Eh.

Obama taps Biden to be running mate, by Liz Sidoti and Nedra Pickler, AP.

You so know Senator Biden was having the Best Week Ever after the John Edwards story broke. He was just waiting for someone to pay attention to him again. With John Edwards out of contention for anything indefinitely, Senator Biden can finally get the recognition he deserves by bringing his non-"risky" qualities to the table. However, I do not know what else he contributes to the campaign besides his "safe"-ness. And by safeness, I mean he's a white male, in case you couldn't click on the linked articles.

At least John Edwards was trying to end poverty. I could never figure out what Joe Biden was doing in the primaries. Apparently he was running for Vice President.

I'm not impressed. Wake me up when someone ends the wars.

.

This commercial makes me sad.

- From LetCaliforniaRing.org

Because some people still don't get it. I hope they will understand someday. Everyone deserves equal rights. Also, Democrats: approving of separate but equal "civil unions" doesn't cut it. I'm looking at you, John Edwards, adulterer of the hour.

.

Judge not,

unless you've never cheated on your cancer-stricken wife, like some people:

Edwards admits to affair he denied as candidate, by Pete Yost, AP via Yahoo! News.

This just in: Elizabeth Edwards standing by husband after affair, by Pete Yost, AP via Yahoo! News.

I have lots of thoughts about this situation. The first thought relates to women like Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama (no, there is not a similar scandal a-brewing for Barack). How do these women do it? How do these women look at their multiple degrees and their own high potential for success, then decide, "I am going to dedicate my life to supporting my husband's dream of becoming the President of the United States"? Because that is what they did. These two women each got their law degree from the same school as their respective husbands did. Yet their husbands were the ones who decided to take the spotlight as US Senators and presidential candidates. Their husbands also decided to keep their last names.

My second thought is regarding any of you readers who are thinking to yourself, "Bianca would be a great first lady. I should marry her before I run for President." Before you call the caterers, ruminate on this: If my spouse cheated on me while I had cancer, I would not then "stand by" my spouse, in theory or in reality. I would not continue to support my spouse's campaign. I would tell my spouse to find another place to live. They could find their clothes to the left, if not out on the street. And if my spouse ever thought about running for any national office again, I would never let the mainstream news media outlets ever forget that my spouse cheated on me while I had cancer.

.

I heard about this while listening to Frangela

on KTLK AM 1150: Al Gore endorses gay marriage.




If we can all reminisce about my musings during August of last year, I think we'll all understand why I really can't vote for anyone in the California primary now. At least John Edwards cared about poor people, and I'm poor. The remaining Democratic candidates are essentially the same person with different baggage. Ooh, and one is called "assertive" while the other is called "mean." I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

.

The Law Fairy Strikes again

The situation started for me with this post on Racialicious by Wendi Muse: Esquire asks: Can a white man still be elected president?

Have you seen this cover? What are they really trying to say?

“Can a white man still be elected president?” asks Esquire of its readers in next month’s issue featuring presidential hopeful John Edwards.

Um, I’m sorry, but did I miss a memo? I would love to read the article, but the opening remark on the cover is a big time turn off. What exactly are they trying to say here? Esquire editors might be attempting to be cute and sarcastic with their cover page line, but to me it rings of the infamous fear that one day, the world will wake up and find itself being run entirely by minorities, oh and women too...

Then came this post by Jen on Feministing: White Man's Burden.

Elizabeth Edwards is doing a remake on the campaign trail. Why? Because she thinks John Edwards is getting screwed in press coverage. So they're turning to the internet to help get the message out about their campaign, reaching out directly to voters. Sounds like a smart strategy to me. But she also says:

"In some ways, it's the way we have to go. We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars."

Some commenters didn't get what Jen was upset about, sharing statements such as, "Its almost gotten to the point that if you support Edwards or another white male Democratic candidate, you are seen as racist or sexist," and "I just don't understand how her statement is prejudicial."

Well, The Law Fairy took them to school:

Obama got more press coverage because he's an exciting new face. The story of his winning the election to senator in Illinois is the stuff of legend -- he was out-experienced, out-fundraised, out-everythinged, and he still won a landslide victory...

Hillary gets more press for big fat "duh" reasons. She's a fucking Clinton. HELLO????? If she were Bill Clinton's son instead of his wife she would have every ounce as much press.

Elizabeth Edwards' comments were sexist and racist, period. LOTS of presidential candidates, in ANY race, get disproportionately less coverage. That's just the way politics works...

As an aside, I really dislike the way the Edwards campaign is being run. Edwards is trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth by having his wife pander to the left of the left as he panders to the relative right of the left. It's just gross. It really makes me lose respect for him as a candidate, and suspect that most of what either of them is saying is more or less a lie.

Cara also weighed in:

I'm really surprised that so many are willing to defend this statement. [Elizabeth Edwards] is basically saying that being a white male is a liability, when in fact being a white (straight, middle or upper-class) male is one of the largest indicators of success in our society. To say that Edwards is getting less attention is fine. To say that sex and race is being unfairly focused on for Clinton and Obama respectively is fine. To say that Edwards is at a direct disadvantage because he is neither female nor black is not fine, and is in fact really insulting and completely blind to the privilege that our society automatically grants to white males.

Yet some people still didn't get it. From mjk82:

I don't understand the problem here...Does any one think for a second that if Edwards wins the nomination, the media won't immediately attribute his victory to racism/sexism?

As if John Edwards is going to win any nomination.

And from Pup, MD:

John Edwards isn't "white males." John Edwards is an individual who is white and male, and that's a world of difference...

The biggest real difference between the backgrounds of these three are that Obama and Clinton have Ivy degrees, and Edwards is the product of a respectable state school...Obama's story might be a poster for how a little bit of affirmative action can do a lot of good for our society...

When comparing three successful lawyers, invoking white male privilege against one of them seems a bit hollow.

This prompted The Law Fairy to break out her expletives and caps:

See, this is a problematic attitude. This is PRECISELY what people say when they're arguing against affirmative action. The problem is, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth if you're going to acknowledge that there's systemic bias and prejudice on the one hand, but argue that it doesn't affect some subset of individuals on the other. BY DEFINITION IT AFFECTS EVERYONE. PERIOD...

I'm suggesting that looking at where the candidates are NOW and completely discounting the possibility that Hillary and Barack have been disadvantaged by their sex and race, respectively, is disingenuous.

I mean, this is RIDICULOUS. People FOR ONCE, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, FOR ONE FUCKING TIME IN OUR NATION'S ALMOST 250-YEAR HISTORY, are FINALLY paying attention to a black man and a white woman (and God I wish there were a woman of color up there too, but I'm still THRILLED with what we've got here) who have an ACTUAL SHOT at the presidency because they are AMAZING people and have WORKED THEIR ASSES OFF and have PROVEN THEMSELVES politically and professionally, and people start boo-hooing because a rich and famous white man, who also get TONS of press attention and TONS of campaign donations and TONS of support from the MSM, has a teensy bit less than a couple other people??????...

Okay, the more I think about this, the more pissed off it makes me...Where was Elizabeth Edwards in 2000 when Alan Keyes was getting less press attention that W? Or did no one think anything of that, because OF COURSE a black presidential candidate will automatically get less press coverage...

The Law Fairy needs to generate this passion into more posts on her blog, if only to entertain me.

Joe Biden: Stop Talking Now.

I knew there was some reason I didn't like Joe Biden. I've already forgotten what he did last year to tick me off. Thank goodness Senator Biden's latest interview with The New York Observer gave me something to complain about. Here's the stroke of brilliance that's got everybody who's anybody talking:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said [about Senator Barrack Obama]. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Apparently Senator Biden has determined that Mr. Obama's no funky negro. I wish that fool would come up to my face and call me "articulate."

He also said some stuff about Hillary Clinton and my main man (until I find out he has done something stupid) John Edwards. But not many people care about those quotes. I do care about them, but they're not as funny as the unintentional ethnic insults. Those are the best kind. And there's more.

Last year, the Senator from Delaware let it be known that some of Joe Biden's favorite donut vendors are Indian. The words below were captured for posterity on this C-SPAN video.

“In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

I don't think you are joking, Mr. Biden. Now, I don't frequent the Dunkin' Donuts or 7/11 myself. However, I don't think those franchises will refuse to sell you a glazed pastry or a Big Gulp based on your intonation.