Well, Obama discussed troops in Pakistan -- surely in terms of "expanding the war" that equals voting to call Iran a terrorist state.

Bai complains that voters are handicapping instead of concerning themselves with discerning which of the candidates would make the best President.  He rejects the argument that the media is to blame - that the paucity and dismissive nature of coverage of Biden and other candidates that unfairly stacked the deck in favor of the front-runners.  But then he admits that - as he puts it -

"Biden is less a victim of the media itself than of the distinct political culture that we in the media have wrought."  In essence, he says the problem is that voters have been influenced by the horse-race mentality of pundits and political reporters.

The real issue is that citizenship as a vocation is in decline.  People are poorly informed and have been manipulated into hard right and hard left positions.  They listen to FOX, or MSNBC, and accept their place in a polarized USA, where the only important thing is that your side wins, not any specific policy issue.  The stakes are so high, and handicapping is so much easier than real understanding of the issues and positions.

Political coverage ought to inform us about more than who might win and why.  It ought to serve our needs as citizens, playing our most important role as voters.  

Count me among those who think TNR and other leading journals dropped the ball on Biden.

Lymon1 -

I think Obama said he would pursue the perpetrators of 9-11 wherever they were hiding - even in the mountains of Pakistan, if he had actionable inteligence about their whereabouts. This caused a gigantic stir from everyone from Hillary to Bush to the Media. Then everyone said "Whoops!" and realized that this was the bipartisan status quo and calmed down. Much like the "I won't drop nukes on individual terrorists" statement by Obama....

RE: the Iran resolution...

Honestly, that resolution doesn't do anything. It doesn't escalate anything and it doesn't give Bush any power.

What it does do, however, is signal to primary voters that Hillary will still try to walk a hawkish foreign policy tightrope and try to balance the urge to pursue reasonable foreign policy with the urge to pander to conservatives. Most of the time, it's harmless to walk that tightrope (as is the case with the Iran resolution). Sometimes, when you walk that tightrope, you end up authorizing a tragedy (Iraq). That's the problem people have with Hillary.

RE: Biden

THIS is the guy who I trust with foreign policy. I have great hopes for Obama, but he has no experience and will have to learn on the job. Hillary has many years of posturing as a hawk, but very little experience herself. Biden is the guy who has worked in the trenches. I hope he's a large part of the next administration, whether it is Democratic or Republican.

God, the woman is dead! And all you think about are the effects of her death in the race? The woman is dead, for God sake. Could you show some respect, at least in the hours following?

Luis- though I don't shed many tears for her, I think asking how it affects the race rather than, say, Pakistan, is a sign of intense parochialism.

repost from another thread-- 2 thoughts:

1) the fact that Pakistan post-9/11 did not meltdown was a small miracle-- kudos to Armitage and Powell, maybe also Bush, for keeping Pakistan from becoming Taliban South, aka the front line in the War on Terror. We've been incredibly lucky thus far.

2) of course this helps Biden in Iowa. What's the median age of the IA caucusgoer? 50? 55? No way that most of these older-wiser-more sober folks will still go for charisma, fresh faces etc instead of the steadiest and wisest hand around.

TNR, it's not too late.... Ryan, Jason, whoever: batter up

National Review Online already has several articles on Bhutto- Some are even well written!  Come on TNR!

I don't shed tears for her either, although feel some shock for the murder of a woman in her fifties that at least had a lot of guts and that could perform an important role in her country.

And here on The Plank, I'm used to the self-centered parochialism (a childish and bovine parochialism, kind of horse-better fascinated with the "horses" and their moves, that would never contribute for the "horses" to be more than "horses", making them feel important when they are nothing more than "horses").

The problem here is the lack of what the French call "pudeur" (I don't know if "shame" would be the correct English translation). In a group of friends joking around such a lack could be understandable. But these guys actually get paid to publish supposedly well thought things in a supposedly serious site on politics (also international politics, and we are dealing with a highly sensitive, possibly explosive situation in Pakistan...).

I'm with Neil.  instead of trying to edify the voters by focusing on substantive candidates like Biden, they degrade the process by turning into a beauty contest.  I read, on the other BIden piece here, that the mdia are impressed by a candidate's ability to raise funds.  Why is that?  Maybe they get bonuses for steering ad money from rich campaigns to their networks.

An example of media arrogance is Zengerle's snide reference to Biden's "boast" of speaking to Musharraf before Bush.  Considering the kind of president we have -- that the Chinese president's state visit to the U.S. was not with Bush but with Bill Gates -- Biden's "boast" is just a fact of life.

As for Pakistan, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a cultural, not a political phenomenon.  It's clear that Pakistan's is a society ruled by murder, corruption, anti-Americanism, bloodyminded Islamism and nuclear banditry.  It's time to end our farcical alliance with this failed state.  Give the Indians a free hand.  They obviously know them better than we do.

Biden's statement -- from his web site:

BIDEN Issues Statement on the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

Published: 12/27/2007

Washington, DC – Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) issued the following statement today after the assassination of Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto:

"This is a terrible day.  My heart goes out to Benazir Bhutto’s family, friends and followers.  

"Like her father before her, Benazir Bhutto worked her whole life – and gave her life – to help Pakistan become a democratic, secular and modern Muslim country.  She was a woman of extraordinary courage who returned to Pakistan in the face of death threats and even after an assassination attempt the day of her return, she did not flinch.  It was a privilege to know her these many years and to call her a friend.

"I am convinced Ms. Bhutto would have won free and fair elections next week.  The fact that she was by far Pakistan’s most popular leader underscores the fact that there is a vast, moderate majority in Pakistan that must have a clear voice in the system.  Her assassination makes it all the more urgent that Pakistan return to a democratic path.

"This fall, I twice urged President Musharraf to provide better security for Ms. Bhutto and other political leaders – I wrote him before her return and after the first assassination attempt in October.  The failure to protect Ms. Bhutto raises a lot of hard questions for the government and security services that must be answered.

"I know that Benazir’s followers will be tempted to lash out in anger and violence.  I urge them to remain calm – and not play into the hands of the forces of destruction.  I urge Pakistan’s leaders to open a fully accountable and transparent investigation.  We must find out who was behind this and bring those responsible to justice.  And the United States should offer any assistance necessary, including investigative teams, to get to the bottom of this horror.

"The way to honor Benazir Bhutto is to uphold the values for which she gave her life: democracy, moderation and social justice.  I join with the Pakistani people in mourning the loss of a dear friend.”

I urge everyone to re-watch the first half hour of the Oct. 30th Philadelphia debate (MSNBC, YouTube). To recap:

Russert: Iran Iran Iran

Clinton/Obama/Edwards: Iran Iran, Republican guard, terrorists, nukes, WWIII

Biden: "...this has incredible consequences for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nobody talks about this...we have now driven underground every moderate in Pakistan and Afghanistan...this literally puts Karzai as well as Musharraf in jeopardy...the Pakistanis have hundreds, thousands of kilograms of highly enriched uranium...what is the greatest threat to the United States of America? 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium in Tehran, or an out of control Pakistan? It's not close."

Following this, in short order: Musharraf declares martial law, the NIE reveals the Iranian threat to be overhyped, and Mrs. Bhutto is assassinated.

Do you want a President who understands the world beyond our boundaries, who might even anticipate some of the currents of history, or do you want someone who can repeat what they hear on the evening news?

Another way to say it, frb63, is that the Big Three answered the question in front of them and Biden did what he always does -- bloviated from atop a soapbox to show off how smart and well-informed he was.  The man is a talker, and Americans tend to elect doers to the executive branch.

It doesn't take a media conspiracy to make Joe Biden unappealing as a candidate.  He gives the impression that if he were mayor and you called him to get a pothole filled, he'd spend thirty minutes lecturing you on the history of urban infrastructure.  Which may be fine, important, and even fascinating at times, but also demonstrative of the oft-heard complaint that "legislators have never run anything but their mouths."  Biden is almost a parody of a Senator in that regard.

austinexpat: Biden addressed an important point, noting that Iran isn't the only issue. What's your problem with that...or with examining issues in depth?

austinexpat, I understand your negative take. Yes, Biden can be a talker, a gaffe machine, a cornball raconteur, a carnival barker, all those things. I've actually come to find the mannerisms endearing, and suspect that if you called him on it, he'd laugh right along with you. But in between the "ladies and gentlemen" and "my sainted grandmother's", I'd still rather have my candidate give me ten serious insights in 30 minutes instead of repeating the watercooler consensus in a soundbite, then having nothing left to say on the subject.

Anyway, talker vs. doer is really a false dichotomy here, especially when applied to the experience-challenged Big Three. I say Biden gets that pothole filled, AND you learn a little something about potholes.

Just one more point - showing how smart and well-informed you are is kind of what debates (and campaigns) are for. Beats the alternative, no?

Yeah, what Biden was showing is that he actually understands the world, and not in talking points.  Thouigh, LISAH, this part of the statement:

"Like her father before her, Benazir Bhutto worked her whole life – and gave her life – to help Pakistan become a democratic, secular and modern Muslim country"

...is absurd.  Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was many things, but democratic he was not, whether in the country or within his party.  He was probably the most talented politician that clusterfuck of a country has ever seen, but he was not a democrat.  And if Benazir was, it was only late in life.  I personally think she gave her life to the greater glory of Benazir Bhutto.  She also helped enhance the Taliban and the Islamists, the one thing she had in common with the main enemy of her family, the obscene Zia al-Huk.

I think the Bhuttos are fascinating, intriguing, glamorous, and her complex vis a vis her father is understandable.  But I think Biden (whom I love, don't get me wrong) is way off there.

agreed, boneill, on all you say re the Bhuttos...but it's the kind of boilerplate expected when a prominent person dies...and did you see the statements from other candidates...?

No, you are right Lisa.  I felt a little bad after I posted, commenting on the mote in Biden's eye while ignoring the beams in the other candidates (take that Bible reference, Huckabee!).  But I really don't like the Bhutto's, and I hate how her overwhelming ego is helping to cause hundreds of deaths.   So I went off.    

LISAH & frb: I don't have a problem with that character trait at all, and possess it to no small degree myself.  But it doesn't make people like you, and that's a major handicap in a presidential election, one which knowledge and acumen do not compensate for.

Biden would be a fair president (a better Cabinet member, I think) but he simply cannot be elected, because the traits selected for in an election are not knowledge and acumen, and that's all he has to offer.  If we really considered knowledge and acumen a sine-qua-non in our president we wouldn't have an election, we'd have an essay contest.  I'm pretty confident Biden would win that hands down.

So rather than pretending that all that stands in the way of Joe Biden's assumption of his rightful place as president is a lack of exposure/a media conspiracy, let's admit to ourselves that there are two things standing in his way: the voters, and Joe Biden.

austinexpat: I get your last point, but don't really agree in terms of electability...Clinton and Obma each have too many negatives. Biden has fewer, and he's been showing he can run an effective campaign. Dems need to appeal to independents and moderates -- and Biden clearly does... And as I've said before (ad nauseam, I admit), I don't want to re-live the '90s if Clinton gets the nomination, and just wait and see what'll happen if she gets elected. Am also concerned about some of what I'm reading about Obama's ties in Chicago..can't tell yet re accuracy, but just the fact that this stuff is out there gives the Rove machine stuff to use...

Of course, Biden's cast all those votes over his decades in the Senate can be misused as well. But he's truly competent, has the fewest negatives, and would make the best president among the candidates...

LISAH, we will have to agree to disagree that Biden's campaign has been effective.  After months of stumping and half a dozen debates, he's still polling in the low single digits nationally, and the first test is a week away.  Even the best he can reasonably hope for -- a distant fourth-place finish in Iowa -- is not likely to reverse his fortunes.

However compelling you (and, of course, a plurality of TalkBackers) may find Biden, he's in the second tier because that's where he belongs.  He has failed the tests that actually matter in a contest of this kind.  If you like, you can echo G.B. Shaw and affirm that we don't deserve to be governed by the likes of Joe Biden.

Boneill, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, "less corrupt" is about as good as one can hope for.  Benazir Bhutto was in exile to escape corruption charges back home.  But as bad as she was by our standards -- the saga of the whole Bhutto clan is Shakespearian -- her re-election would have been a step in the right direction.  

As for Joe's panegyric, of course he knows the Bhuttos perfectly well; as Lisah says, it's boilerplate.  Frankly, I don't care how undemocratic Musharraf is; now that Benazir is gone, it's him or chaos (chaos also being a relative term, applied to Pakistan).