
From what I've read of last night's post-debate chatter and scads this morning — scads; understatement — I seem to be in some sort of unperceptive, pathetically delusional and lilliputian minority, its essence to follow the following one short paragraph.
But I don't seem and most certainly have been running far behind this morning and early afternoon. It occurs to my (ineluctable, no really, I befoozle you not) tardiness that an easy fix for, and quickest presentation of, my unperceptive delusions is to publish, unedited, my already existing answer to a good friend's query about my thoughts on the debate. Which were:
"I thought Biden did as well as possible given that so much of his time had to be spent on factchecking Trump. The job fell to him alone since CNN abdicated its journalistic duty. That's hardly unique to CNN, though. Most of what voters see of him in interviews goes for what they hear as well — Trump and only Trump.
"He's allowed to babble away, spewing lie after lie as the interviewer just moves on to the next question. That, or if the interviewer does note a lie, Trump merely repeats, or elaborates on it, or muddles by babbling away on some unrelated topic — he has perfected the art of distraction. Again, last night Biden had to do what the moderators didn't: factcheck the buffoon, which largely obviated his chances of adding substance to the debate.
"And now Democrats are doing what they do best, freaking out."
I also could have simply reposted commenter Anne's pithy and exquisitely sharp-eyed, scarcely made-elsewhere post:
"I get sick and tired of all the whining and complaining from voters and idiot commentators thar we are 'stuck' with Biden and Trump, conveniently forgetting that they are the two who won the majority of all votes. Democrats had the opportunity to nominate someone else in 2020, but they (myself included) chose him. I have no regrets about my choice."
A few dull-blade comments apart from those I self-quoted above are scattered among these debate-opinion segments I came across much earlier in the a.m. and selected as highlights. I've not bothered with links; word on my dubious honor the quotes are untampered with, unlike witnesses in a Trump criminal trial.
Rachel Leingang, The Guardian: "[Biden's] low-energy, muted and garbled performance didn’t live up to expectations."
Exactly whose expectations we are left to guess. Mine would be one, as you might have read in a couple pre-debate posts. I've no disagreement with that verdict — after verdict, after verdict and on to commentariat-infinity verdicts. Perhaps one should say lower energy; sweet Jesus the man is four score and one year old, just six years short of Lincoln's America of four score and seven years.
(Trump won't make it that long, I suspect. Hundreds45 of double cheeseburgers are at this moment conspiring to gather of a sudden inside his teensy-weensy Grinch heart. If not, I'll give them a call.)
Leingang added: Remember "Biden challenged the former president to the debate, which looks like a strategic error in retrospect."
This and other furiously redundant observations have and will continue landing in print and flying above on-air masquerading as original thought. I'm more furious that rare is their is their immediate, additional observation of authentic strategic-or-not Trumpian blunders and more so his carpet-bombing the republic of democracy-annihilating, dictatorship-establishing and economy-devastating plans for a term two — or so. Is all that not far worthier of high-paid opinionating than Biden's low-energy, muted "performance"?
Melissa DeRosa, Daily Beast: "Longtime Obama adviser David Axelrod [tweeted] nearly seven months ago, 'Only @JoeBiden can make this decision' [to drop out]'. I agreed with Axelrod, but watching the swift reaction of the Democratic establishment in tarring and feathering him as a traitor, I kept my feelings to myself.... I agreed with Axelrod."
She's not ashamed, she is unembarrassed, to write that? A confession that she expresses in ink only that which she's certain will find favorable reception from the Dem establishment and, given that, from her trained, fellow housebroken parrots as well.
Aaron Blake, The Washington Post: "Biden came out raspy and with relatively little vigor or inflection in his voice. He stumbled over his words and lines of argument." Blake lamented the mostly absent substance: "Biden struggled to make his points and drive the contrasts."
As noted — Biden's to blame for having to do CNN's job of fact-checking Trump?
Andrew Ross Sorkin, The NY Times: "Democratic donors exchanged panicked texts and emails with one question: What’s Plan B?"
Here, though, is the one must-read entry from Sorkin's DealBook: "Biden’s halting, shaky performance against a confident (if sometimes misleading) showing by Donald Trump has set off alarm among Democrats."
Italics mine, but surely my chortling was shared by untold gazillions across the globe.
David Chalian, CNN political director, in Editor & Publisher: "The venue of a presidential debate between these two candidates is not the ideal venue for a live fact-checking exercise.”
Yes, and that would be your opinion no doubt, mine too — as well as Jeremy Barr's, WaPo: "[Chalian's words were] borne out during the debate."
Karen Tumulty, WaPo: "It will be difficult for even the most creative spinners in President Biden’s camp to manufacture a victory narrative out of his dreadful performance at Thursday night’s debate."
Ordinarily Tumulty is mild-mannered and, above all, bland. Now with Monty Python something almost completely different, she breaks character by going harshly vituperative — yet her ill-created blandness remains safely intact as but one of the hostile gathering crowd.
Matt Lewis, also the Beast: "Biden’s hoarse voice and aged appearance ... [and] looking and sounding way too old to be president ... were on full display." Mellisa DeRosa-like, Lewis hastily ran for cover via pundit consensus: "And it’s not just me saying that. This was a universal opinion of almost every intellectually honest observer."
A slice more of Lewis' depth: "Trump seemed (for Trump) pretty sedate and coherent. To be sure, he presented fanciful solutions and scenarios.... During several occasions, Trump simply told obvious untruths."
With that we envision Lewis' thunder-god Thor coming down with his mjölnir to terrifying, shocking and bone-chilling effect. No rational American and emphatically no sane commentator would want an obvious untruthteller in the WH. So, Thor's mjölnir? At least a ball-peen hammer? Lewis instead opted for a salute to Trump's restraint: Those obvious untruths "he delivered in a much calmer and persuasive manner than normal." Hence elaborate lies become markedly subordinate in importance to their calm, persuasive delivery.
I shall close with ...
Daniel Dale, CNN's full=time, tireless factchecker of Trump and evidently not of the intellectually honest-observer crowd: His "just released," properly focused commentary and pretty much wholesale debate assessment was, "It turns out Donald Trump lied on just about every answer."
Recent Comments