Joe Biden for President?

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

My animus toward the present administration is well known. I'm trying to find some positive outlet for this energy, by supporting an alternative to Bush who has a plausible chance of defeating him in 2004.

As the incumbent, Bush can be presumed to win the Republican nomination, absent a meltdown resulting from a major Iraq or 9/11-related, Watergate-style scandal.

In the absence of a major scandal, I still think Bush can be defeated, but only if a particular series of events takes place:

• A conservative independent candidate runs, launching a withering attack on Bush much like Perot did against Bush Sr. in 1992, weakening the president's "war leader" strength. Pat Buchanan could take this role (again), but he seems to have little obvious appetite for running, and he's run enough times that the media and public are tuning him out. McCain could take this role, but since McCain was a strong war proponent, he is limited in his ability to challenge Bush's war policies.
  
• Ralph Nader doesn't get traction in an independent Green Party bid. I like Nader's attack on corporate influence, but Nader has no shot at winning. A vote for Nader just strengthens Bush under our dumb electoral system.
  
• A Democrat emerges with strong "national security" credibility, but with fundamental differences with Bush on Iraq. This candidate, in theory, can beat Bush in this scenario, if the "no WMDs found" issue snowballs into a national controversy.
  

I've perused the current, announced Democratic candidates, and I can't find a candidate who fits the needed profile for a successful challenge.

The pro-war Democrats just come across as "Bush Lite": Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt. These guys are all national names, but nobody really cares about the issues where they differ with Bush -- and probably a lot of those who do care about those issues, side with Bush. It's hard to believe that with 9/11, the Iraq War and national security being the dominant issues that any of these cheerleaders has any chance of beating Bush, unless Bush is mired in some Watergate-level scandal over Iraq or 9/11.

Most of the anti-war announced Democrats can't win either, because they're unelectable: too extremist, too pu$$y, or too marginal. These include: Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton and Moseley Braun.

One announced Democrat fits the profile on paper: Bob Graham, the Florida senator and former governor. Graham opposed the Iraq Resolution. Intriguingly, Graham is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which makes his opposition to the Iraq war one of informed principle. On the downside, Graham will be 67 in 2004, and is reputed to be a mediocre speaker. Here's his official campaign site.

After reviewing the list of announced Democratic candidates, I then came upon a very interesting unannounced candidate: Joe Biden.

As the former Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman (and current ranking Democrat), Biden's national-security credentials are top-notch. He's an effective speaker and is seasoned on many issues, having served in the Senate for 30 years (since age 29!), including a stint as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Most strikingly, Biden seems since 9/11 to have carved out a credible alternative to Bush's foreign policy approach -- one that projects American strength assertively, but rejects unilateralism and preemptive war-making. This, I believe, is the "winning formula" to defeat Bush if it can be demonstrated that Bush's Iraq War was reckless and based on unfounded allegations about Saddam Hussein's imminent WMD danger.

Biden described Bush's decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty "an incredibly dangerous one".

On the critical issue of Iraq, Biden on July 31, 2002, questioned "What threat does Iraq pose to our security? How immediate is the danger?", noting that information was too incomplete to justify war yet, and that rebuilding Iraq after war was a separate challenge that must be considered.

On February 3, 2003, Biden tightened his rhetoric on Iraq, stating that Bush cannot make war "without the informed consent of the American people". He said Bush "needs to be very clear about his reasons for [war], what it will cost, what the consequences of our actions will be around the world." He asserted that in his international travels, he was "confronted with the most uniform and significant anti-American sentiment I have ever encountered in my 30 years of dealing with foreign leaders abroad." He said the only correct path for Bush was "to make the case with proof, not only privately to our partners but to the American people and the world, of Saddam’s crimes and the weapons he possesses." Summing up, Biden said: "We need the informed consent of the American people and the world if we want them to be with us and if we want to do this right."

Clinching the argument, Biden on March 10, 2003, argued forcefully that the U.S. needed a second U.N. resolution to justify war.

For more on Biden, see his press releases and statements on foreign relations.

Will Biden declare a presidential candidacy? It's hard to say. Here's what one campaign watch site had to say:

In January 2003, Biden said he was more interested in focusing on his duties on the Foreign Relations Committee even if it means he would be too late to develop an effective campaign. However, according to an interview he gave to his homestate's leading newspaper in May 2003, Biden is still pondering a late entry into the race -- but "will wait until at least September" to make any decision. "If I do this, I'm not going to do this on anybody's terms but my own this time ... My reason for not doing it now is: I don't know how you can go out and do all the things you need to do to run for President and still try to shape -- or in some cases impede -- the President's agenda. Here we are talking [in Congress] about low-yield nuclear weapons and John Edwards, John Kerry, Bob Graham and Dick Gephardt are all somewhere else. They're not in the debate. I'm not ready to do that," explained Biden.

Based on what I know about George W. Bush, what I know about the ability of other candidates to defeat Bush, and what I know about Biden -- I think Biden has the best shot of any candidate to defeat Bush.

He'll need a bunch of breaks to do it -- WMD scandal for Bush, an independent conservative challenge to Bush, a weak Nader candidacy -- but all these breaks are certainly possible.

So I'll get out front and say, for the first time ever, I'm supporting a Democratic candidate for president: Joe Biden.

Mainly because he can win. And because he's right on the big national security issues. (I don't promise to agree with all of Biden's other positions.)

[redman]

:laugh:

[chiefhogskin48]

I think this sounds reasonable. He would have the best chancing winning, considering the rest of the clown brigade the Democrats have marched out there. He seem like a sharp, intelligent man who is well-respected in most circles. Also, he is a known quantity, serving for 30 years. But despite this, I don't think the Democrats are cognicent of what it takes to beat Bush. More likely than not they will back some lame, wishy-washy candidate who will get rolled. It's extremely predictable. Bear in mind that they lucked out with Clinton (who temporarily stemmed the domination by conservatives since 1982).

I was just reading a list of the top 10 presidents of all time. I must say, it filled me with great pride reading about the accomplishments of the great men who have come before us. But at the same time, I yearn for our own great leader to emerge. I like the fact that Bush has restored honor to the office of the presidency, but he has other shortcomings (notably Cheney, Rumsefeld, Ashcroft, and Wolfowitz) that make him a long-shot in becoming a great leader (though he will likely have another 6 years to define his true legacy). If he is willing to clean house in his administration, surrounding himself with a "brain trust" of smart, credible people in the Powell mold, then I believe he can achieve at least Reaganesque stature by the end of his political reign.

I just hope I will see a great American president emerge before the end of my days.

[phishhead]

ASF,

What are your problems with Dean? Of all the Democrats, he has been pretty much the only one that I know of to stand up and speak out against Bush.

Personally, he's my favorite so far. Of course, like most anti-Bush folk, I will vote for whichever Dem makes it. I just hope it isn't Gep, or Lieberman. Ewww.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by phishhead

ASF,

What are your problems with Dean? Of all the Democrats, he has been pretty much the only one that I know of to stand up and speak out against Bush.

Personally, he's my favorite so far.

I want someone to knock off Bush. And the person with the best chance may not be my personal favorite -- so it doesn't really matter if I like Dean the most. It matters who can win. That's the attitude I've taken in reviewing the candidates.

I greatly respect Dean's vocal opposition to the war. If Bush suffers a Watergate-style meltdown over Iraq, a guy like Dean could win.

However, on the assumption that Bush gets tarred for the lack of WMDs but doesn't suffer a complete meltdown (the likely scenario, in my view), Dean can't win. Why? I'll be brutally frank: he comes off as a big pu$$y, and Bush will have him licking his balls by the end of the campaign.

Now, I reached this conclusion based on a very quick first impression, from a clip from the first Democratic debate. Dean took a shot at John Kerry, and looked about as manly doing so as a girl playing dodge ball at recess. (Sometimes it's not the issues: it's the ability to project manliness as an American president.)

Maybe I'm wrong about Dean. But I recognize how the game of politics is played at the presidential level, and generally only guys with big balls win.

I'll keep an open mind on Dean, but those are my first impressions.

[fansince62]

"he's right on all the national security issues"....and so let it be done....thus spaeketh the ASF.......

[chiefhogskin48]

Originally posted by phishhead

ASF,

What are your problems with Dean? Of all the Democrats, he has been pretty much the only one that I know of to stand up and speak out against Bush.

Personally, he's my favorite so far. Of course, like most anti-Bush folk, I will vote for whichever Dem makes it. I just hope it isn't Gep, or Lieberman. Ewww.

Damn phishead, you must be reaaally liberal. Dean would never win a national election--- he's Naderesque.

[jbooma]

the only way bush is going to lose, is if there is some big contraversory over WMD and the companies that help build Iraq, or we go into another recession

looking at some critical numbers this past week, the ladder doesn't seem like it is going to happen now

the dems won't win a ticket on WMD alone, because most of the citizens will remember the day the Iragies were in the street celebrating and then think it was a good ideal afterall

i do like Biden though over the other clowns

[88Comrade2000]

Joe Biden had to drop out of the 1988 or 1992 presidential race for plagerism.

Actually there's another reason that Bush could loss and it has nothing to do with democrats. It has to do with his base.

Christian Conservatives are grumbling a little. Already have had some articles post on this board about that. If they feel Bush isn't living up to their wishes- they can punish him by sitting out the 2004 election. The Christian Conservatives or should that be religious conservatives are the base of the republican party. They are the reason the republicans are in power now. Without them, the republicans would be nowhere. Also, the CC's are very upset that BUSH is pushing for peace in Irsael. They believe that Irsael should have all the lands since it was God's choice and the ancient lands: Judia/Sumaria should be in the hands of the JEWS since God promise it to them. Also, they believe Jesus Christ will only return when Jeruaselum-(can't spell that city) is in Jewish hands. If Bush pushes this peace plan and forces Sharon to make concessions- they will punish Bush by sitting out.

[Funkyalligator]

I think that Bush could be harmed by a long occupation of Iraq where every week or so more soldiers are being killed. If we keep soldiers there for an extended period of time we will lose more to snipers and bombers than we did during the war itself. It will start to look like our Afghanistan(ala the Russians invasion of Afghanistan)

[Kilmer17]

The Christian right always makes this threat and never follows through. Faced with not voting and essentially handing the election to the Dem or voting for Bush despite not liking a couple of his stances, they'll come out in droves. It's just posturing at this point.

[Tarhog]

Didn't Biden have brain surgery to remove a tumor a while back. Not saying that is a factor, but the stress level of just running for the Presidency (not to mention if you win) might keep him out of the running. My thoughts are that if he couldn't make a real run in his prime, his chances are slim now. The only candidate I could see making it a race would be Lieberman, who I actually have a modicum of respect for as at least he knows a despicable murdering regime when he sees one and isn't afraid to stand up and be counted (and not just when its clear which way the polls are blowing). I feel like Lieberman generally speaks the truth, even when it doesn't conform with the Terry Macauliffe party line talking points (which is why he may not win the nomination). He could beat GWB if everything went his way. Dean in my mind is somewhat of a clown. Clearly he sees himself as a maverick, but that doesn't make you a genius, and I just don't see him garnering the kind of support that could topple Bush.

[Henry]

I actually interned for Biden summer after my Junior year in college. He dropped out of the 88 race for plagarism and making unsubstantiated claims about his past. (He said he graduated with honors from some school he never went to or something.)

If you agee with his politics he's certainly capable, as a longtime chair of the Foreign Relations committee before the GOP won the majority. And he's pretty charismatic when he's telling the truth, but I don't know if he can keep his foot out of his mouth long enough to sustain an entire Presidential campaign.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

I've been doing some cross-checking on other major Democratic candidates. John Kerry made a nice national security speech on January 23. Its philosophy is similar to Biden's, but it stands in curious isolation. If you visit Kerry's Senate web page, there's nothing else posted showing Kerry's views on the Iraq war. No speeches, press releases, interviews, etc.

I think that's fundamentally cowardly -- cowardly for any sitting U.S. congressman, and especially for a U.S. senator of some standing who is considered one of his party's top two or three candidates for president.

John Kerry seems like a nice enough guy, and I respect his positions on certain issues (such as opposing the FCC's recent relaxation of rules against mass-media cross-ownership). But his silence on Iraq really shows a fundamental lack of integrity in facing the major issue of our time. (I respect Wolfowitiz's rabid neo-conservativism more than silence -- silence is just chickensh!t.)

Kerry simply doesn't deserve the presidential nomination.

[Kilmer17]

The Dems have a serious problem with candidates. They are going to have to go to the far left to get the nomination and that will kill them in the general. None of the current candidates can manage to do both. Kerry may get the nod, but he'll get slaughtered in the south and midwest. Edwards could carry the south, but cant get the nomination and if he did, the Greens would kill him out west. Lieberman is moderate enough to win some general election states (especially Florida) but I dont think he can get the nomination. And Dean would make Mondales showing look impressive if he gets the nomination.

I still wont count out Hillary or some other wild card.

[redman]

I agree with everything that Tarhog said. Unless someone else emerges, the most legitimate candidate would probably be Lieberman, whose character and credibility could most undercut Bush's similar attributes. (As an aside, I wonder what the effect of a Jewish president would be on the Middle East peace process . . .) Because the field is so muddled right now, I think the Dems will gravitate towards the "big names", like Kerry, Lieberman or Gephardt. The outsiders aren't going to woo enough mainstream voters for them to succeed.

I also agree with Kilmer about the Religious Right. These aren't knee-jerk Naderites. They won't cut off their noses to spite their face. They'll posture for their agenda, but in the end they'll vote for Bush.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

I found a UPI profile of the declared Democratic candidates, published yesterday. The report comments that Bob Graham is "reportedly the opponent most feared by the Bush team."

As I noted earlier in this thread, Graham is the candidate among declared contenders I thought best fit my profile of a winning challenger. I wrote that he was reputed to be a "mediocre speaker", but I actually haven't seen him speak. Can anyone comment about his charisma and speechmaking ability? (You don't have to agree with his politics -- I'm just seeking views of his public speaking skills and presence.)

Here's Graham's Senate web page. Unlike Kerry, Graham isn't ducking the issues, and I like the fact that he's pressing the Bush administration to publicly release the 9/11 investigation report.

It's still early, but so far I like Biden and Graham the most among candidates who could win. I like Dean, but I doubt he can win. Lieberman is a pretty good "new Democrat", but since he supports the Bush administration so closely on Iraq, it's hard to make the case that he can (or should) replace Bush. Even so, I'd probably prefer Lieberman to Bush -- he just seems less likely to be destructive unilateralist.

[fansince62]

graham only sided with the ACLU 39% of the time.....a step in the right direction!!!...but we have to get that number down even more......

[AdmiralWaugh]

ASF,

I sincerely applaud the work you've gone into researching the field of candidates and think your analysis is interesting, but I think the reality regarding Bush's vulnerabilities doesn't have anything at all to do with potential Buchananesque rivals. A) it 100% will not happen this isn't 1992 but most importantly, the notion that incumbents are hard to beat isn't predicated upon other factors, it's predicated upon them beating themselves most of the time.

So for Bush to lose, it's going to take an economy tanking or some other key mistake from Bush himself. I concede that they could all be possibilities.

As a Floridian, I like Bob Graham in a personal sense. We like him all right, and I guess always have. I also like the way he has conducted his campaign, even if it's unfortunately underrated. I think he would be the best candidate for the Democrats to nominate, but he has to work on some oratory and stuff too. Biden on the other hand is a nightmare in more ways than one, and even if Bush made a significant mistake, the electoral strategies will be more complicated for him coming from Delaware. Someone convinced Biden he could win or have a chance or be a good President, and then he convinced himself or whatever, and I think that's unfortunate because while I think he's a better candidate than most the others, it's hard to see what he brings to the table that would set him apart and make it so that he's no wasting his time.

[redman]

I thought this would be appropriate here: