It is the third sentence that I find amusing, and maybe even bemusing.In this morning's New York Times lead article on Barack Obama's choice of Sen. Joe Biden for his vice president, I read this curiosity:
"Over the course of two months, as the dynamics of the presidential campaign and world events shifted quickly, Mr. Biden’s stock rose through one of the most rigorous vice-presidential vetting processes that Democrats could recall." [emphasis mine]I know I probably should not find the Times' sentence amusing, but I do. For it seems to me that it suggests far too much about the health of the Democratic Party leadership in America. If Joe Biden is the result of the toughest vetting process any Democrat can remember, does this not imply that all the other possible choices miserably failed this astringent test? And what does it say when Biden -- a known plagiarist (sorry, but he is) and loose cannon -- makes it through this "rigorous" vetting process? Do Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine fail the "rigorous" vetting process because of even worse sins than plagiarism? Or does "vetting" mean something other than sifting through a nominee's past to determine whether he, or she, is hiding anything that could hurt the ticket? If Biden's plagiarism, and his many volatile and damning statements, do not hurt the ticket, then what would have proven a liability had Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd been chosen as VP? And how does one perform a rigorous vetting process in two short months when, as the Times said, "the dynamics of the presidential race [i.e., Obama was tanking in the polls] and world events shifted quickly"?
And then there is this paragraph from the Times' story:
"On Saturday, as the two men [Obama and Biden] embraced before a crowd in Illinois, the new Democratic partnership made its debut. Yet in a moment that could have showcased Mr. Obama’s decision-making, his top advisers made a concerted effort not to disclose how he made his choice, instead choosing to showcase the life stories of the two men on the ticket and to present Mr. Biden as a forceful new critic of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona." [emphasis mine]I note that the Saturday moment in Illinois could have been used to show a great number of things. That Mr. Obama chose not to summarize for the world the rigorous vetting process he allegedly used to reach such a monumental decision could have also suggested that he did not want to disclose the process because it would reveal that his decision was weak, or fear-driven and utterly irrational, or crassly opportunistic. That Mr. Biden was indeed chosen suggests to at least this writer that the vetting process could not have been as rigorous as the Times might like to believe. Plus, was it really Barack Obama's "top advisors" who made this decision not to showcase the putative political genius of Mr. Obama? If so, who is the true leader in the bunch? And why would his "top advisors" make a "concerted effort" to conceal Barack Obama's decision-making process? Why the secrecy? What is there to hide? Why not showcase it?
Perhaps this sentence from the Times' story explains more than we know:
"Mr. Obama reached the [Biden] decision about 10 days ago while on a weeklong vacation to Hawaii. That week, Mr. Biden’s strengths in foreign policy were highlighted by the conflict between Russia and Georgia, giving his prospects a further boost."Rigorous indeed.
I note the Times uses quite a bit of ink on Bill Richardson. The Times tells us that even Richardson's financial records were pored over by the vetting team. Apparently he passed the rigors of vetting quite well; one wonders, however, how a guy like Richardson, who also has legitimate foreign policy experience, falls short in Obama's world, especially when -- without doing any vetting at all! -- the Obama team knew Biden carries some serious baggage.
Somewhere, buried in all this, is some sort of change I can believe in.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
