This article first appeared in Eagle Rising.
After several weeks of dithering, Joe Biden has decided that he had dithered too long to jump into the presidential race. Thus, he will not challenge Her Nibs, Hillary Clinton, for the Democratic nomination.
So what was it that led Biden to decide (an oxymoron, of sorts) not to get in?
Could it have been that "debate victory" for Hillary against four schmoes including her closest competitor, Bernie Sanders, who gave away his best weapon with his now-famous "damn emails" quote?
Could it have been what the press is calling Hillary's victorious performance at the Benghazi hearings, ignoring the revelations of the 600 requests for more security in Libya that never reached her attention and the three communications she had in the 24 hours following the attacks in which she declared it was a terrorist attack that had nothing to do with a video?
Or could it have been Joe's recent statement that he had urged President Obama to go ahead with the raid that killed Usama bin Laden, which contradicted his earlier claim to have advised the president against it?
Given the contradictory statements Biden is prone to make, we may never know the answer.
Speaking of contradictory answers, just after he announced his "decision" not to run, Biden gave an interview to 60 Minutes, in which he contradicted the story put out by Maureen Dowd that his late son Beau had urged him to run just before he (Beau) died. Now Biden says that story is not true. So is Dowd a liar (which wouldn't surprise me)? Or given his decision not to run, is it better for his image to debunk the story? Either way, if the story is not true, why did he let it linger out there for so long? Why only now is he refuting it?
Biden has not done his legacy any good.