"How Did So Many Elected Democrats Miss Biden’s Infirmity?"

The title is from a Michelle Goldberg op-ed headline.

Who missed his "infirmity"? The true question is whether he was so infirm that he was unable to govern. That STILL has not been made apparent to me. As she quotes from a new book about 'Biden's deterioration":

More significantly, from up close, the White House mostly didn’t seem that dysfunctional. Tapper and Thompson, it’s important to note, don’t report that Biden’s addled state led to poor judgment, at least aside from the catastrophic choice to run for re-election. Indeed, they wrote, Biden critics they spoke to “continued to the end to attest to his ability to make sound decisions, if on his own schedule.”

Okay? Like after the debate, we will now have many articles providing details of "his decline," which overall will tell us what we generally knew. He was old, somewhat fragile, and (more than some other politicians) seemed that way.

So, one article reports audio of his interview with special counsel Robert Hur included him "speaking slowly, often with long pauses, as he seeks to mentally assemble a sequence of events." Biden traditionally had a reputation for rambling, and his stutter resulted in other verbal quirks. 

The bottom line, however, is that his administration appeared to be running smoothly. It was particularly risky to "switch horses in midstream," and Biden already beat Trump. We did not "have our druthers." 

If the stakes were lower, maybe you would take the risk of running someone else, taking the big step of someone not running for reelection. Yes, someone younger, and we can point to the need to move on in Congress, too.  

It made sense for him to run again. Likewise, when did Nancy Pelosi step down? Not in 2021 but after the Democrats passed their program, and lost the 2022 elections.  

A case can be made that Biden should have said early on that he would not run again. This would have provided more time for a new candidate to emerge. 

Or, it would have given Kamala Harris more time to run. It also would not have led to concerns that the process was illegitimate or slipshod or that the Democrats were in disarray. All of that is reasonable to talk about. 

Nonetheless, it is quite understandable that people wanted to retain the status quo. A status quo where Biden "continued to make sound decisions" and the presidency was going on rather smoothly. 

The "infirmity" that is being "missed" there is unclear. His fragility was not a secret. OTOH, people generally argued he was doing the job. The op-ed suggests the book does not say otherwise. 

I do not plan to read the book (sorry) to determine how much Biden was "addled." The alternative in November was Donald Trump. The choice was obvious to sane people.

The ultimate problem, from what I can see, was that Democrats (including myself) were taking a risk. Biden had a lousy debate, and we saw how things went. 

We don't know what would have happened otherwise. For instance, Kamala Harris had a great debate. Trump looked horrible. Did it matter? If the papers wanted to do so, they could have lots of articles and op-eds about how the debate showed Trump was unfit. 

They did not. 

The op-ed makes a general comment about "gerontocracy" in Washington. After all, the Senate pro tempore is Chuck Grassley, who is over 90. That line is less easy to make in the House, even if some older Democrats won out in committee spots. The leadership slots moved on from Pelosi et. al. 

I don't think that was the reason people did not want to risk moving on from Joe Biden. He was a safe choice in 2020. Goldberg argues he had a good shot at beating Trump in 2016. Joe Biden himself has certain qualities people like.

We also have this talk about policy:

Had Biden been younger, Tapper and Thompson suggest, he might have been more forceful on the border. I suspect that his anachronistic view of Israel, dating back to the heyday of Labor Zionism, is partly responsible for his refusal to stand up to Benjamin Netanyahu. But on a day-to-day basis, the administration often looked, to those who shared its priorities, to be doing a decent job.

Seriously? Who the hell is "standing up" to Israel these days? Schumer criticized BN, yes, but anyone who criticizes Israel overall much at all is tarred as almost a traitor. The border bit is also a stretch, whatever it exactly means. 

Biden was very well "doing a decent job." In fact, he was doing a rather good job. I didn't want him to win the primary in 2020. I acknowledge he was the right person for the job at that time. He was still making sound decisions.

So, yes, I thought it made sense for him to run for reelection. I knew he was old. Duh. We as a nation failed in 2024. It is unclear to me that Biden not stepping down sooner was the reason that happened. 

Appearances matter in politics. Once the debate occurred, and there was a constant drumbeat that he was unfit (which I STILL am not sure was warranted), he had to go. He did go. As the authors acknowledge, his sound judgment remained.