Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As everyone knows by now, Obama has picked Joe Biden as his running mate. A few thoughts come to mind, in addition to the fact that he got off the best line of the entire 2008 campaign: "Rudy Giuliani. There's only three things he mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11."
1. This was the safe pick. He balances the ticket in several ways, adding a great deal of experience to the ticket along with serious foreign policy chops. More importantly for a court watcher like me, he adds another strong voice on judicial issues. Biden used to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee and presided over the most contentious confirmation hearings in history in Bork and Thomas.
2. Expect lots and lots of video replay of Biden's comments about the presidency not being a place for on the job training. In fact, the McCain campaign had an ad already in the can in anticipation and released it within hours of the announcement that Biden was the pick. But I don't expect this to be a big problem. The rhetorical answer is obvious:
"I did say that and at the time I meant it, but having now spent a great deal of time with Obama I am convinced that he's ready for the job ahead. He's a quick study and he has immersed himself in the details of foreign policy. He's already shown far better judgment on these issues than John McCain has shown."
3. A bigger potential problem is Biden's tendency to say stupid things when he's speaking off the cuff. He's clearly a very intelligent man and he's also a good speaker, but he strikes me as a guy with a devious sense of humor and a lack of judgment on what he should and shouldn't say. When he starts riffing with the press he tends to talk too much and say things he shouldn't be saying in public. If he throws out one of those in the next couple months, that could be a problem.
4. Could this help win Florida? Biden is evidently very popular among older people. I'll be curious to see if it has any effect on the polls in Florida.
5. Want some things not to like about Biden? Balko took a break from his vacation in Alaska to offer up a few:
But from a policy perspective, it's a disaster. Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war legislation than any Democrat in Congress. Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a "Drug Czar" is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about). Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. Biden voted in favor of using international development aid for drug control (think plan Columbia, plan Afghanistan, and other meddling anti-drug efforts that have only fostered loathing of America, backlash, and unintended consequences). Oh, and he was also the chief sponsor of 2004's horrendous RAVE Act...Biden's record on other criminal justice and civil liberties issues is just as bad. Opponents of the federalization of crime might note that the 1994 crime bill he sponsored created several new federal capital offenses. Biden also wants to expand federal penalties for hate crimes. He supports a federal smoking ban. His position on the federal drinking age is, and I quote, "absolutely do not" lower it to 18. He believes "most violent crime is related to drugs" (if he had said "drug prohibition," he'd be closer to the truth). Biden also has an almost perfect anti-gun voting record. He said last year he favors "universal national service," either in the Peace Corps or the military. Sounds like conscription to me. He says he's opposed to the PATRIOT Act, but he voted for both the original bill and its re-authorization in 2005.
Foreign policy? Biden voted for the war on Iraq. Yes, he's opposed to it now (and I like the partition plan he pushed in the primaries). But he didn't vote correctly when it counted most. Biden also voted to send troops into Darfur. He wants to enlarge NATO. He voted in favor of the air strikes in Kosovo. He voted to strengthen the trade embargo against Cuba. His seems to be a meddling, interventionist, Clinton-esque foreign policy. His first instinct seems to be that the U.S. military's objective include some vague notion of "doing good in the world." Never mind the disastrous consequences that notion has reaped over the years.
None of that will matter much in the campaign, of course (except the last part, which may actually help because it paints Biden as a "moderate" on foreign policy issues), but there's a lot in there that bothers the hell out of me. As Balko notes, Biden is bad on a lot of issues that liberals ought to be good about.
Politically, though, it's a better pick than either Bayh or Kaine, I think. Neither of those guys brought enough gray hair to the ticket or any experience with foreign policy or defense issues. For anyone concerned about the experience factor, neither of those guys was going to help.
Politics
Comments
As a huge Biden fan, I'm giddy. I believe we get a much stronger ticket in regards to the ability to actually govern plus he'll provide hours of entertainment value in a good way.
Here is Biden on Rudy again, I love the face he makes at the end of his quip, nothing but net: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7Y8AFctpjo
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 24, 2008 10:19 AM
While we all get aflutter over VP picks, let's remember that most Americans vote for President, not the second-fiddle guy.
Really, does anyone even remember who, say, Truman's VP was? Not many do. And the only VPs we tend to remember got elected later on or were so awful that they begged to be remembered -- see Nixon and Agnew for examples.
Aside from VPs being unmemorable for the most part though, I haven't seen any evidence that "balancing the ticket" matters much. I can't think of too many elections in which the VP choice mattered enough to change the electoral math. The best one I can think of is Muskie, who supposedly got Maine to vote for him, but at that point it didn't matter. In other cases the VP was from a state pretty safe for the party he was from or so far out of reach that it was irrelevant.
Gore, for example, couldn't carry his home state when he ran on his own and while he might have been a factor in bringing in TN for Clinton, who was winning in a landslide anyway, I think it had more to do with them both being southerners (the Dems had been running Southerners to counter the Southern strategy of the GOP anyway, and Bill was the only time it worked).
Cheney was from Wyoming which wasn't going to go Dem anyway by any stretch.
Dole was from Kansas, another strong GOP state.
Ferraro was from NY, which wasn't going GOP on its merits either and if it did the game was over, which it was.
Bush was supposed to bring in Connecticut? New England had voted for Rockefeller Republicans for a long time before it turned blue, and in 1980 and 1984 Reagan wasn't going to lose becasue of 7 electoral votes.
That's just recent examples. I'm not so sure that who the VP is matters to most people, is all. Yeah, they take over the presidency if the incumbent dies, but that hasn't happened all that often.
More to the point, one of the principles of a VP pick is do no harm, and Biden does no harm (so far).
I mean really, have you heard of a VP pick gaining or losing much for the ticket? I just haven't ever heard of anyone saying "wow, X picked Y as Veep, I'm gonna vote for him now."
Posted by: Jesse | August 24, 2008 10:56 AM
Whenever I think of Joe Biden, I think of the guy who was caught plagiarizing speeches in 1988. The wikipedia article mentions the British Labour Party leader, it doesn't mention the Robert Kennedy connection which led to the joke I heard a often at the time: What is Joe Biden's campaign slogan? "Kennedy in '68!"
I know that it is ancient history, but then I just have to think back to '04 where apparently the biggest issue facing our country was what someone may or may have not done in the Vietnam War.
Posted by: Ted H. | August 24, 2008 11:02 AM
For all of those memory challenged out there:
Alben William Barkley (VP 1949 to 1953) - Helpfully? DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 24, 2008 11:06 AM
I am relieved it wasn't Hillary. Saying that Biden's record on pretty much anything I care about (privacy, copyright, encryption, internet, drug 'war', patriotic act, etc) well - sucks. What I find interesting is that the Human Rights Campaign rates him quite high on gay issues which doesn't matter to me if all my other rights are taken away as well.
Posted by: yoshi | August 24, 2008 11:08 AM
If obama was looking to destroy his "change" mantra, disappoint his most enthusiastic supporters, lower voter turnout, and disenchant those who are sick and tired of politics as usual, then he picked the perfect candidate.
Choosing Biden means Obama has resigned himself to not challenging the narrow way Republicans define values and national security, and that he is going to try and win over moderates and independants by being this years brand of Republican Lite. What it really shows is that he hasn't learned the lessons of Gore and Kerry.
Posted by: Kevin | August 24, 2008 11:08 AM
Here is the McCain ad Ed refers to in this post, it's a great ad for McCain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 24, 2008 11:23 AM
what does "serious foreign policy chops" mean? You post Balko's blurb which shows quite clearly that he's a foreign policy disaster. Seems like the same logic that allows McCain to boast about his foreign policy experience. My Dad used to say, "A man can make the same mistake for twenty years and call it experience".
Posted by: Phaedrus | August 24, 2008 11:39 AM
Cynical but serious question:
Is there anyone Obama could have picked who would have both 1) had an equal or more extensive foreign policy record AND 2) had a less interventionist foreign policy record?
It doesn't seem likely to me, but I hardly know enough about Washington to know who's available.
Posted by: Becca | August 24, 2008 11:42 AM
Jesse - I believe your point that a VP selection isn't all that important in terms of voters deciding whom to vote for is too narrowly cast in terms of a more holistic perception.
For those of us who are committed to voting for one of the two major parties' candidates but really don't know who they'll vote for early in the campaign season, the VP pick is an extremely important factor on whether the candidate will best serve the national interest vs. their personal ambitions, ideology, or special interest groups. For example, such a voter will look at the VP pick in terms of whether the candidate is looking to get elected (H.W.
Bush in '88), or selects a VP candidate they believe could best serve as President if they became incapable (Bush in 2000).
The VP pick thus is one of the most important factors many people consider when it comes to understanding how a candidate will govern. Going back to my first vote in 1980, I consider the following excellent or horrible picks that I used as a factor:
Reagan - Bush - Bush was an excellent pick, great resume, rounded out Reagan's weaknesses, ready to serve at a moment's notice, didn't really help in the electoral process.
Bush - Qualye - the worst pick in my lifetime, totally slanted towards getting elected. Qualye was never ready to lead. Yet this Bush seemed the least ideological and the most committed to governing in the national interest as he saw it, even if it cost him re-election. I perceive this selection as a subconscious gesture by H.W. to his sons that they could get to the White House (though more for Jeb than W.)
Clinton - Gore - great pick. Did not help electorally all, Gore didn't round out Clinton's inexperiences plus he was redundant in terms of demographics and geography, yet Gore was perfectly capable of ably backfilling if something had happened to Clinton.
Bush / Cheney - at the time, it looked to be the most brilliant pick in my lifetime. In fact, this was the overriding factor that caused me to get over my discomfort with Bush given Cheney's stellar career prior to 2000. Cheney's horrible tenure as VP has caused many of his closest friends and associates to wonder what happened to the pre-2000 Cheney.
Given that I thought Biden was the best candidate for the Dems early in the primary season, though Obama convinced me of his superiority as the season unfolded while Biden also greatly impressed me (though I've been a fan and have known him for 21 years), I'm giddy the Dems have an Obama/Biden ticket.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 24, 2008 11:42 AM
As a writer, plagiarism bugs the heck out of me, for obvious reasons. (Yes, I've had my own stuff lifted, and I can't tell you how angry I was.) When it comes to the "Biden is a plagiarist!" rants, though, I have two reactions:
1) as Ted H. pointed out, it *was* a really long time ago. Not saying that time forgives past crimes (or goofs, depending on how you want to look at it) but I'm certain Biden is EXTREMELY careful about attributing anything he gets from someone else now.
2) Although he definitely did use Kinnok's speech in 1987 without attribution, he had given the same speech on other occasions and *did* quote Kinnok. So I really think it was more of a brain-freeze than an intentional swiping of content. It certainly doesn't excuse what happened, but it mitigates it a bit, at least for me.
Posted by: Michelle S | August 24, 2008 11:47 AM
Are you fucking high?
Posted by: PhysioProf | August 24, 2008 11:50 AM
That is a complete mischaracterization of what occured. First off, it wasn't "speeches", it was one speech. Biden used a Neil Kinnock quote as a regular part of his stump speech and had done so many times over the months/years (I forget which, this happened in the 80's), Biden always properly attributed Kinnock except once. One time Biden failed to make the proper attribution regarding this matter, and his claim it was inadvertent was convincing to me given his explanation. This sort of slander reminds me of the swift-boaters, especially given the source is a Wikipedia entry that is clearly biased by way of a presentation of a narrow selection of all the facts, not to mention Jesse's claims it was a speeches rather than one speech.
While I'm usually adverse to memoirs by candidates, I did find Biden's autobiography, which I believe honestly assesses this issue and the charges made against him in law school, a solid portrayal of the man I hope will be the next VP. Here is a link to that book and my review of it (second review from the top of the page): http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AI9ZL7F6SS3KO?ie=UTF8&display=public&sort_by=MostRecentReview&page=2
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 24, 2008 12:01 PM
Expect lots and lots of video replay of Biden's comments about the presidency not being a place for on the job training. In fact, the McCain campaign had an ad already in the can in anticipation and released it within hours of the announcement that Biden was the pick. But I don't expect this to be a big problem. The rhetorical answer is obvious:
All Obama has to do is make an ad with anything McCain said pre-2004 with anything McCain said from 2004 on. Maybe he was a "man of integrity" way back, but not anymore.
Posted by: EKM | August 24, 2008 12:16 PM
I can't help but see this as the same mistake the Democrats have made in the last two elections. They needed a strong southern or swing-state governor, not a senator from a state they already have. This is about votes, and Biden doesn't bring us a single state we don't already have. Considering the last two elections would have gone the other way with even a small state swinging in the other direction, all the focus should have been on swinging a state they don't already have.
Posted by: MarkH | August 24, 2008 12:24 PM
Given the context of two W victories, I think Ed's #3 will actually turn out to be a strength. The voters have demonstrated that they like candidates that aren't too smooth, and might mispronounce a word or two, thus all the silly charges about Obama's elitism. Having Biden get up there and blunder around calling Obama "Barak Amer.." is just what Obama needs to make him look more accessible to Joe Blue collar.
Posted by: Science Avenger | August 24, 2008 12:37 PM
Michael Heath:
As I said earlier, my memory of the incident was with some Robert Kennedy speeches. I forgot about the Kinnock incident until I read it on wikipedia. I'm going off memory, really. It is entirely possible I'm wrong, and it may be a mischaracterization, but that is the way I remember it. I am not just quoting wikipedia as a source, nor am I attempting to 'slander' him.
I will agree that a VP choice can be important to undecided voters. The only time I would call myself an undecided was in 1988, where the respective VP choices were the deciding factor for me.
This year, I think McCain's choice is more important than Obama's for the undecided. Given how old McCain is, it seems that his VP choice must appear more capable of assuming the Presidency than any Obama choice would have to. I really hate to bring up age, but it does seem to be a factor to many of the people I talk to.
Posted by: Ted H. | August 24, 2008 12:51 PM
The key to an Obama victory in November is to
make the term: "Songbird-McCain" as well known as Willie Horton was in 1988. And make
sure the web site:
vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com gets
millions of hits every day.
The 1992 Senate committee on pow/mia is very
powerful because it's coming from very
conservative Republicans.
Posted by: Kirk Muse | August 24, 2008 3:11 PM
The rhetorical answer is obvious:
"He beat me. I guess he's ready."
Posted by: Grumpy | August 24, 2008 3:34 PM
The McCain camp had best be careful in using too many old Biden clips of him voicing concerns over Obama during primary season, as (if McCain picks Romney, as expected) the Obama campaign has tons of similar ads and clips of McCain calling Mitt a "phony" and generally sniping at each other.
Posted by: CHV | August 24, 2008 4:37 PM
What boggles my mind is that anyone can look at either of the two major party candidates and not weep for the future of our country.
Posted by: Troy Britain | August 24, 2008 4:57 PM
I'd like to add a self-proclaimed European perspective. After all, we're talking about the elections for Most Powerful Man on the Planet and Leader of the Free World, so the whole world has a vested interest in not getting another Bushevik in that position.
Shit.
So he's not even against the death penalty?
Could be good, or could be meaningless.
Great (though this is my personal opinion, not a very widespread one in Europe).
I don't drink, so I don't care, but in my experience people don't do a lot of growing-up between 18 and 21...
Slogan: "Therapy instead of punishment".
That's almost perfect! :-)
Me too. In any case, it sounds bad.
Shit.
Let's hope he has learned something.
That's great. Somebody had to send troops in, and the UN, whose job that ought to be, has a too small budget and too little real power.
IMNSHO the NATO should have been dissolved right when it had outlived its usefulness, in 1991. But if it's already being kept alive, why not enlarge it? After all, NATO members at least don't fight against each other.
(Obviously, it's a bit more complicated than that. Granting Georgia's wish to join right now would have been a bad move, for example.)
Have you got a better idea?
Bad.
Oh, this notion has had utterly wonderful consequences the few times it was implemented by people who used their brains. I just say Marshall plan. Let's hope Obama's administration, not to mention Congress, will use their brains!
Posted by: David Marjanović | August 24, 2008 5:09 PM
Clinton - Gore - great pick. Did not help electorally all, Gore didn't round out Clinton's inexperiences plus he was redundant in terms of demographics and geography, yet Gore was perfectly capable of ably backfilling if something had happened to Clinton.
Actually Gore did round out Clinton's inexperience, he had the foreign affairs experience, having served on both the intelligence and armed services committee as well as his international committee dealing with climate issues. Also he had spent more than 15 years serving in the House and Senate, providing experience in dealing with Congress that Clinton lacked completely.
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 24, 2008 5:09 PM
Obama picking Biden is a bet (and probably a wise one) that Americans do want change, but not that much. If he'd have picked someone that reflected his message of change as much as he has, it would have left himself open to even more attacks from the Republicans about inexperience and doubt.
As for fearing for America? Well, with McCain, yes, because he would absolutely swing the Supreme Court hard to the right with his nominations, finishing the job that Bush started. That legacy could last decades and I do seriously fear what will happen in America once the Supreme Court rolls back Roe vs Wade, Lawrence vs Texas, and other previous decisions involving civil rights. An "originalist" (except when it suits them) Supreme Court is something to be feared.
I do not fear Obama. I fear that he will not live up to expectations, but very few politicians and presidents do. However, having a pragmatic, intelligent, and (importantly) an intellectually curious man, who has had hard knocks in his life and has had to work hard to succeed in his life in the White House is a good start. By all measures except in America, he is a moderate (he would probably be quite at home in David Cameron's British Conservative Party) and once the sound-bite election process is over, the fact that he can speak in complete sentences and provide thoughtful answers will be a blessing for us all.
Posted by: tacitus | August 24, 2008 6:10 PM
MarkH--
if you read a really interesting article on fivethirtyeight.com you'll see why I posted the above, that the VP pick doesn't seem to matter in terms of electoral math. Granted there aren't many examples of a politician from a swing state, but it's interesting to me that very few VP picks were ever from states where it would matter. That is, North Carolina was never going to vote for a Democratic candidate in 2004, because the structural disadvantages to Democrats were just too great in that state. Similarly, Wyoming was in no danger of turning blue. Nor is Minnesota in any danger of going GOP, whatever the people think of gov. Pawlenty.
I say this: show me an election where the VP's home state mattered a damn. Quayle was from Indiana but Indiana hasn't voted for a Democrat except once, in 1964, and that was landslide territory for Johnson.
Michael Heath-- I disagree with your hypothesis about how important the VP is because the polling data doesn't seem to support the notion. I mean, whenever anyone has asked, the VP pick simply doesn't seem to rate that highly once the campaign really gets going. This doesn't mean they have no effect at all, but whp gets the VP slot has more to do with who harms the ticket less. Hillary Clinton's big negative is mobilizing people who might actively vote against her, for example. So the net harm outweighs the good there.
And frankly I don't buy any of the experience meme because that's another one that simply hasn't mattered. Bush (II) had nobody with much foreign policy chops on the ticket, and nobody cared. Truman? Kennedy? There were all kinds of notions about balance or readiness to govern and the performances of all their VPs -- and in Truman's case as president when he took office -- seems all over the map.
Heck, in terms of who people want, no Senator has ever one if they have more than one term in the legislature. That's right. The only Senator to become president this century was Kennedy -- who had a total of two years in the office. If you have 6+ years in office, you'll lose. Evidently Americans don't want experience at the Federal level at all. (There's reasons for this , of course -- if I have more than a couple of years in the Senate I have all kinds of votes that can be used against me).
The VPP slot seems more useful in terms of narrative or advertising the campaign, I think, While the candidate may want someone who will govern as they would and help push stuff through, the voters don't seem to care.
Posted by: Jesse | August 24, 2008 7:57 PM
dogmeatib - re your refuting my point that Gore didn't complement Clinton much: You are absolutely right. Thanks for the catch. One reason I love this site is that no false assertions go unchallenged and that was an obvious whopper by me.
Physioprof - Cheney was an extremely active SECDEF during the first Gulf War, a venture most students of history see as a great success story, especially in terms how little blood we lost relative to our ability to restablize the oil markets which was a significant factor in allowing the greatest economic expansion in American history, where I also tip my hat to Bush's tax raises and Clinton's domestic policies. In case you forget Hussein's ultimate goal was to control all the oil in the Middle East, first by taking Kuwait, and then by going after Saudi Arabia and he was not shy about making a play for that to happen.
When Cheney became Chairman of the Board at Halliburton, their stock price had moved little in 14 years, inflation meant their price was eroding. Five years later when Cheney left the stock had rose 200%.
Those are just two significant accomplishements. I think "stellar" doesn't overextend my assertion regarding Cheney's career pre-2001.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 24, 2008 7:58 PM
The vice president doesn't have any official duties except breaking a tie in the Senate and taking over if Obama dies, right? So does anything about Biden really matter except his ability to bring in votes?
Posted by: Brandon | August 24, 2008 8:09 PM
The current put-down meme of the Right (and netroots would say, soon to be of what I call the MSMemia as well) is that Obama isn't expressing his move for "change" by picking Congressional veteran Joe Biden. But that is a fallacious argument. The top of the Ticket provides direction, and makes use of the skills of the VP in a complementary way. It's like a young CEO hiring a seasoned scientist or engineer as VP to help manage a tech company - it makes perfect sense.
Go BO-Joe!
Posted by: Neil B | August 24, 2008 9:34 PM
Jesse - I don't disagree with your analysis that the VP selection makes little statistical difference when it comes to the election. I was making a point that there are other considerations beyond merely getting elected, like gauging the character of the presidential candidate in terms of a critical decision - VP as backfill in case you go down. My point was more personal and also reflective of other fence sitters and how forceful I'll personally advocate for the candidate I'll choose. I had a tough time arguing that Bush 41 would work in the national interest given his VP pick, the case was much easier with Reagan/Bush and Clinton/Gore.
Brandon - Three of the past four VP's have been played key roles in the adminstrations they've served. And playing back-up has had enormous impact in my lifetime, first with Kennedy/LBJ, than with Agnew/Ford, and then Bush 41.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 24, 2008 10:04 PM
Biden is to Obama as LBJ was to Kennedy. The enforcer in Congress.
Posted by: Joe Max | August 25, 2008 12:30 AM
Hmmm, that list of interventions things isn't all bad. The Kosovo campaign WORKED. We should have done something in darfur other than sit around and go "awwww shucks, the brown people are doing their retarded tribal genoicide thing agian, how cute."
Expand NATO? Why not? The illusion that the cold war is over just got blown out of the water in Georgia. The Russians triumphed with overwhelming force rather than finesses, it was very 1940s Soviet doctrine in action. How long before they "liberate" more former client states. They're already posturing at Poland.
No, an expanded and strong NATO is needed now more than ever and if you don't know this you're living in fantasy land.
Posted by: Ian Kennedy | August 25, 2008 1:08 AM
I remember on the YouTube debate someone asked if the candidates could keep his baby safe. He then gets out an assault rifle and says 'this is my baby'. I loved Biden's candid response: "If that's his baby he needs help."
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 25, 2008 3:23 AM
Neil B: If Obama/Biden is elected, I am totally naming my next pet Bojo.
Posted by: Brandon | August 25, 2008 3:49 AM
Re: Cheney's pre-2000 "Stellar performance". Uh-huh. Yepper. Cheney sheperded Halliburton from being a moderately corrupt enterprise to the heights of criminality. Wasn't it during (the) Dick's "stewardship" that Halliburton was doing business with all those same folks that we now hate?
Posted by: democommie | August 25, 2008 6:51 AM
@Ian--
The problem with expanding NATO is that you back the Russians into a corner, and that's never a good idea.
You ever study Judo? One off the principles of the system is that direct action is often a losing game.
One of the reasons the Russians felt the need to assert themselves (and why Putin has a certain amount of popular support) is the same reason that any president here would have support is, say, the Russians were about to ink a military alliance with Mexico.
In fact, the US has asserted its own right to intervene whenever an election didn't go our way. Ask anyone from Latin America about that. (One could argue that the fundamental policy here for decades was that democracy was simply unacceptable, since we had a penchant for getting rid of people who were elected and being BFF with some of the most brutal regional dictators).
A lot of the time a foreign policy that is deliberately provocative will get you just what you didn't want. Remember, the Russian government isn't monolithic, and Putin couldn't have not invaded Georgia once they started talking about putting NATO on the Russian border. Not if he wants to continue as a Russian politician. The Russians aren't blameless here, lord knows they've been on the protector of Slavs thing again (shades of World War I more than the Cold War). But when you give the other side no way out that they can claim victory, you run into problems.
People forget that the Russians were able to spin the Cuban Missile Crisis as getting the US to take missiles we had out of Turkey. That was critical -- it left them a way to save face, and look OK as they pulled the missiles out of Cuba. When the US offered Georgia NATO membership and Shaakashvili started poking the bear, there was no way for them to save face. Again, think of the reaction here if the Russians were ready to ink a deal with Mexico. There'd be a blockade in five minutes. (We've been doing it to the Cubans, after all, who had the temerity to disobey and have been thumbing their nose at us ever since).
Sometimes when you push directly, you just get pushed back. We Americans pride ourselves on not taking guff, you don't think other people feel the same way?
Posted by: Jesse | August 25, 2008 8:00 AM
DingoJack wrote:
"For all of those memory challenged out there:
Alben William Barkley (VP 1949 to 1953) - Helpfully? DJ"
I knew that, but then guess what the 'B' stands for. 8^)
Posted by: KeithB | August 25, 2008 2:14 PM
The Zogby poll - which until recently was the only major poll showing McCain with a sizeable lead - now has Obama ahead 46:44.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1546
John Zogby's commentary:
"The Biden choice seems to have done precisely what Barack Obama needed it to do. It has thrust him back into the lead overall, and has consolidated his support among Democrats and put him back into the lead among independent voters."
Posted by: Ian Gould | August 26, 2008 8:11 AM