Curry wrote:You might start here...

 zipper wrote: 

mmmm picking cherries.

Ralph Nader on Bill Maher was just now saying Biden was one of the architects of the war on drugs. 

I gotta go look that one up.

Posting about Joe is like picking cherries. There's just so very much to choose from. He lied a bunch big time yesterday.

edit:  same ole, same ole.

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote: 

You are right in suggesting that the focus should not be so intently upon the VP candidates.

However, the GOP cannot have it both ways.  They are happy to have Palin front-and-center for the "rock star" affect, which is to their strategic advantge, but then complain when the spotlight also brings with it scrutiny.

One might ask: Why is she getting so much attentiion?

  

I guess it's more fun to pick on Palen.
I wonder if ol Biden could answer the same type of questions Couric ask Palen, regarding Obama?

 edieraye wrote:   
 Poor is cool.

 dionysius wrote: 

Do we have his financials somewhere?  I know the Presidential candidates made theirs public.  I'm sure there is handy link someone can find that will show us all the info.  I'm particularly interested because he is reported to be one of the least wealthiest of the U.S. Senators but I would like to see the numbers for myself before I start talking about it.  Which I plan on doing because I think it is worth commenting on.  But I would like some facts first.

Just *bumping* Fightin' Joe here. Can't wait for the "debate" to happen!

 edieraye wrote: 
If Steeler has groupies, then there's hope for poor ol' Joe Biden. Fightin' Joe! Let him debate Palin! Let not the McCain campaign abandon their debate commitments. We deserve a fair one to one comparison.

 rosedraws wrote: 
More silliness here.  And yes Steeler has groupies.  It is because he is totally swoon-worthy.

rachlan wrote:
Steeler has groupies! 
Sorry for the jack edieraye... :blush:

 steeler wrote: 
but your such a good writer, and thinker.....    and you know the issues.    We need you!  Write!

steeler wrote:
I'll buy some of that. 

 rachlan wrote: 
No op-ed letter. Just meanderings from the rumblings emanating from my yard-sale mind!  

edieraye wrote:
Can I just take a moment to say...

It's very fun to talk to you about politics with that AV.  The whole world seems more playful and optimistic!

 steeler wrote: 
Personally, no way!  But then I would have voted for Edwards over Cheney and Gore over Quayle.  (For anyone who is curious: Kemp over Gore and Lieberman vs. Cheney went solidly to Cheney at the time.)  I do think that Palin was a strategic choice in more ways than are being explored on RP and I'm not convinced that it wasn't a good choice.  After all, is there really a chance that the Republicans can win this election with the economy the way it is and such an unpopular president at the helm?  The long term effects of her nomination will reverberate through both parties for years.  But this thread isn't supposed to be about her, it is supposed to be about Biden.  And even I can't stay on topic!

P.S.  I'll have to go look at those questions again but I think it was more of an early morning, before I had my coffee rant.  No need to respond.  Unless you need to rant yourself.

 steeler wrote:  good point.  have you written on oped letter on this?  I guess maybe that is not exactly an issue at this point.  there are some other things to discuss.... but still.

 rosedraws wrote:
And your point is absolutely proven if you look at the RP stats: count how many pages were written about McCain, Palin, and Obama in the past 24 hours and here we are - still on page one of Biden.  I have two different reactions which really ought to go in two different posts for clarity:

FIRST:  Does the fact that there doesn't seem to be much "whoopla" about Biden mean that he was a good or bad choice for Obama?  On the one hand he isn't rocking the boat.  Or is this a case of no publicity is worse than bad publicity?

SECOND (and completely unrelated):  Isn't this a sad commentary on our commentary!  Unlike Palin we actually know who Biden is and where he stands on the issues.  I can't help but think that if this was an issues driven election - and if our commentary on RP was issues driven - then we would have TONS to discuss.

 edieraye wrote: 

I think you are absolutely right, Edie, that there should be as much focus upon Joe Biden as Obama's selection as VP as there is upon Sarah Palin as McCain's selection as VP.  But, here's the thing:  That focus on these VP candidates should be on the periphery of the analysis of the tickets.  The one thing I think everyone can agree upon is that Palin has been front-and-center for a month now. That is unprecedented. Which way that will cut remains to be seen. I am skeptical that McCain can win if the focus remains upon Palin — and, as I've said previously, I shudder to think that he might win because the focus remains upon Palin.  And that shuddering of mine is because the focus upon her  seems to be based largely upon irrelevant factors.  Of course, the GOP/McCain backers cannot have it both ways — or at least should not be able to have it both ways. They can't keep her in the focus because it is helping the ticket, yet at the same time complain that she is being unfairly scrutinized and criticised. Or can they?  Well, that's a different story, for a different post.

I agree with you that she essentially presents a clean slate — which makes her, in relative terms, an unknown.  Biden, after 35 years in the Senate and a couple runs for the presidency, is a known commodity, gaffs and all.  So, naturally, the vetting is going to be more aimed at her than at him.             

Here is my point ( you were wondering if I would get to one — we shall see ).  I believe the question is whether — right now — one would vote for Palin for President over Biden.  That is the No. 1 consideration in evaluating a VP candidate.  As you say, and I agree, Palin is far less likely to have as much impact in a McCain administration as Biden would have in an Obama administration. Speculation, I know, but I agree with your speculation on that.  So, back to the big question.  If we agree that she is much more of an unknown than Biden, we also would have to agree that she is more of a gamble. So, then the question becomes, Is what she brings to the table worth the gamble?  As I've said before to you and a few others, I'm not interested in whether she can be groomed (no pun intended) to be a viable candidate for President 4 or 8 years down the road.  In my mind, the VP is not an apprenticeship — again, back to the big question.

I really think she was chosen solely by McCain for strategic purposes related entirely to winning the campaign. Now, I do think he likes her and has some measure of respect for  her, but, like you, I don't think she really will have a major impact within his administration.  Now, McCain makes a big deal —as he should — about his having taken an unpopular stance on the Iraq war, saying that he would rather lose an election than a war.  The whole putting-the-country-first thing.  Well, I'm not so sure he did that here in his selection of a VP.  The word is that he wanted to pick Lieberman or Ridge, and fell back to Palin.  

Do you think he put the country first by picking Palin for VP or did he put winning the election first?

 I haven't forgotten about your PM questions; will be responding at some point . . . ever optimistic!