When Vice President Kamala Harris pushed President Joe Biden aside to seize the Democratic Party presidential nomination, the move was universally praised by those with a rooting interest. Sure, Harris had a history of being an inauthentic, unlikable politician, but she wasn’t going to melt down on a debate stage due to accelerating senility.
After spending years suggesting the vice president might need to be booted from the 2024 ticket, the press and Democrats alike (but I repeat myself) were suddenly convinced she was the best option to lead it. To be fair, desperate times call for desperate measures, and Biden’s situation was certainly desperate.
Some on the right warned, though, that it was just a matter of time before Harris overstayed her welcome with American voters, and with her campaign floundering, the question is finally being raised: Was Joe Biden the better option all along?
No matter who wins, we have to ask: Would President Biden have been a better candidate and choice despite suffering from the effects of age and 81 years? Further, suppose that the disastrous June 27 debate with Trump had not taken place, or that Biden had been firing on all cylinders that night. Would Biden have been forced to withdraw? And whether Harris loses or wins, some will ask whether Biden might still have been a better candidate.
You’re probably wondering what is prompting this sudden introspection from Democrats. According to the piece, Bob Woodward’s new book is serving as the catalyst because it spoke highly of Biden’s ability to lead behind the scenes.
Bob Woodward’s new book, “War,” might not be dispositive in representing Biden’s strengths and weaknesses. The book does add weight to this thought experiment, though. Woodward paints a very positive picture of Biden’s ability to lead and to govern despite making mistakes, most notably the disastrous withdrawal from Kabul.
Woodward also reports that Biden’s obvious decline was physical and not mental. This was caused in part by prior medical conditions accelerating the effects of age on a body. There were also the strains of high office; the president refused to limit his overworked schedule despite valid criticisms that he was on near-permanent holiday in Delaware or Camp David.
I understand that Democrats are feeling the heat. Donald Trump has the momentum, and no campaign wants to be hitting its roughest patch just two weeks before the end of the cycle. With that said, anyone taking Bob Woodward’s word about Biden’s condition is deluding themselves.
Woodward is a massive left-wing hack with a soft spot for the older generation of Democratic Party leadership. It should surprise no one that he glossed over Biden’s condition and insisted there was no mental decline. No honest person could have observed the president over the last several years and come to any conclusion but that he’s suffering through severe mental decline.
Still, despite all that, was Biden the better option? Could he have smoothed over concerns about his health in the latter days of the campaign and capitalized on his traditional strength in the so-called “blue wall” states? It’s not crazy to ponder given Harris’ inherent weakness in those key battlegrounds. Perhaps Biden was the best of two bad choices.
Of course, the only reason any of this is being discussed is because Harris’ campaign has objectively hit the skids. As I’ve said before, I’m far too much of a cynic to outright predict she will lose, but I don’t think it’s stepping out on much of a limb to suggest she’s holding the worst hand. Whether that changes or not, we’ll see, but the panic among Democrats is palpable.
All the freaking out about Trump visiting a McDonald’s is just the latest example of how on edge they are. Perhaps all their consternation ends up being for naught, but right now, the the broader left clearly thinks she is going to lose, and that says something.
