Joe Biden has been one of America’s most consequential presidents, as well as a dear friend and partner to me. Today, we’ve also been reminded — again — that he’s a patriot of the highest order.
Sixteen years ago, when I began my search for a vice president, I knew about Joe’s remarkable career in public service. But what I came to admire even more was his character — his deep empathy and hard-earned resilience; his fundamental decency and belief that everyone counts.
Since taking office, President Biden has displayed that character again and again. He helped end the pandemic, created millions of jobs, lowered the cost of prescription drugs, passed the first major piece of gun safety legislation in 30 years, made the biggest investment to address climate change in history, and fought to ensure the rights of working people to organize for fair wages and benefits. Internationally, he restored America’s standing in the world, revitalized NATO, and mobilized the world to stand up against Russian aggression in Ukraine.
More than that, President Biden pointed us away from the four years of chaos, falsehood, and division that had characterized Donald Trump’s administration. Through his policies and his example, Joe has reminded us of who we are at our best — a country committed to old-fashioned values like trust and honesty, kindness and hard work; a country that believes in democracy, rule of law, and accountability; a country that insists that everyone, no matter who they are, has a voice and deserves a chance at a better life.
This outstanding track record gave President Biden every right to run for re-election and finish the job he started. Joe understands better than anyone the stakes in this election — how everything he has fought for throughout his life, and everything that the Democratic Party stands for, will be at risk if we allow Donald Trump back in the White House and give Republicans control of Congress.
I also know Joe has never backed down from a fight. For him to look at the political landscape and decide that he should pass the torch to a new nominee is surely one of the toughest in his life. But I know he wouldn’t make this decision unless he believed it was right for America. It’s a testament to Joe Biden’s love of country — and a historic example of a genuine public servant once again putting the interests of the American people ahead of his own that future generations of leaders will do well to follow.
We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden’s vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond.
For now, Michelle and I just want to express our love and gratitude to Joe and Jill for leading us so ably and courageously during these perilous times — and for their commitment to the ideals of freedom and equality that this country was founded on.
These are the great peoples of our time.
Obama was not a perfect president, but at least he’s an adult and statesman.
Interesting that he’s not even mentioning Harris.
He did the same thing with Biden for four years ago. He is trying to help the party rally around whoever the nominee is so he stays out of the selection arguments.
What a former president should do. Stay out of the spotlight and let others take the lead.
I think Obama had the news that Biden was withdrawing while the decision to endorse Harris was still being ironed out. I think it was likely in draft form a week ago. I don’t think it’s weird he didn’t mention Harris.
Doubtful.
Who will run in Biden’s place is a central consideration.
I think Obama very deliberately left Harris’s name out.
E: Know-nothings downvoting this, not sure why. You seriously believe this was an oversight? That Obama let it slip through? Dude was editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review.
Is Ralph Nader still alive?
Disappointing really, political leaders need to learn how to pass on to the next generation. The Dems are especially guilty of staying in office too long, and screwing up their own legacy in the process.
It’s not an accident. While likely, it isn’t guaranteed that Harris will be the nominee. While Michelle has said she doesn’t want to do it, she is on the short list of possibilities. If Barack had given an endorsement to Harris and then Michelle changes her mind, things get awkward.
Even if none of that comes to pass, including a message of support would be seen as an endorsement, and there’s no particular reason Barack needs to endorse Harris at this time. That’s seen as something of an official act, and politicians are very careful not to hand out an endorsement until they mean it. Doubly so when they’re former Presidents.
Lets say the party has a mess of a convention and Harris is struggling to band together the necessary delegate votes. Barack can step in and endorse her at that time to help give her an edge. Or he may see a better candidate and endorse them. In either case, there’s no reason to bind to a decision right now.
Perhaps Harris sails through the nomination. Barack can step in and endorse then to give her a boost in the general election. That boost isn’t necessarily just votes, either. Big name donors are listening, too.
From where Barack sits, there’s zero downside to waiting.
Like 300 delegates and everybody else has already endorsed her. And after raising 70 million dollars yesterday, she has the nomination. There’s no way it isn’t Harris on the ticket.
Who put Michelle on the shortlist besides Fox News pundits trying to bait the racists?
Pollsters. Michelle was the only name that had really strong polling against Trump.
I can’t believe you’re being downvoted for this opinion, it’s really not that controversial a statement. I guess people have already memory-holed Dianne Feinstein and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
And Kennedy and Byrd. It’s a running shit show of politicians thinking they’ll live forever, or never lose an election. When what every one of them needs to be doing from day one, is prepping a successor in the public eye. A simple “thanks for electing me, and keep an eye on this awesome dude that wants my job too.”
Yup. This isn’t just a political issue, either. Apparently, companies are suddenly realizing that their CEOs haven’t been training successors, so their c-suite is getting older and older, and no one is positioned to take their place.
I mean Joe stepped aside, didn’t he? Doesn’t mean you have to say oh this person’s young so I automatically think they are the right one for the job
Well, A) I’m not saying that; no one is saying that, and B) yes, he stepped aside. After a month of denial and coordinated pressure from the entire party. That makes him marginally better than most of the party, but doesn’t invalidate the commenter’s point about the Democrats’ failure to pass the torch.
What are you saying then?
I’m agreeing with the original commenter; political leaders need to learn how to pass on to the next generation, and the Dems are especially guilty of staying in office too long,
What does that have to do with her getting the nod from Obama or not?
Yeah but fuck Harris
Uh, you said you wanted Bernie 2 days ago. He’s not running.
So?
I like Bernie Sanders.
I don’t like Harris.
You’ll find that a common thread in many people on the left
Harris wasn’t running for president 2 days ago either__
rubbing for president
My friend, I’m afraid your literary flub disqualifies you from commenting anymore. I need to ask you to step down, as your brain is obviously mush.
You’re the worst type of person
What’s the problem with Harris?
You’ll find that a common thread in many people on the left
The common thread being fuck the Democrats because they didn’t do exactly what I wanted.
Yeah it is a common thread on the “left”. By which I mean the tankies who are dazzled by russian disinfo. We have a few short weeks to get loud about defeating Trump. Waah waah I don’t like Harris or Biden or Newsom or Whitmer or Whothefuckever is the predetermined talking point for all the russian outlets. It’s just a weird coincidence it’s also your talking point.
Hey if “the left” like Bernie so much (as do I) why not get out there and make it a floor fight? I’ll tell you why; because “the left” doesn’t actually care. If you want to argue that it’d be pointless because Harris is pre-selected, you’ll be acknowledging that “the left” just want to shit in the river for the Democratic nominee and have zero interest in actually promoting who they say they promote. The “left”. Right.
Holy shit. Please show me literally anywhere. I said I wasn’t going to vote blue no matter what. Please show me where I said I didn’t like anyone or any other choice. Go ahead look through my history. It’s right there in front of you
They haven’t even nominated Harris. And yeah, you’re sure to say " Oh yeah they might as well have since she raised a lot of money"
I can’t make a single post talking about how I just don’t like Harris, without it becoming oh look at this guy. You rather have Trump if it’s not literally Mao!
Fuck China. Fuck the tankies fuck the " far left", And everyone who shit posts from ML and hackbear.
But just as importantly, fuck you neo-democrats who will accept just any fucking conservative Democrat and blindly bow to them. I’m not a cult fascist everyone is for Donald, And so many people were for Biden just 3 days ago Yelling at people who dared say he should just retire.
So maybe instead of just shit-talking Harris, you could say something like “I support the Democrats and will be voting blue, but I don’t like Harris”?
Because once you’ve said that, you’re more or less left with the inference that “I hope she doesn’t win” (aka yay trump) or “I’m planning to shit talk Democrats and progressives who are not progressive enough for me all the way to the election but not in a, like, republiQan way.”
You’ve convinced me. Harris is awful I’ll vote for Trump instead.
Hurrrrr durrr
Remember guys, you can’t dislike someone or else you want Trump to be president.
Remember blind Faith and following or else!!
No criticizing New Dear Leader!
The reason this post sucks so much is because “New Dear Leader” makes no fucking sense. When you swear loyalty to some sweaty loser, you’re stuck with them until they eat a bullet.
Versus this, where a guy stepped down for the good of his own party and country and will voluntarily lose power in a few months.
…
Kamala is the implied ‘new dear leader’, the person who will be running for president for 4+ years.
I was saying that I DARED speak bad about her and am being voted against for nothing.wtf you on about
Dear leader is cult / authoritarian speak. This swap occurred precisely because it’s not a cult or some sort of authoritarianism that Democrats want…it’s fucking policy.
Your lingo sucks precisely because of that incongruity.
Go see if the Republicans will ever have a “new dear leader” and notice how they stick with the same two time loser at the head of the party despite him trying to overthrow the government because he couldn’t accept his latest loss.
You said New Dear Leader, implying that Biden was the Old Dear Leader.
I’m confused as to why this is such a downvoted opinion…
Anyone downvoting me too please just understand I obviously think trump and Biden and many others are worse… the bar is just incredibly low
Because the neolibs are awake
We’re being gaslit that everyone wasn’t just saying that for the last 6 years because she’s now the likely primary
Why did that feel like a repurposed eulogy?
A eulogy is any speech in praise of someone—it’s not restricted to funerals.
And yet me reading a eulogy I wrote for the groom at my cousins wedding was “deeply inappropriate” and somehow I was “making aunt linda very uncomfortable” smh
On this day, we remember !AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world. Their words, their replies, their sentences.
Gather ye rosebuds while ye may…
Obama uses medium?
Love it. I hope he’s abandoned all the social media trash out of principle. Lead by example.
I swore he used Twitter/X at one point. It’s cool that he uses Medium, maybe he’ll even host it on his site one day.
Yes.
He helped end the pandemic,
Well I’m relieved to learn that the pandemic ended
Like Dubya before him, Obama makes a much better ex-president than president. A great message and I’d expect nothing else from him.
Obamacare wasn’t bad before it got mostly dismantled. Iran Nuclear Deal was smart. Paris Accords had potential. He cleaned up our ISIS mess. Nuclear disarmament was nice. He wasn’t a bad pres, considering his situation. Mainly screwed up with his approach to the Russians.
Comparing George W to him is pretty meh.
Also there was the whole “avoiding the second great depression” thing we were careening towards when he took over.
Another thing that has been arguably a big mistake is the natural gas over reliance (presented as a “clean” alternative to oil and coal).
I was gonna add Common Core, but honestly I’m unsure if it is just the testing that’s bad or the whole pie. It seems more like a mixed bag like any other federal policy.
Yeah that’s fair.
That said, I understand that natural gas was presented as a clean solution by the industry. I just wish there had been a more thorough analysis of what it meant, or at least tougher regulations.
(AFAIK) Natural gas leaks are very hard to spot, so they are very hard to fine, yet very common.
That doesn’t make sense. If this were true how could they bill consumers
Leaks in pipelines, not in customer facing equipment
Natural gas “the transition fuel” was obviously as big a con as “clean coal.” Nobody believed it besides consultant-brained Democratic operatives in Washington.
I love hating Obama but the testing actually came in from Bush with No Child Left Behind.
watching him concede every single point to the Republicans during the ACA negotiations was infuriating
Mainly screwed up with his approach to the Russians.
Can you tell more about that?
Georgia, Crimea. Gave Russia a pass.
Georgia happened during George W Bush’s administration, not Obama’s. Syria and Crimea though.
Happened across two events, the Syrian uprising against Bashar Al Assad, who was a Russian ally, and the 2014 annexation of Crimea.
Obama was generally trying to navigate a more diplomatic approach to the Russians, and reluctant to take any harsh actions against Putin. But starting in Syria, the Arab Spring had led to a revolt against Assad, and he was rapidly pushed back. Before he fell, Russia stepped in with their military and helped him push the rebels back. We had an opportunity to intervene ourselves after Obama stated that the use of chemical weapons would be a “red line” for us. He ended up using chemical weapons anyway, and we declined to intervene in any significant way. With Assad backed by the Russian military and the rebels backed by nobody’s big military, they ended up getting crushed and Assad is still in power there to this day. With a Russian military presence helping him stay secure.
Then in 2014, despite the Budapest Memorandum giving the US and UK some measure of responsibility for securing Ukrainian territorial integrity, when Putin quickly seized Crimea we basically did very little, just some minor sanctions and arms to the Ukrainians if I remember right.
Then a lesser thing, when it became apparent that Russia was using influence operations to meddle in our elections, he again did very little. This one is a little more forgiveable, since it was the end of his term and what even can you do? Still frustrating though.
All together, it became a pattern of being soft on Russia that Putin took advantage of, and imo helped lead to the Russo-Ukrainian War today.
What I would have liked to see instead, with the benefit of hindsight, is limited engagement in Syria to strike Russian assets, or perhaps a no-fly-zone over Syria, though that would be diplomatically difficult without UN support. After Crimea, very robust sanctions (which would’ve been problematic for the Europeans dependent on Russian energy exports), major upscaling of aid to the Ukrainians and a defense treaty. After the meddling, well, he could have at least gave a Presidential address about it or something, I dunno.
Thanks for your thoughtful input.
In ukrainian case I too feel like the sanctions’ way could’ve been troubled, but there could’ve been the case if not for some mini-lend-lease for official government and their weakened troops but for an involved peacemaking mission in a hot warzone of Luhansk and Donetsk if that issue had been taken seriously. There’s probably some PTSD from Balkans, but I can see how it could’ve been more effective at ceasefire than Minsky accords and probably saved MH-17 in the future. Besides, this angle of this russian covert offensive was to make sure the Crimean peninsula is sustained and without that they’ve been ought to build a bridge to reach it and struggled with water supply all the way up to 2022, that was probably another reason for the open war. There are probably some scenarios how it could’ve been happened differently if Obama and EU got more into that situation.
Idk how it works tho.
Obamacare wasn’t bad before it got mostly dismantled
Getting rid of the tax penalties was the only good thing the supreme court did. And also that was the worst and stupidest part of the whole bill, inserted by the insurance company lobbyists. It’s the thing that initially made ACA hugely unpopular (despite it just being so complicated and stupid). It pretty much caused the entire midterm disaster. It was one of the biggest and dumbest unforced errors the Democrats ever made.
Without the requirement that healthy people get insurance in addition to sick people, there is no reasonable mechanism to keep the prices in check. The sick people need to get diluted down somehow.
As it stands, we end up paying for it anyway, just in a more roundabout way.
That’s untrue though. They got rid of the penalties and price appreciation did not accelerate. The penalties were completely unnecessary especially considering they already had all the complicated rules to prevent people from getting insurance after they get sick (enrollment periods, “life events” etc).
Prices actually did go up, quite a lot. And the ACA allowed people with pre-existing conditions to get health insurance, it actually explicitly prohibited insurance companies from locking them out, which they are otherwise economically incentivized to do.
Prices were going up before ACA, under the penalties regime, and after it. There was no inflection point when the penalties got removed.
People are still locked out of getting insurance on the exchange except during enrollment periods which means people can not “time” getting insurance. They can not wait to get sick and then get insurance only when they know they need it.
The biggest problem with the exchanges is the insurance offered is pretty shitty (but better than pre-ACA individual coverage), and many exchanges have no real competition or even no competition offered. This is due to flaws in the design of the exchanges (making them per state) and not providing a public option that would always participate in every exchange and set a ceiling on prices.
Yes, but how much were they going up? Here’s a chart:
https://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-health-insurance-premiums/
You may note a difference in rate of change before, during, and after the ACA in its full form.
I don’t see the problem with enrollment periods, that seems like a reasonable restriction to me. I definitely prefer a public option, but we don’t have the congressional support to get that. Didn’t then, don’t now. I’m unfamiliar with the amount of competition in less-served areas.
Mainly screwed up with his approach to the Russians.
And China.
Obama’s second term was spent mostly in the Middle East where there was no winning move. ObamaCare had potential but was neutered out the gate, Trump’s dismantling just put it out of its misery.
See: better ex-pres than pres.
E: His first campaign was legendary though. There was something in the zeitgeist that the left has never recaptured since. Typing this, I’m wondering that’s the same feeling Trumpers have about their movement, except for the complete opposite reasons.
I don’t see where he went wrong in China, he didn’t really do a lot, and there wasn’t a lot to be done. ISIS massacring the Yazidis after stealing all the military equipment we left behind was something we had a responsibility to address, though.
Obamacare was neutered by the repealing of the federal penalty for violating the mandate aspect of it. This was during Trump’s term. Unless you’re referring to something else.
It’s one of those democrats-are-bad-because-republicans-vote-against-it arguments.
Letting the Chinese relationship get so bad and one-sided. Not heading off fent and letting the Midwest continue to rot, and letting the whole thing come to a head with Trump’s presidency.
How exactly did the Chinese relationship get so “bad and one-sided”? What would you have liked to see?
China repeatedly and flagrantly violated WTO rules, imposed restrictions on US companies, pushed US companies out of the Chinese market, forced technology transfers, forced joint-ventures, nationalized foreign-owned companies, aggressively manipulated currency markets to keep Chinese goods cheap, engaged in dumping to put foreign competition out of business (ex: rare earth metal mining, solar panels).
Obama refused to address any of this. Even obvious things like the postal union rules causing the USPS to lose money subsidizing the import of Chinese products making it cheaper to ship from China than inside the US.
Then there was the whole Fentanyl thing which is very obviously China waging a new opium war against the US.
All this lead directly to the collapse of the Democrats in the midwest and the rise of Trump.
Yes, they do engage in a whole ton of unfair business practices. How do you think we should address this? I agree on the postal subsidies, incidentally.
Regarding fent, it wasn’t a thing yet in 2016.
DNC shit their pants when Bernie was polling well
Is Dubya even a good ex-president? I guess he called himself out on war crimes, but Idk what else he’s got. Paintings?
I guess he called himself out on war crimes, but Idk what else he’s got. Paintings?
It’s absolutely insane he did that, and almost more insane that he just spends his time painting nowadays (like a reverse Hitler, war crimes -> painting).
But I’m almost absolutely sure those things were connected. Apparently, the person who taught him how to paint after he left the presidency was VERY liberal (iirc he literally said “well they ain’t big on me in that demographic so I didn’t really have a choice”, it was on Colbert). She apparently berated him on Iraq through all of her lessons, which iirc he said made him heavily reconsider how he felt about his past actions, and he seemed genuinely full of guilt/repentance.
Doesn’t matter much though, you shouldn’t have to be berated by your art teacher for hours not to do war crimes.
They just put money into giving him good PR.
I don’t give a damn he found a nice hobby, the World is still attempting to fix the damage he caused.
Well as an ex president he can no longer order drone strikes on schools, hospitals, or weddings. So that helps a lot.
Lol, you’re a fool.
Care to elaborate or are you just here to throw shade
I thought you were host sticking around because of a long weekend a month ago, you can be gone now buhbye
