• Universal moved the "Wicked" release date to the same day as "Gladiator 2."
• Fans are saying the two films are the new "Barbenheimer."
• They'd have to make over $2 billion to compete with the last blockbuster double bill.

There might be a new "Barbenheimer" in town, as two other highly anticipated blockbusters, "Wicked" and "Gladiator 2," are scheduled to premiere on the same day.

Last year, the polar-opposite movies "Barbie" and "Oppenheimer" were coincidentally released on July 21. This created a cultural moment, dubbed "Barbenheimer," that breathed life into a struggling industry as cinemagoers approached the films as a double bill.

Sources told Business Insider's Jason Guerrasio last July that Christopher Nolan, who directed "Oppenheimer," was upset about the date clash. The "Barbie" actor and producer Margot Robbie told Variety's "Actors on Actors" series last December that an "Oppenheimer" producer had called her to suggest she move the date, but she declined.

Despite worries about the clash, "Barbenheimer" was a huge success. "Barbie" became Warner Bros.'s highest-grossing movie, and "Oppenheimer" set a record for the highest-grossing biopic. The films made over $2 billion combined.

On Monday, Universal announced that the release date of "Wicked" would move from November 27 to November 22, clashing with Paramount's "Gladiator 2." Film fans are dubbing the movies the new "Barbenheimer."

Others complained that it seemed like an attempt to re-create the "Barbenheimer" phenomenon.

Last year, some fans who noticed that "Saw X" and a "PAW Patrol" movie had the same release date tried to make "Saw Patrol" happen, but it didn't generate a similar buzz as "Barbenheimer."

"Wicked" and "Gladiator 2" would likely fare better.

"Gladiator 2," directed by Ridley Scott ("Alien," "House of Gucci"), is a sequel to one of the biggest movies of the 2000s, so it already has a fan base. "Gladiator" won five Oscars and made $465 million at the box office in 2000, according to Box Office Mojo.

Starring buzzy actors including Pedro Pascal, Paul Mescal, and Denzel Washington, "Gladiator 2" could be an even bigger success.

Meanwhile, "Wicked," directed by Jon M. Chu ("Crazy Rich Asians," "Step Up 2: The Streets"), is the first of a two-part movie adaptation of one of the most famous musicals. Variety reported last year that the musical had made over $5 billion globally since its premiere in 2003.

Non-Disney movie musicals have been a tougher sell in cinemas, but "Wicked" could attract fans with the star power of Ariana Grande, Michelle Yeoh, Jeff Goldblum, and Jonathan Bailey.

"Wickiator" ("Gladicked"? "Glicked"?) becoming a cultural moment like "Barbenheimer" would give Paramount, Universal, and movie theatres a welcome boost after a slow summer so far.

Paul Dergarabedian, a senior media analyst for Comscore, told Business Insider via email that the success of "Barbenheimer" was a "first of its kind scenario" that will likely not be replicated. But he said, this trend has likely raised awareness for "Wicked" and "Gladiator 2."

"The studios behind both films should embrace the social media conversation and excitement that this key pre-Thanksgiving multiplex match-up is generating in the movie marketplace," Dergarabedian said. "There's really no downside to something like this."

Marketing the films as a double feature could also help them compete with "Moana 2," another highly anticipated movie set to be released on November 27.

Regardless, the double bill has a $2 billion bar to clear to repeat the success of "Barbenheimer."

• Director Mark Molloy chose to use practical effects for the 'Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F' action scenes.
• Molloy aimed to replicate the gritty realism of the original films from the '80s.
• "I wanted to ground it," Molloy said. "The stakes are real, and the danger is real."

In an era when everything from car chases to even kisses in movies can be done with computer-generated visual effects, director Mark Molloy wanted to go against the grain with "Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F" by doing all the action sequences with practical effects.

Molloy was set on his stance from the beginning, when he took his first meetings with franchise producer Jerry Bruckheimer and got the offer to direct the sequel, which was decades in the making.

"I went to Jerry and said, 'I love this but I want to make an '80s action comedy, I want to shoot everything in-camera,'" Molloy recalled to Business Insider during a recent chat over Zoom.

Though "Axel F" marks Molloy's feature directing debut after decades of commercial work and directing TV in his native Australia, the filmmaker knew instantly that the only way a fourth "Beverly Hills Cop" movie would work would be if it stayed true to the texture and attitude of the beloved first two movies, which were box office hits and made Eddie Murphy a superstar in the late 1980s (let's just forget there was a third movie).

"A lot of films these days, everything is so VFX-heavy that there's a perfection there," he said. "I wanted to ground it. The stakes are real, and the danger is real. Like films 1 and 2, those were gritty films."

Bruckheimer loved the idea, which led to Molloy filming Murphy driving a massive snow plow through rows of parked cars in Detroit and a scene in which they actually had a car fall off the side of a building in Los Angeles.

"We had to shut down part of the I-10 to do that," Molloy said with glee, referring to one of the busiest freeways in Los Angeles.

In that scene, Axel Foley's daughter Jane, played by Taylour Paige ("Zola"), gets a visit from the movie's bad guys, who end up yanking the car off the side of the parking garage. (Though doing this stunt for real was fun, Molloy pointed out Paige was not in the car when that stunt was filmed. Safety first.)

"It was a perfect location that we found, but it's literally right next to the I-10, so we had to close part of that down, or people were going to get into crashes if they suddenly saw a car fall off the side of a building," Molloy said.

But the action sequence that kept him up at night was the helicopter scene. Toward the end of the movie, Foley and Detective Abbott (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) steal a police helicopter to escape Grant (Kevin Bacon), the crooked police captain. Aside from the interior shots of Murphy and Gordon-Levitt in the cockpit, the entire sequence used a real helicopter that did everything from freefalling between buildings to flying so low that there were sparks as it scraped the road. The sequence concludes with the chopper landing not so gracefully in front of the Beverly Hills Town Hall.

Looking back on it now, Molloy laughs in disbelief at how he tackled such ambitious scenes. "It was very challenging."

"Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F" is now available on Netflix.

• I've long considered using a foot hammock to ease long-haul, economy flights. 
• I wasn't sure if it would be worth the space in my carry-on or if it would accommodate my taller height.
• I loved the accessory, which allowed me to bend my knees and get comfortable in the cramped seat.

I have a confession: I'm not always the most courteous person on a flight.

No, I don't pick fights with flight attendants or eat tuna salad midair, but I do constantly search for the most comfortable resting position. And, sometimes, that's pressing my knees against the seat in front of me.

On a recent 10-hour flight, I wanted to avoid feeling uncomfortable and bothering another passenger.

The solution I found was a $9 foot hammock.

I was initially hesitant to buy the hammock

For years, I've eyed a foot hammock. The Wall Street Journal deemed it a "savior of economy fliers," and Travel and Leisure reported that flight attendants love the plane accessory.

But a few things kept me from pressing add to cart on Amazon.

Mainly, I like to pack as light as possible. I refuse to check a bag, meaning every bit of space in my carry-on is precious. I wasn't sure if sacrificing room for an item I would only use during a small portion of a trip would be worth it.

I've also read that the foot hammocks cater to shorter travelers. As Business Insider previously reported, shorter people can face lower back and leg pressure if their feet don't touch the floor. A hammock saves them from that pain. At 5'8", I don't face that challenge.

My final concern was that I wouldn't be allowed to use the hammock in the first place. Some airlines, like Air New Zealand, prohibit items that hang from an aircraft seat. Since foot hammocks hang from your tray table, they're technically not allowed.

But after booking a 10-hour economy flight, I wanted a new approach to getting comfy on a plane. Since foot hammocks are affordable — I bought mine for under $10 — I figured I would give one a shot.

I'll be packing it on all future long-haul flights

A few days before my flight, I purchased the Zoklu footrest on Amazon for $9. A few days later, it arrived in a small package.

I realized my first concern — taking up precious carry-on space — was no longer a worry. The hammock was smaller than a paperback book, and I could easily find space in my backpack.

While waiting to board, I searched to see if my airline, Lufthansa, prohibited foot hammocks. I didn't see any rules against them, so I set up the contraption once I was settled in my seat.

The setup was easy. The foot hammock is attached to an adjustable strap that wraps around your tray table. Once the strap is looped around the table, you can close it, sit back, and relax.

The foot hammock allowed me to be in my preferred plane position with my knees up. The passenger in front of me didn't indicate they could feel the hammock, which made sense since my weight pushed toward the floor instead of into their back.

With a backpack tucked under my seat, I didn't find the hammock helpful for stretching my legs straight, which is how many of the online Amazon descriptions outline its use. This didn't bother me since my height allows me to have my feet on the ground anyway.

But having another comfortable position for resting (that didn't disturb anyone else) was easily worth the $9 and room in my backpack.

For all future flights that allow it, you'll find me curled up in my seat with a foot hammock in tow.

• Out of the 15 cruises I've been on, Disney Cruise Line is my favorite company to travel with.
• Disney cruises offer the perfect getaway for adults without children.
• From animation classes and private islands to Broadway-style shows, I never run out of things to do.

After taking over 15 cruises on most of the major lines, one stands out as my favorite company to travel with — Disney Cruise Line. Disney cruises combine what I love about the theme parks with relaxation and stellar dining, making them the perfect getaway.

I also love that Disney continues to invest in its cruise line. For example, the company's newest ship, Disney Treasure, plans to embark on its maiden voyage in December.

And next year, Disney Destiny and Disney Adventure will set sail for the first time. The company also invested between $250 million and $400 million in a new island in the Bahamas, which I was lucky enough to visit.

Although some may think of Disney Cruise Line as a company that caters to kids, I've had an incredible time on adults-only vacations with my sister, mother, friends, and husband. Here's why I think Disney cruises are the perfect choice for travelers without children.

I’m never bored on a Disney ship.

On most of the cruises I've been on, the main activities include eating and drinking. However, that's not the case on Disney cruises.

In addition to having great pools, Disney ships are known for having a wide variety of activities throughout the day. My favorites include trivia, mixology classes, panel discussions with Disney animators, and animation classes.

The food is by far the best I’ve had at sea, and I’ll always splurge on the specialty restaurants.

Food plays a big role in determining where I vacation, and I've had some of the most incredible meals on board Disney ships. In addition to the food, the restaurants are well-themed and detailed. While there are plenty of elevated eats, there are also casual bites, like pizza, and Disney favorites, including Mickey waffles.

While the main dining rooms are delicious — and included with the cruise fare — I'll always splurge on one of the specialty restaurants that charge an additional fee.

These upcharge restaurants offer a more intimate experience with super personalized service and a greater variety of dining options. My favorite is Palo, which is open for both brunch and dinner. Here, I've enjoyed fresh pasta, standout wine, and high-quality wagyu.

I love the themed bars, and the drinks are surprisingly affordable.

While Disney doesn't offer a drink package that includes cocktails, the well-themed bars are worth the splurge.

From a Star Wars-themed watering hole to a Peter Pan-themed speakeasy, I really enjoy the inventive cocktail programs and immersive settings. Each bar also has its own unique themed drinks, which keeps things exciting.

As a regular at Disney World, I was also surprised to find that drinks are much more affordable on a Disney Cruise, with prices consistent across the ships I've been on.

For example, my favorite Dole Whip spiked with rum was $9 on board, compared to the exact same version priced at $14 at Disney World.

There are plenty of adults-only spaces.

While I tend to spend much of my day at the lively main pool, which features Disney movies and live entertainment, there are also plenty of adults-only spaces, including pool areas exclusive to guests 18 and older.

Some ships even have bar districts with multiple venues exclusive to adults.

The rooms are spacious and practical.

I've found the rooms on Disney cruises to be the most spacious — and practical in design — I've encountered.

Most rooms on Disney ships also have a split bathroom, which means the toilet area is separate from the shower. This is a vacation lifesaver when multiple adults are trying to get ready at once.

There are also plenty of opportunities to enjoy Disney Magic.

I love Disney ships because, from dressing up for pirate night to meeting my favorite characters, there are plenty of opportunities to feel like a kid again.

The shows on board are Broadway-quality.

I'm a sucker for live entertainment, and each Disney ship offers at least one Broadway-style production. From "Frozen" to "Beauty and the Beast," I always make sure to check out these high-quality musicals, which are included in the price of the cruise.

Disney’s private islands are very relaxing.

I've been to several cruise-line private islands, but Disney's are by far my favorite. Castaway Cay, located in the Bahamas, exudes relaxation. The island is home to one of my favorite activities, the Castaway 5k, which is included in the cruise fare and allows participants to earn an exclusive race medal.

Disney's newest island destination, Lookout Cay at Lighthouse Point, is located near the southern tip of Eleuthera in The Bahamas. The beaches here blew me away and were some of the best I've experienced after dozens of trips to the Caribbean and Mexico.

Disney Cruise Line is the perfect adults-only vacation, and I can't wait to plan another trip.

As a big fan of the parks, Disney Cruise Line takes those magical elements and upgrades them at sea with incredible food, live entertainment, and relaxation — making for the perfect adults-only vacation.

Its ships are home to some of the most exciting, highly themed lounge options I've encountered, and I love the Broadway-quality productions. While on board, I'm able to do as much or as little as I want.

• Ukraine's military intelligence said that a saboteur was responsible for damage to a Russian ship.
• The Serpukhov was set ablaze in April, damaging much of its interior, officials said. 
• Ukraine said that the saboteur was a member of a special legion of Russians fighting for Ukraine.

A Russian dissident covertly working with Ukrainian military intelligence was responsible for setting a fire that badly damaged a Russian warship, Ukrainian officials said on Wednesday.

Ukraine's Main Intelligence Directorate, or HUR, said at a press conference that a Russian sailor with the callsign "Hoga" had set the blaze aboard the missile ship Serpukhov in April, Radio Svoboda reported.

They said the ship, based out of the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea, needed extensive repairs after the fire.

In April, Ukrainian intelligence announced that the Serpukhov had been damaged by a fire, without explicitly claiming responsibility.

The HUR said that the ship's communication and automation systems had been damaged. It shared a brief video clip of a fire starting inside a cabin, as well as diagrams.

Russian authorities did not comment at the time.

In a statement at Wednesday's press conference, Ukraine's "Freedom of Russia" legion — which consists of dissident Russians who fight on Ukraine's side — said that the fire was started by one of their recruits.

Hoga, an active serviceman in Russia's Baltic Fleet, contacted Ukraine's "I Want To Live" program in 2023, Radio Svoboda reported the HUR as saying.

The program, which has been in operation since late 2022, provides a secure phone line for Russians to call to arrange to surrender.

Ukraine claims that more than 220 soldiers have surrendered in this way.

Hoga covertly joined the "Freedom of Russia" legion, remained on board the Serpukhov, and passed intelligence onto the HUR at risk to his own life, the legion said in a statement.

He then committed the act of sabotage on the ship before escaping to Ukraine with secret documents, the HUR said.

Business Insider was unable to independently confirm the claims.

The Serpukhov is one of Russia's most advanced missile ships, Ukrainian intelligence said.

According to KCHF, a Russian site that closely monitors Russia's Black Sea Fleet, the Serpukhov is capable of striking land targets with cruise missiles and previously served in the Black Sea, before being transferred to the Baltics in 2016.

• The F-16 Fighting Falcon has been flying for over 50 years after first taking flight in early 1974.
• With 4,500 units sold and 3,100 still operational, it is the world's most popular aircraft.
• The F-16 pioneered new technology, and it remains a powerful, cost-effective jet, evolving with upgrades.

On January 20, 1974, a runway high-speed taxi test involving General Dynamics' YF-16 accidentally resulted in the first flight of the prototype aircraft that would become the world-famous F-16 Fighting Falcon, the most popular fighter jet.

Fifty years later, more than 4,500 F-16s have been sold — with 3,100 still in operation — and 25 countries are using the jet, which has become the poster child of fourth-generation aircraft.

The F-16 has cemented its place in aviation history not only for dominating the military jet market, but also for revolutionizing the way military aircraft are designed.

A new approach to dogfighting

Alex Hollings, a US veteran and an aviation journalist, told Business Insider that "the F-16 represented a fundamental shift in fighter design philosophy."

This new philosophy embraced the idea that air-to-air combat, more commonly known as dogfighting, was not an art form but a quantifiable science that required the aircraft to efficiently exchange kinetic and potential energies to best maneuver, he said.

To that effect, in order to achieve swifter, more aerobatic, and more energy-efficient maneuvers, the F-16 was built as the first aerodynamically unstable aircraft. This makes it extremely agile and allows it to even pull off 9g maneuvers on full fuel.

However, to control this instability without requiring the pilot to constantly manage the jet's control surfaces, another innovation was needed: the fly-by-wire system.

Until that point, fighter pilots had used manual controls to manage an aircraft's control surfaces, but having an unstable aircraft that constantly required manual corrections by the pilot wouldn't have been feasible. So a fly-by-wire system was installed to allow the jet's control surfaces to be managed by a flight-control computer.

"In an era when fighter aircraft were still just tools used by pilots, the F-16's fly-by-wire control represented a cooperative fusion of pilot skill and technological capability that has become a mainstay in fighter designs ever since," Hollings said.

Indeed, the aircraft's design DNA has made its way, to some extent, into all modern fighters, Hollings added, and that includes the F-35, which was designed to be the Fighting Falcon's successor.

Staying current

Initially built as an air-superiority platform, the F-16 has, since 1981 , served as a multirole fighter, able to perform a variety of missions, including electronic warfare and air-to-ground support.

Still a mainstay of the US Air Force and of air forces across the globe, during its long career, the F-16 has been used in numerous conflicts, including the Gulf War and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Reflecting its dogfighting prowess, the jet has a recorded 76 kills in air-to-air combat with only one loss (some sources claim two). Its famed maneuverability has also been put to the test against surface-to-air threats, with an American F-16 managing to dodge six surface-to-air missiles in a row during Operation Desert Storm.

Numerous upgrades during its life have allowed it to stay current and evolve.

The most recent version of the jet is the Block 70/72. Among other upgrades, this version features improved avionics and targeting systems, the new Viper Shield electronic warfare suite, and a radar similar to that of the F-22 and F-35.

"While it may lack the stealth of the F-35, F-16s have proven their ability to survive in contested airspaces in conflicts around the world, and their ability to do so will only improve as new electronic warfare and missile countermeasure technologies emerge," Hollings said.

Another reason for the F-16's global popularity is its low operating cost. The F-16 has the lowest estimated operating cost per aircraft out of all the US military's fixed-wing platforms and among the lowest hourly costs.

Hollings said "the F-16's combination of high performance and relatively low operating cost will see it continue to serve as the backbone of American airpower for some time to come."

The US Air Force is planning a significant further upgrade to keep its F-16 fleet operational into the 2040s with Lockheed Martin — the aircraft's manufacturer since 1995 — saying it will stay viable until at least 2060.

However, as the skies of the future become increasingly dominated by stealth aircraft, the F-16's battlefield role may change.

"As the threat environment changes, we'll likely see a shift in the way aircraft like the F-16 are leveraged in combat," Hollings said.

In potential future conflicts, fifth-generation aircraft, like the F-35 and the F-22, may penetrate deeper into contested airspaces and relay target information back to less stealthy aircraft, like the F-16, which "will be carrying larger stand-off weapons operating beyond the reach of enemy air defenses," he said.

• Lois Kim took on three part-time jobs after getting laid off from her executive job at Google.
• After 30 years in the corporate world, she decided to take a gap year and try out new roles. 
• Kim said working at Trader Joe's, Lyft, and Starbucks opened up her world and was humbling. 

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with 55-year-old Kyongsook Kim, also known by her English name Lois Kim. She was laid off from Google in 2023 and worked three part-time jobs for about a year. The following has been edited for length and clarity. Business Insider has verified her current and past employment.

In January last year, I woke up one day to an email notifying me that I was one of 12,000 people being laid off by Google.

I was in shock. For the past 30 years, I always felt I had job security. I also felt angry, disappointed, and frustrated because five years ago, I moved from Korea to the San Francisco Bay Area when Google offered me a global communications director position.

It felt like a boyfriend had broken up with me and I got dumped. It made me feel depressed and question what I was going to do and what my value was.

The weekend after I was laid off, I went through five stages of grief. Then I came to a point where I thought, 'You've worked for 30 years in the corporate world — isn't that enough? What else do I want to do?'

So I sat down and started writing about the kinds of jobs I've always wanted to do. Within 30 minutes, I came up with a list of 10 things, such as working at Trader Joe's as a cashier, driver, bartender, and librarian.

Writing this list gave me a burst of energy and I wanted to action it straight away. So just 10 days after getting laid off, I started a part-time role at Trader Joe's.

Juggling jobs

On my first day, I was worried about how people might perceive me because I was once a Google director and now worked at a grocery store. In Asian culture, it is quite common to take face-saving actions, but I soon got past that.

After getting the job, I applied to become a Lyft driver and weeks later I started driving. Soon after I started working as a part-time barista at Starbucks too.

I started with 20 hours a week at Trader Joe's and between 15 and 20 hours at Starbucks, and another 15 or 20 hours with Lyft. For the first few months I was working about 70 hours a week. After six months, I was promoted to section leader at Trader Joe's and increased my hours there.

I would work three morning shifts at Trader Joe's, Starbucks in the afternoons and drive for Lyft in between.

Working three jobs at once was not a financially motivated decision. It was difficult and not sustainable in the long run, but something I chose to do as a way to cope and overcome difficult times.

Working at three different places opened my eyes to another world. It taught me a lot, gave me a lot of confidence, and I got to meet some amazing people.

One of the biggest things I've taken away from this experience is learning more about myself. Learning how to do a job from scratch is a humbling experience.

I considered myself to be a high performer in the corporate world and thought I was good at everything — but I wasn't a great barista. After almost a year I quit my job at Starbucks and I was promoted to a manager role at Trader Joe's.

Your job is not your identity

Another big takeaway from my gap year is the realization that the company you work for or your job title does not represent who you are. Outside that, you can be yourself and be appreciated and recognized by others.

If you find yourself in a similar position as me, getting laid off after a long career, treat your next steps as a project. It can be for three months or six months, but having a project can make you feel energized because you can shift your focus and open yourself up to new experiences.

Also, continue to meet people. Usually when you lose your job, you can feel disconnected from people. But continuously speaking to friends and old coworkers can lift your spirits, or even help land you new opportunities.

I made a point of remembering 100 people's names at Trader Joe's within my first month. The gap year allowed me to meet people I ordinarily wouldn't have in the corporate world.

I didn't set out to embark on a gap year project away from the corporate world, I just knew I wanted to find a way to keep myself busy.

About three months into the journey, I realized how much I was learning and enjoying it, so I decided to do it for a full year, share my experience with others, and start writing a book.

Have you taken an alternate career path after getting laid off? Contact this reporter at jmann@businessinsider.com

• After a disastrous debate, many once loyal Democrats are calling on the president to drop out.
• Former Obama aides and popular commentators fear Biden affirmed fears about his age.
• The DNC isn't until August, meaning there's time to choose a new nominee.

For months, Democrats have rallied behind President Joe Biden, insisting that in private moments he's energetic and up for the job. But after the president's abysmal performance last week, some are changing their tune — and the new melody is somber.

Here's what some of Biden's once loyal defenders are saying about the president, with some even begging him to end his campaign before the Democratic National Convention in August.

David Axelrod

A titan of the Obama administration, David Axelrod sounded the alarm during a panel discussion on CNN directly following the debate.

"I think there was a sense of shock, actually, on how he came out at the beginning of this debate," he said. "How his voice sounded — he seemed a little disoriented at the beginning of the debate. He did get stronger as the debate went on, but by that time, I think the panic had set in."

He confronted the question on nearly every Democrat's mind: whether Biden should drop out of the race.

While sparring with Republican strategists on the panel, Axelrod said that the GOP would be in serious "trouble" were the Democratic ticket to change.

The 'Pod' guys

While the former Obama aides who host "Pod Save America" typically support the president, they expressed deep concern about his ability to continue campaigning after the debate.

"Obviously that debate was a fucking disaster," Jon Favreau posted the following morning on X. "And since we haven't had the convention yet, it would be absurd if Democrats didn't at least have a serious discussion about whether Joe Biden — who's a wonderful human being and has been a great president — is up for the job."

In a blog post, Dan Pfeiffer lamented Biden's failure to assuage voters' concerns about his age, saying that he instead "exacerbated them."

Another host, Tommy Vietor, did not mince his words, writing on X that telling notoriously panicked Democrats to temper their concerns was "fucking insulting to people who care deeply about the country."

Claire McCaskill

Claire McCaskill, a former senator turned political analyst, said on MSNBC that her heart broke while watching the debate.

"Joe Biden had one thing he had to do tonight, and he didn't do it," McCaskill said. "He had one thing he had to accomplish, and that was reassure America that he was up for the job at his age. And he failed at that tonight."

McCaskill added that elected officials were pinging her phone throughout the debate, throwing around words like "crisis."

She also said that Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Gavin Newsom of California projected a vitality and assuredness that may leave some questioning why their names aren't at the top of the ticket.

Thomas Friedman

By his own admission, Thomas Friedman, Biden's close friend and a New York Times opinion columnist, wept in his hotel room during the debate.

In an article published the following morning, he called on the president to step aside and let someone else run.

"Joe Biden, a good man and a good president, has no business running for re-election," Friedman wrote.

Dropping out would, he argued, save Biden's legacy and give Americans the greatest chance of keeping former President Donald Trump out of office come November. He added that while Harris should run if so inclined, voters deserved to choose a nominee from a wide variety of options.

"I had been ready to give Biden the benefit of the doubt up to now, because during the times I engaged with him one-on-one, I found him up to the job," Friedman said. "He clearly is not any longer."

Van Jones

Van Jones, a political analyst and former Obama advisor, called Biden's performance "painful" to watch.

"I just want to speak from my heart," he said on CNN. "I love that guy. That's a good man — he loves his country, he's doing the best that he can, but he had a test to meet tonight to restore confidence of the country and of the base, and he failed to do that."

Many people, Jones added, will want the president to consider stepping aside given that the Democratic National Convention is not until August.

The question is whether Biden "will allow us to do that," he said.

Joy Reid

Joy Reid, a national correspondent on MSNBC, said that she spent the 90-minute debate on the phone with Obama-era aides, Democratic operatives, and campaign officials. Their overall reaction? Panic.

Biden's primary job was to settle Democrats and their well-documented tendency to freak out.

"He did the opposite of that," she said.

Ben Rhodes

Characteristically geared toward concerns abroad, Ben Rhodes, who was Obama's deputy national security advisor, kept it plain and simple on Twitter: "Just think about what that debate looked like to people and leaders around the world."

Nicholas Kristof

Nicholas Kristof, a columnist and CNN contributor, chimed in with his own two cents in The New York Times, writing that Biden staying in the race would increase the risk that Trump wins back the presidency.

Kristof implored the president to drop out and leave his successor in the hands of delegates at the Democratic National Convention. He named Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Sen. Sherrod Brown, and Gina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, as prospective nominees.

"This will be a wrenching choice," he wrote. "But, Mr. President, one way you can serve your country in 2024 is by announcing your retirement."

Evan Osnos

Earlier this year, Evan Osnos wrote a considerable profile on Biden; in 2020, he published a sympathetic biography about the president, an excerpt of which he retweeted late Thursday night.

When writing the book, Osnos asked Biden how he would respond to those who believe is too old to be president. Biden answered simply, saying he would ask people, "Look at me. Decide."

Osnos, grappling with that decision himself, said on CNN after the debate that the man Americans saw onstage was a "diminished" version of the man he wrote about four years ago.

Joe Scarborough

Even Joe Scarborough, one of the hosts of MSNBC's hit show "Morning Joe," widely considered Biden's go-to morning talk show, bit into the president. He opened his show by affirming his "love" for Biden but went on to say that the president "missed one layup after another," even on should-be knockout topics, such as abortion.

"I fear Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States unless things change," Scarborough said. He joined the scores of Biden's friends candidly questioning whether Democrats should select a different nominee.

Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman, an economist and opinion columnist for The New York Times, wrote in a column that Biden, based on his policy record, should be an "overwhelming" favorite for reelection, but wasn't.

While describing him as the "best" president of his adult life, he said Biden failed to rise to the occasion when it "really" mattered during the presidential debate and said he must "very reluctantly" join those calling on him to step aside.

"In any case, although I hate to see Biden in this position, he's a good man, and I hope he'll do the right thing," Krugman wrote.

Chandler West

Chandler West, former White House deputy director of photography from January 2021 through May 2022, wrote in a now-deleted Instagram story: "It's time for Joe to go," according to screenshots obtained by Axios.

He said he knows how the White House operates, and said they will blame a "cold" or a "bad night." But White House operatives have said privately for weeks and months that Biden is "not as strong as he was just a couple of years ago," West wrote.

In a text message sent to Axios, West predicted that the debate is "not gonna be the last" bad day for Biden.

Correction: June 28, 2024 — An earlier version of this story misstated the role of Ben Rhodes in the Obama administration. He was the deputy national security advisor, not the national security advisor.

• Ukraine's allies have given it new permissions to hit military targets in Russia.
• The shift threatens Russia's ability to launch strikes and stage attacks with impunity from within its borders.
• Experts say Ukraine can now begin to fight properly.

With new permissions giving Ukraine more ways to use its weaponry, including striking into Russia, the West is finally giving it a chance to fight back against Russia properly, experts say.

From the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022 until recently, Ukraine had been forbidden by partner nations from using Western weaponry for attacks on Russian territory.

Those restrictions, which Russia fights without, put Ukraine at a serious disadvantage. Russia launches many of its drone and missile attacks from within its own borders, and it amasses troops and equipment at home for offensive pushes into Ukraine.

But for a long time, Ukraine could only turn to options like long-range drones to go after targets in Russia. It's scored impactful hits on airbases and other targets, but not in the way it could with more dedicated weaponry.

Col. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander for UK and NATO Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear forces, told BI that the restrictions on Ukraine were "ridiculous." The West was "giving so much advantage to the Russians," he said.

Other analysts have described it as Ukraine having to fight with one hand tied behind its back.

But many of Ukraine's international partners changed their stance, announcing in late May that the war-torn country could use the weapons they supplied to go after many military targets on Russian soil.

There are still some restrictions, such as the US rules on its Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), but Ukraine finally receiving the permission to at least use some weapons on targets in Russia, de Bretton-Gordon said, is giving it a shot at "cutting the head off the snake."

Ukraine can now fight

The changes mean Ukraine's forces can target Russian air defenses in Russian territory, as well as some of the aircraft and other weapons systems that fire at them, eliminating the source rather than trying to intercept missiles and drones once they are already in the air.

De Bretton-Gordon noted that many Russian missile and drone attacks are launched from Russia itself. "If you can't actually attack them before they take off, you are already 10-nil down."

George Barros, a Russia analyst at the US-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) think tank, said the change should be a big one for Ukraine's effectiveness.

"I think over the last two years, analysts thinking about Ukrainian capabilities on the battlefield have largely been constrained by certain assumptions," he said. "One key thing was that the battle lines in Ukraine really can't improve all that much because Ukrainians can't do combined arms warfare effectively."

There have been some institutional challenges within the Ukrainian military that have hindered such operations, but it's also been hamstrung by a lack of air support for ground forces.

Barros said Ukraine can start taking out Russian missile and air defense systems, helping Ukraine's air force, including its F-16s when they arrive, and its troops on the ground advance in ways they have not previously been able to.

With Russia's border areas no longer safe, it may need to withdraw its weapons systems back farther away from Ukraine, reducing the ability to strike into it. It also increases the strain on other parts of the Russian armed forces.

Philip Ingram, a former British Army intelligence and security officer, said before some of the restrictions were lifted, "the Russians could bring their air defense forces, they could bring the logistic dumps, they could bring their command and control almost right up to border, knowing full well that Ukrainians weren't allowed to use anything across the border."

"Now that that has been changed, the Russians are having to move that back," he said.

Professor Michael Clarke, a Russia and Ukraine expert and a British national security advisor, said "the ability to use multiple launch rocket systems on Russian territory — and F-16s when it comes to it, that, I think, will have a growing effect."

But there are still limits still holding Ukraine back.

The US still won't let Ukraine hit deep into Russian territory to reach military targets there, meaning Ukraine can't use long-range weaponry like ATACMS to hit where some of Russia's attacks are still coming from. Instead, Ukraine has had to turn to some homemade options, such as its Neptune missiles, anti-ship weapons modified for land attack, or its long-range drones.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Sunday that Ukraine's partner nations should further relax restrictions on hitting military targets in Russia, saying the remaining limitations make it hard to stop Russia's deadly glide bomb attacks, which are launched from jets out of reach by warplanes like Russia's Su-34 fighter-bombers.

He said that Russia had dropped more than 800 glide bombs in Ukraine over the past week alone.

"Ukraine needs the necessary means to destroy the carriers of these bombs, including Russian combat aircraft, wherever they are. This step is essential," he said.

ISW said in a June update that many major Russian airbases are within range of ATACMS, which Ukraine can't use, but out of range of Ukrainian weaponry that it is permitted — which allows Russia to keep using those bases to launch attacks without answer.

But even as Ukraine is requesting more freedom with how it engages Russia and uses Western weapons, the relaxation of other restrictions has so far yielded meaningful results, experts told BI.

Helping in Kharkiv

Experts and Ukrainian officials say the new rules have already made a difference in Kharkiv even though it's been less than a month since they changed.

Russia initiated a new offensive against Kharkiv on May 10, launching deadly missile attacks and slowly pushing its military forward. But Russia's attack tempo has slowed since Ukraine's permissions changed at the end of May, and the Russian ground operations have slowed as well.

Barros said that Ukraine has already made a "positive difference" since the recent change in engagement permissions. He said Ukraine has, for instance, been using Western weaponry to hit Belgorod, a Russian region close to Kharkiv.

"They've actually helped blunt the Russian offensive at the heart," he said, adding that the Ukrainians have been able to launch "small tactical counterattacks."

Ingram agreed, saying that in Kharkiv, Ukraine's new permissions have "made a huge difference. Absolutely huge difference."

The ability to strike into Russia was particularly important for Ukraine as the fighting took place near Russia's border, where attacks were launched and fresh troops and supplies could be rotated in with Ukraine unable to answer. Ukraine now has a response, though its military continues to face tremendous pressure from the much larger and relentless Russian military.

Cancian said the US was willing to give permission for combat action in the border areas near Kharkiv because Russia's "rear services and their artillery are still in Russian territory. And if the Ukrainians could not attack those, then they would be at a severe disadvantage."

He said Russia has also reportedly moved some of its air defenses from Crimea, a Ukrainian peninsula region it occupies, to protect Belgorod. He described that as "very important." If Ukraine can force Russia to do that in more places, Russia's command is left with tough decisions about what to protect and how.

Permissions are not the sole factor, though. Ukraine's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance picture matters as well, determining the effectiveness of its strikes. The US has helped with targeting in the past, but it remains uncertain to what extent it will engage in this endeavor. Regardless, the Ukrainians have seen successes.

A Ukrainian artillery commander told the Associated Press recently that Ukrainian US-made High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems started firing in the Kharkiv region as soon as Ukraine got the new permission and in the first days "managed to destroy whole columns of troops along the border waiting for the order to enter Ukraine."

And two Ukrainian officials also told The Washington Post that some Russian attacks had been reduced in that region since the new permissions came in. The AP reported that Ukraine's new operational permissions had "greatly slowed Russia's momentum" in Kharkiv.

• Michelle Obama is the only prominent Democrat capable of beating Trump, a poll found. 
• President Joe Biden's candidacy is in question after a disastrous debate performance.
• But the former first lady has repeatedly ruled out running for office. 

Former First Lady Michelle Obama is the only Democrat capable of beating Donald Trump should President Joe Biden drop out of the race, a poll found.

According to an Ipsos/Reuters poll published Wednesday, in a hypothetical contest between Trump and several potential Democratic candidates in November, Obama was the only one with a clear lead over Trump.

Around 50% said they would vote for Obama, while only 39% said they would vote for Trump. Others said they either didn't know or wouldn't vote.

The poll also showed Biden, whose candidacy is in doubt after a disastrous debate against Trump last week, in a 40% to 40% dead heat with the Republican.

Other potential Democratic candidates all polled lower than Trump, with Vice President Kamala Harris trailing Trump at 43%-42%, California Gov. Gavin Newsom trailing 42%-39% and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer at 41%-36%.

The chances of Obama taking on Trump, though, are remote, with the former first lady having repeatedly ruled out standing for office.

As recently as March, in a statement to NBC News, she said she would not be running.

"As former First Lady Michelle Obama has expressed several times over the years, she will not be running for president," her communications director said. "Mrs. Obama supports President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' re-election campaign."

The statement was in response to a flurry of speculation that she could replace Biden as the Democratic candidate this year.

Obama, who campaigns for causes including healthy eating and gender equality, has long been among the most popular political figures in the US.

In 2020, Biden said he'd choose her as his running mate "in a heartbeat" if she decided to stand.

Obama campaigned for Biden in 2920, delivering the keynote speech at the DNC convention where she warned of the dangers of a second Trump term. She's kept a lower profile during this year's election but had been expected to campaign for Biden during the final stretch of the election.

Her husband, former President Barack Obama, has stood by Biden despite the shaky debate performance but has privately remarked that Biden's road to reelection has become difficult following the debate, The Washington Post reported.