Whole show (43 minutes, also includes interesting segment on coal w/ head of Duke Power)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=496...

Edited Biden segment they aired (13:36)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=496...

Small segments, some of which overlap with the 13 minutes one, some were left out (these aren't in order, just order I found them on the CBS site).

Obama-Biden relationship
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=496... (1:18)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=496... (1:48)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=496... (1:19)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=496... (1:15)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=496... (1:03)

Chavez handshake (1:22)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=496...

Unemployment (1:22)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=496...

Stimulus package (2:12)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=496...

Afghanistan exit strategy (1:53)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=496...

The Pakistan problem (2:20)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=496...

Great interview with Jill Biden (2:02)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=496...

Stick in a zip code and it brings up a bunch of contacts:
http://action.ucsusa.org/site/PageServer?p...

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/25...

At least one was just posted...

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=475... - 11 minutes

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/th...

Now that Barack Obama has announced his running mate, reporters will be scrambling to cover every aspect of Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.)--his politics, his personal life, what he adds to the Democrats' presidential ticket and what aspects could make him a liability for the party. At the Center for Responsive Politics, we've strung together our own observations about Biden's campaign fundraising and personal finances:

* Biden, who became a senator in 1972, has raised a total $27.4 million since the 1990 election cycle. Just 1 percent of that has come from political action committees, which is nearly in line with Obama's decision not to accept any money from PACs for his presidential campaign as way to curb the influence of special-interest money in politics. Biden also received very little from PACs (just two percent of his total) for his presidential bid this election cycle, slightly higher than the 1 percent average for all presidential candidates (PACs are far more interested in congressional races and play a minimal role in presidential elections).

* The industries that have given the most to Biden during his career include lawyers/law firms ($6.6 million), real estate ($1.3 million) and retirees ($1 million). Biden is among the top 10 members of Congress to receive money from lawyers and law firms since the 1990 election cycle and among the top 20 to collect contributions from the real estate industry. His largest contributor over time has been credit card giant MBNA Corp. ($214,100), which, despite being acquired by Bank of America a few years ago, remains atop the list of Biden's major contributors. As an industry, finance and credit companies have contributed nearly $300,000 to Biden in his career, making them his 12th most generous industry. Obama has vowed to target credit card companies as president, setting up a five-star rating system so consumers know the risk involved with various credit cards and establishing a bill of rights so consumers aren't exploited by unfair practices.

* Incidentally, one of Biden's top donors, law firm Baron & Budd, was in the news recently because its founder, trial lawyer Fred Baron, acknowledged paying for former presidential candidate John Edwards's mistress to re-locate. Baron & Budd employees have given Biden $108,100 during his career. A number of other plaintiff firms are among Biden's top contributors.

* Biden has not spent any of his own money on his campaigns--but then again, it doesn't seem that he really has the personal finances to do so anyway, at least not compared to other members of Congress. In 2006, Biden was among the poorest members of Congress. He may have been in debt by as much as $302,980 or worth as little as $278,000 (in their annual personal financial disclosures, lawmakers report the value of their assets in ranges). In 2007, his finances didn't get any better. Last year he could have been in debt by as much as $320,980 or worth as little as $215,900. At the very least, this reduces the chance that his assets will pose significant conflicts of interest (or the appearance of conflict).

* Obama has been outspoken about contributions from lobbyists, vowing not to accept any contributions from them. Biden doesn't seem to have quite the same view. The lobbying industry has given him $344,400 since 1989, making lobbyists his 10th largest contributing industry. This election cycle he's received $43,000 more than the average $81,700 that lobbyists have given senators. One of Biden's top 20 most generous contributors over time, in fact, is lobbying firm Blank Rome LLP, whose employees have given him $68,200.

* The oil and gas industry has also come under fire this election cycle, with gas prices reaching a record high and consumers putting pressure on Congress to pass energy legislation and deliver relief. Biden blasted President Bush's plan to open the coasts to offshore drilling, which would have a direct impact on Biden's constituents in Delaware. Biden has collected a total of about $80,000 since 1997 from oil and gas companies, far less than Obama's $470,800, despite being in the Senate 32 years longer (the presidential race boosted Obama's funds from all industries).

* As the Senate Foreign Relations committee chairman, Biden adds foreign policy experience to the ticket, which critics have said Obama lacks. Biden is a favorite of pro-Israel PACs and donors, receiving $410,700 over his career from them. By August of 2007, Biden had been to Iraq seven times since the war started and has a son who is scheduled to be deployed there this year. When Obama visited for the first time this year, he brought with him one of Biden's top advisers. Most recently, Biden was invited by Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili to assess the situation after the country was invaded by Russia. Since 2005, private interests have paid a total of $43,100 for Biden and his staffers to take trips around the world. These groups have paid for the senator and aides to travel to Thailand, Belgium, Germany and Serbia for workshops and fact-finding. Biden's most expensive sponsored trip cost $10,800, billed to ABC News for an appearance on the news program "This Week."

* Biden's leadership PAC, "Unite Our States," has raised $2.4 million over the last two election cycles and given away 9 percent of that to other candidates--a low figure that often indicates the money is instead helping to "test the waters" for higher offices. This year he's given eight House candidates $1,000 each and seven Senate candidates $5,000, including Virginia Senate candidate Mark Warner, whom Obama picked to deliver the keynote address at the party's national convention next week.

* Although Delaware has voted Democratic in recent elections (and so Obama wouldn't increase his chances to pick up a purple or red state with Biden at his side), Biden could help Obama win over Delaware donors. Before Biden stepped out of the presidential race, he had raised $1 million from Delaware residents, which is well more than the $259,000 Obama has managed to collect from the state. Delaware is ranked 39th in contributions among all states to all presidential candidates. These residents don't seem to need too much encouragement to donate to Democratic candidates this election cycle, though--in the 2004 presidential election, a mere 35 percent of their contributions went to Democratic candidates and committees, while so far this cycle they've given 59 percent of their total $4.5 million to Democrats.


edit - should have pasted author and date
Published by Lindsay Renick Mayer on August 23, 2008 3:00 AM

Topic was primarily the GOP's missile defense shield plans, and arms control treaties. Biden argued terrorism was a bigger threat, including anthrax and chemical weapons.

audio link and summary available at

http://www.npr.org/programs/npc/2001/01091...

(by the way, the date in the link and my subject is correct (2001); typed summary is incorrect, I remember hearing this on the date)

A few of my favorites from this summer. Apologies for the frequency of Lindsay Graham.

Senator Joe Biden CNN's American Morning July 16, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK0hW7VqGkg

Senator Joe Biden NBC Today Show July 16, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tbZZPi0_Fw

Meet the Press June 22, 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25...

http://biden.senate.gov/press/multimedia/v...

http://biden.senate.gov/press/multimedia/v...


This is who you want to be your debate coach and attack dog

As the Bush-Cheney administration ties up loose ends and proves its anti-terror skills to the American people....

anthrax...check
Iran...workin' on it
I'm sure you can add others...

Where do you think Osama bin Laden is?

I imagine this is more a signal to Iraq than to BushCo, who do whatever they want regardless, though I hope the purse strings would be called into play.

Biden/Hagel/Casey/Voinovich/Webb Introduce Bill on Iraq Security Agreements

Press Release

http://biden.senate.gov/press/press_releas...

August 1, 2008

Washington, DC – Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) and Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Bob Casey (D-PA), George Voinovich (R-OH) and Jim Webb (D-VA) today introduced legislation which prohibits the Bush Administration from entering into a binding security agreement without the approval of Congress.

“With less than six months left in his term, the President is on a course to commit the United States to guarantee Iraq’s security far into the future,” said Senator Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “This legislation makes clear that the President cannot do that without Congressional approval. Rather than engaging in these negotiations – which by the Administration’s admission will ‘set the broad parameters’ of the U.S.-Iraq relationship – the President should secure a short-term agreement, through the UN, or with Iraq, to provide the necessary legal protection for U.S. forces after the current UN mandate expires at the end of the year.”

(snip ~quotes from Hagel, Casey, Webb)

The Administration is negotiating two agreements with Iraq – a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) – pursuant to the “Declaration of Principles” signed by President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki last November. The Declaration called for the conclusion of the agreements by yesterday, July 31, 2008, which would cover a broad range of topics, including political, economic and security issues. In the security sphere, the Declaration proposed to commit the United States to “supporting the Republic of Iraq in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats” and to provide “security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and the integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.”

The Administration has asserted that neither the SFA nor the SOFA will contain a binding security commitment. One of the agreements, however, will likely contain a lesser security promise – described as a security arrangement – that involves a pledge to consult on appropriate steps if Iraq is threatened or attacked. With over 100,000 troops in Iraq, and an expansive program to train and equip Iraqi security forces, the government and people of Iraq are likely to perceive such a promise as a security guarantee.

“The notion that Iraq’s leaders plan to submit the agreement to their Parliament – but our President does not – makes no sense,” Senator Biden added. “The President cannot make such a sweeping commitment on his own authority. Congress must grant approval first.”

Bill itself

http://biden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Iraq...

Some video to go along with this topic:

Ambassador Crocker looking like a kid in the principal's office when Biden got pissed off about the administration's dismissal of the role of Congress in plans for Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

Senator Clinton asked very good questions about this too (4 minutes into http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC_fQXalZk4 ) - though I'm curious about her reference to her own legislation in the clip and what happened to it)

All this back and forth about the surge and awakening reminds me of the most straightforward assessment of the surge I've heard - from William Odom in April 2008, shortly before he passed away. Maybe this is good fuel for those of you who are writing LTTE, responses to nutty emails, etc.

Odom is no liberal nut - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Eldri...

Here is his plainly-written but insightful written testimony
http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2008/O...

for this hearing
http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2008/hr...

Some excerpts (emphasis mine)

"Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight.

Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq."


"As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran."


"Thus the decline in violence reflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men who distrust the government and occasionally fight among themselves. Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses.

This can hardly be called greater military stability, much less progress toward political consolidation, and to call it fragility that needs more time to become success is to ignore its implications."


"The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq. And progress toward that goal requires revising our policy toward Iran. If the president merely renounced his threat of regime change by force, that could prompt Iran to lessen its support to Taliban groups in Afghanistan. Iran detests the Taliban and supports them only because they will kill more Americans in Afghanistan as retaliation in event of a US attack on Iran. Iran’s policy toward Iraq would also have to change radically as we withdraw. It cannot want instability there. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, and they know that Persians look down on them. Cooperation between them has its limits.

No quick reconciliation between the US and Iran is likely, but US steps to make Iran feel more secure make it far more conceivable than a policy calculated to increase its insecurity. The president’s policy has reinforced Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons, the very thing he purports to be trying to prevent.

Withdrawal from Iraq does not mean withdrawal from the region. It must include a realignment and reassertion of US forces and diplomacy that give us a better chance to achieve our aim.

A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let try again me explain why they don’t make sense..."

 
I put it in roughly chronological order. Language is still complicated.

Phil and Wendy Gramm are married.

1988-1992 = George H.W. Bush admin & time when Enron growing

Ken Lay, head of Enron, wants to make money speculating on electricity futures

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) under Bush adminstration, headed by Wendy Gramm, leaves Enron alone to do this, makes it CFTC policy to leave Enron alone.

After Clinton's election in 1992, Wendy Gramm joins the board of Enron

1996: John McCain and Ken Lay helped Phil Gramm's presidential campaign

2000 (during Gore/Bush election chaos), Phil Gramm helped pass the "Enron loophole", which deregulated multiple energy markets (electricity, propane, heating oil, natural gas, gasoline, crude oil, etc.)

Enron speculation disrupts California energy markets.

Enron implodes.

2002 Phil Gramm joins UBS, a company which bought some of Enron's leftover business.

2002-2003 McCain voted with Democrats' unsuccessful attempts to close the Enron loophole.

2006 Republican congressional report recommends closing the Enron loophole.

since 2006, McCain has been advised on economics by Phil Gramm, while Gramm was also lobbying the Senate to keep the loophole, as have others on the McCain campaign.

2008 recent Senate testimony says that closing the regulatory loophole will immediately help energy prices, and is also necessary to prevent corporations from cornering markets on alternative energy. At present, groups of corporations holding reserves for speculation outweigh the power of our own strategic reserves.

2008 recent farm bill passage included language to close the loophole. McCain voted against it, but says it was not due to the closing of the loophole, but due to excessive cost.

I'll try to kick this tomorrow too before it starts.

usually a live feed here:
http://foreign.senate.gov/index.html

later archived with hearing summary and written statements here:
http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2008/hr...

OIL, OLIGARCHS, AND OPPORTUNITY: ENERGY FROM CENTRAL ASIA TO EUROPE

Thursday, June 12, 2008
Time: 2:30 P.M.
Presiding: Senator Biden


Witnesses:

Panel 1:
Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski
Counselor and Trustee
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Washington, DC

Panel 2:
Dr. Leon Fuerth
Research Professor
The Elliot School of International Affairs
The George Washington University
Washington, DC

Ms. Zeyno Baran
Director,
Center for Eurasian Policy
Hudson Institute
Washington, DC

Mr. Roman Kupchinsky
Partner
AZEast Group
Mahwah, New Jersey