Warning Flags: Joe Biden as Obama's Running Mate?

by Deb Cupples |   I've always appreciated Sen. Joe Biden's frankness.  I find it refreshing, given the abundance of un-informative, non-substantive, yawn-inducing public statements that most of our nation's politicians make.  Frankness is a major point in Biden's favor to me -- but then, I enjoy watching members of British Parliament take each other to task on C-SPAN.

Yesterday, Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft listed several reasons that Barack Obama should not choose Sen. Biden as a running mate, and one of them sent the warning flags into a wild flapping frenzy:   

"'Over his long career in politics, Biden's biggest financial supporter has been the giant credit card company MBNA, which was also one of George W. Bush's biggest donors in 2000 and 2004. His son, Hunter Biden, was hired as a management trainee at MBNA straight out of law school, and was quickly promoted to executive vice president.

"'The younger Biden has since left MBNA to establish his own lawyer-and-lobbying firm, but still receives a $100,000 per year consulting fee from the bank, which has since been swallowed by Bank of America. In 2006, Hunter Biden was appointed by President Bush to a five-year term on the Amtrak Reform Board.'" (TalkLeft citing NNDB)

The big question, of course, is to whom might Senator (or Vice President) Biden owe big favors.  I mean, very few corporations doll out big money without expecting big returns on their investments, right?  That's just Business 101.

Jeralyn's conclusion:

"Biden has been in the Senate since Nixon was President.  Sen. Obama says he stands for change and a new kind of politics in Washington. That's not Joe Biden."

She certainly seems to have a point.  As long as our politicians continue to take big favors and big money from big corporate interests, our political system will continue to be vulnerable to corruption -- and our public policy will fail to truly serve the public. 

Related Buck Naked Politics Posts:

* Tainted Campaign Cash: Why we Need Campaign Finance Reform

* McCain Gets Rewards from Oil Companies?

* ABC Ignores Obama's Misleading Message about Lobbyists' Money

* New Evidence re: Sen. Stevens Indictment

* Why Alan Grayson is The Congressional Candidate for Florida's Dist. 8

...

Comments

[Adam]

Frankly, I think we (and I mean the collective we of anyone with any Democratic tendencies) should temper both concern about policies/alignments of VPs we don't like, and happiness about policies/alignments of VPs we like. This is a tactical pick.

No doubt, we will read the tea leaves of the VP pick for signs of what an Obama presidency will look like, but the process will be about as scientific as typical tea leaf readings. If Obama picked Chuck Hagel or Russ Feingold (to take two extremes) as his running mate, I would expect roughly the same Obama presidency would come out of it.

The obvious reason Obama will pick whoever he picks is because he thinks they make a strong and compelling national ticket. Personally, I'm not a fan of Biden as the pick for strategic reasons, but you could do worse. I don't like his association with financial institutions, but unless Obama gets shot, I don't think it will have an impact on policy.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

I don't know on what you base the idea that Obama's VP will not have strong influence over his presidency.

Strong #2s are not unheard of. Look at the Cheney-Bush situation.

Most presidents rely on others, naturally, because they can't be experts on many topics at once. The more knowledgeable and experienced a president is, the less he has to rely on others.

In Obama's case, he doesn't have much experience at governing -- or even much federal legislative experience.

He just spent most of the last three years raising funds, gearing up to run for president, and actually running for pres.

The year before that he spent running for U.S. Senate. I suspect he spent a year before that raising funds and securing big Illinois supporters.

Obama also isn't very well versed on some very big issues and doesn't seem to have many solid convictions.

It's understandable: where would he find the time to actually study and learn about some of those issues, given his packed political schedule over the last 5 years?

Yes, Obama can get advisers and writers to tell him which phrases/concepts to bring up in speeches to SOUND knowledgeable -- but convincing an ignorant public that one is knowledgeable is way different from actually grasping the nuts and bolts of an issue.

MY POINT: Obama will need to rely on others far more than a more experienced person would.

That being the case, I suspect that Obama's VP will be a pretty influential one -- unless he intentionally picks a weak dope, so that he doesn't look like the student in comparison.

I hope he doesn't do that. My preference is Clark.

[Adam]

Sure, Cheney has been extremely influential, however he is, by miles and miles, the exception and not the rule. No other VP has wielded the sort of influence he does.

Obama's administration will surely be deeply influenced by who he surrounds himself with, but the VP is simply one person, and in many cases is picked more for the optics than any other reason. Chief of staff or several cabinet positions often have more practical power.

---

I disagree with several of your premises about Obama necessarily leaning more on his VP. While he's done quite a lot of fundraising, his legislative accomplishments in congress have been very good given the time he has had and the president he's had to work with. And while nobody is ready to be president until they are president, Obama's leadership style is already well-established through the way he's run his campaign and the way he's run other organizations such as the law review. There's plenty of evidence to show that an Obama presidency will not be ideologically dominated by another voice or voices, the way Bush-43's has.

MOREOVER, there's very little reason to assume that Obama will be more reliant on his VP than any previous president, regardless of what you think of his experience. Eisenhower had never held any elected office, and he famously didn't rely on Nixon to do anything. Lincoln, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Reagan... all were famously light on Washington experience when they became president, but none were particularly reliant on their VP. Again, GWB is the exception, not the rule.

---

I agree Clark would be a good pick. Biden is, to me, a pretty neutral pick, almost a default pick. I would prefer Clark, Sebelius, Schweitzer, or Richardson. I like him more than Bayh, Reed, Kaine, Dodd, or Webb, though.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

PArt I

You might be right about WHOM Obama chooses to rely on, and it might not be a VP.

I disagree with you on the so-called "legislative accomplishments."

Remember, the info is somewhat cumulative to me. Months ago, I covered the NYT article in which U.S. SEnate colleagues and staff indicated that Obama had taken credit for OTHER PEOPLE'S legislative work on at least 3 important bills.

That's just what they talked about publicly. 'Makes me wonder what other "legislative accomplishments" Obama has inflated.

Months ago, I also refuted your perception that Obama was really good on campaign-finance reform, when I pointed out that one of HIS amendments had enabled candidates to NOT disclose who bundles for them.

That's the opposite of real reform and transparency.

Then there's the Exelon-related legislation, which he falsely spun as an accomplishment -- though it was actually a capitulation on his part (let them decided for themselves if they'll report toxic leaks).

Even back in Illinois, he got credit for spearheading legislative efforts that other legislators had done all the heavy lifting on -- simply because the Senate President took their names off the bills as they headed for the finish line and put Obama's name on.

I've already discussed this stuff with you and given you links.

MY POINT IS THIS: If Obama truly had impressively solid legislative "accomplishments," he wouldn't have to inflate or spin or distort his legislative record as much as he has.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

Pt II

About "leadership," I agree ONLY to the extent that he can excite a crowd. But to me, leadership also requires something more substantive.

Often enough, Obama has shown himself to be a cautious politician (i.e., follower based on public opinion), not a leader on issues.

Iran: he started in one direction (let's all talk), then he caught heat from seasoned officials and the media, so he started making different statements. That's NOT leading, that's catching up with the crowd.

He should have made sure that he'd understood before advocating policies.

Russia-Georgia: he did the same thing. His first statement was neutral (apparently, he hadn't been briefed and didn't understand the situation before commenting) -- then he went toward McCain's direction (Russia had no justification).

We still DON'T yet know what went on and who's at fault for what.

A true leader doesn't comment until he knows the facts.

A true leader who does know the facts isn't afraid to make honest assessments even if they aren't popular. A true leader finds a way to persuade.

The other kind of politician just follows the crowd (like Congress's Iraq "war" vote).

FISA was one of the most important issues of the year, with grave long-term consequences. Obama didn't demonstrate leadership on that issue -- not by a mile (as you've already acknowledged).

Oil Drilling: he was against it, until the Rs started misleading the public. Now, he's following the Rs (just on drilling, not on total energy policy). That's not leading.

Health care: Obama's original health care plan last year pandered to insurance companies. He either wanted to do that or didn't understand the ins and outs of the issue -- and how insurance companies have actually helped drive up costs and make health care unaffordable.

Obama didn't lead on health care: he borrowed from Edwards and Hillary (i.e., FOLLOWED them).

Economy: he borrowed from other Dems (Dodd and Paulson, was it?) for his Spring speech that impressed you so much. That is FOLLOWING.

His advisers/writers gave him just enough stuff to sound like he know what he was talking about, but I'm convinced he didn't (i.e., Glass Steagall).

I could go on, but my point is that Obama may make all the right gestures to APPEAR leader-ly but I don't think he's a true leader in a substantive way.

He might become one in time, but he hasn't yet.

That's my take, anyway.

[Adam]

"I pointed out that one of HIS amendments had enabled candidates to NOT disclose who bundles for them.

"That's the opposite of real reform and transparency."

I don't think I could sum up the idea behind the statement "the perfect is the enemy of the good" any better than that.

No, it wasn't the perfect comprehensive ethics reform legislation, but it was an improvement over the status quo. Criticizing it for what it was not is a bit silly, honestly. It was a good bill.

As far as other legislative accomplishments, just a few highlights:
1) Illinois Senate: taping police interrogations.
2) US Senate: securing WMDs in the former Soviet Union.
3) US Senate: public database of all entities receiving federal funding.
4) US Senate: disclosure of lobbying activity and funding; disclosure of all earmarks.

Those are all bills introduced and initially sponsored by Obama. They all passed. I don't think that's an embarrasingly light record by any stretch.

---

"About "leadership," I agree ONLY to the extent that he can excite a crowd."

Have you read any of the articles talking about his management style or the way he runs his campaign? There's a lot of coverage of this stuff. History shows that the way a candidate manages his staff in a campaign is awfully similar to the way he manages his staff as POTUS.

[Adam]

"Iran: he started in one direction (let's all talk), then he caught heat from seasoned officials and the media, so he started making different statements. That's NOT leading, that's catching up with the crowd."

I absolutely disagree. He has always advoctated and continues to advocate a policy of agressive engagement and dimplomacy with Iran. It is others who have followed HIM on this policy. The funniest moment was when the Bush administration started some negotiations with Iran, and then tried to explain how these weren't actually negotiations because they didn't want to seem like they were pursuing Obama's policy. It was transcendent comedy, really. John Stewart had a field day with that one - one of my favorite segments he's done all year.

"A true leader who does know the facts isn't afraid to make honest assessments even if they aren't popular. A true leader finds a way to persuade."

You sang a very different tune when Obama took a stand against the gas tax holiday while Hillary tried to triangulate.

Obama has shown a pretty good sense for when he can hold the line on an issue, and when he has to give up ground to get something he wants. I disagreed strongly with him on FISA, but I am willing to accept some compromises on offshore drilling. It's an issue where, sadly, the Republicans are holding almost all the cards.

I disagree that he was borrowing from Dodd in that economy speech. He's always taken the tack that came out in that speech, albeit never with that level of detail before.

But more to the point (and this applies to many arguments you make): why the obsession with "borrowing" versus original ideas? There aren't a whole lot of original ideas under the sun.

The question is not whether he was the first person to come up with the idea of greater regulation of financial institutions. The question isn't even who, specifically, he surrounds himself with. The question is, does he show good judgement in which ideas to adopt as his own - and when to reconsider ideas and adopt new ones.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam

Part I

I expected you to disagree -- as you likely expected me to counter-disagree. :)

I'm NOT saying that Obama has no strong points. Evidence suggests that he's intelligent, diplomatic, good at working with people, and good at crafting/selling imagery (even false imagery, the selling of which takes great skill).

I AM SAYING that Obama hasn't yet demonstrated the "leadership" that you (and his campaign strategists) claim he has.

The point of my examples was to refute your blanket claim that Obama has a lot of legislative accomplishments -- precisely because you based your belief in his leadership largely on said "accomplishments."

Obama's been caught inflating/spinning his legislative "work" repeatedly -- which casts doubt on the credibility of his/his strategists' talking points re: said "accomplishments."

I can't take his campaign strategists at their word, but of course you are welcome to.

Your highlights:

1) Illinois Senate: taping police interrogations.

2) US Senate: securing WMDs in the former Soviet Union.

3) US Senate: public database of all entities receiving federal funding.

4) US Senate: disclosure of lobbying activity and funding; disclosure of all earmarks.

Frankly, I don't know which of the four he really did work on (showed "leadership"), which were handed off to him after others did the work, and which he'd simply signed on as co-sponsor in order to notch his bed post.

And neither do you. Of course his campaign CLAIMS that he gets work and leadership credit for all sorts of stuff -- but we've already seen that he has multiple times grabbed credit that he didn't deserve.

I've read accounts that give him credit, for example, on the interrogation bill and accounts that say another legislator did the spearheading and most of the work and that Obama just came in at the end and ran the ball into the end zone.

I don't know which is true, but given the questionable accuracy of other campaign claims, I don't just take the strategists' word.

And now, Dem colleagues will have his back, because they want their party to win (i.e., Chris Dodd likely won't again publicly draw attention to Obama's false claim for credit).

About #3: Obama may HAVE worked on the database. But he ALSO undermined the entire quest for transparency by writing an amendment that enabled candidates to keep their bundlers secret.

Bundling is most of the BIG money comes from: the roots of keeping score on who deserves favors.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

Part II (out of order)

I'm not saying that anyone has to be a leader on all issues. I'm saying that Obama has repeatedly
PRETENDED to be a leader when he wasn't. And I'm saying it in response to your unquestioning claim about his "leadership."

I'm not obsessed with original ideas, either. I'm focusing on the fact that Obama's strategists have repeatedly claimed that he HAS had original ideas that turned out to be others' ideas or works in progress.

In short, I was pointing out some misleading spin re: Obama's originality or "leadership" on issues.

MY POINT is simply that he doesn't yet have A LOT of legislative accomplishments, though he's (falsely) said that he does.

YOU SAID: "You sang a very different tune when Obama took a stand against the gas tax holiday while Hillary tried to triangulate."

First, Hillary is no longer relevant. Second, we're not comparing them. But since you brought up the comparison, ok.

Good leaders can "triangulate" occasionally on issues and still be leaders on other issues (though I'm not fond of that, because it's dishonest).

Obama, however, has a habit that borders on addiction to triangulation (and leads to some reversals). To me, that is just not leadership.

You're free to disagree.

About the gas tax: I think Obama reacted rather than leading. He disagreed with McCain (understandably) and didn't want to be seen "following" Hillary, so he senselessly opposed a harmless "plan" that would have created benefits (tiny, I know, but not zero).

That's not leading on issues. That's playing to the press (or someone). He should NOT have picked that particular battle.

Maybe it wasn't Dodd from whom Obama borrowed on the econ speech. It's been months, which is why I put a ? by Dodd's name.

I submit that the reason Obama didn't go into so much detail before March re: market regulation is because he didn't actually understand the issues he was talking about before March.

In March, advisers sprinkled his speech with details that would give the IMPRESSION that now he does understand. [You don't get a real understanding by just repeating others' opinions -- which can be slanted or wrong. You've gotta do some homework.]

To me, it looks like a big image game -- kind of like an ad campaign for McDonalds hamburgers.

Some people forget what he said/did 6 months ago or a year ago. I tend to accumulate the info, rather than viewing new claims and actions in a vacuum.

I wouldn't be so hard on Obama if he hadn't repeatedly shot his own credibility. Remember, back in January, I was perfectly fine with the idea that he might win the primary. ("We're lucky to have two great candidates")

Oh, and about knowing which opinions to adopt: that's what actual presidents do, because they have to. They simply don't have time to bone up on everything that comes their way.

It's just my opinion, but I think that BEFORE someone tries to become a president, he or she should have some solid ideas about (and a solid understanding of) some big issues.

I don't think Obama came to the table with that, and I don't think he's had much opportunity in the last 3 years to truly bone up, because his schedule has been packed with preparing and running for president.

It takes time.

That wouldn't bother me so much IF I trusted that Obama's values and convictions would lead him to stances on issues that I am comfy with.

His performance over the past couple of years lead me to doubt his values and convictions.

At the same time, I cannot vote for McCain, because I can't trust his values/convictions either.

Can you see why I'm in a BAD MOOD when I focus on the presidential race?

[Deb Cupples]

Adam

Part III

YOU SAID: "Have you read any of the articles talking about his management style or the way he runs his campaign? There's a lot of coverage of this stuff. History shows that the way a candidate manages his staff in a campaign is awfully similar to the way he manages his staff as POTUS."

I have some things to say (perhaps repeat) about that.

First, I don't believe much media hype about Obama any more, because I've seen "credible" media outlets ignore or spin facts in his favor re: issues that I actually know something about.

Second, one thing Obama has in common w/Bush is the habitual spinning of facts and misleading of the public.

Third, another thing Obama has in common with Bush is that they've both inspired staff and many supporters to feel blind and fierce loyalty -- even when facts cast doubt on Obama's or Bush's positions.

Fourth (and lastly), how Obama ran his campaign (i.e, stealth attacks, media manipulation, wrongly fighting to have FL's vote cut in half...) contributed heavily to the dividing of his own party.

The Florida thing was like getting his Illinois opponents knocked out of the race on technicalities when there was no time for the technicalities to be challenged.

Publicly, Obama talks about being "post partisan" and having a big table with room for everyone. [Bush said similar things in 2000 and 2004.]

And yet, Obama's campaign staff (and many supporters) somehow got the message that it's ok to dismiss or even brutally attack Dems who dare question Obama.

Our nation has suffered through that crap for 8 years. I intensely dislike the fact that I HAD CAUSE to question everything the Bush Admin says.

I don't want to spend the next 4-8 years having similar grounds -- and I fear that Obama will create that sort of atmosphere (as he has done during his campaign).

I have similar fears about McCain, which is why (again), I get into a bad mood when discussing the presidential race.

[Adam]

Here's the Stewart piece on the Bush administration's negotiations with Iran:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=176794&title=Indecision-2008---Dobbs-O-Meter

Pure gold.

I'm not interested in further re-litigating the primary wars, but one old link on negativity:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/incoming.html

Basically, this argument has reached the point that most Obama discussions I have with you reach - that is, that you instinctively distrust/doubt anything good you hear about him. I don't mean that to sound as dismissive as it might, but it does make discussing Obama with you pretty close to pointless, at times.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

You're right: I DO distrust Obama and his strategists' unsubstantiated claims -- precisely because they've been caught making misleading (or untrue) claims.

Their credibility problems are their fault, not some arbitrary bias on my part.

Remember, I started out giving Obama big benefits of doubt (same as I did for Bush even after 2000).

My ability to do that eroded over time because of an accumulation of evidence of credibility problems that OBAMA's CAMPAIGN created.

Attention to accumulated evidence is one difference between us re: Obama.

You don't want to "rehash the primaries," which is another way of saying you'd rather not focus on credibility-eroding things that Obama has actually said or done.

When I try to assess a person -- esp. one with a scant record -- I weigh the stuff that I learned 6 months (or even a year) ago. For me, it's all part of the credibility-assessment equation.

So yes, it's usually pointless for you to argue UNSUBSTANTIATED claims or campaign-generated talking points with me, because Obama (like Bush before him) has driven me to require substantiation.

At the same time, you ARE WELCOME to write pro-Obama posts for the blog -- and I'm likely to refrain from challenging you at this point.

My Obama-delegate friend will be live-blogging the convention, and I won't challenge her.