When Joe Biden Speaks, I listen....

[monmouth]

I noticed the immediate "blow off" of Joe Biden yesterday in the discussions except for a few, and am wondering why??? He is so knowledgeable regarding foreign policy and the politics of Washington in general. He's been in that swamp a long time and appears to be unscathed, at least to a "front page" extent. Let's look at the plagarism event that happened, correct me if I'm wrong, when he was in college. Bad, granted. I think he's come a long way since those days and I see nothing of major consequence since that unfortunate episode. We just swore in, sat and gave a standing ovation to a guy that had 100K in his freezer. I'm at the very least, uncomfortable with that. The hypocricy concerning Joe Biden is just that. Hypocricy. This is a seasoned, intelligent, diplomatic individual who deserves a good inspection, not a "blow off." Granted, I don't think he could make a primary, but would certainly like to see him as a potential candidate for VP. His resume, committee chairs, etc. deserve review. Hypocricy makes us no better than "them." One other note on Biden, he is handsome, charismatic, and yes I'll say it, smooth. Naive? Perhaps. I just think he deserves a lot of consideration.

[Ninja Jordan]

1. I thought he was a candidate during the plaigarism thing (1988).

[phillysuse]

2. You are wrong about the plagiarism

It occurred in 1988 when he last ran for President. He used a speech by the Briton Neil Kinnock in which he claimed to be the son of a coal miner - whoops!

[LeftishBrit]

27. Yes, I remember that!

At least it meant that our Kinnock, who was not doing well in the polls here, had received 'the sincerest form of flattery'! It was mainly about Kinnock (and Biden) being the first members of their families to go to college.

[ewagner]

3. Is that you, Joe?

n/t

[ShortnFiery]

4. He voted for the Bankruptcy Bill.

Plus he seemingly NEVER gets to the point. :wtf: "Long-winded" is an understatement for him. Although his new hair transplant is taking well, I can NOT see myself voting for this man. <tongue in cheek>

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

6. Bankruptcy bill vote was a surprise to me. That one just seemed so clear cut

as a corporate give away at the expense of the middle class.

It soured me on him, that's for sure. MKJ

[NYCGirl]

12. Why would it be surprising? MBNA is the largest employer in Delaware. NT

[LynneSin]

30. Actually there is no MBNA

That would probably be between Bank of America and Chase. MBNA was bought out by BoA last year but alot of the jobs moved out of the state

[NYCGirl]

39. Well, the corps that would most be affected by the bankruptcy bill are the larger

employers in Delaware, so voting for the bill should be no surprise.

[LynneSin]

40. I work for the those people

got a problem with it?

[NYCGirl]

42. No, no problem at all. I was just responding to someone surprised that Biden

would vote to help his constituents — isn't that what Senators are supposed to do?

[LynneSin]

43. The law was harsh but yes - you are absolutely right

You can't walk five feet in Northern Delaware without running into someone who either works for a Bank or is related to someone who works for a bank.

You'll find that strange kind of voting when it comes to Mary Landrieu and the Oil Industry AND Blanche Lincoln and Wal-mart.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

50. Somehow I missed this last year. Thanks for the information which sheds light on his vote.

There's a conundrum for you...vote in favor of the corporations who are wringing the middle class dry, so they can even escalate their gouging practices, or against those same corporations who employ a large number of your constituents?

:shrug: MKJ

[LynneSin]

52. and those constituents are all middle class

Ultimately people just need to practice better use of their credit cards. The law was needed because too many people were filing bankerupcy after running up massive credit debt without paying off the bill; HOWEVER, there was no exceptions created for medical expenses, military deployment and a host of other people who have debt through very little fault of their own.

I'm kinda hoping that part gets cleaned-up a bit - there were definately plenty of admendments offered by the democrats to cover those issues

[Phredicles]

5. Not a fan of Joementum Lite (D-MBNA)

Aside from his support of that unconscionable bankruptcy "reform" bill, I remember his pathetic antics during Rice's confirmation hearings for secretary of state, in which he seemed mostly interested in quizzing her on the exploits of his alma mater's football team. I'm he gets the nomination, I'll down some Tums, hold my nose, and vote for him, but I sure won't be happy about it.

And handsome? That's in the eye of the beholder of course, but I gotta say I'm not seeing that either.:wtf:

[peacetalksforall]

7. He appears to be very willing to appear on right wing tv - it seems

he is their favorite leader - why is that? Because he provides some analysis, but NEVER really tells it like it is. All those appearances allow people to get to know him - good for running. But, for me, he has a beautiful opportunity to speak out for the issues we write and rant about, but eveything is always very carefully worded - therefore he'll be invited back.

I am one who believe in diplomacy - and believe this administration is not capable of it - and I believe diplomacy is essential to mankind - but what he does isn't exactly diplomacy - on behalf of Democrats.

I watch him in the hearings - and there are some bright spots - but he always walks a tight line - that protects himself - I don't know for what - I think it may be that running for President is always in the forefront of his mind.

I'm just not happy with lukewarm words about the plight of citizens.

That vote for George and MBNA during the bankruptcy bill absolutely sickening. Some of his other votes stink. I don't know much about his other votes in favor of corporations and against the people, I'm willing to learn.

He isn't the best defender of the people, but he does hit some high spots every once in awhile.

[peacetalksforall]

9. Let me say it one other way- when he appears on TV - I

immediately know that I'm not going to hear anything new. I guess I tend toword progressive and he tends toward ????? DLC ??? what he says is just as informative as all the DLC appearances of DLC people. Blah blah blah. It's like this - if I miss him on Sunday morning, I know that I'm not missing what is really going on in my world.

In contrast - I always listen to Frank, Rangel, Kucinich and others - they always manage to get tidbits of raw truth worked in to their answers. Very little mush.

[blm]

11. Biden also promised Bush he wouldn't 'politicize' Iraq war during 2004 and when Kerry

called for Rumsfeld to step down THREE times in 2003-4, Biden and most other Dems refused to back him up on that - then in Dec. 2004, Biden called for Rumsfeld's job, followed by Hillary. Why did they choose to protect Bush in 2003 and 2004 and only AFTER the campaign to agree with Kerry's call?

[mtnsnake]

13. At least if Biden gets the nod, you can be assured he won't wuss out like Kerry did

when any Swifties attack him. Biden won't stand for it or look the other way. Plus, he'll be able to connect with the average voter way better than Kerry, but then again, who couldn't.

[blm]

14. So you choose to be on the side of Dems who wouldn't support Rumsfeld's firing

back in 2003-4 just because you NEED to constantly attack and criticize Kerry?

Hey - why spend so much energy on someone who is as bad as you say? If you think he's a dead horse why do you spend so much time beating at him? Your constant attention to him proves that you don't believe your own claims against him.

[mtnsnake]

15. You need to get your facts straight about Hillary

She was the first one who told Bush to his face that Rumsfeld should go. What did Kerry do? Send emails?

[blm]

17. Hillary DIDN'T want Rumsfeld fired in 2003 and 2004 when Kerry called for it, which

means her LATER call for it was political maneuverings.

Abu Ghraib didn't prompt her to publicly join Kerry and call for Rummy's job, but only AFTE the 2004 election she realized that Rummy had to go?

Care to analyze her calendar on that?

[mtnsnake]

18. Like I said, Hillary told Bush to his face. Kerry sent lame emails

or posted statements from his web site. Wow. And then you all whine when Hillary grabs the headlines.

[blm]

21. Kerry said it in front of the news cameras all three times in 2003-4. Hillary refused to back him

on that call even when he was already the nominee.

WHY?

Care to analyze Hillary's timing on that issue? Abu Ghraib certainly didn't move her, did it?

[mtnsnake]

22. All I remember him doing are emails & website statements

but let me know when he tells someone to their face like Hillary did. Then maybe he'll make the big news like she does.

[blm]

23. It made the news then - it also made news that Biden and Hillary and Bill did NOT back up

the call for Rumsfeld to go, and that they and other cautious Dems remained in support of Bush on Iraq and Rumsfeld.

[mtnsnake]

24. You make like Kerry was the only one. Howard Dean called for Rummy's firing in 2003

too. So did Wes Clark and many others for crying out loud, but with you, it's only Kerry. When it comes to anything "only Kerry", you might want to talk about him being the only one who lost to an imbecile in an election where Bush should've had his dumb ass handed to him on a platter.

Anyway, let me know when Kerry tells Bush to his face he needs to be held accountable like Hillary told Rumsfeld to his face that he ought to be fired. Then I'll be impressed.

[blm]

26. Nope - I have said many times that Dean and Clark did too. These particular posts

are written with the purpose of pointing out that neither Biden or Hillary would back up the NOMINEE of the party on his call for Rumsfeld's firing.

Kerry was the first to do so, and Dean and Clark were great about joining that call.

Why did Hillary and Biden side with that imbecile Bush instead of Kerry on Tora Bora and Rumsfeld's firing when they both knew Kerry was right?

[FrenchieCat]

33. Here's my link for when Clark explicitely said Rumsfeld should be fired....

Provide Kerry's earlier call for the same, please. I looked, but couldn't find one, although one may be there.

Didn't look for a Howard Dean quote, but if someone locates that, please post that one as well.

Thanks!

Wesley Clark: Would Fire Rumsfeld
Posted on Sun Sep 28, 2003
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/09/29/628/98541

[blm]

46. Here you go. Kerry called for firing on 9-24, Dean on 9-25. They were all on the same

page and NONE of them were getting any backup from bigname Democrats. When they renewed their calls in 2004, the other Dems STILL would not back them up, even while Kerry was the nominee at that point.

That was DISGUSTING timing by Biden and Clinton to only call for the firing AFTER the election.


Dean, Kerry Call on Rumsfeld to Quit
MSNBC | Reuters

Saturday 26 September 2003

Defense secretary accused of 'pattern of deception' on Iraq
Democratic presidential candidates Howard Dean and John Kerry have called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign, citing a "pattern of deception" in his statements on Iraq and a failure to plan for the postwar period.

Kerry, a Senator from Massachusetts, first said Thursday that Rumsfeld should step down, saying he proceeded in Iraq "in an arrogant, inappropriate way that has frankly put America at jeopardy."

Dean, the former governor of Vermont, joined the call Friday and added Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to the list of those who should quit. Dean announced that he was starting a national petition drive on the Internet to demonstrate support for their resignations.
>>>>>>>

[FrenchieCat]

48. Not a big difference, but Clark called on Bush to FIRE Rumsfeld

which was the poster's words used that you were responding to......Not asking him to quit.

Clark was calling on Bush, the President to fire the incompetent Rusmfeld......not calling on the Sec. of Defense to submit his own resignation papers.

I realize that it appears to be the same thing, but Clark's call were to the top chief...where he believes the buck should stop! Hence the framing is more forceful, IMO!

(not trying to annoy you, just being literal :) ).....

Wesley Clark: Would Fire Rumsfeld
By Jeralyn, Section Elections
Posted on Sun Sep 28, 2003 at 11:03:30 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Wesley Clark told a college audience in New Hampshire Friday that he'd relieve Rumsfeld of his command. Others (Dean, Kerry) have called on Rumsfeld to resign, but this is the first we've seen that a major candidate would give Rumsfeld the boot.

Gen. Wesley Clark, told a New Hampshire audience Friday night he had only fired one person in his life. On Saturday he said he wanted to fire a second person: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

When asked at a house party on the Seacoast about what he would do in Iraq if elected president today, he was met with applause when he said, "First of all I would change the Secretary of Defense. Then I would go to the commanders of the ground and go to Iraq myself personally and I would develop an exit strategy that gives us a success and lets us downsize our commitment there."

Besides Rumsfeld, Clark also criticized Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice for her views of the world and then U.S. House Majority Leader Tom Delay, also a Republican, for his vote on a measure involving Kosovo.

In Washington Saturday, Clark said Americans are embarrassed by Bush.

Speaking after an event in Washington at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual conference, Clark, 58, told reporters that the American people are "really embarrassed" by the administration's leadership.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/09/29/628/98541

[karynnj]

53. Clark is saying he would not keep Rumsfeld on in 2005- this is not telling Bush to fire him

It is the blogger, not Clark, who uses the word fire and even then in the context of what he would do if elected in 2004. Kerry and Dean were calling for Rumsfeld to step down immediately. This is if anything stronger than saying the first thing they would do in office is to remove Rumsfeld. Any Democrat, including Leiberman, would have replaced Rumsfeld. This is a blogger trying to make Clark look more anti-Rumsfeld than Kerry and Dean - though I think all maxed out the "I'm disgusted with Rumsfeld" meter.

" When asked at a house party on the Seacoast about what he would do in Iraq if elected president today, he was met with applause when he said, "First of all I would change the Secretary of Defense. Then I would go to the commanders of the ground and go to Iraq myself personally and I would develop an exit strategy that gives us a success and lets us downsize our commitment there."

I do agree that Clark, Kerry and Dean were the strongest voices out there. All were saying that Rumsfeld was a disaster. Getting rid of him required Bush to "ask him to resign (aka fire him) or for Rumsfeld to voluntarily step down - and neither was going to happen. Kerry and Dean were attempting to make Rumsfeld a political issue for Bush. They succeeded to some degree. Clark is adding weight by re-inforcing that by saying he would not keep Rumsfeld on.

[blm]

55. The greatest point is that 3 Democrats called for Rumsfeld to go and they received NO BACKUP

from bigname Democrats even after Abu Ghraib and even when the call was coming a third time from their party's presidential nominee.

The fact that they waited till AFTER the election to call for it, shows a very cynical political maneuvering meant to serve themselves and NOT THEIR COUNTRY'S best interest.

[karynnj]

19. Hillary didn't tell Bush - she told Rumsfeld

Kerry did not do it "by email". It was a statement he made repeatedly in public to the media and in speeches.

[mtnsnake]

20. That's even better. I thought Bush was in the room, too, was he not?

Regardless, she told the guy to his face. The lady is not only a savvy politician, but she's got guts.

[karynnj]

28. She told Rumsfeld at the Armed Services Committee

in SUMMER, 2006. Kerry and Dean called for it in 2003 - after the early incompetence and then after Abu Ghraib. (Note that was THREE years earlier when the war was not consider anywhere near the fiasco it was by 2006. Leiberman and McCain spoke out before her. That's not guts.

Hell, in September 2006 - Tom Kean Jr, Menendez's appointment was calling for the same thing.

[LynneSin]

29. Cindy Sheehan was on Hannity - gonna bash her next

Nothing wrong with being on right-wing TV - I mean he is trying to get his message out there

[LeftCoast]

8. I thought he did pretty well on Meet the Press

As others have pointed out up-upthread he lost major points by voting for the bankruptcy bill, though. He's also got a bad case of triangulation disease. In my opinion he's got no hope of winning the nomination. I wish he'd just focus on conducting hearings. I'm worried he's going to be busy trying to be president when he'd be far more effective investigating Bush administration misdeeds.

[leftofthedial]

10. yes, because when Biden talks, you KNOW

that CIticorp has both their hands in your pockets.

[LynneSin]

32. Citicorp ALSO has very little presense in Delaware

<<sigh>>

[MH1]

16. Biden said that Congress can't stop funding of Iraq War

that is what they said on NPR this morning. Unless I misheard it.

He said because Congress gave authority for the war (debatable) then it might be "unconstitutional" to withhold funds.

I should think he ought to point out all the ways that Bush broke the provisions of the IWR, making it essentially void (or reasonable for Congress to rescind it). But, maybe that's just me.

[Dinger]

25. I'm Curious How He Voted On RW Judges

I vaguely remember being pissed off about some of his votes.

[LynneSin]

31. Biden? You have to be fricking kidding - right?

The guy is hardcore when it comes to activist judges and keeping them off the bench which is why he still has a seat on the Judiciary. I hardly need to write more than 1 letter to the guy because I know he's probably on our team. Hell Biden voted against both John Ashcroft and John Roberts BUT liberal/progressive darling of DU Russ Feingold voted for BOTH of them.

Tom Carper, our other senator here in Delaware, tends to be the wildcard but even Tom has been supporting most of the filibusters

[Dinger]

44. Well, That's Good To Hear

I'm not as up on things as I should be. Thanks for the info.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. He wussed out with Anita Hill, though

Clarence Thomas shouldn't be on the bench and Biden is part of the reason that he is.

[loyalsister]

47. He voted to override Clinton's veto on PBA

“The Senate can only be our Nation’s conscience if we Senators follow ours on these matters. I respect all my constituents and all the Senators who will vote on this override. But on this issue my conscience, and my conscience alone, must determine my vote. I will vote to override.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, 10/20/99, S 12861)

[KoKo]

51. Yep...Biden closed the hearings at 2:00 a.m. after the witness who could

verfiy Anita Hill's testimony had waited all night to testify. He's responsible for Clarence Thomas on the Sumpreme Court. He didn't take the hearings seriously but caved to the wishes of the Right Wing.

[ripple]

34. I listen, too, because he knows his foreign policy

I don't support him for president, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him being in the VP slot on the ticket- almost solely for the foreign policy angle. My preference would be for Clark to fill that role, but if that isn't possible, that doesn't leave many candidates with extensive foreign policy experience who would be willing to take a VP slot. I doubt Kerry or Gore would.

[Imagevision]

35. "He'll be able to keep the troops there forever, constitutionally, if he wants to."

Maybe Biden means that if the President is STUPID ENOUGH he'll keep the troops there forever but if he is that stupid then we'll have to stop him.... maybe... or maybe this is the beginning of the Dems complete waffle/cave in, and a signal of yet another do-nothing congress.

What this country is crying out for is a NEW leader; true leadership, i.e. one who actually leads, and not by force or "signing statements." What we all have come to learn (left and right) is that George Bush is a coward whose close circle of cohorts have a strict agenda that they will carry out know matter what the rest of us think or want.

[harveyc]

37. He didn't say anything worse than Ms. Pelosi said yesterday.

Yesterday, regarding cutting funding for the current level of troops in Iraq, Ms. Pelosi replied "We won't do that." That means our troops might, in fact, be in Iraq forever -- Implied Consent. What happened to the person whom during the campaign last year signed a letter to the President stating he should begin redeployment of our troops by the end of 2006?

[LittleClarkie]

36. He has his moments in the realm of foreign policy

It's just his demeanor I have a problem with.

[fishwax]

38. what's the hypocrisy, again?

not being enthusiastic about Biden is hypocrisy somehow? And I don't think many here were standing up for Jefferson (at least I didn't see it).

Biden got plenty of talk here during the discussions of the bankruptcy reform bill. I would find it hard to support him in the primary as a result of that. I suspect I'm not alone.

[Catchawave]

41. I've always liked Joe !

And glad he's running :toast:

The more the merrier, I say, and they'll keep each other honest and bring much to the national dialogue. Let the games begin!!!

[ShortnFiery]

54. OK, Biden's welcome to run too, but keep him on YOUR side of the room.

:P :hi:

[Clarkie1]

49. His Idea that we can partition Iraq is naive and shows an extreme lack of judgement.

That alone disqualifies him from being anywhere near the oval office desk, in my view.