Many reasons, but the guy authored the RAVE act, authoritarian anti free speech legislation that makes throwing a warehouse show a criminal act.

Never.
He is my dead last choice, no matter how smart he is on foreign policy.

-C.

He can be really good in the "attack dog" mode, when he's completely pissed.  I'm not voting for him, but I find him highly entertaining and at least somewhat effective in getting fecal matter to stick to the GOP.

I don't know, I've seen him speak in a classroom and let me tell you, I came away with "Thank God this man has no chance at the presidency."

It disturbs me somewhat that he's even a senator, but I'm not a citizen of his state so that's not something I can effect.

Regional War -- so Biden explain?

Biden is the Democrat singly most responsible for the confirmation of Clarence Thomas.  After Anita Hill testified, it was a "She Said, He Said" problem:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl e/0,9171,974096-1,00.html

The opponents, however, wanted to call another witness who also witnessed Thomas' crude harassment and who would have corroborated Anita Hill's testimony.  Biden, however, as chairman of the judiciary committee, refused to call her, even though then-Congresswoman Barbara Boxer begged him to.

For me, that is enough bad judgment for a lifetime, and that is what we are paying: Thomas on the Court for a lifetime.

I'm probably in a similar category with you in that I'm astonished to watch Biden's performance in the campaign so far and NOT come away with the sense that he's a total douchebag.  And I don't mean that facaetiously, I mean I thought a year ago that Biden was precisely and exactly a large bag of douche; but in the two debates (or one debate and one Forum) that I've seen him in, I left much more impressed with him than I'd solidly expected to be.

That said, I doubt I'd ever be a supporter for him for prez--his record is enough to turn me off of that.  But he's actually doing a decent job pushing the "I'm the only hope for getting Iraq right" meme, or I guess he is b/c I'm biased against that position but nonetheless find it persuasive when he talks about it.  He also seems to speak from a position of real authority on the Darfur issue.

Summation, he's not going to win the nom, but so far he's playing a valuable role having a presence in the debates, but not in an easily-ridiculed fashion as when Kucinich talks about for-profit healthcare (no matter how right he is--and he is right) or when Gravel discusses, um, pretty much anything...

I also agree that it's naive to think of the cabinet positions that these people might occupy some day...tempting, but never gonna happen for lots of reasons.

I saw him last fall at a small event in Des Moines, and he handled questions well.

Iowa City blogger John Deeth wrote up Biden's event there yesterday:

http://jdeeth.blogspot.com/2007/07/biden -time-on-ped-mall.html

Biden harps on Iraq because it's his best issue (he's the only candidate with a DETAILED plan), much like Dean did with Iraq and health care in the early stages of 04, but it's not his ONLY issue. He's great on Darfur, his website features an energy plan, and no matter what you ask him, he knows numbers and details and has a plan - health care, New Orleans, education, etc. And of course, he was the author of the Violence Against Women Act. I've seen him, we've met, I'm hoping to eventually work for his campaign in the fall. He's my guy.

A county the size of California, Baghdad is Iraq's largest city with 7 million residents. Iraq has 15 other major cities, hundreds of smaller cities and towns and thousands of villages with another 20 million people.

We don't have enough troops now in Iraq to bring stability to the country - and never will absent re-instating the draft and sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers, which of course should and will not happen.  

So how will reducing the number of troops in Iraq - but still keeping some stationed in the county - which is what Biden, Obama, Clinton and Edwards advocate - achieve anything other than continued America deaths?

Should we remain in a bloodbath to prevent a greater bloodbath if we leave?  No. Our troops did what they are assigned to do.  Saddam was removed from power, no weapons of mass destruction were found, and free and fair elections were conducted under a new Iraqi constitution.

But now they are faced with an impossible task.  They have become the targets of all sides in a civil war.  It is a war of attrition.  The battlefield is 360 degrees.  There is no front or rear.  As each day passes, more U.S. soldiers die from snipers' bullets, roadside bombs and mortar attacks. Spouses become widows and children are left without a parent.

Almost 3,500 U.S. soldiers have been killed and 25,000 have been wounded, many suffering from traumatic brain injuries that have left them permanently disabled and in need of medical care for the remainder of their lives.

Biden and Clinton were wrong to vote for the war. And they are wrong today to advocate continued deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq.  The scars of this war of choice by President Bush and the members of Congress that supported it will last for generations. The longer we delay the inevitable, the deeper the wounds are inflicted.

The only candidate in my opinion that has a solid plan for Iraq is Richardson, because he'll get the U.S. out completely - total withdrawal - and has the foreign policy experience and expertise to wage the diplomatic offensive that will be necessary to see the region not descend further into war.  

Richardson spoke in D.C. at the Take Back America Conference and set forth an unambiguous approach to Iraq - total withdrawal of U.S. forces combined with a diplomatic offensive:

But there is a fundamental difference in this campaign -- and that's how many troops each of us would leave behind. Other than the customary marine contingent at the embassy, I would leave zero troops. Not a single one. And if the embassy and our embassy personnel aren't safe, then they're all coming home too.

No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we all know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol with targets on their backs.

A regional crisis is worthy of military intervention. A true threat to our country's security is worthy of war. But a struggle between a country's warring factions, where both sides hate the United States, is not worthy of one more lost American life.

. . .

The way we help heal Iraq is to bring all of our troops home within six months. Only then can the hard diplomatic work really begin. That's how we avoid a regional war.

I would leave troops in neighboring countries that want us, like Kuwait, to help keep the peace. But we need to hand over security of Iraq to an all Muslim peacekeeping force.

We would then have a moral responsibility to do everything we can to bring the different factions together in a national reconciliation conference.

We also have a strategic interest in organizing a regional conference with all of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran, to help stabilize Iraq. No one in the region, including Iran, wants an Iraqi civil war ... and no one in the region, especially Iran, wants Iraqi refugees.

Some will tell you that once we leave Iraq, the country will become a hotbed of Al Qaeda activity. That's just not the case. There is an old Arab proverb -- "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Up until now, Al Qaeda was tolerated in Iraq because they were killing Americans.

Once we're gone, the Iraqis will have no further use for Al Qaeda and they will drive them out. We're seeing the beginnings of this already in Sunni attacks on Al Qaeda, but the process will accelerate once we're gone. Too many Iraqis have died at the hands of Al Qaeda and retaliation will be at hand.

Two months ago in North Korea, I was proud to help show how talking to your enemies can produce results, like reducing the North Korean nuclear threat and bringing home the remains of six American servicemen. The situation is similar in the Middle East. This president broke Iraq. The next president has to know how to use diplomacy to fix it.

I will tell you this -- my world view is different from my colleagues. In my career, I've been able to get results, not with harsh words, but hard work. You talk to your adversaries. You listen. You get to know them well if you want them to hear what you're saying. And with understanding comes resolve. And with clarity comes cooperation.

It's how I've approached foreign affairs. It's how I've approached governing. And it's how I'll serve as president of this great country.

More than anything else, we have a moral obligation to those American soldiers and citizens who've laid down their lives overseas.

Some say we cannot let their sacrifice be in vain. But you will never convince me that those slain patriots would have wanted a single additional life to be lost ... just to validate their own sacrifice.

Instead, the moral obligation is to honor their service by bringing their mission to a close. By ending the bloodshed ... and finally letting the Iraqi people and the American people to set a new course.