By the time it was clear that Barack Obama had narrowed his vice presidential choices down to Biden, Kaine, and Bayh, it was already determined that the Democrats would be sending out a ticket with a troubling lack of executive experience. With the ultimate choice of Biden, Obama went for the best known of a bad lot, but may have made a serious mistake.
Historically, Senators make poor presidential candidates because legislators are usually far less popular or well known than those who hold more prominent political positions, and because many voters are looking for candidates who have given some sign that they can provide individual leadership, make firm decisions, and look presidential. That means executive experience: either holding a cabinet level government office, being governor of a state, having a military command position, or having a meaningful career in business. A Senator hasn't actually won a presidential election since John F. Kennedy in 1960.
It's particularly strange that both parties have chosen Senators to head their tickets in a year when the Congress has its lowest approval rating of all time, bottoming out at around 14% this summer and still only around 20% overall. That's half the approval rating of President Bush, which raises the improbable thought that more Americans would rather see Bush serve another term than vote for any Senator for president.
So both parties were fairly dumb to nominate Senators for the presidency, but having made that mistake, it seems just monumentally stupid to try to strengthen your ticket by adding another Senator. Obama was already at a serious experience deficit, with no business or leadership background outside of a brief Senate tenure, while McCain at least held a command position in the military and had a real job prior to entering politics. Picking a six-term Senator with no other experience in his background as a running mate for Obama is like throwing a drowning man an anchor, or in this case a second anchor, instead of a life preserver. All McCain has to do is pick a governor — any governor — and he immediately looks more competent and more presidential than Obama.
As for Joe Biden personally, do his assets even outweigh his liabilities for the campaign? Obama has made 'change' the watchword for his campaign, yet Biden is the poster boy for status quo. He's not an agent of change, he's the champion of sameness, with 36 years voting for failed ideas and big government over and over again. Biden's two notable pieces of legislation come from the 1990s, the Violence Against Women Act, large portions of which were struck down as unconstitutional and biased, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, viewed widely on the left and the right (for different reasons) as one of the most oppressive pieces of legislation to come out of Congress in decades. This act included the widely hated assault weapons ban, massive additional and unnecessary expenditure for law enforcement, much of it tied to drug enforcement, the elimination of educational programs for prisoners and the expansion of the federal death penalty to apply to 60 additional crimes. There's something in it to offend everyone from the NRA to the ACLU, and when they're on the same side it's either a sign of the apocalypse or a sign of very bad legislation.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - handyguy
Biden more conservative than McCain? Obama a desperate, drowning man? Dave's customary overreaching when it comes to the subject of Democrats has hit a new level of jaw-dropping absurdity here.
The double home runs of Ted Kennedy and Michelle Obama [and her kids!] tonight were just the beginning: this week will produce the biggest post-convention bounce in history. This election will not even be close.
2 - Clavos
This election will not even be close.
Talk about "overreaching..."
3 - Alec
RE: it is such a blatant admission that Obama is not adequately qualified for the job he's running for.
Here's the problem. By any measure, including the standards which conservatives are attempting to apply to Obama, George W. Bush is the most incompetent individual ever elected president. In addition, Bush's cabinet, despite their long government experience, has been an incredibly feckless and boneheaded group. Most recently, Condi Rice, whose supposed expertise was in Soviet affairs, could not anticipate and head off the Russia-Georgia crisis.
On the other hand, given your knowledge of history, it's sad that your summary of the bona fides of earlier presidents is obvious cherry picking meant to shore up Republican talking points. For example, Grant was a great general, and Hoover a successful businessman. But Grant was a mediocre president and Hoover a profoundly ineffectual one (though even Hoover was smart enough to recognize that Warren Harding was a total moron).
4 - Clavos
Here's the problem. By any measure, including the standards which conservatives are attempting to apply to Obama, George W. Bush is the most incompetent individual ever elected president. In addition, Bush's cabinet, despite their long government experience, has been an incredibly feckless and boneheaded group.
Agreed.
What's that got to do with Obama's lack of qualifications?
5 - Pablo
Its ok Clavy, we all know your a bit slow, re the above comment. If I may be so presumptuous to offer my own opinion of Alec's comment, is the extreme hypocrisy of the republicans, and maybe they ought to clean their own house firs and offer a viable candidate. McCain is a joke, and his wife with her 7-8 condos, and her 100 million still would have a hard time seducing me, as I don't go for ice queens.
6 - Dr Dreadful
It's particularly strange that both parties have chosen Senators to head their tickets in a year when the Congress has its lowest approval rating of all time, bottoming out at around 14% this summer and still only around 20% overall.
Here's the thing. How many of those who give Congress a low approval rating could actually explain with any degree of articulation why they gave that rating, or know what it is that Congress is doing (or not doing) to deserve it?
How many of the electorate even realize that Messrs McCain, Obama and Biden actually are members of that Congress?
Running a senator might have had a strategic downside in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but it has little relevance now.
7 - Clavos
his wife with her 7-8 condos, and her 100 million still would have a hard time seducing me
Bbbwwaaahahahahahahahaha!!
8 - Pablo
Uhhh thats not english is it Clavy? I do try to understand you fella I really do, but you are resorting to mumbling now, cat got yer tongue bubba?
9 - Clavos
Here's the thing. How many of those who give Congress a low approval rating could actually explain with any degree of articulation why they gave that rating, or know what it is that Congress is doing (or not doing) to deserve it?
How many of the electorate even realize that Messrs McCain, Obama and Biden actually are members of that Congress?
Wow, Doc, you have an even lower opinion of the American public than I do!
I'm impressed!
10 - Pablo
You know Clavy baby, I got a kick out of your brief comment about the Grateful Dead, and how you liked their music. I know your well shall we say, passed your prime bucko, but you had ummm 30 years to see them, and the fact that only now do you enjoy their incredible music only shows how square, with a right-angle as it were you are. I can only say the difference between seeing the Dead live and hearing a recording, is analogous to getting actually laid with that penthouse pet as opposed to resorting to rosie palm and her five sisters. You missed out bubba, and you dont even have a clue how much. hehehehe
Your a funny guy Clavy, as is your mentor.
11 - Clavos
Don't look now, booboo, but I think Cindy McCain is stalking you.
With an Uzi...
12 - Dave Nalle
Woah, Alec. Where did I say that Senators make bad presidents or that not being a Senator makes you a good one. I just said that it's hard for a ticket made up solely of legislators to get elected.
If you want to consider presidential history, let's look at a few. Carter had executive experience as a Governor and in the military and he was one of the worst presidents of the 20th century. Wilson had executive experience outside of government and he was almost as bad. Grant was a terrible president - worse than you described him. But we don't have many Senators to assess because they don't get elected. those who have also had substantial experience in other areas.
IMO the best presidents are those who have a diversity of experience - time in the military, plus legislative experience, plus business experience, plus administrative/executive experience.
Look at James K. Polk. Arguably one of our most effective presidents. He had served in Congress, was Speaker of the House and Governor of Tennessee. Or consider Teddy Roosevelt. He'd been to war, been in the government bureaucracy, been a police commissioner and a governor and Vice President. Nice, diverse experience.
This kind of diverse experience tends to be an indicator of competence. Of course, some exceptional individuals prove to be capable regardless of their limited background, but it's harder to tell if they ARE exceptional if they don't have a track record.
This is what's wrong with Obama/Biden. Obama has no experience. Biden only has one kind. There's nothing between the two of them to suggest that they have the competence or adaptability to do the hardest job in the free world.
As for Bush, he's a good example of what I'm talking about. Very limited experience and very poor results.
Dave
13 - Ruvy
Don't look now, booboo, but I think Cindy McCain is stalking you.
With an Uzi...
Ah, time for some fun....
Better that some ice queen stalk booboo, or anybody else for that matter, with an Uzi than an M1 Carbine or an M16. Them little bullets an Uzi spray out don't do anywhere near as much damage as the business end of an M1 - unless they get you in the crotch....
14 - Ruvy
his wife with her 7-8 condos, and her $100 million still would have a hard time seducing me....
Pablo,
Why can't you just be a cad and make off with about $2 million of her money? I'm sure you can handle an ice-queen. They're cheaper by the dozen in Washington, just like are are in Minnesota. You're not really scared of her stalking you with an Uzi are you?
15 - Ruvy
While it appears that Dave is merely pointing up Republican talking points here (what do you expect a Republican activist to do anyway, sing "Happy Days Are Here Again?), I see why my neighbor Max was so happy about Obama's choice of Biden. He too, is a McCain fan, and explained why on the bus into Jerusalem Sunday.
If Max and Dave are right, then the old glad-handing idiot who has so many Israelis convinced that he is a friend to Israel will win, and the American puppets in Jerusalem will continue in power - only to be removed by a massive Arab missile attack on my country, where thousands will die and the skyscrapers of Tel Aviv will lick the heavens like towers of flame.
16 - Cannonshop
Ruvy, that's a depressing thought.
On to Biden... The announcement actually gave me a bit of 'hope'-hope that maybe the Democrats really ARE trying to make a serious effort to win on SOMETHING other than the fantastic voice of the Obamessiah. Biden has a couple of things on his side that Barry doesn't- One, he's actually survived getting a public kick to the balls without collapsing when his bid in '88 fell in on him after he got caught cribbing a foreign pol's speeches. He lived through a political disaster without going all spineless, which means maybe he won't be terrified of every scandal to the point of starting new and exciting wars every five minutes as a distraction technique (aka-not using the Clinton Playbook). Two: Unlike the majority of his Senate Colleagues of the same party, Biden actually THOUGHT it through, and didn't just march in lockstep on the War and the Surge. He might have been 'wrong' by some lights (Pablo, most Dems, Doc), but he didn't Pavlov.
There's also the bit about his not being a true-believer-from-day-one. This one's actually pretty useful, since it's a move that seems to be targeted to the meme that the Democrats may all look different, but they tolerate no dissenting VIEWS-something that's been rather evident since the nineties. Putting the guy who said "Obama's not ready for Leadership" in his Number-Two slot, AND getting the guy to buy off on it shows some deft moves here-and maybe a sucker-bet for the McCain camp, especially if Biden doesn't try to hide from it, and has a REALLY KEWL explanation for how and why he changed his mind-how do you turn the other guy's issue into a non-issue? yah. And which party has all those useful media Idio-I mean, people, in their ranks, who know how to sell things?
Most Americans are the sort that will vote an "Honest crook" over percieved "False Virtue".
Biden's an unapologetic Liberal, Obama's a pretty obvious "Liberal" but no real record. McCain, no matter how you dress him, is at the most a mushy moderate edging Left in a party that's predominantly right-leaning. People will vote a sincerely Liberal liberal over a phony conservative most days. Not because they agree with the Lefty, but because they like to think they know what they're getting.
17 - Baritone
And hey, I hear that Michelle Obama did it again - came out all bitchy and angry, spouting how much she hates America, and how she... Uh, what? Excuse me a moment.
She didn't? You mean she... oh. No shit? Uh, well I, uh... Nevermind.
B
18 - Jordan Richardson
Michelle had me when she started firing that Uzi in the air. That was hot.
19 - Baritone
I can hardly wait to see the "terrorist fist bump" come Thursday night. I hear the two girls are enrolled in an Al Qaida training camp up in Michigan. It'll be good for them.
B
20 - handyguy
Clavos, weren't you an Obamaphile back in the spring? Now you've gone all cynical again. What happened?
[Dave Nalle has also written approvingly of Obama in this space previously - and about Joe Biden too, during the early debates.]
PS David Leonhardt's analysis of Obamanomics in Sunday's NY Times Magazine is one of the best articles I've read recently. Cuts right through all the caricatures and false assumptions.
21 - Dr Dreadful
Biden has a couple of things on his side that Barry doesn't- One, he's actually survived getting a public kick to the balls without collapsing when his bid in '88 fell in on him after he got caught cribbing a foreign pol's speeches.
OK, now plagiarizing a speech by some European pols of the period I could understand: Mitterrand, Craxi, Delors, Kohl maybe, even Thatcher... but Neil Kinnock???!!!
22 - Lee Richards
Obama is obviously untested as an executive leader and seems as if he could soon be in over his head, given the number and complexity of the challenges facing the president. And McCain is far too edgy and stubborn and may be out of touch if not obsolete in his understanding of technology, economics and foreign policy.
Between them, they combine the very qualities that Bush possesses so devastatingly.
And their parties proudly tout and support them, and claim they're what we need.
God bless America.
23 - Baritone
Dave pretty much always assumes he knows more about these things than the people actually involved in the processes, and then he makes broad assumptions regarding their motivations. It doesn't seem to occur to him that the people involved in these processes, in this case, choosing Obama's running mate, obviously took great pains in making their choice. One would have to assume that they postulated scenarios respecting the ramifications of selecting each of the different candidates under consideration.
No matter who they selected, there would be those, Dave doubtless among them, at the ready to trash and ridicule him or her. Obama could have chosen Jesus Christ himself and there would be those who would complain that he has far too much facial hair, or that he was, well, just too christian. What's up with the robes? Shouldn't he see a doctor about those nasty wounds on his side, hands and feet? And what about that bleeding heart? Give us a break!
I tend to agree with Doc on the senators as presidential candidates issue. I doubt that many voters will make much out of that.
I believe that the first nite of the Dem Convention was quite successful in setting a positive tone for the proceedings. The Ted Kennedy appearance and speech were inspiring if not particularly substantive. Michelle Obama's speech was, IMO, great. I imagine that as things go onward this evening, the rhetoric against McCain will crescendo to greater heights. It damn well better!
The biggest problem that Obama has, as I see it, is not McCain, but Clinton. She and hubby have it in their power to really disrupt the proceedings. Many believe that they would actually relish an Obama defeat in November as it could set her up for another run in 2012. That's a pretty cynical view, but may well be true. It's become more and more apparent that the Clintons think it's all about them.
The PUMAs who remain staunchly behind Clinton and who vow to either vote for McCain or not vote at all are apparently not ideologically motivated. They supported Clinton simply and mainly because she's a woman.
If any of those folks actually follow through and vote for McCain, I hope they are ready and willing to see the overturning of Rowe V Wade and a totally right wing Supreme Court for years to come. I hope they are willing to accept repeated involvement in innumerable military conflicts as McCain sees that as the only viable means to deal with international problems. They should be prepared to lose many more of our young people in idiotic wars or "police actions." The list goes on.
If their shrill (and frankly, bitchy) obstinance is worth all that, then go get 'em PUMAs! You'll show 'em, by god!
B
24 - Dave Nalle
Dave pretty much always assumes he knows more about these things than the people actually involved in the processes, and then he makes broad assumptions regarding their motivations.
This suggests that there is 'secret' knowledge about Joe Biden which is not publicly available. If that's true, I'd be surprised and more than a little trouble.
It doesn't seem to occur to him that the people involved in these processes, in this case, choosing Obama's running mate, obviously took great pains in making their choice.
I'm sure they did. That doesn't mean that they made the right choice. Remember, that they are working from a set of assumptions which I believe are inherently flawed. And one of them is David Axelrod and he's a true idiot.
One would have to assume that they postulated scenarios respecting the ramifications of selecting each of the different candidates under consideration.
Doesn't mean they made the right choice, though.
No matter who they selected, there would be those, Dave doubtless among them, at the ready to trash and ridicule him or her.
Or it could just be a bad choice. Not the WORST choice. He could have picked Hillary. But certainly not the best. He should have picked Bill Richardson.
The biggest problem that Obama has, as I see it, is not McCain, but Clinton. She and hubby have it in their power to really disrupt the proceedings. Many believe that they would actually relish an Obama defeat in November as it could set her up for another run in 2012. That's a pretty cynical view, but may well be true. It's become more and more apparent that the Clintons think it's all about them.
I actually think his biggest problem is his choice of campaign strategies. In the speeches last night they heavily pushed the 'John McCain is Bush' theme and I think that's a dead loser. Those actually motivated enough to vote just aren't that dumb.
If any of those folks actually follow through and vote for McCain, I hope they are ready and willing to see the overturning of Rowe V Wade and a totally right wing Supreme Court for years to come. I hope they are willing to accept repeated involvement in innumerable military conflicts as McCain sees that as the only viable means to deal with international problems. They should be prepared to lose many more of our young people in idiotic wars or "police actions." The list goes on.
You see, this delusional, crazy shit is what democrats seem to actually believe. If you are typical then you are the definition of why Obama might just lose. It's this worldview you have which is totally divorced from reality which makes it impossible to do things like form an effective campaign strategy.
Dave
25 - Alec
Clavos - RE: What's that got to do with Obama's lack of qualifications?
This whole topic is a red herring. There ain't nothing about qualifications (aside from age and citizenship) for the presidency in the Constitution. People make up post hoc rules about qualifications to suit their interests.
Republicans cannot simultaneously embrace the Bush Administration and talk about Obama's "qualifications," especially when not only president Bush, but Bush's cabinet is so riddled with mediocrities.
As an aside, Republicans are on record as supporting Bush appointing unqualified cronies and loyalists simply because he has the power to do so. Clearly, the issue of qualifications is meaningless to GOP true believers.
Dave Nalle - re: IMO the best presidents are those who have a diversity of experience - time in the military, plus legislative experience, plus business experience, plus administrative/executive experience.
You know this is historically incorrect and reductive. There is simply no easy template from which to judge a presidential candidate in advance, and the mix of experience that you prefer is rather arbitrary.
Jefferson and Madison were great presidents, but Jefferson was not much of a businessman and both Jefferson and Madison were brilliant politically, but absolutely ignorant with respect to economic policy and were easily put to shame by Alexander Hamilton.
But oddly enough, McCain does not do well even based on your criteria. His courage was amazing, but his overall military record was poor. He was lucky enough to get attached to a wealthy heiress, but has no significant record as an independent businessman. And I simply don't understand how anyone with his length of service in the Congress could become the party's nominee after admitting that he knew nothing about economics.
In a way, McCain is much like Hillary Clinton. Both tried a con game of substituting life experience -- mere longevity in the public sphere -- for actual achievement. By contrast, Obama's resume appears thinner on the surface, but demonstrates more thoughtfulness.
But my main purpose here is not really to cheerlead for a particular candidate, or even to attack the GOP nominee, but more to point out the essential emptiness of the typical GOP talking point about presidential qualifications. It simply does not hold up to any historical scrutiny. Neither the best nor the worst presidents can be measured by their resume.
As an aside, I do think your citation of Polk and Teddy Roosevelt is interesting. I know more than most about the first presidents and 20th century politics, but not much about Polk. I agree that he achieved much, but he was oddly limited in his vision (trying to reconcile pro and anti slavery factions, for example). But you make an interesting point here.