Is anyone listening to Biden

[fedupinBushcountry]

on C-Span 2 ?

[Inuca]

1. I just tuned in a moment ago..

... what's going on, except that he seems to have a bad cold?

[Mass]

2. Selling his partition plan

(says it is not partition).

Still does not say why the Iraqi people should listen to him.

[fedupinBushcountry]

3. Man can you keep track

of what he is saying? He lost me.

[Mass]

4. He is basically saying that the US should decide for the Iraqis

what to do in the future. He also said that Bush said the Iraqis should decide, but he has been meddling too and meddling is good for them and their future.

Biden seems a benevolent neo-con today.

Should not leave before there is stable govt, or we will have to go back to Afghanistan (I did not know we had left).

[fedupinBushcountry]

5. I agree

you can tell he never wore the uniform, he is playing chickenhawk today.

[TayTay]

6. He also filed an amendment to state, unequivocably

that the US does not want any permanent US bases in Iraq. (He quoted KErry's exchange with Condi in the SFRC a few weeks ago in support of his supposition that the US has never denied a desire for permanent bases.)

Biden calls his the 3rd Way.

[Mass]

7. This is good, though this is only a sense of the Senate

that does not engage Bush to anything.

Basically, he says he can meddle better than Bush. Nice philosophy.

Date for pulling out the troops in 2008.

[TayTay]

8. I can't listen to him that long

And he is slamming Kerry's Plan. (Pulling out precipitously is not an option. Pulling out? Oh groan.)

[wisteria]

9. I don't like Biden's plan. And he is not presenting Kerry's plan

correctly. I hope Kerry has an opportunity to discuss Biden's plan- or should I say defend his plan from Biden's misinterpretation.

Personally, I have heard more positive about Kerry's plan than about Biden's. The only good part is the no permanent bases part.

[jenndar]

10. I don't, either.

I don't feel like it's our place to impose ideas like his on the Iraquis, occupation or no. I think it's overstepping.

[karynnj]

11. I wasn't sure if he meant Kerry's plan at that point

I actually have more problem with Feingold filing a plan - because I can't really see much difference from Kerry's. In his case, it seemed more he wanted his name on something. Or maybe he wan't a bill withoutout the deadline and the diplomatic piece, I don't know.

Biden's is very different from Kerry's and places him in the Hillary/ Lieberman/ Bayh(?) part of the party. I don't like the America knows best ascpect of Biden's plan. (We and the British have a bad track record. Kerry's plan allows the Iraqis to choose that alternative - but doesn't insist that is what they have to do.)

I only listened to part of Biden's speech as I missed the beginning and turned it off before it was over because I was really put off by him - and don't know why. Too belicose? Too confusing? Too not Kerry? I don't know.

I still want to know what was said on this at the Senate retreat. There was an interesting thread started by a poster we've had trouble with. However, what she posted were some live blog comments (originally on DKos) from General Clark's comments. The blogger wrote that they wanted to tamp down "the get out now" crowd. The thread ultimately got locked. Biden's comment though echoes that. Kerry obviously was not there, but I assume at least some Democrats (other than just Feingold) agree with him.

[TayTay]

12. There are still a lot of 'security Dems' who don't want to

be known as doves on this. (Tough doves????) Biden is sort of in the middle between the Bushies who won't talk about pulling out at all and the Kerry/Feingold/Murtha faction who do want to get out because they know you can't win a civil war. (It's not going to get any better.)

Biden took the Dayton Accords piece from Kerry and put his name on it. (Plagarism Joe? Say it ain't so.) He basically called Kerry's plan a 'nice idea' but then undercut it by saying that the Iraqis would be left with a murderous situation if we leave and who will protect them and prevent our 'vital interests' from going south. I disagree.

It's interesting though that Kerry also said that, ultimately, Iraq may wind up being partitioned into at least 3 parts. There is some bleed here among the plans and it is good to see Dems talking about this much in common:

Withdrawal (by 2006 or by 2008. Hey, Bush has no withdrawal. Even 2008 is outside his realm of possibility.)
No permanent bases
Drawing back forces out of the hot zones and redeploying troops 'beyond the horizon.'

That is not a bad start. I dearly hope that this doesn't deteriorate into grandstanding for other Sens. (Kerry has staked out a very clear position that is distinct. So has Feingold, though his dates are less fixed. He also doesn't have that 'gravitas' that Kerry does when he talks about the war. Kerry served, Feingold didn't. Fair or unfair, that makes a difference.) I hope that Bayh, Biden, Clinton and others don't start to undercut Dem moves by trying to make themselves the 'hawkish doves' and turning the others into the 'cut and run' soft-on-national-security Dems. That will only hurt the whole party, IMHO.

[karynnj]

13. I think with so many Senators seeing themselves

as the possible President, there will be more plans. Part ego, part just having different ideas.

I don't worry about the use of the summit idea - Kerry's called for it in some form since 2004. His op-ed did get more attention.

My guess is that in reality, Feingold and Kerry will be fighting for the same place - so they will be speaking some of the same ideas. On war, Kerry has a gravitas Feingold doesn't, but he'll argue he voted against the war. So, we're likely going to again have the same annoying distortion - though Feingold actually voted and Dean didn't. The real question will be where the lines get drawn - Feingold (and people want to add Gore) is on one extreme and (Clinton, Biden, Bayh, Warner) Kerry fits in the middle. I really don't know where to put Edwards because he's a chamlion.

For Feingold, Kerry's op-ed and his speech spread Kerry's support into Feingold's territory. This is happening at a key time for Feingold - he needs to show he can raise money. It doesn't help when Kerry has an inspiring brilliant speech. It's not just gravitas, Feingold doesn't have Kerry charmisma or sparkle.

[ProSense]

14. Calling for withdrawal is great.

The Democrats need to rally behind Kerry's plan because it makes the most sense.
Feingold's plan includes a December 31st, 2006, date, but it leaves everything up to Bush, including how many troops remain beyond that date.