Biden '08?
Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, after testing the waters for around 18 years, has announced he's interested in the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.
"I've proceeded since last November as if I were going to run," he said. "I'm quite frankly going out, seeing whether I can gather the kind of support."WaPo has the story here.
In addition to Biden, other likely contenders include John Edwards, Governor Mark Warner of Virginia, Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, and Evan Bayh of Indiana, and (shudder) maybe John Kerry. Then of course, there's always rampant buzz about Hilary Clinton.
Since my readers are the most astute, most knowledgable, most plugged-in and wise political players this side of the Pecos, I put it to you; Who's going to be the Dem's world beater in 2008?
posted by The Inside Dope @ 6/20/2005
4 comments
4 Comments:
Mark Warner of Virginia will get the nod. He is governor of a southern state. His wife uses her own name, and he is slick.
Biden is one of the few Dems who sound like he understands how dangerous the world is and the fact that people out there really do want to kill as many of us as possible. He is credible on national defense.
Kerry is old news, blah. Edwards has no base to run from.
Bayh looks good to me.
But the Democrats want to run Hilary, so they will. And she might win.
Note: There is a TV series and a big feature film coming out about a woman president... Hollywood getting us in the right frame of mind.
It's all a little early for me.
To LL Cool T....
I am by no means a "Deaniac", unless of course you consider anyone who agrees with much of what Dean proposes and what he's accoplished a "deaniac."
If I recall, you're a "go down with the ship" Kerry guy, correct?
Kerry has as much chance of being our next president as Jumpin' Joe Leiberman.
Yes, Kerry came close, and it's not difficult to imagine that if there were less Republican game playing in Ohio and elsewhere, Kerry well might have won.
But let's not delude ourselves, Kerry was a very poor campaigner. Maybe not Dukakis bad, but bad enough.
No connection, and above all, in my opinion, much, much too timid and cautious. And yes, I realize a candidate must be very cautious, but Dems can't break out without someone who has the gut instinct for how to speak out on basic truths and make a few waves.
This country needs change... big time. People won't respond AGAIN to a guy who reminds them of their boring, yet well-meaning preacher.
Americans don't give a rat's ass if a candidate is wise, statesmanlike, and experienced. Look at the dope in the White House. As a matter of fact, there's a lot of people out there that seem to think it's a real great idea to vote for someone who's as stupid as they are, or at least appears so.
Kerry just is too contrived, too controlled, and has no ability to really connect. I saw him speak on a few occasions and even I was starting to look at my watch.
And I don't care HOW much organization or backers in the party he has. You can drop a NASCAR engine in a Yugo but it won't make it a winner.
And add the fact that he'd be a re-run, and.... well, as they say in Brooklyn, fugedabowdit.
Save us from the agony of watching Kerry sink again.
Hilary? Big negatives, yes, but her strong positives stand a good chance of overwhelming those negatives. It's been noted that she's the world's best fund-raiser, for BOTH parties, and that's no doubt true.
But I believe she could charm and impress the electorate enough that her positives would eclipse the mindless white guys that are paralyzed with fear at the prospect of a strong, smart woman at the helm.
But those people who are twisted with hatred towards her would never vote for a Dem anyway, no matter who. And knowing Hilary, she'd take their hatred and leverage it into a big plus. She'd use it to make them look like the irrational boobs they are and in the process gain a lot of support from the middle.
I remind you of what she did to that pip-squeak Lazio in NY.
She's tough as rawhide and damn smart, and those who attack her do so at their own peril.
I'm not too up on Warner, other than he has a good life-story/resume, but I do know that, to put it bluntly, he looks like a complete dork. Whether that's factor or not, I don't know. It shouldn't be, but...
Biden? He's got a lot of spark. The guy has an aura of intense energy all the time. That's an incredible asset. He knows how to talk in plain language and not mince words, but without stepping on land mines in the process.
He's able to show his expertise in foreign affairs and has reasonable views on it that I think a majority would embrace, and he does so without coming off like some professorial know-it-all. (again, a plus because Americans hate smart people, evidently)
Biden is one to watch, most definitely.
Vilsack would be great on issues and going down the middle road. I would wish he had a better shot.
Bayh? Interesting. A telegenic guy. But a DLC guy. For me, that's the kiss of death.
I say Biden or Hillary, or some dark horse that comes out of nowhere.
And in all of this, bear in mind that the Republicans will likely have BILL FRIST and other equally scary nut-jobs running to be their guy. Moderates need not apply, and that could be a very good thing for the Dems.
I'm extremely late on this, but, being from DE, and even a Democratic, Biden is a slimeball. He's dishonest, he's a blowhard, and he has no respect for the military which he's shown at hearing for the foreign relations committee. He's also climed that "It's my son over in IRaq" and non of his children ever served any time in the military.
Post a Comment
<< Home