Labels

Tuesday, May 5, 2020

The Omnivore's Read on Tara

Someone (who is voting for Trump, most likely, even though his administration's incompetence may bankrupt or even kill her) asked if The Omnivore was gonna write about Tara Reade. Here it is.

1. Bernie-Stans Can Shut Up About It
There is a conversation (The Omnivore supposes) to be had--but not with Bernie-Stans. Why not? Don't they get to ask questions? Well, sure--but if Biden was proven 100% innocent of the allegations they still wouldn't vote for him so the conversation is, necessarily, in bad faith. It's trying to concern-troll ("maybe we should pick some other old white guy since Biden's gonna crash and burn on this in November!--Hey! I have just the guy in mind!!") or they just want to call any Democrat a "rape apologist" or whatever. It's noise. You don't have a conversation with noise.

2. The Trumpaloos Can Shut Up About It
If Biden did exactly what Tara (now) alleges he did, it's what Trump bragged about on tape. Just locker room talk? Uh huh. Sure. Trumpaloos may want to claim hypocrisy ("But muh Kavanaugh!") or try to actually condemn Biden for it (no one said a Trumpaloo was ever gonna be consistent) but the fact is that they don't actually care about this behavior. Sure: they thought Kavanaugh and Trump were innocent--but if it'd been shown to be (likely) true? So what? Unless one of them actually catches a rape charge they don't care. You don't have to either.

3. Who Does That Leave?
People who don't hate Biden for other reasons, but feel this is critically important. More important than, literally, saving 10s of thousands of American lives. That's not many people. The fact is that any competent human (i.e. Pence) in the White House would have (a) not believed China, (b) not mistaken pollyanna announcements (designed to juice the stock market) for providing moral support and optimism and (c) wouldn't have utterly destroyed our potential preparedness.

Pence probably wouldn't be cheering for the Open-It-Up Protesters at the same time he released a Power Point plan with phased approaches that the open-it-up states aren't following.

No: Trump is a Turducken Of COVID-19. There is no worse: if you can't vote against him over that because of a rape allegation? The Omnivore doesn't really know what to say to that. It's like three or four of you--so, follow your conscience, y'all.

What ABOUT The Allegation?
The Omnivore never came down on a clear decision with Kavanaugh (you can go check). He believes Kavanaugh was likely a drunken jerk in high school and drunk and maybe a jerk after that--but eh? Did he do it? The Omnivore doesn't know.

So you can stuff the Whaddabout shit you had ready.

Now, as far as these things go: Tara has several things stacked against her that Ford didn't. For one thing she was an avid Bernie-stan (who even tweeted about getting the timing of her allegations right) and she "came out" on a political pod-cast (which isn't exactly normal). She also "came out" last year--but with neck touching. Things changed.

None of this means anything for sure: The Omnivore is certain something happened (the mom call in)--but the lack of a complaint (as yet) and the shifting story to be more damaging in a more highly charged political environment--from a political activist--doesn't fill The Omnivore with confidence.

Furthermore: Believe Women, as a slogan, was never nuanced enough to be policy. It's a statement that you shouldn't assume women are lying--especially since making claims of rape is, even in the best of times, a really awful thing to go through for what is usually very, very little value.

The #MeToo movement is most valuable when (a) there's more than one woman--unrelated--showing the same behavior (i.e. Cosby and Weinstein) and (b)  the charge is being made from a person who does not have much personally to gain. Ford might be a rabid Republican-hater--but that's never been shown. Berniestans are, it turns out, on the record as being toxic politically.

So The Omnivore doesn't really think the movement per se applies so much here and, in any event, almost no one involved in anything has the standing to take advantage of it.

A Final Note: The Omnivore is not impressed with Tara's accusation--but that's largely because The Omnivore is not impressed with Bernie Sanders people in general. Biden is certainly handsy and he's been called out for that. If more evidence comes to light then it could well turn out that he crossed the line from neck-touching (not good) to grabbing her by the pu**y (really bad).

It wouldn't change The Omnivore's vote: Too many Americans are dying to give this administration another 4 years.

Thursday, April 23, 2020

The Text and The Subtext: COVID-19

The language of COVID-19 isn't especially opaque but it's worth taking a good look at it all in one place--in the "When They Say . . . They Mean . . . " Not clear? Let's do an example:

Text: "The Civil War Was About States' Rights."
Subtext: "I'm hot for the racist south." 
The civil war was about states' to continue owning slaves when it looked like the Federal government might prohibit them from it. The person speaking wants to cloak the (traitorous) actions of the Confederacy in the "A'hm just standin' up for mah rights" cloak of American values.

Got it? Let's go.

Text: Using 'Filthy' to describe New York
Subtext: "Blue-State/City Got It Commin' "
The speaker wants to create moral distance between them and the filthy, liberal New York city (see the use of San Francisco Values to attack Nancy Pelosi). Generally this is done in the context of trying to argue that NYC should be shut down like Escape From New York while their small town or state should be wonderfully free . . . because they are virtuously red.

Text: "Wuhan Virus"
Subtext: "I want to blame China for all this shit"
From "ordinary people" using the orientalist term for the virus is putting blame on Asians. For political people, it's knowing their base will accept blame-on-asians (vs. blame on the admin). It's an easy sell.

Text: "Liberate [ Blue State ]"
Subtext: "I blame my governor for this job-killing Trump-one-terming lock-down!"
The speaker (in this case, literally Trump--but echoed from the various protestors) is very unhappy about the fact that with a cratering economy the prospect of a Trump re-election the person has decided to blame their Democrat governor for the economic pain. Thus, they need to "Liberate" their state from the state government to . . . rejoin the union (hence the Confederate flags: these people aren't very smart).

Text: "The virus isn't [ especially, all that, etc. ] dangerous to people under 60."
Subtext: IF claiming we should re-open because of that "The media hysteria to GET Donald Trump must be fought!"
People who "study the numbers" conclude through the magic of motivated reasoning that everything is okay! We can open up. The R0 is low! The CFR is low! The treatments are promising, etc. Because The Experts are saying "no, don't do this," they either conclude (or want you to believe) that Trump is being sabotaged by liberal-elite experts in cahoots with The Media. They believe that by telling you A Bunch Of Numbers they can penetrate the veil of lies.

Text: "Hydroxychloroquine works!" (or some other soon-to-be-miracle drug)
Subtext: "This is all gonna go away in a minute."
The push for a wonder-drug that works wonders on COVID-19 originated with Fox (The Omnivore thinks) because of some initial usage of it that appeared promising--but by the time it was ginned up into the Republican Messaging Machine it became a Great White (pilled) Hope to Save The USS Trump before it sank. The idea was that enough positive messaging about possible drugs would keep people believing everything was under control which would calm the markets (all Trump really cares about). It didn't--and the drug didn't pan out. So on to the next one, right?

Text: "We can't pay people more NOT to work . . ."
Subtext: "The poors are gettin' stuff! Oh-no!"
The theory here (as The Omnivore has seen it mansplained) is that all the super-hawt supply chain places (like, erm, Costco) need an influx of workers who are sitting home playing Xbox because of their fat gummit paychecks. Right. Obviously this is bullshit, though: yes--there are a few places where the extra money plus unemployment is above minimum wage--but not everywhere and this, being super temporary, isn't convincing anyone to retire early. It MAY allow them to stay home. This. Is. What. We. Want. Sparky.

Thank you for coming to The Omnivore's Ted Talk.

Tuesday, April 21, 2020

Pelosi Eating Ice Cream

"Watch this brilliant ad," the trumpster encouraged The Omnivore. "It's Totally Devastating!! All in HER OWN WORDS!" The Omnivore was playing tabletop roleplaying games online and could not be arsed to listen to the ad.

But now he has. Is it devastating? Is it utterly devastating to  . . . Joe Biden?
The ad opens with a super-grainy image of a Fox News (?) personality talking in solemn tones about the Coronavirus. Not about the 40k dead we now have--no. No. She is talking about those loans the Small Businesses need to get through this!

We see the toll the pandemic is taking:
Look at the symbolism here--the TV set is ancient. It has rabbit ears. Push buttons. In the background we can see classic furniture and cheap wood paneling. This is the TV set of someone who is super at risk for coronavirus.

Is that the point? Hell no. This is supposed to connect to the target audience: the aging boomer for whom this TV set codes as "my TV" (as opposed to the 30 year old who thinks maybe that's a . . . microwave?? And what is that thing on top??). This, for Trump's preferred viewer, is "their TV" as they watch with terrible dismay.

The Payload: Pelosi!
About 15 seconds in we get to the payload. A voiceover from a "money-reporter-guy" says "The Democrats Blocked It" (the relief fund) and we get to see Pelosi talking.

She says "They asked for a quarter of a trillion dollars in 48 hours . . . I don't think so." What is she talking about? Well, she's talking about this--here are some headlines--

Part of the coronavirus plan involves federal money used to help tide small businesses over until the economy can safely restart. In theory, that's a good idea. In practice though?

  1. There is no plan to ramp up the testing necessary to safely restart the economy--but who cares? Right? right? alt-right?
  2. The original tranche . . . went to big business and ran out in a matter of hours.
  3. The Democrats pulled back on the reins for a minute because the first set was a disaster (banks were overloaded, handled their own clients first, etc.)
Of course the ad doesn't go into this--if it did, the administration would certainly not look good--but  that's what it's talking about and people in the small business world? They know it.

The Message
We get the black screen, doom-laden musical note. This is the set up. The punchline is Nancy Pelosi talking about her ice cream stash.

We see food lines with some voice-over
A (probable) Trumper tearfully acknowledges that it's hard to admit they're starving!


Note that the chiron is THE RACE TO RESPECT (HUNGER IN RURAL AMERICA). After all, Pelosi is San Francisco Values. This is a Real(TM) American(TM).


We get a distorted Pelosi gushing about her ice cream and how much she likes chocolate while other Real (TM) or, at least, real-ish Americans make similar statements about how bereft they are in this time of crisis.


We see people praying--maybe at a funeral? And we hear what sounds like a sob morphing into Pelosi's laugh (maybe it's just her laugh, The Omnivore isn't sure).
And, finally, the
stinger: A fake quote by "Nancy Antoinette."

The Message
The message is obvious--but it's a bit convoluted. Small businesses are hurting--and Nancy doesn't care . . . about the laid off workers . . . while she dines on ice cream in her mansion. Now, this doesn't make a lot of sense (the laid off workers are supposed to have gotten fat checks from the government--so much money they are intentionally not working)--but never mind that.

Attack ads don't really have to make sense--they just have to deliver their payload.

Does this?

Tried and True
The Omnivore remembers a UFC fight where the winner said of the loser that he (the winner) would tire his opponent out and when his opponent was flagging, his opponent would resort to what he knew best: wrestling. The winner was ready for it and beat the guy handily.

This is similar (we don't know the outcome). Pelosi has been a conservative boogeyman for ages--using hatred for her to whip up their base into a frenzy of misogyny and homophobia (what is meant by "San Francisco Values"?). This has a long, long history and is nothing new. In fact, we saw this in 2018:
Narrator's Voice: They were ready.

Rating: The Omnivore wants to give this higher than a "C" but is really struggling. The use of Pelosi's tone-deaf ice cream riff is good but for context see:

  1. Romney's 47% Tape (A+)
  2. Trump suing to stop ads using his own words (B, thanks to lawsuits)
  3. The Pelosi-Is-Drunk tape which used artificial methods to make her appear disordered. 
The real problem is that The Omnivore doesn't think anyone blames (A) Pelosi for the virus (B) all the shops for closing (C) the original fund being mismanaged and (D) all the other help and unemployment and everything failing.

It gives her a "bad look"--but the idea that she is withholding help people need--when, in fact, help people need was just passed and bungled is pretty weak as a front-line of attack.

C+ 




Saturday, April 18, 2020

Open It Up!



The cries are coming--for America to get back to business. Trump has spoken: LIBERATE MICHIGAN! The right has come to the conclusion: shutdowns don't really help anything at all! The disease is unstoppable--we might as well all get it!

 The Omnivore has tried to find out what, exactly, these people mean--what do they want, exactly. Oh, what they say they want is: everything is back open--no restrictions--and then people practice hygiene and social distancing and go about their business . . . as normal . . . or something.

The theory is that once enough people get it (that number is 60-80% according to most epidemiologists) there will be enough people immune to make the viral spread unlikely and thus, it is safe for us to go about our business. Okay. Right.

They further believe that for "young people" this is really no problem at all: it kills about .2% of the young-uns. Well, that's true--but the flu kills about .006% of the young-uns (25-34). That's a lot higher.

Also, and worse, right now there are effective treatments for the flu. There aren't great treatments for COVID-19. This means that if the health care system is operating "at load" (forget 'overload') you may not get great life-saving care: You might die unnecessarily.

Also, right now, we think maybe 4% of California might have antibodies--or, at least, people in Santa Clara. What's the plan to get 56% more infected? The good news on that front is that it's fucking hyper contagious. It's also pretty dormant--it looks like about 50% of healthy young people can catch it--and spread it--but not show any symptoms at all . . . yet.

So what does this mean . . . exactly?

Well, what these people are calling for is a lifting of restrictions that will let people do what they feel safe with, which will get the economy back in action again.

Right?

Well . . . uh . . . no. This is happening right now in several Nordic countries--Sweden specifically. What's going on there?

  1. Their economy is crashing. It might not be as bad as it is here (or maybe it is?) but it's still plummeting. The estimation is a 4% contraction similar to the great recession. Despite the "life goes on as normal," theaters are 90% empty.
  2. Their death rate is higher per capita than their neighbors--and higher than ours. Now, granted, they aren't exactly dying in the streets . . . yet . . . but if you're trying to keep people alive this isn't a great strategy.
  3. Fear of COVID-19 is rising in Sweden: Their death-rate is far higher than their neighbors: 118 per million vs. 55 in Denmark and 13 in Finland. There is fear it's getting worse and there may be stricter measures on the horizon.
So is Sweden the model we want? Well, it's the model the open-it-up-NOW people want and from what we are seeing it may be a really, really big mistake.  It's also, how does The Omnivore says this--uhm--stupid.

Stupid? We're Saving The Economy, Omnivore!

Uh--uhhhh--right. Sure you are. Except you don't know that. The reason this is stupid is because there is a whole fuck-ton of stuff we don't know about COVID-19. 

"So what?" you say, indignant. "It's a virus. We've seen these before!"

Yeah. We have. But here's the thing, sparky, there are a couple of signs that this might be one of the bad ones. What does The Omnivore mean:
  1. The Second Wave Factor. Just because you "beat the virus once" doesn't mean it stays beaten. It's really, really easy for more infected people to come in when you relax things and then it spreads again. Because of the nature of it, without a TON of testing in place . . . it's really hard to track or get a jump on.
  2. How long would antibody immunity last? We don't know. COVID-19 is similar to the previous SARS disease so we're hopeful that antibody immunity lasts 2-4 years . . . but it might last as little as 9 months. In fact, it might not even last that long. We don't know. Thus the idea that "you've had it--so you're good" isn't ridiculous but it also isn't air-tight. Until we have a working, tested vaccine . . . it won't be.
  3. The Wonder Drugs Aren't All That Great. The Trump-touted chloroquine drugs have killed a bunch of people (no, not the fish tank guys--although The Omnivore thinks they do count). There are some promising treatments on the horizon but optimism isn't a replacement for scientific testing and that will take time. Until there is a solid treatment plan for COVID-19, the disease is simply more dangerous than it "needs to be." That is: some people exposed now will die when later, they would not.
Okay--So What Does All of This Mean?

What it means is this: we need a real plan to get us through this mess. This plan needs to include-
  1. A full-court press to ramp up all kinds of testing. The administration has just plain lied and lied and lied about this. There is no good plan in place for it. There are all kinds of issues (such as some labs not having the chemical reagents and others having excess capacity for testing that is not being used).
  2. A solution for the economic interim. During the Great Recession people with reduced hours could get some unemployment benefits for a little while. After that, though, the GOP would do more. We aren't doing that now at all. Thus, when people get laid off they go to full unemployment which further burdens the systems but also separates them from the company so that when something is lifted, it's harder to staff back up. People got one check--most people--well, some. It looks like going further is a major battle.
  3. A solution for voting in November. Yes, The Omnivore wants Trump out of office. Yes, the Trumpster would rather not have an election with mail in ballots--but part of the administration's responsibility is to American democracy. Trump certainly doesn't care about that--but you should.
  4. A coordinated response for states. Having states bid against each other and run massive deficits is an abdication of duty and creates situations where, for example, on some people get tested because it would require infusions of federal money to test more. The administrations failure to have a coordinated response with states is catastrophic here.

In short, we're not half-way through this. We don't have a plan, and the people who want to Open-It-Up are basically calling for action . . . but have absolutely zero intention of bearing the responsibility for  what could be a really big mistake.

Monday, April 13, 2020

An American Case for Biden

The Omnivore did a Positive / Affirmative case for Joe Biden (as a request) but felt that a second article was warranted: if you are an American--and not a Trumpaloo (for whom there is NO case for Biden as you would be literally voting against your own self-image)--then there's a good reason to jump on the No Malarkey Express in November.

This can apply to progressives who felt that Elizabeth Warren would have been better (Maybe!) or to those who felt a candidate of color would have been preferable (Booker? Booker! Harris!). In other words, anyone who had a different candidate in mind and is now looking at what happened in the primary and wants to come to grips with Biden, of all people, pulling out the nomination.

It is also meant for the persuadable Trump voter. Trump is in the midst of getting a bunch of us unnecessarily killed and that probably doesn't deserve to earn your vote--so, hey? Give the idea of voting for Biden a test-spin!

This argument includes:
  1. A clear-cut case for Biden as a legitimate nominee
  2. A non-opinion based argument for Biden over Trump in the general
  3. A look at the various "never-Biden" positions to see if they rise to the level of a good counterargument.
1. Biden As the Nominee
There is a great deal of digital ink spilled about how Biden is "unexciting" or "just another white old guy" or "over the hill," etc. As this section ignores the NeverBiden movement, it is fair to say that as a generic white-guy coming out of central casting there is a pretty easy objective case for Joe Biden: A Generic Democrat routinely beats Trump in all the polling aggregates.

You can argue that there were more historic, exciting, or deserving candidates in the race--but you cannot argue there was a more generic candidate--perhaps EVER--than Joe Biden.

2. Biden vs. Trump
There are many cases to be made for voting in a mouldy ham sandwich over Trump--but if you are looking for an objective one, that means you do not  believe that Trump is 100% dumpster-fire and, perhaps, has merits that are not entirely canceled by his . . . unique . . . approach to executive governance.

In this case, though, we *must* have some basic facts straight--some stuff The Omnivore and a Trump-leaning (but not Trumpaloo) might even agree upon. In this case, it is the COVID-19 response: specifically lack of attention to critical expertise in taking necessary action because o uniquely Trumpian failures (i.e. "This would NOT have happened credibly to any other president.").

The smoking gun comes from today's NYT article: Experts in the government--working with experts in the field--realized what was coming--quite clearly in many cases. They saw the administration acting too slowly and they wanted to tell him the dangers.

Alas, it did not go so well and it is legitimately hard to imagine another administration throwing a fit about a stock market decline to the point where the experts would hold off on life-saving information.

If you do not believe this is #fakenews then what possible defense is there when we can see that Trump's titular successes (awesome stock markets, better deals, booming economy) are all basically destroyed by a problem that many saw coming and which, with proper action, could have been mitigated far more than it is.

But Isn't Biden . . .
There are going to be a lot of attacks on Biden. Rape allegations are serious and anyone who isn't a Republican should take them seriously. The argument that Biden is "Soft on China" is looking like one of the big approaches of the Trump re-election campaign. There will be more (most field tested by Team Bernie at one point or another).

The key here is two fold:
1. The primary was imperfect (as it must be)--but Joe is the nominee. At this point what is your moral obligation to America? The answer is obvious: Vote for Biden. Trump has all of Biden's weaknesses or alleged weaknesses turned up to 11.

2. If you feel that Joe crossed the Moral Event Horizon and you simply cannot vote for him (the Tara Reade allegations here, specifically) then you need to introspect and see if it's really a line in your ethical sand or just the emotional cost of making the vote. If it's the former does that line really hold up to the massive damage that Trump will inflict on the vulnerable? It doesn't--it pretty much can't. If it's the latter, well, that's not how you'd want someone with your life in their hands to make a decision that would hurt or kill you ("Sorry, bud--I can't get you out of the serpent pit--it'd mean I was wrong all along and I just can't bear it.")

The fundamental result here is that if you, personally, stood to be viscerally hurt by Trump you would vote for Biden. You would want others to vote for Biden. It's a do-unto-others argument.

Conclusions
So, there you have it--the neutral / American case for Biden.

The Narcissistic Wound Of A Biden Victory


There is a lot of strum und dang in #BernieWorld right now because the Sanders campaign is suffering a protracted death (Bernie suspends-but-does-not-drop-out, Bernie loses Alaska to Joe). Also because, well, there is concern in the Bernie camps that . . . Joe might just win.

Whether they credit COVID with creating a possible aperture for the victory of Biden or the lameness of the general voting public--or whatever--the real reason is that Joe Biden winning in 2020 would inflict a narcissistic wound on the Bernie-Crowd and that CANNOT be allowed to happen.

A LOT of these guys are going to vote for Trump in November.

Polling showed that 15% of Bernie supporters would vote for Trump if Bernie wasn't the nominee. The conventional wisdom says these are Trump->Bernie cross-over voters: conservatives who were swayed to the side of Bernieness by the populist Bern of his Berniegenda.

This is bullshit. That 15%? Those are the hard-core Bernie voters--most of the people you interact with online.

How come?

The isn't that if Joe wins in November millions of people will get improved health care--or that tons of migrant families will be reunited or that a woman will land the VP slot for the first time in history. No.

The Berners aren't upset that the damage to our courts can be repaired or that the corruption that has taken over our government could be rooted out. That stuff is annoying to them--but it's not why they'd literally vote for Trump in any great numbers.

No--the reason why many of them are going to do that (despite saying they'll write in Bernie) is because if Joe wins and the make-things-better-for-people cause is advanced? They are irrelevant. That is what's called a "Narcissistic Wound."

The appeal of Sanders to these people isn't fundamentally his policy (if that was the case, it'd be negotiable as a primacy of harm-reduction)--no, it's the Not Me--Us vibe of his revolution. He is placing them in the place of primary importance in his attack on The Real Enemy--The Ones Who Ignored Them--The Democrats.

This, again, is why they were never going to turn their ire on Trump. If Bernie had won the nomination the campaigns enemies would still be The DNC, the Democratic Power Structure (governors, and congress and so on), and The Press. The wound wasn't inflicted by the GOP which alternately praised Bernie (in an attempt to divide the Democrats) or, at least, saw them as a legitimate enemy.

The Chance Of Liberal Success Wounds Them

If Biden can succeed and win the election then their worst-case scenario has come to pass. If Trump wins, they get to occupy the center of attention (or, at least, will try to) claiming they could have saved America if everyone else had just acknowledged them. But if Biden wins? Then they were nothing but a bunch of angry kids all along.

And if families get reunited and people without health care get access to it and the government gets repaired?

That's rubbing salt in that terrible, terrible wound.

By Request: A Positive Case For Joe Biden (vs. Anti-Trump)

The Omnivore takes requests and in this case the question is why would we want a President Biden? What could possibly be good about that? It's really not too hard to make a case of harm-reduction in Biden-vs-Trump but that's not what The Omnivore was asked for. So here goes.

1. He's now Pro-Pot.

Huh?? That might seem like a weird thing to lead with--but (a) The Omnivore's readers will almost certainly agree with the position and (b) the more strategically inclined will acknowledge that it's a winner.
Can we trust him to do it? Sure. Why not? It's not like having a preference for the entire (and retroactive!) decriminalization of pot would be a political nuke (unlike M4A). In fact, it would be the softest of soft-balls. Unless Biden was a staunchly anti-Pot crusader (which he used to be--but is emphatic he isn't right now) this doesn't seem a stretch of a position.

NOTE: he cannot just "enact this" anyway--but his position on it would help get it done for sure.

NOTE: BUT HE HAS SOME NUANCE. Tough, kid. The headline is what matters here. After Congress gets through with it the bill will be that you can only buy from a licensed accredited pot dealer with a certification process or some shit.

Maybe he'll require the post office to deliver pot. That'd save the USPS too.

2. He Will Improve Health Care For Millions Of People

Having a Public Option for the ACA is a great thing that will help millions of people. It's insurance without the profit overhead. It isn't the magic M4A--but it could actually pass. So if you want to help people with medical care, Joe is your man.

If you won't help some people unless you help all people (M4A! #BernieOrBust!!) then you are not willing to fight for someone you don't know (and you don't actually care about the people who would get helped by Biden but won't under Trump--fuck them, right?)

3. He Will Choose A Historic VP
No one cares about the VP, says the political conventional wisdom--but The Omnivore points out that a woman VP would still be a first and will, in, yes, an incremental fashion, add "cracks" to a glass ceiling almost no one really thinks should exist in the first place.

4. He's Not A Horrible Choice
Team Sanders has a laundry list of reasons Biden must NEVER be president. Such as: (a) he is suffering late stage dementia, (b) he is, maybe, dead, (c) He is a tool of the Corporatist Democratic Machine that cheated Bernie out of a rightful win, (d) he is a credibly accused rapist.

We saw in the Sanders-Biden debate that he's not a drooling dementia patient who has no idea where he is.

We discovered that Team Bernie saying he was dead was just, you know, a second lie.

The spectrum of DNC cheating runs from Obama threatening Arkancide if the other Dems didn't drop out to fixing votes (the "exit polls!! The margin of error!! It's PROOF!!") to just feeling that Bernie should have won and didn't.

The rape allegation deserves its own post and should not be treated flippantly. The Omnivore will say that being told "I CANNOT VOTE FOR A RAPIST" by people who have already said they couldn't vote for Biden because of [other bullshit] isn't quite the point the people think they are making.

This doesn't mean the allegations are fake or should not be looked at seriously--but it means that much of the conversation around this issue shouldn't be taken as a real #MeToo issue and more as an attack on a candidate: if the person pushing the conversation is #NeverBiden then the argument, prima facie, isn't in good faith.

5. Biden--The Best For Repair. One of the issues with Sanders is that November would not be the time for a revolution--even if he won. Why not? There's no time like the present for enacting a broad swath of sweeping changes, right?

Well, wrong. If Trump doesn't win again, whoever lands in the top spot will have their first and foremost job being repair. Repair the military, restore the state department, fix the CDC, the list goes on. None of this is quick or easy and it will require the touch of someone who cares about those institutions.

That person is clearly Joe Biden--of all the candidates, he is the one who actually experienced working government from the executive suite on the inside. He is therefore most likely the person who can put them back together.

Conclusions
Biden is a good candidate--he's not everything everyone wanted, sure--but no one ever is. You should vote for him for the good he will do (if you can't get past voting for him because of the incredible harm he will prevent).