E.J. Dionne gives Biden the respect he deserves

[justinrr1]

The Missing Issues . . .

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007; Page A17

GOFFSTOWN, N.H. -- Two questions from Sunday's Democratic debate: Does Joe Biden have to set himself on fire to get serious attention? And whatever happened to the lunch-bucket issues that once made Democrats the dominant political party in America?

Maybe because he doesn't have much to lose, Biden was the most passionate, straight-talking figure on the stage here at Saint Anselm College. But so much coverage was lavished on John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and their scuffling over Iraq and health care that you might have missed this. So, consider, first, Biden's comments on Darfur:

"I went there. I sat on the borders. I went in those camps. They're going to have thousands and thousands and thousands of people die. We've got to stop talking and act. . . . By the time all these guys talk, 50,000 more people are going to be dead! They're going to be dead!"

Or take Biden on gays in the military. The debate moderator, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, noted that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it would be a mistake to end the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

"Peter Pace is flat wrong. I've been to Afghanistan, I've been to Iraq seven times, I've been in the Balkans, I've been in these foxholes with these kids, literally in bunkers with them. Let me tell you something: Nobody asked anybody else whether they're gay in . . . those foxholes."

Noting that "the British, the French, all our major allies" allow gays to serve openly, Biden added: "I don't know the last time an American soldier said to a backup from a Brit, 'Hey, by the way, let me check. Are you gay? You straight?' This is ridiculous."

And agree or disagree with Biden's recent vote to fund the Iraq war, it was good to hear him say that "some things are worth losing elections over" and defend his decision without hedges or equivocation.

But Biden is not a front-runner. By any conventional definition, the "news" of the debate revolved around Edwards challenging Clinton and Obama for showing insufficient "leadership" in the cause of ending the war. Obama struck back hard at Edwards's original support for the Iraq venture. "You're about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue," said an unusually steely Obama.

Clinton hung in with ease by minimizing the differences among Democrats on the war. Given her current lead, Clinton wins these encounters by not losing. Edwards was especially tough on health care -- he always wins points by saying unapologetically that universal health coverage would require tax increases. Obama looked increasingly comfortable as the debate went on and won deserved applause for saying that a question about whether English should be our official language was a distraction, which it is.

But this encounter would have profited from questions posed by old-fashioned kinds of Democrats -- union workers who have faced cuts in pay and benefits, parents who can't afford to send their children to college or who work two or three jobs and can't get proper child care.

This is not a knock on the thoughtful participants whom CNN picked to ask questions. A student named Tim O'Connor asked a good one about compulsory national service, and a self-employed man named Brian Sealander zeroed in on a key word in Democratic rhetoric by asking how the candidates defined who is "rich."

But the fact that so much of the debate concentrated on international relations reflects the imposition of a false high-mindedness that sees presidential-level discussions as serious only if they focus primarily on foreign policy. This throws off the balance in our politics. Many voters who want to hear a practical thing or two about schools, jobs, housing or how to cover their retirement respond to staged political events with a shrug and a frown.

Yes, there was a vigorous discussion Sunday on the merits of competing health-care plans -- yet another sign that this campaign may finally put universal coverage on the road to enactment. And yesterday's Clinton-Obama-Edwards discussion, sponsored by the progressive Christian magazine Sojourners, was organized in large part around the theme of social justice.

But the fading of bread-and-butter politics can only mean a growing disenchantment among voters -- think of them as the Next New Dealers -- who need to be part of this generation's age of reform.

We need to hear more from such voters. And, please, can't we give Joe Biden at least his 15 minutes of respect?

[BrklynLiberal]

1. What is being held are not even truly "debates". It would be gratifying to see the

potential candidates sitting around a table, talking, answering some audience/ emailed/ called in questions..without an inane "moderator" who ends up using more time that some of the candidates!!!!

[justinrr1]

2. We could have a 90 minute Iraq debate

but the majority of our candidates are too chickenshit.

[skyblue]

3. The more Democratic Leaders are seen the more people can learn about the Democratic party.

[CBHagman]

4. Here's the link to the Dionne column.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/04/AR2007060401377.html

Like Inspector Morse, Dionne is one of the good guys, bringing up the workaday issues.

As for Biden, he can be brash, yes, but often enough he really does cut through the crap. And though most people don't talk about it, he did put forth a plan (usually identified as the Biden-Gelb plan, the "Gelb" meaning Leslie Gelb) for Iraq based on phased redeployment, a sort of Balkans-style division, etc.

And given the almost overt homophobia at the Republican debate tonight (No one but no one endorsed gays and lesbians serving openly in the military), I respect Biden's bluntness on the gays-in-the-military discussion. It was a good call to invoke our allies' policies!

[Redneck Socialist]

5. That's nice...

Biden's still a tool.

[skyblue]

6. Putting your eggs in 1 basket with only 3 candidates is scary!!

The Democratic Party truly needs to hear from all candidates and not just snippets and bites. Again more presence more we can dispel myths and negative stereotypes about the Democratic Party. Aside from that what if 1 candidate makes a stupid mistake which can happen that prevents them from being elected in the general then we can count on only 2 candidates and they better be pretty darn strong. Candidates all seem to do stupid things so we're better off having more candidates out there. And sadly they all have achilles heels - and potentially serious ones! So it's better that America gets to really know our people.

[justinrr1]

7. The more debates we have

the more likely that the best candidate emerges. Lets not let the media narrow down our field for us.

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. the media has nothing to do with narrowing the field

the field was already narrowed down by big money contributions. Edwards, Obama and Clinton received the most money, therefore they're the only realistic candidates. Everyone else is just taking part in a kabuki dance to please some segment of the party that wants representation.

The options were narrowed down long before the debates ever started.

[justinrr1]

9. Money has a lot to do with it

but if you look at dodd's talk meter on the debates, in both the gop and dem debates the so called top 3 got the most time.

[rodeodance]

10. long ago the media already told us who will be the front runners

[jillan]

11. Here's another article about the unequal amount of time Biden received

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/591730.html

WASHINGTON - Does Barack Obama have twice as much to say as Joe Biden? Are his views really twice as important?
That's the impression left by Sunday night's Democratic presidential debate on CNN, in which the moderators gave Obama 16 minutes of airtime and Biden less than eight minutes. Obama's in his third year in the Senate, where Biden has served 35 years and heads the Foreign Relations Committee.....

.....Take Kucinich. He's arguably the most anti-Iraq war candidate in the Democratic campaign. He speaks for a big part of the party's base. But he got only a small slice of the debate time.

Or Biden. He could end up the party's nominee. Remember, polls can and often do change wildly once the voting starts.

Should that happen, the media would have to look back and explain why they didn't spend more time exploring and exposing his thinking in these debates.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tkmorris]

13. Ya know, I LIKE the way Biden "brings it"

He just says what he thinks, without apparent fear of how that will play in the media. He gives the impression of a guy who is shooting from the hip at all times. I like that, I like it a lot.

The problem I have with Biden is that while I admire his methodology, I just disagree with what he actually SAYS far too often. Socially he is far too conservative for me, and his plan to split Iraq into thirds just sounds too much like forming a Yugoslavia with no Tito to me. I wish that we could have a more leftist candidate with a similar "tell it like I see it with no equivocation" style, and perhaps some foreign policy credentials thrown in.

I didn't set out to, but I think I just described General Clark. Odd, since he's actually not my first choice, but he WOULD be a good candidate. Better than Biden at any rate.

[Bake]

14. It's what he DOESN'T say out loud that scares/bothers me!

For example, when he WASN'T all over the cable channels explaining why his support for the Bankruptcy "reform" bill was such a good thing ... why he doesn't talk much about the support he gets from big creditors like MBNA ... that kind of thing.

Bake

[jillan]

15. Correction - Biden gets less $$ from the credit card companies

Then other candidates.

For example - who is the #1 contributor to Hillary Clinton?
Citigroup!

In contrast, the #1 contributor to Sen Biden are attorneys.
MBNA is #5.

Your welcome.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

16. Clarence Thomas - never forget, never forgive.

[justinrr1]

17. So you would trade Thomas for Bork?

You are right I never forgot him stopping Bork! And who has gotten the most money from the banking industry, that would be Chris Dodd.