Biden on the left and Clinton on the right, in more ways than one.
Despite the very moving personal reservations beautifully articulated by Joe Biden on last night's Late Show with Stephen Colbert (
a must-watch, really), it appears that Biden confidantes are indicating that a campaign
is more likely than not – something that was thought highly unlikely a month or two ago when Hillary's favorability and horserace numbers were in a much stronger position than they are today.
In contemplating how Biden's entry might impact 2016's primary dynamics, it's worth reviewing how he and Clinton operated together in Obama's first term. While each can plausibly argue that they would represent a continuation of the Obama administration into a "third term", enough has been written at this point to indicate that there is serious daylight between a potential Biden administration and a Clinton one.
I'd encourage everyone to take a look at these three articles, published in 2014 and 2015, that reveal marked differences between the two on foreign policy and diplomacy in particular:
- The Nation: "The Left Ought to Worry About Hillary Clinton, Hawk and Militarist, in 2016"
- Vox: "Biden's the dove and Hillary's the hawk on foreign policy"
- Politico: "Was Biden right?"
We've already seen in the past week strong evidence that Hillary Clinton is pivoting to the right (or the "moderate" "center" per PR-approved language), and intends to strongly differentiate herself from Obama's soft-power war-averse foreign policy. It is increasingly likely she'll be running away from Obama's legacy in some areas, specifically national security.
While Joe Biden was, like Clinton, justifiably criticized in the 2008 primaries for his Iraq War vote, there's considerable evidence that he was the most cautious adviser in Obama's inner circle on the use of force abroad. Perhaps part of this was the fact that he had a highly-decorated son who served in Iraq, and arguably no other candidate can better make the case for the human cost of military engagement. His opinion is largely unimpeachable on this front.
Move past the orange swirl below for some takeaways from the Nation, Vox and Politico articles above.
Some key observations, if we are to trust the memoirs from Gates and Clinton, and Jonathan Allen's book HRC:
- Clinton not only pushed for a significant escalation of the Afghanistan conflict, she advocated for hot wars in both Syria and Libya.
- Biden was dovish and skeptical on the troop surge in Afghanistan and direct military engagement in Libya, and while potentially supportive, was among the more cautious voices on the Bin Laden raid.
- Biden saw no strategic US interest in Libya, was worried about destabilizing an already vulnerable region, and embroiling the US in another Middle East conflict. This was one of the few areas where Biden aligned with Republican Sec of Defense Robert Gates during their overlapping tenures. They were otherwise often in opposing camps.
- Clinton, meanwhile, had an unusually close relationship with Robert Gates, rooted in part in their shared history supporting Goldwater in their youth (adding more meat to the criticisms from the left that the "Goldwater Girl" stuff isn't merely an asterisk on her resume). Gates, meanwhile, thought Biden was wrong about most everything.
- Biden was among the earliest advocates for the Kurds, and Kurdish autonomy, and thought there was little chance that Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds could cohabitate in Iraq without significant realignment and some sense of regional ownership.
- While supporting the Iran deal today, Clinton undercut Obama in the press in early 2014, publicly expressing doubts that Iran was a partner worth trusting in any treaty.
* * *
There's much evidence to ballast the notion that, where Obama has been dovish and conflict-averse in his administration, Biden was a clear influence. We should expect a cautious, internationalist and diplomatic Biden administration.
It's also worth noting that Biden's idea for Iraq in 2006-7, while largely poopooed at the time, has been revealed in retrospect to be arguably the wisest and most informed solution to the region's problems. Many observers today doubt that preexisting state borders can be even be re-established at this point. Biden advised that we redraw the map, and that is precisely what may need to happen.
I recognize that more than half of this community is locked into candidate preferences between Sanders and Clinton at this point, and many are skeptical of a Biden candidacy. I have been strongly skeptical too (as I continued to be toward Clinton and Sanders both). But I am beginning to warm to it a bit.
Biden has the 40 years of foreign policy experience that Sanders lacks, but eight years with the Obama administration suggests he's anything but a warmonger. As a constant fighter for the working and middle classes someone with a solid, if flawed, record in supporting organized labor and social programs, and one of the few Congresscritters who has consistently avoided enriching himself through his political connections, he can be a credible standard-bearer on the income inequality front, even if his Delaware record isn't perfect.
Moreover, where the Obama administration has seen successes in working with Congress on domestic policy (like the ACA), Biden has been instrumental and hands-on in achieving those accomplishments. His deep collegial relationships with heads of Congress stand in sharp relief to Obama and Sanders both, so there's an argument that he might be able to advance progressive legislation through Congress more easily than other candidates.
Biden as a nominee might be challenged by certain GOP match-ups, but others I think he'd do quite well against: Trump, Walker, Cruz, and even Bush. He brings a humanity and a sense of service and sacrifice that others lack. A Trump-Biden match-up might be particularly interesting. Two gaffe-maestros with bad hair, but one with his empathy meter dialed up to 100%, and one with it dialed down to zero. I think enough of America would vote with their hearts in the end.
A Biden candidacy may enrich this primary contest more than we've anticipated.