I agree. And the thing that makes it worse is, it isn’t like he was as obvious as saying the “N” word. That, he would have known was wrong. This statement came to him naturally and he had no qualms about going on the record with it. I would call this “latent” racism, which i thin kis more insidious.
But i have never liked Biden. He has not come across my political radar in any significant way, but whenever I have seen him, I have always thought hw was a gasbag.
I would be very surprised if Hilary wasn’t as hormonal as I might expect.
Add me to the voices gladly admitting that, if this isn’t outright racism, it sure walks and talks like some “Fear of a Black Planet” shit. His explanation of “clean” has PR spin written all over it:
So, he wasn’t saying Obama was scandal-free; he wasn’t saying Obama was hygienic. He was saying Obama was, um, smart?
The words used–“articulate,” “bright,” “clean,” and “nice-looking”–all suggest that other mainstream African-Americans are inarticulate, stupid, dirty, and/or ugly. That’s just pitiful. Moreover, the words in conjunction seem to carry an ugly undertone: here’s a black man you needn’t be scared of!
Bah. Biden, give it up already.
Daniel
Sorry to rain on the parade of "so in line with my politics that it MUST be true!, but take a listen to the audio:
http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=463858485
I’ll also point out that contrary to the round of backslapping you gave yourself for the oh so insightful idea that liberals would give this purported statement a pass just because a Democrat said it, liberal blogs have been abuzz condemning the transcript, though some of them are realizing that there’s a big of egg on their faces given that audio isn’t quite in line with their readings.
Maybe he just wants the money (or owes the money). Political campaigns can generate a lot of cash.
Huh? There’s nothing in that audio to make me change my impression. Sure, he’s complimenting Obama, but he’s complimenting him for being a black guy who’s articulate. The implications of that compliment are pretty unsettling for what they reveal about the guy–especially considering his previous weird comments (e.g., the Dunkin Donuts/Indian accent thing).
Daniel
I guess you didn’t pay much attention to the controversy then, because most of it was based on the idea that he had compared other African American candidates to Obama, when in fact the only thing he said was unique about Obama is that he was mainstream.
If that wasn’t the source of your impression, as it was for a good number of people, then I can see why the audio file wouldn’t change things for you.
As to your impression, well, who can argue with hype?
Obama better watch out. If he wants to win this thing, he can’t go around saying such radical things. I mean, he actually said something nice about Al Sharpton! Doesn’t he want America to go on thinking he’s “not like those other blacks”? Heh, I guess not.
And that’s why he rules!
Apos, this is totally irrational.
First, the controversy is based on the idea that Obama is the first mainstream African American [insert optional comma and/or optional implication of "presidential candidate, depending on how much you want to read into the statement to forgive him] who was all the four things listed. That’s clearly false, as Obama pointed out. Other mainstream African American [presidential candidate]s have been all those four things listed.
Second, the use of “articulate” as the first word to describe him is guaranteed nails-on-chalkboard: it’s a word that’s been used to describe other African-American men, e.g., Colin Powell, with an implication that they don’t speak funny like most black men do. That’s probably not what Biden meant, but it was an unfortunate choice of words. This is a smaller part of the controversy.
Third, nobody’s arguing with hype; I have no idea what you’re getting at there. When I first heard Biden’s words on the radio, I literally winced. Some of us hear them as godawful on first hearing. You need to make room for the idea that not everyone who disagrees with you is a misguided fool.
Daniel
Um… no. It’s precisely how the controversy played out. The transcript said he said one thing, but the audiotape said he said something else. The lag between one and the other got a lot of people up in arms… and then just as many saying “wait a minute, that’s nowhere near as bad as it was played out to be.” This is just objective fact, not “irrational.” That’s what happened, and that’s what I simply assumed had happened in your case. I was wrong… or was I?
Except in light of the audio, that interpretation becomes extremely hard to support.
Here’s the difference:
TRANSCRIPT:
AUDIO:
Rebutting a non-existent claim is the oldest trick in the book. Of course, Obama is factually wrong anyway. Jackson, for instance, was certainly not “clean”: he was involved in a corruption scandal and various infidelities. And he won, what, one state?
That’s true, but this seems to be one of those words people get upset about ONLY at their convenience and discretion. Which doesn’t rate very high on the integrity scale as an accusation in my book.
Pot? Is that you pot? It’s kettle.
The objective fact is that he didn’t say something else. Indeed, you keep trying to pretend he said something else, but he didn’t. You’re punctuating his speech in a manner inconsistent with normal speech patterns: his voice rose at the end of “American,” indicating that the same thought was continuing and that the thought wasn’t done.
Okay, it’s clear that this is not productive. But if you want to keep believing his statement was acceptable, it’s gonna take someone more patient than me to convince you otherwise.
Daniel
Are you having trouble reading my words? Is your monitor all blurry or something?
What I said was that this was a reaction many people had to the two different portrayal of the quotes.
I have exactly the opposite opinion: you are punctuating his speech in a manner inconsistent with normal speech. I’ve just listened to the audio again, and I honestly can’t see how you are hearing what you want to hear into it. I guess it’s a subjective thing. But suffice to say, many many other people agree with me and not with you. For instance, Kevin Drum. Or Josh Marshall, who was originally up in arms about the quote, but then changed his mind after hearing the audio. So it’s not like I’m out in crazytown all by myself.
The trouble is that, written down, the words “who is articulate, bright…” etc. look like a dependent clause, i.e. a continuation of “you got the first, sorta, mainstream African American”. But in casual speech, such incomplete fragments are routinely uttered as independent sentences. It’s not clear to me, listening to the audio, which it was in this case. So if this was in court and I was a juror, I’d have to vote Not Guilty.
Oh, I’m sorry to tell you, but you are OBJECTIVELY wrong about that, apparently.
It kind of reminds me of my wife’s parents. Both are big-time liberals. But they occasionally come out with comments that leave me shaking my head. Like, they go out of their way to mention the race of the waiter at the restaurant they went to. And this is their way of attempting to communicate how un-racist they are.
Anyway, Biden should know that using the word “articulate” to describe a black guy is the kiss of death. It doesn’t matter that Obama really is articulate compared to the field, white, black, male, female, democratic, republican, he’s articulate, and not just “articulate for a black man”. But “articulate” is code for “doesn’t speak Ebonics”. It’s not horrible racism, it’s a mild sort of racism that isn’t consciously racist and is pretty forgiveable. It doesn’t reveal that Biden is a horrible, horrible person, but it does reveal that Biden is a bit behind the times. It’s the kind of thing my Grandma might say. I’m not gonna get upset with Grandma over a comment like that, she doesn’t know any better and it’s not a horrible sentiment, and anyway, she means well, and besides, what can you expect from a person of her generation, considering how things were when she was growing up.
Of course, this doesn’t exactly make Biden look like an electrifying candidate. Not that he had a chance to begin with. This gaffe could only kill his chances if he had any chances to begin with.
Let it go, man. That’s not what I said. Let it go.
Daniel
I don’t think Biden has a chance. If it were just Biden v Obama or Biden v Clinton, he might have a shot. Biden will end up as a congresscritter, which isn’t a bad consolation prize.
Biden’s dead in the water. He might have had a shot last time against Kerry, but he’s got no chance now.
They brought it up on the Daily Show last night. Biden was the guest. Biden was smiling and having a good time when they were going through it. Either he’s a closet racist (not likely) or he genuinely feels like he was taken out of context. Either way, it’s quite the nice jumble of words. A grade-b gaffe, I’d say.
Third choice: apologies are anathema to folks in politics, and they know that spinning their way out of a stupid thing to say is the way it’s done in their town.
I don’t see why it’s unlikely that he’s a closet racist, unless you’re equating racist with voting for David Duke.
Daniel
It seems most Dopers can’t accept a graduated scale of racism. Someone is either burning crosses on a lawn, or has never had a racist thought.