Chris Cillizza on Joe Biden

Highlights of This Week's Line:

Moving Up: Joe Biden, Mike Huckabee
Moving Down: Fred Thompson
Moving Out: Chris Dodd


Joe Biden: Once you get beyond the Big 3 on the Democratic side, it's very hard to predict whether any of the other candidates has a real chance. So who has the best chance of making the leap. Biden makes his debut on The Line based on a hunch -- nothing more. With Iowa shaping up as by far the most important winnowing contest of the early states, and with foreign policy (Iraq/Iran) dominating the issue landscape in the state, Biden could well have an opening to surprise in the first contest. We've written before that Biden has managed to win Iowa endorsements far in excess of his polling numbers in the state. Recognizing an opportunity, Biden has basically re-located his national campaign to Iowa. If voters tire of the top three and are looking for an articulate candidate with a detailed plan for the way forward in Iraq, Biden could well be their guy. (Previous ranking: N/A)

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/11/the_friday_presidential_line_7.html

The only thing that lets me balance that a bit, is knowing he comes from Delaware. I doubt a statewide elected position could be maintained without backing the banking industry there.

Of course, I'm a populist and I think that vote SUCKS.

have perfect voting records either.

You know that I respect you greatly and you are something of the unofficial "Big Daddy" to many of us Iowa Du'ers, so I can absolutely appreciate your concern over Biden with the bankruptcy bill. It concerned me a lot too when I was considering Biden as a candidate to support. I did a lot of research on the issue, and here is what I come up with.

That bill passed the senate with 74 Yes votes. Remember, that this was when we still had a Republican controlled Congress, so even if Biden and the other 17 Democrats had voted against it, it was going to pass, so that leaves Biden with one of two choices...vote NO on principle and appear partisan, or vote Yes, and use his unique standing and reputation for bi-partisan cooperation to gain some leverage. Remember that Biden fought to get protection for child-support into that bill. I know there are those who would pooh-pooh that, but I can only say from first hand experience that this was long overdue. My mother-in-law raised my husband and his siblngs without receiving one dime of the court ordered child support from their father. Finally in 1999 she was able to hire an attorney to get him for all monies owed, plus interest from the last 20 years, and he promptly shifted all his assets into his girlfriend's name and filed for bankruptcy. That woman worked her ass off to raise three kids on $1.35 an hour, and couldn't even get justice in return. I'm pretty impressed that Biden was able to pull-off that small concession in the bankruptcy bill, and quite honestly I believe it's only because of his reputation in Congress, and the respect he has on both sides. I don't think Sen. Clinton could have gotten it, or Edwards. And I know it isn't a lot, but in an otherwise abhorrent bill, it is a small light. People talk as though Biden had the deciding vote on that and the truth is, Biden had nothing at all, and still pulled out a win...he was able to represent his constituency and get a tiny TINY concession for the common folk in the middle of legislation designed to tear that common man down.

I don't like the bankruptcy bill anymore than you do, but we were going to have the bill, Joe Biden or no..and we have our own Chuck Grassley to thank for writing it. And I don't doubt for a minute that Biden would rectify that bill if were elected.

I know that you don't plan to support Biden, and that's okay. NO ONE can accuse you of not being active or well-informed, which is why so many of us respect your opinions, but I do hope maybe you can soften a little on Biden with the bankruptcy bill.


:patriot:

I'm still trying to figure out why Obama and Edwards are ahead of Biden (or Dodd, or Richardson). Obama doesn't have enough experience. Is it because he did a moving speech at the National Convention? Is it because Oprah endorces him? He seems like a nice smart guy....None of these make him qualified to be President of United States, especially when God only knows how bad the mess will be when the new President inherits office. That doesn't mean he won't be qualified down the road though.
For some reason, I don't even know why...Edwards just is unlikeable to me.
Biden, Dodd, and Richardson are so much better equiped to take over as President. What's the deal? Is all about the money raised? Is it because moderators like Russert and Williams don't really bother to ask questions at the debate other than to Hillary, Obama, or Edwards? Do the people just follow the press?
Every debate I've seen so far, Biden comes across as knowledgable and filled with common sense. Given that there's a debate, just about every other week, aren't they suppose to mean something? It just seems like if the media keeps telling these are the top three candidates, and their only coverage is how will Obama and Edwards move ahead of Hillary, then what chance to the other candidates really have?
I wish there was a way Biden could move ahead of Obama and Edwards. I think he has the best chance then to move ahead of Hillary.


I like Hillary, but truthfully, I like Biden better and I think he'd be more electable.

Posted by: badger3 | November 2, 2007 08:52 AM

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/11/the_friday_presidential_line_7.html

In a way, we suffer from an embarrassment of riches (especially as compared to the group of losers running for the GOP nod).

Biden has an enormous ego and his corporatist votes on banking, bankrupcy, etc. have troubled me a great deal.

However, I find myself incredibly impressed with him as a candidate, his willingness to "call a spade, a spade,' especially in terms of foreign policy and civil rights. His experience overall is impressive. I think he'd make a fine President. Go Joe.

mostly about Iraq and less so about foreign policy. Very little on domestic policy. But when I go back and review what the records have been he comes off as not very friendly to the common person. Dodd, Edwards and Kucinich have been leaders in this area. Obama's record pretty short so far. Richardson to me has been spotty. Clinton has been a follower as best I can tell.
I look at Dodd, Kucinich and Edwards as being from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
Excusing Biden for his votes because he is from Delaware I believe gives us an insight into how he may act as president and some group leans on him (say the oil lobby). Will he do what is right for the country or them with the money?
I also recall his saying 'Judge Gonzalez, I think you're the real deal'. Well I guess he was right.

and more broadly represent my views.

Biden is a long term politician and like most, the influence sticks....But, damn if I don't like him going after the Bushies* and the "go-along" Dems over Iran, Iraq, and related issues. He's the real "smart-ass" (i.e., someone who can cut decisively in verbal jousts aided by superior intellect) as opposed to the idiot king and his smirking fratboy bullying ways.

my congress-critters voting to drill for oil off our coasts. he is representing his constitutents. that constituency changes if he becomes prez.

ellen fl

He was quite impressive the other night.

And after 8 years of idiot boy, wouldn't it be lovely to have a smart grown-up in the WH for a change?

Not sure I'm 100% decided yet though.

I've always liked him. I *think* I voted for him back in the '88 primaries... At any rate, he's a very smart guy, and strong. We need those smarts these days, for sure.

But truly, we have many good choices this go-round. Which is nice!

is a confirmed supporter. A lot of people are still weighing their choices, which is a good thing. Drop in some time and share your opinions.

and I'd actually like to know a bit more about it.

I always try to make it clear that I favour Biden from a Canadian perspective, which I hope is one that is of interest to people here. I do appreciate that there are reasons for people in the US to look askance at some of his record domestically.

On health care, I've pointed out that while I am the world's biggest booster and defender of universal single public payer health care, neither Rome nor the Canadian system was built in a day. It took us here four decades to get to 1984, when complete universality and exclusivity of the public plans was achieved -- starting with hospital coverage only (similar to "catastrophic" coverage), and starting in a single province, before being expanded to the national level and then to cover health care generally. I expect that it is unrealistic to think that a universal single public payer system can be installed in the US in the space of a presidential term, and so it seems to me that Biden's proposal is realistic and achievable and a major step in the right direction.

I'm getting the bankruptcy bill thing a little more clearly now, and appreciate the references to the constituency element of it. This is something "foreign" to a Canadian, where we have very strict party discipline (the "whipped" vote -- vote with the party or be expelled from caucus). The bills that go through our houses of Parliament deal with what they're intended to deal with, and don't get special interest riders tacked on to them that have nothing to do with the subject matter. MPs aren't constantly bartering with other MPs, whether in the same party or on the other side of the house, about things of local interest in their ridings. Anything that needs hashing out is hashed out in the party's caucus, not on the floor of the House, and MPs vote as the caucus decides -- which is generally how Cabinet, i.e. our autocratic present Prime Minister, decides, in the case of the governing party. So the whole idea of one elected representative voting on the basis of local interests that conflict with the party's decision is just, well, foreign. If MPs here decide that their party isn't in line with their riding's interests (or, more usually, their own interests), they either leave the caucus and sit independently or cross the floor to another party. Or get together and form another party; whence the Bloc Québécois, which started out as Progressive Conservative party MPs from Quebec.

So it's interesting to see that from the domestic perspective, Biden's vote was really what it would have been expected to be -- a vote in the interests of his constituents. It could be called political expediency, or it could be called being a good representative, I guess.

So I guess I'm curious how other people would see it, and why, and how it might compare to anything that other contenders may have done.

have supported that belief. Also, Biden fought protection child of care payment recipients in that bill, which previously had allowed the former spouse to cancel all obligation to pay child care if bankruptcy was declared.

As with so much legislation, there's more to it than we are aware of, and we do ourselves a disservice to knee-jerk react to what we think a representative's vote indicates.

If I felt Biden's vote was solely a result of kissing up to the credit card banks, I wouldn't be backing him. Period. I can accept a vote with which I don't agree, but I will not accept a political motive. (Biden is the second 'poorest' Senator in the country. Also, if he were on the take, he'd be doing much better financially in this campaign.)

I'm so with you on your health care opinion. I was initially disappointed that Biden wasn't offering a single payer system - which sounds great to me! But his explanation is in line with your observation. We need to get health care to those in need NOW, and don't have the luxury of "reinventing the wheel" as he put it. His immediate actions would be easily implemented within the current system, and THEN once everyone was covered, we can move toward a single-payer system as Canada did.

Immediately, he wants to:
1. Cover all children.
2. Cover all catastrophic medical expenses so lives aren't lost as a result of lack of insurance.
3. Offer sliding scale health care coverage like those in the Senate receive. Those not able to afford any insurance, would be covered by the
government.

In my mind, that's a GREAT first step!

The more I look into Biden's plans the more reasonable and logical and DOable I realize they are. More than campaign rhetoric, he's clearly studied these issues and devoted time to determine how best to address them.

Thanks for your post. I'm always so interested to hear from our pals in other countries! :hi:

the mother could not collect any child support payments. She had to hire a lawyer and go to court, and wait behind the other creditors to get any money due her and her children, money she often did not collect. Meanwhile, an abused ex-wife could not even take out a restraining order against the father if he was in the middle of bankruptcy.

I cannot forgive him for the Anita Hill debauchery.

why bother?