There is a helpful write-up circulating about The Four Democratic Candidates You Shouldn’t Vote For: Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, and Beta O’Rourke. I was certainly never going to vote for Biden, Harris, or O’Rourke, and was kind of so-so on Buttigieg, but this is a good summary of why all four candidates are bad options. Or at least for the most part. There are some criticisms in these bullet points that are unfair, petty, and in some cases blatantly stupid. Such as:
The attack on Joe Biden’s “long history of creepily groping/sniffing/kissing women and young girls” is absurd. Making him the equivalent of a Harvey Weinstein or other villains in the Me-Too movement is yellow journalism. The criticism that Biden opposed LGBTQ rights until “very recently” is churlish. It was actually seven whole years ago (2012) that he began vocally supporting gay marriage, and that was earlier than Obama, the ineffective president he served under.
Certain points against Pete Buttigieg I simply disagree with. For example, that he agreed with Trump’s relocation of the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem — I supported that decision too. (Even a disaster like Trump is right once in a while.) And it’s petty in the extreme to censure Buttigieg for being a pledge delegate to Hillary Clinton, much as I can’t stand her.
The biggest hoot is the charge against Kamala Harris for lying about listening to Snoop and Tupac while smoking weed. Impossible to take seriously.
Despite these lame points and a few others, the list is helpful on whole. Biden, Buttigieg, Harris, and O’Rourke, are indeed bad candidates. Biden is easily the worst in the entire 24-candidate lineup (aside from know-nothing Marianne Williamson), and Harris is cut from the same cloth, despite the chasm she is now trying to manufacture between herself and Biden in the debates. If you want to know who to vote for, make it one of the following three. For me, it’s Tulsi Gabbard.
I stumbled on a libertarian site which is running a series on Everything Wrong with Every Single President of the United States.
“This will be a sharp departure from your standard presidential histories, rankings, surveys, and biographies. Here, we have no interest in criticizing the man while maintaining ‘respect for the office.’ The office itself is the problem, after all, and practically anyone you could throw into it would make a proper mess of the whole affair… It’s high time to take on the myths, shred them, and finish the job by tackling each and every other president along with the ‘greats.’ No American president has managed to wield the power of their office and do so within the limits of both the Constitution and the rights, liberties, and interests of the people. Even those few presidents who have entered office with the best of records, the best of intentions, and the best of methods have been abject failures in their own ways… Every president was awful. Every president should be remembered as an infamous and immoral rogue who unjustly claimed to rule many millions by arguments no better than magic. Every president deserves either our scorn, our disgust, or at the very least, our criticism; some deserve trials for war crimes and others have escaped all scrutiny by hiding in relative obscurity. No longer.”
To date, these authors have covered the following presidents:
William Henry Harrison (1841)
John Tyler (1841-1845)
Harry Truman (1945-1953)
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
John Adams (1797-1801)
James Buchanan (1857-1861)
While it’s impossible to take seriously the idea that all chief executives were equally bad, these analyses have more merit than those you will find in most books and online, which err on the side of uncritical praise.
The reader may compare these with my own list of baddies, though I’ve done only three so far:
Abraham Lincoln (most overrated)
Andrew Jackson (most dangerous)
Woodrow Wilson (worst of all)
I also did the tenth president, whom I judge to have been excellent — the very best in fact — unlike the authors above who trash him: