I think he knows he's not the guy.
He really wants Foggy Bottom.

A Biden ad from 1988:

"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, and the economic future of the next generation. A President has got to know the territory, but that's not enough."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Biden_88_as_McCain_08.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0818/p09s01-coop.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/us/politics/18biden.html?em

Ah, the suspense, the drama. Eyes glued to the TV. What more could an aspiring presidential candidate want?

How long can he keep us on pins and needles, waiting for an announcement that is not likely worth much more than a hill of beans?

Better to captivate the American people with speculation about a possible, future thumb twiddler in the West Wing than about the implications of the significant geopolitical issues in the Georgian conflict.

Gotta love the American propaganda machine!

Despite all of your very good researching Steve, I am still thinking it's going to be Clark. That would definitely be the surprise that Obama needs to generate -- and one of the top choices out there.

My prediction is... STEVE CLEMONS!!!!

Every post is a head fake. Bayh? Bah! Biden? No way. Who knows EVERYone, knows foreign policy, has dinner with EVERYone, has come to admire Obama, though is capable of pushing him? It all spells Clemons! He can even channel Chuck Hagel as needed.

Congratulations on the new job. Will you keep blogging while in office?!!!!

While I think Steve is correct that Biden didn't get a "thanks, but no thanks" call, there is another reason why Biden would say 'I'm not the guy'.

Biden told Obama 'thanks, but no thanks."

Why would Biden want to be Obama's running mate, considering how much power he has in the Senate? Unless he thinks Obama will lose, and wants to use the VP nod in order to be taken seriously in 2012, there is no upside for Biden.

The Official PUMA Anthem (with compliments to Will Bower and apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein and Mary Martin)

For those who are tired of the arduous process of speculating about who might be chosen for the least important job in America, here is a brief musical interlude.

I’m Gonna Wash That Man Right Outta My Hair

I’m gonna wash that man right outta my hair,
I’m gonna wash that man right outta my hair,
I’m gonna wash that man right outta my hair,
And send him on his way.

I’m gonna wave that man right outta my arms,
I’m gonna wave that man right outta my arms,
I’m gonna wave that man right outta my arms,
And send him on his way.

Don’t try to patch it up
Tear it up, tear it up!
Wash him out, dry him out,
Push him out, fly him out,
Cancel him and let him go!
Yea, sister!

I’m gonna wash that man right outta my hair,
I’m gonna wash that man right outta my hair,
I’m gonna wash that man right outta my hair,
And send him on his way.

If a man don’t understand you,
If you fly on separate beams,
Waste no time, make a change,
Ride that man right off your range.
Rub him out of the roll call
And drum him out of your dreams.
Oho!

If you laugh at different comics,
If you root for different teams,
Waste no time, weep no more,
Show him what the door is for.
Rub him out of the roll call
And drum him out of your dreams.

You can’t light a fire when the woods are wet,
No!
You can’t make a butterfly strong,
Hmm, hmm!
You can’t fix an egg when it ain’t quite good,
And you can’t fix a man when he’s wrong!
You can’t put back a petal when it falls from a flower,
Or sweeten up a fellow when he starts turnin’ sour
Oh no! Oh no!

If his eyes get dull and fishy,
When you look for glints and gleams,
Waste no time,
Make a switch,
Drop him in the nearest ditch!
Rub him out of the roll call,
And drum him out of your dreams
Oho! Oho!

I went and washed that man right outta my hair,
I went and washed that man right outta my hair,
I went and washed that man right outta my hair,
And sent him on his way.

She went and washed that man right outta her hair,
She went and washed that man right outta her hair,
She went and washed that man right outta her hair,
And sent him on his way!

Biden has not picked who will run with him, because Cheney hasn't told him who it will be yet. He's running the exploratory committee for both parties by now.

It's a shock the Peslosi was not chosen, judging from her book sales.(/$nark)

Mr. Murder--you took the words right out of my mouth. It will be the man with the bionic heart--Dick Cheney. The sure way to defeat John McCain!

I think that cartoonists have the real scoop ...

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080819/spo080819.gif

Irrespective of his years at Washington, on a whole Biden serves our nation and the Democratic Party very well within the Senate. However, if chosen as part of an Obama Administration, I would prefer seeing him as our next SoS, rather than as Obama's VP.

Still hopeful for real change and real leadership!

Obama/Clark 2008!

www.ObamaClark.com

KR

I believe Obama will select Tim Kaine for the following reasons:
-- Virginia is in play as a crucial “swing state”;
-- A Democrat cannot make it to the White House without a Southerner on the ticket;
-- Kaine can undercut McCain’s anti-abortion pander by drawing support from a good number of his fellow Catholics;
-- Biden’s lifelong career in The District carries an “old school” stigma that could undermine Obama’s theme of Change.

Cheney sure has managed to accomplish alot, considering he has "the least important job in America". In Wigwag's Hillary tunnel, the precedent that has been set by the Bush Administration's ability to avoid accountability is completely irrelevent. I believe the danger set by such a precedent supercedes partisaan politics, and a Democrat president is just as likely to take advantage of unprecedented executive authority as a Republican. But we can be assured in the knowledge that McCain GUARANTEES no rollback of executive power, where Obama is an unknown, and if my feeling about him is wrong, and he truly does represent "change", he MIGHT relinguish some of these powers and work to restore the checks and balances. McCain won't. Period.

But even disregarding the above, to state that the vice presidency is "the least important job in America" is sheer blathering idiocy. Or, in WigWag's case, braying idiocy. Dick Cheney has definitely demonstrated the power of a well connected Vice President, and it could realistically be argued that he has influenced events and foreign policies far more than George Bush has these last eight years. Further, these are extremely tumultous and dangerous times, as the false flag attack on the WTC demonstrates, as well as the recent efforts by Cheney and crew, (holding "the least important job in America") to resurrect the cold war, and once again place us under the terrible cloud of fearing an impending nuclear holocaust. At no time in our history has the careful selection of a Vice President been more neccesary and crucial, not only in the hopes that he can provide wise, sane, and informed council, but with succession in mind as well. After all, considering Iraq, Afghanistan, our impending blockade of Iran, and the recent events in Southern Ossetia, this nation's situation can only be described as "on a war footing". Events can happen quite quickly, as the Cuban missile crisis, and this Georgian thing, so clearly underscore.

One hopes that the issue of succession does not arise, but in these times it is folly not to consider it. Considering current events, and the complete clusterfucks that Bush and Cheney have made out of so many different arenas, (both foreign and domestic), one almost wishes these bastards would go back to just robbing us blind and getting some head in the Oval office. But alas, it seems their corruption and incompetence is being sent offshore just as handily as our jobs are.

Using WigWag's ignorant description of the Vice Presidency, just imagine what Cheney could have done with some REAL power.

Wigwag,

Actually WigWag it's a good song for Hillary if she had heeded that with Bill. No compliments to Will Bower. Apologies should go to Kelli O'Hara.

questions...lol. Not gonna happen, but you made me chuckle.

Oakley for VP. That is a choice everyone can agree with. Even cat lovers.

Obama cannot select anyone who is a politican with any amount of influence or pull, without it being contrary to his 'change' claims.

Meet the new boss....

Same as the old boss

Obama-Cookie Monster '08!

what about Webb as a dark horse? I know he publicly took this
name out of the running.

However, if you believe the report that Obama's team continued to
ask Warner to consider vetting despite his public statement that he
was not seeking the veep spot, there is no reason to think they
wouldn't have done that to others who removed their name from
consideration

Of course he knows something Steve we don't know. For what other reason Biden chose to go to Iraq with Obama other than...of what he knows?

One senior statesman I haven't heard mentioned much is George Mitchell. He's more progressive than someone like Nunn, and was one of the most respected politicians in America for years. He's very smart and sober. He's got great diplomatic credentials and global experience, and his Mr. Integrity image was recently solidified with the Mitchell Report on steroid use in baseball. He has been involved in Middle East diplomacy in the past, and seems generally trusted and respected by all sides. I can't think of any famous blots, gaffes or controversies in his past. He doesn't exactly connote "change" in a generational sense, but he does signify a change back to competence and integrity. My impression was that everyone in my parents' generation really admired him, and he was the very model of what a public servant was supposed to be. He's half Arab, but is Roman Catholic by religion. And he "out-geezers" McCain in a way that trumps the experience angle - he's about the same age as McCain, but with more steadiness and thoughtfulness. He has been involved in work on nuclear non-proliferation, one of Obama's big issues, and is developing a center for peace and conflict resolution at Leeds University. He also has a very good, though understated sense of humor, and likes baseball. He seems like that sort of unimpeachable all-American pick that no one could naysay or argue with.

Joe Biden knows Bill Clinton just had a happy birthday.

Wes Clark is the choice. Clark neutralizes McCain, unifies the Democratic party, and brings wisdom and balance to the ticket. I can not believe that Wes Clark would be excluded from the convention in Denver. It just not plausible.

Furthermore, Clark is a military man, he knows how to control his ego and act the role of a number 2. Obama should not worry about that.

Obama-Clark ... this team has the skills, appeal, and demographic following to carry a majority of the country. This is the end game that Obama knows all too well.

Caroline Kennedy would be a great choice, per a letter from Michael Moore today sent to Senator Obama and copied to me and millions.

Nader predicts Obama to pick Clinton

By: John F. Harris

August 20, 2008 06:35 AM EST

Count Ralph Nader as unimpressed by the crop of supposed finalists to be Barack Obama’s running mate.

“I don’t think he’s that dumb,” said Nader, commenting on widespread speculation that Obama’s choices are down to Sens. Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, or Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine.

The smart pick, according to Nader, is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Nader phoned into Politico Tuesday afternoon to offer his prediction that a surprise nod to Clinton is actually what Obama has in store—never mind the talk of mistrust between the Clintons and Obama.

“He just has to swallow hard and do what JFK did” in picking rival Lyndon Johnson in 1960, said the liberal activist and maverick presidential candidate.

According to Nader’s logic, Obama may dislike Hillary, but will conclude he has no choice but to get over it if he hopes to leave next week’s convention in Denver with a unified party and a decent shot against John McCain in the fall: “The polls show 25 percent of her supporters have not gotten on board.”

from --
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12652.html

Ralph Nader, that noted expert of winning presidential elections, and proven friend to Democratic politicians facing tough races, doesn't appear to know anything that we don't know.

Whomever Senator Obama picks, it better be someone good. A raft of ew polling came out late last night and this morning and it doesn't look pretty.

Real Clear Politics has an electoral vote poll out showing McCain with 274 electoral votes and Obama will 264. This is a stunning reversal for Obama. I saw another electoral poll this morning showing Obama with 263 and McCain with 261. This is slightly better for Obama but still not good.

For purposes of comparison, on August 20, 2004, the Real Clear Politics Poll showed Kerry with 301 electoral votes and Bush with 213.

Plus there's a new LA Times poll that came out last night that shows Obama leading by just 2 points 45-43 and a Bloomberg poll showing that Obama has lost 10 points since mid July.

The New York Times reports this morning that Obama is coming out with a raft of negative ads against McCain in swing states. This demonstrates that he knows he's in trouble and he is responding quickly. This is smart.

Most analysts think that to maintain (or achieve) a comfort zone Obama needs a 8-10 point bounce from his convention. Will Kaine give him that? No. Will Bayh give him that? No. Will Clark give him that? Maybe. Will Biden give him that? Probably. Will Clinton give him that? Definitely.

I'm rooting for Biden.

pauline...thanxxx for the Nader link...Nader is right......he's very astute and ethical.. he runs to preserve an alterntive access to the ballot.... a very important right...

Dan Kervick... some patriots are so honorable in their intentions and actions, they accomplish more for the good, even in defeat, than others who win by unscrupulous methods.

Well, Kathleen, through his honorable actions, Nader accomplished the feat of getting George Bush elected in 2000.

Webb's "Women Can't Fight" treatise won't go over too well with Clinton supporters.

Clark & "wisdom"? That's projection if I've ever seen it. And as far as controlling his ego, there's another chuckle.

Bullshit! The 300,000 Fla Demz who voted for Bush, as opposed to the 97,000 who voted for Nader, are responsible...

and then there's the Dem designed butterfly ballot and Gore's lawyer's bad advice to call for only a partial recount, which opened it up to legal challenge... he was entitled to a total recount, not open to legal challenge,

and the voter obstruction in black districts by the Repugnikkkans, and then the really classic, flaccid Dem "Leaders" who refused to join the Black Congressional Caucus' objection to the certification of the Fla Presidential Electors...

No, that loss was not due to Nader's campaign, but it's so much easier to whine about it, and repeat canned punditry, instead of doing some serious self-examination....

Kathleen, you're right, of course. But it's equally true that Nader
contributed to the loss (though he claims he took as many votes
from Bush as he did from Gore). His argument that every
campaign is a spoiler for every other campaign is lame as HIS
campaign spoils its own chances by never mounting a serious
challenge.

My problem with Nader, and the Greens for that matter, is that
they aren't serious about mounting a REAL and VIABLE
alternative to the two-party system. And they seem to be easily
coopted.

My daughter worked on the Casey campaign in PA in 2006. She
sat in the courthouse in Harrisburg across from
Green/Republican operators who were arguing that "Bugs
Bunny" and his friends WERE voters. It was well known that the
Green candidate for Senate was being funded by the
Republicans, and either the Greens were willing to go along with
it or never objected or never managed to distance themselves
from the Santorum crew.

When and if Nader builds a REAL party with a REAL shot at
winning, I'll listen and maybe participate--but not until then.

The Greens is a REAL party, but voters are like Pavlav's dogs... they are conditioned to vote for only Column R or D...when a party has ballot access in all 50 states, that's REAL... you just need to think out of the Madison Avenue packaged box...

Further, Ralph is running as a non-partisan candidate because poltical parties are the problem, no matter how many there are. Our Constitution did not have poltical parties...in fact George Washington was opposed to them.... there were multiple candidates who achieved ballot access in each state by collecting petition signatures of voters.... then the electoral college decided...electors are only bound to cast their fisrt ballot for the candidate they were pledged to support...then they can change to give one candidate a majroity... there were times when several ballots were held...the poltical parties have usurped the function of the electroral college and have diminished the choices of candidates we have, reducing it to a duopoly....beholdened to the marketeers on Madison Avenue....

Welcome to Stepford.

Biden should have said something along the lines of "I don't know
any more than you do," instead of "I'm not the guy." It's mocking
in a way. A nasty tease, if you will. KInds of looks like he has little
control of what he says. For me, I hope like hell it's Clark. I am
observing in the media a Wes Clark blackout, just like 2004. I'm
not complaining. Actually, it makes me wonder why. Wes Clark is
the perfect compliment to Barack Obama, and together, they can
lead this country into the future, a future with hope and change.
If Obama is as smart as people say, he'll make the right decision.

"The Greens is a REAL party, but voters are like Pavlav's dogs... they
are conditioned to vote for only Column R or D...when a party has
ballot access in all 50 states, that's REAL... you just need to think
out of the Madison Avenue packaged box..."

If the Greens are real, then how did they become a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Republican party in the fight to unseat Santorum?
This was not a trivial election and they were indeed splitting the
anti-Santorum vote. I don't understand that as a progressive
strategy. Do you?

"Wholly owned by the Republican Party"???..."Subsidiary of the Republican Party"? The Green Party has ballot status in 50 States...this is what makes them real...not what happens in isolated cases....Their existence is not a "Strategy" ..it's a fact....if you understand the dynamics of public opinion you know that for the '"center"' to remain dynamic, it requires the tension of the two opposite extremes...if not, it stagnates and sinks....for the Greens or any other minor party, to maintain ballot access, they must receive a certain minimum percentage of the total votes cast in each state, so unless the Demz can offer candidates who address Greens issues adequately, Greens will continue to vote Green.... Dem candidates always move to the right...wrong direction....

If someday, you end up having to choose only from Tweedledee and Tweedledum, don't blame Nader or the Greens...blame yourself for beeing too easy to manipulate. Maybe you should re-read Vance Packard's, The Status Seekers and Marshall McCluen's, The Man, The Medium and The Message, William H Whyte's The Organization Man...Jacques Ellul's,, Propoganda...all eye-openers on how they do it to us...

The best strategy for a candidate to prevail in a race is to look to his own actions before blaming others....where there is a will, there is a way...

Okay, but you're still not addressing PA.

Whether PA was an "isolated case" or not, it was an important race
and the Greens were completely coopted by Santorums. I don't get
that in terms of being a real alternative.

I don't really buy the tweedle dum thing, either. Had Gore won, we
would not have gone to Iraq. Nor would we have had wiretapping
in my estimation. That's a big enough difference for me.

But I will take you up on the reading list...

I don't know what to say about the PA race and Greens being co-opted by Santorums...I have done no research about that... I agree with what you said about how different it would have been if Gore had won,..I voted for Gore... but if the candidate had been too conservative for me, I would have voted for Nader... Without the Greens pulling on the left, the Dems would be further to the right....I did say that the problem is not the number of parties but the existence of parties... I prefer the original Constitutional method of achieving ballot access...I think it's healthier for democracy.

I think you'll find those books intriguing....I read them and others for a course at Sarah Lawrence called Mass Persuasion taught by Charles Siepman who was then President of the national ACLU and who had just completed a 13 week Omnibus series for PBS on the Constitution. in addition to being an attorney he was a Social Psychologist and during WW2 had cracked Nazi codes....a good bit of the course was about brainwashing techniques....from torture to marketing.

oops typo...it's Siepmann