Obama tabs Biden as running mate

[Onkel Neal]

Joy! Now, if McCain would get off his butt and select a running mate, we could post the Subsim Presidential poll and kick a whole new round of fighting. ;)

[nikimcbee]

Joy! Now, if McCain would get off his butt and select a running mate, we could post the Subsim Presidential poll and kick a whole new round of fighting. ;)

Will liquor be served in this thread? Politics+booze= quality entertainment:up:

ordering popcorn now...

[Konovalov]

Hooray. Get out the coke and popcorn. ;)

[Stealth Hunter]

I'm drinking a Miller Chill... so yes, booze is legal in this thread.

http://ichkalliope.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/02/obama08button.jpg

[Skybird]

Not Clinton - very wise! :yep:

P.S. Am I wrong with the impression that his world trip has somehow backfired against Obama at home?

[Stealth Hunter]

Not really. McCain is just pissed off that he didn't get the chance to speak to the German people from Berlin (he spoke in front of a bratwurst house...). It's the only reason why he's attacking Obama, and he urges his followers to do the same.

[Skybird]

But German medias report he has not only caught up with Obama, but overtook him, and they see a link to the trip, due to the timing. That Pbama behaved too much like already a president, and people taking that as arrogance.

BTW, what is plural and singular of "media" in English? I always have the bad feeling that I use it wrong.

[Stealth Hunter]

Meh, McCain acts the same way. Hypocritical remarks and thoughts left and right. That's politics for 'ya. And anyway, people really shouldn't care. I mean, why do I care if this candidate got a $300 dollar haircut? I don't. I just care about what he thinks we should do to fix the country.

And we normally use "news" to refer to more than one media source.

[August]

I don't normally agree with the BBC but i have to say this particular report nails it pretty good.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7575808.stm

By taking a holiday in Hawaii, Mr Obama gave Mr McCain the stage to himself for a while and the Republican made the most of the Georgia crisis, underlining his weighty international experience. As relatively high fuel prices caused many Americans to forgo their annual road-trips, Mr McCain also pushed his energy policy message calling for new offshore oil drilling.
Mr Obama once opposed that idea, but now supports limited new drilling and that flip-flop has been a gift to the Republicans.
It is that kind of "bumper sticker" issue that Mr McCain has been able to capitalise on more effectively than Obama, clearly defining his candidacy.
When asked about offshore drilling, Mr McCain is for it.
Mr Obama is much more nuanced: he is for it in some circumstances, but sceptical that it will really work.
Or take Mr Obama's less-than-successful appearance with Mr McCain at a religious forum earlier this month.
When both were asked: "When does life begin?", Mr McCain immediately said: "At the moment of conception".
Mr Obama first said that answering the question was "above my pay-grade" before adding that he was in favour of legal abortion "not because I'm pro-abortion but because, ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways."
Try putting that on a bumper sticker.

[Stealth Hunter]

I can agree with Obama on the off-shore drilling, because it's simply going to take too long to get the oil out (and even then, it won't last long; it will simply delay the inevitable). Still, we can try (although the marine ecosystem will pay the price).

I agree with him on the abortion deal (anti-abortionists don't seem to think that women should be trusted with decision-making about their own bodies...).

I do not agree with him on how he's tackled Georgia.

Moreover, I think the large majority of people won't vote for Obama simply because he's black (and that especially can be said for the Southern states). Still, we'll have to see. Until then, it's just speculation.

[OneToughHerring]

Joe Biden is not a bad choice, he had some good answers in the debates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9aIb-IplqY

And the 'to the point' answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHdSahEsIC4&feature=related

[Platapus]

I think that no matter what, this will be a close race. I can't see any side winning in a landslide. Our country is too polarized for landslides any more.

Since the race will be close, let's hope it is not decided by people too dumb to operate a ballot. :nope:

[Happy Times]

Random access

After a week of no sleep in Tbilisi Georgia, covering the war with Russia, I was finally checking in for my flight to Munich last Monday. All I could think about was getting on the plane, and getting some much needed sleep. Sleep is not necessarily conducive to war zone coverage.


While waiting for my flight to board, I sat in the business lounge enjoying a relaxing drink; finally, an opportunity to simply listen to my iPod and clear my head. All of a sudden I look up - and walking towards me is Joseph Biden, the Democratic senator from Delaware.

Are you freaking kidding me, I thought?

I wandered over, introduced myself — said: “Senator, my name is Cal Perry, I’m a reporter from CNN and just wanted to say hello.” He immediately smiled and he then asked me to sit with him while we waited for the flight. Strange I thought — for someone who was at the time involved in a heated US debate as to whether he could potentially be the VP candidate for Barak Obama.

But he quickly directed the conversation to Iraq — a place I spent four years covering for CNN. He peppered me with questions: How are things going there do you think? Who are the most important and reliable politicians in your opinion? Do you think Abdul Aziz Hakim is the man who wields the most power? He clearly already knew that I had spent time there, and wanted to get straightforward opinion from a reporter.

Which is unusual, because as reporters, we keep our own opinions to ourselves, just reporting the facts. Being asked my opinion was a bit awkward — but I gave it to him anyway.

Then, like any reporter would: I started in on him …

He told me about his trips to Iraq, saying how amazed he was at the bravery of US troops, how young they are, and how they have to make life and death decisions on a daily basis.

We spoke at length about combat hospitals in Iraq — places I’ve spent a great deal of time. You could see it in his eyes — a veteran himself, he cares so deeply for the young U.S. men and women stationed overseas.

He mentioned to me: “I was only 29 years old when I was elected to the U.S. Senate” then comparing the decisions he’s had to make in the Senate with the decisions the troops make under combat conditions. He made it sound like there is no comparison — that what they do, is far and above any call of duty.

Just before his aide came overand said “Senator, it’s time to go back to the United States” I asked him the obvious question: Do you think you’ll be named as running mate for Barack Obama? His answer was brief, but it came with a smile on his face, “that question is the reason I’m not doing interviews while in Georgia.”

As I boarded my plane with Senator Biden I could not help think: Did I just meet the next Vice President of the United States?

If so, how random, how cool.

http://inthefield.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/23/random-access/

[Digital_Trucker]

I agree with him on the abortion deal (anti-abortionists don't seem to think that women should be trusted with decision-making about their own bodies...).

The problem with that logic is that the woman's body isn't the only body that decisions are made about. Sorry, but I can't vote for a man who supports partial birth abortion.

Moreover, I think the large majority of people won't vote for Obama simply because he's black (and that especially can be said for the Southern states). Still, we'll have to see. Until then, it's just speculation.
Didn't you mean to say that a large majority of white people won't vote for him because he is black? I believe there will be plenty of black people who vote for him because he IS black. Why even bring that up?

[SUBMAN1]

Just a question - drilling for oil. Why is the excuse thrown around by the democrats that the reason we shouldn't do it is that it will take too long to get it out of the ground?

How exactly is that a reason why we should't move forward?

signed,

Puzzled

[AVGWarhawk]

Joe Biden is not a bad choice, he had some good answers in the debates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9aIb-IplqY

And the 'to the point' answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHdSahEsIC4&feature=related

Biden is just great....I believe he said eveyone needs to understand the Pakistani language when entering a donut store. Yes sir, I can not wait for his next wonderful feel good statement. Go Joe!:up:

[Frame57]

Yep, smart choice. If he picked Clinton I think it would be over. I think overall the Bush's and Clinton's have petered out. People are just sick of both families. Obama's "change" campaign appeals to many, but the sore spot is we are in a chaotic situation in the world and people will want experience and will gravitate to McCain. Statistically it is a dead heat right now. I expect that Romney or Lieberman will be picked for VP for McCain.

[AVGWarhawk]

According to Pelosi, Obama was sent by God. All is well in the land. :shifty: I guess Biden is a disciple. All Obama needs is just 11 more to make his cabinet. Yes, according to Obama, a light will shine down and you will be told to vote Obama.

When the mirrors are broken and the smoke clears....we will find out we are in deep doo doo.

Oh, I can not wait for Obama to give the international community a big hug and say forget everything that has happened in the past. Good to go! I just feel the love.

[Frame57]

With the pole almost at a dead heat at this point, which usually the dems are always ahead for some reason at this stage, isee Obama losing ground. Both parties get a bump after their conventions. Obama is spending 2x's on ads than McCain and is losing ground. I think people are seeing the need for experience in a chaotic world.

[Digital_Trucker]

With the pole almost at a dead heat at this point, which usually the dems are always ahead for some reason at this stage, isee Obama losing ground. Both parties get a bump after their conventions. Obama is spending 2x's on ads than McCain and is losing ground. I think people are seeing the need for experience in a chaotic world.

It helps to know who you're voting for, too. Rhetoric and smooth talking only go so far.

[Enigma]

Biden is a great choice. I wanted him for President. But I'm a Delawarean so maybe I bias...:up:

[Digital_Trucker]

Slip of the tongue? It seems that Obama can't remember who's running for what:rotfl:
He introduced Biden as the next president, then, of course, corrected himself. So who shall we vote for, someone who can't remember how many houses he owns or someone who can't remember who's running for President? I still think Steve is right, we need a "None of the above" on the ballot:yep:

[Stealth Hunter]

Just a question - drilling for oil. Why is the excuse thrown around by the democrats that the reason we shouldn't do it is that it will take too long to get it out of the ground?

How exactly is that a reason why we should't move forward?

signed,

Puzzled

A) There's only enough oil to sustain us for a little over a decade.

B) The actual drilling process will take several years (about 5) to build facilities and drilling stations to begin harvesting the oil.

C) The marine ecosystem will be greatly affected, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of species of fish and other animals.

In conclusion, the drilling isn't going to solve anything. It will just be a waste of money (billions of dollars) and it will cause more problems than it solves (mass extinction of fish, for instance). Plus, the oil that we do get will be gone in no time.

Either way you swing it, SUB, the Earth is going to run out of oil someday. There will be none left. No natural gas... nothing. When that happens, what are we going to do?

In the long run, it would be better to research alternative fuel sources and spend our money on something that would actually be worthwhile (whereas we could waste that money on a destined-to-fail drilling plan).

Hope that clears it up.

[SUBMAN1]

A) There's only enough oil to sustain us for a little over a decade.

B) The actual drilling process will take several years (about 5) to build facilities and drilling stations to begin harvesting the oil.

C) The marine ecosystem will be greatly affected, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of species of fish and other animals.

In conclusion, the drilling isn't going to solve anything. It will just be a waste of money (billions of dollars) and it will cause more problems than it solves (mass extinction of fish, for instance). Plus, the oil that we do get will be gone in no time.

Either way you swing it, SUB, the Earth is going to run out of oil someday. There will be none left. No natural gas... nothing. When that happens, what are we going to do?

In the long run, it would be better to research alternative fuel sources and spend our money on something that would actually be worthwhile (whereas we could waste that money on a destined-to-fail drilling plan).

Hope that clears it up.How many times do you need to hear that the US has 300+ years worth of oil for itself without buying it from anyone? It probably has a couple decades alone off our coasts not including anything else!

And where do your tax dollars come in on this drilling stuff? You pay nothing! This is private enterprise. You make it out like the tax payer has to pay it!

Anyway, the short answer is, even the DOE put 120 years worth (12 decades and that is a low estimate even since they may have low balled it by 25% or greater!) sitting in Utah alone! Media propaganda seems to instill lies into peoples minds, and they start to believe it. How do you let them do this to you? When they make an absurd claim, research it on your own!

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

It would take almost a decade before significant oil production could occur in either the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the Outer Continental Shelf, and even then it would have a tiny impact (if we did drill) on the oil market.

Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, for example, would only remove 4 cents off a gallon of gas by the year 2026 (or $23 per year for the average driver, assuming that other conditions affecting gas prices remain the same). And that's at maximum benefit...

With that said, you'd be destroying a huge portion of the ecosytem on both fronts, and do you know the funny thing about mass extinctions? When one species dies, the rest reliant upon that species follow pretty quickly...

Also, it would take years and years for the oil from new offshore wells to go into production. Even at their peak production levels, the additional supply wouldn't reduce energy prices significantly as you think it will...

These numbers are from the U.S. government's own estimates. Congress has even said (in a June 2008 report, to be precise) that, "The argument that more drilling means lower gasoline prices . . . there is simply no correlation between the two."

As for having plenty of oil from offshore drilling, what the hell are you talking about? Do you even know a thing about the supply and demand statistics for the oil?

The American populace uses 20 million barrels of oil A DAY. This accounts for 25% of the world's total consumption. Government estimates show that we only have 2% of the world's oil reserves. As an example of how little difference drilling would make, say that we did open the Arctic Refuge for drilling. It would take an estimated 50 years to drain the whole thing dry.

During that time, the oil fields would likely produce less fuel than what our country now consumes in just 6 months. With so little of the world's oil supply and such high demand, even if we allowed drilling everywhere that the oil companies want to (from the Arctic refuge to the American West to protected offshore areas) there's still no way we could quench our unsatisfiable thirst for oil.

We have to find alternatives for the moment. There are already some available that have the ability to offer us short-term relief (in which case, we have a shoulder to lean on for the moment and then we continue this debate on whether or not to lift the ban on offshore drilling).

And as far as researching it on my own goes, I have, and I just gave you the facts. Of course, if you give me the "Your Source is WRONG" argument, then I could say the same for your case. With that in mind, here are my sources:

http://www.amazon.com/Ship-shaped-Offshore-Installations-Building-Operation/dp/0521859212/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219555512&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/Deepwater-Petroleum-Exploration-Production-Nontechnical/dp/0878148469/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219555512&sr=8-2

[JoeCorrado]

Just a question - drilling for oil. Why is the excuse thrown around by the democrats that the reason we shouldn't do it is that it will take too long to get it out of the ground?

How exactly is that a reason why we should't move forward?

signed,

Puzzled
Drilling for oil is a bandaid- postpones making real decisions, taps the last of our most accessable reserves (because these reserves are more profitable for big oil of course) and offers false hope that somehow it would make a difference at the pump today or even ten years from now when all it really does is to reward big oil for being lazy.

There is plenty of oil to be pumped from the 67 million acres already open for drilling... but the profit margin is less. Big oil should use some of those windfall profits and get busy drilling where they have free reign instead of banking billions and whining for access to more.

The real solution and one that would have averted this "crisis" - would have been to heed the call of a Mr. Al Gore who first sounded the alarm eight years ago by electing him to the office of president. But oh....

Now I have a question... since most Americans agreed with Gore then, and Gore actually won the popular vote... can you please point me to the thread that debates the value of the elctoral college? I apparently need an education.

Signed, equally puzzled. :ping:

[Platapus]

can you please point me to the thread that debates the value of the elctoral college? I apparently need an education.

Signed, equally puzzled. :ping:


I think the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the Electoral College deserves its own thread.

This thread has already been derailed away from the Obama/Biden issue to the Off Shore Drilling issue.

[sonar732]

I'm confused now as this came over the wire...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080822/ap_on_el_pr/veepstakes

...Three days before Democrats open their convention in Denver, several officials said Rep. Chet Edwards, whose district includes President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, had made the roster of potential running mates. Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Evan Bayh of Indiana were also in the mix, as were Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Sebelius — and any unknown others Obama had managed to keep secret despite intense scrutiny....

[Digital_Trucker]

Yahoos news is running a little late:damn:

[VipertheSniper]

I'm confused now as this came over the wire...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080822/ap_on_el_pr/veepstakes

...Three days before Democrats open their convention in Denver, several officials said Rep. Chet Edwards, whose district includes President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, had made the roster of potential running mates. Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Evan Bayh of Indiana were also in the mix, as were Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Sebelius — and any unknown others Obama had managed to keep secret despite intense scrutiny....

That article is from 5 days ago...

[geetrue]

Take a good look at the people attending the Democrats convention in Denver on CNN.

Don't they look sort of middle class to you?

I use to be middle class so I'm not looking down on them. I am now lower than middle class, but I think the contrast between the two conventions will be interesting to see.

Then watch the Republican convention next week and lets see if they are a bit upscale, a little more of what the differences are in the two parties could be identifable.

I always thought the democrates were pro-poor people and that the republicans were pro-wealthy.

[Digital_Trucker]

Just another thing to think about while trying to determine which party is most easily related to. Ever wonder why the vocal majority of Hollywood is Democratic? There's a bunch of folks we can really relate to, eh?

[Platapus]

Take a good look at the people attending the Democrats convention in Denver on CNN.

Don't they look sort of middle class to you?



No they seemed to be a pretty good cross section of America. Just like the Republicans.

Both political parties have a good representation across our population.

[Enigma]

I always found it funny that the Repubs are always griping about how out of touch actors are, yet they seem to always elect, or try to elect actors..... :lol:

Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Swan, Thompson....:hmm:

[Happy Times]

I like the guy, he has sound wiews in foreign policy and he gets extra points for being funny.:lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7Y8AFctpjo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XberX_t-WvI