The Swing State on the Black Sea

The conflict between Russia and Georgia came just in time for Barack Obama.

Despite John McCain's efforts to exploit concern about the Russian military assault on its neighbor -- a former Soviet state -- the Republican candidate comes across as all bluster. Indeed, considering the potential consequences of a wrong move in what could turn out to be a high-stakes game of nuclear positioning, the Arizona's senator's cowboy-without-a-plan act ought not inspire much confidence.

By the same token, Obama's diplomat-without-a-plan act is only slightly more comforting. And it certainly will not win the Democrat many votes in and of itself.

So why has the conflict come just in time for Obama?

Because it forces him to get serious about making a vice-presidential pick.

After weeks of arguing tire inflation and who is more Paris Hiltony, both Obama and McCain have been forced by global developments to try and appear presidential.

And the most presidential decision either man will be making in the next two weeks involves the selection of a running-mate.

The events on the Black Sea coast should put an end to the Obama camp's "electoral-map" approach to the task.

Perhaps during the silly season of mid-summer, it was reasonable to talk about selecting a running mate like Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, who might help tip the balance in a teetering red state, or Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who might at least create the fantasy of tipping the balance in an even redder state. It might even have been possible -- if not quite realistic -- to suggest that an Indiana Senator Evan Bayh could make an Obama-led ticket more attractive to skeptical voters in the Great Lakes states.

But the prospect that the next president might, on January 20, 2009, be confronted with the immediate challenge of a resurgent Russia, and all of the geopolitical consequences of such a development, should put an end to the discussion of putting a Kaine or a Sebelius, or even a Bayh, on the ticket.

Obama has spent three and a half years in the Senate.

He only recently completed his first major tour of global hotspots and, while that trek went well, he did npot even alight in Russia, China or India -- let alone Georgia or the next trouble zone.

The Democrat who would be president is going to have to pick a running-mate who can, as they say, "hit the ground running."

Translation: Treat New York Senator Hillary Clinton, whose international experience is more credible than her critics have even been willing to acknowledge, a little more seriously.

And treat Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joe Biden, D-Delaware, a man with 35 years of foreign-policy experience, with a focus on the Soviet Union and its successors, a lot more seriously.

Biden has issues a string of thoughtful statements about the situation in South Ossetia. And on Tuesday he penned a tough-and-knowing opinion piece for the Financial Times newspaper in which the senior senator bluntly addressed Russia's leaders -- in language they are far more likely to take seriously than anything coming from the McCain or Obama camps.

"For Moscow, the most obvious casualty of the fighting could be the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014 – supposedly the crown jewel in the country's campaign to reinvent itself. Sochi is only a few miles from the border with Georgia's other breakaway region of Abkhazia. Regardless of any political consequences, if fighting spreads, it could drive up insurance rates for the games to the point that it becomes prohibitively expensive to hold the Olympics in the region at all," wrote Biden.

"Russia may face other costly consequences for the violence," the senator added. "Vladimir Putin's plans to make Moscow an international financial centre may evaporate as the prospect of sanctions on the country rears its head. Western financial institutions, which have done little to expose evidence of official Russian corruption, may start pursuing the issue much more publicly."

Biden concluded his "Russia Must Stand Down" call for by explaining that:

"Georgia has made remarkable political and economic progress since the country's transition to democracy. The fighting will inevitably slow that progress, and exact a heavy toll in lives and treasure. But, however severe the damage, Georgia will rebuild – and the United States and Europe must help. The stakes in this conflict are as high as the peaks of the Caucasus.

"The only hope for preventing this crisis from becoming a calamity for Russia's relationship with the west is for Moscow to immediately ceasefire, pull back its forces and agree to negotiations brokered by the international community – all steps that the Georgian government has agreed to. If the fighting continues, this moment could emerge as a turning point in the west's relationship with Moscow, and deny Russia the international standing it seeks. That is not the future the United States or Europe want – but it is the future Russia may get if it does not stand down and live up to its responsibilities as a force for progress."

One may agree or disagree with Biden on specifics.

But his awareness of the issues that are at stake and the confidence with which he addresses them is not merely vice presidential.

It is more presidential than that of the current president or the major-party nominees to replace him.

And that makes Joe Biden what Barack Obama needs at this point: a running-mate who can play not just on the stage of a swing state but who on the global stage where the next administration will be required to perform immediately.

Comments (27)

1. >>>The events on the Black Sea coast should put an end to the Obama camp's "electoral-map" approach to the task. <<<

   Nichols,

   You are so far off the mark, it makes me wonder whether you have seriously studied politics.

   VPs do NOT make foreign policy decisions!

   Did you get that?

   Presidents, Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense, and a team of national security advisers are the ones that make these decisions, with the president making the final call.

   Certainly, the president can include the VP in his circle of foreign policy advisers if he chooses, but this is surely not a requirement.

   I think Kathleen Sebelius has got the VP spot, and it is not necessarily because Obama thinks he will win Kansas. It is more about chemistry, comfort level, and being on the same page as Obama concerning Change We Can Believe In; and re-engaging women in the process, especially Republican women who tend to be more moderate. Kathleen will also help with key border states to Kansas such as Colorado and Missouri.

   If it is Kathleen, and I suspect that is, at least you heard it first, here on your thread!

   Concerning the substance of the Georgia conflict, you fail to consider that Western oil companies are the ones who are backing Mikheil Saakashvili, as they want NATO to protect their pipeline that runs through Georgia and believed provoking Russia was the ticket to get Georgia in NATO.

   Biden doesn't seem to be astute enough to understand the chess game that is being played out in Georgia or even who all the players are, and continues to make gaffes at inappropriate times, which is NOT something you want from your VP.

   If Obama wants to bolster his foreign policy creds, all he needs to do is announce early his Secretary of State and Defense along with his VP, and he wins

   Posted by Metteyya at 08/12/2008 @ 5:13pm

2. "VPs do NOT make foreign policy decisions!"

   Where have you been the last 8 years? Fred

   Posted by ffeldman at 08/12/2008 @ 6:08pm

3. I don't kmow if Joe Biden is knowledgeable or not, but I do know that he is one of the worst public speakers in the universe. Twenty-five years ago I sat through some after dinner remarks by the senator and could only shake my head in disgust and amazement. He spoke for twenty minutes and never finished his opening sentence. By comparison John Kerry is a modern Demothenese and GW Bush a new Lincoln. Senator Obama has enough self-inflicted wounds; Biden is the last thing he needs.

   Posted by mickyboy212 at 08/12/2008 @ 6:19pm

4. Posted by ffeldman at 08/12/2008 @ 6:08pm

   How many foreign policy decisions did Dan Quayle make as VP? What about Al Gore?

   It is simply not a requirement.

   Your foreign policy creds come from your own experience, judgment, and that of your team of advisers, which "could" include the VP, but certainly would include state, defense, CIA, and NSA

   Posted by Metteyya at 08/12/2008 @ 6:25pm

5. So McC should seriously be looking at Condi then?

   "George W. Bush believes that America has a special responsibility to keep the peace, that the fair cause of freedom depends on our strength and purpose. He recognizes that the magnificent men and women of America's armed forces are not a global police force; they are not the world's 911." August 1, 2000

   Seriously spooky, no?

   Yes.

   However Bill did state Al's foreign policy experience as a plus for selection as VP, even back then:

   http://tinyurl.com/593ank

   Posted by hsuBfools at 08/12/2008 @ 7:08pm

6. HHhhuummmm, and only 16 years ago...

   "I believe in my heart that this ticket gives our country the best chance for the change we so deperately need, to move foward again," Mr. Gore said.

   Successive Republican administrations, he said, have "driven this country into the ditch."

   "I believe very deeply that this nation simply cannot afford another four years of the kind of leadership that we have now," he said. "They've run out of ideas, they've run out of energy, they've run out of the ability to inspire people."

   My, how things have indeed changed.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 08/12/2008 @ 7:18pm

7. NOT

   Posted by hsuBfools at 08/12/2008 @ 7:20pm

8. Posted by Metteyya at 08/12/2008 @ 6:25pm

   Uhhh. VP's are HUGE advisers. On foreign policy and everything else. Hell Dick Cheney is considered to be at the core of ALL Bush's foreign policy decisions. Your VP choice is very important when it comes to foreign policy.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/12/2008 @ 7:23pm

9. "VPs do NOT make foreign policy decisions!"

   Where have you been the last 8 years?

   Posted by phred at 08/12/2008 @ 6:08pm

   all right, phred!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 7:39pm

10. "the Arizona's senator's cowboy-without-a-plan act ought not inspire much confidence."

    ah, but it will.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 7:40pm

11. >>>Hell Dick Cheney is considered to be at the core of ALL Bush's foreign policy decisions.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/12/2008 @ 7:23pm<<<

    I think that was the CENTRAL problem!

    Should have been listening to his sec of state (Powell), but was listening to his VP instead!

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/12/2008 @ 8:23pm

12. Posted by Metteyya at 08/12/2008 @ 8:23pm

    However that proves the intrical nature of the choice of VP. Whoever her "should" have been listening to know we know WHO he wasl listening to. Which disproves your point that VP choices don't matter.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/12/2008 @ 8:32pm

13. We can't let Dick Cheney define what the VP role is supposed to be - the role is determined by the president.

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/12/2008 @ 8:34pm

14. "I don't kmow if Joe Biden is knowledgeable or not, but I do know that he is one of the worst public speakers in the universe. "

    This is what it's come to folks.... "worst public speaker.."

    WHO GIVES A SHIT!!!!????

    Joe Biden knows more about foreign policy than Obama will EVER know.

    You know what makes a "BAD PUBLIC SPEAKER" these days??

    -->>ANYONE WHO TELLS IT LIKE IT IS!<<--

    Obama's supporters don't deserve Joe Biden.

    NADER/GONZALEZ'08

    Posted by bleedingheart at 08/12/2008 @ 9:24pm

15. Muddled speech, I believe, is symptomatic of muddled thinking. If you ever spent time listening to Biden you would realize that "telling it like it is" is not his strong point.

    Posted by mickyboy212 at 08/12/2008 @ 9:47pm

16. Joe "I am a zionist" Biden?

    Who has been involved in our foreign policy for 35 years? And for three decades we have had an absolutely FUBAR foreign policy that has brought us to exactly where we are now.

    That's who you are recommending? What the hell is your agenda John? This article isn't even worthy of being called a plant which is obviously is.

    Loudmouth pipqueak Biden whose cutting-edge FP skill is simply to threaten Russia with their Olympics and threaten their financial center status? LOL.

    Er...John how you gonna square Biden's "foreign policy" attitude toward the seperatist in Georgia with his support of the seperatist Kurds in Iraq?

    And his hubrist attitude on US power over Russia? Last time I looked Russia had plenty of oil and gas, a million man army, as many nukes as do if not more and had paid off all their international debts..and ahead of time. We on the other hand are up to our eyeballs in debt with a worn out military and "can't get no respect" anywhere in the world.

    Biden?..good gawd! What a comic empty suit.

    Posted by Calypso at 08/12/2008 @ 9:48pm

17. Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/12/2008 @ 9:48pm

    No talking point from Rush?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/12/2008 @ 9:56pm

18. I heard Joe Biden speak a number of times here in Iowa and found him to be a thoughtful speaker who took the time to see that regular people understood complicated issues. If you don't have the attention span to listen to in-depth talk about the issues then go listen to Obama.

    I read Joe's OP-ED and found it, taken whole, to be a bit more balanced than the excerpts above, though I don't know that I agree with him on his position where the Georgia incident is concerned, or the late Yugoslavia either, for that matter. My impression of him in person was that he is a good man and I'm sorry that his candidacy got lost here in the rush to make history, or to prove that a mostly-white state can nominate a black candidate, or whatever it was, because I don't get the Obama phenomenon.

    I guess Cheney/Bush have proven that a VP can be whatever the President wants him to be.

    Posted by cacatua at 08/12/2008 @ 9:57pm

19. >>>This little war is hardly a "standoff"......did the MSM build it up in any way? Did the Nat'l Review?

    I take this outright Russian invasion with some positives.....as it should shake up Old Europe a bit lest it be completely lulled by the thought Russia is of no threat.

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/12/2008 @ 9:48pm<<<

    HAP,

    What you said here IS the MSM/oil company advertisers talking points!

    Didn't you know that BP is the largest shareholder in the pipeline running through Georgia and one of the largest advertisers on the cable networks?

    Big oil wanted tiny Georgia to provoke a military response from Russia so they can get free security services for their oil pipeline from NATO.

    Georgia killed 2000 South Ossetias BEFORE Russia invaded. Just think more deeply why they would do that when they are obviously overmatched?

    NATO="free" security services for big oil!

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/12/2008 @ 10:54pm

20. RE: Swing State ...

    This's just a Russian thing: give them a bottle of vodka and they would sell you the whole country (they did with Alaska) or give up a war. You could imagine a shock-and-awe operation if familiar thing happened to us or even if nothing'd happened to us like Iraq.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 08/12/2008 @ 10:56pm

21. Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/13/2008 @ 12:09am

    You didn't answer the question:

    WHY WOULD TINY GEORGIA "START" THE ATTACK AND KILL 2000 SOUTH OSSETIAS WHEN THEY KNOW THEY ARE NO MATCH FOR THE RUSSIAN ARMY?

    Why was there NATO application turned down the first time, and under what conditions would it be approved?

    Who benefits from Georgia NATO membership, and how do they benefit?

    This is the angle that the MSM refuses to report on. It is not conspiracy theory, just common sense questions that no one seems able to ask.

    Posted by Metteyya at 08/13/2008 @ 01:23am

22. This is all totally academic. Dick Cheney will reveal his true demonic nature when in two weeks he will simultaneoulsy be announced as the running mate of BOTH candidates.

    Posted by pauljmey at 08/13/2008 @ 08:16am

23. Joe Biden can be a dipstick from time to time.

    But he could whip all the pasty PNAC signatories at once, with one foot in his mouth.

    Next subject.

    Posted by drhammer at 08/13/2008 @ 08:34am

24. VP can simply be a state of mind as cHeney proves via a dic'tator and a DoJ w/out one.

    Rather zen-like...

    Think Ruinsfeld.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2008 @ 08:47am

25. All I heard is his talking about Edwards...---Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/13/2008 @ 12:14am

    Yes, that was my point, HAPPY. What "you heard" was Rush talking about Edwards, not Russia/Georgia, so you really didn't have much to say about it.

    BTW, he DID say something. His typical spin of trying to somehow "blame" Obama for what's happening in Georgia and "we did what you liberals want, we used diplomacy with Russia and look what it got us!"

    Which of course begs the question, "Well, Rush, what ELSE besides diplomacy with Putin do YOU want us to do? Send in American GIs into Georgia to fight the Russians? (Of course, he'd have no answer...he's a rather simple creature)

    BTW, BTW, in his discussion of Edwards...and rant how the adultery demonstrated Edwards' low character (plus plenty of mentions of Clinton, I'm sure)...

    did he happen to mention the circumstances of how JOHN and CINDY MCCAIN originally "got together"?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 09:04am

26. John,

    Biden is the most qualified person to be President and his credentials are far superior than anyone else's including Hillary's. I think you are right. Obama should pick Biden because ultimately it's the best strategy. And for McCain, he would stun the world and pick up serious momentum by picking a woman, Sen. KBH from Texas.

    Take care, Marcus

    Posted by voltagetower at 08/13/2008 @ 5:01pm

27. Despite the apparent disagreement of many of the readers, I agree with you. To point to previous administrations as proof as to the insignificance of the position shows either the lack of appreciation of Al Gore as vice president or the behaviors of the Obama camp through out this entire campaign including now. Almost on a daily basis Mr. Obama and his team have shown that they represent a significant change in "How things are done". If they are not concerned about being upstaged, but are interested in the best qualified candidates, than I have to say that they would be hard pressed to find better choices than Clinton, Biden or Richardson for the running mate.

    Posted by smk345 at 08/14/2008 @ 2:34pm