Joe Biden, Senator from Citibank (oops, DELAWARE), to Run for President

Fucking hell.

More of these stories are inevitable.

But to believe Obama's vice president assaulted a woman and have the incident never emerge during the vetting of the first black president in American history is, again, dubious.

I certainly can’t speak to the veracity of these claims but it’s going to be wild as hell watching a bunch of well-heeled ilx libs quickly find the limits of Believe Women

I don't believe women when the story is unbelievable. That is not anti-feminist. A bunch of guys here are getting really really serious about these things when it politically suits them.

This story is just not credible. Sorry. I don't think I have personally attacked the accuser in any way? The journalists who mishandled this should burn in hell, though

She absolutely could be lying. Lots of people lie.

The original story corroborates everything we know about Biden, and I find it credible, creepy, and gross -- among the many reasons for which I preferred Warren and Sanders as the nominee. She had told family and friends at the time, the same people whom campaign vetters would've spoken to. Now she's talking to Katie Halper.

I mean, Clinton had several accusations against him as president, not to mention Lewinsky, and it didn’t stop him. Had the rumours been against Obama, that would have killed him, but sexual assault allegations aren’t taken anywhere near seriously enough as it is, let alone against powerful white men. And it doesn’t surprise me that she was reading from notes.

As though women don’t constantly question or doubt themselves in this situation especially when subject to repeat questioning over a traumatic experience? Accusing a powerful politician of sexual assault is a fucking terrifying prospect, and I’m not sure I would do it in her shoes. Millions of women make that same calculation every day against people far less powerful than Joe Biden, it takes a lot to go through with it.

And you might think when you’re going through this with a toothcomb that you’re providing scrutiny or whatever, but you’re doing it in the context of the above.

Don't you think I know that?

Not how you or anyone else is coming across, never @ any of us with your feminist credentials again.

You can't have a witness read from notes unless you disclose they are reading from notes. It destroys the credibility. And she still got the story wrong.

I don't care what any friend of xyzzz thinks about my feminism, no matter their gender.

She had told family and friends at the time, the same people whom campaign vetters would've spoken to.

She absolutely could be lying. Lots of people lie.

So are we all voting for Trump?

If you subscribe to the specious notion that not voting for Biden means voting for Trump then...yes?

I don't believe women when the story is unbelievable. That is not anti-feminist.

it's a fair point but Fred, again...what is up with this insistance on these things? You're like a full month out ahead on this story, making these claims like you have a serious personal stake in the fate of Joe Biden

it's just...weird

insistence

Frederik B at 6:53 27 Mar 20

And that is why you don't do these things on Skype

hmmm I wonder if there was some ulterior motive for doing this on Skype like, oh I don't know, a global pandemic you dolt

You can't have a witness read from notes unless you disclose they are reading from notes. It destroys the credibility. And she still got the story wrong.

― Frederik B, Friday, March 27, 2020 9:11 AM (thirty-four minutes ago)

Genuinely puzzled by this. Witnesses read prepared statements all the time, and what's the difference in veracity between a memorized verbal statement or talking points versus a written one? It seems especially weird to me in a situation where onlookers are going to pounce on any inconsistencies, which are much easier to accidentally make if you're speaking off the top of your head

to steal a phrase I read in a profile of Andrew Sullivan, Fred's rhetorical style is "the closest weapon at hand"

@rob: It's the second time she tells this story. The reason for having her tell the story a second time is to see if it's consistent with the first time she told it. If she is just reading a story, then it makes no sense to have her tell it again. They should just rerun the time she told it to Katie Halper.

And again, the really big problem is that they don't disclose that she is reading from notes. And also, she gets the story wrong anyway.

I don't get it. Accusers read from notes all the time. Blasey Ford did too before Congress -- her own account. Why is this point a disqualifier?

@Hadrian: I'm more invested in MeToo. When I'm 'making claims' on the Woody Allen thread, it's not because I hate Annie Hall. But I'm invested in these stories being told and having an impact. I have friends trying to do this, I see people in positions of power who shouldn't be there because of investigations I know that have failed.

Blasey Ford got cross examined, is the difference.

If a new account is just based on an earlier written account, then it doesn't really improve the credibility of the story. It's not disqualifying, but it does nothing to help. What I find disqualifying is that she doesn't disclose she is reading from notes, and still gets the story wrong.

I bet we'll learn more when all the people actually investigating it and reporting on it collect and scrutinize more information, I don't understand how anyone can have any firm convictions abt it one way or another

I don't care what any friend of xyzzz thinks about my feminism, no matter their gender.

― Frederik B, Friday, 27 March 2020 bookmarkflaglink

Never met gyac. It's telling that this is all you have.

Of course, I'd be happy to learn more. There is the possibility that she is screwing up the way she is telling a story that still has a true core. I have to admit I doubt we'll learn more one way or another.

You need to learn less about who is screwing up or not. That will be a start.

I don't blame her. I blame the journalists.

"But to believe Obama's vice president assaulted a woman and have the incident never emerge during the vetting of the first black president in American history is, again, dubious. The GOP would've been all over this"

Just as likely an org like the Democratic party would absolutely not be tight on any vetting, nor would the GOP pick on it (given who sits at the top in that org).

nor would the GOP pick on it (given who sits at the top in that org)

True; the Republicans have a well documented history of never accusing their political opponents of things they might be guilty of themselves.

“ I don’t think the public wants to hear criticism of Trump right now,” said an informal adviser to Biden. https://t.co/dgWRcME7Pm

— Holly Otterbein (@hollyotterbein) March 27, 2020

oof please don't compel me to defend Biden--but come on, this tweet is less than 90 mins old:

It’s never a matter of if another pandemic will happen, it’s just a matter of when — and it’s the president’s job to ensure we’re ready.

Donald Trump's careless, shortsighted actions left our nation ill-prepared and now Americans are paying the price. https://t.co/45GVHtxUHA

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) March 27, 2020

the sad, ugly, shitty truth is that even if I was 100% certain these allegations against Biden were true, I would still vote for him in November.

he's assaulted far less women than the other guy

on average he's less of an assaulter than the supreme court justices

the sad, ugly, shitty truth is that even if I was 100% certain these allegations against Biden were true, I would still vote for him in November.

― Evans on Hammond (evol j), Friday, March 27, 2020 11:05 AM

I thought of Ralph Northam and how black voters were willing to endure him because the option was death.

The difference, of course, was Northam's admitting to the deed and apologizing.

Told the wife I wasn't planning on voting for Biden this year. She took it hard, of course. We work hard in our marriage to be able to communicate openly about important things, and this, I think, was part of that.

I can't hardly talk politics on the Internet at all, not so much because it upsets me but because my approach to electoral politics is apparently radically different from the politics most people discuss.

For one, I don't give a shit about candidates' platforms. It's not that I think they're lying to me. When Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay, I think he was sincere in that, that he really wanted to do it and failed. When I look at what is within the realm of possibility for any candidate to accomplish within the bounds of our current political system, well, I come up empty.

So I treat elections as if I am voting for a dictator. I also treat elections as if everything someone says today can change tomorrow, because it does. What I base my decisions on who to vote for, then, is based on values, personality, character, all of the things that the smarks of democracy tell us we should ignore.

Because my perception, and this is of course biased, flawed, limited, what have you, is that the political choice is not a question of rational assessment of outcomes versus "populism". I don't, frankly, see much of anyone being "rational" when it comes to national politics right now. I see it as a question of how flexible to be on one's personal values and principles, how much to give in the interests of the Tribe.

I'm not inflexible. Saying that I won't vote for Biden, that gets taken as a sign of radicalism, of petulantly demanding unattainable perfection from a candidate. I am perfectly willing to compromise, have in the past, will in the future.

I'm also afraid. I'm afraid because in 2016, every Republican in this country was tested, and they were, most of them, found wanting. They abandoned, totally and completely, everything they said they believed in. There were excuses, rationalizations. Either they were completely shamelessly amoral, or they are burying that shame deep inside, where it continues to slowly kill them. I don't think I'm the first. I'm afraid of the second.

I have to live with myself. At the end of the day, I have to live with myself, and that has been a long, hard struggle for me. I won't allow myself to vote for a candidate because they're the "lesser evil", because I've been shamed into going along with the tribe. I know the consequences of this. Expulsion. I don't want to be asked to leave. The people who are supporting Biden, I don't think they're all evil. These are people I care about, people, some of them, I have needed.

I just can't go along with the way things are being done anymore. I can't go along with burying misdeeds, I can't go along with the absolute mockery of the "democratic process" the primaries this year have been, I can't go along with being asked to be willing to support, if necessary, a billionaire blatantly attempting to purchase the most powerful political office in the country, because "he cares about the environment". All of this is not my responsibility, not within my power, and I will not accept the blame for it. I am saying "no", quietly, and walking away. I don't have any idea if I'm right or wrong, but it's my decision, it's not a rash one, and I stand behind it.

Sorry for the text dump. I didn't have anywhere else to put this. I haven't been reading, and won't be reading, this thread.

tbf you’re not saying “no” that quietly; you’re saying it with an overwrought wall of text.

He does an hour with Anderson Cooper on CNN tonight. As someone with serious reservations about whether he's up to a campaign, I'll be watching and thinking about that.

"campaign"--whatever that'll look like, or if there even is one.

Saw the interview in The Hill. The story changed again. I'm sorry, I don't believe this.

Reade is interviewed by Halper and co-host Taibbi, the latter with his own baggage. Now touching the neck (inappropriate, creepy; not what Brett Kavanaugh, Al Franken, and Trump were accused of) has changed to sexual assault. I'm dubious.

C'mon now.

Inconsistency and changing stories is practically a hallmark of victims' testimonial histories whenever shame and terror are involved, not to mention the memory-ravaging effects of PTSD, where this is present.

I've seen this first hand having represented political asylum seekers, several of them, incidentally, having suffered rape. *All* of my clients had been initially rejected by the Asylum Officer for contradictions and inconsistencies. I had physicians and psychologists conduct thorough evaluations, and *all* found ample evidence of injuries and disorders consistent with the petitioners' claims of torture and rape. *All* of them ultimately obtained asylum.

And believe me, their inconsistencies, changing stories, and lacunae drove me crazy as well, since I had to help them stick to a consistent testimony for their affidavits and court appearances. But I learned very quickly that it was that such was the very nature of the fabric we were dealing with.

Yes, but she is reading from notes, and still getting the story wrong.

"wrong"

Of course she is reading from notes. You likely would as well, knowing how much was at stake, and not trusting yourself to provide a consistent narrative. And what do you mean, "getting the story wrong"? You have no idea what the actual story is. She might not either, apart from the core events.