Fox News was all over Biden’s diminished faculties early on, which added to the topic as taboo. Ditto with fears of being accused of ageism (though every old person knows an 84 year old president is absurd). And the accusation that a critique of Biden helps usher in the end of democracy. The debate confirmed what every Fox viewer already “knew”: Biden was out of it, a Democratic cabal was propping him up, Weekend at Bernie’s style, and mainstream media is not to be trusted. Who was living in an ideological bubble now?
I don’t think the media will ever get it together. But the Democratic Party can pledge never to anoint a candidate again. Hillary was anointed in 2016, Biden in 2024, Kamala in 2024. The most successful candidates have been people whose time had not yet come but they went for it anyway: Clinton and Obama. The DNC better get out of the way. Potential candidates should step up and out and not wait for the DNC to grant them permission to run.
I hate to break it to YOU, but superdelegates only put Obama over the top after they realized how weak a candidate Hillary Clinton was in 2008. Remember, Hillary Clinton was the favorite going into 2008 because she initially had tremendous financial advantages, had numerous endorsements, etc... Given that, when the elected officials saw how poorly she and her campaign performed against the insurgent Obama, they got behind the candidate who was more likely to win. Most of Obama's delegates were selected by the voters. To say that superdelegates made Obama the nominee implies some sort of backroom deal, which was not the case.
Both Hillary and Obama were strong candidates in 2008. Either would have easily defeated McStain which is why Hillary stayed in the race so long until the superdelegates forced her out. Hillary actually got the votes of Trump counties in the 2008 primary while Obama got young first time voters and very liberal and African Americans. Hillary 2016 was a terrible candidate and I believe the reason was the right wing echo chamber was at full force and she was unhealthy.
Let's remember that Obama in 2008 was not just a candidate, he was a phenomenon. It is possible that Hillary could have beaten McCain, what I said was that there was a realization that Obama was MORE LIKELY to beat him.
One more thing...there were also some superdelegates, particularly black superdelegates like Charlie Rangel, that had endorsed Hillary early out of loyalty to the Clintons (also thinking that with all her advantages, of course, she would win), but by the end were begging her to be released from their commitments so as to fulfill the dream of electing America's first black president.
Superdelegates don’t actually vote until the convention…but Hillary dropped out before the convention because Clyburn had corralled enough superdelegates to give Obama the nomination. So neither Obama nor Hillary had enough delegates to win the nomination without superdelegates…and both had enough delegates that the superdelegates could have made either of them the nominee at the convention. Wikipedia has it correct…I wonder who corrected it?? 😉
This chain has probably gone on for too long, but let's put things in context. You are factually correct in what you are saying above, but you are still giving the impression of a backroom deal.
By May 2008, Obama was leading in delegates AND superdelegates, an amazing feat given all of Hillary Clinton's advantages in endorsements and early, big money. If enough superdelegates had swung Hillary's way to give her the nomination, African Americans, who still constitute the party's most loyal base, would have undoubtedly felt betrayed- after all, Obama was leading, and the superDs would have been perceived as taking the nomination from him- and they would have been correct! The thousands of young voters that Obama brought into the party would have also felt similarly betrayed. This betrayal would have engendered lower November turnout, even a possible Democratic loss, and certainly, no Obama coattails that led to the temporary fillibuster-proof majority that enabled the passage of Obamacare.
There was no backroom deal. The superdelegates were merely executing the will of the plurality of the delegates and doing what was best for the party. Nothing more and nothing less.
I don't think that's quite the same, since the article is about how Biden's condition was kept hidden. People in favor of supporting Israel aren't hiding anything. They simply believe that the destruction is worth the goal(of destroying Hamas) or that it isn't the fault of Israel (Hamas, Hamas, Hamas) that they're fighting among civilians. It's similar to how many Americans supported the atomic bombing of Japan - pointing out that hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians died wouldn't convince them that it was a mistake. They already know that.
I think the closest analogy would be that we just sort of diluted what a ceasefire meant. Biden (and his supporters) seemed to take a lot of pride in a peace deal that wasn't accepted by Hamas, then complaining that there wasn't a ceasefire.
It was Biden's weakness when it came to supporting Israel that inspired me to stay home on election day. Biden/Harris emboldened our most dangerous enemies and destabilized the world. But hey, at least you can take comfort in the growing success of the "globalize the intifada" movement. I'm sure the New Orleans terrorist shares your hatred of Israel and the Jews. Be proud.
I think a particularly damming indictment comes from less than a week before the debate disaster. As the video evidence of Biden's senility began piling up, NYT came out with a mind-boggling magazine piece, trying to convince its readers that "cheap fakes" are a thing. They chose (a small selection of) the damning videos and tried to tell their readers to ignore their lying eyes by providing "context" that literally changed nothing. That was, in my opinion, a low point, which may, furthermore, provide a hint on the deception vs. delusion debate.
May be useful to remember the names of all those involved in this piece. Let's say that I, personally, would take anything they report or claim in future with more than the usual pinch of salt.
Cheapfakes are very much a thing! I get and mostly agree with your point here. But... you definitely can doctor a clip with iMovie-level basic editing and post it on Twitter and pass it off as the real thing. It's happened! It will happen again! (It just didn't happen for two uninterrupted hours of live television.)
Editing clips out of context is a very very old thing everyone knows about. “Cheap fakes” was a pathetic attempt of the Biden people to excuse irrefutable video evidence of his growing senectitude. That NYT took it seriously and moreover tried to demonstrate it (failing miserably) showed something is very very rotten in the kingdom of msm.
You could say the term was *weaponized* by Biden flacks, but they didn't invent it, and it refers to a real thing. (Something similar happened in the Trump years with "fake news.")
if you put yourself in the position of a Democratic politician, you were in a very tough position. To come out publicly against Biden early would risk your career. Even pre-debate, as long as Biden stayed in, it was super risky to question his capability. Not just for your career but for the benefit of the district or state you were representing.
Journalists, on the other hand, don't have that excuse.
Very well put as was your article in New York this morning. What I would be interested in knowing more of, is who specifically from Biden’s inner circle isolated him- and what role did his family play in this? I’ve read a few musings about his wife, but really nothing specific. And to your other commenter’s point- journalists have no excuses.
There is a certain element that got very comfortable in their ability to foreclose all debate and discussion by simply calling people bigots (usually "misogynist," "racist," or "transphobe," but "ageist" in this instance).
Misogynist. Racist. Transphobic. Ageist. These are all Big Words that can only really mean anything to highly educated people. To normal people they are just BS. So there's a bit of irony that the supposedly smartest people allowed themselves to get bullied out of touch with reality in this way.
The United States' push to manufacture its own semiconductors and reduce dependence on China and Taiwan faces significant hurdles, as China controls over 90% of the supply chain for critical materials like gallium, germanium, and other rare earth metals essential for chip production. The U.S. has limited manufacturing capacity, struggling to produce even basic goods, with much of its innovation reliant on China for tooling, machinery, and large-scale production.
To succeed, the U.S. must secure raw materials, rebuild manufacturing infrastructure, invest in workforce training and advanced facilities, and provide robust policy support, such as subsidies and incentives. Bridging the gap between innovation and production is vital, as is global collaboration with allies to diversify supply chains and share resources.
Ultimately, transitioning from a consumer-driven economy to a manufacturing powerhouse is a generational effort that requires a coordinated approach across government, industry, and academia. The road to semiconductor independence is fraught with challenges, but it also presents an opportunity to redefine America’s role in the global economy. Whether the U.S. can rise to this occasion will depend on its ability to overcome entrenched dependencies and foster a new era of industrial innovation and resilience.
Carter died…and 1979 was the peak manufacturing jobs/union membership. We had a lot of economic problems in the 1970s…I’m not sure why people believe going back to 1979 labor market solves all of our problems??
All empires collapse because they either fail to adapt or become so corrupt that they self-destruct.
“The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury.”
— George Washington
The United States is currently adding $1 trillion in debt every three months. Soon, it will be every two months, and eventually every month. At some point, the wheels will come off entirely. It is no longer a matter of if but when. As long as America—and to a large extent, the European Union—continues to beat its chest, chant about being the best, and actually believe it, nothing will change.
The time to wake up was 15 to 20 years ago, long before BRICS emerged and outmaneuvered much of the West. Between China, India, and Russia, these nations collectively control over 90% of the world's natural resources, access to cheap energy, engineering expertise, logistics networks, and manufacturing capacity.
You can’t simply snap your fingers, pass a bill in Congress, and pretend to become microchip-independent from China. The notion is laughable—though admittedly, it’s entertaining to watch.
lol, the world is awash in natural gas. America’s low point was 2008–Obama and Trump and Biden have made America great again after Bush/Cheney made China great again!
Republicans are better at politics than Democrats…Biden was a great president but his approval ratings never recovered from August 2021 triple whammy of Trump’s surrender to the Taliban, Republicans refusal to get vaccinated Delta death surge, and inflation which turned out to be not a big deal.
Well said. I was also opposed to Biden's reelection campaign and felt it was blindingly obvious that he couldn't campaign, let alone serve until January 2029. Those who defended him have a lot of reflecting to do.
"mass migration that reinvigorated America in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries". Quite a lot of Americans did not feel this way, and that is why it got choked off with legislation in 1924. The irony being, it gave all those same immigrants a chance to get established and assimilated without being undermined by following waves of the same kinds of poor immigrants.
Biden was out of it in the 2019 primary. The voters of Iowa and New Hampshire actually saw him up close and personal and he was 3rd and 5th (!) in those states.
Well, those states are also famous for boosting insurgent candidates, fresh new faces, etc., and in that context, his previous 1988 and 2008 runs made him "old news." Still, over 36 years, one would think Biden would have had stronger Iowa and NH networks and, therefore, done better than 3rd and 5th.
The fact that the genocide in Palestine is nowhere near this is so silly as a retrospection. This is incredibly American centric when his larger legacy will always be the genocide he enabled. No one in the UK cares about what Neville Chamberlains domestic policies were.
Fox News was all over Biden’s diminished faculties early on, which added to the topic as taboo. Ditto with fears of being accused of ageism (though every old person knows an 84 year old president is absurd). And the accusation that a critique of Biden helps usher in the end of democracy. The debate confirmed what every Fox viewer already “knew”: Biden was out of it, a Democratic cabal was propping him up, Weekend at Bernie’s style, and mainstream media is not to be trusted. Who was living in an ideological bubble now?
I don’t think the media will ever get it together. But the Democratic Party can pledge never to anoint a candidate again. Hillary was anointed in 2016, Biden in 2024, Kamala in 2024. The most successful candidates have been people whose time had not yet come but they went for it anyway: Clinton and Obama. The DNC better get out of the way. Potential candidates should step up and out and not wait for the DNC to grant them permission to run.
Andy Kim another great success story of 2024 where the leader led, the institutions followed (not the other way around).
I hate to break it to you—superdelegates made Obama the nominee in 2008.
I hate to break it to YOU, but superdelegates only put Obama over the top after they realized how weak a candidate Hillary Clinton was in 2008. Remember, Hillary Clinton was the favorite going into 2008 because she initially had tremendous financial advantages, had numerous endorsements, etc... Given that, when the elected officials saw how poorly she and her campaign performed against the insurgent Obama, they got behind the candidate who was more likely to win. Most of Obama's delegates were selected by the voters. To say that superdelegates made Obama the nominee implies some sort of backroom deal, which was not the case.
Both Hillary and Obama were strong candidates in 2008. Either would have easily defeated McStain which is why Hillary stayed in the race so long until the superdelegates forced her out. Hillary actually got the votes of Trump counties in the 2008 primary while Obama got young first time voters and very liberal and African Americans. Hillary 2016 was a terrible candidate and I believe the reason was the right wing echo chamber was at full force and she was unhealthy.
Let's remember that Obama in 2008 was not just a candidate, he was a phenomenon. It is possible that Hillary could have beaten McCain, what I said was that there was a realization that Obama was MORE LIKELY to beat him.
One more thing...there were also some superdelegates, particularly black superdelegates like Charlie Rangel, that had endorsed Hillary early out of loyalty to the Clintons (also thinking that with all her advantages, of course, she would win), but by the end were begging her to be released from their commitments so as to fulfill the dream of electing America's first black president.
Superdelegates don’t actually vote until the convention…but Hillary dropped out before the convention because Clyburn had corralled enough superdelegates to give Obama the nomination. So neither Obama nor Hillary had enough delegates to win the nomination without superdelegates…and both had enough delegates that the superdelegates could have made either of them the nominee at the convention. Wikipedia has it correct…I wonder who corrected it?? 😉
This chain has probably gone on for too long, but let's put things in context. You are factually correct in what you are saying above, but you are still giving the impression of a backroom deal.
By May 2008, Obama was leading in delegates AND superdelegates, an amazing feat given all of Hillary Clinton's advantages in endorsements and early, big money. If enough superdelegates had swung Hillary's way to give her the nomination, African Americans, who still constitute the party's most loyal base, would have undoubtedly felt betrayed- after all, Obama was leading, and the superDs would have been perceived as taking the nomination from him- and they would have been correct! The thousands of young voters that Obama brought into the party would have also felt similarly betrayed. This betrayal would have engendered lower November turnout, even a possible Democratic loss, and certainly, no Obama coattails that led to the temporary fillibuster-proof majority that enabled the passage of Obamacare.
There was no backroom deal. The superdelegates were merely executing the will of the plurality of the delegates and doing what was best for the party. Nothing more and nothing less.
Indeed, now waiting for an equivalent analysis of our genocidal support of Israel
Idiot
I don't think that's quite the same, since the article is about how Biden's condition was kept hidden. People in favor of supporting Israel aren't hiding anything. They simply believe that the destruction is worth the goal(of destroying Hamas) or that it isn't the fault of Israel (Hamas, Hamas, Hamas) that they're fighting among civilians. It's similar to how many Americans supported the atomic bombing of Japan - pointing out that hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians died wouldn't convince them that it was a mistake. They already know that.
I think the closest analogy would be that we just sort of diluted what a ceasefire meant. Biden (and his supporters) seemed to take a lot of pride in a peace deal that wasn't accepted by Hamas, then complaining that there wasn't a ceasefire.
It was Biden's weakness when it came to supporting Israel that inspired me to stay home on election day. Biden/Harris emboldened our most dangerous enemies and destabilized the world. But hey, at least you can take comfort in the growing success of the "globalize the intifada" movement. I'm sure the New Orleans terrorist shares your hatred of Israel and the Jews. Be proud.
Biden strongly supports Israel and Netanyahu has made Israel much safer after failing to protect his people on 10/7.
I think a particularly damming indictment comes from less than a week before the debate disaster. As the video evidence of Biden's senility began piling up, NYT came out with a mind-boggling magazine piece, trying to convince its readers that "cheap fakes" are a thing. They chose (a small selection of) the damning videos and tried to tell their readers to ignore their lying eyes by providing "context" that literally changed nothing. That was, in my opinion, a low point, which may, furthermore, provide a hint on the deception vs. delusion debate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/us/politics/biden-age-videos.html
P.S.
May be useful to remember the names of all those involved in this piece. Let's say that I, personally, would take anything they report or claim in future with more than the usual pinch of salt.
Cheapfakes are very much a thing! I get and mostly agree with your point here. But... you definitely can doctor a clip with iMovie-level basic editing and post it on Twitter and pass it off as the real thing. It's happened! It will happen again! (It just didn't happen for two uninterrupted hours of live television.)
Editing clips out of context is a very very old thing everyone knows about. “Cheap fakes” was a pathetic attempt of the Biden people to excuse irrefutable video evidence of his growing senectitude. That NYT took it seriously and moreover tried to demonstrate it (failing miserably) showed something is very very rotten in the kingdom of msm.
"Cheapfake" predates the Biden administration:
https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/drunk-pelosi-deepfakes-cheapfakes-artificial-intelligence-disinformation.html
https://apnews.com/article/12443c46b8cfee5e9659abb31eee5142
You could say the term was *weaponized* by Biden flacks, but they didn't invent it, and it refers to a real thing. (Something similar happened in the Trump years with "fake news.")
Fair enough, thx for the correction :)
if you put yourself in the position of a Democratic politician, you were in a very tough position. To come out publicly against Biden early would risk your career. Even pre-debate, as long as Biden stayed in, it was super risky to question his capability. Not just for your career but for the benefit of the district or state you were representing.
Journalists, on the other hand, don't have that excuse.
Very well put as was your article in New York this morning. What I would be interested in knowing more of, is who specifically from Biden’s inner circle isolated him- and what role did his family play in this? I’ve read a few musings about his wife, but really nothing specific. And to your other commenter’s point- journalists have no excuses.
There is a certain element that got very comfortable in their ability to foreclose all debate and discussion by simply calling people bigots (usually "misogynist," "racist," or "transphobe," but "ageist" in this instance).
Misogynist. Racist. Transphobic. Ageist. These are all Big Words that can only really mean anything to highly educated people. To normal people they are just BS. So there's a bit of irony that the supposedly smartest people allowed themselves to get bullied out of touch with reality in this way.
The United States' push to manufacture its own semiconductors and reduce dependence on China and Taiwan faces significant hurdles, as China controls over 90% of the supply chain for critical materials like gallium, germanium, and other rare earth metals essential for chip production. The U.S. has limited manufacturing capacity, struggling to produce even basic goods, with much of its innovation reliant on China for tooling, machinery, and large-scale production.
To succeed, the U.S. must secure raw materials, rebuild manufacturing infrastructure, invest in workforce training and advanced facilities, and provide robust policy support, such as subsidies and incentives. Bridging the gap between innovation and production is vital, as is global collaboration with allies to diversify supply chains and share resources.
Ultimately, transitioning from a consumer-driven economy to a manufacturing powerhouse is a generational effort that requires a coordinated approach across government, industry, and academia. The road to semiconductor independence is fraught with challenges, but it also presents an opportunity to redefine America’s role in the global economy. Whether the U.S. can rise to this occasion will depend on its ability to overcome entrenched dependencies and foster a new era of industrial innovation and resilience.
Carter died…and 1979 was the peak manufacturing jobs/union membership. We had a lot of economic problems in the 1970s…I’m not sure why people believe going back to 1979 labor market solves all of our problems??
All empires collapse because they either fail to adapt or become so corrupt that they self-destruct.
“The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury.”
— George Washington
The United States is currently adding $1 trillion in debt every three months. Soon, it will be every two months, and eventually every month. At some point, the wheels will come off entirely. It is no longer a matter of if but when. As long as America—and to a large extent, the European Union—continues to beat its chest, chant about being the best, and actually believe it, nothing will change.
The time to wake up was 15 to 20 years ago, long before BRICS emerged and outmaneuvered much of the West. Between China, India, and Russia, these nations collectively control over 90% of the world's natural resources, access to cheap energy, engineering expertise, logistics networks, and manufacturing capacity.
You can’t simply snap your fingers, pass a bill in Congress, and pretend to become microchip-independent from China. The notion is laughable—though admittedly, it’s entertaining to watch.
lol, the world is awash in natural gas. America’s low point was 2008–Obama and Trump and Biden have made America great again after Bush/Cheney made China great again!
I think most of the blame belongs to Biden himself. He is the one who refused to drop out.
Because of seniority and decorum and other unwritten rules, the other Democrats were unable to force out Biden sooner.
Biden is the most selfish person in the political landscape today.
Republicans are better at politics than Democrats…Biden was a great president but his approval ratings never recovered from August 2021 triple whammy of Trump’s surrender to the Taliban, Republicans refusal to get vaccinated Delta death surge, and inflation which turned out to be not a big deal.
Well said. I was also opposed to Biden's reelection campaign and felt it was blindingly obvious that he couldn't campaign, let alone serve until January 2029. Those who defended him have a lot of reflecting to do.
None of them should ever serve in government again.
To write about Biden's legacy and what will be remembered, while not mention genocide, seems we are living in two different worlds.
"mass migration that reinvigorated America in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries". Quite a lot of Americans did not feel this way, and that is why it got choked off with legislation in 1924. The irony being, it gave all those same immigrants a chance to get established and assimilated without being undermined by following waves of the same kinds of poor immigrants.
Biden was out of it in the 2019 primary. The voters of Iowa and New Hampshire actually saw him up close and personal and he was 3rd and 5th (!) in those states.
Well, those states are also famous for boosting insurgent candidates, fresh new faces, etc., and in that context, his previous 1988 and 2008 runs made him "old news." Still, over 36 years, one would think Biden would have had stronger Iowa and NH networks and, therefore, done better than 3rd and 5th.
Nuanced review of presidency without hyperbole. Substantive read. Thank you!
I find nothing to disagree with here (there's a first time for everything!) and am sharing widely—bravo, Ross!
Very insightful.
The fact that the genocide in Palestine is nowhere near this is so silly as a retrospection. This is incredibly American centric when his larger legacy will always be the genocide he enabled. No one in the UK cares about what Neville Chamberlains domestic policies were.