Barack Obama, that presidential coquette who teased the world by not announcing his running mate for nearly two months, finally unveiled his vanilla, vice presidential bride, thus ultimately opting for a marriage of blandness, predictability and conciliation. Obama's choice of Joe Biden, the 65 year-old Senator from Delaware, now officially cements Obama's ideological shift from a progressive message of "change" to a placating message of "more of the same...but better than that other guy, we swear!"
With his uninspired choice of Biden as his running mate, Obama not only betrays his initial, zeitgeist promise of reformation, but he also voluntarily concedes his growing insecurity by essentially admitting he lacks the political maturity, experience and depth needed to handle foreign affairs and the "gutter, smear game" known as politics.
For those who follow this fascinating circus known as presidential elections, they understand traditional wisdom dictates, "He who moves quicker and closer to 'the Center' wins the 'prize.'" However, due to two disastrous, thoroughly right wing administrations spearheaded by a bullish Neo-con cronyism -- resulting in a weakened American dollar, a phenomenal deficit, a debilitating recession, an unprecedented loss of prestige in global opinion, and a strategic debacle of a war -- the "Center" has shifted considerably to "the Right."
As evidenced by Obama's grassroots, progressive campaign, wisdom and common sense suggest a "change" from the current "Center" to the "Left" is what inspired the formerly jaded and apathetic electorate to jump on the "bandwagon." The Democrats, a party that would win the annual "Mr. Magoo" award for myopia, must be commended for their innate, gifted talent of redundancy: an absolutely paralyzing fear of aggressively attacking the Republican Party for their egregious idiocy and a failure in jettisoning their own cowardly attachment to the right wing's definition of "national security" and "tough on crime policies." [See: John Kerry's 2004 Campaign.] All of this is done to appease and pacify an electorate base [12% of which is firmly convinced that Obama is Muslim and nearly a quarter that are still "unsure"] that would never vote for him in the first place, at the risk of losing a newly energized "youth", "liberal"," first time voters" and "independent" block who came on board precisely due to an allegedly refreshing "new" message of "change and hope."
Obama, as witnessed by his recent conciliatory and flip flop rhetoric on terrorism, the Iraq War, off shore drilling, and national security, continues to dampen any meaningful chance his presumed Presidency would have in actually altering the discourse, ideology and practice of American domestic and international diplomacy in the 21st century. The result? A recent Zogby poll announcing a 5 point McCain lead over Obama, with the latter's star power falling amongst those he once enthralled: his base.
In a move that plays right into the hands of the Republican hit machine, Obama panicked and chose a candidate who not only serves as the Democratic foil for McCain [Old, White, "Experienced," Quasi-Racist] but, like McCain, has repeatedly criticized Obama for his lack of experience; thereby effectively doing the Republicans job for them. When asked by George Stephanopoulos,
"Is [Obama] ready?'Biden replied,
'I think he can be ready, but right now, I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'"
Wonderful.
The Republicans are already having a field day -- obviously resulting in a McCain boon -- by essentially recycling Hillary Clinton's smear campaign. Recall, she hyped Obama's lack of experience as highlighted by the now infamous "3 a.m. phone call" ad, her constant race baiting and her "Is he a radical, Black, anti-White Muslim?" card by casually mentioning "Farrakhan," and her gaudily insincere attempt to win over the working Whites by painting Obama as an effete, elitist intellectual. With Democrats like these, Obama needs no enemies.
To add fuel to the ever-growing fire, immediately after announcing the Biden decision, the McCain camp fired this salvo:
"There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama's lack of experience than Joe Biden. Biden has denounced Barack Obama's poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing -- that Barack Obama is not ready to be president."
So, the question goes, "Why choose a man who has publicly -- and repeatedly -- lambasted the Democratic candidate's political inexperience?"
Biden apparently fills in Obama's "resume gaps" by contributing his strength and familiarity with foreign policy and national security issues due to his experience as the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. He also appeases a White, middle class and religious electorate terrified by the "dark" and "Muslim-y" Obama, by placating them with his "working class" Pennsylvania roots and Roman Catholic background. But what many aren't mentioning, surprisingly, is how he was chosen to specifically resemble a "Democratic" McCain.
Both men are known for their impetuous "loose cannon" of a mouth, which is currently used as a weapon to play "gutter ball" in the increasingly negative, political smear campaigns. One that Obama, in a now insincere attempt to "elevate" the level of discourse by "not going negative," refuses to vocally engage in thereby maintaining his non threatening, Morgan Freeman, Zen-sage image.
Both men are political relics with decades spent on Capitol Hill affixing their Senate seat like a reliable piece of furniture. Both men voted for the regrettable 2002 "Authorization to Use Military Force," which was justified using laughably unreliable and flimsy evidence, thereby giving Bush his legal ammunition to wage the disastrous War in Iraq and Afghanistan. [Although Biden, like all peddling Democrats senators who voted similarly, has since become a fierce and vocal critic of the War.] Both men are old and White, thus ensuring "Whiteness" has its assured, unassailable "Conch" in the Oval Office. And, finally, both men are renowned for their flippant and casually racist rhetoric.
Biden, specifically, was forced to apologize to Obama after he publicly described Obama as
"the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
How it warms the cockles of my heart to know that Obama, who apparently gave a "historic race speech" in March, has apparently "transcended" racism by choosing a candidate who just months ago was genuinely surprised that Obama wasn't a disheveled, mumbling, Colt 45 drinking, dread locked, gangsta rapping, sexually threatening dark man incapable of intelligent speech.
In a move that will surely win over South Asian and Middle Eastern votes, Biden, while campaigning once in New Hampshire, said, "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent." Indeed, as a Muslim American of Pakistani descent who has no "foreign accent," I concede I, along with the entire 7-Eleven and Dunkin Donut-eating population -- especially Rachael Ray -- must go "native" or slightly "Bollywood" to purchase our obesity-inducing num nums.
Not to be outdone, John McCain, that bastion of enlightened thought and modernity, apparently still lives in the '60's, and feels justified in racially condemning Vietnamese and Asians by publicly stated in 2000: "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
And, with that, we return to Obama: that biracial, Hawaiian born son of a Kenyan, non-practicing Muslim father and White, Kansas-corn fed mother, who gave him an Arabic, African name and a childhood spent in Indonesia. That Obama who formerly spearheaded a "United Colors of Benetton" campaign seeking and promising to unite and bridge not only the diverse cultures of America, but also the world. The irony of it all is sour but delicious.
Regardless, Obama's vice presidential pick, another move in a recent string of actions seemed motivated by short term political expediency rather than conviction and fidelity to his original platform, will hopefully make the acolytes realize Obama is not a "Superman": he is, instead, a politician. Three months ago, I predicted as much and labeled him "The Dark Knight" [The Dark Knight: The Real Rise of Obama." Counterpunch. May 1, 2008.] Nearly two weeks ago, Obama agreed:
"[I] was always into the Spider-Man/Batman model. The guys who have too many powers, like Superman, that always made me think they weren't really earning their superhero status. It's a little too easy. Whereas Spider-Man and Batman, they have some inner turmoil. They get knocked around a little bit."
How utterly appropriate.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What about "presidential coquette" and "vice-presidential bride"? Your attempt to diminish these men through the application of feminine epithets is casual sexism, so you lost me in your first sentence.
If you are going to change an institution like Washington, you need someone extremely familiar with the animal, who knows the weak points, where the key box is and where the bodies are buried(figuratively).
Smart move. Change without an inside man would never happen.
You know Mr Ali, lets cut to the chase and really speak about why you are so against the Biden pick. I would like to think it's because of his comment about South Asian Americans in nearly every Duncan Donut across America.
I wonder how history will treat this:
The first legitimate African American candidate for the White House painted as elitist, exotic, not American. He didn"t come from money, earned his way into Harvard, and manage to find success that any working class parent would dream of for their child.
Supporters of one historic candidate doing all they can to block the ascendance of another historic candidate. There is an old saying in the Black community about the crabs in the barrel pulling down the one that gets close to the top. Women and African Americans had to fight hard for their rights. It would be sad to see both go down in flames like this.
The idea that the rules don"t matter so long as you get the result you want. We have been told to play by the rules, meet them, and then be told the rules don"t matter.
What African Americans will think of their fellow citizens as a result of this election, and what that may really mean to the Democrats. White America has never really known about us, never had to. Race relations will never be the same now that there is something at stake.
I think its great to have a slight Indian accent when going to 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts. Its a fact, and one to be proud of in our diverse country. And also a fact that Indians have contributed immensely to the American economy by owning these stores. Maybe you guys are the ones that need to stop being embarrassed about the Indian accent.
"With Democrats like these, Obama needs no enemies."
How ironic.
Right on. If Obama loses, it won't be because McCain beat him; it will be because other Dems stabbed him in the back.
What I don't understand is why you do not want to win.
There were positive and negative considerations with each choice.
Does it benefit your cause to create dissension in the base?
I don't get the crying about O moving to the center, did he come out against government funded health care, against affordable education, change his mind about bringing the troops home? In fact what has happened is that the other side has adopted his positions.
From alternative energy to timetables they are parroting Obama.
If you don't think that having a Black man at the top of the presidential ticket is change you don't understand America very well.
Why not save the criticisms and support the candidate?
For all your supposed liberal credentials it seems you are buying the line that the MSM is feeding you.
As a 62 year old life long Democrat I can tell you that in all my years I can't recall ever having such a disfunctional Government. Why is that? Because for the last eight years we have had a Republican Administration and Congress that has a "It's my way or the highway" mentality. Total gridlock, with the goal of Winning for extreme right partisanship purposes.
So what is it you want with Obama...another disfunctional do nothing Government buT this time based on extreme left partisanship "It's my way or the highway" politics?
Obama is left of center in his philosophy, but he is wise enough to understand that we are a NATION of PEOPLE from both sides of the isle, and the only way to move our country forward is to represent ALL the people, not just one party, and find reasonable compromises that will stop the childish food fights in DC and the stagnation that is bringing down our country...so we can begin to FUNCTION again and MOVE FORWARD.
If the disgruntled Democrats had really been listening to Obama from the beginning, they would understand that is exactly what he has said from the beginning. He has NEVER promised to do a Democratic left immitation of GW Bush and the Conservative right politics of division.
I find it interestingthat people like the author who claim to be so progressive are puttign all the pressure on Obama's shoulders. Why? He won't be king!! He has to work with Congress. The "disappointed" progressives place all the load on Obama to change things, yet the best way to bring about the desired changes they want is to elect Progressives into the otehr parts of govt- that is, locally (cities and towns), statewide (state legistlatures, etc) and Federally - the Congress people and Senators from that state.
But what happens every election cycle? The same old guys/gals get elected again. Why aren't you Progressives trying harder to change that? Instead you put all this pressure on one guy every GE election cycle, and when he doesn't do exactly what you think is right, all of a sudden you all become disillusioend and disappointed. Then you probably followup by not voting and the GOP wins (and we've seen waht that has got us). Give me a freakin' break!
So I say, all these "disappointed Progressives" need to lay off Obama and make sure he gets into the WHite House. Maybe with him there, getting more Progressive candidates into the mix will become easier.
YOU HAVE TO CRAWL BEFORE YOU CAN WALK BEFORE YOU CAN RUN !!
Obama has promised to CHANGE the way our Government has been, from a disfunctional stubborn extremeist partisan Hatfield and McCoy mentality, to a functioning Government, where the goal is to get things accomplished for ALL the people. He has promised to represent ALL the People.
How many times have you heard him say we are not a red state or a blue state America, we are the "United" Staes of America?
That takes reasonable intelligent compromise.
Some of you see to prefer partisan gridlock, then a country that progresses forwards for ALL.
Partisan extreme left stubborness disfunctional gridlock is not CHANGE, from what we have had, it is the SAME, just a switch from one side of the isle to the other.
It's not Obama that has changed his tune...it is you who have not really listened to him that is the problem. SO WHAT? You think John McCain is going to represent YOUR interests and beliefs?
You must not be listening to McCain either!
It would be quite grand to tear down the current system and rebuild it--on the very same framework--with a progressive mindset and a new leader with fresh ideas and a congress of the same measure...
And you see, that's where the author's criticisms lose touch with reality; without flushing out Washington DC and starting over with a house and senate that also features a majority with similar progressive values, the entire argument falls apart.
The best we can possibly hope for in this concrete reality is to have a progressive leader that has the good sense to surround himself with loyal, tested, and skilled career politicians who can effectively navigate the partisan mine field that is congress. Bi-partisan compromises as well as partisan dirty tricks will be required to move a progressive agenda forward, and the call for new, fresh [and inexperienced] faces in the POTUS support team--starting withthe VP--is simple naivety. It sounds good, and really looks good--if you're all about appearances--but at some point we will expect Obama to actually BE progressive, rather than merely appear so.
As with many things, the requirements to achieve such goals in reality are quite different than what might appear to be obvious. DC pros are necessary, and are far more practical than a team of green visionaries beating their heads against the status quo; the challenge for Obama from this point forward is to select the pros who truly desire change.
Obama has proven that he is just another Illinois politician who will say just about anything to get elected. I'm from Illinois and watch the corruption on a daily basis. He's done a spin on his original liberal stands and is alienating his base.
I want a "none of the above" lever in November.
Obama has ALWAYS been just another politician. The only difference between him and others has been his ability to mesmerize people with rhetoric and blind them to the fact that there is little substance, a slim resume, and questionable ethics.
However, his choice of Joe Biden gives me a little hope. I was considering pulling the Obama lever in November only because of the Supreme Court issue. It was either that or not vote. Most folks I know, even those who supported Obama and who have been sorely disappointed, felt the same.
We will now vote - for the hope that Joe Biden brings to the ticket.
"I want a "none of the above" lever in November"........and two more Supreme Court justices just like Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts.
I hear the flush as the America we knew and loved " not perfect, but with such potential " swirls away into oblivion.
Neo-fascism anyone?
Obama's message has always been about reaching across the aisle and bringing people togther in the middle. This has been his platform from day one.
He did a stellar job on that FISA thing, didn't he!
Look, the author is writing out of frustration and distress - of course he wants Obama to win! But, he is afraid that the dems are once again setting themselves up to fail. Aren't we all a bit afraid of that? Saying one thing and doing another seems to only work for the republiscum. Biden was a "safe" choice but picking someone who has already said you don't have the chops to be prez seems a bit bizarre!
I find it hard to believe that you were ever a are part of the Obama base you claim to speak for.
I agree, this is a horrible pick. Biden has done more damage to the Obama campaign before it even got started. I don't know why democrats assume that abandoning your base makes for a solid campaign strategy - but it doesn't. The Republicans stay in race because they understand that most people do not vote. Thus, they just have to cater to their base and they win. Democrats try to pull Republican votes, which never works, and abandon their base - far from efficient.
Biden is hopeless. He wrote FISA, supports the war on drugs and the bankruptcy bill. In addition, he supported the war. Oh yeah, Tennessee hate him too. I just don't see the logic here.
Obama has abandoned no one. He is instead INCLUDING Americans from both Parties so he can unite our Government to get something DONE IN WASHINGTON for a "CHANGE" Get it?
Really? That's why the anti-FISA page is the largest group on his own site. Biden is an abandonment. I don't think that too many of his original supporters are that groovy about the drug war, PgP, RIAA, domestic spying, FISA, the new bankruptcy law or a VP that is a Washington insider that has racial issues.
Perhaps the sort of change Obama is referring to comes in the form of eliminating the disgusting partisan gridlock that prevents meaningful bills from being passed. Sorry if it doesn't jibe with your personal agenda, but I'll take it.
[CONTINUED]
Bayh and Kaine could have been some refreshing alternatives and helped re-energize the base. I don"t think Clinton was ever a viable solution, but could have brought back her "base," many of whom have adamantly stated they will never vote for Obama. Clinton would then have to overcome the baggage of her last name, which includes the elephant in the room Bill, as well as her viciously negative campaign against Obama during the primaries. It would give the Republicans too much ammunition and , in my opinion, would not be a strategically wise choice for Obama.
Now is the time for Obama/Biden to find their unified voice - one that predominantly rises from that well of inspiration - regardless how genuine or forced - that brought hope and excitement to a generation of voters truly embracing Obama"s promise of change. They need to jettison confusion, back pedaling, flip fop and reactionary rhetoric and go full throttle against Mc-Same, Republicans, Bush and the lot.
Let"s hope the Democrats have learned from 2004.
In response to some other comments, my choice of "vanilla" was in reference to "blandness" not skin tone. And, yes, I'd be honored if someone were to refer to me as "Mocha," or preferably "Caramel."
I don't think you helped yourself with this addendum.
Bayh? Yeah, real heavy hitter there.
Biden--bland? Yeah, right.
"Honored" ?! to be called Mocha or Caramel? How piddling is that comment?
Acceptance of the VP choice is what is called for now, work for the candidates and quit quibbling.
"Bayh and Kaine could have been some refreshing alternatives"????? How? By putting everybody to sleep?
As for the "blandness" comment, I don't get that at all. Biden is the opposite of bland.
Wajahat Ali, I wonder how much you know or understand of Bayh. Your original blog appeared to be written from a progressive view. From such a view, Bayh is not a good choice - he is as much of a Terror-War-Hawk as you will find in the Democratic party, and is socially very conservative.
On the other hand, you now appear to be writing from a sort of 'realpolitik' view of political expediency, which begs the question - how can you continue to judge Obama for behaving in a self-interested way by supposedly "lurching to the center" (as you put it in your original blog) and condemn him for making VP selections that are not the most politically strategic, regardless of political principles?
Can you be any further out of touch with this blog post?
Clinton?!?! The one with the highest negatives? If she had such a large base, her campaign debt would have been retired long ago by those "18 million".
Bayh? Not much help, a true Kerry-esq pick.
Kaine? Nice guy; McCain would have had a field day with the "lack of experience" argument.
The change in this campaign means that politics as usual WILL change with Obama/Biden.
Biden is savvy enough to help implement the change Obama will bring to Washington.
Hopefully after this convention, these divisive attacks will end; the most important job is ending the 8 years of corruption/destruction of Bush/McCain.
Posted August 24, 2008 | 04:17 PM (EST)