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

The "worst ever" argument is always a little odd to me. There's no point in comparing trump or Bush to Andrews Johnson or Jackson, whose enduring legacy of genocide/white supremacy is pretty hard to beat in the long view (then there are the presidents who literally enslaved people). Likewise, when people bring up the death toll in iraq + Bush, that makes sense, but oddly I rarely hear JFK/LBJ/Vietnam mentioned in the worst-ever convo or McKinley/Philippines or etc. etc.

All that said I think it's possible trump is presiding over a period of american historical decline that might in retrospect be more significant than, say, Bush's

I think democrats are more fond of Bush than republicans are in 2020 which is just 😙👌

nobody really remembers why he was bad, I barely do

then it's like oh yeah

well it's hard to when the great hostess M.O. has hugged him; she's so great (I don't remember why)

Even excluding Iraq and Katrina, Bush was every bit as incompetent and evil as Trump. Different generation of evangelical freaks but freaks nonetheless.

Trevor Philips otm

Also, ever since the Biden allegations surfaced and seeing how some people here disgustingly reacted to them, I just can’t see this site in the same way anymore. Seeing posts by these people now just makes me feel sick in my soul.

Goodbye ILX.

Remember when he had to speak at Segregationist U to beat McCain? Harriet Miers?! Tax cuts, gay baiting, etc. etc. etc.

I think democrats are more fond of Bush than republicans are in 2020 which is just 😙👌

― A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Monday, April 27, 2020

Chess is not a favorite sport, so unless you refer to MSNBC commentators I'll just say you're full of shit. I'm willing to take that back if you mean others.

oddly I rarely hear JFK/LBJ/Vietnam mentioned in the worst-ever convo or McKinley/Philippines or etc. etc.

Vietnam not being associated with a single president is the complicating factor I suppose

The "worst ever" argument is always a little odd to me. There's no point in comparing trump or Bush to Andrews Johnson or Jackson, whose enduring legacy of genocide/white supremacy is pretty hard to beat in the long view (then there are the presidents who literally enslaved people). Likewise, when people bring up the death toll in iraq + Bush, that makes sense, but oddly I rarely hear JFK/LBJ/Vietnam mentioned in the worst-ever convo or McKinley/Philippines or etc. etc.

again, I don't know what "people" you read, but it's important to note in this thread and elsewhere -- I'm responsible too -- that when we live horrors in real time we forget culmination vs aberration. In the ways in which he's destroyed faith in the federal government, wiped his ass with the divisions between personal enrichment and public service, he's every GOP president I've known since January 1981 with a botoxed face; yet, like that can be too, the real-face-exposed creates a real crisis in governance domestically that George W. Bush didn't deal with, not even Katrina, the awful impact of which was limited to four or five states.

Also, one of the phenomena for which I'm thankful is how Robert Caro has kept LBJ's domestic legacy intact without diluting the dialectical rhythm of history. Our best domestic prez of the 20th century killed more Americans and Vietnamese than he had any right to.

xpost: vietnam played out over 5 or 6 different administrations and in some ways was as much a product of bad cold war policy/consensus as anything else, iraq was an entirely avoidable atrocity that wouldn't have happened if a specific group of terrible people hadn't been in charge at the time

mckinley was pretty bad, i wish ppl would talk about his awfulness more

Gore Vidal did!

It's been...fascinating watching these arguments pop up again as if ILE's search engine didn't exist.

some weeks ilx feels like a particularly glum beckett play

It's why I keep coming back.

A dialectical subtlety many libs have missed: the same ambition that drove five presidents to confuse vaporizing millions of Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians persuaded them to expand the welfare state. That we needed the former to drive the latter is one of America's greatest sins, but here we are.

Not sure I’m following re chess, but W does seem to have be rehabbed buy lots of liberal media talkers and your garden variety social media commenter who’s been by scandalized Trump’s very special brand of awfulness

again, don't confuse MSNBC Upper East Siders for "liberals."

Tbf such avowals are usually preceded by 'I can't believe I'm saying this, but…'

xp

by lots*

goddamn phone

and I’m willing to bet my stimulus check that Nancy and Chuck would prefer W back in the WH over a Sanders presidency

and the GOP would love to be in the minority because it's easier to oppose than to advance policy. What a concept!

and I’m willing to bet my stimulus check that Nancy and Chuck would prefer W back in the WH over a Sanders presidency

Absolutely, because Mr. 30 Years in Congress is such a massive fucking threat to the status quo.

and Nancy 'n' Harry Reid passed more lib legislation than McConnell and Bill Frist how'd that happen

Y’all are ridiculous

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00007360&cycle=2020


https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00001093&cycle=2020

if you think either of these two clowns are EVER going to move the ball on free college or Medicare for all of the GND I really just don’t know what to say.

or an any way curb our massively idiotic imperial project

Do you know any of the words to the magical incantation that Bernie and only Bernie knows, which will curb the American imperial project and provide free college and Medicare for all, or do you just know that it exists, and that's enough?

It's like 2009 never happened.

Pramila Jayapal being Speaker would be a good start!

The Senate minority leader doesn’t have to be a huge loser who bases his decisions on a fictional white family in Long Island.

Even Mark Warner would have to be better if it has to be a dumb rich guy.

Isn't him what were married to Elizabeth Taylor?

It's like 2009 never happened.

You drop this card all the time like it's a bit of wisdom we should all genuflect toward... but all 2009 highlights is that centrist Democrats are just as effective at torpedoing progressive policy as the right - and ostensibly left-of-center Democrats aren't actually that invested in fighting them on it. It's a sweet gig for people like Pelosi - blame the Blue Dogs and the Liebermans for your failures/your donors' successes when you can't blame the GOP.

..except there are more left of center Dems in the House now, as we both know.

Therefore, if Biden survives through the convention and is elected, he has an even more progressive flank pushing him. Assuming the Senate flips (and I assume it will if the Dems win the exec branch), I don't see results much different than 2009 except we move inches forward with progressive legislation. The difference is, I see "inches forward" as progress, asynchronous with the crisis, especially in my state (with the prettiest name!) where sea level rise is a calamity that COVID-19 will sidetrack for a loonng time. I see this as an inevitability, and I don't understand how Sanders or anyone Not Biden would've stopped this sordid state of affairs.

like, I get you don't care about "inches forward" but that's what brown people like me have to rely on

A good, depressing read from Rebecca Traister about how the Tara Reade allegations affect the VP selection process:
https://www.thecut.com/amp/2020/04/the-biden-trap-woman-vice-president.html

What a grievous mess. Biden’s critics on the left should be hoping for the selection of a powerful progressive to run alongside him, and perhaps succeed him, whenever that might be. But any politician who might fulfill those requirements — whether your fantasies run toward Warren or Abrams or Barbara Lee or Ayanna Pressley (AOC is too young) — will also, tautologically, be a politician who has taken an aggressive stand against sexual harassment and assault. So on the one hand, these are women who left-leaning feminists should hope Biden picks. They are women who themselves might for extremely good ideological reasons want to lead the country and see Biden’s vice-presidency as an opportunity to make his administration, and thus the country, better. Some, especially Abrams, have been very vocal about their desire for this job, which is itself a radical approach to voicing ambition.

Yet in putting themselves forward as subsidiaries to Biden, in accepting an invitation that he might extend, or even in voicing their support for his campaign, these women wind up imperiling themselves by getting tied to him and the mess of his historical shortcomings, often on exactly the issues that have driven them into politics. In fact, they are quite likely to have their own history of righteous advocacy held up against them, used to make them look like hypocrites for agreeing to be on a ticket with a man who has been credibly accused of behavior they have aggressively condemned, and as sops to a system that they are in fact working hard to change. (These kinds of turnarounds have been made by former male rivals all the time, and, in fact, Bernie Sanders has come in for some criticism for having endorsed Biden after Reade’s allegations were made public; but we have a higher tolerance for inconvenient hypocrisy when it comes from male politicians, likely because we have centuries of experience with it and, in this case, because the contested ground — the unequal distribution of power along gendered lines — isn’t at the very heart of the matter.)

But is the only alternative to hope that Biden picks a milquetoast woman who has never distinguished herself as a feminist or progressive advocate and who, therefore, dispiritingly, cannot be called out for hypocrisy? This is indeed one of my fears, as Reade’s story gets firmer corroboration and the Biden campaign and its supporters in the Democratic Party begin to grapple with its seriousness: Will it alter the calculus around his vice-presidential pick, leading him to pick A Woman whom he can count on to diminish Reade’s claims? Is the cost of a nominee who is a disappointment to many feminists on the left a running mate (and thus likely presidential successor) who is just as disappointing? Even those women will still be asked about Reade — Amy Klobuchar and Gretchen Whitmer, both reportedly on his shortlist, have already been asked about it — and any willingness to defend him or shield him from this story will leave them vulnerable to being held responsible for the misdeeds of the mediocre man to whom they will now be publicly bound.

Even those women will still be asked about Reade — Amy Klobuchar and Gretchen Whitmer, both reportedly on his shortlist, have already been asked about it

I guess Biden will eventually get asked about Reade too then.

Seems like Biden's answer on Reade will give his VP choice the roadmap to follow.

The disagreement is never about the value of "inches forward" but rather about whether or not we have "inched forward." You beg the question that progress is happening and all of us critical savages are just unwilling to accept that it's happening.

On certain social issues, unquestionably, we've seen rapid progress over the last 20 years - no thanks to the Pelosis and the Bidens, of course. On others, stasis or regression. On economic issues (like, say, household wealth of black Americans since 2008), marked regression. You can't just wave your hands and say "incrementalism just isn't good enough for you people" when there's precious little evidence of the incrementalism to start with.

isn't that what Al's getting at tho milo? That it's incrementalism as hope or no hope at all? That incrementalism is a credible defense against regression?

nobody here thinks incrementalism is 'good enough', some of us have accepted that it's the only option on the table

biden should step down.

wasn't a significant part of the outrage about the golden boy brett kavanaugh and serial assaulter donald trump about the GOP's unwillingness to do anything about it? democrats could protest, but in the end it was up to the congressmen, and it was up to the voters, and they chose to look the other way. that was a lot of the disgust, the morning after the 2016 election - feeling surrounded by hateful hypocritical bastards.

there's no one to blame but ourselves (democrats, left-leaners, people who care, whatever) if we put up with biden as a candidate. fuck that. he should step down. that article jaymc posted makes a good point - whoever is his veep will have to deal with this from day 1, it's such bullshit. just wipe the slate clean. voters want a living body that is not donald trump. there are plenty of better options. let's find one quick and settle around them by mid-summer, then beat the shit out of trump

biden should step down.

cool. what would be a fair process for replacing him that would not leave biden voters feeling run over or abandoned?

isn't that what Al's getting at tho milo? That it's incrementalism as hope or no hope at all? That incrementalism is a credible defense against regression?

That's the begging the question that I'm referring to - the assumption that this incremental progress actually exists to start with.

cool. what would be a fair process for replacing him that would not leave biden voters feeling run over or abandoned?

― A is for (Aimless), Monday, April 27, 2020 8:32 PM (two minutes ago)

That’s what the convention is for right

The sad truth of course is that most Americans are pro-rape

Biden voters probably stoked to learn that he’s just like them!