Biden’s Embellishments Could Provide Easy Fodder for GOP

[Dos Equis]

Could be a problem. 

Biden’s Embellishments Could Provide Easy Fodder for GOP
by FOXNews.com
Saturday, August 23, 2008
 
By Bill Sammon

When Joe Biden claimed at a Democratic debate last year that he had been “shot at” while visiting Baghdad’s Green Zone, the press didn’t bother to check it out, since Biden’s White House bid seemed unlikely to succeed.

But now that he has been catapulted into contention by virtue of being selected as Barack Obama’s running mate, Biden and such bullet-dodging tales may be subjected to a level of scrutiny that tripped up Hillary Clinton when she falsely claimed to have come under sniper fire in Bosnia.

And Republicans would have a litany of apparent inconsistencies and embellishments to pick through.

For example, Biden claimed in 2006 that he chided President Bush in a private conversation.

“When I speak to the president,” he told Bill Maher on HBO, “I’ll literally turn to the president and say, ‘Mister President, how can you say that, knowing you don’t know the facts?’”

“He said, ‘I have good instincts,’” said Biden, purporting to quote Bush. “I said, ‘Mr. President, your instincts aren’t good enough.’”

His Democratic audience cheered appreciatively, but a close Bush confidante told FOX News on Saturday: “That conversation never happened.”

On the same show, Biden claimed to have once told a colleague: “Were we not senators, I’d rip your goddamn Adam’s apple out.”

Although he did not name the other senator, Biden’s graphic imagery caused some to wonder about his temperament.

Biden also used unusually strong language to ridicule those who believe in creationism or intelligent design.

“I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarkey!” the senior senator from Delaware exclaimed.

But less than six months earlier, CBS News conducted a poll that found a majority of Americans (51 percent) do believe that God created humans in their present form. Even larger majorities reject the theory of evolution, according to the poll.

After the HBO show ended, a reporter asked Biden whether his dismissal of a belief held dear by most Americans might come back to haunt him if his White House bid gained traction.

With characteristic bluntness, Biden shrugged and said yes.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/23/bidens-embellishments-could-provide-easy-fodder-for-gop/

[OzmO]

It all depends on how concrete the stuff they have on him is.

If it comes down to he said she said stuff it will likely not go anywhere.

But if it's solid stuff like Hilary's deal, then it my hurt him bad.

[youandme]

It all depends on how concrete the stuff they have on him is.

If it comes down to he said she said stuff it will likely not go anywhere.

But if it's solid stuff like Hilary's deal, then it my hurt him bad.

Haha, she's out of it dude.

I'm ok with him embellishing the truths, as long as he does not lie.

Just like the Clinton, "shooting" thing, I mean Clinton, Biden, etc. (not Obama) they travel around the world in about 2 weeks making stops, things can get hazy.

[OzmO]

Haha, she's out of it dude.

I'm ok with him embellishing the truths, as long as he does not lie.

Just like the Clinton, "shooting" thing, I mean Clinton, Biden, etc. (not Obama) they travel around the world in about 2 weeks making stops, things can get hazy.

Actually she's in a great position.

If Obama loses, it's hers in 2012.

If Obama wins, I bet she becomes a supreme court judge by Obama appointment.   Talk about a left leaning judge.

[Dos Equis]

If he was lying it will be magnified given his past problems with plagiarism. 

Hillary on the Supreme Court?  She is as qualified as Harriet Meiers.  Maybe less.  Seems like most of her experience is from pillow talk.  Republicans should definitely filibuster.   

[tu_holmes]

If he was lying it will be magnified given his past problems with plagiarism. 

Hillary on the Supreme Court?  She is as qualified as Harriet Meiers.  Maybe less.  Seems like most of her experience is from pillow talk.  Republicans should definitely filibuster.   

I don't think you want to look at the experience factor when it comes to Hillary.

Read it and weep.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/Supreme_Court/justices/nopriorexp.html

[Dos Equis]

I don't think you want to look at the experience factor when it comes to Hillary.

Read it and weep.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/Supreme_Court/justices/nopriorexp.html

I disagree.  I wasn't talking about judicial experience.  That isn't a requirement and isn't necessary, although I'm sure it helps.  I'm talking about her professional experience (which is why I said she's probably even less qualified than Meiers).  I know she was in private practice, but seems like she has spent more time as first lady than anything else.  She is razor thin on qualificiations IMO.   

[tu_holmes]

I disagree.  I wasn't talking about judicial experience.  That isn't a requirement and isn't necessary, although I'm sure it helps.  I'm talking about her professional experience (which is why I said she's probably even less qualified than Meiers).  I know she was in private practice, but seems like she has spent more time as first lady than anything else.  She is razor thin on qualificiations IMO.  

In January she will have served as Senator of NY the exact same number of years as she was first lady of the United States... While you're probably adding in her time spent as Gubernatorial First Lady, I don't really see as what happened more than 16 years ago (and if she gets the nomination in 2012, more than 20) will really be an issue.

[Dos Equis]

In January she will have served as Senator of NY the exact same number of years as she was first lady of the United States... While you're probably adding in her time spent as Gubernatorial First Lady, I don't really see as what happened more than 16 years ago (and if she gets the nomination in 2012, more than 20) will really be an issue.

So 8 years as senator, about 19 years as First Lady, and some private practice experience.  How does this qualify her to sit on the Supreme Court? 

I think her lack of experience will absolutely be a factor if Obama is foolish enough to nominate her.  I didn't think she was qualified to be prez either. 

[tu_holmes]

So 8 years as senator, about 19 years as First Lady, and some private practice experience.  How does this qualify her to sit on the Supreme Court? 

I think her lack of experience will absolutely be a factor if Obama is foolish enough to nominate her.  I didn't think she was qualified to be prez either. 

Like I said... many people with less experience have been nominated... Now you're just being a hater.

[Dos Equis]

Like I said... many people with less experience have been nominated... Now you're just being a hater.

That's not what you said.  You mentioned judicial experience.  Who are the "many people" with less professional legal experience? 

Hater?  lol . . .  I admit I can't stand the woman, but I'm just talking facts.

[tu_holmes]

That's not what you said.  You mentioned judicial experience.  Who are the "many people" with less professional legal experience? 

Hater?  lol . . .  I admit I can't stand the woman, but I'm just talking facts.

Quite a few were governors or just Senators... There's also a guy what the Chairman of the S.E.C.

I'd say those people were right on par with her... She passed the bar and is a lawyer... That's all that is required, and apparently, even THAT isn't a requirement.

Are you trying to deny her the pursuit of happiness because you feel she's not experienced enough?

[Dos Equis]

Quite a few were governors or just Senators... There's also a guy what the Chairman of the S.E.C.

I'd say those people were right on par with her... She passed the bar and is a lawyer... That's all that is required, and apparently, even THAT isn't a requirement.

Are you trying to deny her the pursuit of happiness because you feel she's not experienced enough?

Your list doesn't show the extent of each justice's professional experience.  I bet it's more than 8 years as a senator and several years in private practice.  It would actually surprise me if her professional legal experience isn't less than everyone on the list. 

I know there is a huge political component to these appointments, but these appointments are supposed to be the best, brightest, and most accomplished the legal profession has to offer.  It's far more than a warm body who passed the bar exam. 

Pursuit of happiness?  You mean a net worth of $30 million-plus, a lifetime of book royalties, and probably a lifetime senate career isn't enough?   

This isn't about happiness.  It's about putting the most qualified people on the bench.

[tu_holmes]

Your list doesn't show the extent of each justice's professional experience.  I bet it's more than 8 years as a senator and several years in private practice.  It would actually surprise me if her professional legal experience isn't less than everyone on the list. 

I know there is a huge political component to these appointments, but these appointments are supposed to be the best, brightest, and most accomplished the legal profession has to offer.  It's far more than a warm body who passed the bar exam. 

Pursuit of happiness?  You mean a net worth of $30 million-plus, a lifetime of book royalties, and probably a lifetime senate career isn't enough?  

This isn't about happiness.  It's about putting the most qualified people on the bench.

So you have no proof that they have a better record or are more qualified, you're just willing to bet... Got it.

So there's a monetary figure that can be capped for the pursuit of happiness now?  And you get to determine what it is... I see.

The most qualified people are just that... People.

Anyone with an opinion is qualified... It's still "We the People"... Right?

[Dos Equis]

So you have no proof that they have a better record or are more qualified, you're just willing to bet... Got it.

So there's a monetary figure that can be capped for the pursuit of happiness now?  And you get to determine what it is... I see.

The most qualified people are just that... People.

Anyone with an opinion is qualified... It's still "We the People"... Right?

No, I have no proof.  Do you?  I'm not about to look, because I think my assumption is pretty safe.  Even Clarence Thomas, who B. Hussein said wasn't qualified, was head of the EEOC and served as a judge.  I wonder if Hillary has ever even seen the inside of a courtroom? 

I was joking about the monetary issue.  I didn't take your pursuit of happiness comments seriously.  You weren't serious, were you? 

Yes the most qualified people are just people, but they're also people with a long track record of relevant professional accomplishments.  I don't think Hillary even makes the top 100.  Even her husband would be a better choice.
 

[tu_holmes]

No, I have no proof.  Do you?  I'm not about to look, because I think my assumption is pretty safe.  Even Clarence Thomas, who B. Hussein said wasn't qualified, was head of the EEOC and served as a judge.  I wonder if Hillary has ever even seen the inside of a courtroom? 

I was joking about the monetary issue.  I didn't take your pursuit of happiness comments seriously.  You weren't serious, were you? 

Yes the most qualified people are just people, but they're also people with a long track record of relevant professional accomplishments.  I don't think Hillary even makes the top 100.  Even her husband would be a better choice.
 

Yes I was serious... It is everyone's right... The pursuit of happiness.

I provided a list... I would think that to rebut, you would do the same.

Hillary passed the bar... even if it was in college, she's been inside of a courtroom... It would be a requirement for her to attend court proceedings to graduate.

[Dos Equis]

Yes I was serious... It is everyone's right... The pursuit of happiness.

I provided a list... I would think that to rebut, you would do the same.

Hillary passed the bar... even if it was in college, she's been inside of a courtroom... It would be a requirement for her to attend court proceedings to graduate.

Everyone has a right to be appointed to positions they're not qualified to hold?  That's essentially what you’re saying. 

You provided a list of justices who had no prior judicial experience.  I never said justices had to have prior judicial experience and I didn't say Hillary is unqualified because she was never a judge.  If you're truly responding to my contention that she doesn't have enough professional legal experience to sit on the Supreme Court, then you need to provide a list of justices with a resume as thin as Hillary's.   

I don't know how long she actually practiced law, but it was probably less than the 19 years she spent as First Lady.  Harriet Miers wasn't qualified and her professional experience was far more extensive than Hillary's. 

[240 is Back]

Everyone has a right to be appointed to positions they're not qualified to hold?  That's essentially what you’re saying. 

You provided a list of justices who had no prior judicial experience.  I never said justices had to have prior judicial experience and I didn't say Hillary is unqualified because she was never a judge.  If you're truly responding to my contention that she doesn't have enough professional legal experience to sit on the Supreme Court, then you need to provide a list of justices with a resume as thin as Hillary's.  

I don't know how long she actually practiced law, but it was probably less than the 19 years she spent as First Lady.  Harriet Miers wasn't qualified and her professional experience was far more extensive than Hillary's. 

After Alberto Gonzalez, who couldn't remember what he had for breakfast that day if asked under oath, the next atty general won't have too high of a standard to strive for...

[tu_holmes]

Everyone has a right to be appointed to positions they're not qualified to hold?  That's essentially what you’re saying. 

You provided a list of justices who had no prior judicial experience.  I never said justices had to have prior judicial experience and I didn't say Hillary is unqualified because she was never a judge.  If you're truly responding to my contention that she doesn't have enough professional legal experience to sit on the Supreme Court, then you need to provide a list of justices with a resume as thin as Hillary's.  

I don't know how long she actually practiced law, but it was probably less than the 19 years she spent as First Lady.  Harriet Miers wasn't qualified and her professional experience was far more extensive than Hillary's. 

I'm saying that what you consider to be qualified and what actually equates to qualified probably aren't the same.

Adjudication of what is right or wrong and interpretation of the constitution doesn't really require anymore skill than to be able to read and comprehend.

Interpretation is going to be different for everyone... Being a judge doesn't really require some myriad of experience that you seem to think it does.

If you have a concept of the law... then I think you're qualified.

I think that you are saying she's unqualified because you don't like her... not because she truly is unqualified.

[Dos Equis]

After Alberto Gonzalez, who couldn't remember what he had for breakfast that day if asked under oath, the next atty general won't have too high of a standard to strive for...

   We're talking about Supreme Court Justices, not the Attorney General. 

[Dos Equis]

I'm saying that what you consider to be qualified and what actually equates to qualified probably aren't the same.

Adjudication of what is right or wrong and interpretation of the constitution doesn't really require anymore skill than to be able to read and comprehend.

Interpretation is going to be different for everyone... Being a judge doesn't really require some myriad of experience that you seem to think it does.

If you have a concept of the law... then I think you're qualified.

I think that you are saying she's unqualified because you don't like her... not because she truly is unqualified.

You're really minimizing how complicated and important being a Supreme Court Justice is.  Those men and women are deciding difficult issues that impact millions of people for years. 

If you want to see what qualified looks like, look at the bios of Roberts, Alito, Breyer, and Stevens.  That's the kind of breadth of legal experience that qualifies someone to sit on the highest court in the land.  Sleeping with a governor or prez doesn't cut it. 

I've already explained why I think she's unqualified, and none of the reasons I've discussed have to do with my dislike of Hillary.  You can have that opinion if you want, but it's simply not true.   

[tu_holmes]

You're really minimizing how complicated and important being a Supreme Court Justice is.  Those men and women are deciding difficult issues that impact millions of people for years. 

If you want to see what qualified looks like, look at the bios of Roberts, Alito, Breyer, and Stevens.  That's the kind of breadth of legal experience that qualifies someone to sit on the highest court in the land.  Sleeping with a governor or prez doesn't cut it. 

I've already explained why I think she's unqualified, and none of the reasons I've discussed have to do with my dislike of Hillary.  You can have that opinion if you want, but it's simply not true.  

Again... I disagree that you need to have some legal "qualifications" to be a Supreme Court Justice or any Judge for that matter.

We the People... All being a judge does is let you understand procedures... We the people determine guilt or innocence and We the people should be determining how OUR constitution is interpreted.

You say I'm minimizing it... I say you're making it elitist and it shouldn't be.

[Decker]

You're really minimizing how complicated and important being a Supreme Court Justice is.  Those men and women are deciding difficult issues that impact millions of people for years. 

If you want to see what qualified looks like, look at the bios of Roberts, Alito, Breyer, and Stevens.  That's the kind of breadth of legal experience that qualifies someone to sit on the highest court in the land.  Sleeping with a governor or prez doesn't cut it. 

I've already explained why I think she's unqualified, and none of the reasons I've discussed have to do with my dislike of Hillary.  You can have that opinion if you want, but it's simply not true.   

You must still be livid that someone like Clarence Thomas sits on the court.  A guy like that falls way short of your judicial standards.

And for the record, we must remember that Dick Cheney...as vice president...shot a man in the face...with a gun...and then had the victim apologize for getting in the way of Cheney's shot.

I'm not sure of the relevance to this topic, but that story had to be retold.

[Dos Equis]

You must still be livid that someone like Clarence Thomas sits on the court.  A guy like that falls way short of your judicial standards.

And for the record, we must remember that Dick Cheney...as vice president...shot a man in the face...with a gun...and then had the victim apologize for getting in the way of Cheney's shot.

I'm not sure of the relevance to this topic, but that story had to be retold.

Actually I mentioned Thomas earlier in the thread.  No, he did not fall way short.  Definitely more qualified than Hillary. 

[Decker]

Actually I mentioned Thomas earlier in the thread.  No, he did not fall way short.  Definitely more qualified than Hillary. 

How so?  He's got as light a resume as Harriet Miers. 

I would think that any SCT Justice would be a top jurist and Thomas ain't that.