TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 11:20 AM
December 01, 2008 | 10:16 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:14 AM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

November 29, 2008 | 3:23 PM
November 29, 2008 | 2:18 PM
November 27, 2008 | 2:21 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
23.08.2008
Biden--Even Less Downside Than You'd Think

For the record, I'm very happy with the Biden pick. With the possible exception of Al Gore or Jim Webb, I can't think of someone who generates as much excitement while also boosting Obama's electoral prospects and his ability to, you know, govern. (Hillary might arguably belong in that group, too.)

So far as I can tell, Biden also brings three significant liabilities, but I think they'll turn out to be far less damaging than you'd expect. Let's go through them individually:

1.) The plagiarism flap: No question that if you have a choice between two nearly identical running mates, only one of whom has plagiarized, you opt for the other. Still, I think it's going to be hard for the GOP to exploit this, and pretty easy to overplay it if they try. I'd guess voters will find it pretty unfair to indict a guy over a minor 20-year-old slip-up which he's repeatedly acknowledged and abjectly apologized for. More importantly, as my wife (Time correspondent Amy Sullivan) argued this morning, something tells you the McCain campaign doesn't want a fight over 20-year-old scandals. (In fact, you could argue that McCain himself is proof of the first point.)

Anyway, would you prefer a guy who cribbed from a prominent British politician in the late '80s or a guy who cribbed from Wikipedia a few weeks ago? Just askin'...

2.) The gaffes: Again, all things being equal, you'd prefer a guy who wasn't as prone to rhetorical unforced errors. Having said that, I think Biden's gaffes tend to be pretty superficial. They don't reflect a fundamental lack of knowledge or empathy--far from it--so much as a certain ham-fistedness in putting words together. This is almost entirely forgivable and unlikely to create long-term problems.

More importantly, to the extent Biden has sometimes gotten tangled up on the subject of race (see here, here, and here), I think it actually helps Obama. There are a lot of voters out there still getting their heads around the idea of an African American nominee. Among other things, they may not yet have the vocabulary to discuss Obama's candidacy without expressing some of their thoughts inartfully, and they don't want to get pilloried if they trip up. The Biden pick tells them, in effect, don't worry about it, this is tricky for all of us. It reassures them that an Obama presidency doesn't mean every word they speak will be parsed by the sensitivity police. And, perhaps most importantly, that Obama himself isn't fazed by an awkwardly-worded sentiment. This strikes me as pretty critical.*

3.) Previous Biden statements about Obama: Sure, in a perfect world, the veep pick would have spent the primary season slavishly praising the wisdom of the eventual nominee. That obviously didn't happen in this case, and the McCain campaign has wasted zero time pointing it out. (See this insta-ad, for example.)

On the other hand, I think this is another one of those seeming liaibities that could turn into an asset. That McCain commercial has Biden saying Obama isn't yet ready to be president, but could be. That comes from a debate that took place over a year ago. A lot has happened since then. Is it so hard to imagine Biden would have seen enough from his ticket-mate to be sold by this point? Doesn't this in some sense make him a more credible witness? I mean, I doubt Colin Powell or Chuck Hagel thought Obama was ready to be president when he first started running. But if they came out and endorsed him now, it would be a powerful statement. (Obviously Biden's in a different position since it's now his job to sing Obama's praises. But you get the point...)

For that matter, I'll be a lot of Democrats have made this same trip, from skeptical to won-over. It will hardly come as a surprise that a Senate veteran has, too.

*I can't remember for sure, but I think I've chewed this point over with reader RY--you know who you are. (Possibly in the context of Jim Webb.) If so, I owe you some credit here.  

Update: Commenter Brent mentions a fourth liability I meant to address but then forgot about. I think his take is exactly right:

[T]here is a fourth downside: that Joe Biden has said very nice things about McCain in the past. However, the jujitsu on that one is very easy. He said those nice things about John McCain before he turned into the pathetic, craven, neo-con McBush that was able to get the Republican nomination in 2008. Done and done.

Agreed. It actually plays into a narrative Obama may want to establish, which is that McCain was a pretty reasonable guy until his ambitions won out.

Second update: Here's an interview I did with Biden in early November. He talks a lot about his foreign policy experience relative to the Democratic field.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Saturday, August 23, 2008 1:22 PM with 20 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Brent said:

As has been discussed elsewhere this morning, there is a fourth downside:  that Joe Biden has said very nice things about McCain in the past.  However, the jujitsu on that one is very easy.  He said those nice things about John McCain before he turned into the pathetic, craven, neo-con McBush that was able to get the Republican nomination in 2008.  Done and done.

August 23, 2008 1:47 PM

Brent said:

In reviewing the comments, those thoughts came from PropositionJoe.  Credit where credit is due.

August 23, 2008 2:00 PM

Noam Scheiber said:

Agreed. I meant to post about that too but then forgot about it. ... I'll update with your comment.

August 23, 2008 2:00 PM

sdemuth said:

You know, we live in a world where people criticize, and praise, one another, and then go on to disagree on policy every day.  It happens at work (I've praised my boss and told him I think one of his ideas is completely off the mark in the course of a single staff meeting, let alone a decade), and it happens in politics.    I consider it a sign of maturity and wisdom that Biden has praised McCain for some things, but disagreed elsewhere - and vice versa, for that matter.

August 23, 2008 2:07 PM

propositionjoe said:

Brent and Noam: thanks for the hat tip/footnote.

By the way, Hagel has come out and praised Biden's pick today--it's listed on TPM. Has he officially endorsed Obama? Their common trip to Iraq and this statement suggest that he is officially on the Obama team. Aren't people talking about him playing an official role in the administration? He'll be a nice complement on the trail--sort of like Admiral Crowe was for Bill Clinton, when the Right was trying to paint him as an un-American, draft-dodger.

August 23, 2008 2:22 PM

ChanRobt said:

Noam, I nominate your declaration above Oxymoron of the Year:

"...With the possible exception of Al Gore..., I can't think of someone who generates as much excitement..."

August 23, 2008 3:00 PM

jyunis said:

I mostly agree with Noam's assessment.  I think in some ways, picking Biden is reminiscent of Obama's public financing flip-flop.  Biden's statements' will be a thorn in Obama's side for the next few days, but in the long run, like public financing, it will prove to be a largely beneficial choice for Obama. I have a feeling the campaign's thinking about this was very similar to their strategy about opting-out; it'll be bad for a couple of days, but it will die down, and anyways, its the right choice.

The sense I get, is that Obama feels like he knows foreign policy, and didn't need to pick someone with the so called "experience," even though the media and public perceived otherwise. But he did, and he picked someone with longtime Washington experience, who voted for AUMF in Iraq. This makes me think Obama made a pick based significantly off of political concerns. With Jim Webb, he would've gotten all of the foreign policy experience, plus the opposition to the war from the start, and uniquely, for someone with so much foreign policy experience, an "outside of Washington" persona. Webb was unique in this regard. Alas.

August 23, 2008 3:46 PM

liebig said:

If McCain tries to use Biden's words against Obama, how can he then pick Romney as his running mate?

August 23, 2008 5:23 PM

yukon said:

Although the "McCain was the same for nearly seventy years, then he changed" meme might catch on, color me ultra-skeptical.  Biden's comments show that Obama and Biden (and by extension, the entire party) will say anything to win. It's the failed politics of the past, and it's quite transparent.  So much for change.

August 23, 2008 5:59 PM

miceelf said:

Yukon- oh, the horrors- Biden and Obama are actually willing to criticize republicans!!!! Have they no shame?

August 23, 2008 6:28 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

yukon, I don't get it.

August 23, 2008 6:45 PM

yukon said:

Wandrey, in a nutshell: claiming that McCain suddenly transformed into a different, bad man is not plausible, and launching implausible negative attacks is not the new politics we've been promised.

August 23, 2008 7:16 PM

GSpinks said:

"claiming that McCain suddenly transformed into a different, bad man is not plausible,"

I have to disagree here. This McCain isn't the McCain that I've been rooting for since the '00 primaries; that McCain is nowhere to be found. I'm not sure who this guy is, but he reminds me a lot of Bush.

August 23, 2008 9:54 PM

AlanSP said:

umm, yukon, have you been watching John McCain over the past 8 years (the last 4 in particular)?  He's been systematically moving to the right for quite some time now.  He (rightly) opposed Bush's tax cuts because of how they were distributed and now has not only called to make those permanent but has promised a new set of tax cuts even more dramatically skewed to the wealthiest 1% or so.  After calling Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance" back in his maverick days, McCain openly embraced him.  He also moved significantly to the right on immigration when he was competing for the Republican nomination.

It's not just something Biden is making up.  Back during the primaries, I remember talking to a lot of people about how I thought the 2000 version of McCain might have made a pretty good President, but the 2008 model, not so much.  But then, the 2000 version would never have won the Republican nomination, which is why he moved so far to the right.

August 23, 2008 10:17 PM

AlanSP said:

"launching implausible negative attacks is not the new politics we've been promised."

A few points here.  First, pointing out that McCain has moved significantly to the right in recent years is a) not only plausible, but demonstrably true, and b) a perfectly legitimate criticism (as opposed to personal attacks about Obama's fame or McCain's houses, or either of their unsavory associates).

Regardless, the "new kind of politics" was never about how election campaigns.  It would be idiotic to run a campaign for office based on how you campaign for office since if you win, you won't be doing it again for 3 more years.  The "new kind of politics" is about *governing*.  The idea is listening to ideas from all sides when it comes to actual policy.

August 23, 2008 10:34 PM

hewstino said:

"It's not just something Biden is making up.  Back during the primaries, I remember talking to a lot of people about how I thought the 2000 version of McCain might have made a pretty good President, but the 2008 model, not so much.  But then, the 2000 version would never have won the Republican nomination, which is why he moved so far to the right."

Exactly.  I voted  for McCain in the  2000 primaries, one of the few times I've voted GOP.  Didn't help him a bit after  South Carolina, but I was still happy to vote for the guy.  As somebody put it a while ago (probably in TNR): back then he was Luke Skywalker.  Since then he's joined the Empire.  This is not  a difficult narrative to push, and I imagine Biden will do it with much enthusiasm.  How better to dismantle McCain's  maverick persona?

August 23, 2008 10:47 PM

JSmith125 said:

Noam, you're wrong on one point:

"I think Biden's gaffes tend to be pretty superficial. They don't reflect a fundamental lack of knowledge or empathy--far from it--so much as a certain ham-fistedness in putting words together. This is almost entirely forgivable and unlikely to create long-term problems."

But all it takes is one inartfully turned phrase -- like "global test" or "I voted for the bill before I voted against it." Those were both ham-fisted but "forgivable" attempts to express legitimate points, yet arguably they were the difference in the 2004 race.

August 24, 2008 4:54 AM

Robert Powell said:

Ditto JSmith. Words matter.  Here's hoping Biden can avoid more Bozo impersonations--generating "excitement" is not always a blessing, and this is a campaign that's already demonstrated the ability to do so. What's needed is balancing sobriety and serenity that would have been much more reliably provided by Evan Bayh, perhaps along with Indiana. Hoping Joe proves me wrong here.

On McCain, I agree with yukon. I loved McCain in 2000, and probably would have voted for him against Gore. But Bill Bradley got my primary vote as First Choice. Alas, what might have been...

But McCain is most likely the same guy now. He's always had a ruthless streak, which seems a mandatory accessory for presidential types, and it's hard to distill real principles in any of "the issues" as presented in campaign rhetoric, Congressional grand-standing, and media transmogrification. Whether it's "flip-flops" or, as the WSJ editorialist described McCain's new position on payroll tax increases, "a sex-change operation",  such "issues" only rarely have anything to do with substance.

August 25, 2008 8:22 AM

sportdoc62 said:

1.  Plagiarism:  I don't think anyone will care more about this than they will about McCain's Mother Theresa story, among others.

2.  Gaffes:  McCain gaffes (including very recent ones) on foreign policy issues and his own wealth cancel these out.  Biden's gaffes on race have been symbolically "forgiven" by his being chosen as a running mate, an aspect of Obama that I think will be attractive to those white voters who resent oversensitivity and victimhood on issues of race.

3.  Previous statements:  McCain has more troubling previous statements about his own positions than Biden has about Obama's credentials.  Biden did address this in the speech on Saturday (the campaign "crucible" portion), and Biden didn't go to the length of running the "3 a.m." ad.  

August 25, 2008 1:17 PM

kagoss718 said:

JSmith, I think the difference between Biden's gaffes and Kerry's is that when Kerry turned his inartful phrases, what came out was something that underscored his existing weaknesses.  He was inconsistent, nobody could discern his guiding principles, he wasn't strong on America, etc.  So they may have seemed to make the difference but they only did it by crystallizing the reservations lots of people had already.  Nobody thinks Biden is really a racist (per his clean/articulate statement) and nobody thinks he's snobby or effete.  In fact, his bluntness and ordinariness (bad combover etc.) are seem are sort of endearing.  So I think Norm is right about the limited potential for damage.

August 25, 2008 1:18 PM