What do you think about Biden's presidential aspirations?

[ArtVandaley]

He has said that he may want to run, what do you guys think?
On domestic policy, he seems pretty moderate, perhaps too DLCish.
He does seem to be one of the most sensible foreign policy voices we have though. I think that he and Holbrooke helped Kerry quite a bit last year, not enough obviously, but they did help. It would be hard for any of the NeoCons to debate him, for he has a very realistic sense of what is going on in the Middle East. He's a very articulate speaker and very easy going on talk shows, I think people could relate to him, for he seems like a normal guy.
I haven't really made up my mind as to if he'd be a good candidate, looking for feedback. What do some of you think? Please post facts instead of blind insults.
I do know he has some baggage from his early failed prez bid, would this slow him down?

[Mojambo]

1. Biden's a sharp guy

and a good foreign policy voice, but I don't think he's executive material.

[Prodemsouth]

2. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Sucks, another Kerry.

[NoodleBoy]

3. if he's not shot down by plagiarism allegations in the primaries, the

republicans will beat him over the head with them in the general election. maybe good as a VP.

[Osamasux]

4. His problem last time was plagiarism,

but Bush just hired a plagiarist, from what I've read here lately. There are threads about Bush hiring someone as a speech writer who was just fired from a Florida paper because of plagiarism and sexual harassment.

[Paladin]

55. The Plagiarism Thing Will Only Be An Issue......

....at this point to nut cases like Coulter, Hannity, et al. Biden would be a first-rate candidate---smart, combative, attractive. This party could (and probably will) do a lot worse......

[stray cat]

5. I would be very interested in watching his candidacy.

In general I have liked what I have seen of him. He definitely seems up to speed on foreign policy and is convincing and articulate when I have seen him in action.

[GreenArrow]

6. a complete phoney and die hard status-quoer

let him go work on his golf game or something...

[saltpoint]

7. Mojambo is right -- Biden's sharp.

I think his failed bid for the White House is old news by now, and you post many of his strengths.

Can't say how he would play in some of the primaries, but I could sure get behind Biden if the other party is giving us Gingrich, Frist, Jeb, and so forth.

If Biden is the Dems' nominee, he's got my vote.

[ooglymoogly]

11. i agree

he is usually on the intelligent side of issues

[NoodleBoy]

8. also, represents Delaware-- that means small fundraising and initial

support base.

[vi5]

9. Overall I'm as lukewarm on his positions and policies as anyone...

..but there is something about his rhetorical style that I've always liked. Almost an intelligent everyman approach, but still tempered and mannered. In other words he strikes me as down to earth (without being a boob or ill spoken like shrub), but intelligent (but without being to lofty like Kerry). And he seems to speak his mind but not rashly.

That doesn't mean I like his position on any number of issues but I'm not against him right out of the gate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. Just for a change, I'd like to see someone as bold and unashamed

and unafraid of offending people as the Republicans are.

Biden does not fit the bill. He'd be okay in a Cabinet post, though.

[oneold1-4u]

12. On the list?

Of those who were brave enough to stand or was he even there?
Somewhere among the real and brave Americans who believe we can be better, there will be some arrive, and surprise us. If the democrats had really searched for one for the past four years, we might have surprised the world! Let voices be heard!

[spooked911]

13. He sucks big time

for instance to Alberto Gonzalez--- "I love ya, buddy"

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[NYCGirl]

20. You might want to read that quote IN CONTEXT. Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53883-2005Jan6.html

SPECTER: Senator Biden?

BIDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In 10 minutes -- the core questions I want to ask will probably occur in the second round, Judge.

Let me begin, though, by saying I congratulate and welcome the new chairman. I think that if anyone was made for this job, it's the senator from Pennsylvania, who I think is the finest constitutional lawyer in the country -- maybe not the country, but in the Senate. And I welcome his...

(LAUGHTER)

Seriously, I think it befits his background to chair this very difficult committee, and I wish him well, and he has my cooperation.

SPECTER: Thank you very much, Senator Biden. Thank you.

BIDEN: Judge, I think we got off on, sort of, an unusual footing here. And I think that our colleague in the committee, sort of, fired a gun that had not been shot yet. I don't know of anybody who's announced they're against your being the next attorney general. Even those who have doubts about you say you're going to be confirmed. And so this is not about the president and his judgment.

BIDEN: It is appropriate for us to understand the president is not a lawyer. He doesn't know from shinola about the treaty.

By the way, nor do previous presidents. Nor do previous presidents. That's why they have legal advisers. That's why they hire brilliant graduates from Harvard Law School and former judges to advise them.

I'm being deadly earnest here. It's not a joke.

So I don't judge the president on whether or not he supports or didn't support torture. He signed off on a memo that may, in fact, in the minds of many, in fact, constitute torture. And he says he doesn't. That's irrelevant here.

And, Judge, this is not about your intelligence. This hearing's not about your competence. It's not about your integrity. It's about your judgment, your candor. Because you're going to be making some very difficult decisions as attorney general, as every attorney general has, decisions on matters we can't even contemplate now.

When I got here in 1972, the idea that anybody would be making judgments about cloning was bizarre.

Within four years, you're going to make judgments on issues we haven't even contemplated.

So I want to know about your judgment. It's your judgment.

And we're going to -- you're going to be the A.G. You're not going to be legal counsel anymore. You are no longer the president's lawyer. You are the people's lawyer. Your oath is to the people of the United States.

I know you know that.

GONZALES: Yes, sir.

BIDEN: And therefore -- and this is not a Supreme Court hearing, although some suggest it foreshadows that.

As a Supreme Court nominee, you could sit there and say, "I don't want to comment on that law or interpret it because I may have to judge it."

As the attorney general, you're responsible to tell us now what your judgment is on what the law means. It is your obligation now for us to be able to assess your judgment -- your legal judgment.

You're in no way -- as you implied to two of the questioners, you're in now way jeopardizing a future case. That's malarkey, pure malarkey.

So we're looking for candor, old buddy. We're looking for you when we ask you a question to give us an answer, which you haven't done yet.

I love you, but you're not very candid so far.

(LAUGHTER)

And so please do not use the strawman, "Well, as the future attorney general, I may not be able to comment on what that law means." You are obliged to comment.

BIDEN: It's your job to make a judgment before a case is taken. That's your judgment we're looking at.

And so, it seems to me that -- and the other point I'd like to raise, because I'm only going to get to the questions in my second round really, is my good friend from Texas. He held up three reports who didn't say what they said he said. The three reports that he held up that I'm aware of, maybe four, saying -- asserting essentially that they confirmed the judgment that you made in your recommendations to the president of the United States of America relating to torture and other matters.

Now, the reason why it is appropriate to ask you about Abu Ghraib is not to go back and rehash Abu Ghraib, but it's relevant as to whether or not what occurred at Abu Ghraib came as a consequence of the judgments made and embraced by the president that were then essentially sent out to the field.

The Schlesinger report that was cited -- it finds, quote, "Lieutenant General Sanchez signed a memo authorizing a dozen interrogation techniques beyond standard Army practice, including five beyond those applied at Guantanamo. He did so," quote, "using reasoning from the president's memo of February 7th, 2002."

So I say to my friend from Texas, that's why this is relevant.

The very report cited say that -- and I won't go through them all -- the Red Cross report -- the Red Cross did not sign off and say what -- that, you know, the conduct or the recommendations or the memorandum were in fact appropriate.

And so I won't go through it all now, but I will, if we need to, in further questioning.

So, again, I want to, sort of, clarify here: This is about the judgment you have exercised and whether or not the next four years, the judgment you're going to give a president, which he understandably should rely upon.

BIDEN: This is not a man who has your legal credentials. That's why he has you, to make a recommendation to him.

And it's appropriate for him to accept that recommendation unless on its face an average citizen or an informed president who's not a lawyer would say, "No, that can't make any sense."

So that's why we're worried about this. That's what this is about.

And there is, sort of, a -- there is a split here in the Congress, there's a split in the country about what's appropriate in this time of dire concern about terror.

You know, there was that play we've all seen, "A Man for All Seasons," and there's an exchange in there where Sir Thomas More is engaging Roper, and Roper says -- a young man came to seek a job -- he said, "Arrest him. He means you harm." And More said, "He's broken no law." And Roper said, "But he means you harm."

And if my recollection is correct, you have Thomas More turning to Roper and saying, "This country is planted thick with laws, coast to coast. Man's law is not God's. And if you cut them down, Roper, as you would, what will you do when the devil turns 'round on you? Yes, I give the devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."

That's the fundamental principle we debate among ourselves here, no matter how you cut it. And that's what the debate that took place on these torture memos between Taft and Yoo.

I have a copy of the report, the memo, sent by the secretary of state to you all on February 7th, which I'm not going to make public. But in that memo he takes significant issue with the recommendations coming out of your shop, and Mr. Yoo's, and he ends by saying, "Let's talk. We need to talk."

And he goes into great detail, as other reports do. Powell, contemporaneously on the 7th says, basically -- and I have the report right here -- says basically, "Look, you go forward with the line of reasoning you guys are using and you're going to put my former troops in jeopardy."

BIDEN: This is about the safety and security of American forces.

And he says in here what you're doing is putting that in jeopardy.

You have the former head of JAG, the top lawyer in the United States military saying, "Hey, man, this is way beyond the interrogation techniques you're signing off, way beyond what the military manual for guidance of how to deal with prisoners says."

And so the point I'm trying to make here -- and I will come back with questions. If I have any time -- well, I don't have any time -- is this is important stuff because there was a fundamental disagreement within the administration.

And based on the record, it seems to me, although it may not be totally -- it may not be dispositive -- your judgment was not as good as the judgment of the secretary of state. Your judgment was not as good or sound as the chief lawyer from the JAG. Your judgment was not as sound.

And the question I want to debate about is the judgment -- how did you arrive at this, different than the serious people like you, who thought what you were doing, recommending to the president in the various memos, was jeopardizing the security of American troops? And that's what I want to get back to.

But I want to explain to the public and anybody listening, this is not about your integrity. This is not a witch hunt. This is about your judgment. That's we're trying to do.

And so when I get to ask my questions, I hope you'll be candid about it.

Because -- not that it's relevant -- I like you. I like you. You're the real deal.

SPECTER: Senator Biden, your red light is on.

BIDEN: My red light is on.

(LAUGHTER)

Thank you.

SPECTER: Judge Gonzales, while Senator Biden is awaiting round two to formulate a question...

(LAUGHTER)

... I think you ought to be given an opportunity to respond to Senator Biden's observations and implicit, perhaps, two dozen questions.

So the floor is yours.

GONZALES: Senator Biden, I'm not -- when you're referring to the Powell memo, I'm not sure which memo you're referring to. And I presume you're referring...

BIDEN: Let me give you a copy of it.

Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, it's dated January 11th, 2002, to John Yoo from William Taft, legal adviser. And there is overwhelming evidence that you saw it, there was discussion about it. And that's what I'm referring to.

GONZALES: There was a great deal of debate within the administration -- as that memo partly reflects -- about what would be required and perhaps a policy judgment to be made by the president.

And the fact that there was disagreement about something so significant I think should not be surprising to anyone.

BIDEN: No, it's not.

GONZALES: Of course not.

And reasonable people can differ.

In the end, it is the Department of Justice who is charged by statute by the definitive legal advice on behalf of the executive branch to the president of the United States.

BIDEN: With due respect, that doesn't matter. I don't care about their judgment. I'm looking at yours.

GONZALES: Well, sir, of course I conveyed to the president my own views about what the law requires, often informed by what the Department of Justice says the law is, because, again, by statute you have conferred upon them that responsibility.

I can tell you that with respect to the decision the president ultimately made, everyone involved, including the secretary of state, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs -- all the principals who had equities in the decision about the application of Geneva had an opportunity to present their views and their concerns directly to the president of the United States and he made a decision.

SPECTER: Thank you, Judge Gonzales.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53883-20...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53883-20...

[Osamasux]

27. Amazing how context makes things so much clearer.

Thanks for the transcript, NYCGirl.

[NYCGirl]

29. You're very welcome.

Edited to add:

Biden's a tough SOB. I don't agree with him on each and every thing, but we could do a lot worse. He really speaks his mind.

[bobbieinok]

41. notice the Gonzales comment that says nothing and does not address

Biden's concerns and diffuses any responsibility of anyone (especially of himself) for anything

[peacetalksforall]

14. No! No! NO NO

We now have a choice. We have a choice to find someone who DID NOT VOTE to give Bush permission to kill Iraqis and someone who DID NOT VOTE to give Ashcroft a vote and the Patriot Act - the most notorious act since Hoover was allowed to run the country for decades.

Biden, Clinton, Shirmer, and many more - NO NO NO!

[DistressedAmerican]

21. I second the notion

No more Bush war enablers. Though it pains me to say it because Biden has been a personal fave for years.

[IndianaGreen]

26. And I second your second to the motion

Biden is a major BARF ALERT figure that causes me to reach for the MAALOX.

I see other posters have already raised the plagiarism issue which is certain to haunt Biden.

Biden will "stay the course" in Iraq, a position that is clearly unacceptable to the antiwar movement, and to me.

[tibbiit]

15. I think he needs to forget the idea

He runs hot and cold, not consistant. He acts like he is going after the chimp on some occasions then he kisses his ass.
He is far too accomodating to the puke party.
We need someone who can articulate why the pukes are bad for regular people. Biden doesnt do that at all. (nor does gep)

Of course we wont have success anyway untill the media changes to give us a fair shake.
One thing I never see here is the amazing fact of how well we did do in 2000, 2004 compared to the amount of terrible press our candidates get.
If gore or kerry had the press at their backs like the chimp, a landslide would have been accomplished. In spite of the media sucking chimpy's dick at every possible moment... we still won the elections.
That is an amazing accomplishment... they only win when they cheat!
imho
tib

(On edit: maybe I am being unfair to both biden and gephardt. they have the media to never explain their postions too, and Gephardt is vry concerned with the regular person of america. But damn me, that biden has pissed me off so many times when I used to watch News channels when he would support the chimp. I can remember many times in the run up to war when I wanted to throw stuff at the tv about bs he said as much as any wingnut.)

[Pegleg Thd]

16. I have relatives in Delaware

they say that Biden is corporate owned and does not represent the people. So I say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO to supporting his run for pretzledent.

[Zhade]

17. I think I'd sit out the election (I'm in California).

NT!

[quinnox]

18. My reaction is ho hum

I don't see much of a spark in Biden, as another said he isn't presidential material. Not much charisma, I would be real surprised to see him get anywhere near the nomination if he did run. He'd go out quick like a Gephardt or Lieberman.

[Pastiche423]

19. BLECH

:puke:Clarence Thomas :puke:

[Eloriel]

60. Yeah, there was that too

There's a lot not to like about Biden.

I can't stand his hawkishenss. For me, he's as hawkish as I'd LIKE Republicans to be -- IWO, defense-wise he ought to be a Rockefeller Republican (if any of those still existed, which I don't think they do).

[Skittles]

22. not much

nt

[arcos]

23. Mr. RAVE Act?

:puke:

[Donna Zen]

24. A puzzler?

He does seem to be one of the most sensible foreign policy voices we have though.

Biden did much more than just vote in favor of the IWR, he agreed with and supported bushCo's invasion without allies. So I'm confused that anyone would believe that what is the greatest geopolitical mistake in the history of our country would find Biden a foreign policy voice of reason.

Furthermore, in an interview on Meet The Press before the Dem convention, Biden when asked about Kerry's vote on the 87 billion, stuck it to Kerry. Is he a Democrat? Whether you agree or disagee with Kerry's vote, there is a positive case to be made. Instead Biden used the question as on opportunity to shill for himself. What's with that?

The more I see of Biden, the less I want to see of Biden.

So...do you think he'll vote for Mr. Torture? Now if this were bad tax keeping on a nanny, Biden would be all over it, but in the case of breaking inter-national law and endangering the troops, I think Sen. Biden will find everything perfectly "okay."

[tibbiit]

35. its just this stuff

you write that had me throwing stuff at the tv when it was on way back when.
I agree with you 100%

Biden did much more than just vote in favor of the IWR, he agreed with and supported bushCo's invasion without allies. So I'm confused that anyone would believe that what is the greatest geopolitical mistake in the history of our country would find Biden a foreign policy voice of reason.

Furthermore, in an interview on Meet The Press before the Dem convention, Biden when asked about Kerry's vote on the 87 billion, stuck it to Kerry. Is he a Democrat? Whether you agree or disagee with Kerry's vote, there is a positive case to be made. Instead Biden used the question as on opportunity to shill for himself. What's with that?

The more I see of Biden, the less I want to see of Biden.
tib

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Hell, just give him a camera and a mirror and let him do his thing.

He should raise his aspirations to his real talent and tryout for game show host.

As for his foreign policy, he's the guy who advocates "enlightened nationalism".

[TankLV]

28. BLECH.

or

UGH.

[Leilani]

30. No, No, & No

Biden was gung-ho for the war, & that's enough to discount him.

But additionally, he has all the drawbacks of Kerry:

Washington Insider
Talks Like a Politician, & talks & talks & talks
Ghosts from the Past...plagiarism

We've been there & done that...I want change.

[housewolf]

31. No senators

I like Biden, he seems like a real person and a good loyal Dem

I just think that we're wasting our energy looking at senators. It is EXTREMEMLY difficult for someone from the senate to be elected president. In the past 50 years, only Kennedy & Johnson has been elected from the senate. The odds are really against getting a senator elected, or even someone from the House of Representatives. I'm thinking Kerry, Gore, Dole, and many more who haven't made it through the primary process.

Governors have an easier time getting elected president than congressional folks do. I'm thinking Bush II, Clinton, Reagan

[calimary]

32. I think he pretty much sucks the big one.

Just told alberto "Torture's Okay" gonzales how much he likes him, and how highly he regards him. And he's rolled over MANY times before this. MANY times. One of the biggest disappointments out there.

on edit - read the transcript above. It softens my opinion by about one percent. Biden's damaged goods. And he HAS rolled over many times. By now I can't count how many times I've seen him in soundbites, or on panels or talking-head shows, where I've gritted my teeth and yelled at my TV when he either soft-pedaled something or avoided it or didn't tell it like it was or let the bad guy off easy, or was just plain WRONG on something. A spine - I have not seen much of. And yes. Clarence Thomas. Biden's disappointing, and on too many of the bush sins, like the IWR and the 87 billion and the Patriot Act and SO much more, all he's talked about is how much he needs to give bush his way. And frankly, I do NOT want to hear that out of my party's standard-bearer.

[AntiCoup2K4]

33. No more PNAC traitors in the White House.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/russia-20040928.htm

[FightinNewDem]

34. Give it a rest, AntiCoup

Still flogging this dead horse, I see.

Yep, let's bash JRB because he signed a letter condemning terrorist attacks on Russian schoolkids, a letter that was also signed by several other Democrats. Purge those neocon bastards!

[AntiCoup2K4]

36. I will absolutely NOT give it a rest!

PNAC gave us this illegal war in Iraq.
PNAC gave us the Patriot Act.
PNAC, in all likelihood, arranged the 9-11 attacks, as their agenda specifically called for such an event to take place.

I will not accept ONE FRACTION of their treason, nor will I support anybody who does, regardless of what party they claim. And if signing a PNAC statement is not an endorsement of their agenda, then exactly what is it?

[FightinNewDem]

37. Oh, of course.

A second-tier think tank with a grand total of five staffers planned and executed 9/11? Yeah, gotcha there partner.

[InvisibleBallots]

38. how naive

"A second-tier think tank with a grand total of five staffers planned and executed 9/11?"

[LeftofU]

43. "You lie down with dogs, you get fleas"eom

[JohnLocke]

49. I fully agree with that particular PNAC document.

"We are also worried about the deteriorating conduct of Russia in its foreign relations. President Putin's foreign policy is increasingly marked by a threatening attitude towards Russia's neighbors and Europe's energy security, the return of rhetoric of militarism and empire, and by a refusal to comply with Russia's international treaty obligations. In all aspects of Russian political life, the instruments of state power appear to be being rebuilt and the dominance of the security services to grow. We believe that this conduct cannot be accepted as the foundation of a true partnership between Russia and the democracies of NATO and the European Union."

Sounds good to me.

[BlueInRed]

39. mixed feelings

Based on his behavior (voting record, talk show appearances) in 2001-03, I'd say no way.

But, during the 04 campaign he made some of the most straight-forward stinging attacks against Bush on the Sunday talk shows and I kept thinking, get JK to say that! If he'd be the attack dog I saw the last couple of months in the campaign, I'd be open to him.

I do think we have better choices already on the table.

[bunny planet]

40. not much after he just told Alberto 'Torquemada' Gonzalez ...

'I like you, you're the real deal.' WTF And all of this after he asked him some really pointed questions. What gives.

Byden ran for the nomination years ago. He didn't do too well. Then had cancer.

He's supposed to be Kerry's best friend in the Senate.

[NYCGirl]

42. I believe he was being somewhat facetious. If you read the transcript

I posted above, you can see he took Gonzales apart, bit by bit. It was stunning.

[Donna Zen]

51. took him apart

Oh sure...but he'll vote for him. Vote for a torturer...nice attitude. So what kind of leadership does that show?

[NYCGirl]

52. Pretty much everyone is going to vote to confirm him.

There will be no fight.

[Donna Zen]

57. Since when do we congratulate Lemmings?

There will be no fight because pols like Biden will not fight for what is right. Being a pawn for the rightwing is not right. Just once...just fucking once, it would be great to see someone standing up for the rule of law.

The fundamentalist republicans, as much as I disagree with them, know that to win you must be willing to fight. That is why they are seen as stronger. The only people fighting the crazy rightwing agenda are the base Democrats. Because of this, our elected Democrats treat us like aliens. What? Because I don't support torture and don't believe in rewarding incompetent assholes who advocate torture, I have suddenly become some leftist radical? I guess being president of the PTA doesn't count among my responsibility credentials.

Well_keep making excuses for Biden etal lame decisions, but I will not. I still believe in the ideals and laws this country was founded on.

[NYCGirl]

59. I'd love to be that pure, but that means NO ONE remains. It'll take some

time, and I think they all figure better to appoint Gonzales AG and keep an eye on him for a couple of years, than try to fight a Supreme Court nomination for him.

[Donna Zen]

66. Hold his feet to the fire?

They were going to hold Asscroft feet to the fire, and look what a great job they did of that.

This isn't about the worn out meme of being too political pure. Comprise needs to exist where it can, but condoning illegal acts is a far cry from strict political purity. What is going to happen to Democrats who defend the rule of law? Will they lose their standing as the minority party? I'm sorry if I'm coming off snide here, but do we think for a nano second that the republicans would roll over if Clinton had done this?

IMHO, fearing "NO ONE remains" will not get you "some" is a philosophy that has resulted in getting us less. Maybe standing for something, in this case the rule of law, will get you "more."

Appearing weak does not inspire confidence.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. "Purity"? Oh, please!

I don't ask for perfection, just someone whose main concern isn't being liked by the Republicans.

[bunny planet]

62. thanks I'll read it, but then didn't he approve Gonzalez anyway as well as

Lindsey Graham? Are they approving his nomination for AG to prevent him from gaining a Supreme Court nomination down the road. I've heard that that is the real reason he's being put through without too much contest.

[NYCGirl]

63. I believe that's the case. NT

[incapsulated]

44. Fuck NO

Biden was a fucking shill for Bush and his war. Then he turns around and is soooo terribly concerned, wringing his hands, blasting Bush (once it went bad).

He's a publicity hound, finger in the wind, jerkoff.

He will vote for Gonzales. He ALWAYS makes a big show at these nominations and then goes right ahead and votes for the puke.

[AirAmFan]

45. He'll have to get a much better hairpiece, that's for sure. And not

go to Trent Lott's guy for "helmet-hair", either !

[Virginian]

46. If he is the nominee, I will vote for him. n/t

[Guns Aximbo]

47. not good.

He's to moderate for me.... He really Likes Gonzales. WTF is that? YOu condone torure, work for and support a fascist and I really like you? What is that? He might as well as gotten on his knees and unzipped Gonzos pants right there in front of the cameras.

[JohnLocke]

48. I like Biden, but...

The brain tumor and plagarism are going to hurt him.

[FightinNewDem]

53. Biden factual background

Actually, it wasn't a tumor, it was an anyeurism. He had several surgeries to corect the consition about 15 years ago, and hasn't experienced any major complications since then. Biden's health really isn't an issue.

The "plagiarism" kerfuffle is a little trickier. However, a careful look at the facts largely exonerates Biden.

First, the "Kinnock speech". Biden's lines from Neil Kinnock's stump speech were a part of his own speech for much of the summer of 1987. As a very young staffer for Biden's campaign, I heard him deliver the speech on a number of occasions, and he always acknowledged the source. Unfortunately, the one time he didn't do so, the cameras were running.

Second, let's remember that the whole brouhaha was stoked by Michael Dukakis' resident dirty tricksters, John Sasso and Jack the Hack Corrigan. They fed the tape to friendly media sources, and tried to pin the blame on Dick Gephardt. They were terrified of Biden, since he was the only candidate in the 1988 field who was keeping pace with Dukakis in fundraising.

Third, the supposed plagiarism incident at Syracuse University Law Schoool turned out not to be a case of plagiarism but of sloppy footnoting. Biden was "ratted out" by a fellow 1-L for failing to properly cite a quote within a quote. For those of you who have never had to deal with "Bluebook" minutiae, this is a cardinal sin for anal-retentive law nerds. At any rate, follwing his withdrawal from the presidential race, Biden quietly asked the Delaware Supreme Court to conduct an ethics investigation on himself. The disciplinary panel found that Biden was guilty of lazy Bluebooking, not anything of an ethical nature.

Incidentally, it later turned out that an employee in the Syracuse academic records office leaked Biden's law school transcripts to the press. That individual was found to have done so at the behest of the Dukakis campaign.

[Lenape85]

50. He voted for the war, he failed my newly-imposed litmus test

If he gets the prez nomination, I'll be voting Green faster than you can say "DLC"

[bemildred]

54. Anita Hill hearings.

Biden can kiss my ass.

[liberalpragmatist]

56. Given that I like Kerry, I can't dismiss Biden

What I liked about Kerry was his intelligence and serious nature. He was someone who I could really see making the tough decisions of a commander-in-chief and truly understanding the world (even if he may not have been the most politically savvy figure in the world). Biden is much the same way.

Anyway, I really don't feel like declaring a loyalty to any candidate right now - it's 4 years away and nobody knows how the next 4 years will go. I could very conceivably support Kerry again, I could support Edwards or Warner or Clark or even Gore or Dean and certainly Biden. I'm open-minded and right now I'm more interested in the overall direction of the country and the party than I am about the '08 presidential race.

[truebrit71]

58. Just what we need..another spineless, rubber-stamping, self-serving...

..politico...

He was stood his ground on NOTHING of importance, and other than the fact that he plagarizes British politician's speeches hasn't had an original thought enter his cranium since he was elected...

Next?

[hansolsen]

61. I wouldn't vote for old hair plug for dog catcher. any man who would lie

about his hair line will lie about anything.

Biden disgraced himself at the Gonzales hearing.

His biggest single problem among many, is that he can't help thinking and talking about himself. If you doubt me just watch any appearance of his in the last four years. They are all about him. He is all ego and no principles, the last thing we need.

I'm always surprised that more DUers don't see this from a mile away.

[manhattanite]

64. On the Middle East, he is a total stooge of the Likud Party.

I think he should stay in little Delaware. The Presidency is too big for him.

[The Zanti Regent]

65. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Never.

[marcologico]

67. I like Joe but he's cast WAAAAAY too many compromising votes

to win the nomination OR the election.

On the other hand, if Jub was the GOP nominee, he might have a pretty good chance...

[Stinky The Clown]

68. Biden can make a good showing from time to time, but

he is very much a "wet finger in the air" kinda guy. I've found him to be all over the lot ....... essentially just one more senator from the pack. Sure he can do some fiery speeches. He's entertaining. But, in my view, largely unprincipled.

Why does everyone keep proffering senators to discuss as potential candidates? Just leave those guys where they are.

[moggie12]

69. Rats, I hate to say stuff like this

Shoot, I want to say "yes" to Biden because he stands up to GOP baloney, but

1) the plagarism issue makes him a non-starter, unfortunately
2) sometimes he sounds a little too "off-the-cuff"

As Presidential candidate no, as respected Party spokeman, yes.

[IStriker]

70. I think that Biden is a joke.

The plagiarist with the ghia-pet hair is not going to be the nominee. Thank goodness.