Dan

Calabrese

Read Dan's bio and previous columns here

August 25, 2008

Obama Taps Biden: The ‘Inspiring’ One Goes By the Book Again

For a guy who is supposed to be the one we have been waiting for, Barack Obama’s decisions sure look similar to those of the ones we had before.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-DE, is not a bad choice for Obama’s running mate, as Democrats go. If you had to have a Democratic administration, you wouldn’t lose sleep worrying about Biden handling world affairs or carrying around the nuclear football. If we found ourselves in that situation – and multiple God-forbids apply here – he’d be OK.

But in the here and now, he is also a painstakingly conventional choice, which fits the pattern of Obama’s decisions to date in a way that seriously undermines the absurd notion that Obama is some sort of breath of fresh air.
 

In choosing Biden, Obama followed the pattern of recent Democratic nominees. If you’re old and experienced (Walter Mondale, John Kerry) you choose someone young, fresh or unconventional (Geraldine Ferraro, John Edwards). If you’re relatively uninitiated to the ways of Washington (Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis), you choose an old Washington hand (Mondale, Lloyd Bentsen). The notable exceptions, of course, are Bill Clinton, a young southerner who chose another young southerner – and who was also the exception insofar as he actually won; and that other young southerner, Al Gore, whose attempt at ticket-balancing was really interesting (and almost worked) in that he chose a senator who would ultimately become one of the most vital supporters of the ticket that would defeat them.

Obama went by the book when he chose Biden. Obama – the man of inspiration, audacity, hope, change we can believe in – usually goes by the book. Consider:

• After giving lip service to the idea that he and John McCain might make as many as 10 joint appearances at town-hall-type forums, he read the polls, listened to his strategists and ultimately refused to agree to any more than the standard, media-moderated three debates plus one vice-presidential debate. Yawn. One wonders if Obama realized his lead in the polls would disappear before a debate would take place, or that his performance in the first quasi-debate – at Saddleback Church – would have a lot to do with his plummeting numbers. Speaking of which:

• When things go badly for Democrats, the Republicans must be cheating or playing dirty! Obama’s predecessors whined to the ends of the Earth about the tactics of Lee Atwater, Karl Rove and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Team Obama put a fresh twist on the tactic after McCain clobbered their guy at Saddleback – insisting that McCain must have heard the questions beforehand (a claim for which there is no evidence whatsoever) because they can’t conceive of the possibility that Obama simply got beaten.

• When McCain laid into Obama for supporting policies that would have led to America’s defeat in Iraq, Obama followed the Democratic script to the letter by whining that McCain was questioning his patriotism. That prompted McCain to retort that he was not questioning his patriotism, but rather his judgment. Sound familiar? It should. Dukakis made the same claim in a 1988 debate, and George H.W. Bush responded with the exact same retort. It’s working about as well for Obama as it worked for Dukakis. Kerry also whined that his patriotism was being questioned, a claim that put the question in many people’s minds who had never before considered it. Obama follows the script because it is the Democratic script, and he is a conventional Democrat to the hilt.

• Does the new kind of politics mean we won’t have to listen to insipid talking points based on an opponent’s “gaffes”? Ah, apparently not. When McCain admitted the other day that he’s not sure how many houses he and his wife own, the Obama campaign had TV commercials airing the very next day harping on the matter. (Apparently Obama is unfamiliar with the fact that many people own multiple investment properties. That’s the really troubling thing here.) The tactic is nothing other candidates haven’t done, but that’s the point. The man who is supposed to unite us, inspire us, etc., uses the same cheap tactics as everyone else, and reflexively so.

• Eschewing clarity for nuance plays well with left-wing intellectual types, but not so well with most of the country. So when Obama claims the question of when life begins is “above my pay grade,” he follows the fine tradition of politicians before him who avoid giving answers if they can’t do so without potentially alienating a constituency they might need.

It is precisely Obama’s inexperience that most likely explains his highly conventional approach to everything. He goes by the book because the book is all he has. He’s spent less than four years in Washington, and has been running for president pretty much since the day he got there. He doesn’t know as much as he thinks he knows, and now that he’s actually going to be the Democratic nominee, he’s figuring out that he hardly knows anything about navigating the waters in which he finds himself.

What to do? Get an instruction manual. “How have people before me done this?” The result is a painstakingly conventional campaign, and if recent movement in the polls is any indication, the outcome is likely to be pretty conventional for Democrats as well.

© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

This is Column # DC200. Request permission to publish here.