Biden Is Not Running For Secretary of State....

I think it's important that people know what Joe Biden has said all along about it. (I agree with him.)

"You know a lot of people make jokes about me running really running for Secretary of State," he told the crowd who peppered him with questions on foreign policy issues ranging from Russia to the Middle East to Afghanistan. "I'm not. I'm running for President. But I would ask you: 'How many of you are willing to vote for a candidate not able to be Secretary of State?'"

"I know many of the world leaders for the last 30 years. Not because I'm and important guy. But because I came up with them," he said referring to his long-time leadership position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "It's not hyperbole to suggest the rest of the world is waiting for an American president to be elected who can connect the dots. And I can."



Ask yourself that question; "'How many of you are willing to vote for a candidate not able to be Secretary of State?'"

:patriot:

I hope Iowa does me proud.

I wish it were otherwise. I think Biden would make the best President. But alas, it is not to be.

And that's the way it is.

;-)

History is littered with failed "sure thing" candidates, from Dean in 2004, to Muskie in 1972.

Kerry was polling first. Dean was polling third.

And that's how the Iowa votes turned out.

Biden is polling in Iowa...what? I'm not sure, but it's not in the top three slots. If he's polling fourth...well, Gephardt was polling about fourth in Iowa a couple of weeks before the Iowa voting. We know what happened to Gephardt.

Associated Press poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Jan. 5-7, 2004. N=241 likely Democratic presidential primary/caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 6.4.

"It is early, but if you had to choose today, which ONE of the following nine candidates would you be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president? . . ."
1/5-7/04
Howard Dean 30
Wesley Clark 17
Joe Lieberman 12
Richard Gephardt 11
John Edwards 6
John Kerry 5
Dennis Kucinich 2
Carol Moseley Braun 2
Al Sharpton - 4
Other/None/Not sure 15

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Jan. 6-11, 2004. N=415 likely Democratic primary/caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 5:

"I am going to read you the names of some possible candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. After I read all the names, please tell me which one you would most like to see nominated as the Democratic Party's candidate for president. . . ." Names rotated. If "None" or "Don’t know": "Well as of today, to whom do you most lean?"
Nov.-Dec. 2003 wording: "Which one of the following Democratic candidates would be your first choice for president: ?" If "Don’t know": "Just as of today, would you say you LEAN toward ?"
1/6-11/04
Howard Dean 26
Wesley Clark 14
Joe Lieberman 13
Richard Gephardt
John Kerry 8
Al Sharpton 5
John Edwards 4
Carol Moseley Braun 3
Dennis Kucinich 1
Other (vol.) 1
Don't know/No answer 16

And Kerry was polling first, Edwards second, Dean third, Gephardt fourth about 2 weeks before the vote, up until the vote.

We are now just a few days before the vote.

To compare you need to look at polls for the 2004 vote that are dated mid-January 2004.

I wish it were different. But it's not. Biden is currently polling fifth, I think, in Iowa.

NEWSWEEK POLL: Campaign 2004; Dean Holds Big Lead Over Dems; Gephardt, Kerry Move Up; 43 Percent Of Voters Say Dean Too Liberal To Defeat Bush; Split On Whether He Has The Right Temperament.

From:
PR Newswire
Date:
January 10, 2004

NEW YORK, Jan. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean is holding his lead against the field of Democratic presidential challengers with 24 percent of the vote of registered Democrats and Democratic leaners, according to the latest Newsweek Poll. Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt and Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark are tied for second with 12 percent each -- a seven-point jump from the Dec. 18-19 Newsweek Poll for Gephardt. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry gets 11 percent of the vote (a 5-point jump from the December poll) and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman gets seven percent, the poll shows.

No SOS position, and no VP position (VP would be nothing more than ceremonial). He has always said he can do more as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. With the state of our nation and critical foreign policy problems around the globe, Joe Biden knows in his heart he is best qualified to be sitting behind the desk in the oval office.

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

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

for SOS.

But he knew from the start that he probably couldn't win. He then knew a little later that he had no chance. Yet he continued. Why? He's no idiot. He knows he's not winning the nomination.

This whole Bhutto incident has showed us why Biden should be president. He really has a command of all things when it comes to international affairs.

is like Robin being Batman's boss:kick:

...and that's the truth! phbffft!
apologies to Lily Tomlin and Bill T. Cat

Although Richardson's qualifications, burnished with his North Korean diplomacy, are diminished by his response to the Bhutto assassination.

then why is it that no one is saying the same thing about them? Do tell.

be for SoS?

I don't see that one. Doesn't mean they couldn't do a good job, but there's not much there to suggest a great deal of experience in world affairs, is there?

Foreign leaders and envoys are still going to communicate with him as Senate Foreign Relations Chairman; Difference is, as SoS he can't continue to draw up and pass any legislation, not to mention that the only benefit of possibly losing his Senate seat is if Joe is President. Delaware isn't as BLUE as some think.

He's not giving up his Senate seat for anything less that the POTUS.

I hope he is nominated!!!!!!

This time around, I want someone that is more knowledgeable than HIS advisors :)

did it.

I also don't want him to be a puppet like George is either. FDR wasn't a puppet but he knew that he wasn't the smartest person on every issue and therefore he did a very good job of appointing people to his cabinet and to be his advisors.

There are plenty of people who are qualified to be Secretary of State. A good President will appoint somebody who is not only qualified but is among the top 5 or 10 most knowledgeable people in the country on foreign affairs. So yes, the President should also qualified to be Secretary of State. He does not, however, need to be one of the top 10 most knowledgeable people in foreign affairs, however.

It's a definite plus.

however, who IS the smartest one in the room, even if that one thinks or knows he or she is. That's why I support Joseph Biden. All the way. Thank you for permitting me to express this opinion.

"'How many of you are willing to vote for a candidate not able to be Secretary of State?'"

One might wonder why no "journalists" ever ask it of anyone. Oh, I remember now. They're much more interested in whether Hillary prefers pearls or diamonds and in what the latest name-recognition poll says for Muckwuck County.

Nov 29, 2007 5:40 PM (28 days ago) AP
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (Map, News) - Joe Biden is complaining that his foes keep saying he'd be a great secretary of state.

Nothing wrong with that job, he says, but he's running for president. And if he'd be better at foreign policy than his rivals, well, why in the world shouldn't he be president instead of them?

Biden, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is widely expected to be on the short list for secretary of state if one of his Democratic rivals wins the White House. Maybe if a Republican wins, too.

But he said Thursday, speaking at a forum on Iraq: "Under no administration will I accept the job of secretary of state."

A voter had asked the Delaware senator what he would do to restore U.S. credibility in the world.

"That's the president's job," he said. "I know a lot of my opponents out there say I'd be a great secretary of state. Seriously, every one of them. Do you watch any of the debates? 'Joe's right, Joe's right, Joe's right.'"

"I ask you a rhetorical question: Are you prepared to vote for anyone - at this moment in our history - as president who is not capable of being secretary of state? Who among my opponents would you consider appointing secretary of state? Seriously. Think about it."


http://www.examiner.com/a-1076455~Biden_Won_t_Serve_As_Secretary_of_State.html



He means it.

expected to comment on any position other than the position he or she is running for, so I take his disavowal with a grain of salt.

I get the impression that Biden finds international affairs exciting but domestic affairs a little boring so Sec'y of State seems a good fit, but he should definitely pursue his presidential ambitions to the end first before considering any other position.

That's just my feeling. He failed the critical leadership test of the new century, the IWR, so I don't approve of him as SOS; I think there are better choices.

You can't be all things to all people in all aspects. I would be proud to vote for Joe if Edwards is knocked out early, but this is a job larger than one man. If you are weak on foreign policy, then you surround yourselves with people who are strong. Same with monetary and fiscal policies. If those aren't your strong suit, and foreign policy is -- then add the right team.

He would really suck at domestic policy--more bankruptcy bill bullshit for starters. Not to mention all those racist foot in mouth comments. He'd be way better at dealing with complex foreign policy issues.

Des Moines, IA (December 21, 2007) – Today, at stops in Iowa, Sen. Joe Biden discussed his plan to help the more than 2 million families caught in the subprime mortgage crisis. Sen. Biden called for immediate action to shore up the housing sector and keep people from losing their homes.

"President Bush's first reaction to the subprime crisis wasn't to help families who might lose their homes, it was to create a $100 billion bailout fund for financial institutions that made bad bets," said Sen. Biden. "Protecting people's investments in their homes should come before insuring executives on Wall Street. Short-term patches and half measures that just help a tiny fraction of people just aren't good enough."

Noting that a strong housing market is fundamental to our economy, Sen. Biden called for a comprehensive plan to keep people from losing their homes by: cracking down on lenders who lure people into loans they cannot afford; modifying existing loans instead of racing to foreclosure; allowing bankruptcy courts to make changes in loans; helping families refinance by expanding access to counseling and affordable federally backed mortgages; and preserving access to credit by stabilizing the mortgage market.

"In a Biden administration, families will come first," said Sen. Biden. "I won't turn my back while people struggle to keep their homes. I would take four steps immediately to restore our economic strength: end the war in Iraq; deal with the crisis in the housing market; get health care costs under control by providing catastrophic coverage and invest in education."
http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=113892


I'd say that's some pretty strong domestic policy....

--contributed to the subprime crisis in a major way. Also his health care plan sucks.

What caused the subprime crisis, was stupid fucking people, taking bad loans they couldn't pay down the road. They bit off more than they could chew. AND, the REST of us, who ALSO bought housing during that time, and didn't take a shitty loan, will no doubt, in the end, pay for more fucking mistakes from the terminally stupid. Just like US have paying for stupid people who live well beyond their means, and then shove it up the asses of everyone else, by filing a BK.

That's the truth.

When people fall for disinformation, I blame the perps, not the marks. Fuck Biden for shilling for those asshats.


http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20071108/never_let_it_be_said_theres_nothing_to_be_cheerful_about_in_the_housing_meltdown

Life's rich tapestry of irony adds another thread:

Washington Mutual Inc. got what it wanted in 2005: A revised bankruptcy code that no longer lets people walk away from credit card bills.

The largest U.S. savings and loan didn't count on a housing recession. The new bankruptcy laws are helping drive foreclosures to a record as homeowners default on mortgages and struggle to pay credit card debts that might have been wiped out under the old code, said Jay Westbrook, a professor of business law at the University of Texas Law School in Austin and a former adviser to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

"Be careful what you wish for," Westbrook said. "They wanted to make sure that people kept paying their credit cards, and what they're getting is more foreclosures."

Washington Mutual, Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. spent $25 million in 2004 and 2005 lobbying for a legislative agenda that included changes in bankruptcy laws to protect credit card profits, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan Washington group that tracks political donations.

The banks are still paying for that decision. The surge in foreclosures has cut the value of securities backed by mortgages and led to more than $40 billion of writedowns for U.S. financial institutions.

And it's going to cost much more than that. Not to mention that, as the article goes on to note, Prince, the head of Citigroup, lost his job over this. Of course, he's still worth hundreds of millions, I'm sure, so you needn't cry any tears for him. This isn't Japan, where executives who screw up that badly commit suicide to expunge the shame and dishonour.

Biden was NOT the only one to vote for the god damn bill, and it was NOT his fucking bill.

I am so FUCKING sick of whiney ass people making an issue out of this.

A bunch of STUPID FUCKING people TOOK the fucking LOANS, and now they are all SHOVING up all of our ASSES. NOTHING MORE.



HERE is what BIDEN has gotten since NINTEEN FUCKING EIGHTY NINE from BANKS;

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.: CAREER PROFILE (SINCE 1989)

Top Industries
The top industries supporting Joseph R. Biden Jr. are:
1 Lawyers/Law Firms $6,265,871
2 Real Estate $1,172,230
3 Retired $853,148
4 Securities & Investment $839,775
5 Misc Finance $499,470
6 Misc Business $462,641
7 Business Services $455,925
8 Health Professionals $382,275
9 TV/Movies/Music $364,666
10 Lobbyists $333,185
11 Finance/Credit Companies $294,650
12 Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $294,249
13 Pro-Israel $272,700
14 Commercial Banks $269,050
15 Education $249,725
16 Insurance $223,975
17 Retail Sales $186,400
18 General Contractors $175,550
19 Accountants $136,935
20 Democratic/Liberal $129,490

So, that's about a $563,000 bucks in 18 years. Or $31,000 a year in contributions. I doubt he did it for the banks, at all.

HE VOTED FOR THE BILL FOR THE REASONS BELOW, AND NOTHING MORE;

As I have posted many, many, times on this board, Joe voted for the BK bill, for women and children. Under the old BK laws, divorced women with children were the last ones to be paid, if the deadbeat dad filed a BK. Now, they are the first ones to be paid. If you ever question why Joe votes for anything, go look at the floor statements on his website. They will clearly give you an idea of where his interest were. Not in some bank, as has been previously speculated on. There's just no denying that Joe has stood up for women's rights, in a big way. As in the violence against women act, and now, the International violence against women act. But, no "bill" will ever work for all people. There are a lot of people who respect the revisions of the 2005 BK bill. I am one of them.

My best friend is about to reap the rewards of this bill. Her X has just filed a BK, after leaving her without ANY child support, for 2 children, 8 & 6, for 4 years, and just on Thursday of last week, thought that he could get out of paying her by filing a BK. Well, it's people like him that will not be able to get away with it now. He claimed to have lost his 135K yr. job, and had protested ANY request for documentation for his current financial status. Her attorney called for deposition, forcing discovery. Then came back and filed a BK. I know for a fact that he hid money, and that he is also still working, under the table. Under the new law, he will be fully investigated by the courts.

A Senator sometimes has to vote for a bad bill, if there is something in it they truly want. I believe that was Joe's dilemma on the BK bill. But you can look for yourself, and see his financial contributions from banks from 1998, and it's not very impressive.

Any so called Democrat who defends it is full of shit. The vote against was straight party line in the Senate, with the exception of four industry whores, including Biden.

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/01/last-years-senate-shows-why-2006-looms.html

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which took effect in October, makes it almost impossible for Americans to file for bankruptcy any longer, no matter how dire the circumstances that drove them to that end. The best Senate Democrats could do was propose amendments to the bill, in an attempt to water down how many middle-class and low-income people it could hurt. Also sponsored by Kennedy, S. amdt. 28 would have exempted debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from any means testing in filing for bankruptcy. The measure couldn't make it past Bill Frist and was voted down.

S. amdt. 32, by Jon Corzine (D-NJ), sought to preserve existing bankruptcy protections for Americans in economic distress if they acted as caregivers to ill or disabled family members. Dick Durbin (D-IL) sponsored two bankruptcy-bill amendments, S. amdt. 49 and S. amdt. 110. One would have protected employees and retirees from losing their life savings in corporate bankruptcies, while the other attempted to exempt debtors below the nation's median income from filing restrictions.

More than you ever wanted to know about all the amendments--

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

The "Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection" in this bill occurs for Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies - individual avenues of bankruptcy. Conspicuous in absence, evidently not needing reform, are Chapter 11 bankruptcies.

Want to guess what Chapter 11 covers?

You guessed it. Chapter 11 is bankruptcy for businesses:

Perhaps you missed it when I said; I DON'T FUCKING CARE. I'm glad HE voted for it. I'm tired of paying for other people's SHIT.

Welcome to my list.

"Washington Mutual, Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. spent $25 million in 2004 and 2005 lobbying for a legislative agenda that included changes in bankruptcy laws to protect credit card profits, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan Washington group that tracks political donations."


WHERE'S THE FUCKING MONEY????? THEY DIDN'T GIVE IT TO JOE!!!!!!!!!!

--and shitcanned by Biden.

because YOU HAVE NOTHING.

FIND the money, then YOU will find the truth!! otherwise, shut UP about it.

All other Dems voted against. What does that tell you?

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

your tunnel vision has limited your entire view. So sad. It was treatable early.

That's what you need. In the worst way.

I supported the bankruptcy legislation. In fact, my opinion was and is that the system wasn't broken and didn't need fixing. Will I let that single issue turn me off to what is obviously the best choice across three parties on so very many OTHER issues? No, I will not.

You know, I have yet to meet a single other being on this planet who agrees with me, 100%, on every issue about which I've formed a personal truth. I strive to achieve and maintain tolerance and understanding. I struggle to know things as they really are. A necessary step along that path is the recognition that others have vision and perspective to see and know that to which I am yet blind.

Blessings.

It would mean that under a Biden presidency access to health care would continue to suck, and NOLA rebuilding for average folks would not happen.

extrapolation from one piece of legislative history. However, I recognize that some believe they are able to generalize about another's future behavior from a specific past act. Personally, I'm much too modest to judge the unknown with such certainty. Perhaps it would be productive to ask who it is that you support? If I may?

And recall that only FOUR Dems in the Senate supported that bankruptcy bill.

Lyndon Johnson said absolutely he would not be VP under Kennedy.

Wolter Mondale would not run for VP under Carter.

Things change in politics, and he is obliged, by the "rules" of candidacy, not to allow thoughts of a lesser office - yet. He may be the next Sec'y of State.

can accomplish more as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.