10 Ways Biden MIGHT Help Obama (aka 10 Ways Obama Hoped Biden Might Help Him)
Ok, so enough of the "Biden won't help Obama" talk. While I largely agree with that, and have stated it myself, it is also true that Obama isn't an idiot. This is a guy who RUNS on political calculation, because that's all he has. So why Biden? There have to be logical, cynical, political reasons.

However, these are merely my intuition based on my observance of Obama's campaign. Thus, the word "might" in title of this post.

In no particular order...

1) Obama is African-American. Biden is White, with a Irish/Welsh-Catholic family background. Obama figures that he needs to go with a white male VP to assure voters (whom he percieves as racist voters, of course) that he isn't going to pull any punches by selecting a minority or a female.

2) Biden knows Washington DC workings. He's been there a long time: 36 years. So while it does run counter to his message of being "new" and his intention to do things differently, he still needs a key to the city. This is a practical consideration. Biden is his key. And to be fair to Obama, Hillary hasn't been there as long. Furthermore, even though Bill Clinton was president and would be extremely helpful, Obama and he do not seem to get along. So Obama goes with a different manifestation of the Clinton Years: Biden.

3) Joe Biden has a son in the military. While it is uncomfortable and often controversial to bring up this sort of thing in politics, it is nevertheless a consideration that voters take into account. John McCain has a son (or sons?) in Iraq, and all of his supporters know it, but keep it to a whisper. What Biden's son does for Obama is neutralize any possibility for a voter to reason, "Hmm. John McCain walks the walk, because he has a son over in Iraq and still believes we need to win the war, while Obama and [VP] don't."

4) Biden is Catholic. This wasn't a very good reason to pick Biden considering that Kerry was such a failure with the Catholic vote, but it's a reason nonetheless. I'm sure it passed through the minds of the Obama staff when considering Biden.

5) Biden voted for the war. Aha! you may say, but doesn't this run counter to his message (again?!) ? It does indeed. But think of it like this: Biden voted for the war, he now opposes the war, and he's not only a talker because he has a son in the military who is going to Iraq*." And this connnects to the following reason...

[ * NOTE: and God Bless Joe Biden's son for his service, and God keep him safe and all the men and women serving there.]

6) Biden is percieved as a foreign policy wonk. Yes, it's true that Biden is a fool on FP, nevertheless he knows the issues involved and has served on senate committees dealing with foreign policy. And most importantly: whoever McCain chooses as his own VP, Obama hopes to catch him weak in discussing foreign policy with Joe Biden.

7) Biden is close to Hillary...close enough. I don't know why this would work, but Obama still wants to reach out to Hillary Supporters who are mad about him trying to (purportedly) sever the Clinton Arm off the Democratic Party. It's not working (duh), but you Biden is what came closest while qualifying with the above reasons, as well as with these last three...

8) Biden is percieved as moderate (enough). While Biden is clearly pro-Abortion, he has not always been. He did however vote to ban partial-birth abortion. Whose vote you can find here....

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00402

...Also, Biden vote for the Iraq War, and is in many cases hawkish. Enough so that it would comfort moderatet voters who see FP as their prime voting issue.

9) Biden off-sets the "Obama is too young" argument. Now, I don't think there is a problem with Obama's age ( he is 47), I think the problem is with his lack of achievements, lack of good judgement, and the creepy cult of personality he has created. But people who see him on TV (and the same is true of me) are going to see "inexperienced," "too young" written all over his face. With Biden at the one VP depate this Fall, Obama has a chance to show voters that he knows where to look for wisdom: in someone older than he. As Republicans, we understand the comical elements of that reasoning, but nevertheless...

10) Biden is going to be an attack dog against all those Evil Republicans Who Dare Question The Sincerity And Patriotism Of THE ONE. And in Biden, Obama has found someone who is very capable of saying very bluntly foolish things. I'm sure Biden will spare nothing in attack McCain and Republicans as racists, homophobes, sexists etc.

And that wraps up my 10 Reasons Biden was picked. However, I do have one runner-up....

11) Biden is a walking commercial for why hair plugs work. And I admit, while the little cow lick at his nape is ridiculous-looking, he looks a heck of a lot better than he was bald.

These past months have seen Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton go from friendly rivals to bitter ones. And their respective supporters are almost as partisan. Half of Hillary's bloc say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, and a good portion of Obama's say the same. Add to that the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton have estranged African-American voters with their various [percieved] insinuations about his race.

What's happened is the near tearing-apart of the Democratic Party's most important voting blocs. This is the fault mostly of the Democrats' political theology. They held that a person's race or sex was a determining factor in that person's political value. Women will vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Everyone else will vote for her so it can be a symbol for overcoming sexism. People will vote for Barack Obama as a symbol for overcoming racism etc.

Both are noble thoughts, of course. The problem is that it translates very harshly in politics when the "first woman" and "first black" candidates have to endure the same kind of scrutiny that George W. Bush or John Kerry (*cough*) did.

America DOES need to elect a "first" [fill in blank], but American voters should not change the rules when it comes to qualifications for those candidates. The lesson that Democrats need to learn with this year's two Democrat candidates is: race and sex must take a backseat to policy ideas. It is the focus on victimization that is tearing Democrats apart. Finally they've been hoisted on their own petard: Hillary Clinton knows what it is like to be accused of racism when she is clearly not racist. Barack Obama knows the dangers that come with critisizing a female, even if those criticisms are legitimate.

Will they learn? That's the question. My answer is: no, they won't. But what they will realize before November is that they must pull the coalition together to win against John McCain. And to do that, Obama will need Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate. The reasons are numerous.

First, no other white candidate --male (Strickland, Warner) or female (Sebelius, Napolitano)--will do. Hillary has legitimized herself. She's winning 48% of the Democratic vote in the primaries. By this time the frontrunner has the nomination wrapped up, yet Obama has weakened not strengthened, over time. His problems with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright have alienated southern white voters, the moderate types who would vote for Bill Clinton or George Bush. Hillary Clinton is Obama's only chance of winning this bloc. Conversely, if Hillary were capable of winning the nomination, she would need Obama because of the alienation that occured between African-American voters and the Clintons.

More importantly, the reason for an Obama/Hillary ticket is to keep all the regular Democrat votes voting Democrat. As I pointed out above, a large section of each candidate's constituency are threatening to jump to McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. If this were to happen, McCain would be riding the train to a more probable victory.

Here's why it won't happen: the Democrats are realizing this as the Denver convention approaches. Obama has recently given a rationale for putting Hillary on the ticket, and there have been rumors that Bill Clinton has been pushing his wife for the VP slot behind the scenes. Whatever water may have passed under the bridge, the idea of possible defeat in November is a stronger drink than personal hatred.

That means McCain needs to gear up. He has to hope that the college vote gets too drunk to vote, he has to hope his hand-extensions to Union workers and African-Americans will add to his constituency. He has to hope, above all, that not a single person who voted for George W. Bush stays home. God Help Us All.

When a prominent Obama campaign spokesperson said in essence that racists were all voting for McCain, there was no media firestorm. It is accepted at this point that the Republican Party holds the "racist vote" spellbound. Of course this is supposed to scare us into thinking that the Republican Party is somehow encouraging to racists, or is racist itself. This is the kind of crap that Democraps--er, Democrats--use to brainwash African-American voters into voting for them.

Of course saying that McCain holds the "racist vote" is only talk. Nobody who is a prominent figure who is also racist, not anyone, has come and said, "thanks McCain for being the only white guy to vote for!"

But the Democrats have a problem with their own electorate---or at least, an 'electorate' that would vote in the United States election for President if it could. The Democrats have a strong hold of the terrorist vote. No, I don't mean Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn--those two are actually American citezens. The terrorist force of Hamas has expressed preference for a Barack Obama presidency. When John McCain pointed this out, Obama's campaign responded that it was a smear. As if saying McCain had a hold of the racist vote wasn't a smear.

So instead of assuring the American electorate that Hamas has plenty to fear from him, Obama and his campaign assure us that McCain has a lot to fear--Don't make them call you a racist! Because they will if McCain persists in pointing to Hamas' preference for Obama.

It is fair to ask what McCain is implying when he points out this telling fact: is he saying Obama and Hamas are pals? Well, that's how Democrats would like to paint it; McCain is trying to say Obama is a Hamas-friendly terrorist.

But what McCain is doing is simply pointing to the fact that dictators and terrorists have a preference for Democrat foreign policy ideals. Obama has promised to sit with Ahmadinejahd, Castro (the dead wax figure version) and Raul, Kimmie Jong-Il et al. How could Hamas NOT like Obama? He is the second-coming of the Democrat Messiah: Jimmy Carter!

It is interesting that Obama is so often compared to JFK. As history well knows, JFK wasn't exactly a Castro fan. It is hard to imagine JFK sitting down with Castro. Even to mock a dead, waxed version sitting in a rocking chair.

What McCain wants to point out---and what we should all realize---is that an Obama presidency is more likely to see friendly-relations with terrorist and dictatorial states, thus reversing years of tough-love American rejection. Democrats are big fans of talking and making empty gestures. Somehow talking to Ahmadinejad is supposed to persuade him not to pursue his theologically-driven plan to annihilate Israel. Somehow boycotting the Beijing Olympics will make China rethink their human rights policies...IF ONLY we could insult and abandon all our athletes, China would change! UN resolutions one after the other do nothing to make Iran and other such countries see the light.

This has veered from my original point, so let me wrap it up by relating this to McCain, Obama, the election and the "racist" vote vs, the terrorist vote.

The Democrats take offense when something true is pointed out; namely that their foreign policy ideals are comforting to terrorists and dictators. Meanwhile they feel no remorse in painting the Republican Party as racist--something that is, we can agree, at least debatable, not factual.

One thing for sure, terrorists are a lot more dangerous that racists. The Republicans should reject racism of course. How could they not? The Democrats' case for the Republican Party as racist relies on the fact that they reject affirmative action--which is, as the great Martin Luther King jr said--judgemment on the color of skin rather than character. The Democrats also base their reasoning on the fact that African-Americans overwhelmingly support them. Nevermind the fact that Republicans so have very prominent and capable leaders among them that are African-American: Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas in the governmental and judicial sphere and Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, and Walter Williams in the punditry sphere.

But what the Democrats refuse to acknowledge is this: even if Republicans have a lock on the racist vote, a much dirtier horse than racism resides in their own stable: terrorism. They don't want to address this fact, they just want to paint a picture of Republicans as accusing them of being terrorist-friendly. But that's not the problem. Of course Democrats don't endorse or agree with terrorists. The problem is that terrorists agree with them.

Hillary Clinton is in a really good position right now, and she doesn't even know it.
She's had her turn being battered by the media, and Barack was the saint. Now, she has an opportunity to turn the tables. My solution for her? Pick a Vice Presidential candidate now.

Let's look at why this would work. Barack Obama is being confronted on three fronts: his pastor's un-inclusive way of phrasing things, the Rezko land deal, and most recently his petitioning for money to the hospital his wife worked at.
Obama is facing the music. His trumpeted race on speech on race, meant to allay concerns over his pastor's controversial views. This scandal has seriously affected his message of "unity" and the optimism of post-racial politics.

Meanwhile Hillary is still licking her wounds.
What she needs to do is make Obama look like he's falling behind, grounded by scandals. Obama dismisses a ticket team-up with her? Fine, she'll pick someone else while he deals with his problems. She, Hillary, will move forward for the country's benefit.

If I were Hillary, I would NOT pick another youngish guy. What she needs to do is pick someone who is respected. How about House Majority Whip James Clyburn? Or her classmate friend of old, Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee?

The message for her (and she has to get on this message fast) has to be moving forward for the country, while Barack "deals with his problems". If she doesn't move now, Barack might survive the "Wrightgate" debacle and stay afloat.