Dude, we had to have hit post within a second of each other.
Yeah; you're closer to the site's server, so you won.
Well, I guess now the contest is who has the longer comment thread, peewee.
Well, the first one to be both bright AND clean AND articulate AND a nice-looking guy AND mainstream. Would you like to see the Venn diagram I've been working on?
Hey, did you see that Ogged posted about this same quote?
Seriously, though, let's say Biden meant "clean" as "not corrupt." Which of his criteria do Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Deval Patrick, Harold Ford, or JC Watts fail? I guess you could say that Rice isn't a guy, but still. WTF, Joe?
Are you going to let the Mexican achieve victory?
He needs the self-esteem boost. I have all my kidneys.
From the same Biden who plagiarized Neil Kinnock in 1986, what more could you possibly expect?
I will be a happy man if you decide to keep Swampcracker as your handle.
10: I have to admit that Ogged's post is funnier. Fucking intellectual integrity. Sorry, Apo.
But you get lots of credit for being earnest and articulate.
Also, feminists can't discern humor.
Of course they can't. Neither post is funny.
Biden is pretty clueless about a lot of things. I don't think he gets how much his support of the bankruptcy bill alienated a lot of Democratic primary voters. Biden's support was totally unambiguous. He was basically the floor manager. He was downright nasty to Elizabeth Warren. It's not just people who read blogs either. There are, of course, a lot of people who don't know about that or even about the bankruptcy bill either; but there are plenty of middle-of-the-road people who feel that he betrayed core democratic principles, which, of course, he did.
I think apostropher wins this round of pwnage because he included this completely stoned-sounding quote from Biden: "I mean, that's a storybook, man." Yeah, man, the American people have been jonesing for a hep brother in the White House, man.
Just looked at the timestamps, and the two posts registered 15 seconds apart.
No, it's the hep brothers who are the problem. We've been hoping for something nice, clean, shiny, and black that makes soothing noises. Kind of like a black i-pod loaded up with classical music, or something.
We've been hoping for something nice, clean, shiny, and black that makes soothing noises
...ever since Luther Vandross died.
Why are people commenting on ogged's thread instead of yours? I thought in cases of ambiguity the protocol was to let the people decide.
14.
Consider it done. Nah. "When you have them in your mouth" is the funnier line (and more deserving).
Why are people commenting on ogged's thread instead of yours?
Affirmative action.
What gets you more affirmative action points: being Iranian-American or having only 1 kidney because of cancer?
This post has the better title, so I'm commenting here. The other post is dead to me.
This post has the better title
This is SO WRONG. If the apostropher hadn't butted in, "Justice, Minister" would have been followed by "Articulate, Again" nicely tying the blog together.
Since you included the part calling Obama a "one-term guy," I'll comment on your post, Apo. And that comment is simply: why is it that everyone talks about Obama as if he were a high school freshman? Yeah, he's only been in the Senate four years. But he was a state congressman for seven years. And he was president of the Harvard Law Review before that, after which he taught Constitutional law at U of Chicago Law School. Good god, people, the man's not new to this. That he taught the fucking CONSTITUTION to law students is what makes him presidential material, to my mind.
Yeah, Biden's an idiot for calling him "clean" and "articulate," as if these were remarkable. But it's the little jabs like "one term" that catch on with people who will ignore (rightfully) the obviously stupid and racist part of his message.
Hey, doesn't Instapundit teach Constitutional Law?
Wrenae and I will not support Instapundit's presidential candidacy until he spends a certain amount of time as a community organizer, state legislator, and federal legislator.
Yeah, what Ned said. Besides, I hear Instapundit is filthy. And he mumbles.
Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations, Dave.
Well, yes. It's difficult to talk about Instapundit without bigotry of some sort.
As for the part where Biden says "I don't recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic," well, so much for that.
I've been thinking about that. Is a year from the beginning of withdrawal to the final exit a reasonable time, too long, too short? I find I have no idea at all how long to allot for that.
42: Yeah, I'm not sure either. I don't know enough about the concrete details of tactics and logistics to do more than guess.
I'd guess that a year seems reasonable given that the plan apparently hopes to retain "political leverage" and sustain training of Iraqi troops, and that it would presumably take some time and figuring to make sure the redeployment process doesn't leave the remaining troops in-theatre fatally exposed. (And I also kind of think there's some coded language in there for hanging on to the network of "enduring bases," so that's a bit dodgy. But at least it's a step in the right direction.)
"Really? The very first one ever? "
This seems to be a classic case of pulling a quote out of context. The context makes perfectly clear and specific that he was speaking of -- and only of -- "the other Democrats who are running for President."
It's poor wording, but treating it as if the context doesn't exist is not, it seems to me, justifiable.
I've read the context and I'm surely not seeing how it helps. He's the first African-American who's running for President who is articulate and bright and clean.... compared to the other Democratic candidates? That doesn't make sense.
I'm not particularly looking to defend Biden here, or in general; I don't believe for a moment that his current Presidential run will do the least bit better than his past attempts, and while I think he sometimes has something worthwhile to say, he just as often does not. "Articulate" is not, in fact, a word I would apply to Joe Biden, though he certainly does talk a lot.
But I don't see the full quote is particulately significant, or worth kicking the shit out of (fun as that always is); it's mostly just clumsy. Yes, having a bright, credible, impressive, attractive, person with dark skin in the race makes people look up and notice Obama. Obama is, in fact, highly articulate for a politician. Most Senators and Representatives are blowhards, or their appeal is highly regional (George Allen, say), or they're simply not great public speakers (neither Kerry nor Hillary Clinton particularly are; anyone outside of Powerline going to call either President George Bush "articulate"?).
That's all Biden was trying to say, so far as I can tell, and it's pretty much all he did say, in context (thus rendering all the complaints about how he was insulting Shirley Chisholm, or Jesse Jackson, or Barbara Jordan, or whomever, pointless save to suggest that those commenters didn't actually read the original article before activating their Outrage Generators).
The deservingly-admired, and eminent, Apostropher, seems to have not actually read the original piece (or at least didn't read it very clearly) when he posts and asks "The very first one ever?" when it's perfectly clear that the topic is "the other Democrats who are [currently] running for President." In which case, yes, Obama is the very first one ever, in this race.
Mostly I just hate it when people write indignant stuff without reading the context of the source of their indignation to see if their intermediator offered a correct characterization. Everyone's time gets wasted, and misinformation gets spread. Feh.
By law I must now mention that it has snowed, heavily, non-stop, all day. And last night. And yesterday. And the day before yesterday. And the.... It's been snowing for six weeks now, with only brief pauses, during which the snow never leaves the ground (having the nights all be in single-digit temperatures, Fahrenheit, helps).
I merely need to say that I do believe that the snow has made its point, and might consider moving on for a time. That is all.
If all he was doing was comparing Obama to the other current candidates, then there's no reason he needed to bring race into it. Since he did, it's fair game to point out that doing so is significant.
"If all he was doing was comparing Obama to the other current candidates,"
I can't tell from this phrasing: are you arguing that there's any question about this?
"...then there's no reason he needed to bring race into it. Since he did, it's fair game to point out that doing so is significant."
It's certainly fair to assert that it's significant. It's not at all clear to me that it is "significant." What, then, is the alleged significance? That any and all mention of a candidate's ethnicity is ipso facto evidence of racism?
When Rudy Giuliani ran for Mayor, how the "Italian vote" would play for him was a topic of normal discussion; when he ran against David Dinkins, that Dinkins was "black" and the city's first "black" mayor, was a topic of unending discussion, both legitimate and racist. But it would have been impossible to discuss the race accurately without legitimately being able to comment on the fact that Giuliani was considered "white" and Dinkins "black."
Similarly, when Harold Washington ran for, and won, the Mayoralty of Chicago, that he was a "black" candidate was absolutely basic to the race, and to discussion of it.
Etc., etc., etc. The standard put forth presumably isn't that any and all mention of a candidate's perceived ethnic ties/ancestry/culture are universally verboten and default racist and unacceptable. Presumably it's a matter of distinguishing legitimate discussion of such factors when they're relevant, from racist insuinuation, crypto-racist attacks/implications, and so on.
So, sure, it's perfectly legitimate to look at Biden's comments and ask where they lay on that spectrum.
But to me it's not immediately clear that they're on the racist side. I don't see a good case having been made in either of the two threads here, so far, at least, I'm afraid.
Obama is perceived by many or most as "black" (or "part-black," which gets us into issues of "blackness" and "whiteness" I don't care to engage in here and now).
Without getting into any more digressions than necessary about such concepts being socially constructed, how society should treat "racial" identification these days, the "single-drop" theory, that some have issues with Obama as not a "real" African-American, and on and on, it seems reasonable nonetheless to note that his perception as a non-"white" American is a significant --- though how large/small and in what way, I wouldn't know how to measure -- part of his public image, and his appeal. Am I either wrong about that, or is making this suggestion inherently racist?
If not, what evidence is there that Biden was saying or thinking anything more?
Gary: "can't tell from this phrasing: are you arguing that there's any question about this?"
I am. It makes no sense to me in context and you're the first person I've encountered to read it that way.
I'm with Katherine on this -- I can't make sense of 'first' if he's being compared to the other candidates now in the race.
"I am. It makes no sense to me in context and you're the first person I've encountered to read it that way."
The premise of the article is plain in the first line: "Senator Joseph Biden doesn't think highly of the Iraq policies of some of the other Democrats who are running for President."
The article elaborates. The next three sentences are about the leading Democratic candidates: Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.
I simply don't see how this is remotely arguable. The article continues: "On a recent weekday afternoon, he was discussing his rivals over a bowl of tomato soup in the corner of a diner in Delaware, about a 15-minute drive from his Senate office."
This is what he was doing. There's not even any visible ambiguity whatever. He was discussing his rivals.
[...] The subject he prefers to talk about these days--particularly when contrasting himself with his prospective Presidential rivals--is Iraq.And he continues contrasting himself with his prospective Presidential rivals. First Hillary. Then Obama. And concluding with Edwards.
There's no confusion that I can see here. The article announces at the start that it's Biden on his Democratic presidential rivals, the information is repeated again and again, and all that happens in the article is that Biden discusses (attacks) his Democrataic presidential rivals.
I mean, Katherine, or LB, or anyone: if I haven't just accurately described what's plain in the article, what would you say the article is about? What other reading is even possible?
this has in fact been talked into the ground--Biden is not going anywhere is a candidate, we've seen once again that Obama's political pitch is as good as Biden's is poor--but I think you're reading is extremely strained and makes no sense of "that's a story book, man". Yes, he's talking about his presidential rivals, but saying that Obama being the first clean, articulate, etc. African-American in the 2008 race is a story book makes no sense. You're obviously convinced and I know better than to think I'll convince you otherwise, but it's a bizarre interpretation to me.
There's the article as a whole, and there's the sentence. In the sentence, Biden describes Obama as: " first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". There's no way I can figure out to read that 'first' other than as contrast with prior African Americans (presumably presidential candidates).
In what sense could Obama possibly be the 'first' as contrasted with Clinton, Biden, and the rest? They're all running now.
Gary, on this issue I believe the world is mad and you are sane. Or vice versa. 52 and 53 have it right, IMO. And I don't believe it's possible to find any reading of "clean" in context that makes it anything other than a profoundly bizarre choice of words.
"There's no way I can figure out to read that 'first' other than as contrast with prior African Americans (presumably presidential candidates)."
And that's a point that I think is fairly debatable. I agree that it's possible to take the "first" as some sort of, unconscious or whatever, slap at Jesse Jackson or others -- but it seems to me possible only in a fairly "yeah, kinda, just barely, maybe" sort of way. My own initial reaction, not having heard tape of it, is that it just sounds a bit stumblemouthed, as people normally are in conversation -- and Joe Biden is particularly inarticulate much of the time -- and that my tentative assumption/presumption is to go with my first reaction, rather than to assume that, aha! the true, hidden, inner racist in Biden is Revealed!!!!
My more charitable (if not necessarily correct) interpretation is that Biden's tongue just tripped over itself with "first," and then he sent the sentence is a somewhat different direction. Which is an oopsie, but a perfectly common sort of thing for people, and for him, to do. Assuming so, does it have a racist tinge? I think the question is entirely legitimate, but I don't know how one gets to a provable answer, rather than a guess as to the inside of Joe Biden's head.
But, as I said, it's arguable, and if anyone wants to make whatever meal out of that they wish to, hey, you're prefectly entitled to your opinion. And I'm certainly not claiming my presumptions are or must be correct; absent my mind-reading helmet, which is out at the shop, or some other evidence that Biden really is rather racist, I have no way of knowing if my impression is all wrong or not. I'm just inclined to wait for some more tangible evidence to emerge of Joe Biden's Secret Inner Racist. It's not as if he just got into public service last week, or even last decade.
Katherine: "You're obviously convinced and I know better than to think I'll convince you otherwise,"
Speaking of mind-reading, and charitable interpretations....
Crazy Kevin Drum:
It goes like this:
Kevin's such a kook.Biden: I mean, you got the first, sorta, mainstream African-American.Horowitz: Yeah.Biden: Who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man.I still think this comment indicates that Biden has a problem with his mouth (not something likely to provoke much argument, even from Biden), but he really didn't say what the original transcription seems to suggest.
Mentioning race, per se, is not racist, no. Mentioning it in the context of "clean, articulate, etc." is. Yep. Sorry about that.
Kevin's a professional moderate and bender-over-to-give-people-the-benefit-of-the-doubt. I'm sure it makes him a really good person. It doesn't make him right.
And, just to clarify, the issue here isn't whether Biden, personally, is a racist; that's unknowable and not particularly important. What is important is the effect of this kind of language. Regardless of what he meant, Biden used phrasing that taps into a long history of racial condescension, and that makes what he said problematic.
Although that language strikes me as indicating that Biden is kinda racist, yeah. Personally.
Maybe he [Biden] has a pre-frontal lobes problem.
I didn't call Biden a racist, Gary. I said he'd put his foot in his mouth. Which he did.
Gary, putting aside the question of racism, I can't understand how you can not read this and assume it is, if nothing else, a dig at Jesse Jackson and the left wing of the Democratic Party. A man who had 30% of the delegates in the 1988 convention was a "mainstream African-American", even taking your reading that his next sentence is merely a non sequitur that happened to use racially fraught language.
To clarify, I think the kindest possible reading of Biden's statement is, "Look at Obama! Of course everyone is interested in him. He's the first credible African-American candidate for President. He's good-looking, smart, not associated with urban machine politics, and man, can he give a speech. Who doesn't think that's exciting?" If he had phrased it like that, people might not have jumped on him, but I think the use of "mainstream" there is still ahistorical and vaguely insulting. I'm not a big fan of what Rev. Jackson has evolved into, but he was a serious force in the Democratic primaries of 1984 and 1988; writing him out of history or assuming that he was some sort of... mascot, I guess, the way Kucinich is for anti-war lawn gnomes who want to marry hotties... strikes me as, yes, a racist gesture. It's not like Biden wasn't there in 1988.
"Kevin's a professional moderate and bender-over-to-give-people-the-benefit-of-the-doubt. I'm sure it makes him a really good person. It doesn't make him right."
Yes, not necessarily; it does, however, speak to "Gary, on this issue I believe the world is mad and you are sane. Or vice versa."
"Gary, putting aside the question of racism, I can't understand how you can not read this and assume it is, if nothing else, a dig at Jesse Jackson and the left wing of the Democratic Party."
Have you listened to the audio?
I already stipulated in the first place that the above read is possibly correct; if you, or anyone, is unhappy with my stipulation as sufficient, and wish to insist that the above is the only possible correct reading -- which seems to be the only argument left after my agreeing that it might be correct -- than I'm afraid that, respectfully, I can't oblige.
Bending over to give the benefit of the doubt is not sane in every case. Sometimes it's just being mealy-mouthed.
"I'm not a big fan of what Rev. Jackson has evolved into, but he was a serious force in the Democratic primaries of 1984 and 1988;"
I no longer have my "Jesse Jackson For President" tee-shirt, but I owned it until only a few years ago, incidentally.
All I'm saying is that I think it's a considerable mistake to treat an off-the-cuff oral statement as if it were a written one. I thought that before hearing the audio, and I particularly think that it is an apposite point after hearing the audio.
People, more than not, though some more so than others, don't speak in carefully considered paragraphs. They more often than not speak in wandering, incomplete, rambling, sentences, that start with one point, interrupt themselves, switch points midstream, and so on. Insisting that this can't be the case... well, that's an opinion.
G'night.
66: They more often than not speak in wandering, incomplete, rambling, sentences, that start with one point, interrupt themselves, switch points midstream, and so on.
And sometimes what comes out of their mouths sounds pretty fucking awful even once you make allowances for all of that. (Yes, I listened to the audio. It sounds worse than the paragraph looks.)
That said, I'm not calling Biden a racist, either. But foot in mouth? Hell, yes. Wedged in there right up to the ankle.
I was trying to find video of the great "running mate" stand-up routine that Eddie Murphy did about Jesse Jackson in '88. Instead I came up with Jesse Jackson reading Dr. Seuss from a few years later. Almost as good.
Jesse Jackson made a very successful appearance here in small-town Minnesota. With a little more backing I think he could have shaken things up quite a bit.