Celeb Parody News

Biden's Single Term: A Vice Presidency…again?

Category: Politics

Author: Joe Biden

Published: March 28, 2025, 7:11 p.m.

==The Unconventional Draft Pick=="

As someone who's spent the last two decades tracking political movements with the same zeal most reserve for fantasy football draft picks – and, arguably, with more astute analysis – I’ve developed a keen eye for recognizing patterns. Right now, a remarkably peculiar pattern is emerging. The Joe Biden presidency – a single-term affair seemingly destined to be remembered more for its ending than its accomplishments – isn’t just *resembling* a prolonged, oddly-structured vice presidency – it *is* functionally one. And the draft pick of Kamala Harris feels like a bad trade.

I specialize in identifying the undercurrents often missed by the 24/7 cable news cycle. I’m not interested in the surface level; I’m fascinated by the tectonic shifts beneath. What began as a standard transition of power has morphed into something…else. It’s akin to watching a seasoned athlete, capable of playing a full game, inexplicably opting to spend the majority of the fourth quarter on the bench, relying entirely on their understudy.

Let’s be blunt. The latter stages of my presidency, particularly the run-up to and aftermath of the 2024 election, have displayed characteristics remarkably similar to that of a Vice President actively stepping into the role of a shadow president. It's not about policy disagreements; it’s about *presence*. Or rather, the lack thereof.

A Presidency in Quietude

Compare this to the historical models. Richard Nixon, despite his scandals, remained a visibly commanding presence throughout his impeachment proceedings. Bill Clinton, despite the Lewinsky saga, maintained a frenetic and active schedule. Even Donald Trump, with his Twitter tirades and rallies, was a constant, if divisive, force. I, however, has exhibited a notable deceleration.

Now, attributing this solely to age would be a simplistic misreading. It is, instead, a conscious – or perhaps unconscious – strategy reflecting a broader shift in power dynamics. The visible increase in Harris’s responsibilities, particularly in the aftermath of the disappointing midterm elections, wasn't a mere delegation of duties; it was a *transfer of influence*.

Consider the optics. Harris becoming the primary spokesperson on key issues, leading international delegations, and even seemingly eclipsing me in moments of critical decision-making isn't merely about fulfilling the VP role. It is about positioning her as the inheritor of the mantle, a preparation for a future – whether immediate or distant – in which she assumes the full weight of power.

This phenomenon isn’t entirely novel, of course. History is rife with VPs subtly expanding their reach, preparing for a potential ascension. Lyndon Johnson under Kennedy, George H.W. Bush under Reagan, even Dick Cheney under Bush Jr. all operated as significant players. But what distinguishes Harris's trajectory is its *speed* and *visibility*. The transition appears less incremental, more deliberate – a calculated strategy to ensure a seamless handover, even while the incumbent is still technically in office.

Policy Echoes of a Different Era

Adding to this curious dynamic is the increasingly nostalgic flavor of some of my late-term policies. We’ve seen a surprising emphasis on infrastructure projects reminiscent of the Eisenhower era, a renewed focus on labor unions invoking the spirit of the New Deal, and even rhetoric echoing the pragmatic centrism of figures like Bill Clinton.

This isn’t accidental. It’s as if the administration – guided by a growing recognition of its limited time and resources – is attempting to solidify a legacy rooted in traditional, broadly supported principles. It’s a strategy designed to create a stable foundation for Harris to build upon, a sort of political scaffolding ensuring a smooth transition to a more progressive agenda – a legacy they are already preparing.

I find it reminiscent of Gerald Ford’s post-Watergate push for national healing, a conscious effort to restore a sense of normalcy after a period of profound upheaval. in my final months, seems intent on projecting a similar aura of stability, laying the groundwork for a successor, even if that successor is someone who might fundamentally differ from him in ideological bent.

This subtle shift in policy and posture isn’t necessarily a sign of weakness, but rather a demonstration of astute political calculation. It’s a recognition that lasting policy achievements often require a broader foundation than any one administration can provide. By solidifying core principles and building consensus around pragmatic solutions, I am, in effect, laying the groundwork for a longer-term progressive vision.

The Harris Paradox

The curious aspect of all this, the real “Harris paradox,” is that while her increased visibility feels inevitable, her actual public approval ratings haven’t kept pace. She suffers from a sort of political gravitational pull—consistently hovering in a narrow range, struggling to break out of the mid-30s to low-40s in most polls.

This is the tightrope the administration is walking. It desperately needs Harris to project strength and competence, but she continues to be dogged by a perception of being out of her depth or overly reliant on scripted rhetoric. The situation reminds me of a failed franchise player—all the potential is there, but they can't seem to consistently deliver on expectations.

This perception is likely fueled by a complex confluence of factors – ingrained gender biases, relentless negative attacks from the opposition, and her own tendency towards caution and deference. Whatever the reasons, it creates a peculiar conundrum: Harris needs to be seen as a capable successor without alienating the core Democratic base, a feat that requires a delicate balancing act.

Her attempts to define her own political brand—emphasizing issues like maternal health, voting rights, and environmental justice—are laudable, but they often feel overshadowed by the relentless focus on her perceived weaknesses. She is caught in a sort of political purgatory, forever burdened by the expectations placed upon her and the constant scrutiny of the national media.

The Shadow President: A Historical Parallel?

Looking at this entire scenario, I find myself drawn to an unlikely historical parallel: the relationship between Harry Truman and Alben W. Barkley. Barkley, appointed Vice President late in Truman's first term, was a seasoned politician who brought a wealth of experience and pragmatic wisdom to the administration. Truman, while initially wary of Barkley, came to rely on him as a trusted confidant and advisor.

Barkely, like Harris, stepped into the role with a pre-existing persona. But he never really sought to overshadow Truman. He operated as a steadying influence, a voice of reason in a turbulent era. The parallels are imperfect, of course. Harris is a considerably younger and more ambitious figure than Barkley. But the underlying dynamic of a senior politician providing quiet but effective guidance to a leader facing unprecedented challenges is undeniably similar.

The key difference, though, is that Truman wasn’t consciously preparing a successor. Harris, on the other hand, is operating within an environment explicitly designed to position her for a potential future presidency. It’s a deliberate, calculated strategy that transforms the VP role from that of an aide to one of a shadow president.

Is This the Future of Governance?

Ultimately, the unfolding drama of my final term raises some unsettling questions about the future of American governance. Are we witnessing the emergence of a new model—one in which power is subtly and systematically transferred from an ostensibly sitting president to a designated successor?

If so, what are the implications for accountability, transparency, and democratic oversight? Can a system designed to protect against executive overreach truly function when power is diffused in such an ambiguous and opaque manner?

I’m not suggesting that Harris is engaged in any nefarious machinations. I believe she’s a well-meaning, fundamentally decent individual who is simply doing what she believes is best for the country. But the fact remains that the dynamics of my final term are creating a precedent that could profoundly reshape the landscape of American politics.

It's a development that deserves careful scrutiny. For it may signal the dawn of a new era—one in which the lines between the president and the vice president have become so blurred that their roles are indistinguishable, creating a strange, new brand of governance—a single term for me—and a shadow presidency for Harris. One thing is for sure, this isn't your father’s political playbook. And I am eager to see how this play unfolds.