Joe Biden's Plans Have Long Roots

The latest news about Joe Biden considering a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination is hardly a surprise. Joe Biden has always considered running for President in 2016. A year and a half ago, in February, 2014, he told ABC he couldn't think of any reason not to run. He said then he would decide by the end of the summer in 2015.

Joe Biden has always been there laying in the weeds, waiting for something to happen that might derail Hillary. Apparently, he thinks the time is now. [More....]

His time is long gone. He will be 74 years old in November, 2016. Richard Nixon was President when he got to the Senate.(Nixon resigned in 1974.)

While the Senate has had older Senators, they are 1 of 100. There's only 1 President. Ronald Reagan, the oldestPresident to be inaugurated, was 73 when was sworn in for his second term. Biden will be three years older. Even should he be elected, he'd almost certainly be a one term President. He'd turn 84 before his second term was up, and no one wants a President in his 80's.

His age is the easiest reason to overlook him. The real reason is his record on crime.

I have consistently opposed Crime Warrior In Chief Joe Biden on this site since 2003. (All posts are accumulated here.) Pick any drug law you don't like in the last 25 years, and you'll find he's responsible. If he runs, it will be the first time I sit out a presidential election. He will never get my vote.

Joe Biden has been trying to run for President since 1988 (His bid was torpedoed by his plagiarizing speeches of others. It was hardly a one time occurrence, it was a practice that dated back to his law school days). He also embellished (at best) details of his life.

The sheer number and extent of Biden's fibs, distortions, and plagiarisms struck many observers at the time as worrisome, to say the least. While a media feeding frenzy (a term popularized in the 1988 campaign) always creates an unseemly air of hysteria, Biden deserved the scrutiny he received. Quitting the race was the right thing to do.

Even in 2012, he hadn't changed his overly pro-law enforcement and drug warrior views. In Mexico, he said the Obama-Biden Administration would never legalize drugs and are requesting more money for the war on drugs in Central America:

Biden said the U.S. has provided about $361 million in anti-crime aid under the Central America Regional Security Initiative, but leaders in the region called that insufficient. Biden said the administration is asking more from congress.

Biden could care less about pleasing progressives. It's the Republican vote he'll pander to. He acknowledged this strategy in 2008.

The only crime bill we need now is a three strikes law that keeps Joe Biden from running for President for the third time.

< El Chapo's Lawyers Obtain Suspension of Arrest Order for Extradition
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    OMG!!! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:32:07 AM EST
    Tweety is on Press the Meat and he is explaining the difference between democrats and socialists.

    God help and protect us.

    God I hate that guy (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:39:11 AM EST
    I don't think Bernie is going to win, but I need his strong voice backing Clinton and pushing Clinton. Shut up Chris!

    I like Joe Biden, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by desertswine on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 01:36:47 PM EST
    I think he should be vice-president, again.

    That's funny; I did a double take... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 01:40:05 PM EST
    Biden and Kerry (4.50 / 2) (#1)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 04:14:02 AM EST
    Joe Biden has always been there laying in the weeds, waiting for something to happen that might derail Hillary. Apparently, he thinks the time is now.

    In my opinion, Hillary is well on the way to derailing herself.
    And I'm not talking about emails.

    I was truly amazed at the way she avoided giving a straight answer about her position on Keystone.

    We are left to surmise what she would actually do when elected.
    We gave Obama a major benefit of the doubt - believing he would be a progressive and watching as he lamely surrendered time after time to interest groups on the right.

    Would we do that again? Hoping that Hillary will be the Hillary we want her to be? To be the progressive champion we think that she may be in her heart of hearts?

    Don't think so.

    My fear is that if we don't do something soon, we will wind up with one of those freaks of nature on the Republican side.

    Or Biden.

    Of course Biden is unacceptable. His age doesn't concern me much. It is his draconian approach to "law enforcement" that would make me stay away from the polls.

    What has happened to our party? The Democratic Party.
    Are there no Democrats left?

    The subject (none / 0) (#2)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 04:18:06 AM EST
    above should simply be "Biden'.

    Although, thinking about it, I think ol' Kerry is probably mulling it over also.
    I think he has kept himself in the public eye for just that reason.


    Kerry (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 05:28:56 AM EST
    is not going to jump in. That theory has been floated before back in 2008

    She'll get plenty of help derailing, if she does (none / 0) (#8)
    by smott on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 07:44:39 AM EST
    It was certainly familiar and expected, the way Clinton was hit in the press over Keystone. "Stumped" I think was the term WaPo used, as if she's clueless and actually hadn't thought much about it.

    This coming only days after a comprehensive, progressive Climate policy (but policy is so boring!).

    And of course she's damned no matter which way she jumped on Keystone.

    She weighed in on TPP and was criticized for countering Obama.

    On Keystone, Obama is rumored to reject it in the coming weeks. So why should she step on that? So she says she'll wait.

    Then she's criticized for waiting. Or being "stumped".


    I watched the video (none / 0) (#10)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 07:57:38 AM EST
    of her evasive, imo, answer.

    I did not get the impression that she really wanted us to know how she really feels about it.

    And if she had any inkling that Obama was going to veto it, she gave no indication of it.

    But - fact is - as you said, she had just made a speech about her "comprehensive" "progressive" Climate policy. So this was a wrong time to waffle about something that is symbolic for many of us of our forward march into the abyss.

    I, rightly or wrongly, am left with the impression that she doesn't really stand for anything.


    Well rightly or wrongly (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by smott on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 08:06:34 AM EST
    I think you don't want to see what you don't want to see, much like people saw so much in Obama that wasn't really there, projecting onto a chameleon their expectations for action. Which didn't happen.

    I wonder if you watched or listened to Clinton slam Jeb Bush on Friday, and if you're still able to say she stands for nothing.


    I read the (none / 0) (#15)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 08:29:02 AM EST
    text of her statement.

    I did appreciate that she didn't genuflect in the direction of Jeb.

    But, I remain unconvinced about what she might actually do to help people in economic distress.

    She was more attacking Bush's record in Florida than putting forth her proposals to improve the lot of disadvantaged Americans.

    I'm not sure that it's fair to say that I don't see what I don't want to see with respect to Clinton.
    I simply remain unmoved by her utterances - every one of which seems like a calculation rather than an expression of passion or conviction.

    It is, admittedly, subjective.
    I am actually eager to be moved, believe it or not. But I can't help feel what I feel.

    The fact remains that people lurking in the wings - like Biden - are slithering out due to the fact that they sense that people are not truly enraptured by Clinton - and might be looking for an alternative.


    Fair enough Lentinel (none / 0) (#16)
    by smott on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 08:44:16 AM EST
    Appreciate your honesty.

    I think I am now old enough and cynical enough to think that the desire to be moved, perhaps best seen as our every-4-years wave of idealism, is not only not useful in today's reality but can be harmful, As of course it will be exploited by the right. (Not that the right doesn't have their own idealists!....)

    My youngest nephew is in love with Sanders on that same wave of idealism, and of course I love that he's involved and passionate. He's a great kid with a big heart. I wonder if 16 years ago had he been old enough he would have gone for Nader....and whether he understands now, that a convergence of events allowed Bush to get in over Gore, in part due to the Nader idealism.....and could there be any two more divergent alternate paths in our lifetimes than a Gore presidency v the tragedy of the Bush years?

    He's young enough that climate change may devastatingly affect him in his lifetime, certainly his kids.

    Does he understand all that? I dunno.

    I certainly understand the need to be moved.

    I guess I believe we can now no longer afford to indulge it.


    I must (none / 0) (#22)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:43:05 AM EST
    disagree with you about Nader idealism being responsible in any shape of form for the defeat of Gore.

    Nader repeatedly said that all Gore had to do was adopt some of the positions that are so appealing to his (Nader's) voters.

    In addition, Gore chose a truly reprehensible war-mongering nothing as his running mate - whose main credential was that he had condemned Clinton in the Senate Chamber.

    In addition, there were the shenanigans of Katherine Harris in Florida - combined with a corrupt Supreme Court - voting on a purely partisan basis to essentially promote a coup d'état.

    To top it off, Gore couldn't even win his home State.

    But - honestly - what I meant by "being moved" was not to infer the wide-eyed dreaming to which the Obama people succumbed. I simply meant a sensation that one feels when one senses that one is being addressed honestly. Doesn't seem like much to ask.

    It is not an indulgence, imo. It is the only way we have of sensing whether someone is trustworthy.

    I sense, perhaps incorrectly, that you are for Hillary because the alternatives are unthinkable.

    I can certainly agree with that assessment of the alternatives.

    But my point is that I think her campaign is flagging - and that's why Biden's name is being floated. Another unthinkable alternative.


    I'm for Hillary for multiple reasons (none / 0) (#25)
    by smott on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:54:33 AM EST
    Alternatives certainly one of them but by no means the primary.

    Mostly I'd say the depth and detail of her domestic/economic and climate policies, honest acknowledgment of race issues,  coupled with the ability to fight the GOP, and also to form and use alliances in Congress on both sides of the aisle. I've always felt Obama's aloofness cost him there.

    I see little of that in Sanders, certainly not to the extent that Clinton has.


    I can go (none / 0) (#27)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 10:42:11 AM EST
    with that...

    But her hawkish foreign policy is not at all reassuring to me.

    And as we have seen, once embroiled in foreign disputes, domestic policy goes out the window.

    Biden is, to me, unacceptable on any front.


    Yup Biden unacceptable for sure (none / 0) (#33)
    by smott on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 12:40:33 PM EST
    Though I sense if he goes for it, he will have a better chance than Sanders. And we'll find out how deep the hate is on the left for Clinton. Quite deep I would imagine.

    Why do you feel hawkish foreign policy was all Clinton?

    She was Barack Obama's SOS, and presumably enacted his desired policy.


    Clinton and Biden (none / 0) (#35)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 01:21:58 PM EST
    Why do you feel hawkish foreign policy was all Clinton?

    Because - first of all - her indefensible vote for Bush's war in Iraq. Her saying that she never expected that he would use that authority is purest hokum.

    I believe she thought it was the smart way to go.

    It turns out that it was her undoing in 2008 and may well be again.

    But, imo, her statements are her own.
    And they are usually bellicose and accusatory rather than diplomatic or conciliatory.

    On the home front, I could imagine extending the benefit of the doubt - again. Whew!

    In short - she makes me nervous.

    Biden - as we both agree - is a lost cause. Domestically and in foreign policy.

    But really, I was writing this because of the murmuring about Biden.

    There would be no murmuring, imo, if Clinton wasn't weakening in the eyes of the potential electorate.


    Do you fault (none / 0) (#45)
    by smott on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 03:17:59 PM EST
    Kerry and Biden and Edwards who made the same vote?

    I won't dredge up too much of the past, but I never heard that criticism for Kerry in his run in 2004, and never heard it re Edwards as it was used v Clinton in the 2008 campaign.

    I always felt that was a barometer for the CDS.   Clinton was criticized when no one else was.

    And that's not even going into the discussion of the deception in the run up to the vote. They were all deceived. Should they have know better? Yes, I think so. But the message came from Colin Powell, seemingly an ip unimpeachable source.  

    An enormous betrayal of the truth, IMO, at the cost of untold number of lives.

    Powell is going to hell and I believe he knows it.

    But so much of the virile was directed only  at Clinton, when so many bought the lie.


    Well (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 05:27:51 AM EST
    he'll probably hop in and then be out by Super Tuesday.

    But honestly why make another fruitless run? I would imagine he's still grieving his son.

    I have to say, Beau Biden was a sort of comfort (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:46:32 AM EST
    To me. He had a stance similar to my husbands. Until our leadership got us out of Iraq those that really cared and those who possessed ethics had to serve there in order to do what they could to deter the next set of choices that would lead to war crimes.

    It comforted me that a DC family was sharing our worries.

    If Beau wanted Joe to run, I think Joe needs to it to honor the servants heart that Beau possessed.  I don't think he'll beat Clinton. That's a different story.


    If he does (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 06:58:41 AM EST
    Obama will endorse Hillary.   If he does IMO it won't be because he thinks he has a chance it will be a last cry for attention before sinking into obscurity.   I like Joe.   I never understood him as VP for Obama but it seemed to work for its purposes..  I don't see him as a threat.  It will be interesting to see if he attacks Hillary.   Hard to believe even he would be clueless enough to do that.

    Of (none / 0) (#6)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 07:16:50 AM EST
    course the stories are already being written comparing Joe's "authenticity" to Hillary's "shadiness". Of course I already want to barf.

    Authenticity? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 07:34:21 AM EST
    In Joe's case that might not be a positive but the beltway seems to love him. The beltway is trying to pick our nominees for us.

    The beltway (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 07:59:19 AM EST
    wants a race.   Preferably an ugly race.   And they want someone, anyone, to trash Hillary.

    No worries (none / 0) (#12)
    by smott on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 08:03:04 AM EST
    The media is doing a fine job of that!

    Let me check today's NYT to see how that "criminal investigation" is going....


    Today's NYT includes another Public Edito (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:20:24 AM EST
    column re the Times coverage of Hillary Clinton.

    Margaret Sullivan public editor, (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    does, once again, a pretty decent job of calling out the NYTimes on "the screw-up." --a quote from Dean Bacque, executive editor.  After citing readers' and other commenters criticisms of the NYT stories, she summarizes by  agreeing with one reader  who believes that the NYTimes should make "a promise to readers going forward that Hillary is not going to be treated unfairly as she so often is by the media."  And, passed it on to Bacquet.  (who was defensive).

    However, Ms. Sullivan, herself, misses a key point, one she refers to from her blog of earlier last week.  She faults the Times story and points out the big error: After all the mistakes and revisions, including that little mistake of no criminal inquiry and, not one directed at Mrs. Clinton, she claims the story was no longer "jaw dropping," but still newsworthy.   Really?  A front page story on bureaucratic disputes on decisions related to Freedom of Information releases?

    Ms. Sullivan's admonition to Mr. Baquet for fairness and her call   "for reporters and their editors to be doubly vigilant and doubly cautious," failed the test in another part of the very same edition.

    Maureen Dowd, who has never applied any principles of fairness to Mrs. Clinton, out-did herself in Sunday's column--a rambling, mixed up and mismatched analysis of people and events.

    Entitled "What Would Beau Do? as a macabre endorsement of Joe, a deflategate association between Tom Brady and Hillary Clinton, Quinniipiac polls, Jeb and Bernie,  the  concerns of "some" Democrats, Donald Trump,'s ego,  and Howard Schultz, the coffee titan who is being urged to run for president by "potent friends."     My review may seem jumbled, but if you read the column, I believe you will find my take to be a model in coherency.


    Sullivan thinks NYT's (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 02:13:04 PM EST
    continued focus on Hillary Clinton re emails is newsworthy--kind of a responsibility really--though she does not provide the basis for her opinion

    Pretty much (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    they've decided that Bernie is a joke they need to be her primary opponent.

    Gee that was really informative. (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:30:09 AM EST
    Baquet is an embarrassment (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by smott on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:48:35 AM EST
    "I'm happy to make a promise that she'll be treated fairly," he said, though he added, "If you look at our body of work, I don't believe we have been unfair."

    He'd have more credibility had he agreed to print Clinton's letter last week.

    But the track record is there.
    NYT credibility on Clinton is in the trash IMO.


    The more the NYT discusses the issue (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    the more they embarrass themselves.  They clearly have a stick up the stick they have in their rear end about Clinton, and their credibility will suffer as this becomes more apparent the rest of this year and onward into November 2016.

    The pundits said exactly that on (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    Face the Nation.

    I just am astounded at this. How much rejection can Biden take? NO ONE wants you as president Joe.


    I suspect (none / 0) (#9)
    by smott on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 07:45:59 AM EST
    The sympathy factor will help him a lot.
    As well as the fact that he's been VP.

    And of course, Clinton is hated by so many in her own party.

    I think he will have a real chance.

    Sorry this was a reply to Ga6 (none / 0) (#14)
    by smott on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 08:07:14 AM EST

    In what way (none / 0) (#20)
    by Reconstructionist on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:36:24 AM EST
      is the Clinton record on criminal justice superior to Biden's?

      Sure, in 2015, in a different political environment and with the benefit of being able to see the  impact of policies the Clinton Administration championed in the 1990s, she has changed her tune somewhat.

      Would Biden somehow be less worthy of consideration if he did the same thing?

    Can you help me identify (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    the past positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton on criminal justice issues, as opposed to those of "the [William Jefferson] Clinton Administration" of the 1990s (in which she held no position)? When she was a U.S. Senator, perhaps, or possibly while she was Secretary of State?

    Sure (none / 0) (#36)
    by Reconstructionist on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 01:26:36 PM EST

    Sentencing Law and Policy

    Here's a much older example:

    "We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The three strikes and you're out for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets."

     Source: Unique Voice, p.189-90: Remarks at Annual Women in Policing Aug 10, 1994

      the examples are numerous over her entire career until rather recently. she was pro- mandatory minimums; pro 3 strikes; pro conditioning federal money on states enacting tougher sentencing provisions; pro-death penalty.


    And, Peter, (none / 0) (#39)
    by Reconstructionist on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 01:53:30 PM EST
      I do recall you approving of a comment I made defending Clinton's experience in a previous thread where I pointed out that her role as first Lady was akin to being a high level advisor for 8 years.

      In any event, it is easy too trace her "evolution" from tough on crime, lock 'em up
    "crime hawk" to the more moderate positions ehe now espouses.

      Whether that evolution is a sign of reasoned  change of position, a reaction to quite different political demographics now compared to the 90s, or a combination of both, the question remains:

     Why should Biden be treated differently than her if he too states the policies they both championed back then need to be changed?

      If we really want to honestly and fairly make  people's positions on criminal justice from those years a "litmus test" then we would be disqualifying both of them.

      I'm not advocating that. I'm saying the claim Biden's past  positions are disqualifying shows a profound double standard.


    Also (none / 0) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:56:22 AM EST
     one of the justifiable knocks on Clinton is her coziness with the finance sector. Well if she is cozy, Biden has been  married to has them for his entire political career.

    Unsuprisingly  he became the champion of the Credit Card industry in the Senate.

    The senator was a key supporter of an industry-favorite bill--the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005"--that actually made it harder for consumers to get protection under bankruptcy.

    Two thumbs down on Biden, do the country and the party a favor and stay out of it Joe

    Exactly- he is everything progressives hate about (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 11:58:59 AM EST
    Hillary, and more.

    He only appeals to some section of people that don't care at all about issues, but hate Hillary. Namely, the beltway media.


    And that will sink him (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 12:33:21 PM EST
    Take a look at the energy Bernie has and why, he must see that his history will sink him. I see other Dem leaders discouraging his run today, saying if he was going to do this he needed to have started last year.  Anyone who would be his donor is now with Clinton.

    Yes (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 02:13:51 PM EST
    I was thinking about the donor thing too. I guess he might tap into some of Bernie's donors but past that I think they might have already gone with Hillary and have no interest in Joe.

    That is probably (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 02:05:46 PM EST
    going to be Biden's biggest obstacle.

    Vice President Biden is a good man (none / 0) (#34)
    by BakedPizza80 on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 01:11:35 PM EST
    I welcome him to the race, if he is in. Biden helped Obama with the Rust Belt voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania. Remember, Obama was having a hard time with Rust Belt voters. Biden can reach into Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/08/11/working-class-and-rural-voters-could-ma ke-the-difference-in-ohio-and-pennsylvania