Biden: when Obama is faced with a crisis in six months you gotta support him
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html
ABC News' Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
wtf?
It will be interesting if he's right.
And now that I've actually read the article, I have to laugh.
After speaking for just over a quarter of an hour, Biden noticed the media presence in the back of the small ballroom.
"I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here," he joked.
Audio-only YT of the remarks:
[youtube]Ymy0Woaz81U[/youtube]
Are they going to support him through his correct decision to do something? Or are they going to support him through his correct decision to do nothing?
And now that I've actually read the article, I have to laugh.
After speaking for just over a quarter of an hour, Biden noticed the media presence in the back of the small ballroom.
"I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here," he joked.
Thats typical Biden - speaking outta both sides of his mouth and then when caught.... "Oh I was joking"
FAILThe YouTube audio stops before he tells the people in the room they're going to need to support him.
That said, I believe Biden's right, but I think it's going to happen regardless of who's elected. Things are very unstable right now in a lot of ways, and the new guy's going to get tested.
McCain has already been tested - repeatedly. Not that it makes him more fit to be President, but then again maybe it does. That's a personal decision.
McCain hasn't been tested as the guy driving the most powerful military machine on the planet. We know he handled himself when it was just him. We don't know if he possesses restraint. I'm going to try to support whoever it is to make the right decision. We know that maybe 1/3 of the country will not support anyone outside their party. They are the folks who are partisans not patriots. McCain or Obama needs the patriotic center plus the anti-patriots in their own party when crunch time comes. Let's hope they both know they own their partisans and serve the country not the base.
McCain is pointing out that, during the Cuban missile crisis, he was a pilot waiting on the tarmac with a target in Cuba.
That's some pretty powerful mojo, right there, I don't care who you are.
Meanwhile, want to get spooky?, people are pointing out that this line was in the first moments of Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama:
The problems will always be there, and there's going to be a crisis come along in the 21st or 22nd of January that we don't even know about right now.
Forget six months, this is one day into the Presidency! What do they know that we don't? Or is it just coincidence.
No Griff, he hasn't, neither of them have. But McCain has the experience and Obama has virtually none. I'm not saying it is all that matters, but it is a definite plus for McCain. Of that there can be no argument. How important it is to you as an individual voter is another issue entirely. There were many things that Biden said during the primary season where he called into question Obama's readiness. Only since getting the nod as the VP has his opinion changed.
McCain has what experience, being a prisoner of war? His options there were severely limited. "Waiting on the tarmac with a target in Cuba"? There again, his options were follow orders, or not.
Hopefully, the President will have several options, to any situation, and the wisdom and level-headedness to explore them all... and choose wisely.:unsure:
To me, experience doesn't count for much if you have displayed poor judgement through it. I'm sure Senator McCain was an excellent soldier, and has some stellar qualities, but the policies that have been most damaging to your country are policies he has supported overall. I know he's been a maverick and stood up to his party, but in the main he has supported Bush's neo-con agenda, and that includes the war in Iraq and the continued deregulation of financial markets.
More importantly, perhaps, his response when faced with an actual, bona fide crisis in the shape of last month's market meltdown, he showed little leadership, floundered for answers which, when they came, were disjointed, incoherent and unconvincing. The attitude he has displayed in discussions of his foreign policy have been dangerously bellicose and he has shown himself more than willing to play on Americans' darkest fears and most costly sacrifices in a deeply cynical campaign, at a time when Americans need something better.
I used to quite like McCain. This campaign has shown him to be empty of ideas. He is Bush with a few tweaks.
And as for Biden, I don't care how many sides of his mouth he talks out of, I would rather have him sitting a heart attack away from the Oval Office, than Sarah Palin, who frankly scares the shit out of me.
I'm not saying it is all that matters, but it is a definite plus for McCain.
I guess I put more weight on temperment. McCain will follow orders, as on the tarmac, but will he exercise good judgement? The hothead tag gives me pause.
I think Powell said it best when he said Obama is the new generation. The current generation of politicos have had a chance to mould America, and it really is time to do things differently. Thoughtfully. Calmly. With more regard for the nation's most precious assets than has been shown by an administration wedded to international conflict.
[eta] Just because McCain knows what it means to send soldiers into battle, does not mean he won't still send your children to die needlessly, pursuing aims more appropriate to a previous era.
I don't know the usage in GB but using mould for mold creates a picture over here. :)
Dana - thankfully you are in GB and not here, ya commie! j/k - you make some very valid points and they were definitely part of my decision making process.
Bruce - McCain has 30 years compared to Obama. Personally though, I want a leader who can assess a situation and make logical, thoughtful and intuitive decisions. Someone who is well respected and has made tough decisions in the past. Someone who has had to endure both personal and political hardships and has extensive leadership experience. Unfortunately, both of these candidates only have parts of what I want philosophically and politically. They both have some things that I like and some things that I don't.
Griff - I agree - that "hothead" tag weighed into my decision as well, as did they voting present, but ot actually voting. A leader has to lead and make decisions. Right or wrong, A true leader must make a choice.
Here's an example of how McCain reacts under pressure:
McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967, when he was near the center of the USS Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded. McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments. The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.
Bruce - McCain has 30 years compared to Obama.
Hell I'm 64, with lots of experience, and make bad decisions every day. :lol2:
But does our president need to be the man best suited to dive into a fire and save people, or the man best suited to help direct others in putting it out faster and prevent more fires from happening?
Hell I'm 64, with lots of experience, and make bad decisions every day. :lol2:
And
some of us still respect what you say -
But does our president need to be the man best suited to dive into a fire and save people, or the man best suited to help direct others in putting it out faster and prevent more fires from happening?
Hmm, not sure. Can I just vote "present"?;)
Bottom line is that it probably matters not who is the president because the people who actually deal with these problems will deal with it as they always have. Professionally.
Yeah, no reason to stop reading to the children. ;)
Goat stories are fun and exciting.
Hmm, not sure. Can I just vote "present"?;)
:lol2:
Bottom line is that it probably matters not who is the president because the people who actually deal with these problems will deal with it as they always have. Professionally.
Yeah, maybe the question should be is which candidate can best pick a competant group of advisors who will act for the benefit of the nation and not some partisan idelogy.
Yeah, maybe the question should be is which candidate can best pick a competant group of advisors who will act for the benefit of the nation and not some partisan idelogy.
That has nothing to do with my statement. And if you think for one minute that any president does not pick a group of advisors who will not act on partisan idelogy then you do not understand politics.
Yeah, maybe the question should be is which candidate can best pick a competant group of advisors who will act for the benefit of the nation and not some partisan idelogy.
Easy answer. Neither one - Whoever wins, their cabinet will be filled with political choices, not necessarily those who will work for the benefit of Americans. That being said, I think its a good thing to clean house every so often. Shake things up a bit.
Apparently Madeline Albright agreed and confirmed what Biden said: Obama will be tested and this is just a matter of fact in Int'l Relations.
It that why China captured our spy plane right after Bush took office?
no, that was clearly bush's fault. just ask tw.
Easy answer. Neither one - Whoever wins, their cabinet will be filled with political choices, not necessarily those who will work for the benefit of Americans. That being said, I think its a good thing to clean house every so often. Shake things up a bit.
Which was really my point. The decisions are going to be made on idelogy. Voters are going to choose a candidate based on idelogy. We can only dream dreams about competance and hope they come true.
Of course if Biden had said that they will test McCain becuase he was old that would have been seen as an attack. Unfortunately, it is just as true. The next president will be tested, both positively and negatively, no matter which one is chosen.
After 8 years of the "Bush Doctrine", our allies will be testing the next administration early on to see if the US is willing to engage it's estranged allies. Our enemies will also be testing us for the "Goldilocks effect", a response which is too hot or too cold to a crisis. Too cool a response will be seen as a weakness, in that the risks in taking action against the US will be less than the rewards. Too hot a response will be seen as a weakness, for exactly the same reason.
For example, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the US invaded Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of US soldiers, the injuring of tens of thousands of others, and the loss of about 1 trillion dollars and a great deal of the United States' 'moral authority'. The loss to Al Qaeda was zero, since they were not in Iraq at that time. Destabilization tends to benefit insurgents, and the US destablized Iraq. This 'hot response' has benefited our enemies for the past 5 1/2 years.
Even Afghanistan, which was a proper multi-lateral response, benefited Al Qaeda in that it tied the Taliban to them. Since Al Qaeda did not run Afghanistan, it did not really lose anything except a safe haven, which it has found in parts of Pakistan.
Here's an example of how McCain reacts under pressure:
McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967, when he was near the center of the USS Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded. McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments. The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.
A while back I was watching a show on fighter pilots. One was about the only navy ace in the Vietnam War. I watched him talk about his dogfight, along with the computer recreation and I was absolutely awestruck. The combination of skill and bravery that it took to survive and thrive in the air was significant, even if the MIG-17 was crap compared to US jets.
It turns out that that pilot won the Navy Cross, 2 Silver Stars, 15 Air Medals, and a Purple Heart.
After service, he became a media advisor. His media profile and war hero status led him to office in 1990.
15 years later, Randy Cunningham was starting an 8 year and 4 month stretch in prison.
Nothing ***ks up a hero more than power and politics.
McCain is pointing out that, during the Cuban missile crisis, he was a pilot waiting on the tarmac with a target in Cuba.
That's some pretty powerful mojo, right there, I don't care who you are.
That means zero. Mojo was found in people making the decisions. Reminds me of John Henry who had the big muscles - therefore was a star among the naive. Bull. Mojo was the little guy, without a name, who made impossible possible - created a power drill.
McCain was just another dumb front line soldier doing his job. The real mojo is found in people who do the hard stuff - ie the negotiators who averted an end of the world by (among other things) subverting big dics, such as Gen Curtis LeMay who all but wanted to end the world. McCain in his little A-4 airplane had a tiny mission with an extremely high probability of survival. McNamara, Kennedy, et al with the least experience demonstrated real mojo.
What did they bring to the table? A larger grasp of basic concepts such as negotiate with everyone - especially your greatest enemy - and without preconditions. What is not popular even among the most experienced diplomats - that takes mojo. We now know we exist and are alive because those with the least experience, significant decision making abilities, and most responsibility made the only correct decision.
No Griff, he hasn't, neither of them have. But McCain has the experience and Obama has virtually none. I'm not saying it is all that matters, but it is a definite plus for McCain.
I personally watched Fiorina make a similar silly claim. She knew that economies of scale would make HP more profitable. However once something is already big, then making it bigger does nothing. Fiorina was lying.
Once one has significant experience, then more experience provides little to none.
If experience was so important, then why are we still alive? Kennedy, the man with least experience, was so smart as to stop both generals and diplomats, all with generations of experience, from ending the world. When the Cuban Missile crisis started, a large majority wanted to 'blast them into the stone age'. We now know those with the most experience would have created a nuclear war – ended the world.
It's not about experience. For if experience was so important, then Regan was a disaster. His advisers so feared, during a private meeting with Gorbechev, that Regan would give away the store. Regan proved that the ability to think logically was clearly greater then experience in international diplomacy. And, what Regan did also made it possible for Gorbechev to help end the Cold War.
Experience is nice. But once one has significant experience, then more experience provides nothing but baggage.
Both McCain and Obama bring good things to the table. McCain is a maverick will to be adverarial even of his own party to work for smarter and more moderate programs. Obama has a long history of doing something that few leaders can do - bring together a concensus and cooperation.
Both men would make a good president if that alone was criteria for a decision. But McCain has a very serious problem. His administration will be dominated by the same people that George Sr so detested, that manipulated George Jr, and that make decisions based upon their political objectives rather than the interests of America. Any doubt that these people are in McCain's campaign were eliminated when McCain's VP choices were rejected to put Sarah Palin on the ticket.
Experience is nice. But once one has significant experience, then more experience provides nothing but baggage.
Sometimes I judge people's posts by how hard they have to twist and turn to support their narrative.
Any doubt that these people are in McCain's campaign were eliminated when McCain's VP choices were rejected...
cite
...to put Sarah Palin on the ticket.
Well she is inexperienced, that's for sure. But now that we understand that experience is overrated...!
I can't figure out what is controversial, let alone bad, about Biden's quote.
It's not controversial and not bad. It's just interesting. It was considered a gaffe because you don't want to be caught during the election predicting trouble.
One righty pundit (David Brooks?) said that he liked Biden because of Biden's tendency just to say whatever he's thinking -- exactly what the country needs in a Vice President. On one hand, it could be a gaffe; on the other hand, a gaffe can be accidental honesty, and honestly in a pol is always nice, whether accidental or not.
Well she is inexperienced, that's for sure. But now that we understand that experience is overrated...!
So you twist what I say? Or did you only read what was posted in black and white. McCain, Obama, and Biden all come with significant experience. Additional experience does nothing to make them more experienced. Notice how this paragraph and the previous post are completely different from what UT summarized.
Both posts say experience is necessary - despite how UT perverted it in his summary.
Palin comes with literally zero experience. She could not even campaign on her own until she was trained how to respond to well rehearsed keywords. Respond to keywords because she has neither experience nor sufficient knowledge. Being a front man (a spokesman) does not make a leader. Being a front line soldier also does not make a leader.
A leader must be able to provide two essential functions - attitude and knowledge. Essential in those functions is to define a strategic objective. Strategic objective has always been a point of dispute between UT and me. UT has demonstrated difficulty grasping the difference between tactical objectives and strategic objectives. In order for a leader to provide those two essential functions, a leader must be able to cut through the fluff. To achieve the 'irrefutable fact' (as Greene of ITT used to say). To be able to define that strategic objective.
Palin is so foolish as to believe Alaska was on the front line with the USSR. More foolish nonsense that only a naive spokesperson might recite. The front line obviously was NYC, LA, and Washington. She demonstrates no talent for grasping irrefutable facts. Obama, McCain, and Biden have demonstrated that ability repeatedly, in part, because all have more than enough experience.
Any doubt that these people are in McCain's campaign were eliminated when McCain's VP choices were rejected...
[SIZE=5]
citation needed please
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]citation needed please
[/SIZE]
Give it up, he can't prove much of anything he imagines.
Is there any way to set the cellar up so every single tw post is immediately followed by a post that simply says:
[COLOR="Black"]citation needed please[/COLOR]
It would be like our very own TWikipedia.
Forced signature perhaps?
To me, experience doesn't count for much if you have displayed poor judgement through it. . . More importantly, perhaps, his response when faced with an actual, bona fide crisis in the shape of last month's market meltdown, he showed little leadership, floundered for answers which, when they came, were disjointed, incoherent and unconvincing.
And the same could justly be said of Obama. Really,
nobody had a complete handle on the situation. Nor do the candidates have the actual responsibility yet. It would be unrealistic to the point of absurdity to look for any "make it all better" from either one in any case.
Just as I do not blame the Bush Administration for the economy's troubles, I don't give credit to the Clinton Administration for the boom times -- boom and bust happens independently of who's in power in America as far as I can see.
Why exactly is it you disapprove of being "bellicose" towards undemocracy and undemocracies again? Was it fascist sympathies? Myopia? Lack of faith in the idea of limited government? There really aren't any good reasons to be against crushing fascism, you know. Or you really should.
The above is why I don't think you're all that bright. I wish you could be, though.
Why exactly is it you disapprove of being "bellicose" towards undemocracy and undemocracies again? Was it fascist sympathies? Myopia? Lack of faith in the idea of limited government? There really aren't any good reasons to be against crushing fascism, you know. Or you really should.
Yes. I have fascist sympathies. I am in fact so shortsighted as to be myopic and have lost all faith in mixed government.
The above is why I don't think you're all that bright. I wish you could be, though.
Aww. That's so sweet. You really do wish that don't you?
Clearly, then, I am not very bright. Certainly next to you I look like an intellectual lightweight, I realise this. I can only suggest you continue to utilise your vast well of patience and understanding when dealing with the slightly stupid.
:snort: [repeatedly attempts to clear throat of burning hot coffee from lungs]
*winces* sorry classic...hate when that happens :P
Did I mention the oatmeal in my nasal cavity?
No, you didn't. I can't imagine that's pleasant?
I lol'd so hard - that was one of your best posts evah!
Just wondering aloud (or in type) if the Israeli/Palestinian situation will be Obama's first test...
[only]The've tested every post-Republic Emperor and President so far...[/half-kidding]
The Israel / Palestine situation is a weekly pop quiz for a President, but not really the sort of test they were talking about. Think it'd be more like:
Russia puts 20,000 troops on the Georgian border. What're ya gonna do about it?
Iran completes a huge and successful nuclear test in an underground location previously not thought to be a nuclear site, and announces that Israel is now on notice. Next move?
Israel destroys a nuclear facility in Iran... flying over Iraqi airspace to do so, with such short notice that there is no time for any diplomacy.
Venezuela announces end of all oil shipments to US.
Syria surprise-invades Golan Heights, installs missiles that can hit Tel Aviv.
Terrorists detonate small dirty bomb same day in Rome and London. Via audio tape to al Jazeera, an announcement is made that locations in NYC, DC, LA and in a surprise move, Billings Montana, are scheduled for next week.
China intercepts a US spy plane near its territory and holds its crew without negotiations.
A smaller country bombs the US Embassy to smithereens.
I hear ya UT - I was thinking along the lines of Israel getting a lot more aggressive with the Palestinians. As in if this situation escalates....
I agree. I think it is going to get worse before it gets better. Not to mention there is a ship on the way to Gaza from Iran. Should be interesting.
That's just the provocation Israel needs to bomb Iran's nukes. :idea:
I thought about that. There may be a larger issue here. To draw Iran into some kind of response that Israel can then show the world directly ties Iran to violence by Hamas. For example if they board that ship and find weapons that could be all they need.
Yes. I have fascist sympathies. I am in fact so shortsighted as to be myopic and have lost all faith in mixed government.
Aww. That's so sweet. You really do wish that don't you?
Clearly, then, I am not very bright. Certainly next to you I look like an intellectual lightweight, I realise this. I can only suggest you continue to utilise your vast well of patience and understanding when dealing with the slightly stupid.
Whether you want to convey sarcasm or not -- I know you do -- now you are forming the concept. Let it germinate and grow -- you're not making barley malt, don't kill it. And as it grows, you grow away from collectivist folly, the wellspring of fascist sympathies. Don't think "fascist" is being applied unfairly, Dana: remember that every fascist who ever lived and wrote described himself as a socialist at one point or another, and outsiders analyzing the collectivist and totalitarian movements have remarked on fascism going so far rightwards as to meet socialism coming around the other way. At this point, you couldn't find a difference to have to live on if you tried.
Which I hope goes to illustrate why I have absolutely no use for socialism nor faith in socialist policies. This is an attitude that is widespread on this continent, though not often as explicitly stated as I make it.
Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn made clear in
Leftism Revisited that one cannot fight fascism in alliance with socialism, or fight socialism in alliance with fascism, and still remain on the side of right. Or for that matter remain fully human -- undemocracy selects for the inhuman and the inhumane. Both fascism and socialism are to be fought as facets of the same evil, and both to be brought to annihilation for that reason, to be replaced with some liberal form of democracy -- majority rule with extensive minority rights protection, be it a direct democracy wired through modern or futuristic communications, or on a republican model, which experience favors as conducive to both prosperity and stability. The workings of power should not be either too swift or too efficient. Power is best rendered accountable when limited in its scope and in its duration. Why is Zimbabwe so effed up? See if there is any limit in power's scope or duration for Robert Mugabe.
I observe that you really don't have any reasons for disapproving of being bellicose towards the less than democracies -- or at least no reasons that find words. At any rate, you choose not to address the point, and as usual the point not addressed is really the central one. I get that a lot. It's tiresome.
Laugh as much as you like, but you'll be acting as an adult if you're thinking even more than you're laughing. I am not going to fear your hoots, now or ever, so do put that idea out of your mind.
UG, no matter what you think, he is our president and we have to hope that he will do the right thing.
Indeed, Merc. I said elsewhere that he'll serve the Republic well if he never delivers on a single one of his platform bread-and-circuses promises.
Ole Joe doesn't look too worried
here...