What's Being Missed in Obama-Biden Coverage

Tweet

Amanda Carpenter at Townhall.com has this:

I made a big deal of this on Larry King last night because I can't understand why no one else is talking about.

It goes like this: Barack Obama, seemingly, chose Joe Biden to be his VP based on foreign policy expertise. Yet, they have had very public, recent, disagreements over foreign policy. Particularly over:

-Obama's readiness to become president. (Biden said Obama wasn't prepared).

-The original vote to go to war with Iraq. Obama said Hillary's vote for war proved she did not have the judgment to be president. So, how can Biden be Obama's vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency, if he did the same thing?

-War funding (Biden yes, Obama no.)

-Whether to meet with hostile nations without "precondition." (Obama said yes, Biden no)

-Whether to label Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a "terrorist" group. (Biden yes, Obama no.)

-Biden's controvesial plan to divide Iraq into three ethnic, sectarian enclaves.

So who is going to fold? Newbie Obama or Foreign Relations Chairman Biden, who prides himself on his FP knowledge?

The Dems are saying Biden is now Obama's "company man" and he'll be "loyal" and do whatever Obama says. That's wishful thinking. I don't believe Biden is capable of swallowing the Obama company line for the next three months. It's not in his DNA.

I anticipate a slip-up and a public disagreement over foreign policy ahead. Their records are too contradictary and Biden's too much of a loose cannon.

So, who's record will the Dems support as correct? Obama's or Biden's?

This will be interesting.