(LifeSiteNews) — The fallout from incumbent President and presumptive Democrat White House nominee Joe Biden’s disastrous first 2024 debate with Republican predecessor and challenger Donald Trump continues, with liberal New York Magazine publishing perhaps the most scathing account yet of Democrats privately vindicating concerns about the president’s mental health that for years had been dismissed as partisan smears.
At age 81, Biden is the oldest president in U.S. history, and throughout his tenure he has been hounded by concerns that he has been suffering cognitive decline, based on increasingly frequent public instances of odd statements, incoherence, tripping, and apparent fatigue and confusion, with polls finding majorities considered him too old to effectively serve a second term.
Democrats and their allies in the mainstream press have largely dismissed such concerns as unfounded; as recently as June 21, left-wing “fact-checking” outlet PolitiFact attributed the narrative in large part to “videos of President Joe Biden that have been selectively edited or taken out of context.”
Just six days later, however, the narrative on the Left changed almost overnight with Biden’s performance against Trump in a debate hosted by CNN. LifeSiteNews’ Ashley Sadler described the president as “appear(ing) visibly unwell from the beginning of the debate, struggling with numerous answers (including, early in the debate, claiming to have ‘finally beat Medicare’), speaking with a hoarse voice, and frequently seeming vacant.”
Ever since, Democrat commentators, strategists, and activists have spoken openly about their fear and panic over winning the election if Biden remains their nominee, with the White House so far resisting calls for the president to bow out.
On June 29, Axios published a report detailing admissions from “current and former Biden officials” that the president is only “dependably engaged” between the hours of 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., outside of which “or while traveling abroad, Biden is more likely to have verbal miscues and become fatigued.”
On July 4, New York Magazine Washington correspondent Olivia Nuzzi published an even more damning story, about a “Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden,” based on off-the-record conversations with Democrat insiders who had been reaching out to her since January to relay their concerns as to whether Biden could “even make it to Election Day” that they developed after interacting with or seeing him up close.
“Those who encountered the president in social settings sometimes left their interactions disturbed,” Nuzzi wrote.
Longtime friends of the Biden family, who spoke to me on the condition of anonymity, were shocked to find that the president did not remember their names. At a White House event last year, a guest recalled, with horror, realizing that the president would not be able to stay for the reception because it was clear he would not be able to make it through the reception. The guest wasn’t sure they could vote for Biden, since the guest was now open to an idea that they had previously dismissed as right-wing propaganda: the president may not really be the acting president after all.
“Who was actually in charge? Nobody knew,” she continued. “But surely someone was in charge? And surely there must be a plan, since surely this situation could not endure? I heard these questions posed at cocktail parties on the coasts but also at MAGA rallies in Middle America. There emerged a comical overlap between the beliefs of the nation’s most elite liberal Biden supporters and the beliefs of the most rabid and conspiratorial supporters of former President Trump. Resistance or QAnon, they shared a grand theory of America in 2024: ‘There has to be a secret group of high-level government leaders who control Biden and who will soon set into motion their plan to replace Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee.’ Nothing else made sense. They were in full agreement.”
Nuzzi recounted personally observing some of the same while following then-candidate Biden in 2020, who had “good days” of recognizing her and being as sharp and engaging as ever, but also “bad days” when “he was less animated. He stared off. He did not make eye contact. He would trip over his words, even if they were programmed in a teleprompter. On such occasions, he was hurried out of the venue quickly and ushered into a waiting SUV.”
When seeing Biden at this year’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Nuzzi says she was taken aback by him looking “not quite plausible.”
“I tried to make eye contact, but it was like his eyes, though open, were not on. His face had a waxy quality,” she wrote. “He smiled. It was a sweet smile. It made me sad in a way I can’t fully convey. I always thought – and I wrote – that he was a decent man. If ambition was his only sin, and it seemed to be, he had committed no sin at all by the standards of most politicians I had covered. He took my hand in his, and I was startled by how it felt. Not cold but cool. The basement was so warm that people were sweating and complaining that they were sweating. This was a silly black-tie affair. I said ‘hello.’ His sweet smile stayed frozen. He spoke very slowly and in a very soft voice. ‘And what’s your name?’ he asked.”
After the photo op, she added, other reporters “made guesses about how dead (Biden) appeared to be, percentage wise. ‘Forty percent?’ one of them asked.”
National polling aggregations by RealClearPolitics and RaceToTheWH indicate a widening popular vote lead for Trump since the debate, with the former president’s leads in swing states translating to a seemingly durable Electoral College advantage over Biden.