Biden was assumed to have been too old, too uninteresting, and too irrelevant to be president back in the heady days of 2019.
Remember our contest where everybody made the pitch for their own favorite candidates? The essay itself was great but the case for Biden's was the most boring by far.
We'd have seen Warren/Buttigeig or something. Klobuchar/Booker. Sew up the East Coast/Midwest in haste, repent at leisure.
What's wacky is that I think that Bernie would have won in 2016, I also think that he would have lost in 2020... but I also think that most of the Democratic field would have lost in 2020.
Biden was one of the few people who could have won. Yes, even given (give your laundry list here).
Now we see that we might have been better off had Trump been elected in 2020 leaving a hollow Pence in 2024 to be crucified by the electoral college but woulda coulda shoulda.
We can now wonder who goes up against Vance.
Shapiro/Pritzker! From the river to the buffet!
Buttigeig/Beshear! Smart, Safe, and Sterile!
Harris/Walz! ENOUGH RUNWAY!
There's been a lot of playing with the whole "Original Sin" thing.
What was the Original Sin of the 2024 election?
Harris was an awful Presidental candidate. Well, why in the hell was she picked as VP? Well, 2020 had some pretty weird dynamics. Biden, you may remember, floated Stacy Abrams for a second but Abrams, for some reason, slapped Biden's hand away and there aren't *THAT* many African-American females out there and the weird dynamics of the Mostly Peaceful Summer and some of the ghosts of #MeToo meant that the VP needed to be both Black and Female.
So why Biden in 2020? Well, he was the VP of the most popular president in recent memory. Why did Obama pick Biden as VP?
Well, back in 2008, Obama, believe it or not, was seen as pretty green. In order to give some strength to the ticket, the smoke-filled room decided that it was best to give the ticket some heft with a politician with muscular foreign-policy chops (and one who didn't alienate the ever-living crap out of the main nominee).
Well, why did Obama win, despite being green, instead of the main person he was running against?
Last year, I argued that, post-debate, Biden was going to lose. That was what was going to happen. Biden loses, Trump wins, President Trump.
So here are your options:
President Trump *OR* swap Biden out for What's-in-the-Box.
"We swapped Biden out!"
"We did!"
"Therefore we did what you said!"
"That's true."
"Therefore you can't say that Harris was a bad option!"
"Au contraire, mon frère."
Back in the heady days of July 2024, Mark Halperin said the following:
BREAKING NEWS: Multiples sources outline the apparent state of play on Biden at this time:
* plans to announce withdrawal from nomination as early as this weekend, with Sunday most likely
* Jon Meacham polishing up remarks
* Biden with NOT resign the presidency
* Biden will NOT endorse Harris
* open convention with Harris and about 3 others
* super delegates will not be allowed to vote on 1st ballot
* Harris is vetting at least four possible running mates, including Andy Beshear and possibly Shapiro
I, personally, think that Halperin was being fed information from the Pelosi/Obama camp and they had the gameplan and gave it to a trusted stenographer.
And then Biden screwed everything up by getting all pissy about being stabbed in the back and Breyer'ed and chose to endorse the ever-living it-shay out of Harris.
"What better choice could have been made?"
"The one on the floor of the convention."
"But Harris might have won that one too!"
"It would have been better for her to have done so."
Ben Rhodes seems to have thought that they already got a good start on that.
“All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”
Imagine what might have been possible with even more of those journalismists around.
For what it's worth, I believe that Tapper's book is an attempt for journalismists to claw back some of the credibility they've lost by acting as stenographers over the last few years.
So even if he is accurately repeating what he is being told, it's in service to a motive that seems to be some variant of "we want to be able to be credible when we act as stenographers next time".
So even if he's acting as a stenographer for people who are telling the truth (this time), he's not doing it in a way that will make me believe his statements accurately reflect reality next time.
The problem with "there's not a whole lot of reason to trust Tapper on this" is that, while true, it doesn't do a whole lot for the whole "there's not a whole lot of reason to trust the White House Spokespeople on this" issue.
The worst betrayal isn't of the guys who go watch Gypsy Rose Lee instead of going home, but the guys who are putting in a late night at the office who then have to go home and explain, no, I was *NOT* at the house of burlesque, I was redoing the Johnson Account Numbers and making them line up.
And now she's upset at him for doing his dang job all because of this cartoon in the newspaper.
That's right, the company that gives hot-dog-sized loans to people who need to borrow money to get a hot dog isn't really doing too well at getting that hot dog money back.
There's a reason that nobody shells out a fiver to Wimpy, guys!
You may not have seen it, given that it was on his Truth Social account, but there Trump wrote:
Melania and I are saddened to hear about Joe Biden’s recent medical diagnosis. We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery.
It's not illegal. I'm pretty sure that laws have been passed to make it explicitly legal in a hell of a lot of states (and I'm only hesitating because I'm pretty unsure about Michigan).
Here's my answer: "Crossing a picket line" (or, crudely, "being a scab").
Is it morally wrong? Well... That's really complicated.
Is it somewhat corrosive to the social compact? Well... that's really complicated.
Should the government involve itself? Well... that's really complicated.
I mean I get that I’m probably the only one here who trusts my former White House colleagues, but I do.
We may be using two different kinds of "trust" here.
There's this definition: "I believe that the Biden Team is looking out for the best interest of my country, the world in general, and me and my family. What they say in any given moment is in service to this larger mission and I am on board with it."
There's this definition: "I believe that the Biden spokespeople make statements that conform, more or less, with the state of affairs as it exists."
So when I say "I don't trust them", I am saying "I do not believe that the prepositions spilling from the lips of the spokespeople matches up with the state of affairs in the world" and you hear that and you sputter "YOU DON'T TRUST THEM?!?" as if I were accusing them of being in some secret collusion with the Illuminati and willing to betray America, the world, and, most importantly, you and your family.
And even now, you say "I trust my former colleagues", you're not saying "I believe that the prepositions that they're saying are independently verifiable" but "I believe that they're working for a vision of the world, a vision which I share and things that they may have to say in order to help achieve this vision are things that I am willing to accept at face value (even if it changes again in five minutes)."
And that's fine.
But I am one of those aspy fellows who sees that the prepositions spilling from the mouths of spokespeople as not having a relationship with the world as it exists and takes it into account when they say new things... specifically that the truth value of their statements are secondary to what the statements are trying to accomplish.
As a private citizen, he has every right to adhere to the requirements of HIPPO and keep his medical records private. I'm going to pretend to be offended that you think that everybody's medical records should be publicly available.
In this week's "We're all gonna die" news, cartoonist Scott Adams has announced that he has prostate cancer and his life expectancy is maybe this summer.
On “Joe Biden the Man Interrupts Joe Biden the Narrative”
Biden was assumed to have been too old, too uninteresting, and too irrelevant to be president back in the heady days of 2019.
Remember our contest where everybody made the pitch for their own favorite candidates? The essay itself was great but the case for Biden's was the most boring by far.
We'd have seen Warren/Buttigeig or something. Klobuchar/Booker. Sew up the East Coast/Midwest in haste, repent at leisure.
"
What's wacky is that I think that Bernie would have won in 2016, I also think that he would have lost in 2020... but I also think that most of the Democratic field would have lost in 2020.
Biden was one of the few people who could have won. Yes, even given (give your laundry list here).
Now we see that we might have been better off had Trump been elected in 2020 leaving a hollow Pence in 2024 to be crucified by the electoral college but woulda coulda shoulda.
We can now wonder who goes up against Vance.
Shapiro/Pritzker! From the river to the buffet!
Buttigeig/Beshear! Smart, Safe, and Sterile!
Harris/Walz! ENOUGH RUNWAY!
"
Apparently, the Pelosi/Obama wing has demonstrated how poor of a concept such a thing is in practice.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 5/19/2025”
There's been a lot of playing with the whole "Original Sin" thing.
What was the Original Sin of the 2024 election?
Harris was an awful Presidental candidate. Well, why in the hell was she picked as VP? Well, 2020 had some pretty weird dynamics. Biden, you may remember, floated Stacy Abrams for a second but Abrams, for some reason, slapped Biden's hand away and there aren't *THAT* many African-American females out there and the weird dynamics of the Mostly Peaceful Summer and some of the ghosts of #MeToo meant that the VP needed to be both Black and Female.
So why Biden in 2020? Well, he was the VP of the most popular president in recent memory. Why did Obama pick Biden as VP?
Well, back in 2008, Obama, believe it or not, was seen as pretty green. In order to give some strength to the ticket, the smoke-filled room decided that it was best to give the ticket some heft with a politician with muscular foreign-policy chops (and one who didn't alienate the ever-living crap out of the main nominee).
Well, why did Obama win, despite being green, instead of the main person he was running against?
Well, now we're talking about the Iraq war...
On “Joe Biden the Man Interrupts Joe Biden the Narrative”
Here you go: "An Open Primary".
Last year, I argued that, post-debate, Biden was going to lose. That was what was going to happen. Biden loses, Trump wins, President Trump.
So here are your options:
President Trump *OR* swap Biden out for What's-in-the-Box.
"We swapped Biden out!"
"We did!"
"Therefore we did what you said!"
"That's true."
"Therefore you can't say that Harris was a bad option!"
"Au contraire, mon frère."
Back in the heady days of July 2024, Mark Halperin said the following:
I, personally, think that Halperin was being fed information from the Pelosi/Obama camp and they had the gameplan and gave it to a trusted stenographer.
And then Biden screwed everything up by getting all pissy about being stabbed in the back and Breyer'ed and chose to endorse the ever-living it-shay out of Harris.
"What better choice could have been made?"
"The one on the floor of the convention."
"But Harris might have won that one too!"
"It would have been better for her to have done so."
"
If Biden's presidency has taught us anything, it's that it's very important to have the right people write tweets for you.
Everybody thinks that it's something as simple as hiring a Megan Coyne, but next thing you know, you're resigning on Twitter.
"
Ben Rhodes seems to have thought that they already got a good start on that.
Imagine what might have been possible with even more of those journalismists around.
"
For what it's worth, I believe that Tapper's book is an attempt for journalismists to claw back some of the credibility they've lost by acting as stenographers over the last few years.
So even if he is accurately repeating what he is being told, it's in service to a motive that seems to be some variant of "we want to be able to be credible when we act as stenographers next time".
So even if he's acting as a stenographer for people who are telling the truth (this time), he's not doing it in a way that will make me believe his statements accurately reflect reality next time.
"
The problem with "there's not a whole lot of reason to trust Tapper on this" is that, while true, it doesn't do a whole lot for the whole "there's not a whole lot of reason to trust the White House Spokespeople on this" issue.
On “Does he include you in the evening fun – Or is he this sort?”
The worst betrayal isn't of the guys who go watch Gypsy Rose Lee instead of going home, but the guys who are putting in a late night at the office who then have to go home and explain, no, I was *NOT* at the house of burlesque, I was redoing the Johnson Account Numbers and making them line up.
And now she's upset at him for doing his dang job all because of this cartoon in the newspaper.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 5/19/2025”
You could have seen this coming from a kilometer away: Klarna’s losses widen after more consumers fail to repay loans
That's right, the company that gives hot-dog-sized loans to people who need to borrow money to get a hot dog isn't really doing too well at getting that hot dog money back.
There's a reason that nobody shells out a fiver to Wimpy, guys!
On “Joe Biden the Man Interrupts Joe Biden the Narrative”
"This is why it's important to make sweeping generalizations about people who don't agree with you on everything."
"
You may not have seen it, given that it was on his Truth Social account, but there Trump wrote:
On “The War on Immigration (Legal and Otherwise)”
It's not illegal. I'm pretty sure that laws have been passed to make it explicitly legal in a hell of a lot of states (and I'm only hesitating because I'm pretty unsure about Michigan).
I agree that it's not illegal.
I'm only speaking in terms of moral gravity.
On “Joe Biden the Man Interrupts Joe Biden the Narrative”
Given what has been said above, I'm not sure that "we" already know that, Dark
On “The War on Immigration (Legal and Otherwise)”
Oooooh, that's a good one.
Here's my answer: "Crossing a picket line" (or, crudely, "being a scab").
Is it morally wrong? Well... That's really complicated.
Is it somewhat corrosive to the social compact? Well... that's really complicated.
Should the government involve itself? Well... that's really complicated.
WAIT WAIT WHY ARE THE UNION MEMBERS REVOLTING
On “Joe Biden the Man Interrupts Joe Biden the Narrative”
Well, Tapper's book comes out tomorrow.
You'll have to pick between "Tapper is telling the truth" and "Biden's staff was telling the truth".
"Fake News" might be the best play, if you want to keep running with your former compatriots in the White House.
I mean, *I* don't particularly trust Tapper so I can see where you'd be coming from.
"
I mean I get that I’m probably the only one here who trusts my former White House colleagues, but I do.
We may be using two different kinds of "trust" here.
There's this definition: "I believe that the Biden Team is looking out for the best interest of my country, the world in general, and me and my family. What they say in any given moment is in service to this larger mission and I am on board with it."
There's this definition: "I believe that the Biden spokespeople make statements that conform, more or less, with the state of affairs as it exists."
So when I say "I don't trust them", I am saying "I do not believe that the prepositions spilling from the lips of the spokespeople matches up with the state of affairs in the world" and you hear that and you sputter "YOU DON'T TRUST THEM?!?" as if I were accusing them of being in some secret collusion with the Illuminati and willing to betray America, the world, and, most importantly, you and your family.
And even now, you say "I trust my former colleagues", you're not saying "I believe that the prepositions that they're saying are independently verifiable" but "I believe that they're working for a vision of the world, a vision which I share and things that they may have to say in order to help achieve this vision are things that I am willing to accept at face value (even if it changes again in five minutes)."
And that's fine.
But I am one of those aspy fellows who sees that the prepositions spilling from the mouths of spokespeople as not having a relationship with the world as it exists and takes it into account when they say new things... specifically that the truth value of their statements are secondary to what the statements are trying to accomplish.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 5/19/2025”
Found nothing in spam nor trash... can you give a hint?
"
As a private citizen, he has every right to adhere to the requirements of HIPPO and keep his medical records private. I'm going to pretend to be offended that you think that everybody's medical records should be publicly available.
On “Joe Biden the Man Interrupts Joe Biden the Narrative”
What was the quotation that Biden gave? Did it specify "skin cancer" or was the clarification given later by a spokesperson?
"
That stuff might have to be in the sequel. "Duplicate Sin: President Biden’s Cancer, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again"
"
Thanks to the current situation, I'm curious as to whether more people than just Joe Biden knew that Biden had cancer back in 2022.
On “Open Mic for the Week of 5/19/2025”
In this week's "We're all gonna die" news, cartoonist Scott Adams has announced that he has prostate cancer and his life expectancy is maybe this summer.
On “Joe Biden the Man Interrupts Joe Biden the Narrative”
Jake Tapper's Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again gets released tomorrow.
I'm not sure that arguing that this stuff is baseless is the right play.
And, if I'm right about that, the "HOW DARE YOU" position is definitely not the right play.