Joe Biden will not be the Democratic nominee in Novemberā€™s presidential election, thankfully. He is not withdrawing because heā€™s being held responsible for enabling war crimes against the Palestinian people (though a recent poll does have nearly 40 percent of Americans saying theyā€™re less likely to vote for him thanks to his handling of the war). Yet itā€™s impossible to extricate the collapse in public faith in the Biden campaign from the ā€œuncommittedā€ movement for Gaza. They were the first people to refuse him their votes, and defections from within the presidentā€™s base hollowed out his support well in advance of the debate.

The Democrats and their presumptive nominee Kamala Harris are faced with a choice: On the one hand, they can continue Bidenā€™s monstrous support for Netanyahu, the brutal IDF, and Israelā€™s genocide of Palestinians. That would help allow the party to cover for Biden and put a positive spin on a smooth handoff, even though we all know this would mainly benefit the embittered president himself and his small coterie of loyalists. Such a choice would confirm that the institutional rot that allowed the current situation to develop still characterizes the party.

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    4 months ago

    Oddly enough, there wasnā€™t after the bombing of Pearl harbor.

    Tit for tat. Sorry our tat was bigger.

      • YeetPics@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I donā€™t recall ever saying that.

        I apologized our boom was bigger. It was genuine. Should never have happened.

        I would, however, argue that a blow designed to end combat is more ethical than one intended to wound and mame.