Any Delawareans for Biden? Against?
 

Any Delawareans at all?!!?

I just read in the paper that local democratic senator Joe Biden will be running for president in 2008. I personally am conflicted (driven to confliction because my girlfriend will vote for Hillary Clinton). Personally, I like Clinton and all, but I don't think she stands too much of a chance in the 50-50 way of things. Sure, Democrats will vote for her because it's progressive and forward-thinking, and all that. But I really think that in order for anyone to win, it'll take a true uniter and a well run campaign. I could talk a lot more about this, but anyway...
Joe Biden, who is the big shit around DE, is going (probably) to run against Hillary, and I think it'll be great. He's been vocal and unwavering in opposing the war in Iraq (more accurately, the current administration's handling) and he's pretty liberal, but he's done a lot of cool shit for the nation. He voted to add police to the streets (pretty cool, I guess) and enacted bills that crack down on violence against women, in particular domestic abuse. He also created new gun control laws and increased budget for enforcing them. To get to the point, he's really helped with homeland security!
Let me know what you all think, especially Delawareans!

I'm against him because he's too liberal for me, but then again so is everyone the republican party has available to run. Looks like it will be the same elections for me as it was in 2000 and 2004. More republicrats.

Sadly most of the things you mentioned that he voted for I'm against. He won't be getting my vote in 08. :|

Was that the 'fake' police bill that sounded good but didn't provide for any long term funding?

I like Biden he has a strong following and some good ideas. He has a pretty good following, he honestly wouldn't be bad. However, I wouldn't hold my breath on him running he made a run in '92, I think it was '92 and lost badly. If I'm not mistaken he tried again in '00 but pulled out before any primaries.

He ran in 88, against Dukakis, but they drudged up a plagiarism charge against him, which caused him to drop out. I think it's unfortunate that something that trivial (and keep in mind my priorities as a college student :)) shouldn't be allowed to stop someone who, in my opinion, has at least a little integrity and honesty from getting trounced by Bush Sr.! As for the police bill, what can I say?! I read a Delaware newspaper, I might not get the most objective reporting, despite that whole thing about objective media...sigh.

Biden will never have my support. He was one of the Democrats who voted for cloture on the bankruptcy bill, which you may recall is widely derided by everyone except MBNA executives, and then voted against it even though his cowardly pro-cloture vote ensured it would pass. He then claimed he was against the bill.

However, I don't support anyone for president yet. Too early.

If Biden is the Dem candidate...boy, I don't know what I would do.

i think biden is probably the best choice out of the possible democrats. hopefully the bankruptcy thing won't affect me, but you do bring up an interesting point. (also, i couldn't care less about gun control.) he is more appealing than the other candidates, i think. even though sean hannity talks about the impending hillary nomination constantly, i doubt she will be very successful in rural areas. and iowa better not push edwards forward again. who else is considering a go at it, besides kerry? (by the way, did anyone catch the surprising comparison b/w bush's and kerry's yale grades?)

whoever gets the DP nod will have trouble beating mccain, unless his party is too dumb to nominate him. he seems to be the most popular candidate overall, although he is fairly old. he has a good environmental record, though. and the press loves him.

samcol, frist is too liberal? who do you wish was running?

Biden seems like a decent enough fellow, but a candidate out of Deleware will have a hard time winning the nomination. History has shown that Dems out of a southern region have the best chance to actually pull enough states to keep it interesting.

I believe that McCain will be tough to beat in '08 (cross over appeal that is unmatched), but something tells me we haven't seen the last of John Edwards...

Yes. I wish a real conservative (non-neocon) was running. A fiscal conservative who wouldn't make Clinton's budget look conservative. I'll probably just vote libertarian again or not at all. It's really beginning to look like voting doesn't matter to me.

You need to vote because it's all these people who don't vote that have allowed the parties and the lobbyists to become so strong. They want fewer people to vote so that they can claim the majority wants this or that. And silence at the polls shows noone disputes them.

If more people truly voted in primaries, off year elections and presidential elections, I think we would see government clean up and be more responsive to the people.

To me the people who don't vote and claim it is because they don't like the choices are to blame. If they voted in primaries and for Reps. and Senators, state and local governments that represented their beliefs better change would come.

It's also in being active, getting out there and talking to people and organizing rallies and going to them.

In short, government cannot be responsive to those that do nothing to change things.

In the past people have felt hopeless and that the parties didn't care and until there is massive uprising (peaceful debates, demonstrations, etc) things don't change or regress. When people have had enough the debates, demonstrations and such happen and change comes. (The '60's are a great example, as is the turn of century 1900's).

I don't really like Biden because he runs with the hawkish crowed that focuses on "national security" and "War on Terror" bullshit in an attempt to sway votes their way.

That would be nice.

i see where you're coming from now. at some point the country's financial situation will become a major national security issue on its own, if it has not already.

You can't vote in the primaries unless you're a member of the party can you?

I do agree with you about the off year elections though, and the part about being active. Actually being active is better than voting in my opinion.

I'm not trying to start a gun debate again, it's been done to death in dozens of threads, but I completely disagree with your assessment that this helps "homeland security" in any way, and this alone is reason enough for me to not vote for him. I do not trust any politician who does not trust his law-abiding constituents with guns.

I'm not sure which states allow it, but the libertarians are fighting in a few places for the right to hold open primaries.

[QUOTE=samcol]You can't vote in the primaries unless you're a member of the party can you?
[QUOTE]

It depends on state. I know Ohio you can declare party at the polling place (or at least I always have been).

Ohio among several other states also have legislation pending or being discussed about public funding the primaries. The reason being it costs states a lot to hold these elections and they are starting to think about the parties paying for them.

You're right, Mr. SelfDestruct, this is not the place for a gun debate. Thanks.

In Mr. SD's defense, It was an issue that you brought up in the OP and so it should be more than fair game for him to discuss. I want stricter gun laws, but more than that I want the Democrats to start being smarter policticians and run on issues that are going to win some of the south back.

You'd think it was rocket science they were trying to figure out... The republicans keep hitting them in the same spots with the same stick and dems are too busy playing defense to develop any offense. 3 steps:

1. Ignore the Republican agenda. Why do they make the rules?
2. Develop 3 or 4 talking points that are easy to understand and easy to get behind. Talk only about those. The more you repeat it, the more important it seems. They turned gay marriage into a national crisis, for God's sake.
3. Go back to step 1.

It's boring, it's simple-minded, and all it does is win. K Rove has nothin' on me!

Point taken, but I don't want to say anything rash, this is new territory, the politics board!
The problem with the Democrats, is (you're right) they really do fall into the Republican trap. "Wedge" issues force them to take sides and put them on the defensive. These issues, like gay marriage and abortions, also divide the country (which, some of you may know, is a big problem lately). The best platform a Dem could run on is how to make the home side better, and a big part of that is controlling how many people can have assault rifles and whether or not terrorists or criminals can get a hold of them. This is not mistrust, it's caution and common sense.
Another problem in America is horrible apathy. We need somebody who can engage young people. We need more people pissed off! (Last night, I saw Steal This Movie, the story of Abbie Hoffman, author of Steal This Book).
Also, we need fewer cuts in the arts, like the bullshit PBS cut - we don't need 100,000 dollars so bad that we should fuck little kids' futures up for it. This country just seems to be getting dumber. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Sorry, just the ventings of a pissed off college musician - go figure!

Wise, wise man, for a music maker! :) You can probably tell I am a big supporter of PBS by my avatar! I belive that was right after Bert got the news on the money....

Back on topic, the problem with gun control is that it is a deal breaker in voting. I hate guns, but honestly other issues dwarf gun control problems in the US today. Get unemployment down, put some pride in a kid by giving him a school to go to that has computers, new books, windows, that sort of thing. Trade schools are dying in this country, but let's try to give a kid a choice between a trade or selling drugs. A few will suprise you. That will help the gun problem more than a politician making more laws with less cops. Plus, guns are not a negotiable issue. You either hate guns or you're packing two right now. I'd take Chuck Heston out for dinner myself if Dems would just walk away from this issue.

It is a perfect example of why Clinton was so good as a politician and why every other Dem looks like a trainee with a name badge. He never let the Republicans bait him into their issues. He always stayed "on topic" and Rapture itself wasn't going to rattle him.

With that said - I have to admit my enduring affection for Doc Dean. Crazy bastard. The republicans had Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson, Nixon, etc... It's only fair that we get the kid with Tourette's for a while. :crazy:

As an Illinois independant I'll weigh in my support for Biden over HClinton, but that's not saying too much. He was one of very few politicians who understood that Abu Ghraib was a scandal with serious implications for the U.S.'s standing in the world and for that I support him. Biden v. McCain would be a tough call, but niether nomination seems likely.