Joe Biden for President?

[Mark L]

Mirroring a similar thread on the Republican candidate ...

The Democrats rejected Biden as a candidate for President in 1988 and 2008, yet he's found his way to the #2 spot on the ticket. A win puts him a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. What do you all think of his qualifications for the top job in the event something were to happen to Obama?

 

[arnisador]

Isn't it true that most candidates were also-rans previously? I think Joe Biden is even better qualified on paper for the day-to-day tasks of the presidency. The strength of Sen. Obama is his charismatic way of bringing people together and on-point--and that is an exceptionally important skill for a president (the "bully pulpit").

 

[Mark L]

I have no data to either support or refute your question about prior candidacies, though I can't recall a single VP candidate that had run (twice) for the top job.

Biden's never been an executive, so I don't know why you think he's better suited to the day-to-day stuff. Care to elaborate?

As to Obama and the bully pulpit, can we please focus on opinions of Biden in this thread?

 

[Steve]

I think his long tenure in the Senate and that he has a well documented record for voting in accord to his stated position on the issues speak well for him. He's articulate and intelligent, although he has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth by saying more than he should. He's the chair for the foreign relations committee and has a lot of experience.

Honestly, I'm not sure what all of this "no executive experience" thing is about. Personally, my opinion is that it's ridiculous to argue that Palin has as much experience as Obama, just as it's ridiculous to argue that Obama has as much experience as either McCain or Biden. This "executive" experience hairsplitting is classic resume building doublespeak.

I'm not a democrat, but have always liked Joe Biden. In 1988, he was a front runner early on until he was tossed under the bus with the bogus plagiarism charges.

In 2008, he had neither the support nor the positioning to make a strong run. Obama and Clinton were clearly the two to beat. Politics is as much about timing as anything else, and I don't think that being "rejected... as a candidate for President in 1988 and 2008" is as telling as you make it sound.

 

[Mark L]

Politics is as much about timing as anything else, and I don't think that being "rejected... as a candidate for President in 1988 and 2008" is as telling as you make it sound.

I'm not trying to make it sound telling. Substitute "met with less success than hoped for" for "rejected" if you wish. Jeez ...

I like the guy, too. I supported him in his first run (I was an independent), but have moved towards a more conservative stance over the past 20 years.

Executive experience, or lack of it, isn't a deal breaker for me. Everything else being equal (I know it is not and never will be), that experience would be a plus.

 

[Big Don]

Isn't it true that most candidates were also-rans previously? I think Joe Biden is even better qualified on paper for the day-to-day tasks of the presidency. The strength of Sen. Obama is his charismatic way of bringing people together and on-point--and that is an exceptionally important skill for a president (the "bully pulpit").

Just off the top of my head:
Bill Clinton hadn't, nor had George W Bush. George H.W. Bush ran against Reagan in 80 and became his VP, and then the 41st President. Nixon famously ran against JFK, lost(the first TV loss) and became the 37th President. Reagan lost the nomination in 76 to Ford, before slaughtering Carter electorally in 80. Earlier than that, I'd have to look up, although, I don't believe FDR ran unsuccessfully before winning.