Joe Biden is in the race, and his appearance on The Daily Show might be worth watching as Biden has already had his own “macacca moment.” The New York Observer reports he has attacked the three leading candidates. He had the following to say about Barack Obama in an interview held before Obama released his Iraq plan:
Mr. Biden is equally skeptical—albeit in a slightly more backhanded way—about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
But—and the “but” was clearly inevitable—he doubts whether American voters are going to elect “a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,” and added: “I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.”
He will have some explaining to do, especially about Obama being the first “clean” African-American. Obama’s office responded:
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton wrote in an e-mail: “Senator Obama opposed the Iraq War from Day 1 and has articulated clear principles in how to address the tragic mistakes President Bush has made there.” And as for rest—including Mr. Biden’s use of the words “articulate” and “nice-looking” to describe the Senator from Illinois—the spokesman said, “Senator Biden’s words speak for themselves.” The press offices for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards declined to say anything at all.
Update: Biden apologizes
Update II: Biden calls Obama to explain
I just hope he meant a “clean” record and positions on issues.
With Biden, who knows….
He approved Gonzales as AG and admitted he had serious reservations.
Reservations are what you make for dinner; not approve appointments you are not happy with.
Go away joe. Your Wal-Mart greeter job waits for you.
When an African-American Harvard educated civil rights lawyer preaches righteous sermons about respecting the doctrine of separation of church and state but then offers only a religious rationale for denying ‘fundamental’ civil rights the cognitive dissonance should assail the ears of anyone with even a mere thimble full of legal knowledge. Enough is enough. This sham and travesty have gone too far.
“If a civil rights lawyer walked into court and argued that fundamental civil rights should be denied solely for metaphysical reasons one could fairly wonder if he were a charlatan who found his law degree in a box of Cracker Jack. Legally, Obama’s position on civil marriage is intellectual rubbish. Audacity indeed!”
To read the entire article see “Untangling Barack Obama’s audacious mumbo jumbo,” by John P. Mortimer, Bay Area Reporter 11/16/2006 at http://ebar.com/common/inc/art.....article=73 .
Obama, this so called “civil rights lawyer” is the ONLY Democratic candidate who has opposed marriage equality for purely religious reasons. And notice that not one lawyer/lawmaker has provided one LEGAL reason for denying this civil right. Is it really asking too much of lawyers and lawmakers to provide LEGAL reasons for denying civil rights? It’s not so much about “marriage” as it is about punching a big hole in the wall that separates Church and State.