THURSDAY, JULY 4, 2024
Blue America's wager: The Iliad describes one small slice of a fictional war between two civilizations.
The dueling forces are sharply distinct. In his introduction to the 1990 Fagles translation, Professor Knox lays it out:
The background of the rage of Achilles is a war between the assembled armies of the Achaean [Greek] cities and Troy, a rich, fortified city on the coast of Asia Minor near the Hellespont, the narrow western outlet of the long passage from the Black Sea to the Aegean. For the Greeks of later ages, the Iliad was history.
[...]
The first city we hear of in Greek literature is Troy. It is characteristic of the Iliad's tragic viewpoint that this city, the literary prototype of all Greek cities, is to be destroyed. The poem ends before Troy falls, but we are left in no doubt about its fate. One of the deep sources of the tragic force of the Iliad is that the city of Troy is doomed, doomed go down in fire and slaughter under the assault of the Achaeans, whose cities are far away and half-forgotten in the long siege, whose home for ten years has been the raw world of tent shelters and beached ships.
Homer's Troy has been assigned a few traits that sound Oriental (or at any rate non-Greek)—Priam's fifty sons, for example—but it is still recognizably a Greek polis. It is a site chosen with an eye to defensive capabilities, with a high eminence that serves as a citadel, a sacred area for the temples and palaces. It is near the junction of two rivers, and it depends on the produce of the surrounding plain, which is rich plowland and grows wheat. It is fortified against attackers: it is well-walled and well-built. it has steep ramparts and gates. These fortifications enclose a vision of civilized life, the splendors of wealth and peace.
[...]
Inside Troy the manners of civilized life are preserved; there are restraints on anger, there is courtesy to opponents, kindness to the weak—things that have no place in the armed camp on the shore. In the city, those who have most cause to blame, even to hate. Helen, the old men of Troy, members of the council. murmur to each other praise for her beauty—as they express their wish that she would go back to the Achaeans; and old Priam, who has lost sons because of her presence in Troy and will lose more—Hector above all, and all Troy with him—Priam too treats her with kindness and generous understanding.
Unfortunately for Troy, the Trojans have the defects of their qualities: they are not so much at home in the grim business of war as their opponents...
Troy is not at peace: it is under siege, and by men who mean to raze it from the face of the earth. The arts of peace are useless now.
Hector is a brilliant warrior. But in the end, even he won't be able to hold off the furious men who have now been camped, for almost ten years, in their ships down by the shore.
All in all, it's hard to argue with Professor Knox's portrait. As we see it in the Iliad, Troy is a place of civilized values—but it's under siege by an armed camp of furious men who mean to raze it from the earth.
Decades later, on a different continent, a group of mainly wealthy men triggered a different real-life war. In a well-known document, they authored what they called a "pledge," though you might also call it a wager.
For reasons we've never understood or seen explained, they decided to declare a form of independence from the world's greatest military power. They gambled that, in the bloodshed which was sure to follow, they wouldn't be captured and hung.
We've never really understood why they wanted to do that—but now we're engaged in another great war. And as with Troy, so too perhaps here:
The small, tiny virtues of Blue America may not be enough to withstand the rage of this latest revolt.
Over here in Blue America, we like to present ourselves as the highly civilized, wondrously admirable modern American demographic. In our own view, we Blues would be well-advised to just get over ourselves.
A large amount of self-deception is involved in that flattering self-portrait. But over the weekend, a major player from Red America—a major player from the camp by the shore—seemed to say that there will almost surely be blood.
The report appears deep inside this morning's New York Times. There may be blood, a major Achaean has now declared:
Heritage Foundation Head Refers to ‘Second American Revolution’
The president of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank that has developed a prominent series of policy plans to overhaul the federal government under a Republican president, said on Tuesday that the country was “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
The group’s president, Kevin D. Roberts, made the comments in an interview on “The War Room,” the Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon’s show on the network Real America’s Voice. (Mr. Bannon himself did not host the show on Tuesday, because he reported to prison the day before to serve a sentence for contempt of Congress.)
Thus spake our own inflamed Agamemnon! What's coming "will remain bloodless," he said—but only if we modern-day Trojans submit.
The warrior Roberts is promising blood? So too with Candidate Trump.
He's been visibly disordered for years. Blue America's multimillionaire corporate tribunes have shown little sense, down through the years, of the way to bring that news to anyone who isn't already numbered among their "favorite reporters and friends."
As they keep preaching to the choir, a furious onslaught advances. Last Sunday, the former president reposted this proposition on his deranged social media site:
ELIZABETH LYNNE CHENEY IS GUILTY OF TREASON. RETRUTH IF YOU WANT TELEVISED MILITARY TRIBUNALS.
For CNN's report, just click here. In a second Truth Social post, the fellow in question presented photos of 15 former and current elected officials as he offered this further musing:
THEY SHOULD BE GOING TO JAIL ON MONDAY NOT STEVE BANNON!
As for Bannon, his recent interview with David Brooks strikes us as highly instructive. For now, thought, back to Trump:
At present, this sadly disordered person is the odds-on favorite to be the next presdient. He wants a military tribunal for Liz Cheney—and, according to one wingman, there may not have to be blood!
Candidate Trump has been visibly crazy for a very long time. Those recent posts have resulted in very little mainstream news coverage.
They will never be mentioned by the corporate hacks who beat the drums on the Fox News Channel. That channel's viewers are never told about the crazy things this visible nutcase says.
In Blue America, our big news orgs tend to avert their gaze from that manifest lunacy too. How have we Blues responded to this onrushing revolt from below?
Sad!
Over on our own nation's channel, Rachel Maddow churned her way through two (2!) hours with Stormy Daniels this past Tuesday night. The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but our highly civilized tribe may be too clueless to survive.
We've pledged our lives and our sacred honor to the insights of people like this! Meanwhile, on the Fox News Channel, a certain furious termagant was at it again last night:
Astoundingly, he once again told millions of sweltering viewers that climate change is a hoax. Needless to say, he engaged in his usual badinage, in which President Biden is constantly said to be sh*tting his pants.
That garbage this furious fellow spews is featured on Fox every night. In Blue America, the finer people at our civilized sites ignore the garbage spewed by this furious man and by his nightly assembly of hacks.
We Blues! We've been dumb enough to swallow the Maddow line—to fall in line behind what Janet Malcolm admiringly described, in the New Yorker no less, as "her performance of the Rachel figure:"
All in all, but overwhelmingly, we Blues have believed our own twaddle.
Result? There may well be blood, we've now been informed. Our cable stars would prefer to be listening to the latest guff from the woman who wanted to score a big sack of cash in lieu of "telling her [utterly pointless] story."
Troy was a deeply civilized place, but it was destined to fall.
We tell ourselves that we're civilized too. We've purchased that porridge every step of the way, and there will likely be blood, we're now told.
We've based our wager on the joys of comically high self-regard. There will be blood, we've been told—but first, this just in! Two hours from the woman who, ten years later, wanted the big sack of cash!
Ismail Kadare, Audrey Flack, and Lando Bartolini have died.
ReplyDeleteSome important news today that Somerby ignores:
ReplyDelete1. Biden has said unequivocally that he is staying in the race.
2. Biden met with a group of Democratic governors and they say they are behind him.
3. Biden says he was examined by a doctor after the debate and he is healthy, no dementia and no other health issues.
4. Trump is claiming that he has driven Biden out of the race, in a "hot mic" conversation in a golf cart (thus not intended for public knowledge).
Meanwhile, there are 7 negative articles about Biden in today's NY Times, and one positive editorial by Charles Blow, someone Somerby never fails to denigrate.
What does Somerby talk about today? Yes, those threats by a conservative crackpot should be public knowledge, but this is also the 4th of July, a good time to renew our national values and remember why our country was founded and on what principles. Somerby is babbling about Homer again.
I am voting for Biden because he has been an excellent president with many accomplishments and I want more of the same in another term. Trump is crazy but I would be voting for Biden against a sane Republican too, because Biden stands for the things I care about and has gotten so much done for our country.
I’ll be voting for Biden too, but if I took Somerby seriously, I would never vote for Biden.
DeleteSomerby makes it clear that Biden and his blue tribe are a horrible mess, and that although Trump and Republicans are crazy and can be distasteful in some ways, they tend to be right on important matters and are therefore more likely to win.
Unfortunately for Somerby, his muddled and nonsensical rhetoric is ineffective, and he lacks a coherent understanding of electoral politics, attempting persuasion where instead motivation reigns.
Perhaps recognizing his own weakness, Somerby prefers to hide behind a wishy washy noncommittal above the fray stance so that regardless the outcome, he can claim victory, a place in the pantheon next to Nestor and Cassandra; however, this makes Somerby come across as someone embittered by their irrelevancy and struggling to cope with the accompanying emotional discomfort.
Somerby makes a lot of negative statements but he doesn't support them with evidence. Why should anyone listen to him?
DeleteWhy do you?
DeleteDigby does the kind of analysis that Somerby used to do, back in 1998:
ReplyDelete"They are applying “the cackle” to Kamala Harris already. It was a common description of Hillary Clinton. And it wasn’t Republicans who came up with it.
From 2008:
This just in: Hillary Clinton has been laughing a lot lately. Yes, it’s true — a candidate long accused of being cold and unappealing has taken to emitting a hearty chuckle in public, and on the airwaves. We hope you were sitting down for that one.
Actually, in this highly-monitored campaign, the decisions of its most-disciplined and most-focus-grouped candidate are news, and the Hillary Laugh Tactic has been noticeable. Jon Stewart picked up on it in earlier this week, splicing laugh segments together (in a way that, let’s be honest, would make anyone appear manic), but it certainly set up the punchline: Jon fixing the camera with an intense, humorless gaze and saying “I’M JOYFUL.” Frank Rich noted it too: “Now Mrs. Clinton is erupting in a laugh with all the spontaneity of an alarm clock buzzer.” And then, of course, there was The Cackle.
NYT reporter Patrick Healy is an expert on The Cackle. He’s been observing it carefully since January 2005, he tells us right off the bat. In the middle of heated press questioning, “suddenly it happened: Mrs. Clinton let loose a hearty belly laugh that lasted a few seconds…This was my first close encounter with Senator Clinton, and with The Cackle.” This reads with all the slow-building horror of a B-movie Professor explaining to his save-the-world student how he first came face to face with Evil, and learned to name it.
“Friends of hers told a different story,” says Healy, that she actually had a “fantastic sense of humor.” (Well, they would say that, but Healy can see through them.) Then there’s this:
Mrs. Clinton goes for the lowest-common-denominator display of her funny bone: She shows that she can laugh, and that her laugh has a fullness and depth.
Oh, you — you with your laugh of fullness and depth — we’re on to you. Go back to the gutter you crawled out of, lowlife.
Seriously. What IS this? This article was deemed significant enough by the NYT to publish not once, but twice, under two separate headlines and two separate dates (Sept. 28th on the web, graduating to Sept.30th in the paper). But when I look at it, I see a hit piece masquerading as analysis. Why? “The Cackle.”
If Harris becomes the nominee or is simply seen as the shadow president going forward since the concerns about Biden are so acute this is the type of thing that’s going to happen to her. Trump will do it, of course. But the media will help."
https://digbysblog.net/2024/07/03/cackling-co-pilot/
DeleteThe Right has been trying to stick Harris with the Cackle since she became Veep. This isn't a recent thing.
DeleteSomerby is fixated on Stormy Daniels, who was interviewed by Rachel Maddow (Somerby's other favorite person). Meanwhile, Biden will be interviewed by George Stephanopolis on ABC Friday Night (7 pm Eastern). Perhaps Somerby doesn't mention that Biden is planning a highly visible series of campaign events to rehabilitate his reputation after being attacked by both Democrats and Republicans last week, because it would counter his own narrative that Biden is too demented to run against a crazy person. Or maybe it is that he prefers to use his column inches here at his own blog to attack women, especially powerful ones who have a lot more of the public eye than Somerby ever earned.
ReplyDeleteWe'll see whether Biden can answer moderator questions when not subjected to a Gish Gallop by an incoherent asshole like Trump, in one and two minute segments.
DeleteIf Biden does better in his upcoming interview, will anyone take back the things they said about him? I doubt Somerby has the integrity to apologize.
Somerby’s integrity died ages ago, and like Troy, it was fictional to begin with.
DeleteTroy existed.
DeleteHomer’s Troy was in fact fictional.
DeleteTroy existed. A "Trojan War" may have occurred, we don't really know.
DeleteThere is no evidence of the war. That doesn't mean we get to assume it happened as described. It means we cannot make that assumption because there is no evidence of it. Homer (if he existed) wrote fiction.
DeleteHomer, if he existed, may have based his poem on legends of a long-ago war, and these legends may have included some factual material.
DeleteHomer wrote hundreds of years after Troy might have existed, with no writing system or oral tradition from the destroyed Troy to guide him. He couldn't possibly have any detailed info about any war. Historians have had trouble telling where Troy was and they have no historical records or artifacts or anything to show that a war even occurred. There is no factual material now or in Homer's time.
DeleteThese may have been beloved stories handed down by oral tradition in Homer's time, but they are still stories, not facts. The Trojan war was believed to have happened 400 years before the Iliad was written. In 400 years without being written down, a story loses and gains details that would make the result no longer factual in even as short a time as 10 years, much less 400+.
Look at the stories your own family tells about its own past events. These change with each retelling until they bear little resemblance to reality when compared to home movies or historical records.
6:15PM, you're assuming Homer existed.
DeleteNot me, @5:43 assumes that.
Delete
ReplyDeleteWe shape-shifting alien Reptiloids hate peace and prosperity.
We are ordered sane good decent shape-shifting alien Reptiloids. But we need your help, disordered inferior humans. $50/week, which is less than a cup of coffee a day, would really help. Make the call now.
Trump is the candidate who should withdraw.
ReplyDeleteTrump withdraw? Brother, please.
DeleteInstead of pulling out while raping Katie Johnson without a condom, Trump threw money at her and told her to get an abortion. She was 13.
It's not enough for the President to just disbar the Right-wing judges on the Supreme Court, for disregarding the Constitution of the United States of America. The pundits who enabled it should also be punished.
ReplyDeleteSomerby is dispensing with his usual coyness, he is openly saying that democracy is over-rated.
ReplyDeleteAlong with his thinly veiled racism and sexism, Somerby now seems to suggest we bow down to fascists.
Perhaps you can quote the part of Somerby’s post today where he says democracy is overrated, because I can’t seem to find it.
DeletePP to be fair you are infamous for your lack of reading comprehension. 11:31’s point is relatively easy to detect. Keep reading!
Delete12:39 - When you can’t respond, distract by hurling an insult - right?
DeleteYou waste everyone's time here, PP, contesting things that are blatant in Somerby's writing. I quoted the same thing yesterday, where Somerby said that Putin's wager against democracy may have been winning.
DeleteSomerby has been knocking democracy. That is what right wingers who are autocracy-curious do, the folks who want Trump to win so they can set up their own dictatorship (with Trump as front man).
You’re the one with reading comprehension difficulties. Somerby is just making the same point both Franklin and Lincoln made - democracy can be fragile. You miss his point completely if you think he’s knocking democracy or saying democracy is overrated.
DeleteHe isn't just saying democracy is fragile. He is saying democracy is doomed because it is fragile.
DeleteWell, you’re wrong about that one, too. In the yesterday morning post, Somerby suggested democracy MIGHT BE doomed, he did not say it IS doomed. The distinction is critically important. To suggest it might be doomed is to suggest it might be saved. And Somerby keeps giving us suggestions on how to do so.
DeleteSomerby never makes any definite statements and he always says "anything is possible" which would negate any definite statement he might have accidentally made. But he repeatedly says democracy is floundering, that Blue America is bad, and that we are all going down the tubes.
DeleteSomerby gives no actual suggestions for saving democracy. If you think he does, please list a few. We will wait while you do that...
Sure, love to help you out. Just in today’s post, for example, he says we blues should stop being so smug and off-putting, that our tribunes should at least try to persuade the Others, that our media should start frisking the horrid stuff Fox News puts out, and that we might discuss things that actually matter to people rather than whether Trump zoomed Stormy. And that’s just from today.
DeleteI’m surprised with your superior reading skills that you couldn’t have sussed these out for yourself.
DeleteHow does one stop being smug? How is the leftnot discussing issues? It’s all we do? Somerby is obsessed with Stormy, not us. I get it now — Somerby’s suggestions aren’t missing, they’re stoopid.
DeleteI’ve answered enough of your questions, it’s time for you to answer mine: Where in today’s post does Somerby openly say democracy is overrated?
DeleteI’ll wait.
I said he said “floundering” and “doomed”. Where do you get overrated from that?
DeleteKatie Johnson was raped.
ReplyDeleteThey were saving Katie Johnson till the Republican Convention and ended up having to get her out there early due to Biden’s recent denouement.
DeleteWell, that and the reveal of the true identity of Doe 174 in the Epstein papers. That offered up an opportunity that just couldn't be passed over.
DeleteWhat difference does the timing of the relevation make if Johnson's accusations are true. No matter when revealed, Trump is unfit to be president.
DeleteThe Right doesn't care if their candidate is a rapist. They care that their candidate is a bigot.
Delete
ReplyDeleteTo Mr. Soros Joe Biden is a kid.
Is Trump "visibly crazy" as Bob asserts? I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteThe word "visibly" would seem to mean Trump's actions rather than his words. Of course, Bob won't respond to my comment. But, I invite commenters here who agree with Bob to provide examples of Trump's supposed crazy actions.
"The word 'visibly' would seem to mean Trump's actions rather than his words."
DeleteI think you parse too closely. We watch Trump on television. His speeches and rallies are observable behavior, even though he's mostly just speaking.
Fair point, QiB. Nevertheless I repeat my request: Can Trump opponents provide examples of crazy actions?
DeleteD in C - what about his plan to have Liz Cheney prosecuted for treason before a televised military tribunal?
DeleteAC/MA - yes that’s a crazy idea, but those are words. Trump didn’t actually prosecute her.
Delete@AC/MA
Deletewhere did you get the idea that it's "his plan"?
Ranting about the shower head pressure at a political rally is normal. Why not ask Dr. Ronny Jackson why over 4 years ago they carted Trump off to Walter Reed for an unscheduled visit and adementia workup? Oh I know why : because he is a liar.
DeleteI think statements (words) are a form of behavior, actions themselves. I don't differentiate between words and acts because words are acts, once written or spoken.
DeleteOther crazy acts:
Cheating at golf
Eating so many hamburgers & Diet Cokes all the time (a form of avoidant-restrictive food intake disorder)
Hogging the center of attention in all situations
Crashing other people's weddings and making uninvited speeches at them
Walking into dressings rooms of underage beauty contest participants while they are undressed
Calling in to Howard Stern and pretending to be his own publicist
Stiffing contractors and other service providers while being a billionaire
Refusing to touch other people's hands, such as when shaking hands while being introduced
Making fake magazine covers with one's picture on the cover to pretend to be famous
Letting someone take a picture of you fondling your own daughter (while young teen)
Stealing money from charitable foundations and students at a fake university
Trump has a long history of aberrant behavior stretching back decades. He was endlessly satirized for his self-congratulatory boasting in the old Spy magazine as well as in the Doonesbury comic. He obsessively characterized his every venture with superlatives like "amazing," "unbelievable" or "incredible." His frantic self-promotion became pathological.
DeleteTrump's early forays into the public sphere were marked by a similar extravagance. He loved over-the-top, gold-plated opulence. Every public presentation was calculated to bolster his claimed wealth.
He engaged in tempestuous affairs with various photogenic women and planted stories about them with friendly media outlets.
He regularly gave interviews to outlets like the Howard Stern show in which he openly confessed to social misbehavior like barging into the dressing rooms at his beauty pagents.
Trump opened and closed a series of spectacularly failed businesses including an airline, casinos, and most notably, a "university" for which he was forced to make massive refunds to his "students."
He allied himself with fringe causes such as buying a full-page newspaper ad to demand the death penalty for unconvicted accused rapists. And, of course, he leapt eagerly on the Obama birtherism bandwagon, periodically claiming to have sent investigators to Hawaii and announcing that they were finding "things no one can believe."
Through all of this, New York media treated him as an eccentric, a crackpot. He made occasional show business appearances, often in ridiculous, self-parodying roles like singing the theme to Green Acres onstage or dressing up in a yellow chicken suit.
He made a few short-lived forays into national politics, announcing that he was a candidate for president but drawing little notice.
All of this amounted to little more than a sideshow act, a curiosity. He was a strange man who desperately wanted to be recognized as being wealthy.
And then came the storied trip down the golden escalator.
From the beginning of his campaign until today, Trump tells lies. Big, whopping lies as well as littlle, unnecessary ones. He lies as easily and reflexively as other people blink. Many of his lies directly contradict things he has previously said or done in full public view. Nevertheless, he serves them up and repeats them and if he's called on them, he doubles down. He'll unflinchingly deny actions we all saw with our own eyes and words we heard with our own ears.
He pushes his way to center stage in every situation. He claims credit for every good thing that happens and assigns blame or makes excuses for every failure. He announces his expertise on every subject under discussion: "No one knows more about...than me!" It doesn't matter if the topic is fighter jets or aircraft carriers or campaign finance or infectious disease. He's an expert.
Lastly, he treats nearly all interactions with other people as transactions. Every favor he bestows must be repaid. Every slight must be avenged. During his term in office, this led to a revolving-door cabinet in which officials were hired as "the very best" only to be fired as "useless" or "dumb" when they failed some unexpected loyalty test.
Any one of these behaviors, taken in isolation, would be alarming. A lifetime of these repeated behaviors reveals a damaged, even deranged personality. During his term in office, Trump occasionally mused about making himself "president for life" or running for many more terms than the constitution allows. That was waved off as a meaningless bit of Trump's bluster.
And then came the aftermath of the 2020 election. Trump lost, but he schemed to reverse that result through intimidation and fraud. He assembled a mob and sent them crashing into a constitutionally-mandated joint session of Congress. Then he sat on his hands and watched as the rioters tore through the Capitol building baying for the blood of various government officials.
You want examples? I got 'em.
QiB
DeleteAnd don't even get me started on the people he chooses to surround himelf with.
DeleteQiB,
DeleteThat was excellent. Don't expect a sincere honest reply from DiC. He'll come back in a week and make the same invitation.
Thanks for your responses, QiB and @4:00. Some do sound crazy; others are just unusual. It's unusual to attempt achievements is such diverse areas. But, that's not crazy, especially since Trump had some staggering successes along with a number of failures. The apparently craziest thing he ever did was to run for President without governmental experience, except that he succeeded.
DeleteArranging his businesses so that the burden of his failures often fell on others is not crazy. It's shrewd. It's ugly. It's selfish. But not at all crazy.
I agree that his excessive demands for loyalty are unusual, ugly and and harmful. one might call them neurotic, although I don't think it's a level where it would justify being locked up in the Happy House.
"Arranging his businesses so that the burden of his failures often fell on others is not crazy."
DeleteIt's not just his businesses, it's anything and everything. Recall his response to a press conference question during Covid lockdowns: "Zero! I take no responsibility!" Also his incessant boasting about having "the greatest economy the world has ever seen." Presidents affect the economy at the margins. Trump inherited a good situation and managed not to mess it up.
I'm sure you can find plenty of examples on your own.
Sadly, QiB describes normal behavior for politician Presidents. Claim credit for anything good. Never admit mistakes. Blame others for bad things. Trump does it. Biden does it.
DeleteIt’s rare for a leader to truly deserve credit or blame for the economy IMO. Millei, with his radical economic approach, does deserve credit and blame for the Argentine economy. But most other leaders don’t really control the economy, regardless of what they say,
"Trump does it. Biden does it."
DeleteBiden is, of course, a figurehead, but Trump actually did a lot. Renegotiated NAFTA, introduce massive tariffs, made a gigantic deal with China, lowered the corporate tax, etc. With tremendous results.
That's not claiming "credit for anything good".
DiC believes the Apprentice was real.
DeleteHey, leave me out of this. I have died.
ReplyDeleteIgnore this. He's (or she?) is a paid troll.
DeleteIn America someone is sexually assaulted every 68 seconds.
ReplyDeleteA woman is raped every 6 minutes in America, a minor is raped every nine minutes.
Sexual assault in America is epidemic, so much so that even a top presidential candidate, Trump, has engaged in such behavior but is deemed just dandy by his supporters.
I have utmost sympathy for that poor woman who's raped every 6 minutes.
DeleteI reacted to the post similarly, but aimed my japery elsewhere.
DeleteNot funny David.
Delete2:14,
DeleteThat's mighty woke of you.
Quaker in a Basement
ReplyDeleteThere's something perplexing about the debate over the debate. Pundits and commenters aplenty offer us their forceful opinions that Biden should stand down--or not!--because of his performance in last week's televised debate. They're quick to tell us what they conclude from what we observed.
DeleteBut there's a step missing. These loud arguments almost always skip the step of telling us what, exactly, we saw.
One published recap I read this week did give a quick summary: Biden spoke in a raspy voice and seemed to lose his train of thought on multiple occasions, the writer said. But this writer was the exception, not the rule. Most jump straight to "disaster," or "catastrophe." Or else they gloss it all as "a bad debate performance just like Obama had once."
So what did we see?
I only caught a few minutes of the debate. Yes, Biden's voice came across as weak and he sounded like on old man (which he is.) I saw the massively garbled statement that meandered before Biden finally force out "We finally beat Medicare." And I saw a candidate that had been drilled to recall a series of key points as indicated by Biden's habit of labelling his arguments with numbers: "One, we have a great economy. Two..." etc.
Shouldn't we review the evidence before we pass our judgments? I didn't watch the whole thing. What did I miss?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?536407-1/simulcast-cnn-presidential-debate
DeleteQiB - I started to watch the debate, but almost immediately I turned it off because it was much, much too painful. I tried to turn it on again a little later, and I again turned it off almost immediately. Trump was blathering on about how Dems want to kill newborn babies, and Biden had a catatonic look of complete bewilderment.
DeleteThe little I saw was horrifying.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/28/politics/joe-biden-debate-performance-panic/index.html
Delete“ From the start of the debate, the president appeared to struggle with his voice. Biden cleared his throat or coughed multiple times, a condition that his doctor has previously stated is caused by acid reflux. He has also been battling a cold in recent days, multiple sources told CNN.
Biden often defaulted to an open-mouthed, staring look while Trump was speaking. He occasionally struggled to finish his thoughts or land punches at points, ceding ground on issues like abortion where Democrats have an edge.
Biden brushed off concerns about his debate performance, telling reporters that he thought he performed well while visiting patrons at a Waffle House after the debate.
“I think we did well,” Biden said.”
—————
“ One Democratic congressman in attendance at a watch party on Capitol Hill with other members told CNN that the moment near the beginning of the debate when Biden was talking about the national debt and appeared to lose his train of thought and pause for several seconds before offering a confusing answer was incredibly tough.
The room, the member said, went silent in shock – and the lawmaker’s own initial reaction was that he wanted to jump off a bridge. Asked to characterize the watch party’s reviews, the member said he and his colleagues have generally felt like Trump appeared young and Biden old; and that Trump was playing mostly offense, while Biden was playing mostly defense.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/28/politics/biden-trump-presidential-debate-analysis/index.html
Delete“ It was clear a political disaster was about to unfold as soon as the 81-year-old commander in chief stiffly shuffled on stage in Atlanta to stand eight feet from ex-President Donald Trump at what may turn into the most fateful presidential debate in history.”
——————
“ By the time the aged rivals slipped into a bitter debate about who was the best golfer, it was not hard to understand why voters have long told pollsters that they want no part of the choice they have been offered this year.”
—————
“ Biden’s voice was weak, at times reduced to a whisper. Early on, the president’s answers drifted into incoherence. He missed openings to jab Trump on abortion — the top Democratic talking point — and meandered into highlighting his own biggest political liability, immigration. “We finally beat Medicare,” Biden said at one point, lapsing into confused silence. It was the kind of debate gaffe that Democrats had hoped to avoid. Worse, while Trump spoke, Biden often watched, his mouth gaping open, exacerbating an impression of a president cruelly diminished. His bravura battering of Trump in a debate four years ago was a distant memory.
To see a president struggle before millions of people watching on television all around the world was tough to see. As a matter of humanity, the personification of the ravages of age that await everyone was painful. Biden’s campaign revealed during the debate that he had been suffering from a cold. But by that time, the damage had already been done.”
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-debate-trump-biden-06-27-24#h_d833e36cb8471f5f76f3acc882278a02
Delete“ President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump went back and forth about their golf games on the debate stage Thursday.
In response to a question about his age, Trump pointed to his golf handicap, saying that he feels like he is in good shape.
“I just won two club championships, not even senior. Two regular club championships,” the former president said. “To do that, you have to be quite smart, and you have to be able to hit the ball a long way.”
“He doesn’t do it,” Trump said of Biden. “He can’t hit a ball 50 yards.”
Biden quipped that he would be happy to “have a driving contest with him.”
“I told you before I’m happy to play golf. If you carry your own bag. Do you think you could do it?” Biden responded.
“Let’s not act like children,” Trump later said.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/27/trump-biden-cnn-presidential-debate-reaction-highlights
Delete“ The president joked about the rightwing conspiracies that he would take some kind of performance-enhancing drugs before the debate, posting a link to a can of water for sale on his campaign website called “Dark Brandon’s Secret Sauce”.
But his low-energy, muted and garbled performance didn’t live up to expectations. And keep in mind: Biden challenged the former president to the debate, which looks like a strategic error in retrospect.
Voters regularly say they are concerned about Biden’s age and fitness for office. This debate will not assuage their fears.
If someone were reading a transcript of Biden’s remarks, some of his lines would sound smart and aggressive. But the delivery failed – and for a visual medium like TV, that’s critical. He failed to sell his signature accomplishments, like his infrastructure plan.
From the start, Biden’s voice was muffled. He trailed off. In one gaffe, attacking Trump on his tax cuts and the national debt, he confusingly ended his remarks with: “We finally beat Medicare.”
Trump jumped on the moment: “He did beat Medicare. He beat it to death, and he’s destroying Medicare.”
On an abortion question, which should be one of Biden’s strongest assets for voters concerned about rolling back reproductive rights, Biden brought up girls killed by migrants – pivoting, for some reason, to one of his weakest areas.
He became more lively over the course of the evening, but not enough to change the narrative of how the debate went down optically. The evening will undoubtedly lead Democrats to debate whether Biden should somehow be replaced at the convention.”
https://youtu.be/cHxGUe1cjzM?feature=shared
DeleteQuaker - why don't you watch it if it is so perplexing?
Deletehttps://youtu.be/mwZBqig2sOU?si=pyjE0_mD3iMqNpQY&t=186
Delete@Anon 3:54
DeleteYou misread.
It's not the candidate's behavior that perplexes me. It's pundits' lack of care. They routinely skip any attempt to pinpoint any specific incidents during the debate. They simply declare the entire debate a "disaster" and then pass their judgments as to what the candidate "must do."
Both candidates made many statements during the televised debate. Some of Biden's fumbles were genuinely alarming. For me, what was most concerning was his seeming inability to effectively counter Trump's firehose delivery of accusations, conspiracies, misinformation, and bald misrepresentations.
Someone very wise once advised that one should never wrestle a pig because you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. Biden went pig wrestling Thursday night.
No, that's what I took you to mean. I understand what you wrote. If you are perplexed by their descriptions, why would you not watch the debate yourself? Do you think they may be overstating the case or lying? Or maybe you think an exact description of what they saw must be included in every recap? If you have to ask "what did we see?", why would you not see what we saw? Did you notice you are passing judgement on the evidence (pig wrestling) which is just what you accuse them of? You didn't review the evidence before that passing judgment. Do you see what I mean? Why would you not take the time to watch it? What are you really trying to say? Do you think it wasn't a disaster? Are you trying to disqualify that description? If you are perplexed by how it is described but describe what little you saw as 'genuinely alarming', what is so perplexing? You didn't even provide evidence to back up the claim most published recaps jump straight to "disaster," or "catastrophe" without telling us what, exactly, we saw. What the fuck, man? Are you stoned on weed? Did you get stoned out by the pool today, Quaker?
DeleteI don't find a lack of specific descriptions of Biden's performance in the coverage. The Biden administration and Biden himself have all admitted it was a poor performance. If any candidate performs in a way that genuinely alarming in a debate, it is a catastrophe. Quaker: stop tokin' and commentin' bro!!
Delete@Anon 6:18
DeleteIf you have an opinion you'd like to share, please do. If you're only trying to get my attention, explain why.
I did share an opinion. (????)
DeleteOn a broader level, beyond Biden's specific performance and demeanor during the debate, both the press and the public are coming to terms with the absurdity of running an 81-year-old man who exhibits cognitive issues common to people of that age. They are realizing what a bad idea it is and just how crazy it is. I'm sure this didn't surprise the press - they've been aware of it for a long time (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/conspiracy-of-silence-to-protect-joe-biden.html). But, the debate was the catalyst that unburdened them to speak freely about it. Deep down, many in the press and a significant number of Americans recognize that the situation is wrong. (For months, the American people have expressed that they don't believe he should be running.) Those in the press who were aware of it must feel relieved to finally express how wrong it is. Pretending that he was sharp as a tack must have been a confusing moral burden, even for them. Biden's candidacy has been an international joke for a year—just read their papers and watch their news shows. Joe Biden and his candidacy are nightly punchlines. It's not because they are making it up. It's because it’s true. It's still entirely possible that he could come back and win, but that doesn't change the fact that it's truly crazy to have a man in his condition and age undertaking the nuanced complications and vast responsibility of being president. Thursday night was a historical debate. It will be known as one of the most famous and consequential debates in history. Now is just the sorting out period. Thank God we don't have to act like running Biden is a natural, normal and good idea anymore.
DeleteThe far younger serial miscreant called Trump is the picture of youth and vitality then?
DeleteSure, 6:52. But Republicans running the serial liar, deranged conman who attempted a coup to stay in power and makes ill gotten gains off his presidency is a natural, normal and good idea.
DeleteWhataboutism is a natural defense mechanism used to distract one from directly facing uncomfortable truths like this one. I understand why you would instinctively employ it. This issue isn't just political, it's moral, emotional, psychological and with all sort of very complicated dimensions. It's VERY, very sad what we are going through.
DeleteHillary Clinton’s famous 2008 presidential primary campaign ad, “3 a.m. Phone Call,” emphasized the importance of a president’s readiness to address crises at all hours of the day. Would Mr. Biden’s staff even awaken him at 3 a.m.? And if they did, would he be able to pay attention, let alone critically think and problem solve?
DeleteYou are taking that ad a bit too literally. If there were a crisis of course they would wake him. How else would anyone know there was a crisis without a wakeup call? When you are so ole you can’t wake up, it is called being dead. Are you a moron?
DeleteBiden is inspiring, not sad.
DeleteThe beauty of this, if you are a liberal, is that Biden will be replaced, and Trump- who likewise should be replaced- will not. Biden's inner circle and their allies were unsuccessful at their false narrative. Trump is the unfettered emblem of the Republican party, who has been primaried and embraced by them. Anyone who has missed out on the many verbal gaffs that have come out of Trump's mouth will more than likely be seeing them in ads as the contest between Trump and some younger, more presidential candidate gets into full swing. No longer will the Democrats need to be wary of the kind of tit for tat negative ads that Biden's candidacy would have allowed. Trump will be the only cognitively impaired candidate for president, if you exclude that clown with a brain worm history. He will be an easy target and he and his MAGA down ticket candidates will continue to fail as they did in the midterms. There was no way the big money donors or those who Biden would have dragged down with him were going to allow him to continue. And there is no way that D. Trump will be able to find his way out from the negative ads and press coming his way en route to November. And he has months of stupid oratory ahead of him to add to his collection while stumping around the country courting his MAGA base.
DeleteYou make a lot of assumptions about the effectiveness of negative ads and an ultimate Trump failure, but yes, Biden cannot win. He has always been a horrible candidate. A shake-up is worth trying, as he has no chance whatsoever at winning. A shake-up and a rebranding with an inspirational candidate who connects strongly with the American people and isn't 80 would put Trump on the defensive if it was played right. It depends on who it is. This is a big ask, as the DNC is a calcified and entrenched party of insiders, and they will only pick another insider, which has led to horrible, unpopular candidates like Hillary and Joe in the past. If that could end, it would help. But maybe big donors can exert some kind of pressure to bring in someone new and great. Even Kamala would have a better chance than Biden and be able to bust Trump's chops in the way you speak, although probably in the verbal gaffes department as she is known for word salads, etc.
DeleteThe unpopular horrible candidates you refer to both beat Trump by large margins in the popular vote, H. Clinton by roughly 2.9 million. Negative campaigns and their advertising have been studied and are effective. The years of (8) Benghazi probes that each exonerated Clinton were nonetheless effective Republican ploys that constituted such. No arguments from me about the entrenched Democratic party. Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman to name two are less than worthless in my opinion. I live in Florida where the complete incompetence of the Democratic machinery cannot mount a successful campaign against a crook like Rick Scott. Trump will have a very hard time against almost anyone replacing Biden. His favorability rating by Gallup polling as recently as 2021 was 34% it is likely to be close to there by the time November rolls around, unless you think that railing against his shower head pressure, mumbling incoherently and long blank pauses at stump rallies are going to be less scrutinized between now and then.
Delete@1:37 AM, 4:56 AM
DeleteAre you, by chance, that mysterious and menacing eastern-European bot Corby keeps scaring us with?
3;36,
DeleteGood point about Biden being nominated by the people, which the elites think is the wrong way to choose a President.
It's your business if you think beating Trump by large margins in the popular vote doesn't make them unpopular, horrible candidates. I know it's a common idea with some that both of these consummate D.C. insiders were not unpopular, horrible candidates. Let's put it this way: they were not popular enough to beat Trump in 2016 and 2024.
DeleteI’m a lifelong Republican that voted for Trump twice, but no more.
ReplyDeleteA historian with expertise in the history of the Republican Party explains it well, the reason I am switching from Trump to Biden:
https://youtu.be/Wnw6JmXOzpk?si=dogLBegLNiuK-eUf
You're a lifelong Republican, and I'm Wilt Chamberlain. That aside, you link to an excellent interview. However, her take on Lyndon Johnson's withdrawal from the 1968 race is much too simplistic: https://wapo.st/3L9mhbR
DeleteIt's time to discipline the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeletehttps://prospect.org/justice/2024-07-02-supreme-court-begging-to-be-reined-in-Trump-immunity/
ReplyDeleteJoe Biden is an energetic charismatic leader. Emphatical and ethical. Physically strong too. And he can multiply 3 digit numbers mentally.
Somerby is an ass.
I am Corby.
Trump's ongoing attempts to suppress accusations of sexual misconduct are failing over time. There are too many of them to be disregarded, and there are now patterns of behavior suggesting he has a modus operandi. If it weren't enough for his habits of fraud and criminal business conduct to make him ineligible, these sexual crimes should disqualify Trump from running for office. We wouldn't elect Jeffrey Epstein or Harvey Weinstein to office, so why is anyone even considering voting for Trump?
ReplyDeleteThere are many men who do not care what happens to women, but are there so many that they would vote for miscreant like Trump?
Decency demands that Trump be removed from the Republican ticket.
If they were the most bigoted candidates Republicans could find, surely Republicans would elect Jeffrey Epstein or Harvey Weinstein to office.
DeleteBiden's campaign issued a statement that after a meeting with governors, they were standing behind Biden. Then CNN prints this:
ReplyDelete"Sources told CNN they were left frustrated by Biden's response.
"Some of the participants have been rankled by the statement of loyalty and enthusiasm from them distributed by the Biden campaign on Thursday," CNN reports. "
Without stating which participants were rankled and what specifically they said, this is just a negative attack on Biden again. Sources said, claims CNN, but they do not say who complained or why. This kind of thing can be entirely made up, or it could be true, but the indefinite sourcing gives us no way to evaluate it. And it comes from CNN, not governors, as it stands. It is possible no one said anything of the kind, but how can any individual refute anything except their own stance, with such an indefinite claim?
Obviously, this is grossly unfair to Biden and his campaign. But in a political environment where there are fake videos and made-up disinformation planted everywhere, how can anyone know what to believe.
Right now, and until I know otherwise, I am choosing to believe the President of the United States of America. I have the evidence of his ongoing performance as president and I have nothing concrete to contradict the idea that Democratic governors are standing behind his candidacy.
Trump is an incompetent corrupt lazy vindictive liar who uses the government as his personal bank account. Could the media possibly write a story or two about that?
ReplyDelete…crickets?…
ReplyDeleteI want to read stories about Joe's uncle, eaten by cannibals. It's exciting.
From Digby:
ReplyDelete"While Biden’s campaign insists he has no plans to drop out, Republicans are gearing up for any and all possibilities. They’ve been preparing for this moment for quite some time.
About four months ago, after special counsel Robert Hur’s report raised more concerns about Biden’s health, staffers at Heritage’s Oversight Project started researching laws in states across the country for replacing a nominee. They laid out just how difficult it would be for Democrats to replace Biden in key swing states in a memo that was compiled in early April and released last week ahead of the debate.
“If the Biden family decides that President Biden will not run for re-election, the mechanisms for replacing him on ballots vary by state,” reads the memo. “There is the potential for pre-election litigation in some states that would make the process difficult and perhaps unsuccessful.”
The upshot was that replacing Biden on the ticket would be “extraordinarily difficult” and that “we would make it extraordinarily difficult,” Oversight Project Executive Director Mike Howell, who authored the memo, told NOTUS this week."
Wow. Sounds like they are very happy to be running against Biden.
DeleteBiden is not yet the nominee. If he withdraws before the Convention this problem would not arise.
DeleteBiden doesn’t need to be president, the way Trump does (to save his skin). Biden is running to save us all from Trump.
ReplyDelete