Home | About | Donate

This Is Joe Biden's Emails Problem

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/09/04/joe-bidens-emails-problem

“He’s a guy who loves to talk, and doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.”

Gee, that sounds familiar.


Sure, ByeDone’s showing signs of aging.

More importantly, he’s just repeatedly trips over his own lies like he always has.

And yes, that’s Hillary 2.0, which heralds Trump 2.0. Trump will mop the floor with Uncle Joe.


Cooper sez:
“If Biden is the nominee, I can all but guarantee that … (h)e will keep comically screwing up (and) Trump’s campaign and supporters will pounce on and amplify it every time …”

A Chump-Frontrunner Joe™ general election “debate” (sic) would be a fascinating and disturbing exercise in alternate reality, akin to Foster Brooks slugging it out with Norm Crosby on a Dean Martin Celebrity Roast stage, in a language that resembles, yet is not quite, English.
It would be decipherable only by advanced linguistics students and die-hard Chump supporters.


Biden a doddering old dimwit who thinks he is relevant and loves to tell lies. Hmmm no thanks we already have a plate full of that shit.

The Corporate DemocRATS would rather lose with Clueless Joe than win with “socialist” Bernie.


Lose all hope all ye who seek to enter the Neoliberal Democratic Party.

The DNC has spoken.


Wonderful! We need more of Dante’s hell to describe the
political show–thanks

1 Like

Considering Biden’s support for the Iraq war and finance
shilling for Wall Street, worse his attack on Julian
Assange, his mental instability is a better trait; it’s
his moral turpitude that needs more press.


Joe Bidens’ emails problem is that he is the most believable target for the unresolved accusations remaining from the apparent DNC and Clinton-related involvement with Jeffrey Epstein’s island and business and intelligence and government connections. Epstein died quickly enough to stave off what might have become an interesting and informative trial, and media aligned with neither party has seen fit to follow up (with a few exceptions).

A funny-peculiar part of that is that Joe might be innocent of most of the greater charges that remain because neither Obama’s nor Trump’s DOJ has seen fit to follow the evidence. As far as I can tell, Biden could be guilty only of participating in the general shut-down of evidence as a loyal member of one of the organizations interested in that shut-down, and nothing else. But you don’t see a thousand photos and clips sprayed all over social media of anybody else’s face or hands on kids. It is just that Joe is such an awkward old cuss and so anti-empathic generally that it is altogether too easy to imagine that, since there clearly is a pedophilia and trafficking ring that involves major political figures in each part, that someone like Biden, who shows so little other evidence of human empathy, must be closely involved.

But no, Biden’s major problem is just that he is a jerk of some sort, and a jerk who holds unpopular views and has a long history of enacting bad policies. The fascinating thing is that none of that seems to be enough to disqualify him from being sold in media as a de facto presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.

I don’t know what to make of it. I never thought I’d get nostalgic for the days when people imagined that marital infidelity with consenting adults was a serious flaw in character for a president.

I blame the MSM and a few other smaller outlets for 75% of all the reprehensible manipulation of us today. Are they dumb or cowards or whores?

Assuming that corporate ownership of media is akin to a pimp/whore relationship provides the answer.

1 Like

Well, I think that the answers there are Yes, Yes, and Yes.

But there’s a major systemic issue that sweeps the individual cretinism along in a grand tide.

In the 20th century, empirical sources were largely judged based on the idea that certain institutions had a vested interest in maintaining some level of truth and of espousing some sorts of ground assumptions. So we assumed that probably something appearing in the NYT was basically accurate in some way, though it had likely been subjected to a particular slant. And that if it appeared in WaPo, it was also probably pretty accurate, but had been subjected to another. Well read people assumed that no one was telling the full truth altogether, so they read various sources and triangulated opinions therefrom.

In the current media environment, that methodology has seriously failed–not just become problematic, but collapsed altogether. One achieves a less than 50% accuracy on a true-false questions about critical political matters assuming this (though other things are about as accurate and as inaccurate as previously).

The old model was that a news outlet paid reporters to schmooze and research their way into stories. They used those stories to catch the attention of an audience. They sold the attention of that audience to advertisers. Up to a point, they did have to please their sources as well–government, the military, and business. But when the Pentagon Papers arrived or Nixon got caught with his hand in the pudding, the papers published–with controversy, with fear and trembling, against their ideologies in many cases, but because they could not let an opposing paper scoop them and then be brought out as having hidden such data. They did have a determining vested interest in being seen as telling the truth.

The financial balance and flow in the current market has changed. News outlets do pay some people to do research, but their principal research and much of the presentation of information is accomplished by the sources themselves–by industry, the military, and government entities, certainly including the so-called “intelligence” agencies. At this point, the news outlets can afford to be seen as inaccurate; they cannot afford to be seen as contravening their sources in general: to be more specific, they may break company with one or another individual; they cannot break company with the larger system.

They are worse than useless.


I think that yours is a very important point.

Thanks, Bard. Being raised in the 40s and 50s by a highly-principled journalism teacher, I knew everything you said, but there’s no way I could have said it as well as you did.

Probably like many folks here, I hold the MSM sellouts (owners, publishers, reporters, and advertisers) 75% responsible for everything destructive happening to our politics and to our so-called democracy. Maybe even to our education specifically.

No doubt Trump is aware of that too! One has to wonder if Trump isn’t covertly funneling $$ to Joe’s campaign.

1 Like

And so, what should be happening is an investigation into Common Dreams as an organization. This constant nit picking Biden, the leading people’s choice since the beginning, smacks of a news org fronting as liberal and using right wing trolls acting as liberals. Of course, the right wing knows that Biden has the best chance to beat Trump, so it is to their advantage to troll the liberal web sites against him. In this article, all I see is Biden’s thoughts running faster than his tongue. Nothing more, as suggested by Cooper.