NP: Nationals vs. Cubs

Sully tries to figure out what the Biden pick means in a more existential sense, or really a more governmental sense, but that doesn't roll of the tongue the same way. The gist of it is that Biden is outspoken and opinionated, which bodes well for open debate and perhaps a real marketplace of ideas in the West Wing. For a change.

I think there may be more to it than that, and it goes back in some ways to the overarching theme. The obvious criticism is that picking a 29-year veteran of the Senate is the opposite of change, but to me, that misses the point of what Obama really seems to be about.

(At this time, I have to pause and admit that I may be falling into that same trap I'm always warning about, where you see elements of yourself in someone and then assume that those common points define that person enough that you can project the rest of your beliefs upon them. But this kind of resonance can be strong and occasionally hard to deny.)

Anyway, the point is, Obama is for change, but not revolution. This is why the hysterical left occasionally gets pissed off at him, and why Zach de la Rocha of Rage Against The Machine was clearly a bit wary on the Lollapalooza stage. Clearly, Washington is fucked up. The federal government is a mess. But the idea that you can flush it all away and build something new is simply untenable. What Obama seems to be doing is looking at the game from a different angle, and finding seams to exploit. His mastery of the primary math continues to be the shining example of this.

Another way to look at it is that Obama looks to game the system, which is different than cheating. He looks to do all he can within the rules of the game to achieve his goals. Karl Rove, on the other hand, would just cheat, and there's a big difference in my mind between cheating and subversion. Plus, Rove did what he did in support of ideology, where Obama's efforts seem driven towards getting things done, hence the notion of "subversive pragmatism" that titles this post.

Back to Biden, though. If you're going to game the system, identifying weak spots where you can apply pressure and get results, you need someone who understands the system inside and out. So 29 years of Senate experience, along with a clear sense of understanding about it, seems like a perfect choice.

And I'm not just saying that because it's what I assumed Obama would do once Biden dropped out of the race, at least until Biden started talking like he'd rather be Secretary of State.