Why Sen. Biden's comments about Sen. Obama are a problem

[EffieBlack]

A battle seems to be breaking out between those of us who are questioning Biden's comment that he would make Sen. Obama head of the Justice Department Civil Rights division and those who think that, not only was there nothing wrong with his comment, but that WE are wrong to even raise any concerns about it. Before this gets out of hand, let me try to help people understand why many of us have a problem with Sen. Biden's comments.

Sen. Biden may have been joking, but there is a history of black people being consistently denigrated, belittled, treated as lessers, and relegated to very limited roles in politics and elsewhere. This treatment is rarely overt anymore, it is done subtly, with coded language, secret smirks, winks and nods - all cloaked in neutral language so that the perpetrators can innocently cry, "Who, me?! But I didn't SAY anything!!!" when caught doing it.

Because these actions are not easy to detect but are still extremely dangerous, one must have very good antenna to pick it up and address it. Black Americans - and many others - have extremely good antenna for these kinds of things. We are very sensitive to such language and behavior and are very good at seeing it for what it is. Of course, there are times that such language is perfectly innocent, but more often than not, we're dead on.

Biden doesn't seem to understand this. He is extremely loose with his language, often running at the mouth without seeming to think through his comments. When he says stupid things such as this, he raises our antenna - whether or not he has any bad motives.

For example, Biden's "clean and articulate" comments, while seen as a harmless compliment by some white people who have never had to deal with this sort of thing, were grossly insulting to many black people who - unbeknownst to many white folk - are so consistenly described as "articulate" by white people who seem to think that this is a remarkable enough quality in us that they must compliment us on it that we actually joke about it amongst ourselves. Biden's lack of understanding about the double-entendre of such language when applied to blacks does not suggest he's a racist, but does show an amazing lack of sensitivity on his part.

This latest comment falls into the same category. I don't know anyone who thinks that Biden is a racist or a bigot, but the fact that he would announce, even jokingly, that he would appoint Barack Obama to head the Civil Rights Division falls right into the common approach of limiting black people - no matter how qualified we are - to doing the "black jobs." John Edwards has been touted as Attorney General. Biden has been suggested as a possible Secretary of State. By suggesting Obama for a much lower position - a position limited to addressing civil rights - Biden showed an incredible lack of sensistivity to a very complex situation. He may not have intended to demean Obama because of his race, but it is not unreasonable for people to see it that way.

And what bothers me just as much is that it revealed a mindset about civil rights that is very troubling. While there is a Civil Rights division at justice, civil rights should be a major priority of any administration, from the top down. Unfortunately, under the current administration, civil rights has been put on the back burner and the Civil Rights division has been emasculated - not because the head of the division doesn't care, but because the Attorney General isn't interested in civil rights enforcement.

It would have made much more sense - and been infinitely less troublesome - for Biden to respond to this query by saying that he'd appoint Obama Attorney General so that he could make sure that civil rights are a top priority. Instead, he (as he often does) tried to be cute and not only wasn't he as clever as he thought, he ended up putting his foot in it big time.

Biden's defenders have every right to defend him all they want - but you are going too far when you attack those of us who are offended by his comment, accusing us of playing the race card, being overly-sensitive, perpetuating racism, etc. Your candidate made a major faux pas. He can recover, but pretending that his comment wasn't offensive or that the fault lies with our reaction, not with him, does him absolutely no good. Instead of attacking us for a very reasonable, logical and justifiable reaction, it would be considerably more constructive for you to try to better understand why we feel this way.

I hope this helps you do that.

[KittyWampus]

1. Obama's entire career was as a CIVIL RIGHTS LAWYER. It's the only relevant experience he has.

All he's qualified for at this point, in terms of his ACTUAL CAREER, is working as head of the Civil Rights Division.

He isn't qualified for Secretary of State.

He isn't qualified for Attorney General.

His 9 year career as a CIVIL RIGHTS LAWYER wasn't even going to trial. He mainly handled contracts.

The argument here stems from a few posters who can't seem to deal with the referencing of Obama's ACTUAL CAREER PATH and relative lack of experience that would qualify him for any other job in a Cabinet position.

[cali]

5. That is not true.

Do you really think he only taught civil rights during his years as a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW professor? And you completely fucking ignore that he was in the Illinois legislature for what? 6 years? Not to mention that he's been a U.S. Senator for 2 years. I find it repugnant and interesting in a certain way, that you insist that he's not qualified to be Attny. General.

[KittyWampus]

12. 1st. My point is to expose the stupidty of those who ignore his 9 yrs as Civil Rights lawyer

2nd. You think 9 years as a Civil Rights lawyer handling contracts and being a professor would make Obama the best candidate for Attorney General?

Really?

In terms of experience and in comparison to the multitude of other potential candidates for that Cabinet position, you really think Obama would have a chance?

[cali]

17. By the time any new President is sworn is, he will have been

a U.S. Senator for three years, a state legislator for 6+ years, a Constitutional Law professor for 10+ years and a Civil Rights Attny. And you have the unmitigated gall to insist he's not qualified? Is he the MOST qualified? No. Does he have the qualifications that you insist he doesn't have? You bet your ass.

Of course he'd stand a chance, but he actually stands a better chance of becoming president.

And shifting the goal posts is just a way to squirm out of a losing argument. You started off by asserting that he wasn't qualified at all, not as you're now trying to claim, that he's not the MOST qualified. Ugh.

[MNDemNY]

52. Cali, you KNOW he was NOT a PROFESSOR.

A lecturer of constitutional law. Not a professor. Quite saying he was. It is NOT semantics. He was NOT a professor, to continue this is a lie.

[EffieBlack]

7. This is the same argument you made in another thread prior to my starting this one

Apparently my post had absolutely no effect on your thinking.

Oh, well.

[chimpymustgo]

51. EffieBlack, thanks for explaining this in such a clear, compelling way. Unfortunately,

some willful ignorance still abounds. Sadly.

And welcome to DU :hi:

[boobooday]

10. Why isn't he qualified for secretary of state

or attorney general? He taught constitutional law.

I don't see how he is less qualified than any number of people who have held those offices.

[KittyWampus]

14. Wow, a professor. It'd be hard to top that in terms of relevant, real life experience.

[boobooday]

20. Well, speaking as a professor myself

Who worked my way to my PhD over the course of many years, (having many real-life experiences on the way) I would say you are rushing to judgment. Do you think professors don't live in the real world?

He has no relevant real life experience? Will you define what you mean by that?

[KittyWampus]

60. He wasn't a professor. He was a lecturer. For a short time. And do you think in the real world

a President would actually consider Obama for an AG? Let alone PICK him for that position?

[EffieBlack]

66. Yes, I think a president in the real world would certainly do that

At least if the president had any sense.

[Alexander]

88. Almost as much as Senator Hairplugs.

Then again, Obama doesn't destroy his own candidacy, like Mr. Hairplugs has been known to do.

[cali]

19. He's not qualified to be SoS

He has little foreign policy experience. AG is another matter.

[Jennifer C]

30. Yeah

I agree with you about that, Cali.

[Kahuna]

21. Why do you keep saying that when you know it isn't true?

Sheesh. Obama was an Illinois state senator before joining the senate.

[KittyWampus]

63. And his resume still doesn't warrant being in contention for Attorney General

[EffieBlack]

67. What in your view are the qualifications for being Attorney General?

[zabet]

2. However one takes it,

Biden may have said that
thinking that Obama would
have more knowledge and
familiarity with the Civil
Rights issues than anyone
else eligible for that position.
People who have not had their
civil rights violated and suffered
from oppression, often times do
not have a realistic view of the Civil
Rights struggle for many.

This is the first post on this
issue that I have replied to. I
have not even read an article about
this. I based my opinion on what
the OP posted.

[KittyWampus]

6. Biden probably said that because he is familiar with Obama's 9 yr career as a CIVIL RIGHTS LAWYER

Perhaps we should discuss why Obama choose to become a Civil Rights lawyer and whether it had something to do with prejudice he faced.

But that has nothing to do with Biden.

[cali]

9. stop misrepresenting Obama's career.

He was a the Illinois Legislature for 6 years. He's been in the U.S. Senate for 2 years. He taught Con law for years. He is qualified to be Attny. General- and President.

[KittyWampus]

15. How is mentioning his 9 year career as Civil Rights lawyer "misrepresenting" his career?

My remarks are 100% in line with matching Obama's actual career and potential Cabinet positions.

But aren't you distressed with the notion that working in the Justice Department would be a demotion?

[cali]

22. It's called a lie by omission. As I'm sure you know.

You don't just cut over half of someone's resume in order to show that someone isn't qualified for something.

[KittyWampus]

29. You want to talk about lies? Obama never was a law professor. He was a non-tenured senior lecturer

[cali]

36. Fine. He taught con law. That is the truth

Now how about his years as a State Senator? Want to deny that?

[EffieBlack]

37. I've never heard Obama call himself a "law professor"

He usually says that he taught law.

However, would be appropriate for him to call himself a Law Professor, even though his title was Senior Lecturer. Anyone who teaches law at a law school, whether full or part time, is properly called a law professor. It is a job description, not a title.

His title was Senior Lecturer - he has never claimed otherwise. The tenure-track titles are Assistant Professor of Law, Associate Professor of Law, Professor of Law.

There is a difference between being a Professor of Law (fully-tenured) and a Law Professor (a teacher of the law). An Assistant Professor of Law (non-tenured, but on the tenure track) is called a Law Professor, but cannot call themselves a Professor of Law.

[Lucinda]

79. Actually he does say he was a professor:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/03/30/obama_bush_not_respecting_constitution/

"...I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. "I believe in an attorney general who is actually the people's lawyer, not the president's lawyer."...

[EffieBlack]

86. That is a correct statement

He is a law professor - anyone teaching law at a law school can properly call themselves a law professor, whether they're full-time, tenure track, tenured, lecturer or adjunct. He's not a professor of law, though. Two different things.

[gateley]

90. The reason Biden ran for office initially was because of his response to the

MLK assassination - he was deeply troubled by the chasm between races in America. (He was a Public Defender at the time, so I'm ASSUMING many of his clients were from underprivileged backgrounds.) He's been fighting for civil liberties his entire time in office. He has a 100% NAACP rating. This man just does not strike me as being a racist or bigoted. It's a travesty when someone cares so deeply about racial injustices yet is accused of bigotry.

[EffieBlack]

93. I haven't accused Biden of racism or bigotry.

[cali]

3. Thank you so, so much for this thoughtful and spot on piece.

You put into words exactly what I feel, but couldn't quite articulate. k&r

I just want to add that I'm almost afraid of some of the responses that will be posted.

[demnan]

4. Since Obama is ahead of Biden

maybe Obama can suggest a post for Biden. My suggestion would be Assistant Attorney General under Dennis Kucinich, where Biden can concentrate on the prosecution of the previous Administration, since he mentioned impeachment.

[rucky]

33. That's kinda how the whole exchanged started.

Obama suggesting something Senator Biden should do when Obama's president. Biden shot back with his comment. The context of the exchange was Jena 6. It was cheeky and harmless - intended and taken as such.

[Jennifer C]

8. Is there a transcript or video available yet of Obama asking Biden the question?

I really like Biden, although for the record have not commented in the other thread.

I actually would love for Obama to be his VP. But anyway...

[gateley]

97. I just went to look and the only transcript available is from 2004. I assume

they're still getting this one compiled.

I think they did a disservice by broadcasting only on HDnet - no C-Span, even -- because that limited the viewership to only those who can afford to subscribe to the channel. Kind of a mixed message there....

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. When people call Clinton "Hillary" and other candidates by their last name

I suggest that they are treating her differently because she is a woman. When people comment on her clothing and what she looks like rather than her words, I suggest that people are treating her differently because she is a woman. When people call her "shrill" or comment on her "cackle" I am offended...so

Although I disagree that the comment has anything to do with race. And although my first reaction is to stop looking for racism where it does not exist and toughen up. I cannot blame you for your opinion.

[cali]

13. Too bad you can't see that it does have to do with race and

furthermore, Biden has a history of such comments. As for Clinton being called Hillary, it's because that's how she presents herself. Her campaign pushes that. And you know it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. I see you have a double standard--I find that interesting.

Biden has no history of racism. That is baloney. I find it interesting that you will allow this poster her belief that the Biden comment is racism, but not allow me my belief that Clinton is treated differently becasue she is a woman.

Hillary: of course you can find excuses for the behavior and justifications, just as you can with Biden's statements...but for some reason you are choosing not to when it comes to obama--double standard.

[cali]

26. bullshit. I think there's plenty of sexism around people's attitudes

toward Clinton, and I've said so here many times. You know damned well that even though I don't support Clinton, I defend her almost on a daily basis. All I said was that the reference to Clinton as "Hillary" was the brainchild of her campaign and they've fostered it for quite some time. You accused me of not recognizing the sexism thrown her way. That is a false accusation. You should know better. If you don't I suggest you find the thread I wrote calling Rove's article about her sexist.

Biden does have a hx of making questionable comments- or have you already forgotten the one that he made about Obama some months ago re how articulate and clean Obama is? If you don't understand why that got so much press, and why Biden apologized, you are clueless about this subject.

[Evergreen Emerald]

41. Then I don't quite understand your response to me in the earlier post

it sounded as if you were disagreeing with me.

[EffieBlack]

27. You have blatantly misrepresented my post

I very specifically said that I do not believe that Biden's comment was racist.

[Evergreen Emerald]

35. sorry, I do believe you said it was offensive

And that is my point.

[1corona4u]

28. 2 off the cuff comments is not a "history"...

If it is, perhaps Chris Rock has a HISTORY of calling blacks the 'N" word...oh, but that's OK, right??

And, as I posted on the OTHER thread, let's look at what the actual people involved IN those comments said, shall we;

Indian-Americans
In July 2006, while speaking to a group of Indian-Americans in Delaware,
Biden stated in regards to his relationship with the Indian-American
community: "I've had a great relationship. In Delaware, the largest growth
in population is Indian Americans - moving from India. You cannot go to a
7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not
joking." His comment was caught on C-SPAN. When asked to explain further,
Biden spokesperson Margaret Aitken stated "The Senator admires,
supports and respects the Indian-American community... The point Senator
Biden was making is that there has been a vibrant Indian-American community
in Delaware for decades. It has primarily been made up of engineers,
scientists and physicians, but more recently, middle-class families are
moving into Delaware and purchasing family-run small businesses..." The
Indian-American activist who was on the receiving end of Biden's comment
later called the media coverage of Biden's comments "completely unfair," and
stated that he was "100 percent behind (Biden) because he did nothing
wrong."

Barack Obama
On January 31, 2007, Biden took his first steps into the presidential
campaign, but his comments about other candidates overshadowed his entrance.
Biden especially drew criticism in the popular press for his evaluation of
Senator Barack Obama; Biden was quoted in the New York Observer as saying:
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and
bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, ... I mean, that's a storybook,
man." The audio of the interview, posted on the Observer's website,
reportedly includes a significant pause after "African-American". Biden
sought to clear up the controversy by apologizing to Obama on the same day
and repeated his regret on The Daily Show that same evening: "Look, the
other part of this thing that got me in trouble is using the word clean. I
should have said fresh." Some media observers labeled Biden's announcement a
"launch pad disaster." Jesse Jackson telephoned Biden and reported afterward
"Senator Biden...assured me that he regrets that his remarks were
misinterpreted. He was serious and contrite. To me, this was a gaffe, not a
statement about his philosophy or ideology."

[EffieBlack]

16. Thanks for understanding my opinion

I agree with you about Hillary Clinton, btw - except for the part about her name. I have been troubled by how she's called by her first name and think that many commentators do it in order to belittle her. However, that's how her campaign promotes her (maybe because it makes her seem more accessible, maybe because they couldn't lick 'em so they joined 'em) and it does help to differentiate her from her husband. But I wholeheartedly agree that she is characterized very differently from her mail counterparts.

[ilovesunshine]

25. I actually think that many think Obama is Obama's first name.

[Captain Hilts]

56. Since 'Eleanor', first ladies that make headlines have been addressed by first names to differentiat

from the president.

Silly? Yes. Sexist? No.

[Evergreen Emerald]

57. there was plenty of sexism when Elenor was first lady!

[ripple]

81. Hillary's campaign refers to her as 'Hillary'

Her campaign signs even say 'Hillary'. Most likely it was deliberate attempt to have voters see her separately from Bill. While I pretty much agree that the other things you mentioned are likely sexist in nature, referring to Senator Clinton as 'Hillary' is something her own campaign established and not rooted in sexism.

[ruggerson]

23. Effie, I completely understand what you're saying

but many of the Obama supporters who are decrying this are the very same people who dismissed (arrogantly) the concerns of gay and lesbian Democrats over Obama's pandering to anti-gay bigotry, his lying about it and his use of McClurkin.

You surely can see why when the shoe is on the other foot and there is whining about what someone *said* versus what Obama actually *did*, it looks hypocritical.

It is sad that when looking down on other people different than themselves, many can only see their own shoes and not the shoes of their brothers and sisters.

[Cameron27]

48. That's a very good point.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejanocrat]

31. The problem with Biden walking into the Black-Brown forum and dismissing Obama is it fits a pattern

of Biden's gaffes with racial overtones.

If Biden wasn't within the margin of error from zero in the polls, he would have been eviscerated for telling the Washington Post editorial board that Iowa schools perform better than Washington DC schools because "There's less than 1 percent of the population of Iowa that is African- American. There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that is, are minorities. What is it in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with." Hey, Joe, is there any chance it's due to the fact that those DC kids are dirt poor and not because they're black?

This has an unfamiliar echo of Biden bragging that his campaign would do well in the South because "My state was a slave state."

Which, in turn, reminds people that he said Obama was "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

Which is still better than when he recently said ""You cannot go into a Dunkin' Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent." Is this YouTube moment really all that much better than the George Allen's macaca incident?

Let me be plainspoken about one matter: I do not think Biden is a racist. I have no objection to Biden's voting record on racial issues (although I object to several of the judicial nominees who Biden has supported, I object to many of Biden's votes against reproductive rights, and I abhor Biden's record on depriving the middle class of bankruptcy protections). My disappointment with Biden's tendency to make gaffes with racial overtones should not be confused with raising any questions about Biden's voting record on racial issues.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejanocrat]

38. I counted 5 gaffes with racial overtones, and that's just from this campaign cycle.

[pscot]

54. It may not look like a duck, or walk like a duck

but the occasional quack is certainly suggestive. There is a coded language of covert racism widely used in America. Biden seems to lapse into it far too easily. He prides himself on being plain-spoken, but he shouldn't be surprised if people sometimes misunderstand his intent.

[1corona4u]

39. See my post #29...

OBVIOUSLY it wasn't an issue for those actually INVOLVED.

[Colobo]

42. Exactly.

[Renew Deal]

69. You've highlighted the downside of Biden

He says a lot of smart things. He also says a lot of dumb things. The risk (besides some bad votes) with Biden as a candidate was always that he'd shoot his mouth off.

[dsc]

32. absolutely terrific post

I don't see how it could have been put better.

[Colobo]

43. Yep. The post is excellent.

[EffieBlack]

102. Thanks.

[EffieBlack]

101. Thanks.

[BeyondGeography]

40. We're playing the ineptitude card...which Dopey Joe displays too often

I don't see Biden as a racist; he probably thought he was saying something that Obama would like to hear. It's simply an astonishing display of ignorance to expect a talent like Obama, the leading black politician in 21st century America and an emerging figure of national historical importance, to be flattered with a demotion from the actual position he currently occupies to a relatively narrow, race-based role. When Team Clinton floated an idea for Obama in an HRC Adminstration, it was Supreme Court Justice (cynical, yes, but nothing to be sneered at). Then again, they have an actual plan to win the black vote and Biden, characteristically, is just making it up as he goes along.

[EffieBlack]

44. Great post!

Thanks for the backup!

[BeyondGeography]

45. Right back atcha, Effie

:toast:

[ginchinchili]

46. But you ARE the ones making this a racial issue where there is none.

This is a presidential campaign where candidates trade barbs back and forth all the time, and if you think this was bad, perhaps you need to do a little history researching of your own on American presidential campaigns. If we are ever going to become a color blind society, we can't go around attacking people for putting it into practice, and if we are going to insist on setting up different rules for different groups of people in our society, than we've failed to learned the single most important lesson from the civil rights era; it doesn't work.

Obama started this by giving Biden a little friendly shove and Biden returns with one of his own. Frankly, it only demonstrates that Biden is quick on his feet and does shove back, and I applaud him for it. If you're a kid out in the school yard and another kid comes up and shoves you, you're going to shove him back, even if he's of another race. You're not going to say, "well, I should shove back but his skin color is different from mine so shoving him back would be inappropriate." That would be a demonstration of, and yet, another socially unhealthy racial bias.

This is a zero issue being made into an unwarranted attack, and I hope that Joe Biden continues to stand his ground, whether it's Obama taking shots at him, Hillary (even though she's a woman), or the Republicans. If Sen. Obama requires special kid glove treatment then he's in the wrong business. As the old saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, because if his supporters are going to be making every barb directed toward him a racial issue, he will definitely lose the election. One of the reasons I have misgivings about an Obama nomination is that he's an untested Harvard intellectual, and they tend to lose in presidential elections. This kind of nonsense tends to feed into that perception of a fragile intellectual. I suppose you want to make that into a racial issue too, despite the fact that this criticism has only been applied to white males up to this point.

[EffieBlack]

50. Given your history of attacking anyone who tries to rationally discuss race

your post is not surprising. But it doesn't merit any further comment from me since I sincerely doubt you're interested in any reasonable discussion of the issue.

[ginchinchili]

64. I really resent that. This morning is the only time I've discussed race on DU.

You have taken a nasty dishonest swipe at me in public and then run off. That's despicable. I don't go around "attacking anyone who tries to rationally discuss race." Never have, never will. I'm sure my "history" would dispel any lie someone like you would try to perpetrate about me concerning the issue of race, but I won't waste my time discussing it with some hateful and dishonest stranger like yourself.

[EffieBlack]

80. This is NOT the first time you have discussed race on DU

Your "history" completely contradicts you.

Among other things, you accused some posters of "racist and sexist ideology" for believing that Obama's race and Clinton's gender can be positive factors in their presidential races:

pnwmom Sat Nov-03-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #11

14. What's wrong with it being one of the factors?

We've always in the past made race or gender an excluding factor. We can't say we're beyond caring about race or gender until we've actually achieved the goal.

ginchinchili (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-03-07 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #14

18. Yes, but you don't achieve that goal by electing someone not fully qualified

to the presidency. That would surely backfire. I find your argument insulting to women and non-Caucasian races, as if they can't be the most qualified person available. They both can be and will be. I believe that if Obama proves his medal, stays smart and gets more experience, he'll be president some day. Problem right now is that he doesn't have enough experience and the Republicans will remind Americans during every day of the election that A.) we are currently at war, B.) the terrorists are still a threat to our national security, and C.) Obama has zero foreign policy experience. It would work and the Republicans would be right back into the White House. But my liking Obama is not because he's black or despite being black. I like him for the man he is. If he was white or fuchsia I wouldn't care. Hillary has a lot going for her, but I don't support her presidency, and it has nothing to do with her gender. That's exactly the kind of attitude I think we need to be getting away from, or it simply never ends.

pnwmom Sat Nov-03-07 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #18

22. All of our candidates are fully qualified.

Obama's experience in the Senate, in the Illinois Congress, teaching Constitutional law and working as a community organizer all qualify him.

HRC also had a lifetime of experience before her Senate years, using her skills as a lawyer to work for the causes she cares about.

Until now, race and gender have been key to being elected President -- you had to be a white male. This may still be true. And that attitude will never end until the unbroken succession of white males in the Presidency and Vice-Presidency is FINALLY broken.

ginchinchili Sat Nov-03-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #22

25. The Republcians would just love to see the Democrats embrace that idea

It would be the death knell for the Democratic Party. I certainly wouldn't join the Republicans, but I couldn't identify myself with a Party that requires a race and gender based litmus test. If you want to make the Republican Party the reigning Party for the next 50 years, keep promoting your racist and sexist ideology. There's no place for it in a free society. You'd think we'd have learned that lesson by now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3678325

So before you ever again try to accuse me of lying or hatefulness, perhaps you should do a quick search of your past posts.

[ginchinchili]

87. It is hateful and it is dishonest.

You're right, you refer to the one exception that I'd forgotten about. These posts all come from one thread. No wonder I forgot, it's a month old and, as you can see, I've posted well over 1,000 times. You refer to it as a "history." That's dishonest. What's worse, your response to my post implies that I've got racist attitudes. That is hateful, because nothing could be further from the truth. You are the one obsessed with race. You are the one condoning a double standard based on race. If you read my posts that you have here and the op you'll see very clearly that my position is completely consistent. I don't judge people by the color of their skin and I don't support the idea of biases, pro nor con, based simply on the color of one's skin. I've seen enough hateful racism in my life to know when it's raising its ugly head, no matter what kind of mask it's wearing. It's always wrong. And taking my posts out of context is wrong as well, further dishonesty on your part, but I, never-the-less, stand by my posts, in or out of context.

[Evergreen Emerald]

58. this sounds like a reasoned response

It is too bad that one cannot comment on racial issues without being called a rascist.

[EffieBlack]

61. Who has called anyone a racist?

Please be specific.

[ginchinchili]

70. It really is. Racism has many disguises.

Unless we expose all forms of it, it will continue to plague us. There's one poster on this thread who accused me of always attacking anyone trying to rationally discuss race. I've never done that in my life. That would go against some of my deepest held beliefs. It was not only dishonest, but just plain mean spirited. Oh well, this crap gets thrown around in all directions and my belief in equality remains firmly intact. Peace.

[mrigirl]

99. Right on point, ginchinchili!

[Froward69]

47. Thus in short

If Biden had simply said Obama would simply have a place in Joe's administration their would be no problem. however attaching "civil rights" in the sentence makes a Bigot???

[EffieBlack]

49. I will not respond to a red herring

[1corona4u]

62. Uhm, HELLO, LOL...you just did...LOL

[dsc]

53. If he had said AG or Supreme Court

or a position equivalent to that, then likely no.

[Froward69]

55. personally i like Obama

however his experience is sorely lacking. in my mind Obama would be ideal as VP. as he would then be the deciding vote in the senate, his name would continually be out there, he could advise the administration as to domestics, he would garner more experience. And thus be better suited to be chief exc. I know my hope for a BIDEN/OBAMA ticket makes me a perceived bigot as I do not feel Obama is ready for the top job yet.

Then so be it.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

65. Exactly what experience is he lacking

preferably in some detail.

[Froward69]

68. He simply steped over his

opponent to become senator. he is a one term senator.
granted he has been in local politics a while but he has not been in the "Big league" of politics.
His oratory skills are unmatched but that alone is not viable to be chief executive.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

71. That does not explain what experience he is lacking tho

unless you are of the view that one has to have multiple terms as a senator to be a good chief executive.

But if thats all you think he lacks i will see your post as a good thing(even tho we disagree somewhat).

[Froward69]

73. The Gop will

eat him alive on experience. (no executive experience) teaching is no where near actual experience. remember we as Democrats need to keep the GE in mind as we select our nominee. Biden is Whom they fear the MOST.

[EffieBlack]

76. What is Biden's executive experience?

[Froward69]

78. I never said he had any

the Gop is sure to attack him on that point too. however Joe Biden is vastly more prepared to field that question than Barak Obama.

[EffieBlack]

82. You're not making any sense

How is Biden - who you acknowledge has no executive experience - better able to "field" a question about having no executive experience than Obama is.

I, for one, am up to here with the "executive experience" argument - George W. Bush has 8 years of the most pertinent kind of executive experience for the presidency - 8 years IN the presidency. In fact, if executive experience is the qualification, George W. Bush is the second most qualified person alive for the job. And I doubt that any more than a handful of deadenders would even think of voting for that man again.

In my view, experience is important - but to me, experience is not the title or position that one had, but what they have done in their lives and careers and how those experiences transfer to the presidency. Based on that, I believe that Biden is extremely qualified to be president. I think Hillary Clinton is extremely qualified to be president. I think Obama is extremely qualified to be president. I think John Edwards is extremely qualified to be president . . . and so on.

[Froward69]

84. simply put

Biden has more respect in the senate than ANY of the rest of our field this time around.
Granted Biden like Obama has no executive exp. but Biden does have 25 YEARS of experience on obama, hillary, or edwards. having been elected via tough races having survived republican dominance. republican inquiry, regan bush1 and bush2. I am sorry but Obama, edwards, hillary,guillini,romney,or any body else can hold a candle to Bidens experience.

[EffieBlack]

85. You're right - 25 years experience in the Senate makes one a shoo-in for the presidency

Just ask President Kerry and President Dole.

[EffieBlack]

74. You haven't answered the question

Unless you think that one must be elected to more than one term in the Senate in order to qualify to be Attorney General.

[EffieBlack]

72. You think he's qualified to be VP, but not AG?

Interesting.

Another interesting thing about this discussion is that some people who are trying to convince everyone that Biden's comments weren't offensive are justifying them by claiming that Obama's experience teaching civil rights law made it logical for Biden to say he should be the Assistant AG for Civil Rights. But the civil rights teaching was a very small part of Obama's career - probably the smallest part of it. He taught Constitutional Law, which includes civil rights law, but is mostly made up of many other areas of the law unrelated to civil rights. And his law teaching was a very small part of his career - it was, in fact, a part-time job. In addition to that he practiced law, he was a community organizer, and he served several years in the Illinois Senate and, by January 2009, will have served four years in the U.S. Senate.

I'm not pushing for Obama to be Attorney General (or president, for that matter, since I have not settled on a candidate), but his experience more than qualifies him to be Attorney General. And I would be delighted to have the nation's chief law enforcement officer be someone who has spent time in the streets and understands how laws affect real people.

So all of this discussion about whether Obama is qualified to be Attorney General is, in my view, a red herring. The bottom line is that Biden, once again, spoke before he thought and suggested that, despite his experience and public stature, he would make Barack Obama a mid-level presidential appointee responsible for the "black" issues at the Department of Justice. It was a stupid comment, not life-threatening or campaign-ending, but he'll need to bend over and take his whuppin' for it.

[Froward69]

77. I never mentioned AG.

he (Obama) is ready for that post. If Biden needs a whuppin' for defending himself, then Obama gets a whuppin', for suggesting Biden would be best suited for a job he is vastly overqualified for.

[KittyWampus]

59. Obama would NOT BE CONSIDERED for those roles now. You know it. Admit it. It's ridiculous

to suggest he would.

[dsc]

75. he certainly would be more qualified than

Thomas who is on the SC. His experience isn't all that different from that of O'Connor.

[Inuca]

83. CONTEXT!

Biden suggested the civil rights division because THAT'S WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED, at least based on the very limited info that I came across. Obama was the first to suggest something Biden should be doing during an Obama administration, and Biden replied (I assume smiling and tongue in cheek, but I do not really know since I did not see any video, not even a transcript) with a suggestion, perfectly fitting the context of the conversation, of something Obama could do during a Biden administration. What should have been an appropriate response? "Thank you, president Obama"?

The whole brouhaha, if I read it correctly, is because
1. the reference was to the civil rights division, and Obama is black, and
2. because such a position is lower in the pecking order than being a senator.

To make my point one more time (for the zero difference that it will make):
1.Biden referred to civil rights divisions because that was the context of the conversation. I obviously cannot read the man's mind, but I think he would have said the same thing if he were addressing, say, Edwards. I truly believe not only that Biden is not racist, but that an obsessive sensitivity to how each and every word could be spinned IS possibly a form of latent racism (not trusting your own true feelings and attitudes enough, not to feel the need to carefully filter what you say).
2. to think for even a moment that Biden would seriously suggest that a sitting and extremely promising senator would quit that position, even if he ends up losing in a presidential race, to become a second (third?) tier administration member is kind of ridiculous. Biden is probably serious when he says he does not want to become anyone's SoS and give up his powerful position in the Senate, and he obviously understands that Obama would never take such a proposition seriously.

My conclusion: another tempest in a teapot.

[ginchinchili]

89. Thanks for your reasoned post, and it DOES make a difference.

I guess people think he should have said, in a discussion about civil rights, that he'd offer Obama a position as treasury secretary. Of course then it would have just sounded odd and not really make sense. Biden actually responded in the most appropriate way, rather than some contrived inappropriate way. Racism is a hydra-headed beast that knows no bias. Joe Biden is a good decent man who towers above those who would try to soil him with their own...well, you get the picture.

[demommom]

100. Thank you Inuca!!

Thank you for putting into words what I wanted to say but just could not seem to find the words. Well said!!

[gateley]

91. Excellent post, EffieBlack - And you made me realize that since I'm convinced

Biden didn't 'mean' anything by his remark, that I hadn't even considered that it might have actually hurt some people. So I for one am opening to your viewpoint as much as is possible for me, and I apologize for not going beyond the "political" discussion to look at it from ALL angles.
Thanks for broadening my horizons!

[EffieBlack]

94. Thanks, Gateley

This really means alot to me.

We've got to talk about these issues openly and try to understand others' point of view. That's the only way we can move forward. I really appreciate hearing your perspective - it helps me better understand, as well.

:hug:

[ClarkUSA]

92. Welcome to DU, Effie... and thanks for the mature spot-on analysis.

:toast:

[jillan]

95. Effie - they are only a problem because people like you are making them a problem.

[beaconess]

98. You're right - If Effie would just shut up and go away, all would be right with the world

Since, after all, black people are the cause of racism. If they would stop talking about it, there'd be no problem.

:sarcasm:

P.S. Joe Biden would probably be embarrassed to see his picture gracing a post as backward as yours.

[jillan]

103. I am sorry you are filled with such hatred.

[JustAnotherGen]

96. Thanks for giving your POV

I wasn't even aware of this comment until I came to DU. I've been too focused on Biden's impeachment threat. So I went read elsewhere to find out what the context was and I why he said it.

I know there are many DU'ers who are not black. I could see how if you aren't black - it's too be poo poo'd. But if you have a brown face like me. . .

Let's just say I can't be the only American who has a black heritage that is getting a little sick and tired of the Democrats taking our votes for granted. There's an alternative this year named Mike Huckabee. If he wins his party's nomination - God help our party and it's pursuit of the black vote. There are an awful lot of Christian Conservative blacks that he 'speaks' to.

[Think82]

104. You can raise concerns about it, but it doesn't mean those concerns are right.

Us Biden fans are just a little ticked off that Biden has a history of having his words taken completely out of context and used to suggest the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he is (as someone who was initially inspired to get into politics for civil rights). Plus, we also find it maddening because Biden is very outgoing and willing ot talk and say more things that other politicians shy away from, and here, 4 sentences get twisted out of the zillions of brilliant speeches he's given, and the only focus is on THOSE. Ridiculous.

These overly-sensitive remarks sort of remind me of Bush's "terror alerts" which cry wolf when there are REAL problems there that need addressing, which Biden has done for 40 years of his life.

Two cents.

[beaconess]

105. Maybe Biden supporters should be more concerned about their guy's propensity for putting his foot in

his mouth.

It's interesting that the other candidates don't seem to have a problem making insensitive comments such as this. And it's not because he's outgoing - it's because he often doesn't think before he speaks.

The problem is with Biden, not with the people he offends with his comments.

And while such comments may not concern YOU, that doesn't mean that they don't concern other people. You are no more an appropriate judge of what should and should not offend me than I am of what should and should not offend you. If you aren't offended by his comments, that's up to you - but you certainly are in no position to decide whether it is appropriate for others to be offended by it.

[ginchinchili]

108. What's insensitive about it?

The news networks aren't even making anything about this, because they were there. Were you?

[beaconess]

109. I'm supposed to wait for the networks to tell me how to react to something?

Thank you.

Why are you so worked up about the fact that some people (obviously I'm not alone) didn't like what Biden said. You don't have a problem with it. Fine. But some of us do. Why are you falling all over yourself trying to us that we have no right to feel the way we feel about it?

[PatSeg]

107. Reminds me of Rovian politics

Attack an opponents "strengths". Civil rights IS a Biden strength.

[beaconess]

110. No one has attached Biden on civil rights

I find it absolutely fascinating how some DUers have gotten their shorts all in a bunch because some other DUers were offended by Biden's comments. You guys seem to be taking it personally that we think your candidate said something he shouldn't have said.

This happens all too often on DU whenever race comes up - it's really interesting to see so many so-called liberals falling all over themselves, not only to defend insensitive comments, but to attack those of us who have the temerity to be offended by them as if black people and those who happen to agree with us about this simply have no right to view any question about race differently than you do and if we do, WE are being unfair, WE are playing victim, WE are responsible for the race problem in America.

Whether you know it or not, this tactic is as old as the hills. It's the same kind of defensive posture taken by supposedly well-meaning people for decades. We are USED to being told that our point of view is irrelevant, that our perspective can't possibly be valid if it differs from the majority's, and that if we'd just shut up about it already and stop making such a ruckus about nothing, all would be right with the world.

[EffieBlack]

111. You are SO right

This all reminds me of the time that one of my colleagues, during a conversation, began to berate an ethnic group, calling them sneaky, greedy and untrustworthy. I was appalled and later mentioned this to another colleague, who was just as offended as I was and urged me to tell our boss. Before I could do so, the boss said during a staff meeting, "It's come to my attention that someone has complained made derogatory comments." I assumed that the boss would go on to remind the staff of the importance of not making racially insensitive comments. Instead, to my shock, he said, "Collegiality is a critical part of our work here. If someone says something that bothers you, there's no point beating them up about it. We need to all get along and it doesn't help when people go around complaining about every little thing someone says that they don't agree with."

In other words - the problem is not that we've got a bigot in our midst, but that we have in our midst someone who has the nerve to object to there being a bigot in our midst.

[BringBigDogBack]

106. Fantastic post.

Summed it up perfectly for me as well