On my kitchen wall there’s a poster with a slogan from World War II Britain: “Keep Calm and Carry On.” In the wake of the recent presidential debate (also known as The Debacle), pundit wannabes could use a sign like that. They fell all over each other pronouncing President Biden down for the count.
The worst offender was the New York Times Editorial Board, which should be charged with journalistic malfeasance. Almost before the MSNBC talking heads had finished their OMGs over Biden’s poorish performance on Thursday night, the NYT Board was out of the gate on the Internet (“digital edition”) calling for his scalp, a cry they repeated in print in the Sunday Opinion section:
“As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble. There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency. “
And there were plenty more top-tier newsies and editorial writers who announced the same hasty conclusion.
Why?
Granted, the president was somewhat hoarse, and he obviously struggled not to revert to his childhood stutter. And yes, he seemed a bit fuzzy, with trouble choosing words and finishing sentences.
Why was he sounding like that? Watching at home I made an immediate diagnosis before he’d spoken the equivalent of three grafs: he had a cold, of course.
But colds don’t make you fuzzy, do they?
No, but as an experienced home medicator (daughter,spouse,parent, grandparent) I can tell you that a vast array of OTC (over the counter) cold remedies do. I’ve learned from personal experience not to take any of the stuff Big Pharma would like you to buy at CVS or Walgreens before doing anything moderately complicated, like driving … or participating in a debate.
I’m not a doctor, or at least just a J.D, not an M.D. That’s why I was gratified to learn that a trio of Yale professors, including two genuine M.Ds, agreed with my diagnosis. Their conclusion appeared on Saturday on the MedPage Today site::
“The most probable explanation for this transient period of cognitive impairment in an older person with a cold is a side effect of cold medications. If this is so, the handwringing should cease, and we should use the debate as a reminder of how common such reactions are rather than an indication that the president is chronically debilitated.”
Unfortunately, it seems that President Biden’s handlers, including his lovely wife perhaps, didn’t realize this. If the man had a bad cold, he should have been advised to announce that he’d lost his voice and offer to set another date.
Now, after the damage has occurred, here’s the advice of the Yale doctors:
“We need to know if President Biden took cold medications before the debate. His doctors should assess the role they may have played. How the American people assess the debate hinges on the answer. It would be tragic to magnify the meaning of an ill-timed adverse drug effect -- and potentially have it change the course of history.”
But following such sober advice is no fun for the commentariat. Sunday’s NYT Opinion is loaded with what Jamelle Bouie, interviewed there, called “hyperventilating panic”. His own comments are the exception; he catalogs the “fatal downsides to Biden leaving the race” which seem to have escaped the notice of his NYTO colleagues.
The Board members in particular don’t seem to be aware of how hard it would be for Democrats to mount a real campaign for a new candidate at this stage. They claimed, remember, that
“There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency. “
Really? Who?
Liberals, traditionally Nervous Nellies always looking for alternatives, need to be constantly reminded that you can’t beat someone with no one, and the devil you know is usually the safer choice. An assortment of governors with little name recognition outside their own states would be risky even two years out, and we’re down to single digit numbers of months now. Senators are needed right where they are. Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom have negatives well known to Californians.
The Times Editorial Board, like similar boards of other well-funded prestige papers, is populated by and large by people who have no real-life political experience. They tend to overestimate the influence of “independent” or “undecided” voters. From an early job as a campaign manager I know that people who describe themselves thus actually seldom vote. “Infrequent” registered voters on the rolls have probably moved away. Of the probable voters, a very small percentage will be changing their minds because of this debate.
As NYT and its competitors become more and more digital, man-bites-dog excitement becomes more and more desired as clickbait. Follow-up to the debate conspicuously lacked factchecking of Trump’s 90 straight minutes of lies—where’s the news in that? He performed as expected.
As my daughter pointed out to me, it’s a lot easier to deliver a smooth presentation if you don’t worry about facts, which is why some viewers claimed Trump “won”. He radiated confidence, not letting truth cramp his style.
The best analysis I’ve seen of how this first debate will or won’t, should or shouldn’t, affect the November election came from MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, someone who had a real political job working in the Senate before he became an opinion journalist.
You can see it here. His opening monologue is only about twenty minutes long and well worth the time.
Just as I'm ready to post this, the Supreme Court has given us all very good reasons to stop squabbling and get on with it. If we can't bar the door in November, we'll find out what real trouble looks like.
-more-
