Dems: What do you perceive as Biden's negatives?

[BenBurch]

I'm sort of adrift and looking for a candidate to support, and so am now researching Biden. Statements of his positives are easy to come by, of course, but what do you other primary-voting Democrats see as his negatives?

Thanks!

 

[ConspiRaider]

Howdy Big Ben -

I guess his biggest negative is that he's not taken seriously as a Presidential candidate. We know why Dennis Kucinich is not taken seriously as a Presidential candidate: Too loopy. But Biden - it's almost as if he's wearing an invisibility cloak half the time.

Personally I like Hillary on the issues a bit more than Biden's. Her health care plan seems better, more thought out, more encompassing than his. Her Iraq plan is framed by her promise to end the war if Doofie doesn't. She gets into specifics. Biden's is a bit more obscure, general.

I think we all do this, but I try to imagine candidates as President. I can see Hillary as Prez. Lesser for Obama, Edwards, but it's imaginable. But not Biden, at all, from my mind's eye. He seems colorless, unnoticed, like 4-year-old wallpaper.

 

[dudalb]

I think Biden 's partaiion plan for Iraq is pretty nieve in many ways.
To be honest,I think that is what will happen,but it will not be the peaceful divorce that Biden seems to think will happen.The populations are too intermixed for that.Think Yugoslavia all over again.
I respect Biden,but his holding on to a sunny optimistic view of partation for Iraq strikes me an unrealistic.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Big Ben Burch, calling in to the Mike Malloy Show at this time!!!

Go Ben!!! Good stuff!

Ben's discussing the idiocy of Doofie's scaremongering about the whole world s-h-u-d-d-e-r-i-n-g at the prospect of Iran getting a NUKE some time in the future.

Mike's talking about being raised in the "duck and cover" stuff in the 1950s and 1960s, Bert the Turtle, the little song they'd have you sing.

Ya done good, Big Ben!!! Good call!

Kathy (Mike's producer and wife) has found the Bert the Turtle "Duck and Cover" song, what a HOOT!!!

 

[Puppycow]

I'm sort of adrift and looking for a candidate to support, and so am now researching Biden. Statements of his positives are easy to come by, of course, but what do you other primary-voting Democrats see as his negatives?

Thanks!

What's wrong with Obama?

Biden's negatives: 1) I'm as likely to win. He's campaigning for Secretary of State of some other cabinet position. 2) "I come from a slave state!" 3) "He's the first guy that's clean and articulate!" 4) Doesn't know how to shut up. Questioning supreme court nominees, he used up his whole time before getting a single question out. Hello, Joe Biden, it's supposed to be about the nominee, not you. 5) Something about plagerism.

 

[marksman]

Democratic insiders don't take Biden seriously because, although he's a smart man and a good debater, his social skills are pathetic. As a Senator, he simply keeps angering people who should be all rights be his ally. He is not a consensus-builder and he's not particularly diplomatic. I doubt that he would be an effective president.

He also appears to be slow on the uptake to react to new developments in a campaign. My brother, who lives in Washington, said that people describe his campaign as a "motorboat that handles like a freighter" in that his campaign is built like it should be lean and quick, but it moves like it's lumbering and overburdened.

 

[ZenFountain]

I agree with marksman, he seems to be clever enough but his social skills are abysmal, not the kind of person we want as an envoy to the world. In one of the debates, can't remember which, a mother of a dead Iraq vet asked him a question and he used his response time to answer a previous question he'd be battered on. He's also part of the Democratic wing that collapses on any attempt to draw down our presence in Iraq while advocating ridiculous ideas like partitioning.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Who?

 

[davefoc]

I was curious about the question that the opening post asked.

It seems there were some good answers here, but still I like Biden.

I'm one of those Republicans that thinks that it is critical for the US that a Democrat win the upcoming presidential election (see reason below) and I see serious issues associated with each of the three tier one Democratic candidates that reduces their chances of winning an election.

I've been curious which of the tier two candidates would be most likely to win an election against a Republican and would any of them do better than the tier one candidates in the general election.

It seems like Biden might be the strongest tier one or two Democratic candidate in a general election. Do people think this is right? Would Richardson and Gravel be the other tier two contenders?



Reason why I think it is critical for US that a Democrat win the general election:

IMHO, the Republican party is dominated by the pro-war, anti-free market, pro-corporate welfare, anti-science, cynical and often corrupt wing and if there is any chance of bringing integrity and sanity back to the Republican Party they need to lose convincingly. This is especially true on the foreign policy side where another administration dominated by in your face, pro war nut jobs could do irreparable damage to the US and the world.

 

[marksman]

It seems like Biden might be the strongest tier one or two Democratic candidate in a general election. Do people think this is right? Would Richardson and Gravel be the other tier two contenders?

Had you asked me two months ago, I would have said Dodd, Richardson and Biden are the only viable "Tier Two" Democratic contenders. (Clinton, Edwards and Obama being Tier One.) Having seen a few of the debates, I think Biden and Richardson would be flayed alive by any of the "Tier One" Republican candidates (Giuliani, McCain and Romney). Biden just doesn't know how to take a punch, and Richardson (who is still my favorite candidate) just gets flustered too easily and ends up saying dumb things (like being homosexual is a choice). Dodd just has little charisma on a national stage.

If a Tier Two GOP (Huckabee, Paul, Thompson) somehow wins (they won't) I think Biden, Dodd or Richardson could take them on. It would be an even fight. I don't think either of the Tier Three Dems (Kucinich, Gravel) could take any of the GOP nominees (even Tancredo, the Tier Three candidate).

 

[Puppycow]

It seems like Biden might be the strongest tier one or two Democratic candidate in a general election. Do people think this is right? Would Richardson and Gravel be the other tier two contenders?

Do I think Biden would be a good general election candidate? No, not particularly. Maybe Dodd would be OK, although I'm afraid I haven't spent much time thinking about these guys who are at 1% to 4% in the polls.
I think Biden has a proclivity for putting his foot in his mouth, and will supply lots of fodder for late-night comics. I'm curious what makes you think he would be a stronger candidate?

Reason why I think it is critical for US that a Democrat win the general election:

IMHO, the Republican party is dominated by the pro-war, anti-free market, pro-corporate welfare, anti-science, cynical and often corrupt wing and if there is any chance of bringing integrity and sanity back to the Republican Party they need to lose convincingly. This is especially true on the foreign policy side where another administration dominated by in your face, pro war nut jobs could do irreparable damage to the US and the world.

OK, but I still don't see Biden as the right guy. I think Obama and Clinton would be stronger candidates, and especially Obama.
On the Republican side I think that McCain would probably be their best general election candidate. If it's Giuliani, I see a lot of fodder for negative ads and controversy. McCain is pretty squeaky clean in contrast.

 

[MaGZ]

Howdy Big Ben -

I guess his biggest negative is that he's not taken seriously as a Presidential candidate. We know why Dennis Kucinich is not taken seriously as a Presidential candidate: Too loopy. But Biden - it's almost as if he's wearing an invisibility cloak half the time.

Personally I like Hillary on the issues a bit more than Biden's. Her health care plan seems better, more thought out, more encompassing than his. Her Iraq plan is framed by her promise to end the war if Doofie doesn't. She gets into specifics. Biden's is a bit more obscure, general.

I think we all do this, but I try to imagine candidates as President. I can see Hillary as Prez. Lesser for Obama, Edwards, but it's imaginable. But not Biden, at all, from my mind's eye. He seems colorless, unnoticed, like 4-year-old wallpaper.

Biden is not obscure on Iraq. He was the first to come up the federation idea of dividing Iraq into three ethnic sections to achieve peace in that country.

Ethnic separation, sounds good to me.

 

[MaGZ]

Had you asked me two months ago, I would have said Dodd, Richardson and Biden are the only viable "Tier Two" Democratic contenders. (Clinton, Edwards and Obama being Tier One.) Having seen a few of the debates, I think Biden and Richardson would be flayed alive by any of the "Tier One" Republican candidates (Giuliani, McCain and Romney). Biden just doesn't know how to take a punch, and Richardson (who is still my favorite candidate) just gets flustered too easily and ends up saying dumb things (like being homosexual is a choice). Dodd just has little charisma on a national stage.

If a Tier Two GOP (Huckabee, Paul, Thompson) somehow wins (they won't) I think Biden, Dodd or Richardson could take them on. It would be an even fight. I don't think either of the Tier Three Dems (Kucinich, Gravel) could take any of the GOP nominees (even Tancredo, the Tier Three candidate).

The way I see it:

Tier one Democrats
Clinton
Obama
Edwards

Tier two Democrats
Richards
Biden
Dodd

Tier three Democrats
Kucinich
Gravel

Tier one Republicans
Giuliani
Romney
Huckabee

Tier two Republicans
Paul
McCain
Thompson

Tier three Republicans
Hunter
Tancredo

 

[davefoc]

...
I'm curious what makes you think he would be a stronger candidate?

Biden seems to be well informed on the Iraq war and I like his penchant for answering questions candidly and thoughtfully. I haven't watched him in the debates but judging from the general tone of the comments in these threads I can see why he doesn't have a chance.

I understand the great difficulties with his divide Iraq idea, but every day that passes it becomes a more viable option as Iraqis are forced from there homes to live in the areas dominated by their particular ethnic group. I suspect that the reduction in violence attributed to the surge has much more to do with the fact that the US is now cooperating with the Sunnis to implement this kind of ethnic cleansing than the notion that a small increase in troops has some how served to effectively reduce violence by scaring people into being peaceful.

...
On the Republican side I think that McCain would probably be their best general election candidate. If it's Giuliani, I see a lot of fodder for negative ads and controversy. McCain is pretty squeaky clean in contrast.

I think Giuliani is the stronger candidate, even with the negative baggage. McCain is too old and has shown a penchant for looking a little silly (try to resist the temptation to post a picture of Giuliani in drag if you can). If Giuliani didn't have the baggage I think his chances would be much better, but I still give him a shot to win in the general. Unfortunately, from my perspective, I think he is also the one true believer in the militarism that now dominates Republican punditry and discourse. I think the other candidates are more likely to be lying about their enthusiasm for militarism and I would find that more desirable.

 

[davefoc]

MaGZ,

I thought your division of the Democratic contenders was exactly right, but I quibbled with a few or your choices on the Republican side.

Huckabee, He's still tier 3 from my perspective. Even more so after the story about him working for the parole of rapist/murderer who went on to rape and murder again after he was released. Huckabee can win some fundamentalist Christian states but I don't think he's a real contender in more secular states even on the Republican side.

Paul,
He's still tier 3 from my perspective. By my definition of tier 2 the candidate has to have a legitimate chance at moving into tier 1 and being a serious contender for the nomination. Paul has almost no chance of this. Even if antiwar Republicans made up a majority of Republicans (and they don't appear to do so) Paul is too quirky and too out of the Republican mainstream to have a legitimate shot (but I'm going to vote for him). If there was an opportunity for an anti-war Republican candidate Romney would have already moved into that role and Paul still wouldn't have a chance.

McCain,
Could we wait until the body cools before we move McCain to tier 2? OK, maybe he does belong there but I'd like to see some election results before he is officially moved there (and once a few bad results come in look to see him shoot right past tier 2 and tier 3 to not a candidate).

 

[MaGZ]

MaGZ,

I thought your division of the Democratic contenders was exactly right, but I quibbled with a few or your choices on the Republican side.

Huckabee, He's still tier 3 from my perspective. Even more so after the story about him working for the parole of rapist/murderer who went on to rape and murder again after he was released. Huckabee can win some fundamentalist Christian states but I don't think he's a real contender in more secular states even on the Republican side.

Paul,
He's still tier 3 from my perspective. By my definition of tier 2 the candidate has to have a legitimate chance at moving into tier 1 and being a serious contender for the nomination. Paul has almost no chance of this. Even if antiwar Republicans made up a majority of Republicans (and they don't appear to do so) Paul is too quirky and too out of the Republican mainstream to have a legitimate shot (but I'm going to vote for him). If there was an opportunity for an anti-war Republican candidate Romney would have already moved into that role and Paul still wouldn't have a chance.

McCain,
Could we wait until the body cools before we move McCain to tier 2? OK, maybe he does belong there but I'd like to see some election results before he is officially moved there (and once a few bad results come in look to see him shoot right past tier 2 and tier 3 to not a candidate).

I thought Huckabee would be tier one since he has surged in the polls, but this may not last long with him coming under greater scrutiny.

Paul in my view gets a tier two slot now largely due to his fund rasing ability. Recently on CNN he stated his campaign is now fully funded thru Super Duper Tuesday (February 5), not many can say this.
http://infowars.net/articles/november2007/301107Fundraiser.htm

As to McCain, I just don’t see him up there with the pack even though he has the NH paper’s endorsement.