There is the joke- "what is the definition of an economist? A guy who know 300 ways of making love but doesn’t know any women." This might be just as true about so many "change" candidates. Obama through his choice of Biden has demonstrated that he is not one of them.
Much criticism has been heaped on Obama from various quarters for picking somebody with 30+ years of Washington experience rather than somebody who would reinforce his "change" message. The most hilarious comment came from a former Hillary supporter (now a Clinton News Network(CNN) I reporter) who now says he won’t be voting for Obama because he didn’t pick a change agent! As though Hillary was a complete outsider! For the purpose of this diary (even though I don’t agree with that characterization) lets stipulate that Biden is not a "change" agent. The question therefore is would the country have been better off if Obama had picked a "change agent". Lets also ignore for the moment whether in fact another such change agent exists- after all this was a change election and everybody was running to be that candidate and Obama won.
Such a change agent presumably would be somebody with no Washington experience, no knowledge of the workings of Congress or connections to the power brokers in DC, presumably somebody who had limited political experience. So let’s now get real. Constitutionally the office of President is weak. The President has the power of bully pulpit and ability to veto but not much more. He or She can propose but ultimately Congress has to pass the legislation. That requires the ability to cut deals with the legislature. A powerful President supported by a strong grass roots movement can certainly strong arm Congress on some issues; but that is a card that you can only play so often before it starts becoming counter productive (like McCain the POW). Eliot Spitzer and Arnold the Terminator tried to do that with not much success. So how would such "change" VP help in governance? In 1992 Democrats controlled both the Congress and the Presidency despite which we didn’t get any kind of health insurance plan. Largely, because the Clintons failed to understand that they needed to work with Congress.
The alternative is a President who understands that making change requires working with Congress. By having somebody in his administration well respected in Congress makes arriving at the accommodations necessary to move forward a change agenda more likely. It also makes the threat of using the grass roots more potent. As Iraq has demonstrated power is most potent when it is threatened but not used. Sun Tzu in his book "the Art of war" makes two observations- the great general is the one who wins without fighting a battle and its corollary never back your enemy into a corner from which he has to fight you. Biden’s selection suggest to me that in picking him Obama is not only thinking about getting elected but about the far important task of governing.
Will it mean that in some instances there will be less than perfect legislation –absolutely. But it will also mean that we will get a much greater volume of good albeit not perfect legislation. So the question to those disappointed that Obama didn’t select somebody you thought would reinforce his message of "change" I have a simple question. Are you concerned about "change" as a slogan or because of the impact it will have on people’s lives. Yesterday Biden made an interesting comment that escaped media attention. He said that Obama is a pragmatist who understands that compromise is necessary to make peoples lives better. This is the change candidate I hope Obama will be.