3PM EST, I won't miss it.

This is excellent news!

Del(ete)aware(ness): Can't we read the code? "Joe" has been bidin' his time until he could become the ultimate stealth candidate for the core Masonic-Republican platform.

JOE BIDEN IS MY KIND OF GUY
HE'LL HELP BARACK MAKE MCCAIN CRY
HE KNOWS THE VALUE OF ISRAEL TO US
THOSE OF YOU DON'T LIKE IT-- CAN SUCK PUS

Jewish Daily Forward, March, 2007:

Delaware Senator Joseph Biden rejected the notion that the U.S. needs to become a more neutral player in the Middle East, while criticizing the White House as uninvolved and ineffective. He spoke to the Forward for 45 minutes over oatmeal at Manhattan’s Regency Hotel yesterday morning,

“In my 34 year career, I have never wavered from the notion that the only time progress has ever been made in the Middle East is when the Arab nations have known that there is no daylight between us and Israel,” said Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations committee. “So the idea of being an ‘honest broker’ is not, I think, like some of my Democratic colleagues call for, is not the answer. It is being the smart broker, it is being the smart partner.”

Biden, a dark-horse Democratic presidential contender known for straight talk (and the occassional gaffe), has long been a strong supporter of Israel in Congress and is now aggressively courting Jewish voters and donors for his 2008 bid. The debate over the U.S.-Israel relationship, meanwhile, has reached a fevered pitch in the wake of last week’s Washington conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee: On Sunday, New York Times columnist Nick Krisof published an op-ed in the paper that argued that the country lacks a serious debate over Israel, and needs to back away from its “crushing embrace” of Israeli hardliners.

Biden argued that the U.S. doesn’t need more distance, but does need to become a more effective, proactive partner for peace.

“We contract our foreign policy, and that is a dangerous situation,” Biden said. “Do you think there’s any reasonable prospect that the Saudis are going to push Hamas to recognize Israel? So now we have a quote unity government and we’re going, ‘Oh my goodness, we have a problem.’”

I am relieved. Bayh was a paperweight, Kaine too inexperienced and HRC combined with Bill? Too much baggage, ego and not enough discipline. Yes folks say Biden lacks discipline also but in the primaries after Observer report he really reigned it in and delivered the best one liners of any candidate repug or dem.

I know this may sound corny but I think the flaws Biden has will endear him to Americans. Why? Well, simple he is someone they can relate to, he forthright, unafraid and humorous. I am going to cringe a bit here but the point is he is a man they could have a beer with...

McNero's choices are a paperweight (Pawlenty) a true gaffe machine Romney (pleassse pick this numpty) or Ridge who despite his pro-choice stance is the pick I fear.

Lastly McNero made another tactical error here. The MSM will be bathing in the glow of Veep predictions, Biden quotes and the convention. It will overshadow that ad released on a Saturday morning. Isnt the weekend the time to dump info?

Why not run that ad when Biden speaks at the convention? Now it seems it will get trampled in the same way as the Rezko crap did.

I had been hearing interesting possibilities - like Gov. Schweitzer of Montana - but I really do like Biden. I would have liked Dodd as well (what's with the white hare!), except that, well, that white hair...

And the timing is wierd. I thought Friday nights were when you dumped bad news..

All in all, I am pleased. Good choice!

According to MSNBC "Morning Joe" Peter Hart, one of the pollsters of NBC/WSJ, did a focus group in June and presented it to the press. At the end of the presentation he said that he thought that the BEST Vice President for Obama according to everything he looked at was in fact Joe Biden.

Very interesting...

My post on TPM
This is an excellent choice. Biden helps with all of the demographics where Obama is weak. Shockingly, of course, he is not in 100% agreement with Obama on say, Iraq and bankruptcy reform. (Its amazing how difficult it is to find someone who agrees with you 100%). But he has been much more responsible on Iraq than most of those who voted to authorize and Obama's willingness to have someone who voted to authorize can actually be good by showing that he does not think that is disqualifying, since the fact is, of course, that most Americans supported the Iraq War when it began. Its a way of saying its the future, not the past, that matters. Further, Biden can talk to those in his demographic who are unsure about Obama and say that Obama's choice of him shows Obama's respect for those with Biden's background. Remember, the evidence is that people want to vote for Obama and change and the task is to get them not from McCain to Obama but from undecided to Obama. On the criticism of Obama's experience, I think most voters realize that one makes what criticims are available when you yourself are running against someone and it is easily resolved by Biden saying that the campaign showed him that Obama is up to the job. On the nice things about McCain front, that could actually help reinforce the campaign's current message by Biden being able to say that was a different John McCain and not the one who is now campaigning for president, whose ambition has caused him to reject all of the policies that made Biden look favorably upon him. Finally, this choice will let Obama be Obama, talking positive while Biden can do the attacks, again helped by Biden's previous regard for another John McCain.

I'm still waiting for the NYT to fix a grammar error in the second to last sentence of their story:

"As a young man, he was in the center of a gripping family drama: barely a month after he was elected to the Senate, his wife and their three children were in a car accident with a drunken driver resulted in the death of his wife and daughter."

It's been like that for hours.
I think I need to get out of the house and away from Politics for a while...

Obama has followed the classic advice of "balancing the ticket". Obama has tried to present himself as someone opposed to the Bush Administration's neoconservative foreign policy; Biden has been one of the most vociferous and powerful backers of those neocon policies.

Senator Biden played actively promoting the Bush Administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq. In multiple press statements and opinion pieces, he forcefully echoed Bush administration talking points. A few typical examples:

On February 17, 2002 Biden unequivocally backed Colin Powell's pivotal deceptions, declaring "In his masterful presentation to the UN Security Council on February 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell presented irrefutable evidence that Iraq is in material breach of its obligations as spelled out in various U.N. resolutions, including last fall’s resolution 1441...Secretary Powell had to make that case and he did so in just the right manner. He did not exaggerate. He did not use any rhetorical flourishes".

On September 12, 2002 Biden declared: "President Bush's speech was a powerful indictment, by the United Nations' own standards, of Saddam Hussein's contempt for the world. For more than a decade, Saddam has flaunted the will of the international community, repeatedly reneging on his commitment to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities. The President did the right thing by going to the United Nations and reminding it that Saddam Hussein is the world's problem and the U.N. has an obligation to act."

On March 3 2003 in a Washington Post Op Ed, Biden wrote: "Saddam Hussein is relentlessly pursuing weapons of mass destruction, abusing his own people and making a mockery of the United Nations. With or without a second U.N. resolution, and barring a coup or last-minute conversion by Hussein, the United States will act to disarm him."

On April 7, 2003 in a Washington Post Op Ed, Biden wrote: "…many around the world, even longtime allies, question our motives in Iraq. They wrongly believe we are driven by commercial interests or imperial designs. We have to convince them otherwise.."

Biden did much more than simply echo Bush neocon talking points regarding the need for an Iraq invasion and occupation: as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Biden actively prevented the American people from hearing those voices who could convincingly refute the Bush Administration's deceptions which we are so familiar with today. Biden refused to allow chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter, for example, to testify before his committee.

On August 27, 2002 Stanley Kutler wrote in Los Angeles Times:

"Bush II is considering the necessity of an invasion of Iraq and the toppling of its regime. Where is the debate? Absent any real dissent, we have a lethal combination of inertia, intimidation and political impotence, all combining to cast an illusion of overwhelming consensus.Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.),the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has embraced that consensus with his customary fervor.

Biden apparently believes that he fulfills the constitutional function of advise and consent by merely being the cheerleader for the administration's rising chorus demanding war with Iraq. When and how are the only questions in his repertoire."

Ritter himself trenchantly described the true nature of Biden's shameful suppression of the truth:

"Sen. Joe Biden is running a sham hearing. It is clear that Biden and most of the Congressional leadership have pre-ordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts, and are using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq.

These hearings have nothing to do with an objective search for the truth, but rather seek to line up like-minded witnesses who will buttress this pre-determined result.... This isn't American democracy in action, it's the failure of American democracy.

Before we go to war with Iraq, we must be able to determine that Iraq poses a threat to the national security of the United States. Such a determination must be backed up with substantive fact. I believe that Iraq does not pose a threat to the U.S. worthy of war. This conclusion is shared by many senior military officers. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities.

I bear personal witness, through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the UN, to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them. While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament.

These are the sort of facts that must be included in any hearing that seeks to determine the threat posed by Iraq today.

It is clear that Sen. Biden and his colleagues have no interest in such facts."

Since the Iraq invasion Biden has continued unceasingly to promote the overall neocon Global War on Terror world view, while effective criticizing specific tactics used by the Bush Administration.

Biden's strong support for the core *objectives* of neconservative foreign policy-- globally-- will make a fine counterpoint to Obama's rather undefined "anti-War", "progressive" image.

I am glad to see some consensus about Biden. I am sure many agree with Senator Obama. It is of course fair to say some are disappointed with such a choice. Hopefully the disappointed ones will be able to get around it.

Sadly, having someone (on the ticket) who has supported the war on Irak is a major problem. The other issue the message of change is totally undermined and undercut.

Obama was able to criticized McWar on war, and the fact that McWar have been in Washington for so long.

Biden has been in Washington longer than McWar...

I wish Obama the presidency but his decision he made last night is a difficult one to swallow.

Joe Biden is in bed with MBNA which also was a major contributor to Bush in 2000 and 2004. His record regarding reproductive rights is dismissal at best. He supported the Iraq Resolution, the Patriot Act, at least he was against the FISA bill. As a Catholic, I guess Biden will appeal to the Catholic vote.

Not much change if you ask me, which, of course, nobody did. Just putting in my two cents worth.

It's a fine pick. Nobody is perfect and the anti-Obama crowd will find many nits to pick. But nobody has ever accused Biden of being a dishonest man. In Washington these days, that means something.

I don't care if he supported the president at one time. He was doing what he felt was best for the country ... and isn't that what politicians are supposed to do?

I was a big Hillary backer and still think she would have been the better choice. But she isn't the choice and that is that. So those who lean left have two choices: they can pout and moan about it and join up with Sean Hannity. Or they can suck it up, get back in the game and go to work for someone who is much closer to your philosophical point of view than John McCain.

So which is it, boys and girls?

The question is now: Who will be secretary of state? Clinton? Richardson?

I like the idea of Clinton on the Supreme Court if there is any way to pull it off, she would be a ball buster to the neocon justices. And her opinions would be the first ones read.

I still haven't gotten a text message. Kind of pisses me off, frankly. Has anyone else gotten one? Or did my cell provider fuck up?