Biden explains why Gore, Kerry lost: Failed to convince voters they could keep America safe

[DeepModem Mom]

CNN: October 1, 2007
Biden explains why Gore, Kerry lost

ROCK HILL, South Carolina (CNN) — Sen. Joe Biden, touting his experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during a campaign stop here, said that former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry lost the 2000 and 2004 elections because they failed to convince voters they had the experience to protect Americans.

"Why did we lose?," Biden asked a crowd of about 50 people at the office of the York County Democratic Party. "We had good, decent, honorable men running (in 2000 and 2004). But anybody who thinks we're going to elect a president who cannot lay down unimpeachable credentials on national security, who cannot demonstrate by his or her record or character that they have the strength and vision to protect America as well as ending this war, I think we're making a mistake again."

Biden said that most Americans agree with Democrats on domestic issues, but that President Bush did a better job in 2004 of winning over voters on national security issues. "What he (Bush) was able to communicate wrongly, and what my candidate and your candidate (Kerry) was unable to communicate unjustly, was that he would keep America safe," Biden said.

He told the crowd he would trounce the Republican nominee in a national security debate.

"I can hardly wait to debate Rudy Giuliani," he said to cheers. "I can hardly wait to debate Mitt Romney or whomever they choose on matters relating to national security and homeland security."...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/01/biden-explains-why-gore-kerry-lost/

[eleny]

1. .

:banghead:

[Me.]

2. Totally

:banghead: :banghead:

[iconocrastic]

35. Biden missed the memo: "The elections were stolen."

LOL

[Cha]

3. Yeah, did biden mention the

corporatemediawhores made sure they didn't win?

Did he mention if Gore would have gotten his rightful place in the White HOuse that 9 fucking 11 might not EVEN have happened? con rice as national security adviser left a bad smell so the bushits promoted her. Who would have been Gore's National Security adviser? Someone who cared about our country and wouldn't be out shopping? Gore would have micromanaged that fucking August 6, 2001 MEMO, too.

So don't tell me that shite, biden.

[murbley40]

20. Did He say anything that was not true?

Why do you see what Biden said as bashing,he did not say anything against either Gore or Kerry.

[Me.]

42. Well For One Thing

In talking about a Gore loss he neglected to mention that Gore won the popular vote. In any other situation the person who gets the most votes gets the prize. The Supreme Court throwing the election to * had nothing to do with the people's choice and, I might add, shows a lack of good judgment on the part of the court.

[Uncle Joe]

60. 1. That Al Gore lost the election as opposed to the selection.

2. That the 2000 election was about national security, it was about integrity after years of corporate media focus on nothing but scandal, regardless of terrorist activity. I do recall when the Clinton Administration tried to take Bin Laden out with cruise missiles, the corporate media would go on to say, this was just a distraction to take our minds off of Monica.

3. The only time terrorism was ever brought up during the 2000 debates is when Al Gore mentioned it.

4. When Biden can't seem to bring up the elephant in the room of corporate media duplicity in their out right broad as day light slandering of Al Gore for the better part of two years prior to the selection, or the disenfranchisement of the American People's right to vote and have their votes counted or the overreach by a conservative Supreme Court; who deemed their five votes more important than the half a million plus Americans that voted for Al Gore over Bush, this tells me Biden doesn't get it or doesn't care, and he went a long way toward eliminating any support,I might have for him.

[iconocrastic]

37. "Did he mention if Gore would have gotten his rightful place in the White HOuse ...

... that 9 fucking 11 might not EVEN have happened?"

So you're blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11?

[jillan]

4. not cool!

[Pirate Smile]

5. Psst, Joe, this crap doesn't help you, it really doesn't.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Yeah, Joe, because the republican Party won't accuse you of treason

if you're the Democratic nominee. If they can smear a naval combat vet, what's in store for you, Joe? Tossing the 2004 nominee over and giving a bullshit reason why is pretty crummy of you Joe. There's lots of reasons why John Kerry is not President today and none of them have to do with Bush "communicating" anything to the American people.

[karynnj]

16. Not to mention - if you are arguing that you have communication skills,

what is even meant by " Kerry couldn't communicate unjustly". The literal meaning would seem to be that Kerry could say only just things, though in context it can not mean that. I tried to figure out what he meant - and can't. Is he saying that unjustly, Kerry was considered unable to communicate it? The problem with that is that it also makes no sense. If the view is unjust (or untrue - which removes the moral tone but might make more sense), why repeat it as a reason for losing. After this sentence - he has no room to talk about Kerry's communication skills. I've heard both speak in prepared and unprepared comments - IMHO, he should wish he had Kerry's skills.

My guess is that every Democrat will likely come close to using Kerry's well spoken line that the War on terrorism will be mostly coordinating law enforcement and intelligence with other countries and only occasionally military, using special forces to go after concentrations of terrorists - often with cooperation of the host country. Kerry did communicate this. People were too fearful to believe it.

What Biden could say, is that Kerry was right on how to make us safer from terrorism, but the country was too traumatized to accept Kerry's vision of a world where terrorism, though still a threat, would be minimized to a point where it wasn't a dark cloud hanging over everyone. The fact that Kerry DID succeed - even with the paltry help given by the media - in communicating this, is that in 2006, you had people like George Will saying that Kerry was right. This said they heard him, but couldn't accept that an inherently optimistic solution like this was possible. They were not ready to believe the nightmare could end.

I heard Biden say this same thing on one of the talk shows a month or so ago - and was angry then - that he is repeating it means this
is a theme he wants to use. There are 2 things that are weird about it. The first is why he includes Gore, when national security was not a 2000 issue and 2) why he wants to diminish Kerry when it would be more effective to position himself as being the one who could take up Kerry's position that people are now ready to accept. He could say he agreed with it in 2004. In fact, everyone in the party agreeing with Kerry's position should be claiming that.

This tacky comment - that last time was combined with another comment that took most of the attention - something like -that people did not see Gore or Kerry as really respecting their beliefs when they attended other churches (unlike himself and Bill Clinton) diminishes Biden. Both this comment on nation security and the church comment are accepting RW memes and are gratuitous insults to Gore and Kerry.

It also is ironic that in the last debate, Biden chose a part of the Bible as his favorite that criticizes the Pharisees. In the first century when this was written, this was seen as criticizing the rabbinical Jews in comparison with the Christians. In 2004, Kerry used a verse from John that had the same connotation that faith had to result in actions to be genuine. The meaning of Kerry's chosen verse is clear and it could easily be generalized to be universal. Biden's explanation of the verse he chose was so unclear, that Russert was at a loss for what it meant and Chris Matthews, graduate of a Jesuit college (Holy Cross), said it spoke against the Pharisees, who sat in the front row and were the elites. (I suspect Biden was going for the idea that it rejects the public display of religion over actually living it - but I don't know that from his incoherent explanation.) So, Kerry beats him both in speaking clearly and in not picking one of the passages in the New testament that is interpreted by some Jews as not respecting how their spiritual ancestors practiced religion. (Also, anyone who read or listened to Kerry's Pepperdine speech would know the man is very religious. Biden claims to have been his friend for 30 years. I personally don't care whether Kerry or any other politician is religious - but I find it tacky that Biden validates RW memes that hurt us - when he has to know they are not true.)

Biden's willingness to diminish others to elevate himself also extended to being dishonest about Iraq policy. Last summer, he said on Bill Mahr's show that Kerry/Feingold did not have a diplomatic piece. It did, and in fact Kerry's amendment calling for a summit was passed (by voice vote) as part of the Defense authorization last year and, in spite of being significant, got almost NO press. Biden did this even though his own proposal was not in direct conflict with K/F. In fact his passed legislation merges Kerry's long proposed summit and Biden's partition idea. The new plan eliminated Kerry's objection to Biden because it gave the Iraqis the task of defining the partitions (states) and the roles of state and national government. Here is a link, both to Kerry's comments on Biden's amendment and Biden's very flattering comments on Kerry's role. (Warner at the end of Kerry's speech made the point that the Senate had already called for a summit.) http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/09/biden_gives_props_to_senator_k.html

It also causes me whip lash. Biden has repeatedly told stories or said things like this in the media about John Kerry, then he says extremely positive things that seem sincere in the Senate, where only us CSPAN addicts are. (In addition to the linked comments - Biden in a hearing on the impact of global warming on national security - that was requested by Kerry, said that Kerry had been speaking about these impacts for 15 years and they should have listened to him. What seems counterproductive is that Biden could position himself to get the Democrats who see Kerry's positions as having been correct. He was a lead surrogate on foreign policy and was good, when he controlled his own ego. Also, he got Kerry to co-sponsor his amendment. If he were to win the nomination, there are few people who could be as good as Kerry acting as a surrogate on this issue. Gratuitously attacking him - as he did here, is just stupid.

A bigger problem is that in both these cases where he compared himself as superior to Kerry and Gore, he never bothers to really express his own policy. This makes it very hard to even try to see whether he could communicate it better than they did. I really wish he hadn't done this because I really would like an experienced candidate who saw the world more like Kerry does, than like Clinton does in terms of foreign policy. Biden, I think is in between them. What it comes down to is that in 2004, though Biden made a comment that Kerry was a very classy guy, who had made many contributions that did not bear his name. the same can not be said of him. I want to like Biden - but every time he does something good - he follows it with something tacky like this.

[Old and In the Way]

18. Excellent post karynnj!

You obviously have a more insightful perspective than I do on this. I agree that Joe's candidacy is really an audition for SOS. But, given his ongoing position defending the basis of the invasion/occupation and his trumpeted 'bi-partisan' resolution on the balkanization of the Iraqi state...I'm not so sure I want to see him in that role.

[karynnj]

28. Thank you

You may be right on Biden - that was what was said when he opted not to run in 2004 and acted as a Kerry surrogate in 2004 after he clinched the nomination. One episode makes me think he would be a lousy Secretary of State. On one of the Sunday shows, he was asked about Kerry voting for and against the $87 billion. The answer was very easy and Biden knew Kerry's intent - but rather than explaining it with his communication skills, he said that Kerry should have voted yes on both like he did. As Secretary of State, he would represent the President - just as he was representing Kerry here. (Not to mention the question was about Kerry's votes, not Biden's opinion of them.) This was one of the first times I wanted to throw a shoe at the TV when Biden spoke - and it wasn't the last.

It may be that I have watched way too much CSPAN since 2004, but I have never been so incapable of really getting enthusiastic for any of the candidates. The only one who continues to give me more reasons to be impressed is Kerry. Kerry, with his international reputation, manners, diplomatic skills and insight would make a great Secretary of State - though I hope he stays in the Senate, because we need him as an honest voice there. (Also, with Hillary Clinton the likely nominee - the Secretary of State job could be an awkward on that also has to deal with Bill Clinton usurping the role. If legal, nominating him would be a great idea. It might not be because of rule changes after RFK was AG.)

[Mass]

25. I guess Joe thinks that, if the media had him as the nominee, they would report what he said justly.

Obviously, CNN shows us how it will play, by taking a couple of sentences out of context in order to have a major democrat attacking Kerry and Gore.

Now, what did Biden say about the rest. We will never know.

Joe, this is how the media play and why Kerry and Gore never appeared strong in foreign policy and national security. It will be your case too if you are the nominee. As long as you do not understand that, you will lose.

[Cameron27]

51. Very good post karynnj,

as usual. :thumbsup:

[Uncle Joe]

61. I believe he's afraid Al Gore will get in the race now, and

Biden knows today national security is a important issue.

"There are 2 things that are weird about it. The first is why he includes Gore, when national security was not a 2000 issue"

[LearnedHand]

7. Time to blow the dust off the reason why he didn't win his own presidential bid in the early 90s

Plagiarized an old speech, doncha know. Asshole. I was liking me some Biden speeches until today. What 'puke koolaid has HE been drinking?

[Think82]

8. what koolaid have YOU been drinking, dude?

And, uh, Biden ran in 88. Stop biden-bashing if you have nothing intelligent to contribute.

[ecstatic]

36. lol nt

[AlGore-08.com]

9. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat the past...

Can the Beltway really be this clueless and still breathe?

[MalloyLiberal]

10. Geezus what a dumbass

[orleans]

11. psst. joe biden. get a clue. neither dem "lost". the election was stolen--haven't you heard?

denial is what so many of our dems seem to do so well.

well...WE'RE SICK OF IT, JOE. WAKE UP!

[Milo_Bloom]

12. Is he kidding???

No one was even thinking about national security as a major issue in 2000... if they were they probably would have voted for the author of the Gore Report which called for tighter security on airplanes, but was stopped by the airline lobbys.

Maybe Biden forgot that 9/11, the thing that got everyone thinking about "security" again didn't happen until AFTER the election was stolen from Gore?

And of course, as a voter for the IWR, Biden has no business talking about national security... when you sign onto attacking the wrong country, your credentials go out the window.

Pack it up Joe and go home.. you will not be president.

[Apollo11]

13. Why did Al Gore lose the 2000 election?

Let me throw out some names that come to mind when I think back ...

Monica Lewinsky (even if it was Bill's fault)

Maureen Dowd and Katharine Seelye

Katherine Harris and Teresa LePore

Sandra Day O'Connor

It's almost enough to make you hate women ...

Disclaimer: Just kidding ;-)

www.draftgore.com :patriot:
www.americaforgore.org

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. National Security Wasn't The Issue In 00

In fact Al Gore advocated a muscular foreign policy. It was Bush* who said America shouldn't be in the "nation building" business and should be more "humble". Bush* was the isolationist in that election and Gore was the internationalist...

Why does Biden say these things?

[acmavm]

15. This is pretty much what I'd expect from this guy. What an ass. Gore and

Kerry didn't lose. They didn't take office because of criminals and traitors in the republican party and the Supreme Court.

But hell, why mention that. Right?

[mmonk]

17. Sounds like a pretty republican explanation.

[Old and In the Way]

19. 35 years ago, Joe would have been a perfectly respectable moderate Republican.

Perhaps even in the liberal wing. My, how times have changed.

[Mass]

21. Nice of Biden to slam Gore and Kerry.

Seems Joe has drunk the DLC koolaid.

[murbley40]

22. He was not slamming anybody.

Al Gore and Kerry were my candidates also. But I can remember being frustrated with the Kerry campaign for letting the Bushies get away with that"we can make you safer" Bs. I beleive if they had not let them get away with that, Kerry would be our president today and we would not be in the mess that we are in. Denial teaches no lessons.

[Mass]

23. Kerry actually did a pretty good job at that, and, as far as I remember, Biden was one of his main

advisers on this issue. In fact, many Democrats were reproaching him to bring national security on the table. So, it seems a pretty stupid remark.

As for Gore, Biden may want to remember he WON the electoral suffrage and was stolen Florida.

Now, I understand Joe may be a little desperate not to get the recognition he ought to have, in my opinion, but this will not do it.

[LittleClarkie]

50. Indeed. The national security debate, the first one with Bush, was Kerry's strongest

Clinton kept pushing for Kerry to focus on economic issues instead, but Kerry mostly gained in the polls when he hit that issue front and center.

And Biden is one to talk when he tried to bogart the credit for Kerry's response to the bin Laden tape when Biden didn't even have a chance to talk to Kerry before Kerry had to respond.

Biden's okay, I guess. But there are certain aspects of his personality that make my teeth itch.

[mrigirl]

53. Biden advised Kerry in what to say during his speeches

running for office and I think that I heard on an interview w/ Biden years later that Kerry didn't use the information that Biden had advised him too. I think that Joe thinks now looking back that Kerry should have been more aggressive and defended his honor a little better about Vietnam. Kerry should have been enraged even more than he was and attacked Bush a little harder. I think Joe is just saying that you have to be forceful and to the point and have definitive and accurate responses to shoot down the repubs. He would have handled the situation w/ foreign policy in both elelctions a little differently. Gore and Kerry seemed to be too nice. Don't get me wrong- I loved both of them but they didn't seem to have those balls of steel underneath that nice exterior that Biden has.

[Mass]

57. And I have to disagree with Joe and you.

Obviously, there are always a lot of things to criticize in any campaign, including Biden's and Kerry's, but I think Joe was damned wrong with that and I am happy to see that at least one of Biden's supporters was not happy with the statement as well. May be she does not understand either the need to criticize previous candidates to make a point that should be obvious.

[karynnj]

65. In all Campaigns it is rarely the candidate who makes the sharpest attacks, in 2004 it was

All the Democrats should have demanded the outrage of the SBVT be stopped. Kerry supplied the proof - where was most of the party? I wish the other Democrats would at least chose between whether he spoke too much on Vietnam or too little.

Kerry got advise from Biden, Clark and many other people. Kerry himself was the one who chose what to say. Biden should consider that in 2002 at the time of Tora Bora - when Biden was not advising him - Kerry lashed out at Bush for outsourcing the effort to Afghan warlords who only weeks before were employed by the Taliban, while not using the greatest military force the world has see,our soldiers. It was pure Kerry at the end to be saying that the ieds killing "our kids" were made from ammo from ammo dumps that we knew of before the invasion that were left unguarded for months. The raw emotion in that charge beats anything I ever heard from Biden.

Kerry's attacks were stronger than those of his surrogate, Biden - none of his attacks are memorable. His were often a tangled ramble of words.

Between the media playing with the SBVT, Bush using the terror levels, Bush using government money to buy journalist to praise his program, and parts of a practicing Catholic's own church inserting itself on Bush's side, that Kerry came close shows the remarkable job that he did. His debates were exceptional. I seriously doubt that Biden could have equaled them.

Foreign policy was hardly an issue in 2000.

[PatSeg]

70. Also the attitude of voters has changed dramatically

over the past few years. There were as many voters who were fed up with Bush/Cheney as there are now. What works today, might not have worked then. I do remember though, wishing Kerry had been more outspoken and blunt at the time. Who knows, it might have made thing worse in that climate.

[ellacott]

26. I agree

I don't agree with his assertions regarding Gore but there is some truth about Kerry.

I was very angry with the way his handlers chose to handle that campaign. Kerry had Bush on the ropes in every debate but they failed to capitalize on it. I was really disappointed in Edwards when he didn't go after Cheney harder in his debate, especially when Cheney lied and said he had never seen Edwards in the Senate. They also missed an opportunity with the Swiftboaters by not responding faster and harder.

I do agree that votes were stolen and denied(I live in Ohio) but Kerry still could have pulled more votes in if his advisors had done a better job with the campaign.

[Mass]

27. Given Biden was his main adviser on foreign policy, he must be blaming himself...

[ellacott]

29. If there were foreign policy gaffes that cost Kerry the election you would be right

His foreign policy positions were correct. His camp couldn't get Kerry's message out there.

[Mass]

30. Same thing was true for Gore and same thing would be true for Biden were he the nominee.

In fact, it is already the case. What does CNN say about Biden's message: that he has slammed Gore and Kerry. Point proven.

[ellacott]

31. They also said Michelle Obama attacked HRC when she didn't n/t

[Mass]

32. Exactly, but apparently Biden misses the point totally.

Kerry actually campaigned on national security. The media did not cover and would not cover Biden any more than they covered Kerry.

If he thinks otherwise, he is a fool.

[ellacott]

33. Kerry's camp made many mistakes

I can't blame it all on the MSM.

[Mass]

34. And Biden will make many - No need to attack Kerry and Gore.

This was one (well, not his first one, but...).

But I guess we can agree to disagree on that!

[ellacott]

38. It could have been said differently

But it's not inaccurate.

With Biden you get it straight with no chaser. That can be an advantage or disadvantage. Unfortunately for Biden it's more of the latter. I like it but I know it doesn't endear him to many people.

[karynnj]

41. Kerry has been as straight on issues as Biden

He is less blunt, far more eloquent and far less likely to make nasty remarks. In Biden's words, "Kerry is a classy guy".

[karynnj]

44. They actually made relatively few mistakes compared to most campaigns

The Bush campaign made plenty of mistakes - Do you remember that he said the war on terror could not be won - then he changed his mind hours later - and the entire media dropped it? That he said in FL that he couldn't rule out a draft - then changed it. Made many flubs in the debates - never held to task on any. (they also found error with true things Kerry said.)

On the other hand, the media covered Kerry speeches by giving the topic he spoke on little detail then repeated RNC talking points that they then agreed with. Bush NEVER put out his Iraq plan, Kerry did - yet the media continued to say Kerry had no plan. This while Kerry summarized the plan, muliple times a day, day after day.

Any mistake Kerry made - and it hard to list more than 3 major things he said wrong - speaking at least 12 hours a day - was repeated millions of times - and NO corrections were allowed. There were far more errorprone candidates - including many that won.

Kerry also did have a problem with two parts of the party, not giving him wholehearted support. It would have helped if Carville and Begala actually had read his major speeches, looked at his web site or done anything to know who he was and what he stood for. The rest of us did the 1992 counterpart of that for Clinton. It didn't help that 2 of the few Democrats on TV gave the impression that they didn't like Kerry.

The other group likely was a group where the Kerry people - maybe in the the time between Kerry clinching the nomination and the convention could have done more to really reach. They were going to vote for Kerry and many of these people worked incredibly hard to defeat Bush, but winning their hearts (or at least their minds) even a little could have created more real advocates. Dean, who was an excellent surrogate, could have been asked to help on theis. They could have addressed the fact that the image of Kerry, the Dean camp used in the primaries was designed - as in any campaign - to over exaggerate the differences or create them where they don't exist. This effort reaching out to the advocates of the other primary campaigns would not have won everybody, but given Kerry real history, it could have reached many of them. This was also one of the few things that could be done without needing the MSM - which he didn't have.

[karynnj]

43. The difference is that she didn't - though bringing up the fact that

the Obamas (like the Edwards) have been fortunate enough to have a good solid relationship, does make people realize that the third member of the top three - has had a less smooth relationship. It's there.

In Biden's case he is validating a shameful Bill Clinton meme on Kerry and National Security - that ignores that Kerry was stronger on terrorism than Biden or Hillary Clinton.

[mrigirl]

56. CNN is biased. Are you really going to believe everything they say?

You're from Mass right? So aren't I. You can't believe everything in the press. It gets filtered so much. Did you catch Dan Rather w/ Larry King last week. The media is bought and paid for. Us in Mass are supposed to be one of the smarter states- don't believe eveything you hear.

[karynnj]

40. I agree with you on Iraq, but on the WoT, I think they did get it out there

I think that large blocks of the traumatized electorate were not ready yet to accept it. It was not until 2006 - when an alleged major terrorist attack was stopped by the type of approach Kerry defined, that a large number of pundits "got it". It is also possible that many pundits did "get it in 2004", but had their own agenda that may them play dumb. Kerry's main- often repeated summary statement - that the War on Terror would be mostly international law enforcement and intelligence and occasionally military action is a very could straight forward succinct summary. Now, it could resonate. It also was a very positive optimistic view that we would not live in fear forever. Then it looked to then as less likely to work than invading every country we didn't like - and they were right that Kerry was infinitely less likely to invade other countries than Bush.

Similarly on Iraq - Kerry gave a clear cut plan at NYU and then summarized it with a bullet point type summary less than 30 seconds long on Letterman that evening. The media palyed brain dead throughout 2004 saying Kerry did not have a plan and if he did it was Bush's plan - why, because the RNC said so. Yet, late last year - everyone made the point that the ISG's recommendation was to do many things Kerry proposed in 2004. This means they heard it - even if they didn't care to share it.

[Bo Bike]

71. Kerry’s 04 loss was because of fear.

It’s easy to convince people that you can keep them safe if
you scare them first. Bush was elected because of fear. Fear
he created.

[mrigirl]

54. no he's not-

he told Kerry what to say. Kerry didn't use all the material Biden had recommened him to use. Kerry lost the election on his own unfortunately because he couldn't convince America we were safe w/ him as President.

[riqster]

24. OK, Biden can go to Hell as far as I am concerned.

We did not LOSE either election. They were both stolen.

Biden is trampling two Presidents in order to further his own ambition. Fuck him.

[iconocrastic]

39. Joe, you're not going to get a chance to debate the Republican candidate

But feel free to throw spitballs from the sidelines.

[ProSense]

45. Biden just likes to hear himself talk:

2004:

I respectfully suggest that I think you’ll see John Kerry aggressively trying to work out a consensus and demand a consensus, if you will, by hardnosed discussion with our friends in private as to what are the responsibilities we share in this profoundly different world we find ourselves.

Finally, I believe we need a new commitment to bolstering failing states, to expand democracy. In the interest of time -- and by the way, I apologize, my staff told me you wanted me to speak 25 minutes and I know I wasn’t supposed to speak that long. My staff is fired, by the way.

But let me just say this, let me give you one example. Fundamental difference between John Kerry and this administration -- and many really fine people in this administration, like Paul Wolfowitz and others; he’s a fine, decent, honorable guy -- is John Kerry does not believe you can impose democracy on any part of the world, particularly one that has never had any indices of democracy. It takes time. We think you should start by withholding support for those countries that in fact are impediments to democracy. That’s a nice place to start. We should send a little clear message -- this is Joe Biden speaking -- to our friends in Saudi Arabia and to our friends in other places: You have become our problem. We are being held accountable. We are being held accountable for your failure to begin the process.

Governor Morris of Pennsylvania in writing our Constitution, when debating a particular clause which I will not bore you with, turned to one of his colleagues from Virginia and said, “It squints toward monarchy.” All we’re asking is that Saudi Arabia and many of the others start to squint toward democracy. The process has to begin to change.

Ladies and gentlemen, there’s much more to say. I've said too much already. But let me just suggest to you that anyone who thinks electing John Kerry President of the United States, which I suspect -- and he got criticized for this -- a significant number of people around the world would like to see, rightly or wrongly, anybody who thinks that means the rest of the world’s going to all of a sudden beat a path to our door to cooperate is mistaken. You will continue to attempt to take advantage of us.

Understand: John Kerry will be no one’s patsy. John Kerry will ask a great deal of the rest of the world. But John Kerry will be prepared to listen. John Kerry will be prepared to negotiate the new rules of the road. John Kerry will treat with respect and honor those great allies we have always had.

PDF

Last week:

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will not bring up the amendment or amend it now, but because time is of the essence for a lot of our colleagues, I wish to speak to what the changes are that were recommended by Senator Warner and others.

But before the Senator from Massachusetts leaves the floor, I wish to say to him--and I hope it will not in any way cause him any difficulty--he and I have been close friends for over 30 years, and I want him to know, and I want my colleagues to know, that much of what this amendment we are hopefully going to vote on is about is what the Senator and I have talked about for the last 4 years and that he has led on, including the international piece.

As a matter of fact, he led on it from a different perspective, as a candidate, as well. So I wish to tell him how grateful I am for his joining in this amendment. Quite frankly, it is a big deal that he is, and it adds not only credibility to the amendment in terms of our colleagues, but it adds, quite frankly, an international credibility to it because an awful lot of people around the world look to my colleague for his insights into what we do about the most critical issue facing American foreign policy today.

The truth is, in order for us to regain the kind of leadership in the world that I would argue we are lacking, we have to settle Iraq, and we cannot do it on our own. There is a need for the international community. Even if this answer is the perfect answer, it cannot be made in America any longer.

So I wish to thank my colleague and acknowledge that I have learned from him, and I wish to thank him for--and I know we use the phrase very blithely around here--his leadership. But I mean that. I wish to thank him for his leadership. He has been absolutely totally consistent on this point from before the time we actually used force in Iraq until today. So I want the record to reflect that.

Mr. President, while we are waiting to determine whether we are going to be able to proceed on the amendment, I think the concerns raised by several of my friends have been incorporated in

the changes that have been made. I am not moving to amend it now, but I am going to tell my colleagues what the Biden-Brownback amendment will be.

PDF

[jillan]

47. Ugh -

All I can do is just sit here and shake my head in disbelief.

Not only shouldn't he have said that - he needs to worry more about this campaign than the campaigns of the past.

[MissMarple]

46. The myth on national security has to be addressed, it doesn't matter what one thinks of Joe Biden.

Many people are beginning to question it, but the fact that Republicans are only good at national security when they act more like Democrats needs to be highlighted and clarified. Diplomacy, multilateralism and an understanding of why we don't preemptively break the military on impossible delusions of empire are cornerstones that historically have held us in good stead. George and his corporate buddies have swept that out the door. And now, we have this big mess to clean up.

Joe has a point.

[ProSense]

49. We can start by stop giving credence

to the myth: terror and Iraq

[MissMarple]

52. That would be a good thing for the issue organizations to take up.

Our vulnerable national security and how this "war" has compromised us is being avoided by the cowered media.

[karynnj]

66. I agree with your point, not Joe's

In 2006, the Democrats had a perfect opportunity to do this. Many leading conservatives, including George Will were saying, in surprise that Kerry had been right after the purported plot to blow up airplanes out of London was stopped using international cooperation in law enforcement and intelligence. This was a time for all Democrats who were not in disagreement on this to have made the point that THAT WAS OUR POLICY. They could even have done this without mentioning Kerry's name. My quess is they did not want to give Kerry credit because he looked at that point like he was still running.

It wasn't that Kerry did not get this out - he did - it was that people were not then willing to accept this inherently optimistic view.
They were still too traumatized.

As for Biden, I did not hear anything about national security that was as good as Kerry's constantly repeated comment on what it should be. I do remember a very excited Biden saying to Kerry after he finished the University of Pennsylvania that he had shot it out of the ball park - or something like that. So, this is a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking here.

[LittleClarkie]

48. On the contrary, that's when Kerry STARTED to convince people

during the national security debate. Republicans thought that would be his weakest, and it turned out to be his strongest.

[kad7777]

55. JOE BIDEN is absolutely right!!

When I read these posts above me, it makes me wanna puke. What's wrong with you people? I'm gonna take a huge guess and say that most of the posts here are for other democratic candidates (that was tough to distinguish).

Both the 2000 and 2004 election should have NEVER been lost by the Democrats! NEVER! They should have been LANDSLIDE VICTORIES. They never should have been as close as they were. Joe's right, both Gore and Kerry ran crappy campaigns and were spineless in many regards. Kerry, a WAR HERO, should have trounced Bush.

Good for Joe! I'm proud of him. Once again he speaks the truth and from his heart. And rest assured, he'll never take any republican crap.

God! I have to duct tape my head together so it won't explode when I read some of the imbecilic posts.

[PatSeg]

69. Biden wasn't saying

that Gore or Kerry weren't strong on national security, but that they were perceived as not be strong on national security. That is not a criticism of the men, but of a campaign that failed to counteract the Rovian strategies. I believe both men DID win, but as you say by slim margins which allowed the republicans to steal the elections.

I supported Kerry 100%, but there were many times when I saw flaws in the campaign. I didn't think less of Kerry as a potential president, but was critical of his handlers. People need to get a perspective on all this. There will be plenty of mistakes in the next year.

[AX10]

58. In the real world, both would have won by double digit margins...

and the congress would have come along on their massive coattails. America has a lathargic populace and a pro-establishment media, so we had elections that were close enough to steal.

[ellacott]

59. Very good point n/t

[YvonneCa]

67. My thoughts, exactly...

...Gore and Kerry had no chance to 'sell' the country on their national security credentials...the media was too busy flogging them constantly to cover their words or job experience.

[otohara]

62. Well, He Just Dropped To The Bottom

for me.

Not that he was ever in the top.

[sandrakae]

63. The elections were stolen. Biden needs to STFU.

[David Zephyr]

64. The only Democrat who craves a microphone more than Biden is Lieberman.

I just wish that Joe Biden would drop out of the contest, stop embarrassing himself and the party.

[ginchinchili]

68. As usual, he's right.

The truth may hurt, but frankly I'm tired of being lied to. Good for Joe!