Wednesday, January 31, 2007
|
|
Biden Said Whaaaat???
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
10:35 AM
|
|
Hugh posted this, but I'm repeating it because it bears repeating. Biden on Obama:
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,”
A clean black man? The first black guy on the American political scene who can both shower regularly and speak properly? Is that really what Biden thinks?
If a Republican had said this, we'd have a national outpouring of grief over the residual ignorance and racial insensitivity in our country, and the guy would be in sensitivity training unti round about the time John Kerry is elected president.
Biden, I'm sure, will pay no consequences for his boneheaded comment.
Update: In other Dem leadership news, Schumer and Clinton both have imaginary friends, and they talk about them to the media.
|
|
He got away with being busted for plagiarism during his aborted presidential run back in 92. If you're a democrat, you could get caught with bribery cash in your freezer and suffer few consequences. Oh, wait, that really did happen... Where's that guy now? Oh, right, he was RE-ELECTED!!!
One set of rules for me, another for thee |
|
You took the words out of my mouth!
Take a gander at gerry Studds! He violated child sex laws AND then thumbed his nose at the Congress.
Reelected over and over and finally retired!
MARY KATHERINE HAM.
Come check my blog girl! |
|
If only more black people could be clean and nice-looking. The world would be such a better place. Maybe then we could work on washing those Mexicans and getting midgets some stilts.
Sincerely,
Sen. Biden. |
|
|
|
|
He meant clean as in does not have any scandals tied to him. His record is clean. |
|
|
I think what the country's most famous plagiarist meant was, Obama is the first black presidential candidate that was "clean" of scandal, i.e. no Tawana Brawley (Rev. Sharpton), no extortion paid to a former employee and mistress (Rev. Jackson). He's still an idiot, but I don't think he meant well-groomed when he said "clean". |
|
|
|
|
He's already said something about his mother telling him to be clean. Not that she didn't want him to take bribes as a child. That may have been ok. |
|
I agree Biden meant clean, as in no scandalous past. No malice intended. I am glad, however, Biden made these comments. It discloses a bigger problem. For a long time, I have noticed the degree of condescension from people who think they are the elites. When a woman, a black or asian runs for office, he or she is often described as smart, intelligent, articulate, well-educated, etc. Although these are all great complements, they really don't need to be mentioned. A person only mentions these qualities because he has an underlying believe that the minority group in question generally don't have these qualities. The person in question, in this case Obama, is seen as an unusual specimen. These descriptions rarely come up when a white person is running for office. That is because it is assumed he is intelligent and need not be pointed out. These so-called elites are not smart enough to know that their complements are really insults.
Affirmative action, which is supported by people like Biden, promotes these stereotypes. The message is that you are not smart enough to do it alone, so we the superior ones will help you. |
|
"A closed mouth gathers no feet."
"Ensure brain is engaged before placing mouth in gear."
"Remain silent and be thought a fool, or speak aloud and remove all doubt."
Is it too late to get Kerry back? |
|
Biden Explains Obama Comments: “His comments reflected his mother’s expression: ‘Clean as a whistle, sharp as a tack,’ he said.
He explains clean as defined as body cleanliness.
Unless she was preparing him for government service and referring to things such as taking bribes.
I know that's what my mother was always telling me. She was never saying clean behind your ears. She was always trying to warn me about the sin of corruption when I ran for president. |
|
If the man can get us out of Iraq with our shoulders still up, and can get this country back on good standings, both inside and out, I really don't care what he says.
|
|
You obviously don't have enough time to even make a point. Your use of a mixed metaphor followed immediately by a cliche shows you give no more thought to your written words than Biden gives to his spoken words. Your comment:
"If the man can get us out of Iraq with our shoulders still up, and can get this country back on good standings, both inside and out, I really don't care what he says."
Geez, you could put that qualification on anyone in the world, that's how meaningless it is. The point is that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Biden can do what you say (assuming that's what you're saying -- I'm not sure) and his foolish comment is proof positive that he cannot even be trusted to measure the impact of his own words, barely one day into his campaign.
|
|
|
You insolent swine! The point of my comment is to point out the fact that their is to much talk and not enough action being portrayed in the politics of today. Personally I don't think Biden should run. An individual in that position should not speak before thinking about what he is about to say. While the message that he proclaimed probably was not what he really meant, his reiteration on the point was not ample enough for me to except it. I personally have not heard of another plan for dealing with Iraq besides besides deploying more soilders into the region, with the hope that this will resolve the conlict. That is the point of my, as you so put it, "Mixed metaphor followed immediately by a cliche." oh...and by the way, I could not put that "qualification" on your boy Bush |
|
|
Is it anymore credible when republicans purposefuly over exagerate or twist the meaning of a quote then when a democrat does it. Bidden has explained what he said and we knew what it meant long before he had to redefine his message. Wouldnt the republican cause had been better served by refuting the true meaning of old Joes snafu anyway.By giving examples of...wait I thought color isnt suppose to matter I thought it was content of character. |
|
You impudent cretin! -- You titled your post "Too much time on your hands". The "your" was a reference to those of us commenting on the site. It was a personal swipe at the posters having a laugh at Biden's expense. If you meant to comment on the lack of substance coming out of politics, then you should have wrote "Too much time on their(politicians) hands." Choice of words are important old boy.
As for a "another plan for dealing with Iraq" Well, we have two choices. Stay and win, or surrender and leave. All the hot air coming out of the mouths of the political class about timetables and benchmarks is nothing more than cynical posturing ahead of the 2008 election. The entire arguement is so overdiscussed that it's nauseating. Don't get me wrong. I don't like that we're in Iraq either. I wish many things had been done differently. But the fact is that we are there. It's a war. In war, you either win, or you lose. If we leave too soon, the entire world will perceive that we left in defeat and we will pay the price for decades to come. The only way to leave Iraq with, as you wrote, "with our shoulders still up" is to win the damn thing.
Oink
|
|
This is fun...we should argue about other stuff...To clarify i was not attacking the people on this site. I was making a general reference on all the wasted time that goes into your writings. I agree we should win..But do you think more soilders over in Iraq is going to win this war? this is the time for diplomacy in the middle east. So... to clarify I was not making a personal swipe at the people who post on this site..I was going after your lackluster attempt at writing..
P.S. "impudent cretin".. your a dork! |
|
Now there's an oxymoron if I've ever read one. Diplomacy only works when both sides act in good faith. Do you think there is any country in the ME now who is even capable of negotiating in good faith? It is more likely that the jihadists we're fighting consider diplomacy to be evidence of weakness.
So, now you're taking a swipe at my "attempt at writing." That's rich. Lets' try parsing this quote of yours...
"The point of my comment is (incorrect use of tense) to point (redundant) out the fact that their (sic) is to (sic) much talk and not enough action (cliche) being portrayed (being protrayed?? One does not portray a fact) in the politics of today."
People who write like that shouldn't be making comments about anyone's writing. |
|
I agree with you jmc. We should not try diplomacy..guns always make people with opposite viewpoints eventually agree. Heck, maybe we can start world war 3 and in due time we can make everyone agree with our ideology.
ps.---your still a dork |
|
|
|