If it is Biden, should we be concerned about that 1988 plagiarism thing?

[WilliamPitt]

(honest question, I'm curious what you folks think...will this be a problem? It ended his run in '88, but that was then and this is etc etc)

In 1987, Joe Biden ran as a Democratic presidential candidate, formally declaring his candidacy in Wilmington, Delaware on June 9, 1987 at the Wilmington train station. In Biden's speech, he challenged Americans to step beyond the materialism of the Reagan years. When the campaign began, Biden was considered a potentially strong candidate because of his moderate image, his supposed appeal to Baby Boomers, his fundraising appeal (Biden's $1.7 million raised in the first quarter of 1987 was more than any other candidate, including the then front-runner, Gary Hart), his high profile position as chair of the Senate Judiciary committee during the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, and, perhaps above all, his soaring oratory.

However, the campaign ended when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party. Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video. In the video Biden is filmed repeating a stump speech by Kinnock, with only minor modifications. “Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go a university? Why is it that my wife . . . is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? . . . Is it because they didn't work hard? My ancestors who worked in the coal mines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It's because they didn't have a platform on which to stand.”

After Biden withdrew from the race it was learned that he had correctly credited Kinnock on other occasions. He failed to do so, however, in the Iowa speech that was recorded and distributed to reporters (with a parallel video of Kinnock) by aides to Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee. Dukakis fired John Sasso, his campaign manager and long-time Chief of Staff, but Biden's campaign could not recover.<21><22>

A speech that Biden had given to California Democrats earlier in the year contained passages from a Bobby Kennedy speech, but it was reported that Biden pollster and strategist Patrick Caddell had slipped the lines into the speech without Biden's knowledge. This however was hardly Biden's only problem. It was also revealed that he had plagiarized an article when he was in law school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_biden#Presidential_campaigns

[Eurobabe]

1. No, move on. n/t

[WilliamPitt]

3. That was easy.

*whew*

:P

OK, seriously. What do you think? I think he'll do fine. Warner would have been perfect and my personal pick was Clark, but if we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs, etc.

;)

[KittyWampus]

15. the guy working for Dukakis who ran with that later apologized.

Biden has used that story before and had always sourced it on those previous occasions.

Edit- sorry, you do have the names listed in OP. Too quick to post.

[Eurobabe]

16. We've got bigger fish to fry like energy crises, potential world wars

After McLame's appalling copycatting, and his wife's recipe stealing, the Cons don't have a leg to stand on.

[PatSeg]

42. He WILL do fine

The reason you'll get some succinct answers to this question is so many of us have answered it so many times. At the same time that this happened, Biden was putting a higher priority on the Bork hearings, which he gets little credit for.

All is well!

[dolo amber]

2. My gym pants are named Joe Biden

Hope that helps. :patriot:

[WilliamPitt]

8. Not even a little bit, but thanks anyway.

Do you love your gym shorts? Hate them? Do you have a fantasy about sweating all over Biden? If so, is this a compliment to him, or is your ass sweat a metaphor for why you think he ain't all that great a dude?

Yeah, totally confused.

;)

[dolo amber]

25. There were so many options, I just said I wanted

some nice, moderate gym pants. So when I found them...well, the rest of the story tells itself. :thumbsup:

[elocs]

4. Considering McCain's current plagiarism state I don't think Republicans would want to go there. n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. Agreed. nt

[mzmolly]

38. Unfortunately, neither would we.

I like Biden, but I think Clark (for example) is a better choice.

[JaneQPublic]

40. Right, after he copped his speech on Georgia from Wikipedia (nt)

[Jackpine Radical]

77. There is nothing to stop the Repubicans.

Under ordinary circumstances, they are permitted to lie, cheat and steal without being called on it. But McCain was a POW. That means they are absolutely REQUIRED to lie, cheat and steal, and they have absolute immunity from consequences.

[flamingdem]

6. If that's all the man is clean n/t

[Pastiche423]

50. "Clean" is not a word I would use for Biden

Plus, I will never forgive him for Clarence Thomas.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. I'm more worried about his "foreign policy" creds.

With all of his alleged experience and knowledge of foreign policy he managed to vote for Bush's war.

[Junkdrawer]

14. Have you seen Zbig's (Obama's other foreign policy guru) cover editorial in Time Magazine?

Scary stuff:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1832699,00.html

Here's hoping that Joe can tone it down a notch....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Biden & Zbig are both Neo-Libs. The kinder gentler version of Neo-Cons.

The difference is that they apologize for the death and destruction.

[WilliamPitt]

18. I'm pretty sure our foreign policy under an Obama/Biden administration

will resemble the now-seemingly-quaint mayhem proffered by Clinton, elder Bush, etc. In other words, the defense contractors will ALWAYS get their dough, we will continue to be the world's largest weapons dealers, but we probably won't invade anything more difficult than Grenada or Haiti.

I'm all for Obama, but folks...the way things operate has been hard-wired into this place since 1947. Anyone who thinks presidents really get to run shit has watched too much West Wing. The foreign policy will be what it has been for 61 years: exactly what will keep the money flowing in the proper directions, i.e. not towards us.

Selah.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Politicians, in general, overestimate themselves as agents of change.

And, they cling to the notion that just holding office will "change" a corrupt system.

[valerief]

55. Bingo. The Prez is just the messenger. nt

[eleny]

9. Absolutely not

McCain won't be mentioning this nor his associates since he plagiarized from Gulag Archipelago and Wikipedia.

For chirssakes - drop it.

[ChiciB1]

10. I Recall All Of It... And I'm Sure It Will Factor In, But For Me It's NOTHING

compared to what we've been through these past EIGHT years! Biden can and will have a "ready retort" by simply listing factual events that have taken place that are 10 times worse! I don't think he will back down OR stutter if they hit him with it!

TWENTY years ago, gee just think about McDrooley and what he was doing back then. And Biden knows a few juicy snippets I'm sure!

Better him than ANOTHER DINO, JMHO!

[EFerrari]

11. I'd be more worried about his off- the-cuffedness.

Most people think plagarism is a flu virus but everyone gets jokes about people over the hill -- especially the people over the hill.

[Seeking Serenity]

12. No, I'm more concerned that he'll wonk people to sleep. (n/t)

[RedLetterRev]

71. Wonk, wank

better than anything McLame, who can do neither, could come up with. Y'think?

Wot, me worry?

[Milo_Bloom]

13. It's one of a list of problems that come with Biden...

The largest of which is his war vote.

By choosing a war voter, Obama takes away his biggest advantage over McCain.

[AlCzervik]

17. his vote on the bankruptcy bill, can you add that to the list?

[Milo_Bloom]

37. For those of us who pay attention yeah...

But most people don't really understand the bankrupcy bill and what it did to the working poor and those struggling (and no one cares about them anyway... I wish I were being more sarcastic, but it is true).

At the end of the day, Obama has a HUGE advantage over McCain in that he can play the "I didn't get us into this mess" card. He can discuss all the extra money we would have in our treasury today if we hadn't wasted BILLIONS http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

However, when you choose a war voter as your #2... advantage is GONE.

[AlCzervik]

41. If he was going to pick a senator and i kind of hope he doesn't then why not Feingold?

No on the bankruptcy bill, no on the patriot act and no on the war.

[WilliamPitt]

26. I'm not sure that's true.

Obama's biggest advantage over McCain is that he isn't McCain. Concern about losing voters because of Biden's war vote is concern focused on the activist base, i.e. us. I'm pretty sure we're gonna vote properly whether Biden is there or not, or at least I hope so.

Besides, all Obama has to do to defuse concerns about Biden's voting record is give one speech - one single speech - making it clear to all and sundry that the office of the Vice President is not going to retain the kind of outrageous power and influence enjoyed by Mr. Cheney. In other words, it goes back to being the bucket of warm spit Truman described it as.

Biden could have voted to exterminate everyone wearing blue in Chicago, voted to have Jesus excommunicated, voted to sell the 6th fleet to Madagascar for three spider monkeys and four bald tires, and voted to pull the moon closer to Earth so we can see better at night...but if Obama publicly gelds the VP's office, it won't matter.

Exaggeration, of course, but you see what I'm driving at. Obama is the show.

[Milo_Bloom]

56. Sorry, but that is incredibly short-sighted

No matter how publicly Obama gelds the VP office, his choice is a reflection on him. This person is a heartbeat away from the presidency and the de facto next president. The VP is seen, whether true or not, as the closest adviser to the president. The one in whom he is willing to believe his legacy will be carried if the worst should happen. Obama can't spin his way out of that.

The talking points become so easy at that point... he can no longer question McCain's judgment when it comes to the war vote, because both his VP and McCain voted the same way.

Worse still, the distinguishing factor becomes support of "The Surge" and as far as the majority of the country is concerned (because the media doesn't tell the truth) "The Surge" worked.

The war isn't about the base... The war is about the MIDDLE. The independent people who gave politicians the benefit of the doubt in 2004 and then turned against them in 2006 and gave the Senate and congress back to the Dems.

How can you say McCain lacks the judgment to lead when the person you chose to be next in line made the same decision? AND the only decision they really distinguished them self on... the media believes your #2 got wrong.

Picking a war voter is a guaranteed loss, because the independents will suddenly see "no difference" between the candidates and McCain is the one with a "reputation" for being independent.

[WilliamPitt]

57. "...his choice is a reflection on him..."

It's a Hobson's Choice. Obama is facing serious racially-based voter bias in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, which he will need to carry if he hopes to win. No Democrat has ever won without carrying at least one of those states. Biden's big white face is a billboard aimed at those voters.

The war-vote issue affects fewer voters than the racism issue. It's a balance call...plus, I still maintain that it will be Dem activist base voters who get pissed about the war vote more than anyone else. Remember, most voters watch TV news, and the TV news says the surge worked and we're winning and stuff, and now that vRussia has gone crazy, a guy like Biden who votes for warfare is what we need to defend America and stuff.

I just channeled FOX. You get my point.

Biden helps to bring in squirrelly-nervous-meta-racist white votes we need to win, and whatever votes lost over the IWR vote will be marginal, because most of the Dem base will vote for Obama, and Obama will do his thing and remind everyone a) the VP ain't running shit, and b) he's been against the war from the start.

[Milo_Bloom]

61. Are there no white people who didn't vote for the war?

Again, this isn't as much about the dem base, as it is about the "middle" and the moderate republicans. The war is a key issue with them and a war voter takes it off the table.

I also believe a war voter completely demotivates the dem base. I can name about 10 people in my limited circle who would be voting 3rd party over Obama if he chooses a war voter and I am one of them.

[WilliamPitt]

66. "Are there no white people who didn't vote for the war?"

Nope. Not anymore. Hillary, Edwards, just about every Dem senator who even considered running voted yes. Byrd and Kennedy voted no, along with a score of others, but they ain't running.

Curious about something, and feel free not to answer: what would you have done if Clinton had won the nomination?

Also, where does the fact that probably three SCOTUS spots are going to open by 2012 stand on your list of priorities? I as k because the next president is likely going to be able to reshape the court, and it's understanding of Constitutional law, for the next 20 years.

I feel you, but do not agree. I know for a stone fact that if you've heard of a politician, that politician is not to be trusted, and I don't care what letter comes after their name. Fixing this shit is going to take a lifetime's effort, and will include casting a number of votes that taste like shit in my heart. Ah, politics.

If you've heard of them, that means they signed on the dotted line and joined up with the guardians of Same-Old-Same-Old, promising to keep the process going, keep the money flowing, and in return they get to go on TV and maybe be president. All of them, same thing.

Knowing this makes it easier to deal with them. I haven't been a virgin for a long time...and pssssst...a lot of the third-party candidates are equally craptacular people you wouldn't want to be next to in an elevator. It is what it is; modern politics attracts candidates with a certain kind of deeply narcissistic personality that is not within a three-day drive of normal.

There is a legitmate argument for pursuing this long-term reform by supporting and streghtening third parties. In certain states, like my state of Massachusetts, third-party support is something I actively advocate. We have good clean elections laws that really help third party candidates hang in and make their case like a real grown-up politician and stuff. :)

I've been telling Green friends of mine that the party should just haul stakes and re-plant themselves here. Get organized, run for low-level offices, build a power base, build a geographic base, run for governor and win, do this over ten years time...

...and then run someone for president when that candidate stands a solid chance of winning Massachusetts' electoral college votes. Just one state...and a close race between the Dem and GOP candidates, but neither gains enough EC votes to win...and there's the Green candidate with a handful of ECs and a list of demands...instant runoff, finance reform, third party inclusion in national debates...

Whoever agrees to these terms gets to be president...and third parties will have arrived.

My choice is to ride the tiger a while longer, make sure the Supreme Court isn't overrun by Roberts or Alito clones...remember when they floated Gonzales as a potential SCOTUS nominee way back when?

Yeah. Obama gets my vote no matter who he taps for VP. So long as the powers of the VPs office are stuffed back down where they belong, I can live with practically any choice. Frankly, I'm more concerned about who he might pick for AG, SecState, SecDef and chairmen of the FCC, FEC and SEC. Those people will have far, far more impact on our lives than whoever becomes VP.

My opinion. Cheers.

:toast:

[Milo_Bloom]

67. Answers...

"Curious about something, and feel free not to answer: what would you have done if Clinton had won the nomination?"

No way on earth I would have voted for her.

"Also, where does the fact that probably three SCOTUS spots are going to open by 2012 stand on your list of priorities?"

Not very high, since if someone could send people off to die for political purposes, then I don't trust them any more than someone from the other party to pick a justice. No matter who got in we would likely wind up with a "compromise justice" who is acceptable to the GOP.

See... I feel those agonizing votes that leave a bad taste in my mouth do so for a reason.. it is a bad vote. Things are never going to change at all if we keep marching in the same direction, which is what we have been doing since 1980 without stopping (we slowly SLIGHTLY 1992->2000, but we kept heading in the same direction).


In fact, if things aren't going to change, I would personally prefer them to get worse... FASTER, so we can take this lunacy to its fullest extent and finally start on the real path to sanity.

[shimmergal]

70. Not gonna happen

(a turnaround onto "the real path to sanity" if things get worse faster.) That's the same rationale Nader used in his 2000 presidential run, and you see what that got us. . . Do you think you can game the history muse so easily?


In fact, I find your whole rationale a bit bizarre. Biden, H. Clinton, Kerry, Edwards et al DID NOT send people off to die in Iraq, despite their IRW votes. That responsibility must be set at the stinking feet of GW Bush and Dick Cheney. Why are so many Dems so eager to let them off the hook? It's perfectly clear from Paul O'Neill's & Richard Clarke's books, and others', that these two and their cronies were hell-bent to invade Iraq from at least the beginning ot their term in office, with or without any sort of Congressional support. I was strongly opposed to this misadventure from the beginning, but at least I know whom to blame for it. Hopefully, most Americans do, also.

As to whether Biden's vote would be a drawback to the Obama campaign, I don't think so, for most voters. Time marches on, and getting the troops out of Iraq SOON interests most people more than replaying a past situation. I presume Biden agrees they should come home (or go to Afghanistan) rather than linger for 100 years like McCain wants?

More troubling to me is his sponsorship of the Bankruptcy bill. That _doesn't_ just impact a few poor people out of the mainstream of voters, as somebody implied above. Every month I'm reminded of it, when I pay my credit card bill. Lots of people are hurting from it, but I honestly don't know how many make the connection.

The other thing--I can't evaluate the "war" vs. "race" factors as Wm Pitt does; he may be right about that. But Biden can bring other factors to the campaign than just a white face. For one thing, sometimes he is funny. Even his foot-in-mouth goofs tend to be funny. We need that. I'm afraid that Obama's attempts at humor fall flat most of the time--at least with the people I know. I suspect it's a generational gap, not one of different subcultures. Anyhow, Biden's not my first choice, but I could live with it.

[Milo_Bloom]

72. Spin it however you want... they sent them off to die.

Whether you are in the planning, pull off the actual robbery or drive the getaway car, ALL parties are responsible for the act. So trying to absolve Biden, Clinton, Kerry and the rest of those from the responsibility they own doesn't cut it.

If you think Americans don't associate voting for the war with being in the war, you are just fooling yourself.

I now see why Democrats keep losing the big fights... they really don't understand the way people think.


It's all very simple and black and white in most people's minds.


Politician: "I want to get the troops out of Iraq quickly"

Questioner: "But you voted for the war"

Politician: *tries to make some distinction between voting for it and the poor execution*

Questioner: *points out that Politician is either waffling and/or flip flopping

End result... public is led to believe that they are weak in their convictions and willing to accept defeat.

No matter how you try and spin, waffle or explain it away... if you voted for it... YOU OWN IT.


And I am sorry to say, but yes, the bankrupcy bill is not forefront in most people's minds, b/c most people don't see/understand its impact, in the same way most people don't understand the DMCA or even net neutrality for that matter and they won't understand it until it changes their lives DIRECTLY in a way they can understand.

If you pay your bills on time (as most do), the bankrupcy bill doesn't change your life at all. It only hurts "Them", but what most people stupidly don't realize is they are just one paycheck and/or one bad decision away from being one of "them".

[ChiciB1]

68. Very "Few" Dems Voted AGAINST The War!!! Feingold Would Be

another GREAT choice for me, but aren't you forgetting how Ronnie Ray-Guns made LIBERAL a dirty word?? As a Liberal of the Wellstone ranks, I still get attacked! But as Petty sang so well, I WON'T BACK DOWN by name calling, even though I'm NOT at all excited about this election!!

And as I see it, the WILD young voters MUST vote, but WILL THEY?? My 19 year old grandson who whooped and hollered in support of Obama has already "moved on!" And yes, it's MY DUTY to make sure he'll vote, unfortunately I myself need to be reminded!! Washington and all that it represents these days isn't something representative of "We The People!"

[Milo_Bloom]

73. This is exactly the problem.

Obama has already forgotten the excitement that brought him to where he is today and is now seeking the comfort of washington insiders. It's simply not going to work on so many different levels.

The more Obama attempts to soften his edge by padding it with war voters and acceptable compromises, the more those initially excited about HOPE and CHANGE come to believe McCain was right when he called them platitudes and no, they are not going to vote for McCain... they just aren't going to vote.

[stray cat]

19. No - he credited it every previous time he had ever used it

thats not plagiarism thats a mistake

[Naturyl]

21. It will be mentioned, but the facts are available.

Biden correctly attributed the speech in all cases but one. Failing to do so in that particular case was clearly just an oversight on his part. Those who made it an issue later saw regretted doing so. Beyond that, it's very old news.

[Lex]

23. Facts don't concern the Corp. Media nor the voters evidently. Kerry?

Remember him?

[Naturyl]

29. Yep. That's why it's our job to have the facts available

And if and when an opportunity presents itself, to not be afraid to use them.

[KharmaTrain]

22. It Doesn't Matter...The Corporate Media Will Find A Scandal Or Make One Up

Recently I was thinking about the first media veep frenzy...1972 when it was revealed that Thomas Eagleton had undergone EST and that he was a manic depressive...a stigma in those days and still not properly understood and treated today...it was the first time I had witnessed the "concern trolling" that has re-appeared in every election since. It's the same drill, just insert a different name and "scandal" or weekness. But this now is a rule more applied to Democrats as they self-angst when such a situation occurs. Repugnicans prefer to "gut it out"...even with a baffoon like Dan Quayle who is one of the few humaoids who can claim to be dumber than georgie booooosh.

It seems no matter who Senator Obama picks, it won't satisfy some pundit or party faction. And in the end, it will mean nothing as, dare it be said publicly, few people vote FOR the Vice President (except the veep's chief of staff and immediate family). Both campaigns have been playing the corporate media like a fiddle on this game as it caters to the high-school cafateria atmosphere inside the beltway bubble. People are the gist of the cocktail drinkie-drinkie parties where most of the "pundits" get their "scoops" and read tea-leaves in a gin and tonic-induced haze.

My hopes are the electorate this year is both smarter and more pissed-off than in the past. That they want substance over flash...and if I'm wrong, I'll need a very, very long vacation.

Cheers...

[Ganja Ninja]

27. Not after McInsane's cross in the dirt story. n/t

[mhatrw]

28. No, but we should be concerned about the bankruptcy bill.

Biden is a bi-Dem. He swings boths ways.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

30. I couldn't care less about it, and I'd say America will feel the same.

[AngryAmish]

31. We will merely crush those who bring it up

Destroy all of those who would destroy America.

[antigop]

32. I think we should be more concerned about his age-- he'll be 73 8 years from now

He'll turn 66 in November.

It would be nice to have a VP young enough to run for prez in eight years. Biden's age, imo, will be an issue eight years from now.

[Terran]

34. That's a damn good point.

I don't think the issue Will brought up can be ressurected very effectively, but his age is a concern. I don't suppose that's uppermost, however, in Obama's calculations.

[ChiciB1]

69. As Another Person Stated On Another Thread... He Probably Won't

run or POTUS in 8 years, so he can "unload" and be a "kinder nicer" DICK Cheney!!!

[VeraAgnes]

33. I hope it is Biden for VP.

I have several of his books signed............and can make a little "$$$monie" off them via E-Bay. :toast:

[MiniMe]

35. Interesting question re: Biden...

Where will he live? He doesn't live in the DC area now, he commutes back and forth to Delaware. Will he have to move to DC now since the Naval Observatory is the VP residence? I wonder if his wife will move down with him. I don't know why that question popped into my find. I guess I'm distracted.

[mzmolly]

36. Yes,

we should. Especially with "cross gate" looming large.

[mhatrw]

39. No, but we should be concerned about the bankruptcy bill.

Biden is a bi-Dem. He swings boths ways.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Why not? Then we can move over to the Keating 5 scandal.

That should work.

[bullwinkle428]

44. McCain's got enough plagiarism scandals of his own right now

quite honestly, if the MSM actually did its job! For them to bring up Biden's '88 deal would just illustrate hypocrisy of the highest magnitude.

But then again, look at McCain vs. Edwards re: infidelity...sigh.

[enlightenment]

45. I think Biden has been very open about the law school

incident, which was much more serious than the speech. If he had attempted to cover up either error it would indicate a level of duplicity that I would consider problematic, but he has not tried to cover anything up.

I teach history and deal with incidents of plagiarism every term. MOST are simply failures to understand how to properly cite information, not deliberate attempts to use someone else's ideas as their own. Most of the time I give my students' an opportunity to rectify their error - rewriting their work and writing an essay about plagiarism - because I believe the nature of education is to help them learn, not punish them for ignorance. In other cases, where the intent was clearly to try and pass off someone else's work, the penalty is failure.

I suppose my point is that we can't paint everyone with the same broad brush every time. A lot of DUers were crowing about John McCain's "plagiarism" a little while ago, as proof of his corrupt nature I suppose, but the circumstances of that incident were not clear enough - at least to me - to burn him at the stake. Biden's episodes are troubling because it happened more than once and the press loves to create connections and intent where none may exist . . . and because it would be nice if neither incident had occurred. But as far as problems go, there seems to be enough light shining on both episodes to defuse them as weapons of the opposition.

[Evoman]

46. Lol...about 90% of people plagiarize.

I think there is basically a core group of about 35 people who actually write anything original.

We should just get used to the fact that all of our politicians are pandering, plagiarizing, spouse-cheaters, and go from there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. I'd be more worried about the baseball thing.

[spanone]

48. they will search every nuance, every nook & cranny, every word he's uttered..

every hair implant...

[Terranist]

49. Obama/Banking Industry-Gaffemachine 08?

No thanks.

[George II]

51. If so, what about that cross in the dirt story we heard on Saturday night?

[mmonk]

52. To be honest, I don't think it will be a hindrance if he is the VP

nominee. I have the utmost confidence in Biden.

[gateley]

53. It's not Biden. He told reporters today. So all your concern is for naught. nt

[Politicalboi]

54. They might not touch this

But what links does Biden have with the Bush Library? At the 3:22 mark he mentions Biden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h60GvMKeYmI

[McCamy Taylor]

58. How cam it be Biden when he will go rogue? Staying on message is important for Obama.

There is no way in hell that Biden will ever be able to keep himself on the Obama message for three months. He will say what he wants to say, and then there will be Republicans asking who is speaking for the campaign, Obama or Biden?

[NNN0LHI]

59. If thats the worst the thugs have on him we will be setting pretty

Most Americans probably have no idea what plagiarism even is.

Non-issue.

Don

[truedelphi]

60. Unless Biden confesses to the Yellow Cake Uranium forgery

I say let the past be past.

[lonestarnot]

62. Andy Borowitz has come to a pretty humorous conclusion re this issue.

August 19, 2008
Biden Prepares 50,000-Word Acceptance Speech
Senator to Address Convention on Wednesday, Thursday

In an indication that he expects to be Barack Obama's vice-presidential pick, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del) has begun writing a 50,000-word acceptance speech, aides to the senator confirmed today.

The address, which Mr. Biden has been working on around the clock, is an abridged version of a 200,000-word acceptance speech that Mr. Biden wrote when he ran for President in 1988.

According to those familiar with the speech, if Mr. Biden is tapped as Mr. Obama's vice presidential choice the Delaware senator would begin delivering the speech on Wednesday night of the Democratic convention and conclude it on Thursday night.

Representatives of television news divisions said they were undecided as to how to cover the Biden speech, but none were willing to commit to covering the speech live in its entirety.

"We may wind up airing some of it on CNBC or maybe the USA Network, and then cut away to something else," said Carol Foyler on NBC News. "We're basically going to treat it like the hammer throw."

Mr. Biden, who was accused of plagiarizing a speech by a British politician when he ran for President in 1988, is unlikely to get caught doing that this time, according to one aide: "If there are some plagiarized bits in this speech, he'll stick them at the end after the audience has lost consciousness."

borowitzreport.com

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

63. Well...

If it is Biden, should we be concerned about that 1988 plagiarism thing?
Edited on Tue Aug-19-08 12:08 PM by WilliamPitt
(honest question, I'm curious what you folks think...will this be a problem? It ended his run in '88, but that was then and this is etc etc)

In 1987, Joe Biden ran as a Democratic presidential candidate, formally declaring his candidacy in Wilmington, Delaware on June 9, 1987 at the Wilmington train station. In Biden's speech, he challenged Americans to step beyond the materialism of the Reagan years. When the campaign began, Biden was considered a potentially strong candidate because of his moderate image, his supposed appeal to Baby Boomers, his fundraising appeal (Biden's $1.7 million raised in the first quarter of 1987 was more than any other candidate, including the then front-runner, Gary Hart), his high profile position as chair of the Senate Judiciary committee during the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, and, perhaps above all, his soaring oratory.

However, the campaign ended when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party. Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video. In the video Biden is filmed repeating a stump speech by Kinnock, with only minor modifications. “Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go a university? Why is it that my wife . . . is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? . . . Is it because they didn't work hard? My ancestors who worked in the coal mines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It's because they didn't have a platform on which to stand.”

After Biden withdrew from the race it was learned that he had correctly credited Kinnock on other occasions. He failed to do so, however, in the Iowa speech that was recorded and distributed to reporters (with a parallel video of Kinnock) by aides to Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee. Dukakis fired John Sasso, his campaign manager and long-time Chief of Staff, but Biden's campaign could not recover.<21><22>

A speech that Biden had given to California Democrats earlier in the year contained passages from a Bobby Kennedy speech, but it was reported that Biden pollster and strategist Patrick Caddell had slipped the lines into the speech without Biden's knowledge. This however was hardly Biden's only problem. It was also revealed that he had plagiarized an article when he was in law school.



That's what I think.

[Catherine Vincent]

64. I didn't know this about Pat Caddell.

That doesn't surprise me if that's true. That guy is a scumbag...and I'm being nice here.

[unkachuck]

65. yes....

....and he's been around for ever, voted for the IWR, the bankruptcy/credit card thingy, etc....you know his record better than I do....

....he says the right things once is a while but most of the time he's just a system schmuck....what does that do for the Obama's message of 'change'?....what does making a rich old white guy VP going to do for Obama's life expectancy?

....so he can do a geezer to geezer attack on mcsame, so what?....I'd rather see us do something fresh and original....most of the names kicked around are assholes....

[Overseas]

74. Let's see... JSM III has Wiki-gate, Le Monde, Cross in Sand and stolen campaign songs... /nt

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[benEzra]

76. I'd be a lot more worried about the RIAA/DMCA thing,

the Drug Czar thing, the usury thing, and the let's-ban-more-guns thing, personally.

The plagiarism thing was big in the media, but I don't see it as being much of a current liability.

[Jackpine Radical]

78. If it's Biden, they'd better have their ANSWERS ready. The question will be asked.

It won't come from the McCain camp, it'll come from the media. They need to have the answer ready on the tips of their tongues right out of the box.

The plagiarism thing is not necessarily a killer. Other things bother me a lot more about Biden--current and recent things. The bankruptcy law, for one, foreign affairs for another.

[ms liberty]

79. The law school thing was a incorrectly placed footnote or endnote, IIRC...

I'm not too worried about it, most of the reasons are listed in previous posts.