That question might seem preposterous to the media who have already established their narrative, but this two season situational comedy called the Democratic debates is given to unexpected role reversals. With the continued uncertainty in the poll numbers, we might have to consider that the top three faces might punch themselves out way before the final bell. The contestants on the blue stage game show all continue to flounder on the same handful of issues using predictable platitudes to catapult themselves into the prospective slot of front runner. During this quest they have simply run out of bonus dignity points and became the novelty acts that so many accuse them of being. However, standing on the far side of the stage is one man who appears to be maintaining his integrity by staying out of the ruckus. His name is Senator Joseph Biden.
Joseph Robinette Biden, jr. took office in 1973 at the age of 30 to become the fifth youngest Senator in United States history. He managed to maintain his seat despite a tragic car accident that resulted in the death of his wife Neilia and infant daughter Naomi. He married again in 1977 but then had to overcome two brain aneurysms. One of his two sons currently serves in the Delaware Army National Guard and will soon be deployed to Iraq. The Senator holds a seat on the Judiciary Committee and is the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He is the forth most senior Democratic Senator and the longest serving U.S. Senator in Delaware’s history. If there was a hall of fame for U.S. politicians this man would have been nominated years ago. So why isn’t he the front runner for the Democratic Party?
Ever since John F. Kennedy appeared on television in the 1960 Presidential debate with Richard Nixon, voters have fallen time and again for the charm of a persuasive personality. It simply makes for better television. We expect our leaders to have a strange mixture of Rock Star amicability and a Soldier’s stern decisiveness. Biden has the later but not the former and his treasure chest of gleaming gold is a little short on coins. However the numerous bumbling debates have given him an opportunity to play the father figure on a stage full of younger, less experienced candidates. Over time his status as a senior wave maker is starting to shine through. Thursday night’s performance was perhaps the biggest splash he has yet made as a serious contender.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - K
HERE HERE!!!!!!
2 - handyguy
It would certainly be interesting to see some surprises in Jan and Feb, but Biden would be a real surprise, and a long shot. He's a fine senator and I'm happy for him to continue to be one.
The surprise I'd really like to see is John Edwards coming from behind to win, but I don't think it's likely. I'm happy with any of the top 3 candidates, although all have their weaknesses.
3 - Baronius
I've been surprised that Biden hasn't emerged as a leading candidate. He's well-positioned to be the sober choice, much like Kerry in 2004. Three weeks before the Iowa caucus, you could hear people thinking, "we've had our fun venting against Bush and threatening to nominate Dean, but we've got to get serious now."
4 - Dave Nalle
If a lesser known candidate is going to steal the nomination they should be hoping it's Richardson who's the only one with real executive experience and new ideas.
Dave
5 - RJ
Either Richardson or Biden would make a better President than any of the current "top three," IMO.
Unfortunately, Richardson started out his quest for the nomination sounding like a bit of a moonbat, and now he seems content to be the "safe" pick for VP candidate. But he's got some skeletons in his closet, from what I understand.
Biden has some skeletons too (actually, pretty much every candidate from either party does), and he's a tad arrogant, but he's a smart, serious politician. Good luck to him.
6 - handyguy
Well, no offense, but a Democrat has to take with several grains of salt the opinions of you three, hehe. Maybe you're rooting for the weakest candidate, the most likely to lose.
I wish I could share with you my favorite Republican, but I hate Giuliani and Romney beyond all measure [their presidencies would make the world a worse place], and the honorable John McCain has become a fire-breathing war-monger. Perhaps he always was.
I'd like to feel more enthusiastic about Biden, Dodd or Richardson, but they are not exactly charismatic, are they. Not bad men, but losers as candidates. Why we couldn't see that coming in John Kerry [another decent man who was a dullard candidate] is a mystery.
This is one we've just got to win.
7 - Mike
It's funny. I just finished posting on Biden's website how he was definitely playing the father figure at the last debate. Trying to get the children to play nice and stop slapping each other and brought things back to order. Joe is exactly the father figure this country needs right now. Especially after the reckless son hands back the car keys from the 8 year, car wreck of a mess he has made on this planet.
8 - Baritone
The fact is, we don't really know what kind of president any of the candidates will make. That's the mystery, isn't it? There are a great # of people who are scared shitless of Hillary, a situation which may ultimately make her unelectable. Moon and a few others are pushing for Gravel. I think he's looney, but who knows, maybe he would have the effect of setting DC on its ear. Could be a good thing, but his own staff might wind up shooting him.
I'd have no problem with Biden, or Richardson for that matter. I could even take Guiliani. Romney's hair is too reminiscent of Ronnie's - and let's face it, Mormons are nuts. McCain is clearly a war monger and a bit nuts himself. He has managed to self-destruct too many times.
Someone - actually maybe on the Daily Show - suggested that we nominate Kucinich and Thompson owing to the fact that their wives are "hot." Not a bad notion really. It could help make a long campaign more bearable. You know, a few lingering shots on Elizabeth and Jeri might be worth the pain of such a campaign.
Personally, I'm going to write in Richard Lugar. I'm a liberal who usually votes Democratic, but I could take Lugar as president. He's experienced, intelligent and given that he's a long time politician, he's pretty honest. Sadly, he is about as charasmatic as a rock.
Evan Bayh, another Hoosier, has been touted as a possible running mate for Hillary. Bayh isn't exactly Mr. Excitement either. What to do? What to do? Draft Quayle?
B-tone
9 - RJ
Hmmm. Why the Romney hatred, handyguy? Is it because he ran as a gay-friendly Republican in Massachusetts, but has morphed into a strong opponent of homosexual marriage?
Rudy is the most socially-liberal GOP candidate currently running, so I would have thought you'd like him the most.
And you know, McCain is a solid conservative on most social issues...I guess I just don't get where you're coming from...but I'm sincerely curious.
10 - RJ
"and let's face it, Mormons are nuts."
I assume you're trying to be funny?
11 - RJ
"Evan Bayh, another Hoosier, has been touted as a possible running mate for Hillary. Bayh isn't exactly Mr. Excitement either."
One of the most reasonable, moderate Democrats in he Senate. I could live with him...on the top of the ticket, of course. ;-)
12 - Dave Nalle
Bayh ought to be running in his own right and likely will in 2012 if a Republican wins somehow, or after the Hillary debacle winds up whenever it does. He's kind of unfairly screwed by bad timing. Too young to lead the field in 2008 and likely to have to run as an underdog in a discredited party at his next opportunity. Not appealing.
Dave
13 - Baritone
Dave,
Of course I was throwing some of those names out in jest. However, Lugar, I think, could have been a very capable president, but he could never have garnered enough support. Also, he's a bit scraggly and long in the tooth now. Bayh may well take another stab at it, and he too is reasonably solid - a fairly conservative Dem. As I indicated, though, he's not a particularly dynamic personality, and is rather bland as a speaker.
Dave, you say Bayh would be "likely to have to run as an underdog in a discredited party at his next opportunity." What do you mean there? Bayh running after the Dems had discredited themselves through failed administrations? Or after having lost further national elections? Surely, you're not throwing in the towel for 2008.
As to the mormons? Yes, I was trying to be a bit funny, but they are, nevertheless, nuts. Read about Joseph Smith and his dictation of the Book of Mormon. Mormons are very cultish and strict in their adherence to their dogma. Check out some blogs of former mormons. A great one is Agnostic Mom (Sorry, I haven't figured out how to do links.)
No thoughts on Dan Quayle and his political future?
B-tone
14 - Dave Nalle
Well, it seems likely to me that the Dems will win in 2008 and that in one of the next two elections they'll be in a situation where they have to run a candidate against the record of their own exiting president, and that's always a problem. Even when the exiting administration was successful it can be very hard for a candidate to run in the same party and not as just a successor to that administration. As Gore proved it's hard even when you ARE seen as a successor.
I'm pretty sure a Hillary presidency would lead to a huge backlash in its aftermath, especially if she's successful, and I don't think she has the skills or the reasonable political viewpoint of her husband, so when she leaves office the Democrats are going to be in really bad shape.
BTW, did you get my email the other day?
Dave
I'm pretty sure that a H
15 - Baritone
Dave,
Of course every administration tends to end carrying all its baggage, both good and bad, mostly bad though, I suppose. Sometimes I think the party which has been in power, especially if its been 8 years, is beaten just because a majority of voters are tired of them.
I just now read your email. I don't often check my gmail account as it's not my main email source, and for some reason gmail goes down a lot. I oft times can't access it.
It's an interesting idea. I'm not sure if I could commit to it every week as my appointment schedule varies - I'm a residential RE appraiser and homeowners don't often cooperate as regards scheduling - usually some nonsense about having to work or take care of children.
I'll give it some thought, though, and thanks for asking. What is your time table - when do you expect to start up, etc., etc., etc.
B-tone
16 - handyguy
Baronius -
I live in NYC. Very few people who actually experienced Rudy Giuliani as mayor on a day to day basis have a high opinion of him. He's a grudge-holding bully, a genuinely unpleasant, nasty man. His post-9/11 national reputation is based on 3-1/2 months of looking strong on TV. Nothing else. His alleged 'liberal' social values then and his attempt to mask or change those values now make him even more suspect. If elected, he will be a divisive, much-despised president.
Romney is untrustworthy, empty, all smile and hair. The fact that he said he'd like to double the size of Guantanamo [even though he may not have meant that any more than anything else he says] would be enough for me to despise him. His treatment of gay rights is completely despicable.
Like many liberals, I learned to like McCain when he was a maverick running against the execrable GW Bush in 2000. I admired him for saying:
The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.
Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.
I disagree with him on many issues. But I have always thought he was an honorable straight shooter, until he took several steps too far mending fences with Bush and Falwell.
17 - Baritone
handy,
I tend to agree with you about all of those guys. Guiliani did manage to create a positive image in the days following 9/11. As I recall, though, he had instituted a no tolerance stance against the homeless in NYC. I know he had a reputation for being divisive and ruthless while mayor.
I know very little about Romney, but my impression is that he's a lightweight, as you say "all smiles and hair." And anyhow, who wants a president named Mitt? (Just as when Gingrich was flirting with the prospect of entering the race back in 2000, it occured to some, that were he elected, we would have a president named after a lizard.)
McCain has made so many gaffs - especially earlier in the year - that one must question his judgement when the chips are down. I am also a liberal who thought that if McCain could manage to get the Rep nomination back in 2000 that I could live with him in the WH owing to some of his relatively liberal social views. But given the gaffs and his hawkishness regarding Iraq and, now perhaps Iran, I have become very wary of him.
I don't think the Dems have any shining stars vying for the nomination either. I certainly have no problem with a woman in the WH. I just wish Hillary was not reviled by so many people. Actually, though during her tenure in the Senate, it has been said that she has been one of the more congenial members who has succeeded in bringing together many opposing factions in compromise to get various legislation through. I can't site any specific examples, but this was the concensus of a number of journalists I happened to see one evening, I believe in a discussion on Charlie Rose several month ago.
Some also look upon Obama as a relative lightweight. That may be. I do think he's intelligent and sincere. I don't really believe that his race will be much of an issue - at least not in the negative sense. I'm just not sure he's seasoned enough to be effective in the Oval Office.
I'm not particularly an Edwards fan. Given my position on god and religion, it seems to me that he wears his faith on his sleeve even more than Bush did. That wears very thin from my perspective.
It will be interesting to see how the campaign plays itself out in the next few months until the primaries begin in earnest. The gloves are coming off. Fewer candidates are "playing nice" neither during the debates nor in the media in general. That is always a dicey proposition, though, because once the smoke clears, the respective winners must go back and try to mend some fences to bring as many people back into the fold as possible.
Many of us will suffer, if we're not already, from campaign fatigue. Nevertheless, the next year will be interesting. A lot of things can and probably will happen in the ensuing months that may well completely change the complexion of the race.
B-tone
18 - handyguy
I see that I addressed that last one to the wrong Republican. But it's intended for anyone who's interested.
19 - handyguy
I may be alone in this, but I believe people will warm up to HRC the more they see and hear of her, defining herself through speeches and interviews...and that conversely, the more people see and hear and read about Giuliani, the less they will like him.
This is not just liberal wishful thinking...I'm basing it on what has happened in NY. Up through 9/10/2001, Giuliani's favorability rating in NYC was dropping like a stone as he alienated people continually.
On the other hand, HRC was re-elected by a landslide in 2006, even in rock-solid Republican districts in upstate NY. The more people get to know her, the less she resembles the mythological monster her harshest critics have described. She's even managed to charm her Republican colleagues in the Senate. Of course there are people who will always despise her and her husband. But she's actually her own best advertisement.
This, by the way, from a likely Edwards voter in the primary. My only problems with him are his lawyerly slickness and his proneness to economic protectionism.
And Obama will make a very fine veep for either HRC or Edwards.
20 - Baritone
handy,
I'm not sure I agree about Obama. I'm sure he would account for himself well as VP, but I'm not sure that would be a good move for him politically if he ever REALLY wants to gain the WH. Just look at how well that worked out for Gore and Mondale.
B-tone
21 - Dr Dreadful
Bayh ought to be running in his own right and likely will in 2012 if a Republican wins somehow...
Now this really is getting ridiculous.
The primaries for 2008 are still months away and we're already talking about the 2012 election.
How about we stop playing Fantasy Politics and focus on some issues?
22 - Baronius
Handy, I've got my opinions, but I'm pretty objective in my analysis. For example, I never said I wanted Biden, just that I think he's in better shape than he looks.
About Obama, I agree with Baritone. It would hurt him if he's seen as turning down the vice presidency. But in the long run, a maverick senatorial career would be a better launchpad for the presidency. Let's face it, being VP doesn't earn you respect, and if you're trying to fight a reputation as a lightweight, four/eight years of jokes don't help.
23 - Dave Nalle
Of course every administration tends to end carrying all its baggage, both good and bad, mostly bad though, I suppose. Sometimes I think the party which has been in power, especially if its been 8 years, is beaten just because a majority of voters are tired of them.
That's more or less what I was getting at. I don't think it matters if the sitting president did a good job, especially after 8 years the voters are usually ready for change. Plus 8 years in office is enough time for the opposing party and its apparatchiks to play up every minor offense and pseudo scandal to their advantage.
I'm basing my assessment mainly on the last 16 years - earlier administrations had enough real scandals to provide plenty of controversy. But it really does seem like under both Bush and Clinton an awful lot of relatively trivial events have been blown up into opportunistic pseudo scandals for political reasons which have little to do with their actual merits.
It's an interesting idea. I'm not sure if I could commit to it every week as my appointment schedule varies - I'm a residential RE appraiser and homeowners don't often cooperate as regards scheduling - usually some nonsense about having to work or take care of children.
Selfish bastards!
I'll give it some thought, though, and thanks for asking. What is your time table - when do you expect to start up, etc., etc., etc.
I need to check on when our official startup time is, but fairly soon. Before the new year for sure. Send me an email if you haven't already and I'll keep you informed.
Dave
24 - Dr Dreadful
Let's face it, being VP doesn't earn you respect...
Rather depends how you handle the office. Didn't work out too well for Spiro Agnew or Dan Quayle, for instance. But Dick Cheney, whatever you think of him, surely deserves at least the sort of respect you'd give to a rattlesnake under your porch.
25 - Baronius
See, Doc, that's what I mean about separating analysis from opinion. I could take a shot at Al Gore or praise Dick Cheney, but I'm not going to do that during a discussion of Democratic primary politics. I'm merely saying that eight years as VP didn't help either man's reputation. The office is all about impotence and state funerals.