Biden, Clinton, and a contest of loyalty

Yesterday morning I read the Politico story on the "calculating" Joe Biden having leaked news to Maureen Dowd of his dying son's wish that he run for president. I didn't give the piece much thought, for it scarcely seemed worthy of comment. My only reaction was, Yes, and … ? Isn't that the sort of thing a potential presidential candidate might do?

However by yesterday evening, on cable-news talk shows, the Politico story had become a "blockbuster" revelation. That was the headlining word used by either Chris Matthews or Chris Hayes. I forget which, but no matter. Both gentlemen teased the story as shocking news.

At any rate, when the blockbuster story reached Matthews' panel discussants, it was indeed a yawn — my yawn. Yes, and … ? was their reaction. Isn't that what politicians do? (A Biden spokesman didn't deny that the vice president had talked with Dowd — for that is precisely the sort of thing politicians do — although the spokesman did condemn, as "false" and "offensive," Politico's suggestion that the Biden-Dowd conversation was a conspiratorial trial balloon.)

I note this not to comfort Biden supporters, but in the hope of comforting the Clinton camp. As Clinton-surrogate Howard Dean observed in another "Hardball" segment last night, Republicans throw fistfuls of crap at Hillary's wall and then wait to see if it sticks. The media are happy to assist. Sometimes, of course, it works the other way around: The media fling some dubious crap and Republicans pile on. Dean's point? — the point made time and again by Hillary's surrogates? Only Hillary is subjected to such abuse.

The hoped-for comforting point? — a point that seems in need of equal repetition? Hillary Clinton is scarcely alone in terms of mindless crap-targeting. Joe Biden hasn't yet even joined the race, and already he's the subject of scandalous! nothings. Once he does get in (and I believe he will), the nothings will ramify into remorseless obsessions — and if one peters out, another will kick in. This is merely the way of politics. Have I comforted you, Mr. Dean?

I doubt it. But surely you're comforted by Nate Cohn's "Upshot" piece this morning in the NY Times, which, essentially, craps on Biden's chances of taking the nomination from "structurally" advantaged Clinton. Cohn concedes, as must be conceded, that Hillary could always "implode." This, writes Cohn, is "unlikely." His upshot is devastating:

[Mrs. Clinton] … has an advantage over Mr. Biden across every dimension of primary strength. She has more endorsements, fund-raising and elite support. She leads him in every poll, in every state, across every demographic group. At the moment, the likeliest outcome would be that Mr. Biden wins zero states.

There are few reasons to believe that Mr. Biden is such a compelling political figure that he could simply snatch away Mrs. Clinton’s coalition. He twice ran for the presidency with little success. He was vice president for eight years, but there was not a groundswell of support for him to join the race…. He would face attacks about his long and often fairly moderate record in the Senate, on issues like crime, finance or Iraq.

In all that devastation, there nevertheless is hope. Again, I write of hope. There was no "groundswell of support" for Biden to run since virtually everyone assumed he wouldn't. As for his record, there's not an office-holding politician alive who's invulnerable to furious attacks. Clinton's "endorsements, fund-raising and elite support"? She had them all in 2008, too. Polling? I would agree that "at the moment," Biden would win zero states. He's not yet in the race.

Outside of a Clinton implosion (which lies anywhere from unlikely to easily imaginable), Biden's keenest opportunity lies in a full-throated defense of the Obama administration. Here and there, Clinton has distanced herself from her former boss — which most observers expected her to do, for it didn't appear that Biden would run. If he does run, then there you have it: the distance — that is, difference — between Clinton and Biden. The latter could rally the Obama coalition as a primary-season leviathan stirred in indignant response to Clintonesque apostasies. Biden could make a real fight of that — much more, I suspect, than Cohn suspects.

 

Comments

[Peter G]

It's amazing how similar our reading lists are. Cohn's analysis is more or less a summary of what Yglesias wrote at Vox a month ago. And Prokop covered the Biden/Dowd thing the other day with the same take, it was just politics as usual. (And I too will use a comma as I see fit) He added with not a little accuracy that if Clinton had been caught planting such a story with Dowd it would have been a much bigger thing. He's probably right about that. The only thing that astonished me about Biden giving the story to Dowd is that she took the lead in destroying Biden's chances in '88 with the plagiarism accusation against Biden furnished by the Dukakis campaign. To me that means Joe really is a professional politician and I like professionals who are truly good at what they do.

As to the apotasies Joe has his work cut out for him. He's the lead administration guy on TPP and that is extremely unpopular on the far (ish) left. He'd more or less have to disavow that to get much traction on that end of the political spectrum. There's a few other things like his backing of the tough on crime dogmas when that was popular and the differentiation in sentencing for cocaine and crack that hit the black community so hard. Everybody on the Democratic side is moving away from those policies so Joe is probably okay there. The upshot is that the Democrats have no perfect candidate. All they have is really good ones compared to the Republicans.

[Bob]

There's no evidence Biden would get more support as a candidate than as a bereaved father or likable guy. Why would Bidenesque apostasies be any less offending than Clintonesque apostasies? Unless and until he announces his is nothing more than a political human interest story.

[Peter G]

That he is in either in or out will be known shortly. The deadlines for getting on state ballots are fast approaching and if he misses even a few Hillary will have to be assassinated for Joe to have a shot. If he doesn't run then his name will disappear from hypothetical polling and we will immediately know from polling whether or not Bernie really is a threat. Clarity is coming.

[Bob]

Is the Joe story more his or the media's; especially Maureen Dowd's? It has a bit of tawdriness about it.