I suppose the ability to be strikingly immature in public---not just knowing that your name will be attached to it, but depending on it---is one of the privileges of power. Either that, or Biden thinks that the default political position of an American is strikingly immature and is simply pandering to a base[st of instincts].

Me personally, I started saying "Yes, they should! Then we could finally put the bastards on trial for war crimes!" as a rejoinder to the common "what they should do is just nuke [designated enemy X, city Y]" trope.

I'm betting he can't whip the guy-in-the-hall's ass.

He certainly has a case of "Logorrhoea".

I'm not sure that the previous commenters seem to understand that this is Biden saying "this is what neoconservatives think."

He's not talking about what he thinks. It's a good link and the interview with Josh is worth reading.

I like the quote. It's awe-inspiring to see such an intellectual powerhouse at work.

Thanks for that clarification, Mark. But coming from someone who typed this --

"Barack Obama honors this nation with his candidacy. We should feel flattered, if for no other reason than the fact that this country can still produce great Americans."

I think we can view your Biden blowjob in the proper light.

BTW, Glenn's "concern" about police state tactics in St. Paul is touching, given that he wrote practically nothing of the same shit that went down in Denver. Oh, he was kept from an AT&T party by Denver cops, but that's about all he saw, apparently.

"Great Americans?"
After about five minutes of CNN or MSNBC on our future leaders, the characters of "Gilligan's Island" dwarf these blowhards, (D) and (R).
We are, ideologically, politically, culturally and morally running on empty.

"There is some shit i will not eat"
ee cummings

Mark Gisleson:I did read the 16 printed pages worth of the interview--extremely painful exercise. And yes, he talked about the neocons but he did talk more than enough about himself including about his speech to the NPC on Sep 10, 2001 and wanting to share Mr Marshall's Pulitzers' prize!!!!if he received one. He talked about "FOCUS" but he certainly was not focused. He really was jumping from one subject to another and frankly, I had difficlty keeping up with his CHAIN OF THOUGHT.

?? So is it Biden's style, or his content that offends you all?

Personally, I was offended by the bankruptcy bill, but that's about to be put into the past tense.

I admit to being a partisan Democrat, but I can be quite critical before the nominee is selected. Now that it's Obama-Biden, to me the only question is: Are you voting for John McCain?

If not, consider the greater issue at hand and save the snark for a more appropriate time because in a two-party state you are either for Obama, or against him and for John McCain. The equation is exactly that binary and bottom line.

And yes, the post I'm doing for my blog right now is anything but academic or high minded. Rumor is that Palin's baby is actually her daughters, and she somehow thinks that this scandal will stay uncovered while reporters are distracted by the fact she's never been overseas.

That's the level of thought and vetting that Team McCain put into their selection. Excuse me for preferring Biden.

I HAVE to agree that I will vote for Obama/Biden ticket. McCain/Palin is unthinkable. If, again IF the republican ticket wins, I am afraid even to think, where our country will be headed.

Mark, some of us are almost as concerned about the level of thought that went into Biden's vote for the AUMF. And his kneejerk support for Israel.

I'm a lesser of two evils voter , and others here are not, but anyway, I don't see the necessity of pretending to be happy with the choices we're given. To listen to you, apparently we're not even allowed to complain about them in the comments section on one of the lesser-read blogs. Perhaps you could tell us when the window of opportunity for appropriate snark is open. It won't be right after Obama wins, if he does, cuz we'll have to support him in the hopes that he pushes through some progressive legislation. It won't be if his popularity quickly falls, because we need to rally around him. It won't be in 2012, because of the need to re-elect him. And not in 2016, because of the need to support his successor.

Maybe when he's been dead for thirty years or so.

homeboy i came to party lyricsgundagai hed pe officialhsopranosttp

So is it Biden's style, or his content that offends you all?

Shorter: I didn't read your posts, ignored several days' worth of text concerning substantive political analysis on this site (e.g., content) and don't understand this site, so let me just talk out of my ass and hope for the best.

If not, consider the greater issue at hand and save the snark for a more appropriate time because in a two-party state you are either for Obama, or against him and for John McCain.

This is idiocy, Mark. Almost all of the western democracies with multiparty systems began with two-party systems, and, further, there is room to push a party towards one alignment or another in a two-party system. This is something literally understood by thirteen-year-olds. (I know kids that understand the Southern Strategy and what it meant for them.) In an attempt at extremely mild snark, you based an argument on assumptions that are contradicted by the existence of several major global powers and the entire sweep of the last 20 years of rightwing strategy vis-a-vis the Republican party, among other things. If you had declared that the conquistador Cortez discovered penguins and ice cream improves modem function, you wouldn't have managed to be more wrong -- but you'd have been actually interesting. Good job, stud!

I've seen repeated references to Biden having the ability to connect with blue-collar audiences, which suprised me because most of my exposure to him is as a particularly time-wasting "questioner" at committee hearings.

But if you imagine the excerpt as 'Joe Biden explains neoconservative power leverage at the corner bar', I can see where he gets the reputation.

@Dennis Perrin: [Glenn Greenwald] wrote practically nothing of the same shit that went down in Denver

Could you expand on that, and/or provide some pointers to more coverage of what did happen to demonstrators in Denver?

I've read a report-back from Denver from Code Pink via email, which covered two instances of police brutality against their members. And I've seen allusions to but can't find out much about cops using pepper spray and CS gas against a street demo -- would welcome pointers.

But I hadn't heard of anything like the home and office sweeps happening now in the Twin Cities. The IWitness team that seems to have been able to film without obstruction in Denver is clearly being targeted for complete suppression, and the cops are also seem to be launching preemptive strikes against lawyers, observers, and reporters before the first foot touches pavement. What happened in Denver that was similar?

My question isn't only addressed to Dennis. Anyone who knows of a source of good coverage of what happened wrt police activity vs. demonstrators, activists, observers, or media in Denver: please provide it here.

At this point in the Twin Cities police, FBI, and ATF have made raids at four locations, arrested five people for "conspiracy to riot", seized cameras and equipment from IWitness volunteers biking in from the airport, impounded a bus/van forcing everyone in it out onto the highway, ripped apart another one outside a house at 2 a.m. while forcing house residents and neighbors outside to watch, and confiscated a large number of laptops, cell phones, cameras, and other personal electronic equipment.

All before anything even resembling a protest has happened. This seems very different in scale and nature from anything that took place in Denver.

I think Dennis' sneering at Greenwald's coverage of events in Mpls/St.Paul is unwarranted. That doesn't mean I think events in Denver got adequate coverage, particularly since I don't consider myself well-informed about it. But I'm trying to come up with Denver reports and just not finding much.

"Dennis did make reference to hovering helicopters and heavy police presence, but didn't actually cover any demos, either."

Tough for me to do. Unlike most of the libsphere, I wasn't in Denver, so had to rely on those I knew or who read me. Once I got the picture, I posted.

Dennis, my point is that a corporate media organ like the Denver Post did a better job of conveying what was going on on the street than most of the bloggers, press, and even activists who were in Denver or following from afar. It frankly never occurred to me to use them as a source, and I wish I'd done more googling to follow along as it was happening.

In defense of Dennis Perrin's general point (i.e., Democrats are only too willing to crack a few heads in the cause of authoritarianism), Saint Paul mayor Chris Coleman is a Democrat (a member of Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party to be precise). And he has already held a press conference praising his police department for its "restraint" in confronting the "rioters".

Yes we can!

Me: EXCELLENT STUDY.

Me:

Well, as I have repeatedly said, I'm sure it's worse in St. Paul because the GOP is the incumbent party, and when the feds began their raids over the weekend, it was assumed that Bush -- y'know, the sitting prez? -- would arrive, along with senior Repubs.

Not every story that was conveyed to me from Denver is on YouTube. I've seen photos of pepper spraying and clubbings, but I'm sure I hallucinated much of it, or exaggerated it for personal pleasure. So, you're most likely right -- I have a fucked up view of things and am not to be trusted.

Vote Obama. He won't hit you as hard.

Dennis Perrin: I believe protesters are harrassed at ALL political conventions, so I don't think YOU are hallucinated those events. Its probably he culture of each state. Colorado is USUALLY laid back, Minnesota more uptight, the house searches though, pure ROVE.

typo---remove "are"

Dennis Perrin:I remember The Chicago 7, 1968 Dem convention and Kent State, both horsesasses and buggy parties are physically abusive.