Go Get 'Em Biden!

Biden's playing CYA again, as he usually has to do at some point after he's opened his mouth, inserted his foot, and chewed away, but this time my complaint is less with him than it is with the Washington Post.

In reporting Biden's stupid remarks about Barack Obama, the Post includes, at the very end of the article, a description of Biden's run for the 2008 Cratz nomination for President this way:

"It's the second presidential bid for the talkative Biden, who pursued the White House in 1988, but withdrew from the race after allegations that his speeches contained passages from speeches given by a British political leader."

That's a very misleading way of putting the plagiarism charges against Biden.

Wikipedia defines the Biden incidents of plagiarism this way:

"Biden was forced to withdraw from the 1988 Democratic Presidential nominations when it was alleged that he had failed a 1965 introductory law school course on legal methodology due to plagiarism. "Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., fighting to salvage his Presidential campaign . . . acknowledged 'a mistake' in his youth, when he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school. Mr. Biden insisted, however, that he had done nothing 'malevolent,' that he had simply misunderstood the need to cite sources carefully." Biden withdrew from the race September 23, 1987, and reported the law school incident to the Delaware Supreme Court. The court's Board of Professional Responsibility cleared him of any allegations.
Biden was also accused of plagiarizing portions of his speeches, and that he had copied several campaign speeches, notably those of British Labour leader Neil Kinnock and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. He denied those charges. "And he asserted that another controversy, concerning recent reports of his using material from others' speeches without attribution, was 'much ado about nothing.'"

Joe Biden is an admitted plagiarist, and not only that but he seems to be defending his behavior when he says there was nothing "malevolent" in his intent. He can do all the tongue shuffling he likes about what he did; the fact of the matter is that given his level of education, he had to know what he was doing whether or not his intent was "malevolent". Malevolence is not the standard one uses to determine plagiarism.

Further, dismissing other allegations of misconduct in stealing other peoples' words does not mean those incidents did not occur. It's the old what-the-meaning-of-is-is syndrome all over again. When someone is repeatedly accused of the same misbehavior, it's impossible to dismiss all the charges as false, no matter how much the accused objects. Especially when the accused leaves a trail of undeniable proof behind.

My beef with the Washington Post has to do with the fact that they minimized information that tells us exactly what kind of man Joe Biden is. While the guy may not be malevolent, and I don't personally know any such thing about him - I only know what he tells me, he is a thief. That makes him a less than honorable man, and I would really prefer no more of that caliber peerson get elected to the White House. Especially when the information that could have prevented it was right before our eyes.

Besides that, Biden is a moron. He described Barack Obama as "clean". C'mon. Seriously. The Cratz cannot be pinning their hopes on this guy, can they? Can they?