Politics | 09/11/2008 9:15 am

Biden: Clinton May Have Been 'Better Pick Than Me' for VP

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Barack Obama might have been better off choosing Sen. Hillary Clinton as his running mate, according to … Sen. Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate.

The Democrat from Delaware told supporters at a town hall meeting in Nashua, NH, Wednesday that Clinton "is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight."

His remarks came in response to one voter, Gil Mendozza, who said he was glad Biden was chosen over the New York senator. Biden, saying Clinton is a personal friend, added: "She is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me."

"I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate."

The Union Leader in New Hampshire reports that there was a moment of discomfort when Mendozza made his comments. Democrats have worked hard to heal the rift in their party and are championing "unity" after a long nominating process that pitted Obama and Clinton against each other.

Mendozza, who lives in Windham, later told The Union Leader he was an Obama supporter but he was not impressed with Clinton, calling her a "crooked politician." He said he was not impressed with Biden either.

"They promise you everything, but he already was in the Senate for 29 years," he said.

Biden told donors at a Boston fundraiser Wednesday that after Clinton dropped out of the primary race, Obama asked him for his support but the elder senator declined because of his close relationship with Clinton.

He only agreed to be Obama’s running mate after the Illinois senator assured him that he agreed that the stakes in this election were large.

"I insisted that I spend three hours with him," Biden said of Obama. "I wanted to hear from his own lips that he understood and believed that this was such an incredible moment."

The Boston Globe also reports that Biden said McCain is aiming the same kind of attacks against Obama that Biden had defended McCain against during the 2000 presidential race against George W. Bush, when the latter questioned McCain’s commitment to his fellow Vietnam veterans.

"It’s my greatest disappointment," Biden said.

75 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Smartest thing I’ve heard him say in his career.

By K O on 09/11/2008 11:17 am

e-mail alert

I wonder how many of Palins peers would make the same comment about her like Romney, Huckabee, Ron Paul, Pawlenty, or female senators like Kay Bailey Hutchison, Elizabeth Dole, Susan Collins/ I think Biden speaking from his heart. I’m not sure that some of those above if speaking from their heart truly believe that Palin is more qualified then they are.

By g c on 09/11/2008 11:18 am

e-mail alert

Clinton has her own agenda and even if Joe steps down will she take the VP position? I wonder—I think she’s waiting for 4 years to go by then she’ll make her move. Now it doesn’t really matter Palin has the impetus and McCain is just along for the ride. The Repubs did it right this time—they played on the hierarchical thinking, black/white ways of looking at the world, morality vs moral laxness of the right and the racism too because that too is a major factor in evangelical thinking and played it for everything it’s worth.

By Frank Peterson on 09/11/2008 1:02 pm

Hi, Frank. Interesting that you said this. It reminds me of a commentary that I read by Maureen Dowd a couple of weeks ago, and it has bothered me and also my sister. I didn’t understand the implication of what she was saying. I’ll drop it on your thread here. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20dowd.html

By Diana T on 09/11/2008 1:16 pm

e-mail alert

DT, I think Dowd was trying to cynically imply - in a petty, silly column - that Hillary Clinton’s best political interests and John McCain’s are now aligned: it’s best for both McCain and Clinton if Obama loses. Of course, Hillary’s rousing speech at the DNC, and Obama meeting with Bill Clinton, etc., is proof that Hillary’s not in it for personal political gain. She’s in it because she really does care about helping the hurting people in this country: those who need quality jobs, health care, etcetera.

By James the Game on 09/11/2008 11:12 pm

e-mail alert

You’re really buying into the media hype. We haven’t even had a debate yet. McCain isn’t going to win.

By DeBúrca obj on 09/11/2008 10:28 pm

e-mail alert

This has nothing to do with media hype this is what is in this th=country ads it has been for 40 years.

By Frank Peterson on 09/11/2008 10:33 pm

Psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany’s best psychologists, and long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. But now that psychologists can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, psychologists have refined their diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer “moral clarity”—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world. And that no longer works for the Democrats because of the rise of Evangelical Christianity. Of course Evangelicals are nothing new in this country—go back to the Puritans when Judge. Hathorne and his fellow judges threw Roger Williams out of Massachusetts Bay colony and burned women at the stake—then one progresses to the Great Awakening of the early and late 1800’s on through the 1920’s with Billy Sunday on Through the 1940’s and the rise of HUAC and Joe McCarthy to today.Thus one has an historical perspective for what is happening in 2008.

By Frank Peterson on 09/11/2008 1:13 pm

First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare. In fact, many people struggle to fabricate harmful consequences that could justify their gut-based condemnation. Psychologists often had to correct people when they said things like “it’s wrong because… um…eating dog meat would make you sick” or “it’s wrong to use the flag because… um… the rags might clog the toilet.” These obviously post-hoc rationalizations illustrate the philosopher David Hume’s dictum that reason is “the slave of the passions, and can pretend to no other office than to serve and obey them.” This is the first rule of moral psychology: feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete. If people want to reach a conclusion, they can usually find a way to do so. The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing uninspiring and aloof candidates who thought that policy arguments were forms of persuasion.

By Frank Peterson on 09/11/2008 1:18 pm

The moral domain varies across cultures. Morality is about justice, rights, and human welfare, but it simply does not capture the moral concerns of the less elite groups—the working-class people who are more likely to justify their judgments with talk about respect, duty, and family roles. (“Your dog is family, and you just don’t eat family.”) Tt was concluded that the anthropologist Richard Shweder was probably right in a 1987 critique of Turiel in which he claimed that the moral domain (not just specific rules) varies by culture. Drawing on Shweder’s ideas, the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. Evangelical group think.

By Frank Peterson on 09/11/2008 1:23 pm

If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns. They should then consider whether they can use more of that spectrum themselves. The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting fair relationships among the parts of the nation. This often divisive struggle among the parts must be balanced by a clear and oft-repeated commitment to guarding the precious coherence of the whole. America lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania that holds many other nations together, so our flag, our founding fathers, our military, and our common language take on a moral importance that many liberals find hard to fathom.

By Frank Peterson on 09/11/2008 1:27 pm

So what does this all boil down to? Group think vs individuality, moral certainty and rigidity vs. an understanding of human nature and forgiveness for such, and the ability to think outside the box as opposed to the opposite, and thus you have the bipolarity that is this country today and is likely to remain so for quite some time. Top that off with an unhealthy dose of racism which abounds in this country and you have a republican win.

By Frank Peterson on 09/11/2008 1:33 pm

Now after all this writing I need a beer and some fresh air—if you have any queries, responses, rabid retorts—go elsewhere—I’m not in!

By Frank Peterson on 09/11/2008 1:38 pm

You can’t make this stuff up. Senator Obama blew it by not selecting Senator Clinton as his V.P. Wait until you see President Clinton and Senator Obama together in Harlem today. President Clinton looks totally uninterested; Senator Obama looks sick. Not an ounce of energy exudes from either individual. Smoke and mirrors isn’t going to work for this union, folks.

By Bonnie D-Z on 09/11/2008 1:44 pm

e-mail alert

The only smoke and mirrors in this election is the Palin distraction from the fact that McCain has nothing to offer but more Bush. As far as Hillary goes, it would have been a wash. Hillary would have energized the Republican base in the same way Palin is. The only difference is that that group would have been energized to vote AGAINST Hillary as opposed to FOR Palin… but it would have had the same effect on the votes.

By DeBúrca obj on 09/11/2008 10:41 pm