On January 20, 2009, if John McCain takes the oath of office as the next President and Barack Obama returns to the Senate to figure out what happened to his once promising campaign, he should remember Friday, August 22, 2008 as the day he made a mistake that cost him the Presidency.
That was the day Obama named Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. as his running mate.
So much for the dream, so much for the promises of change, so much for casting aside the old way of doing things. If you want to deliver on those promises, you don’t pick a two-time loser as a Presidential candidate, a long-winded speaker who puts people to sleep or a known plagiarist who also lied outright when he said he would never accept an offer of the vice presidency.
Obama might, possibly, have come up with a worse choice than Joe Biden but that would be a short list.
Bringing Biden into the fold is a sellout of the highest order, a capitulation to the old-style liberalism that has sunk the Democratic Party time and again.
Picking Biden suggests Obama is not an agent of change but simply a purveyor of false hopes and impossible dreams.
Like many, I wanted to believe in the guy. He talked good but his actions since wrapping up the nomination have betrayed the trust of those who supported him and offered nothing but the same political pabulum to a nation that needed a candidate who would deliver on his promises.
Joe Biden? This is change?
Forget the future. Forget any hope of salvation for a nation in need. Get ready for the Presidency of John McCain.
The mafia has a saying for what we are facing: new boss, same as the old boss.
(AUTHOR’S NOTE: I revised this column on August 27 after deciding some of the original column was just too far over the top. I still think Biden was a bad choice but was wrong to consider it a fatal one. My bad.)
104 thoughts on “Is Biden a change Vice President?”
Ackroyd studied criminology and sociology at Carleton University but dropped out before completing.
The Joe Friday role was perfect for him.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. Let me first state that I am neither a McCain troll, as suggested in other comments, nor am I a Clinton supporter. In fact, you won’t find many carpetbagging Clinton fans here in upstate NY.
There still happens to be some free-thinking Independent Americans that don’t buy into the false left vs right control system. I happen to be one of them.
Some comments by Obama supporters just serve to strengthen my argument. I am automatically labeled a neocon apologist or McCain supporter for no other reason than that I oppose Obama. I can’t possibly have any other reason.
I care not about race or gender in a President. I care about what the candidate intends to do about righting the ship. I see nothing from Obama but empty rhetoric and vague promises, an any-port-in-a-storm mentality brought about by the galactic failures of the “opposing” party.
Failures, of course, that weren’t failures at all, but wild successes for the military-industrial complex.
The same dance set to a different tune. I just see no solutions in his policy positions, nor have I met any of his supporters that can accurately define them. I see nothing but a blind faith campaign based on a wait-and-see approach. I’ve been waiting and seeing for forty years, and nothing ever changes.
As for voting, I’ll vote the way I always do – third party.
Agree with the state of status-quo-politics comments, but not necessarily the concluding question.
One problem is Hillary and the other is the election of Obama.
For Obama to succeed he has to do what only a very bright person can do – find ways to keep a lot of people happy and contented that he’s doing the job well. Bush has not come close to doing the job, and McCain’s eccentricities offer every indication that he is too far off the beam to go about unsupervised near things that could go boom.
Obama has no choice. He has to prove himself at a higher standard than any of those who came before him – or forget the idea of any other American minority ever occupying the big job. Including Hillary.
That’s a hopeful prospect.
Is this good for Hillary?
If Obama wins and does a great enough job the first 4 years, no. It means Hillary is geriatric before she gets the next shot at the White House in 8 years. At which point former Obama voters ask, “Hillary who?”
This thought must have occurred to at least one Hillary adviser and this contingency puts further pressure on Obama to deliver in a big way. Because in no way is his back covered from other contenders in his own camp.. The kind of pressure which Hillary has already demonstrated can only be imposed on her by The Big States. The ‘important’ ones. Obama must build an expanding coalition. Period.
I think there really is one shot at the change you want. And only one way to get it with a vote.
Comments are closed.