Sure, measured is good and that might be exactly what he is. Doesn’t mean it is necessarily a good or a compelling look for him.
Slowness of speech doesn’t equal slowness of thought.
Quick speech sometimes is used to cover up slowness of thought; and may indicate the lack of it entirely, as in, the person’s speaking without thinking.
Nah. Page 1 says ‘do not say anything that could be interpreted as taking sides in anything that could be considered a controversy.’ That answer makes it clear that Biden’s agreeing that the police are routinely using racial profiling.
So, what was the better answer he should have given?
“I’d have told you that American policing is institutionally biased against minorities, that many police officers are out and out racists and that your life is in danger whenever you engage with a cop, so your best bet is to record everything, hope that doesn’t make them angry, and pray the video won’t be used at your inquest” has the benefit of being factually correct but I don’t think giving it would have been regarded as a smart move.
“I’d have told you that American police are here to help all our citizens, that you can trust every single last one of them implicitly and that no harm could possibly befall you as a result of being stopped by a cop, so don’t worry about it” would be what a lot of people would want to hear him say, but would also be laughably out of touch.
“I don’t know” would almost certainly be 100% true but again, not exactly “good President” material.
The answer he did give at least acknowledged the problem and avoided giving glib solutions. I don’t think it’s great but I don’t think there were better options. So what should he have said?
That is true, and if there is a sparkling mind behind that slow speech then the words and actions will show it.
As you say, it wasn’t great, and, as you admit here, he didn’t actually address what the lady asked him and he avoided the question.
I don’t know, I’m not on his prep team and would be the worst politician in the world. But what he did say gets a big fat meh. However I suspect Obama or even Clinton would have been able to speak more eloquently and with a greater air of authority. I suspect they woudl have been able to see the better options that you and I can’t.
Do you think she was actually asking him for advice, with a view to following it? And that only an answer that contained advice could qualify as answering her question?
She framed her question that way to make it personal and memorable. But she wasn’t looking for a list of the top 3 things to do when stopped by the police, and she didn’t think Biden was the best placed person to give her that advice. She wanted to get the President talking about the racial bias in US policing and how this fundamentally creates very different attitudes to the police among different communities. His answer addressed the fundamental issue and showed her empathy and understanding.
Any answer that involved “you should do this, this and this” would have been an out of touch old white man telling a younger woman how to deal with a situation he had never experienced. It would have been a bad answer. Not least because the framing of it in terms of what a black person should do invites an answer that removes all responsibility from the police.
You admit you have no idea what you think Biden should have said, just that you have some inchoate sense that a better answer was possible. I’m not sure it is: the fundamental problem is that the racial bias in US policing is an extremely complex and highly politicised problem and there’s no answer short of a lengthy speech that is going to cover what needs to be covered while hitting the right political notes.
Show me any current GOP politician who would answer any question with the statement, “Institutional racism exists.”
I’ll wait.
Oh, I can supply you with a huge list, if you mean ones who would say that “I don’t believe that institutional racism exists.” 
Okay, I’ll cop to not having considered quote mining 
I couldn’t resist. I’d like to be generous and say that there are a few who’d make your original statement if the shadow of Trumpkin wasn’t hanging over the Party. But I’m not confident.
If I had to bet on which one would be most likely to say it, I’d have to go with Liz Cheney, as I haven’t seen any others who are currently willing to rock the GOP boat even the slightest bit. The rest are either cowards who don’t want to bring down the wrath of the “He’s a RINO!” crowd, or are part of the “He’s a RINO!” crowd. They will not tolerate even the slightest hint of dissent.
But even there, I’d expect to lose my bet.
Would the racial background of the Republican change your expectation of that answer? For example (just to pull out a candidate), the late Herman Cain?
If you can make the late Herman Cain a “current” Republican politician, not only will I change my bet, I’ll start a new Rhombus-themed religion
But seriously? Probably not. I’m sure they likely believe there’s institutional racism, but I’m not at all sure they’d say that, plainly and clearly.
Giving her advice–“Keep your hands on the wheel, don’t make any sudden moves”–would have been literally correct and outrageously missing the point of the question. Only an android, and not a well-programmed one at that, would think that “actually addressing what the lady asked him” would be a good answer.
Beyond that, what do you think he should’ve done–propose that police undergo training or something? What would have been a good answer?
Ah of course, the sparkly thing. Come on Joe - get it together.
Sometimes i doubt your commitment to sparkle motion.
You would lose and lose big. Liz Cheney is incredibly conservative. The only reason her name even comes up in these things is that she’s notable for not carrying any water for Trump. On any matter other than Trump, her positions would not be distinguishable from any of that crowd.
I should know better by now, but I’m still shocked that people think Liz Cheney is some kind of figure to be admired. She’s a chip off the old block and I’ll damn her with faint praise by saying she’s probably preferable to any likely replacement that the voters of Utah would support, which is saying so little as to be useless. As far as I’m concerned she hasn’t even done the bare minimum. Opposing Trump does not, by itself, clear that bar.
There are others in the caucus I’d say were probably more likely to say it but they don’t have quite the visibility as a Liz Cheney.
Adam Kinzinger or Anthony Gonzalez come to mind. And even there, it’s not likely at all and they’re both not running for re-election next year, probably because they see the writing on the way that they’re very likely to be primaried to death for being openly opposed to Trump.
*Wyoming
Well, I’d also expect to be offered good odds on the bet 
Who knows, maybe she’ll snap and decide to burn this motherfucker down.
Good catch.
Yeah, the citizens of Wyoming are less likely of replacing Liz Cheney with a better human being as I am of spontaneously adding a foot in height and developing flowing blond locks.