Politics

Also-Ran Biden Shows the Way at Debates

Joe Biden at yesterday's debate.
Getty Images
Joe Biden at yesterday's debate.

It’s a shame Joe Biden’s campaign hasn’t gone anywhere.

The Delaware Senator, who was first elected when M*A*S*H was a brand new series, actually announced his plans to run ahead of everyone else—in June 2005—but the head start has done him no good: He can’t raise money, can’t move his poll numbers, and can’t break his way into the Hillary-Barack-and-John storylines that define the media’s coverage of the Democratic race.

But every time the Democratic eight gather for yet another debate, it is Mr. Biden who takes the scraps of free television time he’s afforded and turns in the most consistently presidential performance of any candidate from either party.

He was at it again Sunday, when ABC’s George Stephanopoulos took his turn quizzing the Democrats in Des Moines.

As all of the moderators before him have done, Mr. Stephanopoulos dutifully focused his most pointed questions and follow-ups on the big names, trying to create public conflict between them. And as usual, the instant press analysis afterwards played up the clashing—or lack thereof, as the case was on Sunday—of the front-runners.

But once again, it was Mr. Biden who offered the most compelling presentation, in substance and style. Too often, he is rather curtly dismissed as a windbag, a not entirely unfounded criticism that ignores his innate knack for locking in and connecting with an audience—mixing deep policy knowledge with a quick wit and some of the flair of a good storyteller.

The best ingredients in Mr. Biden all seem to congeal when the subject turns foreign policy. Take his dust-up on Sunday with Bill Richardson over Mr. Richardson’s nakedly opportunistic—and entirely too easy, since as a Governor his musings are all theoretical—“plan” to withdraw every single U.S. troop from Iraq by this December. Mr. Richardson, rather than bothering with the pesky details, has sought to score points with his party’s base by staking out what it seemingly the clearest anti-war position among the six credible Democratic candidates.

Given the chance Sunday, Mr. Biden called him out.

“My reaction,” he said when he was asked about the December withdrawal idea, “is that it’s time to start leveling with the American people. This administration hasn’t been doing it for seven years. We should.”

If you began withdrawing forces now, Mr. Biden noted, it would take a minimum of one full year to drawn down completely—with the issue of the safety of civilians left in the green zone still unresolved. He also sketched out his plan for a loosely federated Iraq, with separate regions for Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, one of the themes of his campaign and an idea that, he noted, is gaining some traction in Washington.

In another answer on the same topic, Mr. Biden connected Iraq to the Balkan violence of the 1990s, arguing that the same concept of “separating the parties” had produced peace there. “If it ends with this country splintering, we will have for a generation our grandchildren engaged in a regional war that will be consequential far beyond—far beyond—Iraq,” he said.

There is so much to like about Mr. Biden in moments like this.

Of all of the candidates, he is easily the most respectful of the audience’s intelligence and maturity. He and Mr. Richardson are both steeped in foreign policy and can rightly claim to speak with authority on it, but Mr. Biden refuses to pander by offering a gimmick he knows could never actually work, the way Mr. Richardson does with his December withdrawal plan.

Mr. Biden also doesn’t water down his views on Iraq, even though he has known all along that they put him somewhat at odds with the Democratic base. Instead, he explains—with evident and refreshing passion—how he arrived at his views, assuming a certain level of foreign policy sophistication on the part of the audience. There is an inherent respect for the intellect of his audience—and his skeptics—in Mr. Biden’s presentation, a welcome contrast to the insulting manipulation often evident in Hillary Clinton’s canned evasions.

And when Mr. Biden delivers his message, there is more inflection in his voice than the other candidates’, and he always seems to match the right pace and pitch to the topic at hand. Despite his past verbal slip-ups, he is actually an outstanding television candidate, someone who knows how to show he has blood in his veins without being too hot.

Every debate, it seems, ends up producing an observation from some pundit, strictly as an afterthought, that Mr. Biden was actually the best candidate on stage. And since there’s still no sign that his campaign is catching on after more than a half-dozen high profile debates and forums so far, it’s hard to see how he can get much beyond this footnote status.

It’s a shame, but it looks like the only way Mr. Biden will make history when this campaign is over is as a curiosity: the candidate who won no delegates, but every debate.

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • Stumble Upon
  • Netvibes
  • Windows Live

Comments
Post a comment

Joan Gordon (not verified) says:

If we had public financing of campaigns and every candidate had equal media exposure Joe Biden would win in a landslide. But that's wishful thinking; our political system is built on money. That's why we got stuck with Bush.

Chris (not verified) says:

It is ludicrous. Biden, Dodd and Richardson need to make clear that they're the experienced candidates, and that HRC, besides not having experience, has all the baggage of being tied to the Washington establishment for the last fifteen years.

As for Obama, if people are so reactionary that they choose him solely because he opposed the war in Iraq while a State Senator, what can you say? You get what you deserve. You can't gauge judgment based on a single event.

Politics is a funny thing. In 2004, the man who actually served in combat was effectively portrayed weak on terror. In 2008, at a time of unparalleled challenges in U.S. foreign policy, the candidates with actual, verifiable experience are largely ignored.

Chris (not verified) says:

"Of all of the candidates, he is easily the most respectful of the audience’s intelligence and maturity."

Let us hope that the audience of Democrats is as intelligent and mature as Senator Biden gives them credit. He is everything you say of him in this article, and on top of that, he is the best positioned candidate who would wipe the floor against the Republicans.

Iowa can sometimes surprise people. Lets hope they look past the pandering of Edwards/Richardson/Obama and vote for who could be a true alternative to Sen. Clinton.

At the very least, if Sen. Clinton were to win the nomination, he would make a great VP or Sec. of State, although he would be a much better President than any of these candidates.

Joe Vanderbosch (not verified) says:

It is sad to say, but Senator Biden's chances of winning the nomination are about none now. He is the best candidate for President when it comes to policy, but the worst at raising money.

Hopefully the Clinton Administration will choose him when it comes time to picking a Sec Of State.

Frank Rier (not verified) says:

Biden is too intelligent, knowledgeable, and circumspect to be elected president of this country and the American voters know it. Too bad. He's out.

Eli (not verified) says:

Secretary of Stage Biden? I like the sound of that! I had thought that it was fun to say Secretary of State Bill Clinton...but Biden would be a fantastic choice.

Upstater (not verified) says:

The question we ought to ask is what are these debates all about if the clear winner -- Joe Biden -- doesn't move up in the polls or attract more contributions?

We assume that the debates are about substance, when in fact they are just part of the entertainment industrial complex-- i.e., about deciding which person will win the American presidential idol contest.

Unfortunately, while that person may come across on camera, winning says nothing about whether s/he will make the right decisions for the country. In fact, the opposite is probably the case. To win on camera requires a person who will be a loser on the job.

Steve Campitelli (not verified) says:

It could not be more obvious. Every time we turn on the tube it's staring us right in the face. Corporate America has taken control of nearly every media outlet in the country, turning one-time journalists into little more than sock puppets. The American people have got to stop doing the listening and start doing the talking. We can't have the media picking our next President. The masters have become the servants.

Joe Biden's campaign is really picking up steam. He launched his ad campaign in Iowa and asked supporters to contribute to keep the ads running. The response was breath-taking. Biden will have the money to compete in Iowa and New Hampshire, and his campaign will be able to buy enough electronic real estate to get some respect from the people whose salaries depend on advertising sales: the media.

Karen (not verified) says:

I agree with you totally.....it's such a shame that it all depends on money, isn't it? I still hold out a little hope for Iowa, though. It ain't over till it's over! Keep the faith!

Post a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br> <p> <i> <b> <embed> <img> <blockquote> <span> <strikethrough> <u>
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.