Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Pat Leahy and Gov. Dean meet with a local Vermont store manager in 1993 | Rick Russell/ Vermont Standard (source)by Gaius PubliusI've been seeing articles about a Biden bubble, or bulge in interest, as an alternative to Hillary Clinton for a while, and figured they were Biden-driven — the Biden-friendly people in the press helping out a chum. I also figured that the "anyone but Bernie" strain among Democratic insiders was strong; after all, why protect Clinton by having so few debates — with one of them (ready?) scheduled on the Sunday before Christmas?But "Plan B" talk, which I'm now starting to see, is different — it's "anybody but Clinton," or at least "what do we do if she stumbles?"Here's the New York Times on a Democratic "Plan B" (my emphasis, explained below):
Big-Name Plan B’s for Democrats Concerned About Hillary ClintonBy PATRICK HEALYIf Hillary Rodham Clinton’s new apology for her private email server fails to reassure jittery supporters, it could amplify the chatter among some Democrats who have been casting about for a potential white knight to rescue the party from a beleaguered Clinton candidacy.Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Secretary of State John Kerry, Senator Elizabeth Warren [!], former Vice President Al Gore: Each has been discussed among party officials in recent weeks as an alternative to Mrs. Clinton if she does not regain her once-dominant standing in the 2016 presidential field and instead remains mired in the long-running email controversy, with its attendant investigations.On Monday, Mr. Biden, who has spoken publicly of pondering a run, looked very much like a candidate at a Pittsburgh union gathering and Labor Day parade. And some Democrats were intrigued by word that Mr. Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee, had met recently in Nantucket, Mass., with David M. Rubenstein, a billionaire co-founder of the Carlyle Group — and the sort of Washington wise man Mr. Kerry might consult if he were mulling another run. (Friends say he isn’t.)It is not just Mrs. Clinton’s weakness in the polls that has generated talk of other alternatives, but also the strength of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is routinely drawing huge crowds at campaign events. That has been disconcerting to Democratic officials who believe that Mr. Sanders, a socialist, is so liberal that his presence at the top of the party’s ticket in 2016 would be disastrous.“If party leaders see a scenario next winter where Bernie Sanders has a real chance at the Democratic nomination, I think there’s no question that leaders will reach out to Vice President Biden or Secretary of State Kerry or even Gore about entering the primaries,” said Garnet F. Coleman, a Texas state lawmaker and Democratic national committeeman.Even if none of those Democrats were to announce candidacies this fall, some party officials and strategists suggested that Mr. Biden could be laying the groundwork for an 11th-hour rescue mission during the winter primaries if Mrs. Clinton’s campaign began to implode. Similarly, Mr. Kerry’s friends say they believe he would hear out party leaders if Mr. Sanders appeared likely to capture the nomination and they implored Mr. Kerry, who would have to resign as secretary of state, to try to block him. ...
Please read it through. If you do, I'll bet you'll struggle as I did to find real sourcing for the notion of a search for a Plan B candidate, or even solid reasons for the search.What's the Source? About sourcing for this piece, there are several possibilities:▪ Is this just the writer, Patrick Healy, stirring things up? Stranger things have happened in our we-pick-the-winner mainstream press.▪ Is someone whispering in Healy's ear? From later in the piece (my emphasis):
“You have Democrats beginning to panic about the one thing that a lot of them never worried about, which was Clinton’s electability in the general election,” said Robert Shrum, a veteran strategist who was a senior adviser to Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry during their presidential runs.
So Bob Shrum, a Democratic insider, says unnamed (to us) Democrats are "beginning to panic." Is that true? If so, Shrum is the only named source for that. Or consider the Coleman quote above (again, my emphasis):
“If party leaders see a scenario next winter where Bernie Sanders has a real chance at the Democratic nomination, I think there’s no question that leaders will reach out to Vice President Biden or Secretary of State Kerry or even Gore about entering the primaries,” said Garnet F. Coleman, a Texas state lawmaker and Democratic national committeeman.
Which leaders? Only Coleman knows. If the writer knows, he's not telling us. Look above for the phrase "party officials" (second paragraph), also unnamed. Or the phrase "some Democrats" in this sentence, also quoted above:
And some Democrats were intrigued by word that Mr. Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee, had met recently in Nantucket, Mass., with David M. Rubenstein, a billionaire co-founder of the Carlyle Group
Rubenstein is not named as a source, but he could be one. If he is, we're not being told that.▪ If someone is whispering in Healy's ear, is it really "party leaders," or "some party officials and strategists" as mentioned above, or just people close to Biden and others like Shrum floating trial balloons? So that's the source problem. Is this really a revolt within the party, or a fear that Clinton may not be able to win in the general election? Or is this some insiders playing with the press to gain an advantage over other (more Clinton-favorable) insiders? If the former, it would matter, I think.What's the Reason for the "Search"?And second, what's the reason for this reported nervous search? Among those offered are:▪ Fear of a Clinton loss in the general election:
If Hillary Rodham Clinton’s new apology for her private email server fails to reassure jittery supporters, it could amplify the chatter among some Democrats who have been casting about for a potential white knight to rescue the party from a beleaguered Clinton candidacy.
Notice that "rescue the party" implies a general election loss to Republicans. And:
Each has been discussed among party officials in recent weeks as an alternative to Mrs. Clinton if she does not regain her once-dominant standing in the 2016 presidential field and instead remains mired in the long-running email controversy, with its attendant investigations.
Notice also that each of the quotes above, mentioning as they do the "email scandal," could easily be evidence that the writer or the editors behind him are just stirring the anti-Clinton pot. Mentioning (and feeding) the email "controversy" is a tell in stories like these. For the record, I'm a firm believer that independent of the merits of the email server decision, she's also being savagely attacked by both the Republican hate machine and the so-called "liberal" press. The merits of the case are getting mired in the ugly, personal, and often sexist smears. Examples here. Or look in the article itself at Shrum mentioning Clinton's "likability." That, from Shrum and the writer, gets pretty close to the one-step-removed-from-sexist smear codes mentioned in the "examples" link. (Code: Consider Lee Atwater's "You don't say the n-word, so you say 'states' rights'." Now extrapolate from the brutal sexist insults you heard about Clinton, and it's just one step to "not likable.") ▪ Fear of a Sanders win in the primary. Again:
It is not just Mrs. Clinton’s weakness in the polls that has generated talk of other alternatives, but also the strength of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is routinely drawing huge crowds at campaign events. That has been disconcerting to Democratic officials who believe that Mr. Sanders, a socialist, is so liberal that his presence at the top of the party’s ticket in 2016 would be disastrous.
Note that this is fear of Sanders in the primary, not the general. None of these "leaders" wants a Democratic win in the general election if Sanders is the nominee. Note also that all of the pro-Clinton and pro-Sanders material in the article is at the end, where few will read it.Bottom LineThis could be (a) another anti-Clinton smear; (b) news of a real fear among "some" Democratic leaders; (c) a trial balloon floated, mainly, by the Biden brigade, since no one else mentioned as an alternative is expressing any interest; (d) all three.I personally think (a) is true. Also (c). It's (b) that has me concerned. Is something going on among Democratic king-and-queen-makers? If so, it's certainly fear of Sanders, that he could take out the preferred insider candidate.But why the concern about Clinton in the general election? Don't take the stated reason — the email issue — at face value. The same people who are ostensibly worrying about this issue, such as this writer and his "sources," are also exacerbating it. If they wanted to protect her from this issue, they'd be talking it down, not up.That Democratic insiders — not you and me, but power-brokers — are helping make her vulnerable has me intrigued and concerned. What's going on that we don't know about? This looks like a move to move Clinton out and move Biden in, bypassing Sanders entirely, and I'm not sure it's simple "love of Joe" that's driving it. GP