What about Biden?

I'm so glad a New York Times blogger came out and said what I have been thinking, and in reference to a candidate I really like. Today's piece on Joe Biden points out the disparity between Biden's viability as a Democratic presidential candidate and his low poll numbers. Why don't more people support him? I have been saying recently that much of what I hear from my peers -- mostly college students -- is how jaded they are with politics, how all the front-runners are phonies playing the political game, and how it just makes them want to stay home on election day. Well, I ask, if they are so dissatisfied with the front-runners, then why not look at the other candidates, many of whom are often honest and experienced, like Biden? But they only respond with more jadedness: Oh, he's never going to win. Well yes, if everyone like you has that attitude, which Matt Bai does a better job of describing:

Ten years of endless blather about the game of politics on cable TV have trained the most engaged American voters to handicap candidates rather than hear them, to pontificate about who might win rather than deciding whom they actually want to win. Voters seem to approach politics increasingly as pundits, and they look to poll numbers to tell them who’s electable and who isn’t, never stopping to realize that they are the ones who get to decide.

As someone who likes Biden, I enjoyed reading most of the comments below the blog, many of which offer heartwarming and genuine support for him. But as someone who also doesn't like Bush and is wondering why Biden isn't doing better, I especially enjoyed this one:

Only a serious nation takes serious candidates seriously. Any nation that could elect someone so obviously mediocre in intellectual ability and then reelect him, after nearly four years of even more obvious failings and outright deceptions, can no longer be considered a serious nation.

The GOP hates puppies

Well, I already knew that, but stories have been surfacing lately that offer some proof. Perhaps most damning, because it is the direct actions of a candidate, is an anecdote in a Boston Globe article about Mitt Romney strapping the family dog to the top of his car for a road trip. A story in Newsweek about Mike Huckabee's son getting kicked out of camp for killing a stray dog is damning not because Huckabee hurts animals but because he perhaps abuses his powerful positions. Huckabee claims his son, David, killed the dog to put it out of its misery, but we'll never know because the incident was never fully investigated. And there are allegations that this is because the former Arkansas governor used his office to block anyone from looking into it. Of course, the Huckabee campaign denies this charge.

And then there is this scoop from the New York Post that claims Judith Giuliani, wife of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, worked for a company that used dogs for testing purposes and then killed them.

And as if John McCain hasn't had a good enough day with endorsements from Joe Lieberman, The Des Moines Register, The Boston Globe and The Portsmouth (NH) Herald, he gets another boost in this New Yorks Times blog about the GOP and puppies. Apparently McCain, who is to me the only tolerable Republican candidate, is a puppy saver. And perhaps this is why McCain is the only Republican to receive the endorsement of someone who is (formerly) in the Democratic party, which so far has a spotless reputation when it comes to man's best friend.

Comeback for McCain?

Joe Lieberman, the Democratic candidate for vice president in 2000, is endorsing Republican John McCain for president this year. At first I thought it was a little too early for this endorsement as part of McCain's strategy to win over independents (with whom Lieberman has a good reputation and history) because it would alienate the conservative GOP base needed to win a primary nomination. But after reading further down in this piece on politico.com, I realized it might be a good plan, especially since now is a good time as any for the crumbling McCain campaign.

And now for my two favorite humor pieces of the week. Today's Maureen Dowd column is both a hilarious look at what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama might really be thinking and perhaps a fantasy on the part of the author that last week's Des Moines Register debates weren't sinfully boring. And then there is the Shouts & Murmurs section of this week's issue of The New Yorker, which is the traditional humor section of the magazine. Although I would recommend this "Rudy Giuliani quiz" to any of my friends, I didn't find it particularly funny. Just scary. I liked Giuliani until I read this profile of him, and the one-page quiz again turned me off from this cheating, lying, sneaky and corruption-laden political phony.

Is this news?

The New York Times had a story today about Republicans' disappointment with the field of candidates in their party running for president. The article is based on a new poll, but did it really deserve the most prominent spot on The Times' Web site? Everyone has been talking about this aspect of the race since it started. I want to see some real news when I go to the site.

But speaking of dissatisfaction with the Republican field, a piece in The New Republic is a small profile/comment on Rudy Giuliani that paints him, in my opinion, very unflatteringly. Its focus is how Giuliani is funny-ing up his rhetoric on the campaign trail, becoming somewhat of a comedian giving a routine at times, as he is trying to soften his reputation as harsh and temperamental. But I think the article manages to portray him as a little bit of a phony, and I found this just plain not funny:

Last month, he spoofed liberals who want to ban the use of torture: "They talk about sleep deprivation," Giuliani told an Iowa audience. "On that theory, I'm getting tortured running for president of the United States."

Maybe I am sensitive about the torture issue, but I really don't think in any case it's the place to make jokes. I'm really sick of the torture debate -- because it shouldn't even be a debate -- and now Giuliani, who is surely an extremely privileged and pampered person, is making a joke comparing himself to people in captivity. I don't get it.

Republicans can't buy California

The LA Times reported Friday that a proposed California ballot initiative to split the state's electoral votes based on district failed to raise enough money to appear before voters in June 2008. If passed then, the initiative would be in affect by the 2008 presidential election, thus possibly giving an Ohio-sized chunk of California's 55 electoral votes to the Republican candidate. Naturally, the initiative was opposed by Democrats and supported by Republicans, who, if they could have raised enough for the initiative's campaign and gotten it passed, would have essentially been able to directly purchase enough additional electoral votes to push their candidate over the edge.

I first learned about the initiative with the rest of the nation, when one of my favorite authors, Hendrik Hertzberg, wrote this Talk of the Town in The New Yorker with a call to action at the end encouraging California voters to reject the measure. Afterward, people all over the country were talking about it, and, according to this piece in The New Republic, the author of the initiative, Tom Hiltachk, received too much hate mail and too little money to keep it alive. A Sacramento consultant named Dave Gilliard then tried to take it up, but he didn't come near raising the $2 million needed to collect the 434,000 required signatures.

Although the LA Times piece points out there is still slight hope for the initiative, it seems highly unlikely it will impact the 2008 presidential election. The Republicans just couldn't seem to catch a break on this one, and I hope that theme continues through election day.