Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall anyone getting that excited over Biden. The polls sure didn't show any movement, either.

Ok, the press rooms across America got jazzed, because they have all this old footage of "Credit Card Joe" that they can dust off, but nobody else was thrilled. If you honestly believe it got any of the swing voters mobilized for Obama, it's wishful thinking on your part.

(Of course, it explains that McCain campaign ad last night congratulating Obama and saying tomorrow it will be back to politics as usual.....crafty ol' bastard, that McCain....)

The argument about the Palin pick undercutting the Obama inexperienced attacks make little sense. Palin is, quite obviously, the vice-presidential candidate. The idea is that you put the inexperienced one as vice so they gain experience during the presidency.

The real 'huh' pick is Biden. When your message is about change and no more business as usual, picking the oldest serving Democratic senator (thirty plus years) is a highly suspect way to bring in experience. I wish Obama had been a little less polar in his assessment of experience and inexperience.

Also-- I think it's important to ask what kind of experience the politicians have.

The executive experience of Obama+Biden+McCain = zero. None of them have actually ever run anything.

Alaska may not be a huge state from a population standpoint, but it's fairly significant when talking about energy, environment etc.

"Alaska may not be a huge state from a population standpoint, but it's fairly significant when talking about energy, environment etc. "

Sure, and so far her position on energy is drill, drill, and drill some more. Oh, and she has not even completed a third of her first term as governor...before that she was a mayor of a small town.

I'm not saying that Palin has outstanding executive experience, but at least she has some.

It baffles me as to why Obama didn't pick someone with a lick of experience managing anything. There's a reason why Americans haven't elected a senator since JFK to the presidency. People get itchy about the notion of someone whose never run anything to the commander-in-chief position.

No, the reason senators rarely get elected is that their voting records provide so much ammunition for the smear merchants to attack. Vote against the energy bill that gives billions to big oil and your opponent can say you are for higher gas prices.

The nation is not a corporation and should never be run as a corporation.

Eight years of George Bush "the CEO president" really hasn't given your argument any more weight.

Running a business has next to nothing to do with public service. Ask anyone who went from the private to public sector and they will tell you the same. You treat the public sector like the private sector and you end up banging your head against a wall.

To serve the people, you need experience reaching compromises.

Governors have long records of the same problems in terms of past policies and records. Do you not remember all the Texas policies that came up in the 2000 election?

Look back into presidential history. Before you had attack ads on mass media, people were still voting in governors. People like the idea of politicians who have run something.

You or I could be a senator tomorrow, but there's no way we could run a state.

I never said that the U.S. was a corporation, and I would certainly never say that W. was a good president.

Being a governor doesn't automatically make you a good president. All I've said is that Americans are more comfortable with governors than they are with senators because they value executive experience.

And to RoadToHell's point, the whole idea of an executive is the idea of negotiation and compromise. Senators show up and vote, and 95% of the time they vote in a party bloc.

I'm not speaking specifically about Bush, or Palin at this point. The Congress' job is to spend money, they're the only branch authorized to do it. The executive's job is to point it in the right direction and have a plan. Obviously Bush didn't do these things, but there's a reason why voters value someone with those skills.

This all brings me back to my original point... why Joe Biden? A repeat flunkie as a presidential nominee and someone whose experience is the result of incredible seniority because he comes from a tiny state and has never rocked the bend-over-backwards-for-busine­ss so they all HQ here mentality.

I agree Biden is a "huh."First off, the reason they picked him was for his experience...yet Obama has repeatedly argued that his inexperience isn't a liability at all but actually a strength because he's an outsider. That gets undermined by picking an insider with tons of Washington experience. And, addressing the point about why Senators rarely make president, there's some truth about their voting records hurting them, but that hasn't been Biden's problem. His 1% showing in Iowa this time around had zero to do with his voting record and everything to do with the fact that Dems there had no passion about him and wanted to vote for absolutely anybody but him.

Woolsey... you really need to get your arguments straight.

1. If governors have more experience than senators, then McCain is a poor choice.

2. You call Biden a repeat flunkie as Presidential nominee... but aren't you forgetting that McCain was squashed by Bush in 2000.

3. If you really think Palin is a better choice than McCain, Obama, and Biden simply based on governorship... then you need to stop what you're doing and take your medication.

4. Finally, all this VP talk will be a footnote once Palin gives her speech next week, and until then it will be the media questioning her credentials and NOT Biden's.