CNN focus group rejects Biden

[karynnj]

24. I like Biden - in spite of knowing that he was never among the most liberal in DC

Biden became a Senator in 1972. From 1972 to 1980, we had probably the most liberal Senate in our lifetime. This included 10 liberal Senators, including people like Birch Bayh (who was the person most behind title 9) and George McGovern, who was the one most behind food stamps who lost in 1980. Biden was not then among the most liberal in that time frame.

He was terrible leading the Anita Hill hearings in the GHWB years. He blocked witnesses with similar accusations to Hill's that would have lent hers credibility. There were Democrats who spoke against that -- including a very junior John Kerry, who was not on the Judiciary committee.

You faulted that I compared him to Obama in the years when they were both in the Senate. That was intentional as it is the only period where a fair comparison is possible. For those years, the various groups that "score" records placed Obama in the left half of the Democratic and Biden in the right half. Scoring Senate records is an art more than a science and depends on which litmus test votes they select. (Among the worst ideas is to favor any vote that was cast by the majority of the Democrats as there times when it was clear that the "liberal" vote was the other way.) However, there was NO time in Biden's long tenure in the Senate, that he would have been considered in the liberal half.

However, there are issues where Biden was liberal. On most economic issues - other than notably Bankruptcy - he voted for helping those in need. It on these issues where his personal history of being one of the poorest Senators - coming from Scranton PA - that he has a real resonance and where he is an articulate voice.

However, it is NOT necessarily a plus to be "more liberal" or "most liberal". The questions should be where is he now on various issues that are important to you (and each of us) and whether his positions ring true looking at his past. He will need to explain his own growth and evolving views on several issues. His terrible handling of Anita Hill is balanced by his being the lead sponsor on the violence against women act - for which he followed up with an international version that was not passed. He voted for DOMA, but was a voice for gay marriage within the Obama administration.

I would suggest that having the ability to reevaluate positions and change them is not a negative, but a positive IF changes happen in a way that can be explained and which ring true - rather than appearing to be just reflecting the way the wind is blowing. These two issues differ to some degree. On gay rights, they reflect that he, like most of his generation, became more accepting. On violence against women, he has likely always felt the same and it may reflect his time as a prosecutor. The Thomas hearings might better be seen as an aberration where it may have been a reluctance to be seen attacking a black nominee.

In addition, it might come down to people's perception of him as a good, honest person, who has shown himself to be willing to fight for people who need advocates. If people accept that and agree that the agenda he sets in his campaign is one that will make the country better, he is someone who is easy to support.