First of all STEVEZ makes a point. I was very surprised even though I like Sen Biden at this choice. Sen Biden was perhaps the most outspoken about Sen Obama's lack of experience and his 30+ years in the senate bely the Sen Obama claim of change and get rid of the established ones in Washington.

I do not think,however,that the DNC made the decision on this. I think Sen Obama recognized as the Clintons said during the primary...he was not going to win...Sen Biden gives him a chance for sure.

I am not sure if I recall a more important selection than this one frankly.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

......

So when I read your allegation that Obama is simply a tool of the DNC smoke-filled rooms, I ask WHY? The DNC owes a lot more to Barack Obama than he owes them. Given the same set of facts that somehow has lead you to your conclusion, I come down on the opposite side. If anyone has created a strong political base, it's Obama. The DNC and a whole lot of candidates for Congress will come away from the November election with a huge debt of gratitude to Obama. If he wins the presidency, it will be he who will be in a position to collect a huge number of political IOU's, not the DNC. He'll have the political currency because he created it, not the DNC.

Prior to the Democratic National Convention of 2004, Barack Obama was a total unknown, except within the Democratic National Committee which selected him to give the keynote address. He was a candidate for the US Senate at the time, no prior national exposure, but was the only black candidate for the Senate that year and the DNC was in dire need of the black vote if the Democratic Party wanted a "win."

The Kerry campaign - regarding the selection of barack Obama as Keynote Speaker, stated: “More African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native-Americans, and Hispanics will attend the Convention than ever before.” That announcement came on the same day that the DNC launched $2 million worth of media ads targeting black voters.

To his credit, Sen. Obama took full advantage of the 2004 limelight - an opportunity well-thought-out and strategized by the DNC.

The past year's worth of beauty contests (the primary/caucus process) culled the Democratic field from ten to two, and just recently to one. Realistically, the field trimmed itself more than anything else, as many of the candidates brought with themselves reputations (baggage) based on past positions and exposure. Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton were the two "most clean" candidates of the bunch, each for different reasons.

As far as who influenced the Florida/Michigan situation the most, the DNC did that on their own early in the game, and backpedalling later would have been a self-induced power erosion. The DNC is not chaired by political children, and changing its own "dictates" would have brought its own penalties. ((it was dumb to make these "dictates" in the beginning, but it did happen)). Neither Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton spoke against the FL/MI debacle when it happened, and only when there was a possibility that there would be political gain did Sen. Clinton try to take the "high ground" on this issue. So, it was not because the "newbie from Chicago" was more powerful than the Clinton machine, but rather the DNC put itself between a rock and a hard place.

Sen. Obama, as a savvy politician, recognized that the eviction of FL and Mi was to his advantage, so he was more than happy to throw the voters of FL and MI under the bus and disenfranchise FL and MI Democrats. The self-claimed Change candidate of the people could have embraced FL and MI Democrats in spite of the DNC, but chose not to - either out of electoral greed or to not embarrass the DNC. Whichever the reason, FL and MI Democrats are now worth to the DNC and the Obama campaign half-a-vote. That's some change!

Out of all the potential change VP candidates out there (Bill Richardson, Bill Nelson, Janet Napolitano, Tim Kaine, Henry Cuellar, Henry Waxman, etc. etc.) the selection is Sen. Biden ? Delaware is about as "blue" a state as you can find, so the selection sure wasn't to win marginal electoral votes. A 36-year Senator, 65 years old, and key figure within the Democratic Party Washington circuit is first choice for leading the change charge?

On the http://www.barackobama.com/index.php website there is the highlighted quote "I'm asking you to believe..not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours." So, the 36-year Washington insider is Sen. Obama's choice to be co-pilot of the change ship?

I guess I'm just not that naive, or more cynical than the average person. With the amount of money being spent, and the "power" to be gained (meaning, more money), those who most control the campaign fund faucet decide how it's turned.

SteveZ, you have a great talent for rationalization. Talk about a reach! Ugggggg! Let me help you with that!

Originally Posted by chelsea24

SteveZ, you have a great talent for rationalization. Talk about a reach! Ugggggg! Let me help you with that!

That's what happens when you don't drink the Kool-Aid. For me, blind idolization went out at a very young age.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

A 36-year Senator, 65 years old, and key figure within the Democratic Party Washington circuit is first choice for leading the change charge?

Originally Posted by Bucco

I think Sen Obama recognized as the Clintons said during the primary...he was not going to win...Sen Biden gives him a chance for sure.

Of course Obama's choice was based on political expediency! To have a chance at winning, he needed to add a stable, experienced and mature foreign policy expert. Another fresh-faced "change" advocate would have spelled disaster on his ticket.

It sure makes this slate the single most left wing liberal slate ever in my opinion. Which sort of plays into what Steve has said in that the extreme left wing (MOVEON, ACLU, etc) has taken over the Democratic party and they sure have what they want !

I never jump into this forum... that being said..here I am. I vote the person not the party.
I have not decided who to vote for in the upcoming presidential election....I try to keep an open mind....I have listened to both candidates and am still undecided...
Now Obama has muddied the water with his choice of Biden. I am so disappointed ...with all the talk of change and a new direction for our country from the Obama Campaign, what a set back to choose and ingrained ,career politician, from the inner circle of long time pols. No chance for change there.
I am truly disappointed, and more confused than ever about who to vote for.

With all the chatter about the various nits and nats of one candidate or the other both here and in the media, is our choice really all that complicated?

We have John McCain, who for the most part says that he will continue the policies of the last two administrations. He will attempt to do that with a Democratic House and Senate. It would seem that the chances for any meaningful legislative change on almost any issue will be difficult for either the President or the Congress to achieve.

The other candidate, Barack Obama, says he stands for substantial change on a number of important issues facing the U.S. He would be working with a Congress of his own party, possibly with enough of a plurality to achieve cloture.

There are risks associated with the choice of either candidate. A lot of the criticisms of one candidate or the other discussed here and in the media are superfluous or at least very narrow when considered in light of the underlying choice. Is our decision on who to vote for in November any more complicated than making the following choice?

If you are satisfied with the governance of the last eight years, vote for John McCain. If you believe that a change in the direction and emphasis of our government is needed, vote for Barack Obama.

Well said Kahuna

Joe's comment about Obama not having experience was made while Joe was still in the race. As he says "it was polotics"

As for change, I don't think having a seasoned running mate is out of the question. Having one with no experience would be a bigger mistake--the blind leading the blind.

Joe is not part of that Washington clic. He is his own man. He is the perfect VP choice. He brings a balance to the ticket. I am not a Obama fan, but by choosing Biden it shows he does have some sense about him.

What is meant by "change" is not having, just as Kahuna said, four more years of the
past 8 years.

I think that in choosing Joe Biden, Senator Obama showed just how great a leader he can be. Joe Biden is not going to be a rubber stamp "yes man" to Obama. Senator said he wanted someone who will challenge him. His choice is perfect. I think the Obama/Biden ticket is perfect for the middle-class, of which I'm one. I'm from the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get on with it" kind of background. I don't have to figure out how many houses I have. Obama & Biden, these are the guys for me.

Kuhana says it best, if you want more of the same vote for McCain. Lord help us if he wins.

While I have said a number of times I like Sen Biden, I dont think the choice is as black and white as you all are making it.

While I understand the frustration with the last years, the question to me is to we want to go as far left and this ticket with a Democratic congress will take us ? This is what I personally need to work through and why I mention Sen Obama's background. While I can find lots of frustration in the last years, change to an extreme is not the way to go as I see it. I do not like to vote AGAINST something and a vote JUST to change from the current is not prudent in my mind. The congressional elections are very important ! Had the Democrats nominated someone more mid stream then I would be on board for sure !

I have never had a problem voting for a democrat before, but never was their a ticket so leftist as this one.

Having said all that, except for the debates, folks will vote on the Presidential candidate anyway, although as I said earlier this selection by Sen Obama was one of the BIG decisions I can recall in recent years. Perhaps anyone but Biden may have sealed his doom !

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

....

If you are satisfied with the governance of the last eight years, vote for John McCain. If you believe that a change in the direction and emphasis of our government is needed, vote for Barack Obama.

A lot of Bush-bashing seems to be based on comparison to the Federal government during the Clinton administration - budget surplus, economic upswing, NAFTA, et cetera. If that is true, then what was the major difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations? I would say that Pres. Clinton had to deal with a Republican Congress and Pres. Bush (for the most part) did not have to deal with a Democratic Congress.

I've always favored situations where one party controls the Executive Branch and the other controls Congress. When one party controls both, a 50.1% to 49.9% vote majority can ramrod the weirdest and most partisan legislation ever. When the parties split (one with the Executive and the other with Congress), then it always takes a "super majority" to get legislation passed. The beauty of that situation is that only the stuff that is good for the country as a whole, as opposed to the smallest of majorities gets passed. That reduces party power and places America above party partisanship.

Pres. Clinton, despite all his other faults, was superlative in dealing with the situation of having Congress in the other party's hands. Pres. Bush, for all that he has been condemned for, had for the majority of his administration "controlled the faucet" without any effective check-and-balance that Congress should have provided.

If Congress is destined to remain in the Democratic column, then a Republican President places America back to where that "super majority" situation occurs, and partisanship power-mongering is negated and whatever happens is for the benefit of all America. It worked during the Clinton years, and logically would work well 01/2009-01/2013.

If either party gets the Executive and Congress - regardless of which party, then it's back to that 50.1%-49.9% party pork-plate.

So, if Sen. Obama is successful, I'm hoping the follow-on Congress goes Republican so that it doesn't become another Party feeding frenzy within Washington. Whenever one party has controlled things, the deficit and resulting taxes have gone skyward, and it would be no different "blue" or "red."

I mentioned in an earlier post to this thread that having a President and a Congress controlled by the same party carries some risk--risk that some wrong-headed legislation is enacted. Maybe an even more important and long-term risk has to do with Supreme Court nominations.

But in this instance, with one candidate saying he supports the policies of the prior administration--policies which have had such disastrous effects in many different ways for the U.S.--I think many will conclude that assuming such a risk might be justified.

Like you, Steve, in ordinary times I would prefer the check and balance of different parties controlling the executive and legislative branches. But these aren't ordinary times. The U.S. is confronting issues that could become even more damaging to the future of coming generations if subjected to yet another four years of political bickering, polarization and legislative stalemate. I guess I'm reaching the conclusion that even with the same party in almost total control--as it was for the first six years of the Bush administration--I don't think the results could be any worse.

In the case of this year's elections, we might get the best of both worlds. If McCain were to win the Presidency, there's an outside chance that the Democrats could win enough of a plurality in both the House and the Senate to permit cloture as well as to over-ride a Presidential veto. The result wouldn't be much different from both the executive and legislative branches being controlled by the Democrats. However, I doubt that a new President with such a thin mandate could be too effective in re-establishing leadership, either domestically or on the world stage.

With either result, critically needed changes are likely to occur. And in the end, the public can re-establish the balance you desire in the 2010 mid-term elections if that seems justified.

Let me just say that I agree with both of you guys in wanting one party in the WH and one party controlling congress and as much as I suppose I will be "sent to my room" for these remarks...my fear is the most liberal guy I can think of as President, the 3rd most liberal as VP and a Democratic congress that will do his bidding !

...yet another four years of what we've experienced for the past eight?