Joe Biden Owns A Time Machine…
August 30, 2008 by PUMA Pundit
Maybe one of the reasons Obama picked Joe Biden to be his running mate is because Joe owns a time machine.
Biden as you may or may not know, left Scranton, PA when he was 10 years old. In this clip during a campaign rally he said the following:
Bob Casey was twelve years older than me, and Bobby Casey was twelve years younger than me. And I knew somebody famous was going to come out of Scranton, and I sure a’ hell knew it wadn’t gonna be me.
So either Biden has a time machine, or he saw the twinkle in Bob Casey’s eye, and knew that Bobby Casey was due to be born within 2 years. Either way, just makes me shake my head as to why Obama chose this guy over Hillary.
Oh GrandPuma, you’re such a card. Sarcasm intended. How about you post that link where Palin calls Hillary whiny now?
Oh my God! Joe Biden messed up a few numbers? I can never vote for him now. I’d much rather vote for a guy who:
–thinks the Anwar Awakening came after the surge.
–thinks the surge was his idea, and that it was actually successful (it wasn’t — not even close).
–thinks Czechoslovakia is still a country
–doesn’t know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis
–thinks Al Queda is re-forming in Iran (as opposed to “extremists”)
–thinks offshore drilling is a long-term solution (weeks after saying it was a joke)
–doesn’t know how many houses he owns (7!)
–talks about experience and judgment and then picks the most inexperienced VP nominee in our country’s history
–scares people into thinking that anyone different is not to be trusted
–thinks women are so stupid as to pick a woman simply because they share a vagina
–not only voted for Iraq but thinks it was going t be easy and that we could “brush them aside pretty easily”
–didn’t think Afghanistan was a mounting issue
–voted against the Violence Against Women Act
–missed more votes (19) in a single calendar year than any senator in the history of the U.S. Congress
–finished 854th out of his Navy class of 878
–called his wife a cunt
–made the joke: “You know why Chelsea Clinton’s so ugly? Her father is Janet Reno.”
Has anyone considered the possibility that Joe Biden has since visited Scranton, PA, since he was ten years old? It’s not like he was exiled.
A time machine isn’t needed, just a car. Delaware does border Pennsylvania, after all.
I always new Biden was a baffoon I just didn’t know how moronic he was as well.
Biden is certainly not a bad man, but he is benefiting from an undemocratic process, and that is what I hope the direction of this movement is. You know there was a lot of horrific bashing of Hillary going on and I can understand the desire to ‘give some back’ but I am energized and motivated and it is not energy and motivation to crawl around in the gutter, it is energy and motivation to continue to deliver a steady upbeat rational message of fixing the flawed process, or the choices, and efforts that can be made by the disenfranchised moderate voter.
Biden is a great guy, he is an articulate guy, and I really believe that Obama might have been able to squeek out with a win if he had observed the democratic process, and if that were the case I would have been doing everything in my power to support him. And I don’t want to dilute that message. But as nice a guy as Biden is he is not bigger than democracy.
That is why I am here and I invite you to engage me with a positive message that will invigorate and address me if that is what this is about.
Yes after hours and hours of speeches he slips up, what a jerk. However after years and years of living in all of them Mccain can’t remeber how many houses he owns.
Seriously, this is the type of argument you guys want to make?
After being on this site a few days and reading all the posts, I think the problem you guys are having is that it is very difficult for you to challenge Senator Obama on the issues — since he and Senator Clinton have practically identical positions on the things I imagine you care about (I say imagine because nobody has articulated a PUMA position on any policy matters). So, you are left with things like the above post about Senator Biden. And I think the reason that some on this site have suggested you are a mouthpiece for Karl Rove is that these are the same types of tactics he uses against Democrats.
Your actions in creating PUMA have given you a platform to make a serious case. You have gotten attention in the press (I saw your appearance on MSNBC), and if you don’t blow it you may be able to sustain this attention. So, now that you have a piece on the political gameboard, the question is what will you do with it? What will you add of value to the country’s political debate? I must confess, from what I have seen on your site, and from your appearance on TV, I don’t believe you will be taken seriously for long, if indeed you still are.
When you are old and dying, and look back on your life, will you be proud of what you have done?
PUMA is a scam. This is really a McCain site.
The whole thing is nonsense. There are a couple of whack jobs on here who claim to be disenfranchised Hillary supporters, but they’re lying.
Bet they’re really Rush Limbaugh — he’s been acting all upset that Hillary lost.
Don’t bother posting here.
i’m a white 38 male, a future obama voter, and not a puma — i don’t think puma is a scam. i think they are a legitimate group of concerned individuals much like the nader group — just very different concerns.
and, though i’m voting for obama, i whole-heartedly agree with puma; there do need to be more women in politics. at least 50% on both sides of the political fence!! i’d love to see a female prez and/or vp. it’s long overdue.
i think this group here with their web-site are providing a valuable service — and it’s a privilege that they are allowing guests to enter their conversation. i think it’s absolutely insulting that guests are using their forums to bad-mouth them. how would you feel if someone came in your
house and crapped all over it?
i’d like to say that their voice and opinions need to be heard and respected. i’d say the same thing as it concerns racial minorities and a similar
justification for voting for obama. in fairness, he’s representing a group that’s been similarly exploited, marginalized, and under-represented.
as i remember the dem primary was hard-fought on both sides. yes, it’s true: geraldine ferraro was unfairly skewered in a media-spin sexism debate among other incidents. but so was obama’s minister in a racism debate. it could be argued that both candidates and their people got thrown under the political-spin bus. part of this is just the way our media works and the cruelty of politics. let’s be fair people.
far better these incidents were handled internally within the dem party and before the primaries than across party lines. it would have happened *anyway* so it’s essentially only defused the ammo going forward and benefitted both candidates, particularly the winning party candidate. but going forward, hillary still looks particularly good among us all. i’d even say more so.
due to the way things have come about, obama’s primary win and his choice in biden, it’s obviously triggered palin’s appointment. and, as i see it — excluding policy implications — whichever way this goes, we’re going to end up with either a black prez or a female vp. both options are historic and wonderful outcomes considering what we’ve had in the past — only white males.
i think it would be fair to say that if hillary was the nominee and didn’t tap obama, the black community would feel a similar resentment. and, the gop in my opinion would have pulled a similar card by appointing a black vp simply to exploit that anger.
another reason why i think puma’s need to be heard and respected, is that the more they vocalize their concerns — the more both parties will
need to pander to their concerns to get their buy-in, votes, and financial contributions. and, this means more women in higher levels of office.
how can this possibly be bad?
i think the only real fear here in this election is that we could be returning to the politics that won the election 4 years ago. that election was decided by re-framing the larger issues such as the war, economy, and the bill of rights into finger pointing sound-bytes like “flip-flopping”, “better to go with
the thing you know (even if it scares the f*** out of you), than the thing you don’t”, and “family values” (whatever that means).
that election was won by creating hate, exclusion, and lines between two parts of america that the media bought into. it can also be argued that the country was run that way too for the past eight years.
yes, obama could and perhaps should have picked hillary. the gop in turn has seized upon this potential miscalculation and have created an arena that once again marginalizes the prior issues as a result. iraq, the economy, health care, the appointment of potentially 3 valuable supreme court judges over the next 4 years, etc. have all suddenly been dropped from the main headlines.
and instead we now are seeing sexism, abortion, and guns. seems like 4 years ago and seems like a battle plan the gop knows it can win so long as they align their neocon conservative base accordingly.
and, that’s a shame. we the public deserve — in addition to needing more women and minorities in office — we *ALSO* need to get real solutions and not to be manipulated by our sensitivities and fracture lines.
>>since he and Senator Clinton have practically identical positions on the things I imagine you care about ..
Obama’s position on what constitutes a fair and participatory democracy differs substantially from that of the bulk of PUMA voters.
And you really hit the nail on the head with this line ‘I imagine you care about’ There are three big media lies that you very sincerely believe to be true.
1. There is no difference between Bush and McCain.
2. There is no difference between Obama and Clinton.
3. The issues that are important to Liberal Democrats are the exact same ones that are important to centrist Democrats.
You also believe that the reason that very Liberal Howard Dean chose to disenfranchise all of Florida and Michigan was not because they are Centrist Democrat states, and that as a party hack insider he thinks he has a right to decide who the next candidate should be. I am sure you also feel that the sacred Cow of Iowa always going first is because of tradition and not because they have a 6 hour long Caucus that favors special interest party insiders and is more easily manipulated than any other state in the Union.
As a Centrist Democrat I don’t mind losing in a fair fight, but the system is rigged against me and the undemocratic caucuses do not reflect the will of the average democrat, and as bad as that is the party chose to abandon the democratic process entirely this year. I will not vote Democrat until the special interest process is fixed. Screw Iowa, who says they have to be more important than the voters in Florida, Michigan and every other state in the union?? that makes absolutely no sense to anyone other than a Special Interest party insider Democrat, and is blatantly transparent to a moderate Democrat.
You are right Obama has a lot of positives. But he is not more important to me than a fair and participatory democracy. And as a centrist democrat McCain does not look as bad to me as he does to you. He doesn’t look great, but he didn’t spit in my face during the primaries.
And here is another thing that really irks a lot of people. Not every woman in the country wants to get an abortion. There are a lot of women who are willing to support RVW, but with varying degrees of interest and many just flat out tolerate it without agreeing with it. Why is it that this is viewed as the policy that is supposed to hold all of them captive to the Democratic platform?? doesn’t an Atheist, Religion hating uber liberal man who doesn’t want to lose 20% of his income for 18 years benefit just as much (if not more) from RVW??? Centrist Women account for Millions and Millions of voters for the Democratic party, and they haven’t gotten very much in return. Liberal Democrats falsely assume that A) RVW is a womans issue and not a peoples issue, and B) every woman feels the same way about it and should be gratful to the Democratic party forever and ever. Twenty percent, eighteen years, and men don’t have a horse in the race.
‘the things I imagine you care about’ EXACTLY, and you don’t have a flipping clue, you just IMAGINE you do.
AndyShep,
First, as to the ‘three big media lies that (I) very sincerely believe to be true”: I am not so simplistic as to believe Bush=McCain or Clinton=Obama. What I believe is that McCain is similar to Bush and that Clinton is similar to Obama. And if supporters of Senator Clinton were voting for her because of policy positions she stood for, they would find much closer alignment with Obama than with McCain.
Second, I do not think caucuses are the way we should elect presidents, or anyone else. I agree that they are highly flawed and my ideal is a voting booth where people can vote in private. However, Senator Obama and the other candidates did not create the primary process. They each had to run within the system. He simply out-organized her in those states and won. If she could have a do-over, I’m sure she would have her campaign place much more emphasis on caucus states.
Also, I do not believe the DNC or Howard Dean ’stole’ the nomination from Senator Clinton. It had been agreed that nobody would campaign in Florida and Michigan. Clinton campaigned anyway, as is her right. But without Senator Obama’s or Senator Edward’s names on the ballot it is hardly an actual primary. There was never going to be a perfect solution to this, and I think the DNC inflamed this by taking so long to deal with it. But, Senator Clinton would not have been in such a weak position if she had run a better campaign from the start.
As to abortion, I realize that not all women want to have one. I raised that as an issue because it was initially an important part of Senator Clinton’s campaign. That’s why EMILY’s List was and is so strongly behind her. She has since seemed to back away from that issue, probably because a number of her new supporters are pro-life. I mistakenly presumed that since this site is so pro-Clinton that the people here supported her on that. Presumption corrected. And thank you, that is at least a policy position that someone here has articulated. I’d be interested to hear what other PUMAs think about the choice issue, and if they oppose choice why they were for Senator Clinton in the first place.
As to my not having a “flipping clue,” I’ll just ignore that. I’ll let my posts speak for themselves, and anybody who comes to this site can decide for themselves.
AndyShep,
You said: “You know there was a lot of horrific bashing of Hillary going on and I can understand the desire to ‘give some back’ but I am energized and motivated and it is not energy and motivation to crawl around in the gutter, it is energy and motivation to continue to deliver a steady upbeat rational message of fixing the flawed process, or the choices, and efforts that can be made by the disenfranchised moderate voter.
Biden is a great guy, he is an articulate guy, and I really believe that Obama might have been able to squeek out with a win if he had observed the democratic process, and if that were the case I would have been doing everything in my power to support him. And I don’t want to dilute that message. But as nice a guy as Biden is he is not bigger than democracy.
That is why I am here and I invite you to engage me with a positive message that will invigorate and address me if that is what this is about.”
I respect your post, and take you at your word that you want this site and this effort to be serious. My main response to you would be to say that the problems with the primary were not Senator Obama’s fault. So punishing him to get back at the process seems counter-productive, particularly if you (and/or others on this site) advocate the kinds of policies Senator Clinton does. They had nearly identical Senate voting records, and their campaign positions are similar as well. Ironically, his health care proposal is more centrist than hers. But, if you (and/or others on this site) did not support many of Senator Clinton’s positions, then Senator McCain is probably the way for you to vote. This is particularly true on the choice issue. Again, my above comments probably reflect an assumption that most of the people on this site are in favor of Senator Clinton’s policies.
If your desire is to change the screwed-up system that is the Democratic primary process, that is something we would both support. Why not have this group increase its voice behind changes to that process? It will be a longer-term fight, but that would be very productive indeed.
Big D.
Thank you for your response, I should be more careful not to sacrifice coherency and civil discourse for anger and dissapointment, I have enjoyed your comments very much.
The real heart of the issue is this. I do not feel that the presidential candidates selected by the Democratic party reflect the true will of the majority of Democratic voters and have not for some time. I believe that this is because it is not inclusive enough. There is a part of me that would be comfortable campaigning for Obama, but there are many people in many countries around the world that have discovered in the past that giving up democracy is a lot easier than getting it back. The DNC is not more important than all the political voices in the States of Florida and Michigan. Texas and many other Caucus states did not follow a good orderly democratic process and the result was that we got a reasonably good candidate from a corrupt process.
I empathize with women who feel disenfrachised, probably because I am a moderate democrat who was disenfrachised at the same time. I don’t see the end of the world comming if Obama is not elected. McCain has campaigned very strongly to the right and that does concern me. I am not a Republican, but I require a participatory democracy and they do a better job of observing it than the democrats. Which is sad because they don’t do a very good job either.
Will Bower struck a chord with me and I am motivated to try to change things. So far the DNC has not done anything at all to make me believe that they are anything less than ecstatic at how things turned out. Our system is flawed. Dean is like a Monarch.
The temptation to ignore that and go with a historic charismatic candidate is there, but I don’t think we will ever get a participatory democracy if that happens. That would mean that the Republicans were more inclusive and that worked against them, and the Democrats threw away democracy and got what they wanted. Neither party would embrace a more open democracy if that happens.
I think that either the Democrats become democratic, the Republicans become less repugnant, or a third party emerges. But the principals at stake are more important than a single race to me.
AndyShep, you say : “Neither party would embrace a more open democracy if that happens.” “I believe that this is because it is not inclusive enough.” “I am not a Republican, but I require a participatory democracy and they do a better job of observing it than the democrats. Which is sad because they don’t do a very good job either.”
Which is pretty much saying the same thing, but putting the words in a different order. But you don’t add any actual example.
I actually thought that was fairly obvious. The Republicans didn’t completely ignore 2 states and millions of voters and they give greater weight to the Primaries and not as much to Caucuses as the Democrats do. But John McCain is absolutely the very last Republican alive that the RNC wanted to win the Republican nomination. He was, before winning the nomination, despised by party insiders. But he reflects the will of a much broader base of voters, and as such is more legitimate and stands a better chance of actually winning.
There is not a single case where Democrats are more democratic than Republicans, but there are several examples of Republicans being more democratic than Democrats. The RNC hated John McCain prior to his Republican victory. But they embraced new voters and give more weight to the more Democratic Primaries and less weight to the Caucuses then the Democrats do. They also did not have a huge controversy over voter fraud in Texas and several other Caucuses like the Democrats did. There are widescale accusations of manipulation in the Democratic Caucuses, there are none in the Republican Cauceses this year.
The result of this is that the RNC did not get the candidate that they wanted and the one candidate that they actively campaigned against won the primary. That is the down side of an inclusive process from the point of view of a party insider. The up side is greater party unity. I believe that is also why the Republicans have been expanding their base for several decades.
The Democrats give less weight to Primaries and had the hubris to completely ignore the primaries of three states. Seattle, Florida and Michigan. Seattle got delegates through the caucus system, while Florida and Michigan failed to get any representation. As a result the DNC had the candidate that they favored win the Primary. The down side for the DNC is that people don’t like being disenfranchised and they don’t like feeling a candidate has been selected instead of elected. But if they select instead of elect and still win the election, and if the Republicans have a more participatory process and lose the election, then there is pressure from the RNC to make their system less inclusive and pressure from the DNC to keep their system less inclusive. If the opposite occurs and McCain wins, then the RNC is rewarded for having a system that is more inclusive, but results in a candidate that is not hand picked and the result of insider manipulation and control, while the DNC does not get the result they want because their candidate was hand picked and the result of insider manipulation and control. So the DNC feels pressure to actually try to create a process that refelcts the will of the people and not the preferences of the party insiders.
The Republicans have done a fantastic job of expanding thier party over the last several decades and have been doing a better job of getting people elected, the Democrats have been losing ground for several decades and have been doing a bad job at getting people elected. That is because the DNC are elitest control freaks who would rather lose than elect a candidate that was not of their making. If it were not for the much despised DLC trying to expand the populous support of the party there never would have been a President Bill Clinton.
“The Republicans didn’t completely ignore 2 states and millions of voters and they give greater weight to the Primaries and not as much to Caucuses as the Democrats do.”
Hillary voted against those two states BEFORE she knew they voted for her.
“There is not a single case where Democrats are more democratic than Republicans, but there are several examples of Republicans being more democratic than Democrats.”
You do remember what the Republicans did in Flordia in 2000 don’t you?
“the Democrats have been losing ground for several decades and have been doing a bad job at getting people elected.”
Except in 2006 when they took back the majority in the House and in Congress.
And there’s that word “elitist”. A very popular buzz word for Republicans.
Um, hello, morons. Obama didn’t pick Hillary as VP because that would be a sure path to assassination. I’m not kidding here: it’s a real risk to take into account. At least one of you “PUMAs” is psychotic enough to attempt that, and that’s at least. More likely, there are dozens. You don’t want a VP that people would like as a President: That’s not the function of a VP.
I’m getting off track. It sounds like you choose to support Obama, good luck.
I choose not to support Obama because the process was not Democratic. I believe that it is insulting that Howard Dean behaves like a monarch who has the ability to disenfranchise millions of voters. If there are people who agree with me great. let’s figure out what all of our options are.
>>A very popular buzz word for Republicans.
An interesting accusation. That seems to be a popular response to any criticism whatsoever, to indicate that anyone who disagrees with the Howard Dean is a ‘Republican’. If that is true then anyone who hears the message of a flawed process and has it ressonate with them, they are undoubtedly what you would call a ‘Republican’ as well.
I would argue that the fact that you call anyone who does not agree with the DNC a ‘Republican’ is precisely why you are elitest. You might argue that I am wrong on that point, in any event I am not a necessary part of your invisioned victory then.
If anyone who doesn’t see things the way you see them is a Republican, why not have fair and participatory primaries? If you are correct then all the Democrats would vote the way that you do. What is it about a democratic process that scares you?? And if we are all Republicans then why are you here?
Saying that I am a Republican is really a way of saying that my points are not the points that would be held by, or would resonate with a Democrat. So there’s nothing for you to worry about then.
We have established that I am not part of a group that interests you, and you are not part of a group that interests me. I wish you happiness in all that you endeavor to do.
I don’t think you’re a Republican, I think you’re a Democrat that is angry and has bought into the Republican talking points so you can justify your anger. Completely different.
“I choose not to support Obama because the process was not Democratic. I believe that it is insulting that Howard Dean behaves like a monarch who has the ability to disenfranchise millions of voters. If there are people who agree with me great. let’s figure out what all of our options are.”
If you could become Howard Dean and go back in time, what solution would you create and why? Even more important, if the outcome was still Obama, would you support him?
>>If the outcome was still Obama, would you support him?
Short answer: Yes.
Long Answer: I have had issue with the primary process for some time. I take issue with the degree to which it is designed to manipulate the outcome. I don’t like the fact that the Voters in Seattle have made it clear that they would like to have a Primary and the Democrats completely ignore that fact. I don’t like the protected status of Iowa, a state with a 6 hour long Caucus, because I think that the long Caucus is to keep everyone away with the exception of Special interest groups and party insiders. What we end up with as a result is No Other Choice Politics.
Unlike many of the people on this site, I am less concerned with Hillary’s future. But being part of a group means taking interest in the pulse and feelings of the group so I am completely motivated to do everything in my power to assist the political future of Hillary if it means that her supporters are completely on board with fixing the process. We would not be here, were it not for her tremendous appeal and the fact that what happened to her exposed the flaws in the process.
I am less motivated by seeing attacks on Biden or Obama I think that they are misdirected anger that doesn’t help anyone’s objectives. I think it detracts from the message, and if I were in it for Hillary I would not want to put forward a message that she disagrees with. I would prefer not to attack the politics of Biden or Obama, but would want to have a strong message that a vote for them is a vote against Democracy. When people give up democracy it is always for strong charismatc and well liked leaders, but the long term results are never good.