James Carville says Biden went from ‘titan' of American history to ‘sad' figure
Political strategist James Carville said that former President Joe Biden is one of the most tragic figures in modern American history because he refused to withdraw early enough from the election.
'I cannot begin to express how tragic this is,' Carville said on Thursday's episode of his podcast, 'Politics War Room.'
'He's one of the most accomplished Americans' since World War II, Carville said, praising Biden's legacy in politics. 'If you just look at what he did as chairman of the Judiciary, Foreign Relations, Vice President, President, and you look at the tragedies of his life and distress that he's exhibited, and he's a well-liked, very admirable person, and he made one colossal mistake, and the Democrats made a colossal mistake by going along with it.'
'And that is staying in the race until July 21, 2024. And it breaks my heart,' Carville added. 'It's just so sad.'
Biden's pivotal decision to withdraw from the presidential race is facing renewed scrutiny in the media. CNN anchor Jake Tapper co-authored a new book, 'Original Sin,' on the efforts made by top aides and allies to hide the truth about the then-president's mental and physical health.
James Carville poses for a portrait at the 27th SCAD Savannah Film Festival on October 31, 2024 in Savannah, Georgia.
Getty Images
Carville emphasized that Biden destroyed his legacy by choosing to stay in the race for as long as he did.
'Joe Biden on New Year's Day of 2024 stood as a titan of modern American history,' he said.
'He's a man that deserved everything that we could give him other than reelection,' Carville added.
Former President Joe Biden speaks at a conference in Chicago, April 15, 2025.
AP
The Democratic Party strategist who once advised former President Bill Clinton also said that reporters will continue to expose more of what happened behind the scenes of the Biden administration.
'We pretty much know the parameters of what happened but there's plenty of specifics left,' Carville said. 'It's pretty much the saddest f—— thing you could imagine.'
Biden's press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
11 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Video games and podcasts: Can Democrats win back the bros?
Advertisement Throughout the campaign, I Meanwhile Trump was Advertisement Democrats are just coming around to that reality. Pete Buttigieg gets soft kudos for recently Even though Buttigieg recently Or when they got onto the topic of public services, Buttigieg argued that the Scandinavians' high taxes turn into top-notch public resources. To which Schulz declared: Public spending is 'easy to do when, like, every girl's hot.' Granted, Buttigieg is gay, but even when Schulz conceded that Scandinavian dudes are cute, too, Buttigieg laughed, shrugged a little, and eventually asked: 'Where were we?' Pete Buttigieg at a Town Hall in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on May 13. THALASSA RAASCH/NYT To be fair, those are questions that would make both woke progressives and straight-laced conservatives squirm. But Trump isn't a polished politician — he's a guy's guy. You can imagine him in that situation, completely at ease. He would have chuckled at the joke about not hiring women, smirking and wagging a finger at Schulz: 'You're a funny guy, you know that, but boy, you're gonna get me in trouble.' And on the question of spending money on attractive women, well, we know where Trump falls there. He would have made them laugh, just like he did when he Advertisement Trump clearly never had any qualms about going on edgy shows. But Democrats did. Akaash Singh, one of Schulz's cohosts, told Buttigieg: 'We've begged so many Democrats to come on this platform. You're the first one.' Trump didn't need to be begged. He simply took advice from his In their rush to find a tough-talking guy who can mobilize voters against Trump, Democrats could find themselves embracing influencers who alienate some of their own voters. Like streamer Hasan Piker, a former Rutgers frat boy who loves lifting, who's been The biggest problem Democrats will have is convincing bros of their authenticity. It took an electoral walloping for Buttigieg to embrace the manosphere. And while Democrats try to talk the talk, they still hold onto the same progressive ideas that alienated them from many voters. On a podcast in March with the conservative bro-in-chief Charlie Kirk, who cofounded the right-wing political machine Turning Point USA, Gavin Newsom said that the question of whether to allow transgender athletes in women's sports is 'an issue of fairness.' But as California continued to be under fire for its liberal policies on transgender athletes, Newsom Advertisement Is just showing up in bro-ey spaces enough to win back some young voters for Dems? I conducted my own little study, free of charge, to find out. Gabe, a finance worker in his early 20s who voted for Trump and declined to give his last name, told me that Democrats might win over a few curious voters with a new male outreach strategy, but ultimately, cosmetic changes alone won't make a lasting difference. 'I think you have to realign the ideology,' he told me, listing frustrations about equity-based initiatives, costly energy policies, lockdowns during COVID, and more. 'You might be wearing a flannel, have a beard, drink protein shakes,' he said. But Democrats are 'still spewing the same garbage.' This column first appeared in , Globe Opinion's free weekly newsletter about local and national politics. If you'd like to receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up . Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion writer. She can be reached at
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk is on a national debt crusade after slamming Trump's spending bill: Dimon, Powell, Dalio, and Buffett have all echoed the Tesla CEO's concerns
Elon Musk has publicly severed ties with Donald Trump over a controversial Congressional spending bill, slamming it as fiscally irresponsible and warning it will balloon the U.S. national debt to unsustainable levels. Prominent financial leaders—including Jamie Dimon, Jerome Powell, Ray Dalio, and Warren Buffett—echo Musk's concerns, warning that unchecked government borrowing could trigger a severe economic crisis. The partnership between Elon Musk and Donald Trump appears to be over for good, with the Tesla CEO departing Washington D.C. before launching an attack on the White House's central spending bill. Last night, the gloves were off, and Musk declared President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' a 'massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill.' Musk's ire stems from his concern that the bill containing the 'largest tax cuts in history' will further increase the national debt, which Musk had been attempting to reduce—or at least not increase—with his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE's role had been to reduce the yearly budget deficit, which feeds into the wider government deficit, currently at $32.6 trillion. But while the White House says its policies will boost GDP by 2.6% to 3.2% in the long term and increase take-home pay for median income households by $5,000 a year, independent economists and researchers have found the legislation would add $3.8 trillion to the deficit. In comparison, proposed cuts to Medicaid would shave only $1 trillion in spending. After labelling the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' a 'disgusting abomination' Musk continued with his tirade about national debt, writing on his social media platform, X: 'It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden American citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt.' 'Congress is making America bankrupt,' he added. The real concern with U.S. national debt is not merely its existence—in fact borrowing is a necessary component of the global economy—but America's debt-to-GDP ratio. Is America's economy growing quickly enough to not only service its existing debt but also sell additional loans it will need to pay interest on in the future? To this end, the richest man on the planet doubled down. Reposting a video of Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell—something of an adversary to the Trump 2.0 administration—discussing his concerns about national debt, Musk added: 'This immense level of overspending will drive America into debt slavery!' He added: 'Interest payments already consume 25% of all government revenue. If the massive deficit spending continues, there will only be money for interest payments and nothing else! No social security, no medical, no defense … nothing.' Musk is not alone in his concern about national debt—far from it. Here are just some of the other notable names who are concerned by the issue. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is a fan of the extension of Trump's tariff cuts, saying it will foster business investment and, therefore, growth. But that doesn't detract from the Wall Street veteran's wider concerns about debt. Speaking Friday at the Reagan National Economic Forum, the leader of America's largest bank said the bond market is going to 'crack' at some stage because of spending and quantitative easing. 'I just don't know if it's going to be a crisis in six months or six years, and I'm hoping that we change both the trajectory of the debt and the ability of market makers to make markets,' Dimon said. 'Unfortunately, it may be that we need that to wake us up.' This isn't the first time Dimon has issued a wake-up call to policymakers. Last year he said the economy faces a market 'rebellion' because of interest payments on the debt, explaining: 'If you look at that 100% debt to GDP by [2035] I think it's going to be 130%, and it's a hockey stick. That hockey stick doesn't start yet but when it starts, markets around the world…there will be a rebellion.' Federal Open Market Committee leader Jerome Powell is equally worried about the national debt path. However, he said it's not his position to suggest how the problem should be rectified. 'It's probably time, or past time, to get back to an adult conversation among elected officials about getting the federal government back on a sustainable fiscal path,' Powell said. Speaking last month, Powell said: 'I think [Congress] don't need my advice and our advice on how to do fiscal policy, any more than we need their advice. 'It's on Congress to figure out how to get us back on a sustainable path.' In the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) latest reporting, the independent agency reported it expects debt to reach 156% of GDP in 2055. 'Mounting debt would slow economic growth, push up interest payments to foreign holders of U.S. debt, and pose significant risks to the fiscal and economic outlook; it could also cause lawmakers to feel constrained in their policy choices,' the CBO adds. Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio reiterated his concerns earlier this year. Speaking at CONVERGE LIVE in Singapore in March, Dalio explained: 'We have a very severe supply and demand problem. Some people think we'll handle it because we've handled it so far. I don't think they understand the mechanics of debt.' Dalio continued that, at some point, the U.S. will have to 'sell a quantity of debt that the world is not going to want to buy.' This is an 'imminent' scenario of 'paramount importance,' Dalio said. The man worth $14 billion according to Forbes continued: 'You are going to see shocking developments in terms of how [debt] is going to be dealt with.' Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett isn't shy of rolling his sleeves up in a time of crisis, but even the Oracle of Omaha wouldn't fancy the task of addressing national debt. Speaking at this year's annual shareholder meeting, Buffett was asked how far DOGE would be able to go when it came to addressing the debt issue. 'I think the problem of how you control revenue and expenses in the government is one that is never fully solved. And has really hurt dramatically many civilizations and I don't think we're immune from it,' Buffett said. 'We're operating at a fiscal deficit now that is unsustainable over a very long period of time—we don't know if that means two years or 20 years because there's never been a country like the United States,' he continued. 'But you know that if something can't go on forever, it will end.' Debt also has the aspect of becoming 'uncontrollable' Buffett added: 'I wouldn't want the job of trying to correct what's going on … I think it's a job I don't want, but it's a job I think should be done, and Congress does not seem good at doing it.' Professor Joao Gomes, a Wharton Business School finance professor, told Fortune: 'The most important thing about debt for people to keep in mind is you need somebody to buy it. We used to be able to count on China, Japanese investors, the Fed to [buy the debt]. All those players are slowly going away and are actually now selling. 'If at some moment these folks that have so far been happy to buy government debt from major economies decide, 'You know what, I'm not too sure if this is a good investment anymore. I'm going to ask for a higher interest rate to be persuaded to hold this,' then we could have a real accident on our hands.' This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge tosses Democrats' challenge to Trump order's effect on FEC
A federal judge late Tuesday threw out national Democrats' challenge to an executive order issued by President Trump they claimed stepped on the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) independence. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali said the Democratic Party's three national political committees failed to provide clear enough proof that the FEC's independence is at risk. The FEC's legal counsel represented to the court that it would not take directives from the White House interfering with its independent judgment, and the government said no such directives had been issued, prompting the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. 'On this record — lacking any specific allegations that the challenged section has been or will be applied to the FEC or its Commissioners, in accord with the representations of counsel — the Court grants the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of a concrete and imminent injury sufficient to establish standing and ripeness,' Ali wrote in a 14-page opinion. The Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sued the Trump administration in February, contending that the president's order aimed at expanding the White House's control over various independent regulatory agencies would preclude the agencies from taking legal positions out of line with the president's views. The suit zeroed in on the FEC, the independent agency that enforces campaign finance laws and oversees elections, raising concern that the order would eliminate the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA) requirement that the executive's legal interpretations reflect the consensus of the expert and bipartisan board. The FEC is led by six commissioners appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The commission's official interpretation of the law must be backed by at least four commissioners and no more than three of them may be affiliated with the same political party. In their complaint, the Democrats argued that Trump's executive order threatened to undercut the consensus reached after the Watergate scandal that federal campaign finance rules must be neutrally enforced, instead leaving judgment to a 'single partisan political figure — the President of the United States.' However, Ali wrote in his decision that the Democrats needed to provide strong evidence that the FEC is specifically targeted by Trump's order, which does not single it out and applies to all executive employees. They also could have alleged 'concrete steps' the administration had taken to sway the FEC and its commissioners. 'They have not done so here,' the judge wrote. Ali dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the claims could be brought again in the future. The Hill requested comment from the three committees. 'This Court's doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC's or its Commissioners' independence,' Ali wrote in his opinion. Absent such allegations, however, the Court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and therefore does so.'
