"all's well that ends well"

I think this is exactly right.

Isn't he from Hawaii or Kenya or something?

Sounds like something a German ski jumping commentator would say about Gregor Schlierenzauer. Or Adam Malysz, for that matter. Obama might be a fan.

It's only considered a fault for politicians, and it shouldn't be.

Thank you Joe!

While you are speaking honestly and frankly let us hear that you do not approve of women being bombed back into the cave. Throw us a bone!

pretty outspoken about women's issues.

If Joe Biden runs for President in 2016, he has my vote.

gotta love gentleman Joe.

He may not have the gift of the gab, but his heart is in the right place.

Loving it!

Biden, as VP has been as much of a force for good, as Cheney was a force for evil.
The contrast couldn't be more stark.

Last edited Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:55 PM - Edit history (4)

This was total stagecraft; Biden was merely the opening act. After the hostile reception to Obama's mealy-mouthed "evolution" remarks, he knew he couldn't stay on the "in my own way, on my own terms" path any longer. He also knew that the NC amendment would probably pass. So Biden, then he, strategically "sandwiched" their affirmations around the vote, winning the love of LBGTs and progressives in time to get re-elected -- and absolving themselves from actually DOING anything more.


rocktivity

Did David Gregory get the question beforehand? Why did Mark Halperin "spring" the question on Arne Duncan the next day on Morning Joe? (He clumsily introduced the question -- drew a gasp from Mika.) Why were they there, anyway?

And Obama escapes any responsibility in the NC vote, but "comes out" in time for the Hollywood dinner. Coincidence?

--imm

without permission.

Thankfully we have a Vice President who doesn't feel that his balls and moral compass have been confiscated for two terms.

You go, Joe.

and you'll find that the difference is stark. When Rmoney does it, it's not from the heart, but it's certainly revealing.

Nascar team owners. NFL team owners. Cadillacs. Firing people. Betting ten grand.

We got the good guys on our side.

How is this impacting the swing states (like North Carolina) we need to avoid the horror that is a Republican in the White House?

it's a democracy we've got. You can't run away from the issues that voters care about.

To avoid 'controversy', Why vote for him? The people who are strongly opposed to equal rights aren't voting Democratic at all. Obama has ended DADT and had a variety of other 'Gay friendly' positions that those folks would take exception to anyway. This, on the other hand, builds enthusiasm.

what rights of others will you forego, which truths will you disavow?

Just where do you draw a line? Is it just others or are you willing to toss out your own rights and freedoms too?

I'm asking why Obama decided, in the words of one Conservative pundit with whom I have never agreed in my entire life (until now), to do for Romney what Romney could not do for himself.

Obama has just ignited the Republican party beneath a candidate who couldn't even strike a match with them.

If it would help Obama get elected would you favor his attacking a woman's right to choose? If you wouldn't do that to women, why do it to the gay community?

Don't you get it? At what point would you consider a moral compass useless?

You're trying to equate his declaring that his position is "evolving" -- on the one hand -- with his actively coming out against gay marriage, i.e., "attacking a woman's right to choose" -- on the other. Your attempt to equate the two is fallacious.

He may have actually done the the LGBT's community's right to marriage far more benefit by "evolving" (for now), rather than losing the election altogether, and having his ability to make such change become powerless and his position completely irrelevant.

Maybe it makes you feel better to get indignant, but it is not constructive. And it isn't smart in an election year.

I didn't to any "equating". But you are really trying to duck this with some very asinine verbiage.

I asked you what you considered unimportant enough to be lied about or avoided until things are "safe".

You don't seem to mind ducking a moral person's responsibility to the LGBT community. I just asked if you felt that if the president ducked a response on a woman's right to choose you would feel as sanguine.

Maybe it makes you feel better to put winning ahead of making moral choices, but it is not right. Then you equate being "smart" to being sneaky and fallacious. Not the kind of smart candidate I want.

Nice try at ducking the question, though. Now if instead of obfuscating, you would like to just answer the question it would be nice. Do you feel as strongly that a moral center regarding the rights of women is as fungible as you do issues regarding the rights of the LGBT community?

I demonstrated this, and you haven't really addressed it.

But perhaps explain to me what this means, because it doesn't make any sense:

Do you feel as strongly that a moral center regarding the rights of women is as fungible as you do issues regarding the rights of the LGBT community?

Tell us, Mr. Vice President, about your thoughts on ... everything. GO!

I'm not knocking Biden at all when I say this, but does anybody REALLY think the VP went that far off script in an election year??? I'd think less of him if I actually believed he was that stupid or that much of a renegade.

Biden was the opening act, and if he'd been booed too loudly you might have heard a different speech out of Obama Wednesday, or you might have heard nothing at all. Let's be real practical here, there is not a thing that happens in an election year that is not planned, orchestrated, and polled. This is high stakes stuff, and these guys are in it to win (thankfully!) Biden did his job and he did it beautifully!



Laura

Good for him.

asked us all to do. Hold him to the fire when he is on the wrong course.

Good for Joe.