Wasn’t it just about two weeks ago that we were fed another “Hillary Replaces Biden On The 2012 Ticket” Op-Ed? Why yes, it was. It wasn’t the first time that argument has been made, of course, and it probably won’t be the last either. This time, it’s Bill Keller who takes to his New York Times column to argue the same tired old premise that countless pundits looking for a topic to write about have made at one point or another over the past three years:

I know the arguments against this scenario, and we’ll get to those. But the arguments in favor are as simple as one-two-three. One: it does more to guarantee Obama’s re-election than anything else the Democrats can do. Two: it improves the chances that, come next January, he will not be a lame duck with a gridlocked Congress but a rejuvenated president with a mandate and a Congress that may be a little less forbidding. Three: it makes Hillary the party’s heir apparent in 2016. If she sits out politics for the next four years, other Democrats (yes, Governor Cuomo, we see your hand up) will fill the void.

She would bring to this year’s campaign a missing warmth and some of the voltage that has dissipated as Obama moved from campaigning to governing. What excites is not just the prospect of having a woman a heartbeat — and four years — away from the presidency, although she certainly embodies the aspirations of many women. It’s the possibility that the first woman at the top would have qualifications so manifest that her first-ness was a secondary consideration.

We’ve heard most of this before from others, of course, and there is something compelling to the positive case that Keller and others make for putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket. Of course, most of those arguments existed in 2008 when Obama decided against doing just that, so it’s unclear why he would take the historically extraordinary step of replacing his Vice-President with a person he had previously decided didn’t belong in the job. Moreover, as I noted when I wrote about this last month the arguments against the scenario are rather overwhelming.

The Obama Administration has consistently shot down any of the Biden-Clinton swap rumors that have come up over the past three years. Moreover, Vice-President Biden has said more than once that he intends to run with the President in 2012, while Hillary Clinton has made clear that she considers Secretary of State to be her last public job and that she has no interest in running for political office again. Therefore, Reich’s “prediction” has no more value or substance to it than any of the other similar predictions we’ve heard before. Right now, it is as close as possible to a certainty that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee for Vice-President in 2012, unless something extraordinary or catastrophic happens.

There’s another argument that comes to mind, though, and I think it may be the most important reason why the President would not take this step absent something truly extraordinary. Virtually from the day he secured the Democratic Party’s nomination in 2008, there has been speculation about what the relationship between the Obama and Clinton camps would be after what had been one of the most contentious primary battles in recent memory. It was fairly well-known by that point that there were many in the Obama camp who resented some of the actions taken by former President Clinton while he was stumping for his wife in states like South Carolina, including comments that some interpreted rightly or wrongly as having a racial overtone. On the other side of the equation, we’ve learned from campaign books like Game Change that Hillary herself looked upon then candidate Obama as something of a rank amateur. There was, you will recall, a somewhat tense kabuki dance in early summer 2008 as the two camps negotiated over the terms of a Clinton unity rally with Obama, which ultimately did take place after some arrangements were made to help Clinton retire her campaign debt. By the time Vice-Presidential consideration came around, that tension was still there as well as the question of whether Bill Clinton would ever agree to open his financial records for the vetting that would have to take place for Hillary to be considered for the spot.

The Clinton’s campaigned for Obama in the General Election, of course. They are, after all, loyal Democrats, but the Obama Campaign seemed to be careful about not creating the impression that either Hillary or the former President would in some way be responsible for an Obama victory. In the end, Barack Obama won the election on his own and turned to Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State in what what simultaneously a display of magnanimity and the political genius of removing an intra-party from the playing field.

Why, after all that, would the President turn to Hillary Clinton four years later? Given all the speculation we’ve had about this scenario over the past three years or so, would it not be seen as a sign of weakness on Obama’s part, a tacit admission that in order to win re-election he needs Hillary’s help? And, assuming for just a second that all her demurring about running again is untrue, what price might Hillary set for agreeing to save Obama? The perception of having to come to Hillary to save your Presidency is one that would be hard for the President to live down.

Keller reveals the utter absurdity of his position by positing how this change might happen:

A political scientist I know proposes the following choreography: In the late winter or early spring, Hillary steps down as secretary of state to rest and write that book. The president assigns Biden — the former chairman of Senate Foreign Relations — to add State to his portfolio, making him the most powerful vice president in history. Come the party convention in September, Obama swallows his considerable pride and invites a refreshed Hillary to join the ticket. Biden keeps State. The musicians play “Happy Days Are Here Again” as if they really mean it.

If anything, this would make Obama’s position even worse. Not only does the public see him coming to Hillary to save him, but they see him calling her out of retirement to do so. Absurd, simply absurd.

And the Biden half of this scenario? There’s a fairly good argument that it would be unconstitutional, or at least highly inadvisable for a Vice-President to simultaneously serve as Secretary of State. For one thing, doing so officially would make him subject to the oversight of Congress despite the fact that he is a Constitutional officer, creating real problems for Separation Of Powers. For another, a Secretary of State can be fired, a Vice-President cannot. Do neither Keller nor his “political scientist” see the problem there?

Perhaps all these pundits will turn out to be right. Perhaps for only the seventh time in American history¹ a President will replace his Vice-President on the ticket before an election. Anything’s possible after all, just ask the guys who wrote for The West Wing. Here in the real world, though, it’s pretty unlikely that, barring tragedy or extraordinary illness,  Joe Biden will be anywhere but right at Barack Obama’s side come September 2012.

¹The previous six occasions are: Jefferson (who replaced Aaron Burr with George Clinton in 1804), Lincoln (who replaced Hannibal Hamlin with Andrew Johnson in 1864), Ulysses S. Grant (who replaced Schuyler Colfax with Henry Wilson in 1872), Franklin Roosevelt (who replaced John Nance Garner with Henry Wallace in 1940 and Henry Wallace with Harry S Truman in 1944), and Gerald Ford (who replaced Nelson Rockefeller with Bob Dole in 1976)

Taking a page from the book that Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen have borrowed from more than once to write their own tedious Op-Ed’s,  former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich today predicts in a blog post that President Obama will put Hillary Clinton on the ticket in 2012:

My political prediction for 2012 (based on absolutely no inside information): Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden swap places. Biden becomes Secretary of State — a position he’s apparently coveted for years. And Hillary Clinton, Vice President.

So the Democratic ticket for 2012 is Obama-Clinton.

Why do I say this? Because Obama needs to stir the passions and enthusiasms of a Democratic base that’s been disillusioned with his cave-ins to regressive Republicans. Hillary Clinton on the ticket can do that.

(…)

The deal would also make Clinton the obvious Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 — offering the Democrats a shot at twelve (or more) years in the White House, something the Republicans had with Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush but which the Democrats haven’t had since FDR. Twelve years gives the party in power a chance to reshape the Supreme Court as well as put an indelible stamp on America.

According to the latest Gallup poll, the duo are this year’s most admired man and woman This marks the fourth consecutive win for  Obama while Clinton has been the most admired woman in each of the last 10 years. She’a topped the list 16 times since 1993, exceeding the record held by former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who topped the list 13 times.

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard the Clinton-replaces-Biden prediction, of course. It pretty much started from the day that Barack Obama and Joe Biden took their respective Oaths Of Office. It does make a certain amount of sense, perhaps. Joe Biden will be 74 by the time we reach the 2016 elections and, despite the fact that he’s said that he is keeping his options open in that regard, nobody seriously believes that the Vice-President will be candidate for the Democratic nomination. Clinton, on the other hand would be 69, certainly not young but no older than, say, Ronald Reagan was when he ran, or John McCain. Additionally, Reich is correct when he points out that Hillary remains a popular political figure, although I would submit that this is largely because of the current position she holds, which is far less of a political lightening rod than most others. Had Clinton chose to stay in the Senate it’s likely that she would be viewed as a far more partisan figure, and her approval numbers would be lower. That said, it is true that pretty much all of the arguments against putting Clinton on the ticket in 2008 are gone now, and if Biden did decide that he could not run for a second term she would be the most logical person Obama would turn to first.

Despite all of this, though, the Obama Administration has consistently shot down any of the Biden-Clinton swap rumors that have come up over the past three years. Moreover, Vice-President Biden has said more than once that he intends to run with the President in 2012, while Hillary Clinton has made clear that she considers Secretary of State to be her last public job and that she has no interest in running for political office again. Therefore, Reich’s “prediction” has no more value or substance to it than any of the other similar predictions we’ve heard before. Right now, it is as close as possible to a certainty that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee for Vice-President in 2012, unless something extraordinary or catastrophic happens.

Picking up on Reich’s argument, The Anchoress makes a completely different argument. She says Hillary Clinton should run as an Independent against Obama:

I know the conventional wisdom holds that no Democrat would dare to run against Obama and risk a deep fracturing of the party. Conventional wisdom, however, is hogwash in the face of voter discontent and distrust of both parties and the D.C. establishment. If ever the time was right for a strong candidate — from the left, not the right — to strike out as an Independent with a good chance of winning, it’s this election year, and Hillary Clinton is precisely the candidate to do it.

Independents ran to Obama in ’08, and they’re running away from him as fast as they can in ’12, but not necessarily toward the GOP, whose current field of candidates seems like 8 tilting vials of nitro-glycerin, just waiting to fall. Offer them a candidate they can associate with a era of “peace and prosperity” — one who many of them happen to like and think got a raw deal in 2008 — and they will careen toward her like seagulls toward dropped bread.

Hillary will pull all the disgruntled PUMA (Party Unity My A$$) voters who in ’08 were told “you don’t have to fall in love, just fall in line” and are still rinsing the bad taste out of their mouth from that primary; she’ll pull all of the Democrats who are currently, quietly, wishing Obama would just go away. And while Obama supposedly enjoys an approval rating of about 85% within the African American community, it’s a decent bet that those who liked her before they ever thought of Obama could be persuaded to like her again. Hillary, after all, feels no ways tired.

A candidate from the right could never do it. Between GOP/Conservative in-fighting, the purge-and-purity brigade and the need of some to “teach a lesson” with their vote — and the predictable broadsides that will be launched against such a candidate by the Democrat-favoring press — the best a conservative third-party candidate could hope to do is “make a point.” The Democrats and far left will all still vote for Obama, and the independents will either run scattershot or sit out the election altogether. Hello, Mr. Perot.

The arguments against a Hillary Clinton run as an Independent, assuming she would even want to do that, are even stronger than those against the silly idea that Hillary should challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination. For one thing, there is no realistic possibility that Clinton could actually win the Presidency.  She’s not going to take away any Red States from the Republicans, and all she’d be likely to do in Blue States is split the Democratic vote with the President, thus opening up the possibility that the GOP could pick up Electoral Votes they otherwise wouldn’t merely by winning a plurality of the vote. The worst of all possible outcomes, of course, would be if the election ended up getting thrown into the House of Representatives because nobody has 270 Electoral Votes.

For another, it’s fairly clear that a Clinton candidacy in the General Election would take votes from Obama, possibly cost him most if not all of the battleground states that he needs to win the election, and hand the election to the Republicans. Why in the world would Hillary Clinton, who has been a loyal Democrat all her life, want to do that? Why, to put it bluntly, would she want to go down in history as the person who made the first African-American President in American history a one-termer? Not only does it ruin her own legacy, but it would also likely tear the Democratic Party itself to shreds in the wake of the defeat. African-Americans in particular would likely be upset by what they would rightfully see as a stab in the back by someone who has been part of the Democratic Party establishment for 20 years. It’s a suicide mission, and a stupid one at that.

You really can’t make things like this up:

“At 1:00 PM, the Vice President will attend a meeting of the Government Accountability and Transparency Board in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. At 2:30 PM, the Vice President will meet with representatives of the National Sheriffs’ Association in the Roosevelt Room. These meetings are closed press.“

From March you may recall when President Obama received an award for transparency in a secret, closed door ceremony. Or, back in September when it was revealed that anonymous government officials called for more transparency.

Some, no doubt, will chalk this up as another Biden-ism:

“When I went up, she said, ‘Joe,” Biden recalled of his meeting with Giffords. “I said, ‘Now we’re both members of the Cracked Head Club.’ You know, I had two craniotomies. For real. They literally took the top of my head off. Twice. Now, the wags in Delaware, when the second operation occurred, wrote and said, ‘Well, it’s because they couldn’t find a brain the first time!’”

“She and I just commiserated about the steps to recovery,” he added. “Hers, much more consequential. But it scares the living devil out of you when you’re recovering from a serious operation or injury to your head. But it comes back. And knowing people who’ve been through it and came back was helpful, for me anyway. You know what I mean?”

It sounds slightly insensitive, I suppose but it struck me as a the same form of commiserating you see among survivors of heart bypass surgery who refer to themselves a members of “The Zipper Club.” Although that particular monicker took on a slightly different connotation when Larry King and Bill Clinton talked about it.

Vice President Biden has called Congressional Republicans and their Tea Party backers “terrorists.”

Politico (“Biden: Tea partiers like ‘terrorists’“):

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room.

Biden’s office declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session.

Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals.

The vice president’s hot rhetoric about tea party Republicans underscored the tense moment on Capitol Hill as four party leaders in both chambers work to round up the needed votes in an abbreviated time frame. The bill would raise the debt limit by as much as $2.4 trillion through the end of next year and reduce the deficit by an equal amount over the next decade.

Democrats had no shortage of colorful phrases in wake of the deal.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) called it a “Satan sandwich,” and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) called seemed to enjoy the heat analogy, saying: “the Tea Partiers and the GOP have made their slash and burn lunacy clear, and while I do not love this compromise, my vote is a hose to stop the burning. The arsonists must be stopped.

While Biden is substantially to my left on a host of issues, I generally like his cantankerous, shoot-from-the-hip style. I’d rather my leaders say what they mean than constantly use mealy-mouthed, focus-grouped language.

Further, while I more-or-less like the results of the Republican hard line on the debt ceiling, I share Biden’s frustration with the illegitimacy of the tactic.

But this language is as outrageous as it is absurd. The Tea Party isn’t murdering innocent civilians; they’re using the tools available to them in our system of government. They’re not terrorists. Nor are they arsonists or kidnappers. They’re elected representatives of the people of their states and districts.

While Obama and Biden were elected in 2008 and have a right to wield the enormous powers of the Executive Branch, Boehner and the Republicans won a landslide victory in 2010 with a mandate to cut spending, reduce the deficit, and oppose the Obama agenda. Similarly, the Senate Republicans closed the margin considerably in that cycle and are using the powers afforded the minority to obstruct to great advantage.

We at OTB have bitterly opposed the tactic of holding up a vote on the debt ceiling, which we agree has historically been a housekeeping matter, in order to get a second bite at the budget apple. It’s unprecedented and economically dangerous. But it’s not criminal. And we have another election cycle in a few short months to let the people decide whether the Republicans’ tactics will be rewarded or punished.

UPDATE: Biden has denied that he used the word “terrorists” and the White House has issued a condemnation of the use of that word.

Jake Tapper (“White House Calls Use of the Word ‘Terrorists’ to Describe Tea Partyers ‘Inappropriate’ and ‘the Product of An Emotional Discussion’“):

Given the presence of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., at Congress last night – and President Obama’s January 12 speech to the nation about the need for “more civility in our public discourse” – the White House has faced questions in the last day about Vice President Biden’s possible behind-closed-doors use of the word “terrorists” to describe Tea Partyers.

As we covered yesterday, meeting with anxious House Democrats yesterday, the Vice President heard from Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Penn., who said “the Tea Party acted like terrorists in threatening to blow up the economy.” Doyle used the term several times. What happened next is in dispute. Several sources told Politico that the Vice President responded by saying, “they have acted like terrorists.” Other sources told ABC News that the vice president said something along the lines of “if they have acted like terrorists, we’re taking the nuclear weapon away from them.”

The Vice President told CBS News’ Scott Pelley, “I did not use the terrorism word…What happened was there were some people who said they felt like they were being held hostage by terrorists. I never said that they were terrorists or weren’t terrorists, I just let them vent. I said, ‘Even if that were the case, what’s been happening when you now have taken and paid the debt and move that down so we can now discuss, the nuclear weapon’s been taken out of anyone’s hands.’”

One reporter today asked White House press secretary Jay Carney about reports that the Veep had used the term, wondering if “the president thinks that’s appropriate discourse?” ”No, he doesn’t, and neither does the vice president,” Carney said. “And I think the vice president spoke to this and made clear that he didn’t say those words, and I think the congressman in question has said that he regrets using them.” Carney said the use of the word “was a product of an emotional discussion, very passionately held positions in this debate, but that does not mean that it’s appropriate.  And it’s not.  The vice president doesn’t think so; the president doesn’t think so.  Any kind of comments like that are simply not conducive to the kind of political discourse that we hope to have.”

Whether Biden got caught up in the spirit of the venting and used the word “terrorist” or not, the administration’s considered position is correct. People say stupid things when they are angry, especially when in like company. But the top leadership needs to push back against dangerous rhetoric that marginalizes and delegitimizes the opposition party.

The political odd couple pairings that we’ve seen throughout the debt negotiations continue, with the Vice-President and Senate Minority Leader now apparently working together behind the scenes:

Taking square aim at the White House, Republicans prepared to bring to a House vote Thursday a two-step $2.5 trillion debt ceiling bill that will avert default next week but threatens more conflict — and renewed instability — in six months.

Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remain in conversation over how to defuse the building confrontation before the threat of default next week. But with stocks falling again Wednesday, the fight between Speaker John Boehner and President Barack Obama has become so personal that each side says the other needs to find some way to save face before reaching a deal.

Who knows, after tomorrow when the Boehner Bill is dead in the Senate, it will be McConnell and Biden who will save us.

Yea I’m not too inspired with optimism either.

There’s already speculation that President Obama will have a new running mate when the 2012 General Election rolls around:

A Prominent Republican is joining a prominent Democrat in predicting that Gov. Cuomo will become PresidentObama’s running mate for vice president next year.

Former New York GOP boss William Powers, credited with playing a key role in electing Rudy Giuliani mayor and George Pataki governor, was effusive in his praise of Cuomo’s successes in the just-ended legislative session, and in his prediction of the freshman governor’s political future.

“Andrew had a fabulous session. It was fabulous. A property-tax cap, ethics reform and, for Democrats, gay marriage,” said Powers.

“I don’t think there’s any doubt Obama is going to pick him as his running mate. The president is in trouble and [Vice President Joseph] Biden doesn’t bring anything to his ticket.

“The president will call him up later this year and say, ‘Andrew, you have to do this for the good of the country.’ What’s Andrew going to say, ‘No?’ ”

(…)

Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown earlier this year also predicted that Obama would pick Cuomo to replace Biden, who he claimed would be named by the president to replace Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“He’s a big name, a big-state governor, and a Democrat who is taking on the issue of public-employee salaries and pensions. Plus, he looks good,” Brown said of Cuomo.

While noting first of all that neither Powers nor Brown are Obama Administration insiders, and Powers in particular is unlikely to have the Presidents best interests at heart, there really isn’t anything new about this type of speculation. As late as mere months before the 2004 Republican National Convention, there was speculation, which James Joyner took note of  here at OTB in two posts, that George W. Bush would dump Dick Cheney from the ticket in favor of someone like Rudy Giuliani or Condi Rice. Then and now, the reasoning behind the speculation was two-fold. First, there was the idea that Cheney would be a drag on the ticket, although his approval numbers had not yet reached the nadir they would near the end of the Bush Era. The second consideration was the idea that the President should select a running mate who could be an heir apparent in the next Presidential election. As early as 2004, everyone pretty much knew that Dick Cheney was not going to run for President in 2008 because of his health history, his age, and the fact that he was already becoming a lightening rod for Bush critics. Some in the GOP thought Bush should pick a VP for 2004 who could serve as his natural successor, for the good of the party. As it turned out, of course, if someone who had spent the previous four years as Bush’s Vice-President had tried to run for President in 2008, they likely would’ve gotten beaten as badly as McCain did, if not worse.

The reasoning appears to be as misplaced this time around as it was back then. Critics on the right see Biden as a gaffe machine who does nothing but embarrass the President, while some on the left seem to want to see the President anoint a success even before he’s re-elected in 2012. The response to the both points is that only Barack Obama is a judge of how Joe Biden is doing as Vice-President and, so far, he seems pleased with the choice he made. Despite generational differences, the two men seem to work well together, and, not withstanding his sometimes amusing verbal miscues, the Vice-President seems to be doing what the President wants him to do just fine. As long as that’s the case, and unless Biden tells Obama that he doesn’t wish to be renominated in 2012, Biden will stay on the ticket.

Of course, even if Biden volunteers to step down Obama might still ask him to stay, which is apparently what happened between Bush and Cheney in 2003:

[Bush's memoir Decision Points] includes the revelation that the controversial Cheney had volunteered to step down in 2003 so Bush could pick someone else as his running mate for his 2004 reelection campaign.

Bush writes that he considered the offer, adding that although Cheney “helped with important parts of our base, he had become a lightning rod for criticism from the media and the left.”

Although Bush did not like Cheney’s image as described by critics, accepting his resignation offer would help “demonstrate that I was in charge,” he writes.

Bush said he talked to aides about asking Republican Sen. Bill Frist to run with him instead of Cheney, but ultimately stuck with Cheney because he valued his steady hand.

As I noted when this revelation came out, this is not surprising:

As the Bush/Cheney experience shows us, though, President’s select Vice-Presidents for reasons other than creating a successor that will follow in their electoral footsteps. In both Bush and Obama’s case, the selection of running mates was obviously influenced by the desire to have a name on the ticket with more experience, especially in the foreign policy area. That need would continue into a second term, of course, by which time a President and Vice-President will have developed a close working relationship that it would arguably be unwise to disrupt. So, just as Bush decided that keeping Cheney on the ticket was worth whatever electoral risks he was taking, Barack Obama is likely to decide that, despite his now famous gaffes, Joe Biden does more good than harm.

Franklin Roosevelt replaced Vice-Presidents twice. In 1940 when he replaced the conservative John Nance Garner (who had challenged him that year for the Demcoratic nomination with Henry Wallace) and then in 1944 when he replaced Wallace with Harry Truman when it was clear that succession would be an important issue and that Wallace was simply unacceptable as a possible future President.  Before that, it happened in 1864 when Lincoln replaced Hannibal Hamlin with Andrew Johnson, a pro-Union Democrat from Tennessee as part of a national unity ticket and in 1804 when Jefferson replaced Aaron Burr with George Clinton because, well, Burr and Jefferson hated each other (a decision whose wisdom was confirmed months before the election when Burr murdered Alexander Hamilton).

Since then, there’s been speculation about Vice-Presidential changes every time a President runs for re-election. Political advisers urged Eisenhower to dump Nixon in 1956. Similar advice was given to Nixon in 1972 and, by some conservatives apparently, to Reagan in 1984. They didn’t listen in those cases, and I doubt Obama will in this one. Barring some extreme change in circumstances, it will be Obama/Biden in 2012.

Note: The beginning of the second-to-last paragraph has been changed from the original to remedy an historical error noted by Tano notes in the comments.

Vice-President Biden wants Democrats to remember that he will still be around after Barack Obama is done with his second term:

Vice President Joe Biden surprised a gathering of donors in Cincinnati last week when he floated the prospect of his succeeding President Barack Obama in the White House.

Biden, who started in the Senate young and would be just 70 in 2012, raised the possibility unprompted during a wide-ranging conversation at the May 19 dinner with major Democratic Party donors, a source in the room said.

The Vice President, who has never ruled in or out running in six years, told the group he hadn’t made up his mind, and cited both political conditions and his own health as relevant factors.

But the spontaneous suggestion caught the attention of at least some in the audience, said the guest, “given he volunteered that without prompting…and given the audience.”

A crop of Democrats already appear to be eyeing the subsequent presidential contest, including New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, and Virginia Senator Mark Warner; a sitting Vice President would utterly change the circumstances in a race that is, in any event, too far off to imagine, and whose contours depend most of all on whether Obama wins re-election.

Because of his age and his health history (Biden suffered a brain anyuerism in 1988 and nearly died) many had assumed that Biden would follow Dick Cheney and decline to run for his parties nomination, and he may well end up doing that. If he runs, though, depending on the reputation of the Obama/Biden Administration at that point, he’d arguably crowd up much of the rest of a prospective Democratic field. He’d be old, but not much older than Reagan was when in ran in 1980, or John McCain was in 2008.

President Biden? Stay tuned I guess.

So was Biden nodding off, or was he engaged in deep mediation about fiscal policy? You decide

But, apparently, the Vice-President didn’t think that this speech was a Big Effing Deal.

H/T: Taegan Goddard

Scott Powers, the Florida Sun-Sentinel reporter who’s reported confinement in what was described as a closet during a fundraising event attended by Vice-President Biden, seems to be a bit surprised that he ended up at the center of a cause celebre:

I was kidnapped.

That was news to me.

My paper and I conspired to cover this up, to protect Vice President Joe Biden and his staff from charges they had imprisoned me at a fundraiser last week.

That was news to me too.

In fact, a lot of details circulating through the blogosphere — and into some mainstream media — about my coverage of Biden’s fundraising visit to a Winter Park home last Wednesday were news to me.

Here’s what Powers said actually happened:

Here’s what happened. I showed up at the private home of developer, philanthropist and political contributor Alan Ginsburg Wednesday morning to file a pool report on the visit there by Biden and U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Orlando. When I arrived I was told I would not be able to speak with any of the people at the party, and that I was to wait in a room until Biden and Nelson arrived. I went in willingly, with the understanding that I was free to leave — but if I left I’d probably have to leave the house entirely, and not get to cover the speeches.

I called it a closet, because it was stuffed with shelves, boxes, baskets and other items in storage, and it felt like a closet. The vice president’s office called it a room used for storage. It had a light, a window somewhere in the back behind the shelves full of boxes, and a few square feet of open space in the front. They set up a small table and a chair for me. They offered me food, which I declined, and brought me a bottle of water. They closed the door.  I sat to wait, mistakenly thinking it would be only a few minutes. The door wasn’t locked, though every time I opened it and stepped out to see what was going on a staffer told me I couldn’t come out yet. He’d let me know.

It was more than an hour, and when I was finally led out, Ginsburg, Nelson and Biden were just getting ready to talk. I listened, recorded the speeches and took notes, then was led back to the little room to wait until they left, about 15 more minutes, before they led me to my car.

While I was in the closet, getting impatient and annoyed, I snapped a picture with my cell phone and e-mailed it to my editor, Bob Shaw, explaining that this is where I was at, and this is why I wouldn’t be filing anything about the party before the speeches. He wrote up an item and posted it, with the picture, on this blog. His post was a bit snarky. He likes snarky. So do I. I thought it was funny. The post and picture also ran in the Orlando Sentinel newspaper the next morning, along with my write-up of Biden’s speech. People told me they thought it was funny.

Then, the story got picked up by the internet, and specifically the Drudge Report, and suddenly Powers was a star and his account of the event didn’t seem to matter to anyone:

Bloggers around the country, it seems, had determined that either we had published a story on-line luridly detailing the alleged kidnapping, then later removed it, or we chose to not write about it at all. Either way, we were shilling for Biden and the Democrats.

So I talked to Joe, and he posted a decent account on Drudge. I thought that would end it, but it only opened flood gates, from other media. Some I talked to, hoping to clarify the matter. But I discovered that whatever I said was irrelevant to other bloggers and posters who concluded that I was spin-controlling, continuing the cover-up. Some called me a liar and worse. But the real vile was naturally aimed at Biden.

I generally agree with James Joyner that this was fairly incompetent staff work on the part of Biden’s people. They should have made better arrangements for any reporters who wanted to cover Biden’s and Nelson’s speeches. However, Powers doesn’t seem all that annoyed by it at this point and is in fact rather frustrated that his efforts to clarify what actually happened were ignored once the story went viral. But that, I suppose, it what happens when one becomes an internet meme.

Four years ago, the Junior Senator from Illinois had this to say about the use of military force:

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Hey, President Obama, doesn’t that statement mean that your own decision to authorize action against Libya is prohibited by Constitution?

I think it does.

H/T: The Pajama Pundit

Even in his own home state, a Vice-President can’t get no respect:

President Obama already has seven schools named after him, but his vice president still has some catching up to do.

Delaware voters may have sent Joe Biden to the Senate six times, but it seems they are not quite ready to name a school after him.

The News Journal (DE) reported yesterday that Brandywine School District officials asked local residents to vote on a name for a new elementary school that is being built on the former site of Hanby Middle School in north Wilmington.

Biden’s name ended up as one of the finalists, but ultimately Delawareans voted to keep the same name. The new school will be Hanby Elementary School.

The News Journal reported that a anonymous campaign popped up online in early January urging Delaware residents to not vote for Biden, saying it was inappropriate to name a public building after an elected official who is still alive.

Insert your own joke here

As the protests rage in Egypt, the United States is walking a tightrope:

In an interview with the Newshour’s Jim Lehrer today, Vice President Biden said he would not refer to Egyptian President Mubarak as a dictator and instead called him an “ally” on a number of key foreign policy issues.

When asked if it was time for Mubarak to stand aside, Biden said no.

“I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that – to be more responsive to some of the – some – some of the needs of the people out there,” Biden said.

Biden said the people protesting are “middle-class folks” who are looking for more opportunity.

“Violence isn’t appropriate and people have a right to protest,” he said, adding that he hopes Mubarak will “respond to some of the legitimate concerns that are being raised.”

“Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with Israel,” the vice president said. “And I think that it would be – I would not refer to him as a dictator.”

Biden stressed repeatedly that when it comes to Egypt and Tunisia, the United States urges all parties to resolve concerns and differences

Video:

Attention will be paid to Biden’s insistence that Mubarak is not a dictator, but the truth is that the U.S. is in a difficult position here. We’ve spent three decades propping up the Mubarak regime, and if he leaves the only alternatives seem to be a military coup or democracy, which could mean a far more Islamist Egypt. Neither one of these options is entirely palatable.

Vice-President Biden said today that a national consensus accepting same-sex marriage is coming:

WASHINGTON — Vice President Joe Biden said Friday that the country is evolving on the issue of gay marriage and he thinks it’s inevitable there will be national consensus.

He said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” the same thing is happening with the issue of marriage that happened with gays’ service in the military.

Changes in attitudes by military leaders, those in the service and the public allowed the repeal by Congress of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that will eventually allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Video:

This comment comes only a few days after President Obama said at an end-year press conference that his own views on the issue were “evolving”:

Just hours after he repealed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military, President Obama acknowledged the discrepancy in his position on supporting gays in the military, while opposing same-sex marriages, and conceded his “feelings are constantly evolving.”

Taking a victory lap at the end of what he called the most “productive post-election period” in decades, the president celebrated the raft of new laws passed
in the final weeks of the year, including the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which today he signed into law.

Asked by ABC News’ Jake Tapper why he believed gay Americans should now be allowed to fight and die for their country but not enter into legally sanctioned
marriages, the president admitted that he struggled with the duality in those positions.

“My feelings are constantly evolving,” Obama told reporters about his position on gay marriage.

“I have friends, I have people who work for me, who are in powerful long-lasting gay or lesbians unions,” he said, acknowledging that same-sex marriage is
“something that means a lot to them.”

“My baseline is a strong civil union that affords them legal protections,” the president said Wednesday, just before leaving for his Christmas vacation in Hawaii. “I recognize from their perspective, it’s not enough.”

This doesn’t represent an official change in position, of course, but things are, as the President said, evolving.