On XM satellite radio's POTUS station, I just heard a couple of minutes of a Joe Biden speech in Winston-Salem.

Mostly, it sounded fine, and more like a Democrat than a typical Obama speech does.

But then, in criticizing trickle-down economics, he tossed out a trope that struck me as odd:

I'm not making a populist argument.

As if one should be relieved to hear that.

Turns out, this is a theme he's fond of.

From the Congressional Record in 2004:

I respectfully suggest that if, in fact, we do this to set a precedent that engages more people in the outcome of this war on terror--I am not making a populist argument--the group that is in the top 1 percent will get, out of the total tax cut of $1.8 trillion, $88.9 billion.

Again, I am not making a populist argument....

Were I in my 27-year-old populist mode, I would say it is greed. But I have learned a lot in my 32 years here.

And from his primary run, in November of last year:

Biden said his primary rivals and the Democratic Party in general have learned nothing from "the whipping we took the last two times" in presidential elections.

"I am, quote, liberal as it relates to social issues," he said. "But you've never heard me make a populist argument about the rich and the poor," a key aspect of the Edwards-Clinton-Obama [sic] approach. "I don't believe it, number one, and I don't think it's how you win.

"Rich folks are as patriotic as poor folks, but we (Democrats) don't talk that way," he said.

I guess that's why I'm not in politics. In fifty-one years, I haven't learned that it's supposed to be about something other than people, and that it's not supposed to look out for the not-so-well-connected in particular.

I'm not knocking rich people per se. I've had money and have not had money, and I don't think I've been a different person in either case.

But the rich have long enjoyed a politics that the rest of America has not, and it should be no shame for Democrats to represent the interests of the have-nots. In fact, it used to be a source of pride.