I think Joe laid out the case for why he won’t run. Even though he just has to “get up” as he said after his son’s death, it was an introspective Joe Biden who knows that his grief is coming in waves that he can’t really control. Very cool though that he had this opportunity to just talk it out so the nation understands why. He’d be a helluva leader, and he has a civility about him that is sorely lacking in the political discourse these days.
Well, then, he’s not getting in. Much as the GOP might like to get the latest Hillary “scandal” to catch fire, you can’t light a fire without oxygen, and there simply isn’t any available now that the Tribble-Scalped Bloviator has sucked it all out of the room.
Biden is a rarity among Presidential candidates, intelligent, good-spirited, and far far more candid and honest than typical for politicians. OP is just desperate and dismal partisan hackery. I don’t think Biden wants to run, but he feels obligated to “warm up in the bullpen” should the starting pitcher fade.
I felt compelled to say this when the thread got bumped and I clicked, only to see I’d already given my views:
Writing “young person my age” obviously I knew Warren’s age. 
I wouldn’t call my post a “Whoosh”, but it did have tongue-in-cheekery.
Another good analysis of that interview. I think there’s general agreement that Colbert handled it very well and that Biden was eloquent and emotional.
What he was really saying about potentially running seems a bit ambiguous and I was probably unduly influenced by the absence of an outright denial, which is the typical answer you get from most politicians. I think in retrospect I’d have to agree that though he hasn’t made a final decision, he’s probably leaning towards “no”. Which I think is really unfortunate.
I think he’s going to run and all of this introspection will lead him to be able to say “Yes, I can give my whole heart and soul to this campaign” and have people believe him.
And I can think of someone just as bad as her or worst , Trump!
If he does choose to run (and I hope he does), any bets on which of the Republican candidates and/or rightwing pundits will take a shot against him as being mentally unfit? (I’m not wagering on whether they will, because that much is an absolute certainty.)
I think it’s no, regrettably. I think his heart wants to get in because that’s what Biden does, and he’s no doubt getting a lot of encouragement from POTUS and others, but he’s tired, really beaten down by this tragedy. But wow, what a measure of a man who has given so much service to his country
Republicans are shit. The whole boatload of them. They allowed the spouting garbage from Trump because they got some airtime, and now they can’t stop it. They like nothing I’ve ever seen have reduced the once noble career of politics to some kind of crap you kick down the street. In that respect I am glad that Joe was ambiguous, because at any moment that shitshow could be driven out by class.
I like Joe Biden as a person, and I hate mandatory minimums.
I think he’d have a hard time in some ways, but I wonder. People said that W was the guy you’d want to have a beer with; I don’t know if that’s true. Biden comes across as the guy who might want to have a beer, or a coke, or a drag race, or a game of darts, whatever, with you. He’s personable to a striking degree. That doesn’t make him a good candidate for president, but it probably does make him more electable than he would be otherwise.
Barack Obama was elected POTUS twice. I know what “crime and welfare” means in US politics, and I don’t think it’s the winner you do.
Oh, OK, it’s not exactly about race. It intersects in that it’s about class, and it’s about fear, but it’s not exactly the same. What do Americans fear now? Street crime or losing their homes and livelihoods?
You were saying?
I don’t think your party is on board with the second and fourth items, and I wouldn’t entirely expect the first and third.
I don’t think “broken windows policing” is as much a partisan issue as all that. Your stance on racial profiling smells like racial essentialism or something. And you’re trying to spin “three strikes” pretty hard, but “three strikes” is still stupid in practice.
If it’s “three violent felonies,” one could easily ask why not two strikes? Or one? Who gets two free murders? If it’s “three felonies including theft,” then you get sad sacks going to prison for life for shoplifting socks.
And of course, if punishments are to fit crimes, even three unprovoked aggravated assaults might not seem to require life in prison. Do you want to provoke jury nullification for sympathetic committers of manslaughter?
Now, I admit the stupidity of a policy is not in itself enough for it to be unpopular. But “three strikes” is baseball language, and I suspect the present electorate grew up more on basketball, and its system of fouls. I think it’s an archaic platform.
No, we are not all concerned about it. This is empty puffery.
Look, right now the fight on “crime” is not even between Dems and Pubs. It’s between a conservative/authoritarian/white/zero-tolerance side and a reform/libertarian/black/rehabilitation side; the former includes a LOT of Democrat careerists, and the latter includes the Rand Paul types.
I’m going to need cites that whatever program you’re talking about exists outside your head and this thread.
Joe decides not to make the run: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politics/joe-biden-not-running-2016-election/index.html