Speaking today from the Rose Garden at the White House, Vice President Joe Biden officially announced he will pass on a 2016 presidential campaign, instead focusing on his remaining days serving President Obama. The statement was made with his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, and President Obama in attendance standing behind him.

Here is video of Biden’s announcement:

Report from CBS News:

Vice President Joe Biden is decided to forgo a 2016 presidential bid, sources close to Biden tell CBS News’ Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett.

The decision ends months of speculation about whether Biden would step up to challenge Hillary Clinton, the current front runner for the Democratic nomination and his former Obama administration colleague.

The vice president took his time to consider whether he and his family had the “emotional energy” to endure another campaign, following the tragic death over the summer of his 46-year-old son Beau. While his fellow Democrats gave him his space, pressure mounted for Biden to come to a decision as Democratic voters, party operatives and deep-pocketed donors considered which candidate to line up behind.

Biden was also running up against logistical deadlines: The first filing deadline for appearing on a 2016 primary ballot is November 6 in Alabama. Additionally, the Democratic primary debates are already underway; CBS News hosts the next Democratic debate on November 14 in Iowa.

I wasn’t sure whether to make the image associated with this post one of Hillary Clinton smiling, or of Joe Biden speaking, though I chose the latter. This all-but clears the path for a Clinton nomination, nearly guaranteed by Biden’s decision not to run, and by Bernie Sanders’ defense of Hillary at the first debate.

To wait this long meant the Vice President had some serious reservations about whether he was willing to go all-in for a 2016 campaign. He could have announced months ago but clearly he was waiting until the last possible minute, perhaps to see if Hillary Clinton would stumble in some way which would practically force him into the race.

The Democratic nomination will now enter a difference phase as the lineup is set and the current candidates, only four remaining, will duke it out a few more times on the debate stage before primary voting begins in February.

20 COMMENTS

    • I read that article, and it said that republicans believe that Clinton COULD be elected President in the general election, not WOULD be.

          • But it does make a difference in this context. The article, used the word “could”, to talk about possibilities in the future. If the author used “would”, they would have been implying, that was going to happen. While similar, they are different, for if someone were to say Hillary “could” win, they can still believe that Republican can win, but if they used “would”, they would not believe the Republican will win. This is why the article does not say Hillary will win according to Republicans if nominated.

            Anyway Goethe, what makes you think she stands no chance in the general?

            • Anyone “COULD” win. YOU “could” win.

              She can’t win because she’s incapable of connecting with real people, or having a natural reaction to anything. She’s strident and as obnoxious as Fiorina.

              Carly was the flavor of the month, and the party will do everything it can to keep her and Carson in the race, but in the end, none of them can win.

            • No, I am too young to run, so there is no way for me to have a chance at winning. While true, if you go by the old adage that anything is possible, anyone could win, but when someone is asked that question, they think within reason. At the moment, she is leading Trump, Rubio, and Cruz in head to head match-ups (Bush, Fiorina, and Carson are leading her), so a Republican voter can say she could win, rather than she would win in a general at this moment (This is based off of RCP).

              I think she has a better shot than you are giving her credit for (note I am not a Hillary supporter). She has the name recognition of a president that is/was widely liked, she is a woman (which is something that appeals to “progressives”), she is not a religious fundamentalist.

  1. I got that one wrong!

    Never considered that dullard Biden (who’s IQ is smaller than the size of his shoe) is after all just another professional politician — meaning, a creature that has risen far in politics by strictly having animalistic cunning!

    My take now:

    Biden never intended to run, just used his animal cunning to threaten Hillary, until she made a deal with him (and now Biden is happily riding off into the sunset, thinking Hillary will give him Sec of State, or other such High Reward Job — for Biden’s no-show)!

    • While it’s true that Biden never “intended” to run, it’s not because of “animal cunning.” It’s because he wasn’t interested. The party was forcing him to step up in case Hillary collapsed in the first debate, but she didn’t, so he got a chance to beg off.

      If there were a conspiracy, it would have been to get him INTO the race to make it look as if the Dems had viable candidates. Then, he would have spent all his time defending Obama, allowing Hillary to seem independent.

      • Beyond a reasonable doubt, do you mean? Or just a preponderance of evidence? Is hearsay allowed? Does the evidence have to be in print and notarized? Do we need three sources?

        Dude. Everything in politics is speculation.

          • I never claimed to be stating a “fact.” Again, everything in politics is speculation. I was speculating.

            “Hillary” speculated that Biden only backed off a run because he made a backroom deal with Hillary. I don’t believe that. He was never a threat to Hillary, so why would she offer him anything?

            The gist of my speculation is that it would be a good thing for Hillary if he DID run, because he could defend the administration and allow Hillary to let him fight those battles.

            • It’s not Hillary… it is *Hillary for Prison 2016* — use my proper handle, if you want to elicit another response from me.

              One time only response (until you get my handle right):

              So much empty fodder in your post — equals nothing in politics (it is not The Market)!

              Verifiable Proof…? Are you this far gone to expect scumbag politicians to disclose what deals they make behind closed doors…?!

              Proof…? — how about that both Hillary and Biden are below the scumbag level of humanity, and are actual slugs that crawl and leave a poisonous slimy trail wherever they go….

            • My apologizes, I did not feel like writing out your full name, but will now Hillary for Prison 2016. Of course I do not expect politicians to disclose full details of what they do behind closed doors. However, information does have the possibility of leaking out (whether by a third party or someone connected to those involved). While I am not a fan of them either, that does not mean they are connected.

            • True. But, also true can be that there was a backdoor deal — based on logic of how such scum operate. (Example: it was always denied as just a “rumor” that the NSA spies on all Americans…and did not become fact till Snowden had to escape our messed-up country to make it public knowledge).

              p.s. the Goethe Bore character was, is, and will always remain the laughing stock on this forum — his constant fence-sitting comments are usually non-sequiturs.

              You may enjoy this article (about time!):
              *House Republicans move to impeach IRS chief*

              http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-republicans-move-to-impeach-irs-chief/ar-BBmuNGn?li=AAa0dzB

            • I am not against speculation just so everyone is clear (I am “guilty” of doing it as well). As the section I posted showed, it is quite useful in getting investigations started. I was genuinely curious if you had any information other than what is commonly known.

              Also thanks for the link.

Comments are closed.