Is Biden's stock going up for you?

It is for me, since the last debate.

I still have a lot of issues with him that I can't seem to get past, most notably verbosity and the propensity to needlessly 'compromise'.

But he can sure give barn burner speeches and I suspect he has cross-aisle appeal.

His bankruptcy bill vote was horrible, but overall, he has a pretty good record .....

Anyway, what's your view of the guy?

But he does live in a state where just about all of us either work for the banking industry or is related to someone who does

And yeah ...... I know how his state is and what influence the credit card companies have there. In fact, several of them have been my clients.

This...
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=234426&&

*hiding in shame that Grassley is from my state*

Thanks for the info.

Wasn't even in my top tier a couple of weeks ago. He has really come up in my estimation.

his campaign sea-legs under him, and is doing well in debates.

(Maybe I don't want to really know! :7) :hi:

my perception. :hi:

an endless list of 'proof'! :7

:)

Once the media labels a person, it is difficult to reverse it. I've heard worse gaffes from other politicians, but the media often lets it go.

I know where his bread is buttered, and it isn't with the suffering working class in America.

I agree .... the vote was odious.

But a lot of people seem to be fond of laying the blame for that at Biden's feet and the truth is 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 with 56 votes (no chance Bush was going to veto THAT bill) , so that leaves Biden with one of two choices...vote NO on principle (appearing partisan and alienating his constituency) , or vote Yes, represent his constituency and try to gain some small concession.
Biden fought to get protection for child-support into that bill. I know it doesn't seem like much, but I can tell you my own mother-in-law never received a dime of child support from an ex husband who claimed bankruptcy (after transferring all his assets to his girlfriend) and left her to support three kids on min. wage all on her own. I think everyone knows at least one single parent who get regularly screwed on their child support. I'm pretty impressed that Biden was able to to get that tiny, TINY little win..something really IS better than nothing.
That bill was disgusting and unforgiveable, and trust me, I share your anger about it...but it is not the fault of Joe Biden that it passed, and I really do believe that he would welcome the opportunity to reform the "reform" if given the opportunity as POTUS.

But as a divorced parent of 2 little girls 4 years old and 13 mos old, this bill would have been a life saver for me and my girls. But we made it and I met a great guy who took on their father's responsibilities and they are doing well with families of their own now.
Joe's reason was a good one for some of us.

was file for bankruptcy. Thankfully Mr. Debi showed up and became Debi Jr.'s dad and my wonderful husband. Allowing non-custodial parents to 'get out' of child support arrerages and accrued alimony by claiming bankruptcy is despicable. When Mr. Debi adopted Debi Jr. we agreed to 'write-off' over a year of unpaid child support.

That helps me to better understand his vote. He probably traded that important position for a yest vote on a bad bill that was ultimately going to pass.

Biden gained strides with this uncommitted voter during the debates - and your information has helped to elevate him more.

It's easy to villify Biden for his vote on that bill, but like everything else, there's more that meets the eye. I don't blame people for being angry about it, but lets keep our anger focused on the republicans who brought that bad legislation to us to begin with.

by the banking industry, don't you think he would have a bit more butter on his bread? In other words, more money in the bank, both for his campaign and personally? About his personal finances, see for instance here http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/17/193917.aspx

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03

class in America". Biden fought to include a provision (or whatever it's legally called) to ensure deadbeat child support payers weren't absolved from their responsibility if they declared bankruptcy. Single working class parents being deprived support for child care just isn't right.

As stated, it wasn't HIS bill, but obviously it was met favorably enough to pass, and Biden took that opportunity to ensure that single parents and their children didn't disappear down a hole.

Someone else has also addressed the obvious misunderstand that his bread is being buttered from the corporations and banks.

If it's harder to declare bankruptcy due to this reform bill, then deadbeat parents can't dump their obligation anyway, which sort of makes redundant the rider provision he tacked on.

And at this point, I'd like to junk the child support laws and replace it with a welfare program. Instead of forcing the father (or mother) of the kids, many of whom probably are already in bad financial shape, to pay child support, the government should step in and offer direct aid. This has two benefits in that single parents who are left to care for the young alone aren't left to hang financially, and it becomes a form of financial relief for people who have to pay child support but can't afford it because he or she screwed up.

But I find your suggestion for child support intriguing. At first glance I don't agree with replacing it with a welfare program because the absent parent DOES have responsibility for the child or children.

On the other hand, you make a really valid point about people who are in bad financial shape already.

Maybe it should be based on income/net worth/other factors and if it's a hardship for the absent parent, then the government will step in.

Has anything like that been proposed, do you know?

Republicans scream socialism whenever a new social investment program is established, and also many people are afraid of being accused of being soft on dead beats.

I understand that, but if you look at the number of people who live in economically depressed areas who have children out of wedlock, the numbers simply are too high in my view. If you're an upper class dead beat, yeah, you should pay because you can afford it, but if you're of the working poor, I think it's just senseless to also sink the person further with child support obligations.

The overriding goal with the economy should be to relieve poverty and provide opportunities for all to get a good education and a good paying job, so it seems counterintuitive to burden a person with essentially more financial obligations if the goal is to get the person out of the ghetto who started off with relatively little.

Prez there will be more acceptance? I think a lot more attention needs to be given this approach. Thanks for opening my eyes! :headbang:

I, too, disagree with Biden’s work on the bankruptcy bill, but I understand his reasons for voting for it. He was in a different position than most senators: the bill strengthened alimony laws, something he had worked towards for a long time (which fits with his history as author of VAWA). It was also supposed to help his own Delaware constituency. Remember, Senators have to represent their home state as much as they do the country. Like I say, I disagree with his vote, but given the circumstances, I won't let it overshadow his plans for Iraq, Social Security, education, Darfur, Afghanistan, and more. I should also add that plenty of other senators were more "key" for the bill than Biden - he didn't co-sponsor it like Nelson (NE) and Johnson, and he wasn't the lead Dem on the relevant committee(s). I don't understand why he gets so much venom for this bill while the other 17 or so Dems who supported it, including Reid, Byrd, and Landrieu, get off so easily. Clinton, btw, was the only senator to skip that vote. If you want to understand the real credit industry influence, take a good hard look at the presidential campaign contributions for Clinton, Dodd, and Biden. And if you want to understand Biden's real stance on the middle class, take a look at http://www.joebiden.com/newscenter/pressreleases?id=0168>his financial security plan.

I’ve also heard it said that bankruptcy is a symptom to a much larger problem, and we should be focused on curing the cause, not enabling the symptom. That’s an idea worth exploring.

when the fact is that the bill passed with 74 yes votes in the senate. Even if Biden and the other 17 Democratic senators had voted against it, it was going to pass.

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=234426&&

and the process, amendment by amendment.

It appears to have been a foregone conclusion that it would pass. Biden seems to have made some significant effort to improve it, although opposed some amendments that, at first glance, seem worthy.

(The "homestead" issues are interesting to me; my father lost my working-class parents' nest egg when he successfully sued the crook who had swindled him out of it, but was unable to collect because by then the man had taken his money from Canada to Florida and bought one of those $200,000 (in 1980 dollars) houses and made himself judgment proof.)

THIS --

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/6/63144/06015

is an interesting analysis of the bill and the process, amendment by amendment, and Biden's votes.

As has been pointed out, the bill would have passed even if Biden and every other democratic had voted against it. Biden did make some efforts to improve it, and I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to comment on the amendments he opposed.

Check this out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032400305_pf.html

This is from March of this 2007.

Seriously, if he was that beholden to any corporate special interest, he'd be at or near the front of the pack because he'd have the money necessary to run a serious campaign. Instead, he relies on regular people like us. He's not one of your multi-millionaire politicians, even though he's been in the senate forever. And the bankruptcy bill that he voted to support and then took steps to improve on was a step in the right direction, not the wrong direction. Americans will either take it upon themselves to take responsibility for their own actions, or responsibility will be forced onto us when all hell breaks loose in this country and the vast majority of us will just be focused on survival.

I had a business partner who stole from me and our other partner by stealing from our company. To make a long story short, he pocketed the money that came out of our profits that was supposed to be going to our overhead and ran up huge debts. We're talking about a small privately-owned gas station. Then he filed for bankruptcy and we were shut down. My partner and I were out a lot of money, and we're not in a position to lose any amount of money much less that kind of money, and he walked away debt-free, 2 new cars, etc., you get the picture. Had the bill everyone has so much disdain for been enacted a year earlier, he would not have been able to do it. This is the kind of situation that gave Biden his reason for voting in favor of the bill. He later went back and opened up some loopholes for extreme situations so families aren't losing their homes, etc. People have been using this one issue as an excuse not to support the most qualified candidate the Democrats have running, and most don't even know the facts. Let's not cut off our friggin' noses to spite our faces.

And honestly, as a "Clarkie", the only one I can really get behind. The others just simply don't have the experience I want. He does like to hear himself talk, but atleast he makes sense.

although it's still hard to see how he has a shot at the nomination.

contributes a few bucks and puts a bumper sticker on their car and or gets a Biden 08 t shirt and spreads the word anyway they can.

If he were to have a decent bump in funds this time, he would get some attention, perhaps. But at the very least it would give the campaign funds to get his word out with boots on the ground and maybe even media spots.
So come on board and join the Biden Group and let's show the media that we choose our own candidates. Sign up with his campaign and you will be kept informed.:patriot:

All he has to do is finish in the top 3 in Iowa and it can be done.

well in red states. Would win the "Have a beer with poll." He is great on foriegn policy and steady at home. He is still drafting great legislation while running for president. He is a fighter and will not take any shit from the GOP. He phrases things in a common sense style that will relate well with the average voter. The bankruptcy bill was bad, but credit card companies heavily populate his state and employ a lot of constituents (No excuse). I do not think that Hillary, Barack or Edwards will play well in a GE. My 2 cents.

Agree with all your points.

long to be taken in.

I don't like the bankruptcy bill vote either, but he is from Delaware. If I can rationalize Hillary's support for Israel partly because she's representing New York, I guess I have to rationalize Biden's vote on that. They all have flaws. He would likely be a good leader. I still am queasy about his long Senate record. With that much time casting votes, you can find a vote that looks like he believes in ANYTHING.

candidates has.

He does have a solid liberal voting record overall.

He has a sharp wit. I think he can both stay on top of the Media game and overcome the inevitable gaffe or two.

He'd present well in the debates.

He speaks plainly and answers the question in terms everyone can relate to.

He is authentic. He is not pretending to be a populist that he is not.

the bill entirely.

His record is decidedly centrist, if you like that sort of thing. I don't. His National Journal lifetime average is around 75, which puts him about where Edwards was during his term, slightly to the right of Dodd, and far to the right of Clinton and Obama.

I have respected him for a long time.He has became my second chocie after Edwards,and would be a great VP.Noone has gone after Guiliana like he has.And he learned his lesson with the Iraq vote unlike Hillary.Yes I disagree with the bankruptcy vote but why aren't any remembering Hilary supported bush's abstence teachings In the schools.And he does have a plan to getting out of Iraq.

either of these two would make me feel the most comfortable about the future. I just wish more people would see that.

Waiting for a miracle (but maybe they do happen).

Whoever the Dem nominee is, will get my vote and support.

I'll consider voting for Edwards or Richardson in the primary, but it'll likely be Biden. I like Kucinich and Dodd plenty, but I don't think either can carry a general election. I'm all about winning the big prize this year. No way will I support anyone who I think is likely to lose the general.

I had actually completely overlooked him and was planning on supporting Obama, but when you compare the two, toe to toe on the issues, they just don't compare. I still love Obama, but he just isn't in the same league as Biden when it comes to foreign or domestic policy. How about a Biden/Obama ticket?

I think would be great, and would help both of them. And most importantly us.

my biggest reservation about Obama is his greenness. Some of the gaffes along the campaign trail have shown he isn't ready for POTUS, but with someone more seasoned to guide him that could easily be overcome.

I think Obama has huge potential. I also think he should not have entered the race now.

And my negative opinion of him hasn't changed.

I'm not going to go into reasons why because at this point he is one of the few democrats not crucified here on a regular basis and we don't need any more of that, frankly.

"negative" As a Biden supporter, though, it of course seems to me that he's crucified just plenty on DU! :7

Good luck to your candidate, and I have high hopes for mine. :hi:

I think just about any of our candidates can win. :hi:

...and he makes alot of sense on many issues...

his answer on the Iran vs. Pakistan issue on the other hand was the real stunner.

He blew everyone away with that. Cogent. Clear. Nuanced but unambiguous. Pitch perfect. He was absolutely right and he made the triangulators and equivocators look like ....... triangulators and equivocators.

that he's given the situation serious consideration, even though it's not a debate 'hot topic'.

Smart. Articulate. No B.S. What a change!

As of night before last - he's now my choice for president. I was looking and studying hard between Edwards, Biden and Obama. I honestly believe he's the best candidate in the general election and I think electability is absolutely crucial. We must have a Democrat in the WH. And all politics aside, as for governance: I honestly believe Joe Biden is hands down the most qualified person in the race to be President of the United States. I feel good about my decision to support Biden and sent him my first contribution yesterday.

I think Joe Biden will make a GREAT president.

I have always thought that approach has political merit, but nobody is ever willing to do it. We are always so serious and mature... grave concerns, etc.

When someone says, "Guliani says X about you," the only sensible response is, "Who cares what Rudy thinks? He's a crack-pot... a fringe candidate without a clue about the issues a president has to face."

Biden, I think we all feel the same. And, like us, I think you'll probably continue to become MORE sure of your decision the more you "get to know him". He's constantly blowing us away and when we think we've seen it all, he does it again.

Thank you for your support, and welcome to the Bidenites! Come on over to the Biden Support Group! :hi:

:toast:

Join us at the Joe Biden Group!

I believe if enough thinking people weigh the pros and cons of each candidate in the context of the particular challenges our nation currently faces, Joe Biden comes out the winner. And, like you, I feel that will hold true in a general election as well. We just have to go out on a limb for this guy. After all, he's proven over and over again that he'll do it for us. Thanks for your contribution. Though I don't have much money, I've been donating to his campaign and will do so again. It's a high priority for me because my country is a high priority.

It's a viable solution - totally out of the box and sensitive to the history of the region. And getting 75 votes in the Senate under these conditions shows amazing leadership. It was enough to switch my preference from Kucinich (who's still awesome). Biden has earned my support through his ability to take action.

He has this tendency to say something great, and not stop when he should
Plus his support of the bankruptcy bill was very anti-core Democrat IMO.

But I don't see the Republican base turning out en mass to vote against him.
That's a big positive IMO.

Biden has a shot if he can consistently score delegates in higher numbers than the pundits predict. I see a voter fatigue factor kicking in as the Inevitability message generates serious blowback down the line.

No Biden fatigue here.

and has been since the beginning. He is the only one with the experience to do the job. I don't want anybody in office that has to do on-the-job training.

Come on over to the support group any time you want to drop in -- or move in. We'd love to have you! :hi:

:hi:

Just got the email notification.

On the sake of verbosity, I like to say, better to have a President who talks too much because he knows too much than a President who talks just the right amount but doesn't know anything -- we've had enough of that. Besides, Biden's had how many dealings, relationships, and negotiations with foreign leaders over the years and embarassed himself how many times in those meetings? He gets things done, and that's what counts. :)

:hi:

so I don't think much about him as a candidate one way or the other. I do think the debates benefit from his presence.

to win. Just curious. :7

now that I guess my impression is that he's just doing it because he has some things to say and this is a way to do it.

:shrug:

I know you have a Biden avatar. Please don't construe my earlier post as anti-Biden. I'd be very pleased to support him if his fortunes change.

posts anyway - it would be kinda spooky if everybody supported the same person....

Hmmm... I'll give some thought to your impression, but initially my gut feeling is just the opposite. It will be interesting to observe him and see.

:hi:

I was at the Biden rally outside the debate site in Phillie and later at the debate watch party. He and Jill and his son Beau came down to the party after the debate to speak with us and thank us and he said he was in to win and he promised to keep his promises. He did say he needed to do well in Iowa but he felt good about it.

He would not put his family through all that it involves just to make a statement or statements. His sister has moved to Iowa to manage his campaign out there.

A war candidate who supported the bankrupcy bill tells me all I need to know about him.

Biden is the ONLY candidate with a plan (passed by the senate) to get our troops out of Iraq ASAP without leaving chaos behind...
insofar as the bankruptcy bill this may help.
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=234426&&

and against the Levin amendment? Please let the senate website know so they can correct it on his record, it must be causing him heaps of trouble.

yes he did. and apologized for it. Levin??? I am unfamiliar with, please explain. (campaign finance reform?)

The Levin Amendment, which Biden voted against for SOME reason, would have required bush to come back to congress before actually going to war.

As long as he voted for the war, he is a war candidate.

In these troubled and dire time we live in, Joe Biden, to me, encompasses all that we desperately need for our nation:

1) Intelligence
2) Experience in ALL phases of government
3) Strength
4) Respect from world leaders
5) Diplomacy
6) Command of issues
7) Solutions to problems that face our nation
8) Honesty
9) Integrity
10) Respect and trust from his peers
11) Respect and trust from the people who follow him
12) an EXPERT in foreign policy

Joe Biden certainly meets ALL of the criteria above.

I pray and hope every day that Mr. & Mrs. America, the people of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina know in their hearts, that if we lose Joe Biden, we'll have lost one of the best Presidents our nation will ever have.

Please watch a video I produced to show my support for Senator Biden. If you support him, please send the link below to family and friends, and ask them to do the same.

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

an imperialistic rehash of failed British creation of modern Iraq in 1921 - 1926. Whether or not Biden's plan is "good" or "bad" is besides the point (although it's more bad than good) because the main point is that such a federal form of government ought not be imposed on Iraq by us but should evolve -- if at all -- from the Iraqis.

Still, I might forgive Biden's international hubris if not for the bankruptcy bill which is unforgivable in my eyes.

What the Iraqis want...
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/10/22/071022taco_talk_wright
although Biden is not mentioned in the article.(Hillary supporting paper)it is his plan they want. Biden is trying to help them achieve it.

bankruptcy? I looked into it and for what it is worth. Biden's amendment places child support above credit cards in order of repayment.
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=234426&&

and Welcome to DU!:hi: :thumbsup:

rejected Akaka's amendment to require the Credit Card industry to make a full disclosure of the risks from overextended credit, he rejected Durbin's amendment to preserve bankruptcy for people serving in the military, he rejected Fiengold's amendment to protect the homes of the elderly from foreclosure, and Biden sat through the debate on other equally significant amendments and then didn't vote either way on those pro-consumer amendments as they failed to corporate greed.

Here's a source on the votes: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm

My views of the Biden "slice and dice Iraq to reflect out foreigners view of what they need" plan is near to this commentary:

This is one area where Biden's ideas clearly violate the Iraqi constitution: any attempt on the part of the US to identify “major factions” would be a top–down, externally imposed solution on a matter in which the Iraqis themselves have already designed bottom–up mechanisms. Biden does not seem to appreciate the fact that federalist pioneers among the Iraqis have always warned against federalism based on ethnicities: in their opinion, federalism based on geographical, non-sectarian criteria could conceivably serve as national “glue”; conversely, and with the exception of the Kurds and the Shiite faction that happens to be closest to Iran, Iraqi supporters of federalism have always condemned ethno-sectarian variants of federalism as a giant leap towards partition. Biden should be challenged to spell out very explicitly the modalities by which he expects the constitutional right to form small-scale non-sectarian regions to simply disappear, and how he thinks the holy number “three” is to be arrived at. Perhaps he might then better understand how his actions are tantamount to abetting civil strife in today’s Iraq and represent a real step towards full partition? Has he even heard about the small-scale non-sectarian federal schemes that have been circulating in Basra in the far south since late 2003?

Interestingly, in the final version of the Biden amendment the "major factions" language was eliminated, which also meant that the "Biden plan" in many ways was back to square one, with no explicit language on ethnicity, but also with fewer claims to originality. However, a remaining major problem in the amendment is that it severely distorts the Iraqi constitution’s provisions for federalism. Biden does not understand, or does not want to understand, that there is no imperative in the Iraqi constitution for every part of the country to seek a federal status. Federalism is but one of two options: governorates may also elect to retain their current status. This is a feature of the 2005 constitution that is consonant with Iraqi political history. The drafters realised that the country has a long unitary tradition with widespread scepticism towards federalism among the population; appreciating these political tensions they abandoned any idea of imposing federalism “from above”. In fact, leading Iraqi politicians who drafted the 2006 law on implementing federalism have suggested that possibly no more than one or two governorates (like for instance Basra in the far south) will seek a status similar to Kurdistan when the federalism option formally becomes available in April 2008.

Scattered evidence from Iraq’s political process and from public opinion polls suggests that this anti-federal scepticism persists. Since the constitution was adopted in 2005 there have been several suggestions for constitutional amendment by Iraqi parties – both Shiite and Sunni – to limit federalism to ensure that no purely sectarian federal regions are allowed to develop. The latest poll numbers south of Kurdistan are not particularly supportive of Biden’s plan either, with for instance 56% of Shiites expressing the wish to abandon federalism altogether (almost all Sunnis agree with them on this), and with the remainder divided between different federal projects – only a small portion of which would correspond to Biden’s ethno-sectarian visions. Again, this is all in conflict with Biden’s idea of comprehensive, total federalisation. The senator should be more honest about these problems and should follow in the footsteps of his fellow pro-partitionist Michael O’Hanlon, who openly asserts that only a minority of Iraqis support any idea of soft partitioning or federalism based on ethnic groups. And more fundamentally, Biden must understand the logical defect of his current argument: he cannot claim authorship of a distinctive “plan” and at the same time maintain that he does not propose to impose anything on the Iraqi people. In fact the contradictions in this area are even worse in the final version of the amendment than in early drafts: the text now stipulates that the proposed international conference on Iraqi federalism should be based on the 2006 law for implementing federalism. This in itself is contradictive in the extreme because the key point of the 2006 legislation is that federalism shall never be imposed from the outside or from above in a single conference, but instead emerge gradually, only in those parts of the country that wish to adopt a federal model of government. Furthermore, who is to decide which Iraqis will take part in the projected conference? The Maliki government? This effectively brings back the question of how to nominate conference invitees and, more fundamentally, the basis (ethnic versus non-ethnic) on which to define representativeness in any grand "federal settlement" of the kind envisioned by Biden.

Source: http://historiae.org/biden.asp

Just because a majority of the US backed stooges running Iraq into the ground support the US plan offered by Emperor Biden, that doesn't mean a majority of Iraqi people favor the imperialistic plan.

In short: I can't abide Biden.

I've read more of the article, and am going to investigate farther from it.

As a Canadian who has worked in constitutional law and politics for quite a few years, I'm rather widely read on federalism and spend a fair bit of time thinking and reading about it. Here's another thing for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetrical_federalism

which seems relevant to this aspect (from the article you cited):

In fact the contradictions in this area are even worse in the final version of the amendment than in early drafts: the text now stipulates that the proposed international conference on Iraqi federalism should be based on the 2006 law for implementing federalism. This in itself is contradictive in the extreme because the key point of the 2006 legislation is that federalism shall never be imposed from the outside or from above in a single conference, but instead emerge gradually, only in those parts of the country that wish to adopt a federal model of government.

The odd thing is that I see the objections to the plan in the US as what stems from a US-centric vision of things. Federalism as it was implanted in the US (and perhaps Australia, comes to mind) has little to do with federalism in much of the rest of the world. (And another oddity I have to keep in mind is that in Canada, "federalism" means the exact opposite of what it means everywhere else -- it refers to advocacy of centralization rather than decentralization.)

What the article you cite refers to dismissively as "ethnic federalism" is in fact the basis of the theory and practice of federalism in states where there are two cohabiting peoples, or a national minority and national majority. A people has some or all of a shared history, culture, language, religion, etc.; minimizing this to divisions based on "ethnicity", which carries negative overtones in our day, is not really appropriate. A people is not the same thing as an ethnic group.

In the Iraqi context, the Kurds plainly regard themselves as a people, and are probably legitimately regarded as such. The Sunnis and Shi'ites, probably not so much so. What people they would be part of ... hmm.

I had a client some years ago who was Ethiopian (ethnically, heh); his wife was Eritrean; they were both Ethiopian citizens. Her family had historically opposed partition, although I'm not sure why. I suspect that as a local élite they benefited from union. He opposed partition on solidly political grounds. As a rather doctrinaire Marxist, he held no brief for states organized on the basis of ethnicity, and thought that social and political and economic progress could best be achieved in a unitary state. This is the approach also taken to Quebec sovereignty/autonomy demands by most English Canadians on the left, while Quebeckers on the left tend to support sovereignty/autonomy.

It's all an extremely difficult question, both politically and, say, in international law. Peoples have the right of self-determination; at what point are they entitled to exercise that right by asserting sovereignty? How can and should national minorities (which the Kurds are, but the Shi'ites aren't really) be accommodated through autonomy without sovereignty?

Asymmetrical federalism does seem to be a reasonable approach, and if that is what the Iraqi constitution provides for, it may be wise.

If the Iraqis want to counter Biden's proposal with an assymetric proposal, for instance, more power to them. I can't imagine that Biden would object, if there were a proposal that provided a reasonable expectation of both stability and security, for both Iraq and its neighbours. Obviously, Biden's agreement or objection is not a criterion for anything, of course.

What it comes down to is that federalism is a fact of modern life, completely apart from the US model and practice under that term, which are essentially irrelevant. It is about the only viable alternative to the other two worse choices: balkanization and what one might call soveitunionization. Breakup into little stable but insecure homogeneous bits that are happy in their homogeneity and satisfy national aspirations but are essentially ineffective, or forced merger into big, unstable but secure heterogeneous clumps that disregard their heterogeneity and squelch national aspirations but are very effective.

What I do wonder about, if the present Iraqi constitution and legislation provide for all that Iraq needs, is why there still seem to be problems, apart from the US presence. It seems to me that the purely geography-based options in that constitution may be the real US model, and not truly reflect reality in Iraq, in that each region that voted for the status it provides for would still likely contain a majority and a minority.

Thank you again for the opinion and analysis offered, and I do plan to put some more effort into consideration of this issue.

Here's the speech Durbin gave introducing his amendment that Biden supported, elaborating on the evil bill everyone's attacking Biden for supporting. If this is the worst thing you can use to attack this American, then that only builds my support for him:

Durbin:

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, we have made tremendous progress on the bankruptcy bill over the last 2 weeks. Republicans and Democrats have stood together to support a bankruptcy reform package that the House will pass and the President will sign into law. The Senate has resisted attempts to renegotiate hard-fought compromises and legislate on unrelated issues. I do thank my colleagues, our colleagues, for staying focused on the bankruptcy bill.

There have been many attempts to sidetrack the Senate on this bill. But let me just take a moment to reiterate why we need bankruptcy reform and what this bill really does.

The bill before us establishes a means test based on a simple, fair principle: those who have the means should repay their debts. Personal bankruptcies are skyrocketing, and wealthy debtors are walking away from debts that they had the ability to repay. Opportunistic debtors who have the means to repay use the law to evade personal responsibility.

This abuse does not hurt the creditor only, it hurts all who pay higher fees and prices as a result. Every bill that

you and I pay, that our families pay, includes a ``bankruptcy tax'' of about $400 a year per household. That tax is figured into every bill, every phone bill, every electric bill, every mortgage payment, every furniture purchase or car loan we pay. Interest rates are higher, downpayment requirements are larger, grace periods become shorter, late payment penalties become astronomical--all because some people are shirking their debt obligations.

This legislation is targeted to ensure that wealthy debtors who can pay their debts do so. It specifically exempts anyone who earns less than the median income in their State, and it also allows every consumer to show special circumstances if they cannot handle a repayment plan.

We know that one reason people file for bankruptcy is because of unexpected medical emergencies. Consequently, this legislation allows every filer to deduct 100 percent of their medical costs. We also know that education is a big outlay for many families. Under bankruptcy reform, parents can deduct private school tuition to protect their children's educational opportunities.

In addition, the bankruptcy bill strengthens protections for child support and alimony payments. It protects

GPO's PDF

patient privacy and care during bankruptcy proceedings that involve health care facilities. It protects consumers from deceptive credit practice that can lead to financial distress, and it protects the system that allows America to be one of the most generous countries when it comes to bankruptcy.

There remain, however, some misconceptions about this bill that should be dispelled. The first regards our protections for Active-Duty military personnel and veterans. Some opponents of the bill charge that we do not adequately address the needs of our combat men and women who suffer financially.

Madam President, it should go without saying that the Senate and the American people deeply honor our men and women in uniform. Every day, these young soldiers sacrifice to protect us and to defend the freedom we enjoy. We are indebted to them for the dangers they face on the field, and we are indebted to their families they leave in order to fight for that freedom.

That is why last Tuesday we passed the Sessions amendment to help clarify protections for our military and others under a safe harbor in the bill. This provision, which passed with 63 votes, makes explicitly clear that Active-Duty military and low-income veterans are protected by the safe harbor. In addition, it also protects debtors with serious medical conditions.

On this issue, the other side has created a red herring designed to score political points and shift the debate away from bankruptcy abuse. Another red herring is the charge that the bankruptcy bill sacrifices consumers to benefit credit card companies. The truth is that the bill before us includes several carefully negotiated amendments that expressly protect credit card holders.

Among its beefed-up consumer protections are increased disclosure requirements for credit card statements and mandates that credit card companies assist borrowers in determining how long it will take to pay off their credit card balances, additional disclosures to borrowers buying and refinancing their homes, and additional disclosures regarding credit card introductory rates and new disclosures related to credit card late fees.

These protections are the result of lengthy and careful negotiation. Additional measures should be properly addressed in the Banking Committee. As Senator Sessions has pointed out, we are debating a bankruptcy bill designed to create a fair and commonsense process in the Federal courts.

Moreover, the bill before us has passed this body three times, with overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 105th Congress, it passed by a vote of 97 to 1. In the 106th Congress, it passed 83 to 14. And again in the 107th Congress, it passed by a vote of 82 to 16.

It is time to take action on this much needed reform that is supported by both sides of the aisle.

I am confident that by working together we can get this done in this Congress, this week, and see bankruptcy reform signed into law. I encourage our Members, this afternoon, to vote for cloture so we can bring this bill to fruition, to make it the reality we know the American people deserve.

It is long past time to stop the abuses of the Bankruptcy Code. The legislation before us is thoughtful. It is built on common sense. It offers the opportunity to give the system, and the people it is designed to help, a fresh start. In short, it promises to deliver meaningful solutions that will keep America moving forward.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Sorry, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Here's an article you ought to read if you are really curious about the issue:

Other People's Maps by Reidar Visser

Over the past year, increasing numbers of American commentators have suggested various “territorial” solutions designed to extricate U.S. forces from Iraq. These proposals have come in several guises, involving different degrees of decentralization and compartmentalization: “Soft partition,” “controlled devolution,” and ­“Dayton-­style détente” (a reference to the 1995 Bosnian settlement) are but a few of the concepts that have kept policymakers in Washington busy of late. All these proposals assign a role to foreign hands in drawing up internal federal or confederal border lines that would drastically reshape the administrative map of Iraq. At the very least, they foresee a role for the United States in “advising” the Iraqis on how to implement this process of demarcation, as, for instance, Senator Joseph Biden (D.-Del.) has advocated. And invariably, the authors of these proposals fix their sights on ethnicity as the guiding principle for the division of the country: Iraq is to consist of three separate subunits for what are seen as its “basic components”—Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shiite ­Arabs.

The practical arguments against this sort of approach are ­legion—­and, by now, they are mostly familiar and well accepted, as seen in the confluence of opinion between the Bush administration and the Iraq Study Group on this issue. For millennia the lands between the Euphrates and the Tigris have been a meeting place for civilizations, ethnicities, and religions. Never before has any attempt been made to reshape the entire region by establishing ethnic and sectarian cantons; doing so now would involve extensive displacements of people in areas with mixed populations. Families in ­multi­ethnic cities would be torn apart as the intermixed Iraqis would be forced to choose sides, and communal violence would spread throughout the country as cities such as Basra, Nasiriyah, and Hilla saw more of the kinds of atrocities that currently occur in many parts of Baghdad.

The consequences at the regional level would likely be equally dire. Few believe that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran would sit still while their Iraqi neighbor became engulfed in comprehensive civil war, and an involvement of their standing armies would pose a far greater risk than the less-invasive meddling by proxies that marks the current situation. A regional conflagration—possibly involving the entire Persian Gulf and its oil resources—could come to provoke Shiite-Sunni tensions on a previously unimagined scale. The new borderlines so enthusiastically promoted by armchair strategists in the West could easily become flash points comparable to the Kashmir line of control fought over by India and Pakistan for decades. Today, Kashmir is routinely described as “the most dangerous spot on Earth.”

plan. Some do (I've read a lot of support on Iraqi blogs) and some don't (I've also read disagreement with the plan on Iraqi blogs). So like every issue, it's not met with 100% support or disagreement.

What I have to say about the plan is it's an attempt to MOVE forward toward our withdrawal from Iraq. Even Biden isn't guaranteeing it will work (he said if it isn't showing promise by the time he takes office, he would pull ALL the troops out because they would just be fodder. And I'm sure he realizes it's not a "cure" - but it's a step.

He's making an attempt. Nobody else has proposed anything concrete. Meanwhile, it's continuing on the same road we've been on for far too long.

And as Biden says, and I, too say this sincerely -- if you don't think it will work, what DO you propose? He's willing to listen to any viable option but not willing to sit back and do nothing, as we have been.


Edit - embarrassing spelling

I also, like others, think that the vote being a deal-breaker just doesn't make sense. I personally would have voted against it, but a deal-breaker, really? I have felt the same way about some things with other candidates, but I realized I wasn't going to have much luck finding the candidate that I agree with 100% of the time. I doubt you will either - every issue, every vote. That will only happen, when you run.

Obviously not every one who doesn't support Biden is working for another campaign, but sometimes the detail given in some attacks and the absence of an alternative candidate with similar detail supporting an alternative should make one suspicious. Obviously, Biden has some folks worried.

could get paid for that, I'd be happy.

But I assure you NO ONE IS SCARED OF BIDEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hillary is scared of Edwards and Obama. Edwards is scared of Hillary and Obama. Obama is scared of Edwards and Hillary. No one else poses more than the remotest of threats.

But rest assured there are some here. And on your "on one is scared of Biden," he sure had Giuliani stammering. Time will tell.

out by name.

Giuliani WANTS one-on-one fights with Democrats. It gives him CREDIBILITY with Republicans and portrays him as the FRONTRUNNER.

I liked Biden's line, and I'm not criticizing him at all for it, but it is erroneous to say Biden "sure had Giuliani stammering" because in truth Giuliani knows this sort of singled out attention by a Democrat does Giuliani's primary campaign lots of good.

It is a matter of perspective, I guess.

and his supporters were the most enthusiastic of the bunch, I've been giving him a second look.

Not my first choice, but I'd have an easier time voting for him than Hillary.

for us Bidenites to see Joe had more support on DU than we were aware of. :hi:

Biden is head and shoulders above the rest for me. It's not even close. Although I like Obama for Biden's VP. A Biden/Obama ticket would be INCREDIBLE!

Damn smart and sharp as hell. He can grin like a shark while nailing pukes to the wall. Normally not my personality type but I think he's the man for the moment now. I think his toughness sets a great model for Dems because its backed up with intelligence. I just might give him my first contribution of the season.

They're at 321k today....so any contributions will be greatly appreciated -


http://www.joebiden.com/home
just wait for the corncob:P

I think he's worked hard on his propensity to "Senate Speak" and is learning brevity

Compromise isn't a bad thing, it's the only way to get things done in a Democracy. Building consensus is what it's all about. We give a little, they give a little, neither of us 'loves' the outcome, but it's something we can both 'live' with and we move forward.

his vote on the bankruptcy bill was understandable considering his constituency is Delaware, home of the big banks as a rule. and other than that vote, he's been pretty darn good IMO

Heck, I may vote for him Super Tuesday as the 'not the other guys/gals' choice. :shrug:

:hi:

(I love NM - wouldn't mind getting out of Phoenix)

I saw him at the Democratic Governor's Assoc. Mtg in PHX in 2004 and he was just a snoozer in the speaking dept.

He strongly implied to us NMcans that he wouldn't run for Prez if we re-elected him Gov. and now look what he's doing eh?

I like the guy alright, but not enough to support him for Leader of the Free World

He would definitely be far preferable to Obama or Edwards...

IWR. It just doesn't go away.

They're both going places.

:spray:

His record is mostly good, but I didn't like his aye vote on DOMA or on the bankruptcy bill. He'd have to have more going for him for me to vote for him with those two votes on his record.

He has to earn your consideration - that's how it should be.

And I totally agree he'd cream any Republican he debated!

his esteem has only continued to rise in my eyes.

It's getting to the sad point where he is the only one I even trust anymore.

But it's hard to be very optimistic at this point. Politics right now is just getting me down, down, down. It's hard to be positive about anything anymore.

I started paying attention to him in 2004, and the more attention I paid, the more impressed I became.
Now I am wondering how I will be able to support anyone else if he doesn't make it. Yeah - there are a couple of other candidates I like, but nothing like Biden. I just trust him.

When I watch the news, I am amazed how they continue to ignore him.
Olbermann was just talking about what the candidates have been saying about Iran, yet failed to mention what Biden said at the debate about Iran and why it is insane to bomb them - what the reprecussions would be in the Muslim world. Only Mother Jones picked up on what he said and gave him mucho kudos for his understanding of how to handle the ME. frustrating.

America simply does not elect as President long-standing senators with years of voting records to attack and explain. They simply don't.

Which is a shame, since I think Biden would make an outstanding President. Our state's primary is in March. Biden will probably not be on the ticket by that time.

mistaken, Joe Biden would win handily. he would garner more "I's" than Hillary or Obama or Edwards combined... if you vote for him as I will and just about everyone I know. he will win the GE.