10. Excitement. Obama's master of the oratory, but his speeches are flowing. He's good on the attack, specifically this week with the houses gaffe. However, I still couldn't shake the feeling that his speech in that clip at the rally with Kaine was almost too smooth. It's a gut-level thing. While smooth is fine if you like the guy, it can come off as cocky, arrogant, elitist. Biden, on the other hand, gives you someone who can punch very quickly and very effectively with unmitigated passion. "Verb, noun, 9/11" That's a gut punch. It's quick, it's on target, it knocks the wind out of you. Keeping to metaphor, now we've got the martial artist Obama with the pugilist Biden. The former can fight with grace, the latter can fight with grit; the combination should be powerful. Plus there'll be the media watching for any potential gaffes, which will give this a little bit more of a "white-knuckle" feel to it.

9. Experience. Obama's an ideas man. He was chosen by the party on the basis of hope, change and outsider vision. Achieving that vision will take contacts and someone who will be automatically respected in the halls of the Senate. Choosing Biden gives him someone on the floor who knows the people and (just as importantly) knows where the bodies are buried. Seriously. He was elected when he was 30. He's 65 now.

8. Safety. Biden was not an exciting pick from a "surprise" standpoint to anyone who knows the process. Moreover, on pretty much every list I saw, he was somewhere between 1 and 4. He wasn't my personal number one (Clark), but he was top three. If you can corral his mouth ("if you've got an off-the-cuff quip, run it by us first"), you should be able to keep his foot out of there. But, from a vetting perspective, there won't be anyone jumping down the aisle claiming he's unqualified.

7. Law. While most tout his foreign policy credentials, it should also be noted he was chairman of the Judiciary from '87-'95 (and ranking minority member from '81-'87). He's had his hand in a wide range of important, fundamental legislation. The Biden Crime Law that led to thousands of new police officers. The Violence Against Women Act. There's probably a long list somewhere of all the important bills he's sponsored or written, but it's 3AM and I'm not ready to be President because I'm too tired to look it up.

6. Blue Seat. While Bayh would've been OK, I would've been ticked at the loss of a blue seat. Mitch Daniels (R-Gov-IN) wouldn't have appointed a (D) to replace him. On the other hand, Biden's won his seat with 50%, 58%, 60%, 63%, 60% and 58%. I'm not sure how re-election would be handled, but if he decides to stay in the race there and simply remove himself afterwards, you've still got a Democratic governor appointing the replacement.

5. No Politics. This isn't about a state. Will Joe Biden increase the margin of victory in Delaware from 9 to double digits? Probably. But listing the states that he could have effects on are all on policy connections to those voters, not birthright. That's a huge distinction.

4. Vice Presidency. Joe Biden joked that, in the primary, he was running for Vice President. But there is some truth to that. He got his name out, got attention, got into the VP running. He's one of the people who would make a good President, but lacks in the qualities of a Presidential candidate. A VP candidacy, however, is significantly different. See Republican. Mock and destroy Republican. No worries about negativity or how your brashness polls.

3. Narrative. Currently: John McCain is ridiculously out of touch. That's bouncing around this weekend. Now? Throw on top of that all the fluff pieces about Biden. Tragic accident. Persuaded to stay in the Senate. Sworn in at his children's hospital bedside. The hour and a half commute every single  day so he could be with his family. That's a strong counter-story to McCain's many houses (and how you can only get around Arizona by small plane) and just generally a testament to character. Add into that the son headed to Iraq (which, to be honest, is probably a stronger card than even "P.O.W.", even if it may never be played). That adds to the populist narrative the Obama campaign wants.

2. Foreign policy Tons have been written, let me quote TPM regarding Biden:

On the other hand, wholly separate from the cosmetics and electioneering calculus, I think he'd be a good choice. On substance, maybe a really good choice. Most senators grasp of foreign policy is fairly thin -- and it tends to be heavily influenced by whatever lobbyists or power players are in their orbit. But Biden has a pretty deep knowledge of pretty much every big foreign policy question. And his ideas and judgment strike me as fundamentally sane.
Back in 2004, when I was writing a piece for The Atlantic about John Kerry, I did long interview with Biden in his office on Capitol Hill. And I remember coming away thinking, this is the guy you'd want to have making big decisions on the key foreign policy questions. To the extent that we think Obama needs someone with deep foreign policy knowledge in a constitutional office (i.e., non-fireable) to add ballast to his foreign policy vision I'm not sure I could think of a much better person.

Since we're top two, let me add in one additional comment: if McCain tries to play the "he's so weak on foreign policy he chose a foreign policy VP", I hope Obama (or Biden) counter-punches effectively. It's not that hard. "I said the Iraq War wouldn't help. I was right. I said that we needed more troops in Afghanistan. McCain disagreed for months. Then he decided I was right. I said that we needed careful timetables in Iraq. McCain still disagrees, even though the president of Iraq and now even the Bush administration agree on timetables. McCain may have more "experience", but his experience is being wrong." Or something along those lines, but, you know, eloquent.

1. Hillary. I saved this point for last because it's the biggest and it's probably the most contentious here on MyDD. I'm from Massachusetts. I'm currently quite aware that legends don't live forever. Eventually, we will need a new standard bearer of Democrats to step up in the Senate to lead. I don't see Reid doing that. Obama's obviously occupied elsewhere. Biden, while he does have advantages 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to his credit, also is a bit too volatile by himself to rely on. I could go down the list, but let's just say no one else in the Senate will even inspire as many as Hillary. No one else would be able to stand up for progressive, liberal, Democratic ideals as effectively. I've said I wouldn't mind if she was the VP, but let me draw this analogy:

Like I said, from Massachusetts, huge Red Sox fan. A couple of years ago we had an interesting dilemma. We had a great young pitcher named Jonathan Papelbon. Strong arm, great stuff. In 2005, he was called up and just looked fantastic. In 2006, our closer (Keith Foulke) didn't look like he'd be any good after an injury-plagued 2005. But we had young Papelbon. He came into the closer role and scared the bejeesus out of hitters with his glare. He went ridiculous stretches without giving up a run. His ERA was sub-1 (which is scary good). And, so, a debate raged. Do we make him a closer or a starter? Some said a starter is more important, so you don't waste a good arm as a closer. However, I was part of the opposite camp. You see, sometimes you need to know that, when the ninth inning comes around, you've got your ace in the hole and the game secured. Knowing Papelbon was in the pen for one (or two) innings to close it out can give your starting rotation that bit of adrenaline to get them through their last batter. It gives the fans something to root for and it gives everyone a bit more swagger.

Both answers are right. The current World Champion Red Sox did win the 2007 World Series with Papelbon closing, after all. They may or may not have won with him starting, but keeping that dominant reliever handy is always useful.

Clinton is much the same for me. Sure, you can call her up to VP. Everyone thinks it's more prestigious. But I'd really like to have a closer in the Senate. Let Obama lay out the plan, set it all up and have someone from the Senate there ready to pound it through.

Anyways, that's my personal top 10 for Biden. Sorry if it's rambling and uncited, but it's approaching four here now and I thought we should have at least one diary that wasn't focusing on how we're all doomed because the VP pick was bad. Because, to be honest...  I don't think it's bad. Maybe not transcendent, but certainly not bad.

Update [2008-8-23 16:30:51 by TCQuad]: Thanks for all the recs and discussion. I appreciate it! Great first speech by Biden, let's hope it's the start of a beautiful friendship: