"Just two weeks ago, Democrats were chortling over chaos in the G.O.P., convinced that far-right Republican control of the House would help them in 2024."

"Then they experienced the exquisite torture that comes with the slow release of politically damaging information, in this case the acknowledgment of classified documents found in Mr. Biden’s former offices and Wilmington home.... [I]t’s hard to exaggerate the level of Democratic exasperation with him for squandering a huge political advantage on the Mar-a-Lago story and for muddying what may have been the best chance to convict Mr. Trump on federal charges.... Republicans are ferocious attack dogs, especially when they have something to chew on.... It’s not hard to envision an ambitious primary challenger arguing, more in sorrow than in anger, that he or she supports most of the Biden record but elections are about the future and the party needs a more vigorous candidate.... Democratic leaders will be shocked and appalled by the upstart’s temerity in spoiling the party’s impressive unity. But New Hampshire is full of anti-establishment independents.... He could easily lose or be weakened there, opening the door for other Democrats.... Imagine instead that the president.... And the smiling old gentleman in the Corvette — his shortcomings forgotten and his family protected — would assume his proper place as a bridge between political generations and arguably the most accomplished one-term president in American history."

From "Don’t Kid Yourself. The Classified Documents Story Is Bad for Biden" by Jonathan Alter (NYT).

"Andy Warhol obviously just scribbled on a photograph. He spent, like, 1 minute."

I said after investigating this strange image we saw in the background as the author of a book about Jimmy Carter gabbed on "Morning Joe" just now.



Meade called my attention to the TV screen. I'm trying to write a blog over here, but he thought it thought it was very funny. It's so awful — that "Warholized" photograph. What idea of Carter is that supposed to convey? That he's arty? Criminal?

I said, "I think that is Warhol," because the only explanation for using such a bad, inappropriate image would be that it's actually a Warhol.

I looked it up. Yeah, it's Warhol. Here's a closeup fragment, to justify my quote up there in the post title, which is what I said when I saw it:

From the link (which goes to the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery):

Created in 1976 and jointly signed by Andy Warhol and Jimmy Carter, this portrait, commissioned by the Democratic National Committee, served as a fundraiser for the presidential campaign. Based on photographs Warhol took of Carter for the cover portrait of the New York Times Magazine two months before Carter's election in November 1976, the candidate appears solemn and pensive. Rectangular planes of juxtaposed colors intensify the tense expression. Carter would later explain that his "frowning and scowling" reflected financial stress and other concerns.... Carter greatly appreciated the print, noting that Warhol and other artists helped "turn the tide" in his campaign with their fundraising efforts.

Ha ha. Intensifying the tension. Carter liked it! None of that toothy smiling he'd used to steal his way into our squishy 1970s heart. Or maybe Carter didn't like it, but what are you going to say? It was Andy Warhol! Warhol! Making the obscure peanut farmer cool! Or making him ridiculous. Who could know??

Here's Jonathan Alter's book at Amazon:

ADDED: Following my practice of reading the 1-star reviews at Amazon, I encountered this gem: "Who knows how book reads as it was ruined with liquid calcium. Cant return items as post office wont let me ship the liquid sloshing around in the packing bag the bottle came in."