Blog Sampling on Biden

Some bloggers on Joe Biden:

I’m not exactly pleased by Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as a running mate, but then again, I’m not especially surprised, either. This is just one of many actions Obama has taken that signal that he’s more about politics-as-usual and supplicating the Beltway elites than he is about substantive change.

More here from Kathy G.

And here’s Melissa McEwan at Comment is Free America:

So Barack Obama, the candidate of hope and change, has selected as his running mate an old, straight white guy who’s been in the Senate for 36 years? Says my friend Phil Barron: “Disappointed, change agents? Well, if you had a revolution every day, it wouldn’t be special, would it?” And who can argue with that?

It’s certainly a curious choice, given that Biden’s support of the credit card industry-lobbied bankruptcy bill is exactly the sort of thing from which voters fed up with insider politics want, uh, change. And it will definitely be interesting to see just how much integrity there is among the progressives who refused to support Hillary Clinton because of her support for the Iraq invasion, now that Obama’s gone and picked one of its (former) cheerleaders as his running mate.

The case against Biden was … vast.

This is the best that Thomas Nephew can do at newsrackblog:

Visually and by resume, he’s not exactly a harbinger of change to believe in. But it could have been worse. And at least Delaware’s 3 electoral votes are now all but guaranteed this November.

At The Wild Wild Left:

1) He has no problem with the DLC, lobbyists, or the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.  Biden has been known for decades as “the senator from MBNA” because of the extensive banking-lobby cash that’s flowed into his coffers.  His unforgivable support of the bankruptcy bill likely stemmed from that support.

2) He has no problem with neocons.  Biden declared during the primary debates that he would unilaterally bomb Darfur on his first day in office.  That’s not what Obama believes, but he doesn’t seem to have a problem with a vice president who supports it.

3) His vision of “change” involves using the same people who’ve desecrated Washington for decades.  Biden has been in the Senate for thirty-five years, during which time he’s not distinguished himself as any kind of maverick or outsider.  Apparently Obama’s “change” means keeping the same people in government rather than throwing the bums out.

4) He’s not offended by slurs against East Indian people, which Biden has been known to utter, or by plagiarism, in which Biden has been known to indulge.  Nor is he bothered that the man he’s chosen once referred to him as “articulate and bright and clean.”

5) He wants to be the movement all by himself, not share that distinction with others.  Unlike Bayh, Kaine, and even Sebelius, Biden is too old to run for president after this (he’d be 73 at the end of Obama’s second term).  This thankfully spares us from a Biden presidency, but makes the campaign about Obama’s ego rather than his message.

This sampling reflects my bias.  Most Dems seem to be saying, it coulda been worse.  Sigh …

UPDATE:  From Feminist Law Professors

Like this blogger, I remember how he [Biden] treated Anita Hill. I remember the plagiarism, which may have started when he was in law school. Worst of all, however, is his support for a bankruptcy regime that enriches large corporations at the expense of working class people, (see also) hitting women particularly hard.

I expect I’m still going to vote for Obama, but I feel far less connected to his vision for this country. Good link roundup on Biden here.

–Ann Bartow

Sorrow in the House of Democrat

Melissa McEwan on Obama’s disappointing choice of running mate:

For months and months I have read rejections of Clinton because she supported the war, but I suspect that those making the argument will not now reject Obama because he put one of its cheerleaders on his ticket. For months and months I have read rejections of Clinton because she and/or her husband are racist, but I suspect those those making the argument will not now reject Obama because he put a man who says things like this or this or this or this, all within the last two years, on his ticket. For months and months I have read exhortations that I must vote for Obama because he will protect reproductive rights in a way McCain won’t, but I suspect those who have beat me with that cudgel will not now reject Obama because he put on his ticket a man who does not support federal funding for abortion and supported the “partial-birth abortion” ban even without protections for the health/life of the mother.

And what of those who have chanted Obama’s 100% NARAL rating like a mantra? Will they reject him now that he has asked to join his ticket a man with a 36% NARAL rating in 2003 and a 75% rating in 2007? Or will they come at last to their stubborn insistence that he’s still better than McCain, even though that’s not the debate…?

I’ve never been a member of the Democratic Party; I’ve never been a partisan. But I have always voted for Democrats, and I always felt marginally in tune with the party. Now, I feel completely distant, completely detached. This, I fear, will only deepen that divide.

At some point, I’m going to be incredibly angry about that. But at the moment, I’m not even angry. Not yet, anyway.

In this moment, I just feel incredibly sad.