All It Takes Is Two Minutes On Google To See How Commonly Used "Articulate" Is In Politics. Just Two

Anyone here can easily make a similar list within minutes of all different links for all different politicians. We are all within our rights to conclude whatever way we feel about the 'articulate' incident. But please don't try and act like it is reserved specifically for race, as that is so blatantly false. I and others have stated several times already that the term is one of the absolutely most common descriptive terms in politics regardless of race, gender or otherwise. It is AMAZINGLY easy to verify this fact. If there are arguments to be made for why someone feels the Biden comment was racist, claiming that the word 'articulate' itself is reason would be completely ignoring the reality of how common the term is in politics.

Personally, I think the FACT that the word is so unbelievably common in its use towards any politicians is of tremendous importance to the debate itself. So any of you that have not yet been aware to how common a term it is completely outside of any racial context, I implore you to take just 2 minutes yourself to become aware of this fact.

I post this because ACCURACY MATTERS: Especially when dealing with our own.

http://intellectualize.org/archives/000806.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/hillary-clinton-innovates_b_39366.html
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/12/194257/988
http://media.www.dailyutahchronicle.com/media/storage/paper244/news/2003/06/26/Opinion/Hillary.Clinton.For.President.In.2008-440890.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dailyutahchronicle.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050622-104216-7535r.htm
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/2/16/democratsPleaseDontNominateHillary
http://vendaz.livejournal.com/103145.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/26/ip.01.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/924235.stm
http://imusblog.com/jon-corzine-hillary-clinton-hard-time-getting-elected/
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9462.html
http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/12/28/23108.aspx
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7169/lindsay.html
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2006/12/john-edwards-maybe.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33655.html
http://www.clarionledger.com/misc/blogs/dhampton/2006/12/john-edwards.html
http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2004/10/06/Columns/Notes.From.Cheney.V.Edwards-743463.shtml?sourcedomain=www.browndailyherald.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
http://www.wikidemocrats.com/page/John+Edwards
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/06/opinion/meyer/main647651.shtml
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/060302/edwards.shtml
http://media.www.dailyutahchronicle.com/media/storage/paper244/news/2004/01/27/Opinion/Letter.To.The.Editor.Edwards.Is.Best.Man.For.The.Job-589144.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dailyutahchronicle.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/171716.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pitney200309220843.asp
http://getdonkey.com/index.php/archives/2002/07/12/who-the-heck-is-howard-dean/
http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/2003/04
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1026271.htm
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Howard%20Dean
http://www.ruskinmoscou.com/kremer-1-2-04.htm
http://www.metrog.com/headline/articles04/040315_deanfactor.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/13/cg.00.html
http://zhurnal.net/ww/zw?AlGore
http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/2006_01_17.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=3&entry_id=4391
http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/al_gore_meets_the_press_again.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/16/al-gore-illegal-spying-o_n_13914.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=12459&mesg_id=12481
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/10/al_gore
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/algore2008/signatories-2.html
http://orangepolitics.org/2004/04/4404-kucinich-does-carrboro/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/there-is-only-one-way-to-_b_35453.html
http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/article_10_06_02antiwar.html
http://www.jasonlefkowitz.net/blog1archive/2003/02/kucinich_ready.html
http://kucinich.us/node/2095
http://citypages.com/databank/24/1177/article11342.asp
http://www.bladam.com/main/entry/kucinich-potential-first-lady/
http://www.chimpsternation.com/forum?c=showthread&ThreadID=8
http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/media/storage/paper818/news/2003/10/16/HotTopics/Kucinich.Lays.Out.Platform.In.Des.Moines-1097161.shtml?sourcedomain=www.iowastatedaily.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4534274/
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8841
http://kerryforpresident2008.blogspot.com/2007/01/hope-is-on-way.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/12/12_kerry.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/kerry.fbi/
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4605
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200403080845.asp

What's going on here is like if a national leader said "She sure is smart, for a woman," and people started believing that "smart" is a slur against women. It's the f'ing CONTEXT that makes it offensive.

It's falling on deaf ears.

It is ONLY addressing the point that describing a politician as articulate, regardless of race or gender, is an amazingly common thing to see.

Nowhere did Biden issue a 'for a black man'.

You are putting those words in his mouth because you want him to come off as racist.

That is not how he meant it whatsoever.

Furthermore, regardless of other arguments for why it was or wasn't racism, this thread is not addressing that. This thread is ONLY addressing those who still want to put forth the false premise that the term and description is not used for white candidates, when it is simple verifiable FACT that it is one of the most commonly used descriptive terms in politics that there is, period.

Think what you want about how he did or didn't mean it. This thread isn't about that. It is only about addressing a specific inaccurate claim towards the argument and it is important to present facts to counter such false claims, especially when it is one of our own we are talking about.

You are putting those words in his mouth because you want him to come off as racist.
I did no such thing. I made an analogy, in which one person described another in positive terms while implying something negative about that person's gender. Biden said something positive about Obama while implying something negative about others of Obama's race. The point is that the word Biden used to describe Obama wasn't an insult-- the context was. This point is in complement to yours that other, white leaders are described as "articulate." In other words, I am in agreement with you that "articulate" is not an anti-black slur.
If you're going to be so over-the-top in telling people what should and what should not be addressed in this thread, I'll be happy to stop posting and let it sink to page 2.

If the interpretation wasn't the one you intended, then the fault probably lies in a flawed analogy, not my interpretation. I mean that sincerely and non-combatively.

Using an analogy like "She sure is smart, for a woman," as a comparison for why Biden was offensive, was very much the same as implying Biden said "He sure is articulate for a black man". Now had Biden said such, of course it would've been racist. But he didn't say that. In my opinion, Biden's ENTIRE statement can be summed up with "Obama is the first black candidate who just very well may win". I think that's all it was intended to portray and was totally benign.

But like I said, to each their own opinion on it. This thread's intent wasn't to debate if Biden's statement was or wasn't racist. Its intent is to take away the ridiculous notion that the descriptive use of 'articulate' is almost always used in racial ways. That is blatantly false by a huge margin and since this is one of our own we're talking about, I think the facts are important in the objective decision making process towards forging an opinion.

Since you acknowledge and are already aware that the use of the term is immensely common in politics, then that's all I cared about to begin with.

"What's going on here" = The present situation in which posters on DU believe "articulate" is a slur because of Biden's comments.

"is like" = sets up an analogous situation (not homologous)

"a national leader said "She sure is smart, for a woman," and people started believing that "smart" is a slur against women." = an analogous situation. The situation is analogous in that someone insulted someone else (not in the mechanics of how they did it) and people believe a particular word included in the sentence is a slur, contary to common usage of that word.

Cause even now, I still read your analogy as portraying Biden as having said something similar to "He sure is articulate, for a black man". But if you are intending to mean it as saying "DU'ers are misinterpreting Biden's statements to being equivalent to 'She sure is smart, for a woman' for example, and that's why some of them are upset" then I'd agree with you and the analogy. But the way it's coming off gives off a different impression in my opinion.

People are just twisting what Biden said.

But I did see that site quite a long time ago here, and it is extremely creative in its point.

But regardless, it has absolutely nothing to lend to this discussion whatsoever.

All I see is laughable denial.

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

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

Hey, genius, nowhere in this thread did it say what african americans should find offensive and not offensive. Maybe you should read the context again so as to not remain misguided.

and it has been since this has come out... keep clapping harder and louder....You're defending an arrogant knucklehead and you won't give up.

But that's you isn't it?