A little more than a year ago, Jacob Heilbrunn, the supposed “realist” editor of the National Interest was touting Joe Biden as a “vigorous leader” and “war president,” deriding critics of the president who called him “confused” and referred to him as “Basement Biden.” Heilbrunn was writing about Biden’s trip to Kyiv, where he supposedly demonstrated “diplomatic savvy” and “real moxie,” and “showed no confusion.” Fast forward to the post-debate world — a debate in which Biden’s cognitive impairment was front and center — and now the “realist” Heilbrunn is touting Michelle Obama as possibly “the ultimate Joe Biden replacement.”

Heilbrunn describes Michelle Obama as someone who “has viewed the Biden camp with suspicion and refused to campaign for it.” He claims that Democrats and many independents see Michelle Obama “as a kind of Wonder Woman — a demi-goddess of wisdom and strength who could use a magic lasso the gerontocratic patriarchy surrounding Biden, reuniting the Democratic Party.” Since when do “realists” talk about “magic lassos” and “demi-goddesses?”

Gone are Heilbrunn’s references to Biden’s “vigorous” leadership as a war president. Gone is Heilbrunn’s praise of Biden’s “diplomatic savvy.” Now, Heilbrunn writes that the Biden camp’s position that everything is OK is nothing more than “happy talk.” “Biden isn’t doing much to reassure voters,” he writes. There are “mounting doubts about [Biden’s] ability to run a vigorous campaign, let alone govern for the next four years.” Heilbrunn apparently failed to have those doubts last February, and cast aspersions on anyone who did.

Heilbrunn isn’t the only anti-Trump commentator to eat his words after the presidential debate. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, who formerly described Biden as “far beyond cogent,” “better than he’s ever been, intellectually, analytically,” and “the best Biden ever,” in post-debate commentary questioned whether Biden was up to the job. The only difference here is that no one ever described Scarborough as a “realist” or, for that matter, an intellectual. Heilbrunn has been called both. Scarborough is a talking head on a network that suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome on nearly every broadcast.

Heilbrunn the “realist,” of course, does not set forth Michelle Obama’s qualifications to be president — because she has none, unless being the wife of a former president is enough; and if that’s enough, why not Dr. Jill Biden? Sure, Obama is smart — graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law, worked at a law firm specializing in intellectual property law, took a political job in Chicago as assistant commissioner of the Department of Planning and Development, founded the Chicago branch of Public Allies, which trained young adults, and then later served as community and external affairs director for the University of Chicago Medical Center. And Heilbrunn notes that Obama has repeatedly stated that she does not want to run for president. Her resume is thinner than her husband’s was in 2008, but perhaps Heilbrunn is counting on the media overlooking that fact the way they did for Barack in 2008. He’s probably right about that.

The National Interest has been mostly a voice of reason when it comes to foreign policy analysis since its founding in 1985. It continues to publish insightful essays and articles by realist thinkers. But its current editor is not a realist. His most recent book is an attack on conservatives for their alleged “century-long romance with foreign dictators,” and which accuses Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, and others of admiring Vladimir Putin. It is clear from his recent about-face on Biden that Heilbrunn will support and promote any challenger to Donald Trump, no matter how unqualified they are. Should the Democrats replace Biden with Kamala Harris, expect Heilbrunn to praise her intellectual capacity and foreign policy vision, realism be damned.