David Axelrod, President Obama's senior adviser when Biden was Obama's Vice President, announced that comparing opponents to segregationists wasn't "useful" and the matters involved "shouldn't be obscured by hyperbolic rhetoric." Even MSNBC's Al Sharpton called Biden's blowup a "You're going to hell" speech instead of one meant to build support.
Biden — or his senior staff — must have known before the address that the "voting rights" bill was already dead because some Democratic senators were leery of ending or weakening the Senate filibuster. They should have known or guessed that Biden's angry speech wouldn't win over the Independents (just 25 percent of whom approved of Biden's job performance in the latest Quinnipiac poll) who are required to preserve the Democrats' tissue-thin majority this fall.
WATCH: BYRON DONALDS ENGAGES WITH HAMAS SUPPORTERS
There is certainly an argument that Biden had to appeal to the Progressive base of his party to avoid demoralizing them. On Meet the Press today, Chuck Todd announced that a White House aide had told him: "The activists are angry. He had to do this. . . . If he didn't do this, they weren't going to have people to lick envelopes in Senate races and House races."
THE UNSEEN VICTIMS OF WAR: HOW RUSSIA'S INVASION LEFT THOUSANDS OF DISABLED UKRAINIANS IN PERIL
That sounds like an excuse, not a strategy. Of course, Biden and company want a federal takeover of elections from the states, yet they must have known for weeks that it wasn't going to happen this year. Maybe there is a longer-term strategy in play.
WATCH MAYOR ADAMS: "YOU DON'T TAKE OVER OUR BUILDINGS AND PUT ANOTHER FLAG UP"
"What do Democrats really want most?" The answer is straightforward. They want the practically unlimited power that control of all three branches of government would provide them. The next time elections give them control of the White House and workable majority control of Congress, they will want control of the U.S. Supreme Court.
WATCH: DOJ SET TO INDICT TEXAS DEMOCRAT REP.HENRY CUELLER, WHAT'S AT STAKE, YOU ASK?
The Court's current majority does not seem likely to change dramatically for a generation. To gain control of it, Democrats would have to "pack the Court" by expanding the number of justices, as President Franklin Roosevelt attempted but failed to do in 1937.
THE HAWAII BILLIONAIRE BATTLE: MEET THE RECLUSIVE RICHEST MAN ON THE ISLAND...
Though to pack the Court, Democrats have to first get rid of or weaken the Senate filibuster. They don't have the votes to do it today, yet they might if, in a future election, they win a clear Senate majority that neuters opposition from senators such as Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.
ELON MUSK ISSUES 'TROUBLESOME' WARNING TO U.S., BUT IS THERE ANY WEIGHT TO IT?
This would work only if every other Democrat in the U.S. Senate was pledged to end or at least weaken the filibuster.
Discover alternative ideas that will make you think
Engage in mind bending debate
Earn points, rise in rank, have fun
