I remember Billy beer, though I never had any, nor did I care to. Obama has to be thankful that he doesn't (seemingly, so far, at any rate) have a relative like Billy Carter.

Those are some cool Elvis Costello frames he's sporting, though.

Obama wouldn't have had a sibling like Billy Carter. An older brother like James Earl Carter would have driven anyone to drink.

Huh?  Why's this the image of the day?  Is Billy Beer in the news for some reason?  Your NYT link was 20 years old.  Did you just learn about the beverage's existence, Crowley?  If so, may I ask just how old you are?  Me, I was six when Carter was elected--I supported Ford in the '76 election.  Ford's experience won my first grade non-vote even against the tide of my family's strong Democratic leanings--and yet I knew all about Billy Beer.  John Frink, my Sunday school classmate at the UU Fellowship of the Peninsula and a few years my senior, had a sizable beer can collection that included two or three cans of William C's brew unopened.  

"Why don't you try it?" I asked John.  I would've been nine or ten and he fourteen.

"Because it'd taste like piss," I remember him saying.  "Besides, they're worth more unopened."

Line of the day, from the Wikipedia article: "Billy Carter was selected as spokesman for the beer because his brother was president and it was widely known that he enjoyed drinking beer."

I'm 50% qualified to be a beer spokesman!

Billy Carter's other great moment was his concluding some public event, maybe associated with his eponymous product, by running full-clothed to a nearby swimming pool and performing an impressive cannonball splash. The Carters generally were worthy of Tolstoy, with Billy a momentarily triumphant figure for great men's loser brothers.

Billy Beer coincided with a post-college hitchhiking trip through the Southwest. Can't recall who bottled Billy Beer first, but Pearl of San Antonio momentarily picked up the label, upholding some quality. However, Billy himself never had a second act, and as Jimmy lost popularity, Pearl slashed prices. Many a case of Pearl-Billy stocked the bottom shelf of party fridges in the late 70s. Goodbye then!

Wow. Billy Beer.

In other news, there's an article up on Joe Biden for Veep. As part of the new insurgency here at TNRO, we who have decided to hijack the stump until TNR fixes its website, I paste it here for discussion:  

WASHINGTON--The scene has stayed with me for six years: Democrat Jill Long Thompson, in the midst of a fiercely competitive race in Indiana's 2nd Congressional District, was being pressed by supporters to criticize what they saw as President Bush's rush to war in Iraq.

She would have none of it, explaining that her differences with Republican Chris Chocola were on domestic economic issues, not foreign policy. In her district, she said later, "we will support our president, and we will support our troops."

It was like that all over the country in 2002: Democrats in large numbers ran away from foreign policy or just said "me, too." Many went down to defeat, including Long Thompson, though last month she won the Democratic nomination for governor.

Things have changed in six years. For one thing, Chocola was voted out in 2006 when frustration over Iraq helped the Democrats sweep to power in the House. Barack Obama is unabashed this year in repeating everywhere he goes that the Iraq War "should never have been authorized and should never have been waged."

But with economic distress so high, and with John McCain claiming national security as his trump card, Democrats may again be tempted to downplay foreign affairs so they can turn the election into a fight over domestic questions about which McCain has had little to say.

Evading national security, says Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., would be a disastrous mistake. "The only way we lose this election is not to engage this issue head on," Biden said during an interview in his Capitol office the day after Obama clinched the nomination. Democrats, Biden said, should be "proactive" and not "play defense on foreign affairs" because "the case against McCain and Bush on national security is so overwhelming. ... It should be an essential part of the case for the Democratic nominee."

I visited with Biden since he should be at the top of any list of vice presidential picks for Obama. Why Biden? In part because of where he took our discussion: Few Democrats know more about foreign policy, and few would so relish the fight against McCain on international affairs. Few are better placed to argue that withdrawal from Iraq will strengthen rather than weaken the U.S.

The worst thing in a running mate is the fear of muddying his or her image in political combat. Biden would be a happy warrior.

He was born in Scranton, Pa., an essential state for Democrats, and has been a regular in the Philadelphia media market. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, himself a plausible No. 2, has called Biden "a perfect fit." The senator has been through two of his own presidential campaigns in which he experienced what an acquaintance of his called the "white hot heat" of scrutiny.

Biden is Catholic and hails from a blue-collar world, two constituencies with which Obama needs help. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Biden speaks with real learning on international affairs and the judiciary--the next vacancies on the Supreme Court should be a big issue in this campaign--while never sounding like an elitist.

But the central reason to pick Biden is the message the choice would send about Obama's readiness to contest national security issues and his understanding that fixing American foreign policy must be one of the next president's highest priorities.

Biden has been critical of Bush's approach to Iraq and the world for the right reasons, and from the beginning. In the fall of 2002, he tried, with Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar, to pass a more modest war resolution that put additional constraints on Bush. Then-House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt short-circuited the effort by cutting a deal with the president. Even before the war began, Biden was warning of the costs of a lengthy occupation and predicting a decade-long intervention.

He is also frank about his misunderstanding of what Bush would do. At one point, he thought Bush was reluctant to start a war.

"I vastly underestimated the total incompetence of this crew," he says. "I could not fathom that they would do what they did under the circumstances they did it."

To restore its strength and influence, the United States needs to return to the realistic internationalism of FDR, Truman and, yes, the first President Bush. Whether or not Obama picks Biden, he should listen to what Biden is saying. Obama can't sidestep the foreign policy debate. He has to win it.

Wow. Billy Beer.

In other news, there's an article up on Joe Biden for Veep. As part of the new insurgency here at TNRO, we who have decided to hijack the stump until TNR fixes its website, I paste it here for discussion:  

WASHINGTON--The scene has stayed with me for six years: Democrat Jill Long Thompson, in the midst of a fiercely competitive race in Indiana's 2nd Congressional District, was being pressed by supporters to criticize what they saw as President Bush's rush to war in Iraq.

She would have none of it, explaining that her differences with Republican Chris Chocola were on domestic economic issues, not foreign policy. In her district, she said later, "we will support our president, and we will support our troops."

It was like that all over the country in 2002: Democrats in large numbers ran away from foreign policy or just said "me, too." Many went down to defeat, including Long Thompson, though last month she won the Democratic nomination for governor.

Things have changed in six years. For one thing, Chocola was voted out in 2006 when frustration over Iraq helped the Democrats sweep to power in the House. Barack Obama is unabashed this year in repeating everywhere he goes that the Iraq War "should never have been authorized and should never have been waged."

But with economic distress so high, and with John McCain claiming national security as his trump card, Democrats may again be tempted to downplay foreign affairs so they can turn the election into a fight over domestic questions about which McCain has had little to say.

Evading national security, says Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., would be a disastrous mistake. "The only way we lose this election is not to engage this issue head on," Biden said during an interview in his Capitol office the day after Obama clinched the nomination. Democrats, Biden said, should be "proactive" and not "play defense on foreign affairs" because "the case against McCain and Bush on national security is so overwhelming. ... It should be an essential part of the case for the Democratic nominee."

I visited with Biden since he should be at the top of any list of vice presidential picks for Obama. Why Biden? In part because of where he took our discussion: Few Democrats know more about foreign policy, and few would so relish the fight against McCain on international affairs. Few are better placed to argue that withdrawal from Iraq will strengthen rather than weaken the U.S.

The worst thing in a running mate is the fear of muddying his or her image in political combat. Biden would be a happy warrior.

He was born in Scranton, Pa., an essential state for Democrats, and has been a regular in the Philadelphia media market. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, himself a plausible No. 2, has called Biden "a perfect fit." The senator has been through two of his own presidential campaigns in which he experienced what an acquaintance of his called the "white hot heat" of scrutiny.

Biden is Catholic and hails from a blue-collar world, two constituencies with which Obama needs help. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Biden speaks with real learning on international affairs and the judiciary--the next vacancies on the Supreme Court should be a big issue in this campaign--while never sounding like an elitist.

But the central reason to pick Biden is the message the choice would send about Obama's readiness to contest national security issues and his understanding that fixing American foreign policy must be one of the next president's highest priorities.

Biden has been critical of Bush's approach to Iraq and the world for the right reasons, and from the beginning. In the fall of 2002, he tried, with Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar, to pass a more modest war resolution that put additional constraints on Bush. Then-House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt short-circuited the effort by cutting a deal with the president. Even before the war began, Biden was warning of the costs of a lengthy occupation and predicting a decade-long intervention.

He is also frank about his misunderstanding of what Bush would do. At one point, he thought Bush was reluctant to start a war.

"I vastly underestimated the total incompetence of this crew," he says. "I could not fathom that they would do what they did under the circumstances they did it."

To restore its strength and influence, the United States needs to return to the realistic internationalism of FDR, Truman and, yes, the first President Bush. Whether or not Obama picks Biden, he should listen to what Biden is saying. Obama can't sidestep the foreign policy debate. He has to win it.

Thanks to EJ for this. I think Joe Biden would make an outstanding veep (or POTUS, for that matter). And yes, he would be a happy warrior on the campaign trail. Politically, however, Biden has two closely-linked problems: (1) he says what he thinks, which means he is somewhat gaffe-prone, and (2) once his talking picks up momentum, he finds it difficult to shut it down, which makes him an easy target for ridicule by peopl with ADD and also increases the probability that he will say more of what he really thinks (more gaffes).

I don't see that Biden helps Obama electorally, but then, that probably goes for just about anybody Obama picks (there's no evidence that veep picks have helped since LBJ).

Finally, EJ nails it on foreign policy in the general campaign. Dems own this issue if they play it right. There's every indication that Obama grasps this--during the recent "Dip with Dicts" flap Obama remarked that he would be happy to have this debate, because Bush-McCain "have a lot to answer for." Making Biden one of the mouthpieces for this debate is a winning move, whether he's on the ticket or not.

Hey, sully, thanks for being first to take the leap.  I've been looking up on the magazine side of things but decided I'd wait until there was an article upon which I actually wanted to comment.

I just got in a flame war over in another thread and was so disgusted with myself and the discussion that I threatened (threatening myself mainly)  to leave TNR entirely.

Maybe I'll stick around and support the Mag Article Action.

As for Biden as VP, the main thing against it for me is I can't see why Biden would want the job.   I rather think if he was approached, he'd say "No thanks.  Why not Sec of State?"

The Carter comparison is ridiculous.  If that's the best comeback that the McCain camp has for "Bush's third term" then this election will be a cakewalk for Obama.  If anything, George W. Bush is the one person who could have erased the country's memory of the Carter years.

McCain and Obama are divvying up the population by age.  Unfortunately, that could work in McCain's favor.

Biden would probably go for it if offered - and I think he's the Democrat I would want in the job if something were to happen to President Obama.  

I've been reading a lot about Jim Webb for the job.  I'm not sure I see him as President, which is the test I apply to VP candidates.  Biden is the best choice.

Neil

That's the best McCain can do - that's his snappy comeback that Obama is running for Carter's second term and the "failed policieis of the 60's and 70's."  I guess Obama could counter that he hardly remembers Carter, having been like 12 years old at the time.  

areomonas,

This isn't the first, there were two yesterday:

blogs.tnr.com/.../rethinking-bush-s-evangelical-successes.aspx

blogs.tnr.com/.../a-simpler-obama-hillary-explanation.aspx

If those links don't work, just scroll down the Stump to Bush Evangelical and Hillary's Height.

Back on topic, this is a great article and a great argument. Webb has value as well, but jeapordizes an important Senate seat in a way that Biden does not. I think Neil nails the other factor, is the VP ready for P? Biden/Obama would have been a brilliant ticket, and reversed it's still powerful. Although folks like Sibelius might give electoral benefit, Biden gives policy benefit, and to me that's more important.

Finally, not only is national security important, the Dems need to tie it unequivocally to environmental and economic factors. Aggresively make the case that reliance on oil and fossil fuels is a threat to our security. Hammer home the message that sustainability and efficiency can create more jobs and innovation. Emphasis that global warming and other environmental issues are deeply linked to quality of life and economic survival (see the second link above for a discussion on that). Intertwine those three issues, all of which can resonate in Americans' lives right now, into a single powerful narrative about the future at home and abroad.

I think Walt is right.  Unless he was offered a big FP profile, he will continue to be a lot more effective as SoS or head of the Senate FP.   I know the Veep posistion has changed, but Biden wouldn't want to a) run a shadow government like Cheney or b) go to funerals and such.   Obama would have to offer him a lot to entice him.  It isn't a bucket of warm piss anymore, the the Vice presidency doesn't fit his temperment nor his talents.  

Sullydog: I was about to post again why Joe Biden will not be tapped for the no. 2 position by Obama but you took care of it for me.  He is more than qualified but (1) and (2) in your post explains why he will never be selected.

Agree with y'all; Biden's too good for the job, essentially.

Too bad Lloyd Bentsen's dead. That guy was ideal--old-school pol with little political upside who could get the job done, if needed. But in today's world the work of the Vice President essentially ends when he's elected. Who cares if Numero Uno keels over? We'll deal with that in the morning.

The radio commentator Dave Ross noted a couple days ago that selecting a running mate is basically "accessorizing." As Ross said, you don't want to be the guy who shows up at some important function with a cool tie only to discover that your rival has opted for the chic man-purse.

Meanwhile, from vicepresidents.com ("Proud To Be in the Shadow") comes the following:

"The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots." --Vice President Elbridge Gerry, who served as James Madison's second banana from 1813 to 1814 until politely croaking in office.

A potential caveat for BO re: tapping Biden for VP: what might work for Obama could also work against him. While Biden would appear to beef up f-p, the differences betw. Biden and Obama could be used by McCain to emphasize Obama's weakness in f-p experience and judgment since, ultimately, Obama, not Biden, will be the decider.

Just a thought.

The longer I think about it, Clinton looks more like what Obama may need to close the deal in November. She shouldn't be ruled out, certainly, not yet anyway.

tomeg,

I'm pretty sure she's out.  There isn't any way she can get onto the ticket without sending the message that he is weak. Everyone knows she and her people tried to bully him into picking her.  If he gives in to that pressure, he will not be seen as presidential.  

And as for change you can believe in,  hooking up with the dynastic ambitions of the Clintons would hardly be consistent with that message...  

Neil

Neil, if Obama finds it necessary to win in Nov. to take Hillary, then so be it, otherwise I like Biden. The VP ain't what it used to be, and looking at Gore shows just how big it could be after the White House. Both play into Joe's strengths and vanity. Granted, Gore might be a once in a lifetime exVP and no further VP will replicate his post WH success but who knows?