Joe Biden is well known for two things: 1). being vice president and 2). being loquacious ("Literally!" as he would say). But there are a few words we have yet to hear from Vice President Biden for which I, not literally, am holding my breath: "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for a term as your President."
It's on my mind because Hillary Clinton today told Ann Curry of NBC she will not run again for president and that she is, instead, looking forward to retirement someday. Clinton, the New York Times notes, will be 69 in 2016, "not that nearing 70 has stood in the way of other presidential candidates," though they led with a sentence about how the "timetable" probably made it clear Mrs. Clinton wouldn't be pursuing anything in 2016.
We have yet to hear any such clear declaration from the vice president, or from the papers like the Times that are covering him. He'd be an unlikely candidate in 2016 -- but certainly more likely than he was in 2008, which, it looks like, Biden and his staff haven't forgotten. Two weeks ago, in a profile in the Times, there was this nugget:
Like Mr. Cheney was, Mr. Biden is assumed to be in his last elected office. But friends of Mr. Biden — who has twice run for president — said he was not necessarily cured of his Oval Office fever. “I can’t believe that he won’t think about it,” Mr. Kaufman said, adding that Mr. Biden has “totally sublimated” any such thoughts for now.The vice president will be 74 in 2016. “We’re not ruling anything in or out,” said Jay Carney, a spokesman for Mr. Biden.
Maybe this all seems like cutesy political gossip -- but it's not. The agenda of a man who still has designs on the White House is very, very different from one who is using the office as the capstone of his career. Biden's role model as Vice President is, according to Newsweek's new profile, LBJ, the very man who said almost exactly those poignant words above about not seeking the nomination in 1968. While Johnson's abdication in that particular race made him an enormously lame duck, the same is not true for a vice president. Look at any VP in the last, oh, 200 years. The most effective of the lot -- and yes, I'm looking at you, Mr. Cheney -- treat the Vice Presidency as their best, last chance at a West Wing office.
Biden has reportedly been the voice calling for a major down-draw in Afghanistan of late; if even a fraction of his mind believes that he might be sitting in the big chair in seven years, it's hard to believe that isn't influencing his decision-making at the moment.
If Mrs. Clinton, whose ambition must match Mr. Biden's and whose probability of achieving the presidency far exceeded his in the near past, can unequivocally give up that dream and focus instead on the task at hand, the least Mr. Biden can do is be just as honest. If he's truly eyeing a 2016 run, counter to the assumptions of nearly everyone in Washington and the party, he should start speaking up about that right now, before we spend eight years assuming that he's an honest broker with no races left to lose. More to the point, those journalists who get invited to do profiles should stop letting him and his spokespeople off the hook about these plans.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Redstocking Grandma
cmnaylor
Kathy Riordan
aging hippie chick
Poet of Logan Square
Just Cathy
Salon.com
Comments
Who do we have? Anybody? Hillary cannot get elected, even if she gets every Democratic party member alive. It takes one party plus the independents these days.
Ewww...this is presidential necrophilia, though. The man hasn't even completed his first year.
I don't think he should make a statement either way. The assumption is that he wouldn't run, but I don't think what he might do in 2016 is as important as what a statement might do if he were to (heaven-forbid) need to take over the Presidency before then.
If he were to make a statement that he wouldn't run, then it would certainly impact his ability to actually BE President anytime between now and then. He would be completely a lame duck. And then if he were to consider running for re-election, he would look like he flip-flopped.
I don't think it's dirty pool for him to keep his own counsel at this point.
First of all, I'd never count a Clinton out. Never say never. I take Hillary Clinton at her word, but still at this point a lot can happen between now and 2016.
I don't see Biden as a viable candidate, unless he comes into the office in the most unfortunate of ways (heaven forbid).
I expect 2016 will have a completely different cast of characters.
It’s wonderful to see you posting - always. I think you insight on this is extremely important to understand. I feel this one sentence of yours really is the crux,
“The agenda of a man who still has designs on the White House is very, very different from one who is using the office as the capstone of his career.”
I’d go a bit further and say that personal political ambitions can often color, cloud, and unduly influence the counsel that a Presidential advisor gives. It may be impossible to wholly remove these underlying ambitions but clearly they must, at a minimum, be set aside in order for any advisor to truthfully serve at the pleasure of the President.
Biden? Hillary? Too old school.
R
a) focusing on the task at hand, on present realities, ought to be job one;
b) anyone who thinks HRC is being honest when she says now that she won't run in 2016 is either foolish or naive; politicians say now what they think now and have no compunction, ever about saying something completely contradictory down the road;
c) rank speculation about the impact of future motivations on politicians' present statements is a waste of time and energy. if we want to talk about Biden's recommendation for a draw down in Afghanistan it ought to be sufficient to discuss the merits of such a strategy in the light of present realities without getting all pop-psych wonky about it.
Stupid cold.
And Clinton told New York she'd stay their congresswoman and not run, so you can't trust what she says.
nothing a politician says about their plans one to or three years out--for or against anything--has much bearing on reality. seven years away? i can't believe ann curry would bother to ask. not a serious question.
no politician is going to be nailed down that way--they can and will change their minds. and why shouldn't they that far out. for god's sake, what will i be doing in seven years? what will you be doing? who can say, and why shouldn't i change my mind if and when the world looks completely different then.
i also agree with lonnie that we have a lot on our plate to worry about now. getting the 2012 race going this early i find annoying. the 2016 race, god help us.
This is speculative drivel. There are lots more important fish to fry that VP Biden's electoral plans for 2016. This is the kind of stuff one would expect from a PoliSci 101 student home for Thanksgiving their freshman year, pontificating around the family dinner table--naive, sanctimonious and so full of themself--someone who the adults kindly indulge with the understanding that the freshman might mature beyond this soon to be sophomoric phase.
In other words, in October, 2009, I don't give a big fat rat's behind who may or may not consider running for the Presidency in 2016 and any "discussion" is nothing more than speculative, premature horsecrap.
And as to who will, there are interesting names here (remembering how little anyone may have thought of one Mr Obama in 2001) the one I predict to make a credible run is Jim Webb.
This would keep Democrats out of the White House for a decade or so, for sure.
-Nikki-
But 2016?????? Geez, in the political context we might as well be talking about regularly using flying hydrogen cars and jetting off the moon on weekend vacations.
Instead of making predictions like that, could you get me a copy of next week's Wall St. Journal?
Who knows, 8 years is a long time.
Biden's experience makes him better for the job. I'm tired of people being elected because they have charisma. Look where's that got us with Reagan and Bush. Now, we've got a President with high approval ratings who can't seem to make a decision during the one of the most ciritcal times in our history.
I'm not sure Biden will have to run. If the President has to leave office, he's the next one in line for the job and I, for one, will breathe a sigh of relief to finally have someone up to the job in the office. I'm sure if he does have to take over as President, he will consider Hilary as his VP. (see my 7/15/09 post on my blog "Chit-Chat").
Mayor Corey Booker (Newark, New Jersey) or Governor Deval Partick (Massachusetts) were always my choice for America's first black president. However, I think that ship has sailed and after the present debacle, it may be a long time before the country elects another black male.
Next time, maybe if Hilary does run, we'll be ready to give a woman a chance to clean up Bush's and Obama's mess if Biden hasn't had enough time to do it, assuming Obama is forced out of office and Biden becomes President by default.
There are more variables that we can count. I suspect nobody on the planet has a truly informed idea of what might happen in the run-up to 2016. It's going to be an exciting time, though. You can be sure of that.
Obama is a one term President. The American public is not ready for a marxist and the human baggage he has installed throughout
government. While I am in no way a liberal, I actually would have voted for her in 2008. I loved Palin, but McCain was a disgrace and he should join Arlen Spector on the other side of the aisle. I would gladly take Joe Lieberman in exchange.
Back to Hillary. This woman has grit, conviction, and is tenacious..and she is tough in her representation of America compared to the "2009 Apology Tour " of Barack Obama.
In the short space of none months, this President has so polorized the country that people are fighting each other, verbally for now, at town meetings. The man cannot make an important decision but continues his policy as State Senator..the clerk would call Obama..
and he would answer "present"! Well, you can't be "present" in the Oval Office. You can't defer executive responsibility to the Congress, and you can't have "political advisors" involved in national policy decisions. They might have been fantastic on the campaign trail..but this is the "real world"..and the President of the United States is not the "equal" of other world leaders..he/she IS the Leader of the Free World!
Cutting to the chase, I think Hillary Clinton will resign before the 2010 election cycle and rebuild her campaign organization and be in a position to accept "by acclamation" the nomination of her party.
Should the republican dig down deep for another RINO like McCain, she would have my vote.
Anyway, she wouldn't do it. If she were eyeing 2012, she'd have stayed in the Senate, simple as that. By accepting a post in the Administration, she was clearly indicating three things: one, party unity was more important to her than her own chance to be President, two, Obama had won fair and square to become the head of the party, and three, she thought she'd be able to work with him and be a good Secretary of State. How do you turn your back on that in two short years and maintain any credibility?
Walter Blevins...you didn't read very carefully. The article is NOT speculating about the 2016 election. It's not about whether Biden would win in 2016 or whether another candidate we haven't considered might become viable in 7 years; Saturn obviously knows that might happen. Instead, the article asks whether Biden's desire to RUN in 2016 might affect the decisions he will make between now and then.
It's fine to disagree with Saturn's conclusion, as I do. I don't think he should or will make a definitive statement that he won't run, because it doesn't do him any good to do so, and might harm him in some ways. But her premise, that not ruling out a run in 2016 might affect his decision-making between now and then, is pretty irrefutable, not in the least speculative, and certainly not childish and sophomoric.