Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Joe Biden : Barack Obama was a great president

By

We don’t say that often enough.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. This is getting tiresome.

    Running on somebody else’s coattails is a venerable tradition, I’m weary of this relentless repetition.

    As doubleman said, he ain’t Obama.

    • To be honest I went into tonight wondering how he would hold up for three hours, but came out of it thinking it was actually his best debate so far. Since I’m looking mostly at experience there’s really nothing a debate can do to add or detract from that variable anyway.

      • I found his responses uneven, meandering, and unfocused. The above is an example.

        Did you listen to his above response? This, for example:

        Make sure that every single child does, in fact, have three, four, and five-year-olds go to school. School! Not day care, school. We bring social workers into homes of parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It’s not that they don’t want to help. They don’t know what— They don’t know what quite what to do. Play the radio. Make sure the television—excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night. The phone—make sure the kids hear words. A kid coming from a very poor school—er, a very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time they get there.

        “Play the radio. Make sure the television—excuse me, Make sure you have the record player on at night. The phone — make sure the kids hear words”?

        What is Mr. Biden trying to say? Who is he talking about? Is he advocating the radio to entertain kids at night, then shifting to the television, then backtracking to a record player? What thought was he attempting to express? If there was a thought at the beginning of that paragraph, was it still there at the end? Is he talking about kids? Social workers? Parents?

        Is he attempting to say that the children who suffer the systemic racism of our society need record players at night, and then all will be well?

        If elected, will the Biden administration announce a sweeping federal “Record Player Availability” program? Will there be a new “Federal Record Player Agency (FRPA)?

        Is he really asserting that children of economically suffering families need MORE media exposure?

        I’m sorry, but the transcript is a meaningless random word salad.

        I have serious concerns about Mr. Biden’s focus and attention. His performance in the third debate significantly heightened those concerns.

        • He did ramble a couple of times, though what I’ve read so far seem to think he had a good night overall.

  4. A great president would have lived up to his promise to close Gitmo. A great president would not have dec;lared Venezueala a “national security threat”. A great president would not have sent his daughter to work for Harvey Weinstein.
    Obama had many good qualities and did some good things as President. But he was also weak, and unimaginative, and far too much in thrall to big money.

      • I honestly don’t care about Obama, I mean I love the guy and wish him well, but he’s not on the ballot next fall. We should be the party that’s always moves forward and not look backward like the Republicans. I give the Obamas a lot of credit for fading into the background and letting new people rise up in the party. It’s a refreshing change from the Clintons who still had their tentacles all over the DNC in 2004, 2008, and 2016 (all losses I might add).

        • See I believe in replicating success and we’ve done very well as the Clinton-Obama party. Your dump them as soon as we’re done attitude is frankly a bit disturbing though I admit I can’t quite put my finger on why.

          • I’m not dumping on anyone. They are term limited and no longer on the ballot. They are both elder statesmen whose days in office lie in the past and not the future. Candidate Obama frankly was the breath of fresh air the party needed after nearly two decades of Clinton domination, one of the main reasons I supported him was to vote for change and not a “let’s go back to the 90’s” vote for Clinton.

            Ironically Candidate Hillary had an easier time proposing a fresh start in 2016 than Biden has in 2020. She took a more hawkish line than the Obama administration on Syria and Iran and was always more liberal than her husband or Barack on economic issues.

            None other then George Washington knew to get out of the way and let the country move on to new leaders. One of my favorite numbers in Hamilton is “Teach them How to Say Goodbye” which Washington sings to Hamilton while he composes Washington’s famous farewell address, the actual text of which is sprinkled throughout the lyrics. My wife and I watched the original cast sing this to Barack and Michelle on PBS a few nights before he left office and we both broke down and cried.

            So much of our own lives are tied into his presidency. We met in Hyde Park at the start of his campaign, we were a couple by his inauguration, we got engaged right after he got re-elected, and we got married at the church where he gave his first speeches against the Iraq War. He’s our first presidential vote and we’ll always fondly remember his presidency.

            Obama would argue it’s always time for hope and change. Restoring the good old days past is such a conservative thing to run on, it’s not a good look for a young and diverse party committed to progress. Our party looks a lot more like Barack than Biden, and Warren’s the only one really ready to learn from his mistakes and fix them. Biden insists on repeating them.

            • I understand that certain people are term limited or choose not to run again, but I still say successes are worth replicating and mistakes can be learned from.

              • All I’m saying. Let’s learn from his mistakes and build on his successes instead of putting him on a pedestal or using him as a crutch like Biden.

          • Read my original comment. A great president shouldn’t be weak, unimaginative, or beholden to large donors. I gave an example of each defect. What part don’t you understand?

            • @Read my original comment:
              I understand your original comment.

              I’m curious about which presidents you feel have met your criteria.

              • @curious. I’ll have to limit myself to George Washington. He was born almost 300 years ago. Naming anyone else would leave me open to charges of ageism.

                • @George Washington:
                  I see.

                  One great president in our 300 year history.

                  That’s helpful in evaluating your criteria.

                • Actually, it is exactly that–helpful in understanding where Bob is coming from. Who are the “greats” in your pantheon?

                  Personally I am more generous than Bob, and would include LIncoln and Roosevelt. I don’t see how Obama, despite his finer qualities, is in that league.

    • Okay, Fred, was your down rate on behalf of Harvey Weinstein, or because you want to keep Gitmo open? Or perhaps you can explain what threat to our national security is posed by Venezuela.

        • Blow it out your nose, Fred. There’s no slander. You should be getting a list of great presidents together,, along with a discussion of your criteria for picking them. Tom’s very curious and I have a feeling he will ask you next.

          • My question about your list of great presidents pertains to your proposed criteria for greatness. You’ve said that only George Washington meets that criteria.

            Some of us might put Abraham Lincoln and FDR on that list. I’m not sure how the latter is “ageist”, but whatever.

            It seems pretty clear that your criteria for greatness is different from mine.

              • I agree that Mr. Obama was not a great president. In a different America he might have been. For better or worse, I’m reminded of Jimmy Carter.

                Thanks for the heads-up about Fred. I’m hoping he’ll spare me because we’re both old-farts.

  5. I’m frequently accused of ageism here, but his meandering answer on race that somehow tied in Maduro and education policy was terrible. Trump is a terrible public speaker, but his delivery is slow and emphasizes a few key words so John Q Voter understands. Biden can’t give a speech without talking about everything from Maduro to record players, and it’s not great if the original question was about something entirely different.

    We aren’t talking Reagan territory, but Mugabe or Mitterrand territory when it comes to his age and that’s just not good. It would be disqualifying against anyone other than trump, is that the best we can do?

    I get that people like the guy cause he’s a likable guy, I do too. His positions are way out of step with where the party is going and he’s just not as agile as he was even in 2012. He dominated Ryan. I haven’t seen him dominate anything or anyone in these debates.

    • I know what current polls say, but every day convinces me more that he won’t be able to get it done.

      The only thing he offers is being better than Trump. That’s it. That’s the pitch. If he’s the one and we’re seeing what we saw on TV last night all the time, people who need to come out won’t.

      For someone who doesn’t vote regularly, or never has, or hasn’t come out since 2008, we’re out of our minds to think they’ll be motivated FOR Biden.

    • @meandering answer:
      I had precisely the same reaction as you. I thought his answers were much more confused, meandering, and incomprehensible last night than public utterances of Mr. Reagan while the latter was in office.

      It is not ageist to make these observations about Mr. Biden or anyone else. The point is that it is performance and behavior that is the issue, not age.

      Here are some pairings …

      OK: Mary shouldn’t be hired in this position because she’s never led a team before.
      Bad: Mary shouldn’t be hired in this position because the team won’t respect a woman

      .OK: A local couple was robbed at gunpoint the night before last
      BAD: A local couple was robbed by a black man the night before last.

      OK: Joe Biden should not be our nominee because his public statements are frequently meandering, confused, and inaccurate
      BAD: Joe Biden should not be our nominee because he’s too old

      Late last month, various sources reported that Mr. Biden offered a false and embellished myth as his own experience (emphasis mine):

      Joe Biden painted a vivid scene for the 400 people packed into a college meeting hall. A four-star general had asked the then-vice president to travel to Konar province in Afghanistan, a dangerous foray into “godforsaken country” to recognize the remarkable heroism of a Navy captain.

      Some told him it was too risky, but Biden said he brushed off their concerns.

      “We can lose a vice president,” he said. “We can’t lose many more of these kids. Not a joke.”

      The Navy captain, Biden recalled Friday night, had rappelled down a 60-foot ravine under fire and retrieved the body of an American comrade, carrying him on his back. Now the general wanted Biden to pin a Silver Star on the American hero who, despite his bravery, felt like a failure.

      “He said, ‘Sir, I don’t want the damn thing!’ ” Biden said, his jaw clenched and his voice rising to a shout. “ ‘Do not pin it on me, Sir! Please, Sir. Do not do that! He died. He died!’ ”

      The room was silent.

      “This is the God’s truth,” Biden had said as he told the story. “My word as a Biden.”

      Except almost every detail in the story appears to be incorrect. Based on interviews with more than a dozen U.S. troops, their commanders and Biden campaign officials, it appears as though the former vice president has jumbled elements of at least three actual events into one story of bravery, compassion and regret that never happened.
      …

      Would we characterize any similar utterance by a GOP official as “just a gaffe”? This was widely reported. Mr. Biden’s statements were recorded and on the record. I have seen no evidence that the reporting by the Washington Post was inaccurate.

      I see only two credible explanations for this egregiously false claim:
      1. Mr. Biden was lying to embellish his own record, or
      2. Mr. Biden was disoriented and confused about reality

      In my view, either of these disqualifies him for the office he seeks. It is not ageist to offer the second explanation — disorientation and confusion are more likely with increasing age. My point is that it is the disorientation and confusion that is the issue, not his age.

      I admire him, I respect his many accomplishments, I do not think he should be President.

  6. It’s not a debating society. All that matters is which candidate has the most trust of the American people and which candidate is too much of a known quantity to be painted by Trump’s dark arts.

    That’s it. Because this is about saving the republic, not winning debating points.

    The rest is mental onanism and silverback signaling.

    • It seems to me that an important part of why Donald Trump is president is that about half the voters (give or take) decided that “all that matters” is which candidate could beat the 2016 Democratic nominee. It seems to me that we are all learning, the hard way, that being able to beat the opponent pales in comparison to whether or not the candidate can govern the nation.

      My issue with the thread-starter is that it’s analogous to saying “Vote for me because I like apple pie” or “Vote for me because I love my Mom”.

      Since this is about saving the republic rather than winning debating points, we have to do better than “can the nominee beat the incumbent”. I suggest we also have to do better than “does the nominee like apple pie”, “does the nominee love his or her Mom”, or “was Barack Obama a great president”.

      There are people who don’t like apple pie. There are people who have very conflicted relationships with their parents. There are Democrats who don’t think Barack Obama was a great president.

      I think Elizabeth Warren is a better candidate than Joe Biden. I note that she has not shown fealty to Mr. Obama, Mr. Obama has not requested such fealty, and her campaign will not leave behind those voters who do not agree that Barack Obama was a great president.

      EVERY candidate will be “painted by Trump’s dark arts”, are you kidding? We’ve already got “Sleepy Joe” and “Creepy Joe” and we’re just getting started. There are at least two other candidates (Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders) who arguably have as much or more trust from the American people.

      I don’t find your argument persuasive, and the campaign spot highlighted in the thread-starter makes me less, rather than more, likely to support Mr. Biden if he does somehow get the nomination.

      • Polls are also starting to show that any Democrat is better then Donald Trump. Biden wins by bigger margins, but Warren wins better.

        Biden might always win more electoral votes, but I’d rather a narrower win that results in Warren being president over Biden. She has a much better plan to govern when she wins. Biden should talk about his plans instead of constantly taking credit for Barack’s or bashing Trumps. Neither of them are on the primary ballot-he is.

      • I’m not saying there are a lot of negatives in one of those paragraphs, but let’s put it this way:

        I’m not saying that it’s anti-social science to utterly disregard current state-by-state head-to-head matchups showing Biden leading Trump by up to 8 points MORE than his rivals lead him in states like Ohio and Texas and we just might need to crush Trump not just beat him and need a cushion, but I will not say that.

        I’m not willing to say that just because most national polls showed Hillary ahead just prior to the election we should throw our hands up and pretend scientifically based polls have no useful and important information, but maybe you’re not.

        I am.

        (Written in good humor, we’ve all been there caught in the triple negative triap!)

        • I think the various polls have useful and valid information about the electorate today. I’m not challenging the science or validity of those polls. I’m instead challenging their relevance to what happens fourteen months from now.

          Beating Donald Trump in 2020 (assuming he is still in office and is the GOP nominee) is not going to undo the damage that he and his supporters have already done to America. Removing Donald Trump from office will stop him from being able to inflict further damage himself, but it will not reverse the damage that’s already been done and will not stop his supporters and Collaborators from spreading the cancer even further.

          The rabid mob of bigoted, misogynist, superstitious and ignorant thugs and bullies that he has created and unleashed will take years or decades to dissolve and neutralize. The task is larger than beating Donald Trump by some cushion. Our task is to crush the Trumpist movement in America. I think that takes a nominee who is able to make the 2020 election a watershed moment for America, a moment where we change our nation’s direction away from darkness and towards the light.

          I think our nominee must be able to lead America back from the wilderness AFTER Mr. Trump is removed from office. I think Elizabeth Warren is better able to do that than Joe Biden.

    • Still waiting for data that shows only Biden can win. Having the best shot a year and a half out is different from having the only shot. As Warren has gained in the primary polls she has gained in the head to heads and state by states for the general. When the liberal fake Indian professor from Cambridge is beating Trump in Goldwaters backyard by the same healthy margin as Biden, the main issue for those more moderate voters might just be how terrible a person and President Donald Trump is, and not who the Democrat is. Worrying about that plays into Trumps campaign strategy.

      • Can you please show us where it has been argued that only Biden can win? We’ve all seen the same polls.

        • That’s literally the only thing Fred and Terry talk about. The rest of us are petty “purists” who don’t care about democracy because we like other candidates more than a 1988 also ran.

          You are quite consistent and I’ve singled out your Biden advocacy as genuine. I love Fred and Terry, they’ve helped me out a lot, but I don’t agree with them that only Biden can win.

          • It’s not that purists don’t care about democracy. It’s that they make perfection the enemy of the good.

            Terry and I never said ONLY Vice President Biden can win. We simply said IOHO Biden stands the best chance of beating Twitler because he leads best among the two key groups others don’t — AA voters and middle America battleground states that IQ45 won. Think Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

            • Striving for the very best candidate we can find is the point of a primary, isn’t it? If you know your property is worth $199,000, do you list it at $199,500 or $224,999? During the college recruiting season, does a scout look for the player who plays every down and doesn’t make too many mistakes or the player who scores six touch downs on offense, intercepts three passes on defense, and has no penalties?

              I remind you and us that our 2016 nominee also did very well in polling among AA voters September of 2015. I distinctly remember numerous claims throughout the 2016 primary season that Hillary Clinton was a better choice than Bernie Sanders because Ms. Clinton would do better against Mr. Trump. It remains to be seen how much of Mr. Biden’s current strength among AA voters is due to name recognition. I think that a ticket with Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker might do just as well among AA voters as Joe Biden and anybody else.

              It isn’t clear to me that Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio will be the battleground states in 2020. Texas and Florida are both in play, and at 38 and 29 electoral votes respectively might well moot the results from the states that determined the 2016 election. Either one is more than Michigan and Wisconsin combined.

              I think we should intentionally aim for the very best candidate we can find during the primary season. I think that as we approach convention and as the primary results come in, the field will spread and a clear leader will emerge.

              I think that time to put aside qualms and fall in line behind a given candidate is AFTER, not before, that candidate has received our 2020 nomination.

              • I think everyone should look at this map and ignore national polls and head to heads at this stage. Trump is barely holding even in GA, AZ, NC, FL, and Alaska (has a Democrat ever won there other than LBJ?) He’s up by margin of error single digits in WI, TX and IN (!). Oh and underwater by high single/low double digits in IA, OH, MI, and PA.

                Remember how Northern Maine gave stupid an electoral vote? He’s down 20% statewide. Urban Nebraska night actually give the Dem an electoral vote like it gave Obama in 2008.

                Look, I think Biden will have an easier time getting nominated and winning a General than Elizabeth Warren. I happen to think we can still win big with her against Trump and end up with a president more likely to serve two full terms and enact big structural change during that time.

                I see Biden being a one and done caretaker like Bush 41’. Domestic policy isn’t his strong suit, he’ll inherit the Trump recession, and with Trump off the ballot he won’t inspire progressive midterm turnout in 22’ and 24’ he’ll lose.

                It’ll be a lot easier for the GOP to nominate a younger center right conservative like Haley or Rubio and run against old man Biden 50 year politician who’s out of touch with the economy in 24’.

            • I happen to think he will be a weak candidate and if elected will be a weak president because no mandate.

              Debatable I am sure, but those are pragmatic concerns not “purist” ones.

            • I appreciate the clarification Fred and I think it’ll help the conversation move forward. I also 100% agree this is an all hands on deck election, no excuses in for sitting out or third partying during the general.

    • Biden’s trying to hold together a coalition that’s not his and wasn’t even handed over to him. He’s like Al Gore lite.

    • I don’t think it’s mental onanism to ask what we want the next four to eight years to look like.

      First issue I have with Biden is age. It’s relevant, not ageism. The actuary tables suggest Biden won’t live the full eight years, I think that’s relevant, especially with all the damage to chain of command and continuity of government this President has already done.

      It also means an older incumbent inheriting a Trump recession will be easier to paint as our of touch by a younger GOP nominee in 24’. I doubt he has the energy to do midterm campaigning in 22’. These are real problems.

      Beating Trump is not enough. We need big structural change, it’s not mental onanism to suggest that and the record of Biden is not encouraging he is up for this task. We can do better than a four hear caretaker.

      The polling shows a bump for Biden, but Warren is now leading Trump as well in all the same states. I’ll take a modest win that leads to big structural change over a bigger one that leads to an octogenarian running for re-election.

  7. I think Bob Gardner’s critique of Obama is mysterious.

    1. Let’s see, if we are going to decide upon what basis Barack Obama was a great president or was not a great president, should we use as our criterion whether he brought the first major improvement in public health care to Americans since 1965?

    Or should we use his decision to say that Venezuela was a national security threat to the United States and the western hemisphere as our criterion? Let’s weigh those two. Which is more important? I’ll let you, the reader, decide.

    2. Similarly, should we use a criterion about whether one of his daughters worked for a political figure who was later found to be in disgrace?

    Or should we use as a criterion the question of whether he skillfully shepherded the country through an economic crisis which could have led to a second Great Depression?

    3. Finally, should we use as a basis for deciding whether Obama was a great president the fact that he actually respected the Constitution (quaint idea today, isn’t it?) both when he asked for a vote of Congress, for example, on whether we should militarily intervene in Syria as the Constitution requires, or should we say that he should be faulted for not being able to unilaterally close GITMO, when he respected the role of the United States Congress in its decision to defund any potential dismantling of GITMO?

    Oh, wait a minute, that last criterion does make sense to use.

    Thank you, Mr. Gardner, for providing these criteria.

    Barack Obama was in fact a great president according to that last criterion, and the sensible criteria preceding it.

    Thank you especially for providing us with that final criterion:

    Does a president uphold his oath to faithfully execute the laws and follow the United States Constitution?

    Obama did.

    • In my view, your third point is a bare minimum for not being removed from office. It is NOT a criteria for being even a good president.

      I expect EVERY president to faithfully execute the laws and follow the United States constitution. Of course Barack Obama did that. So did Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, LBJ, JFK, Harry Truman, FDR, and so on. I think that each of Donald Trump, George W. Bush, George H. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon failed to meet that standard. Of the preceding four, only Mr. Nixon was removed. America would be a better place today if any one or more of the other three had been removed.

      In my view, the last Republican president who did not violate the oath of office was Dwight Eisenhower.

      I liked Barack Obama. I liked Bill Clinton. I liked Jimmy Carter. In my own opinion, Mr. Obama falls somewhere between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Carter in my own ranking. Which is totally irrelevant to who is the best candidate, because none of those three is running.

      The campaign spot of the thread-starter is an example of why I prefer at least two of the other candidates to Mr. Biden.

    • No one is debating whether Obama is better than Trump. That is clear. Greatness, however, seems a much higher bar. Your points are the essence of cherrypicking.

      On your third point (respect of the Constitution), where does the kill list and extrajudicial killings of Americans in Yemen fall on your greatness scale? Related: what about the expanded drone war? Or renditions?

    • @ TerrymcGinty–
      You miss my point entirely by making excuses for Obama’s failures. I had reasons for each of the things I brought up in my original comment.
      First, you are wrong about Harvey Weinstein. His abuse of women, especially employees was well known when Obama let his daughter intern for him. It was in the NY Post; it was the subject of jokes at award ceremonies. More importantly, the Secret Service provides protection for ex-Presidents and their families. They would be responsible for vetting prospective employers. It’s inconceivable to me that the Obamas didn’t know about Weinstein.
      The only plausible explanation for why the Obamas acted as they did is that placed paramount importance on maintaining good relations with big contributors.
      You don’t have to agree with me, but I think money in politics is a huge problem. It would take a great president to shake free of its influence. Obama didn’t.
      Likewise, you can’t be a great president is you are divorced from reality. Venezuela is not a “national security threat” to the United States. No one has claimed that there are Venezuelan troops on our border, missiles aimed at us, terrorist camps, or even Venezuelan internet trolls interfering with our elections.. The threat is a pure paranoid fiction. Bad ideas like this have (and have had) bad consequences.
      It would have taken a more skillful president to get Congress to agree to close Gitmo. Or maybe a president who made it more a priority. I don’t know. It would have arguably taken a great president to accomplish that. That wasn’t Obama.
      I can’t get all teary eyed at your contention that leaving a concentration camp/torture facility in place demonstrates a noble commitment to the rule of law. But that’s just me.
      I’m mysterious, but not that mysterious.
      You may be right that none of the above will prove to be as important as Obama’s very real accomplishments. I can’t predict the future. It wasn’t that long ago that it was fashionable to rate Andrew Jackson as a great president, because expanding democracy and defeating nullification was more important than the trail of tears. So we’ll see, but right now I am sticking with my criteria.

      • “…I think money in politics is a huge problem…”

        Who is it exactly that YOU support? 🤔

        • Getting money out of politics. In the interim, I support making it really uncomfortable for politicians to go after big money.
          I’m surprised anyone has to ask. I think I sound like a broken record on the subject. Doesn’t anyone leave their record player on all night anymore?

          • “Getting money out of politics” is not a candidate in this campaign.

            In other words, you won’t say who you support.

            Got it.

            • The election in Massachusetts is still 6 months away. I will vote for the candidate who best suits me on a number of issues, of which the issues I have been commenting on will be important. I would like as much evidence as possible before I make that decision. I was hoping to find a reality based somewhere. I don’t expect to find anyone that I think is perfect so I am going to take as long as possible to weigh the pros and cons.
              I don’t care about polls, electability, demographics, or polls. Nobody on this blog seems to know what they are talking about, or to be in a position to do anything meaningful with such knowledge if they had it.
              I misread “who” as “what”. So here’s the who. If the election were today I would vote for Gabbard for president. I really would like to know more about all four Senate candidates but if I had to choose between Markey and Kennedy I would vote for Markey.
              I have actually stated twice that I preferred Markey to Kennedy. But I supposed it fits in with the bullying nature of this blog that I get asked the same question over and over and then get accused of not answering.

                • I think we could all be a little more charitable to each other. I’m probably also a Markey vote at this point, but I think it’s important to consider the non-politician candidates (that’s who Patrick and Warren were after all) as well as let Joe make a case before we stomp on him. Also acknowledge the fact that Markey has real liabilities as well and isn’t a perfect or infallible candidate. None of them ever are.

      • Did you seriously just accuse the Obamas of putting political connections and money over their daughter’s safety?

          • Your interpretation is way off. You have a lot of nerve making an accusation like that! The above comment is just the latest that says to me you carry a huge chip on your shoulder about…something. I’ve never cared for your attitude.

            • I’m open to other interpretations. In fact, Christopher, I’m open to any explanation, but there hasn’t been one so far.
              Facts are facts. If I got a fact wrong (and God knows I do that often enough) correct me. But don’t lecture me on my attitude when you can’t dispute the facts in my comment.

              • I agree with Bob that it’s hard to find a meaningfully different interpretation of the facts about Ms. Obama’s internship.

                If Mr. Weinstein had been a producer and director who was not a major contributor to the Democratic Party in general and to the Barack Obama campaign in particular, would the Obama’s have allowed their daughter to intern with him given the public (and private) knowledge of his behavior? I think not.

                I am a parent of five children. I would not have allowed any of my children to go ahead with this internship with or without any “benefit of the doubt”. That concept does not apply when asking whether a son or daughter should be invited to intern like this.

                It certainly appears me that the Obamas did, in fact put “political connections and money over their daughter’s safety.”

                If nothing else, they certainly knew that the internship would be newsworthy and went ahead with it. Mr. Obama is not a political neophyte,.

                He knew what message he was sending to deep-pocketed donors.

                • First, how well known was Weinstein’s behavior until a year or two ago? I for one was not aware. In fact I’m not sure I was aware who he was.

                  Second, OMG you guys are coming awfully close to accusing the Obama’s of pimping out their daughter for political gain, something that would be completely out of line and out of character. This strikes me as one of the most below the belt allegations I have ever heard on BMG! I just don’t think they are connected. Does either one of you really see the Obamas as the type to sacrifice their daughter’s safety and well-being for campaign cash?!

                • First, how well known was Weinstein’s behavior until a year or two ago? I for one was not aware.

                  It was well known within the industry. One of those relatively open secrets. No one in the industry was surprised when the actions made the news.

                  Does either one of you really see the Obamas as the type to sacrifice their daughter’s safety and well-being for campaign cash?!

                  I’m not in this fight and I don’t think anyone does what you’ve described with intention, but I think that powerful and wealthy individuals and families have relationships with other powerful and wealthy individuals and families regardless of how abusive and disgusting some of these people are.

                • @pimping out:
                  Of course I’m not suggesting the Obama’s “pimped out” their daughter.

                  I’m suggesting that they chose to ignore warning signs that I think they would have paid much more attention to in a different person.

                  Mr. Weinstein’s behavior was well-enough known that there were jokes about it broadcast in the 2013 Oscar Awards ceremony. Barack Obama is an ex-president with Secret Service protection. Are you suggesting that he do even a cursory background check on Mr. Weinstein?

                  That’s the sort of thing I mean. I suspect that if his daughter was proposing to intern with Joe Blow, the Obama’s would have checked him out at least a little bit. Had they done the same with Mr. Weinstein, they would have known about his proclivities.

                  That says to me that either they heard and ignored the reports or, more likely, chose didn’t bother to check because of his stature.

    • My problem is not with Barack Obama. My problem is that Biden uses the former president as a crutch whenever he is cornered on a valid question about his own plans and abilities. Yet whenever he is hit on an issue that’s now unpopular like TPP or ICE he meekly says “well I was Vice President”. It’s dishonest and untenable and won’t work in a debate against Trump. We already had a candidate tie herself to Obama and lose. We need a candidate strong enough to stand on their own two feet.

      • Sometimes you are such a downer, you know that? Being VP is exactly what makes him more credible than the other two times he ran, but isn’t separating himself from Obama exactly what you want him to do?

  8. Crediting Obama with leading on marriage equality seems a bit of a stretch from my recollection. In fact I recall Biden being the one who stepped out first on that one.

      • “Democrats still think the key to winning is someone who WILL DESTROY Trump in a debate. Get it clear : Clinton mopped the floor with Trump three times and lost. Your only goal is : 270. The rest is a revenge fantasy that won’t happen.” Tom Nichols

        • The electorate of 2020 is different from the electorate of 2016.

          I don’t see how a nostalgia fantasy is any better than a revenge fantasy. We’ve seen coattail candidates before, we’ve talked about them here. Richard Nixon lost when he ran as Dwight Eisenhower’s vice president. Hubert Humphrey got nowhere when he ran as LBJ’s VP. George H. Bush succeeded and in serving for one term demonstrated how little being VP means when it comes to governing. Al Gore failed in 2000. Dick Cheney did not run in 2008. Joe Biden did not run in 2016. I think he should not be our choice today. Running on nostalgia is not a formula for success.

          I want a nominee who doesn’t need a stable of explainers to spin his utterances after each public appearance.

          I think Americans want a president who talks about downloads and tweets instead of record players.

          Mr. Biden did a fine job as vice president from 2008 to 2016. I’d like him to leave it at that.

          I think Elizabeth Warren is the clear and obvious standout nominee. She has substance. She has credibility. She has gravitas. To the extent that it matters, she will destory Donald Trump or anybody else the GOP puts up in a debate.

          I want us to focus on 2020 and beyond. I think it’s time to leave behind 2016, 2012, and 2008.

        • I don’t disagree with this but how is Biden getting to 270 and why are none of his opponents able to do the same?
          See the problem when you run on electability is once better candidates are better known they become just as electable as you were at the start. Happened to Hillary against Obama. Almost happened to her again against Bernie, who we we can now see, is a much weaker candidate when facing better opponents and a wider field than the 2016 primary.

          I’m not even disagreeing with the notion that only Biden is electable, but he needs to convince me with something more than assertions and Barack Obama nostalgia. The polls show Sanders doing just as well and Warren almost doing as well against Trump. So why Biden? There’s got to be something else he is running on, right?

          • His resume (I’m starting to feel like a broken record.) and moral outrage at Trump (and yes, SOMEONE has to beat that particular drum or the American ideal becomes meaningless).

            • The major candidates are all beating the “moral outrage at [Donald] Trump” drum. That’s great and necessary.

              In a primary, the task is to choose one from among those candidates. The moral outrage drumming therefore doesn’t help with the choice at hand.

              I am not persuaded by your resume argument, no matter how often you repeat it. I am not persuaded because it has produced many more losers than winners when applied to primaries (Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc) and produced terrible presidents in the few times its succeeded — George H. W. Bush being the most obvious example.

              I think we need a nominee who can persuade Americans that our nominee is most likely to change the direction of America in a positive way. I think that means building on the strengths of where we are today and leaving behind the weaknesses of where we are today.

              In my view, Elizabeth Warren is the nominee that best fits that description.

              • Well, I don’t regret my resume-based choices for a second; they would have made fine Presidents (and 41 wasn’t that bad in the knowing how to do the job department though I would not have voted for him). It also does sound like Biden is more focused on the Trump outrage than some of the others.

                • @resume-based choices:
                  I’m not suggesting that you should feel badly about them. I’m suggesting that the resume criteria has not produced more competitive candidates or better governance.

                  I view a credible resume as a necessary but not sufficient criteria. Yes, 41 “wasn’t that bad” (unless you include his complicity in the Iran contra scandal, his pardons of those criminal conspirators, and his singlehanded destruction of the housing market in 1991). I think the more important question is whether he — with the longer resume — was a better choice than Mike Dukakis in the Oval Office.

                  @ more focused:
                  That’s one of my major concerns. He seems unwilling to admit that we have to aim beyond the outrage about Donald Trump.

                  Donald Trump is a symptom, not a cause. A disease is eating through the moral and social fabric of America — a disease of cynicism, hate, scapegoating, bullying, corruption, and staggering ignorance.

                  I think our candidate needs to call America to heal and move past that disease. Several candidates are, in my opinion, far more likely than Mr. Biden to successfully lead that healing process.

                • I think overall HW Bush was a strong foreign policy president and a weak domestic president (which is why he lost). Have no idea if the Duke would’ve been as conciliatory to the USSR during the end of the Cold War, as challenging to Shamir on the peace process, or as decisive in confronting Saddam in 91’.
                  I do know we would’ve gotten a liberal justice instead of Thomas. That’s a real long term game changer. Good thing we lucked out with Souter, things would’ve been a lot worse otherwise.

                • Harris was very aggressive against Trump. She’s a very appealing candidate but she’s got to figure out how to talk about policy in a way that connects to voters. She’s actually got a lot of good plans. She should mention her own far fairer and feasible basic income plan when Yang mentions his, she should start touting her education plan which is the most comprehensive in the field, and own her record as a prosecutor instead of run away from it. Biden’s people aren’t wrong that the lefties on twitter are irrelevant, and frankly will never vote for her. Her job is to steal Biden, Pete, and Beto supporters.

            • Obama and Clinton whom you cited above as models of electoral and governing success, had unimpressive resumes compared to their primary and general election opponents, which seems to subvert your other ‘experience’ argument.

              Here’s a fun fact: an older Democrat has beaten a younger opponent exactly twice. The first was Wilson over TR in 1912 and Buchanan over Fremont. Neither particularly great models of governance either in my view. Buchanan had one of our best resumes and was our worst president.

              • Bill Clinton was the longest-serving Governor in America at the time I believe and I supported Hillary Clinton in 2008. Obama’s greenness did show from time to time frankly.

                • In particular, his refusal to even propose — never mind compromise on — single-payer and a public option was a clear rookie mistake.

                  Barack Obama thought that he could appease and then work with the GOP. THAT was another (but related) rookie mistake. Hillary Clinton (in 2008) would have known better.

                • Actually the real question for Christopher is why he didn’t back Biden back then. What makes his resume valuable now but less valuable than Hillary’s in 2008? Asking out of curiosity, it’s not meant as a dig of any kind.

                  Hillary had the trial by fire of bad faith Republicans in the 90’s and would’ve been better prepared to deal with them than Obama. She would have been a better domestic president. I would still argue Obama had the better foreign policy approach as a candidate and as a president. I give Hillary credit it was a heartfelt liberal hawkishness that came out of doing nothing on Rwanda and doing something on Bosnia. She stuck with it in both primaries despite the bad politics.

                • I gave Biden a hard look in 2008, though as I recall only Clinton, Obama, and Edwards actually made it into the actual voting phase of that nomination contest. I guess I ultimately gave a lot of points in the experience department to Hillary for having been the kind of First Lady she was. Plus honestly there was part of me that wanted her to win big just put all of the Clinton-haters in their place once and for all.

                • My point is HW and McCain had the long tenure in DC and foreign policy resumes you’re praising Biden for, that the two younger less credentialed Democrats you cite as models did not have.

                  Using your logic we should’ve voted for Brown or Tsongas over Clinton and Dodd or Biden over Obama or Hillary.

                • Well, the resume argument only works for Democrats in my assessment. Democrats are close enough to each other on the issues that I can pivot to experience as the deciding factor whereas Republicans still have the problem of being very far away from me on issues. I was only 14 in 1992, but I did favor Tsongas, partly because I thought he understood balances needed in the economy though mostly because he was practically a neighbor. Once Governor Clinton had the nomination locked I even wrote a letter to him urging him to tap Tsongas as a running mate.

                • Wow! You’re consistency goes back to when you were 12. I admire that. I did something similarly encouraging Gore to pick Bradley (my preferred candidate) in 2000. So I guess I’ve always preferred the underdog and you like the experienced candidates.

                • So in 2000 they would be 52 and 57 while ending a two-term run at 60 and 65, so what’s your point?

          • Biden gets to 270 by winning the two key groups others can’t — AA voters and middle America battleground states that Trump won. Think Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio.

            • At this time in the 2008 primary, Clinton dominated Obama among African American voters. After the early primary states that support shifted and Obama had record turnout in the general.

              Clinton destroyed Sanders among African American voters in 2016. In the general, she had significantly reduced turnout among those groups in the general. That was not surprising because she had a mixed record on important issues, spent the last 8 weeks going very negative, and I think ultimately assumed strong support in certain communities in which organizing and GOTV was ultimately poor. Biden has a worse record in many ways, talks horribly on important issues (see: recent debate performance), and is building his campaign around attacking Trump rather than a positive progressive vision for the future.

              Currently Sanders is leading among younger African American voters, which maybe isn’t surprising because he’s the one most aggressively pushing for student debt cancellation, tuition free college, no cost health care for all Americans, and a comprehensive plan to address climate change and build a new prosperous economy for all Americans.

              Among those states you cite, only Ohio polls show Biden beating Trump and no other Dem beating him. All of the top tier Dems beat Trump in PA, WI, and MI at this point. Assuming no other changes from 2016, all 4 states are not needed for a Dem victory.

              Sure, I’ll admit that the polls show that Biden currently has the best chance to beat Trump, but the polls also show that 4-5 other candidates can beat Trump.

              I understand that your #1 priority is beating Trump but for your other policy-based priorities (health care, climate change, foreign policy, etc.) do you think that Biden represents the best option for your interests?

              Do you think that Biden’s debate performance and general parade of gaffes is worthwhile evidence to consider in his electability argument?

              I for one see these things and am absolutely terrified that he will not be able to get the job done and it may be too late if he gets the nomination with a consistent 25-30% in states.

              If the Joe Biden of the rambling and racist answer about playing record for your children is the Joe Biden of a general campaign in the Fall of 2020, we are in deep trouble.

            • His strengths with AA voters are relevant for the nomination, but do we really think they’ll stay home for Warren and go vote for Biden against this racist president? What if she puts Booker or Harris on the ticket? Not sure it’s a general election issue. It’s 100% a primary issue and she and Bernie have to do better. Though they are doing better with black voters than the black candidates at present.

              I don’t entirely buy the Midwest argument. Iowa went to Trump by nine points and he’s down by a similar amount now because farmers are hurting from his trade war. MI and PA swung decisively back during the midterms and WI was lost due to Madison progressives going third party (they won’t do that with Warren or Bernie on the ticket) and a depressed black vote (low turnout + racist voting laws).

              So the AA turnout is Biden’s strongest electability argument, I give you that. I can’t counter it with anything. Whatever Warren or Bernie are doing to fix it, so far it hasn’t worked.

              • A quibble on this.

                So the AA turnout is Biden’s strongest electability argument, I give you that.

                This could be turnout v. polling support. You’re right that Sanders and Warren aren’t leading in polling among African American voters (although Sanders is leading with younger AA voters). But those polling numbers for Biden may be similar to what Clinton garnered in 2008 (until the primaries started in earnest) and in 2016 against Bernie. Clinton ultimately lost the in 2008 and in 2016 she dominated with black voters, which is one of the leading reasons of how she won the primary. In the general, turnout was down. So, Biden has an argument that he has the most African American support now. An argument that this will lead to very high turnout among black voters in a general is more tenuous, and we have some recent evidence that seems relevant. Ultimately, a Biden candidacy relies on Donald Trump motivating voters to turn out, and that is downright scary to me.

                • Absolutely. Obama was the underdog until he won IA, even with black voters. A lot of prominent black Democrats including John Lewis stuck with Hillary.

                  So we will see. I think Warren is better suited to consolidate the left of Biden vote and appeal to AA voters than Bernie. We will see!

                • I think Warren is better suited to consolidate the left of Biden vote and appeal to AA voters than Bernie.

                  Maybe. I think Bernie is having a hard time expanding his base. And I think he will face some #NeverBernie folks who will stay home out of spite even though they are purported Democrats. For Warren, the prospect of a non-stop stream of Pocahontas ads and even crap like feature-length films on that attack scares me. The red-baiting hasn’t stuck as hard with Bernie, but the other stuff has with Warren – that’s why we see her net approval ratings at 0 in MA.

                • Any of our candidates are going to get Swift boated so I wouldn’t use the high likelihood of that happening to dissuade me from voting for a candidate I like.

                  Warren admitted the DNA thing was a mistake and apologized. She will fight fire with fire.

                • I don’t think the Pocahontas meme changes any votes. It didn’t have any effect locally, and I don’t think a nationwide audience will be any different. I want to remind us that its originator (Scott Brown) started with an attempt to turn her intellect into a negative (“Professor Warren”). My sense is that that backfired and caused people to like her more rather than less. I notice that the Trumpists have not picked up the “Professor Warren” meme.

                  I think these attacks will roll off Ms. Warren’s back with little or no harm at all.

                • No effect? Why is her net favorability rating in MA zero?

                  She’s incredible and amazing in person and on TV and yet still not that popular in the bluest of blue states. I think this is like “but her emails” but way worse and we have a press system who will dedicate as much time as possible to it.

                  I know everyone will get strong attempts on swiftboating. I worry that for some candidates it could be successful.

                  What is it that makes Warren not that popular in MA? There’s general sexism of course, but also it seems that things like “Pocahontas” have been effective.

                • I think there’s a relatively long list of possible reasons for the net favorability rating that you cite.

                  It’s hard to get historical polling data from google, so I can’t back this up with hard data. My recollection during the campaign was that multiple polls showed no change at all from the Pocahontas attacks.

                  I think Massachusetts is not as blue as rumored. I hear many more people, including people here at BMG, disliking incumbents for being incumbents than being influenced by the Pocahontas attacks.

                  I think sexism is also an important factor.

                  All things considered, I think she’s the best of the current contenders.

                • Didn’t she just win re-election by roughly the same margin Baker did, comfortably in the 60s percentage-wise?

                • It was a wide margin but the narrowest margin among all state-wide races. It was also a pretty strong blue wave year among federal offices around the country and her challenger was right-wing.

                  Galvin by 45.5
                  Healey by 40
                  Goldberg by 39
                  Baker by 33
                  Bump by 31
                  Warren by 24

                • @It was a wide margin but the narrowest margin among all state-wide races.:

                  I think you’re digging pretty deep to mine nuggets to criticize.

    • More like step in it. Obama was furious at Biden for undermining the rollout of his changed position. Not for the first time I might add.

      Also it’s well known in Chicago that Obama backed gay marriage in his state senate run, and then backpedaled it when he ran for US Senate in 2004. Axelrod mentioned it was one of the few issues where Obama cravenly flip flopped for electoral reasons.

  9. A Good president would have healed the financial wounds of the Great Recession.

    A “Great” president would have been one who investigated and jailed a few of the Wall Street millionaires who ripped this nation apart with their schemes.

Archives