New Books on the US Election Are Damning

[PeterRS]

Stand by for a slew of new books about why Joe Biden hung on to power well beyond his sell-by date and the Democrats remain struggling to come out of the mess of losing the election. Many will have more than a few nuggets of truth, but undoubtedly many will also depend on unnamed sources. Still, from all the advance PR, Biden is going to come out of it as the villain of the piece with others around him being in virtually the same category.

Let me start with a small remembrance. More than 30 years ago I was sitting with friends in their Tokyo apartment when the Senate hearings on President Bush I's pick for the Supreme Court was being grilled. Clarence Thomas had been touted as the best man for the job even though he had been a judge for just one year. His good character was one of the reasons put before the committee for his suitablity (well, we now know what a lie that was) but a gremlin had suddenly appeared. Now a Professor at Brandeis University, Anita Hill one of Thomas's previous employees stated before the committee that she had been sexually harassed by Thomas. She mentioned a pubic hair he had left on a can of coca cola. He allegedly spoke about his own sexual prowess and described a part of his anatomy. Four female witnesses were waiting to speak and confirm Hill's testimony. As reported in the LA Times, the Chairman of the committee did a deal with its Republican representatives to ensure they were not called and their statements never included in the record. That Chairman was Joe Biden.

A polygraph test showed Hill was telling the truth, Thomas refused to take one. The committee gave him 24 hours to come up with a rebuttal to Hill's allegations. Instead of doing so, he was a Shakespearean Shylock in the guise of Lady Macbeth all but shouting at the Committee it was putting up with a "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks." As I watched that, I was shocked. It was obviously a case of "methinks he doth protest too much." It was clear to my colleagues and me that Hill had spoken the truth. Yet Biden's committee approved the Thomas nomination. It was on that occasion that I lost any faith in Biden.  

Back to the books. Arguably the most visible will be "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-up and his Disastrous Choice To Run Again" by CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios Correspondent Alex Thomson.  Tapper, you may recall, was the moderator in the disastrous Biden/Trump televised debate. They write “what the world saw at Joe Biden’s one and only debate was not an anomaly — it was not a cold, it was not someone who was under or overprepared, it was not someone who was just a little tired. It was the natural result of an eighty-one-year-old man whose faculties had been diminishing for years.”

The book is embargoed until publication on May 20. A release issued by the publisher Penguin Books states, “What you will learn makes President Biden’s decision to run for reelection seem shockingly narcissistic, self-delusional, and reckless — a desperate bet that went bust — and part of a larger act of extended public deception that has few precedents" . . . Biden, “his family, and his senior aides were so convinced that only he could beat Trump again, they lied to themselves, allies, and the public about his condition and limitations”.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/26/media/joe-biden-book-jake-tapper-alex-thompson/index.html

Another is Chris Whipple's "Uncharted: How Trump Beat Harris, Biden and the Odds in the Wildest Campaign in History." He argues that Biden's wife and close advisers were in a "fog of delusion and denial" over what to them was clearly Biden's failing health and unfitness for continuing in the job. Whipple notes that in the days leading up to his disastrous debate with President Trump, Biden "was in a terrible state. He was absolutely exhausted. He was unable really to follow what was happening in the campaign. He was tuned out . . . Early on, he walked out of a [debate preparation] session in the Aspen Lodge, the president's cabin, went over to the pool, sank into a lounge chair, and just fell sound asleep."

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/08/nx-s1-5354956/bidens-decline-uncharted-chris-whipple

Earlier this month, one book was released. In "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for The White House", authors Jonathan  Allen and Amie Parnes claim the writing was on the wall for Biden long before his frailty was exposed in the debate with Trump. In an interview published in The Guardian, they allege that top Democrats began having “hush-hush talks” as early as 2023 to plot how to handle Biden’s risky reelection bid, preparing the party to be ready for every possible scenario in which Biden was unable to continue his campaign. "One veteran operative summed up the sentiments of Democrats who worried they would get stuck with Harris but still wanted Biden out: "Well, at least she has a pulse," the book notes.

https://people.com/biden-looked-heartbreaking-up-close-post-debate-interview-uncharted-book-11706428

Harris might have had "pulse", but she blew her campaign out of the water on the US TV show "The View". When asked  the question that everyone but Harris seemed to know was comiing, "What would you do differently from Joe Biden?" Despite weeks of preparation she froze and said, "Well, I can't think of a single thing." Her campaign from then on was effectively dead in the water.

[PeterRS]

The Guardian newspaper has received an advance copy of "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, It's Cover Up and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again." To say it is damning is - well - ultra-mild. Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's devastating expose results in David Plouffe who managed Barack Obama's unexpected victory in 2008 being totally clear: "He totally fucked us". Drafted in to try and help Kamala Harris campaign, it was says Plouffe, "a fucking nightmare . . . and it's all Biden"

Members of Congress, major donors, White House staffers, campaign insiders and journalists were all perfectly well aware that Biden stood no chance against a lying, belligerent Trump. His "diminshing energy, cognitative skills and ability to deliver a speech" were obvious to his family and close members of staff from the beginning of 2023. But they chose to shield Biden at every turn.

As the article points out, "A prominent Democratic strategist says of Biden’s determination to seek re-election: 'It was an abomination. He stole an election from the Democratic party; he stole it from the American people.'”

"Original Sin" tells how prominent figures tried to intervene in various ways. None was successful against the praetorian guard protecting his failing mental acuity and the extent of his decline. As a result they succeeded in achieving what Biden most wanted to avoid: the return of Trump!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/12/biden-harris-david-plouffe-book

[vinapu]

3 hours ago, PeterRS said:

 

As the article points out, "A prominent Democratic strategist says of Biden’s determination to seek re-election: 'It was an abomination. He stole an election from the Democratic party; he stole it from the American people.'”

 

Democratic party estabilishment  stole that election from themselves by making Biden their  candidate.

I hope in 4, 8 , 12 , 16 and 20 from now I will be able to say the same about Republican party and their 2024 candidate, world acclaimed Orange Overlord

[floridarob]

How many books from previous staffers, relatives, etc.. of Trump told about how he was/is a disaster.... yet people voted for him.

Hindsight is 20/20 or Monday morning quarterbacks..... she lost by 2 million votes, which isn't really a lot...95 million didn't vote, always the problem for Democrats, they eat their own or are too lazy to show up to vote.... Republicans on the other hand, while there  are fewer, they  show up for EVERY election, primary, runoff, school and special election and doesn't matter if their person is a pedophile or felon, they stand behind them.....

[PeterRS]

The next little nugget from "Original Sin" appears in today's CNN website. When Biden arrived at the mega-George Clooney fundraiser, he did not know who Clooney was!

 "The president appeared 'severely diminished', as if he’d aged a decade since Clooney last saw him in December 2022 . . . 'You know George,' the assisting aide told the president, gently reminding him who was in front of him. 'Yeah, yeah,' the president said to one of the most recognizable men in the world, the host of this lucrative fundraiser. 'Thank you for being here' . . . 

"Biden’s apparent inability to recognize Clooney was one of the starkest signs of his physical and mental decline in the final year of his presidency . . . The Clooney fundraiser took place on June 15, less than two weeks before the debate. Clooney was 'shaken to his core' by the interaction with a man he’d known for years, Tapper and Thompson report."

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/13/politics/biden-book-george-clooney

[Pete1111]

I recall during the 2020 campaign hearing how Biden would only serve one term.  Perhaps his team was gaslighting us.

My only positive thought back then was the idea that Biden was the only candidate able to beat Trump, or so we were told.  Perhaps that was more gaslighting.

Looking back over the decades, I contemplate how much better off we'd be with alternate choices.   I did not like Bill Clinton or Joe Biden.  Looking ahead, will the Democrats learn anything from past mistakes and from these recent books?

I question whether a workable strategy exists.

[PeterRS]

29 minutes ago, Pete1111 said:

I question whether a workable strategy exists.

And is there a more effective form of government than short-term democracy? Oh, I know, Winston Churchill's famous quote about democracy - only that is not what he actually said! In a speech in the House of Commons in November 1947, he said,

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

So he was only indirectly quoting what he had heard or assumed others had said.

We all tend to think of democracy as being founded by Greek civilisation. Two other quotes are, in my view, interesting. The first was a caution about democracy written by the Greek philosopher Plato - 

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty."

The second by one of the USA's founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson -

"The cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate."

I find it fascinating that Americans - especially politicians - constantly refer back to the Constitution and their founding fathers. Yet never once before have I heard any US politician refer to the requirement for an "educated electorate" being a necessary "cornerstone". Leaving aside any definition of "educated", almost certainly the majority of the electorate in the USA - and other countries for that matter - are not educated in the sense that Jefferson intended. And this surely is a primary reason for the failures of democratic government virtually since 1900.

[vinapu]

1 hour ago, PeterRS said:

 

"The cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate."

 

that's too optimistic. When I look back at my quite long life one of most surprising things is how many  stupid people I met were actually pretty well educated.

[PeterRS]

2 hours ago, vinapu said:

"The cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate."

that's too optimistic. When I look back at my quite long life one of most surprising things is how many  stupid people I met were actually pretty well educated.

You will have noted that I did add "educated electorate' as Jefferson intended. And I do not believe that necessarily means the education attainment of individuals. You can have a Masters degree and still know little about society and the world outside your own speciality.

Another of Jefferson's quotes is equally important here - 

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” 

I think as a basis for discussion it is actually very timely. I already mentioned in a post in another thread that probably half of the population of the United States have never travelled outside it. Actually the figure is a bit less at around 40%. But then add in some other statistics -

- 11% have never travelled outside the state in which they were born;

- 54% have travelled only to ten US states or less.

When in the 21st century what happens around the world has some meaning for most countries, I think this is quite damning. It means voting for a national leader is based almost exclusively on local preferences. That may have had some validity well over a century ago. It is not true now. in my view. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lealane/2019/05/02/percentage-of-americans-who-never-traveled-beyond-the-state-where-they-were-born-a-surprise/

[Keithambrose]

5 hours ago, vinapu said:

that's too optimistic. When I look back at my quite long life one of most surprising things is how many  stupid people I met were actually pretty well educated.

How true!

[floridarob]

13 hours ago, vinapu said:

one of most surprising things is how many  stupid people I met were actually pretty well educated.

Intelligent idiots.

[Riobard]

17 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

How true!

I give up. Backslapping brigade much? You must be a cut above simply because you could never be deficient because you imply such and you are the arbiter of whose intelligence is substandard and incongruent with education. Nobody but somebody with a superiority complex would express such an observation. Nobody with an evident superiority complex is not somewhat stupid as well as unpainted into their corner. 

[vinapu]

1 hour ago, Riobard said:

I give up.

not a bad idea

[Keithambrose]

6 hours ago, Riobard said:

I give up. Backslapping brigade much? You must be a cut above simply because you could never be deficient because you imply such and you are the arbiter of whose intelligence is substandard and incongruent with education. Nobody but somebody with a superiority complex would express such an observation. Nobody with an evident superiority complex is not somewhat stupid as well as unpainted into their corner. 

Translation please.. 

[thaiophilus]

2 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

Translation please.. 

LLM o3-mini says: 

 

The text you provided is already in English. However, if you'd like a clearer or paraphrased version, here’s one way to render it:

"I give up. Are you part of some sycophantic group? You must assume you're superior simply because you claim never to be deficient, because you imply that, and because you consider yourself the judge of who has subpar intelligence and education. Only someone with a superiority complex would make such a statement. And anyone with an obvious superiority complex is, in turn, somewhat foolish and self-isolated."

This paraphrase retains the original meaning while using somewhat more straightforward language. Let me know if you'd like any further adjustments!

[Keithambrose]

2 minutes ago, thaiophilus said:

LLM o3-mini says: 

 

The text you provided is already in English. However, if you'd like a clearer or paraphrased version, here’s one way to render it:

"I give up. Are you part of some sycophantic group? You must assume you're superior simply because you claim never to be deficient, because you imply that, and because you consider yourself the judge of who has subpar intelligence and education. Only someone with a superiority complex would make such a statement. And anyone with an obvious superiority complex is, in turn, somewhat foolish and self-isolated."

This paraphrase retains the original meaning while using somewhat more straightforward language. Let me know if you'd like any further adjustments!

A form of English, I would suggest. Your paraphrase is at least shorter.

[Riobard]

4 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

Translation please.. 

I’ll give this version of response an interpretative shot. 

”My vindictive snap queen dictatorial prerogative to determine the merit of content requires nothing more than smartass labelling what I know to be intelligible as unreadable. Deprived the degree of influence I desperately crave, I’ll gobble up whatever crumbs of validation are sent my way and I’ll regurgitate them with the set habitual response of ‘translation please’ because creativity is not the point of a troll. Hopefully not many will notice that I have no more to say than a media hack.” 

[Riobard]

8 hours ago, vinapu said:

not a bad idea

You’re everywhere. Is that good for everbody? 

[vinapu]

12 minutes ago, Riobard said:

You’re everywhere. Is that good for everybody? 

not sure is good for everybody, if such thing exists at all but I know at least one it's good for. Last time I saw him it was in the mirror this morning

[Riobard]

14 minutes ago, vinapu said:

not sure is good for everybody, if such thing exists at all but I know at least one it's good for. Last time I saw him it was in the mirror this morning

Holy moly. Does he sleep? Unplug? On commission? Fears a chatroom ball dropped is apocalyptic? 

[Riobard]

2 hours ago, thaiophilus said:

LLM o3-mini says: 

 

The text you provided is already in English. However, if you'd like a clearer or paraphrased version, here’s one way to render it:

"I give up. Are you part of some sycophantic group? You must assume you're superior simply because you claim never to be deficient, because you imply that, and because you consider yourself the judge of who has subpar intelligence and education. Only someone with a superiority complex would make such a statement. And anyone with an obvious superiority complex is, in turn, somewhat foolish … 

I would neither employ the label of reciprocal sycophancy nor object to the idea that it’s just been perfectly illustrated. 

[Riobard]

On 5/20/2025 at 10:46 PM, vinapu said:

that's too optimistic. When I look back at my quite long life one of most surprising things is how many  stupid people I met were actually pretty well educated.

When what is superiorly and flawlessly smart, unable to let go, meets what’s in the aforementioned mirror? 

[floridarob]

16 hours ago, vinapu said:

not a bad idea

You've taken my sarcasm  job over, I've been refraining lately from a lot of posts 😝

[vinapu]

7 hours ago, Riobard said:

When what is superiorly and flawlessly smart, unable to let go, meets what’s in the aforementioned mirror? 

 

Sunday , right after church I guess