America This Week, July 26, 2024: "The Fall of the House of Biden"

But it's been absolutely crazy since we were last on the air. So Biden stepped down. We did a live hit after that, after he drank the hemlock on Sunday. And then, you know, I guess, what's happened since, he did a speech last night, which we should probably go over. And then there has been this outpouring of propaganda and support for Kamala Harris, which has also been kind of remarkable on multiple levels.

I guess we should probably start with his speech though.

Should we watch some video of that? What's your feeling on that? Yeah. Okay. All right.

So let's just go and check out how Joe Biden sounded. He gave a speech at 8 p.m. Eastern time. And I think a lot of people had the same reaction, which was a kind of a sense of unease listening to this, but here's about a minute of it.

She's been an incredible partner to me and a leader for our country.

Now the choice is up to you, the American people. When you make that choice, remember the words of Benjamin Franklin's hanging on my wall here in the Oval Office. He's hanging alongside the bust of Dr. King and Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez. When Ben Franklin was asked, as he emerged from the convention going on, whether the founders have given America a monarchy or republic, Franklin's response was, a republic, if you can keep it.

A republic, if you can keep it.

what did you think of that whole thing? First of all, Walter, it was very strange. Actually, why don't we listen also to some other unnerving moments? This one caught the attention of a lot of folks.

It was not clear exactly what he was saying here.

Just read the words, right?

But he looked like a hostage to me in that video. He looked upset. It did not look to me like something he wanted to be doing.

And a lot of the sentiments he conveyed did not feel like his. So I don't know. What did.

I think the subtext was clear. I didn't want to go. I feel like I've done a good job. But the party comes first. Now, it didn't explain why he's leaving.

Other than that, you know, the party seems to feel he should. He didn't reference his health at all. And he wasn't explicit about the power struggle that appears to have gone on.

He was in ghastly shape, just ghastly, I thought. And it did not bode well for the next six months in which he has apparently a very ambitious agenda to reform the Supreme Court, um, help cure cancer and other things. So, you know, I was not reassured if that was the, if, that was the intention of the speech.

Also, it seemed a little bit like a campaign speech. He was urging Americans to vote a certain way, which didn't accord with an address from the Oval Office, I thought. The stuff about a republic, if you could keep it, was a clear allusion to the notion that Donald Trump will somehow end the democracy of the last couple of 100 years. So it was just jarring in every way to me, from the fact that it didn't explain the situation, to his emotional comportment, to his apparently terrible health.

And it left me wondering what's going on even more than I had wondered before that.

but in the defense of democracy, which is at stake, I think it's more important than any title. So he's, he's saying, I can't win. And stepping aside is our best chance of winning. That is strange. Because the Fuhrer over the last month or so has been about his ability to continue serving as president.

But they're in this really odd place where they can't claim he's incapacitated because of the other thing that he said, the other important piece of information that he put in the speech, which was that over the next six months, I will be focused on doing my job as president. So they're doing this very odd thing where he's withdrawing, clearly for health reasons, clearly, because he's not really capable of doing the job. The reason he would have trouble with winning in November is because voters do not believe he's capable of doing the job. That's what all the people in his party are saying. On their way out the door, they were all saying this exact thing that he can no longer do it.

But they have, they are not asking him to step aside and give up the office, which I think is crazy. I mean, I think that's beyond immoral to keep somebody in office who's not capable of doing the job and who's clearly not actually doing the job. The New York Times had this strange thing where they talked about how Kamala Harris's less demanding job schedule will allow her to campaign more vigorously, which is nuts. She should have a more demanding job. She should be president right now if he can't do it.

So they're in this netherworld where they have to pretend that the reason he's stepping aside isn't because of health reasons, but because of electability reasons, which aren't one in the same, actually. The whole thing, I think it's kind of offensive. If he's well enough to be president, then I think he's got a right to be upset and say, no, I don't want to step aside. But they clearly dropped the horse head in his.

I think it should be clear also that they're keeping in superposition two possibilities. One, that he's okay. And two, that he's not okay. And they're giving us no information that would allow us to resolve that, forcing us to make our own judgments by looking at him. And my judgment from looking at him is that he's really not well.

And.

for people who are Democratic Party loyalists, I suppose anything can be justified and reconciled in the name of winning. But for people who are just Americans, sitting there wondering about the state of their executive branch, it is disconcerting.

So the reaction to the speech.

talking about Joe Biden's prospects and his apparent defiance of the party leaders.

And the reason that people are having this conversation is because of the threat of Donald Trump and now JD Vance, who will read the Project 2025 plan and be a more effective implementer. It's not because they don't like Joe Biden. It's because they don't think he was a great president. It's because they're scared that they could take over and what they would do to our country. That's why people are having a conversation.

But in terms of what we know and what we don't know, which is always important too, I will say that contextually, having worked for Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are people that are obviously litters in the Democratic Party. They're not people he has close personal relationships with, as close as he has with, say, Jim Clyburn, or close as he has with Nancy Pelosi. There have been reports. And again, we're all piecing together reports and talking to a lot of people about Pelosi's behind the scenes work. We don't know much more about that.

Obviously, I think it's hard to believe that Adam Schiff would have done what he did without her knowing about it. But a spokesperson for her said it was news to her. Again, these are.

You know, so much for transparency that we are reduced to this Kremlin, Kremlin, Kremlin. illogical speculation, even by people who are in the Kremlin, are in the Kremlin, is wild to me, especially when we're being told, on the other hand, that, you know,

it's a democratic process. You know, we have to do this all in the name of saving the, you know, the Constitution and the Republic, and so on. Well, then, why can't we get a straight account of what the hell's going on? And who is in control? Who is able to tell the president not to run?

I want to know. And what arguments are they using? And why can't we get a straight answer on?

Subsequently, all these channels would confirm that. essentially, Nancy Pelosi, I mean, it's like the Godfather. It was a Barzini operation all along. You know, it was Pelosi, Schumer, and Jeffries, but mostly Pelosi, apparently, who went to Biden and made the argument which he eventually, to which he eventually assented. Now, he, he gives this speech, he's out of sight for days, which is weird.

He, you know, he announces it on Twitter, then gives this speech, which, you know, comes off like a hostage video. And all these people who were saying, you know, people, oh, yes, these democratic leaders are being criticized for all the things they're saying about the president. But then we have to remember what the threat is. It's not that we don't like Joe Biden. It's just that, you know, he's got to go, basically.

Then he gives this speech, and now listen to what they're saying, what the attitude is about, about Joe Biden.

I thought his gratitude and the expressions of gratitude for the office, talking about, I love, you know, I revere this office, but I love my country more. This is somebody, you think about, the student council kid that you went to high school with, the people who really loved student council, and this was their mission and their passion. He's that guy. And he's somebody who devoted his life, his whole adult life, to politics. But this was selfless.

This was selfless on a level, I think that's important in a way that we talk about George Washington being selfless and saying, I could keep doing this for me, because I think I can, but I'm going to stop doing it because I think that there are choices. There were two pieces, I'll also quote, America's going to have to choose between moving forward or backward. I've made it clear, I believe America is at an inflection point. As Rachel Maddow pointed out, this is one of those moments in history when we have to determine our fate as a nation, our decade, and for decades to come, America's going to have to choose between moving forward or backward, between hope and hate, also very Biden. And then I think this other piece here, where he talked about allowing new voices and younger voices into the room, there's a time in place.

for long years of experience in public life. There's also a time and a place for new voices, fresh voices, yes, younger voices. And that time and place is now. Over the next six months, I'm focused on doing my job as president. I thought that was wonderful.

But he is grateful and grateful for the role he has played, grateful for the people. And one of the lines that struck me was, it's about we, the people, we can never forget that. I draw strength and I find joy in working for the American people. And I circled that in part because, as Rachel was saying, it was about a view of the presidency. And I think in this dark moment or years we've all lived through, you sometimes forget that people get into public service largely from all sides of the political spectrum, because they want to do good.

Because they want to make people's lives better. And there's differences of view on how to do that. And that's okay. But he very much got into public service because he wants to do good and fight for the people from Scranton. That's who he is.

And I actually think that phrase, if they had a good enough speechwriter, could have been written and delivered by most presidents in history, right? That's the belief. That's why people get into that, why they run for office, because they represent the American people. The other thing that struck me, and I circled it when he talked about reforming the Supreme Court, because, as Lawrence knows, as you all know, this is not a phrase that would have come out of the mouth of President Joe Biden, even while he's been President Joe Biden. And it was a reminder, I think, that leadership is about being consistent and people knowing what to expect from you.

It's also being open to evolving. And his grandchildren being in.

Because, as I understand it, Washington was offered more power, an extension of his presidency and turned it down, which is the exact opposite of being told you have to leave the presidency and reluctantly acceding to the request.

Could that be any more upside down than they made it?

Joanne Reid gives her whole speech about this, then mentions at the end, I'm going to focus on the next six months of being president. She just steps on that. That's the one concrete piece of news in the whole thing. And she just rolled right past it, which is infuriating. And then the Jen Psaki business, now you can see there's this relaxation, the tension is gone from the room.

Lawrence O'Donnell is sitting there beaming, smiling, it's done, we did it.

They got the news that the rival gang leaders actually been hit dead. And now they can give the eulogy. And the eulogy is just nothing but positive. And you know what, not only did he reluctantly agree to go, but he's agreed to embrace our position on reforming the Supreme Court, by which they mean packing the Supreme Court. But we're in this place now, we're going to be run by a Politburo, essentially.

All this stuff about. we're a country that isn't run by kings or monarchs. This is all about devaluing the individual who sits in the Oval Office.

That's been my point throughout this.

They didn't accurately describe what had happened. They came out with an immediate revision of what had just transpired, and a kind of institutional narrative that we're going to use going forward, in which Joe Biden somehow looked up one day, saw that he wasn't the best candidate, selflessly chose to step down, handed off to his vice president, and now has decided he's going to pursue certain policy objectives that he didn't before, in a kind of last, glorious evolution.

And, like I said before, we don't really know who the power brokers are. We can guess, and there have been stories about who they are. But in general, what's so strange is that we're being asked now to recommit or democratic voters or American voters, to the notion of Harris as a young, vibrant individual, or younger and more vibrant individual who should have our enthusiastic support. But we're being told, on the other hand, that the presidency doesn't really matter in individual terms. So, once again, there are two conflicting stories being told.

It doesn't really matter who it is, as long as this committee rules. But secondly, Harris is amazing, and really singularly equipped to lead the country.

Alexander Hamilton wrote about it as being important because the public would be able to more narrowly focus their attention on one person and hold, I guess now him or her, right? Back then he wrote one man. But the idea was that responsibility would be visible, not spread out in some diffuse committee whose borders are not even delineated, and the positions of which are not listed anywhere. The whole idea is to have it be vested in one person who is responsible, right? And this is why people celebrate this picture of Harry Truman with the placard, The Buck Stops Here, because it reflects something sort of that's deeply important in the American consciousness, that the president has responsibility, but he has responsibilities specifically to us, right?

When we want to ask who did what, who's responsible for what, Truman was saying, come to me with those questions. This is where the buck stops, right? Now they're telling us the buck stops nowhere, as you say,

You know, the kind of thing that's gone on recently, is something we're used to happening at conventions, when a candidate is being chosen, when a new candidate is being chosen, there's, there's all, you know, in the old days, when conventions were still, you know, a factor, before the primary system really took hold, we knew that there were negotiations and horse trading and the so called smoke filled rooms. We're not used to that happening with an incumbent president, not at a convention, in whatever way it happened over the last week, and wherever those smoke rooms may have been. So, as I say, what's been normalized is the idea that the party comes first, that the party is a committee, that when the committee turns against the figurehead,