Go Joe!
Joe Biden for President
IT’S J.B. for me!
by: DW Foreign Policy Editor, Dusty Schoch (with a trailing dissent from Dr. Leonard Carrier, DW In-House Historian and Philosopher)
We’ve got our man. So let’s start getting behind him and supplying him with the needed push to Democratize the White House in ’08.
Why Joe…instead of Hillary or Obama? It’s so very very simple…and so very very crucial we know—and agree—why.
This article won’t be an “in depth” treatment of Joe Biden or any of the gamut of Democratic prospects and wannabees. I submit the “detailed analysis” is where we can only run amuck and lose sight of the monolithically-obvious facts staring us in the face…facts showing the potential for easy Democratic Victory and equally sure Democratic defeat.
Biden is, and will likely remain, the fighting fringe of the new, election-proved national wave of peace in the Middle East. The electorate has clearly mandated it. The electorate will continue to demand it although Bush is apparently not listening. Iraq, according to informed world consensus, will not change (for the better) until the United States withdraws its troops and forgets Bush’s impossible mission of seeking “victory” over terrorism in a place where our very presence (not to mention our unprovoked invasion and occupation) breeds it.
Joe Biden has all by himself assumed the leadership role in the process of American withdrawal from Iraq. As incoming Senate Foreign Relations Chairman, he will take the laurels for getting us out of hell and back on the road to international respectability and recovery. His recent public appearances and press conferences have confirmed him as a man whose leadership power and political aplomb have matured and peaked, and that he has forgotten more about Middle Eastern politics and realities than George Bush ever knew. The man knows the intricacies of Middle Eastern politics and theological (Islamic) dynamics as fully as any academic in the Kennedy School or the A.E.I. Today (December 27, ‘06) he announced his Committee has summonsed (commanded) Condoleeza Rice to appear before him to explain and account for Bush’s promised “new plan” for Iraq. This is quite clearly and gallantly taking the “bull” by its horns.
If it (the Bush/Rice plan) is anything but a plan for clearly-scheduled troop withdrawal, you can count on Joe Biden to start raising Congressional hell and/or the impeachment process. Thank God there has apparently arisen in our midst a Democratic leader and presidential runner who is unafraid to speak the truth and back it up with action. He has a single answer for the two most important questions which are now daily laid before him: (1) Are you in favor of troop withdrawal in Iraq? And (2) Are you running for President in ’08? He says, simply YES.
Why not Hillary or Obama instead? Forget their equivocal records in the past regarding Bush’s war policy and look, again, at the simple things…the things we seldom speak about because they border on political “incorrectness”. Consider nothing but two simple but absolute things: (1) Hillary is a female and (2) Obama is a “perceived Afro-American” (offspring of bi-racial union).
In the course and process of trying to re-institute peace in a world heading towards global Armageddon faster than a NASCAR pit stop, Democratic victory in the next U.S. Presidential election should not be squandered by a bunch a egalitarian-posing liberals wanting to make an affirmative-action type statement in the ritual process of presidential nomination. The Democrats need forcefully to seize the White House from the grips of a clearly fascist administration–one openly waging acquisitive, oil-motivated , Corporate-profiting war in an arena where the world is holding America for the first time in history in unambiguous and utter contempt. Democrats need to pursue—with maximal prospects for victory– a changing of this guard above all other priorities, including being “politically correct”.
I personally admire Obama immensely and I am neither a racial nor a sexist bigot. But that’s no reason to Peter-Principle him into a race he can’t win—at least with the degree of certainty Joe Biden could with his far-superior experience and position as a Caucasian Senator chairing the most important committee in the Senate (Foreign Relations Committee).
Ditto, for the most part, for Hillary. She doesn’t come close in terms of background and/or personal charisma to become the first female president. Too many obvious handicaps in addition to the feminist-labeled “glass ceiling” of sexuality. A still-born health-care program and Bill Clinton to mention just two. The Newtonian (as in Neo-Con Newt Gingrich) GOP’s are thus-far holding fire on the sexual Achilles heel of Hillary (her sex, former Whitewater scandal and “Slick Willy’s Woman” status) just hoping and praying the Democrats will run her…straight into their crossfire.
As far as Obama’s race is concerned, the Neo-Cons will never touch the race card, much less play it. They don’t need to. With a perceived “Afro-American” as Democratic front runner, the Neocons already know how 98 percent of the Red State rednecks are going to vote. It’s a foregone conclusion. It’s a no brainer. The red-state rednecks will never ask themselves why they believe a white woman can give birth to a black child whereas a black woman cannot give birth to a white. That’s why it’ll never be an issue with the GOP, and that’s why it MUST be seen as an issue to the Democratic Party. (In any case, I have read that Obama denominates himself, “black” *). The next Presidential race must not be run to demonstrate the non-biggotry of either America or the Democratic Party. The next presidential race must be…quite simply…won. Winning involves facing the world and predicting its behavior as it is and will certainly be…not as we truly egalitarian liberals would prefer it be. That’s the blunder Nader made. That’s the blunder that got us to the very sad and scary place we are today.
Let’s not let idealism and virtue be our undoing. Example: If the terrorists all got together and offered to let the war in the Middle East (Iraq, Palestine…everything) rest upon the outcome of a no-holds-barred brawl between their champion, Osama bin Laden and the champion of our choice, who would you pick to fight this most crucial of all battles, if you had to choose (only) between these two: Democratic Candidate Obama from Illinois, or Republican Governor Arnold S? In this upcoming presidential contest, let’s forget which candidate we “like” and pick the candidate who will win.
So forget about voting for Joe because he’s the “best man”, or the “one we like the most”, or the “one we’d like to project America’s image to the world”, etc. Let’s vote for Joe because he has the substantially best chance of winning the White House back from the fascists presently occupying it.
Hillary and Obama are both great and worthy politicians and statesmen. And they’re positioned exactly where we need them- in the Senate. Where they should stay and represent us. But here’s the truth of the matter: If right here and now they would declare themselves as “For Joe Biden” in the upcoming Presidential race, they would improve Joe’s chances for acclamation at the party level, which would unite the presently-scattered bunch of us in E Pluribus Unum fashion for the most critical presidential race in the history of the globe.
If and as Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama continue to campaign for the nomination against their obviously-better (for not having the election handicaps of either sex or race) colleague, they are running the risk of party and power splitting and skewing that a megalomaniacal Ralph Nadar (also a great man with zero chances of Presidential success) took that clearly and positively enabled Bush’s first presidential coup.
Step aside, Hillary, for the sake of Party and world peace; Wait a while, Obama, or at least cast your ego aside and your eye in the direction of the second (VP) chair.
So, let’s pay attention (and support) to Joe. Let’s talk him up. Let’s talk others out of squandering their energies and hopes on losing Democratic candidates in favor of one who is clearly qualified…and able to win…and to do the job when he gets there. The one he’s already started as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
GO, JOE! IT’S J.B. for me
Dusty
Dec. 27, 2007
*http://blogs.suntimes.com/mitchell/2006/12/us_senator_barak_obama_and_the.html
(Chicago Sun Times article concerning Obama’s referring to himself as “black”.
Biden’s Not the One
Counterpoints by Leonard Carrier
I don’t think Joe Biden is the one. Sure, he’s got experience with 37 years of service in the Senate. That’s part of the problem. Biden is part of the “old” Democratic Party; that is to say, he’s no progressive. A simple way to delineate the difference is to divide Democrats into “money” Democrats and “people” Democrats. Biden falls squarely into the first category. He, of course, says all the right things to distinguish himself from Republicans, but he’s going to line himself up with the Democratic Leadership Council and Rahm Emanuel every time. Now he says that his vote to support the war in Iraq was a mistake, but it was a little late in coming. On that score, he was no Howard Dean. Up until recently, he advocated splitting Iraq into three parts. Only when he saw that this plan didn’t resonate with the voters or with common sense did he drop it. The problem with any other plan Biden might have for Iraq is that he thinks that it’s up to the United States to determine the fate of Iraq’s people. This sounds too much like John Kerry’s position during the 2004 election–that we can do the war better and smarter. Nowhere does Biden say that we were wrong to invade–only that we should have put together a stronger coalition of allies. This sounds too much like George H.W. Bush’s strategy during the first Gulf War. Biden is much like Hillary Clinton in testing the political waters before taking a moral stand.
But my worries about Biden do not end with Iraq. There’s his failed presidential bid of 1988 in which his speeches came out sounding too much like those of Neil Kinnock, and he had to drop out. This is a symptom of not having a genuine persona, and just wanting to sound the part. Then there is Biden’s obsession with words. He talks on and on. Would we want our presidential addresses to approach the length of those given by Fidel Castro? This is not a trivial criticism. As Biden’s grilling of Samuel Alito showed, too many words don’t get the job done and they blur images that should be kept sharp.
All of these worries pale, however, alongside the question of what Biden’s core views really are. Has he ever been passionate about the need to combat global warming? Or about the plight of the poor in our country? Or about the need for a universal health plan? Or about repudiating the desire for empire that motivates most of his colleagues in the Senate? Or about how to get the money out of politics? Or about standing up to the Israeli lobby to give the Palestinians a fair shake? I don’t see any commitment in Biden about any of these issues, and so I don’t see him taking any large steps away from what both political parties have been doing since Reagan was president–simply business as usual, with the faces changing but the plan staying the same. What is that plan? That wealth and power call the shots, and the public goes along for the ride.
I agree that Clinton or Obama would not be winning nominees, for the reasons Dusty gives. Would Biden be a winner? I doubt it, since he would probably put his foot in his mouth many times trying to gauge the political landscape in order to get votes. But even if he were to win, the American people would be the losers. There is someone better out there who both speaks from the heart to values most of us share, and who also can articulate those values in order to win. As a matter of fact, there are two people out there who fill my bill. They are Al Gore and John Edwards, not necessarily in that order. Al Gore has said he will not run, but that may change. Edwards has said he will run, and right now he gets my nod. — Len
DUSTY’S REJOINDER…
Len’s comments have clearly steered me back to the drawing board on my endorsement of Biden (as compared to John Edwards). So few have given Edwards any significant chance of constructing a winning game plan that I perhaps gave too short shrift to the issue of which of the two we should champion. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if these two could somehow be talked into running on the same ballot? In regard to Obama and Clinton, I’ll stick by my (perhaps too-quickly-drawn) guns: They individually and jointly constitute a liability on almost any ballots the Democratic Convention could configure. It will be interesting to watch how the political persona’s of Edwards and Biden evolve as they meet and weather the rigors and bushwackers on the campaign trail. Thanks, Len, for the informed and persuasive dissent. I’ll withhold any further defense and endorsement of Biden until I’ve gained a little altitude on the learning curve on these Democratic hopefuls. In the process, I intend to remain myself a democratic hopeful. For now, I’m backing up to say: either Johnny or Joe before Hillary or Barack.
This entry was posted in Political. Bookmark the permalink. ← The China Syndrome A Movie Actor’s Brave Call for Impeachment →
