I think so. He is a great statesman, and is correct on Iraq, Iran, and Darfur. He has PLANS too! Plus, he's honest. He always admits his past mistakes like his plagarism and is upfront and candid about it. And, that is about his only mistake, and for a politican - that's not bad. IMO.
Why aren't the Dem's sidin' with Biden???
2007-12-11 03:41:17 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
A very good question,
A related question. Why is it that the top three Democratic candidates are actually the weakest three? Dodd, Biden and Richardson have experience that makes Clinton's, Obama's and Edwards's pale in comparison. However, none of these three are going anywhere.
Quite frankly, I think that Hillary is THE worst candidate for the Democrats. The country in general is not satisfied with the Republican President, and I think the Oval Office is theirs. The only thing that will stop it is if they nominate someone with the high negatives of Hillary Clinton.
2007-12-11 03:46:45 · answer #1 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
I'm a big fan of Senator Biden.. he is a far better candidate then the current frontrunners, but I won't vote for him in the primaries.
I've read through his plan for partitioning Iraq .. It plan involves separating the three groups, while this sounds good on paper, the results will only worsen the situation. There are people who are intermarried, that have homes and jobs in certain regions.. what are they going to do just kick them out? Not to mention the fighting will just continue across border lines like it has in India and Pakistan.. This has already been attempted before and failed..
2007-12-11 12:03:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Biden is just terrific. The problem is that he comes from a small state so there's not alot of support there. Also, he is an intellectual as was Al Gore and many previous Dem nominees going all the way back to Adlai Stevenson. Sadly, Americans do not vote for intellectuals. They prefer "good old boys" like George W. Bush.
2007-12-11 11:46:09 · answer #3 · answered by notyou311 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They're not used to a candidate with hair-plugs.
That's about all that matters, with the Dems. the IMAGE and the electability... hate to be obvious here, but Gore didn't get the DNC nod over Bill Bradley because he was the in any category, a more effective candidate... (if the DNC wanted a Gore 2-term president, they'd have FORCED Bubba to resign with a year+ left, and the USA would have been quite used to a "president Gore"...) it was because the DNC loved his "electability" and Noami Watt's picking his "alpha male" earth-toned suits... over Bradley's double-chin and turkey neck.. (if you recall, Gore didn't EVEN have 'global warming' as one of his PLATFORM issues in 2000...)
JFKerry was simply a tall guy, with Clinton's grey mop... they ran him on what JFKerry's most loves about himself, his hair -- and then got him a running mate that was a boyish, good looking fashion accessory.
Hillary has been honing her image, hair style, black/yellow pants suits, rocking the nehru jacket at times.. going for everyweek collagen, etc. making sure the hair STAYS BLONDE and no grays show...
It's all about image. And the look. Does Obama have it? Well, he didn't get to speak at the DNC with a couple of WEEKENDS of political experience because of his lifetime achievements (although, after 2 biographies.. you'd think you could actually point to something he's DONE?). The Democratic Party -- and please KEEP this secret.. -- have NO BLACK candidates and no black pundits, even for TV... they needed an Obama, because he looked the part of a buttoned-down, well-spoken candidate in THEIR party in 2004.. and here he is, nearly ready to grasp HOLD of their party. (And, good for him!). It was the GOP that was able to show you, in 2004.. a Colin Powell, a Condolezza Rice (hello? she's the FACE OF AMERICAN WORLD WIDE DIPLOMACY.. as she's a BLACK WOMAN!!! that was right there in Alabama and LIVING THROUGH the Civil Rights violence in the Deep South in the 60's) and... and... the Dems cannot even fake anything close to her.. this side of Jesse Jackson.
Wake up and smell the denial of inner-city struggles, as addressed to any candidate. (apologies for the long answer... but, I've got a wide soap box, here).
2007-12-11 11:44:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe it should be. However, no one consults me when they make such a big decision. It seems like the candidate who raises the most money is the "pre-selected" winner of the nomination. It shouldn't be that way, but it looks to me like that's the way it really is...
2007-12-11 11:47:37 · answer #5 · answered by correrafan 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
because we have a history of nominating the worst, Dukakis, McGovern, etc. All good people but the worst candidate at the time
2007-12-11 13:15:05 · answer #6 · answered by stashnut7 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No the smartest move if they want my vote would be to nominate Gov. Bill Richardson (D) New Mexico. He is more of an independent westerner. You ain't never going to get me to vote for a gun grabbin' Yankee.
2007-12-11 11:46:39 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋