This is the Jake Tapper book, which has been making the publicity rounds pretty heavily lately. Or perhaps it has just percolated into my bubble to an unusually large degree.
In an NPR interview with him last week, the signs of Biden’s decline that he listed were:
His day started at 8am, and he didn’t schedule meetings after 4pm
He had trouble with his aides’ names
He could make decisions, but had trouble convincing people they were good decisions
I’m sure the book goes into far more detail than in a 10 minute interview, but none of those things, either alone or together, seem like proof to me, and I believe Biden was suffering from cognitive impairment.
Anyone who has been around someone with similar issues knows that there are good days and bad, thought processes that are fine and others that are not, and a bunch of other problems that come and go.
However, I also think this doesn’t disqualify anyone who was in Biden’s administration. Regardless of which candidate the Democrats choose, there will be lots of attacks. Some will be valid, some specious, and others just plain false, but it is impossible to predict which ones might actually sway the outcome.
Which is simply a money and publicity grab. Quigley is a congressman, and a lifetime Politician, not a medical expert. Medical experts have said Biden is fine- well, not now with that Prostate cancer. And Quigley is hardly part of any Biden “Inner circle”.
And there is a lot of criticism with that fact free book-
I have never understood what people see in Harris, especially regarding 2028. She crashed and burned in 2019, not even making it to Iowa. Her 2024 run was terrible. She constantly put out policy proposals that made no sense in both campaigns. She has shown no ability to speak extemporaneously in any setting and only ever looked good when she was in complete control and the other person couldn’t really respond, whether that was as a prosecutor or in the grandstanding that is a Senate hearing. All her wins were in friendly jurisdictions.
I wouldn’t say losing once, or even multiple times, should disqualify someone. But it depends a lot on how they lose and how they look doing so, and she’s never looked good in a national campaign.
Yeah, I’m not particularly interested in the book or the topic. It’s all rear view mirror at this point, IMHO. But I mentioned it because it’s something that Harris would be heckled with by the fascists if she were to run again.
Regardless of Biden’s condition at the time, I think it’s absurd for anyone over, say, 70 to run for president (some exceptions may apply; I don’t think we need a constitutional amendment or anything…). It’s just too crushing of a job and quickly ages even youthful people. Trump himself looks like warmed over death at this point.
I don’t really disagree with the spirit of your post. I think she would have been a competent if not completely inspired/inspirational president. I would vote for her over any fascist in 2028, of course. But some quibbles:
No one else really did well either except Biden, so it’s not a particularly relevant point IMHO. Also, Harris was selected as VP, making her loss in the primary not all that important. (I mean, did GHWB seem like a loser running for POTUS in 1988 because he had lost the primary to Reagan in 1980?)
I don’t agree, considering the circumstances.
But here is where you have points I agree with:
She’s no master of policy, nor is she a visionary leader. Like most politicians, she thinks the old template still works; it just needs tweaking. Actually, Trump does challenge the template, for which I can give him… mild props? Because he’s still an evil madman.
I would indeed prefer a true visionary to Harris, but they are few and far between in the political world. Obama played one on TV… but not in the Oval Office.
True about speaking extemporaneously–a real weakness. But she did do well in the debate against Trump.
Actually, I think she did look good and presented a very good vibe at first that fizzled somewhat as time went on. I don’t think any other Democrat, however, could have taken over from Biden and done a better job. She hit the ground running with energy and willpower. Those are two qualities with which she shines.
Well, both Biden and trump were over 70 and Biden had a good 4 years as president. Okay, likely he should have backed out earlier, due to what we know know about the cancer.
As to who should be the front-runner, Democrats should look for someone who can win not just in 2028, but also in 2032 — because it will take at least that long to repair Trump’s damage and squash MAGA.
This suggests need for one of the younger and fresher faces, so that it doesn’t feel in 2032 that we are asking for a third Biden term, or for election of a senior citizen. And that argues against Harris.
Does Buttigieg also have the Biden taint? A little. It would be better if he hadn’t been a Biden cabinet member. But Transportation is unimportant enough that maybe this won’t define him. The first thing low info swing voters will think isn’t Biden alum, but married gay man with children.
As for the fact that some will vote against him for that, yes, but some in the Democratic base will forgive him for being an abundance agenda moderate due to his identity. And, as seen in my link, his abundance policy preference sets up successes he could point to when running for re-election.
While I’m totally fine with a white non-Hispanic straight male Christian candidate, I think being from another group gives the Democratic nominee a bit more freedom to pivot to the center if needed to win in November. Swing state progressives won’t vote for a conservative gay man, but probably will tolerate a bit more departure from unpopular progressive policy positions when coming from the possible center left first gay president.
As for who would be even more two-term electable than Buttigieg — my favorite is Senator Reuben Gallego. He would attract many Latino male voters who having been trending GOP.
Granted, she’s not as old as Biden or Trump, by a couple of decades, but by Election Day of 2028, she’ll be 64, and less than a year away from qualifying for Medicare. So, if not actually a senior citizen, she’ll be close. (And, I say this as someone who’s just a few months younger than she is.)
If Trump tanks the economy – and that’s probable – any Democrat can win in 2028, even with a strong GOP ticket. And they probably will nominate a weak ticket like Vance/Trump.
My not-very-strong point was that Harris will be 68 in 2032. Age 68 isn’t a big problem, but in the current sour national mood, it doesn’t take much to make a second consecutive Democratic presidential term unlikely.
I think my point about the Birden taint is stronger. There’s no way that the President having pardoned his tax-cheat son will ever sound OK – or be forgotten. Minor compared to Trump’s corruption? Yes, but DJT’s corruption is more complicated.
There is no Biden “taint”. Do you think if you just keep saying it, it will happen? And if it did happen it would affect any dem in 2028. Joes pardon- in light of what trump promised and has already done- was totally the right thing to do. The amount of vengeance trump would have visited upon Hunter would be unbelievable- and that for a white collar first offense crime that wouldnt carry any jail time if Hunters’ last name wasnt Biden. Hunter would be serving in Gitmo for life- even if that wasnt the sentence.
You keep objecting to this, but posters are talking about perception, not reality. If enough voters believe there’s a Biden taint, then for electoral purposes, there is one. Doesn’t matter if it’s justified. Like it or not, candidates need to consider voters’ perceptions when making decisions.
I don’t think any voters have a beef with Biden except MAGAs. He had a good 4 years, and most voters who could conceivably be on the Dem side admire him (even if they didn’t vote for him).
Because if enough people spread around that there is a “Biden taint” when there isnt one, then yes, perception will become the reality. That is a typical propaganda trick. Best to nip untrue things in the bud.
Yep. Sure, maybe he shouldnt have run for a 2nd term, but he was a good solid president, fixing many horrible things from trump 1.
In my local paper (Chicago Trib), and on-line, it seems just about every mention of Biden LEADS OFF with some mention of his declining health, and an arguable cover-up. With revived mentions of his verbal gaffes suggesting mental decline.
And if too many people put their heads in the sand and say “everything was fine, no problems at all with Biden,” then we’re doomed to lose again. Enough with the rosy lenses. It’s not just MAGAs that didn’t like Biden or his vice president.
And going into 2028, if being closely associated with Biden is going to be a liability or used against certain candidates, both in the primary and general, then that’s a taint. And to say there’s no Biden taint is either overly naive or overly confident, because you would need to be able to know the future to say that with such confidence.
You might believe that Biden was the bee’s knees and that he had no cognitive issues, but if a majority of the public had an issue with how he ran things and thought he was not competent to be president, and that the people closest to him covered it up, then that matters. It doesn’t really matter how many times your repeat over and over on a message board that there was no problem with Biden.
He barely had the approval of a third of the country for most of his term. That’s not just a problem with MAGAs.
