Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Biden '08: Not Just All Talk

Sen. Joe Biden months ago began making clear that he intends to run for the Democratic nomination in 2008. But until the last few days there was very little beyond the Delaware senator's rhetoric that suggested a real campaign was underway.

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware
Twenty years after his first run for the White House, Sen. Joe Biden is making a second bid for the presidency. (Getty Images)

That changed yesterday with the announcement that Luis Navarro would serve as Biden's campaign manager. Navarro most recently served as executive director of the Florida Democratic Party. He also was deputy campaign manager for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) during the 2004 election and spent several years as political director of the Service Employees International Union.

Navarro's hiring should help build credibility for Biden among political insiders, and he brings strong connections to the Hispanic community and organized labor -- two key constituencies in a Democratic primary fight.

The Navarro hire is the most public sign of Biden's intentions but far from the only one. Papers establishing a presidential campaign committee -- not an exploratory effort -- will be filed by the end of the month with the Federal Election Commission, and a campaign headquarters in Wilmington, Del., is currently being organized.

More than a dozen staffers are currently at Biden's Unite Our States PAC and will quickly move into roles on the presidential campaign. In addition to Navarro, Biden's former chief of staff -- Danny O'Brien -- will serve as political director and Larry Rasky, a longtime Biden loyalist involved in the 1988 campaign, will be the communications director. Chris Koerner, formerly of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, will be the campaign's finance director.

In addition to his expanding campaign staff, Biden maintains a kitchen cabinet stocked with family and longtime advisers that includes his sister, Valerie Biden-Owens, former chief of staff Ted Kaufman and David Wilhelm, a past chairman of the Democratic National Committee and Iowa state director for Biden during the '88 campaign. Mike Donilon, a past political consultant for Biden, is also an informal adviser.

Biden is also seeking to address the biggest potential problem with his candidacy -- fundraising. Biden insiders say he will show roughly $4 million on hand in his year-end report (as of Oct. 30 he had $3.3 million in the bank). They also say the senator has won over financial big-wigs to support his candidacy.

One interesting sidenote is Biden's potential fundraising strength in Boston. Should Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) decide against a second national run in 2008, Biden allies believe he is well-positioned to fight Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) for support among campaign donors in Boston. As evidence they point to a commitment from Jack Connors, chairman of the board at Boston College as well as the advertising firm Hill Holiday, to raise money for Biden.

The first three months of 2007 will be crucial to Biden's chances. His task is not to beat Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in fundraising; rather, it's to distinguish himself from the second-tier pack that currently includes Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.) and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.

There's little question that if Biden has the money he can stand on a stage and compete with any candidate in the Democratic field. But he must show a commitment to raising the $10 million (or so) he must show on hand at the end of March to be seen as a credible candidate. The senator's recent moves suggest he understands how important the next 90 days are to his nascent campaign.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 11, 2007; 5:30 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Parsing the Polls: Is Bush's "Surge" Idea DOA?
Next: Romney Builds Beltway Cred

Comments

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | January 31, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Nice try "editorial department" ...

Now, we know President Bush did not have VP Cheney's pace maker in his hand. But we do know what Clinton was doing with those Cuban cigars..he ruined them...it makes them soggy and hard to light.

Posted by: MaximusExcrucio | January 16, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Maximus was a Spook and can say little else about Maximus's service. Maximus knows that a lot of vets who brag about being big combat vets, were usually not much more than Permanent Latrine Orderly's. But the service needs them too.
Maximus remembers when America listened to the Kerry-Patton types and we left Viet Nam faster than a John Kerry Hero, millions died. We cannot let the good people of Iraq and the entire region suffer a similar fate. Maximus is begging you liberals...please don't have another Kerry-gasam...let's win this one. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way".

Posted by: MaximusExcrucio | January 16, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"the best argument against GOP governance"
IS THAT THEY "brought us GEORGE W. BUSH. Yes, that same GEORGE W. BUSH who sat in AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASSROOM with MY PET GOAT, SURROUNDED BY THOSE WHO WERE HIS INTELLECTUAL EQUALS, YET young enough to be his GRANDCHILDREN. This AS the WTC was
BEING attacked and Al Qaeda was planning ITS SUCCESSFUL ESCAPE. BIBLE in one hand and DICK CHENEY'S PACEMAKER in the other.....YOU CAN HAVE the GOP."

Posted by: editorial department | January 13, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Follow-up: If the President's "surge" doesn't work and if the Administration continues pursuing objectives no longer accepted by the American public, the demonstrations will begin to grow in size from "hundreds" to "thousands," with the possibility of "tens of thousands" (think Springtime on The Mall in Washington).

Those demonstrations will inevitably begin to include contingents of Veterans Against the War. Everything he fears will be happening. I wonder what Maximus' comments will be like then?

Posted by: Duh! | January 13, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Colin, that was me. Sorry. It was really meant to be a two-edged comment on Maximus. He said that he served in the Navy for 20 years, so he gets credit for serving. But, it also appears that he was a Rear Echelon type who has no concept of what combat is like; yet has no reservations about demeaning those who did have to face the enemy, and possible death, directly.

He seems to fit that Newt Gingrich categorization of Conservative Republicans, "We know what we're against; we don't know what we're for."

Gingrich, the History Professor, said that in the hope of spurring actual intellectual thought on the part of Conservatives. Gingrich's challenge didn't seem to make it as far as Maximus.

Posted by: Duh! | January 13, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Would be nice to include your name if you're going to criticize. Regardless, my statement was in just -- as I assume Maximus's was as well. In fact, I tip my cap to his/her post bringing up LBJ and Kennedy. It was funny.

Posted by: Colin | January 12, 2007 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Not fair Colin. Maximus posted that he is a career Navy veteran. He served. Maybe he was a REMF and served where there wasn't any action, but he did serve.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Maximus -- good to know you were against Vietnam. You know, like most of the Bush administration. Oh WAIT, they supported it they just didn't want to FIGHT...

Posted by: Colin | January 12, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Maximus, Do you join this blog because they've run out of booze at the VFW Hall; and you can't bloviate there until they get more?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Colin:
Why bring John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson into this?

Posted by: MaximusExcrucio | January 12, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Maximus -- if that's the best answer you can give, both you and your party are in trouble. There's not much doubt that the country would swap GWB for Clinton in a heart beat. Turns out BJs aren't as serious as starting and then bungling wars of choice.

Posted by: Colin | January 12, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Dan,

You are right that Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time John Edwards sponsored the bill to authorize war in Iraq. But Obama gave speeches in Illinois around the same time, strongly opposing war in Iraq.

Someone said none of the leading candidates was without some flaw or inexperience. My responseis that there are no perfect human beings. But I believe Obama is as authentic, intelligent, visionary, and empathetic as any politician in several generations.

Posted by: Robert* | January 11, 2007 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Maximus Gluteus still blaming the Clinton's for everything. Come up with something original and germane.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

"the best argument against GOP governance is...GOP governance"

This from the people who brought us Bill Clinton. Yes, that same Bill Clinton
who sat in the Oval Office for two years with his underpants down around his ankles
being serviced by an intern young enough to be his daughter. This after the WTC was
attacked and Al Qaeda was planning to attack again. Penis in one hand and soggy Cuban's in the other.....I'll take the GOP.

Posted by: MaximusExcrucio | January 11, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I will at least try to get back to more serious issues of the day. The announcement today of Chris Dodd has been expected for some time now, so that is no big news. What I find fasinatating is the spin-doctors out in force about GW's little talk last night. Now Tony Snow is on CNN with his. I have been busy trying to keep up with most of it, and honestly there is no way. This "surge" has already started by some accounts. Some are reporting, guessing, this is only the beginning for an attack on Iran that has been planned or in the planning stage for a long time.

Posted by: lylepink | January 11, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

KOZ said: "So if adding troops is so wrong for whatever reason, what is the right thing to do? still no coherent response from the opposition."

I would suggest that the opposition hasn't formulated a "good" plan for dealing with Iraq because - quite simply - there are no good options available in 2006. Some of us anticipated that would be the case, and therefore argued that the war was a bad idea from the very start. What do we do now? Pick between horrible options.

Oh, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this. We're now going to send in approximately 21k additional troops; do you really think that's going to take care of the problem? If we're going to be intellectually honest in debating Iraq, lets at least agree that truly "winning" in Iraq -- assuming that means something other than installing a quasi-friendly dictator -- is probably going to require a commitment of another 100k troops for a term of at least five more years.

Are you in favor of that? Even acknowledging that if we spend that much manpower, blood, and treasure we may nevertheless end up in the same position we're in today? If so, I'll give you credit for at least being honest. Otherwise, this talk about "winning" the war is just an excuse by the Bush administration to run out the clock on his presidency so he can force someone else to clean up his mess.

Once again, the best argument against GOP governance is...GOP governance.

Posted by: Colin | January 11, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Kingofzouk....the real one....it looks like you're in battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

Posted by: MaximusExcrucio | January 11, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

On the contrary, I have the fondest admiration for you cretins. this is my real identity and has been the same from day one. I don't think i can be mistaken for my copycats since they harbor no skills in originality, logic, reason, creativity, deduction, argument, humor or looks. you see I suffer from steller appeal in all of the above.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 11, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

We better hope a southern Democrat steps up to the plate. Gee, since 1952 how many nonsouthern Democratic presidents have there been? One, Kennedy, in an election decided by Mayor Daily of Chicago and 40,000 Democratic voters whose names turned out to be from cemetaries. Otherwise we have Johnson from Texas, Carter from Georgia, and Clinton from Arkansas. Maybe its a regional issue. Maybe its voters don't trust Eastern Democrats. With one exception. southern Dems have had the only success in the last 50 plus years. Maybe Bredeson with his 70% approval ratings. At least he would win Tennessee.

Posted by: JustDaFaxMam | January 11, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk,

Having lurked on this blog for some time, I've seen you derisively refer to Democrats, liberals, etc., as well as shamelessly attack people, post insanely long rants completely devoid of substance, all similarly posted without a real identity.

Hello kettle? This is the pot. You're black.

Posted by: Pot Kettle | January 11, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

will the real kingofzouk please stand up!

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 11, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

another shining stalwart of the Lib party, no ideas, only insults to offer and so cowardly, can't even identify himself, instead choosing to rob another of his good name. you have revealed much in your buffoonery and chicanery.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 11, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

see what I mean? I AM a moron.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 11, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

That pickle guy did not seem able to roll with the big boys last night on TV. Unimpressive and evasive. Edwards just can't seriously answer a question in any depth or detail - he wants to remain the master of the soundbite but I don't think that dog will hunt.

After seeing the reaction to Obama's beach photo, and remembering his ears encounter with Maureen (the vapid wing of the party)I don't see him surviving the clinton attack, which will be vicious.

there will be no chance for a NE LIB now or ever again. the country is willing to let you anti-capitalists nibble around the edge with minor tinkering on wages, regulations and nanny agendas, but the real muscle (defense) requires a serious person with solid conservative credentials. that is why we almost always elect Rs to the president - at least for the last 40 years except peanut (a total disaster and learning experience) and billie (lib light).

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 11, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Have I ever known what I was talking about?

I'm pretty much a moron, aren't I?

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 11, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Biden suffers from what Dodd and everybody else from the DEM left/center wing will suffer, once he gets rolling: there are tooooo many Northeast senate types vying for the '08 DEM nomination, both for the $$$, and the attention. On the other hand, there is a paucity of talent from the rest of DEM world making plans for a run. Vilsack is confused with that pickle company, Richardson looks and sounds like Horatio Sanz, Edwards appears like he just finished high school, (his wife looks and sounds more presidential), and other potentials like J. Napolitano, are too busy doing what they were elected to do, and righteously so, to be concerned or counted. Obama can grow on people, if he doesn't declare early, and I expect, will be the universal choice for Veep for whoever stumbles into it, in '08. Beginning to look like Humphrey/Muskie, without the Oval Office blessing, at this juncture.

Posted by: L Sterling | January 11, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

It will be interesting to see who Joe gets as a speech writer...Neil Kinnock or Hair Club for Men!

Posted by: MaximusExcrucio | January 11, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk: ur 03:21pm post. The shame of it all appears now to be someone is using your name.

Posted by: lylepink | January 11, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Judge, if I were actually able to predict the future with any accuracy I would be at the horse track today or in Monaco. since i am not you can assume that my predictions can't be banked upon.

but I did get some of it correct:
leftists bloggers revealed for poltroons, - media bias? lack of focus or ideas from Dems

I'll take 50%, better than most prognosticators.

this temporary loss of congress will play into my grand strategy for 08 quite nicely. It hasn't taken long for the Dems to reveal their true selves - a 5 day work week in 4 days because of a night football game, a standing ovation for mr cold cash. and the biggest accomplishment - upped 74 teens salaries who weren't already getting $7.25. can we have the GOP majority back now. 100 hours is up.

No need to mention the cut and run like a Frenchie idea you chickens are harboring. Maybe you should consider moving to France. Didn't Baldwin promise this and renege? Oh, i keep forgetting that Dem promises are worth nothing.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 11, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

colin, we are done with our has-beens. McCain may want the job but there is severe resistence to this notion. I am all for Rudy and believe he will surprise the chorus of naysayers who naturally assume all R voters are troglydytes or religious freaks. some of us are war-mongers and want to incinerate the enemy old-school style. Rudy will come through with this. I saw him after the speech and he said something, right off the cuff, that still has never occured to bush and his team of writers - WE as Americans need to win this war. It is not about R or D or Bush or Pelosi. all the talk about lying and profiteering and the other nonsense is getting to be just too dumb to consider any longer. the folks who continue on this path are truly losers. I don't object to policy differences but the personal attacks get us nowhere. when did this become the default position - I think it was the clinton years based on bad behavior on both sides.

So if adding troops is so wrong for whatever reason, what is the right thing to do? still no coherent response from the opposition. and don't feed me the redeployment will get a fire under the Iraqis butts. You must assume they are doing their best and less support will result in more damage.

how did a noble and brave attempt to free a global region and make permanant changes to a failing foreign policy of appeasement become something human rights watchers frown upon? do any of you have patience to see something through to the end despite the hardships since it is so important? this situation reminds me of halfway through grad-school. the questioning - why am I doing this while everyone else is out having fun? why am I spending the money? etc.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 11, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

A former Democratic U.S. senator from Alaska and a proclaimed candidate for the presidency in 2008 is calling both President Bush's plans for U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Democrats' response inadequate.

http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/2007/01/white-house-candidate-hits-bush-dems.html

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"Headline prediction for Nov 8:
Dems gain 11 seats, Repubs hold house
Liberal lawyers heading to courthouses, leftists bloggers revealed for poltroons, inaccurate predictions questioned - media bias? Pelosi to be demoted, exit polls cite lack of focus or ideas from Dems, Republican turnout surprisingly strong.
Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 03:20 PM"

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 11, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Compare yesterday's topic and conversation to today's: Yesterday was a truly interesting discussion of representative government, the history of the Senate and the Constitution. Today? Endless sniping and a rehash of the same tired, old candidates.

Chris, despite the obscurity of the question yesterday, the conversation was about a million times more interesting. It was a credit to the blog...far better than endless bickering over 2008 by people who think they are Karl Rove, James Carville, etc. all rolled into one.

Posted by: Uninterested Participant Observer | January 11, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I am thinking ahead to Nov. 08 when Hillary makes her thank you speech for being elected the next POTUS.

Posted by: lylepink | January 11, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- Reagan again? McCain again? Nixon again? Republicans are FAAAR more likely to recycle candidates than Democrats are. Interestingly, many of those Republicans have won the second or third time around. Losing a nomination fight once shouldn't be a disqualifier, although I agree that that doesn't make Biden a viable candidate.

Posted by: Colin | January 11, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

> Condi loves Pravda... fair and balanced, you bet.

Yep. She favors Prada Shoes and Pravda News. Her constituency will be the "fascist fashionista" vote.

Posted by: B2O | January 11, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

> Condi loves Pravda... fair and balanced, you bet.

Yep. She favors Prada Shoes and Pravda News.

Posted by: B2O | January 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"'doesn't he ever get tired of being wrong?'

from the guy who promised you a republican sweep in november -- LOL"

Whoever posted this...pick a name coward.

Posted by: FH | January 11, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

'The people want her to run'

Not anyone I know or have heard her -- except you.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Please name concrete "accomplishments" of Senator Joe Biden in the area of diplomacy and foreign affairs? Calling Slobdan Milosavic a war criminal is not an accomplishment. He did influence policy on the Bosnia situation but that pales in comparison.

He is a decent and intelligent Senator but he is definately "senatorial" and not presidential material. Maybe cabinet post material or Supreme Court justice.

Richardson has a problem with Wen Ho Lee but with recent security lapses at Los Alamos under the Bush administration, should deflect a great deal of such criticism.

Posted by: RMill | January 11, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

All this talk about electability and win calculations is so short-term and fruitless. Right before the primary the polls will actually mean something, so that is a good time to take electability into account to help you decide on your vote. The polls could change directions a hundred times before then.

For now, the most useful thing to discuss is, for each candidate, assuming they won, what would they do?

Posted by: Golgi | January 11, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Biden's best asset is David Wilhelm, former DNC chair. Wilhelm is extremely bright and savvy about politics and Iowa and will keep Biden in the hunt.

Posted by: Quad Cities | January 11, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

'doesn't he ever get tired of being wrong?'

from the guy who promised you a republican sweep in november -- LOL

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Of the field of Democrats seeking or likely to seek the party's nomination, look to Joe Biden for the broadest and most thorough knowledge of matters crucial to assuming the presidency. His tenure on various committees, chairing those of foreign affairs and judiciary, highlight an impressive resume. His proneness to flippant remarks is his weakness. The plagiarism rap pales against Hillary's nondisclosure that "it takes a ghostwriter"
and if he took a shortcut in school, it makes me wonder what Bush, who couldn't answer a simple question on unemployment in debate with Kerry, may have done to fascilitate his way through business school.

Posted by: Ric Demian | January 11, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Robert, Obama wasn't in the Senate and called upon to make the decision whether to support or oppose intervention.
I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I just can't bring myself to be excited by any of these candidates.

Posted by: Dan | January 11, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Biden, again??? Ha ha ha. How about Kerry again? Or Kennedy? Or gore? Or mondale? Or dean? don't you ever get sick of the same old liberal retreads? this is not a strategy to win, although I doubt a Dem would even be able to define the word win based on the posts above. better stick with trying to define "is". calling for our defeat is going to be your undoing. you can't change a leopards spots or in your case, the yellow stripe. someone please shut Ted up. doesn't he ever get tired of being wrong?

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 11, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it refreshing that Biden isn't setting up a committee to explore.... but charging full speed ahead with his candidacy.

He isn't a perfect human being, but Biden has the "fire in the belly" to put the country back on course, our country, not Iraq.

Biden is head and shoulders above Vilsack, Dodd and even Richardson in experience and good ideas, and he can communicate.

If the media covers the hearings, Biden should get quite a boost.

I think the country wants ABACOB.... Anyone But Another Clinton Or Bush.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | January 11, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Agree with robert that the Dems can win without the South but they would need to build on their gains in the West and Mid-West from the mid-term elections. I would like to see a charismatic Democrat from the mid-West or West emerge. Richardson is interesting but I think his resume padding and the Wen Ho Lee fiasco will hurt him. Lax security at nuclear labs under his watch as Energy Secretary will make for some interesting attack ads. I have been pushing Wesley Clark in here as the ideal Democratic candidate - retired 4 star general with high level diplomatic experience, opposed the Iraq war from the start, attracts a great deal of net roots support, plenty of appeal to centrists. I think he is a very long shot but I believe he would be the most electable Democrat.

Posted by: JimD in FL | January 11, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

If Joe Biden would be a good VP for Obama or Edwards, wouldn't Dick Lugar be even better?

Posted by: Golgi | January 11, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Lark, well, Fox is not in battle with Condi, and they let her speak with being crucified (like Chris Matthews or others who interupt as you are answering their POINTED question).

Neil Cavuto asked Condi about running for president (interview November 2006) and she responded that a person who has to be convinced to run might not be very good.
Cavuot replied that some of the BEST presidents had to be convinced to run.
Washington did not want the job and neither did Eisenhower, but the people wanted them as their nation's leaders.
Same for Condi. She is favored by over 42% in the latest Marist poll to run.
The people want her to run and it would show her would win a few states too.
Competition will give us the best Republican for the White House.
The Democrats can figure out their own choice and I wish them luck. But it is not going to be Biden. He and Dodd are going to cancel each other out.
It will be either Hillary, Obama, or Edwards.

Posted by: Tina | January 11, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Kerry= war hero
Sandy=buffoon

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Kerry = buffoon

Posted by: Sandy | January 11, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

DTM, that's my thinking Biden might work as a VP for Obama or Edwards.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | January 11, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Let's assume that their is a Dean-esque electibility flight from HRC (when we all start to remember how hated she actually is). Let's also assume, Obama/Edwards are too vulnerable on the experience question to also be electable. Who fills the void? Biden at least seems plausible.

In my view, Dated Dean/Married Kerry, could be at work again in this election. I think most of the perceived front-runners HRC, Obama, and Edwards, have big general election problems.

Posted by: TG | January 11, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

about time there is someone that is worth look at as a possable president. someone with knowledge of how the world works. not just what they have been told how it works

Posted by: milkman | January 11, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"where's that charismatic southern Democrat who can connect to the common people?"

He's busy directing YouTube videos.

Posted by: Golgi | January 11, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the kind of money needed to run for Vice President seems to get higher every cycle.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | January 11, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse


• Rice: "My Fox guys, I love every single one of them"
• She said she'd like to do interview with CBS anchor Harry Smith
• "I know [CBS is], like, 55 in the ratings, but I like [Smith]," Rice said
Adjust font size:


]WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice let slip her news media preferences Thursday, saying, "I love every single one" of Fox News network's correspondents and also favors CBS anchor Harry Smith.

In comments overheard on an open microphone between morning television interviews, including one with Fox, the top U.S. diplomat said: "My Fox guys, I love every single one of them."

Isn't that sweet? Condi loves Pravda... fair and balanced, you bet.

Posted by: lark | January 11, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

I hate appeals for southern Democrats. LBJ predicted that his signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would hand the South to the Republican party for decades. And he was right. Not all white southerners are racist. But enough are racist that it makes the South very difficult for any Democrat to win. Remember Gore couldn't carry his home state. Nor could Edwards as the VP candidate. If we are going to give Southern racists veto power over who we nominate, we might as well nominate a grand wizard of the KKK - in which case I'll stay at home and not vote. The Republican Party actively courts - and has a lock on - the xenophobic vote. Blues can win without the South.

Posted by: robert* | January 11, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Biden may have more knowledge (debateable) but not more experience.

Bill Richardson far and away has all the necessary tools on both foreign and domestic fronts. Biden's book knowledge pales compared to Richardsons hands on abilities (witness the recent Darfur cease-fire, something no other country or the UN could broker).

Posted by: RMill | January 11, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Biden may have more knowledge (debateable) but not more experience.

Bill Richardson far and away has all the necessary tools on both foreign and domestic fronts. Biden's book knowledge pales compared to Richardsons hands on abilities (witness the recent Darfur cease-fire, something no other country or the UN could broker).

Posted by: RMill | January 11, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Biden's a legend in his own mind and he has never be able to connect to the common man. Everyone wants their team to win. But every Dem being discussed is too inexperienced or flawed personally. And society isn't ready, yet, for a black, woman, or Hispanic president. Is that fair? Hell no. The Dems being mentioned are the wrong people at the right time. The White is there for the taking. But, where's that charismatic southern Democrat who can connect to the common people?

Posted by: JustDaFaxMam | January 11, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

'Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh, whose boss Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki travelled last year to Tehran as part of a series of high-level contacts that have sealed a warming of relations between former enemies Iraq and Iran, said Baghdad had demanded an explanation from Iran and Washington on the matter.'

This is key... Maliki didn't know, was not consulted about raiding the Iranian embassy, and he's pretty cheesed about it. And he's the guy that we're supposed to get more 'cooperation' from?

Face it, chickenhawks. This new 'plan' is a pastiche of fantasies and already-failed policies and a prescription only for rapidly escalating bloodshed, steady loss of our troops and more civilian deaths.

Tell me how you would feel as a parent of a kid in the military now, after your kid has already had 3 tours of duty and you're being told that more 'sacrifices' are necessary, that his tour will be extended yet again and that now the war might get 'bloody'?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Biden's good, but both he and Hillary will have to face their demons over Iraq. Biden's better with that than Hillary, though, of rH is just now finding the courage to snipe at Bush over Iraq
http://polibuzz.blogspot.com/2007/01/hillary-responds.html

Posted by: sb | January 11, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Iranian officials are reporting that American troops raided the Iranian consulate in Arbil, northern Iraq early Thursday morning. US soldiers seized computers and official documents and arrested five Iranian officials present at the building.

A diplomat working at the consulate confirmed the operation took place. "Americans arrested five people and took away all the computers and documents," the diplomat reported.
US soldiers are reported to have entered the building after forcing open the outer gate. Security officers are also reported be among those arrested.

While the US Army has not yet made a statement regarding the incident, the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that the event was under investigation.

Last month US soldiers arrested two Iranian diplomats who were visiting the area as guests of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. The reason for the arrest, which caused a brief crisis between the countries, was given as suspicion that the diplomats were preparing an attack. The diplomats were released shortly following their arrest.'

very often, this sort of thing is a prelude to a formal declaration...

Posted by: watch for it... | January 11, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

'Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said he was no nation-builder; nation-building was wrong for America.

Now, he says it is vital for America.

He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today, U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.

He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.

He has told us the war is necessary...Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden.

He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi Army, and "de-Baathified" the government. He short-changed Iraqi training.

He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence.

He sent in troops without life-saving equipment.

Gave jobs to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis.

Staffed U-S positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.

We learned that "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".

He has said more troops were not necessary, and more troops are necessary, and that it's up to the generals, and removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.

He told us of turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government,the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, ¤elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

'Keith: We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers. As they stood up-we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course',The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists. The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.

And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Robert*, H Clinton was very active in White House politics for eight years. Once her campaign starts, she will be pitching that as eight years of the closest experience anyone can have to the presidency before they actually are inaugurated themselves (see this week's New Yorker article for a preview). Those eight years undeniably do add up to something.

The counterargument for your candidate Barack is that if she wins, every president for the last quarter century will be part of a single Bush / Clinton dynasty slugfest that belongs in the 20th century instead of the 21st. Barack fans usually interpret her (undeniable) experience as passive and passe, grounded in ex-leaders' worldviews.

My view - let's leave it there for the time being. Once Hillary and Barack actually start their campaigns it will become clearer which viewpoint has it right. But let's give them as long as they want to put that off.

Everyone will be better off if BOTH Hillary and Barack get six more months to put hard Senate work in, before having to go light on senatorial duties for campaign drudgery. They are both doing good work right now, and since so many Democratic senators have already jumped into the campaign, we should thank Barack and Hillary for doing their work as long as possible.

Posted by: MM | January 11, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Biden exudes confidence in foreign policy matters more than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat.

Posted by: candide | January 11, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Also, of the leading Democratic candidates, only Obama was right on Iraq - at a time when Bush and his war were at the height of their popularity. That type of political courage and good judgement is worth far more than any amount of experience. And none of the leading Democrats have much more experience than Obama. H Clinton has one term as senator. Edwards started campaigning for president after just two years in the senate; I'm guessing he didn't get much out of his last 4 years in the senate. And of the leading Dem candidates, only Obama has both state and federal elected experience.

Posted by: Robert* | January 11, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

In speech on Iraq escalation, Bush promises more bloodshed, wider war

By the Editorial Board
11 January 2007

President Bush's television address Wednesday night, announcing his dispatch of over 20,000 more American troops to Iraq, signaled that the bloodletting in that country will increase dramatically in the course of 2007, and that the Bush administration is likely to expand the war into Syria, Iran and other targets in the Middle East.

This decision to escalate the US military intervention is a direct repudiation of the results of the 2006 congressional elections, in which millions of American voters expressed their opposition to the war in Iraq by putting an end to Republican control of the Senate and House of Representatives.

The first wave of additional troops has already begun deploying to the region, and a total of six brigades will be ordered all together, five into the city of Baghdad and one into Anbar Province, center of the Sunni insurgency against the US occupation. Bush has also sent an additional aircraft carrier task force--equipped with hundreds of nuclear weapons--into the Persian Gulf.

Bush made several references to the likelihood of greater American and Iraqi casualties as a result of this military escalation. He used truly Orwellian language to present plans for a colossal bloodbath as a program for "reducing the violence in Baghdad."

He blamed past failures of the US occupation forces on too few troops and "too many restrictions on the troops we did have." In other words, a military campaign that has already produced torture and humiliation at Abu Ghraib, mass murder at Haditha, and the rape and murder of Iraqi schoolgirls will now "take the gloves off."

Bush outlined plans for greatly increased military action in the Iraqi capital. Iraqi and American military forces will flood the city, "going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents." What that means in practice was shown the day before the speech on Haifa Street in central Baghdad, when Shiite Iraqi soldiers and American troops rampaged through a Sunni neighborhood, killing at least 50 people and leveling entire city blocks.

Once the Sunni-populated areas of the city are subdued, the offensive will turn to the Shiite areas, especially the vast working-class area of eastern Baghdad known as Sadr City. US military forces have been barred from combat operations in that part of the capital, but now, Bush declared, "Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated." The result will be the incineration of entire neighborhoods by US firepower, and a death toll among the Shiites that will exceed that under Saddam Hussein.

Increased violence in Iraq is only the beginning. Bush threatened both Iran and Syria with military action, suggesting that the deteriorating position for the US occupation regime in Iraq could be salvaged by widening the scope of the war.

In language that recalls the declarations of Richard Nixon in ordering the invasions of Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War, Bush claimed that Iran and Syria were actively aiding the Iraqi resistance, and he promised retaliation: "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/bush-j11.shtml

Posted by: che | January 11, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Remind me what sank Biden's earlier presidential campaign. Wasn't it plagiarism charges? Speaking of plagiarism, why does John Edwards "borrow" lines from Barack Obama without attribution?? For example, Edwards took Obama's response to the "inexperience" question, and used it nearly verbatim without attribution. And Edwards left wing platform of war against poverty will play well with independents and moderate voters. (Read my sarcasm.) I heard Biden during some judicial confirmation hearing, and I wasn't impressed; he didn't sound much brighter than George W Bush. And what about Hillary? She is smart, but seen as the product of too many focus groups. And she has no charisma. Of the leading candidates, only Obama is nonpolarizing, and able to unite Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans. Only Obama has the combination of academic accomplishments, charisma, and fundraising ability.

Posted by: Robert* | January 11, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

At the very least, I think Biden's participation will improve the quality of the primary debates. I'm not sure I see him as a viable Presidential candidate for various reasons mentioned by others, but he would be an interesting complement as the VP candidate to someone like Obama or Edwards.

Posted by: DTM | January 11, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Colin

HRC may occupy the center philosophically but she has little or no appeal to many of the voters who occupy the center. I think there is plenty of room for a Democratic presidential contender to run to her right. Biden is highly qualified but flawed candidate - his verbosity is mind-numbing. He would make a better president than a candidate. I think Biden, Richardson and Clark are the most qualified of the candidates and would be more electable than HRC or Edwards - although both Richardson and Biden have some weaknesses. Unfortunately, they are all very long shots for the nomination. I find Obama intriguing but believe he does not have the experience required to be president. He would be a good VP choice.

Posted by: JimD in FL | January 11, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

afam212, how has Biden been vetted by a previous run? He ran in 1988, was accused of plagiarism, and withdrew from the race. A loss to Dukakis is hardly a great point in his favor.

The Democrats don't need another senator from the Northeast in this primary. Especially not someone who's been around as long as Biden.

Posted by: Blarg | January 11, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I was impressed by some points Kucinich made on C-SPAN this morning.
-- About the need to rethink the fundamental principles for effective American presidents in the global era.
-- And the global hunger for America to step up to the plate and provide effective world leadership, instead of missing the forest for the trees and relying on ineffective wars.

Did anyone else catch this?

Note, this post does NOT say "Kucinich should be president" so no need for vehement anti-candidacy responses...

Posted by: MM | January 11, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

'Iraq war costs U.S. $357,000,000,000 '

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

'This is going to be a battle of wits and my bet is on Condi to expose the Democrats who just wasting time instead of really trying to help solve problems in Iraq.
This is a key reason why most people think these committee hearings are not a wise use of time.'

Well, Tina, I don't think 'most' people think responsible government oversight [the Congress' JOB, after all] is a 'waste of time.' Mostly just people who want to keep certain things secret from the american people. Condi and bush have no intrest in 'solving problems' only in kicking the can down the road and attacking more oil targets.

They are already suggesting that the war now may get 'bloody' which must be kind of interesting to the 50,000 young americans or so who are permantly disabled as a result of it. By 2008 condi will be covered with so much blood she won't be running for dogcatcher.

Posted by: drindl | January 11, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

I just don't know about that horrendous comb-over. If you ever have a chance to catch C-Span (where they occassionally film these guys from less-than-flattering, atrocious-comb-over-revealing-angles), you'll know what I mean.

But seriously...

I like Biden's ideas about partitioning Iraq into three or four different countries. It's the only realistic solution I've really heard discussed.

Posted by: Independent Woman | January 11, 2007 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Senator Biden has been vetted by his previous run. He has foreign policy experience and as chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee will have face time so the American public can see him and his positions. I would vote for Senator Biden.

Posted by: afam212 | January 11, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards speaks out decisvely:

'Tonight, President Bush is expected to adopt the McCain Doctrine and announce his plan to send up to 20,000 more troops to Iraq. That is a grave mistake.

The president's decision is wrong for Iraq and wrong for America -- and it's time for the new Congress to stop Bush from stubbornly pursuing his failed strategy in Iraq.

Congress should make it clear to the president that he will not get any money to put more of our troops in harm's way until he provides a plan to turn responsibility of Iraq over to the Iraqi people and to ultimately leave Iraq.

The situation in Iraq demands a political solution -- not an escalation of the war that our generals agree won't help.

Escalating the war in Iraq sends the wrong message to the Iraqi people, to the region, and the world.

To get the Iraqis to begin to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving. And the best way to do that is by actually starting to leave -- not escalating the war.

George Bush wants to dig a deeper hole, but we need to climb out:

Only when the U.S. starts leaving will the Iraqi people and other regional powers be forced to step up and engage in the search for a political solution -- and bring an end to the sectarian violence.

This president has had nearly four years to get Iraq right -- and at every step, he's gotten it wrong. Tonight, he's more wrong than ever about what America needs to do. It's time for Congress to act. And it's time for America to begin leaving Iraq.'

What will Biden say?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 9:56 AM | Report abuse

"As President Bush challenges public opinion at home by committing more American troops, he is confronted by a paradox: an Iraqi government that does not really want them." Michael Gordon: "The new plan depends on the good intentions and competence of a Shiite-dominated Iraqi government that has not demonstrated an abundant supply of either."

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I will be watching the Biden HOUR as he grills Secretary Rice and Gates on matters of Iraq and the President's new plan. If he is typical in his action, he will spend most of his time talking instead of asking questions. The man loves the stage and CSPAN will be providing it for him. Now it will just be a matter of what the media thinks about his performance.

Regarding Condi Rice testifiying. The Dems will be try to lay a trap for her to fall into and hope to see her flub it up.
This is going to be a battle of wits and my bet is on Condi to expose the Democrats who just wasting time instead of really trying to help solve problems in Iraq.
This is a key reason why most people think these committee hearings are not a wise use of time.
I also hope Secretary Condi has success with her Shuttle Diplomacy to fly to Jordan and other Middle Eastern nations to bring them together in helping Iraq, their Arab neighbor.
She has her hands full and it the highest ranking Republican woman our nation has ever seen. I wish you all success and pray for her safety.

Posted by: Tina | January 11, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

"As President Bush challenges public opinion at home by committing more American troops, he is confronted by a paradox: an Iraqi government that does not really want them." Michael Gordon: "The new plan depends on the good intentions and competence of a Shiite-dominated Iraqi government that has not demonstrated an abundant supply of either."

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

'And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.'

First I've heard of this. What 'restrictions' do our troops have in Iraq? Maybe not to blow away villages in order to save them?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

"Check out the amazing similarity to a Vietnam speech by LBJ exactly 40 years ago tonight (January 10, 1967). It's almost spooky (and sad). The kicker is that six times as many Americans would die in Vietnam after LBJ's speech as before he gave it."

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war--a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: I wish I could report to you that the conflict is almost over. This I cannot do. We face more cost, more loss, and more agony. For the end is not yet. I cannot promise you that it will come this year--or come next year. Our adversary still believes, I think, tonight, that he can go on fighting longer than we can, and longer than we and our allies will be prepared to stand up and resist.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: Our South Vietnamese allies are also being tested tonight. Because they must provide real security to the people living in the countryside. And this means reducing the terrorism and the armed attacks which kidnaped and killed 26,900 civilians in the last 32 months, to levels where they can be successfully controlled by the regular South Vietnamese security forces. It means bringing to the villagers an effective civilian government that they can respect, and that they can rely upon and that they can participate in, and that they can have a personal stake in. We hope that government is now beginning to emerge.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: This forward movement is rooted in the ambitions and the interests of Asian nations themselves. It was precisely this movement that we hoped to accelerate when I spoke at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore in April 1965, and I pledged "a much more massive effort to improve the life of man" in that part of the world, in the hope that we could take some of the funds that we were spending on bullets and bombs and spend it on schools and production.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.'

Posted by: lark | January 11, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I honestly think Bush is a better communicator than Biden. Biden speaks; you can't listen.

Communication is his biggest problem.
There comes a point where he becomes very irritating with his verbose, rambling, histrionic manner. Remember when he made a big deal about how something Bush was doing in Iraq (prisoner treatment, maybe) put his son at risk and it turned out Biden's son was a lawyer in the military and hadn't left the US? It was a big act on Biden's part and a real turn off.

I think I'd have a hard time with "Whose side is he on?" and Biden. I have memories of his many preIraq War TV appearances and his very smug, dismissive attitude towards opposition to the war. He hasn't done nearly enough - hasn't done anything really - to say HE was wrong. Has he said he was wrong on the war?

Posted by: Andra | January 11, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

'Seek out and destroy.'

If there's anything in the President Bush's remarks tonight that we didn't already know or didn't anticipate him saying militarily about Iraq, it is his evident willingness to go to war with Syria and Iran.

'Speaking about the two countries tonight, the president said that the United States wiill "seek out and destroy" those who are providing material support to our enemies.

It is only a threat. But it is a far cry from the diplomatic proposals floated just last month for making Syria and Iran part of the solution. Can the president really be saying that we are willing to risk war with the two countries, and even attack elements inside them?

And how will Syria and Iran react? President Bush implicitly accused the two of providing sanctuary and material support for violent elements in Iraq. There is an ominous element here: When the President pledged to "seek out and destroy the networks supporting our enemies in Iraq," to me, that means the threat of strikes on targets in those two countries.'

All of this 'surge' and changing direction BS is simply the beginning of a much wider war--cheney has intended to attack iran and syria and secure their oil all along --and this is the beginning of that phase--now, before Dems have a chance to do anything to stop them. Once they hit targets inside Syria and Iran, it will be too late.

And h ow do we know they are 'providing support to our enemies' -- because bush says so?

Posted by: lark | January 11, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Biden when on his game, as he is now in forthrightly opposing Bush's escalation of the Iraq war, has no peer. He's smart, articulate and can communicate from his gut and connect with real people on issues that are complicated and downright dangerous to our future. The hearings he will chair during the next few weeks in the Foreign Relations Committee will probably vault him into the top tier of Democratic contenders: Biden is prepared and determined, as his performance yesterday showed. If the good Joe Biden can tamp down the bad Joe Biden throughout a grueling presidential campaign system that weeds out those who don't have what it takes to be president, he'll prove to everyone that he can be a great president. Let the campaign begin and let Biden and the others show their mettle.

Posted by: openmind | January 11, 2007 9:41 AM | Report abuse

As a loyal anti-Republican, I guess I would have to vote for Biden, but I despise his alcohol supremacist bigotry. His demagoguery on the subject of marijuana is reminiscent of the character flaws (incl. willingness to cheat) that another post mentioned. His excessive self-confidence is reminiscent of W.

Posted by: mike g | January 11, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Jan. 10, 2007 - George W. Bush spoke with all the confidence of a perp in a police lineup. I first interviewed the guy in 1987 and began covering his political rise in 1993, and I have never seen him, in public or private, look less convincing, less sure of himself, less cocky. With his knitted brow and stricken features, he looked, well, scared. Not surprising since what he was doing in the White House library was announcing the escalation of an unpopular war.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 9:18 AM | Report abuse

'The Bush administration rejected an effort Biden undertook with Senator Richard Lugar to pass a resolution authorizing military action only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts. In October 2002, Biden supported the final resolution of support for war in Iraq. He has long supported the Bush Administration's war effort and appropriations to pay for it, but has argued repeatedly that more soldiers are needed, the war should be internationalized, and the Bush administration should "level with the American people" about the cost and length of the conflict. '

I'd have to say there are plusses and minuses about Biden. As mentioned above, he really knows how to put his foot in it --he's as bad as Kerry or Dean. The positive aspect is they're not spinning and calculating every word, they often shoot from the hip -- but the downside of that is some clubfooted remarks that the rightwing echo chamber magnifies into a huge deal.

Unfortunately, the reality is that whomever the Dems put out there will be attacked massively, relentlessly, unfairly, dishonestly, and continuously -- so whomever it is better be prepared to fight a highly organized, well funded attack machine -- includig the corporate media, who were Clinton, Gore and Kerry's worst enemy.

There are also votes of Biden's that were troubling to me, including the disgusting corpporate giveaway called the 'bankruptcy bill'. He'd have a lot of 'splaining' to do, but I could possibly support him -- if he can really stand up and fight like Bill did. This will be a knife fight, don't bring a sharp stick.

Posted by: drindl | January 11, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, Joe Biden's worst enemy is himself. He, like Kerry, has an impressive resume and tons of experience. However, he suffers from the same foot in mouth disease that made it so difficult for Kerry to establish a connection with voters. Of all the candidates running in the GOP and Dem primaries (plus Gore), Biden is probably in the top five in terms of experience (along with McCain, Dodd, Kerry, and Richardson).

Posted by: Zzonkmiles | January 11, 2007 8:50 AM | Report abuse

I still don't understand who Biden's constituency is. He's certainly not going to be the darling of the left, the center seems pretty well occupied in the Dem primary by HRC, and he doesn't really have the profile to try and run to the right of Hillary the way a Warner might have been able to do. I like Senator Biden and think he would make a great SOS, but I'm trully baffled at his candidacy.

Posted by: Colin | January 11, 2007 8:49 AM | Report abuse

CC makes a good point that if Biden can stay afloat until March then he might be the dark horse everyone is looking for. He is smart and an extremely good communicator. If he can make the first debate then he can take on HRC and Edwards any day of the week. I don't know how he would stack up against Obama but it would be fun to watch.
Although Richardson's recent success in Darfur (if it lasts) is going to be a huge step for him when he runs. IMO Richardson is Biden's number 1 competitor for the 'Idea guy' candidate.

Posted by: Andy R | January 11, 2007 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Luis Navarro was executive director of the Florida Democratic Party? The party that let Republicans run roughshod over them and let Republican organized crime operate with impunity throughout Florida? He also was deputy campaign manager for Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 election? The campaign that cluelessly let an American hero be Swiftboated before its very eyes? Biden is a first-tier candidate but he could get robbed going down the Miami River.

Posted by: Long Boehner | January 11, 2007 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Joe Biden is pathetic and vain. He wants nothing more than to be smart- a desire that manifested itself throughout his career, including cheating in his TTT law school and plagiarizing speeches during another run for president 20 years ago. The only thing genuine about Joe Biden is that he is the actual personification of everything that people criticize John Kerry of being.

Re his hire of Luis Navarro- an SEIU guy who signed with Kerry (note: the SEIU wound up endorsing Dean. Good job, Luis.) only to be fired as political director after winning the Iowa caucus. Luis Navarro is just not terribly bright or competent. He lasts in the job 6 months. Tops. The only question in my mind is, will a Biden candidacy last that long?

Posted by: Biden & Navarro - perfect together | January 11, 2007 7:16 AM | Report abuse

Run, Joe, run! Biden is the smartest person in the Senate, and has more knowledge about foreign policy than any other candidate in the field - D or R. Right now (especially after yesterday's announcement), we need someone in the White House who actually understands diplomacy and international relations.

It's too bad that money and low levels of media attention are strikes against Joe Biden. When it comes down to experience and understanding of policy, he's the guy.

Posted by: GoBlue girl | January 11, 2007 7:11 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company