Al Giordano is going out on a limb and strongly predicting that Joe Biden not only is getting in the race but that he’s been headed that way since at least August.
I could give you ten reasons why I think VP Joe Biden will, must, has a duty from which he will not shrink, jump into the presidential race before the “clue” Ryan Lizza comes up with here: that his staff met with Democratic National Committee staffers to be briefed on the primary calendar and its minutia.
The biggest reason is that by allowing so much speculation for the past months – without even once tamping it down – Biden (with the full and often enthusiastic complicity of the White House) has contributed greatly to the free-fall in Hillary Clinton’s support: one in which she has lost at least one-third of her voters, including one-third of the women who support her.
If it wasn’t likely that Biden will get in, why would the White House allow such speculation to damage the candidate most likely to benefit from Biden staying out? At a certain point – I would say, around August – a decision had to be made: Are we going to keep hurting Clinton’s campaign with the constant drip, drip, drip of Biden stories? Or do we cut bait now? The record reflects that Biden and the White House decided to keep fishing instead. The results for the “frontrunner” Clinton’s campaign have been devastating, so disastrous that she can’t even lead Donald Trump in swing state polls when even lesser known Bernie Sanders can!
Biden’s in. That’s my educated guess. And I don’t need some douchey staffer of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to come trotting to me with a “scoop” in which the DNC also tried to throw shade on Biden’s candidacy: the “DNC source” told Lizza that Team Biden “probably thought they had longer” to get on the ballot. What rubbish. Biden’s people have studied and known these deadlines since at least August, when some went over the calendar with me.
No, Team Biden only held this meeting with the DNC as a clever “courtesy,” knowing full well that the in-the-Clinton-tank shop of Wasserman-Schultz wouldn’t be able to help itself but leak it to the press. Which was stupid because here’s another Biden story, another day in which Biden, and not Clinton, is the name on Democrats’ lips.
It’s a total eclipse of the frontrunner.
Here comes Joe.
I didn’t talk to the Biden people, but if Al says he did then you can take that to the bank.
I’m not ready to say Biden is definitely getting in and I’m not sure he has some duty to get in. But I hope he does, and I think he might.
very good. and I mention again the long Joe Biden intro w humorous video that Barack gave at the White House Correspondents Dinner
People complain that Sanders doesn’t have enough support among nonwhite voters, but Biden has zero. He also has a lengthy track record of flameouts. What is it exactly that would make him a viable candidate this time around? I say don’t go away mad, Joe, just go away.
Al would disagree with this.
So would others.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/29/who-will-win-the-black-vote-clinton-or-biden.html
That’s an “Obama’s chosen successor” story. I can understand why the Biden camp might not want to set up the bullseye for the media to hit against during August or September. Still thinking that he parachutes into SuperTuesday with a big media hit, writing off the first four (and low-delegate-count) events. He and Hillary now start scrambling for superdelegates. Sanders likely will have difficulty gaining more than a few friends as superdelegates.
There are 3636 pledged delegates and 704 unpledged delegates (superdelegates).
I do not believe that he is “Obama’s chosen successor,” Tarheel. More accurately, he is the PermaGov’s chosen candidate to…by any means possible short of having a Sanders nomination…bollix up Clinton’s chances. The controllers plainly did not want her to win the nomination in 2008 and the resultant overall media bias towards Obama and against her was plain to be seen.
Like this:
As opposed to:
and
I cannot say exactly why this PermaGov opposition to HRC as president exists, but the evidence is clear and and consistent that it does indeed exist. My guess is that the deeply embedded spook system (a very important part of the Deep State) that engineered Bill Clinton’s honeytrap w/Monica Lewinsky as the stupid-but-willing patsy are afraid that HRC will come after them and their whole PermaGov network the moment she accedes to real executive power, but this time around it could be something as simple as thinking that she’s too old and/or too weak physically be able to to stand up to the job. Whatever the reasons, the media bias is clear. I am by no means an HRC “supporter,” but neither am I comfortable with the widespread public ignorance regarding how things really work here in the United States of Omertica.
So it goes.
Later…
It’s surprising to see the Clintons wearing the white hats in this “PermaGov” fable.
Personally, when I’m inclined to imagine the ruling class pretending to affiliate as Democrat and Republican while in fact crushing any obstacles to its prerogatives, I have a hard time imagining a more fit anti-hero than Bill Clinton, given his rise to power as the poster boy for the (happily defunct) DLC and his embrace of Dick Morris, etc. For that matter, I don’t see any need to for a vast PermaGov conspiracy in l’affaire Lewinsky. Partisan intrigue, sure.
Hillary Clinton has enemies, but you’re bending facts to fit a pre-conceived narrative if you position her as a threat to monolithic power. She has plenty of important enemies who will use what they can against her. But she’s certainly got no fewer inside connections than those that are lined up against her.
I used to believe this, baudelarien. I no longer believe it. It’s not about “white hats” anymore…if it ever really was…it’s about factions of a gigantic criminal conspiracy, one that is international in scope. If you do not think that Lewinsky was used by part of the national U.S. intelligence system as a honeytrap for Clinton you simply haven’t been paying attention to who was involved.
Linda Tripp ran Monica Lewinsky at Clinton. It was a classic agent-running-a-nonwitting-subject operation, and it worked. Lucianne Goldberg ran Linda Tripp. Who ran her? Plausible deniability steps in. There are too many intelligence-related coincidences to believe otherwise. You say that HRC’s “…certainly got no fewer inside connections than those that are lined up against her?” I say not enough of them, and those that she has are no longer in the right positions to control the media.
This is not an “election” as we have been taught to understand it, baudelarien, nor were any of the elections following JFK’s assassination. What we have been witnessing is a series of internecine, internationally involved gang wars and the stakes are untold trillions of dollars and control of the U.S. military. Why? The U.S. has been acting as the world cop since the late ’40s for a group of countries that are deeply involved in massive profit that is guaranteed by miltarily-enforced economic imperialism. Korea? Vietnam? Untold numbers of covert operations all over the Third World? The whole Middle East/North Africa fiasco? Looked at in that light, many things begin to come clear. Why Clinton? Who knows. We are told so many lies by the corporate-owned governmental media complex that nothing is believable anymore.
You write:
The “white hats” idea is the fable. The myth that drives this set of this actions in the U.S. is the white hats myth. Almost everyone in the country…other than those who see through it, which number includes most members of the darker-skinned minorities that have been fucked by both sides for hundreds of years…almost everyone else believes that one party is the good guys and the other party is the bad guys. It just ain’t so. Some people root for…oh, I don’t know, say the governmental equivalent of Sam Giancana…and others root for the equivalent of Meyer Lansky. They are all gangsters.
See my sig for more on this.
Later…
AG
I don’t disagree about the spook system and the Deep State. Look for some of Daniel Brandt’s essays from the 90s about the Clintons. I suspect that both Hillary and Bill were CIA assets before they got their law degrees, so the Lewinsky eruption seems peculiar on its face.
But the Lewinsky scandal allowed Bill to operate as the Repubs’ handmaiden under cover of impeachment, which ultimately served both the elite and the Clintons well. Absolute control of the media, Yugoslavia, the drug war et al. Remember that Clinton was the governor who looked away from Mena while US Attorney Asa Hutchinson looked away from Mena. We’re talking about the same team here.
My suspicion is that Hillary is looking tired and has been in the forefront too much to get a free pass for the sins of her career. (Of course, all politicians face greater scrutiny in a presidential campaign, but the media can agree not to look at certain criminal behaviors, or outright links to the elite.) But even the media’s circumspect deals can’t keep Hillary’s real kowtowing to the wealthy from the Dems, and the Repubs keep churning out the kind of crap that their constituency eats up.
So, simply, Biden is the replacement to go in if Hillary falters, and faltering she is. I would suspect a quick departure for Hillary is in order. Otherwise, Biden takes too much from her and opens the door for Sanders, which the elites do not want. I am still expecting some kind of generated scandal to throw shade on Sanders, or a manufactured stroke or bullets, although I think that the Deep State is loathe to bring that kind of attention on itself and unless the DS is ready for a full-out fascist regime I don’t think that there’s anyone in the Republican race they can trust. That would mean they’d have to recycle someone of Romney’s ilk, and rich boy Jeb! fits the profile but can’t perform.
Precisely.
Thank you.
AG
Wasn’t it Andy Card that said you don’t introduce a new product in August?
Is it more the rule than the exception that a President desires a successor that can be expected to further cement the legacy of his administration.
Coolidge stayed out of the 1928 nomination process, not keen on Hoover and positively loathed his VP Dawes.
FDR wasn’t any fonder of his VP during his first two terms. And appeared to struggle in settling on a man that would continue moving the New Deal forward.
1960 — The VP was a foregone conclusion. No indication that Ike had any voice in that decision.
That didn’t work out so well for the Democratic Party.
1968 — well, LBJ’s chosen successor did get the nomination.
1988 — Bush pledged to continue Reagan’s policies.
2000 — This one is tricky. In 1992, ordinary Democrats viewed Gore as a good successor to Clinton in 2000. However, in that same year, “eight years for Bill, and then eight years for Hill” was heard.
A third term don’t come easy.
Gore’s selection of Lieberman, who made his name excoriating Bill Clinton for impropriety from floor of the Senate, was an open rebuke of Clinton, as was Gore’s refusal to allow Clinton to campaign for him.
Which is to say, I don’t think the Gore at all positioned himself as a “good successor”, though it’s clear he wanted to run on similar themes of centrism and prosperity.
What would you have done as the GOP opponent had been running around for a year proclaiming that he would “restore dignity and honor to the WH?” And yes, that code didn’t escape most voters. That message was toxic for a DEM candidate perceived to be Clinton’s successor which is in part why the polls had GWB ahead of Gore from the beginning of the election cycle all the way up until Gore’s acceptance speech.
Conceptually, the Lieberman nod wasn’t a bad idea, but practically it was dumb because those non-partisan GOP voters that were receptive to GWB’s anti-Clinton message, had no idea who Lieberman was and didn’t care that he had been on the personal sexual morality patrol. Plus, Joe was an unattractive character in his own right.
This is Clintonista truthiness: as was Gore’s refusal to allow Clinton to campaign for him.
First, it’s neither conventional nor traditional for a sitting POTUS to be more than peripherally involved in the campaign of his successor. Second, Gore’s internal polling indicated that his numbers dropped when Clinton appeared on behalf of Gore. Third, two areas where Clinton might have been helpful to Gore were in AR and in fundraising. Gore was fine with Clinton campaigning in AR which he did and didn’t help. As to fundraising, Clinton was officially hands off because Hillary was out there competing with Gore for the same dollars. Fourth, while publicly Gore was Clinton’s designated successor, Clinton was ambivalent about it. His real choice was Hillary — but his shenanigans had made that impossible by late 1998. Fifth, Clinton did his best to steal the limelight at the 2000 convention. Shamelessly so, IMHO. He wanted a freaking third term and wasn’t gracious about leaving the WH when his time was up.
Policy wise, Gore and Clinton appeared to be much too alike for liberals, but how much of that was where Gore really was by the late 1990s and how much of that was being the loyal underling will never be known. Gore is a decent man, but even he admits that he’s not a gifted politician.
I agree that the Lieberman pick was, at best, appeasement, and gained nothing.
But I would also point out that Clinton’s opponents were not the only ones propping up churchy morality in the public sphere. The Gores did yeoman’s work on that score with their contribution to the moral panic over music lyrics. And their reputation for puritanical bloodlessness was such that they were obliged to stage awkward convention floor PDA. Gore’s personal reactions to Clinton’s indiscretions fed the fire that, in the end, burned him as well.
I often appreciate your erudition. In this case, it doesn’t advance your argument. By conceding that “Gore was fine with Clinton campaigning in AR,” you’re undercutting the idea that I’m just repeating Clinton spin: Arkansas couldn’t be exceptional without a rule, and the rule was about creating as much distance as possible between the incumbent president and the candidate.
But I would also point out that Clinton’s opponents were not the only ones propping up churchy morality in the public sphere.
The Clintons themselves propped up “churchy morality in the public sphere. Sister Souljah and Joycelyn Elders were two public examples. While not public, Hillary prayed with RWNJs, and publicly praised their creepy preacher. DOMA was another “churchy” move on their part. And all of that was of more recent vintage as of 2000 than Tipper’s stupid music censorship effort in the 1980s.*
As a personal straight-arrow, not inauthentic for Gore to be outraged by Clintons sexual indiscretions. However, that was likely enhanced by his recognition that this crap jeopardized his electoral chances. Awkward though it may have been, Gore’s convention PDA was what it took for him to remove Clinton’s slime from himself.
(An aside, does anyone respect serial adulterers? Isn’t there always at least a niggling suspicion that cheaters don’t restrict that to one domain?)
Clinton in AR doesn’t refute my argument at all. It was the one place where Clinton couldn’t further hurt and could possibly help Gore. At the national level and in other states, Clinton’s efforts for Gore in AR were little seen and less noticed.
*I have some empathy for the Tippers in our society. Privileged housewives with no definable outside avocation. Church or “churchy” is where many end up. They also view such activities are being helpful to their husband’s professional reputation. Most often they are also depressed and often enough in denial about their marriages, either their own or their husband’s feelings. They are insufferable when they are in their “churchy” mode or period. However, when they move out of it, they’re quite pleasant and far more liberal than they were before that period. Have a good friend that during such a time in her life associated with James Dobson and his wife (before they hit the big time with their churchiness).
Tipper wasn’t well after the 2000 election. She likely appreciated that her censorship stupidity could have been a factor in the loss. It didn’t help, or didn’t help enough, in Gore’s “churchy” home state (although who is to say that it didn’t contribute to his 1990 Senate win and his two wins as VP?).
Interesting to compare and contrast the political fortunes of the Browns of CA and Gores of TN. Al, Jr., IMO, overcompensated for his father’s defeat from the beginning of his political career. It made him a lesser man and a lesser politician over time.
The treatment of Jocelyn Elders was shameful. That was a significant moment in the hardening of my own attitudes towards Bill Clinton’s presidency.
I appreciate your sympathetic reading of Tipper Gore, although I can’t bring myself to feel the same way.
That’s what the RWNJs during the impeachment brouhaha wanted us to believe. Historically though, among those who’ve reached high office, is that really true? Mixed bag results for the adulterers, and some of the biggest cheaters, crooks and liars — with one notable exception — are not normally numbered among the presidential adulterers.
How so? Coming from the very tough state of TN, as compared to the politically more favorable CA, both Gores had political concerns to consider back home as they contemplated major national issues. Much tougher task. The Browns, despite national ambitions of both father and son, never made it out of Sacramento. But for a stolen election in FL and in the smoky backrooms of the Supreme Court, Al Jr would have made it to the presidency.
VP candidates in the Dem nomination process have been the insurance policies for the Deep State. Lieberman was there in the wings if Gore went off the tracks and got too independent, like LBJ was the elite’s insurance against JFK, a policy they cashed in. When they decided that Nixon was trying to accumulate too much power they had to maneuver Agnew out before they put Nixon out to pasture. Thus were we given the CIA’s man in the House, Ford, and an actual Rockefeller as insurance for him.
Think about the Dems’ VP candidates in the 80s. Lloyd Bentsen? Really? And the corrupt female bigot from the New York machine. In a real sense Biden was the elite’s insurance in case Obama left the reservation. So I don’t particularly see how ol’ Joe is any different than Hillary in substance.
I’m not sure you need all the apparatus of deep state theory to explain choices that can be sufficiently explained by ticket balance. I’d opt for Occam in most of these cases. Kennedy, for example, needed Johnson to bring in the South. And Dukakis seems to have tried for a repeat.
I’ll grant you that Ford is an odd man out. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that Nixon was the master of the intrigues that unraveled that administration.
Occam’s razor should be banned from the internet. It encourages avoidance of certain topics.
The apparatus of the Deep State exists, and it does what it does. Sure, after the JFK coup they could have all returned to their desks at Langley and caught up on their filing. I suspect otherwise.
I thought he was the FBI’s man? At least he was while serving on the Warren Comm’n.
The filing deadlines are well in advance of that.
He could wait until South Carolina under the theory that:
So he gets in after New Hampshire if Sanders wins, and hopes to bloody her in South Carolina.
I think it unlikely, but it could work.
The only real value I see in Biden running is if Clinton really screws up, though I understand that is a valid concern. But I have to admit that running Obama 3 against Clinton 3 would be an interesting thing to watch. It would be nice to be debating details of liberal policy for a change.
Er, “liberal policy” debate?
I think that is a hope, not an expectation.
Just plain pitiful. The Democrats can only trot out one literally old warhorse after the other. I’m 70. I can’t see any future in any of this. Gridlock, dead end, whatever. All living in the past. Sanders remains the most inventive and inspired of the whole bunch. Let’s see what happens next week in the debate with Clinton. The Democrats can’t countenance Sanders, no way. Can you imagine the Wasserman lady warming up to him? But I’m sure he’d have no trouble with her. Think about it.
There was a time when I actually hoped Biden would run. That time was about two years ago, when nobody could think of anybody but Hillary.
For all those who think Sanders is too old, he’s only a year older than Biden.
If Biden goes in, it’s to rescue Clinton, not kill her. First of all, if Biden had any juice is running for President, he would have shown enough life to fog a mirror one of the times he tried before. Veep is pretty much a nothing job (unless you’re Cheney), and he can’t simply run as Obama’s successor, because Clinton makes that ambiguous. There is a sizable constituency in the Democratic Party opposed to a white male per se. Often they have no realistic choice, but this time they do.
The objective of a Biden candidacy would be to achieve a brokered convention that will go to Hillary. He can’t do more than that. From this perspective, it doesn’t matter how many delegates he takes from Hillary, as long as he also takes some from Sanders. He can also split the superdelegates. It’s possible that Hillary could lose with the voters and still make it on superdelegates, but that would create a real legitimacy problem. If Biden and Clinton split the superdelegates, this is somewhat muted, as it doesn’t look like the party elite just rammed its thumb on the scales, but still has that effect.
What the elite will be praying, though I doubt it, is that Biden can move into second place. If the race is between Clinton and Sanders, Sanders cannot be ignored, including to some degree his substance, particularly as he refuses to talk about anything else. As soon as the race appears to be between Biden and Clinton, Sanders can be ignored.
To be clear, I’m not really talking about Biden’s personal motivation here. If he gets in, there must be a significant fraction of the Democratic elite encouraging him. They will be looking, above all, to stop Sanders.
The irony is that Biden is coming in because Hillary is proving a much weaker candidate than expected; but by coming in (and there is a lot of consensus to this effect) he will only weaken her further, thus strengthening Sanders.
They are evidently betting that Biden will be stronger against Sanders than Hillary is, but I doubt that very much.
No, I don’t think any of the players are going to bet on Biden being the little engine that could this time around. Clinton isn’t weakening because she’s doing anything wrong. It’s because of what Sanders is doing right. She’s weakening because a substantial fraction, probably the majority, of the party wants a real progressive populist. She is not that, neither is Biden, and neither are in a good position to fool anyone.
As a said, Biden can do one or both of two things: deny Bernie a delegate majority forcing a brokered election (if Bernie’s clearly going to lose anyway, he probably drops out), and provide cover for the superdelegates to put their thumb on the scales for Hillary, by letting some of them thumb it for Biden instead, which will come to the same thing in the end.
So what deal is Sanders willing to cut with the elite? And what deal would be acceptable to the elite? Let State run wild overseas for some moderate economic relief for the middle class? It would probably be wise for the long run but I doubt the greedheads would allow it.
I wouldn’t want to be Bernie’s food taster.
Considering where Bernie’s coming from, as well as Hillary and Biden, I think his press coverage has been pretty good so far. Not enough, but rather good. That suggests to me that important elements of the elite may realize things are so fucked up that even they are worried, and that they understand Bernie may be the best way forward right now. The other part of the elite are probably not taking him seriously yet, but will come to hate him. Yet the present situation reminds me not so much of 1960 as of 1932.
…If the race is between Clinton and Sanders, Sanders cannot be ignored, including to some degree his substance, particularly as he refuses to talk about anything else. As soon as the race appears to be between Biden and Clinton, Sanders can be ignored.
Democratic party elites trying to be clever? Historically, they have a lousy record when they try to pull stunts.
What’s in it for Joe to play a spoiler role? Or perhaps he has yet to figure out that that would be his assignment as he’s blinded by the prospect that he could actually be elected POTUS.
If Biden were nominated, the Clinton wing will not easily “get in line.” Have no confidence that they wouldn’t behave similarly to the DEM power players in 1972 that either jumped on board with Nixon or sat on their hands. That would make it difficult for him to win the GE.
Personally, I think Biden would be a fool to jeopardize his current legacy == but it wouldn’t be the first time for him.
I can’t picture Biden winning the nomination. He’s made a career of losing it badly. He’s also not different enough from Clinton on substance to take the lion’s share of her voters, and he can’t paint himself left enough to take many of Bernie’s – there is too long a track record.
To be fair, he has a long record of winning elections. His only loss since 1972 — and it was a wipe-out — was the 2008 Iowa caucus.
His national public profile today is as good as it gets for a sitting VP.
Why he is unlikely to win the nomination is twofold and inter-related. Clinton retains a high percentage of her 2008 vote. Possible that what she shed’s, the racist vote, she makes up for with the AA vote. Second, is the institutional party. Obama ceded control over that to the Clinton faction within days of winning the 2008 election. Not an unreasonable peace offering and until the 2014 election cycle didn’t cost him much. In those early days of his Presidency and through his re-election, keeping all factions in the tent was important to establish his command of the job. It’s the seventh year in office when Presidents most often begin thinking about a successor that will be nearly like him/her — if they believe (and most do) that his record has been outstanding and warrants preservation.
Can’t think of another POTUS/VP that was a much on the same page as Obama/Biden. As VPs GHWB and Cheney had more power — but that was because Reagan was ga-ga and GWB was an idiot. But the personal warm regard between the POTUS and VP in those administrations was weak. Thus, it doesn’t get any better for a third term by proxy than Biden.
If Obama’s consistent public approval rating over his tenure had been 50%+, Biden would almost be a shoo-in. That condition hasn’t/doesn’t exist. Add to that that his name ID from 2008 until today has lagged that of Clinton. Not a critical problem if Obama controlled the party — but he doesn’t. Added to this is that Biden gets saddled with the unpopular Obama policies that Clinton has and can distance herself from, and where does that leave Biden as a primary candidate?
I agree, though, that Biden would be a fool to do this. If he quits now he is ahead. If he runs, he is Mr. Loser again. That’s one reason why I think if he runs it will be largely because of people pushing him to run for reasons other than thinking he will win – which I don’t think anyone knowledgeable would, save perhaps Biden himself for vanity reasons.
you assume Clinton, once nominated, is a shoo-in. doesn’t look like that; Clinton being the nominee vs Sanders will depress Sanders’ followers’ turnout for all the reasons they are supporting Sanders now. also, question posed here by a couple of ppl [DerFarm and Fladem iirc] why hasn’t Clinton been able to close the deal? shows she’s a risk. we can’t just rely on the absence of a convincing R candidate [and if it’s Jeb? the election may be easier to steal from Clinton because of her campaign’s problems]
Clinton hasn’t been able to close the deal because she is what a large portion, I think the majority, of the Party is sick of: a centrist very sympathetic to big money interests. It’s not some personal weakness of hers or how she has been campaigning; it is a real political difference. She hasn’t been losing ground. Bernie has been gaining it. Look what happened in Britain. There are winds blowing in this direction. For this purpose, Biden solves nothing. His entry, should it occur with significant party backings, will be, at least from the viewpoint of his backers, a game.
I see what you’re saying. But on FP I see Biden continuing Obama’s direction with diplomacy rather than militarized responses to world problems so already a completely different pov from Clinton. re: the response to Sanders domestically, Clinton seems oblivious to all but the moneyed interests. that is not true of Biden for multiple reasons I need not repeat. anyway, imo Biden can authentically respond to the Sanders direction and speak to Sanders voters [I include myself]. I hope he gets the nomination and selects Amanda Curtis as his vp – a compelling candidate
Note: Amanda Curtis was one of the first elected officials to support Sanders.
Unless we end up much more directly involved in Syria or elsewhere than it looks like we will, I think FP will carry little weight in this election. People are concerned with their own problems and tired of worrying about the rest of the world, particularly since there is no consensus what to do anyway (the bomb em all crowd is in the other party). I also don’t think Clinton is a reflexive hawk like, say, McCain. She probably would have gotten us directly into Syria, but Obama came very close to that too. I don’t know that Biden would have had the sense to stay out of it and Libya entirely either. After all, Obama didn’t.
I think Obama is in the process of resetting the board before the end of his term; and I expect the Syria situation to look very different in a couple of months. I think Hillary is a reflexive hawk, she’s a dem so she doesn’t bluster like McCain, but I don’t think she really understands diplomacy the way Obama does (a legacy of his intellect plus community organizing imo) and her natural element is the backroom deal. Precisely b/c dems, anyway, want to focus our resources on domestic issues, a hawk position is a liability even when FB takes a back seat to voters’ other concerns. Hillary cannot argue any diplomacy cred. But I think Obama will support/ is supporting Biden precisely because of his FP interests
Well, we just differ on this. But if Biden gets in, I think Obama would be a fool to take his side against Clinton. After all, Clinton did eventually lay down her guns in 2008 and bring her followers along. Secondly, if he backs Biden, Biden better win, and that looks very unlikely. Obama is shrewd, and the shrewd thing would be to stay out of it. Taking either side will sully his legacy with someone.
Not that it matters since my primary is so late in the schedule as to not matter, but I’m not going to vote for Biden or consider it. This whole drama of “will he/won’t he” hasn’t made him any more appealing. I don’t like our current process of running debates and announcing candidates a year before any primaries. I know the candidates need to do that to raise money and buy voters in Iowa, or whatever it is they have to do in Iowa to win that stupid caucus. I should be happy that someone actually didn’t decide to run until late and didn’t go to the silly state fair so that the press could get a tingle or a laugh at how well he or she wore cowboy boots. But for me, Biden’s indecision and pulling everyone into it is just preening. The mourning a dead son story is just cynical. If he didn’t have a reason to run before Beau died, then I don’t really have reason to vote for him because he’s not running on anything. Either he had a reason to run or he didn’t. A dead son doesn’t actually produce a reason.
The Biden Boomlet is based on fear about Hillary as a candidate.
I don’t think Biden is running, because I think the fear about Hillary is overblown. Having said that I think people will be looking at the first debate pretty carefully. If Clinton does poorly, the pressure will grow on Biden.
But I honestly don’t see much ideological difference between Clinton and Biden.
did you see a big ideological difference between Kerry and Edwards or Dodd or Richardson?
We pick parties for ideology, and presidents for judgment and temperament.
My comment about ideology was that it wouldn’t matter much if either Biden of Clinton won from a policy perspective.
As opposed to Sanders, who would matter a great deal.
I don’t think any of them would be much different on domestic policy. They’ll all pass continuing resolutions crafted by Republicans.
Sanders would dramatically change the conversation, which would have effects downstream, possibly at the first midterm. Occupy changed the conversation, and that was just a bunch of people camping in the park. Instead of meeting Republican extremism with calls for Obaman compromise, which is an approach not a position, or Clintonian triangulation, which amounts to giving in to the Republicans where they are strong, so that only their weak positions distinguish them, Sanders would actually have sharply opposed ideas. Our gridlock is not just Congressional; it is intellectual.
Would say “conceptual” instead of “intellectual.” Conceptual can be articulated and transmitted to others.
The single biggest decision a President makes is whether to go to war.
Sanders is much less likely to involve this country in a needless war – which is why you said domestic policy, obviously.
But the decision to go to war has enormous consequences for domestic policy as well given the cost of war.
I am not nearly as pessimistic as you about an endless series of CR’s either.
If you believe that, though, then why do you care who the dems nominate?
When Carter and his CIA chief tried to reform the CIA, move out the E. Howard Hunt generation, the CIA took umbrage and built a privatized CIA cowboy unit from the displaced fascists. Led by the Caseys of corridors of power, with CIA spokesmen like Reagan crowing onstage, they remained a somewhat parallel, privatized unit throughout the Reagan/Bush I years.
As much as I love Sanders’ candidacy, I see something dark and bad down the road. Granted, funding the contras and the mujahadeen went through the House of Saud and the drug dealers and fascists in the 80s and when “the loop” was discovered by Congress the parallel arrangement allowed the elite to keep Reagan and Bush out of the dock. And prior to that Carter had to accept Brezsinki (I’ll never learn to spell his name) from the elite. The next president will be stuck with the collapse of the EU, and the Deep State’s anti-Russian grassfires may reach critical stage in the next few years.
I don’t think the elite can trust Sanders to do the corporate thing (as opposed to the right thing), and that’s why I expect a dead woman or live boy in Sanders’ bed, some money scandal, a medical condition or an assassination. Unfortunately, that’s why I trust Sanders: because he’s good enough to kill.
It will be interesting to see who he’s pick as running mate. I don’t think it would be someone like Lyndon Johnson. Think of why not and you may see the differences. As I said above, you might want to think 1932 rather than 1960.
One thing I’ve wondered is if the intelligence agencies or military has the capacity to induce heart attack undetectably, with microwaves or something. Given Sanders age, heart attack is intrinsically plausible, so the option is open if the technology is there.
He ran twice and was a dismal failure. Why would he be more popular now, running against a woman who has an excellent chance of being the first woman president?
He seemed to enjoy being vice president for the “consoler in chief” role. I don’t recall reading that he was intimately involved in pushing legislation or fighting for votes in the Senate. He was a good soldier for Obama. I didn’t see any indication that he had a burning desire to succeed him.
When he talked with Colbert, it seemed to me he was saying that he wasn’t going to run. That counts for more in my eye than anyone’s backroom speculations.
Maybe he promised Beau he would run. Maybe he didn’t. Either way, it’s not a compelling reason for him to run, and it’s not a reason for people to vote for him. What policies would he have that would be substantially different from Hillary or Martin? How would he have any better chance of getting those policies implemented than either of them?
Biden should gracefully bow out after his term ends. He should enjoy his retirement and serve as an elder statesman of sorts. He won’t beat Hillary if he runs for the nomination. It’s not clear that he would beat O’Malley, either, if Martin does as well as I hope and expect in the debates.
But I can’t predict the future, and I’m not plugged into Joe’s brain any more than anyone else speculating about what he’ll do, so don’t bet any money based on my thoughts…
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
I hope that Biden does enter the race, and my reasons for hoping that are twofold.
First, because I expect he would run all-in as an Obamacrat. It seems like this is a less popular opinion around the frog pond these days, but I’m an unabashed admirer of the president, and consider his legacy to be the most positive of any presidency in my lifetime.
Second, because if he does not win, he would at least shake the Clinton campaign out of its we-only-have-to-beat-Bernie complacency. I have yet to meet in person anyone who is passionate about Clinton’s candidacy, and I’m worried for what that might mean in a general.
If Biden steps aside without running, I expect to see a big, nearly immediate jump in Hillary’s support. The polls seem to bear this out: There are a fair number of us waiting on the sidelines until we know whether or not Joe is going to run.
Bernie’s conceit that he is alternately better-intentioned or better-equipped than the president to enact progressive change is a non-starter for people like myself. Clinton may not be our first choice of standard-bearers — she wasn’t in 2008 — but as a realist, she seems both to have a better appreciation for how the Obama presidency has changed the country and the party, and a better chance of holding the White House.
Incidentally, I think a Biden candidacy would also be the best possible way to keep Sanders’ voice in the race, as without the competition between Biden and Clinton, Sanders will be crushed when the play move beyond Iowa and New Hampshire. How is it that in the twenty-first century we’re still letting the agenda be set by a few of our least ethnically diverse states?
No, she doesn’t. HRC is still acting like it’s 1992, right after the Democratic Party finally won a victory after 12 years of misery by pushing the party’s platform to the right and occupying the mythical center.
The demographic changes that have occurred since 23-24 years ago by-and-large elude centrist Democrats. Even today, people cast the terms of Obama’s success in turns of his personal efficacy rather than population changes largely out of his control. And the type of leaders they seek to become are shepherding statesmen, not movement figureheads. Witness the embarrassing spectacle of them whining about how the legions of mythical emoprogs and Firebaggers not falling in line are derailing their agenda — apparently completely immune to the novel idea that they should be tailoring their actions to suit the electorate, not the other way around.
Because of that, I have no faith that HRC’s campaign in its current form will be able to win the House due to her own actions if she’s nominated. I’m not so sure how Sanders will do, but given the stakes I’d rather take a risk for victory than face near-guaranteed mediocrity — mediocrity is not going to get us through these dangerous 8-12 years of climate change, overseas conflict, class warfare, and the death throes of the Nixon-Reagan coalition.
Acting like it’s 1992? Hyperbole. Clinton 2008 wouldn’t have supported the JCPOA on Iran, let alone Clinton 1992. Anyway, if you want a musky vintage of Clinton, I recommend something after ’94.
There has undoubtedly been a shift in demographics, but it’s not self-organizing. It’s also not in display at Sanders rallies.
I strongly dislike Clinton’s history of support for centrism. But then, it’s been a long time since she beat that drum. I assume there’s overlap with the era when Bernie opposed gun control. Times change and smart politicians change with them: Isn’t that your point? Tailing their actions to suit the electorate? When that kind of finger-to-the-wind leadership is attributed to the Clintons, it’s usually a reproach. But if you’re right about demographics — and I think that you are — it could start to work in a favorable way.
I share your concens about the state of the Clinton campaign. Its current weakness reminds me of the Romney campaign in ’12: The establishment decided long before, but the base is underwhelmed. This is how Santorum won Iowa, and it looks to be how Sanders will win both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Hopefully Biden jumps in and makes it a race. Heck, if Sanders could demonstrate that he can compete outside of white liberal enclaves, it would be a start. But I’m not holding my breath.
No, it’s not hyperbole. We have the obvious example of TPP; if Clinton was aware that the electorate’s mood towards neoliberalism had soured, she would’ve come out against it months before or at least publicly set up a reversal. The suddenness of her change is a reaction to Sanders and arguably Biden’s campaign. It’s pretty typical of trimmers, the kind of Democratic politician that survived the Reagan purges, to avoid taking liberal stances until forced to because they can’t see scenarios in which said positions are generically popular without someone else taking the risk.
She just flip-flopped a couple of weeks ago just on the basic labels of progressive vs. moderate. ‘If I’m guilty of being a moderate, then guilty as charged.’
This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that Clinton doesn’t recognize that it’s not time for a statesman but an organizer. It’s not the job of the electorate to self-organize. It’s the job of the party leaders — or at the very least interest groups.
Clinton is just content to passively soak up demographics without making any directed appeals — which is unwise, because a lot of the Obama Coalition are fickle from election-to-election. And to listen to these people, they always blame this fickleness on some kind of ephemeral, ineffable property of the electorate which they certainly have no control over. Maybe be more charismatic or something? The Democratic Party seemed pretty indifferent to how they lost 11% of whites aged 18-29 from 2008 to 2012 or 14% of black men.
A recent poll from California showed that Sanders was winning 50% of non-Hispanic racial minorities (no breakdown between Asians and blacks, unfortunately) and 35% of Latinos in that state. And in any case, its not so much that Sanders is doing poorly with racial minorities so much as it is with older racial minorities.
But in any case, Clinton seems to think that she can just sit on her ass and passively keep her bulwark with racial minorities by doing nothing other than snickering at watching those stupid white emoprogs flail around. There’s already evidence that such a strategy isn’t going to work for long.
Establishment Dems don’t really seem to know how to motivate their base on their own terms. Not surprising, since HRC made her bones during an era which the Obama Coalition was not a majority and thus they were more focused with winning white swing voters than turning out their base. But they’d better learn soon if they want to made 2016-2020 anything other than a grinding march to mediocrity and possible Republican resurgence.
I can’t argue that opposing TPP isn’t pure opportunism, because I agree with you that it is. On that score, I can’t tell whether Camp Clinton is more concerned about fending off Sanders or Biden.
A “moderate” is hardly a “centrist”: Something lost on the more-polar-than-thou crowd, but then, there’s not so many of those. Which, politically, is the point.
I agree that Clinton doesn’t understand things as an organizer. I share your concerns about the complacency of her strategy. Demographics is one thing. Turnout is another. But I’m also less impressed with Sanders understanding of how the math works.
Sanders wouldn’t be my first choice of standard-bearer either. Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Yvette Clarke… hell, back before the Baltimore riots, I was rooting for O’Malley even after the 2014 Maryland governor’s election.
But he’s the only one actually running for President and to his credit he at least realizes the demographic challenge that he’s facing. I’d rather have an average candidate with a great game plan than a great candidate (and I still feel that Hillary Clinton would be unstoppable if she wasn’t shackled to the conventional wisdom of the past) with an average game plan.
By the way, I was just discussing Tipper Gore elsewhere, and that made me think about “Deathtongue” from Bloom County: Didn’t Tipper, or rather her Bloom County doppelganger, charge Deathtongue with spreading indecency and harmful matter?
About the only thing I can I can say about Joe Biden is that he is definitely everybody’s second choice. I guess that matters for something. It really won’t matter who the nominee is in my opinion unless the President becomes magically popular in the next 13 months, which I don’t see happening either.