I would just edit this in, but editing anything after posting an embedded tweet is a messy affair, especially if other links are included. I've come to appreciate it as a disincentive structure, of sorts, but otherwise I'd spare hubski another comment. Doing this because I think I'd have liked to have had a "But Her Emails" and "Hillary's health questions" chronicling, which is essentially happening all over again. Completely agree with every element of Beau's take about tonight's ABC interview of Biden, it's worth the 8 minutes: And you know? It's sad that Biden talking about his administration's accomplishments is going to be the first time so many ABC viewers or Biden campaign season watchers hear about them. It's sad that a broken, self-destructing government drives media revenue so much higher than a functioning administration. Just some cool profit-seeking. No responsibility. Meanwhile, the interview should've been declared successful the moment Laura Loomer tweeted the lie that Biden had a medical emergency aboard Air Force One on the way home, which was of course picked up by Fox News contributors and at least one scumbag senator. Because we really needed one more example of the asymmetrical media environment.
I'll add- even without the medias spin, Biden giving a competent interview is about the least exciting story ever. So just from like a , what's fun to talk about point of view , its starting from a bad place.
It is post-debate day #15. I think it's officially Joever. The "pivotal press conference" headline is a fine example. It would be against the current rules of American pol pundits to say "he talked ok", even though he did, and even considering the use of teleprompter. The pundit class has found a way, simultaneously, to split the dems nearly down the middle on the presidential nominee while also keeping the substance of Biden's speeches almost entirely sidelined. Flip-side of the same-thing: Trump confidently lied throughout the entire debate and has been well-rewarded for it. Yeah, Biden got Gaza-Israel suuuuuper wrong, but the NATO tack is.. more than mostly OK. Which is a pretty goddamn glowing endorsement from me, when scaled to statements I typically make on geopolitics. I don't want to abandon our European (and other!) allies. They don't deserve it. But yeah, the NATO speech doesn't matter. It just doesn't. That's how this works. The NYTimes did publish a 5,000-word essay on why Trump shouldn't run a couple days ago, but the damage is done. No I'm sure the media would treat Kamala fairly and make any arguments against her in good faith (>release X to stop lying) edit: Oh yeah, btw, spence, we got another "experts say" in the screencap headlines, it's been less than two or three weeks since the last one. God, that and "critics claim" is practically essing fascist dee, at this point edit2: meanwhile >miffed shrug emoji edit3: too good not to chronicle today's WaPo spread:
