The 4th of July Fungus.

I hope you enjoy that insane Fungus of the Day. It looked weirder in person, because it's not tiny, as it might appear in the photograph. Think of the cap as half of a softball to picture the size.

"Yes, I think Donald Trump should step down as his party’s presidential nominee. He is manifestly unfit to serve, both dangerously incompetent and clearly out of his mind."

Said Dana Milbank, one of 5 Washington Post columnists participating in an exercise called "If not Biden, who? Five columnists rate the field of potential replacements for the Democratic presidential nominee" (WaPo).

That's a gift link, so you can click over there and see them dream up the Whitmer/Booker ticket. Perry Bacon Jr. says:

Why pair Whitmer with Booker? He, like Kamala D. Harris, tried to run in between the left (Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) and the center-left candidates (Biden) during his 2020 presidential run. That strategy didn’t work in such a crowded field. But a candidate who is not a clear leftie or moderate could be a unifying figure. Booker remains very well-liked in the party. Diversity matters, so it’s important to have a non-White candidate. Booker (who is 55) combined with Whitmer (52) are a ticket that could address some of Biden-Harris’s current shortfalls among younger and Black voters as well as appealing to the majority of voters who don’t want a president in his 80s.

Diversity matters, that's why we're kicking our diversity-matters VP Kamala Harris to the curb and replacing her with a new repository of diversity. We'll split the diversity of Kamala in two and run with a white female presidential candidate and a black male vice presidential candidate. The young folks will love it. And besides, we can do what we want because Donald Trump is clearly out of his mind.

But the "out of his mind" man knows it's got to be Kamala:

HIGHER QUALITY VIDEO:

Trump says Joe Biden is “quitting the race"

"I got him out” he’s an “old broken-down pile of crap… Now we have Kamala. She’s so f—king bad”

(looks like Barron Trump in passenger seat 👀👀) pic.twitter.com/GXBZjxiP7p

— Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) July 4, 2024

"I got [Biden] out of there, and that means we have Kamala. I think she's going to be better. She's so bad. She's so pathetic. She's so fucking bad."

***

There's much more at that WaPo link — so many crazy statements from people who smugly declare Donald Trump to be out of his mind. I could write 10 blog posts excerpting different quotes and riffing on them, but I need to spread the love around. Happy 4th of July!

Sunrise — 5:17, 5:19.

A new front in the battle against affirmative action?

I'm reading "Lawsuit: Northwestern’s law school is biased against White men in hiring/The complaint alleges that the private university’s law school gives hiring preference to 'mediocre' women and applicants of color" (WaPo).

A lawsuit filed Tuesday against Northwestern University opened a new front in the battle against affirmative action....

“For decades, left-wing faculty and administrators have been thumbing their noses at federal anti-discrimination statutes,” contends the suit, which was filed Tuesday in federal district court in Illinois. “They do this by hiring women and racial minorities with mediocre and undistinguished records over white men who have better credentials, better scholarship, and better teaching ability.”...

The suit names three White men it says were not hired despite strong qualifications, and names four Black women and one Black man who it alleges were offered faculty positions because of their race and/or gender, painting several of these academics in harshly unflattering terms.

This sounds not new but old to me, because I remember when the University of Wisconsin Law School was sued in exactly this way. The case went to trial, and I testified, because I'd served on the Appointments Committee. This was many years ago, and the jury found in our favor. It's very difficult to look at particular individuals who were hired and compare them to individuals who were not hired. This was decades ago, and the relevant case law has evolved since then.

Eugene Volokh is not one of the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit, but the complaint contains allegations about him.

"Show us your cats."

the annual @WedgeLIVE cat tour is undoubtedly the greatest summer event in Minneapolis. i love my neighborhood and the cats that call it home!!! #catsofthewedge pic.twitter.com/95myvGFnAZ

— linnae 🐀 (@substantialrat) June 27, 2024

I'm reading "Minneapolis cat tour started as joke, now draws hundreds of admirers/'I love to do weird, goofy stuff like this,' said John Edwards, who organizes the yearly event" (WaPo).

On the evening of June 26, about 500 people of all ages congregated at a local park, ready to start the seventh annual cat tour. Many held signs saying “show us your cats,” and people also wore official “Cats of the Wedge” T-shirts, tank tops and totes. Local reporters were there to cover the tour.

"Show us your cats" struck a mystic chord of memory... ah!

"President Biden acknowledged at a fundraiser Tuesday night in Virginia that he 'didn’t have my best debate night' last week."

"Citing pre-debate travel, he told donors that he 'nearly fell asleep onstage.' But Biden downplayed his struggles, saying he is 'feeling good' about his campaign. On Wednesday, Biden plans to speak with congressional leaders and meet with Democratic governors as he and aides seek to tamp down Democratic angst over his performance."

WaPo reports. I accidentally made that a gift link. So, enjoy the additional squibs over there: "Biden cites pre-debate travel as an explanation for his performance," "Biden to honor Civil War soldiers for wild Georgia train hijacking,""Obama shares concerns after shaky debate, offers Biden his advice," "Biden team seizes on his history of resilience to justify staying in race," "The Biden campaign is launching a new ad spotlighting the Supreme Court decision that gave Donald Trump partial immunity...."

Here's that ad:

Transcript of the ad: "Nearly 250 years ago America was founded in defiance of a king under the belief that no one is above the law, not even the President. Until now. The same Trump Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade ruled that the President can ignore the law even to commit a crime because Donald Trump asked them to. He's already led an insurrection and threatened to be a dictator on Day One. Donald Trump can never hold this office again."

But the Supreme Court didn't say "the President can ignore the law." The Biden Administration just got hemmed in by law — the law that prevents it from criminally prosecuting the former President, waging lawfare to fight a political rival. And the Supreme Court only protected the President from criminal prosecution for his official acts. Where the President violates the law, he's subject to impeachment. You can't impeach a King. 

And it's funny how that ad refers to revolution twice, first to uphold it as a glorious ideal — "America was founded in defiance of a king" — and then to denounce it — "He's already led an insurrection." But the ad isn't about coherence. It's a montage of fear.

"What does Callahan hope to add to this vale of tears? Only her residual and, yes, partisan and ideological suspicion..."

"... that despite ample testimony (in many cases from the victims themselves), the Kennedy men have somehow gotten away with it all. So unfurls her multigenerational perp walk, which begins, as it must, with Big Joe.... Joe’s habit of treating women as, in Callahan’s words, 'accessories, broodmares, chattel' was inevitably passed down to his sons. John Kennedy’s White House notably featured what one aide called 'a conveyor belt of young women' running up and down the back stairs, 'leaving blond hairs and bobby pins,' Callahan writes, 'dripping water and passing their half-finished drinks to Secret Service agents as they scurried out the door, no doubt hearing that the first lady was on her way home.' In one particularly repellent act, she writes, the president commanded the 19-year-old intern he was having sex with to fellate one of his aides...."

Writes Louis Bayard, author of the novel "Jackie & Me," in "A Horror Story Starring the Monstrous Men of Camelot/Maureen Callahan’s lurid 'Ask Not' paints the Kennedys as mad, bad and dangerous for women to know" (NYT).

"To suggest that the donor community could do that is scary. Money plays too much of a role in politics already."

Said Craig Kaplan, a Democratic Party donor, quoted in "Big Donors Turn on Biden. Quietly. Some of the president’s past supporters want a new candidate, but they are leery of going public" (NYT).

At a breakfast on Friday morning at the Hotel Jerome in Aspen, Colo., where nearly 50 Democratic donors had gathered for a preplanned meeting convened by the super PAC American Bridge, one person asked the crowd for a show of hands of how many thought Mr. Biden should step aside. Nearly everyone in the room raised their hands, according to two people present.... 

The deliberations among wealthy Democrats, detailed in more than two dozen interviews as well as in written communications reviewed by The New York Times, only intensified as the Biden campaign and the party establishment formed a protective wall around him in the days after the debate....

At the Mourning Cloak Café...

... you can write about whatever you want.

***

The butterfly is "Nymphalis antiopa, known as the mourning cloak in North America...."

"Manhattan Prosecutors Agree to Delay Trump’s Sentencing/Donald J. Trump’s lawyers want to argue that a Supreme Court decision giving presidents immunity for official acts..."

"... should void his felony conviction for covering up hush money paid to a porn star," The NYT reports.

Although the Manhattan case does not center on Mr. Trump’s presidency or official acts — but rather personal activity during his campaign — his lawyers argued on Monday that prosecutors had built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House. And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only cannot charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations. In a letter to the judge who presided over the trial, Juan M. Merchan, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that the conviction should be set aside....

UPDATE: The sentencing is now delayed until September 18th. 

How can anyone but Kamala Harris get their hands on the money contributed to the Biden campaign?

I'm reading "Campaign Finance Laws Give Harris Big Boost in Biden Dropout Scenario/If Biden were to withdraw his candidacy, only Kamala Harris could seamlessly use funds raised by the Biden-Harris campaign committee" (American Prospect).

The Biden for President campaign committee controls candidate contributions for the 2024 election... If Biden, as candidate, wanted to contribute money from this account to another candidate for the presidency, he’s limited to $2,000 per election. If Biden withdraws, he could convert this campaign committee to a political action committee. In that case he could direct $3,300 to another candidate.... It’s simply not allowable for a presidential candidate to directly transfer millions of dollars to another candidate....

[T]he Biden PAC could operate an independent expenditure campaign on behalf of the new candidate. But that PAC would not be able to coordinate with the new candidate.... [I]f Harris succeeded Biden, she would control all the funds in the [Biden/Harris] campaign committee and could use them in the election campaign....

One more reason why bypassing Harris would be a huge insult. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign is pre-attacking her:

"I’m not a journalist. I’m not in the media. This is a military headquarters for a populist revolt."

This is how we motivate people. This show is an activist show. If you watch this show, you’re a foot soldier. We call it the Army of the Awakened.... Immigration, spending — it’s the lack of confidence and self-loathing of their own civilization and their own culture. That’s the spiritual part that’s at the base. Immigration is just the manifestation of a loss of self-confidence. And it’s shocking...."

Said Steve Bannon, quoted in "My Unsettling Interview With Steve Bannon" (NYT) (free access link). 

The "me" is David Brooks, who says:

"I really wonder where the normal people are. Maybe someone should write up an article on what normal behavior is because it is getting hard to remember."

An apt comment on the WaPo article "'Narcissistic abuse' has gone mainstream. But what is it? Skeptics say it’s just a trendy hashtag. Survivors say it describes the unimaginably manipulative relationships they’ve escaped."

Skepticism-inducing lines in the article: "Experts aren’t sure how common NPD is. The disorder is underdiagnosed, partly because symptoms can be confused with other personality disorders and partly because most narcissists aren’t rushing into therapy."

Here's the popular YouTube doctor who calls herself the "#1 source of guidance about healing from narcissistic relationships."

"A campaign email slammed those calling on the president to step aside as the 'bed-wetting brigade'..."

"... and offered tips for responding to 'your panicked aunt, your MAGA uncle, or some self-important podcasters,' an apparent reference to the former Obama officials who host 'Pod Save America.'... I’ve heard hopeful Democrats enthuse about how much better Biden was in North Carolina than he’d been the day before at the debate, but that’s silly: We all know Biden is usually fine reading from a teleprompter. The question is whether he can think and speak extemporaneously.... [I]f Thursday were just a bad night, he could reassure doubters by doing a bunch of interviews and unscripted town halls. If he’s not doing that, it’s probably because his campaign doesn’t think he can pull it off.... Now, it would be worth it for the party to set its credibility on fire to keep Trump out of the White House.... Finding a Biden alternative would be risky and messy, and there’s no guarantee that it would work better than trying to put on a brave face and drag the current president across the finish line. But the Democratic Party’s leaders — the people, let’s remember, who got us into this mess — have no right to condescend to those trying to find a way out.... If you’re in a car careening toward a cliff and can open a door, you should jump out."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "There’s No Reason to Resign Ourselves to Biden" (NYT).

I don't think the headline is justified — you can see at least some reason — but I understand her distress. The party's credibility is already shot. So... do something drastic. Jump out of the car. That's her argument. Is it better than the campaign email idea to hold steady, keep the door closed and the seatbeat fastened, and fly out over the cliff?

ADDED: Check the operation of the door handle before attempting the tricky jump-out:

"The image is saintly."

Announces Washington Post fashion writer Rachel Tashjian, in "Jill Biden is Vogue’s cover star. What timing. The first lady covers Vogue for the third time, positioned by the magazine as a savior of the country’s fate."

Here's the image:

Tashjian proclaims that "a striking, fascinatingly out-of-character image in its storytelling."  What's the usual "character"? More smiley? More of a sidekick? I really don't know. Do you? We're told "the religious undertones are startling": "Her pose and visage, not to mention the color of her dress, recall religious paintings of saints communing with their higher power."

IN THE COMMENTS: Rafe — short for Raphael? — says "Which paintings? What a lazy comparison, to paintings which only exist, apparently, in her mind." 

I went looking for paintings of saints gazing upward. There's this, by Raphael:

Notice that Catherine's hands do not hang limply at her sides. They are expressive of ecstasy and placed in locations that would seem truly odd on a modern-day politico. Unlike Jill, she's got her weight shifted to one side, and also unlike Jill, she's leaning on what we know to be the device used to torture-murder-martyr her. Jill exists in an empty brown-gray void.

But it's the difference in the eyes that is most striking. Jill's eyes are rotated sideways, and only slightly upward, as if she is gazing fondly at her somewhat tall husband. They're not fixed on Heaven. 

Can we find paintings of saints with eyes rotated sideways, which seems mildly coy? Consider the entirely un-Jill-like Saint Lucy:

At the Sunrise Café...

... you can talk all night.

I took this photo yesterday at 5:24 a.m. and then I forgot to put it up — after driving out to Spring Green to see "Much Ado About Nothing." Sleeping a bit late this morning — almost until 5 a.m. — I skipped this morning's sunrise.

You can lie at Elon's place, but you'll look ridiculous.

When will politicians, or at least the intern who runs their account, learn that lying on this platform doesn’t work anymore? pic.twitter.com/wP7H4AJFwG

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 1, 2024

ADDED: If I had to argue that Kamala Harris was not lying, I would say that Trump's statement that he will not sign an abortion ban is not security enough. We lost a treasured right after he appointed 3 Supreme Court Justices, and he has touted the overruling of Roe v. Wade as a reason why voters should support him. In that light, we should not trust him to refrain from signing legislation that limits the right to abortion. Kamala Harris can't know what lies in the future if Trump is elected, and she may be sincerely expressing her belief about what he will do.

By the way, the use of the word "ban" skews this discussion. Few would ban abortion to the point of criminalizing all abortion — including abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy and where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. The concern should be about federal law that limits abortion, and it makes sense to think that Trump might sign legislation like that.

"As for a President's unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The principles we set out in Clinton v. Jones confirm as much."

"When Paula Jones brought a civil lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton for acts he allegedly committed prior to his Presidency, we rejected his argument that he enjoyed temporary immunity from the lawsuit while serving as President. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President's decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. The 'justifying purposes' of the immunity we recognized in Fitzgerald, and the one we recognize today, are not that the President must be immune because he is the President; rather, they are to ensure that the President can undertake his constitutionally designated functions effectively, free from undue pressures or distortions. '[I]t [is] the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who perform[s] it, that inform[s] our immunity analysis.' The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's unofficial acts."

From the majority opinion in Trump v. United States, issued this morning.

Where is the line between official and unofficial in the charges against Trump? The lower courts rushed through the question, which means the issues are not properly developed for the Supreme Court:

It's the last day for Supreme Court opinions before the summer break.

Watch the minute-by-minute reports at SCOTUSblog:

We are waiting on the court's ruling in the presidential immunity case, Trump v. US. We're also waiting on three cases from February: Corner Post v. Federal Reserve and the NetChoice cases....

UPDATE: The first case is Corner Post, a 6-3 decision, divided in the usual way, written by Justice Barrett. SCOTUSblog: "The court holds that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge an agency action first comes into being when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.... Justice Barrett started her announcement with a joke about how this case was not one that we were here to hear.... Justice Jackson... writes that 'there is effectively no longer any limitations period for lawsuits that challenge agency regulations on their face.'"

UPDATE 2: Justice Kagan writes the opinion in Moody v. NetChoice. Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett join in full. Jackson joins in part and has a concurring opinion. Thomas has an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Alito has an opinion concurring in the judgment and joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. From Alito's opinion: "It is a mystery how NetChoice could expect to prevail on a facial challenge without candidly disclosing the platforms that it thinks the challenged laws reach or the nature of the content moderation they practice."

UPDATE 3: "The court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers. Former presidents are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts. There is no immunity, the court holds, for unofficial acts...." Here's the text: Trump v. United States. Written by Roberts. 6-3, in the usual lineup. Justice Barrett is in the 6, but she does not join Part III-C.

From the case syllabus: "Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."

What is the plural of "mosquito"?

The question occurred to me after I wrote "mosquitos" in the comments to the previous post and saw that someone else had written "mosquitoes." My version looks spiffier and more Spanish — and the word is, the OED says, "A borrowing from Spanish" — but "mosquitoes" seems to coordinate with "tomatoes" and "potatoes." Why does that "e" intrude itself in the plural? (It can even over-intrude, as it did on poor Dan Quayle, who is remembered these days only for misspelling "potato.")

Anyway... take your pick. Both "mosquitoes" and "mosquitos" are correct. I give you this image from the OED, which treats both plurals equally and which also shows you the wild history of the spelling of "mosquito," beginning with "muskyto":

"I called on Mr. Biden to step aside almost a year ago, warning that he would be forever known as 'Ruth Bader Biden' if he didn’t."

"Since then, each time I would bring up that idea, publicly or privately, people would dismiss it out of hand: Get on board, they’d say, the Democrats will never replace him, it’s off the table.  Well, now it’s on the table, where it always should have been. And far from being some kind of disaster for the Democratic Party, it plays right into what works best in 21-century American culture. Americans like new.... Democrats could not buy, with all of George Soros’s money, the enthusiasm, engagement and interest they would get from having an open convention — and in Chicago no less, famous for Democratic convention drama. Suddenly, instead of rehashing the debate from hell — worst episode of 'The Golden Bachelor' ever — they would be hosting a competition, something Americans love. Who will get the rose this August in Chicago? Gavin or Gretchen? Suddenly, Stacey Abrams might say she’s in! And so might Tim Ryan, and Josh Shapiro! And Amy Klobuchar and Ruben Gallego! And Mayor Pete and Raphael Warnock! And Wes Moore, and who knows, maybe Andrew Yang says he’s a Democrat again!... My pick would be Gavin Newsom.... "

Writes Bill Maher, in "Why I Want an Open Convention" (NYT).

Maher, a comedian, claims not to be joking, but how can there be an open convention when the Democrats announced a plan to nominate Biden through a virtual convention that would take place in time to meet Ohio's ballot-access requirement?

But that's not the only reason to balk at a chaotic convention. Bandying about all those names of people who did not subject themselves to any of the debates and primaries that voters think of as a democratic process?

But let's look at the rules —"What happens if a presidential candidate cannot take office due to death or incapacitation...?" (Brookings):

"When age comes in, wit goes out."

A line that jumped out at us in the play we saw last night.

The play is "Much Ado About Nothing," the prescient wordsmith, William Shakespeare.

"Only the National Rally appears in a position to secure enough seats for an absolute majority. If it does, Mr. Macron will have no other choice..."

"... than to appoint [28-year-old Jordan] Bardella prime minister. He would then form a cabinet and control domestic policy. Presidents have traditionally retained control over foreign policy and defense matters in such scenarios, but the Constitution does not always offer clear guidelines. That would put an anti-immigrant, Euroskeptic far-right party governing a country that has been at the heart of the European project. Mr. Bardella could clash with Mr. Macron over issues like France’s contribution to the European Union budget or support for Ukraine in its war with Russia.... If the National Rally fails to secure an absolute majority — Mr. Bardella has said he would not govern without one — Mr. Macron could be facing an unmanageable lower house, with two big blocs on the right and left opposed to him. His much-reduced centrist coalition, squeezed between the extremes, would be reduced to relative powerlessness...."

From "Four Takeaways From France’s Snap Election/It was a big day for the far-right National Rally. Just how big will not be clear until a second round of voting is over" (NYT).

Milkweed.

"[O]ne person close to Biden described his mood as humiliated, devoid of confidence, and painfully aware that images of him appearing confused..."

"... during the debate could be damaging to both his campaign and presidential legacy. Another source close to Biden suggested that First Lady Jill Biden’s opinion will significantly influence the President’s decision. 'The only person who has ultimate influence with him is the first lady,' the source said. 'If she decides there should be a change of course, there will be a change of course.'" 

From "White House denies rumors Biden is heading to Camp David to discuss dropping out of race with family/'The premise of the story is not accurate,' a White House official said" (Post Millennial).

I keep seeing this message to Biden: If you drop out, we will portray you as a noble and beloved public servant, but if you don't let go, everything you've done over your long life will count for nothing as against this one cataclysmic wrong — letting Trump back into the Oval Office.

And I guess it's really a message to Jill: That's a grand, honored husband you have there, and if you don't take him home and hide him, he's going to be attacked and scorned for the rest of American history.

Who came into the debate with a planned zinger that just had to be zinged and that was supposed to be the focus of the post-debate spin?

I think he practiced that line and received coaching on how to look and sound truly angry. I think his people believed this was the stake to drive into Trump's heart. But Biden looked old and ugly and weird, and Trump grabbed that stake and clonked him over the head with it.

***

"Clonked" seemed like exactly the right word, but I got distracted wondering if "clonk" is a real word.

"Pride Month has always been about a political and progressive embrace of our rainbow of choices. But lately..."

"... I find myself feeling alienated by loud voices among activists in the L.G.B.T.Q.+ community on all sides of the Israel-Gaza war. They’re intolerant of nuance, complexity and opposing views."

Writes Amichai Lau-Lavie, leader and a co-founder of Lab/Shul, in "The Pride March Doesn’t Have a Place for Me" (NYT). Amichai Lau-Lavie "is the spiritual leader and a co-founder of Lab/Shul, an everybody-friendly, God-optional congregation in New York City."

Why would a parade about pride partake of nuance, complexity and opposing views?

"For [Biden] to remain the Democratic candidate... would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment."

"It is entirely possible that the debate will not much change the polls; it is entirely possible that Biden could have a much stronger debate in September; it is not impossible to imagine that Trump will find a way to lose. But, at this point, should Biden engage the country in that level of jeopardy? To step aside and unleash the admittedly complicated process of locating and nominating a more robust and promising ticket seems the more rational course and would be an act of patriotism.... To stay in the race would be pure vanity, uncharacteristic of someone whom most have come to view as decent and devoted to public service. To stay in the race, at this post-debate point, would also suggest that it is impossible to imagine a more vital ticket. In fact, Gretchen Whitmer, Raphael Warnock, Josh Shapiro, and Wes Moore are just a few of the office-holders in the Party who could energize Democrats and independents, inspire more younger voters, and beat Trump."

Writes David Remnick, in "The Reckoning of Joe Biden/For the President to insist on remaining the Democratic candidate would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment" (The New Yorker).

Does trying to "energize" people — at this late stage — about Gretchen Whitmer/Raphael Warnock/Josh Shapiro/Wes Moore seem "more rational" to you? Gretchen Whitmer/Raphael Warnock/Josh Shapiro/Wes Moore did not go through the primary process, interacting with real people across the country and standing up to months of scrutiny, outlasting others. And what would this alternative process — this "admittedly complicated process" — consist of? It seems as though it would resemble the process of picking the VP candidate — similar to the way Kamala Harris was picked 4 years ago. Why would voters be "inspir[ed]" to have such a person foisted on them by the same people who presented Biden as excellent and are now asserting that he's hopelessly decrepit? I know they just want to win, but that's not the stuff of hopes and dreams.

Remnick worries about Biden's "self-delusion," but what about his?

By the way, is it "entirely possible that Biden could have a much stronger debate in September"? Not only is it entirely possible for Biden to have a much stronger debate in September, it's entirely possible that if you calm yourself, clear your head of preconceptions, and cue up last Thursday's debate and watch it again, you will perceive it as a much stronger debate than it seemed on first watch. 

And I will resist putting my time into a little exercise in cynicism, but this sentence is begging for a paraphrase: "To stay in the race would be pure vanity, uncharacteristic of someone whom most have come to view as decent and devoted to public service."