Sigh, so Joe Biden is in. His sole claim to the nomination is that only he can beat Trump. Is that true? I don't know. Maybe anybody can beat Trump. Maybe nobody can beat Trump. Maybe Bernie can and Kamala can't, or Kamala can and Bernie can't, or a ticket of Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar or Booker and Beto can. Maybe Biden should be every candidate's first choice for Vice President, since he has more experience at that job than anyone since Spiro T. Agnew.
I cannot tell you how depressing I find it all.
On the other hand, it is spring, and I saw a beautiful bright red cardinal this morning on my walk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
We're on the same wave length today. I just listened to this Amy Goodman interview with Andrew Cockburn (who has some moments of true wit) about Biden and Biden is depressing, as you say. If Biden is the best the Democrats can come up with to run against Trump, we're even in worse shape than I had thought.
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/4/25/from_crime_bill_to_iraq_war
To counteract the to feeling of doom in the pit of my stomach over this news, I've been re-reading some pieces by Nathan Robinson, over at Current Affairs, who offers this optimistic take on Bernie's chances.
OK, I read it, and it cheered me up enormously. Do you suppose any of it is true?
I never thought Joe Biden a good pick for much of anything, though for the idle role of Vice-president, I suppose him particularly gifted. Delaware, by the way, is our home-country's state of choice as a tax -haven. Why isn't he questioned more about this? Perusal of the crop of Democratic aspirants for 2020 yields nothing but ennui. The ever-pleading quality of Elizabeth Warren's manner is destined to cloy, just as "Mayor Pete's", stolidly practiced wholesomeness. But we have our Bernie, counsel's my cat, Opal. And with her opinion I shall rest---notwithstanding that she's taken to sleeping in her cat-litter box.
There's one thing I like about Joe Biden, and it's rather similar to something I liked about Cheney and Bush. When Obama and Clinton for instance were running, and/or in office, it took serious due diligence to find the 'real facts' that undermined their public rhetoric, or to establish what they 'really believed' but do not say in speeches or interviews. Basically critiquing articulate liberals, from the left, can be difficult and tiresome, and we all rely on Chomsky to do our homework for us.
With Cheney and Bush, they simply did not give a flying fuck after a while what the public thought and were practically shouting from the roof tops "Yeah we torture, maim, pillage, and plunder, and if you don't like it, go fuck yourself". I can appreciate that. Less research and due diligence when the enemy is flagrant.
Biden is somewhat similar in that he cannot help but make MAJOR FREUDIAN SLIPS in nearly all his interviews, and clearly reveals too much too often in a rather off the cuff sort of fashion. Good, less homework to critique him.
An off topic comment here, but on my afternoon walk (from the staff lounge to return to my office) I spied a new book from Johns Hopkins UP, Henry Reichman, The Future of Academic Freedom, in which RPW appears cited twice and quite favorably.
So long as he spells my name right. :)
Post a Comment