Is Biden thinking of getting in because of Hillary's emails?

[NightWatcher]

I know it's been reported that his son asked him to run, but with the news that Warren was talking with him, even though she supports Hillary, are they making a backup plan in the event that Email server gate becomes too heavy a millstone around Hillary's neck?

[onehandle]

1. No. The email thing is a non-issue.

Only the bored press, the far right, and the 'Not Hillary' Party cares about the email thing.

Also, like evidence of Hillary's 'wrongdoing,' there is no evidence that Biden is even thinking about this.

[HFRN]

3. then why han't it gone away?

why does it keep going 'drip drip drip'?

[blm]

7. Why do YOU think the corpmedia is running so wild with the GOP's narrative?

.

[HFRN]

11. how do I know who's narrative it is?

sometimes, news is news

if Fox news says it's partly cloudy, is 'partly cloudy' now a right wing observation?

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Can you tell me then where exactly is the FBI on this?

and the IGs of a few alphabet soups?

This is not about a media narrative anymore. It stopped being such the moment DOJ and the IGs got involved.

Of course the easy answer is they are partisans and want to sink Clinton too. That would be at least consistent. They are on their own timeline. This is not going away... and it will dog her, fairly or not, until at least the end of 2016, if you look at a calendar that is actually AFTER the General Election.

Those people are on their own timeline separate from any political calendar.

[HFRN]

14. because the FBI is an arm of Fox news

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. And the IG directly reports to the Koch brothers

don't forget that

I will continue to report on those issues, (NOT HERE), but this is something that will dog her.

[HFRN]

17. 'but this is something that will dog her'

did you just give out some kind of 'dog whistle'?

LOL

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Well, I could do a tweet too... would be more adequate since this house has birds

not dogs.

[blm]

30. Nice comeback, Pots.

Now, try offering a thoughtful, considered view.

[HFRN]

33. already have nt

[blm]

35. For you, perhaps that IS the best you can do.

.

[HFRN]

53. no, it's all anyone need do nt

[libdem4life]

20. Right on my train of thought. And yes, it's likely unfair, but she has always presented a target,

like it or not.

[blm]

25. 'fairly or not' is Cokie's Law.

I don't 'do' Cokie's Law because it is NOT ethical journalism.

Your mileage may vary. I wasn't expecting that 'standard' from you, though.

I don't even LIKE Clinton, but, Digby has it exactly right here…..and Digby is a longtime, pinpoint straight-shooter.

Anatomy of a Hillary Clinton pseudo-scandal: How Republicans and their media lackeys are trying to manufacture her downfall

This past weekend, we got a very good look at how Clinton's enemies are trying to destroy her

HEATHER DIGBY PARTON

Many years ago when political blogging was in its infancy, I coined the phrase “Cokie’s Law,” which referred to a specific comment by pundit Cokie Roberts about the Lewinsky scandal that illustrated the precise way the beltway media excused their propensity for cheap gossip and scandalmongering. In discussing whether or not Hillary Clinton had actually blamed her husband’s childhood for his philandering, Roberts said:

“At this point it doesn’t much matter whether she said it or not because it’s become part of the culture. I was at the beauty parlor yesterday and this was all anyone was talking about.”


Cokie’s Law is the axiom that says the press can pass judgement about anything once it’s “out there” regardless of whether or not what’s “out there” is true. This allows them to skip doing boring rebuttals of the facts at hand and instead hold forth at length about how it bears on the subject’s “judgement” and the “appearance” of wrongdoing without ever proving that what they did was wrong.

You see, if the person being discussed were “competent,” it wouldn’t be “out there” in the first place, so even if it is based upon entirely specious speculation, it’s his or her own fault for inspiring people to speculate so speciously. It all goes back to their “character,” which nobody is more equipped to analyze and dissect than celebrity political reporters and pundits.
>>>>>

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/24/anatomy_of_a_hillary_clinton_pseudo_scandal_how_republicans_and_their_media_lackeys_are_trying_to_manufacture_her_downfall/

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Aha, but this is not cookie's law, whatever that is

is the DOJ involved? YES. Is the FBI as part of DOJ involved? YES

Were there a few IG reports from a few alphabet soups, YES

Those are facts. So where exactly do they fall? If all this is just a partisan game, what is the role of multiple government agencies here? Obviously they are in this for partisan reasons. Don't expect you to answer because you can't. You just proved it.

[blm]

37. Sorry to disappoint you, but, what they are doing isn't directed

at Clinton the way corpmedia wants public to think. And your 'fairly or not' statement is EXACTLY the same standard of journalistic integrity that Digby observed when she coined 'Cokie's Law'.

And here is more from Eichenwald. Not all liberals and liberal journos are willing to pretend that corpmedia is suddenly acting honorably and fairly on this particular incident, just because we prefer a more liberal candidate (Sanders, in my case) win the nomination.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emailgate-312784

>>>>
In what has to be one of the most snide journalistic defenses in a long time, Margaret Sullivan, the Times public editor, calls detractors of the piece as just Hilary supporters and dismisses most of the criticism by helpfully linking to the 2009 Federal Register, which lists an exceptionally technical series of regulations relating to the use and preservation of emails. She even cites a place to look, section 1236.22b. With all those numbers and letters, and the information coming out of a document as dull as the Federal Register, the story must be true, right?

Well, no. In fact, the very rule that Sullivan cites contradicts the primary point of the Times story. For everyone except the two people who actually followed the link Sullivan posted, here is what the section actually says:

"Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

Catch the problem? The regulation itself, through its opening words, “specifically designates that employees of certain agencies are allowed to use non-federal email systems.” And one of those agencies just happened to be…drumroll please.… The State Department. In other words, not only was the use of a personal email account not a violation of the rules, it was specifically allowed by the rules.

That’s why, after many, many paragraphs of huffing and puffing about how terrible it is that Clinton used a personal email account, the Times article goes on to mention that Secretary of State Colin Powell did the same thing. And, just a tidbit—so did every other Secretary of State up until the current one, John Kerry. Why? Because the rules changed in 2014, after Clinton left office, and now it’s required to use a federal system. If Kerry used a personal account, he would be violating a regulation. Clinton did not.
>>>>>>>

BTW, nadin - you and I go way too far back to resort to any personal challenges or animus. You should also know by now that I am a longtime advocate for ACCURACY, especially from the media.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. They were not involved in a few earlier probes either and then they were

and I am not talking of the Clintons. Knowing history is helpful. When state agencies get involved it stops being partisan. Sorry to disappoint you. I will REPORT on the facts of this, alas not here. Hyper partisans are allergic to facts, and that happens to be on BOTH sides.


But the moment they got involved, this stopped just being a partisan witch hunt. And her negatives continue to rise. This will continue to dog her for the rest of the campaign and beyond, assuming she gets to the General Current trends make me doubt very much that she will be the candidate the Dems end up with in the primary. And you know what? I am getting 2008 flashbacks, serious flashbacks.

But I deal with facts, not wishful thinking. I prefer to live in reality.

[blm]

44. Your trust in corpmedia's depiction of the 'scandal' and the investigation is absurd, especially

since the the 'investigation' isn't of Clinton wrongdoing, but, the overall classification process. You and the corporate media (which I would normally describe as an unlikely pairing) aren't choosing accuracy and, instead, are furthering the narrative employed by the GOP propagandists.

'Fairly or not'………LOL…...since WHEN has this been your standard? Not the nadin I have known and loved for so long.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Well since I do first hand reporting and I spent a few lovely days

Last edited Mon Aug 24, 2015, 03:25 PM - Edit history (1)

actually reading the first batch of emails released, you got me there indeed. By the way, you could too. They are available still.

I do trust the media so much that I look at first hand info whenever possible, free clue, that is not the media. In this case it is the fracking emails themselves. They live in a hard drive sitting right now by the side of my computer.

So take that wherever you want to. As I said, I REPORT ON THIS SHIT... just NOT HERE.

And the facts so far are:

1.- She used a private server where she commingled work and private emails

2.- Server was stored at a facility with no clearance whatsoever... whether it was one or two is truly academic, since there were no clearances to handle the material.

3..- She did distribute these email (some of which had information that was born classified, such as a message from her british counterpart, with a private person NOT cleared to read any of this crap, that would be Sidney Blumenthal. That is not a media narrative. His email address and name is all over those emails. Yup, all over them.

4.- The DOJ and a few other alphabet soups are NOW INVOLVED... that is a fact Jack.

And as others have mentioned already...

5.- This is so much a non issue that it's been dead for over a year. Now I guess it is a zombie scandal, Where is the wizard keeping it alive? BRRRRAAAAAIIIIIINNNNNNSSSSS.

And for somebody who is telling me that I am trusting the corpomedia you are using that same corpomedia to try to debunk these facts, some of which are all over the fracking emais themselves You sure understand my confusion at this point right?

[blm]

47. LOL - Sorry, I know you too well to be impressed by this….

I don't see it as one of your best efforts.

; )

Digby and Eichenwald are now the same as Wolf Blitzer and Chuck Todd, eh? LOLOLOL

I'll bet Digby will get a kick out of that when she reads it, nadin….and you know she will. ; )

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Go ahead, trust coporate media that tells you what you want to hear

Predictable.

As to your mild personal attack, it is what it is... expected and predictable

But please, go debunk the United States Department document cache.


https://foia.state.gov/Search/results.aspx?searchText=*&beginDate=&endDate=&publishedBeginDate=20150630&publishedEndDate=20150630&caseNumber=

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. and while at it

debunk Blumenthals role in this

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-benghazi-emails-documents-full-119627.html

They have images of the emails there... I would not ever dream to give you a link to MY REPORTING on this. EVER. That is not fit for a hyper partisan site. I could go on with more images, but the Observer and Guardian (as well as some US Media) have extensive reporting on that matter.

[blm]

50. LOL - now Digby and Eichenwald are politico. You make references to crimes, yet don't

pinpoint them, just as no other journo has been willing to do, though that doesn't stop ANY OF THEM from writing their pieces with the implication that Clinton committed serious crimes with these emails.

Investigations into the process are being slanted to imply that Clinton is personally being criminally investigated by the agencies.

I am really just surprised at your insistence on carrying corpmedia's water on ONLY this issue, nadin. I always expect better from you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. The emails are there

the emails you will not bother reading because they might be troublesome

You are beyond predictable now.

Go ahead read the fucking emails. Debunk the fucking primary sources

And yes Digby is wrong

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. And please by all means, debunk The Guardian while at it

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/01/sidney-blumenthal-bill-hillary-clinton-adviser-emails

I really want to see this

[blm]

55. Still searching for the 'crime', nadin? You seem to be certain it exists - name the crime you

are so certain Clinton has occurred. That's all. Name it. What are FBI and DoJ going after Clinton for specifically with their investigation into the process?

BTW:
The Iran nuclear deal might not get through Congress because the corpmedia has been depicting it "fairly or not" as Obama giving Iran everything they wanted.

and

Planned Parenthood is in danger of losing funding state by state because 'fairly or not' the corpmedia has been depicting the RW sting videos as accurate portrayals of the fetal tissue acquisition process.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. The crime is all over the PRIMARY SOURCES

she distributed material to a person NOT CLEARED to handle it. The other issue from the IG reports is the distribution of classified data over non classified systems.

Whether this will rise to a prosecution or not is still a question, but not one I would take lightly.

And nice distraction, predictable, by throwing a whole non related issue.

I call that a failure to debunk, so we will try to change the subject now.

[blm]

58. Whatev - I think you're grasping for anything in the HOPE that

it will find something.

I can think of truly monumental reasons why Clintons should be held to highest scrutiny along with the Bushes - but, this email molehill sure isn't the mountain.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. I will repeat myself

I have seen these things happen in real time. No prosecutor shows their hand this early in the process. If there is one, we will find out when they unseal it... not a second before.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. And the NYT also has those emails

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/us/politics/a-closer-look-at-hillary-clintons-emails-on-benghazi.html?_r=0

Go ahead and debunk. You might want to read the fracking emails at this point. And here is a screen cap of the United States Department of State

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--K7tjhRy5--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18i3heihvl73sjpg.jpg

And look at this

WASHINGTON — Emails that a longtime confidant to Hillary Rodham Clinton recently handed over to the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, raise new questions about whether the State Department and Mrs. Clinton have complied with a series of requests from the panel.

The emails, provided by Sidney Blumenthal, a close adviser to Mrs. Clinton, include information about weapons that were circulating in Libya and about the security situation in Benghazi in the year and a half before the attacks. The committee has asked the State Department and Mrs. Clinton several times in the past year for emails from her and other department officials about “weapons located or found in” Libya and about the decision to open and maintain a diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/us/politics/sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clintons-confidant-turns-over-memos-on-libya.html

Pleas have your favorite bloggers debunk this.

All your personal attacks on me, will not change the facts... or the fact that this stopped just being a witch hunt when alphabet soups got involved.

[blm]

57. nadin, I am not attacking you personally - Just surprised that you aligned yourself with corpmedia

narrative on this story.

Plus, you have yet to say specifically what crime Clinton is guilty of - just as none of the corpmedia' journos you're feverishly linking to have been able to do.

And your 'fairly or not' comment is something I found to be beneath you. And I think you're getting all worked up because you know that comment IS beneath you, too.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Ok slowly now. I READ THE FRACKING EMAIL RELEASE

that is what is in the FRACKING EMAILS. And yes, you are attacking me. I am begging you to your job as a citizen and read the damn fracking emails. Don't take anybody's word., READ THEM. Fair warning, some are boring procedural as hell, but READ THEM.

We live in an era where you too can do that. You do not need to rely on reporters going to dank dark spaces called archives. And after seeing a few non issues become actual prosecutions... I do not say it will not happen... stranger things have happened. But free clue... prosecutors rarely reveal their intentions very early in any investigation.

[blm]

62. Still nothing there to claim a crime. Perhaps you can compare the contents to what

Powell and Rice turned over. Ooooops…..but, we can't. And those corpmedia hacks who are implying crimes, yet can't pinpoint the crime, are certainly proving to have powers of persuasion with you that they just don't have with me.

BTW - The emails were read when they came out. Stop assuming you are the only one who would bother.

Remember me? Ms. BCCI Report ring a bell? Come on. ; ) You really want to yell at me for not agreeing with the corpmedia just because YOU are finding agreement with them?

Ciao, kiddo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Nice distraction.. predictable

YYYAAAWWWWNNNNN

[Puzzledtraveller]

26. Wishful thinking.

The admin knows the severity of what she faces.

[blm]

34. Perhaps you can pinpoint what concerns you better than that?

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emailgate-312784

In what has to be one of the most snide journalistic defenses in a long time, Margaret Sullivan, the Times public editor, calls detractors of the piece as just Hilary supporters and dismisses most of the criticism by helpfully linking to the 2009 Federal Register, which lists an exceptionally technical series of regulations relating to the use and preservation of emails. She even cites a place to look, section 1236.22b. With all those numbers and letters, and the information coming out of a document as dull as the Federal Register, the story must be true, right?

Well, no. In fact, the very rule that Sullivan cites contradicts the primary point of the Times story. For everyone except the two people who actually followed the link Sullivan posted, here is what the section actually says:

"Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

Catch the problem? The regulation itself, through its opening words, “specifically designates that employees of certain agencies are allowed to use non-federal email systems.” And one of those agencies just happened to be…drumroll please.… The State Department. In other words, not only was the use of a personal email account not a violation of the rules, it was specifically allowed by the rules.

That’s why, after many, many paragraphs of huffing and puffing about how terrible it is that Clinton used a personal email account, the Times article goes on to mention that Secretary of State Colin Powell did the same thing. And, just a tidbit—so did every other Secretary of State up until the current one, John Kerry. Why? Because the rules changed in 2014, after Clinton left office, and now it’s required to use a federal system. If Kerry used a personal account, he would be violating a regulation. Clinton did not.
>>>>>

Sure wish people would keep their facts straight and out of propagandaland so I (a really longtime Clinton critic) can rest easier knowing that not ALL of DU is carrying water for the GOP's professional propaganda media.

; )

[Motown_Johnny]

42. Why are you running wild with Clinton's narrative?

[blm]

45. I'm not. I also don't change my view of the corpmedia's complicity with the GOP just because

it would hurt a Democrat lawmaker/candidate I don't support. Just because I dislike Clinton doesn't mean I am willing to overlook the utter BS being manufactured by professional RW propagandists.

What's YOUR motivation?

[Motown_Johnny]

67. I want the strongest candidate we can have.

Hillary is a terrible candidate who is running a terrible campaign. If we nominate her, we risk her collapsing in the GE. The email scandal is self inflicted. Everything that is happening now is because of what she herself choose to do.

The right wing attack machine has been planning on her being the nominee for years. With her trustworthy numbers being below ~40% (depending on which poll you are looking at) she is unable to defend herself from their lies. Even when she tells the truth, people won't believe her.

I think Bernie is a much stronger GE candidate who is much less likely to implode. His trustworthy numbers are right side up no matter what poll you look at. He will be able to defend himself against their lies much more effectively than Hillary.

Also, he is to the left of Hillary on most everything that they don't agree on. This is a big plus for me also.

[blm]

68. When we tell the truth about Planned Parenthood videos 'people won't believe' because

Last edited Mon Aug 24, 2015, 07:38 PM - Edit history (1)

corpmedia ran with the GOP's narrative. Really….look at the polls.

When we tell the truth about Iran nuclear deal 'people won't believe' because corpmedia already drove those poll numbers way down, too, by running with the GOP's narrative. Really….look at the polls now.

You may find solace in thinking that corpmedia will be unable to refocus and tear down Sanders with a GOP narrative, but I am certain they WILL adjust. Some believed Dean couldn't be torn down. Some believed Kerry couldn't be torn down. See…when we go along with letting corpmedia frighten us then we've already lost. I say we FIGHT the lies and not stop fighting the lies, no matter who our primary votes goes to.

I refuse to let lies win - As much as I supported Kerry in 2003-4, I steadfastly refused to join in the teardown of Dean by corpmedia that was based in false issues. I researched governance and discarded the rhetoric being popularized. Some Dean supporters here refused to to join in the media teardown of Kerry by corpmedia.

You want to run with corpmedia's breathlessly overthetop 'reporting' even when it's manufactured outrage, that's your prerogative, isn't it?

[L0oniX]

12. It's not about the email server anymore. It's about how she has handled it.

[jonno99]

18. +1 yep - and it simply makes sense that Biden would start "warming up" - in case HRC's

campaign stumbles & falls. He would fill the ensuing vacuum - providing a popular "main stream" dem.

If the email thing blows over, I think Biden will simply coast into a well deserved retirement...

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. Why do people always neglect to mention the FBI?

[blm]

28. Loves ya, cheroprog, but, that isn't really directed AT her….

From Digby:

"….First of all, the issue does depend on what the definition of classified is. If that’s what the American people are thinking, then bravo, because the fact is that none of the emails that have been flagged were classified when she handled them. Various departments are looking at them now and reportedly deciding that maybe they should have been. That’s really it, as far as the “classified documents” issue is concerned, and the press shouldn’t be dismissive of that fact."

And I still can't believe that ME, one of HRC's longtime critics here at DU, is even in the position of defending the facts regarding this issue.

But……. I know media in its propaganda mode when I see it.

[Motown_Johnny]

40. Clinton's spin master says "nothing to see here" so that is that?

Did you notice the NBC news quote? He did not deny that the server was wiped. He just confirmed that they did wipe the server.

This looks bad. Why wipe the server if there is nothing there to incriminate her or someone working for her?

Only people with extremely low standards for Hillary Clinton think this is a non-issue. The emails should never have been deleted and the server should have never been wiped. If they wanted to unplug it and store it then that would have been fine.

Besides that, the response has been terrible. Not wanting to carry two phones took eight days to dream up and was total nonsense. She now claims that this started because she asked for her emails to be released when the story broke before she did that. She also claims that if she had used separate emails for work and personal that this would still be happening. That isn't true either. If she had kept them separate then there would never have been any reason to delete information from the work email account/server.

At the very least, deleting 30,000+ emails without any oversight appears improper. She is running for President. The appearance of impropriety is enough to have it looked into. We all need higher standards for our candidates than what is being expressed here.

[frylock]

43. It's been a non-issue for going on half a year now..

despite predictions of it being a non-issue.

[demwing]

2. That's the external reason

the internal reason is because they're scared shirtless about Bernie. The whole "Biden talks to Warren" biz is so obvious...

[NorthCarolina]

4. The establishment is likely losing confidence in Clinton's 'electability'

and are searching for an alternative that can carry their banner to the finish line. IMO, doesn't matter who they throw in, Bernie will continue to rise in the polls despite whoever they tag as their *new and improved* champion.

[Puzzledtraveller]

27. You got it right.

They may also know that what she faces is serious, serious enough that they can't afford to put all the proverbial eggs in one basket. It is this admins agencies that are doing the investigating.

[NorthCarolina]

59. That's a likely part of it,

but I think on an even more simplistic level the establishment can see that none of their candidates in the field, especially the GOP half, are making much of a stir; hence the trial balloons they've been raising over the past couple weeks on the Dem side. It is pretty obvious that they are very afraid of a President Sanders, and if Hillary proves to be ineffectual in beating him down in spite of being granted favored media status and huge sums of campaign cash, you can bet they'll dump her faster than you can say 'Jack Robinson'.

[LettuceSea]

5. I think so

It also comes down to the blue collar vote, and how they perceive the email stuff.

It's a bit of a bubble on this site, so I would take the responses here with a grain of salt.

[ericson00]

6. she could also be meeting with him to discuss a potential shutdown about Planned Parenthood

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. It is not just the emaiils, but that is one reason

[HappyPlace]

9. Warren has not endorsed clinton

She merely said she hopes she runs.

Huge difference.

[L0oniX]

10. I wouldn't have a problem voting for Bidden if Bernie loses the primary.

I can't say the same for ...you know who.

[NightWatcher]

16. Hilary's negatives are already at 50%.

Maybe the party insiders are making backup plans in the event that the "inevitable" candidate isn't able to skate into office, when half the country dislikes her from the very beginning.

It's a shame they won't put their support behind Bernie, and feel they have to go find someone to represent the party leadership.

[Metric System]

19. Even though Biden's Senate record is to the right of Hillary's?

[LettuceSea]

22. Does HRC pass the "want to have a beer with" test?

Unfair and simple minded? perhaps. But that's important to a large group of voters, especially those in PA, OH, MI, FL. We can't forget where our votes come from.

[sadoldgirl]

21. I think that the e-mails are just part of it,

the establishment does not want Bernie to succeed.

HRC's poll numbers are declining, while Bernie's
are going up. They remember what happened in
2008, and this time they will try to avoid a loss
to an outsider, because his policies threaten to
shake up the "party".

[arcane1]

29. "she supports Hillary"?

[RiverLover]

32. Wow, really. +1

I thought people here were more politically astute than this.

I'm literally laughing out loud about this one.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. If he is thinking of running, it's because of her vulnerabilities, email being but one.

[WI_DEM]

38. My feeling is that he has been VP for 8 years and he probably

feels that like most sitting VP's he is interested in running. Given that his opponents (the two major ones anyway) are roughly the same age as he is that the age issue won't be as big a deal as it could be. And yes, maybe he does preceive that the inevitability of HRC is not as strong as it once was.

[totodeinhere]

41. Joe Biden has already run for president three times. It seems that once you are bitten by that bug

you are smitten forever. I have thought for a long time that if Biden thinks he has a realistic chance he will jump in the race. I don't think it's the email non scandal so much but rather the big enthusiastic crowds that Bernie is drawing. It's lack of an enthusiasm factor for Clinton that is telling Joe that perhaps he has an opening.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. I suspect party nabobs are watching HRC's performance and getting nervous.

Yeah, the email thing is a part of it. Or to be more precise, the piss-poor way she's handled it, trying to turn it into snapchat jokes and simply shrugging like it's going to go away.

John Kerry did a lot of shrugging and ignoring, when they started to swiftboat him. It was a bad tactical move.

That said, I have no great desire to see Biden as the nominee. As far as I'm concerned he would need to do a great deal of explaining on many things, not the least of which is his history as a major architect of the failed drug war.

[Mike Nelson]

65. Joe should be releasing statements telling people to calm down about the fake email ado...

...and run for more positive reasons, if he so desires.

[tularetom]

66. Hillary has proven to be somewhat of a dud

Whoever "they" are, they have to be looking for a Plan B. It's not just the email issues, she just does not inspire much excitement.

I'm not sure however that Biden is the answer. He has his own share of baggage, including the plagiarism thing, the Clarence Thomas thing, the Iraq war vote, and his long time support of usurious credit card practices.

The fact that he's not Clinton is a plus, but I doubt its enough, unless Warren endorses him.