Translate

Saturday, August 23, 2008

He's #2!

As I suggested before, Biden is a good--but not great--choice. Better than many, but not the best possible. Easily one I and others can and should rally around. Sebelius would have been a much more radical and interesting choice, but Obama went for safe and sound.

Joe Biden is a very familiar figure to me; I've been watching his career for many years.

My first real encounter with him was in 1974, a year after becoming one of the youngest Senators in history. I was with the Hearst Foundation/U.S. Senate Youth Felllowship Program that spring (incredibly notable for the fact that our Hearst hosts had to leave in the middle of our week in Washington, due to the unusual circumstance of having their daughter, Patty, kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army).

We "Senate Youth Fellows" had quite a program that week; we saw top representatives of most departments and a number of leading Senators. We were a very demanding group, outraged by the Watergate turmoil and Vietnam War fiasco, both then in their final stages. No Nixon (he was holed up in his bunker) or Kissinger, but I remember Robert Byrd (already old), Walter Mondale (flustered by some of our impudent questions), J. Edgar Hoover, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Percy, Justice Potter Stewart, Speaker Carl Albert, and then-VP Gerald Ford (still the only President I've seen speak live--he didn't say much). The one who made the best impression on us was Biden, and I became a believer, much the same way the young people today flock to Obama.

That was a long time ago, and Biden has been Senator from Delaware for all of it. He drifted away from my political viewpoint later--I think there was some Clintonesque triangulation in the Reagan years. He ran in '88 and fell out badly when his plagiarism from a speech by British Labor leader Neil Kinnock (one of the most unsuccessful of major British politicians) was uncovered. At some point, he switched his primary Senate Committee assignment from Judiciary (where he was a bit of a Democratic law-and-order type, like Joe Lieberman) to Foreign Affairs, where he has had a resurgence.

I am absolutely certain that he's had enough of the Senate, so this will be a good change for him. That is, if we win.

McCampaign is continuing down the low road, and I see the manipulative side of McCain's efforts ever more clearly through their advertising. Can he sell his maverick role in the midst of massive sell out? Surely, picking Mitt Romney (if he does) will expose his complete surrender to expediency.

The announcement speeches in Springfield were, like the choice of Biden itself, good but not spectacular. The thing I noticed most was when Obama misspoke and initially announced, "The Next President...er The Next Vice President of the United States!"

2 comments:

Chin Shih Tang said...

I should point out that I am only portraying a caricature in the lead, not expressing my point of view. I have a close relative who is an adult with Downs syndrome, and I have always been close to her.

Chin Shih Tang said...

In the interest of full disclosure, here are my final results on the Rasmussen market for the Republican VP selection:

Name No. of Shares
Bought at Current value
Profit or loss

NEW.REP.VP.CRIST + 140 7.3 0.5 -167.30
NEW.REP.VP.PAWLENTY +10 21.5 0.6 -20.90
NEW.REP.VP.PORTMAN +20 8.4 0.4 -16.10
2008 Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee Cancel all
2008.REP.VP.PAWLENTY +10 24.5 0.1 2.30
2008.REP.VP.BUSH(J) +5 2.1 0.2 -0.95
2008.REP.VP.STEELE +10 1.1 0.3 -0.80
2008.REP.VP.FIELD +10 17.5 98.2 60.50

There were two markets, the one that's not "New" has been out there since the early primaries. My "Field" bet--none of the above--was a winner but didn't offset my losing positions on Crist (early and often) and Pawlenty (a few days ago). I made some bets against Romney (more on the CNN market) but closed those positions for modest gains or losses when there seemed some real danger McCain might choose him.

The other one was set up after the primaries ended. The trading on Palin on this market, looked at now in retrospect, was fascinating.

Apparently her market was basically inactive up through the close of the market (4 a.m. Eastern, I think). Then at 12:42 p.m. Greenwich time (7:42 am EDT), trading began for today at the price of 80 (!) Somebody had the rumor and was pursuing it insistently, buying up Palin from some very smart people who had put up high Ask prices and gone to sleep. Still, those plungers would do well.

There was resistance to the rumor, and it dipped back down towards the 50's and 60's (their table shows a daily low of 12, though I don't see any trades below 18). By an hour later, though, the rumor had been substantiated--the first bid at 99 (as in, I'll buy every Ask bid out there) was at 8:52 a.m. That insider--it appears to be one person--then left and came back an hour and ten minutes later. The price has stayed in the 90's since then.