’)Will the Democratic nominee for vice-president be a man who doesn’t take any malarkey?
Further stoking speculation about Sen. Joe Biden’s vice presidential prospects, the Delaware Democrat has been slated to speak at the Democratic National Convention in Denver on Aug. 27, the same day as the vice presidential nominee, Gannett News Service has confirmed.
While I’ve had problems with Biden’s past gaffes, I also think he’s hard edged in the way a veep candidate needs to be. And far, far better than the bland Evan Bayh.
Obama’s about change. Biden is anything but change.
Clark is he best pick. By far:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judah-freed/and-its-got-to-be-gen-wes_b_116812.html
I like Clark too but I don’t see it happening.
There’s pretty much no one else who would boost the ticket half as much as Clark (if he wants it). Brian Schweitzer is second, but not a close second. I dunno who’s third, but he or she is a distant third to BSchweitz’s distant second.
I am a huge Clark fan but I am alittle suprised that Richardson gets no mention. From a strategy standpoint, he fits into Obama’s plan to take over the West, has foriegn policy chops and doesn’t hog the spotlight. Evan Bayh would be the absolute worst pick because he is Republican-lite and has been promoting the war since the beggining. Hardly a change minded candidate. I think that Clark is the arrow that slays McCain.
Biden’s been my favorite pick pretty much since the beginning (at least, inasmuch as Richardson was unfortunately never a likely pick). August pretty much summed up my reasoning back in March: http://www.someguywithawebsite.com/blogarchive/week_2008_03_23.html#002490
Ed makes a good point about Biden not really fitting the “change” meme, but another way to look at that is that he balances the “lack of experience” smear. And while I like Clark and think he’d be a great pick, I don’t see how he represents change any more than Biden does.
Of course, what Clark DOES bring to the table is obvious: he’s got better name recognition than Biden, has the foreign policy chops AND the military experience, and he’s a friend of the Clintons.
I think either one would be a great pick. Bayh would probably be the worst option.
I don’t see how he represents change any more than Biden does.
Biden’s been in the Senate for a thousand years. He’s an Inside the Beltway standard Meet the Press guest. Clark doesn’t come from established political circles.
Biden was also loud wrong on the Iraq Invasion, which really needs to count for something (since it’s good policy and good politics–that’s how Obama won the nomination in the first place). Clark got Iraq right. It would be nice to get on the same page there and hammer Bush/McCain with that.
Personally, I can’t stand Biden. I think he’s a preening schmuck, eager to sway with the political winds du jour. He gets in some good one-liners, and is occasionally right, but on the whole, he nowhere close to Clark in terms of what each brings to the ticket.
Biden’s ego would never allow him to play second fiddle.
Kos is already saying Biden is out:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/14/185633/744
He thinks it is going to be Tom Daschle. Daschle?
I think its highly unlikely its going to be Daschle. And if it was him, I might jump out of a window.
You and me both, OWill.
Let’s see, the theme of my campaign is “change.” Hmmm….whom should I call? Tom Daschle!
Clark, dammit!
My top three go…
1) Richardson
2) Clark
3) Kaine
My bottom three go…
3, as in third-worst) Daschle
2) Bayh
1) Daschle again
I agree about Clark (and would have voted for him for President, had he made it as far as the nomination in 2004), but got worried when Obama denounced Clark’s perfectly sensible criticism of McCain earlier this year–that is, that McCain’s getting shot down in Vietnam and being held captive for five years did not outright qualify him to lead.
Speaking of, did anybody else catch Hannity’s contention earlier this week that McCain’s capture and imprisonment entitled him to cheat on his wife?
Speaking of, did anybody else catch Hannity’s contention earlier this week that McCain’s capture and imprisonment entitled him to cheat on his wife?
Read it on newshounds. Sometimes I wonder if he even believes what he’s saying.
Speaking of, did anybody else catch Hannity’s contention earlier this week that McCain’s capture and imprisonment entitled him to cheat on his wife?
Par for the course. Did it also permit McCain to cheat on his current wife too? Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.
Hey, if Cindy’s going to slather on the makeup like a trollop, then John must be entitled to treat her like one.