Sen. Barack Obama was in a tight spot about his choice of runningmate. The McCain camp was prepared to attack him for picking a liberal or a moderate, an old guy or a young one, a woman or a man, another minority or the white guy. They had all of these in their back pocket and were just waiting for the chance to use them.
To be fair, the public short list (not confirmed by the campaign, so it was all speculation) was three white guys and one white woman. Two of the men were moderates, whose only real appeal was that they were from supposed "swing" states. The woman (Kathleen Sebelius) was the popular governor of Kansas, and the other guy was Sen. Joe Biden.
In reality, the pickings for a VP were slim: Senators John Edwards and Hillary Clinton were out from the start, but for different reasons. Edwards is now too "tainted" by scandal and Clinton typifies the need for change. Regardless of any perceived need to broker a deal, Clinton would compromise Obama's ticket completely. But we've already covered that.
This is the real reason that pickings are slim: there aren't many high-profile Democrats that could help float the ticket. To suggest that Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine have any national reputation is absurd. Neither is a particular darling of the Democratic Party, nor is either particularly appealing to the base. The suggestion that either would work is more of Obama throwing a bone to the establishment than anything else in picking a party loyalist and moderate. Ms. Sebelius, on the other hand, was a truly intriguing pick. She was the second female to become governor of Kansas and provided a stunning upset of a Republican incumbent. She would have served as a truly historic VP choice and her positions would be popular with the base and moderates alike. But perhaps the ticket shouldn't be too historic...
So that really only left Biden. The most capable, recognizable, healthy, appealing option. He represents an Obama-style Democrat in being able to make some compromises for a greater victory, and is as politically mainstream as they come.
So here is the real issue: Biden doesn't "complete" Obama. The media is all over this "shrewd" move by Obama in picking a "balancing force" to the ticket and "shoring up a weakness". They look at it as Obama acknowledging a shortcoming or that he is tired of being beaten up about foreign policy: despite the fact that both Bush and McCain have actually adopted Obama's policy. Biden is another voice.
But the worst charge, which betrays the media's lack of understanding, is that Biden is the "ultimate insider", the current description du jour. Discussing the need for change in Washington as if Washington has always been bad not only misunderstands the argument, but seems to ignore the subtext: the post-Reagan years, and specifically, the Clinton Democrats and Bush Republicans, are the true problem. Biden not only pre-dates Bush and the Clintons, but Reagan as well. When "conventional thinking" is bandied about in this discussion, it isn't everybody in Washington, it is pro-corporate agenda, deregulation, and perpetual tax-cutting that represent the 90's and 00's that is truly at issue. It is the offspring of "trickle down" that need to be kicked out of control. In this way, Biden is more appealing that Clinton, but he is still "tainted", if you will. In this way, Biden represents, not an equal or superior, but an inferior--someone that has made mistakes and has had a lot of time to make those mistakes.
Is Biden the best bick? Of these options, maybe. But he was the only real option. In a world where the media's favorite thing is to find the bright, new, shiny toy and then tear it to pieces, scraping and clawing away, smashing it with a hammer in hopes of opening it up, and then staring at its coveted guts in hopes of gleaning some insight, Obama's pick was going to cause too much criticism. Now let's see if McCain's choice gets a fraction of that criticism.
To be fair, the public short list (not confirmed by the campaign, so it was all speculation) was three white guys and one white woman. Two of the men were moderates, whose only real appeal was that they were from supposed "swing" states. The woman (Kathleen Sebelius) was the popular governor of Kansas, and the other guy was Sen. Joe Biden.
In reality, the pickings for a VP were slim: Senators John Edwards and Hillary Clinton were out from the start, but for different reasons. Edwards is now too "tainted" by scandal and Clinton typifies the need for change. Regardless of any perceived need to broker a deal, Clinton would compromise Obama's ticket completely. But we've already covered that.
This is the real reason that pickings are slim: there aren't many high-profile Democrats that could help float the ticket. To suggest that Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine have any national reputation is absurd. Neither is a particular darling of the Democratic Party, nor is either particularly appealing to the base. The suggestion that either would work is more of Obama throwing a bone to the establishment than anything else in picking a party loyalist and moderate. Ms. Sebelius, on the other hand, was a truly intriguing pick. She was the second female to become governor of Kansas and provided a stunning upset of a Republican incumbent. She would have served as a truly historic VP choice and her positions would be popular with the base and moderates alike. But perhaps the ticket shouldn't be too historic...
So that really only left Biden. The most capable, recognizable, healthy, appealing option. He represents an Obama-style Democrat in being able to make some compromises for a greater victory, and is as politically mainstream as they come.
So here is the real issue: Biden doesn't "complete" Obama. The media is all over this "shrewd" move by Obama in picking a "balancing force" to the ticket and "shoring up a weakness". They look at it as Obama acknowledging a shortcoming or that he is tired of being beaten up about foreign policy: despite the fact that both Bush and McCain have actually adopted Obama's policy. Biden is another voice.
But the worst charge, which betrays the media's lack of understanding, is that Biden is the "ultimate insider", the current description du jour. Discussing the need for change in Washington as if Washington has always been bad not only misunderstands the argument, but seems to ignore the subtext: the post-Reagan years, and specifically, the Clinton Democrats and Bush Republicans, are the true problem. Biden not only pre-dates Bush and the Clintons, but Reagan as well. When "conventional thinking" is bandied about in this discussion, it isn't everybody in Washington, it is pro-corporate agenda, deregulation, and perpetual tax-cutting that represent the 90's and 00's that is truly at issue. It is the offspring of "trickle down" that need to be kicked out of control. In this way, Biden is more appealing that Clinton, but he is still "tainted", if you will. In this way, Biden represents, not an equal or superior, but an inferior--someone that has made mistakes and has had a lot of time to make those mistakes.
Is Biden the best bick? Of these options, maybe. But he was the only real option. In a world where the media's favorite thing is to find the bright, new, shiny toy and then tear it to pieces, scraping and clawing away, smashing it with a hammer in hopes of opening it up, and then staring at its coveted guts in hopes of gleaning some insight, Obama's pick was going to cause too much criticism. Now let's see if McCain's choice gets a fraction of that criticism.
No comments:
Post a Comment