When Biden Attacks

Via Andrew Sullivan, I sure do like me this Attack Mode Joe Biden lighting into Rudy Giuliani:

Sure there is, but with these guys, he knows so little about foreign policy he confuses terrorists cells and organizations with countries. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before this war. Al-Qaeda became a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. It didn't exist until Bush went to war. Even our own intelligence community says that. But these guys buy into this silliness that if you don't fight them in Baghdad you're going to fight them in Boston. Give me a break.

I know my man Ezra Klein's been touting Biden as a potential Veep pick for his attack dogging skills, which seems like a pretty poor idea to me (one needs a VP who understands that the Presidential candidate is supposed to do the bulk of the talking...) but this is good stuff.

Comments

Good stuff indeed.

But a small-state northeasterner on the ticket does no nominee any good. Plus I hope they'd realize the Dems need every Senator they can keep in the Senate, even the wankerish ones.

Posted by Ryan | November 28, 2007 1:05 PM

He speaks excellently. And proceeds to push things like the Bankruptcy Bill through.

Why can't ppl remember that kind of shit about the Snarlin Arlen's of the world? It's like the world really IS brand new to them each and every day.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | November 28, 2007 1:14 PM

His initial presidential candidacy was torpedoed by his plagiarism of a Neil Kinnock speech. It wasn't just that it was copied, but that it was copied so verbatim about something that was supposed to be a compelling and meaningful personal anecdote. I wonder if this would be a problem? Or, maybe the incident is minor enough and old enough not to worry about it?

Posted by Jim W | November 28, 2007 1:18 PM

This is why he's a great VP candidate. I'd love to get him out of the Senate (DE has a Dem governor) and put him a position where his only power is that which the President decides he should have. He's going to be too old to run (or at least to win) in 2016, so there's no risk of setting up a Biden administration. The only thing he's good at is talking, and he's shown more skill than any of his competitors at rhetorically taking on the Republicans.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | November 28, 2007 1:20 PM

And this is significant why? I mean, the cited Biden quote is hardly either original thinking or news to anyone with one-tenth of a brain. Is the story's location on the Christian Broadcasting Network's site somehow significant? Wouldn't any of the Dem candidates, given the chance to comment on Giuliani's foreign policy, say something similar? Please advise.

Posted by James Gary | November 28, 2007 1:23 PM

His initial presidential candidacy was torpedoed by his plagiarism of a Neil Kinnock speech. It wasn't just that it was copied, but that it was copied so verbatim about something that was supposed to be a compelling and meaningful personal anecdote.

Most people haven't heard the pushback on that incident, but apparently he routinely gave Kinnock credit in his stump speeches, just not in the one instance that was videotaped and used against him by the Dukakis campaign. A blunder, but unlikely he had any malicious intent if he routinely acknowledged Kinnock on other occasions.

Posted by Steve | November 28, 2007 1:24 PM

Whatever else you say about Biden, we could do worse with VP picks. In fact, we have done a lot worse in the last two elections.

Posted by Jim W | November 28, 2007 1:32 PM

I think Biden would be the perfect VP candidate for someone like Obama, who needs a bit of gravitas and capital-e Experience on the ticket (Dodd could work too). I don't see it making so much sense for Hillary.

Posted by right | November 28, 2007 1:43 PM

And this is significant why? I mean, the cited Biden quote is hardly either original thinking or news to anyone with one-tenth of a brain. Is the story's location on the Christian Broadcasting Network's site somehow significant? Wouldn't any of the Dem candidates, given the chance to comment on Giuliani's foreign policy, say something similar? Please advise.

Personally, I just think it's refreshing that he dealt with laughable and contemptible claims by laughing at them and treating them with contempt. I think most of the Democratic candidates make similar points, but they aren't quite as explicit about calling Giuliani's (and the Bush Administration's) ideas completely asinine.

I think more of that would be good; just because national security is a serious topic doesn't mean you have to respond with a straight face to obviously silly ideas. A lot of people assume that the most aggressive policy is automatically the most serious and responsible policy, and Biden seems to do a pretty good job of debunking that just with his dismissive attitude.

Posted by JB | November 28, 2007 1:49 PM

I know my man Ezra Klein's been touting Biden as a potential Veep pick for his attack dogging skills, which seems like a pretty poor idea to me

Seems like a pretty poor idea to me too, seeing as how having an outright racist on the ticket would appear to be a bad idea... but, hey, I'm not a Democract, so who knows.

Posted by Al | November 28, 2007 1:51 PM

Richardson for veep.

Posted by eightnine2718281828mu5 | November 28, 2007 1:59 PM

know my man Ezra Klein's been touting Biden as a potential Veep pick for his attack dogging skills, which seems like a pretty poor idea to me (one needs a VP who understands that the Presidential candidate is supposed to do the bulk of the talking...)

It worked for Spirow Agnew.
The next Democratic VP has to be a relentless champion of the party and completly unfazed at republican/movement conservative bs.

BTW I read that Al sleeps with Goats. Developing...

Posted by Northern Observer | November 28, 2007 2:13 PM

Bumbling, stumbling Richardson for Veep? Bleh. Secretary of State maybe. Even better, he should run for NM Senate.

Posted by Skippy | November 28, 2007 2:16 PM

Biden doesn't need another job. He needs to part of a Senate with clout.

(And the Kinnock incident was classic gotcha primary politics: a late night speech after a day of stumping. Not that it doesn't mean Biden is a gobshite.)

this is significant why?

Because the lapdog press won't report, unprompted, the fact that a pair of Megan McArdle's shoes has more foreign policy acumen and expertise than Rudy Giuliani. It takes someone like Biden to provide them with a quotable line that, at desperate least, can be juxtaposed with Mayor 9/11 talking about how he's the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson, right down to banging the help.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 28, 2007 2:17 PM

Because the lapdog press won't report, unprompted, the fact that a pair of Megan McArdle's shoes has more foreign policy acumen and expertise than Rudy Giuliani.

and that, I think, is the real story here.

Posted by James Gary | November 28, 2007 2:22 PM

I agree Richardson would be a disaster. Of the current candidates, only Biden and Dodd are possible VP material.

Posted by Jim W | November 28, 2007 2:23 PM

just because national security is a serious topic doesn't mean you have to respond with a straight face to obviously silly ideas.
But they're not just silly ideas; they're Republican silly ideas, which means they have to be treated as "serious" and "responsible," regardless of the horrible and predictable consequences...

Posted by Strangely Enough | November 28, 2007 2:25 PM

OUTING A CIA AGENT IN TIME OF WAR IS TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT.

Posted by Mike Meyer | November 28, 2007 2:29 PM

One thing Biden gets better than the other Dems is that the most effective thing he can do to get the nod is to attack the opponents in the other party rather than other Dems vying for the same nomination.

Seems to me that Barack and Hillary would instill more confidence by going not just after Bush, but after individual Reps going for the nomination.

Then primary voters can decide who does it best.

Posted by david in norcal | November 28, 2007 2:32 PM

This is why he's a great VP candidate. He's going to be too old to run (or at least to win) in 2016

Is that what we want: a situation where there is no heir apparent and we have to go back to attacking each other, rather than save our ammo for the Republicans?

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | November 28, 2007 2:39 PM

The Answer is:
Clinton/Biden
...And the question:
What is the most uninspiring and therefore most likely Democratic candidate pairing for '08?

Posted by steve EVfuture | November 28, 2007 2:46 PM

I think Biden would be a very strong veep choice for Obama for a number of reasons. With regard to the campaign: First, he's been in Washington forever, so he helps to mitigate the experience question. Second, he's a very able attack dog.

With regard to the actual job of veep: First, he would make a great envoy/adviser on forgein policy. Second, he would be invaluable in helping Obama to shepherd legislation through congress.

Posted by Sean W | November 28, 2007 2:47 PM

But they're not just silly ideas; they're Republican silly ideas, which means they have to be treated as "serious" and "responsible," regardless of the horrible and predictable consequences...

I think it may have less to do with partisanship than it does with people's unwillingness to believe that the US government/US establishment could engage in behavior that's truly beyond the pale. If the US government has done it, or a serious contender for the presidency says it, by definition it can't be crazy or immoral.

This puts candidates who advocate a less aggressive foreign policy in a bind, because if they call their opponents immoral, pathological, etc., they're indicting the whole system, not just particular individuals.

It also means that most political "scandals" will revolve around behavior that's removed from the normal operation of government (e.g., hiring a goon squad to break into DNC headquarters; getting blown by your interns), whereas you can get away with worse behavior that implicates the whole establishment (torturing prisoners; nullifying due process; killing hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians through aerial bombardment; interning Japanese-Americans during World War II; bombing a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant on flimsy/non-existent grounds, etc.).

Posted by JB | November 28, 2007 2:56 PM

---
I agree Richardson would be a disaster. Of the current candidates, only Biden and Dodd are possible VP material.
---

I actually think Dodd is the best candidate at the top of the ticket.

But then reality intrudes...

Posted by eightnine2718281828mu5 | November 28, 2007 3:59 PM

"I know my man Ezra Klein's been touting Biden as a potential Veep pick for his attack dogging skills, which seems like a pretty poor idea to me (one needs a VP who understands that the Presidential candidate is supposed to do the bulk of the talking...) but this is good stuff."

I always thought the primary job of VP candidate during the campaign was to be the attack dog while the presidential candidate stayed above all that.

Posted by Jose Padilla | November 28, 2007 4:03 PM

Most people haven't heard the pushback on that incident, but apparently he routinely gave Kinnock credit in his stump speeches, just not in the one instance that was videotaped and used against him by the Dukakis campaign.

That seems as if it would be difficult to do, since what he was caught doing was changing the details of the story to match his own ancestry.

New York Times, September 12, 1987, "Biden's Debate Finale: An Echo From Abroad "

In his speech, Mr. Kinnock, an orator of great eloquence, rhetorically asked why his ancestors, Welsh coal miners, did not get ahead as fast as he. ''Did they lack talent?'' he asked, in his lilting rhythm. ''Those people who could sing and play and recite and write poetry? Those people who could make wonderful beautiful things with their hands? Those people who could dream dreams, see visions? Why didn't they get it? Was it because they were weak? Those people who could work eight hours underground and then come up and play football? Weak?''

Senator Biden's Irish relations, it would seem, were similar, though they seemed to stay underground longer.

''Those same people who read poetry and wrote poetry and taught me how to sing verse?'' continued Mr. Biden, whose
father was a Chevrolet dealer in Wilmington. ''Is it because they didn't work hard? My ancestors, who worked in the coal
mines of Northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours?''

Of course, the football Mr. Biden's forebears played may not have been the same game that the British refer to as
football, but the Biden clan apparently was stymied by the same social forces that kept down the Kinnocks.

How Both Men Concluded

As Mr. Kinnock concluded, clenching both fists: ''Does anybody really think that they didn't get what we had because
they didn't have the talent or the strength or the endurance or the commitment? Of course not. It was because there was
no platform upon which they could stand.''

As Mr. Biden concluded, clenching one fist: ''No, it's not because they weren't as smart. It's not because they didn't work
as hard. It's because they didn't have a platform upon which to stand.''

Kucinich was saying there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq back when Biden was voting to give Bush authority to go to war.

Posted by darrelplant | November 28, 2007 4:05 PM

Biden for veep? Naaaaaaah. I think that a Dem from the Rockies/Midwest would be a better choice. But Biden would be a good choice for secretary of state, methinks.

Posted by The Truffle | November 28, 2007 4:31 PM

"Dem from the Rockies/Midwest would be a better choice."

I thought that, too, but then I thought, Who? And I couldn't think of anybody who could put together that Biden smack-down of Rudy on the spur of the moment.

Posted by David in NY | November 28, 2007 5:10 PM

That seems as if it would be difficult to do, since what he was caught doing was changing the details of the story to match his own ancestry.

Nothing difficult at all about doing that and paying homage to Kinnock at the same time, which is what he apparently did in all his other stump speeches. I frankly don't understand your objection here.

Posted by Steve | November 28, 2007 5:14 PM

I don't know whether his ego would allow being second fiddle, however the ultimate snarling attack dog Veep candidate would actually be ... Rudy. As actual VP he'd be a natural successor to Cheney. Romney's probably appropriate as the empty suit successor to Bush too. (Sigh...)

Romney-Rudy. It would be Bush-Cheney all over again...

Posted by Steve in Sacto | November 28, 2007 5:25 PM

"one needs a VP who understands that the Presidential candidate is supposed to do the bulk of the talking"

Well, if part of the job is not talking, then Biden is definitely out. He's the anti-Cheney in that regard.

Posted by Peter Principle | November 28, 2007 5:52 PM

Either Biden or Richardson would make for a fine Secretary of State, but why go with them when you could bring out the really big gun -- Bill Clinton?

Posted by Adam Villani | November 28, 2007 5:52 PM

You want an attack dog VP?

George Galloway. Nobody beats him in a debate - not even Hitchens. They have to ban him from the building to win.

With Putin as President to do the real talking - somebody who can put a noun and a verb together unlike the current incumbent.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 28, 2007 6:00 PM

Bill Clinton?

Constitutionally ineligible to be president under the 22nd Amendment. 12th Amendment: "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Posted by rea | November 28, 2007 8:53 PM

Yes, which is why I was recommending Bill Clinton for Secretary of State, not VP.

Posted by Adam Villani | November 28, 2007 9:55 PM

The Kinnock speech is here (it's 'Kinnock: The Movie', the 1987 Ken Loach), 7:20 in. The NYT misses out the best line, the angry rhetorical 'was it because they were thick?', presumably not wanting to translate it.

Murdoch's tabloid dirtwipe was particularly bad in that year.

Nothing difficult at all about doing that and paying homage to Kinnock at the same time, which is what he apparently did in all his other stump speeches.

Me neither. American political oratory, more today but still then, has much of the character beaten out of it in order to get to the nomination. For the purple-tongued Biden, that might be a good thing, but the result is bland, bland, bland.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 28, 2007 10:55 PM

As I recall from times gone by, the Vice Presidential candidate was the attack dog. The Presidential candidate was more often heard but attempted to be statesmanlike, to an extent.

Say what you want about Biden, but he's no dummy and he's quick on his feet.

Posted by cal1942 | November 29, 2007 1:14 AM

“Richardson for veep.
Posted by eightnine2718281828mu5”

No. Richardson for Sec. of State.

Posted by cal1942 | November 29, 2007 1:16 AM

Biden (S-MBNA) as VP I'd wish for him to be dumber and slower.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 29, 2007 1:27 AM

Constitutionally ineligible to be president under the 22nd Amendment. 12th Amendment: "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

While I agree that Bill Clinton would not be a good choice for VP (nor would he accept a job as Secretary of State), I do not agree that he would be legally barred from becoming Vice President.

The interpretation is debatable, for sure. The 12th Amendment reads as above, but the 22nd amendment says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

Nothing in that says that Bill would be ineligible to the office of the Presidency, only that he could not be elected (or re-elected) to it. Now you could make the argument that the folks who wrote that text would never think it was OK for someone who had already served 8 years as President to become VP, have the Prez die/resign, and then become President again, but the amendment was not written that way. It would have been just as easy (easier, actually) to say "No person who has held the office of president for at least six years shall be eligible to be elected to the office, or to succession to it."

It's likely an oversight, probably the amendment just wasn't thought through, but as it reads, I'm pretty sure Bill could legally run as a VP candidate. Fortunately, since it's a silly idea for other reasons (like that Bill would never do it, for starters), it's a moot point.

Posted by dmbeach | November 29, 2007 2:01 AM

JB, that's one of the best comments I've seen on a blog.

Why do we have to have one of the guys running now as the eventual VP nom? Why not, say, Feingold or Webb or someone?

Posted by Reality Man | November 29, 2007 3:49 AM

One thing Biden gets better than the other Dems is that the most effective thing he can do to get the nod is to attack the opponents in the other party rather than other Dems vying for the same nomination.

Seems to me that Barack and Hillary would instill more confidence by going not just after Bush, but after individual Reps going for the nomination.

Then primary voters can decide who does it best.

Exactly! thats why I was recently inspired to donate some change to Biden's campaign. I would love for Hillary to stop bashing Bush and most of all Edwards to stop bashing Hillary and have them start attacking Repubs actually running for president in 2008. Only Biden is doing it so far...

He has great progressive ideas about the issues, talks straight, has a sense of humor, and the guy commutes home to Delaware -- using public transit- every day to be with his wife and elderly mother.

Posted by chris | November 29, 2007 12:25 PM

sorry...my comment above got the html tags a little off...

david in norcal's quote runs through the line "Then primary voters can decide who does it best."

Posted by chris | November 29, 2007 12:29 PM