this probably sounds lamer than it is, but I was 100% riding with Biden until I wasn't. we have improved our chances greatly. I have never wavered in my belief that we will prevail in November, but with this one change, we, the Democratic Party, have become so much younger and energetic.
the right was already looking as deranged as they have for many years, but this makes them look even older and more divorced from reality, as if that were possible. now, perhaps, the press can notice how wrinkled and saggy and flaccid their own front-runner is, (no mistake saying that trump is their own), and how damaging the entire right wing 'platform' is to America. though I won't hold my breath on that one.
I don't think this is true, " the second was the thing those people absolutely didn't intend for him to do, spoiling the open convention plan. He was not supposed to endorse Harris."
My more recent thought is that I don't think Biden would have been willing to step down unless there was a clear path forward. It's hard for me to imagine Biden ever agreeing to go along with the idea, "you step down and then we have _no idea_ who will be the nominee after that."
I would strongly bet that part of Biden's decision making process was, (a) getting comfortable with the idea of Kamala as the nominee and (b) making sure that ducks were lined up BEFORE he made his announcement.
[Edited to Add] I am convinced that my opening comment, "I don't think this is true" was unwarranted.
"“F**k it, I’m coconut pilled. I just want this to stop,” said one well-known Democratic operative, referring to the online meme that has taken off from an old video of the vice president telling a story of her mother saying, “You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?”
It’s not that everyone has suddenly coalesced – but exhaustion is gelling into consensus."
My point is that, yes there were people salivating at the prospect of a mini-primary (which always seemed like a terrible idea to me) but I think that a significant number of them were already willing to sign-on to Harris before Biden's announcement.
That guy wasn’t the leadership. The leadership, as Josh Marshall has been explaining for weeks, the people in unquestioned charge of what would happen, was Pelosi, Schumer, and Obama, and they were all plainly against it (as made clear in the Halperin leak). Only Biden had the ability to say the words that made it happen.
Fair enough. I concede that my reaction is shaped by my feeling that the current outcome was always the one that would make sense.
I agree that you’ve been following the story more closely, and I’ll go read the Halperin story and, I’m sure I will boggle at how they possibly thought that was a good idea.
[Edited to add]. Just to be clear -- I retract my original comment questioning your original description. I still suspect that some of them had come around to the idea that Biden should endorse Harris, but that is pure supposition on my part.
It's barely an idea at all, struggling to rise to the level of a bad idea. Stop and ask yourself, "what would/could a 'mini-primary' look like?". What the hell IS a 'mini-primary'? That bonehead Ophra-hosted Dancing with the Pols scheme was actually a far more honest and realistic idea than a mini-primary.
She can grow into this. I am unsure if she can hold together a staff she'll need to keep the wolves at bay. I've seen 2 or 3 articles this week written by former staff each of whom endorse her but also were fired or had to resign for whatever reasons. Maybe she's hard to work with/for, but of course she is not the only likely candidate with that feature.
Not just women. Remember "Al Gore is rude to his staff"? Though now that I think about it, it seems like these day's it's a tactic reserved for women. Make them out as screeching harpies ...
He (a grandson, Cassandra is the grandmother) used to be known as Ten Bears at my place and No More Mister Nice Blog and is still producing his own https://homelessonthehighdesert.com/
I am still Ten Bears, have been since the Army, over fifty years ago; and my grandmother was Cassandra Blackwell of turn of the twentieth century Meridian Mississippi. Though my mother is in Texas and an active blogger, she is also a hard-core trumper and wouldn't find Pretentious, Pop-Pistol and Peanuts to her taste. I sometimes think she posts stuff to "own" me, and doubt very much she is Karen, Cassandra of Texas (whom, because I don't muck around much in comments anymore I am unfamiliar with)
She has grown. During her campaign, and for maybe the 1st year of being VP, there were regular articles in the SF Chronicle of anonymous staffers complaining she was disorganized and.really, really mean. That stopped, eventually, and hasn't resurfaced yet, though I expect Republicans to scape them up soon. I think she learned the hard way in public how to build and manage a staff at that level, but she learned. She was beat up a lot, and what they've go so far is warmed-over gossip. The ratfuckers are about to descend on her staff, I hope they're ready.
Just rereading today and struck by this bit, so adroit and incisive: "the insane powers for evil conceded to the presidency by the Supreme Court even as it strips the office of its power to do good." I do not think historians will put it any better in 75 years, and I hope the situation is fixed before events give them a reason to try.
This thread (below) is exactly what I was talking about the other day — me trying to argue with conservatives about the DEI concept, and the "checkmate" they always deploy:
Good stuff. I was concerned because I know you are disinclined (as you said) to get into this rhetorical quagmire...but, like, we're here, and I keep trying to find the Kryptonite.
“nearly every large American company has openly declared that they are deliberately targeting women and minorities in hiring”—Why? Are they all crazy? Or do they know something she doesn’t know?
Meanwhile, small companies (half of all US employees) resist diversity and don’t have access to applicants outside their community even if they wanted to try.
this probably sounds lamer than it is, but I was 100% riding with Biden until I wasn't. we have improved our chances greatly. I have never wavered in my belief that we will prevail in November, but with this one change, we, the Democratic Party, have become so much younger and energetic.
the right was already looking as deranged as they have for many years, but this makes them look even older and more divorced from reality, as if that were possible. now, perhaps, the press can notice how wrinkled and saggy and flaccid their own front-runner is, (no mistake saying that trump is their own), and how damaging the entire right wing 'platform' is to America. though I won't hold my breath on that one.
fired up! ready to go!
I don't think this is true, " the second was the thing those people absolutely didn't intend for him to do, spoiling the open convention plan. He was not supposed to endorse Harris."
In part because my theory for a while has been, "It makes sense for Biden to step back, if and only if people will accept Kamala as the nominee" So I'm not surprised to see things end up working that way (for example, I make that argument here: https://countdownto2024.substack.com/p/the-curious-case-of-kamala-harris/comment/61694778 )
My more recent thought is that I don't think Biden would have been willing to step down unless there was a clear path forward. It's hard for me to imagine Biden ever agreeing to go along with the idea, "you step down and then we have _no idea_ who will be the nominee after that."
I would strongly bet that part of Biden's decision making process was, (a) getting comfortable with the idea of Kamala as the nominee and (b) making sure that ducks were lined up BEFORE he made his announcement.
[Edited to Add] I am convinced that my opening comment, "I don't think this is true" was unwarranted.
You keep your “theory for a while” if you like. I change mine when there’s new evidence.
Sure, I never had good evidence for it, but consider this from Saturday: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/20/politics/democratic-consensus-harris-should-biden-step-aside/index.html
"“F**k it, I’m coconut pilled. I just want this to stop,” said one well-known Democratic operative, referring to the online meme that has taken off from an old video of the vice president telling a story of her mother saying, “You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?”
It’s not that everyone has suddenly coalesced – but exhaustion is gelling into consensus."
My point is that, yes there were people salivating at the prospect of a mini-primary (which always seemed like a terrible idea to me) but I think that a significant number of them were already willing to sign-on to Harris before Biden's announcement.
That guy wasn’t the leadership. The leadership, as Josh Marshall has been explaining for weeks, the people in unquestioned charge of what would happen, was Pelosi, Schumer, and Obama, and they were all plainly against it (as made clear in the Halperin leak). Only Biden had the ability to say the words that made it happen.
Fair enough. I concede that my reaction is shaped by my feeling that the current outcome was always the one that would make sense.
I agree that you’ve been following the story more closely, and I’ll go read the Halperin story and, I’m sure I will boggle at how they possibly thought that was a good idea.
[Edited to add]. Just to be clear -- I retract my original comment questioning your original description. I still suspect that some of them had come around to the idea that Biden should endorse Harris, but that is pure supposition on my part.
It's barely an idea at all, struggling to rise to the level of a bad idea. Stop and ask yourself, "what would/could a 'mini-primary' look like?". What the hell IS a 'mini-primary'? That bonehead Ophra-hosted Dancing with the Pols scheme was actually a far more honest and realistic idea than a mini-primary.
She can grow into this. I am unsure if she can hold together a staff she'll need to keep the wolves at bay. I've seen 2 or 3 articles this week written by former staff each of whom endorse her but also were fired or had to resign for whatever reasons. Maybe she's hard to work with/for, but of course she is not the only likely candidate with that feature.
This is a constant feature of attacks on women candidates. Remember how they went overboard on it with Amy Klobuchar
Not just women. Remember "Al Gore is rude to his staff"? Though now that I think about it, it seems like these day's it's a tactic reserved for women. Make them out as screeching harpies ...
OT, but I have to wonder: Is Cassandra's Grandson actually related to Karen, Cassandra of Texas?
For non-followers of Lawyers Guns and Money: she is a highly respected commenter there.
He (a grandson, Cassandra is the grandmother) used to be known as Ten Bears at my place and No More Mister Nice Blog and is still producing his own https://homelessonthehighdesert.com/
I am still Ten Bears, have been since the Army, over fifty years ago; and my grandmother was Cassandra Blackwell of turn of the twentieth century Meridian Mississippi. Though my mother is in Texas and an active blogger, she is also a hard-core trumper and wouldn't find Pretentious, Pop-Pistol and Peanuts to her taste. I sometimes think she posts stuff to "own" me, and doubt very much she is Karen, Cassandra of Texas (whom, because I don't muck around much in comments anymore I am unfamiliar with)
She has grown. During her campaign, and for maybe the 1st year of being VP, there were regular articles in the SF Chronicle of anonymous staffers complaining she was disorganized and.really, really mean. That stopped, eventually, and hasn't resurfaced yet, though I expect Republicans to scape them up soon. I think she learned the hard way in public how to build and manage a staff at that level, but she learned. She was beat up a lot, and what they've go so far is warmed-over gossip. The ratfuckers are about to descend on her staff, I hope they're ready.
Just rereading today and struck by this bit, so adroit and incisive: "the insane powers for evil conceded to the presidency by the Supreme Court even as it strips the office of its power to do good." I do not think historians will put it any better in 75 years, and I hope the situation is fixed before events give them a reason to try.
Thanks for noticing, that's my favorite bit of the post.
This thread (below) is exactly what I was talking about the other day — me trying to argue with conservatives about the DEI concept, and the "checkmate" they always deploy:
https://substack.com/@catherinehawkins622411/note/c-63234153
I snuck a reply in there, tell me what you think.
https://substack.com/profile/872487-yastreblyansky/note/c-63288241
https://substack.com/profile/872487-yastreblyansky/note/c-63287585
Good stuff. I was concerned because I know you are disinclined (as you said) to get into this rhetorical quagmire...but, like, we're here, and I keep trying to find the Kryptonite.
And the specific rhetorical strategy? (Of refusing to be defensive.) Would it work for you?
There is more:
https://substack.com/@catherinehawkins622411/note/c-63295790?utm_source=activity_item
Ugh.
“nearly every large American company has openly declared that they are deliberately targeting women and minorities in hiring”—Why? Are they all crazy? Or do they know something she doesn’t know?
Meanwhile, small companies (half of all US employees) resist diversity and don’t have access to applicants outside their community even if they wanted to try.
Nice