into Us vs. Them. It is no better when from a liberal. At the same time as Roosevelt, Southern conservative Democrats were lynching and terrorizing blacks via Jim Crow. I’ll see your injustice and raise you one.

    We used to think of ourselves as the guys in the white hats. We used to honor habeas corpus, free speech, the right of assembly, religious freedom, and democracy. We used to punish as war criminals those who engage in the kind of torture that we now use, that our president says is not torture at all.

    I did not say that liberals are free from sin or faults. They just are the ones who consistently have challenged the American people to strive for something better in regards to our liberties. Are all liberals equal in their adherence to the angels of our better nature? Hell no. I will still accept the challenge from anybody that contends that conservatism has any kind of record to be proud of.

  33. Catherine said on August 24, 2008 at 1:24 am

    Gasman, my suggestion about McCain choosing a female running mate was not about pandering to Hillary’s supporters, but about making an interesting, out-of-the-box choice, that might say, “I’m more pragmatic and moderate than you might think.” I agree that most of Hillary’s supporters will not vote for a Republican. That’s not what I was suggesting.

    At the same time, suggesting that gender is the same as genitalia makes me wonder what rock you’ve been hiding under for the last 30 years. But your comment about “gentility’ basically gives the whole thing away, anyway. That was the kind of sexist nonsense that undermined Hillary’s candidacy — NOT her position on the war.

  34. moe99 said on August 24, 2008 at 1:55 am

    Here’s an interesting piece about Biden. I didn’t know his first wife and baby daughter were killed in a car accident right after he was first elected to the Senate. He commuted DAILY back to Delaware to be with his young sons.

    http://tinyurl.com/68am2u

    He’s also one of the poorest members of the Senate.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2006&filter=S&sort=A

  35. moe99 said on August 24, 2008 at 2:58 am

    Oh, and Catherine, I’m a female attorney, been one for 32 years and have suffered my own experiences with sexual discrimination and survived but not forgotten. And I absolutely REFUSED to support Hillary because of her position on the war. There are a lot more of us out there than you seem to think.l

  36. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on August 24, 2008 at 7:42 am

    I do like Biden, as a mensch, and if Obama is elected, it does make me glad he will be in the administration. Gasman, i know you don’t think liberalism is without flaw, and i appreciate knowing you know that i don’t say that about conservatives, either.

    What has conservatism done right? I just got done reading transcripts of most of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and i will claim Lincoln and the fight, which became a literal one, to end slavery. It wasn’t conservative/Republican only by a long shot, but when you look at Douglas and his party in 1860 and the appalling McClellan in 1864 put forward as the heart and soul of the Democratic Party . . . yep, i’m claiming that.

    Read Whittaker Chambers’ “Witness.” Robert Taft was no prize, and even young Richard Nixon was cringe -inducing, plus that Joe from Wisconsin feller. But the “long, dark struggle” that was Leninism-Stalinism through the 30’s and into the immediate post-WWII period — conservatism can’t be tossed overboard because of one cabin boy with a drinking problem called McCarthy. There was a very aggressive, murderous effort to overthrow democracy, and Democrats had no stomach for the struggle. If the CPUSA hadn’t been so willing to discard and kill its own, the tide could have swung against the ship right onto the rocks. (Yes, i think it proven Hiss was a spy — has nothing to do with whether Nixon became a cretin in the 60’s and 70’s.)

    Much of what conservatism accomplishes, though, is not in the nature of grand, nationally visible monuments and programs — by definition. But i will say, out of my own direct experience, that welfare reform was a huge positive step forward for literally millions. Now, we have to figure out the simple (to me) math that removing 77% of the welfare rolls doesn’t mean we cut that budget by 77%, because we’re down to the most challenged, most impaired, hardest to assist folk, and some of the formulas were doomed to fail when 60 months hit these populations. I give Bill Clinton credit for signing it, however willingly or not, but it was a conservative initiative, passed by conservatives, that is working in most communities because of the solid backstop of conservative folk working to create a more dynamic buffer for the people who need shorter-term, non-formulaic, non-entitlement-based aid.

    To sum up, Grover Norquist does not only not represent conservatism, i’d argue that he isn’t a conservative. He’s a reactionary radical with a bad attitude. And i know liberalism can claim much (i happened to love Carville’s book, re: SS and Medicare and such), but conservatism has plenty on the black side of the ledger book.

  37. alex said on August 24, 2008 at 9:00 am

    Township trustees… Aren’t those the guys young unwed mothers fuck for food stamps? I guess as voters it’s our duty to pick grotesquely ugly ones so as to keep the poor rolls down.

  38. Gasman said on August 24, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    The liberal/conservative debate has until quite recently had almost no party affiliation. There have been times when either party was more of one than the other and times when both had representation in both camps. I contend that the surest definition of conservatism comes from a preference for a top down, elitist, or even aristocratic style of government. That argument predates the constitution and seems to be at the heart of most of the causes that conservatives have held dear.

    This would encompass the conservative penchants for aggregate rights over individual rights, the canard of “state’s rights”, property rights, their early addiction to slavery and subsequently their quest for the holy grail of zero-cost labor (essentially slavery with a smiley face), corporate welfare, and the religious-like zeal for the free market. These threads seem to be a constant in conservative politics. I don’t even think that the religious issues are core to conservatism. I think they are affected every four years to mobilize the evangelical foot soldiers and quickly forgotten once elections are over.

    Party has almost nothing to do with the L/C labels. By the above definition Lincoln was clearly the social liberal and Douglas and McClellan the conservatives.

  39. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on August 24, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    Well, then conservatives become “people i don’t like” and liberals are “people i like.” Or, conservatives are the skanky powermongers, and liberals are the oppressed majority.

    I like you, Gasman, insofar as one can like a person you know only online, but i don’t buy your definition of the right wing. Hey, i like Andrew Sullivan well enough, too, but his definition of “Christianist” seems to flex to include anything that bothers him (today) but can always dodge including inconvenient positive expressions of faith-based organizations.

    And you’re edging towards the infamous WaPo construction of “poor, undereducated, and easily led” to define evangelical Christians. It just doesn’t hold up if you get out in the middle of them — we aren’t “foot soldier” drones that operate on a radio controller with two switches and an on/off button.

    Wait, i just got an e-mail from Paul Weyrich: gotta go. Proles to exploit, y’know.

  40. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on August 24, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    BTW, i’ll take 9 out of 10 school boards any day over a state education bureaucracy. The Mrs. Grundys and Mr. Comstocks grab a school board or two here and there and make a splash, but most are public servants without salary and amazing work ethics. State senators are often cr4pweasels, who can’t be trusted with a Girl Scout cookie sale let alone the state budget, but somehow school boards come in for the bulk of the stereotyped distaste.

    Give the choice between a long dinner seated between two school board members and two state senators, and my choice is an easy one. Alex is right, though, if you’re seated next to most township trustees, feign vomiting before they pour the beverages and run for the door. I don’t understand how that system became quite as toxic as it generally is, but it is.

  41. Gasman said on August 24, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    Jeff(tmmo)
    I agree with you 100% regarding state educational bureaucracy. I’ve interacted with them as a citizen and as a teacher. In each state I’ve lived they seemed to have dredged the bottom of the each state’s humanity barrel.

    As far as my political opinions go, I stand as great a chance of being wrong/right as the next schmuck. I just like the idea of being able to say my piece without fear that my wife will be deported. Ain’t America grand?

    My wife and I have been active in Habitat for Humanity for about 20 years. In the cities where we have lived, the evangelicals have had the least participation in Habitat. Habitat is ecumenical, but has an overtly Christian mission statement right out of the New Testament. My experience is anecdotal to be sure, but in this Christian’s experience our local evangelicals seemed to be less interested in putting Christ’s words in action (at least as far as Habitat is concerned) and more interested in a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It’s had a very negative “evangelical” impact upon me. They have seemed aloof toward us mainliners when it comes to any kind of ecumenical mission. Not a scientifically valid study, merely my direct experience.

  42. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on August 24, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Ow. That’s more than unfortunate. I will say fundamentalist folk spend more time worrying about doctrinal purity than partnership, and i spent *no* time sweating to get them aboard the two Habitat start-ups i’ve worked . . . but my fellow mainliners, liberal and conservative, have usually been startled by how ecumenical Charismatics are. They’ll say “yeah, i think you’re going to Hell if you don’t get right with God,” but with a smile, and while still stirring the mortar trough. I can work with that. Snide fundies, though, who just monkey wrench community partnerships, are the plague of my Midwestern existence.

    And i think they recruit upper-echelon INS folk from the same bolgia they dredge state BoE slot-fillers out of. Sorry you have to self-edit, for any reason! (cf. Voltaire, defend to the death, your right to say it, etc.)

  43. Catherine said on August 24, 2008 at 6:33 pm

    moe, you are right and I overstated it. And I bow to your world experience.

    What frosted me with Hillary’s run, and continues to frost me, is how quickly the criticism veers from policy to gender-oriented personal attacks. I can respect policy disagreements. But when was the last time a male candidate was dissed as a drag queen, or called genteel or a belle?

  44. Gasman said on August 24, 2008 at 8:11 pm

    Catherine,
    Absolutely no gender bashing was intended by my remarks regarding Elizabeth Dole or Kay Bailey Hucthinson. I abhor their politics, not their gender. I believe that their public images are affected to a fairly large degree and to the extent that they are, I am critical. I lived in Texas and have had a much higher dose of KBH already. I’m not buyin’ the act. I must be allowed to criticize what I believe to be a politician’s affected public veneer without the charge of sexism.

    Ten years ago I was ecstatic at the thought of Hillary Clinton as president. It gave me great pleasure to think of the wringing of hands and the gnashing of teeth amongst the conservatives at the notion of her as president. I generally like her policies and I think she articulates them well. My non-support for her comes down her support for the war in Iraq. I think that she showed extremely bad judgement and got that one wrong. For me, diehard supporter that I was, that was and is a deal breaker.

  45. Linda said on August 24, 2008 at 8:45 pm

    Tbogg said it best: “…the idea of Obama choosing Joe Biden as his running mate is kind of like getting underwear for Christmas. You know that you can use it, but it’s not exactly what you were hoping for.” But that’s o.k. I think Obama needed an old white guy who has been in the public eye for a long time to convince more nervous Americans that the world wouldn’t turn upside down if he was elected.

  46. Hattie said on August 25, 2008 at 12:06 am

    Nice to get some varied perspectives here.

  47. moe99 said on August 25, 2008 at 10:34 am

    Someone said this morning, Obama’s choice was reminiscent of Jfk selecting LBJ as his running mate. Also was done to inoculate against charges of inexperience.

  48. brian stouder said on August 25, 2008 at 10:51 am

    And indeed – other than Grover Cleveland – when has any non-incumbent ever NOT been “inexperienced”? The job is unique; and indeed – what “experience” did the 42 year old Teddy Roosevelt bring? (or for that matter, the 52 year old Lincoln, who had been a state legislator and a one-term congressman from Illinois)

  49. MichaelG said on August 25, 2008 at 11:55 am

    Gasman, I was married for 30 years to a foreign national. After 9-11 she went and got her American citizenship. She feared all the same stuff your wife fears. And thanks for your posts. Saves me the trouble and you say it better than I could.

  50. Gasman said on August 25, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    MichaelG,
    My wife has considered trying to get dual citizenship but will not do so while Bush is in office. She also has informed me that if McCain wins that we are moving to Canada. I don’t argue with my wife.

    I live very near Los Alamos National Lab, our nation’s primary research and development facility for nuclear weapons. Even though it is a tiny community, it is one with a lot of federal security types who aren’t overly concerned with my civil liberties. If I had vented in our local paper like I do here – at least anytime in the last 5-6 years – I would bet that I would have been contacted by the feds or at least had a file started on me. I don’t like being afraid for merely exercising rights the constitutions says that I have.

    As a foreigner, they could deport my wife without cause. We could fight it, but at what cost and how long would it take?

  51. Scout said on August 25, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    This is one of the most amazing comment sections I have seen anywhere. Kudos, Nancy, you’re evidence that smart attracts smart.

    I wasn’t ecstatic when I heard the Biden announcement, but I have done my research since and am very comfortable with the choice. We have to remember there is more at stake here than our little dream team fantasies. There is a boatload of wrongs to right and to even get a toehold we have to win the election first.

    I am very impressed with Biden’s relative lifestyle simplicity, it’s going to play well along side of Obama’s self made man story. Johnny Ten House’s elitist charges are looking sillier by the day. Not a winning strategy by his team, but I’m not really complaining.

  52. brian stouder said on August 25, 2008 at 8:07 pm

    Johnny Ten House’s elitist charges are looking sillier by the day

    A great line!! I am stealing it, for immediate, repeated, and unattributed use!

  53. Scout said on August 26, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Brian, It’s all yours! Apply liberally!