On Biden and Spin
Well the instant message finally arrived. Biden is the VP nominee for the Democratic Party. The Obama camp put up a valiant effort to keep the pick secret until the very end, and though they didn’t entirely manage it, having kept the thing under wraps from a downright rabid press for as long as they did deserves to be commended.
Now, after the fevereish VP guessing game comes the fevereish VP evaluation game. Predictably, almost all the evaluation is going into political perception, not actual judgement.
Is he too dull? Does he go off message too much? Does he give stronger experience credentials? Does he water down the “change” message? Isn’t he from a tiny non-Southern state? And so on and so forth.
There are two reasons this sort of thinking is at least partially flawed. On the one, more principled hand, there is the fact that maybe, just maybe, it’s more important what kind of VP he’ll be (and potentially what kind of President he could be) than the “perception” he gives. I like Joe, I would have been happy to vote for him for president, so in the administration role, I’m very pleased with the pick. I’m one of those people Biden ruefully complained about, saying that people said they liked him but were voting for the other guy because they thought Biden couldn’t win.
He knows the ropes, probably has a less idealistic view than Obama (and I wouldn’t mind having a cynic around to keep him grounded) and has great foreign policy experience. I think that he’s very good in an Obama administration and that he fits the VP position of “most senior and closest advisor” like a glove.
Now the aspect of the choice that actually seems to interest the media (and bloggers) most is how good a pick he is in terms of political strategy. I’m not going to bother you with my take on Biden in that sense because doubtlessly you’ve gone through enough analyzing of his experience/loquaciousness/insiderness/likeability etc. I’m here to tell you that it doesn’t really matter.
Obama could have pretty much picked almost anyone that was a hominid, left of center and without gills and the narrative would have been the same:
From the Left: Obama made the right choice. X was always my favorite/wasn’t my first pick but is still great. X reinforces the change message/brings much needed experience to the table, and the fact that they coincide so well on policy/are somewhat different serves to give a stronger message/bring in moderates.
From the Right: Obama made a terrible choice. We are so happy he chose X, X is the easiest candidate to attack. X’s lack of experience/long record as an insider shows that Obama’s completely unpreprared to lead/message of change is false. X has so many weaknesses it’s almost an early Christmas gift!
Expect the same thing when McCain picks his VP. Whoever it is (I’m heavily expecting Romney, but you never know) will be spun as the greatest thing since sliced bread by the right and the reincarnation of a lesser demon by the left.
There are true differences between VPs, but in the end VPs have their spotlight when chosen, when speaking at the convention and when debating, and other than that they becomes mobile props and surrogates until inauguration day.
I like Biden because he comes from simple beginnings, and childhood and parenting means a lot. He seems to represent the good effects of a long history in Washington while McCain represents the bad.
He satisfies me with his desire to keep abortions rare, he is unparalelled in his commitment against violence against women and he seems to have some of that appeal that Webb has amongst some democrat phalanxes. He satisfies the silly little plebeian worries about Obama not being "usual" and having the temerity to not talk directly to people’s hind brains, without being some watered-down, well-behaved centrist.
Also, "noun, verb and 9/11" is just the kind of unafraid sass I want Obama’s campaign to show. You are allowed to step on the toes of "america’s mayor", the strong big daddy that talks big about fighting evil. Biden goes there. He sort of lives there. Obama has recognized his weakness(es), but there will be no more Clintonian acceptance of and cowering before the prejudices and made-up flaws people bring up the minute a democrat talks.
With very, very few exceptions, VP picks don’t win elections. But what they can do is lose them. Not because the other side criticizes them (even though they do, of course), but by having some massive problem which comes out. Biden looks to avoid that. There were other options which also would have, but also options which would have had massive negatives. By avoiding those "shoot himslef in the foot" options, Obama has done just fine.
Now we wait to see what McCain does….
It may be easier to attack Biden as a ‘foreign policy expert’ than some people think:
http://www.tnr.com/columnists/story.html?id=ba9b09bb-ed01-4582-b6ec-444834c9df73&k=93697
At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: "I’m groping here." Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we’re not bent on its destruction. "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran," Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.
I like Biden, he should have been the candidate not the VP. But elections are not about competence or ability - certainly not in the Dem party.
Nice bigotry there, utsu. I was going to compliment your comment until I saw you had thrown in a sweeping and completely gratuitous insult against all centrists.
Actually, in all seriousness utsu liking Biden gives me cause to relook at Biden and see what I may have missed the first time around.
Although I somewhat agreed with it, I have to say that I was surprised at the AP headline: "Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence." That may be the opinion that some have, but it doesn’t belong in what was supposed to be a straight news story. I would have felt that such an ‘analysis’ was unfair and biased if it had been a negative slant on McCain’s VP pick when it comes, and I feel the same about it in this case.
I agree, Christine, that it is unfair but do not agree that it is substantively valid as a criticism. I think it highlights one of the very real, across-the-board (non-partisan) weaknesses of our media’s political coverage. They prize boldness and simplicity over rationality and nuance. They encourage the public to love the renegade and snub the pragmatist (until, of course, it all blows up and then it’s like anyone would have known better, right?).
In their search for something exciting, many often miss that a "safe" choice is "safe" for very good reasons. That is a core element of attitudinal conservatism (aversion to risk) and should not, for conservatives especially, be the basis for criticism. (There may, of course, be other bases for criticism that are more legitimate.)
In the case of Biden, the “safe” choice is “safe” because it gives Obama backstopping in a key area — foreign policy. That’s a pretty good reason to choose a running mate. Similarly, McCain’s “safe” choices (Romney or Pawlenty) are “safe” because they do exactly the same things by providing relative youth and good economic credentials. If (when) the media bashes those choices, they will deserve drop-kicking just as much as the AP does now.
Yes, I agree with you there, but what I meant was that politically speaking it may not serve Obama well to pick the ’safe’ choice since his brand is all about change, a new way, etc. It could go either way of course- people may see the ticket as a good blend of change with stability, or alternatively more undecided voters may feel that Biden neutralizes Obama’s strengths instead of adding to them. Personally although I do think Biden’s had some bumbling moments, I’m probably less concerned about an Obama presidency if it happens with someone like Biden as #2 than I would be if he’d picked another up and coming, outside the beltway type. So I’m not overly negative about the whole thing, just agreeing somewhat with the AP opinion piece in terms of the political impact of the choice. That may not be fair or even in the voters’ best interests, but I do think that when a candidate tries to balance out his own strengths and weaknesses it can backfire by looking like he feels that he has a serious gap in some area. Again, probably not fair but I think that’s the reality.
In some ways too, the overhyping of the VP choices has made them more important than they should be, and that may be why I feel that the Biden choice may hurt Obama more than it helps. It was built up so much that really no one could have lived up to the hype, and this is such a SOP type of choice that I think there’s probably going to be a bit of a letdown even among some of the Obama supporters who wouldn’t otherwise have thought Biden a bad pick (IOW, he’s not a bad pick but not an exciting one and the buildup may have exacerbated that.)
Actually it’s funny that you mention that about McCain. I may be totally off base, but I wonder if he may end up going with a more unconventional or risky choice specifically to highlight the fact that Obama felt he needed to go with the usual type of VP choice while he’s not similarly constrained.
I think its a good pick. This may be a change election, but in uncertain economic and political times, Americans really want reassurance that things won’t change too much—ie their freedoms or standard of living. Biden provides that, as well as an in with blue collar voters, who Obama does not fare well with.
Senator Biden is a very conventional choice, but the way it was announced was hardly conventional. I will be interested in seeing how the 3:00 AM text message announcement works. My guess is that this was aimed at the youth vote, not the middle aged adult people like me. While many Democratic party people are promoting this as a huge change, and something which will bring about a large number of new voters, the results will not be known until after the election. The Obama campaign has energized a lot of young people, and a few folks are seeing parallels to 1960 and the telegenic John F. Kennedy. But will it really bring out enough young people to offset the retires, a voting block with a long standing record of voting, and a group now seeing the first of the baby-boomers joining its ranks?
I raise these issues, because in one sense, Biden’s selection as the running mate seems to be looking toward the older voters wanting a solid, dependable person in the No. 2 spot to balance the youthful exuberance of the presidential nominee, while the announcement seems tailored to appeal to the youth vote.
Orson, personally I think the whole instant message gimmick has been blown WAY out of proportion to it’s importance. The only way it has any meaning is that Obama meant to tell his supporters before the press, otherwise it’s no big deal.
In fact, the way the press covered the matter showed that there are precious few young people in traditional media. They seemed so stunned that this could even be done. I’m going to guess that actual young people, who get information about almost everything on their computers or mobile devices (be it phone, ipod, whatever) didn’t think twice about it, it’s just the way things are done for them. I mean it is youth conscious and that’s good for the Obama camp, but I doubt it caused much of a stir amongst the young voters, it’s only the older media types that thought it was the least bit interesting.