Senator Biden Is A Very Strong Running Mate Choice, Despite Some Of The Post-Selection Grumblings

ORIGINALLY FROM PENNSYLVANIA, THE IRISH-CATHOLIC SENATOR BRINGS A LOT OF SUBTLE ELECTORAL HEFT TO THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET

I've read a few grumbling comments on various political blog-sites regarding Senator Biden's "electability" in the context of his "poor" showing in Iowa last winter, so I thought I'd say a few words about that matter. (As a prelude to my statements, I'd like to point out that I disagree entirely with this anti-Biden argument.)

First of all, let's remember how the Iowa caucus system works. It's set-up to weed-out all but the top three or--at a real stretch, four--presidential candidates from each party. It does this by requiring that any candidate who does not receive 15% or more of the vote (after some haggling) at any particular caucus site is considered out of the running at that site, and therefore that candidate's supporters must either switch their support to another candidate (who did receive at least 15% after the initial rounds of voting), or head home.

U.S. Senator Joe Biden, along with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, did not have anywhere near the money necessary to compete with the three "rock stars" (as Governor Richardson put it) of the Democratic party, those "rock stars" being the heavily-funded Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as the well-funded ex-Senator John Edwards. The fact of the matter is that Governor Richardson came nowhere near the two best-funded candidates insofar as advertizing money in Iowa and New Hampshire was concerned--those two best-funded candidates being Senators Clinton and Obama--and he also lagged well behind Senator Edwards. For his part, Senator Biden was well behind even Governor Richardson in fundraising totals, which is to suggest that Senator Biden ran his campaign on the economic equivalent of a shoestring (his finances were so low in comparison with the top three candidates that he didn't even really compete in New Hampshire; it was Iowa or bust for him), and he didn't even put consistent ads on Iowa television stations until just prior to caucus night.

Yet, even with this being the case, Senators Clinton and Obama went out of their way to praise Senator Biden's accomplishments and intellect in one pre-caucus debate after the next, perhaps because at the time they sensed what would soon come to pass--despite his lack of money, Senator Biden's support became surprisingly strong, particularly in the eastern, Catholic, working-class, rather urban areas of Iowa, in the weeks prior to caucus night. That he scored only 1% of the final votes on caucus night was not indicative of his support; given the system used in that state, his supporters, who often represented 8% to 10% of the initial totals in caucus sites throughout the state, were never really able to overcome the Obama, Edwards, and Clinton waves (I wrote those names in the order they finished on caucus night). The same was the case with Governor Richardson's supporters, who finished with only 2% of overall votes but who often represented about 10% of the initial totals.

It's likely the case that Senators Biden and Dodd, as well as Governor Richardson, were hoping that one of the top three contenders--probably either ex-Senator Edwards or Senator Obama, given Senator Clinton's well-established status--would stumble badly at some point prior to caucus night, which would have opened the door for one of the lesser-funded candidates to step into the "alternative" third spot and legitimately compete in Iowa, New Hampshire, and beyond...perhaps gaining unexpected momentum in order to win the nomination, in the best-case scenario.

But Senators Clinton and Obama and ex-Senator Edwards did not stumble badly; what mistakes they made were minor enough to overcome, at least to the extent that they dominated in the final results on caucus night. Yet even with their massive commercial advantages, they were worried about the rest of the field's potential to "break through" into the top tier, perhaps displacing one of them. It did not happen, but the final results on caucus night were not indicative of the support Senator Biden had amongst voting participants, which was far, far higher than the 1% he ultimately received.

Senator Biden is a highly intelligent individual who, due to his often "happy-warrior" nature, also communicates well with working-class voters. His deep Pennsylvania roots will most likely help Senator Obama in that vital swing-state, and his national security credentials will help Senator Obama--in a broad, general sense--nationwide with many independent voters who like Senator Obama's judgment but want someone very experienced on the ticket with him in order to balance strong political judgment with a solid geo-political resume'.

I, for one, am very happy that Senator Obama added Senator Biden to the Democratic presidential ticket. There are no perfect running mates, of course, but an Obama/Biden ticket is stronger than any other potential ticket could have been this time around, with the possible exception of an Obama/Clinton ticket. What makes an Obama/Biden ticket more attractive to me than an Obama/Clinton ticket is the fact that a potential Obama/Biden chief executive team would probably work more smoothly and efficiently than would an Obama/Clinton chief executive team, given everything that Senator Clinton would bring with her to the role, good and bad.

Senator Biden is a whip-smart fighter who speaks well and argues convincingly. He's Catholic, and Catholics are swing-voters. He has blue-collar roots, and Senator Obama is struggling to attract widespread blue-collar support. Yes, he's often verbose, but if that's one of the worst things you can say about him, it's a good indication that he's politically ingratiating. Senator Obama made the right choice.

Game on.