Seriously, Biden is a total idiot.......

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

As a Republican, I personally hope he stays in the race and trashes all the other Democratic candidates. His comments on Obama are simply Trent Lott-esque.......

Biden Unbound: Lays Into
Clinton, Obama, Edwards
Loquacious Senator, Democratic Candidate on Hillary: ‘Four of 10 Is the Max You Can Get?’ Edwards ‘Doesn’t Know What He’s Talking About’
By Jason Horowitz


To hear him tell it, Hillary Clinton’s position is calibrated, confusing and “a very bad idea.” John Edwards doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is pushing a recipe for Armageddon in the Middle East. Barack Obama is offering charming but insubstantial fluff. And all of them are playing politics.

“Let me put it this way,” Mr. Biden said. “You didn’t hear any one of them get in this debate at all until they announced for President.”

Mr. Biden, who ran an ill-fated campaign for President in 1988, is a man who believes his time has finally come, announcing this week that he was filing papers to make his 2008 Presidential bid official. Although he admits to a tendency to “bloviate,” he thinks that an aggressive advocate with rough edges might be just what the party needs right now. “Democrats nominated the perfect blow-dried candidates in 2000 and 2004,” he said, “and they couldn’t connect.”

Though Mr. Biden, 64, has never achieved his national ambitions, he has in recent years emerged as one of the party’s go-to experts on foreign policy. In the past week, he has spearheaded the Democratic pushback against the President’s plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, opposing the move with a non-binding resolution that his party has rallied around.

On a recent weekday afternoon, he was discussing his rivals over a bowl of tomato soup in the corner of a diner in Delaware, about a 15-minute drive from his Senate office. He wore a red cardigan and blue shirt, periodically raising his raspy voice over the sound of loudspeakers summoning customers to pick up their sandwiches. He had showed up carrying a Mead notebook filled with handwritten talking points, but once he’d gotten started, he closed the book and pushed it aside.

The subject he prefers to talk about these days—particularly when contrasting himself with his prospective Presidential rivals—is Iraq.

Addressing Mrs. Clinton’s latest proposal to cap American troops and to threaten Iraqi leaders with cuts in funding, Mr. Biden lowered his voice and leaned in close over the table.

“From the part of Hillary’s proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’ We’re not going to equip them? O.K. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.”

The result of Mrs. Clinton’s position on Iraq, Mr. Biden says, would be “nothing but disaster.”

Most early polls show Mrs. Clinton as the party’s clear front-runner. Mr. Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is firmly in the thick of a pack of third-tier candidates. Still, he thinks that at such a precarious point in the nation’s history, voters are seeking someone with his level of experience to take the helm.

“Are they going to turn to Hillary Clinton?” Biden asked, lowering his voice to a hush to explain why Mrs. Clinton won’t win the election.

“Everyone in the world knows her,” he said. “Her husband has used every single legitimate tool in his behalf to lock people in, shut people down. Legitimate. And she can’t break out of 30 percent for a choice for Democrats? Where do you want to be? Do you want to be in a place where 100 percent of the Democrats know you? They’ve looked at you for the last three years. And four out of 10 is the max you can get?”

Mr. Biden is equally skeptical—albeit in a slightly more backhanded way—about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

But—and the “but” was clearly inevitable—he doubts whether American voters are going to elect “a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,” and added: “I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.”

[Ksyrup]

"Mr. Biden, who ran an ill-fated campaign for President in 1988, is a man who believes his time has finally come, announcing this week that he was filing papers to make his 2008 Presidential bid official."


But he copied Obama's filing papers!

[panerd]

As a third party voter I hope that he runs against Hilary.

[stevew]

Who started the whole "Obama went to a wahhabi school thing?" If it was Hillary, did she hire Karl Rove?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

But he copied Obama's filing papers!

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[NoMyths]

Yep, only took a little under four hundred years, but we finally have "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". Guess it was only about a hundred years of work for each of those character traits. Good thing we've got Biden and his haw lantern scouting the path for us.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by stevew

Who started the whole "Obama went to a wahhabi school thing?" If it was Hillary, did she hire Karl Rove?

It was actually from a periodical called Insight on the News. Insight on the News is part of Rev. Moon's media empire (which also includes the Washington Times). So, I'm doubting it was Hilary's people that planted the story.

[NoMyths]

You also have to love him trotting out the "but he speaks so well!" chestnut.

[JPhillips]

It's the "clean" part that I just can't understand. Does he really think it's unusual for blacks to be clean?

John: FYI: Insight was a part of the Moonie empire, but isn't anymore. Moon dumped it, but the guy currently running it kept it going.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

You also have to love him trotting out the "but he speaks so well!" chestnut.

I must have missed that part of the article.

[JPhillips]

"articulate"

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's the "clean" part that I just can't understand. Does he really think it's unusual for blacks to be clean?

John: FYI: Insight was a part of the Moonie empire, but isn't anymore. Moon dumped it, but the guy currently running it kept it going.

Didn't know that. I only knew Insight from the old days and when I saw that was the source for the Obama allegations, then I was sure it was unreliable.

My favorite part about the whole thing was for the media outlets that picked the story up, they totally omitted the fact that right after attending that school in Indonesia he went to Catholic school there as well. Just like your average terrorist-in-training.

[stevew]

Biden has no chance of winning, I don't know why he's trying to flatter himself by running. I'd put him behind Hillary, Obama, and Vilsack by a ton for starters, this is just a futile attempt.

[flere-imsaho]

Barring any unexpected revelations, the only candidates with a chance of winning the Democratic nomination are Hillary, Obama and maybe Edwards. I think Gore would also have a serious chance, but I don't think it's likely he's going to throw his hat into the ring.

Anyone else declaring for the Democratic nomination is doing so because they're either a) deluded b) running for VP or c) doing so to increase their speaking/book-deal money.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

"articulate"

Spinning that (in the middle of a bunch of attributes) into a "but he speaks so well!" comment seems a bit of a stretch.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It was actually from a periodical called Insight on the News. Insight on the News is part of Rev. Moon's media empire (which also includes the Washington Times). So, I'm doubting it was Hilary's people that planted the story.

Then Fox News rode it off the rails, and we know Hillary isn't pitching stories to them ...

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by stevew

Who started the whole "Obama went to a wahhabi school thing?" If it was Hillary, did she hire Karl Rove?

They attributed it from her camp. Seems a little early for her to mudsling. But she's not going to use him as her VP, so...I don't know that she doesn't want to make his camp a little hot under the collar especially since they're vying for the same behind-the-scenes people and early supporters.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Then Fox News rode it off the rails, and we know Hillary isn't pitching stories to them ...

Right, this was my take. That they wanted to kill two birds with one stone with that story. Seems like it'll take a little more than that, I'd imagine.

[JPhillips]

Brian: That's what articulate means.

Nobody had to dig up the story on Obama. It's in his books.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's the "clean" part that I just can't understand. Does he really think it's unusual for blacks to be clean?

John: FYI: Insight was a part of the Moonie empire, but isn't anymore. Moon dumped it, but the guy currently running it kept it going.

Clean-cut, I imagine. Not clean like "he showered." I think in contrast to say, a Jesse Jackson or really the whole image of the black politicians as grimy huckster. Obama really does rise above that, but he's the first to emergy on the national stage too without all of the civil rights baggage of the 1960s. And while people downplay it, I really do believe the fact that his dad wasn't American plays a huge part in his disconnectedness from all of that.

In terms of a "first mainstream black candidate" I don't think it ever occured to anyone that it would REALLY be an African-American in the true sense of the term. So, it's sorta...bizarre.

[QuikSand]

I do support his use of "blow dried" as a pejoratrive insult to phony politicians.

[QuikSand]

One thing we know for certain is that longshots never come from way back in the polls to win elections.

I'm hardly going to argue that Biden is a likely nominee, but if he's going to win, it's got be by separating himself somehow. If he becomes the Democrats' perceived "straight shooter" who happens to have some experience on issues of importance... well, that seems to me to be a reasonable straw at which to grasp. What is a better option? Run as just one more candidate with the same list of tired ideas and Bush-bashing as the last guy and the next guy?

[JPhillips]

I do support his use of "blow dried" as a pejorative insult to phony politicians.

You mean like this guy...

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Spinning that (in the middle of a bunch of attributes) into a "but he speaks so well!" comment seems a bit of a stretch.

As JPhillips pointed out, it's not spin -- that's the English definition. "Articulate" is merely the fancy (read: political) way of saying so. Biden simply said that this is the first African-American who has talked well, dressed well, seemed intelligent, and was good-looking...he just did so in more articulate language.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Biden simply said that this is the first African-American who has talked well, dressed well, seemed intelligent, and was good-looking...he just did so in more articulate language.

Before this ends up spinning even further into a racial spiral, didn't Biden say that this was the first A-A Presidential candidate with those qualities?

(Because if he actually said just the first A-A who was etc, etc. then you've got a helluva story on your hands here)

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Before this ends up spinning even further into a racial spiral, didn't Biden say that this was the first A-A Presidential candidate with those qualities?

(Because if he actually said just the first A-A who was etc, etc. then you've got a helluva story on your hands here)

Not according to the story copied in the first post, he didn't.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

As JPhillips pointed out, it's not spin -- that's the English definition. "Articulate" is merely the fancy (read: political) way of saying so. Biden simply said that this is the first African-American who has talked well, dressed well, seemed intelligent, and was good-looking...he just did so in more articulate language.

You just seem to be taking that as way more of a backhanded compliment than I believe it was meant to be. Seriously, I think some people just want to be see offense in things. Clearly a president should be articulate (the current Bush notwithstanding), but call a black man articulate and all hell breaks loose. I also saw your later post answering Jon that his comments were of the first "African-American", not the first "African-American presidential candidate", when the "presidential candidate" was clearly implied since the whole interview was about presidential candidates. I clearly read his description of Obama way differently than you do.

[albionmoonlight]

It was years ago, but I remember someone doing a study that showed that you could pretty much predict who was going to win the presidency by which of the two major candidates had the least negative campaigning done against them in their primary.

Now, I have no idea what article that was, whether it is still relevant, or what standards the guy used to determine "negative campaigning," but it is probably something about which both parties need to think.

For the first time in forever, both parties' nominations are wide open, with no sitting President or Vice-President running. It would seem that such an open field would encourage candidates to go negative early and often.

Hell, we still have almost two years until the election, and we are hearing the attacks start already.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Before this ends up spinning even further into a racial spiral, didn't Biden say that this was the first A-A Presidential candidate with those qualities?

(Because if he actually said just the first A-A who was etc, etc. then you've got a helluva story on your hands here)

Mr. Biden is equally skeptical—albeit in a slightly more backhanded way—about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

I don't know. The word mainstream doesn't strike me as a synonym with presidential candidate. It seems much more far reaching than that.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by BrianD

You just seem to be taking that as way more of a backhanded compliment than I believe it was meant to be. Seriously, I think some people just want to be see offense in things. Clearly a president should be articulate (the current Bush notwithstanding), but call a black man articulate and all hell breaks loose. I also saw your later post answering Jon that his comments were of the first "African-American", not the first "African-American presidential candidate", when the "presidential candidate" was clearly implied since the whole interview was about presidential candidates. I clearly read his description of Obama way differently than you do.

So you believe he chose the word "mainstream" to mean presidential candidate? Can I have some of what you're smoking.

Please.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I don't know. The word mainstream doesn't strike me as a synonym with presidential candidate. It seems much more far reaching than that.

Again, context counts. The whole discussion was about presidential candidates. Is Obama a fringe third-party candidate? No, he is a mainstream candidate...in one of the top two parties being talked about by the mainstream media as a real candidate.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Barring any unexpected revelations, the only candidates with a chance of winning the Democratic nomination are Hillary, Obama and maybe Edwards. I think Gore would also have a serious chance, but I don't think it's likely he's going to throw his hat into the ring.

Anyone else declaring for the Democratic nomination is doing so because they're either a) deluded b) running for VP or c) doing so to increase their speaking/book-deal money.

I don't believe that's true at all. Where was Kerry in '02? Or Bill Clinton in '90? It's still anybody's game.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't believe that's true at all. Where was Kerry in '02? Or Bill Clinton in '90? It's still anybody's game.

I agree with st. cronin, so everyone else MUST be wrong.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I agree with st. cronin, so everyone else MUST be wrong.

I couldn't disagree more.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Again, context counts. The whole discussion was about presidential candidates. Is Obama a fringe third-party candidate? No, he is a mainstream candidate...in one of the top two parties being talked about by the mainstream media as a real candidate.

So, Biden can't use english correctly and it's up to the end user to not once, but at least twice, come up with an alternate meaning to challenging words like "mainstream" and "articulate." Got it.

Look, I'm not calling the man racist but did he say something ridiculously stupid? Yes he did. Trying to mangle it to make him look good is pretty much a huge stretch.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't believe that's true at all. Where was Kerry in '02? Or Bill Clinton in '90? It's still anybody's game.

Completely different situations. Neither 2002 nor 1990 featured an early Democratic candidate with either the war chest & control of the national party (Hillary) or the star power (Obama) that you're seeing now.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

One thing we know for certain is that longshots never come from way back in the polls to win elections.

I'm hardly going to argue that Biden is a likely nominee, but if he's going to win, it's got be by separating himself somehow. If he becomes the Democrats' perceived "straight shooter" who happens to have some experience on issues of importance... well, that seems to me to be a reasonable straw at which to grasp. What is a better option? Run as just one more candidate with the same list of tired ideas and Bush-bashing as the last guy and the next guy?

Wasn't Clinton an also-ran in the Democratic primaries, way way back in the polls? Granted, its not an election, but he turned it around in a big way.

Once the candidates are decided, can a longshot win an election? Ask George Allen and his 20+ point lead.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Completely different situations. Neither 2002 nor 1990 featured an early Democratic candidate with either the war chest & control of the national party (Hillary) or the star power (Obama) that you're seeing now.

But just the fact that there are two of them is bad news for both of them. If there was just one of them, I would be more inclined to agree with you. I think this is going to get very ugly, in an entertaining way, and all three of those top candidates could blow up.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

But just the fact that there are two of them is bad news for both of them. If there was just one of them, I would be more inclined to agree with you. I think this is going to get very ugly, in an entertaining way, and all three of those top candidates could blow up.

That's why Joe should wait a bit. I think he'd be better served by Biden his time a while before making a move.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Completely different situations. Neither 2002 nor 1990 featured an early Democratic candidate with either the war chest & control of the national party (Hillary) or the star power (Obama) that you're seeing now.

If we could predict the future, it wouldn't be the future. Candidates peak too early, shoot themselves in the foot, or otherwise fall apart. In hindsight we can see why, but pretending that we saw it in the moment is an illusion.

[st.cronin]

Let me just add, that those three (four, actually) names are definitely the most likely candidates. But I think it's at best 50/50 that one of them is actually the nominee. There's too much time, too many things can go wrong.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Axxon

So, Biden can't use english correctly and it's up to the end user to not once, but at least twice, come up with an alternate meaning to challenging words like "mainstream" and "articulate." Got it.

Look, I'm not calling the man racist but did he say something ridiculously stupid? Yes he did. Trying to mangle it to make him look good is pretty much a huge stretch.

I'm not trying to make the guy look good, and I'm not coming up with new meanings to mainstream and articulate. You are the one that chose to equate "mainstream" to "presidential candidate". I'm saying that he didn't include the words "presidential candidate" either explicitly or in code because he didn't have to. The whole conversation was about presidential candidates. You are taking a sound-bite and fitting your own context around it. I'm suggesting we fit the sound-bite into the original context.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

But just the fact that there are two of them is bad news for both of them. If there was just one of them, I would be more inclined to agree with you. I think this is going to get very ugly, in an entertaining way, and all three of those top candidates could blow up.

Look, first of all, I said "barring unexpected revelations", so I understand the possibility that one of these candidates could blow up (i.e. Howard Dean). My point, however, is that the material advantages both Hillary and Obama have at this stage were not possessed by any Democratic candidates in 1990 or 2002.

Originally Posted by John Galt

If we could predict the future, it wouldn't be the future. Candidates peak too early, shoot themselves in the foot, or otherwise fall apart. In hindsight we can see why, but pretending that we saw it in the moment is an illusion.

In hindsight we can see why Clinton won the nomination before the 1992election, but that's not my point. My point was that in 1990 I remember thinking "these guys are all a bunch of losers, I don't think any of them can win." I also don't remember any real front-runners in 2002. Sure, Kerry had a lot of party organization backing, Dean had the grassroots, and Edwards was having some success with the middle ground, but I don't remember thinking of any of them as front-runners. In fact, I remember the consensus in 2002 being that if Gore joined the race, he'd wipe the floor with all of them.

So, again, my point is that the situation now is completely different to those two examples. Hillary and Obama are clearly front-runners, and possess current advantages that the other Democratic candidates simply don't have, and aren't likely to gain. Sure, either Hillary or Obama could implode, but if they don't, I don't see how anyone but either of the two of them wins this nomination.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'm not trying to make the guy look good, and I'm not coming up with new meanings to mainstream and articulate. You are the one that chose to equate "mainstream" to "presidential candidate". I'm saying that he didn't include the words "presidential candidate" either explicitly or in code because he didn't have to. The whole conversation was about presidential candidates. You are taking a sound-bite and fitting your own context around it. I'm suggesting we fit the sound-bite into the original context.

Actually, I didn't equate "mainstream" to "presidential candidate." I twice denied that when someone says mainstream he means presidential candidate. Barring just forgetting the words he chose to use, then they have, oh, you know, meaning. What is the meaning of the word mainstream in this statement? Why was it used?

You say it doesn't matter. Since he was clearly talking about presidential candidates that the words he uses don't mean what they mean when speaking english otherwise. Even if he meant mainstream political candidates that are black he's just insulted Keyes, Jackson etc saying they do not possess the qualities of intelligence, articulation cleanliness, looks, etc.

Either way, it's a dumb thing to say.

[John Galt]

flere, my point isn't that the other situations are similar. Rather, I'm saying front-runners have a way of disappearing in unpredictable ways in primary season. Little things (like Iowa and New Hampshire) can totally change the outcome. External events can also change the whole feel of an election (Bush I's unexpected collapse certainly changed the whole feel of the 92 election). And suddenly someone comes out of "nowhere" and wins the nomination. And then, in hindsight, we see why that person came out of "nowhere" and the flaws in the frontrunners that we ignored before. If Clinton's campaign implodes, for example, we might say her negative ratings were her undoing. If Obama meltsdown, may be we will chalk it up to inexperience and he will look like he never stood a chance in hindsight.

Knowing with any degree of certainty who the Democrat's 2008 nominee will be in January 2007 is hubris. Even limiting yourself to the options of Edwards, Obama, and Clinton seems foolish, IMO.

[ISiddiqui]

Have to agree with John Galt. It is WAAAY too soon to be saying who are the only ones with a chance. You have to wait until at least the summer to get a decent picture, and even then, you have primary bumps and skeletons in the closet, etc.

[JPhillips]

You also have to look at other things Biden has said. For example this when asked why he could win southern primaries,

"my state was a slave state."

or this

"You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

"You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."

Clearly he was talking here about a presidential candidate going into one of these places and by effecting a disguise accent you might be able to order a sugary pastry without being assailed by the public. Clearly a wise tip to dispense to his rivals.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by John Galt

flere, my point isn't that the other situations are similar. Rather, I'm saying front-runners have a way of disappearing in unpredictable ways in primary season.

Could you give some examples? I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I'm honestly trying to think of examples where a clear front-runner went into a primary season and didn't get the nomination, barring unforseen revelations or a "Dean-esque" meltdown.

Knowing with any degree of certainty who the Democrat's 2008 nominee will be in January 2007 is hubris. Even limiting yourself to the options of Edwards, Obama, and Clinton seems foolish, IMO.

I honestly think it's different this year. Barring unforseen revelations or a "Dean-esque" meltdown, I think one of those three is the nominee in 2007.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I honestly think it's different this year. Barring unforseen revelations or a "Dean-esque" meltdown, I think one of those three is the nominee in 2007.

Way, way too early for a prediction but my Nostradamus vision says that Edwards wins the nomination after cutting a deal to make Obama the vp and getting his support.