Terry Michael on the Biden Pick

It looks like the Biden selection has prompted Michael, at least for the time being, to drop his support for Obama. Michael's advice: Vote Barr or stay home.

Any selection Obama may have made would have brought few positives and a lot of negatives. For instance, what if he had recruited Webb? "This goes to show that Obama is cynically reaching out to rednecks but doesn't want experienced leadership!" What if he picked Hillary? "This proves he can not even control his own party, and is incapable of leading the nation." Richardson? "By recruiting another minority, Obama is going a bridge too far and is practically inviting defeat." Any script to be written was going to be negative.

That said, Michael may be on to something. In 1980, Reagan won the GOP nomination but had to bring on George HW Bush/James Baker, who would call the shots. In the long run, Biden isn't a horrible pick, but he is an "Establishment" pick.

I'm not disagreeing with Michael, as Obama failed to win my vote and Barr's been my endorsement all along. I'm just doubtful if Biden is the real reason for Michael's outrage, or if he was just looking for an excuse to dump the Democratic ticket.

'In the long run, Biden isn't a horrible pick, but he is an "Establishment" pick.'

Which I think is the problem. As Michael pointed out, Obama is supposed to be the candidate for change, and, if nothing else, the lesser of two evils. Then again we were kinda fucked from the start, with or without Biden.

Biden's age makes it so that the Democrats will almost certainly have another open fight in 2012 or 2016, depending on this fall's outcome.

If Obama/Biden win this year, then Obama will run again in 2012 and by 2016, Biden will by 74 (for comparison, McCain is 72).

If Obama/Biden lose this year, Biden won't be in any special position to take the party nomination in 2012...while serving VPs have a good shot at the nomination, I haven't noticed that VP nominees get any special consideration in the subsequent Presidential nomination contest.

Either way, Biden won't be a president in the future. That's a relief.

P.S. Back during the Primary campaign, one of Guliani's staffers made the comment that she had a better chance of being President than Biden did. I guess she's eating her words now (not that these people have any shame).

The Hillary people will be all over the place with the "told you so" routine. She thought she was the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination this year, but if McCain is the incumbent in '12 then in four years she really will be. It would be extremely difficult for anyone in the party to challenge her under those circumstances.

But if Obama wins, when the Democratic nomination realistically opens up again in '16, Hillary will be 68. By that time she'll likely be settled into a elder statesman role in the Senate similar to what Ted Kennedy has had over the past 20 years or so and consequently not as motivated to make a move. While I wouldn't put it past her to try again in '16 anyway, she'd have considerably more momentum going into a '12 race against a President McCain.

Bottom line for us: the absolute earliest we'd see a serious libertarian-leaning Democrat in the presidential race is 2016 regardless of what happens. Obama isn't the guy we're looking for, but he's a darn sight better than McCain or Hillary (and I'd argue even Barr).

As for Biden, he only becomes president if Obama wins and then something happens to Obama.