Malcolm Nance just called David Axelrod's critique of Biden "#ButHerEmails punditry"

[highplainsdem]

Last edited Mon Aug 12, 2019, 11:41 AM - Edit history (2)

LOL! Nance nailed it.


This is Axelrod tweeting his "concern":

Link to tweet

Polling suggests @JoeBiden currently runs strongest v. @realDonaldTrump, and Trump agrees, which is why he keeps attacking Biden.
But if Biden blunders his way thru the race, anxieties will rise among Dems about his ability to go the distance.

Nance's response:

Link to tweet

How the hell can anyone say @JoeBiden “blunders” are lethal to his campaign but trump can pathologically lie & blunder and gaffe and screw up ... no problem! #CheckYourselfDude. There is no such thing as a blunder anymore. #ButHerEmails punditry.

______________



Editing to add that at the moment, not quite 10 pm EDT, Nance's tweet has nearly 3,000 retweets and nearly 10,000 likes.

Axelrod's tweet has just over 100 retweets and not quite 600 likes.

And those stats even though Axelrod has nearly twice as many Twitter followers as Nance has, 1,15M to 636K.


Editing again, Monday morning at 11:40 EDT. Nance's tweet now has nearly 4,000 retweets and nearly 14,000 likes.

[Thekaspervote]

1. I used to like alexrod... he's said a lot of not so helpful stuff about Dems ... not just this

[highplainsdem]

3. Axelrod's getting slammed by a number of people replying to his tweet, and one of them

pointed out how negative he'd been about HRC in 2016.

[Kahuna7]

20. I didn't rip him, but I did point out that my criteria is;

authentic, honest, dependable, competent.

[highplainsdem]

7. I just googled

david axelrod hillary clinton 2016

and found these headlines, among others:

David Axelrod Blasts Hillary for Blaming Comey

David Axelrod rips Clinton's "unhealthy penchant for privacy"

David Axelrod explains why Hillary Clinton is losing ground to Bernie Sanders

David Axelrod is still schooling Hillary Clinton.

And from the article with that last headline, in The New Republic:

Axelrod, who managed both of President Obama’s successful presidential campaigns, was one of the Clinton campaign’s most incisive critics during the 2016 election. Throughout the campaign, Axelrod repeatedly made the case that Hillary Clinton herself was the source of her campaign’s problems.

In September, after pneumonia caused Clinton to rush out of a 9/11 memorial event, Axelrod asked, “Antibiotics can take care of pneumonia. What’s the cure for an unhealthy penchant for privacy that repeatedly creates unnecessary problems?” In the gossipy and illuminating tell-all Shattered, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes report that Axelrod’s critique got inside Clinton’s head—and that the campaign was paranoid that chief strategist Joel Benenson was feeding criticisms to Axelrod, who would air them on CNN.

On Tuesday, Axelrod delivered another memorable critique of Hillary Clinton—this time over the explanation she gave this week for why she lost the election.

“Jim Comey didn’t tell her not to campaign in Wisconsin after the convention. Jim Comey didn’t say, ‘Don’t put any resources into Michigan until the final week of the campaign.’ One of the things that hindered her in the campaign was a sense that she never fully was willing to take responsibility for her mistakes, particularly that server,” Axelrod said.

He added, “She said the words ‘I’m responsible,’ but everything else suggested that she really doesn’t feel that way and I don’t think that helps her in the long run. It takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump, let me tell you. He was the least popular presidential candidate to win in the history of polling, and so it wasn’t just the Comey letter. The fact that she was in a position to lose because of the Comey letter is something that deserves some introspection.”

[BeyondGeography]

29. Lol, boy was he ever wrong about the Clinton campaign!

Not sure I would want Axelrod as a foxhole mate, but I would value his perspective on political campaigns more than a newbie who has never actually run a campaign like Malcolm Nance any day of the week.

[certainot]

106. neither of them know squat about talk radio

axelrod had the responsibility to do something to counter the constant RW disinformation and attacks aimed at obama from 1500 coordinated radio stations - stopping and obstructing him on health care, the economy, global warming, and every other major issue, as well as letting it beat him in a lot of elections - and it continues to be the biggest political mistake in history.

nance never had that responsibility but he wrote a book about russian interference - without recognizing that talk radio did the groundwork repetition to establish much of the content the russians used, the same alternate reality used to enable the obama obstruction (and clinton before that), that much of the trump tragedy is built on that, and that russians may have been using rw radio to interfere in our elections for at least a decade.

[MustLoveBeagles]

33. With friends like this who needs enemies?

[Cha]

87. Sorry Axe.. You're not very

smart.

[emmaverybo]

13. He's trying to stay relevant, I guess, the only way he thinks he can. Biden's campaign "blunders"

include a terrific launch, in which he set out a compelling theme, that we are engaged in a “struggle for the soul of America;” many enthusiastically received subsequent appearances; the first and only substantial, thoroughly knowledgeable address on foreign policy; a strong second debate performance; an inspiring talk on LGBT rights; an interview with Anderson that earned him
the title of “consoler in chief;” and a speech to the nation in the wake of White Supremacist, anti-immigrant mass murder which many, pundits and regular folk alike, heralded as bringing the definitive moral case against Trump as he called us to fight for America as an idea, a vision of equality and unity, not defined by race, religion, or sexual orientation.

In the short time he has been in this race, he has distinguished himself for his wisdom, profundity,
eloquence, empathy, and an ability to touch the hearts of countless and diverse Americans, a gift he has always been known for, by no means dimmed over the years, in fact, at no time so powerful, so needed.

[Cha]

91. Mahalo for listing some of Joe Biden's

brilliant actions since his launch on April 25, 2019, emmaverybo!

Axe is cherry picking and blowing that.

And, not his first try at blowing it, either..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=235616

[Laura PourMeADrink]

56. Me too...but just knew or thought I knew he helped Obama

win. But watching him the last two years...he is way too cautious and negative for me. He's supposed to be a brilliant strategist? Never hear any brilliance yet.

[Cha]

2. Wow.. Good on Malcom Nance! Retweeted!

Mahalo, highplainsdem!

[melman]

4. "There is no such thing as a blunder anymore"

Really? Is that where we want to be? What a terrible take.

[bluewater]

9. The depths some have sunk to...

"There is no such thing as a blunder anymore"

This one from Nance is a real corker.

[ancianita]

16. Yep. That's where we want to be when the tiniest error is blown up as major weakness by Trumpcult

and ratings driven media.

Win first.

Critique later.

Unity always.

[Eliot Rosewater]

127. I dont understand why people on a DEMOCRATIC message board are so easily quick to

ATTACKING one of the leaders of the DEMOCRATIC party.

Not you, of course, someone else, a few someones.

simple fact is WE HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE and you can be CERTAIN of who will say this SHIT over the next few months

guaranteed, because they are doing it for A REASON

I just wish more folks understood what was happening.


ps

Joe is almost my LAST choice of the REAL candidates, and yet you wont see me BASHING him...

[ancianita]

129. Hell, no. Me, neither. In fact, I've gone to some lengths to defend his evolving strengths.

[Eliot Rosewater]

130. It is simple for me, I try and act as if Joe is the nominee or whoever, and ask myself

what would I never say about them after they are the nominee.

Knowing how easy it is to dissuade people from voting by bad mouthing Democrats.

[ancianita]

131. It's "let loose" time during primary season. Let's hope we can stop relitigating the primaries

once the nominee is chosen.

We've got to unify when the time comes, because the Kremlin will truly be residing in every disaffected Democrat's head in social media after that, and they've got the AI bot army to do it.

DU will have to unify when the time comes.

But don't be too worried yet.

[Cha]

65. Haha.. look who's talking.

Last edited Mon Aug 12, 2019, 04:34 AM - Edit history (1)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128786745

[melman]

69. Hey, that reminds me

Have you seen what She the People founder Aimee Allison has had to say about Joe Biden?

No? Well now you have.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Biden’s treatment of Anita Hill while serving as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which asked for her testimony, is the first example of his tone-deafness toward women, specifically women of color. His disrespect of Hill inflicted deep pain on women of color at that time. From his refusal to allow testimony from witnesses who could have corroborated her story to his inability to control disrespect in the hearings, he was a key player in shaping how a generation of women approached the possibility (and severe discouragement) of coming forward on sexual harassment and assault. What’s more, his voting record against abortion rights has never fully been scrutinized.

We don’t need more explanations from him; we need an apology. More than that, we need a comprehensive plan for how he will address gender discrimination and racial inequality.

https://www.thenation.com/article/joe-biden-lucy-flores-women-of-color/

--

“Biden’s got problems,” Allison said. “He has handled being called out badly. He did not demonstrate that he understands, as a white man, his relationship with women of color or people of color.

“I have news for someone like Joe Biden: There is no path to victory without the significant support of black women and women of color,” Allison said.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/If-white-men-aren-t-the-answer-for-Democrats-in-13760322.php

[melman]

114. Hey

Did you see post #69?


Worth reading if you missed it.

[George II]

120. What are you talking about?

[George II]

122. Mahalo!

[betsuni]

70. Oh, melman.

[Cha]

85. ..

[George II]

104. Oh my.

[Eliot Rosewater]

123. LOL

the question is will we survive when people act the way they do?

I dont think so...

[Progressive dog]

113. That's where I want to be

because it's the right place to be.
The minor blunders of Biden don't come close to the daily lies from Trump. This false equivalence has to stop.

[Gothmog]

117. Opinion: @Paulwaldman1 thinks everyone should lay off Joe Biden's gaffes

Link to tweet

I would challenge anyone to try to explain how the number of gaffes a candidate utters actually tells us something meaningful about his or her prospective presidency. The argument that some number of gaffes suggests cognitive problems that could affect Biden’s performance doesn’t hold water. There are legitimate questions about whether someone Biden’s age — he’ll be 78 at the start of the next presidential term — can handle the rigors of the presidency. But Biden made these kinds of embarrassing statements in his 60s and his 50s, and even his 40s. It’s not a product of age; it’s just who he is.

Besides, we make demands of politicians that no ordinary person would be able to satisfy. I can promise you that if I hired a team of people to follow you around for a week (let alone a year) recording every word that came out of your mouth, there would be some things you’d want to take back.

When a theme like “Joe Biden, gaffe machine” gets locked in, it becomes a frame through which the media view the events of the campaign, leading to profoundly different standards by which each candidate is judged. In its most twisted form, you get something like the 2000 election, in which reporters decided that Al Gore was a liar and George W. Bush was dumb, the consequence of which was that Bush could lie without reporters taking any particular notice even as they pored over every word that left Gore’s mouth to see if under some interpretation it strayed from perfect factual accuracy.

As a similar kind of frame takes hold in this election, other candidates will be allowed to say something unintentionally offensive, garble a URL or otherwise misspeak, with only mild punishment. But when Biden does it, the alarms will go off, and the keyboards will begin clacking.

The cynical expectation is that whether it’s right or not, the gaffe coverage will probably continue: Biden will keep saying cringe-worthy things, and the news media will continue to treat them as newsworthy. And much of Biden’s appeal to Democratic voters is about “electability,” its own bit of campaign pathology that no one should waste time on.

[Cha]

142. #But Her emails and #But Biden's gaffes!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=237624

Thanks, Goth!

[oasis]

143. That toon tells a helluva story. Thanks for posting.

[Gothmog]

118. Do you really think that this would be an issue in the general vs. trump?

Maybe you can explain to me why anyone would listen to trump and explain to me what Coyfefe is ?

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

137. Opinion: There are more important things to worry about than Biden's gaffes

Link to tweet

My response to both was the same, as it was when I was asked about the Biden issue on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports.” There is a racist sitting in the Oval Office implementing a white supremacist policy agenda. So, you focus on Biden’s mouth marbles, and I’ll keep my eyes on the prize. The prize being the eviction of Trump from the White House.

As Waldman also wrote, Trump “is waging a reelection campaign based on racism and fear,” not to mention being “the most prolific liar in American political history (he just passed 12,000 false or misleading claims).” And what makes the focus on Biden’s mouth extra aggravating is how it wipes our memories of the moronic things said by this president, as my follower @absolut_irish was so kind to remind Biden’s critics.

Link to tweet

Some of these are funny. Some are worthy of a cocked eyebrow. But they are not nearly as consequential as the racist and white supremacist beliefs parroted by Trump and the right-wing echo chamber that found their way into the manifesto of the suspect in the El Paso mass shooting, who told police his target was "Mexicans.” The atmosphere of menace and danger is now indisputable. Your time would be better spent worrying about the shredding of our values, ideals and the rule of law than the flubs of a particular candidate who would put an end to this shameful chapter.

[melman]

138. Did someone say there aren't?

Anyone? At all? Like, ever?

Sounds like a straw man.

[Gothmog]

140. What about trump's gaffes?

Biden's so-called gaffes will not be an issue in the general election https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/democrats-battle-each-other-trump-s-greatest-ally-time-n1042191#anchor-Whatabouthisgaffes

But if Biden’s gaffes were substantial news, why wasn’t there the same level of discussion on what President Trump said yesterday in Pennsylvania?

“That’s a lot of people back there for a — like an 11 o’clock speech. That’s a lot of people. (Laughter.) That’s a lot.” (In fact, the speech was after 2:00 pm ET.)

“This Shell petrochemical plant in Beaver County, Pennsylvania — I did very well here. We did very well. How many points did we win by? Does anybody know? I'll tell you. Isn't it, I think, 28 points?
That's a lot.” (Trump won Beaver County by 19 points in 2016.)

“I got sued on a thing called ‘emoluments.’ Emoluments. You ever hear the word? Nobody ever heard of it before. They went back. Now, nobody looks at Obama getting $60 million for a book.” (Obama signed his book deal in 2017, after leaving office.)

Trump’s two and a half years in office definitely have changed the political and media world.

Shouldn’t they also change how we cover gaffes and misstatements?

[mcar]

5. Nance is 100% right

[MBS]

21. Agreed.

Early days, a lot can change, the process needs to play out. But for whatever my long-distance take on this might be worth (not much at all compared to people who are actually on the ground in Iowa, and basically nothing compared to the actual votes that actually will be cast next year in the Iowa caucuses), I still get the sense that a good bit of Biden's support is "soft" at this point. No doubt about Democrats' (including my own) fondness for Joe, and respect for what he's accomplished. More doubt IMO among Iowa voters about how this will translate into actual votes.
Again, we're only at half-time. Still early days, with 3 debates left in 2019 alone (with more in 2020), and numerous meetup events ahead, both in Iowa and the earliest primary states.
What's for sure true: a "dynamic" (also nerve-wracking) fall, winter, and spring is ahead.

[mcar]

59. It is very early

I pay little attention to polls at this point. Axelrod and others of his ilk had better not both sides this general election.

[dchill]

38. At least!

[stonecutter357]

6. K&R

[bluewater]

8. Posting right wing talking points against David Axelrod now?

"#ButHerEmails punditry", really?

David Axelrod (political consultant)

David M. Axelrod (born February 22, 1955) is an American political consultant and analyst, best known for being the Chief Strategist for Barack Obama's presidential campaigns.

After Obama's election, Axelrod was appointed as Senior Advisor to the President.[1] Axelrod left the White House position in early 2011 and became the Senior Strategist for Obama's successful re-election campaign in 2012.[2][3]

Axelrod is a former political writer for the Chicago Tribune, and joined CNN as Senior Political Commentator in 2015.[4] As of April 2019, Axelrod serves as the director of the non-partisan University of Chicago Institute of Politics.[5] His memoir is titled Believer: My Forty Years in Politics.[4][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Axelrod_(political_consultant)

Nance claims "There is no such thing as a blunder anymore." and attacks Axelrod for being critical of Biden's recent performance? oh boy.

Not a good look.

[highplainsdem]

10. See reply 7 above for Axelrod's history of attacking HRC And "ButHerEmails" is not a

RW talking point.


It's a Democratic critique of pundits (which is what Axelrod is now) who are hurting Democrats with false equivalencies.

[bluewater]

15. "but her emails" IS a right wing talking point

but her emails

"A not-so-subtle way to change the subject when you are about to be faced with being wrong about something. This is a reference to overlooking many many many problems with donald trump due to the single issue of Hillary Clinton's private email server, and using that reason as both a reason and defense for voting for him. This is currently used by trump voters any time any legitimate fault is found of Mr. trump."


It's also used sarcastically against right wingers.

So, Nance is calling David Axelrod a right winger now? Just because Axelrod is a bit critical of Biden's recent performance?!J

That is even worse than using a right wing talking point against President Obama's most trusted political advisor.

[highplainsdem]

18. It's also used sarcastically against the media. Nance's use of it was

perfectly correct, and he wasn't calling Axelrod a RWer.

[bluewater]

23. Nance was attacking President Obama's most trusted political advisor...

just because David Axelrod was a bit critical of Biden's recent performance.

He called Axelrod's comment "But her emails" punditry.

That's a right wing talking point and its also used SARCASTICALLY to attack right wingers.

So, which one was Nance doing in his attack on David Axel rod?

Was Nance using it as a right wing talking point?

Or was Nance using it SARCASTICALLY to imply Axelrod was somehow a right winger for being critical of Biden's performance and was somehow not being critical enough of Trump?!?

[emulatorloo]

24. You must have forgotten the coverage in the NYT.

Or do you think the NYT is “right wing?”

[highplainsdem]

25. It's amazing how everyone else knows what Nance meant, and agrees with it, but you're trying to

twist it into something it wasn't, and getting upset about that.

[bluewater]

28. Ah, an ad hominem attack.

The sign of a losing argument.

No need to say anything more.

[emulatorloo]

31. Just like your ad hominem attack on Nance, who is no right winger.

Gaslighting us and pretending that MSM outlets did not report obsessively about HRC’s “emails” won’t fly around here either, as DU’ers remember it well.

[bluewater]

34. Nance claims Axelrod gave TRUMP a complete pass !!!!!!!!

Nance: "How the hell can anyone say @JoeBiden “blunders” are lethal to his campaign but trump can pathologically lie & blunder and gaffe and screw up ... no problem!"

When did David Axelrod EVER say THAT? hmmm?

Hyperbolic attacks on one of President Obama's most trusted advisors are ok now?

[emulatorloo]

36. Nance didn't claim Axelrod gave Trump a pass. You seem to consistently misinterpret

You seem to consistently misinterpret things that are written.

I wish you well and hope you have a nice night.

[emmaverybo]

101. Attacks on Obama's trusted VP, not just a campaign advisor, for eight years, is no BFD though?

[highplainsdem]

35. Oh, good grief. It isn't an ad hominem attack to point out you're reading that tweet wrong and

reading it differently from other people here.

[bluewater]

37. "but you're trying to twist it into something it wasn't, and getting upset about that"

"but you're trying to twist it into something it wasn't, and getting upset about that"

Classic ad hominem attack: attributing a malign motive to another person, "twisting it", and then assigning a negative emotional state, "getting upset", to that person.

Seriously, no need to say anything more.

[highplainsdem]

41. LOL

[Eliot Rosewater]

124. Lemme see, Malcolm Nance is the LOUDEST voice in America correctly poiinting out

that Rump is a traitor and works for our enemy.

So who has a problem with Nance? Yeah, thought so.

By the way, just between us liberal democrats, Malcolm does talk a little too much about people buying his books, in part because he wants to sell more for the same reason anybody gets up everyday and goes to work, but his information in those books happen to be correct as far as we have so far determined and very EYE OPENING?

I can see how that would bother some.

[ancianita]

132. He's right to plug his books. They're worth far more than the money in information.

Malcolm knows more stuff than he can even say, but he's worth respecting every time he opens his mouth.

In this instance, he's exactly right. No one here should have a problem with Nance.

[redstateblues]

77. You are losing this argument. Nance is a truth teller

He has never been afraid to speak truth to power. He knows more than most realize.

[bluewater]

81. Book Humping Nance? lol He just wants to sell his book!

Malcolm Nance
?
Verified account

@MalcolmNance
1 Jul 2018

More
MAKE A STAND: Help PUSH Plot to Destroy Democracy to #1 ⁦@amazon⁩ to send a message that our American Democracy will not go softly in the night. Go git it. Read it. Review it! #SaveDemocracy

[bluewater]

82. Nance is just trying to sell his book! lol

Click on his link...

Malcolm Nance
?
Verified account

@MalcolmNance
1 Jul 2018

More
MAKE A STAND: Help PUSH Plot to Destroy Democracy to #1 ⁦@amazon⁩ to send a message that our American Democracy will not go softly in the night. Go git it. Read it. Review it! #SaveDemocracy

[betsuni]

98. I just bought his "The Plot to Destroy Democracy." I'm fondling it right now.

[George II]

102. PLEASE don't tell us what you're going to be doing to it next!!!!

[betsuni]

135. If bibliophilia is wrong, I don't want to be right.

[bluewater]

111. lol

[betsuni]

84. "If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too."

Who said it?

[George II]

105. Hm, now, that sounds familiar.

[Cha]

97. You Lost your "rw talking point" argument

because "But her emails" is Not "a rw wing talking point".. and now you're just being gratuitously rude @ Malcom Nance.

[Eliot Rosewater]

125. "But her emails" was never a rw talking point in fact the exact opposite. I do the same thing

here often with "but she gave ONE speech" as in the mountain of people who claimed they simply could not vote for her but for that ONE speech she gave to Wall Street for some coin.

FUCK those people

[Cha]

67. You lost.. you're always accusing members

of "ad hominem attacks".

[bluewater]

68. Ah, another ad hominem attack

'You lost.. you're always accusing members of "ad hominem attacks".'

You declaring that I am "always accusing" members of ad hominem attacks is, wait for it... an ad hominem attack!

Its demonstrably false. I do not "always accuse" member of ad hominem attacks.

I just point out when they actually happen.

[Cha]

83. you do so now it's meaningless.. the poster

below agrees with me.

[DarthDem]

76. Yup

With supporters of Senator Warren like these . . . .

[Eliot Rosewater]

126. All part of the plan. DIVIDE us, works too

[Cha]

88. Actually #but her mails is a Dem talking point.. Please

see this reply, highplains

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=236174

[ancianita]

17. Yep. It's what they apparently live for.

[Thekaspervote]

44. If you so strongly feel that Butheremails is a RWTP used by Malcom Nance and repeated here

Which is against the rules... why not report it as abuse?

[Duppers]

50. We know who Axelrod is and the position he held.

I think you're missing the point here and that is that Axelrod is diminishing Biden's chances by further publicizing Biden's minute & immediately corrected gaffes when they pale in comparison to those of Trump's and what the public now accepts.

"There is no such thing as a blunder anymore." Meaning the PRESS doesn't cover tRump's, so why should they cover Biden's. That's understood by most.



And, btw, here's Nance's wiki entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Nance

[bluewater]

57. Nance's hyperbolic attack on Axelrod doesn't even warrant a mention?

Nance: "How the hell can anyone say @JoeBiden “blunders” are lethal to his campaign but trump can pathologically lie & blunder and gaffe and screw up ... no problem! #CheckYourselfDude. There is no such thing as a blunder anymore. #ButHerEmails punditry."

When did David AxelRod ever say THAT, hmmm?

It seems that Nance's over the top, foaming at the mouth, hyperbolic attack on David Axelrod is just fine because Axelrod was "diminishing Biden's chances by further publicizing" Biden's latest string of unforced errors? Is that correct?

Lets quote what Axelrod ACTUALLY said:

"Polling suggests @JoeBiden currently runs strongest v. @realDonaldTrump, and Trump agrees, which is why he keeps attacking Biden. But if Biden blunders his way thru the race, anxieties will rise among Dems about his ability to go the distance."

Wow, inexcusable! How dare Axelrod point out Biden's ongoing blunders during the primary campaign might effect Democrats confidence in his chances of winning in 2020, eh?

It's almost as if Axelrod is expressing some small doubts whether Joe Biden would make the best Democratic nominee in 2020. The nerve of the man!

[Cha]

66. Actually.. "Not a good look" for you.

[ecstatic]

73. Don't think so. Axelrod made a mistake

and was called out. Period. It doesn't take away from Axelrod's general brilliance.

[Cha]

86. #but her emails is a Dem talking point

because of pundits like Andrea Mitchell who droned ON and ON about Hillary's emails 24/7!

And, you should know that.

[betsuni]

90. "But her emails" is the same as "Thanks, Obama." It's a joke.

Everybody knows that. Republicans and others used emails against her, they'd never imply that it's ridiculous.

[question everything]

11. I admit, I do not follow all the hashtags and twitters

so am not sure what they are saying.. but I've never liked Axelrod and if he is trying to belittle Biden, then thank you Malcolm Nance (who I do respect).

[5starlib]

12. Axelrod is thinking in conventional wisdom terms

Biden wouldn't be a candidate for president in a "normal" political year against a "normal" presidential incumbent. But with Trump, nothing is normal. Biden, with his age and gaffes, wouldn't even sniff the presidency in normal times. Now, however, Trump has reset everything. Trump lies with ease, commits crimes, etc. and is still president. Gaffes that might have killed a normal candidate 10 years ago, mean nothing now.

[peggysue2]

19. Too True!

Sometimes a candidate is perfectly matched to a singular moment. I think that explains Joe Biden's strength.

Biden has always been a nice guy, a good man. His so-called gaffes make him very human, identifiable. Add executive experience to those qualities as well as Biden's ability to push back against bullies and you have a unique mix, custom fit to the moment and in direct opposition to the crass, narcissistic qualities of Donald Trump.

People want someone they can trust, someone who can exude integrity, compassion and decency. Joe Biden brings that by simply being who he is, a man who can stand his ground with humor and generosity and a man who brings of lifetime of experience to all facets of the job.

Donald Trump is afraid of Biden. That fear is well-founded.

[Duppers]

51. +10

[Funtatlaguy]

14. As usual, Nance is the smartest one in the room.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

27. And as usual, there are still people too dim to understand.

[Duppers]

52. Yep...

[redstateblues]

78. He has been for a long time

[bucolic_frolic]

22. Axelrod was the the true believer behind the Obama campaign

and White House, but as he's broadened his perspective for his interview gigs, and he is an incredibly interesting personality, he's become more moderate, less entirely Democratic. I'm finding him a fade.

[onetexan]

26. Nance is absolutely correct, we have a low (as in No) bar for this Idiot

Yet we're keeping track of Biden's very minor blunders?eating our own isnt a good idea. Axelrod is trying to stay relevant. You've had your hayday dude.

[Thekaspervote]

46. This!!

[aikoaiko]

30. How quaint. Nance thinks politics is somehow fair.

Blunders and gaffes can wreck a Democrat even as Trump lies and maligns.

Was Nance not around for 2016?

[Autumn]

32. Someone should tell Malcolm Nance that the media will beat Biden's gaffes and screw ups

Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2019, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

into the ground, all while smoothing Trumps. The media sure isn't going to normalize his gaffes the way they do Trumps. Anyone who had paid any attention for the last 3 years knows that.

[Skya Rhen]

39. Macon?

[highplainsdem]

42. Would you call writing "Macon Nance" a gaffe?

Not that we don't make them all the time.

All of us do.

Which is why we need to keep gaffes in perspective.

[bluewater]

48. "Which is why we need to keep gaffes in perspective."

And not just ignore them as they continue to happen as we select the Democratic nominee for 2020.

[Autumn]

58. Seriously. What does David Axelrod know?

Obama probably didn't like him anyway.

[Skya Rhen]

74. Who knows? What we do know is that Obama never referred to Axelrod as his brother - that title went

to Biden.

[Autumn]

45. It's a typo on my touch screen. Fixed.

[betsuni]

60. That's exactly what he's saying.

#ButHisGaffes will be the new #ButHerEmails. All we heard was media talking about emails last time, they'll do the same with gaffes this time.

[Autumn]

62. I don't see where for the last few years the media has had a problem with Trumps

lies, blunders, gaffes, and screw-ups.

How the hell can anyone say @JoeBiden “blunders” are lethal to his campaign but trump can pathologically lie & blunder and gaffe and screw up ... no problem!

The media rules are different for Trump. Axelrod is right, Biden will not get the same courtesy when the media starts pounding on Biden's and that will make Dems nervous. Trump can pathologically lie & blunder and gaffe and screw up all he wants and our media will not see that as a problem.

[redstateblues]

79. Boom!!

[SunSeeker]

40. OMG, so true. Thank you Malcolm Nance!

Retweeted!

[lefthandedskyhook]

43. A vote for Biden...

...is a vote for regression. It is better than today but not nearly as good as we can get

[Duppers]

54. #1 Objective

Getting that f'n asshole out of office!! Biden has the best chance and those polls aren't budging.


- former Bernie supporter here

[bluewater]

61. "Biden has the best chance and those polls aren't budging" But they are.

Actually, the head to head polls for the Democratic candidates versus Trump have been changing a lot.

Biden and Sanders often have the exact same chance according to those polls of defeating Trump.
Warren, Harris, Buttigieg and others have had their polling versus Trump increase as the campaign has continued.

The fact is that 4-6 of the Democratic Candidates are ALREADY polling ahead of Trump and every week those polls move in the Democrats' favor.

[Cha]

92. No it isn't. That's your opinion.

[crazytown]

47. Holy Toledo

what does Tim Apple think?

[Skittles]

49. Democrats have higher standards than do repukes

MUCH HIGHER

[Cha]

93. Yeah, we get that.

[Vegas Roller]

53. I don't like Axelrod anymore nt

[Perseus]

55. Lets look at Axelrod's comment objectively

Biden needs to super prepare to make sure he does not make any of those blunders. Of course that if we compare Biden's blunders with those of the creature, if we compare Biden's blunders to the lies of the creature, to the evil of the creature we all know there is no comparison, but...

Here is where the real danger of Biden's blunders lies...republicans, like Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany, and yes I am comparing republicans to Joseph Goebbels, they are masters of fake news and propaganda.

We all saw how republicans run with Biden's guff when he said that "colored kids, Asians, etc. were as smart as white kids" (something like that), then he tried to fix it but the damage was done, he had provided the republicans with an opening, and they ran with it immediately, they made such a fuzz of it that most Democrats forgot to be enraged at the creature, and instead went on "defense mode" to help Biden and of course, debunk the republican stupidity.

I believe that is where Axelrod, and many Democrats, are worried about Biden's blunders.

Biden needs to coach himself to make sure he avoids making blunders, its not easy because it seems to come natural to him, but it can be avoided, he needs to stay within script, he cannot give an inch to the republican criminals, they will make mountains out of molehills, and that is the truth.

When we compare Biden's blunders with that of the creature we understand there is no comparison, but idiot voters, and lets face it, there are many even within the Democratic party, and many more from Independents, they don't get it, it is what they hear on TV.

[Autumn]

63. This right here

I have never seen anything truer posted here.

[bluewater]

64. Exactly! +1000

"I believe that is where Axelrod, and many Democrats, are worried about Biden's blunders.

Biden needs to coach himself to make sure he avoids making blunders, its not easy because it seems to come natural to him, but it can be avoided, he needs to stay within script, he cannot give an inch to the republican criminals, they will make mountains out of molehills, and that is the truth."

[Cha]

94. Nance is right.. Axe

is.. #But her emails.

[TSIAS]

71. Who cares what Nance thinks on politics?

His supposed expertise is on intelligence matters. Id trust the political instincts of a man who helped a president two times over that of a former CIA spook.

[JI7]

75. Axelrod said Trump wasn't a racist . Axelrod is overrated. it was Obama and others who helped

him win. Axelrod was a huge supporter like many others but not much on strategy.

[redstateblues]

80. Wow. A Gillibrand backer. That's a rarity these days

[Cha]

95. I care! Every citizen has a right to

voice their opinion.

[ecstatic]

72. Agreed. We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

I know it's hard these days, but we must maintain perspective at all times.

[quickesst]

89. I for one....

.... hope to see Malcolm Nance in a major role in the next Democratic Administration. He is a true patriot. K&R!!!

[Cha]

96. Sounds Good!

Mahalo, quickest!

[quickesst]

99. Mahalo to you Cha!!!

I trust Joe Biden's judgement when it comes to picking a vice presidential running mate. I am 110% in support of the individual, and I will be 110% in support of the team.

[Cha]

100. Yes quickesst, if Biden gets the nom..

I'm sure it will be a brilliant VP pick and his Team to be would be Outstanding!

So many Biden detractors trying to bring him down over every little thing.. like.. "This is IT!!!.. "This is not good and doesn't seem to be getting any better".. !!!!11111

They're trying so hard..

[quickesst]

119. for educational purposes

nit·pick·ing
/ˈnitˌpikiNG/
noun
looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily.
noun
fussy fault-finding.

[Cha]

121. lol@fussy fault-finding!

[lark]

103. Axelrod was always the least human of the Obama folks.

I didn't like him then and really can't stand him lately, so damn full of himself and so denigrating to our party.

[Skya Rhen]

107. Axelrod was the one behind Obama's first 2012 debate performance. He never took responsibility

for the debate strategy of advising Obama to not challenge Romney.

Axelrod lost me from then, and he has Biden to thank for delivering a stellar debate performance with Ryan, which put the campaign back on track.

[lark]

108. Bazinga!

[Cha]

110. Interesting.. didn't know

that inside bit info. Wow.. not challenge Romney.. omg.

And, then President Obama went on to .. " Please Proceed, Governor.."

We all have Biden to Thank!

Mahalo, Skya!

[sheshe2]

115. That was one fine debate.

Joe took Paul to the woodshed that night.

[Pepsidog]

109. Keep calling out the bothsiders and email punditry.

[Gothmog]

112. I agree with Malcom Nance on this issue

[Gothmog]

116. Compare how trump is treated compared to Biden

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

128. That's perfect!

[Tarheel_Dem]

133. K&R

[Gothmog]

134. Symone Sanders-"I want to be very clear: this is a press narrative, not a voter narrative..."

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

136. Opinion: There are more important things to worry about than Biden's gaffes

Link to tweet

My response to both was the same, as it was when I was asked about the Biden issue on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports.” There is a racist sitting in the Oval Office implementing a white supremacist policy agenda. So, you focus on Biden’s mouth marbles, and I’ll keep my eyes on the prize. The prize being the eviction of Trump from the White House.

As Waldman also wrote, Trump “is waging a reelection campaign based on racism and fear,” not to mention being “the most prolific liar in American political history (he just passed 12,000 false or misleading claims).” And what makes the focus on Biden’s mouth extra aggravating is how it wipes our memories of the moronic things said by this president, as my follower @absolut_irish was so kind to remind Biden’s critics.

Link to tweet

Some of these are funny. Some are worthy of a cocked eyebrow. But they are not nearly as consequential as the racist and white supremacist beliefs parroted by Trump and the right-wing echo chamber that found their way into the manifesto of the suspect in the El Paso mass shooting, who told police his target was "Mexicans.” The atmosphere of menace and danger is now indisputable. Your time would be better spent worrying about the shredding of our values, ideals and the rule of law than the flubs of a particular candidate who would put an end to this shameful chapter.

[Cha]

139. Kick it, 'cause!

[Gothmog]

141. What about trump's gaffes?

Biden's so-called gaffes will not be an issue in the general election https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/democrats-battle-each-other-trump-s-greatest-ally-time-n1042191#anchor-Whatabouthisgaffes

But if Biden’s gaffes were substantial news, why wasn’t there the same level of discussion on what President Trump said yesterday in Pennsylvania?

“That’s a lot of people back there for a — like an 11 o’clock speech. That’s a lot of people. (Laughter.) That’s a lot.” (In fact, the speech was after 2:00 pm ET.)

“This Shell petrochemical plant in Beaver County, Pennsylvania — I did very well here. We did very well. How many points did we win by? Does anybody know? I'll tell you. Isn't it, I think, 28 points?
That's a lot.” (Trump won Beaver County by 19 points in 2016.)

“I got sued on a thing called ‘emoluments.’ Emoluments. You ever hear the word? Nobody ever heard of it before. They went back. Now, nobody looks at Obama getting $60 million for a book.” (Obama signed his book deal in 2017, after leaving office.)

Trump’s two and a half years in office definitely have changed the political and media world.

Shouldn’t they also change how we cover gaffes and misstatements?

[JustAnotherGen]

144. Yep

And these *gaffes* make more sense than anything the asshole It in the WH has ever said.

[Gothmog]

145. And they worry about Biden's verbal gaffes? The president is a category 5 disaster

Link to tweet