About The Administration's High Speed Rail Bet

This is far from the first time that a president has offered up promises of a high speed rail network. It's not the first time that President Barack Obama or Vice President Joe Biden have promoted a high speed rail infrastructure package since they took office.

Their latest proposal to spend $53 billion over six years is another symptom of the dysfunctional nature of passenger rail in the US.

The problem is that the money isn't being focused on where it would do the most good or where high speed rail is viable. It's going to where it would garner sufficient support to secure passage.

The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is the starting and end point for high speed rail in the US. It's the only rail in the country that approaches anything resembling high speed rail, and even then, it's sorely limited by decrepit infrastructure and bottlenecks at key locations. Moreover, it wouldn't even pass for high speed rail in other parts of the world, including Japan, Europe, or China.

To bring the NEC up to European or Japanese standards, it would take a massive infusion of funding well beyond the $53 billion proposed for the entire national rail infrastructure.

Why?

Because Amtrak shares rail with commuter trains and freight lines that require much slower service. To build a true high speed rail network, it would require acquiring and building new dedicated high speed rail lines, which are prohibitively expensive in the densely populated NEC.

That's why proposals for high speed rail connecting Las Vegas with coastal California or a central California high speed rail project or Carolina or Florida projects are getting funding - they're cheaper to acquire the necessary rights of way, but they lack the population density to make those projects truly viable.

Yet, the critical infrastructure bottlenecks along the NEC wont get sufficient funding for their replacement. The proposals essentially ignore the NEC needs, even though it's the only Amtrak route that consistently has passenger support and shows signs of being self-supporting.

The Portal Bridge project is as shovel-ready as it gets, and yet it's limping along on the funding trail, and its fate has been linked to the ARC/Gateway tunnel project, even though building a replacement span would allow a 50% increase in speed through the Meadowlands, from 60mph to 90mph, all while improving reliability and eliminating a bottleneck that causes incessant rail congestion, delays, and reliability concerns. That project, by itself is expected to cost nearly $2 billion.

The ARC/Gateway tunnel project would run another $13.5 billion (if not more).

There are similar problems with congestion on the NEC around Baltimore, and additional line issues in Connecticut and outside Boston. Eliminating those bottlenecks and improving infrastructure could significantly cut travel time and make passenger rail an attractive alternative to commuter flights that already clog congested airports that are struggling at or above their rated capacities.

The work on the NEC would solve several problems at once. It would reduce road congestion along the I95 corridor and it would reduce airport congestion that leads to nationwide delays because NYC area airports are struggling at the maximum capacity, often with commuter flights along the NEC.

So, why has the Administration forsaken the NEC? Moreover, it isn't the first time that the Administration has talked about high speed rail and then refused to find the money to make it happen. The Administration refused to come forward with guarantees that the federal government would cover cost overruns on the ARC tunnel, which would allow for increased Amtrak capacity on the NEC. Those cost overruns led to Gov. Christie to kill the $8.7 billion ARC tunnel and then New Jersey Senators Lautenberg and Menendez came out this week with a proposal to spend $13.5 billion to build an Amtrak-led rail tunnel project to Penn Station (that apparently includes the Portal Bridge funding). The federal government continues to send mixed signals, and the Congressional delegations from the NEC need to step forward to demand that the funds go to these critical projects. Their failure to secure funding means that the NEC will limp along - and with it - the nation's best hopes for a truly viable high speed rail network.

Mubarak's Regime Under Attack As Riots Continue

The Mubarak regime has engaged in a crackdown against the protesters who are seeking to overthrow the Egyptian regime. They're taking a page out of the Iranian regime's playbook by shutting down Internet access and unleashing the security forces against the protesters who are demanding that Mubarak step down and economic and social reforms.

The images that have gotten out show that the violence is far from contained. There are riots throughout the country, including in Suez, and there are reports that journalists have been attacked as well.

While Israel is looking on with a decidedly mixed view on what happens next door, US Vice President Joe Biden has said that Mubarak should not step down and thinks that the protests in Egypt are unrelated to those elsewhere in the region.

Vice President Biden, issuing the Obama administration's most definitive statement to date on the turmoil in Egypt, said President Hosni Mubarak should not step down and downplayed the protests spreading across the Mideast as generally unconnected.

He described the unrest as an expression of "middle-class folks" looking for "a little more access and a little more opportunity."

Though the administration says it's not taking sides, Biden said in an interview aired Thursday that Mubarak has been a U.S. "ally" on "a number of things," praising him for being "very responsible" in normalizing Egypt's relationship with Israel and aiding in Middle East peace talks.

"I would not refer to him as a dictator," Biden said on PBS' NewsHour.

I think that this is misguided as the same underlying problems are rampant through all the Middle Eastern regimes. They are autocratic regimes that are rotten to the core and a lack of social and economic opportunities has reached a breaking point.

The President's statements are better, in that he's calling for both sides to refrain from violence:

"I've always said to him that making sure that they are moving forward on reform -- political reform, economic reform -- is absolutely critical to the long-term well-being of Egypt, and you can see these pent-up frustrations that are being displayed on the streets." He added: "violence is not the answer in solving these problems in Egypt, so the government has to be careful about not resorting to violence and the people on the streets have to be careful about not resorting to violence. I think that it is very important that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances. As I said in my State of the Union speech, there's certain core values that we believe in as Americans that we believe are universal: freedom of speech, freedom of expression -- people being able to use social networking or any other mechanisms to communicate with each other and express their concerns."

As I see it, the Mubarak regime is fighting for its very existence, and they're not going to hold back when the alternative is that they cease to exist. Still, there isn't much that the US can do about the situation in Egypt, or in the other Middle East regimes that are racked with riots and demonstrations over the horrid economic and social conditions.

Those associated with the Mubarak regime think that the regime will outlast the protests and thinks that the regime is on solid footing. The same thing could have been said of the Tunisian government under Ben Ali until the days right before he fled to Saudi Arabia in exile.

“My analysis is, the government will leave them until they reach a level of exhaustion,” said Abdel Moneim Said, a member of the president’s ruling party and the director of the government-owned newspaper and publishing house, Al Ahram.

The Egyptian leadership, long accustomed to an apolitical and largely apathetic public, remains convinced that Egypt is going through the sort of convulsion it has experienced — and survived — before.

The leaders see in the protest an experience similar to the events of 1977, when Anwar el-Sadat, then the president, announced plans to end subsidies of basic food items, setting off 36 hours of rioting across the country. They see a repeat of the threat the government faced from Islamic militants in the 1990s, which it violently suppressed. And so the leaders have fallen back on a familiar strategy, deploying security forces, blaming the Islamists and defining their critics as driven by economic, not political, concerns.

“I can’t think of anybody that I know that has any concern about the stability of the regime,” Mr. Said added. But the Egyptian playbook is not just calling for a strategy that runs on the fumes of history. Like the protesters, Mr. Mubarak and his allies appear to have learned lessons from Tunisia’s popular revolt.

The question will be whether the military continues backing Mubarak or there is dissent in the ranks that leads to the regime losing its support and security apparatus. If that happens, all bets are off as to who would gain power in that kind of power vacuum.

The Muslim Brotherhood lurks in the shadows as a force to be reckoned with and that would have a devastating effect on the Egyptian people in much the same way that the Islamic Revolutionaries in Iran have turned the Iranian economy into shambles all while depriving the people of religious, social, and political opportunities.

UPDATE:
Apparently Mohamed El Baradei is under house arrest in Egypt. The Mubarak regime thought he was a sufficient threat to place him under house arrest. This may actually enhance his viability as an opposition leader - giving him more street credibility than he should otherwise obtain particularly since he's spent most of his life outside Egypt and isn't particularly connected with the frustration experienced by the majority of Egyptians who lack economic opportunities.

Egyptian security officials say Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei is under house arrest, the AP reported. Police stationed outside his suburban Cairo home told him he cannot leave the house after he joined tens of thousands of protesters in the capital Friday.

Earlier, police used water cannons against Mr. ElBaradei and his supporters as they joined the latest wave of protests after Friday noon prayers. Police also used batons to beat some of Mr. ElBaradei’s supporters, who surrounded him to protect him.

Mr. Elebaradei, who has spent much of his life outisde Egypt, returned to the country late Thursday, greeted by friends and some supporters. “It is a critical time in the life of Egypt,” he told reporters upon his arrival. “I wish we didn’t have to go into the streets to impress upon the regime that they have to change.”

UPDATE:
The Egyptian military has taken to the streets to break up the protests. We're entering a new phase in the riots in Egypt, and bears close attention as to whether the protests continue or the military is capable of quelling in the riots. If the military is unable to stop the protests and riots, things could get ugly very quickly.

UPDATE:
The BBC is running live updates from all around Egypt and has reported the following:

#
1623: A building that forms part of the headquarters of the ruling National Democratic Party in Cairo has been set on fire, according to reports. Senior leaders, including the president's son Gamal Mubarak met there on Thursday.

That would also seem to indicate that the rumors that Gamal fled the country yesterday were wrong.

UPDATE:
Internet traffic from Egypt has dropped to a standstill since Egyptian authorities blocked access, which makes getting reports from inside the country all the more difficult. There are unconfirmed reports that army personnel are clashing with police in Cairo, according to al-Jazeera TV. If that can be confirmed, it would be a huge blow to the Mubarak government since it suggests he's losing his grip on the security apparatus.

As is typical in these situations, the key will be who the military backs.

UPDATE:
The Jerusalem Post is reporting that government officials are mulling a transitional government to succeed Mubarak. Far more likely is that the military will seek to elevate one of its own leaders to supplant Mubarak. After all, Egypt has been led by a member of its military since Nasser - Nasser and Sadat were generals, and Mubarak was Sadat's Vice President when Sadat was assassinated in 1981.

And the Answers Remain the Same

The diplomats are up to their usual nonsense in the Middle East. They ignore the core problems and instead focus on extraneous matters to show that they're doing something about the problem. The Quartet is demanding that Israel freeze settlement construction, which is essentially a freeze on the construction of new housing in the disputed territories - including Israel's capital Jerusalem. Vice President Biden says that the housing plan undermines the peace process.

Why freeze the construction? Because the Palestinians might riot.

Here's the newsflash.

They're already rioting and calling for an intifada, not because of the housing construction (the smarter Palestinians know that construction means Palestinian jobs), but because the Palestinian leadership is lying about Israel's intentions for the Temple Mount and the Dome of the Rock and al Aqsa Mosque. They've been lying through their teeth that the dedication of the restored Hurva synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem is the first step to taking over the Temple Mount. The Hurva was destroyed by the Jordanians in 1948 after they captured the Old City and the Jewish Quarter - desecrating Jewish sites throughout the captured territory.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigor Lieberman correctly notes that you can't make an artificial peace and that Israel simply does not have a partner in peace when you've got terrorist groups that seek nothing less than Israel in pieces.

Israeli authorities are limiting access to the Temple Mount because of fears of resumed rioting as has happened in past Fridays following incitement to violence by the imams at the Friday sermons at the al Aqsa mosque.

Israel also responded to yesterday's kassam attack that killed a Thai worker just outside Gaza. They carried out several airstrikes against terrorist targets, including smuggling tunnels. Another kassam was fired into Israel today, but no one was injured.

After VP Biden Leaves, the Facts Remain the Same

Vice President Biden is in the Middle East to try and resuscitate a peace process that lacks partners in peace. The Palestinians continue to refuse to accept Israel's existence, and Hamas' backer Iran is still calling for Israel's annihilation.

Biden, and the rest of the diplomatic corps, refuses to recognize that until Israel has a determined partner in peace that is willing to recognize a two-state solution, Israel will continue doing as it has done - survive and thrive despite the ongoing existential threat on its borders and from those nations within missile range.

The Vice President also puts the onus on Israel to stop building more housing, despite the fact that housing (or settlements as the diplomats and media are fond of calling them) is, was, and never has been an impediment to peace.

Israel's announcement this week, during Biden's visit, of plans to build 1,600 settler homes in an area of the occupied West Bank it annexed to Jerusalem, cast a shadow over U.S. efforts to relaunch Middle East peacemaking.

"The most important thing is for these talks to go forward and go forward promptly and go forward in good faith," Biden said in a speech at Tel Aviv University. "We can't delay because when progress is postponed, extremists exploit our differences."

The settlement announcement embarrassed Biden, who said it undermined peace efforts, and infuriated the West Bank-based Palestinian leadership, which had agreed to a U.S. proposal for indirect talks under pressure from Washington and Arab allies.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa on Wednesday he had decided not to enter the talks for now. The Arab League had endorsed a four-month framework for the U.S.-mediated negotiations.

In a telephone conversation with Biden before the Tel Aviv address, Abbas "reiterated to him that Israel must annul the settlement project in Jerusalem so that indirect talks will not be obstructed," Abbas aide Nabil Abu Rdainah told Reuters.

Palestinian officials had no immediate comment on Biden's speech.

In his address, Biden gave no sign Washington would press Israel to cancel the project as the Palestinians have demanded; and Israeli officials made clear it would not do so.

Instead, he termed "significant" assurances from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that building at the site, a religious settlement, would not start for years.

With no construction scheduled for now, Biden said, negotiators would have time to "resolve this and other outstanding issues." He stressed that indirect talks should lead to direct negotiations on key issues of Palestinian statehood.

Housing can be transferred, sold, or even demolished. If the land is to be transferred at some point down the road, a built infrastructure would give the Palestinians a leg up on building a viable economic situation. Israel has transferred or destroyed communities it has built in Sinai and Gaza in furtherance of peace deals. It is not the impediment to peace that the Palestinians or the diplomats make it out to be.

The problem is that the Palestinian leadership doesn't want peace and they don't want a viable state alongside Israel. They want Israel to cease to exist altogether and to take over what the Palestinians see as theirs - Israel.

Biden, in a speech in Tel Aviv, seems trying to paper over the mess he made of the Israeli housing issue and blaming Israel for delays and that such delays embolden the terrorists to act more, which is the reverse of the situation on the ground. Palestinians have delayed action repeatedly by refusing to engage in a peace process and making concessions and fulfilling obligations under Oslo for years at a time. The Palestinians see no reason to resume a peace process since the delay means that more pressure is brought to bear on Israel - not the Palestinians and further concessions by Israel only helps the Palestinians. It's a brutal cycle that does nothing to resolve the situation and leaves Israel in a more precarious position.

The real impediment to peace is the ongoing hostility by Palestinians to a 2-state solution and Israel's existence. Until the diplomats come to grips with that, they're just rearranging deck chairs.

Even now, the terrorists are firing rockets at Israel from Gaza. It's the first attack since February, and an al Qaeda affiliate claimed responsibility.

That's Israel's partner in peace? They'd much rather see Israel in pieces.

Obama Administration To Take Credit For Iraq "Achievements"

Just what kind of credit does President Obama and Vice President Biden want to take for Iraq? They opposed the war, and had done everything imaginable to shut it down while President Bush was in office. So, what exactly is the achievement that Vice President is talking to Larry King about here:

Now, the Obama-Biden pair that opposed the Iraq war and its tactics and predicted their failure is prepared to accept credit for its success.

It seems that Biden, who's from Delaware when he's in Delaware and Pennsylvania when in Pennsylvania, is certain now that Iraq will turn out to be one of the Obama-Biden administration's greatest achievements.

No, really.

Here's how Biden put it to Lar:

I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.

Biden did not elaborate on what all the administration's other "great achievements" were so far.

No doubt, Iraqis too are very thankful for that 2008 U.S. election. (Full King transcript here.)

Biden is most likely talking about the achievement of bringing home thousands of combat troops.  Never mind that the US will continue stationing troops in Iraq as a backstop and to maintain a presence in Iraq as a bulwark against Iranian aggression, but this is the fulfillment (or perceived fulfillment) of one of Obama's campaign promises - to bring the troops home.

It is not about victory. It's about political promises and appearances. 

The achievements of the Obama Administration in Iraq are largely to let the Bush Administration policies continue to bear fruit and draw down the troops in Iraq. The Obama Administration had little to nothing to do with beating the insurgency and the establishment of a stable consensual government in Baghdad that doesn't need the US military to constantly provide security; that was done on the Bush Administration's watch.


Mind you also that the Iraq achievement will be felt most during the Obama term, and they'll try to glom on to the credit, but the heavy lifting was done by a Bush Administration that made quite a few mistakes before getting the surge right and settling things down.

Big Name Democrats Coming To Corzine's Support In Tight Contest

President Barack Obama is in New Jersey today to attend a rally supporting Gov. Jon Corzine's reelection bid. That's following a visit by Vice President Joe Biden and former President Bill Clinton.

That's a lot of firepower to help Corzine in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans and where Corzine is outspending his Republican challenger, Chris Christie by a 3-1 margin.

There's a reason for that.

The reason is that the race is practically a dead heat.

Corzine has spent tens of millions to smear Christie with nothing but attack ads launched by his campaign or those aligned with Corzine (various interest groups seeking Corzine's reelection).

The Corzine campaign isn't exactly pushing ads showcasing Corzine's achievements since they are few and far between. The state is in horrible financial shape, and Corzine's prescription for solving the state's fiscal problems has been to engage in fiscally irresponsible demands that localities defer or withhold pension payment obligations at a time when the state is already shortchanging the state pension funds by billions of dollars.

The state has spent more than it took in for years on end and financial tricks helped to balance the budget, and this year's budget is no exception. It took $2 billion in federal stimulus funds to balance the budget, which will not be forthcoming next year. That means that extravagant spending plans, like expanding Abbott school funding beyond the original 31 districts will be in jeopardy next year. Instead of realizing that throwing money at problems isn't going to solve them, Corzine's solution is to spend even more money.

Three reasons indicate why the race has tightened in recent weeks. First has to do with the massive attack ad campaign launched against Christie. That's perhaps the biggest reason. Second, Christie has not done enough to indicate what he will do to improve the state's business climate. Third, the emergence of third party candidate Chris Daggett appears to have siphoned support from Christie more than it has from Corzine.

If the state wants to see true improvement and a change in the culture in Trenton, Corzine must go, but the state's voters seem to be buying into the attack ads.

Christie would be wise to highlight the fact that Corzine spent months trying to curtail the state's pension obligations to help balance the budget - and called on municipalities to do the same. Thus far, he has not. That's a big mistake. There is time to fix it, and focusing on how Corzine is doing his best to distance himself from his former Wall Street ties shows just how little Corzine has in his favor, other than his still considerable fortune.

Biden Makes Qualye Look Like A Mensa Member

At least Vice President Joe Biden has his humor to keep things chugging along. He's hardly the sharpest tool in the shed, and his statements in relation to the groundbreaking on the new $8.7 billion ARC Tunnel between New York City and New Jersey included quite the whopper.

He thought that the tunnel was meant for auto traffic. Sorry Joe, but this is a rail tunnel, and as the Sierra Club noted, it's going to be a pain to have those cars go up all those escalators. (HT: Jammie)

As the Bergen Record points out:

Biden had just finished telling reporters on a conference call Monday that federal stimulus money might have gone out slower in the past few months than some people liked because, “We don’t end up with any major glitches.”

Then The Record had a chance to ask about an environmental group’s complaint that Amtrak would not be able to use the new Hudson River tunnel – which is benefiting from a provision of the stimulus bill increasing the Federal Transit Administration’s debt limit -- because it doesn’t go to Penn Station.

Biden said Amtrak was getting its share of stimulus money and more projects would be announced in a few days. Then he offered this:

“Look, this is designed, this totally new tunnel, is designed to provide for automobile traffic,” Biden said. “It’s something, as you know, up your way, that’s been in the works and people have been clamoring for for a long time.”

For the record, the tunnel is for trains, and its completion would allow for more NJ Transit trains during peak hours and “one-seat” rides into Midtown Manhattan on lines serving Bergen and Passaic counties. Currently riders on those lines must switch trains.

In fact, this is a double whopper for Biden, who has often pointed out that he's a regular rider on Amtrak. The problem with the new tunnel is that it isn't going to help Amtrak one iota, despite the billions in federal assistance, because the new tunnel will not terminate at Penn Station on the Northeast Corridor, but at a new and separate platform area built in the vicinity of Herald Square (dubbing some to call it the tunnel to Macy's).

You would think that Biden, or his handlers, would know what the heck they were talking about.

UPDATE:
So what will the new station look like? Gothamist has the mockups, and they too note that the new tunnel will not connect with the Northeast Corridor at Penn Station, limiting its usefulness.

I'm also curious as to how the 50-60,000 jobs will be created as a result of this project. I can understand the 5-6,000 construction jobs, but once the new station is completed, it would take only a few hundred people to staff the new facility. Maintenance of the rail right of ways would be handled by existing staff and a limited number of new people.

It's an inflated figure, designed to ensure that the project goes forward, regardless of the actual cost or actual benefit (which is still considerable given that there are only two train tunnels that serve the Northeast Corridor and accidents and other issues can cause massive delays throughout the system because of this bottleneck.

Good News On Swine Flu Outbreak Despite Biden Gaffes

Vice President Joe Biden is warning that people should avoid taking subways, trains, and planes. It's easy to tell everyone to get to work on their own when they don't have a personal chauffeur, which in Biden's case is the United States Secret Service. For everyone else, you're on your own.

Of course, Biden shows his utter ignorance on health issues, which shouldn't be all that unexpected. It also runs contrary to what President Obama and various US health officials have said. There are so many people out there talking about the swine flu that don't have the slightest bit of understanding or knowledge - or worse, know just a little bit and then make dangerous leaps in logic to conclude as Biden has, that people should avoid taking subways and planes.

Of course, the Vice President's staff was quick (but not quick enough) to issue a clarification.

The advice he is giving family members is the same advice the administration is giving to all Americans: that they should avoid unnecessary air travel to and from Mexico.

If they are sick, they should avoid airplanes and other confined public spaces, such as subways. This is the advice the Vice President has given family members who are traveling by commercial airline this week. As the President said just last night, every American should take the same steps you would take to prevent any other flu: keep your hands washed; cover your mouth when you cough; stay home from work if you’re sick; and keep your children home from school if they’re sick.”

Not to minimize the potential hazards associated with the swine flu, but why aren't people more concerned with the garden variety flu that kills 36,000 Americans every single year while sickening anywhere from 5-20% of the nation?

Those figures are from the Centers for Disease Control, which is part of the US government. You'd think that Biden would know that information, or one of his staffers was briefed on the situation.

In fact, you'd think that Biden would have been briefed that scientists think that the swine flu as it is currently configured is a relatively mild strain of flu.

As the World Health Organization raised its infectious disease alert level Wednesday and health officials confirmed the first death linked to swine flu inside U.S. borders, scientists studying the virus are coming to the consensus that this hybrid strain of influenza -- at least in its current form -- isn't shaping up to be as fatal as the strains that caused some previous pandemics.

In fact, the current outbreak of the H1N1 virus, which emerged in San Diego and southern Mexico late last month, may not even do as much damage as the run-of-the-mill flu outbreaks that occur each winter without much fanfare.

Thus far, we've got a handful of swine flu cases relatively speaking with the overwhelming number of cases in New York City as a result of a school trip to Cancun, Mexico. There was one fatality, which was a Mexican toddler who was in the US with her family and apparently seeking care here.

Taken together, that's good news. It also reinforces the point I have been making for the last few days about how getting the flu vaccine may do more to prevent deaths or complications from the annual flu. The hysterics in the media about the swine flu may bring attention to that form, but it's the regular flu that still does the damage around the world annually.

The same precautions apply to all kinds of flu - good hygiene is a plus, and staying home when you're sick so as not to infect anyone else helps limit the spread.

Thus far, this version of the flu doesn't appear to have a higher mortality rate in the US than other flus (Mexico's health care system isn't exactly looking all that impressive if you go by the claims that 150+ have died of swine flu, but the WHO claims there are less than a dozen confirmed fatalities from the swine flu). The Mexican authorities are also doing more to limit public events to limit the spread, as they are at the epicenter of the outbreak. Google has updated and expanded its flu tracking services, to improve Mexico's ability to track the incidences.


It's good to keep this in perspective and to maintain a health respect for the potential harm that the swine flu can bring. Needless hysterics and blatherings from politicians who don't know when to keep their mouths shut only further obfuscate the facts and important information that people should take away from the health situation.

Washington Post Admits Obama Bias

Well now that the election is over there is no harm in admitting that your nationally acclaimed newspaper was biased for a political candidate.

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

***

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

The Post had good coverage of voters, mainly by Krissah Williams Thompson and Kevin Merida. Anne Hull's stories from Florida, Michigan and Liberty University, and Wil Haygood's story from central Montana brought readers into voters' lives. Jose Antonio Vargas's pieces about campaigns and the Internet were standouts.

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.

The Washington Post, and all most all of the media outlets in this country, let the American people down. They failed to report on every major issue regarding Obama, and by extension, Biden. If Sarah Palin said that America would be tested by its enemies in the first six months of a McCain presidency, the media would have been all over it. Biden mixes up Lebanon and Libya, Hezbollah and Hamas, and the media doesn't blink. McCain mixes up Sunni and Shite and the entire media claims he knows nothing about world religion. The double standard was incredible. Not only Obama's relationship with Rezko, but his relationship with Ayers and Reverend Wright were poo pooed by media cadre all to happy to worship at the Obama altar. Does anyone really think that if the LA Times had a damaging video of McCain at a dinner for a known associate of Yasir Arafat, former PLO spokesmen, toasting him and laughing at derogatory jokes against Jews, that the video wouldn't be all over the media?

The Washington Post needs to not only admit its problem, but to set up safeguards to ensure that this does not happen again. I am not saying that an editorial board cannot endorse a candidate. But the media must remain objective and impartial. To skew the results of an election by unfair and unbalanced reporting is tantamount to ACORN organizing voter fraud -- oh and where was the unbiased reporting of that issue in the Washington Post?

Obama Will Turn Out the Lights On Coal Industry

Sen. Barack Obama in his own words. He would love to turn out the lights on the coal industry by bankrupting the industry because of the most aggressive global warming scam cap and trade policies on the planet.

He doesn't outlaw anyone from building new power plants, but he most certainly hopes that his cap and trade policies would result in bankrupting the industry because of the incredibly high fees that would be imposed on anyone emitting greenhouse gases.

His running mate Joe Biden has similarly stated that he hopes to kill the coal industry. He'd rather see China develop clean coal technologies than have coal fired power plants here in the US.

That means hundreds of thousands of people who rely on the coal industry for their jobs would be out of jobs should Obama get his energy policy rammed through. It also means that millions of people who rely on coal power for their heat, lights, computers, and those plug in electric vehicles better look elsewhere because there's not going to be a coal industry when Obama gets through with it.

As a reminder, quite a few states rely on the coal industry, including Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Montana. Coal also represents nearly 50% of all power produced in the nation.

UPDATE:
Gateway Pundit has more. So does Hot Air.

UPDATE:
Let's also consider how these cap and trade fees would affect the end user - the customer who relies on power producers who have coal-fired plants. They're going to see their rates skyrocket as the producers (the utilities) pass on the costs to their customers. This is an indirect tax on customers (the taxpayers like you and me), who will pay for this scheme in the form of higher energy costs. The utilities aren't simply going to absorb these taxes (and cap and trade is a tax). They're going to pass them on to the customers.

As bad as the high gas prices this summer were, it would get worse under an Obama administration that gets this cap and trade policy implemented.

UPDATE:
Stop the ACLU has a roundup of reaction.

Michelle Malkin weighs in. Newsbusters, in addition to having the transcript, notes that the SF Chronicle, which reported this interview, omitted the key section about Obama gloating about bankrupting the coal industry. Rick Moran notes that no one running for President in the history of this nation has ever gloated about bankrupting a sector of our economy and destroying jobs. Memeorandum has a roundup.

Nicedeb at Ace gives this the flaming skull treatment.

UPDATE:
Hot Air also finds additional video of Obama noting that energy prices will skyrocket as a result of his intended policies as utilities have to retrofit their facilities to meet new and more stringent emissions standards. All those costs will be passed on to the consumers.

Why Settle For An Obama-Inspired Crisis?

Just ask Joe Biden. He knows that our nation's enemies are going to test Sen. Barack Obama within months of taking the White House to take a measure of the man.

ANNOUNCER: Listen to Joe Biden. Talking about what electing Barack Obama will mean.

JOE BIDEN: Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama.

The world is looking. We’re going to have an international crisis … to test the mettle of this guy.

I guarantee you it’s gonna happen.

ANNOUNCER: It doesn’t have to happen. Vote McCain.

This ad cuts to the heart of the problem with Obama (okay, one of many problems with Obama). He's simply too inexperienced. Comparisons with Gov. Sarah Palin don't cut it either. Palin isn't running at the top of the ticket. Obama is. Biden knows this to be true, and most Americans should realize this as well.

The stock markets are likely factoring in Obama's economic policies as well. They know that if Obama gets his way, combined with a Democratic Congress led by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid that taxes on investments are only going to increase at a time when people are barely able to tread water. It would be an anchor that sinks millions of people everywhere.

When Democrats start floating ideas about nationalizing 401(k) plans and redistributing wealth, it gets the folks who create that wealth jittery.

UPDATE:
Let me be explicitly clear. By investor class, I mean pretty much everyone. Many people have money in the stock market as part of their 401(k) plans, work for companies that rely on the stock markets to raise capital, or are otherwise tied to how well the overall stock market does (not just how the DJIA 30 does). If Obama's tax and spend policies come to fruition, capital gains taxes will increase significantly, sapping the markets at a time when they can least afford it. It's akin to giving a person treading water an anchor around their feet.

No Bias Here

Which story is far more important?

(1) Democrat running mate to Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Joe Biden, basically says that an Obama Presidency invites terrorists and our nation's enemies to engage in attacks and behavior that might lead to serious harm of US interests within the first six months of his taking the oath of office and that Obama might not be up to the task

or

(2) Republican Sen. John McCain's running mate Gov. Sarah Palin spent $140,000 on clothes, courtesy of the RNC?

Well, by the way that the blogosphere is running these days, it's clearly the latter.

Try finding a story on MSNBC about Biden's latest utterances, and you'd be hard pressed to find them. Yet, Palin gets headlines for her wardrobe upgrade. It's amazing how that works.

Which story is more important in figuring out which candidate is best likely to lead the nation in a time of crisis? Clearly it's the Biden comments, but you'd be hard pressed to find coverage since it's deemed by the media to be not nearly as important as anyone would normally consider because it was Biden making those comments.

That's a curious situation. Biden was chosen supposedly because of his foreign policy experience (I call it tenure since time spent in office does not equate with experience, knowledge, or judgment), and yet he repeatedly shows that he doesn't exactly have a firm grasp of the facts, logic, or reasoning. It's also a stunning display of Obama's lack of judgment in choosing such a supremely unqualified running mate.

Still, everyone will instead focus on Palin's wardrobe makeover. I guess when you look great (and even Tina Fey has admitted as much) and need clothes, it's an excuse for everyone to try and fill Mr. Blackwell's shoes (RIP).

UPDATE:
Speaking truth to media, Gov. Palin rips the media a new one by noting that if she had said what Biden did, Palin would have been torn to shreds by the media.

Compare that with the crickets as the media simply ignores and/or buries Biden's latest statements.

Tanking It For Obama

The media is so badly in the tank for the Obama campaign that even Dan Rather has said that if Gov. Sarah Palin said what Joe Biden did, it would be fatal to the campaign. It would be front page above the fold important. Yet, why is it that this story percolates mainly in the blogosphere? The answer is all but obvious to anyone who's paying attention. It's the media bias, stupid.

What exactly did Biden say? Who knows what Biden says? Anyone?



Let's go to the text:

"Mark my words," Biden told donors at a Seattle fund-raiser Sunday night.

"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.

"Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

"And he's going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it's not going to be apparent initially; it's not going to be apparent that we're right."

ABC News buried the story for 24 hours.

MSNBC misleads in its reporting of what Biden says.

CNN doesn't have it on their front page. Neither does MSNBC.

The media isn't exactly falling over itself to provide that latest bloggy goodness because of how Biden spells out just what many people are fearing - a terrorist attack or other major incident involving the US and Obama incapable of dealing with the crisis in a manner that contains the situation and deals with it appropriately and sufficiently.

Here's the thing; Biden was absolutely right in his take on Obama from the outset - back when Biden was running for President. Obama simply is not ready to be President. He's too inexperienced. Of course, I'd add that he's the wrong prescription for what ails this nation - socialism is a bitter pill.

Gov. Palin, meanwhile, has a firm grasp of this situation. Jammie notes that she said that Obama's latest crisis is trying to figure out what Biden will say and do next. There's more reporting on what Gov. Palin is saying in response to Biden's comments than on what Biden actually said.

Keep that in mind as you try and figure out who's fit to lead this nation?

Glorious Hypocrisy

You've got to hand it to Democrats. Just when you think that they can't be any more hypocritical, they go out and surprise you.

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) is running for reelection against Democrat Dennis Schulman, who happens to be a blind rabbi. However, it seems that Mr. Schulman was blind to what his fellow Democrats were busy doing for the better part of the last three decades. Here's Schulman's latest video.



His video is so busy trying to blame Republicans, and Garrett in particular, for the stock market crash and the toxic paper crisis that he's all too happy to ignore all those Democrats involved on their side. The warning signs were there as early as 1999 - during the Clinton years - and the Democrats didn't take it seriously then - and they're not taking it seriously now either.

In particular, I'll point out two.

Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Joe Biden. They happen to be at the top of the ticket for the Democrats - running for the White House.

Look at what Schulman asserts as reasons to fire Garrett. Connections to Countrywide Mortgage. Predatory lending. Failure to oversee financial companies including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Hiring people connected to failed banking and mortgage concerns.

Sen. Barack Obama counts on Jim Johnson as one of his prime advisers and was part of his VP search committee until folks started to point out that all too apparent mess that was looming on the horizon over the summer. Obama took more money from Fannie and Freddie than anyone else during the past two years. Only Democrat Chris Dodd (CT) got more, and he's the head of the Senate Banking Committee.

Obama's got ties to Countrywide too. Many Democrats do - as Friends of Angelo Mozila - Countrywide's CEO.

Obama also worked closely with ACORN, which pushed the notion of "affordable housing" which to them meant subprime lending to those who were not unlikely to meet their mortgage commitments. Banks were pressured into lending or else face lawsuits on claims of racism. Those claims worked to get the banks to lend to minority communities, but it also meant that the banks were opening up exposure in ever greater amounts to those who were high credit risks.

Democrats are up to their necks in this financial mess, both implicitly and explicitly. They were pushing government policies that were unsustainable and bound to fail once real estate prices corrected because Fannie and Freddie were pushing for unsustainable and riskier loans than they should have ever considered. Those two entities were exempt from regulatory oversight that might have caught the problems sooner, but Democrats blocked those measures, claiming all was well.



So, if you want to go ahead and fire Rep. Garrett for his part in this crisis, how about firing all the rest of the Democrats who were involved in the mess, took money from those companies at the heart of this scandal, and those who did nothing or blocked the regulation of Freddie and Fannie.

That means a good portion of Congress should be fired and given that Rasmussen polled 59% think Congress should be fired, the sentiment is quite palpable these days, especially when Congress' approval ratings are actually below that of President Bush, which isn't saying much.

What it also means is that we should fire Obama and Biden. Or, better yet, vote against those two in November. After all, your fellow Democrats in New Jersey demand it.

The Biden-Palin Debate Wrap

I managed to watch the debate last night and saw that Gov. Sarah Palin did a more than credible job in handling Sen. Joe Biden, whose lifelong ambition to be President has meant he's been preparing for these kinds of debates practically his entire life.

Of course, all that preparation means that he's able to smooth talk his way through all kinds of issues on which he completely blows key facts and information.

Gov. Palin's problem wasn't that she didn't respond or respond effectively. She did. It only appears that Gov. Palin didn't do nearly as effective job in responding to all of Biden's gaffes because she could have spent the entire debate eviscerating Biden's positions, particularly on foreign policy.

Let's start with the top whopper of the night from Biden. It relates directly to Sen. Obama's declaration and preference to meet with Iran's Ahmadinejad and other dictators, tyrants, and thugs without any preconditions.



Biden says that isn't the case.

Obama has said that, and reiterated as much on several occasions.

Biden then goes on to talk about how Hizbullah was kicked out of Lebanon. That's not only the most bizarre statement of the night, but it's so clearly wrong that someone who supposedly has the foreign policy acumen that Biden supposedly does should hang it up right now. Hizbullah has been prominent in Lebanon since the Lebanese Civil War at the end of the 1970s. Hizbullah was responsible for the 1983 Marine barracks bombing, and have never left Lebanon. Not even Israel's invasion of Lebanon to thwart Hizbullah and PLO attacks against Northern Israel and subsequent occupation of Southern Lebanon did anything to remove Hizbullah from Lebanon. Hizbullah is stronger now than it has ever been, precisely because of its support from not only many Lebanese, but because of Syria's and Iran's support.

No one has kicked Hizbullah out of Lebanon, and Hizbullah's ongoing presence is a cancer on the Lebanese society that has the potential to metastasize and infect Turkey as well.

Ed Morrissey thinks that Palin hit a home run. I'm thinking that it was a stand up triple. She did everything she needed to do, but then again, I was expecting a moment where Palin would eviscerate Biden and Obama in one fell swoop, particularly about the financial meltdown.

Palin was weak when talking about the financial crisis and the crooks on Wall Street. She engaged in populist talk, and it would have been more effective to not only mention the crooks on Wall Street, but that those same people, including Raines and Johnson, are advising Obama's campaign, and helped pick Sen. Biden as Obama's running mate. Further, as Palin is the only Washington outsider, she could have slammed Congress for failing to engage in proper oversight over Fannie and Freddie, which was precisely the kind of law that Sen. McCain had proposed but was thwarted by Congressional Democrats on a party line vote. Far from trying to deregulate the system, McCain was looking to target regulations to prevent the very meltdown we're now witnessing.

Sen. Biden did a decent job parrying that line of attack by claiming that McCain had not seen this crisis coming, but again, that ignores the legislation introduced by McCain to increase oversight over Fannie and Freddie.

There were tax gaffes on both sides, and Palin was weaker here than I would have liked.

The Moderate Voice has a solid roundup.

Instapundit notes that there were multiple constitutional law gaffes, particularly by Sen. Biden and the role of the Vice President, but ABC glosses over that in favor of pointing out that Gov. Palin didn't know the name of a general in Afghanistan. It's all about priorities.

What is truly telling is how the media and punditry were focusing on how Palin would be an abject disaster or wouldn't be able to hold her own against Biden in the debate, and yet when it's more than apparent that she could do so, and got in her shots, that the media declares that there's nothing to see.

UPDATE:
I think Palin would have been better served going after Obama and Biden for Democrats blocking regulation that would have increased oversight over Fannie and Freddie, to say nothing of their campaign relying on Johnson and Raines as advisers - asking them for information about the housing market or using Johnson as part of the VP search committee rather than referring them to the Department of Justice for investigation into fraud and other missteps that make Enron look like child's play.

I would have attacked on the issue of affordable housing and wondered how Congress can honestly say that this current situation is affordable given Congress and past Administrations' penchant for expanding lending to those who could not afford to ever repay, let alone when markets inevitably engaged in corrections.

UPDATE:
Dick Morris seems to think that Palin hit it out of the park. So does Rich Lowry. Even the New York Times columnists had to acknowledge that she regained control over her image. That much is apparent, but she missed out on a chance to truly do lasting damage to the Obama campaign, particularly on the financial mess.

UPDATE:
Don Surber showcases what the media elites had to say; they have a narrative and they're sticking to it.

UPDATE:
James Pethokoukis at US News sums up the problem I had with Palin's performance on the financial crisis questions, and notes that this is part of McCain's general reluctance to deal with the issue straight on - attacking Obama for his cozy relationship with the very individuals who propagated this mess in the first place at Fannie and Freddie.

Biden Favors Clean Coal In China; Not For US

Should it surprise anyone that Sen. Joe Biden's mouth is getting him into trouble again? This time, he's claiming that the US shouldn't build clean coal power facilities, and that such facilities should instead be built in China.

So, where exactly would the US get its power from if not from coal? Biden touts wind power and solar, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the power produced from coal, hydro, and nuclear power sources.

This isn't good news for the Obama campaign since Sen. Obama has said that the US should increase clean coal reliance.

The takeaway from all this? The Democrats are all over the map on this - and will say one thing to one crowd, and the opposite to another crowd depending on how the issue polls in those areas.

As Ben Smith further notes, Biden was on the global warming junk science bandwagon from the outset. Biden also makes it clear that China continues building coal power plants at a prodigious rate. He wants to see them build clean coal power plants in China. The problem is that he supports clean coal in China but opposes it in the US even as he acknowledges that the atmosphere is global - whatever is emitted overseas can and does affect the atmosphere in the US. What Biden really envisions is curbing US energy output, an eco-leftist dream and a nightmare for the rest of us.

UPDATE:
Hot Air has more on the Biden's coal comments, and how this will affect Pennsylvania voters and stands in opposition to Obama's position on clean coal. It also marks the third time in the past day that Biden has undermined Obama's position on key issues. The first was Biden's quick opposition to the Wall Street bailout; the second was Biden's comments on Obama's attack ad on McCain's email usage. Are we witnessing another step towards dumping Biden from the ticket? Obama and Biden clearly aren't on the same page here, and that's getting their message muddled, which may be tactic to garner votes - to say what a particular audience wants to hear.

UPDATE:
Others weighing in on the Biden gaffe machine (including a Biden history lesson): Michelle Malkin, Ameripundit, and Sister Toldjah.

So, Does This Mean Charles Rangel Is Unpatriotic?

Sen. Barack Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden has such a way with words. He's a walking gaffe-machine.

His latest?

He thinks paying more taxes is patriotic.

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

Well, what exactly does that suggest about Rep. Charles Rangel? Does that mean that Rangel is unpatriotic by not paying his taxes and engaging in tax evasion at every turn?

On its face, Biden is engaging in nothing more than communist/socialist redistribution of wealth. Taking from the haves and watching the government increase its revenues while capital and money for investment gets sucked out of the marketplace. Biden is basically saying that low taxes are unpatriotic. Nice. Don Surber and Hot Air have more.

The Joe Biden Exit Watch Commences

After watching this video, ask yourself two questions:



Question 1: If Joe Biden knows that he's not the best guy for the job, why did he take it?
Question 2: What does this say about Sen. Barack Obama's judge of character and fitness to lead? His most important decision to date was the choice of a running mate, and it appears that he made the biggest mistake in going with the walking gaffe machine in Biden.

Biden, to his credit, knows that something is wrong with the campaign, and that the best choice from among possible running mates for Obama was Hillary Clinton. Why Obama couldn't see it should be troubling to Democrats. Was it spite? Was it fear of being overshadowed by Hillary? Obama went with Biden, who was nondescript in his tenure in the Senate, and brings little to a ticket.

Now, what will Obama do? Will he find a way to jettison Biden from the campaign before too much longer? That too will reek of desperation, but if Biden keeps making statements such as this, what other choice will he have?

If Obama seeks out Hillary, there's no telling what she might do - it's not in her interest to save Obama at this point. There will be a price to be paid for Obama's actions to date. Democrats have to wonder what they've gotten themselves into in a year when they had everything seemingly going for them.

The Gaffes Keep On Coming

The Obama campaign can't get out of its own way quick enough. These are unforced errors that do nothing but galvanize the GOP base and get people thinking about the character and fitness of the respective tickets. People are starting to realize that Obama simply doesn't have anything to offer beyond empty words.

Well, empty words except when he goes and makes still more unforced errors and personal attacks. Alluding to Gov. Palin as a pig? Are you kidding me? That's the kind of red meat that GOPers just love to sink their teeth into. These are unforced errors on top of unforced errors galore by the Democrats.

L-L-L-Let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change too. Exce... an-an-and so I guess his whole angle is, watch out, George Bush! Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics, we're really gonna shake things up in Washington! That's not change. That's... that's just calling some... the same thing, something different. But you know, you can... you-you can put, uh, lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.

See for yourself. The Democrats will try to claim that the reference isn't to that of Gov. Palin, but if you note that Obama also refers to McCain as the old fish. He's using a rhetorical device, but for someone who is supposedly good with words, he gets in trouble because he sounds sexist in the process.

Sen. Barack Obama isn't getting any help from his running mate either:

Stay classy Democrats. You'll be scratching your head in November wondering where it all went so wrong. Still, you've got time to get back on your game, if you stop attacking Palin personally and stick to the issues, but even there, it would be nice if you stuck to the facts instead of inventing scandal where none exists.

UPDATE:
Instapundit has a good roundup, and notes that the Obama campaign is clearly rattled and off its game. These attacks are all meant to energize the base, which raises questions over what the campaign is seeing in their internal polling. While McCain and Palin are both targeting independents, Obama looks like he's shoring up his base. That's not a good sign with two months until the election. Throw in the fact that the Obama attacks on Palin galvanize the GOP base to come to Palin's defense, it makes it even easier for McCain and Palin to go after independents and moderates because their base has their back. OODA loop, and McCain is clearly inside Obama's.

UPDATE:
It's unforced error on top of unforced error - and it shows a lack of judgment and an inability to figure out how to adjust to the changed circumstances of the campaign.

If he can't do that now, how can we expect him to change and adapt as President.

The campaign season is a marathon. It's also a test of character and fitness. And it's a test to see whether the candidates can adapt to changed circumstances, such as they might face as President.

Obama is failing on those grounds.

An Amusing Take On Biden and the VP Nomination

John Farmer of the Star Ledger penned an interesting piece that wonders why everyone is so worked up over the selection of Joe Biden as Sen. Barack Obama's running mate.

He leads with the following:

How much does the vice presidential choice affect the outcome of any presidential election?

If recent history is any guide, Sen. Barack Obama's selection yesterday of Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate probably will have absolutely no effect -- positive or negative -- on Obama's prospects.

History has been particularly cruel to vice presidential choices in the modern era. Franklin Roosevelt, perhaps the most iconic presidential nominee of the 20th century, had three vice presidents. Care to name any of them?

Harry S. Truman.

That happened to be one of the most consequential selections in history.

Another consequential choice? John F. Kennedy choosing Lyndon B. Johnson as his running mate.

Ronald Reagan's running mate later became president himself, George HW Bush. Al Gore tried to become president after being Bill Clinton's running mate, but lost at the Electoral College.

I'd say that it's pretty consequential and you never know when that choice will be called upon to lead.

Farmer goes on to note:

Biden seems to relish a fight, and is counted on by the Obama camp to be the kind of assertive opponent in the vice presidential debates Dick Cheney was in 2000 against Sen. Joe Lieberman, his Democratic foe.

But Biden also is counted on to produce at the polls Election Day, as Cheney couldn't.

Really? Biden gets tepid reviews from most folks, and Democrats didn't think much of him the second time he ran for President, knocking him out of the race after Iowa - the very first contest in the 2008 primary season. Biden has a long history of verbal gaffes and his grasp of history and foreign policy is suspect. Sure, he's got a long record in the Senate, but that makes him tenured - not distinguished.

As for being able to bring in the votes, Cheney did quite well in the 2004 elections, and what exactly is Biden offering up? Delaware, which is already a strong Democrat state in any event. How exactly does that add to Obama's geographical reach? But we're supposed to believe because Biden sounds like he comes from a blue collar background that it will make the difference?

Sorry, but what Biden says is just as important as how he sounds. And in both cases, he's just as liberal/leftist as Obama.