John & Barack dead - GIVE BIDEN A CHANCE!

(yeah, yeah xpost etc but I think it important enough that I will bend a rule)

Biden has shown that he is Hillary's boss on the grandstand, now he needs the big $$$ to show those in the BIG state primaries the same thing. I honestly think he is the only one who is Repugnant proof and carries the least 'baggage' as far as ill feelings in the voters go. Why not give this guy a chance!

I am not saying that Obama or Edwards are bad people, just that they cannot defeat Hillary who in turn has a really, really large miracle to pull off in order to win the general. Biden can do that, his record has some spots in it, but Joe Voter will blow those off.

Think about it, Both Edwards and Obama have been given more money than all of the Repugnants combined so far, and STILL they trail Hillary.

If Hillary is the nominee I will support her, but until that time I will work my arse off to help someone with the skills and brains to do a better job in the general election and after the inaugeration.

GIVE THE MAN A CHANCE - GIVE HIM THE $$$ TO MAKE AN HONEST RACE OF IT!

We all know how well Biden defeats women who dare to work in a man's world. Ask Anita Hill.

Sorry, Biden is poison.

I'm not familiar with that one.

I don't like some of his votes on the issues. Particularly the Bankruptsy Bill and Partial Birth abortion bans. I think those put him in hot water with many voters throughout the country.

Except her story wasn't the issue. It was reaction of the male senators TO her story.

Never forgive him. NEVER.

Single-issue people amaze me. Always looking for the PERFECT politician. Good luck.

He ain't perfect for me. I remember.

None of them are "perfect" and they all have their weaknesses, but when I look at the sum total of their experience, judgment, and character, I choose Joe Biden.

You don't. So be it. Moving on.

pointed questions?.. Biden still voted NO on Clarence Thomas??? wasn't that Anita Hills motive in the first place?

Her testimony was compelled.

then was subpoenaed. thats usually damn compelling. her allegations were in the press. why not the congressional record? why not be proud of them?

that she did NOT want to testify. Her allegations were made to the FBI, not to "the press." Someone in that outfit did the leaking.

Her goal wasn't to ruin Thomas or drag him through the mud. He was just a sexually harrassing loudmouth and an inappropriate ass. She didn't want to destroy the man publicly, her hope was that someone up the chain would think twice and make a substitution for the nomination.

I believe Prof. Hill. Completely. I think she was quite brave, and I think that if anyone was "lynched" during that whole shameful business (to quote Clarence T.), it was her.

either. Clarence Thomas would be a better clerk someplace than a Justice. however that doesn't make the case that Joe was complicit in his nomination he wasn't. Joe was only doing his job, (as asking tough questions is the job) and Still voted NO on conformation. The "lynching" accusation Clarence put fourth was to distract from the fact he really is unsuited to be a Justice. and to "shame" anybody into distraction, To keep them from questioning a black guy. much the same as hillary and her "all boys club" distraction. So as Anita feels put upon having being cross examined. you are Hating Joe for simply doing his job. (personally I commend him for doing the dirty work.) If I might ask, Whom do you support? and Why?

I specifically avoided any such assertion, because I could see a pissing contest looming on the horizon.

I was simply interested in representing, accurately, the assertions about Professor Hill.

If you read, for COMPREHENSION, what I actually wrote (go on, go read it, right now) you would have to retract your false statement about me that you made, that ....you are Hating Joe for simply doing his job.

But see, you DIDN'T read. At least not FOR COMPREHENSION. You can't find a single statement that I made to back that steaming horseshit up. My comments were restricted to the Professor's situation, and said nothing about the Senator AT ALL.

As most people who know me understand, I don't HAVE a candidate. I am undecided and IN NO HURRY to choose one (against a miracle that Gore would decide to leap into the fray--in that case, I would commit to his candidacy). I'm studying the candidates, and I am especially interested in seeing how they perform in the close-in days to the first few primaries.

DU gets tiresome when people like you toss accusations or suggestions that I aver that "Joe was complicit" in anything. I plainly said, upthread, that I didn't want to get into that shit, yet even with that declaration, I still get "accused" by you. Falsely. Partisanly. Unfairly.

The level of discourse here is certainly partisan and often not very adult. And that's unfortunate for people like me who are continuting to "compare and contrast" and aren't getting any help from people like you, who get all pissy when honest observations are made, which are incorrectly and automatically translated into childish insistence that their favorites are being 'maligned.'

Next time, slow down and READ before you fly off the handle. It would help.

on a positive Biden thread??? unless you were fishing to make a confrontation. as an educated person who earned his degree during that episode in American politics... where one must read BETWEEN the lines to resolve the truth. you finally revealed yourself. your objective all along was to bait and switch. I was wondering. congratulations. So are you grown up enough to allow Anita fade into history as the footnote she really is? or will you continue to speak with ulterior motives? can anyone say propagandist? so if you are undecided then why not present that up front? why interject a negative into a positive, other than to derail a possible new Bidenite emerging? you must be a hillary fan. politics of distraction.

That's why.

You may have been 'earning your degree' during that disgraceful episode, but I was an ADULT and close to the situation. So put that wheresoever you might like. I'm plenty grown up, too--in fact, I'm RETIRED. And I, unlike you, know better than to toss bullshit accusations at people--that's something someone who isn't very "grown up" does--you really ought to stop that behavior.

Are you saying that it's "cool" for Anita Hill to be a casualty, just so you can keep your Biden thread "positive?" Gee, that's a lovely sentiment on your part. How Democratic of you!

One more time: I have no input on Biden. NONE.

But there's NO EXCUSE, NONE, for calling Professor Hill a flake. And she's not a footnote, either. She changed the landscape on issues of workplace harassment. If you'd paid attention during that era and after it, you'd actually have some AWARENESS of that fact, instead of dismissing her contribution to workplace rights for female workers, specifically, and all workers, eventually, in the latter 20th Century.

There's also no excuse for you to accuse ME of being a "propagandist." You're the propagandist on this thread, and I don't have a problem with it. If I WERE a propagandist, I'd be touting a candidate, not pointing out that it isn't "cool" to tell lies about Anita Hill.

And if you want to find more 'Bidenites' I would suggest that you change your goddamned tone. You sure aren't encouraging me. You are behaving poorly in the extreme.

FWIW, you must be incapable of reading for comprehension--I'm not a small-h 'hillary fan.'
Anyone who knows me here, knows I'm still undecided and still looking.

I am an undecided voter, and if I didn't know better, I'd swear some campaign sent you here to PRETEND to be a Biden fan, but to behave so combatively while faking it that you actually turn people OFF to the Biden candidacy. See, that's what you're doing by running around making accusations without ANY evidence OR justification.

You need to actually READ what I--and probably others-- write, and stop ASSuming and taking "auto offense." You can't read my mind or my intentions, so stop trying. It just makes you--not me--look combative, immature and obstreperous.

insofar as Joe Biden if you were interested then why did you not say so up front? I apologize I do not subscribe to her as being a flake either. however I have no sympathy for persons who will give testimony to police. and yet Reluctantly in front of cameras,coupled with her timing. It does cause one to question the validity of the accusation only my opinion, again I apologize.

Joe can explain himself far better than I can. none of these threads is a commercial. they All are nine, ten or more minuets long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhCJ6h_p0GA&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9lpiDzeQcI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ejoebiden%2Ecom%2Fcontribution%2F2%3Fid%3D0003
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071020/OPINION/71017035/1001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU7yhHWuTC4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhR4PyJIvoo

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3734869

you are the shark
stop by sometime
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=404

she's an acceptable casualty.

I don't think that's correct or appropriate. So I pointed it out.

And then became the object of some pretty foolish assertions as a consequence.

look who authored #8??? geeze. I still assert I did not call her a flake... flake.
and you will have to have the last word.

I said the THREAD did. Go back and read for comprehension, now.

It's not an uninportant matter.

And smooth move, there, with the personal 'flake' insult.

Real mature.

Is a word ignorant people use when they are too lazy to come up with rational thoughts. Congratulations on that one, I hope it serves you well.

been given a woobie and had someone hold her hand? :sarcasm: I expect senate testimony to be difficult. they were questioning her motives and her timing. (she was promoted and given a raise after her encounters with clarence. If she had spoken up far sooner they wouldent even been having the hearings as clarence would never been the nominee.

Did you forget a "little nutty and a little slutty" too?

using his term in the Senate solely for the purpose of running for POTUS.

After 35 years in the Senate, Joe has moved a lot of legislation and been very effective.

And he's not running from his record.

All unlike Edwards.

women....ask Anita Hill." comment.

Which I think is part of what he's referencing.

I don't understand the Anita Hill thing.

It may not be the case on DU, but it is in the country as a whole. So would you prefer a candidate whose goal it is to serve the people of DU, or a candidate who puts the entire country first? Think about it and get over the me, me, me thing.

Consider this analogy. There are RWers, those against gun control, who argue that any gun control legislation is just a step toward taking away our guns. Those of us who are progressives say that's bull. We're not trying to take away people's guns, but there is need for limits on who can own a fire arm, the kinds of guns that should or shouldn't be made available to the public, etc. A majority of Americans support some gun controls. Now do you fault the Republicans who look at the bigger picture and have the courage to vote for some gun controls, even though it's not popular with their constituency, but IS what the nation supports? Think about it. Though they represent our values, these presidential candidates are not running to be president of the Democratic Party. They're running to be President of the United States of America. That's important to remember during this primary process. If we don't we risk nominating a loser in the general election.

1st trimester abortions are one thing.

Abortions during the last trimester is sick.

Ole Jow was wrong on both of those.

Most people are against partial birth abortions because they don't understand them. Ole Joe, the public servant, is suppose to research the issue and levy a smart vote. The Pro Life movement has long used Partial Birth abortions as a whipping stick to prey on the ignorance of others.

One would like to say that ole Joe mearly caputulated here but that would be far from the truth. He's also voted to remove public funding for abortions and is rated 36% by NARAL.

You don't know Joe Biden. He ALWAYS credits the women in his family for being where he is today! His sister has run every single campaign he has ever waged since he ran for the city council. The Biden women are all STRONG women and Biden respects them all very much. I don't understand where you got such false information.

nice try. I assume you have some personal issues to work out or you are under-researched.

Yeah, that's why he has created the violence against women act;
http://biden.senate.gov/issues/domesticviolence.cfm
http://biden.senate.gov/documents/BidenRecordWomen.pdf

Really, I wish people would stop inventing things to hate Biden for. And, by the way, wasn't it Joe Biden, in the debate the other night that said;

"And, by the way, the next supreme court judge I appoint will be a woman".



I guess the now seemingly desperate reaches to make him look bad, only signal that people are now starting to see that he might actually be a competitor....

perhaps you don't remember the plagarlism incident that he was involved in

Hmmm, did you see him interview alito during the confirmation hearings? I certainly can't believe you were impressed by that

Maybe it was his staunch support of the bankrupcy bill

biden's a good talking, with a mixed substance. Look at his track record

because the first thread was basically the same thing as this thread within the same time frame

It would have made more sense to post the two threads a few hours apart, not back to back

about that (and I've heart a LOT about late term abortions, bankruptcy and the Thomas hearings!) Thanks.

and he spent 25 of those minutes grandstanding without asking a question

clip of it and I swear he reminded me of Jack Nicholson in The Shining. He was snarling!

Thanks -- as I said, I hadn't heard it referred to before, so was curious. :hi:

"plagiarism" = he forgot to quote his source and was lambasted for it . his accusers publicly apologized for it.

alto = yes what I saw him going through the motions as alto already had the votes to get the nod. Biden still voted NO.

bankruptcy = Biden saw too it that bill had some control. like adding on child support payments. so dead beat parents cant scate on them. your kids come first before any other entity.

His track record = ok first finances. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03

then his voting record. http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm

Show that moron who's the best candidate!

At least Think82 had the intelligence and courtesy to back up his views, and in a respectful way.

Perhaps you should read some of the issues that Biden DID vote on. Unless of course that is your view

1. True, he forgot to quote his source, but he sure didn't handle it correctly, though I agree, the media made a mountain out of a mole hill, along with his political opponents

Biden was forced to withdraw from the 1988 Democratic Presidential nominations when it was alleged that he had failed a 1965 introductory law school course on legal methodology due to plagiarism. "Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., fighting to salvage his Presidential campaign . . . acknowledged 'a mistake' in his youth, when he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school. Mr. Biden insisted, however, that he had done nothing 'malevolent,' that he had simply misunderstood the need to cite sources carefully."<55> Biden withdrew from the race September 23, 1987, and reported the law school incident to the Delaware Supreme Court. The court's Board of Professional Responsibility cleared him of any allegations.<56>
Biden was also accused of plagiarizing portions of his speeches, notably those of British Labour leader Neil Kinnock and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Biden was forced out of the Presidential race after the Michael Dukakis campaign released a video showing Biden using one of Kinnock's speeches without properly attributing it. Biden called the charges "much ado about nothing;"<57> it was also revealed that Biden had used and properly cited the Kinnock speech on several other occasions, although he failed to do so on the one instance recorded by the Dukakis campaign.<58>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Senator_Joseph_Biden

2. alito "having the votes" doesn't cut it for me, and biden wasn't the only one who screwed up during the questioning. If enough relevent questions were asked, something might have come out. Either way, it was the job of the confirmation process to ask tough questions, not provide a forum for speeches from the people doing the questioning.

3. The bankrupcy bill was a bad bill period, especially since many of those defaults were due to medical costs, and there was no protection in the bill for that.

4. Lets use the links you provided:

a. He voted against partial birth abortion. Thank you Dr. Biden. The partial birth abortion does not take into account the life of the Mother. Hmmmm, not very good judgement in my book. In addition, shouldn't Doctors be making that decision? Partial birth abortion is an extremely rare procedure in the first place, and it has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose, but it does have something to do with the life and death of the woman.

b. No public funding of abortions. Hmmmm. The rich who can afford it are the ones who it usually doesn't affect. It is the poor who are left holding the bag, just like the bankrupcy bill.

c. Rated 36% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion. (Dec 2003)

d. His civil rights record is excellent

e. His views on the environment, education, and energy are progressive

f. In my view he talks out of both sides of his mouth regarding foreign policy. There is no excuse for voting for the IWR, and saying that bush misled them doesn't cut it, since the IWR violated the War Powers Act, and those who voted for it knew it


I appreciate your response, and you definitely set me straight on the plagarism issue. We just disagree on degree of the other issues.

Thanks

I'll post this again, since you don't seem to know what your talking about;

In 1987, Joe Biden ran as a Democratic presidential candidate. When the campaign began, he was considered a frontrunner because of his moderate image. However, the campaign ended when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party. Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video. In the video Biden is filmed repeating a stump speech by Kinnock, with only minor modifications. “Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go a university? Why is it that my wife . . . is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? . . . Is it because they didn't work hard? My ancestors who worked in the coal mines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It's because they didn't have a platform on which to stand.” After Biden withdrew from the race it was learned that he had correctly credited Kinnock on all other occasions. He failed to do so, however, in the Iowa speech that was recorded and distributed to reporters (with a parallel video of Kinnock) by aides to Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee. Dukakis fired John Sasso, his campaign manager and long-time Chief of Staff, but Biden's campaign could not recover.

Biden was forced to withdraw from the 1988 Democratic Presidential nominations when it was alleged that he had failed a 1965 introductory law school course on legal methodology due to plagiarism. "Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., fighting to salvage his Presidential campaign . . . acknowledged 'a mistake' in his youth, when he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school. Mr. Biden insisted, however, that he had done nothing 'malevolent,' that he had simply misunderstood the need to cite sources carefully."<55> Biden withdrew from the race September 23, 1987, and reported the law school incident to the Delaware Supreme Court. The court's Board of Professional Responsibility cleared him of any allegations.<56>
Biden was also accused of plagiarizing portions of his speeches, notably those of British Labour leader Neil Kinnock and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Biden was forced out of the Presidential race after the Michael Dukakis campaign released a video showing Biden using one of Kinnock's speeches without properly attributing it. Biden called the charges "much ado about nothing;"<57> it was also revealed that Biden had used and properly cited the Kinnock speech on several other occasions, although he failed to do so on the one instance recorded by the Dukakis campaign.<58>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Senator_Joseph_...

This isn't directed toward you, but to the premise of this thread, or for that matter any of the threads that try to say the other candidates are "dead"

If someone is trying to convience someone to support their candidate, you don't say that his candidates are "dead". Talk issues, talk substance, otherwise you won't acheive your objective, but just the opposite

when it comes to foreign policy! HE was the one in the next to the last debate, when everyone else was arguing about Iran and nukes, that said "You can't take your eye off the ball folks! Our real problem is Pakistan who already HAS nukes!" 3 days later Musharuff through out the supreme court, shut down the constitution, and had almost all the protestors arrested!

I've listened to Joe on all the talk shows and various interviews. He really IS the best at speaking directly to the people, and he's also the smartest candidate.

I don't have much $$, and I send him $10 when I can. I only wish a lot of others would do the same. If Ron Paul can raise $4 million in a day, surely we can do more for Joe than we have so far!

seemed ... disturbing in some way.

I found myself asking, "Who died, exactly?" Edwards and Obama? They DIED? Really?

And somehow Biden seemed to be involved. Surely, says I, Biden didn't kill Edwards and Obama. That doesn't sound like Joe at all.

And why wouldn't the cable news have it on. Scratch that. The cable news never has anything on.

Anyway, the polling in Iowa shows an uptake for Biden, so your candidate appears to be doing better.

People who like Obama and Edwards have a good deal to cheer about as well.

Provided that those two candidates aren't dead. I mean dead dead, not politically faltering dead. Dead as in a stake through Dracula's heart (Mitt Romney as the vampire). Dead as in listening to Fred Thompson try to talk. Dead as in Rudy's law-and-order terra terra terra yapping. Dead as in the fundies having to choose among a Mormon a Catholic and several other not-to-their-liking candidates. How fun to see them fume and carry on.

Excellent!:rofl:

delusions of grandeur.

Funny how I don't see any of the other candidates sending their kids over there.

No - hell no - they are much too good for that. It's okay to send their constituents kids, but not there own.

What an insensitive remark.

and to imply such is really offensive to their supporters.

Both men are doing well in the polls and Obama is doing well in fundraising.

you're blowing this out of porportion....really, you are...

...namely that Edwards have collected more and spent more than almost he entire Repugnant field in their whole primary campaign...yet bot Obama and Edwards trail substantially behind Hillary. They have made up NO ground. I fully realize that the Iowa caucus is now much closer than it ever was, but Hillary still leads. I also am very aware that it is the TOTAL delegate count that decides the issue, and Hillary remains way ahead in pledges and endorsements...you do realize that almost all of those oddball endorsements by obscure congressmen are DELEGATE votes? You didn't know that? sheeesh, what maroons!

why one candidate is better than the other, don't classify the other candidates as irrelevent

You are right on. It will have the opposite effect that was intended

able to win is purely opinion. If you feel it isn't provide proof or compelling evidence to back up your assertion.

For some reason, maybe psychological, your post reminded me of the sad killings of JFK and MLK. And Bobby Kennedy as he was killed campaigning for a new America. Can you please refrain from saying "dead" when referring to candidates that some of us believe in?

if you think he has a hair's breadth of a chance of winning either the nomination or the general election.

Besides, neither Obama nor Edwards is dead....yet.

The best Biden can hope for is to be named Sec of State by Clinton, or whoever gets the nomination. And we'd be lucky to get him in that position. We'd be even luckier to get him as President, but he has zero chance of that. He knows it. That's why he's so relaxed and humorous at the debates. He knows he has absolutely nothing to lose. All he's hoping for is a cabinet post, at this point. I don't think he wants to be V.P., since Bill Clinton will be V.P., if Hillary wins.

"hyperbole"

generally best to refrain from using it, BTW.

is give Biden a chance!!!!

I like alot of the candidates. If Biden (who I suspect is going to do very well in Iowa) gets the nod I can support him with no problem. But, obama is not dead. I cheer on many of our candidates.