Joe Biden's greatest blowhard moment

In anticipation of a possible VP pick, Mickey Kaus flags the New York Times destroying Joe Biden's various false boasts about his academic background back in 1988 -- it's the journalistic equivalent of "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire":

Most of Mr. Biden's statement was in response to a report in this week's issue of Newsweek magazine on a tape recording made by the C-SPAN network of an appearance by Mr. Biden at a home in Claremont, N.H., on April 3. It was a typical coffee-klatch style appearance before a small group. The network regularly records and broadcasts such events as part of its coverage of the Presidential campaign.

The tape, which was made available by C-SPAN in response to a reporter's request, showed a testy exchange in response to a question about his law school record from a man identified only as ''Frank.'' Mr. Biden looked at his questioner and said: ''I think I have a much higher I.Q. than you do.''

He then went on to say that he ''went to law school on a full academic scholarship - the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship,'' Mr. Biden said. He also said that he ''ended up in the top half'' of his class and won a prize in an international moot court competition. In college, Mr. Biden said in the appearance, he was ''the outstanding student in the political science department'' and ''graduated with three degrees from college.''

In his statement today, Mr. Biden, who attended the Syracuse College of Law and graduated 76th in a class of 85, acknowledged: ''I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inacurate.''

As for receiving three degrees, Mr. Biden said: ''I graduated from the University of Delaware with a double major in history and political science. My reference to degrees at the Claremont event was intended to refer to these majors - I said 'three' and should have said 'two.' '' Mr. Biden received a single B.A. in history and political science.

''With regard to my being the outstanding student in the political science department,'' the statement went on. ''My name was put up for that award by David Ingersoll, who is still at the University of Delaware.''

In the Sunday interview, Mr. Biden said of his claim that he went to school on full academic scholarship: ''My recollection is - and I'd have to confirm this - but I don't recall paying any money to go to law school.'' Newsweek said Mr. Biden had gone to Syracuse ''on half scholarship based on financial need.''

In his statement today, Mr. Biden did not directly dispute this, but said he received a scholarship from the Syracuse University College of Law ''based in part on academics'' as well as a grant from the Higher Education Scholarship Fund of the state of Delaware. He said the law school ''arranged for my first year's room and board by placing me as an assitant resident adviser in the undergraduate school.''

As for the moot court competition, Mr. Biden said he had won such a competition, with a partner, in Kingston, Ontario, on Dec. 12, 1967.

Here are two other recent Biden lowlights from my archives in case he gets picked tomorrow:

-Biden blames the Virginia Tech massacre and Don Imus's racial comments on the Gingrich revolution
-Biden falsely claims the Senate hearings he held in 2002 dramatically changed public opinion about Iraq

To be sure, Biden can be impressive, especially on foreign policy. But I still think he's an incorrigible blowhard.

Update 8/22 12:26 AM: With all that said, today's David Brooks column arguing for Biden is still reasonably convincing. Of the four who are reportedly under serious consideration, I think I'd ultimately prefer him over Bayh, Sebelius, or Kaine.

Update 8/24 11:10 PM -- Via Kaus, here is the video, which is not flattering to Biden:

Comments

[The Objective Historian]

Dude ... Sam Nunn! He'd be great.

TOH

[David]

Biden's flaws may make him an even more effective VP candidate. Biden is easy to attack, for the reasons given here. However, if the Reps take the bait and focus their attacks on him, I think Obama will win.

Attacks on anyone but the Presidential candidate are not effective. For example, in 1988 the Dems attcked Dan Quayle. Quayle was a weak choice, deserving of critcism, but the focus on Quayle helped Bush defeat Dukakis.