It's interesting to see the "Biden Support" here on DU...when no one checks his record

[KoKo]

and his background.

Desperation? :shrug:

[asthmaticeog]

1. Not desperation.

Astroturfing.




...

[stimbox]

2. Are you talking about this poll?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3685963&mesg_id=3685963

[Sparkly]

3. I like a lot of things about Biden, but I never thought of him as a liberal!

So yes, it's interesting to see how stars rise and fall on DU! :shrug:

[KoKo]

8. Yes...and it will come out. eventually. He's okay and has great sons who

are very interested in POLITICS....

[youthere]

18. Really?

Check out his record...he is considered a left-leaning liberal.

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm

On the Issues considers him a hard-core liberal.

[cascadiance]

24. Hmm... I guess he voted against a lot of Blue Dog Democrats with the Bankruptcy bill...

Yup, worked against those real right wingers like Feingold, Boxer, etc. that were for supporting that conservative view of one's right to declare bankruptcy. A good liberal position there...

[Sparkly]

29. Looks moderate to me.

:shrug:

Not that I'm intolerant of all moderates, but just sayin' it's interesting how the wind blows around here.

[mrigirl]

44. Biden is a Moderate Democrat not a hard core liberal

He has even said so in previous interviews. That is why he appeals to the masses and why he could get Democrat, Republican and Independent votes. Personally I'd like to see someone who can work with both parties in government and actually get something accomplished for a change. Biden has enough liberal in him to satisfy me and my beliefs.

[ginchinchili]

4. Apparently the only one not checking his record is you.

It's because of his proven record that we support him. He talks the talk AND walks the walk. Our country is at serious risk right now, in a lot of different ways. This is no time to be disqualifying a candidate because he doesn't support legalizing pot or because 20 years ago he voted for a bill you didn't like. If you found yourself in a fox hole and you had enemies all around you who were trying to kill you, who would you rather have in there with you, someone who just joined the army and has read all the most important books on warfare; someone who's impressively beefed up from working out all the time and whose dad bought him the latest assault rifle which he's been training with it for a month, or someone who has spent years in warfare in every imaginable situation and has lived to tell about it?

Biden is passionate, honest, and the fact that the closest thing he has to a scandal is when he was using a quote during his '88 presidential campaign and once forgot to attribute the quote to its author speaks volumes about the integrity of this guy. In a general election the Republicans would have to rely on doing what you are trying to do, make mountains out of mole hills. The Middle East could explode into a regional war at any moment and there is no candidate running who understands more about the current dynamics that exist in the Middle East. This was demonstrated in the last Democratic debate when all the candidates were asked about Iran, all giving the predictable answers, except Joe Biden who wisely pointed out that Iran is not who we should be most worried about. We need to focus on Pakistan, which has both Osama bin Laden and a working nuclear arsenal. Three days later Gen. Musharaff declares martial law and now there is rioting in the streets and we may very well face a situation where those protecting Osama bin Laden form a coalition with Pakistani moderates to overthrow the dictator who is so closely associated with the United States. This is exactly the kind of crap Biden has been trying to warn us about. No other candidate has even mentioned Pakistan until this week.

I'm sure you can find some things about Biden that you disagree with, but you have to weigh them against all the wisdom and experience he brings to the table, not to mention what a strong candidate he would make in a general election. And also weigh him against the other candidates, those other people your life would depend on in that fox hole. How much can they point to, beyond rhetoric, that would convince you that they could keep you safer than Joe Biden? And I don't mean to make this all about keeping us safe, but that is certainly a very important aspect of this, and will be the biggest aspect of the general election according to the Republicans. Put aside the b.s. and base your decision on the raw data, the bare essentials, our nation's highest priorities and then determine if there's a more suitable Democratic candidate than Joe Biden. If you decide there is, fine, but understand that this election will be one of the most important elections in our country's history and we had better get it right.

[youthere]

7. Well put ginchinchili...

Biden is the strongest and most qualified candidate we have running. I will support him as long as he is in the race. There isn't a candidate in the field that doesn't have something that gives me pause, but no other inspires my confidence like Joe Biden.

[KoKo]

9. He has "THINGS" that many can have problems with...both on Left and Right....

but then...who doesn't...you might say.

One might start with: "Why has Joe Biden had more appearances on Russert's Meet the Press than any other Democrat. Check "Media Matters" for the stats on that.

[Think82]

15. ummmm....

I'm sorry, but since when was going on Meet The Press a bad thing? Not sure what your point is.

[saltpoint]

17. When Biden is on MEET THE PRESS it means at least one person is on there

who knows what the hell they're talking about.

I'd listen to Biden speak on foreign policy til the dog dies.

[youthere]

20. I'm not getting the innuendo..Why is that a bad thing?

[PatSeg]

26. Because he is Chairman of the Foreign Relations committee

The job comes with some obligations to the public.

[Basileus Basileon]

11. How I wish you could rec a post. nt

[youthere]

12. me too.

[momto3]

13. Exactly.

With so many years in the senate, there will be votes that people will disagree with. I also did not like the bankruptcy bill, but to me it is a minor complaint compared to what he would bring to the presidency. His foreign policy experience beats any of the other candidates and is what we so desperately need at this time.

[kad7777]

95. Great post gin

Thank you!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUC8LeZ1hM4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtGCaqOdIJ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HcXkLbRIWw

[rinsd]

5. I hate it when someone gratuitously slams another candidate's supporters.

There are only a few big Biden supporters here. Tsgate10, gately, piranha that have been positively campaigning for their guy and they should be commended for it.

Joe Biden is a fine candidate.

[saltpoint]

16. I second every syllable you just posted, rinsd.

I'm a John Edwards supporter. But it doesn't mean I'm blind to attributes of other candidates.

And Senator Biden is loaded to the gunwhales with attributes.

[PatSeg]

25. Thank you

Back at you!

[IronLionZion]

56. I haven't seen Bidenites bashing any other candidate ever

which is one of the reasons why I started listening to them. I support Biden's candidacy because of his foreign policy credentials and the fact that he will not back down to Giuliani or Romney. In fact, he likes to poke fun at Giuliani every chance he gets.

[hvn_nbr_2]

6. Blibafutz mokkentok.

Hollabong dupermotten.
:shrug:

[Basileus Basileon]

10. It's official. The word "desperation" is now nothing more than a reflex, and

no more meaningful than a hiccup.

[saltpoint]

14. If you're interested in his voting record, here it is:

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm

And it's a damned good one.

[momto3]

19. Thanks, Old Crusoe.

It is good to see his voting record. I notice a lot of people on DU discrediting Biden because of the bankruptcy bill. But, he has a lot of excellent votes to his credit as well.

[Think82]

21. more than his record, he has AUTHORED a lot of legislation

that he was able to push through.eg.. Violence Against Women Act, The Biden Crime Bill, The Iraq Federalism Amendment... This shows he is a LEADER and a THINKEr with foresight. That is what makes presidents. Plus he has chaired botht he Judiciary and the Foreign Relations Committee, which are, IMO, the two most important problematic aspects facing this country today.

[PassingFair]

82. Are you sure he "AUTHORED" it himself?

He is a FAMOUS plagiarist, after all. A RENOWNED plagiarist! To anyone over 30....

From the wikipedia article on plagiarism itself:

Politics

Senator Joseph Biden

* Biden was forced to withdraw from the 1988 Democratic Presidential nominations when it was alleged that he had failed a 1965 introductory law school course on legal methodology due to plagiarism. "Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., fighting to salvage his Presidential campaign . . . acknowledged 'a mistake' in his youth, when he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school. Mr. Biden insisted, however, that he had done nothing 'malevolent,' that he had simply misunderstood the need to cite sources carefully."<55> Biden withdrew from the race September 23, 1987, and reported the law school incident to the Delaware Supreme Court. The court's Board of Professional Responsibility cleared him of any allegations.<56>
* Biden was also accused of plagiarizing portions of his speeches, and that he had copied several campaign speeches, notably those of British Labour leader Neil Kinnock and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. He denied those charges. "And he asserted that another controversy, concerning recent reports of his using material from others' speeches without attribution, was 'much ado about nothing.'"<57>

[saltpoint]

27. Hello, PhDmom, and a belated welcome to DU.

Russ Feingold, as liberal a senator as they come, voted in support of Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft. That doesn't mean I trash Feingold or question his liberal creds.

Same for Biden.

The long trajectory of his pubic life leans strongly toward a deep blue. He's a hard core liberal (the site i posted reveals this conclusion at the end if his detractors have the time to read the whole thing).

He's a good man.

[momto3]

37. Thanks for the welcome.

I really have not decided on a candidate yet. We have many strong candidates to chose from this year. But, I find myself being drawn towards Biden due to his foreign policy experience. I think this is a vital need that we have been lacking in the White House for the past 7 years.

[Perry Logan]

34. Here are some highlights: Biden voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq...

Biden is rated 36% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion. (Dec 2003)
No public funding for abortion; it imposes a view. (Apr 2007)
Supports partial-birth abortion ban, but not undoing Roe. (Apr 2007)
Accepts Catholic church view that life begins at conception. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget.
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Created nation's Drug Czar Office & drug courts. (Dec 2006)
Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)

[saltpoint]

41. Fine work, Perry. Your cherry-picking and missing the big picture are skills

you've plainly developed over some extended period of time and they are always in evidence in your DU posts.

Try reading the whole thing as a whole thing instead of something that assuages your limitations.

[Sparkly]

45. To be fair, his record on "choice" isn't stellar.

That's the main thing that I see as a negative for Biden. Clinton, Obama and Edwards all have a more liberal record on that issue.

However, Biden's experience with foreign relations, and his personal style, are factors that I think would make him strong against the Republican.

So, he has pluses and minuses. But I think we should admit that he's a moderate candidate, not a really liberal one.

[gateley]

48. He's strongly pro-choice, which doesn't really reflect his personal beliefs, which

I think says a lot about his commitment to our rights. I don't agree with his other votes on abortion, but after reading his reasoning I can understand his motives for voting the way he did. I'm posting his quotes so people can decide for themselves whether or not Biden is for them: (The link also has info on other social/rights issues that may be of interest)

Q: Are you still opposed to public funding for abortion?
A: I still am opposed to public funding for abortion. It goes to the question of whether or not you're going to impose a view to support something that is not a guaranteed right but an affirmative action to promote.

Q: You supported the ban on partial-birth abortions or late-term abortions.
A: I did and I do.

Q: And the Supreme Court came and basically upheld that ban, and you criticized the Supreme Court.

A: They upheld the ban, and then they engaged in what we lawyers call dicta that is frightening. You had an intellectually dishonest rationale for an honest justification for upholding the ban. I know this is going to sound arcane--they blurred the distinction between the government's role in being involved in the first day and the ninth month. They became paternalistic, talking about the court could consider the impact on the mother and keeping her from making a mistake. This is all code for saying, "Here we come to undo Roe v. Wade." What they did is not so much the decision, the actual outcome of the decision, it's what attended the decision that portends for a real hard move on the court to undo the right of privacy. That's what I'm criticizing about the court's decision.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Joe_Biden_Abortion.htm

[Sparkly]

91. I wouldn't call that "strongly pro-choice."

Public funding isn't "imposing a view." Kerry addressed this very well at the 'town hall forum' debate.

And "partial-birth abortion" is a crock.

[iverglas]

55. I agree

I think his vote against funding abortions for low-income women is intolerable. It reflects a narrow classical "liberal" approach to the world, one that fails to demonstrate concern for real people with real needs and elevates other people's irrelevant opinions above their well-being.

We all pay taxes for things we find abhorrent. And the rest of us get over it. That's life in a representative democracy.

His vote on the big lie that is the "partial-birth abortion" legislation is even more worrisome. It demonstrates either a stupidity or a desire to pander that I would not expect of Biden.

I think, together, they show a blinkered and unexamined approach to certain things. I think someone needs to do to him what someone obviously did to Kucinich: batter him with reason, until he realizes that his positions are not consistent with his values.

But I think the question should be, when it comes to his candidacy: would he veto legislation that did the right thing on reproductive rights? Would he veto funding of abortions for low-income women, or a repeal of the vile thing that is the "partial-birth abortion" legislation (like that would happen)?

And then of course there are judicial appointments, where I think he could be relied on.

Maybe somebody should ask him those questions ...

[saltpoint]

61. I disagree. Set the link with Biden's voting record on women's issues

generaly as opposed to abortion/choice specifically and then allow contrast with the equivalent voting record of say, Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

The link itself positions Biden as a -- this is a direct quote -- "hard core liberal."

As a Catholic he is not required, is he, to abandon a central tenet of his faith in so far as it is represented in the institutional Church.

[iverglas]

65. that's awfully problematic

As a Catholic he is not required, is he, to abandon a central tenet of his faith in so far as it is represented in the institutional Church.

Offering up the tenets of someone's religion as justification for his/her legislative behaviour is a very dangerous path to start down. It raises the old spectre of not voting for RCers because of their religion. Remember Kennedy?*

No one is required to abandon any aspect of his/her religious belief for any reason. (Cripes, I hate that word "faith". I'm just a faithless atheist me, I guess. I think people should have the damned guts to call their religion what it is. Their "faith", in whatever they have faith in, is of no more relevance than my faith in gravity is.)

A person is perfectly free to believe that there are faeries at the bottom of his/her garden -- but it is NOT acceptable for him/her to make laws that restrict when I may water my garden so I don't drown the faeries.

Biden may believe what he wants. That has nothing to do with how he behaves as a legislator, and any legislator who cites religion to justify *any* behaviour in that capacity should be tossed out on his/her ear. And their own co-religionists should be helping to do the tossing, lest their group be handicapped in the political arena by that looming spectre of obedience to the Vatican or any other non-governmental authority. The only authority that legislators should recognize in their capacity as legislators is their constituents and their constitution.

____________________________

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministerialQ&A.htm

Question: Senator Kennedy, this is E. H. Westmoreland, pastor of the South Main Baptist Church, here in Houston. I have received today a copy of a resolution passed by the Baptist Pastors Conference of St. Louis, and they're going to confront you with this tomorrow night. I would like you to answer to the Houston crowd before you get to St. Louis. This is the resolution:

With deep sincerity and in Christian grace, we plead with Senator John F. Kennedy, as the person presently concerned in this matter, to appeal to Cardinal Cushing, Mr. Kennedy's own hierarchical superior in Boston, to present to the Vatican Mr. Kennedy's sincere statement relative to the separation of Church and State in the United States and religious freedom as represented in the Constitution of the United States, in order that the Vatican may officially authorize such a belief for all Roman Catholics in the United States.

Senator Kennedy: May I just say that as I do not accept the right of any, as I said, ecclesiastical official, to tell me what I shall do in the sphere of my public responsibility as an elected official, I do not propose also to ask Cardinal Cushing to ask the Vatican to take some action. I do not propose to interfere with their free right to do exactly what they want. There is no doubt in my mind that the viewpoints that I have expressed -- there is no doubt in my mind that the viewpoint that I have expressed tonight publicly represents the opinion of the overwhelming majority of American Catholics, and I think that what my view I have no doubt is known to Catholics around the world. I am just hopeful that by my stating it quite precisely, and I believe I state it in the tradition of the American Catholics, way back all the way to Bishop John Carroll, I feel that -- I hope this will clarify it without my having to take the rather circuitous route. This is the position I take with the American Catholic Church in the United States with which I am associated.

... Question: Let me ask you then, sir: Do you state it with the approval of the Vatican?

... Westmoreland: We would like very much for the Cardinal to make the same statement.

... Question: The reason for our concern is the fact that your church has stated that it has the privilege and the right and the responsibility to direct its members in various areas of life, including the political realm. We believe that history and observation indicate that it has done so. And we raise the question because we would like to know, if you are elected President and your church elects to use that privilege and obligation, what your response will be under those circumstances.

... White: We would be most happy to have such a statement from the Vatican.

... Question: Question, sir: Do you subscribe to the doctrine of mental reservation which I have quoted from the Catholic authorities? Do you submit to the authority of the present Pope which I have quoted from in these quotations?

... Question: Pope John XXIII only recently stated according to the St. Louis Review, date of December 12th, 1958 (quoting), "Catholics must unite their strength toward the common aid and the Catholic hierarchy has the right and duty of guiding them." Do you subscribe to that?

... Question: With your conscience. In the syllabus of errors of Pope Leo IX, which the Catholic Encyclopedia states is still binding, although it's from a different century, is still binding upon all Catholics, there are three very specific things which are denounced, including the separation of State and Church, the freedom of religions other than Catholic to propagate themselves, and the freedom of conscience. Do you still feel, these being binding upon you, that you hold your oath of office above your allegiance to the Pope on these issues?

The whole thing is a fascinating read, for anyone who wasn't around at the time. But I trust nobody wants a replay.

[saltpoint]

66. Of course it's problematic. Choice is not a recent "given" on the social

landscape and politics has not fully adjusted to its being the law of the land. Citizens of that land are at this hour battling to replace "liberal" justices on the SCOTUS with more right-wing nominees. They will get their chance if we lose in 2008, too.

They won't if we win, though.

Kucinich's 180 on abortion. Biden's votes on abortion. Kennedy being a Catholic running against Protestant Nixon. The Church denying communion to Kerry. I follow the incidents but none of them singularly defines the difficulty of a conscionable public servant, whether he is as agnostic as I am or as fundamentally fire-belching as Jim Dobson.

The umbrella of the Constitution permits me to ridicule Dobson even as it permits Dobson to organize against my interests.

That's the hinge I'm talking about. Biden's overall record, which is the point of my initial response in this thread, is liberal, and it's been that way a long time.

[iverglas]

68. I see you entirely missed my point

You said:

As a Catholic he is not required, is he, to abandon a central tenet of his faith in so far as it is represented in the institutional Church.

I'll put it more simply.

Offering up a legislator's religion as JUSTIFICATION for his/her actions as a legislator is a very bad idea.

It exposes ALL adherents to that religion to the danger that they will be regarded as serving the interests of the religious group they belong to and/or its officials, and not the interests of their constituents subject to the criteria in their constitution.

It is even worse if a legislator offers up his/her own religion as justification for his/her actions. S/he is trying to legitimize serving some interest other than the interests of his/her constituents, and that is unacceptable.


I follow the incidents but none of them singularly defines the difficulty of a conscionable public servant, whether he is as agnostic as I am or as fundamentally fire-belching as Jim Dobson.

A legislator who is conscientious relies on his/her conscience as a legislator, not as a Hindu or Baptist or sun-worshipper. And the rules that govern are set out in constitutions, not scriptures or decrees. Religion has nothing to do with conscience, in any event; it is nothing more than an excuse used by those who offer it up as justification for choices that everyone makes freely, including RCers.

I did say in another post that the actual issue is what Biden would do as president -- veto funding for abortions for low-income women? veto a repeal of the vile "partial-birth abortion" legislation? (I assume these are things he could do.) I would hope not, but I think it might be time to ask.


The umbrella of the Constitution permits me to ridicule Dobson even as it permits Dobson to organize against my interests.

I said nothing about anybody not being permitted to speak or organize. I said that a legislator who cites religion as justification for his/her behaviour as a legislator is dangerous, and that anyone who tries to justify a legislator's behaviour by citing his/her religion is on a dangerous path.

[saltpoint]

70. Vote for whom you choose.

[iverglas]

72. I can't vote for anybody

And I try to make that quite clear.

I hope to see Biden as the Democratic candidate for president of the US, and ultimately as its president. I believe this would be in the best interests of both the people in the US and the rest of us in the rest of the world.

That doesn't make me blind or stupid, however. He has problematic aspects that ought to be addressed honestly, just as the bullshit innuendo and false statements made about him need to be -- which, you might note, I make a point of doing.

[saltpoint]

73. When the finger points to the stars, the fool looks at the finger.

Carry on.

[iverglas]

74. I'm sure women all over the US are thanking you

for calling them fools for having concerns about a candidate who does not fully support their reproductive rights.

Carrying that on would not really be wise.

[saltpoint]

76. Phone's ringin' off the hook.

[ginchinchili]

78. Great quote, Old Crusoe. Rest assured there are many...

with eyes glued to the finger.

[saltpoint]

79. Hi, ginchinchili. I stole the quotation from a Bruce Lee film.

!

And from the follk master himself, "There are many here among us / who feel that life is but a joke."

Senator Biden's life of public service is worth a lot more, IMO, than the mean-spiritedness his DU detractors exhibit in their various drive-bys.

Nice to bump into you tonight, by the way. I've been reading some of your other posts on the boards these last few days and enjoying every damn syllable.

[ginchinchili]

102. Now, I recognize that quote. It's one of those that have stuck in my head over the years.

Thanks, Old Crusoe. Right back at you. Have you read the article from The Nation on Biden by John Nichols? It's an excellent endorsement and very much on the mark. I think The Nation has had their writers write a piece on each candidate. Though I intend to, I haven't read the others yet, but Nichols turns his into a very aptly worded endorsement of our guy. Gateley has posted a nice thread (as usual) on The Nation article.

[saltpoint]

104. I often do pick up THE NATION but missed the Nichols piece. The Biden

group on DU were the folks who steered me to it.

Good field work, I'd say.

THE NATION is a sturdy bunch of writers. If praise is offered by these people in a periodical like that, then the subject of the praise must have earned it.

[iverglas]

87. oh my

I do trust you consider context. The quote was aimed at me, and I would actually say that I have done more than any Bidenite hereabouts to refute the falsehoods repeatedly flung around about Biden. So it may be a charming quote, but it was simply entirely out of place and extremely rude in its context.

It may well apply to the bankruptcy bill, plagiarism, brawk crowd. It doesn't apply to someone who considers a candidate and decides that s/he is the best candidate available, despite genuinely problematic aspects of his/her record.

Biden's record on reproductive rights is genuinely problematic, and I happen to think that he needs to address that problem. I still think that he is the best candidate for the Democratic nomination and the presidency of the US, and I will still object to whatever innuendo and falsehood might be asserted to discredit him.

[Sparkly]

93. Rated 36% by NARAL

The belief that life begins at conception is the logical opening for the belief that abortion is murder.

Would Biden go that far? I don't know. But he's not a "hard core liberal" on this issue.

[saltpoint]

94. I defer to skipos in post #83.

And here is NARAL's requested statement of Biden:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/biden.html

[Sparkly]

96. Fair enough.

I'm still not comfortable with his views on life beginning at conception, his vote against public funding, and his vote to ban so-called "partial birth abortion."

[saltpoint]

100. I follow. I'm an old Bella Abzug kind of Democrat, so I'm to the left of the

entire field.

I'd love to sculpt our candidates' ideological profiles to my liking, but so far none of them has phoned me up.

I'd be hoping for big portions of Mario Cuomo, Robert F. Kennedy, Bella Abzug, Birch Bayh, Howard Metzenbaum, and Mo Udall, and that's just the first round.

Biden has been in the U.S. Senate since what -- the Civil War. A long time. Any public servant in office that long builds a trajectory of both supporters and detractors, since the vote totals start to pile up pretty quickly.

He's a bigger target than some of the less experienced hands, and while he does have some votes I'd prefer he'd have gone the other way on, I respect the trajectory as it comes to me. Not only on foreign policy, although he runs blue rings around the pathetic Dick Lugar on the SFRC.

Not least, I like a person who rides a train to work.

[Sparkly]

103. Edit...

Edit cuz I was asking if he was your top pick, then noticed your avatar.

Is he your second choice?

[saltpoint]

105. He is. I'm on board for a Democratic ticket, whether my favorites are

on it or not.

The GOP group is a pack of macabre monstrous dead-enders and I don't care to have any of them choosing the next vacancies on the Supreme Court.

Playing around with demographics, I imagine that an Edwards-Richardson or Biden-Richardson ticket would block avenues of escape for any Republican combination they throw at us.

If HClinton wins nomination, and she's obviously in the lead, she could choose Clark or Richardson and get more mileage out of either of them than she could from Bayh or Vilsack.

If she wins and wants a more enthusastic participation among grassroots Democrats, she might have to consider Russ Feingold. Doyle replaces him with a Dem so we don't lose the Senate vote, and his presence offers a platform for his own presidential aspirations for 2016.

[gateley]

49. You seem to have forgotten to include a link to your source Don't worry, I put

it in my post. You're welcome.

[skipos]

83. That is the lamest cherry picking I have ever seen

You left out NARAL Pro-Choice America 100% in 2006, 100% in 2005, 100% in 2004.

Kucinich has gotten a 0% rating from NARAL in previous years, but it is obvious he would help the pro-choice cause if he was president.

[saltpoint]

92. Wham. Good points on real stats. Thank you.

Agree with you also on DK's evolution on women's rights.

[Stop Cornyn]

54. Pretty bad on abortion. Perhaps only a little to the right of Giuliani and Romney circa 2002.

[saltpoint]

62. Is that all you found in a long-time Senator's record?

If I'm to the left of Biden on Choice, I'm firmly in the front row listening to his command of the geopolitical world.

I'm asking for consideration of the whole and not the cherry-picker's lookee-here analysis, and I reassert my claim that Senator Biden is a long-time liberal.

[Stop Cornyn]

81. That's not all. I also found his bankruptcy votes gag-making. His "free" trade votes also disappoint

me (fast track, Chinese MFN, etc.). I haven't been a fan of his work on judicial nominees (lots of grandstanding). And I find Biden's proposal in Iraq to be the imposition by a foreign government of a plan that makes more sense to US interests than it makes to Iraqi citizens -- the organization of their government should be decided by them, not by us imposing our preferred solution on them.

Otherwise, Biden is a prince.

[saltpoint]

85. You could just as easily and far more preferably chosen his principled stand

against John Bolton as Bush's U.N. ambassador nominee.

To name just one example of a public servant's many-decades career.

Your intent was to be dismissive and your strategy is transparent.

You can examine the link I provided and you can determine for yourself -- if you want to -- whether the progressive and above-average-educated constituents in Delaware feel that Senator Biden should continue to represent them; they have so chosen for many years and several elections.

Or you can ignore those voters' sentiments and experiences.

The Founders evidently believed that the originally installed system is workable and in reference to their judgment, I believe the voters of Delaware know what they're doing.

That would appear to shift the emphasis on Senator Biden's standing, IMO.

[Stop Cornyn]

86. My "strategy?" I might develop a "strategy" to help Kucinich get his ideas out and might even

develop a "strategy" to help Obama or Edwards or some progressive alternative beat Hillary for the nomination, but who needs a "strategy" with regard to Biden? Biden will NEVER come in higher than 4th (and perhaps not that high) in any primary before he ends his campaign.

PS - You know that Biden has the highest percentage of his campaign funds from lobbyists, right?

PPS - I have no beef if the voters of Delaware want to re-elect Biden. I prefer Biden to his protege, the junior Senator from Delaware, but Biden's election to the Senate is not an election I vote in so I'll but out, but he's campaigning for president, an election I do get a vote in, so I have reservation (which would qualify as "grave reservations" if Biden was electable but since he isn't they only qualify as reservations).

PPPS - We agree at least that there is a shift in Biden's standing. He's overtaken Dodd (which is a shame, because Dodd has as much experience with a better record) and he may or may not overtake Richardson (which is fine by me because Richardson isn't all that progressive either). It goes no further than that for Biden.

PPPPS - Obama, Dodd, and Hillary also voted the same way as Biden on the key cloture vote on Bolton so how does that distinguish Biden? The better question is why did Biden vote DIFFERENTLY from Edwards and Hillary on Sykes to the 7th Circuit? Why did Biden vote DIFFERENTLY from Edwards, Dodd, and Hillary on Cook to the 6th Circuit? Why did Biden vote DIFFERENTLY from Dodd and Hillary on Smith to the 3rd Circuit?

[saltpoint]

88. Have some iced tea. Relax. All is well.

As it happens, I am fairly up to date on Senator Biden's voting record and have been from some years back.

If you don't get the Amtrak thing, you ain't gettin' Joe Biden at all.

And it does appear, truth be told, that you have missed the Amtrak thing.

The Amtrak thing is not a political statement. It's characterological, and it's one of the reasons people who love Biden love Biden.

Miss the train and you've missed the whole show.

[Stop Cornyn]

98. I shall have some iced tea when you knock off the Biden Kool Aid! (that was a joke)

Truth is, Biden is not a bad fellow, perhaps the fifth best candidate after Kucinich, Edwards, Obama, and Dodd.

I know that Kucinich (the candidate with the best platform) and Dodd (the most progressive of the two Senators who have over three decades of experience) are unelectable, but then so is Biden.

Edwards and Obama both offer a better platform and they are each more electable than Biden.

My biggest objection to Biden's candidacy is that some people talk about him as if he were some great liberal, but he's got a poor record on abortion, a very poor record on bankruptcy, and mediocre-at-best record on trade, a mediocre record on the judiciary committee, and a foreign policy record that you either like or find overly intrusive into other sovereign countries affairs (and I fall into the latter camp).

To me, Biden's candidacy is simply not tempting in the least, and while I don't disagree with those who like him personally because that's their prerogative, I object to those who try to portray him as one of the "liberal" candidates because he's certainly not offering a more liberal agenda than Kucinich, Edwards, or Dodd and while one might debate whether Biden's or Obama's platforms are more liberal, I have a trust in Obama that Biden forfeited with his championing of the bankruptcy bill.

If a comet rains down on the next Democratic candidates' debate and Biden escapes alive and goes on the win the nomination, know that I will vote for him. I'd even support him over Hillary (too divisive, too much triangulation, to hawkish) or Richardson (bad on trade, bad on gun control, bad on habeas corpus relief in death penalty cases) or Gravel (bad on taxation, bad on social security, crazy). But with Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, and Dodd in the race, Biden brings too little to the table.

[saltpoint]

101. I follow your points but wonder if I could toss in a couple of non-traditional

hinges as alternative assessments to Biden's candidacy.

For all his reputation as a chatty Senator, I think he has a talent for direct speech to small gatherings of voters. He is often on the talk shows on Sunday, but never grandstands in the same way Lieberman has taken to doing these last post-9/11 years.

I think native intelligence matters, and while I admire it in the visible accomplishments of our entire field, I can single out Biden's because it's manifest in his deep love of world history.

I compare this to the average voter's grasp of just U.S. history, and the profile of Joe Biden looms larger still. Dubya never struck me as a public servant, let alone a qualified one or one steeped in the congress of ideas and how they fluctuate in history. Churchill said the farther back we look the farther ahead we can see. Dubya is not that kind of thinker.

Biden is.

His public remarks on John Bolton were devastating. I more than half thought Bolton would crash the SFRC hearing and leap on Biden and try to strangle him. When Biden made his remarks, the votes were not there to reject the nomination, or even to reject it in committee. By the time Biden was finished -- with noble help from Kerry and Feingold and others -- Bolton was done for, "saved" only by Bush's cowardly interim appointment, which was mercifully short-lived.

I like smart people, even if sometimes I disagree with a particular viewpoint. I trust them. I honor the hard-wiring of their smarts and the hard work that went into making them who they are. Biden was the first in his line of the family tree to attend college. From my best hunch, he made the opportunity count.

[iverglas]

67. no, not "pretty bad" in the slightest

The emphasized items are the "bad" ones:

* No public funding for abortion; it imposes a view. (Apr 2007)
* Supports partial-birth abortion ban, but not undoing Roe. (Apr 2007)
* Accepts Catholic church view that life begins at conception. (Apr 2007)
* Nominees should agree on constitutional right to privacy. (Apr 2007)
* Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
* Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
* Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
* Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
* Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
* Rated 36% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion. (Dec 2003)
* Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

Accepts Catholic church view that life begins at conception has nothing to do with anything, and has no business being included in this list. I wouldn't expect to see Dennis Kucinich's UFO tale in his record on space-related funding, and they amount to about the same thing.

The denial of funding for low-income women who do not wish to continue pregnancies is inexcusable, and has serious real-world effects on vulnerable people.

The vote for the vile "partial-birth abortion" legislation demonstrates a failure of critical thinking as well as a lack of concern for women's well-being, and is problematic for those reasons, but won't likely have the kinds of effects that, say, requiring parental notification would.

[skipos]

84. Look at my post above.

I don't know how you could be "bad on abortion" with a 100% NARAL rating in the last 3 years.

[K8-EEE]

22. I don't like slamming any Dem and Biden's right about a lot BUT....

He lost my vote with the way he seems to be owned by the credit card companies. Didn't even support the AMENDMENTS to the bankruptcy law! Like, medical, like, serving in the reserves overseas, when that vote came out he had a red line through his name in my mind on the Prez thing.

[ginchinchili]

31. Fine then. Put Giuliani in charge of Iraq and our role in the Middle East.

Go for it. Our country is on a fine downward spiral. Why interrupt it now? We're beginning to see it in our economy. How much are we going to get done in health care or education with Giuliani presiding over a recession? And who needs allies? They all hate us anyway, right? That's what Republicans I know are always saying.

And just think of the national hate fest we can have if the election is between Giuliani, much disliked by many fellow Republicans because they view him as a not particularly ethical fellow and Clinton, much disliked by many fellow Democrats for similar reasons, both supported by their Party because he's a Republican and should be able to win, or because she's a Democrat and should be able to win. In the meantime the winds of our misaligned fate are blowing hard on the burning embers under the very foundation that this former great country is built on, and very soon our beloved Rome will be burning to the ground while we're all dancing around with our fiddles singing, what's in it for me? What's in it for me?. Our selfishness is blinding us to what is really most important. We seem to have lost the ability to look past the side issues in order to achieve the very things that keep us thriving, relevant, and free. We're so used to having it all that if we're not careful we're going to end up with nothing. Worse than that, we have the immoral gall to pass the worst of our outcomes on to our children and grandchildren, because, well, because basically that's their problem and we don't want to be bothered with it.

We need to wake up yesterday with eyes wide opened or issues like legalizing marijuana or getting our insurance to pay for a nose job will be seen as perverted jokes once considered seriously by a bygone culture that proves to be one of the most self-serving, superficial, and loathsome cultures in man's history, a culture of our making, and a history that could very well come to an end in the not to distant future, in large part because of us.

And please don't make this rant into some statement that I think Joe Biden is our savior. That's ridiculous. No one person can play that roll. That's all of our responsibility. My point is that we had better wise up real fast and a presidential election is a good place to start. Each one of us had better be sure why the candidate we choose to support will have the best chance of beating their Republican opponent, and what you know about that candidate, not what you hope they will be, but what you know about that candidate that convinces you that he or she can really pull off the rebuilding our America. Biden is solid, smart, ethical, well-informed, genuinely passionate, and I'm convinced he can help heal and rebuild our country beginning on the day he's sworn into office. I hope there's someone in the pack who has proven him or herself to you in as equally a convincing way.

[K8-EEE]

32. OMG, like Joe Biden even is in the running!

And if I don't vote for him, we get Rudy?

To that I say: EDWARDS!! Maybe he could give Joe a nice foreign policy gig - Sec State?

[Think82]

33. Ummm... I think Biden has a better chance than you think

Also, go watch George Stephanopolous' recent interview with Biden form last week, then his recent interview with Edwards. You might change your mind.

[K8-EEE]

46. I'm not really all that against Biden

But this idea that if I don't vote for him we get Rudy is not a tactic I like -- it's like a BushCo type scare tactic and BS besides, Rudy's got so many skeletons in the closet and Hill's a good politico, I don't think there's any way Rudy's going to win. The Freeps won't turn out for him -- he's a baby killa! I really don't think he stands a chance.

I really hate this BushCo era thing of letting the corporations legislate (credit card & ins. companies especially) and I think Edwards is the best guy to kick all that to the curb. Biden can be Sec State.

[ginchinchili]

36. I'd say offer that post to Edwards, but he's really not qualified for it.

What HAS Edwards done?

[murbley40]

89. I'm really sorry, but Edwards giving Joe any kind of gig is laughable.

[JohnnyBoots]

40. He is a Senator from Delaware. A lot of his constituents are employed by the

credit card companies that inhabit that state. No excuse, but he was elected to vote for his state's constituents and their interests. Just sayin'. A lot like Levin (D-Mi)and fuel efficency standards.

[ginchinchili]

52. Right, and every other senator in every other state.

Or else he or she is replaced with someone who will look out for their state's interests.

[cuke]

23. Only if Biden spells his name B.Y.R.D.

You love him for one position and ignore his record.

[ellacott]

35. What does that mean?

Why are you comparing him to Byrd?

[PatSeg]

38. Their last names start with a "B"???

:shrug:

[ellacott]

39. Maybe that's it

:shrug:

[PatSeg]

42. Sometimes people say the darnest things?

:eyes:

[cuke]

71. Sen Byrd is respected on DU despite his awful record

Biden has a pretty good record. Not without its blemishes, but pretty good all the same

[PatSeg]

28. What an odd thing to say

Have you actually read any of our posts?

Makes for an interesting thread, however.

[josh_edwards07]

30. I

agree

Edwards 08

[Bonobo]

43. With all respect, it would be helpful if you would post some information.

I have been pleased with Biden's performance lately, his energy and vehemence WRT the Bush catastrophe.

If you have something to say to dissuade me from going to his side, it would be best to say it now rather than just give me some kind of vague statement like you did in the OP. It was pretty much useless except as a vague, shadowy threat and I am oh so fucking sick and tired of those...

So, as a poster who I have seen for a long, long time, please try to elevate with some info rather than follow the idiotic pattern laid down here in GD:P by the die-harders.

I have no candidate yet. If vote was tomorrow, I would probably vote Kucinich, Dodd and then maybe Biden or Edwards...

[gateley]

47. That's funny! We Biden supporters can assure you that here on DU his

record has been checked and checked and checked again! We're constantly getting slammed by Anti-Biden posters. Like you.

Thanks for stopping by! :hi:

[Byronic]

50. That is an unfair sweeping generalization.

I, and I'm sure many other Biden supporters, did not begin life that way. We became supporters of Joe Biden BECAUSE we studied his record, looked at his opinion on issues, and made a judgement on his talents, character and vision.

Believe me, nobody becomes a Biden supporter (and certainly not when I did) because it is the sexy, popular choice to make. The Bidenites would never be hanging out with the cool kids in the schoolyard.

I don't agree with Biden on everything. But I trust him. I trust his judgement, his insight, his character.

And it took a lot of study before I chose him as my candidate. I'm sure I'm not alone in this either.

I know his 35 year record as a staunch Democrat.

I am impressed.

I am looking forward to his two terms as President of the United States.

[lyonn]

59. Wow, exactly

Trust, thats a biggie for me. I like what he stands for and backs it up.

[David Zephyr]

51. "no one checks his record"? "desperation"? Give your recent conversion to liberalism a rest.

Your "superiority" on liberal matters now that you have become a liberal is really too much.

I have no doubt whatsoever that many here at the DU who support Joe Biden know all about Joe Biden's "record" and more so than you do.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. Can you substantiate this with anything?

Or is this desperation in bashing one democrat to make your favorite look good?

[Enrique]

57. Biden supporters are making a good case for their candidate

I enjoy and learn from their posts.

[PatSeg]

63. Thank you

I can't add too much to everything people have said here, but I have to say that I did not come to supporting Biden lightly. His record, experience, knowledge and judgment have impressed me for a long time. The more I learn, the more confident I become that he is ideally suited to be president at this volatile time in our history. I've never felt this way about a candidate before and doubt I will again.

I've been around a long time and candidates like Biden don't come around often. Hopefully, we won't let this opportunity slip by us because of the media.

[lyonn]

69. Awww tsegat01, that was good but a bit mushy ,But right on!

Last time I had this much enthusiasm was when John Kennedy ran for Pres and I voted for him.

[PatSeg]

80. I generally don't do "mushy", but my enthusiasm

is unprecedented for me. I was too young to vote for Kennedy, but I think the enthusiasm I've encountered for Joe Biden is very similar to what I remember with Kennedy. My daughter is completely on board and my son discovered Biden back in 2004, shortly after I did. For him, it was a no-brainer. Something about Biden set him apart from other politicians and my son saw that. He never forgot that "first impression" and everything since has reinforced it.

For all three of us, we did not have any preconceived opinions about the candidate, so we were able to judge him from a fresh perspective. Since then I have studied the man and his history and he is still my first choice.

[IronLionZion]

58. Your lack of any info in your post...helps Biden's candidacy

your publicizing his name and encouraging people to check his record, which has been posted a few times right here in your thread. Desperation indeed.


I support Biden precisely because of his record and background.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

60. Biden Support should not be in quotes. OTOH, "no one" should be in quotes

[surfermaw]

64. I haven't checked his record, but I do konow he tired once before

And was stoped in his tracks early, however I think he would be an excellent VP or should be put in a position to help the next administration.

[ginchinchili]

75. It would just make the Democrats look like they don't have their act together...

if you have Sen. Biden serving in an administration for a president who is less informed, less qualified than he is. Why not put the most qualified candidate in the top position and let some of the others work in his administration? If we were a little smarter it would be a no brainer. It just amazes me how utterly incompetent we are at prioritizing on behalf of our country.

It reminds me very much of some of the arguments used against the candidate I supported in 2004, Wesley Clark. So many Democrats were complaining that he wasn't liberal enough. They didn't trust someone who spent his life serving in the military. He voted for Ronald Reagan. Silly me, I was thinking "perfect!" We need a strong progressive thinking Democrat who can win over Independents and moderate Republicans, and he's an extremely intelligent and ethical family man. Perfect. But no, he voted for Reagan. He was forcefully arguing against invading Iraq during the entire run up to war. Forget it. He once voted for Reagan. So they got 4 more years of America's worst president. Why don't we see how many more presidential elections we can blow because of the myopic thinking in our Party.

[saltpoint]

77. Anybody seen KoKo around?

[themaguffin]

90. don't you mean "koko?"

[flpoljunkie]

97. Has anyone asked him why he has kept Webb's bill that Hillary recently co-sponsored stuck in his

committee-the Foreign Relations committee? I'd like to know the answer.

[Eurobabe]

99. Hide thread, see ya!

[Czolgosz]

106. I'm just glad you kicked it. I almost missed this one!