Looking up some other background info, I came across this. It was written before Biden even announced. It is more complementary to Biden than I was expecting, and some of it justified. But I also find it telling, particularly in light of its closing summary (the part excerpted below), that there's zero mention of the times he's been caught lying, as well as his dropping out in '88 having been revealed to have plagiarized material in speeches.
:-----:
"Biden’s challenge is not merely to win the Democratic nomination, but also to convince his progressive detractors that he isn’t their political enemy, so they won’t abandon him in the general election. To pull that off, he will have to follow his own advice, which he laid out in a 1974 interview, not even two years into being a senator.
In it, Biden summed up his political philosophy this way: “I don’t think the issues mean a great deal in terms of whether you win or lose. I think the issues are merely a vehicle to portray your intellectual capacity to the voters … a vehicle by which the voters will determine your honesty and candor. The central issue of my campaign—and I used all the issues from busing to the war to the economy, crime, and prison reform—was to convince the people that I was intelligent and to convince them that I was honest.”"
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.In examining the dynamic in the current presidential race, it is necessary to understand that Hillary's candidacy was essentially meant to be a continuation of the Obama administration, his "third term" as it were. Her upset caused a lot of finger-pointing, the claim of Russian interference being a particularly self-serving scapegoat. What should have been a cause for some serious reflection and introspection instead served to make assigning blame a growth industry, all the while avoiding what was really at the heart of the matter.
Joe Biden is now offered up as Obama's third term, albeit with a one term break in the cycle. On some things he's got more baggage than Hillary, and in other areas he's less competent than her. But, in the DNC's mind, at least not being a woman should give him an advantage over Hillary (on the presumption that misogyny played a pivotal role in sinking Hillary as she steamed towards her preordained coronation). His committing to a female running mate, and quite possibly a WOC, is meant to deflect some of the criticism of his own behavior towards women, and would certainly be a plus as far as helping ease the pain many felt from Hillary's loss.
I also felt sad that the glass ceiling hadn't been broken yet, as that moment would be a tremendous first in US history just as it was with the election of Barack Obama. I understand how significant it is for these barriers to fall, but ideally they fall because of the ideas and character of any given individual of whatever group they're considered to represent has going for them, not just because they are in a previously excluded group.
One could reject Sarah Palin as qualified for the office based on facts not involving her gender. Hillary was sold as being the "most qualified" to hold the office, without much discussion or allowance as to what ends she would put those qualifications towards. Supporting Jill Stein was no defense against the misogyny smears, while Stein could be attacked in any manner without that becoming part of the narrative. The same held true for centrist Dems that attacked Tulsi Gabbard or Marianne Williamson. Criticisms made against other female candidates in the Democratic primaries tended to get dismissed as being largely gender based. I would have loved for Kamala Harris to be the type of presidential Democratic nominee I could support. I voted for her as my Senator. I stopped voting for Diane Feinstein a couple of cycles back and honestly can't wait for her to be gone. Pelosi too.
But while Harris would be groundbreaking as far as ticking off various identity boxes, she would be a continuation of the status quo in too many other ways. And she is quite likely to be the VP candidate, if Joe can get past the sick burn she laid on him in the debate calling him out for fighting desegregation.
This rather lengthy forward is to introduce this piece on examining President Obama's legacy. There is so much hagiography of Obama and his administration that ignores a lot of the reality. I voted for him twice and his was one of the few campaigns I'd ever donated to. But I understood the frustration of those that felt abandoned by his administration because the change they so desperately needed never materialized. That factor played a key role in Hillary's loss to Trump. A drowning person is likely to grasp at any perceived lifeline, and post election analysis confirmed this (people stayed home, voted for Trump, or third party, in districts that overwhelmingly supported Obama twice before). Those same factors are in play with Biden. A third term for Obama administration policies is not the winning strategy that many are convinced it is. Joe's "Nothing will essentially change," statement is about as tone deaf as one can imagine.
:-----:
Glenn Loury ─ Reflections on the Obama Legacy
WilliamCharles
Level 8
June 21, 2020
0
It's amazing how much explanation it took after the 2016 election when I'd say, "I hate Trump, but I'm glad Hillary lost." That same dynamic is in play with Creepy Uncle Joe. This race is just Pied Piper 2.0. It should never, ever be forgotten the role the DNC had in elevating Trump as the opposition candidate. They played an insane game of chicken and Trump is the giant sh!t sandwich we're all having to take a bite from because of that.
Joe Biden is the "safe" choice only in the context that corporate interests are protected regardless of which party's loser candidate gets into office. For them, it's win-win.
That's why the DNC is pretending that Biden's "Not Trump!" status is sufficient to oust Trump from office. Tactically, the DNC could actually run a bold outsider campaigning for progressive change to generate voter enthusiasm the likes this nation hasn't seen in ages. Instead, they put forth a "hold-your-nose" candidate on the pretext that the electorate has no other options. That didn't work with Hillary, and might be equally disastrous with Biden.
The reason is that their incrementalism is meant to cause any movement in a progressive direction to wither and die. Their allegiance is to their corporate puppetmasters, not to their constituents.
They could not have made this more clear in the last two presidential races. So, no amount of their threatening bullsh!t will get me on board with their "lesser evil" gaslighting. Ain't gonna happen.
#FCKBDN
WilliamCharles
Level 8
June 21, 2020
0
I just hope he stays "sheltered in place" and doesn't give too many speeches. Hopefully Trump will continue to implode and shoot himself in his two left feet, and Biden won't have to do much, other than NOT. BE. TRUMP!
I love Joe myself, lying warts and all.
Storm1752
Level 8
June 20, 2020
0
Then you should be able to make a positive case for Joe if he was running against Romney, or Cruz, or Bush , or whomever. That he's defining himself as "Not Trump!" while serving up generic platitudes is why he's just as likely to give Trump a 2nd term.
@WilliamCharles Nope. Sorry. Despite your deluded wishes even poor senile Joe Biden can't blow this one. Trump is just that bad.
If the US election of 2020 becomes a race for perfection, there will be no winners. If Biden loses - so will our nation and planet ~
Varn
Level 8
June 20, 2020
1
It's unconscionable that the DNC pushed Biden as the "safe" choice. He's exactly the wrong candidate at the wrong time. A "hold-your-nose" candidate even his supporters acknowledge risks a crushing defeat... again.
The party can call for unity all they want, but that's real head in the sand stuff.
@WilliamCharles I know you HOPE what you're saying is true, but my sense is, Trump cannot possibly win. It's like Obama after the 2008 Great Recession and the Iraq War: the Republican president screwed up so badly all Barak REALLY had to do was smile a lot, sound smart, and not be a Republican.
Varn:
@WilliamCharles Who’d the RNC promote? Who else did ‘they’ allow on the ballot beside trump..? Beyond the false-equivalency crap, The People put Joe Biden on top, not ‘the DNC.’ Find another boogieman 
Biden no doubt ran because we, concerned worker-bees in the party, knew Sanders was not the strongest candidate. If you noticed, the early ‘vacillating’ of Primary winners indicated The People’s confusion - not “The DNC.” If all-powerful, how’d they allow Biden to lose any states…?
Down South, Biden won. It became obvious he was the best candidate to take out trump - ‘ell - even trump and the russians knew that! Name recognition, a stable lifetime of leadership, a trusted statesman is why Joe Biden was elected, and - endorsed by The People - and The Candidates - including Sanders.
@Storm1752 - You know I HOPE Trump wins? You know shit, then. I hope they both lose, but that's rarely in the cards with a duopoly in place despite the fact that independents and non-voters outnumber either party. As far as I can tell, the system's dysfunction is a feature not a bug. Though Ranked Choice Voting has merit, how could we trust that it would be conducted fairly when we can't even run a winner take all system fairly?
Biden is truly shit for a number of reasons. Being less of a shit than Trump is such a low bar that to still struggle in that side to side comparison is an incredibly ominous red flag.
Cui bono?
The purpose is for the Dems to offer slop, and insist there is no other choice available. It's why Hillary courted the so-called moderate Republican vote instead of working to win over the progressive wing of the Democratic base. Joe barely pays lip service to progressives but still expects their vote.
I think the enthusiasm gap will play a pivotal role for the 2020 outcome. Voting for something has a far greater affect on the turnout than when done primarily as a blocking maneuver. And Democrats generally win when turnout is high.
There's still time to fix that. Joe needs to drop out. Seriously.
Varn:
@WilliamCharles “You know shit” - spoken like a Founding Father - Not You’re a filthy, angry old man.. deserving no more of my time
@Varn - re: 2016. This lays it out pretty well. The fact that superdelegates would cast their vote for Clinton despite Bernie winning those counties is certainly undemocratic.
Re: 2020 - the DNC engineered its endorsements timed to hurt Sanders. These endorsements were from candidates and politicians who were essentially bought off. Clyburn gets substantial donations from the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. Nominees that dropped out to endorse Biden undoubtedly had some carrots dangled in front of them. Kamala Harris went from calling out Biden's working against desegregation to gushing over him.
Time and again it was purported that Bernie wasn't strong with the black vote, and how it was their keen insight that had them turn out for Biden in the South. The Obama connection certainly helped. But the Democratic Party has s history of counting on the black vote to gain office, but delivering little in return.
The fact that Bernie's numbers with the youth vote across the spectrum were absolutely dominating should be an indicator of the direction the party should take to ensure their growing stronger and stronger over time. They have completely squandered that opportunity. And the only reason is that it would challenge the corporate Dem control of the party... something they cannot allow, even if it means Trump getting a 2nd term.
My battle isn't against Trump. It is against those who laid the groundwork for the rise of Trump. Hope and Change was a hollow promise, as is Biden's "fight for the soul of the nation." Incrementalism is a delaying action above all else, and is served up as the only means to bring about change, but it in fact provides the most effective gatekeeping against meaningful change.
#FCKBDN
@Varn - cut and run it is. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
It was an entirely factual statement. You said you know what my hope is. I'm telling you you know shit in that regard.
@WilliamCharles Aww...poor baby...the system's not perfect (far from it) and Wonderful Joe will carry the day. He's right on just about every issue and will be a great president. Go cry about it some place else.
Oh and because of the virus more Democrats and Independents will be voting via absentee ballots than ever before. In fact mail-in ballots may be here to stay, ushering in a new era of Democratic dominance!
@Storm1752 - I'm all for mail-in ballots, but worry about the integrity of the vote. There's been ratfvckery with virtually every method.
Your schoolyard taunts do you no favors. I can't wait to see how those with your mindset will go about trying to win hearts and minds. Instead, it will likely be a parade of multiple versions of "Not Trump!"
Delegates have already reported the heavy-handed manner that the DNC is enforcing a policy of no dissent. Sounds like a lack of confidence on their part.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.