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 | Joe Biden 's One Man Crime Band >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Biden and Kerry (5.00 / 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 (5.00 / 1) (#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 (5.00 / 3) (#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 (5.00 / 1) (#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 (5.00 / 3) (#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.


    Hacks. (none / 0) (#50)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 05:52:43 PM EST
    Do you fault Kerry and Biden and Edwards who made the same vote?

    Of course I do.
    Three ambitious pols.

    And it cost Kerry.

    He lost considerable moral ground against W. in the campaign of 2004. He never confronted that scoundrel for lying. The war was THE issue in 2004. And Kerry and Breck could do nothing and say nothing.

    I can't imagine a politician more vulnerable than Bush. All those lives shattered. And Kerry lost. Big time.
    And he deserved to lose.


    And as for BIden...


    Ssmmers v Tice (none / 0) (#46)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 03:31:41 PM EST
    If you reflect upon this case you may understand, why any of us will always hold Nadar accountable for his part.

    I just read (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 06:45:59 PM EST
    about Summers and Tice.

    You will have to explain to me how this 1947 case possibly relates to the debacle of 2000.

    Gore managed to lose to Bush. An idiot if every there was.

    And he did it with Lieberman. A dud.
    And he did it turning his back on Clinton.

    And he lost Tennessee.

    And Sandra Day O'Connor acknowledged that she voted in favor of Bush for purely partisan reasons.

    You blame Nader?
    You'll get nowhere doing so - because if the Dems don't own up to how they lost an election to a stumble-bum, they will do it again.


    Multiple toettfeasors equally guilty (none / 0) (#57)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 06:59:47 PM EST
    Multiple toettfeasors equally guilty, even though we can not say which one actually wounded the victim.

    Should be obvious - go back and read your excuses for Ralph. In the end he is equally guilty.


    Quite a stretch, Molly (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 08:37:28 PM EST
    Gore had everything going for him.
    A roaring economy.
    A popular president - even with all the scandal.

    And he blew it.
    On his own.
    To a drugged out fool.

    It should not have been close.

    Lieberman couldn't hold his own with Cheney. It was pitiful.

    Gore couldn't confront Bush for his lies - and the deaths he caused.

    They lost it on their own.

    And if the Dems didn't learn from that, they'll be in trouble in 2016.


    Not at all (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:18:56 PM EST
    It was close-Gore won the popular vote.

     Just one example:

    If Gore won Tennessee he wins the electoral vote. Nadar doesnt matter. BUT Gore doesn't win Tennessee Nadar siphoning votes in Florida DOES matter

    Conversely Nadar doesnt siphon votes of fin Florida, Gore wins the electoral vote, Tennessee doesn't matter.

    Just as it couldn't be determined which pellet wounded the victim in Summers v Tice, but both defendants  acted negligently and therefore both were held to be culpable, you really can't say for certain what caused Gore's loss (outside the felonious five of course), therefore all are in some way culpable including Ralph, Jeb and the felonious five.

    BTW I despise Joe Lieberman, but my personal observation in Florida, he probably helped  Gore in South Florida.


    The worst (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 10:01:39 PM EST
    thing Nader did was encourage the thinking that Bush was a moderate and repeat right wing talking points against Gore. Nader needs to take responsibility for what he did but he never will and then he'll be the first to whine about what went down during the Bush administration when he was an active enabler.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 02:46:07 AM EST
    that thinking on the part of partisan Democrats is delusional.

    They have to manage their campaigns and win them.
    Gore did a lousy job of it.


    Delusional (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 06:16:15 AM EST
    Unfortunately I believe the thinking of the Nadar partisans delusional - there is a cost to what they did and they refuse to acknowledge it or to learn from it.

    And strangely (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 07:44:44 AM EST
    they often seem to be the same people who complain about right wingers living in their information bubble composed entirely of their own personal "facts".
    Because the facts and numbers are not at all unclear.   Without Nader there would have been no president W.  Probably no Iraq war.   And all that come after it.

    I would probably try to be in denial myself faced with that.


    Molly, are you trying to make some snarky point (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 11:46:29 AM EST
    by repeatedly misspelling Nader's name as "Nadar," even after being repeatedly corrected in the responses to your comments? If so, I can't figure out what point it is.

    Of course (3.50 / 2) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 06:16:08 AM EST
    Nader is responsible for nothing he did and Gore is responsible for everything. Gotcha.

    There is that thing again (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by sj on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 12:56:16 PM EST
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 05:16:08 AM MDT

    Nader is responsible for nothing he did and Gore is responsible for everything. Gotcha.

    That thing where you create a blatant mischaracterization so that you can be against it.

    Or is it people on Kos that you are mischaracterizing?


    No (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 01:30:50 PM EST
    it's here. Look above.

    No. It's not. (none / 0) (#90)
    by sj on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    I didn't vote for Nader, but the cr@p you're peddling is getting on my nerves. People here -- unless pushed into a corner of someone else's making (yours) -- are saying that deniers like you refuse to acknowledge the mistakes Gore made. There were plenty of them and they were big ones.

    The deniers, like you, also refuse to acknowledge that Nader voting was only one of several factors involved in the debacle of 2000. It was not the deciding one. Or, more accurately in my mind, they were all the deciding factor. Take away any one of the impediments and it never goes to the supreme court. Nader voters to not stand alone in this regard.

    I voted for Gore. Enthusiastically. I've always liked him. But his own campaign contributed to his ultimate failure. One of many things that contributed to his failure (Nader among them), but also an obvious one.

    When you contribute something as transformational to society as "Unsafe at Any Speed" became, you might have a leg to stand on in your sneering. Criticism is one thing -- everybody is subject to that. That's fair. What you do is something completely different, and it's pretty ugly.


    Lentinel (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    and Molly were having the discussion. You obviously missed the discussion.

    And you are absolutely wrong. My problem is that Lentinel didn't want to hold Nader responsible while holding Gore responsible. Sure Gore's responsible for what he did or did not do but so is Nader. IMO everybody has to take responsibility and Nader would be the first one to talk about how bad things were under Bush but never ever acknowledge his part in putting him there.


    I didn't miss their discussion (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by sj on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 06:19:09 PM EST
    Both of them have given me something to think about. But I'm not talking about them or their discussion. I'm talking about this:
    Of course (3.50 / 2) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 05:16:08 AM MDT  

    Nader is responsible for nothing he did and Gore is responsible for everything. Gotcha.

    and this:
    The worst (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:01:39 PM MDT

    thing Nader did was encourage the thinking that Bush was a moderate and repeat right wing talking points against Gore.

    Don't blame your shortcomings on the conversations of others. As for this:
    My problem is that Lentinel didn't want to hold Nader responsible while holding Gore responsible.
    I call BS. lentinel has historically taken exception when people decide to make Nader and his voters the as the defining factor in the loss of the Gore presidency, and that if you want to pick a single villain as responsible for that debacle you may as well pick Gore. And that the same people who want to make Nader the villain refuse to acknowledge any error on the part of the Gore campaign.

    A point you proceeded to prove.

    But I'm done with this conversation for now, so have at it.


    should read (none / 0) (#47)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 03:42:21 PM EST
    If you reflect upon this case you may understand, why many of us will always hold Nadar accountable for his part.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    I Agree... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 09:23:42 AM EST
    ...in that it the Biden family had, literally, skin in the game.

    I strongly disagree that Joe should run because his son wanted him to.  That is not a valid reason for anyone to do anything that effects approximately 300 million people directly, and most of the world population indirectly.

    I want Biden to run because he wants to, because he thinks he is the best person for the job, not because of some obligation to his diseased son.


    if Joe does run it will be (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 10:04:40 PM EST
    Because he thinks he's the man for the job.  It's not like he hasn't done it before. If his son did want him to do it, and shorten his grieving process also, I'm fine with it.  The one thing I don't question is whether or not Joe Biden thinks he's presidential material.  He's run for the job before, and he is currently the Vice President :)

    Good Point. (none / 0) (#99)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 09:30:31 AM EST
    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!

    C&L (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 07:00:12 PM EST
    I like the "bird"... (none / 0) (#83)
    by fishcamp on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 10:26:53 AM EST
    Also (5.00 / 1) (#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 (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    I agree Biden shouldn't run, but, (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 05:05:14 PM EST
    to be fair, his home State is Delaware, and, Delaware is the capital for most of the credit card companies in the U.S. They changed their banking laws in all sorts of ways to accommodate banks, and, they're the major industry in that State. Who knows if Joe actually feels the way he's voted, or just representing a big job producing constituency?

    It might be the same as Bernie Sanders voting against the Brady Bill, voting against the Sandy Hook victims families ability to sue gun companies, voted to allow guns on Amtrak, and so on. His reasoning (and, I believe him) is "hey, Vermont is a gun culture State, and I'm representing their wishes."

    And, BTW, one of the reason Blacks have given Bernie some grief is that, when he was explaining his gun votes to someone, he kind of slipped up and said, "Vermont isn't Chicago, you know." I know what he meant there too, but, it didn't go over too well in the Black community.  


    We (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 06:17:57 PM EST
    should apply the fairness evenly, Hillary got elected to the Senate with the help of wall street, which is probably true of every NY Senator in recent memory. Even her vote on the Iraq could probably be excused. With 9/11 fresh in their minds and the with the NYT beating the war drums loudly, her constituents probably agreed with her vote.

    Hillary never actively shilled for the financial industry during her Senate tenure, Biden did, there is no real equivalence here. All politicians have committed "sins", sometimes Hillary seems to accrue hers before she even commits them. CDS I suppose.


    I agree 100% (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by NYShooter on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:38:36 PM EST
    I've stated that here over and over here. And, every time I do, this place turns into Kos.

    Squeaky was right, its mob country. Either, toe the line, or better hope you have a haz-mat suit close by to protect you from the 1's & 2's flooding your way.


    It's still his record though (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 08:36:07 AM EST
    And he's a bit behind in addressing it. He might catch up. Hillary seemed unable to overcome her AUMF vote.  Obama got all sorts of great press about being the anti-war future President, and then sent 100,000 troops with additional contractors into Afghanistan.  I don't believe he had much choice there either.

    I think the whole thing is being cooked up (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 08:54:13 AM EST
    for the drama of it all - mainly by a media that wants a lot more drama in the Democratic race than what we're seeing, some of it by those who just want to bring Hillary down, and figure that neither Sanders nor O'Malley can make that happen.

    I don't like the little tag line that's worming its way into the consciousness of the voters: that "unnamed Democratic sources" are "concerned" that Clinton doesn't have what it takes to "go the distance," and that her trustworthiness has been damaged by recent revelations about her e-mails.

    I think this is utter crap, and it has the potential to create some real problems.

    If this isn't coming from the Biden camp, and he isn't going to run, he needs to shut this down now.  If it is coming from Biden, well, no one ever said this man didn't have a giant ego - but he needs to fish or cut bait - and stop chumming the water.  

    When you combine this nonsense with the "leadership" stylings of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, I get the sense that there's still a possibility the Dems could shoot themselves in the foot.  DWS has already said that candidates who want to participate in the debate process will have to meet certain threshold requirements, but hasn't said what they are.


    Right, For All We Know... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 09:28:43 AM EST
    ..."unnamed Democratic sources" are fellow NYT reporters.

    The idea that the NYT has reliable "unnamed Democratic sources" has been shot down so many times that they should be embarrassed to keep using the unnamed sources for what is essentially, gossip and innuendo.


    I have not been able to stop myself (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 09:45:26 AM EST
    from turning on Mourning Joe lately.  I am week and backslidin) and it's been interesting to know lately what "those people" are thinking.
    Today was the Joe Biden circle jerk.  Ooooooooo Joe Biden,    Ahhhhhh Joe Biden.   He is the greatest statesman Ali ve today.........I'm close.....I'm close........and Hillary is very WEAK......

    This from the same people for whom he was a walking joke for decades.

    It's sort of fun to watch.  If infuriating.   I can believe he might run.


    What is with (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 09:50:22 AM EST
    these pundits? I honestly think they are in a bubble and can't understand what is going on. They do not understand why Trump is popular and seem shocked at the results of a focus poll on him. I'm sure the "Hillary is weak Biden is awesome" is the talking point at the cocktail parties.

    And yet Hillary still beats Biden in the primaries and the GOP in the polls.


    Hillary's speeches have been (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 09:53:46 AM EST
    Just about impossible to beat back. Of course she gave herself plenty of time to work out her platform. She's prepared.

    Peggy Noonans (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 10:03:53 AM EST
    says that the establishment is missing the point with Donald.
    Translation-the establishment is no longer missing the point with Donald.

    The point is insinuateing itself straight up their haunches

    The question now is what happens next.

    IMO they lie back and think of England.


    I haven't touched those b@$*@?&$ (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 10:09:41 PM EST
    Since the NYT started spewing this trash.  It makes me too angry.  It's no way to start my day.  I get a giggle out of Joe's deliberate yellow journalism until it gets some real fangs.  Then I can't do it.  I fear I will break a television.

    I can't stop (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 07:50:48 AM EST
    the conversion is now complete.   Not only is it now The Donald Show,  they spend the other half the time explaining how they always believed this in spite of everyone saying Donald was a flash in the pan.

    I hope C&L or someone bothers to go back and Spotlight some of their early "support".   So funny.   Rudy was on today acting like he wasn't saying insulting things about Donald just a few days ago.

    The most interesting factlet this morning was that new polls show a major flip in his approval numbers which were badly upside down like a week ago but now are majority positive will disapproval in the 20s.

    The debate will make those numbers go even higher


    OMG! You know, maybe what I need to do (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 08:51:26 AM EST
    Is record it. And then when spouse gets home we can consider it a nightly comedy show over a glass of wine.

    There is something about hearing that crap and mornings that is so disagreeable.  My husband put it on on purpose during the last election because I come right out of bed. I can hit the snooze for a half an hour, but Joe Scarborough during elections makes me leap out of bed fuming :)


    Wake & Bake (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 08:56:20 AM EST
    makes it more fun.

    Gushing over Biden (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 04, 2015 at 09:09:19 AM EST
    They should (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 09:04:55 AM EST
    just put everyone up there. The only one I can possibly see them having a problem with is Bernie since he's not a democrat. I'm not sure how it works in a democratic debate to have an independent in the debate.

    Stealing defeat out of the jaws of victory (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 09:37:36 AM EST
    That would really stink. It would be nice to win some down ticket races. Focus on getting people elected in other areas. A president is only one peg.

    I do like president "I give zero phucks" Obama so much more than the original :)


    Aintn't That the Truth... (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 10:06:24 AM EST
    ...the latest I had to read a couple times to make sure the headline was accurate.

    Obama is planning on introducing unprecedented pollution controls on American power plants

    The White House said its revised Clean Power Plan will increase the required cuts in carbon emissions from the power sector, demanding they be slashed 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The administration's draft regulation, released a year ago, had required cuts of 30 percent.

    And the idea that coal companies care about American's bottom lines is too funny.

    The National Mining Association said on Sunday it will seek to block the plan in federal court. "These [requirements] will burden Americans with increasingly high-costs for an essential service and a less reliable electric grid for delivering it," said Hal Quinn, president of the NMA.

    These SOB's have has at least 20 years to get it together and instead of investing in technology or other fuels to improve their product, they decided to follow the American model of investing in faux science and paying off politicians.

    I love to read the White House stating that this is "the starting gun for an all-out climate push".


    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.

    In today's reality... (none / 0) (#59)
    by christinep on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 07:07:43 PM EST
    the donor issue is a very important issue for entry into the real run.

    Because of the obvious donor conundrum at this late date as well as the lack of a ground organization, I would be surprised if the reputed interest & decision-point story publicized by M. Dowd and others is anything other than a possibility in the eyes of shoppers.  For me, the question is: Who has been building the possibility story into something more than that... who is shopping the story ... and, for what reason?


    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.

    I like Joe Biden, (5.00 / 2) (#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
    My father (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 06:31:02 PM EST
    had an Oldsmobile.

    I knew that Oldsmobile.
    I liked that Oldsmobile.

    Biden is no Oldsmobile.

    Senator (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:54:47 PM EST

    I think this is being driven by (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 09:16:25 PM EST
    talking heads who don't think Bernie Sanders is going to give Clinton enough of a fight, and who want the prospect of seeing Biden take Hillary down.  They want the tension and awkwardness of Obama having to choose between his VP and his former Secretary of State.

    The media, "unnamed sources," people who don't want to go on the record - they're all chumming the water, and if the Dems are stupid enough to take this kind of bait, well...God help them.  

    I'd vote for Biden (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 09:29:52 AM EST
    over any Republican running. But Biden won't be running unless for some reason Hillary drops out. The reason is obvious. With Hillary in the race Biden has a Bernie Sanders problem. In the Dem primaries Bernie Sanders can only win one state...Vermont. Joe Biden can only win one state...Delaware.

    Fifteen more months of this... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 02:16:07 PM EST

    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 / 3) (#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 (5.00 / 1) (#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 / 2) (#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 (4.00 / 3) (#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 (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    Let me rephrase Baquet's pledge: (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 04:39:54 PM EST
    "Your honor, I didn't do that crime, and, if you'll just let me go I promise I'll never do it again."

    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 / 3) (#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 (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    Not especially impressed with a speech she made (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 06:10:06 PM EST
    in 1994, supporting her husband, the President's policies, but your link to Prof. Berman's round-up of Sen. Clinton's 2008 campaign positions vs. Sen. Obama's is interesting and helpful. Now let's see whether there has been -- and most important, whether there is now -- a meaningful "evolution" in the six-to-seven years since then.

    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.


    I stand by the opinion I previously expressed (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 06:16:16 PM EST
    that Hillary's experience as First Lady, in light of the nature of the Clintons' forty-years-plus partnership/relationship (I knew them as a couple in law school), counts as high-level policy experience. But she was an adviser, with no position of authority; I do not attribute all policy decisions and positions of his administration to her.
        I do not suggest holding her to a different standard than I would anyone else. I am not a partisan or an apologist for HRC. But I am not a knee-jerk opponent either.

    I agree (none / 0) (#69)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 06:58:11 AM EST
      she held no decision-making authority and is not responsible for all decisions and policies of the WJC Administration. Three points:

      She is responsible for her personal statements. whether it's criminal justice policy, NAFTA or anything else, she could have chosen not to endorse and lend her not meaningless support to matters of debate at the time.

      If people want to giver her credit for the good things that occurred under WCJ and portray her as sharing credit, then it would seem equally valid to credit her as well for the not so good. The idea that she was an important voice and contributor to the good but somehow out of the loop and powerless as to the not so good is inconsistent at best. Especially when she spoke publicly on many things.

      Finally, yes I don't believe someone is totally  defined by their statements and actions from 20 years ago. People can change positions and even do so for the right reasons. But, if we make that claim with Hillary it is only fair to consider for others as well.



    Joe Biden was (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 06:08:29 PM EST
    first elected to the US Senate in 1972 and served until becoming vice president in 2008,   The prospect of retirement must be an anathema.  Sometimes, in public as well as private life,  the idea of indispensability outweighs the reality.  And, the need to go gracefully.  But, I fear that is not in Biden's make-up; probably few hobbies.   Maybe, Biden could serve in a Clinton Administration.  Better, than Palin in a Trump debacle.

    I can't imagine the kind of ego (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 12:16:18 PM EST
    It must take for Joe Biden to think he's the guy.  Has he ever polled higher than 5%?

    Martin O'Malley already took the job of non-Bernie alternative to Clinton.  And he's barely on the radar.  I mean, sure, run Joe.  But I don't think Jeralyn or anyone else needs to worry about him ending up on the ticket as President.

    He's had (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 03, 2015 at 12:19:15 PM EST
    better chances to win the nomination before and didn't win. But the polling has shown that he takes from both Hillary and Bernie but mostly hurts Bernie.