The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

I'm disappointed that Joe is dropping out.

When you say 2% support, it's not accurate. Joe may have had up to 14% in each precinct and not been viable - who knows? I think its a pity for the so-called second tier candidates that its not a primary first. The caucus system works against them. There is no hope for a candidate that the media chooses to ignore.

Joe's experience, leadership, knowledge, track record have all been left untouched by the media, leaving us with candidates offering vacuous one-word policy statements such as "change", "lead", "hope"

Iowans have spoken - it's just a pity they didn't have access to the full story.

www.IrishForJoe.org

For all those people out there trashing Biden over Clarence Thomas - here is some thing to chew on.

Without Biden's stewardship Robert Bork would have been a SC justice - Biden's critical questioning to Bork on his views about couples who opt for contraception made Bork look silly - and enforced the view that Bork had little or no respect of the notion of right to privacy.

There will not be a better candidate than Joe Biden - no body seems to even know of the intense personal tragedy that Biden has recovered from (he lost his wife and child in an accident early on in his career) to become one of the best minds on US foreign policy. Biden never has pandered to the crowd that oohs and aahs about a persons life.

Compare this with Obama - even people who wont vote for him know his Kenyan ancestry, potsmoking, community service etc etc. Obama made sure that his story would be known to the public even before he ran for US Senate !! He was preparing to be Prez from Day One !

Its a shame that Biden isnt in the race any more. But considering the fact that his leadership is going to be required this year with respect to the Iraqi problem, its better off that he does serious work while Obama keeps bloviating about how he will bring in change.

Senator Dodd said, "I am not going anywhere." You are correct, sir!

How many times did Joe Biden need to correct or explain our policies and the realities to the other candidates? While everyone says, they want change it is change from Bush/Cheney that we need, but that is just the beginning. Change without experience is not going to help the US. How can our arcane, out-dated, and hugely expensive process of choosing a president ever get us people that know what it takes to successfully run this country? I strongly believe the media has played a big part in this and the mess the US is in as do many members of the media who exploit their power -- and it is wrong. It was wrong when they didn't question the Iraq war, it is wrong when they keep us focused on only the candidates they are interested in, and it is wrong that in times like these that we don't have a Joe Biden - who could beat a McCain or a Giuliani - headed towards the White House. What a mess this once proud country has become.

I agree about Biden and Clarence Thomas. He huffed and puffed and voted to confirm him anyway.

It seemed like nothing more a big show because in the end he didn't have the backbone to say no. And, now we're stuck with Clarence Thomas, who is battling with Alito, Roberts and Scalia for the title of most-narrowminded jacka$$ on the Supreme Court. (But, Alito get my vote. No, maybe Scalia. Oh, they are all so equally reprehensible that it's hard to pick the worst.)

Really, in Clarence Thomas we have a black man who goes out of his way to prove he's an Uncle Tom.

Thanks Joe!

@original_cindy: First of all, freedom of the press is explicitly covered in the first amendment, so there would be no legal, let alone feasible, way to change how the media covers the race. Second of all, I don't think any of us realistically want the government deciding how much media coverage is given to each candidate. Plus, by your rules, the media would still be restricting their coverage to a limited group of people (why not third-party candidates? why not every tom, dick and harry who happens to be running for president?).

@ZyskandarAJaimot: Thank you for your thoughtful and eloquent remarks. You have a gift, truly.

I am happy to have experienced my first Iowa Caucus last night. My family and I recently moved to Iowa and were excited by all the political activity that has taken place in the past year. We have been inundated with TV spots, mail and so-called news stories about the 'Big 3' candidates. Even NPR stopped mentioning any candidates other than Clinton, Obama and Edwards about 6 months ago. I caucused for Dennis Kucinich, a candidate with experience and the only health care plan that can actually change the system we have now. As Dodd and Biden experienced, Kucinich has been largely ignored by the media. Although Kucinich had more votes in our caucus than Dodd or Richardson (Obama was 3rd in our caucus behind Clinton and Edwards), all supporters of the media-named 'second-tier' candidates formed an uncommitted group so that our candidates' ideas and policies could be part of the platform and so we could have a delegate. There was not a storm of people to Obama or Edwards. Clinton had such a large majority, they didn't need to try and pull other votes her way.

If the media continues to be responsible for the candidates that our nation is allowed to choose, are we still a democracy? I think the media should give each candidate equal time. Every candidate is doing something every day - an equal story on all candidates would help people learn the differences in each. When do we officially call our country what it truly is - a corporation.

What a surprise eh??? DEMBHOLE SENATURD CHRIS DODD - son of a thieving/lying DEMBHOLE SENATURD craps out!!! And DEMBHOLE SENATURD JOE BIDEN who wasn't 'smart' enough even with his 'hair implants' didn't know which side DELAWARE was on in 'THE WAR OF THE SOUTHERN STATES REBELLION' dropped out!!! WHAT A LOSS FOR THE NATION - OH MY!!! Ha!!! TWO DEMBHOLE IDJITS STILL SENATURDS IN THE CONGRESS. YUCK.

These are good men but the withdrawals wil have no more impact than would the withdrawal of Duncan Hunter or Alan Keyes (yes, he is running) would on the GOP side. Sorry to see Iowa caucuses carry such weight, since such a relatively small number of people participated. Interestingly, Iowans fighting in Iraq, in a war that was at the center of many of the debates leading up to the caucuses, could not participate since they could not be physically present.

With regards to Iowa knocking out Dodd and Biden, that is a complete misreading of the results. Both of those candidates were nowhere in the national polls and their only chance was a good showing in one of the early states. Do you think if either of them had 20% support in New Hampshire or South Carolina, they'd be gone? On the Democratic side, Obama clearly gets a bump, Clinton a bruise but nothing fatal, and Edwards benefited from his concentration on Iowa. Richardson will keep going and see if he can get anything from the Western states with many Latino voters.

The clear examples of candidates with national followings continuing on are McCain and Guiliani. Iowa has significance, but don't read too much into it.

BB

I hope to see Biden and Dodd continue their distinguished c arrears in the Senate. If Democrats can put together a strong majority in the senate I hope one of them is made majority leader. They are both fine people.

I don't think any of us were under any illusions that Biden and Dodd were realistic candidates. Both of them make great senators - but a great senator does not always make a great president. I think that their time and effort are better served in that arena than in running long-shot presidential campaigns.

As to those who ballyhoo about "the media" controlling the election: first of all, if it weren't for the media most people would have no idea who many of these candidates were, what their platforms were, what their records were, and how they were doing in the polls. Secondly, the media follows the candidates who get the most attention, and have the highest numbers, because it is those candidates who the majority of the public wants to hear about. This is not a bias; it's just a logical decision. It's a candidate's responsibility to get their message out. If they're being ignored by the media, it's because they aren't making an impact - and, for better or for worse, Huckabee is a perfect example of how a politician at one point ignored by the media can turn this around. Finally, It's rather preposterous to blame the media for something when you are a registered member of the Washington Post website (yes, they are part of the media too).

"Dodd... posted a worse showing, registering just .02 percent of Democratic support."

This is just misleading. "Support" clearly implies something different than "delegates won." He won .02 percent of delegates, but a much higher percentage (relative to .02 anyway) started in his camp and were forced to support someone else when he didn't meet the 15% threshold. Kucinich didn't win any delegates, but would it make sense to say "Kucinich had no Democratic support"? Obviously, at least one caucus-goer was a Kucinich voter. At lot of people are just starting to pay attention today, and if you are unfamiliar with how the caucus works, you would probably think this meant only one out of every 5000 Democrats "voted" for Dodd. It is also inaccurate to say Biden "netted only about 2 percent of delegates, about half what recent polls had predicted." Polls predicted the number of supporters candidates would have going in, but it would be impossible to accurately predict the number of delegates based on this. If anything, I would predict a candidate at 4% percent in the polls would come out with a lower proportion of delegates because he usually wouldn't make the threshold. There is no evidence suggesting that Biden underperformed his poll numbers because the number of delegates awarded is not proportional to the candidate's actual level of support.

And of course, the Iowa Democratic Party is to blame as well, because even though they know each candidate's vote total, they refuse to release it, so we have no way of knowing each candidate's actual level of support. They know that if they did release it, and it turned out that, for example, Clinton had more votes than Edwards but Edwards won more delegates, people would realize how stupid their system is. If they want to be first in the nation, they should at least be democratic about it and let everyone's vote count.

The media didn't select Obama. The voters of Iowa did.

I like both Biden and Dodd a lot. I would love to see Biden as VP to Obama. But they do not represent symbolically the change Americans want following twenty years of Bush/Clinton partisanship.

Obama brings a fresh face and fresh voice to the public. He may be green, but he has proper judgement and conviction to do the right things on behalf of the American people. And I'm sure he is wise enough to know he will need some help with his cabinet to get the work done.

Experience isn't everything. People are just sick of the Washington insiders.

And it is not fair to say the media handed the victory to Obama. Mike Huckabee recieved little attention until he started to rise in the polls. Why? The populist right rejected the establishment candidates inside the GOP.

Obama's rise should be considered the same -- a rejection of the status quo.

We may be taking a risk, but I feel it is time to make bold steps toward change. And we will still, as a party, have Dodd and Biden and their statemenship!

It's all good!

If we can get a democratic president we are all probably much better off keeping people like Dodd and Biden in our Senate - Hillary too for that matter. I just hope Richardson gets the VP nod or goes into the Senate too. Once elected, people in the White House lose their real political effectiveness. Keeping a strong liberal congress will help this country more than anything.

Look for Secretary of State Biden and Secretary of Treasury Dodd in an Obama cabinent

I agree that the media has far too much influence in annointing the finalists for president in these elections. However, there is plenty of blame to go around. The voters must be active in reading and learning about the candidates, rather than wait to be fed soundbytes.

It sickens me to know the media is choosing my candidates. Every time I have turned on CNN or other news sources lately, they have been discussing the views of the front-runners - as if the others were dead and gone. Well, they were - but it was the media who killed them. Just as the media made it possible for Bush to win in 2004. This is madness, but how do we end it?

The closer I looked at Dodd, the better I liked him.

He's the only candidate I had confidence in to pull back the rug on the cesspool we call the Bush Administration once he got in office. I really appreciate the bold stand Dodd has taken against Harry Reid and retroactive immunity. Reid thinks it was a campaign gimmick, which says a lot about Reid in my opinion.

I'm saddened to see Bidden fair so poorly. His knowledge of foreign affairs and speaking skills are without equal. I'm glad that he will continue to serve his country well in the senate. I will also miss Dodd's messages about reform in the financial sectors. They both added important perspectives to the debate. I do hope that neither seek the vice-presidency because their work is far too valuable in the senate. On another note, I'm glad that Obama beat out Clinton who is just too centrist and tied to the corporate lobbies and too jingoistic.

Many followers of Biden and Dodd did not even get their feet wet before they were denied a right to vote in a Caucus process. They quickly (literally in minutes) shifted their posture - and most went to Obama.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/04/where-will-biden-and-dodd-supporters-go/

Dodd and Biden point out the outstanding choices Democrats have.In an ideal world, the campaigns would be publicly financed.Too bad that money plays such a big part.These men make me proud to be an American. Godspeed Gentlemen!

The problem is that the media has a such a large influence on this election. The cameras were only focused around the three front-runners and never on Biden, Richardson, and Dodd. Voters only got to know who the frontrunners are. Whats sad about it is, these candidates are more than qualified to be president.

If ever there is a reason to abandon the Iowa caucus system, this is it. The results would have us believe that there are only 3 qualified Democratic candidates. In fact, we've lost two (and most likely three) of the most talented and qualified candidates in favor of those whom the press anointed early on and before 99+% of Democrats have a chance to register their views.

We are already on our way to another choice between the lesser of two evils rather than a choice between highly qualified candidates.

So much for "one person, one vote!

Given that Biden backed down in the Judiciary and we now have Clarence Thomas, I don't believe Biden would stand up to all the right -wing forces that could ally against him as the Democratic candidate. Kudos to Dodd, however, for standing but against the FISA bill. sorry to see him go.

I can never forgive Joe Biden for leaving Anita Hill hanging in the wind when Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter were feeding her to the wolves.

These guys should have gone back to Washington months ago and gotten back to the work their states elected them to do.

These are two good Senators that would make good presidents. Both have decades of experience, and a record of working with Democrats and Republicans. Both have fantastic knowledge of international affairs - unlike Bush, who obviously knew nothing about the world when he came to office, for which we're all paying a high price (and who promised a bi-partisan administration which promptly became one of the most bitterly partisan in years). Both Dodd and Biden are right that they have nothing to be ashamed of about their campaigns. I think both will likely be on the short list for VP, regardless of who is nominated by the Democrats. The same goes for Richardson, who adds a governorship and two cabinet posts to his congressional and international experience.

I like Joe Biden with his stated policies and Washington savy. I'd hoped he would get a convincing vote and be in contention.

The work horses don't always get the oats. In Iowa, the show horses got the vote.

Democrats in Iowa have a lot of soul searching to do. They just threw out the two most thoughful, experienced candidates in the race in Dodd and Biden. Tell me again how Obama, Clinton, or Edwards are more qualified then these two?

Chris Dodd must continue his fight -- with Harry Reid!! -- to preserve civil liberties and hold telecoms accountable for their spying on American citizens. That's likely a fulltime job, so it's best Chris Dodd head back to Washington.

Hope Biden will join him now, as he promised many months ago, now that Joe's no longer distracted by his quest for the presidency.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.