Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence
By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press Writer Sat Aug 23, 5:02 AM ET
DENVER – The candidate of change went with the status quo.In picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate, Barack Obama sought to shore up his weakness — inexperience in office and on foreign policy — rather than underscore his strength as a new-generation candidate defying political conventions.
He picked a 35-year veteran of the Senate — the ultimate insider — rather than a candidate from outside Washington, such as Govs. Tim Kaine of Virginia or Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas; or from outside his party, such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; or from outside the mostly white male club of vice presidential candidates. Hillary Rodham Clinton didn’t even make his short list.
The picks say something profound about Obama: For all his self-confidence, the 47-year-old Illinois senator worried that he couldn’t beat Republican John McCain without help from a seasoned politician willing to attack. The Biden selection is the next logistical step in an Obama campaign that has become more negative — a strategic decision that may be necessary but threatens to run counter to his image…
MoveOn.org is all over this AP article which reads like a Karl Rove sound-byte on Fox News. Fournier’s analysis is 180° from my own. I thought Biden was a gutsy pick. He picked a guy who would be a real asset to his Administration rather than someone who will bring in votes like Billary. Anyone who likes Biden already likes Obama. And why not pick an "insider?" All the people mentioned in that second paragraph would be "ticket building" rather than "government forming." MoveOn.org calls "foul." I think I’d file it under sloppy thinking under the guise of analysis. He seems to want Obama’s to pick an outsider to prove he’s hip. I can imagine that if Obama had picked from Fournier’s list, Fournier might write that Obama made his choice just to prove that he’s a new-generation candidate, and ignored the important old guard.
It’s rovian analysis because it could go either way. No matter what Obama does, there’s an immediate criticism available. It’s easy to spot. Take whatever meaning the critic applies to its victim and see if you can generate an immediate, disdainful criticism for its opposite. For example, had Obama picked Hillary, Fournier could say that Obama is picking her to "shore up his weakness" to get the female vote. And, for that matter, what’s wrong with shoring up a weakness…
Maybe Ron Fournier is audtioning for a job with Fox News. Paul Krugman has a nice piece in the OP-ED of the NYTimes today about the differences, Obama and McCain.