Biden says he'll run for president in 2008

[AR182]

i liked biden until he started calling bush & rumsfeld names....that might hurt him.

WASHINGTON -

Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden said Sunday he intends to run for president in 2008, two decades after he dropped out of the race amid charges he plagiarized a British politician's speech.

"My intention now is to seek the nomination," Biden, of Delaware, said on CBS television's "Face the Nation." He said he would explore his support and decide by the end of this year -- a sign the race may get off to an early and competitive start.

"If in fact I think I have a clear shot at winning the nomination, by this November or December, then I'm going to seek the nomination," he said.

Biden is the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of President Bush's Iraq policy.

He previously indicated his interest in the 2008 race with a December 2004 comment he would proceed as if he were running, but he said then he would take two years to decide.

Biden would face potential challengers including New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former U.S. first lady who has led early polling on the Democratic side.

Other possible Democratic contenders include Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the nominee defeated by Bush in 2004, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Kerry's running mate.

Biden campaigned for the 1988 Democratic nomination but withdrew early in the race after charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock and exaggerated his academic record.

The Republican field may also be crowded in 2008, with Bush barred from running and Vice President Dick Cheney saying he does not intend to run, thus leaving no incumbent with a head start.

 

[Master Capper]

He has as much of a chance as Beantown Jim does.

 

[Iowa Child]

Biden is a raving lunatic, just like most democrats.

 

[kosar]

Biden is a raving lunatic, just like most democrats.

lol- IC, it would be just splendid if you kept your enlightened, intelligent posts at the other gambling boards cesspool of a political forum.

 

[Iowa Child]

I will post wherever I want until banned, left wing nutjob.

 

[kosar]

Good to know. We anxiously await your well-thought opinions, similar to your post above.

 

[RAYMOND]

I will post wherever I want until banned, left wing nutjob.

:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

 

[kosar]

You wanna piece of me, Ray?

 

[Iowa Child]

Oh, big tough liberal wackjob, aren't you Kosar? FYI, it's not a political forum across the street, it's called a war room. Get a clue.

 

[kosar]

Oh, big tough liberal wackjob, aren't you Kosar? FYI, it's not a political forum across the street, it's called a war room. Get a clue.

Ray's a good friend of mine, clueless wonder.

Whatever the room is called across the street, most of the topics are political. It's a place where your 62 IQ shines.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I certanly wouldn't classify Matt as left wing liberal--maybe a tad left of center but not much.Opinionated yes as most of us--but nothing wrong with that. In my view it would be difficult for business owner who served in military to be extreme left unless they were politicians with something to gain.

 

[gardenweasel]

no need to throw a hissy gents....

biden`s a moot point as long as hillary draws breath.....

and this new book that came out.....which is full of outrageous slander....will benefit her greatly......

the book is such a hatchet job that i actually feel like defending her....lol

biden isn`t as bad as some....he`s usually an independent thinker....but,the dems. are desperate right now....and even the level headed in their group,are smelling blood in the water with the social security plan nosediving and all the media hammering the terrorist "torture" stories into eternity(which is a non-starter and hurtful to our military and the fight against the terrorists)....

still,i give the dems. credit...they stick together...they close ranks....even if they differ with their more radical brethren...

the republicans,on the other hand,are clueless and are stepping all over one another in their quest for power(see mccain,hagel and voinovich).....which will backfire eventually.....


how`s this for a wacky prediction...if the gang of 14 continues to ban together on upcoming issues, how far fetched is it to think that maybe they would consider starting a third party in 2008?....

farfetched?....probably....impossible?.....i don`t think so...

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Well Well I finally found something that Hilliary and Biden have had to make a stance on because it requires vote from them.
Both agree burning U.S. flag is ok---

(AP) - A constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning cleared the House Wednesday but faced an uphill battle in the Senate. An informal survey by The Associated Press suggested the measure doesn't have enough Senate votes to pass.

The 286-130 outcome was never in doubt in the House, which had passed the measure or one like it five times in recent years. The amendment's supporters expressed optimism that a Republican gain of four seats in last November's election could produce the two-thirds approval needed in the Senate as well after four failed attempts since 1989.

But an AP survey Wednesday found 35 senators on record as opposing the amendment - one more than the number needed to defeat it if all 100 senators vote, barring a change in position.

Late Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., revealed that she would vote against the measure. "I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," Clinton, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, said in a statement.

Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., remained undecided, a spokesman said.

The House debate fell along familiar lines over whether the amendment strengthened the Constitution or ran afoul of its free-speech protections.

Supporters said there was more public support than ever because of emotions following the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. They said detractors are out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

Critics accused the amendment's supporters of exploiting the attacks to trample the right to free speech.

"If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents." said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center.

The last time the Senate voted on the amendment the tally was 63 in favor and 37 against, four votes short of the two-thirds majority needed.

Now, with more than two dozen new members, a four-seat Republican gain in the last election and a public still stung by the terrorist attacks in 2001, activists on both sides say the Senate could be within a vote or two of passage.

But the amendment's prospects faded late Wednesday when Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell of Washington and Mark Pryor of Arkansas revealed that they would oppose it.

Possible presidential contenders who have supported the amendment in the past include Evan Bayh, D-Ind., Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., a likely presidential candidate, has said he would oppose the amendment.

The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved by two-thirds of those present in each chamber, then ratified within seven years by at least 38 state legislatures.

 

[Pujo21]

doesn't hillary have some labia that she would rather lap than run for president??

 

[kosar]

doesn't hillary have some labia that she would rather lap than run for president??

These are the fun types of comments that we'll be incessantly treated with in a few years.

Saw Dick Morris' column in the paper today. Of course, he's the guy who was a Bill Clinton advisor for years, up until 5 or 6 years ago when he decided to make a living as a syndicated columnist and writes columns that bash one or both of the Clintons about 90% of the time.

He cited a very recent fox poll that showed that 52% of americans have a favorable impression of Hillary and 37% unfavorable. If only W could muster those numbers.

Morris blamed republicans like Gingrich and Frist who allow themselves to 'be seen' with Hillary. Funny shit.

Just keep underestimating her, people.

 

[Marco]

How much money is the government going to waste worrying about whether or not a flag is on fire?

Be practical about this issue.....there is nothing a burning flag is going to do about destroying democracy in this nation or nothing posing a threat other than what the burning flag is laying on or around that can catch fire. The nation was founded on freedom, and the ability to speak out, that includes flagburning, however dispicable some of you feel about it, the flag is not some sacred entity due special regard. Just one of the rights granted the people in a true democracy.

Is it too much to ask the neopatriots to give up these wasted ventures like whether a flag is on fire or a prayer is said in school, and concentrate on REAL problem issues this country is facing, like health care, social security, education and the national debt?

A flag is nothing more than a marker, give it the fvck up already.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Maybe if you served in military or were one of those that hoisted it at Iwo Jima (spl) you'd understand--those that have given for their country see it much diif than those that only take for granted what those that did allow them to do.

The flag is a symbol of this country--the easier solution if you hate it that bad --leave--and its just not the flag--its pledge of allegiance--national anthem ect.

Takes a bit more courage to lay your life on the line than to burn a flag--

 

[Marco]

You guys that idolize the flag and elevate it to the point where no one can speak bad about it or burn it are forgetting that a flag doesn't give you freedom.

Other countries have flags but they don't enjoy the same freedoms we do because they don't have a constitution, that provides rules of conduct for the government and it's people.....

The guys who fought on Iwo Jima fought courageously and one can appreciate them fighting to maintain our freedom and way of life, but that freedom and way of life is contained in the constitution, not the flag.

Be practical about this issue instead of treating the flag like some of these Muslims who react when a Koran gets placed in stale air and a riot ensues.....the constitution is the trump card for the US democracy, not the flag.

The right to speak out against the government is contained in a true democracy, if a person burns a flag he is merely employing his right to free speech....the country is not going to topple overnight because a piece of cloth is on fire, and it doesn't make the flagburner the next antiChrist.

 

[smurphy]

Well said, Marco! :clap: