Whispers of doubt about Joe Biden’s political staying power surfaced long before his debate stumble last June. Two prominent Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Jake Sullivan, flagged concerns to Biden’s then-chief of staff, Ron Klain, as early as 2023.
According to CNN, Klain shared with House Oversight Committee staffers that Clinton and Sullivan approached him separately with worries about Biden’s viability. Clinton, in 2023, pointedly told Klain, “The campaign was not succeeding in dealing with the age issue,” while Sullivan, post-debate, noted Biden “was losing support.”
These revelations, drawn from sources familiar with Klain’s testimony, paint a picture of internal unease among top Democrats. While Klain defended Biden’s mental sharpness for the presidency, he admitted to staffers that Biden often mixed up names, seemed forgetful, and appeared visibly drained before the CNN debate.
Clinton’s 2023 remark to Klain wasn’t just a casual observation; it was a direct jab at the campaign’s failure to counter relentless attacks on Biden’s age. Her concern, echoed by a spokesman, centered on the political mishandling of a glaring vulnerability that opponents exploited with ease.
Sullivan’s post-debate comment about waning support, though denied by his representative as a pre-debate discussion, suggests a tipping point after Biden’s faltering performance. It’s hard to ignore that even allies saw the cracks when the public did too.
These early signals from Clinton and Sullivan weren’t isolated gripes but part of a broader undercurrent of worry. Klain’s recounting to the committee shows that Biden’s team faced tough questions internally, long before the public collapse of confidence.
The CNN debate last June became the breaking point, amplifying every doubt Clinton and Sullivan had raised. Biden’s weak showing cemented questions about his mental acuity, ultimately forcing him to step aside for Kamala Harris, who swiftly gained Clinton’s public backing.
Klain’s testimony revealed Biden’s pre-debate state as tired and unwell, a stark contrast to the image of a leader ready for another term. Such admissions fuel the argument that shielding Biden’s struggles only delayed an inevitable reckoning.
The GOP-led House Oversight Committee has since dug deeper, seeking insights from former aides and even Biden’s physician, who dodged questions. Their probe into Biden’s fitness reflects a broader concern: were voters misled about the president’s true capacity?
Recent reports, including the book “Original Sin” by CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’ Alex Thompson, uncover private moments of Biden’s decline in his final two years. Aides, lawmakers, and donors witnessed lapses in memory, incoherence, and a curtailed schedule designed to hide his limitations.
The book’s damning line, “Biden, his family, and his team let their self-interest and fear of another Trump term justify an attempt to put an at times addled old man in the Oval Office for four more years,” cuts deep. It suggests a betrayal of trust, prioritizing power over candor with the American public.
Almost no one spoke out publicly, despite shock at Biden’s diminishing state during his reelection bid. This silence from Democrats raises questions about accountability and whether party loyalty trumped the nation’s need for transparency.
Biden’s story is a cautionary tale about the dangers of ignoring reality for political expediency. When even allies like Clinton and Sullivan saw the writing on the wall, the failure to act sooner speaks volumes about a system more focused on winning than governing.
The scrutiny of Biden’s age and fitness, intensified by the debate and subsequent reports, isn’t just partisan mudslinging; it’s a legitimate demand for clarity. Americans deserve leaders whose capabilities aren’t hidden behind carefully managed appearances or protective silence.
Looking ahead, this episode should push both parties to prioritize truth over optics. If we’re to avoid repeating such a saga, the lesson is clear: no amount of strategy can substitute for a leader’s readiness to serve, and no fear of the opposition justifies deceiving the public.
