Who will it be?

[knight66]

David, Thanks....not a pretty scenario from your point of view. Yes, I could see how basically Liberal the core of 'West Wing' was.

If this potential VP is as useless as you suggest, I don't really understand why he gets the slot. He must have some selling points beyond the grunt-attack-dog you suggest.

Mike

[johnQpublic]

Obama is such an unknown quantity--a master of smoke and mirrors, sadly proving to be just another hypocritically opportunistic politico-

Who'd really expect someone who came from Chicago politics too be anything other than that?

[DavidRoss]

If this potential VP is as useless as you suggest, I don't really understand why he gets the slot. He must have some selling points beyond the grunt-attack-dog you suggest.

There was talk of a deal between Biden and Obama early in the Primary season.  Perhaps the deal was struck, with Biden's people moving enough voters to Obama for him to beat Clinton in key contests, and the VP slot is somehow the payoff for Biden. 

I wonder if this is a choice Obama's strategists think will appeal to the working class Democrats Obama alienates with his elitist remarks, the ones Hilary went after in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania? 

[knight66]

It is certainly a murky game. I should think it is difficult to get anything done without inappropriate compromise. I have noticed a theme in a number of storylines in US programmes where the corruption of one character bleeds across to affect a lot of people. I have been wondering the extent to which this is an outworking of some disquiet in the US with how things have been going over the last few years.

I suppose corruption has always been with us, but perhaps just more easily covered up than now. Even where it is not clear, it is often detected by inference.

Mike

[knight66]

David, Here is immediate backup for your opinion. On the BBC I just heard the very end of a report from a political corr. in the US. He termed Biden as an attack dog and said the Republicans would now have to go for the equivalent.

Mike

[scarpia]

Who'd really expect someone who came from Chicago politics too be anything other than that?

I think cynicism has its limits.  Obama is a man who graduated Harvard Law school and chose to devote himself to teaching and public service.  We was not a wealthy man until very recently, when his candidacy made his books (which he actually wrote himself) became best-sellers.  He may have had to make accommodation with some unsavory people along the way, but that does not make him a corrupt person.

If Biden can serve as attack dog, that will make him worth choosing.  They need someone to savage McCain without getting Obama's hands dirty.

[DavidRoss]

He may have had to make accommodation with some unsavory people along the way, but that does not make him a corrupt person.

Depends upon the accommodation.  The housing deal and the way he's used then jettisoned Wright suggest he's much less savory than he presents at first glance.

If Biden can serve as attack dog, that will make him worth choosing.  They need someone to savage McCain without getting Obama's hands dirty.

Obama's repeated lies about McCain and his positions should have already cost him the respect of every thoughtful person who at first took him at face value and hoped for something better from him.  Of course, it was relatively easy for him to appear to occupy the moral high ground when his primary rival was Clinton.

[PSmith08]

PS, Re the foreign affairs issue, I had wondered whether his opinions at the start of an issue had proved in retrospect to be sound. From what we have been told here, his speciality is foreign affairs, but perhaps that is not really so.

I think his specialty is being in the Senate. Call that what you will. He's got some experience in foreign relations, but he's no Dick Lugar (Indiana's senior senator).

I understand the point on ballast. But if the topsail is blown off, do you want to be left with this particular lump of ballast? (When I say 'you', I am not interrogating you, rather wondering how the country at large would view the prospect.)

Mike

Americans, as a whole, aren't that forward-looking, especially on matters related to vice-presidential succession. Few people really understood how Lyndon Johnson became vice president, and when Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson got a boon by carrying on in his "spirit." Whatever that means. Of course, when the Vietnam conflict got hot, all those good feelings evaporated. If the Man of Hope and Glory wins and something untoward happens to him, the shock will be sufficient that President Biden can get a free pass for a while.

In other words, when the vice president has succeeded the president in unfortunate circumstances, he either does something really bad (Andrew Johnson) or really good (Theodore Roosevelt). America is, however, usually too grief-addled or distracted to notice until it's too late.

[Don]

I'm a fairly happy camper.  I like the selection of Obama and his subsequent selection of Biden.  All of them suck to some degree, but eight years of a Republican administration is enough, especially one with a moron at the helm. 

Unfortunately, I have the feeling that the Democrats will screw it all up, something they are particularly good at. 

Any opinions on McCain not knowing how many homes he owns?  It might not be anything significant, but I got a good laugh out of it.

[DavidRoss]

I'm a fairly happy camper.  I like the selection of Obama and his subsequent selection of Biden.  All of them suck to some degree, but eight years of a Republican administration is enough, especially one with a moron at the helm. 

Unfortunately, I have the feeling that the Democrats will screw it all up, something they are particularly good at. 

Any opinions on McCain not knowing how many homes he owns?  It might not be anything significant, but I got a good laugh out of it.

I understand that he and his wife own several investment properties, including houses and condos--not just two or three personal residences.  Do you know off the top of your head how many shares of Dow stocks you own though your various investments?  McCain's answer--"I'm not sure, my staff will look into it"--is about as honest and straightforward as you can get, unlike Obama's obfuscation and distortion of the shady deal that got him that mansion in Chicago.  That the Dems and their media lapdogs are criticizing McCain for having married an heiress and not knowing exactly what their holdings might be in one particular class of assets strikes me as reprehensibly hypocritical for a party whose previous nominee, Kerry, married an even wealthier heiress (it wasn't as issue for them then), and whose penultimate nominee, Gore, was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

[Sarastro]

Obama's repeated lies about McCain and his positions should have already cost him the respect of every thoughtful person

What's his preliminary rating? I heard he and McCain had the same percent ratings last week.

[Don]

I understand that he and his wife own several investment properties, including houses and condos--not just two or three personal residences.  Do you know off the top of your head how many shares of Dow stocks you own though your various investments? 

Although the stocks question is much harder to answer correctly than how many homes one owns, I do know exactly how many shares I own.

I assume you're going to vote for McCain, and I must admit that he's about the best that the Republican Party can come up with and a much better choice than Bush.  We'll see what happens in November.

[DavidRoss]

I've respected McCain for a long time and think he's a substantial improvement over the lousy options we're usually presented with in these elections. 

He may not be remotely close to what I would seek in a CEO for the Federal Bureaucracy, but I doubt that anyone who's really qualified for the job would subject himself to it, were it even remotely possible that such an one could survive the electoral gauntlet these days.

[PSmith08]

I assume you're going to vote for McCain, and I must admit that he's about the best that the Republican Party can come up with and a much better choice than Bush.  We'll see what happens in November.

Really? McCain is a solid candidate, but I should hardly think he's in the mold of a Eisenhower or a Nixon. If he's the best the GOP can field, then the GOP is in a bad way. I understand that the Generalissimo has taken the wind out of the sails, but you'd think that that would make it all the easier for someone to come along to bring the party back to its limited-government, fiscally responsible, and foreign-policy past. That's largely why I backed Ron Paul. He was way out there, had plenty of policies with which I disagreed, but seemed to have a core ideology that made sense. Also, he seemed like he'd read the Constitution, which is always a plus with me.

[knight66]

I would be interested in views on something a little different. When you have an election in the US and the White House is taken by a new administration, it seems to mean emptying out a lot of senior advisers. There seems to be a pretty complete change of guard.

In the UK only the elected politicians change and almost all the senior advisers, civil servants, stay in place.

How does a new government in the US get up and running efficiently? Is it that the people losing their jobs is fairly restricted? Are there senior staff who stay irrespective of what colour the administration is?

In the UK the average stay of a minister is only about 14 months. So there is constantly someone new who is trying to leave an impresion on policy and the administration. It is a real problem, as the gear changes are often difficult to perform in practical terms.

Mike

[Don]

Really? McCain is a solid candidate, but I should hardly think he's in the mold of a Eisenhower or a Nixon. If he's the best the GOP can field, then the GOP is in a bad way. I understand that the Generalissimo has taken the wind out of the sails, but you'd think that that would make it all the easier for someone to come along to bring the party back to its limited-government, fiscally responsible, and foreign-policy past. That's largely why I backed Ron Paul. He was way out there, had plenty of policies with which I disagreed, but seemed to have a core ideology that made sense. Also, he seemed like he'd read the Constitution, which is always a plus with me.

For better or worse, Ron Paul is ancient history.  Also, although I liked some of his views, he's just awful at presenting them.

[lukeottevanger]

For better or worse, Ron Paul is ancient history.  Also, although I liked some of his views, he's just awful at presenting them.

Something like Wagner in reverse, then?   

[Sarastro]

UK

My political science teacher told me that when Bush was elected for the second term, the first page of some major British newspaper read "How can anyone be so stupid?" Is it true? Interesting, what the British press will write about the new president...

If Biden can serve as attack dog, that will make him worth choosing.  They need someone to savage McCain without getting Obama's hands dirty.

[knight66]

I don't know whether that headline was true. The UK press can be very direct, parts of it deeply xenophobic. I don't know of anyone here who has a good opinion of Bush. Many feel we allowed ourselves to be dragged by him into a very unwise foreign adventure. Blair also carries the can, but Bush is seen as the shaker and mover in the scheme.

Mike

[Sarastro]

I don't know of anyone here who has a good opinion of Bush.

Oh, at the same time the teacher noticed that people here (the US) were happy and celebrating. I'm clueless, I wasn't here then. She just said *we* have to look out into the world, not only read *our* press. The British one is just in English, very accessible.