NBC NY: “Vice president Joe Biden said today he would tell his family members not to use subways in the U.S. and implied schools should be shuttered as the swine flu outbreak spread to 11 states and forced school closures amid confirmation of the first U.S. death.”

Congressman Joe Sestak was on Morning Joe and intimated that he thought the Veep’s words would tend to overly alarm people.

(Of course, Rep. Sestak had planned to run against Arlen Specter for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania, and Specter’s party switch puts an end to those plans. But he’ll have that opportunity soon enough, and he doesn’t strike me — ever — as the petty type. I think he has a point about Joe, per usual, saying too much.)

President “a cross between Denzel Washington and Franklin Roosevelt”

Amusingly enough, after Biden got buried by a “plagiarism row,” and had to drop out of the 1988 presidential race when he “borrowed” heavily from Lord Neil Kinnock’s speech, the two men became pals. Lord Kinnock swears that, in 2007, Joe Biden predicted Obama would win, and told Kinnock:

“Well, there isn’t one person I could compare him to, but he’s like a cross between Denzel Washington and Franklin Roosevelt.”

Okay. I know you’re dying to share. To which two actors and politicians would you compare PBO?

“… I guarantee you we are safer today, our interests are more secure today than they were any time during the eight years” of the Bush administration.

Just how stupid this is is proved by some terrifying examples below the fold, and makes me deeply concerned that Obama et al. are not sufficiently concerned and proactive:

How in the hell can you claim that, Joe? No one – no one – can predict what might be ’round the bend.

Further, besides our perilous economic circumstances, our military is stretched to the breaking point and Obama feels he can’t even afford to send the number of troops that the military itself is requesting be dispatched to Afghanistan.

A couple weeks ago, everyone was atwitter over the crises in Mexico, filled with fear that drug cartel gangs would invade our country and create murder and mayhem. (Of course, as soon as the media had done their stories, and checked out of the border cities’ Marriotts, that story died and nobody’s worrying about that crisis anymore.)

But the point is that we don’t know what might occur tomorrow, or what crisis might seize and hold the attention of the nation.

We have North Korea firing off a missile with complete freedom and no penalties, proving Obama’s weakness in relying on the United Nations and not taking strong U.S. action.

We have Iran building redundant underground (bunker-bomb-proof) nuclear facilities across its nation so that no attack can end their program to build a nuclear bomb. If Iran gets the bomb, do you think that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps other nations might not be far behind? And you’re CLAIMING that we’re “safer today”???

For example, there’s this highly disturbing story from Lou Dobbs’s blog at CNN, under “Issues That Matter“:

Red Storm Rising: Selling Nuclear Material to Iran
The Manhattan district attorney has uncovered a plot by a Chinese national to sell millions of dollars in potential nuclear material to Iran. The Chinese national used a false identity and set up four fake companies to do business with six Iranian shell firms. Several banks in New York were used, unwittingly, to make the deals.

And how about this terrifying doozy?!?!?!

Electricity Grid in U.S. Penetrated By Spies, Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2009:

WASHINGTON — Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system, according to current and former national-security officials.

The spies came from China, Russia and other countries, these officials said, and were believed to be on a mission to navigate the U.S. electrical system and its controls. The intruders haven’t sought to damage the power grid or other key infrastructure, but officials warned they could try during a crisis or war.

“The Chinese have attempted to map our infrastructure, such as the electrical grid,” said a senior intelligence official. “So have the Russians.”

The espionage appeared pervasive across the U.S. and doesn’t target a particular company or region, said a former Department of Homeland Security official. “There are intrusions, and they are growing,” the former official said, referring to electrical systems. “There were a lot last year.” … READ ALL of the well-research, highly disturbing Wall Street Journal article and check out the related posts and stories listed at Memeorandum.

Joe, shut the f–k up. And take a look around our own country. This report isn’t good news: “Boom in Gun Sales Fueled by Politics and the Economy.” That’s on your watch, Joe.

While you’re jawing, Joe, here’s the worker working to truly make us safer:

From the State Dept.’s announcement on this important collaboration, given both countries’ number of seaports:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully signed on April 7, 2009, an arrangement for cooperation on nonproliferation assistance. This arrangement supports collaborative work between the United States and New Zealand to secure nuclear and radioactive materials that could be used in a nuclear or radiological weapon and to detect and deter illicit trafficking in these materials by improving monitoring capabilities at priority border crossings, airports, and seaports. …

Also check out DipNotes, the State Department’s blog, with numerous entries about Hillary’s progressive steps around the world.

Oh, readers, here’s the video if you must punish yourself:

Swearing-in Ceremony February 02, 2009
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC

(Applause.) Thank you all very much. Thank you. It is an overwhelming honor to be sworn in to assume this position on behalf of our country. I thank my dear friend, Vice President Biden, and I thank President Obama for investing the trust and confidence in me during a particularly challenging time in our nation’s history. I look out and see so many friends and colleagues. I particularly want to thank the Speaker and the Majority Leader, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid for being here and for providing the leadership that you both are doing in the Congress.

I also want to thank my colleagues in government and my former partners in the Congress. I am very grateful to all the members of the House who are here today, and particularly those with whom I served over eight wonderful years who represent New York. And I’m very grateful to all of you.

And to my friends in the Senate, I see the faces of people with whom I have shared so much, and I am deeply grateful to each and every one of you. But I have to single out the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who, after all, presided over my confirmation, for which I am very grateful, Senator Kerry. (Laughter and Applause.)

[I would laugh at that line as well! - Susan] And I look forward to working with all of you, particularly the appropriators – (laughter) – who are here this afternoon. We have a lot of work to do and it is such important work that lies ahead. I also want to thank two wonderful friends of mine, governors, Governor Corzine from New Jersey, and Governor O’Malley from Maryland who are here. (Applause.)

And I am particularly honored to have four of my predecessors with us today. I have sought their advice and their counsel and I have to publicly thank each and every one of them. With us today, Secretary Kissinger and Secretary Baker and Secretary Eagleburger and, of course, my dear friend and fellow Wellesley alum Secretary Albright. (Applause.) And I also want to thank Secretary Rice and Secretary Powell and Secretary Shultz, with whom I had a wonderful visit just last week when he came to the seventh floor, and Secretary Haig – all of the former secretaries of state who have been so generous with their time. And I think I can predict I will be asking for advice as we move forward.

Because this ceremony takes place at a real hinge of history time, there is so much that lies ahead in terms of challenges, but also opportunities. When I came into this building for the first time a week or so ago now, I told the assembled State Department employees, and then repeated it again at USAID, that we are all on the same team, and it is America’s team. And we have, in the leadership of President Obama, someone who wants us to reach out to the world, to do so without illusions, understanding that the difficulties we face will not be wished away, but meeting them forthrightly and smartly, and that we want to seize the opportunities that exist as well.

I talked in my confirmation hearings about smart power. Well, smart power relies on smart people, and we have an abundance of them in this building and at USAID. But I’ve also told my teammates in the State family that we’re going to have to be smarter about how we do what we must for our country. There are many ways that we can improve on what we do on a daily basis. And I want to work with my friends in Congress on behalf of our Administration to really look for those efficiencies and those changes that will make what we do more effective, more cost-effective, so that we can be out there around the world delivering America’s message, certainly doing all we must to protect and defend our security, but also advancing our interests and furthering our values.

So for me, this has been an amazing personal journey. As Joe laughingly referenced, neither one of us thought that we would be standing here together, doing what we are now doing together. Life has a funny way of unfolding and politics is even stranger. So we are joined in this incredible mission on behalf of our President and our country. And it’s one where it’s not only those of us holding positions, whether elected or appointed, must perform to the very best of our ability. We’re asking everyone in our country to think about how each of you can make a contribution so that we ensure that America’s future is even brighter than our storied past.

I’m excited by seeing so many familiar faces. There are friends in this audience who have known me my entire life. And there is the next generation, you know, my niece and my two nephews who are here. I get up every morning thinking about what I must do to make this world of ours safer and more prosperous and to make our country all that it can be. As difficult as the times are, I am an optimist. I believe that we can do what we set our minds to do. And so it is the power of our ideals and the intelligence and dedication of our people.

I could not be standing here before you today without all of you, but in particular, the three people who stand with me on this stage. It’s literally true I wouldn’t be here without my mother. (Laughter.) And so I – (applause) – I’m especially delighted that she can be with me. And to my daughter, who I am just bursting with maternal pride over, but who I look to also for advice and, frankly, for some cultural cues that I might otherwise miss. (Laughter.)

And finally, to my husband, who understands so well the awesome responsibilities resting on the shoulders of President Obama and Vice President Biden and all of us who serve with them. I am so grateful to him for a lifetime of all kinds of experiences – (laughter) – which have given me a – (applause) – which have given me an extraordinary richness that I am absolutely beholden to and grateful for.

So now, let me thank Gladys and her crackerjack protocol operation that put this together. We had to schedule it around two schedules that were hard to mesh: Vice President Biden and Chelsea Clinton. (Laughter.) When we finally got a time when both of them could be in the same place, we rushed to fill it. (Laughter.) So if you’re wondering why you didn’t get an invitation until Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday, it’s because we just had to make sure that we had the main people here.

But I do want to greet all of you individually, and obviously, my family wants to say hello as well. So we’re hard at work already, and we’re working hard with a great team of people here in this building and at USAID. And we’re looking forward to fulfilling the excitement and the promise that the Obama Administration represents here at home and around the world.

Thank you all very, very much.

(Applause.)

So, Politico says that our old friend Joe is already making good on his promise to liven up the gossip in DC.

Joe Biden hasn’t said much in public since the election, but one of Washington’s most prolific talkers is back – and making news whenever he speaks.

In fewer than five minutes on Tuesday, Biden criticized his own incoming Obama administration and disclosed information his aides have kept secret for security reasons. And on Monday, Biden declared, “We’re at war!” and compared the economic turmoil to 9/11.

Team Obama kept Biden under wraps immediately after the election, but with his Senate swearing-in and upcoming Iraq trip, he’s back in front of the microphones.

Chatting with reporters after he was sworn in for a seventh term in the Senate, Biden called it “a mistake” that the Obama transition selected Leon Panetta as CIA director without consulting the Senate intelligence committee.

Thanks Joe.  I thought it couldn’t get better than Blago and Burris but dang this really looks like a fun 4 years.

He doesn’t seem to be having a problem. He is a cash cow. Or rather, a whole herd.

I dreamt that I heard Barrack Obama had spent $500 million dollars on his campaign to secure the presidency. Maybe I am off by a few mil. If I am, no doubt some brilliant blogger will help set me straight. I can almost always count on a diligent investigative blogger for the real facts since in the latest chapter of the world gone mad, the New York Times seems to be giving up on actual investigative reporting. At least where Barack Obama is concerned. They are more concerned with the cost of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe or Cindy McCain’s personal trials.

There’s transparency in this election season. But it mostly centers around how many usually reliable mainstream media sources are in the tank for Obama.

But here’s the thing. With this kind of money in the tank, why do I get so many emails from Barack, Michele, Joe, David and Nancy? I get them every day, sometimes several times a day. Sarah Palin had barely walked off the stage at the Vice Presidential debate when I got an email from David about what a great job Joe had done. Send money.

I guess it takes a lot of money to rig an election. All those people to bus in. All those free lunches and dinners. All those homeless or disenfranchised people to pay to register voters and get them to vote the same day when their address or identities can’t be verified. All those ACORN workers and zealous volunteers to tear up McCain and Palin signs, destroy other property and intimidate people. All those bloggers to infiltrate sites promoting freedom of speech, election reform and accountability in the media.

And all that media time to purchase for the much touted upcoming infomercials set to run during sports events.

Yup, fraud, is indeed, expensive.

Money is a sore spot right now. As we witness the collapse of the economy, it seems more obscene than usual that any candidate is spending millions of dollars on the election. So I am confused by the Democrats, my usual party of choice.

How is it that Republican nominee John McCain, along with Democratic Senator Russell Feingold from Wisconsin have pushed for campaign finance reform and not Obama or party leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? McCain and Feingold have been talking about campaign finance for a long time. They first introduced their bi-partisan bill in 1995. Talk about tenacity. I wonder what Barack Obama was doing thirteen years ago.

I’m also wondering if Obama is so concerned about the economy and sending a message of unity that we need to work together, why didn’t he head for Washington immediately as a Senator and the current leader of the party when the bail out was on the table? Why did he need to be summoned by the president?

And why isn’t he willing to honor staying within a budget that can be agreed upon by both parties? Was all this work on campaign finance reform for nothing?

I guess fraud is, indeed, expensive. As are below the belt commercials that criticize John McCain for not doing email or that question his life expectancy.

It’s true that John McCain can’t type or raise his arm very high.

Kind of tough to do when you have nerve damage after being tortured in a prisoner of war camp for five and half years.

And it’s true that John McCain has had a recurrence of a kind of skin cancer. It is a commonplace cancer that affects many Americans who go to the doctor, have it taken care of and go about their lives.

But raise the specter of technological incompetence or cancer and you can really get a bang for your buck. Through the magic of television alone, you can suggest that McCain is an old guy who is out of touch. An old guy on the verge of death.

Nice. I guess indecency is also expensive.

As more and more Americans struggle with gas prices, foreclosures and unemployment, it is understandable to want to lash out. For many the obvious target would be the Republicans, since so much of the disaster in our financial world happened under George Bush’s watch. But many Democrats were also asleep at the wheel, or so tied up in angry partisan politics that they refused to participate in substantive discussions and actions to prevent a collapse.

The buck needs to stop somewhere. How misleading that the Democrats, under Nancy Pelosi’s supposed leadership do not want to acknowledge that both parties have played a role in the collapse of the economy. What a poor example that the Democrats and Barack Obama have rejected reasonable campaign finance reform so that they can spends millions upon millions of dollars to promote his candidacy while many hardworking Americans have to choose between filling their plate at dinner time or their gas tank at the pump.

The buck needs to stop somewhere. I’m thinking, Just say No deal.

Also, here’s Joe discussing how President Franklin Roosevelt appeared on TV to discuss solutions after the Stock Market Crash.

Heads Up at 1:58

Hey Joe, lay off the sauce will you? In 1929. at the time of the stock market crash, Hoover was President and TV wasn’t around yet.

Is that out of context enough for you?

Exactly how many empties did you leave out in the parking lot before this interview? Just wondering.

Even more frightening: Katie, how come you didn’t catch this?

I wonder if Sarah Palin had said something dumb like this how well it would have gone over? How many times would we have seen that gaffe covered by the MSM? Newsweek would have done a cover story on it. NY Times would have had everybody do an Op Ed on the stupidity of this comment. Olbermann would have faked apoplexy again–complete with the veins in his neck popping out. Matthews would have done his Dumb Broad routine. Cafferty would have put a question on his blog about it: “Is Sarah Palin Dumb?” The Late Night comedy shows would have had a blast with it. And Maher would have somehow turned it into a joke about her crotch.

And Charlie Rangel calls HER politically disabled? Let’s face it, nobody does Stupid like Joe.

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.” Snow asked: “Anybody making over $250,000…” Biden responded: “Is gonna pay more.” Snow: “Is going to pay more.” Biden: “You got it. It’s time to be patriotic, Kate. Time to jump in. Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut.”

Conservatives predictably went ballistic with their calls of “class warfare”; Obama’s fans thought it brilliant economics.

For those of us who are Democrats, or former Democrats, Joe Biden’s statement was offensive on a different level. Although many of us agree with progressive taxation, Biden’s formulation is deeply offensive. According to Biden, greater taxation equals greater patriotism. This concept fits perfectly with the self-congratulatory world of Whole Foods Nation. Anglachel describes Biden’s target audience as the new elites:

The focus of the [Obama] Democrats is on the winners of the economic realignment, those who managed to win a place in the white collar upper-middle class … [Obama] is the exemplar of a mode of life that, while not as unreachable as that of Bush’s base, is still out of reach of those who do not have the education, acculturation and business contacts to climb up that economic ladder.

Some will argue that Biden is simply practicing liberal class warfare; he is targeting the wealthy and not the “bitter” gun owners of greater Appalachia. I disagree. By using the framework of patriotism, Biden is challenging — to use Anglachel’s parlance — the “Bubbas” and the Archie Bunkers — to ownership of American patriotism.

Biden is telegraphing to Whole Foods Nation that it’s equally patriotic to live in Boulder, Colorado and pay on a 33% tax bracket income as it is to serve in Iraq, like Governor Palin’s son. Or, as a friend in this income bracket told me recently, she “sacrifices” by voting Democratic.

The primary campaign showed that Obama fared well with affluent voters and African Americans. Clinton crushed Obama with middle- and low-income voters. The Pennsylvania primary was a perfect example of Obama’s inability to connect with low-income voters:

The Pennsylvania Democratic primary shared many of the same vote characteristics of other primary states this season – with Clinton winning her core base of union members, less educated and lower income voters and rural voters, and Obama winning voters with more education and income, and black voters.

The attack on blue-collar voters by Obama is what precipitated the civil war now raging in the Democratic party, and Obama’s race-baiting of blue-collar whites has been one of the more depressing episodes in our history as a Party.

Low-income white Democrats are the least likely group to vote Republican, and the assault on this vulnerable group has all the markings of racial and class warfare used for electoral gain. African Americans are all too familiar with politicians playing on prejudices for electoral gain and there is nothing different in this case except for the color of the victims’ skin.

The dishwasher, the waitress at Denny’s, the auto mechanic, the grocery clerk, the nursing assistant, the soldier — all low income Americans — are equally patriotic to anyone living in San Francisco or Hyde Park or the East Village, regardless of the amount they pay in taxes.

I’ve been thinking about Biden’s notion of patriotism for several days. Last night I found a video which captures patriotism in a way still held by much of the country. It’s an old fashioned form of patriotism which is now considered uncouth and looked down upon by the liberal elites. But it’s a type of patriotism once honored by Democrats; it’s a part of what made Democrats the governing party for most of the first half of the last century.

The video is from Ken Burns’ brilliant 1990 documentary The Civil War. I think Sullivan Ballou’s love for his wife Sarah is only matched by his love of country.

Listen to Sullivan Ballou’s words carefully and think about everything he is sacrificing. You won’t hear politicians — except perhaps for John McCain — speak of our beloved country with such a degree selflessness and honor.

Sullivan Ballou wrote to his wife that he was “willing—perfectly willing—to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government.” Ballou’s patriotism is echoed by Sarah Palin’s willingness to give her child to the service of our country: “Today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas…to fight for our country, for democracy for our freedoms.”

Whole Foods Nation hates Sarah Palin for the class she represents. She threatens the self-perception of their own moral superiority on race and their economic “sacrifices.” Giving her son to our nation is not enough to silence the voices of hate.

During the primary campaign, on TPM, billysumday suggested that Bill Clinton was a racist because of his bumpkin origins, totally ignoring that the President was educated at Georgetown, Yale, and Oxford:

“Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America,” Biden said. “Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend; she is qualified to be president of the United States of America. She’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me, but she is first-rate.”

Of course then there is Obama’s very famous gaffe, and the first gaffe of the Obama/Biden ticket. Here is that video:

And then of course there is the famous line from an ABC interview: “You are right, John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.” In Obama’s own words again:

Now just when I thought the epidemic was under control, along comes Charlie Rangel. He certainly stepped in it, didn’t he. Let’s see what he had to say about Sarah Palin:

Yeah! Rangel says, “You have to be kind to the disabled.” Needless to say I am very disgusted…with Rangel.

I am a disabled female Navy veteran….and yes! I want an apology! The best kind of apology for me would be to fire Rangel’s a$$ for his tax troubles, misuse of Congressional stationery, and just for being a narrow-minded, bigoted man towards disabled people.

Is Axelrod right? Could it be McCain has energized his base but that Obama remains ahead?

Using Electoral-Vote.com’s numbers, I created a list of red states and compared Obama’s numbers to Kerry’s percentages in 2004. All but three of the state polls are post-Palin.

This is not a comprehensive list of all red states. However, I believe it’s a fair representation of reliable Republican states. Our purpose is to see if there’s been an uptick for McCain over Obama relative to the previous presidential election.

All battleground states are out, regardless of who won in 2004. Additionally, I did not include red states which Obama is now actively fighting for, like Virginia, or historically red states like New Hampshire, which Kerry won. In most states, there’s no difference in the relative position between Kerry’s final result and Obama’s current standing; in other states Obama is actually doing better than Kerry.

Let’s take a look at Axelrod’s assertion that red states are becoming redder:

As you can see, Obama is faring no worse than John Kerry did. In fact, the current state of the race is remarkably similar to the final results in 2004. It follows, then, that state polls reflect similar numbers as 2004. Obama’s weak numbers, as I believe Axelrod is implying, are not coming from intolerant red state voters. According to Rasmussen, McCain is leading Obama by approximately 2%, and in 2004 Bush beat Kerry by 2.4%. Obama is performing in Republican states about as well as any Democrat could be expected.

Contrary to Axelrod’s statement, Obama’s decline in national polling is not due to inordinately low numbers in deep-red states. Indeed, the opposite is true: Obama is under-performing in reliably Democratic states. As Truthteller demonstrates with the spreadsheet below, Obama is under-performing in blue states such as New York (population 20 million) and New Jersey (population 9 million). These high population Democratic states will skew national numbers far more than low population red states like North Dakota (population 640,000), while Republican Texas (population 24 million), where Obama is in nearly the same spot as Kerry, is easily offset by the densely populated California and Illinois, both states where Obama is doing very well. Additionally, Obama is trending down in the swing state of Ohio:

	New York	New Jersey	Minnesota	Pennsylvania	Ohio
McCain-Palin	41	45	45	47	48
Obama-Biden	46	48	45	47	45

Because of these weak blue- and swing-state numbers, Obama now has to defend more real estate than McCain. Truthteller writes:

So now Obama must invest precious and finite resources in states such as New Jersey and New York. And instead of campaigning in Arkansas, Nevada, Florida or Louisiana, he will hold events in Minnesota, a state that should be solidly Democratic in the current political climate. He may even have to campaign in New York now that McCain is within five points of the underperforming Obama.

And Hill Buzz sees a potential map-changer in McCain:

If McCain was only leading in Utah by 5 points, we’d say this election was over, and that McCain would lose GOP strongholds.

Instead, the opposite seems to be true. SoetorObama leads in NY by only 5 points, in NJ by 3 points, and in MI and PA by just 2 points.

To us, it looks like McCain could be the one changing the electoral map this year, with traditionally blue states having a better chance of turning red instead of the other way around.

Shortly after Obama’s grandiose trip to Europe, I wrote: “I think Obama would have been wise to go somewhere he lost big, like West Virginia, leaving behind his entourage and asking working people about their concerns in the streets and cafes of small town America.” There’s nothing earth-shattering in my suggestion, but I think that’s exactly what’s so troubling about the Obama campaign. It’s not the economy, it’s the arrogance. I think Obama’s odd trip to Europe — and the arrogance of selecting Biden over Hillary — is at the heart of many of Obama’s troubles today. The American people will vote for Ivy League candidates, but only those who come to their towns to listen and not to lecture.

Obama’s arrogance is now becoming a matter of concern for Democratic strategists. The statement below by an unnamed source in the British newspaper The Sunday Telegraph should send fear into the hearts of Obama’s supporters:

A senior Democratic strategist, who has played a prominent role in two presidential campaigns, told The Sunday Telegraph: “These guys are on the verge of blowing the greatest gimme in the history of American politics. They’re the most arrogant bunch Ive ever seen. They won’t accept that they are losing and they won’t listen.”

With this mentality, it’s no wonder Axelrod is blaming Obama’s woes on red states. Ani writes:

Of course there is a bunker mentality. Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod, must protect his carefully sculpted media creation at all costs. Their whole strategy has been to overwhelm their way into the presidency with huge rallies and concerts, presidential emblems, soaring rhetoric and platitudes.

CHARLOTTE – Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, campaigning in North Carolina where black votes could help swing the state to the Democrats, said today that electing a black person to the White House would be transformative.

Biden said the policies of running mate Barack Obama make his presidency even more urgent and declared this to be the most important election that any living person has seen in their lifetime. But he particularly singled out the meaning of electing someone who is black.

“That will be a transformative event in American politics and internationally,” Biden said. “That all by itself will be significant.”

North Carolina last voted for a Democrat in 1976, when Jimmy Carter won much of the South. But the state has a large population of blacks galvanized by Obama’s candidacy, and the Illinois senator has competed aggressively here for months.

The race card will have to be dropped aggressively in North Carolina, for African-Americans comprise only 21.7% of the state’s population. This is by far smaller than the number of African-Americans in states such as Mississippi and Louisiana. Compounding this demographic constraint for the racially polarizing Obama campaign is recent polling data: McCain respectively leads Obama 17 points and 20 points in recent Research 2000/DailyKos and SurveyUSA/ABC11-WTVD polls. The Obama campaign is desperate, and they will try to mobilize each and every single African-American in that state to vote for Barack Obama, even if that entails asking Joe Biden to go for broke at the Phillip O. Academy in Charlotte, North Carolina. Yes, the Obama campaign had the audacity to asked the man who uttered to following questionable words to drop the race card in inner city Charlotte:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Everyone, it seems, suffers from amnesia when race is invoked in any political discussion. Perhaps one should say those inspired by Joe Biden’s Charlotte, North Carolina, race card have been hoodwinked and bamboozled. Or maybe Michelle Obama simply prefers the word “storybook” to the phrase “fairy tale” when Democrats discuss her husband’s candidacy. Too bad Michelle failed to remember that Bill Clinton was referring to her husband’s Iraq policy and not to her husband when she shamelessly criticized the former President at the Trumpeter Awards before the racially charged South Carolina primary. But why should we expect consistency from those who recklessly exploit the politics of race for electoral and personal gain?

How odd it is that Biden is now the weapon the Obama campaign will deploy in North Carolina as they racially polarize that state’s population in the name of cynical electoral politics. Michelle’s deck of cards must be out of aces of race. For on 5 MAY it was Michelle Obama who laid down her entire hand at the Ovens Auditorium in Charlotte on the eve of that state’s important and in many ways decisive primary. I quote The Hill:

It was an hour-long tale of resentment and anger.

First, she complained at great length that her husband had been treated unfairly in the Democratic presidential race. Every time he made a move forward, she said, “they” — she never spelled out exactly who “they” were — moved the goalposts a bit farther away from him.

First, “they” said he couldn’t raise the money necessary to run a big-league campaign.

But “once he proved that he could raise the money, then all of a sudden money didn’t matter,” Mrs. Obama told the crowd. “Everybody said, ‘Well, money isn’t important.’ ”

Then “they” said the test for Obama would be whether he could build a political organization. But “once it was built, they said it’s not an organization — the stakes changed again.”

Next, “they” said Obama had to win Iowa. But “once he won Iowa, then all of a sudden Iowa was no longer important.”

“They” had moved the bar again. This time, Obama had to win a primary state.

“Then we rolled into South Carolina,” Mrs. Obama said. “Then you know what they said? They said South Carolina didn’t count, because Barack was supposed to win.”

Then came Super Tuesday, and after that Obama’s stretch of victories in a series of primary and caucus states.

Still, Mrs. Obama complained, “they” tried to undermine her husband every step of the way.

“We’ve learned that we’re still living in a time and in a nation where the bar is set, right?” she said.

“They tell you all you need to do is do these things and you’ll get to the bar, so you go about the business of doing those things.

“You start working hard and sacrificing, and you think you’re getting closer to the bar, you’re working and you’re struggling, you get right to that bar, you’re reaching out for the bar, and then what happens?

“They raise the bar. Raise the bar. Shift it to the side. Keep it just out of reach.

“And that’s just what’s been happening in this race.”

According to Michelle Obama on 5 MAY, “they,” the Clintons, were raising the bar on her husband, and they did this to him solely as a result of her husband’s “race.” It is a scenario Michelle claims she understands. I quote the author of The Hill article again:

Even Michelle Obama herself. “I’m not supposed to be here,” she tells the crowd. “I am a statistical oddity. As a black girl raised on the south side of Chicago, I’m not supposed to be here. I wasn’t supposed to go to Princeton. They said my test scores were too high” — surely a verbal slip, because in the past she has said she was told her test scores were too low — “I wasn’t supposed to go to Harvard Law School, because they said it might be a little too hard for me. And I certainly am not supposed to be standing here with a chance to become the next first lady of the United States of America.”

The Obama campaign complained about the raising of the bar during the North Carolina primary, but now they are clearly lowering the bar with more race baiting and more racial polarization in Charlotte, North Carolina, a city they view as a receptacle for their political and racial toxic waste. First it was Michelle Obama, and now it is Joe Biden: same message, different people, more divisiveness, more distractions, more sleaze, more race cards.

The people of Charlotte, North Carolina, will be hoodwinked and bamboozled into submission. But even worse is how Obama will subject all the African-Americans of that city and state who will vote for him to so much “okie-doke” if he manages to make it to the White House on their backs. Is this post-racial politics, or am I right to view it as so much regression?

More commentary on and analysis of Biden’s event in Charlotte, North Carolina, is available at Memeorandum. Also be sure to visit Charlotte Front and Center.

Joe Biden and Barack Obama are appearing rather desperate in the effusive praise of Hillary Clinton.(There’s something poignant about the plight of desperate men once so full of themselves and their sure victory.)

‘course, before John McCain picked Sarah Palin, Hillary wasn’t worth the time of day. But now, boy, she’s the greatest (and, wink, a woman) — why, she’s even better than Joe (and, wink, a woman).

[UPDATE: I can't believe I'm quoting Dennis Miller, but he made soem great points on O'Reilly's show tonight. He said that Sarah Palin has gotten INSIDE Barack's head -- in fact, she's gotten inside the heads of ALL the Democrats -- and she's thundering around in there, and got him way off his game. Miller also said that he thinks the Democrats picked the wrong person, and that if they'd nominated Hillary Clinton, it is certain that Hillary Clinton would have done the smart thing and selected Obama as her running mate (whereas Obama failed to realize how important it was for him to select Clinton).]

Those two men remind me of the adage about some people not appreciating the value of something until it’s gone.

Here’s a quote via the Boston Globe:

“Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America,” Biden said. “Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend; she is qualified to be president of the United States of America. She’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me, but she is first-rate.”

Now there’s this, from Lynn Sweet at the Chicago Sun-Times: “Biden, facing Palin debate, said Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm may be stand-in.”

Women politicians CAN be useful!

If they get frantic enough, Barack and Joe may dig Eleanor Roosevelt out of the ground and prop her up on the stage.

A little self-dignity is in order, guys.

Obama’s choice of Joe Biden, I suspect, will go down as one of worst political decisions in recent memory. John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin will be remembered as one of the best.

Biden reinforces Obama’s worst traits: egoism, verbosity, elitism, and D.C.-insider status.

Palin, of course, reminds us of the best of McCain: fresh, unconventional, funny, and willing to battle the D.C. insiders.

Like John F. Kennedy, Obama was suppose to represent a new generation of leadership. But Biden is a dead weight on Obama; he entered the senate before much of Obama’s base was born.

Some argue that Biden, like Lyndon Johnson, brings gravitas to the ticket. Douglas Schoen is of this opinion. He writes:

Witness the single biggest decision that Obama has made thus far: choosing Joe Biden as his running mate. The pick helped squelch concerns about Obama’s perceived lack of experience and foreign policy savvy. More importantly, it signaled to moderates that when it matters, Obama makes sensible, pragmatic choices.

What Schoen fails to note is that this is a change election. Americans aren’t looking for the presidential candidate to supplement his credentials with a Washington insider, they are looking for attainable solutions for our economic woes and a smart exit strategy from Iraq.

Biden only emphasizes Obama’s weakness on foreign affairs, and he fails to bring Obama any electoral votes. Although it’s often stated that the Daley machine won the election for Kennedy in Illinois, it was actually Lyndon Johnson who guaranteed Texas for Kennedy and thus the election. Even if Kennedy lost Illinois, he would still have become president. Biden, unlike Johnson, doesn’t heal the Party’s divisions nor does he bring votes.

John F. Kennedy, in contrast to Obama, was not new to national service. Beginning as a lieutenant in the Navy during World War II and then by election to the Congress and Senate, Kennedy served his country for 17 years prior to running for president. Although Kennedy at 42 was younger than Obama’s 47, he was considered an expert on foreign affairs, authoring a book on pre-War England, traveling widely, and as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kennedy offered himself as a fully-formed presidential candidate. Kennedy did not require Johnson’s résumé in order to sell himself to the country. Johnson signaled geographical and ideological balance, and a concession that Johnson was a real threat to Kennedy during the real balloting at the convention in Los Angeles. Kennedy finished with 806 delegates to Johnson’s 409, a far bigger spread that the Obama/Clinton contest.

What Johnson did for Kennedy was to unite two factious sides of the Democratic Party, the liberals and the southern Democrats. Obama’s failure to select Hillary as V.P. only increased the division in the Party, and it gave McCain an opening.

This opening has allowed McCain to completely dominate the narrative for nearly two weeks. Not all the conversation is positive, of course, but it doesn’t need to be; Obama’s message is being drowned out.

Although I ignore Dick Morris when he speaks about the Clintons, his Machiavellian view of politics is often worth listening to closely. Here’s Morris on Palin and women:

Anecdotal evidence already suggests that women may have a gut reaction to the establishment’s sexist assault on a woman candidate – and flock to McCain. They’ve seen him stake everything on this one big move of turning toward a woman – in direct contrast to Obama’s deliberate decision not to name a woman.

They’ve seen the media and Democrats gang up on her and do their worst. And they’ve seen Palin stand up and stuff the challenge right back down the establishment’s throat. All this may have created an entirely new dynamic in the race.

Recent polling data is confirming Morris’ prediction:

An ABC News-Washington Post survey showed white women have moved from backing Obama by 8 points to supporting McCain by 12 points, with majorities viewing Palin favorably and saying she boosts their faith in McCain’s decisions.

For many women, I believe, Obama-Biden represents the worst of the boys club and McCain-Palin have become the agents of change. The vicious attacks on Palin only reinforces this narrative. Valentine Bonnaire captures the revulsion many women feel towards the Obama-Biden-DNC sexist club:

We don’t like your ticket, BOYZ. And we’ll unpack why, now. To watch you SQUIRM. Your ticket represents every man who ever groped us, whoever abandoned us, whoever BROKE our fragile FEMALE HEART, whoever BEAT US UP, whoever hurt ONE OF OUR GIRLFRIENDS, OUR BEST FRIENDS — Oh, I could go on

Instead of making a peace offering to women by picking Hillary, Obama is now in the position of attacking another woman candidate. It’s starting to look like a pattern. The headline today from the Associated Press, written by Nedra Pickler, is “Obama puts heat on Palin as she boosts GOP ticket.” She writes:

Obama said last week’s Republican National Convention did a good job of highlighting Palin’s biography — “Mother, governor, moose shooter. That’s cool,” he said. But he said Palin really is just another Republican politician, one who is stretching the truth about her record.

“When John McCain gets up there with Sarah Palin and says, `We’re for change,’ … what are they talking about?” Obama said Monday. (emphasis added)

Obama’s use of the pedestrian “cool” is meant to assure us that he is unfazed by Palin, but his need to sound unconcerned makes the desperation almost palpable. Obama is now running against Palin. He doesn’t have a choice. Obama is hemorrhaging women voters. He must stop the bleeding, but his attacks on her only serve to diminish him. Palin has become Obama’s opponent, and his attacks on her inexperience only remind voters of his own inexperience and, even worse, they remind women of what he and his supporters did to Hillary. The attacks on Palin, a woman friend told me today, are beginning to feel like personal attacks on all women.

Instead of having two political giants like Kennedy and Johnson, we have three candidates for vice president, of which Palin is the best, and McCain is reaping the benefit.

The image — from a press pool report yesterday in Hamilton, Indiana — shows a desperately hungry Obama voraciously tearing into other people’s chicken wings.

Obama then joined Joe Biden, who had made directly for the bar when the two candidates arrived, at a table celebrating another birthday.

“He’s eating our appetizers,” said Luanne Gearhart, who had stepped away from the table for a few minutes only to find Obama in her seat. “But God’s made it this way.”

Bless your big Christian heart, Luanne! We’ve all wondered why Obama looks so skinny. I guess we know why now: He’s reduced to stealing food in order to eat! Meanwhile, here’s Joe Biden singin’ for his supper. Dude, thank God you’re too old for American Idol. If you tried out you’d be a star of the bloopers reel. Were you hitting the Natty Bo (for those who don’t know, Natty Bo is shorthand for National Bohemian, a beer unique to Baltimore) before you proved that white men can’t dance?:

Maybe Barack has fallen on economic hard times and can’t afford to buy his own food. I knew we had a near-recession, but I hadn’t realized that the Democratic party’s dynamic duo presidential ticket was one step removed from dumpster diving.

I guess hanging with Barack Obama ain’t exactly the fun gig Biden thought it might be when he signed on to the good ship Titanic II. Yesterday, while Barack was stealing food from little old ladies, Joe reportedly (see the press pool’s report above) headed straight for the restaurant’s bar to find some liquid courage. Probably a good thing it wasn’t karaoke night. Fortified with an adult beverage the hoary Joe Biden might have started to sing the Obama-I’m-a-son-of-a-single-mama blues.

A couple of folks who commented on my last post on 14 reasons why Biden was a poor political choice for Vice President argued – either in resignation or rebuttal – that Biden was the best choice available to Obama. I don’t necessarily disagree with that.

The question is: Why has Obama put himself in a position where Biden became his best choice? The answer reveals why his campaign is, at best, falling apart at the seams.

From a political strategy point of view, Obama’s “A list” of VP candidates were Senator Clinton (unites the party; helps secure women’s votes, especially soccer moms and older women), General Wes Clark (appeals to both those on the left and center-right), Senator Jim Webb (reinforces change message, puts Virginia in play), and Gov. Ted Strickland (it is hard to win the Presidency without Ohio). Obama refused to consider some (Clinton and Clark), whereas for others (Webb and Strickland) Obama did not provide the leadership that would inspire them to take the political risk of serving as the VP nominee. In other words, they removed their names from consideration.

Read the rest ->

Among Obama’s tweedledee triumvirate, Senator Evan Bayh did not play well with Obama’s leftist base, and Gov. Tim Kaine flunked his focus group tests in Norfolk. (Norfolk, VA is part of Tidewater, a critical region where Democrats must do well to off-set the western half of the state, which goes Republican). That leaves Biden. Of the three, at least Bayh put a state in play – Indiana.

Why did Obama have to select a lower tier candidate – a candidate who has twice left the Presidential sweepstakes (in 1988 and 2008) in early rounds?

One answer that is often given is what we can politely term Obama’s ego. Top talent candidates such as Clinton and Clark would threaten his self-image as a one man crusader – the star of his own Saturday morning action-adventure cartoon series. A big ego can be a serious liability in making political decisions. It prevents one from seeing the world through the eyes of others, and that lack of realism and perspective-taking undoubtedly leads to political blunders.

It is these political blunders that have put Obama in the position where he had no other option than to select Biden. To win the nomination, Obama has made a series of tactical decisions that now constrain his choices. In the process he has failed to lay down a strategy capable of winning in November.

A real strategy consists of a goal (e.g., win 51% of the vote; transform the electoral map) and the means and resources to achieve that goal (i.e. a message that reaches out and unites enough voters to achieve one’s goal). This simple definition shows why Obama is in trouble.

First, Obama is unclear on his goal – to win 51% (enough electoral votes to gain the Presidency) or to transform the electoral map? At the beginning of the primaries, one reason touted by the Obamablogs for supporting Obama was that he would transform the electoral map so that we would not have any more close elections. Now, as anyone who can read a poll knows, that dream of electoral transformation is long gone and Obama finds himself in a dogfight for the same key battle states fought over by Gore and by Kerry.

This lack of clarity of goal has resulted in a befuddled overall strategy because each goal – 51% vs. transformation – requires different means to the end. If your goal is to win by at least 51%, then you must do what is needed to appeal to the citizens in the key battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, West Virginia, New Mexico, and Missouri. Specifically, you make it clear how your candidacy will benefit soccer moms (those who side with the GOP on class, but the Democrats on gender), blue-collar workers, and Latinos. In other words, you tell Americans how we can build our middle-class and how we can enhance our national security. (Kerry lost soccer moms on national security). Of course, this is the platform of Senator Clinton and the political strategy of Mark Penn. It is why she won more votes overall than Obama and won big in the big battleground states. It is also the right policy for making our nation stronger.

The goal of electoral transformation requires a “big idea” that either brings in new voters (as did Jackson in 1828 and McKinley in 1896), unites previously disparate groups (as did Lincoln in 1860 and FDR in 1932), or trades-off one group of voters for another larger group (as did Nixon in 1968 when he traded liberal Republicans to gain a Southern Strategy). Obama has not advanced a big idea capable of creating this transformation. Instead, he has pursued his goal of transformation by a series of tactical maneuvers – ad buys and visits to targeted states – that have been for the most part ineffective. As others at No Quarter have noted, he is drawing back from these ad buys. And one more thing – the notion that Obama is bringing in the youth vote is overblown (his numbers in this regard have not exceeded what Bill Clinton did in 1992) and appears to be fading (as indicated by a recent poll showing that he has lost 12% of his youth support over the last few months).

This lack of clarity has lead to a strategy of “drawing to an inside straight.” He is making a feeble attempt at reconfiguration while hoping that his middle cards – the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida, in particular – will somehow magically appear on the next deal. I guess that is what is meant by the audacity of hope.

In contrast, Senator Clinton has a strategy for winning the at least 51% of the electoral votes needed to become President and has articulated a vision of America that would serve, much like FDR’s New Deal, to reconfigure the political map.

Second, Obama has as of yet to develop a message that reaches out and unites enough voters to achieve his goal (which now of necessity is hope to get 51%). The message at his convention will be one of coming together for change. This is nice, but unless he specifies what he means by change, his message will fall as flat as a new dishwashing detergent offering 23% more hope that your dishes will be cleaner and brighter.

Developing this message will not be easy for Obama. Policy is not his strong suit. (This is why he lost votes every time he debated Senator Clinton). Once he starts to give detail, his plan is subject to intense attack in the politically charged environs of a Presidential campaign.

Of even greater concern, Obama has made a series of tactical decisions that now constrain his choices. In order to secure the nomination, Obama said what he needed to say to pander to the left-wing and others without regard to the long term political consequences of that pandering. In other words, in the spirit of the very best of demagogues, Obama told his target audiences exactly what they wanted to hear. He has become Backtrack Barack for a reason. Now he has to live with those decisions.

I am sure that No Quarter readers are smart enough and have been briefed enough by posts and comments to know exactly what I mean by this. But let me give two examples, for those who may not regularly read this blog.

1. Obama was for NAFTA before he was against NAFTA before he was for NAFTA again. He became against NAFTA as a result of political expediency when faced with the need to win a primary in Ohio. Now, what position on NAFTA should he take to win in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where NAFTA is an especially important issue? Answer: it really doesn’t matter because McCain will play the soundbites to show that Obama took a different position with the goal of reinforcing the image of Backtrack Barack.

2. During the primaries, Obama shifted his position on Iraq from “smart withdrawal” (which was similar to Senator Clinton’s) to “immediate withdrawal on timetables” to appeal to the left. Obama has taken about 7 different positions on Iraq, each designed to appeal to whoever he is talking to. For example, during his Senate campaign, he called for a surge and said that withdrawal on timetables would be wrong. One problem with taking positions for political expediency is that one rarely thinks through the implications of the position. For example, when asked if he would send troops back into Iraq if al Qaeda was present, Obama said yes. (He had to or else he wouldn’t have looked strong). When he did, McCain pointed out that Al Qaeda was in Iraq right now, making Obama’s position look foolish. Now, which position should Obama take on Iraq? Answer: again, it really doesn’t matter because McCain has all the video clips he needs to reinforce the image of Backtrack Barack.

What does all this lack of strategy have to do with the pick of Joe Biden as the VP nominee? Everything. If you do not have a clear political strategy, you do not have the decision criteria for making good decisions including selecting a VP candidate. If you are Barack Obama it means you are forced to make decisions based on your lack of leadership to inspire great VP candidates and your ego to exclude them.

Some of you may be wondering how I feel about Senator Clinton not being considered for the VP slot. I’ll express my feelings in football terms since life is merely a metaphor for football.

I am a big Pittsburgh Steelers fan. The Steelers just spent $100 million on a franchise quarterback named Ben Roethlisberger. Now, suppose the coaching staff of the Steelers decided to start in the Super Bowl some high school quarterback who happened to win the Giant Eagle Food Store’s Be-A-Quarterback-For-A-Day contest. My reaction would be, “You gotta be kidding me; you are crazy.” And when I found out that this wasn’t somebody’s idea of a joke, I’d turn away in disgust and turn the channel to ESPN-2 to find out what is up with the professional bowlers’ tour. I don’t want to see “Big Ben” backing up some promotional contest prize winner.

Hillary Clinton is my franchise quarterback. She knows how to run the offense, and she has the guts to stay in the pocket long enough to get off the play no matter the hit she will take. I don’t want my franchise quarterback backing up some self-promotional contest prize winner. Hillary Clinton in the VP slot is the political gift that Barack Obama doesn’t deserve and was too foolish to accept.