Biden clarifies comments on Hillary Clinton and income inequality

[riversedge]

Source: USA TODAY







Biden clarifies comments on Hillary Clinton and income inequality

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/12/joe-biden-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-nbc-today-income-inequality/78673812/

David Jackson, USA TODAY 9:55 a.m. EST January 12, 2016




Vice President Biden sought Tuesday to clarify his comment that income inequality is a "relatively new" issue for Hillary Clinton, a statement trumpeted by Clinton primary opponent Bernie Sanders.

"What I meant was, for the last five years, she's been engaged in foreign policy," Biden told NBC's Today show, referring to her term as President Obama's secretary of State.

Income inequality "has been Bernie's mantra from the time he's gotten involved," Biden added. "Even when income inequality wasn't as serious as it is today, it was his drumbeat. And so that's what I meant."

Clinton is "coming up with some very good ideas," Biden added...............

The Sanders campaign — locked in a tight race with Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire — quickly promoted Biden's comments on Monday night with a tweet linking to a story about the CNN interview.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/12/joe-biden-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-nbc-today-income-inequality/78673812/

---

Thanks JOE.





Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton

Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton (Photo: AP)

[leftofcool]

1. In other words, Hillary is a busy gal with good ideas.

[xocet]

16. ...on how to mimic the actual positions of Sen. Sanders, maintain cover and serve Wall Street?

n/t

[bigdarryl]

72. What's with this GAL!! shit

Sexist fuck

[riversedge]

75. You look foolish --Why would poster say "guy" Hillary is a woman ICYMI

.................
2. What's with this GAL!! shit

View profile
Sexist fuck

[yeoman6987]

2. A great explanation that makes sense

Hillary is the lone expert on foreign affairs by both sides. Nobody can touch her on that subject. But the domestic is something that she has risen to great strides in the last few years. The most well rounded candidate out of 20 running.

[Broward]

3. Nobody can touch Hillary on foreign affairs? She is the lone expert?

Then, how did she get the Iraq War so wrong?

[yeoman6987]

5. She didn't

She went by intel. And since then she has excelled in foreign policy.

[Broward]

7. Yet, so many non-experts saw right through the BS,

including just about everyone that was posting on DU at the time.

[RandiFan1290]

9. That poster was pretending to support Bernie a few weeks ago...

Don't feed 'em.

[Broward]

10. Interesting, thanks for the heads up.

[yurbud]

17. it was cooked intel. Also, she's old enough to remember Cold War so she knew that Iraq would never

dare use nukes on us or our allies or give nukes to terrorists since like the rest of the world they were aware that we have thousands of nukes and would not hesitate to use them to retaliate.

If Hillary really believed the Bush "intel" and interpretation of it, she is either too gullible or retarded to be president.

It is more likely she made a cynical calculation that the war would be successful or at the very least that some of her wealthy patrons wanted it.

[yurbud]

19. Do you mean like overthrowing Khadafi and turning Libya over to Islamic extremists?

[SunSeeker]

20. You mean we should have picked Libya's next government? nt

[yurbud]

31. no. We should have left the country alone.

[SunSeeker]

54. Looks like jeff47 took over this conversation for you.

See subthread starting at http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1311996

[SunSeeker]

36. So trying to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians by Khadafi was a big mistake? nt

[jeff47]

40. It is when you cause the slaughter of many, many, many, many, many more civilians. (nt)

[SunSeeker]

43. The NATO campaign to stop the slaughter of Libyan civilians was successful.

On March 17, 2011, Khadafi announced his forces were "coming that night" to Benghazi and "there won't be any mercy." http://www.businessinsider.com/libya-thursday-march-17-2011-3 The Benghazi civilians begged for help. The UN Security Council declared a no fly zone to protect the Libyan civilian population from aerial bombardment, calling on foreign nations to enforce it, and we were part of that coalition. Khadafi was stopped in his tracks and his bombing capabilities disabled. Thousands of lives were saved. The subsequent revolution by Libyans overthrowing and killing Khadafi would have happened regardless, but probably over a much longer period of time, and with a lot more loss of life.

It was a very limited duration operation simply for the purpose of enforcing the temporary no fly zone. Fighting in Libya ended in late October following the death of Muammar Gaddafi at the hands of rebels, and NATO stated it would end operations over Libya on 31 October 2011. Libya's new government requested that its mission be extended to the end of the year, but on 27 October, the Security Council voted to end NATO's mandate for military action on 31 October. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

[jeff47]

44. And then what happened?

Time did not stop when NATO stopped dropping bombs.

People who are actually good at foreign policy get this.

[SunSeeker]

50. The continuing revolution brought a new government in power.

Yes, I get that time does not stop when NATO stopped dropping bombs. Since I "get that," I must be one of the lucky few you consider "people who are actually good at foreign policy."

[jeff47]

51. And how many people died?

Last edited Tue Jan 12, 2016, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

If you are going to hide behind the specter of civilian deaths under Gaddafi as the reason to overthrow him, shouldn't that result in fewer civilian deaths instead of far more civilian deaths?

[SunSeeker]

52. A lot less than would have died if NATO would have allowed him to obliterate Benghazi. nt

[yurbud]

57. so you think governments go to war altruistically?

[SunSeeker]

69. Usually not. But we do on occasion.

There was no oil in Bosnia in 1999. Nor in Germany in 1918. And although Libya does have oil, if we were there for the oil, we would have stayed, not just engaged in a UN no fly zone enforcement action for a few months.

[yurbud]

79. You think we got into World War I for altruistic reasons? Have you read Smedley Butler?

A Marine Corps general who won two Medals of Honor:

An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:

"There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.

If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money . . . and Germany won't.

So . . . "

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

[yurbud]

68. You need to read some history like Stephen Kinzer's OVERTHROW or Daniel Yergin's THE PRIZE

about the history of oil.

You are confusing excuses for war with actual reasons.

[SunSeeker]

70. You are confusing Libya with Iraq. nt

[yurbud]

77. so suddenly US foreign policy has entirely new goals rather than just adjustments in methods?

Especially since the Obama administration is sprinkled with neocons?

[jeff47]

45. She admitted to not reading the intelligence report. How did she go by intel? (nt)

[swilton]

65. Exactly! The TPP was a great piece of work!

[JackRiddler]

67. No, you're right, she didn't "get it wrong."

That would presume she cared to get it right. She pandered to the moment and made herself complicit in an intentional and planned war of aggression based on an obviously fabricated pretext and terrorizing propaganda.

23 senators voted against the atrocity. The intel was obviously fixed, and this was known well without the details that have since emerged, enough was out there from Blix, Baradei, international investigators, Scott Ritter, etc. And what was the intel, pray tell? If Iraq had WMD, that was no more a reason for the U.S. to go and start murdering people in Iraq than vice-versa. The vote was not on "intel," it was on whether to invade a foreign country.

She went by political calculus, nothing more. Like everyone who went along with that crime, the same.

[snooper2]

76. Yep, she has excelled in getting countries weapon contracts, long as foundation donations come

[betterdemsonly]

21. Given how disasterous her decisions have been in Honduras, Libya and Syria

I don't think Bernie should treat her foreign policy creds as sacrosanct. Her record or foreign policy is pretty bad.

[gordyfl]

22. And Hillary is Not Stopping at Iraq

She plans on carrying on with Bush's War on Terror.

In the Democratic Debate...

Hillary: "Obviously, in the first, we do have to have a -- an American-led air campaign, we have to have Arab and Kurdish troops on the ground. Secondly, we've got to go after everything from North Africa to South Asia and beyond".

When it comes to the economy, I trust Bernie, not Hillary.

[emulatorloo]

30. Refers to stopping ISIS, Bernie said similar.

[gordyfl]

62. "North Africa, South Asia and beyond"?

I must have missed that.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/the-only-way-to-destroy-isis-is-with-a-bernie-sanders-presidency_b_8626570.html

[emulatorloo]

64. You may be unaware of Isis activity in North Africa and SE Asia, but I am sure Bernie is.

A 2 second Google:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/africa/isis-libya-north-africa/index.html

http://time.com/2888423/isis-islamist-state-in-iraq-and-syria-indonesia/

[gordyfl]

66. I still haven't heard

Bernie say he wants to bomb those countries.

[raindaddy]

11. The the lone expert on foreign affairs?

The "expert" who jumped on the Cheney bandwagon to attack Iraq without bothering to read the intelligence report.

The expert who sold 2.4 billion dollars worth of military to friggin Algeria, a 70% increase over previous administrations...

The Clinton's have shrewdly created a wealthy political machine, I'll give them that.

[karynnj]

24. Well, I would agree that she is Obama's second best Secretary of State nt

[emulatorloo]

32. +1. Kerry is terrific, would have been a great President.

[MBS]

33. " " " n/t

[wendylaroux]

4. yea ok

[Cerridwen]

6. Yep. Because talking about equal pay for women...

Yep. Because talking about equal pay for women has nothing to do with income equality...or so I've been told by the ever reliable press.

Interesting how that works, isn't it?

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. This is the benefit of being a Senator ...

one can focus one's efforts on those things one cares most about and just go with the herd (or against the herd) on everything else.

[99th_Monkey]

12. We knew this was coming. A "clarification" my ass.

A Biden .. oops .. I said the truth, now I've pissed-off Hillary and I need to cover my tracks moment.

[pangaia]

13. +1000

[leftynyc]

25. Of course,

because everybody is so afraid of Hillary - even the VP - that they will bow down and do whatever she wants whenever she wants. Do you even hear yourself? Do you really think VP Biden is that big a weenie?

[Android3.14]

28. Hillary Clinton is a politically powerful person with a well-earned reputation for retaliation

There is no need to be obtuse.

[Laser102]

34. If you mean she can stand up for herself and not take any crap, I agree. Nothing weak about her.

[LanternWaste]

35. The latter of your statement is quite the creative allegation

"a well-earned reputation for retaliation..."

The latter of your statement is quite the creative allegation, regardless of anyone's need for obtuseness. It adds the melodramatic and sinister overtones (a Hans Zimmer soundtrack would assist your color even more effectively).

Quite the sensational and vivid AM talk show point-of-the-day you've acquiesced to.

[Android3.14]

41. By "AM Talk Show" you must mean "The Atlantic Magazine"

Clintonphobia: Why No Democrat Wants to Run Against Hillary

I'll save you the trouble and accept your apology as given.

Time to wake up and realize people see her followers as cronies for a bully.

[leftynyc]

39. I'm not the one being obtuse

I asked you straight out if you think the VP is such a freeking coward that he's scared of Hillary. You obviously think he is. Noted.

[Android3.14]

56. Uh huh. Think again.

We know what you meant.

[leftynyc]

58. Sure you did

Like many, I'm sure you have the cartoon version of a Hillary supporter that has no basis in reality whatsoever. This, this right here, is why I stay away from GD-P. It's like a sewer.

[anigbrowl]

61. Lemme guess, Joe doesn't want to end up like Vince Foster?

Seriously, what sort of retaliation do you think Hillary would engage in if she were elected? Making the IRS audit Biden every year? Messing with his pension checks?

[Android3.14]

71. What a stupid accusation. Vince Foster? As if.

Dragging out Vince Foster at this point was an error on your part, demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding regarding political influence, how our government works and the importance of holding elections.

With her political connections and the potential to be chief executive, Hillary is currently powerful and could become even more powerful. She will have the ability to allocate federal resources, influence committee assignments, shape public discourse, open investigations, influence the allocation of election funds and veto legislation.

She will most decidedly have the ability to retaliate, and has done so in the past.

[99th_Monkey]

29. Biden spoke the truth plain & simple. We both know that.

Our beloved VP is also well-known for doing this, then needing to "clarify". That's not
saying Biden's a "big weenie", it's simply common knowledge among people well-versed
in national politics.

Hillary is equally well-known for having an "enemy list" like Nixon did.

If you can't -- or I suspect simply don't want to -- connect these dots, then I think the
reason is obvious.

[LanternWaste]

37. Many people avoid the after-this-therefore-because-of-this fallacy

"then I think the reason is obvious..."


Many people avoid the after-this-therefore-because-of-this fallacy, would be my guess. However, as that doesn't fit within the specific narrative of reality, I also imagine many will rationalize it as not a logical fallacy, but simply "common knowledge" or some other allegation lacking objective sources.

One of the reasons the Primary season is so bemusing: many people who maintain the pretense of being skeptics or rational thinkers completely deny those appellations when they unwittingly advertise so much bias in so few words.

[99th_Monkey]

42. The dots, with links, for the apparently obtuse

Biden's Dot:
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1895156,00.html

Hillary's Dot:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-running-list-enemies-allies-2008-election-report-article-1.1578117

Connect them or not. Your choice.

Better yet, conjure up some faux-intellectual "fallacy" to excuse ignoring them altogether. Fine.

[anigbrowl]

60. Or what?

If he did piss her off, what would she do? Not endorse him in a race he's not running in? Biden's going to retire next January so he has no particular need to stay in her good books. I would be surprised but not upset if he were to endorse Bernie; the only blowback he would face in doing so would be on his social calendar.

[99th_Monkey]

63. You may be right

Last edited Tue Jan 12, 2016, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

but access comes to mine. I don't know what Joe's retirement plans include, but I'm
betting they are important to him, and that access to a friendly WH might come in handy.
Joe would get reasonable access by Bernie either way, but with Hillary .. not so much, if she
is "crossed".

On edit: Perhaps also related, the WH recently announced that they (which I assume means
both Joe and Obama) would NOT be making any formal endorsement in the Primary. Hillary
may have played that card with Joe .. i.e. "hey, cut it out! You guys said no endorsements, and
that was pretty close to one for Bernie" ... of course ignoring that Obama came pretty close
himself with his "no endorsements for pro-gun Democrats" comments.

[pangaia]

14. Did Joe have a call at 3 am?

Say it ain't so, Joe.
You're a good guy, better than this.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

48. I've always believe that Joe has been most right about foreign policy. Everything he said

about the Middle East region has come to pass.

I trust Joe much more than I trust Hillary Clinton or the Clintons on anything.

[AzDar]

15. Ooops! Biden told the truth...some people must have been upset by that.

[kath]

18. yep. how much ya wanna bet he received a very angry phone call from Camp Weathervane?

[karynnj]

23. Biden is wrong on one thing - "last 5 years" for foreign policy?

For the last three years, she has concentrated on electoral politics! Just because the republicans seem to still think she is the Secretary of State -- she isn't. (It is bad enough in the debate that she claimed that the recent UN Syria resolution was something she negotiated in a "long day in Geneva" three years ago. It wasn't - she did push a resolution then and it was vetoed by Russia and China. The UN resolution, which might fall apart was the result of months of work by Kerry, along with Lavrov, Jarif, and the foreign ministers of SA and all the European mebers of the security council at the UN. )

This does not mean that she does not have a strong resume on foreign policy. She was Secretary of State. However, that gives her a record .. and she made the record clear in her book as to where she disagreed with Obama. With Sanders, there is less record, but he is on record on most of the same issues.

1) He never ever called TPP a gold standard of anything
2) He never backed arming the rebels in Libya or Syria
3) She would not have withdrawn the troops from Iraq
4) She is far more bellicose towards Iran

You CAN chose Sanders on foreign policy if you think his positions are better, knowing he will nominate a Secretary of State who will provide his/her expertise.

[Gothmog]

26. Thanks for posting this

[riversedge]

74. You are welcome

[Android3.14]

27. Now, will Hillary stop complaining on my answering machine?

Can you imagine the flurry of angry calls with ominous overtones and unstated threats?

Veruca Salt must have had a tantrum.

[Beacool]

38. Biden's mouth has always ran ahead of his brain.

As for IA and NH, even if Sanders were to win both states, I'm not worried about it. The battle has just started.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. Joe is spot on and there's nothing wrong with his brain or his mouth. He tells the truth. Always has

[Beacool]

49. In politics, just as in life, there's a lot to be said for tact and diplomacy.

More than once the Obama administration has cringed by Biden's extemporaneous comments. How many times has there been a need for clarification after one of his remarks? far too many to remember them all.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

55. Hillary is a master at that, now, isn't she? NOT!! :)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. I think my main man Joe meant exactly what he said...and he would be right!

[ViseGrip]

53. THIS...is exactly why Joe can't be president. Walk back walk back walk back, even with JEB!

[geek tragedy]

73. In other words he's saying she's "likeable enough" nt

[Sunlei]

78. I'm looking foward to when VP Biden is free to really speak out