The Volokh Conspiracy

Not you can't do that. Liberals can mock George W. Bush or Sarah Palin because they are stupid when they make a gaffe.

Biden and Obama do not make gaffes because 1) the media will not report them 2) liberals don't care.

That's right. FDR was just as soothing as Andrew Johnson was speaking at Gettysburg, and I really felt that Bill Clinton hit the mark speaking after the Challenger disaster as well. And remember when Truman said this was a date that would live in infamy?

I actually have the opposite reaction to this. Sure, Biden's tired, etc., but the problem is, he's making something up. In other words, he's trying to find some nice thing to say about the Democratic Party's reaction to crisis situations, and he didn't have any that came to mind, so he just fabricated something.

The truth is a lot of these things happen when politicians are unable to honestly say they can't think of anything at the moment or they don't know something.

As I've long said, these sorts of errors (here about what medium presidents were using to speak to the public in 1929, and even about exactly who was president in 1929) are inevitable when people speak extemporaneously,

I think the error was much more fundamental than who was president in 1929 or what medium he used. Roosevelt's primary public addresses weren't about the stock market crash, but about the banking liquidity crisis that followed over the course of several years after the stock crash (and actually was growing before the stock market crash as well). The stock market crash of 1929 was just a symptom.

This just illustrates Biden likely wouldn't be one to instill confidence thru leadership in crisis to the extent that includes the ability to speak extemporaneously and accurately. The other side is equally inept. The problem is that side's gaffes are page one news, and the dems' are buried on page five.

Well put, EV. I'd also add that in his short stint as governor of New York at that time, FDR showed the sort of leadership chops (including, as I understand it, breaking precedent to provide government aid directly to individuals)* during the crisis that many sought in a president at that time. Roosevelt was also then considered an intellectual lightweight, and not only by his opponents.

* - a policy no less bold and timely for leading to tragic unintended consequences in our time

He was remembering what he learned when he was in school.

It is as nothing compared to his question: "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

Dilan,

"I actually have the opposite reaction to this. Sure, Biden's tired, etc., but the problem is, he's making something up."

Making something up? How so? Roosevelt communicated directly to the people (true, but via radio, not TV), he did so in response to the Stock Market crash (not immediately, but soon enough - someone needed to; not in 1929 on a national level, but impressively on the state level where he was at the time), and he focused on finding solutions, not wholly casting blame (at least as most of us remember things, historians of course provide a fuller picture).

In retrospect, I think we're ready for some new solutions and not the same Old Deal, but that should not affect our respect and admiration for FDR or those inspired by his example.

If we keep tearing down our elected representatives and candidates at every turn, and I guarantee we will not like the alternative.

dr:

The difference between this gaffe and a Republican gaffe in the media is number of times it is reported and outlets that report it.

I would think if McCain gaffes the Washington Post, New York Times, etc. will be all over him. The same can't be said with an Obama gaffe.

a third point is that the interviewer, and unless this was live, the rest of CBS, didn't catch either of the misstatements.

I would think if McCain gaffes the Washington Post, New York Times, etc.

I think my ill-natured, sexist, reactionary, reprobated 'prescriptivism' is offended, as much as I agree with taney71's point.

Is there any chance FDR gave a major radio address in his capacity as Governor of New York at the time? In that case "the nation" would be an exaggeration and "on television" would be a misstatement but the central point would be a demonstration of historical erudition rather than ignorance.

On the other hand, unless that did happen and Biden was actually referring to it, it's really stupid. "On television" I can forgive but not realizing that FDR wasn't president when the crash occurred is a pretty serious error in terms of knowledge of American economic history.

Of course, there's no way FDR would have managed even two terms as President, much less four, had he been President during the 1929 crash. Whoever was President when the Great Depression started was going to take the blame for it whether they were responsible or not.

Obama is just beginning to see the benefits of having Joe Biden on the ticket. In the last day or so, he contradicted Obama on the ad making fun of McCain's age and then declared that there would be no coal plants built during the Obama presidency.

The real problem is that no one cares what Joe Biden says because they know he is a blow hard who just spurts out the first thing that pops into his head. Biden's mouth will be the black hole of this campaign emitting no light whatsoever.

Look, he said "when the stock market crashed". That includes the event and its repercussions. Similarly, when the Normans invaded England, the Celts retreated; when Columbus discovered America, the power of Spain grew; and when Jefferson signed the Declaration of Independence, France leapt at the chance to humiliate England.

Each of the reactions included the acts of great men and women, many occurring several years, if not decades, after the original event.

FDR did give radio speeches on the crash of the banking system that was going on at the time.

In fact, his first act as President was to declare a 'bank holiday' while ramming his Emergency Banking Act through Congress.

Biden simply misspoke along the lines of McCain's 'hot bottled water' and Obama's '57 states' gaffes.

In other words, it's proof that all three men can mix things up when speaking off the cuff.

Now his 'clean coal for China but not for the US' gaffe can hurt Obama much more than the FDR gaffe can and it'll be interesting to see how they try to defuse it.

In a similar though more troubling vein, McCain's Zapatero gaffe has a real potential for damage.
Not because of the original gaffe, but because of the campaign's insistence in not admitting that McCain misunderstood the question, but that he really meant to say that he wouldn't meet with the Spanish PM.

The fact that Biden spurts out the first thing that pops into his head is actually an endearing feature in a politician. There's only so much repetition of programmed talking points that you can stand to listen to.

Nick

It is as nothing compared to his question: "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

Bluto did become a US Senator according to the end credits. I wonder?

My great-grand parents missed FDR's televised address because they were busy surfing the Internet.

How this for perspective:
How many mistakes would Sarah Palin make if she was willing or was allowed to be interviewed more than twice in three weeks and to speak extemporaneously?

And notice that Biden was clearly making a mistake, not being deliberately deceptive.

The correct answer is, "First, by reading Matt Drudge. Later by reading right-wing bloggers and listening to Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk show hosts. It's the same way I learned that Dan Rather was flogging forged National Guard documents on CBS's 60 Minutes show. Much later when the MSM had to provide some coverage lest they become complete laughing stocks, I gained further - albeit belated - confirmation of what I'd earlier learned everywhere but from the MSM."

Good point. If I recall, the New York Times never even touched Whitewater. And it definitely wasn't a leaked Newsweek story that Matt Drudge posted to break intern-gate ahead of the magazine-publishing cycle.

I once had a plumber at my house say to me, completely seriously, "Did you know that Bill Clinton was impeached? How come that wasn't ever in the mainstream media?"

I guess when you only listen to Rush, you believe whatever Rush tells you.

"This is quite different from, e.g., Sarah Palin responding to a question about her knowledge of foreign policy by pointing out that Alaska is the nearest state to Russia. That's not the error of a speaker under pressure - that's the error of someone who is clueless."

Aw bullshit. That's the error of ABC cutting out 3/4 of her answer. You're welcome to not like her Friedmanesque "World is Flat" full response. What you're not welcome to do is to kid yourself into thinking she's stupid on that basis. Doesn't reflect well on you and isn't likely to help you figure out how to beat her.

Sarah Palin has the same foreign policy experience as other Governors that become President (or VP), e.g., Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Depending on your politics, they were both good Presidents.

Executive experience is the key experience needed to be President - not "foreign policy experience" gained by listening to other legislators bloviate in Congress.

This is the correct answer to the "foreign policy experience" canard.

It just goes to show that if you follow someone around 24/7, they will say something stupid and/or make an obvious mistake.

If Palin made a similar mistake, the media (and liberal Hollywood types) would be having a field day with her. Does anyone honestly believe Leno/Letterman/Stewart wouldn’t have a few good laughs at her expense? Will Biden get the same treatment?

But how could he have been making it up? It was seared -- seared -- into his memory!

Wikipedia tells me that Biden was born in 1942; it also tells me that the first commercially licensed TV station in Delaware dates to 1949. Biden must either have known that TV was very new while he was growing up, or have been a remarkably dim child. I conclude that he was probably just making up a factoid to suit his purpose.

Franklin Roosevelt's first Fireside Chat as President is justly famous for calmly explaining to a panicked public the reasons for imposing a bank holiday. You can hear it and read the text here:

http://tinyurl.com/4v6hhu

It clearly illustrates the point that Biden was making, albeit clumsily.

Poser,

Palin had a bad argument. Biden had a gaffe. There is a difference. Now, personally, I'd rather have a gaffe than a bad argument. But have you grown so partisan that you can't acknowledge one of your own having a gaffe without trying to equate your guy's gaffe with the non-gaffe of another person?

Biden screwed up. Won't be the last time. Doesn't mean anyone supporting that ticket should vote for McCain. You can actually own up to your own candidate's weaknesses without losing an election. And in the gaffe department, Biden has few equals. I actually think it is one of the more endearing things about the guy, because he is very entertaining. I won't vote against him because of the gaffes, and I sure as heck won't vote for Palin because of her experience. But there's no need to equivocate.

Eugene, Senator Biden has demonstrated his proclivity for gaffes with such regularity, that I affectionately call him the Gaffe-Man.

Coordination between Senator Obama and Senator Biden is the keystone of their campaign. Senator Obama promises US$200 million for clean coal development. Senator Biden says coal powered plants? No way. We will have to clean-up the Chinese coal plants before they kill us all. This is known as covering both sides of an issue, speaking out of both sides of the mouth or the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing and appealing to both sides of an issue.

Keystone is perhaps the wrong word, since the function of a keystone is to lock pieces together.

When thinking of Senator Biden, the phrase "loose cannon" comes to mind.

I am waiting for Asher (i think i got the right name) to step in here and proclaim that Biden is a a big "doofus"

He's not. Anyone can make a stupid mistake. If the entire interview consisted of him idiotically and ungrammatically blathering about ruffling feathers and Washington outsiders and balancing the budget by way of finding efficiencies, then yeah, he'd be a doofus. But the interview doesn't. For a politician he's pretty bright. Not that I agree with anything he says, mind you. If McCain hadn't picked Palin, I'd happily vote Republican as I've done in every other election.

In terms of providing statistics, just look at Obama's list of NY Times "investigations" about him as proof NYT plays an even hand. Half of them are praise/biographical pieces. Additionally, maybe you have to be a conservative to see it, but so many mainstream articles, even those allegedly just reporting the news, use word choices that defend Obama even as they criticize him, or criticize McCain even as they report on his criticisms of Obama. Look to see how much space articles give to the candidates' staff to rebut criticism. Look to see if such rebuttals are given the last word or not. Look to see if paragraphs in articles begin with a direct quotation by Obama's staff with no set up such as "Obama's campaign issued a rebuttal...," thus making the quote more powerful and more like the words of the reporter. If one looks at all these things, I think it becomes clear that most articles reporting on this race favor Obama.

I disagree with you on this, Ryan, but at least you provide a reasonable, testable argument. I only wish you'd provide actual evidence in the form of a week's (or a month's) worth of NYT mentions of the candidates, and an analysis of how they conform to your theory.

Not that you or anyone else here has time for that. But absent that, I'm dubious. The biases may be seeping into the coverage, but I've never seen anyone demonstrate it in any persuasive form. As someone said up above, the way to know who's losing is to see who's complaining loudest about press coverage.

"Show us numbers to back all your other claims that Palin's been "unfairly attacked." You can't. It's not true."

Your saying it isn't true doesn't make it not true. Also, we're way past conspiracy theories here. Press bias has been proven again and again, not just by analysis, but by self-reporting.

If it looks biased, analyzes as biased and reports itself as biased, it's probably biased.

Personally, I think the jury is still out on just how fairly Palin has been treated, but the track record is not encouraging. Given how deeply embedded sexism and misogyny are across the political spectrum, the frothing outrage she's provoked on the Left and the fact that the press breaks Left far more often than not, the smart money is on "not fair".

"She's gotten just as much positive press as negative, if not more."

Back atcha, DWC. Prove it.

You must be watching a very different news media from what I'm watching.

Any series of tubes is as good as another.

JosephSlater:

You're just mad because ND smoked UM. Don't take it out on Plain, man. That's major uncool.

Asher

In case you need a refresher for your short term memory, in another thread recently you called McCain also a big (or huge) doofus. Obviously it can't be just for picking Palin (there are pros and cons to it and as a political move, it is probably net positive for him under the circumstances). So, why would you want to vote for a doofus (if he had picked someone else)?

Hoosier,

Newsweek actually had a fair piece before the invasion of Alaska (my Mom the Obama voter e-mailed it to me). Once the vetters hit the ground, however, Time was the first out with a hit-piece based essentially on talking exclusively to the 14% of Alaskans dissatisfied with Palin and ignoring all her accomplishments/any reason whatsoever why 86% of Alaskans may have approved of her performance, while pushing every last button of anti-Christian/class/regional prejudice. I read this one in a Doctor's office.

The Times and Wa Po shortly thereafter followed suit, along with the networks and CNN. ABC should be embarrassed by its handling of her interview, especially the teasers that, unlike Biden's gaffe for instance, inverted meaning 180 degrees on NATO and her very mainstream prayer. What little I've seen from Fox tilts way too far the other direction, although Greta's visit with Todd was reassuring.

That the bias is likely unintentional only shows what a narrow talent pool the present media draws upon. I agree that the problem is mediocrity and incuriousness more than raw, intentional bias. It still ends up hurting both sides and ultimately our country.

But I'd be interested in hearing candidates' opinions on some of the lesser greats that we have produced.

That assumes they're well-enough informed to have an interesting opinion. I seriously doubt that of all of them, including Obama.

I don't mean to suggest by this that the candidates are stupid, just that analyzing and rating Secretaries of State probably isn't the first item on their resumes.

Frank M. Howland:

...notice that Biden was clearly making a mistake, not being deliberately deceptive.

Which just goes to show that Biden should stick to plagiarizing people who can talk, instead of trying to wing it himself.

KWC :

Don't act like we didn't hear for months about Barack's "57 states" thing (which was a total exageration if you listen/watch to the footage...

OK then, let's listen again [and note that Obama, as usual, blames his staff].

And here's Obama admitting that he's a Muslim.

And here's Obama without a teleprompter.

Is this guy still on cocaine??

Hoosier:

While I will note that nobody on this thread, or any other thread here, has explained exactly why poor Sarah must be protected from the big bad media in such an embarrassing way, I will grant that the Michigan game was disappointing.

Frankly, after watching Toledo play #25 San Jose State so close ( a 1 point loss in 2 OTs because the coach decided to go for 2 after a TD and didn't make it), I might give even odds on Toledo beating Michigan. Oh, how the mighty. . . .

For those of you who think Palin is qualified, this video is devastating:

http://blip.tv/file/1287551

...Senator Biden makes statements like these when he's tan, rested and ready. He's a gaffer and a fabulist, always has been. They're his most endearing and enduring qualities. Had he not said it on national news, we never would have heard it....tree in the forest stuff. It was only reported by Politico so tomorrow it could be viewed as " old news " and got behind them.

I think this particular gaffe just proves that Biden's mouth works faster than his head and he is a giant BS'er. I don't find that a particular endearing quality but it probably doesn't disqualify him to be VP. On the other hand, I bet the media doesn't focus on it as much as they did the spelling of "potatoe" (which is equally forgivable in my book).

Since the subject was raised, a reminder, don't forget the rally against Ahmadinejad and the Mullah's tyranny in less than two days now, Thursday, Sept. 25, New York City, 6:00 p.m., the Grand Hyatt.

Spread. The. Word.

The late Lars-Erik Nelson, former Washington Bureau Chief for the NY Daily News, was a guest on C-Span's morning show (before he was late), listening to some call-in moonbat drone on about how "the liberal media" didn't cover a laundry list of Clinton scandals. Finally, Nelson got a word in edgewise and asked: "How did you hear about them?"



Drudge, talk-radio, The National Enquirer.

You?

The same place Drudge, talk radio, and the Enquirer heard about them, the dreaded MSM. Unless you think Rush does original reporting and Drudge has reporters working for him as opposed to people who will leak him advance copies of other people's work.

Iow, save us your preachments and juvenile triumphalism concerning experience, gravitas, etc. You're among the very ones who joined in the apologetics and sneers in general when it came to Palin's disinvite from Monday's rally.

I don't believe that I have ever said a thing about Palin attending the rally. As for her qualifications, that speech was WRITTEN for her, just like EVERY speech that she has given since joining the ticket. Nobody doubts that she can deliver a speech. I do doubt, however, that she could find Teheran on a map.

Dilan,

"As for her qualifications, that speech was WRITTEN for her, just like EVERY speech that she has given since joining the ticket."

Evidence? Surely were that the case, it would relieve some cognitive dissonance for you, but that should hardly sway anyone else. Were the evil Bush speechwriters writing everything she said on her way to unseating Murkowski, Knowles, and the sweetheart pipeline deal?

Perhaps Trig was in heaven at the right hand of God dictating her words to her...

Dilan Esper

No response to my response to your "devastating" video?

Ed Scott__You are correct, of course. So to help undo the damage I've done, let me repeat: Anyone who wants to--HINT, HINT WaPO, NYT, etc. Anyone? ANYONE?-- can look through the transcripts of SFRC hearings and find a whole bunch of patent nonsense coming from Biden. (They just need to make sure to look at the stenographic transcipts, not the "official" versions that get sanitized by each senator's staff.)

Dilan worries that Palin can't find Teheran? Have a look at what the CHAIRMAN(!) of the SFRC doesn't know. No wonder Lugar often looks so pained on C-SPAN when Biden is speaking.

JosephSlater,

Based on her record, certainly I will continue to defend her. My guess is, like Obama, she's currently somewhat confused. They're both running ahead of their "time", but the electorate just might like it that way this go round, giving the dismal approval of both the President and Congress.

Obama has never previously run a close race against a tough opponent, and is thus having some difficulty "taking the gloves off" while maintaining the transcendent vision that was the key to his appeal. So you see stuff like this. That's a fair reflection of how I'm feeling about my choice of Obama currently.

Palin has never had to play second-fiddle before. She's trying to be a good team player (which is why she sounds so much like McCain, i.e. near content-free), but this approach cuts against the grain of what made her successful in Alaska, where she was unusally (for a politician) ready with the appropriate specifics in interviews and debates. It's that past readiness that accounts for the confidence, but it certainly comes across badly when she no longer has the specifics on offer.

Given the evident game plan of both campaigns to avoid specifics in order to thereby not offend any voter blocs (e.g. references to "the last eight years" in which voters can fill in their own diverse discontents, or "reforming Washington" where voters can imagine their own reforms), the (appropriate) drilling for specifics of Walters, Gibson, and Couric has put McCain and Palin in tough spots. McCain basically punted. Palin's first instinct was to follow the game plan, but her discomfort was clear, and I don't attribute it to ignorance, but rather her growing realization of the vapidity of the game plan itself.

I'll be curious to see if she does get back to Couric.

David Warner:

I appreciate the thoughtful response. I won't barrage you with talking points, since you didn't do that to me. I'll just say that I personally and honestly had a different impression of Palin -- that she was somebody who was largely clueless and was way out of her depth. I could distinguish her from Obama in various ways, but IMHO, Obama seems smarter, more knowledgeable, and more thoughtful.

Having said that, I was an Obama supporter before hearing Palin last night, so maybe my reaction to Paling being unable to come up with anything good McCain had done for the economy was just confirmation bias. But I really did start to think that this "let's delay the debates" gambit was not mostly in response to McCain's sagging poll numbers (my previous opinion) but rather was at least as much due to the McCain camp wanting to postpone and possibly cancel the VP debate. And given Biden's propensity to gaffe (if that's a verb), that's saying something.

Anyway, we'll see how it all plays with the public.

JosephSlater,

Once again, you live down to expectations.

I do happen to believe Palin was overly defensive and not as articulate as she might have been during the Couric interview, but those faults reflective of someone being momentarily flustered or little more than that. She's been the VP pick for three weeks now, no more.

By contrast, I look forward to your incisive commentary on the following examples of Joe Biden's "adept" qualities:

For example, excerpt:

"At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: "I'm groping here." Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran," Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.

"The staffers sit in silence. Finally somebody ventures a response: "I think they'd send it back." Then another aide speaks up delicately: "The thing I would worry about is that it would almost look like a publicity stunt." Still another reminds Biden that an Iranian delegation is in Moscow that very day to discuss a $300 million arms deal with Vladimir Putin that the United States has strongly condemned. But Joe Biden is barely listening anymore. He's already moved on to something else."

For example.

For example.

For example.

Michael B.,

95% of Biden gaffes are Kinsley gaffes, which actually raise my regard for him, as they indicate that he values truth over political calculation. Palin shows some potential in this area herself.

Yes, I'm aware he has something of a blind spot truthwise regarding himself. We're not electing a VP of Joe Biden, we're electing a VP of the USA, so that's not a deal breaker.

The other 5% involve totally boneheaded ideas like the Iranian donation you highlighted. I actually also like people who produce the occasional boneheaded idea, as they are more likely than those who don't to consistently produce non-boneheaded ones.

What I don't like is how he treated Clarence Thomas and large chunks of his ideology. Still, he's a far better man than John Edwards, as Obama is a far better man than Kerry.

Michael B.,

Kerry couldn't articulate a conservative argument if he had a gun held to his head. Obama's demonstrated a far more profound grasp of the alternatives (other than, alas! the libertarian one) to the progressive orthodoxy than any other major Dem pol (Emmanuel may have him there, and Ford would if he were major).

You'll have to flesh out your demagoguery argument more. His convention speech was a misguided attempt to catch up with the "generic Democrat" in the polls, but that number was always a chimera.

"the idea that is America"

I suspect that Obama perceives that idea to have transcended our borders, and that he aims to follow it.

Michael B.,

"I will note that while Obama can voice a "third way" at times"

Bill Clinton sacrificed the Third Way on the altar of saving his ass from impeachment, resurrecting the brain dead left and thereby giving birth to Rove and the KosKids and dooming Tony Blair to an undeserved ignominy. Obama doesn't just voice a "third way", he can voice the old traditional values in an affirmative manner. He gets this from his primary influence: his grandmother.*

"He is sincere in the sense that he believes in his vision and sense of self, but he is not sincere in too many of his position statements, most recently those that relate to First Amendment and Second Amendment principles. That lack of transparency and forthrightness is revealing, is telling of something that is very basic, and is one reason he relies upon demagoguery and rhetorical finesse, rather than a more "straight shooting" style."

His vision is global technocracy and a situational ethics where we trust the experts to handle each situation, and therefore our various experts, putative and otherwise, nearly unanimously support him. He strikes me as being very transparent and forthright in this and he has no reason not to be, as that vision is very popular currently, in contrast to the record low approval of our elected representatives.**

"I do not question his sincerity in his belief in himself, then again I wouldn't have questioned that particular aspect of even an arch-demagogue such as a Mussolini during his own heyday."

Given the performance of the Italian military in Abyssinia and following, Il Douche was deluded in his belief. We won't know if Obama is until he is tested.

* - I happen to share a very similar experience set with Obama, if not on quite so prominent a stage. I've worked with several radical leftists, admiring many of them personally, but their ideology repelled me and spurred me to explore alternatives, even as I remained in their company. Through all this, it was the values of my traditionalist social worker grandmother that have stayed with me. Like Obama, I spent a lot of time with her while my mother was pursuing her career.

Similarly, Obama rejected Alinsky after he saw the pathetic results of his community organizing, and likely did the same with Ayers after CAC tanked, sending him closer to Daley. We could do worse than a President Daley.

** - as a libertarian, my guess is that this will end in tears due to the technocratic fallacy, i.e. the expert compares the competence of elected representatives to her own in her own field and concludes that the representative must be stupid, thus undervaluing the generalist and overarching principle. I also recognize that I'm increasingly in the minority, especially among the influential.