ChrisWeigant.com

Biden Speculation

[ Posted Monday, August 24th, 2015 – 16:34 UTC ]

Vice President Joe Biden certainly has got the media talking. All it really took was one leak to Maureen Dowd and a meeting with Senator Elizabeth Warren, and the recurring story in the media is now: "Biden's son Beau made a deathbed plea to his father to run for president again, and he's now seriously considering it." That's a compelling political narrative, to be sure. The Wall Street Journal is even reporting that Biden's now leaning towards running. Now, I have no inside sources of my own, so I have no idea what's really going on in Biden's head, but no matter how likely it turns out to be, a Biden candidacy bears political examination beyond the simple question of: "Will he or won't he run?"

Joe Biden's political personality is that of an "average Joe." He's even got the first name to match! And without even announcing a candidacy, for months now he's had the best bumpersticker of the 2016 presidential season: "I'm Ridin' With Biden!"

OK, that's it for the Biden humor, I promise -- because the concept of a Biden campaign should indeed be taken seriously. Joe Biden would (if he runs) obviously try to position himself firmly between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The other three Democrats running have generated no interest whatsoever among the Democratic electorate, and can thus be ignored for the time being. Biden's entry would instantly create a three-way contest with Sanders and Clinton. But would this triangulation be enough to win him the nomination?

Biden would present himself (without ever explicitly saying so) as the safe alternative should Clinton stumble. If Hillary's polling falls off a cliff, Biden will be there to welcome ex-Hillary supporters in. Now, Clinton hasn't exactly had a great summer out on the campaign trail, but rumors of her demise are entirely premature. The media loves to point out how high her negative ratings are on questions of "trustworthiness" or "likeability," but they almost always fail to point out that virtually all of the Republican candidates also score very badly on these scales as well -- worse than Hillary, in many cases. They also are reporting on "trustworthiness" and "likeability" because Hillary's actual "will you vote for her as the Democratic nominee" numbers are still pretty sky-high (twice as good as Trump's are with Republicans, for comparison). To put this another way, portions of the Democratic electorate might not like her personally or even trust her very far, but they're still going to vote for her. When Biden's name is included on Democratic polls, he has been scoring around 10 percent (sometimes a few points higher, sometimes lower), but Hillary still pulls in a majority or better in most polls.

Of course, that could all change at any time. The drip-drip-drip of "emailgate" assures that the story will be in front of the public for many months to come. Hillary's numbers have gone down a bit (although nowhere near as bad as some are saying), and that slow trend could continue. Biden would represent a "Plan B" for a lot of voters, should Hillary's problems and scandals wind up having too much impact on her campaign.

Biden always emphasizes his Scranton roots when campaigning and that'll be even easier this year, since Bernie Sanders is already having a lot of success talking about middle-class issues. Biden is seen as pretty progressive already, at least by some. He bolstered his progressive credentials by taking his first meeting about a possible run with none other than progressive champion Elizabeth Warren -- an obvious sign of what might be his campaign priorities. His political history in Delaware (a leading state in the corporate and banking worlds, due to their unique state laws) might not bear too close an examination by committed progressives, but even so he would probably be seen as less friendly to corporations and Wall Street than Hillary Clinton.

Of course, he's never going to out-progressive Bernie Sanders. He won't even try. Instead he'll be looking to entice possible Sanders supporters by being "more electable" than Bernie. He could only really do this, however, if his polling numbers get better than Bernie's. "Don't vote for a lost cause -- vote for someone who can win!" will be the message, although probably not stated that baldly. On the other side, Biden's message would be: "Hillary Clinton is not inevitable!"

If Donald Trump is the drunk uncle you have to put up with at Thanksgiving dinner, Joe Biden is the opposite -- the favorite uncle who always has time to hang out and crack a few jokes. This has gotten him into trouble at times, when he says things that need a little revision (or an apology) later on. But in the 2016 presidential race, somehow I don't see "Biden gaffes" as being all that big a story. Even on his worst day, Biden is nowhere near the gaffe-creation machine that is Donald Trump, after all. With Trump in the race, it almost nullifies any gaffe Biden might make on the campaign trail. And "speaking like a regular guy and not a politician" seems to already be Trump's theme, so Biden's regular-guy mojo would be seen as a much safer alternative to some.

The caricature of Biden as a lightweight that late-night comics love to joke about isn't the reality. Biden is a serious guy with oodles of foreign policy experience. If Obama had listened to Biden a long time ago and supported dividing Iraq into three separate entities (Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurd), the situation on the ground there might be very different indeed these days (it might be better, it might be worse, but it certainly would be different). Biden is eminently qualified to be president, seeing as how he's spent the last six-and-a-half years being a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. America has already decided he's qualified, to put it slightly differently, since they elected him twice to take over if anything bad ever happened to President Obama.

Biden's entry certainly would shake up the Democratic race, but then maybe that's a good thing for Democrats in general. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have the luxury of ignoring Biden (the way she currently is ignoring Bernie Sanders and the rest of the Democratic field). Biden would force Clinton to run a much more competitive campaign, which might wind up being a good thing even if Hillary becomes the eventual nominee. She'll be in top form when the general election campaign starts, if she has to run a close race with Sanders and Biden. It would certainly sharpen her up to have Biden in the race.

Assessing Biden's chances for actually becoming the Democratic nominee is impossible without knowing what's going to happen to Hillary Clinton. Will the scandals eventually catch up with her and tank her standing among Democratic voters? That has not happened yet, but it certainly could. If Hillary imploded, Biden's chances would obviously get a lot better. Democrats who support Hillary -- and who find Bernie Sanders too far out -- would likely flock to support Joe Biden if Hillary did self-destruct at any point. However, if Hillary bounces back and lays the scandal talk to rest, then it would be a very different race. Biden would also have the headwind of being another "old white guy" trying to be president, made more acute by the fact that either Sanders or Clinton would be a "first" (either the first Jewish president or the first woman president). Biden does draw some fervent support among a certain segment of the Democratic electorate, but Clinton would still have a lot of daunting advantages (in money, in campaign staff, and in voter support). A head-to-head race between Biden and Clinton would be tough (but not impossible) for Biden to win.

Joe Biden has let it be known that he'll make his decision by the end of next month. That's a lot of time in the political world, so anything could happen between now and then. Biden already sees enough of a path to victory to seriously contemplate the idea of running for a third time. Due to his age, this is probably the last chance he'll ever have. If he does run, he'll certainly liven up the Democratic race, which up until now has been a contest between only two viable candidates. Biden would instantly vault into this contest, giving Democratic primary voters three realistic choices instead of the current two. Biden could beat Hillary Clinton even if she doesn't implode, but if she does his path to victory would get a whole lot easier. Even if Biden runs and loses, he'll definitely sharpen up whichever candidate beats him for the nomination. All this might be enough for him to make the effort.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

37 Comments on “Biden Speculation”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Obviously, this one's for LizM.

    :-)

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Well, thank-you ... thank-you very much ...

    I was hoping, against hope, that the g-word wouldn't make it into this column, much less a comparison to Trump but, what are ya gonna do. The asinine media storyline lives on. :(

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let's make one thing perfectly clear, right off the top ...having Vice President Biden in the 2016 presidential race is most decidedly NOT going to make Hillary a better candidate. She's going to have to do that all by herself, with or without Biden competition.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Finally, if Biden decides to make one last bid for the presidency and he ends up being the Democratic nominee, then it will be because he earned the votes of the primary participants, not because Hillary implodes.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One last comment on this ...

    Even if Biden runs and loses, he'll definitely sharpen up whichever candidate beats him for the nomination. All this might be enough for him to make the effort.

    Those of us who have come to know, respect and have affection for Senator and Vice President Biden over the course of his outstanding career as a public servant and statesman know that not only would the above not be nearly enough for him to make the effort but that particular sort of analysis doesn't even enter the picture in his decision to enter the race or not, not even by an Olympic-sized long shot!

    We are not surprised, however, that this kind of speculation is so prevalent throughout the media - very few members of the media have ever really understood who Biden is and what he is all about. Sadly, after almost seven years in the vice president's office, this lack of knowledge persists.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just one more ...

    Biden does draw some fervent support among a certain segment of the Democratic electorate, but Clinton would still have a lot of daunting advantages (in money, in campaign staff, and in voter support). A head-to-head race between Biden and Clinton would be tough (but not impossible) for Biden to win.

    There are several advantages that Hillary Clinton does not have over Biden in a head-to-head race - in competency, judgement, qualifications and experience, integrity and candor, and a reason for running that has solely to do with putting his unique and expansive expertise to good use in moving the country forward in the absence of any other motivation.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I left out the most valuable advantage - Dr. Jill Biden!

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Unfortunately, all of this speculation about what Biden will decide really doesn't matter much, does it?

    I mean, last I checked, the national American electorate has never been particularly inclined to vote for Joe Biden and I don't think that dynamic has changed in any statistically significant way.

    Hence my eternal frustration about all of this and the tone of my previous comments in this thread. I trust you can understand that, Chris.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary's numbers have gone down a bit

    Aww, come on...

    That's like saying Katrina was a minor rain squall..

    Hillary's numbers are plummeting...

    The one thing I will say about a Biden campaign is that it will likely bring some honesty and integrity to the Dem side of the race... :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, last I checked, the national American electorate has never been particularly inclined to vote for Joe Biden and I don't think that dynamic has changed in any statistically significant way.

    Of course it's changed...

    If it's a choice between Hillary and Biden, that's a whole new dynamic...

    Even Democrats are coming around to the idea that Hillary is toxic...

    Well, most Democrats anyways...

    There are still those who still believe that Hillary walks on water despite all the facts to the contrary..

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, that could all change at any time. The drip-drip-drip of "emailgate" assures that the story will be in front of the public for many months to come. Hillary's numbers have gone down a bit (although nowhere near as bad as some are saying), and that slow trend could continue.

    It will continue and here's why...

    Hillary's security breach, and why it matters...
    Perhaps you've heard of Sergey Lavrov — or perhaps you haven't. He has been Russia's foreign minister since March 9, 2004.

    Imagine what U.S. intelligence agencies might have gained if they'd had access in real time (or even with some delay) to every email and direct message Lavrov sent or received from Jan. 21, 2009 through Feb. 1, 2013.

    Yang Jiechi was the foreign minister of the People's Republic of China during those years. Imagine if President Obama had had access to all of Yang's Internet trails and the data that flowed to and from his virtual desk. What an advantage to our president that would have been! What a trove of insight into the ambitions of the PRC's inner core of powerful party elites.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillarys-security-breach-and-why-it-matters/article/2570680

    There are still Democrats out there (and a few here in Weigantia) who are still peddling the totally BS story that there are many people in the government who did what Hillary did...

    Let's lay that lil crock o crap to rest right now..

    NO ONE, since the inception of email, had done what Hillary Clinton did.

    NOT... ONE.... SINGLE..... official..

    So let's can that self-serving lie right now...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Postulate a scenario where Biden announces his candidacy for POTUS and also announces at the same time that Warren will be his VP.....

    What do you think that would do for his chances against Hillary??

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Firstly, I don't believe Joe Biden will run. I don't know who "leaked" the rumor to Maureen Dowd but, given her credibility rating, I'd say she made it up. Like every other pundit in the US, she hates Hillary and her story was all about damaging HRC, not whether Biden would run or not. She used Joe Biden to get at HRC. Read her article again - getting at HRC is what it was really about.

    The whole Dowd story is a furphy and the giveaway is her outright lie regarding Beau Biden. It was reported at the time of Beau's death that he did not regain consciousness after surgery so there could not have been any deathbed words with his father. That Dowd exploited the death of Joe's son in such a way is inexcusable and unforgivable. The woman should be figuratively burnt at the stake.

    There is so little integrity in US media these days. It's been leached away by corporate interests who use the First Amendment to defend their distortions and disinformation. So vile scribblers like Dowd get to run riot without being checked. I know if I was a member of the Biden family I would never speak to the woman again.

    As for Clinton, her polling figures are remarkable given that she has very little support on Democratic strongholds like Daily Kos and is anything from disliked to reviled by all pundits. I haven't read or heard a positive word about her in any media. Everything about her is attacked: how she's running her campaign, her policies, her speeches, her clothes, what she says and what she doesn't say.

    Clinton is going to "stumble" or "implode"; she has negative figures for "trustworthiness" and "likability". She's super-glued to corporations and Wall Street.

    In all fairness, the GOP did warn us last year that they would attack HRC via any rumor of scandal that would stick. Happily for them, the US media has decided she's guilty on all counts: Benghazi, emailgate, any number of frauds and even the murder of Vince Foster.

    It's amazing anyone voted for her husband let alone for her! From reading and listening to the US media, you'd think she'd be polling at around zero percent. So I guess you must all think her supporters represent the most stupid Americans.

    I know it is a thousand times harder for women in politics, especially at the top, and I am stunned by her stamina and resilience. I wasn't a particular fan of HRC but I am now after seeing what she is being put through. Can't help but admire that kind of inner strength. Wish I had half of it.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is a reason why Clinton's "trustworthy" numbers are in the toilet..

    Lying and honesty was a real big issue with the Left when it was a GOP POTUS...

    Funny how it doesn't mean anything at all when it's a DEM POTUS and a DEM Candidate, eh??

    I'm just sayin'....

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    To Michale,

    Oh I knew Trump would do well and he will continue to do well, in spite of everything the Republicans throw at him! It's hilarious to watch! I like the woman who, when asked why she believed Trump would make America great again, replied "It's on his hat." That sums up his followers right there!

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh I knew Trump would do well and he will continue to do well, in spite of everything the Republicans throw at him! It's hilarious to watch! I like the woman who, when asked why she believed Trump would make America great again, replied "It's on his hat." That sums up his followers right there!

    Yea, a low information voter..

    But I am constrained to point out that the LIV is NOT solely limited to the Right...

    How many Democrats were quoted that they were voting for Obama so he could pay their mortgage and give them free ObamaPhones??

    You can find morons on both sides of the political spectrum... :D

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi CW-

    The criticism of Hillary's email issues from the left is missing here... as usual, Repubs are ignoring what really matters.

    Starting with the recent statement from her lawyer-

    First... from her lawyer?
    Really?
    She is a lawyer and should be more than capable of making the statement herself.

    But, his two points were-
    "It wasn't illegal at the time"...
    ... which is a pathetic excuse for an end run around transparency. It should be obvious to all that giving her control over what will not and what will EVENTUALLY be released to the public, investigators or journalists is an exercise in CYA.
    Not just to protect herself from Repubs, but also from Dems.
    It is just as likely that her correspondence about her role in the State Department pushing fracking internationally, the Keystone approval, trade agreements, most things Israel, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, etc. would hurt her with Dem base voters.

    Then her lawyer trotted out "Republicans did it too".
    Um, comparing Hillary's actions with the lying, warmongering, unethical Republicans should hardly put Dem voters at ease.
    Her Wall Street money, neoliberal ideology, vote for the war in Iraq, etc. are already disturbing to the Democratic base.
    Using Repub precedent (loosely at that since her private server was actually one step further)) is a political loser given the Bernie Sanders challenge from the left.
    The "I'm just like the Republicans" excuse is probably why her lawyer made the statement... so she wouldn't have to say it herself.

    I haven't seen anybody discussing emailgate along those lines.

    Thanks,
    A

  18. [18] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW and Liz,

    Biden may TRY to position himself between Clinton and Sanders, but his past positions and voting record are really nearly identical to Hillary, and nowhere near as progressive as Bernie's.
    I don't see many Bernie supporters making the switch. Biden is pretty establishment and neoliberal in a year when that isn't selling well. People are sick of the status quo.

    Biden has less "scandal" baggage than Clinton, but his campaigning skills are an issue. I would say they are much improved in his role backing up Obama, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will carry over when he is on his own.

    All in all, I'm not sure the "more electable" conventional wisdom claim is valid for Biden or Clinton. Bernie seems to be the only Dem candidate capable of drawing independents and driving turnout from the base. And the numbers he is stacking up are comparable or in some cases even a little better than where Obama was at this point eight years ago.

    But, it is still early, so we shall see what happens in the months ahead.

    Thanks,
    A

  19. [19] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    altohone -

    Welcome to the site! Seems your name is familiar, perhaps from another website where my stuff appears...

    :-)

    Your first comments (here and on the Friday Talking Points column) were automatically held for moderation, but you should now be able to post instantly -- just don't post more than one link per comment, as multi-link comments are also automatically held for moderation to cut down on comment spam.

    I'm sorry you had problems registering at the site. Has anyone else experienced problems getting their passwords emailed to them or logging in for the first time? Please let me know, if so.

    Anyway, welcome again to CW.com!

    -CW

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hello, altohone!

    Now I remember ... I think we've had our own back and forths a time or two at HuffPost, correct?

    I'd like to know why you think Obama chose Biden as his running mate ...

  21. [21] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey again Liz

    Indeed we have... and good ones too if I recall correctly... and I guess you have access to email I send to CW? Too funny.

    Why did Obama choose Biden?
    -Ideological similarity
    -low risk of betrayal and/or political harm
    -decent money connections
    -to shore up the experience weakness, particularly foreign policy
    -also good at pretending not to be a neoliberal
    -pathetic alternatives

    Just so you know, I reregistered as an independent a couple of months after Obama's inauguration, and voted against Mittens last go around.
    I had pretty much given up on the reform from within approach, but I am reconsidering because of Bernie, though he hasn't sold me yet.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    All in all, I'm not sure the "more electable" conventional wisdom claim is valid for Biden or Clinton. Bernie seems to be the only Dem candidate capable of drawing independents and driving turnout from the base. And the numbers he is stacking up are comparable or in some cases even a little better than where Obama was at this point eight years ago.

    Biden is more electable than Hillary by a long shot, simply by virtue of him being nearly scandal free..

    While Sanders might be "capable" of drawing Independents no evidence exists that he is actually doing it...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    altohone, (we're not on a first name basis, yet?)

    I'm glad you added number four to the list of reasons why Obama chose Biden because that one is the only one that really matters.

    As for the choice being the best political decision Obama has ever made? Well, it was pretty much a no-brainer and written in the stars from the beginning ... not to mention in every comment I made virtually from the time Obama was the nominee until the big decision was made. :)

    Be careful what you write in an email to Chris!

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is just as likely that her correspondence about her role in the State Department pushing fracking internationally, the Keystone approval, trade agreements, most things Israel, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, etc. would hurt her with Dem base voters.

    Ooooo, now THAT is a good point.. A VERY good point...

    Point to altohone :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I know people have raised questions about my email use as secretary of state, and I understand why. I get it. So here’s what I want the American people to know: My use of personal email was allowed by the State Department. It clearly wasn’t the best choice. I should’ve used two emails: one personal, one for work.
    I take responsibility for that decision, and I want to be as transparent as possible, which is why I turned over 55,000 pages, why I’ve turned over my server, why I’ve agreed to — in fact, been asking to — and have finally gotten a date to testify before a congressional committee in October.”

    -Hillary Clinton

    No, Mrs Clinton.. You don't "get it"...

    My use of personal email was allowed by the State Department.

    Using a personal email occasionally was allowed by the State Department..

    Using a personal email EXCLUSIVELY and using it from your OWN home-brew insecure server solely and completely under your exclusive control??

    If THAT is allowed by Obama's State Department, then the STATE DEPARTMENT should be investigated as well...

    I want to be as transparent as possible, which is why I turned over 55,000 pages,

    What happened to the other 30,000 + emails that were on that server??

    why I’ve turned over my server,

    Oh, come on! Let's face the facts here, lady... You were FORCED to turn over the server to the FBI so they can continue their CRIMINAL probe of your activities... There was nothing voluntary about it!

    Seriously, people..

    Even when she "comes clean" she is lying thru her teeth...

    Is THIS the best the Democrat Party has to offer???

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Using Repub precedent (loosely at that since her private server was actually one step further))

    Exactly!!!

    As I said since this all began..

    NO ONE, since the inception of email, has done what Hillary Clinton has done...

    The idea that "everyone does it" is just so much partisan spin and is only believable to the Clinton-nista kool-aid drinkers...

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    According to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday, if Biden was the democratic candidate, he would beat Donald Trump by eight points (48 - 40 percent), former Florida Governor Jeb Bush by six points (45 - 39) and Senator Marco Rubio by three points (44 - 41). Clinton only beats Trump by four points (45 - 41), Bush by two points (42 - 40) and Rubio by one point (44 - 43).

    Eighty-three percent of Democrats view Biden favorably, compared to 76 percent and 54 percent who approve of Clinton and Vermont Senator Sanders, respectively. Among all registered voters, Biden has a 48 percent favorability rating, while Clinton came in at 39 percent and Sanders at 32 percent.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-27/biden-more-competitive-than-clinton-against-leading-republicans-poll

    Are ya'all ready to concede that Hillary is toast???

    "Anyone?? Anyone?? Beuhler??"

    :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    altohone wrote:

    Michale

    There is substantial evidence that Bernie is drawing independents. Those at his massive rallies aren't shy about pointing it out, nor in the social media groups formed by them. There is also a track record from his elections where he draws many independents and even some Republican votes. But drawing Dems who are sick of the Wall St coddlers is by far his biggest strength, because everybody else running licks their boots.
    Not knowing or seeking the evidence is different than there not being any.

    Your opinion on the electable element has some issues. The obvious contrast with other polls, theoretical matchups that pretend the primaries are over before they've begun, and a pattern of mistaken conclusions.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is substantial evidence that Bernie is drawing independents.

    Then it shouldn't be too hard to link it.. :D

    Your opinion on the electable element has some issues. The obvious contrast with other polls, theoretical matchups that pretend the primaries are over before they've begun, and a pattern of mistaken conclusions.

    For example.....????? :D

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    and a pattern of mistaken conclusions

    You mean, like the "mistaken" conclusion that the Hillary email server issue was a REAL scandal that was going to come back and bite Hillary on the ass...

    Hillary Clinton’s Handling of Email Issue Frustrates Democratic Leaders
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/us/politics/hillary-clintons-handling-of-email-issue-frustrates-democratic-leaders.html?_r=0

    From the start, I was telling everyone here that the email issue was a BIG problem and all I got in response was , "Awww, Everyone uses a private email account.. It's a faux scandal" and garbage like that..

    So, who had the mistaken conclusions and who didn't?? :D

    I can give you tons more examples, if required.. :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    I love your enthusiasm, but my issues with Obama are relevant to your boy as well as Hillary. A long list of cons and a short list of pros.

    A choice between radical right or center right amounts to a third party vote... I've turned the other cheek so often I'm all Exorcist head over here.
    Real change is needed, and I just don't see Joe running against Obama's policies... NSA, opening the East Coast and the Arctic to oil drilling, "humanitarian" wars, coups and regime changes, Wall St, Wall St, Wall St...

    ... no more.

  32. [32] 
    altohone wrote:

    No Michale

    I mean mistaken conclusions like concluding I was referring to Hillary's email and pretending that amounts to vindication.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean mistaken conclusions like concluding I was referring to Hillary's email and pretending that amounts to vindication.

    OK, ya lost me...

    "Wha were we talkin' 'bout now??"
    -Chicken Little

    :D

    My apologies.. The discussion is all over the board, I wasn't sure what you were referring to...

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Hillary is trying to scare Biden into not entering the race...

    Clinton Camp Claims It’s Already Secured One-Fifth the Delegates Needed for Nomination
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-28/clinton-camp-saying-it-already-secured-one-fifth-the-delegates-needed-for-nomination

    So, let me see if I have this right..

    On the ONE hand, Clinton is saying that she is NOT inevitable and this is NOT a coronation..

    On the other hand, Clinton is saying, "Don't bother.. I already have the votes..."

    :^/

    Once again, I have to ask...

    Clinton is the best that the Dem Party has to offer??

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    THE LAST DAYS OF HILLARY
    Hillary Clinton’s worst punishment will be her failure.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259944/last-days-hillary-daniel-greenfield

    Hillary's implosion won't be pretty...

    But it IS going to happen...

    The only question is will she actually limp thru the finish line and become a mortally wounded DEM Candidate...

    Or will she not even make it that far....

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    In January 2017, Hillary Clinton will be sitting in front of a television set watching someone else take the oath of office. Nothing the penal system has to offer would be a harsher punishment than that moment.

    That really says it all....

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey Liz

    I kept forgetting to answer your other question from above.

    I've been known as altohone in various forums since 1996, but my friends call me Big Al.

    As to the "be careful what I write in email to CW" bit... are congratulations in order?

    A

Comments for this article are closed.