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·
      3 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
          3 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.