It’s certainly possible to run for president and fail and then go on to have a career that is distinguished and fulfilling enough to wipe out the embarrassment and disappointment. I think Teddy Kennedy accomplished this. I think John Kerry is in the process of accomplishing it. But, all things being equal, running for president and losing turns you into a sad character. You can easily become somewhat ridiculous and worthy of pity, and this can became your enduring legacy which wipes out all your previous accomplishments and successes. What do people think about when they discuss George McGovern or Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis or Mitt Romney?
Did their presidential bids do anything positive for Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani or Phil Gramm?
Whether you win the nomination like Al Gore or lose it like Bill Bradley, what people remember is that you didn’t become the president.
Walter Mondale and Hubert Humphrey could be remembered as legendary senators and sitting vice-presidents, but they are instead remembered as complete, devastating failures for the left. Hillary Clinton has had the most remarkable career of any woman in American political history, but she’s at risk of blowing two chances of becoming the first woman president, and that would be her most significant legacy.
So, I don’t think we can say that Joe Biden has nothing to lose by making a run for the presidency. If he slips into retirement, he’ll be remembered with near-universal fondness. While he did suffer two humiliating defeats when he ran for president, that was largely erased when he was elected as vice-president. His Senate career was hugely successful and his popularity in his home state never waned.
If he makes a third run at the presidency and doesn’t win, that will muck up a posterity that’s looking pretty golden right now.
It will also, to some degree, amount to a rejection of a third term for Obama, which will tarnish his legacy ever so slightly.
This doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t run. Let’s be clear, though, that if he makes the decision to throw his hat in the ring it won’t be risk-free. The risk-free thing is to rest on his considerable laurels and bask in the good will he’s earned as one of the most popular and well-liked senators and vice-presidents in history.
Punishment from camp Clinton is a badge of honor for a Democrat after listening to Gov. Richardson on tv. V.P. Biden, because we can’t be sure Hillary Clinton will not implode.
This is it in a nutshell:
“V.P. Biden, because we can’t be sure Hillary Clinton will not implode”
Dead right.
Biden should run. Typing on a tablet is difficult.
What is unknown is the extent to which inside the beltway dems are worried about Clinton’s poll numbers. Related to this is whether the Clinton e-mail controversy is real. I haven’t followed the twists and turns of it, but when a Federal Judge says Clinton violated the e-mail policy, it doesn’t look good.
Six months ago Clinton looked very tough in a general election. Biden probably wasn’t getting in because of that, and because her primary numbers were as strong as any front runner since the McGovern reforms in ’72.
Clinton is frankly a diminished figure now. She has high unfavorables and a significant challenge within the party. But that challenger is unlikely to win the nomination, and in a general election has liabilities (Bernie, why did you Honeymoon in the Soviet Union?) that have not surfaced yet.
Driving all of this is deep unhappiness in the electorate and with the establishment. I don’t think Biden is a good fit for that: though Obama is the most popular politician in the country by far.
Make mistake, a Biden entry would fuel the “Democrats in Disarray” meme. It would add a ton of uncertainty into the nomination fight.
It would be a very big deal.
Does Biden risk anything? I think he risks anger from the left of the party, but I am not sure how much (Obama is more popular than Bernie among liberals). He risks being blamed for a Democratic loss if a divisive primary results and the GOP wins.
Those aren’t very big in my opinion.
A federal judge who was originally nominated to the bench by two Repub presidents before Bill did (BC didn’t exactly nominate all liberals to the fed court).
And “violated the email policy” is rather strong. There were suggested guidelines, but no specific policy prohibition against using the private server thus not a violation. Perhaps in hindsight not a wise move, but no violation or illegal action. And her campaign has been slow, almost negligently so, in reacting to the story.
And her strong poll #s from six months ago — no one inside the campaign was likely under the impression those artificially high numbers would last once the campaign got underway. Very early frontrunner numbers never hold up, and this is doubly true for a Clinton who undoubtedly anticipated the usual MSM pseudo scandalmongering we’re now seeing. Perhaps not on the emails however.
“Very early frontrunner numbers never hold up”
They have for a couple that I can think of. And when they drop, they usually drop later in the process.
Those aren’t the numbers that are scaring people. The ones that are scaring people are her favorability numbers and her numbers in the states.
“And “violated the email policy” is rather strong. There were suggested guidelines, “
That is the response that have a lot of party people talking under their breath. So the best defenses are:
Neither of these defenses are worth a damn.
Her campaign has been marked by indecision (see TPP, XL Pipeline), ineffective commercials (the one in NH has been running for a while and done nothing) and is is struggling to find a real message that connects.
The simple truth is she has not been a very good candidate. Lots of time to fix it, but alot of people I talk to in the party in NH are worried.
None of the email charges is worth a damn either, so appropriate defense.
As to her candidacy so far, I don’t entirely disagree, and noted above how badly she’s handled just the email pseudo scandal so far. A day late, dollar short. Sort of like Whitewater …
Agree on TPP and the pipeline, though I give her more slack for being stuck with Obama’s TPP as opposed to the groaningly poor answer she gave on the pipeline. But at least she came out firmly against the Obama decision to green light Shell drilling in the Arctic.
And with all the negativity in the press and among the left online, she’s still strong in her national numbers (even stronger when some of these major polls don’t poll for an unannounced candidate like Biden, who takes away most from her), and her minority support is still strong. Granted though, Sanders is lucky to have the first two contests in lily-white states. You can take it to the bank that the MSM will overplay Bernie’s vote strength in those two while underplaying their whiteness.
“None of the email charges is worth a damn either, so appropriate defense.”
But why? Why did she do it? It’s clearly hurt her – and I think the reason is she can’t answer the why. I doubt there is anything there – but she can’t turn the questions off.
It was dumb – and she should have anticipated it.
National primary numbers are irrelevant: there is no national primary.
People are worried about Hillary’s numbers against the Republicans. No one really believes Bernie is the answer.
Her chances are probably better than 80% to get the nomination. But unlike 6 months ago, she looks far from a slam dunk in the general election.
And if the economy tanks, we are going to get destroyed.
So people are looking for an alternative.
No one really believes Bernie is the answer.
Says who?
Why do you think she did it?
If the economy tanks between now and election day Nov 2016, the Democratic nominee will be sunk unless it’s Bernie who will at least have a fighting chance.
We don’t have very good alternatives to Clinton.
I was a Burlington resident when Bernie was elected mayor. He is a great politician. But Karl Rove is going to have him for dinner with leftovers for brunch the next morning.
There was the REALLY long memo Pat Caddel wrote to Hart about running in ’84 that I saw a bit of once. It quoted Tolstoy to make the argument that in human affairs people make mistakes usually by waiting too long rather than being impatient. The memo went through examples in American Politics. Since that memo I have seen multiple examples of it -perhaps most obviously Mario Cuomo.
Warren should have run. She does not have the baggage Bernie has. The Warren message is one you could run on if times get tough.
I am pretty pessimistic right now. i don’t think Clinton is a very good candidate, and I don’t see an alternative that is electable.
We are essentially reduced to praying the economy holds or the GOP nominates an unelectable nutbag.
Predicting who will and will not crumble and fold from an onslaught of negative opposition ads/etc. is very difficult and depends on a number of variables. Obama may have been subjected to more and more vicious attacks from Clinton, the GOP and Palin than any other candidate and survived. Why? Two reasons, he fought back without going negative himself and there wasn’t enough “there there” to get any of the crap thrown at him to stick.
(Harry Reid did stick a shiv in Romney in 2012 but that was an exception for the Obama/Biden ticket.)
Gore was also attacked continuously — and he too fought back; although not as effectively as Obama did.
Dukakis crumbled. Kerry set himself up as he attempted to run as both a pro- and anti-war sort of guy.
Democrats have been lulled into a false sense of security in believing that nothing new can be dredged up against Clinton. Yes it can. Plus a lot of the old stuff can be recycled (not the stupid stuff like Whitewater and Benghazi) but documented lies. As a candidate, she’s never been tested against a relentless opponent that also refrains from appearing like a bully. In a Clinton-Trump GE, I’d give her an advantage b/c Trump as a bully is more likely than not. From what I’ve seen of the other GOP candidates, the only one that’s smooth enough to run some verbal rings around her is Kasich. Would expect her to edge out Jeb(?), and Walker has enough confidence and debate stage presence to manage at least a draw except he’s too dumb and ignorant enough that he’ll lose too many points on content.
Re Obama, sounds like you were heavily emotionally invested in his 2008 candidacy. I don’t recall nearly as much negativity. Eau contrary, he had it rather easy all through that year as compared to Mike in 1988 and Bill in 1992 (primaries, bimbo eruptions and draft). Gore may have been more viciously attacked than anyone except Mikey D. Obama barely had to break a sweat, and then mostly on the basketball court.
Reason: the MSM played along in those attacks while treating the GOP opponent w/kid gloves. And in 2008 the media mostly coddled Obama — considering him a likable enough bipartisan type who was not going to shake things up very much. No need for him to fight back as there was little to fight back about — and outside of Fox, no one took seriously the stupid slanders from idiots like Palin.
As for Hillary, of course the msm will dredge up stuff, whether on emails or Benghazi or her age or speaking style. That’s a given. She will be treated far worse than the worst neanderthal opponent the GOP can offer. But if she gets better as a pol, takes care of all explanations on the emails, and there is only the past to dredge up, she’ll be ok. Right now we have to hope the market downturn is only temporary and not a harbinger of worse to come. If it is the beginning of a long downturn, it won’t matter who we nominate, with the possible exception of Warren.
Re Obama, sounds like you were heavily emotionally invested in his 2008 candidacy.
Not emotionally invested at all. It was purely cognitive on my part. Given the choices, and including electability, he was as good as we could get. Early enough it seemed clear that it all came down to a choice between a female, legacy neoliberalcon and an AA that might not be as much of a neoliberalcon. Then and now, I thought that electing an AA (even if he isn’t like a more authentic AA such as Julian Bond) would be a good step (sort of like electing the first (and only) Catholic in 1960). Underestimated the degree to which the rightwing would loose its cookies in electing an AA but that too shall pass.
How can you dismiss the attacks on him for Rev Wright (who seemed fine IMHO), Bill Ayers, the birther nonsense that never stopped and has no “gate” attached to it because there was never any there-there, living in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather that added to the whole “he must be a Muslim” nonsense, “whitey,” etc.? The MSM didn’t so much go soft on Obama in the GE as recognize that Obama gave them no material to work with except his ethnicity — and how well that worked was seen in the primaries when team Clinton went there.
The MSM has always coddled McCain. One of the more mediocre denizens of DC. Initially, they swooned over Palin. Until she revealed herself as dimmer than Quayle in a skirt and a religious nutcase as well. But even at that, rather than attack her, they let her discredit herself.
Barack and Joe are authentically likeable individuals. And in politics that counts for something.
But if she gets better as a pol,
Oh, sure because actors with the skills and talent that have consigned them to at best small supporting roles suddenly at the age of 67 develop the chops to play Hamlet to much critical applause.
The Wright stuff et al came along at a good time for Obama, well after he was in the driver’s seat for the nom, and was largely dispensed with after a nice speech the candidate gave. And apart from Fox the media didn’t overly dwell on it. And they weren’t about to do anything major to ruin his victory over the despised Hillary.
Obama also benefitted from having a reasonably honorable and rather hapless opponent who actually defended Obama against the idiot at the town hall who (probably speaking for millions of moron Goopers) accused O of being an A-rab. His opponent also didn’t have a vicious campaign manager like Ailes/Atwater/Rove pulling out all the stops to run a massive scorched earth negative campaign. Again, compare with what Mike and Al faced. And the McC team only sent out the lightweight Palin, already a discredited nitwit, who soon caused controversy by seeming to be running not only against O but against her own party’s nominee.
As for HRC, she’d better get better — her answer on whether she’d build the pipeline was alarmingly clueless. But she’s smart, and has Bill and some other good advisers to guide her. Apparently they need to advise a little more often.
Other than the rightwing nobody despises Clinton. (And the rightwing despises anyone to the left of Ted Cruz.)
Some, rightly so IMHO, have little use for legacy Presidential candidates. Liberal/progressives loathe the neoliberalcon legacy of both Clintons and the only vision either of them seem to have had is for both of them to be elected President. Granted that it’s probably near impossible for a person to put themselves through the wringer of running for POTUS if she/he doesn’t have a high quotient of “to be POTUS” aspiration. However, if it’s not a distant second to “to do as POTUS,” such candidates should be dismissed.
Way back in 1992 if I’d wanted a capital gains tax cut and NAFTA, I might as well have voted for GHWB. Or if I hadn’t wanted that, the odds were better that they wouldn’t pass if GHWB were given a second term. After twelve years of Reagan/Bush the National Debt had quadrupled and the US infrastructure hadn’t received any serious investment. Now we’re even more in debt and further behind on that issue of national importance to all of us. Visionless politicians and politics.
But hey, “we” destroyed Iraq and that only cost a few trillion dollars.
Oh, and back to my question, why do you think she did it?
Because she didn’t want to be bound by State Department document retention laws.
Just a guess.
seemed to be common practice at the State Department, more than anything else it seemed to be inertia and old IT infrastructure that led to her using a personal email address
She used a personal server located in her home. That was a common practice among high level State Dept employees, or senior employees at an Dept or agency? Nothing wrong with any federal employee using a personal e-mail account for personal matters. In fact they should to avoid using government resources for personal matters and generally access it via their own equipment.
her having her own server is newer but I don’t see how that would matter
What difference does it make if she used her own email server or GMail or Yahoo email address. It’s all the same.
Can’t erase the GMail or Yahoo servers. All that’s there is subject to subpoenas.
Also, one isn’t dependent on Google or Yahoo security.
nothing is ever deleted from the internet, there are 2 sides to every email and most likely the majority of them went to State Department email addresses so they are already in the possession of US Government.
And the ones that weren’t sent to State Dept or USG e-mail addresses? What about a State Dept e-mail with a sensitive attachment that was forwarded to another personal e-mail?
The problem is that all evidence points to no emails being sent that had any confidential information from her account.
I’m not going to get upset over something that other SoSs have done in the past.
I’ll give anyone that did it before it became a Bush WH scandal in 2007 a (grudging) pass. After that? GMAFB.
(Although also note that she may have been unique in the use of a personal server in addition to non-USG e-mail services.)
They weren’t running for President in an era where newspapers are full of hacks of private networks.
looks like Obama may be supporting Biden to run; I imagine the Clinton emails plus her non disclosure of some Clinton Foundation foreign donors while SOS are having an impact
Warren still has an opening to run, not a very big one, but it’s there. But she had good reasons not to jump in early on, pitting her against Hillary, possibly causing a major breach in the party. But things can change in politics rather quickly, and some table-setting may need to occur first.
I also agree that Bernard “Satch” Sanders, with his limited monochromatic appeal, is not the one to lead Dems to victory next year. A strengthened Hillary (after clarifying the emails matter, tbd) or a patient Elizabeth Warren (after seeing Hillary’s numbers plummet) are the only two I see as being strong enough nationally to hold off the GOP.
Interesting too Biden’s meeting recently w/Warren. That would seem to be one of the last things Biden needed to know before deciding –a chat to see first-hand if EW is changing her mind about getting in.
Outside her area of expertise, Warren is very, very green. She’s a quicker study than most in Congress, but breadth with any depth doesn’t happen overnight.
Sanders knows his stuff and surprising to me, he seems to be thriving on the campaign trail. My first choice would still have been Sherrod Brown, but he’s not as articulate on the stump as Sanders. (All those Fridays with Bernie have paid off for him.)
Yes but an appealing freshness she would bring, and no past major blunders on the campaign trail to have dredged up. In such a wide open year where anything seems possible and the old rules seem no longer relevant, she might be what the party and country need.
And a quiet two weeks of campaign boot camp can smooth over some of the rough edges, though in her case I can’t think of many. FP issues mostly, but most Americans don’t care much about that unless we’re in a major war.
As for Satch, he’s been in politics since what the 70s or 80s — decades of running for office, winning and losing. But he’s still a 73 yo Jewish socialist democrat from VT, and I’m a little concerned all that may be too much, too exotic and foreign and Other for too many Americans.
no past major blunders
No political past at all. Would you hire a CEO that presented a resume with less than three years directly experience? Hell, that’s not even long for him/her to have developed a track record that can be assessed and measured.
We’re not electing a CEO, just a president. And I prefer someone with a more diverse background than just holding political office. Let her choose a good experienced VP or chief of staff to help out.
For sure, it would be preferable if she were in her second term as senator, had some more seasoning, but we aren’t in a position to demand perfection. And this is looking like the year where lack of political experience may not be considered a deficit while too much could be a hindrance.
The decision in VP Biden’s and his alone. He has suffered a lot emotionally these last few months. I hope that he makes one that allows him to find the peace of mind that he deserves.
He has lost 2 children and a wife. The wife and child were lost when he was quite young. I have nothing but admiration for him.
His Senate career was hugely successful …
For whom? For the rich, private prison companies and war profiteers, sure. Everyone else, not so much.
Don’t forget the Bankruptcy Bill.
I think that’s what most of us remember him for. Honestly I can’t think of anything else.
He’s been good on women’s rights, including voting nay on Thomas’ confirmation. And did vote against the Gulf War. But that was back in the days when Biden was young and one of the better Senators.
He will be very lucky if no one brings up the Anita Hill hearings… Even Obama would not help him with black women, imo. His ultimate vote is meaningless.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/20/anita-hill-joe-biden_n_5002189.html
I’m going to disagree with Hill’s much later assessment.
Biden did open the hearings on Thomas to Hill’s claim. And it was gaining traction until Thomas came back with the “high-tech lynching” line. Biden appreciated that he wasn’t going to get the votes needed to reject Thomas and made the political calculation that extending the hearings would increase rancor that at best, would serve no purpose and change nothing. Also, had it been Hill up against a white, male nominee, he would have been on stronger footing to continue the hearings.
The delayed outcome was the 1992 election that was labeled “the year of the women.” So, many Democratic women politicians did benefit from those Thomas hearings.
I really like Joe Biden. He’s a great guy. But I’m not seeing how he has a better chance than Hillary. She may be hated by some, but he is ridiculed. This country has made it clear that it wants a “strong” leader. Does Biden’s simple decency have a chance?
Yet another insufficiently-left candidate in the mix adds what, exactly?
More chances for Bernie to emerge as the Dem nominee, for one. Also could hurt D chances in the fall if Biden is seen as dividing the party unnecessarily.
I strongly disagree that a person running in the primary “divides the party”. Rather, should he choose to run, which I hope he does, he will press HRC to further define programs, policies, and presentation. I personally have 0 confidence in HRC. She is a loser, period. If Biden does press her, it will become more apparent how flawed and incapable she is.
Scoop Jackson is still dead.
Posterity is likely to have his face on credit card statements one way or another.
His move now seems to me to be in response either to Bernie Sanders’s surge, in which case Biden becomes a stalking horse and working class attack dog against Sanders’s socialism. Or it is in response to Trump’s surge and provides some spokesperson of stature and reputation for “gaffes” who can take on Trump’s emptiness.
For the Democratic establishment, given O’Malley’s association with zero-tolerance policing and the epidemic of police murders exposed over the past year, given Webb’s essentially 1980s Republican platform, and the anonymity of most of the remaining candidates, Joe Biden is calculated to at least outpoll Deez Nuts. And he is the establishment spare should Hillary’s staff implode once again.
If he, Hillary, and Sanders remain strong down the stretch, Democratically-framed issues are more likely to seep through the media’s horse-race coverage of the horse race that wasn’t supposed to be. And Hillary Clinton has a choice of whose policies to borrow from instead of being forced left.
There are a lot of strong vice-presidents that he will join, including Al Gore, Hubert Humphrey, Henry Wallace,
Those he will not join are Aaron Burr, Elbridge Gerry, John C. Calhoun, John C. Breckinridge. Those who never made it as Vice-President or President were Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan; there are none in the Senate of their stature or notoriety today although many try.
….he is the establishment spare should Hillary’s staff implode once again.
I think this is the kernel of what Biden’s run is about.
Hillary has no mainstream challengers. Now, look, I love a lot of what Sanders and O’Malley say but they aren’t mainstream and are extreme longshots at best. Webb isn’t mainstream either – would be very hard to get any of the usual Democratic volunteers to come out for him. Realistically – and I think all of us know this even if we haven’t admitted it – Hillary is not just the default candidate on the Democratic side, she’s the only one who could win in the general election.
And I know a lot of people talk about how experienced she is as a campaigner but I’m absolutely not sold. Yes, 2008 was in large part a cock up due to Mark Penn, but from the moment she realized the Obama threat was real it was Clinton – not just her staff – who imploded. Running stupid ads and insisting to every Democratic higher-up that Obama couldn’t win the general – but definitely NOT organizing her team to address the challenge. The 2000 and 2006 Senate races were practically gift-wrapped for her given the NY demographics.
In addition, we’re talking about people who are in their upper 60s or 70s – it’s insane not to have back-up plans for health reasons alone.
The problem is with that word “mainstream”. At the moment Trump is edging toward mainstream with the media’s help.
If the mainstream changes, it will have to be from efforts and communication outside the mass media. If Bernie (or O’Malley for that matter) can cause that change in political sentiment, they will win.
But here’s the huge issue. If the mainstream sentiment doesn’t change, we will be not in a march of folly but in a race to disaster. So many people are operating out of information and news sources that are just not true at all that we are rocketing to war and depression and gleefully cheering that disaster on.
The political struggle is at the precinct through state level. And no one on the Democratic or progressive side is working there. And the conservative grip just keeps tightening.
Let whoever wants to run. The number of candidates does not dictate the divisiveness and rancor of the primaries. The candidates dictate the rancor and divisiveness of the primaries.
Example: Brown vs Clinton vs Tsongas vs Kerry vs Harkin
Counter: McCarthy vs Johnson/Kennedy/Humphrey
I’d like to see Biden and Brown in the race. Those two have a penchant for seeing the good in people and saying it. I think they would be a brake on potential scorched earth tactics.
Looks like Jerry Brown is encouraging Biden to run. He too sees the email nonsense as an ongoing problem for Hillary.
And please don’t encourage Jerry to run — another septuagenarian who’s run twice … make that three times … before, we don’t need.
This is all about Clinton’s staying power in this race. If the party apparatus suspects she can’t win against Sanders then Biden (or another insider) will be plugged in.
The problem with all this is that by someone like BIden (or Gore et al) jumping into the race guarantees a split of Hillary’s base, thus making it easier for Sanders.
Biden to me is a sitcom character. I’ve seen more of him as a parody on SNL and a bit part on Parks and Rec than I know of him from his political career. He’s the friendly uncle who’ll tell you about working in the coalmines until AmTrak took him too Washington. And maybe he’s too friendly around your wife and daughter. Watch those hands, Joe!
As far as the popular imagination goes, that’s what Joe Biden has to lose.
Legacy, schmegacy. I am so tired of people talking about how politicians worry about their’ possible “legacies!!!”
First of all, I am not at all sure that most people who ascend to political heights do give much of a damn about what people will think of them. They’ve set themselves and their immediate family up for life, just for starters. Secondly no matter what they do or how well they do it, about half of the population will think they were wrong until they ascend to the hallowed ground of “Dead Presidents,” where it won’t matter much to them anyway. Eventually they’ll just be a name in he history books and a picture in the museum. Who cares about say Millard Fillmore’s legacy? And what difference does it make to FDR or Thomas Jefferson what anybody thinks?
Really!!!
Biden?
If Biden’s worried about his legacy, I hope he doesn’t run. That’s no way to play high stakes political poker where millions of lives potentially hang in the balance. If he goes out and butts heads with his opposition to the best of his ability given the circumstances…and that’s really the only universal job description that applies to any head of state, no matter whether it’s a rural tribal chieftain or the head of a dominant world power…then that’s it. His real job is done. When he’s finished if he wants to sit back and admire his handiwork…well OK. He’s earned it. If he wants to continue fighting the way Jimmy Carter has fought by supporting good work (by his own moral standards) all over the world? Great. There’s always more that needs to be done, and by acting in as moral manner as circumstances allowed Carter both won and then lost the presidency. But…he continued his good work thus polishing his “legacy” to the point that it shines like gold compared to that most other ex-presidents. Does he care about his legacy? Is that why he’s doing things? I think not. He cares about something higher, and God bless him for it.
Obama’s “legacy?”
I am afraid that this image just about sums it up.
Thank you and good night.
And now the news.
WTFU.
Later…
AG
The effort that modern Presidents go to to make sure that their shrines, er, libraries, propagandize their legacies says that their ego is well engaged in worrying about their legacy. Not their real legacy in the country’s condition but the two paragraphs they will get in the school history books.
I live 6 miles from the Raven Library. My very loyal Republican tenant recently visited. Even she had to admit that 75% of what she saw there was just blatant propaganda.
Raven library? am I missing something [Edgar Allen Poe?] or is spell check spawn of satin creating the name?
Get thee behind me, Satin!
Raven. Ronald Raven. The prezdunt known for cutting taxes, increasing our defense, and, uh, a third thing … can’t remember.
I think he was related to the famous Philadelphia shipbuilder and gossip magazine reporter C.K. “Dexter” Raven.
oops … forgot to give the cite
oops indeed. that is funny!!
i disagree, Tartheel. I think all of that foofaraw is just more PermaGov revolving door bullshit. Just the way the game is expected to be played in late 20th Century/early 21st Century U.S.A.
AG
When LBJ was still alive briefly after his library had been built, the dude demanded to know the daily/weekly/monthly visitors count so he could compare them with other presidential libraries. He damn well cared what history thought of him, in his own selfish, narcissistic way. He also courted and arranged to have a number of friendly people in key positions in the media to help shape his image. Newspaper publishers and columnists and tv execs, the longtime MPAA head Valenti, Bill Moyers everywhere, etc. Shaping and omitting and censoring. More loyal LBJ people in the media in key positions for longer than probably any other modern president. And not always for historical accuracy.
The WH tapes that Kennedy and Nixon made — largely intended to shape the post-presidency discussion. JFK in particular, having read many biographies including of the greats he’d met, knew he couldn’t leave something as important as the history of his presidency to overrated, cranky old guy historians.
The Roosevelt Institute is also a major factor in keeping alive the positive image of FDR.
Is Lincoln Chafee a viable alternative? Any thoughts?
No. That’s like hiring Pee-Wee Herman to catch a tiger.
Make that Pee-Wee Herman with much better sense than the tiger.
That’s so harsh it burns. Who is the tiger in the gifted eleventy billion candidates of the Republicans.
Besides that Pee-Wee got his bike back against all odds!
If Joe had harbored the desire to be elected POTUS after 2008, he needed to begin his behind the scenes campaign in 2009 and not have devoted his exclusive attention to being a good and well regarded VP. That’s how Clinton became the unchallenged front runner for 2016.
How many sitting or fmr VPs in the past hundred years haven’t run for POTUS? I count two (if we exclude Nelson Rockefeller who agreed to being bumped from the ’76 ticket and was dead before the next election).
Charles Curtis (Hoover)
Dick Cheney
The ones that sought the nomination:
Fairbanks (1912 and 1916- nominated VP 1916)
Thomas Marshall
Charles Dawes
John Nance Garner
Henry Wallace
Alben Barkley
Richard Nixon*; (1)
HHH*
Walter Mondale*
GHW Bush*; (1)
Dan Quayle
Al Gore*
Then there are those that secured the VP nomination on a losing ticket that later ran for POTUS
FDR*; (1)
Muskie
Dole*
Lieberman
Edwards
*Secured the nomination for POTUS.
(1)Only two wins out of all those VPs that ran. One of those later resigned rather than be impeached and the other lost his re-election bid.
Only one loser VP later won. (Note: he was only 38 years old when nominated for VP.)
No obvious historical guidance for Biden (assuming that it’s ego and not a recognition that there’s more shoes to drop on the fmr SOS e-mail server that is behind the chatter that he might run). If it were me, I’d say take the VP legacy and become what we call an elder statesman.
An even better VP legacy for him if he would wise up and reverse course on pushing Obama to intervene politically and militarily in Ukraine, as I understand is the case. One expert calls Biden the leader of the War Party inside the Obama WH, at least wrt the Ukraine/Russia situation.
Your statement is correct … Biden [AIPAC speech] was also responsible for Iraq/Maliki policy and he didn’t wise up to the rise of ISIL from the Baathists and Sunni triangle of Anbar province until it was too late.
○ Flawed Reasoning and Misleading Projection On ISIL Origin
○ In Joe Biden’s Own Words of Truth; Our Arab Allies Funded ISIS!
Yikes — Hunter Biden’s contract in Ukraine should disqualify Biden.
Some on the list had specific reasons they didn’t get the nomination. Fairbanks didn’t get the nomination because TR endorsed Taft. Barkley was old and in bad health.
Dole ran twice after being on the ticket in ’76 before winning in ’96.
One problem with the list is that 5 VP’s became President through death in office or resignation (TR, Coolidge, Truman Johnson, Ford). From 1900 to 1976 7 Presidents were elected, and 5 became President through death or resignation.
VP’s of two term Presidents get the nomination if they seek it. (HHH, Nixon, Gore). They represent a vastly different case from VP’s of Presidents who aren’t re-elected.
It is probably not a coincidence that 3 of the closest elections in American History involved VP’s of two term Presidents (’60. ’68, 00).
But in Biden’s case there already is an heir apparent. Hard to think of a parallel.
There’s always reasons why something did or didn’t happen. Wasn’t my point at all.
Say, Biden jumps in next month and then in December the US stock market crashes. Won’t be seeing Joe as the nominee. Or in the first debate he suddenly becomes very confused.
The dataset is so small that there’s but a single precedent of a two-term sitting VP running for an open seat that didn’t get the nomination, and he should have replaced Wilson after his stroke.
I agree, except I’d change the starting point from 2008 to January 2013. In the first term, the point was to put out all the fires and make it possible to be re-elected.
It’s August. It’s very, very early. Political reporters have to figure out something to talk about. Anything at all except the major issues facing the country, of course. :-/
It’s still early, but I can’t see Biden deciding to run. If Hillary implodes (which I don’t expect) others may join the race, but I can’t see Biden doing so. He doesn’t seem to have the fire to engage in a national campaign again. I think he likes the “funny uncle” persona that’s been painted on him and would like to retire on that high note.
But, of course, I didn’t think Hillary was going to run for Senate or the Presidency, so don’t place any bets on my soothsaying. 😉
Cheers,
Scott.
Considered the 2013 as a start date for Biden to run for POTUS. Generally, it’s at that point when a sitting VP begins the process to succeed the boss. However, can’t think of another time when there’s been another candidate that began the process shortly after the election of a first term President. Hillary has been positioning herself for a Presidential run in every election since 2000.
In 2002 she saw no advantage to opposing the IWR — DEM Ayes on the 1991 Gulf War (Gore and Lieberman) fared better than all the Nays. Just go along with it and hope that GWB imploded like his daddy did. When that didn’t happen, she kept her powder dry for 2004 and set her sights on 2008. Since then she’ been gearing up for 2016.
Smokin Joe Biden gets major props for waxing his Camaro on the WhiteHouse lawn. He’s a total badass.
Biden is already a ridiculous figure.
I hope Biden runs, for the simple fact that a boring Democratic primary will suppress voter interest (on our side, and generally). A little early blood in the water is good. I think it was an underrated aspect of the difference between Obama’s stellar 2008 performance and his very good 2012 performance. Since 2012 is probably the ceiling of what we can expect from Clinton, every little bit counts.
No. His lack of verbal control is disturbing.
And Trump’s “lack of verbal control” is what is getting him his front-runner status.
Maybe a little less verbal control would have changed the game for Obama.
But we’ll never know, because he was the most verbally controlled President that we have had since Ronald Reagan.
Cold control in a heating-up world.
What does it do?
It melts down.
Bet on it.
HRC is equally if not more “controlled” than is Obama. Not a hint of spontaneity or risk in anything that she says publicly.
Not a hint.
Trump would spontaneous her right off the stage.
Bet on it.
Without a teleprompter she’s just another successful bureaucrat.
Watch.
AG
Biden made it clear he didn’t want to run this cycle when he didn’t start, what, two years ago? Longer? It’s too late for a serious run now, unless something happens to Hillary.
Speaking of which, I really, really wish we had a strong candidate to take over in case anything happens to Hillary.
I also hope that neither Joe Biden nor any of the powers that be in the Democratic Party think Biden would be a strong candidate. They need to pick someone else.
They need to pick someone else? Longing for the days of the smoke-filled back rooms, are you?
They’re smokeless back rooms these days. They continue to exist but the meetings are now held the executive wings of corporations.
Smoke or not, I don’t think the back room ever went away.
Vice President Joe Biden will turn 73 next november and will be 74 years old at the time of the next inauguration in 2017. Who is kidding who? A first term president at that age. And HRC will be less than a year short of 70. Just the fact that the whole Democratic apparatus can’t come up with anything younger than these two warhorses is telling enough. Ever heard of the DC revolving door? Pitiful. Sanders will turn 74 in a few days. Talking about the oldest constitutional democracy in the world. I’ll turn 70 in November and think that no one as old as these people should impose themselves on the nation as a first-term president. The physical and emotional demands don’t sit well with such age and a lucid understanding of the changing continuously changing world inevitably becomes more elusive. They’re all too damn old and too damn over-entitled, including Sanders. Do you think that Biden has any idea how the world works outside of his Hunter-Ukraine bubble (disgusting).
I guess that means Bernie would turn 75 a few months before next fall’s election, just in time for voters to be reminded of how old he is and for the media to make it a negative story for a week or two. Seventy-five years old. He was born before the attack on Pearl Harbor (by the usual historical accounting, though Poppy would say Bernie was born the day after).
Biden doesn’t worry me except as he might split the party three ways and cause an extended, lengthy primary campaign that might have to be decided at the convention. Plenty of excitement for sure, and I would enjoy that part, but Dems would risk going into the fall campaign bloodied and dispirited.