"He’s gone from saying, ‘Kamala can’t win,’ to ‘Do you think Kamala can win?' It’s still unclear where he’s going to land but seems to be listening."

Says "one senior Democratic adviser," quoted in "Biden now being ‘receptive’ about possibility of giving up 2024 re-election campaign: new report" (NY Post).

He's got Covid, so maybe that makes him vulnerable. And, yes, I've seen the articles about the dream of making him look strong — like Trump jumping up after getting shot — when/if he recovers from his new bout with the famous virus, e.g., "MSNBC’s Joy Reid compares ‘elderly’ Biden’s potential COVID recovery to Trump dodging an assassination attempt."

And let me add that I look at the polls every day, and I'm seeing Joe consistently outperform Kamala Harris. That must tighten Joe's grip. But you need to visualize the next 3 1/2 months, with both scenarios. Joe has difficulty campaigning. He's quite weak. Those who are polled have easily seen that. But they have not seen Kamala Harris as the presidential candidate. They have to imagine it. If Biden withdraws, and Harris becomes the candidate, and we see her speaking and fighting every day, will the polls show greater support for her? There's very little reason to think so. And that's why Joe isn't just a selfish bastard to hang on.

ADDED: I see Matthew Yglesias is writing "The VP is clearly the stronger candidate/The case for Kamala Harris, from a former hater."

I do exactly this — get up at 3 a.m. Eastern Time — and I do it from the Central Time zone.

The other upside to moving to Ireland is that I think the time zone would be good — could start working at 3AM eastern time and have a crackling hot take on the news in your inbox by 9 eastern. https://t.co/iNogjL06S0 pic.twitter.com/wCbEgnTvih

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) November 27, 2022

Matt Yglesias is thinking of becoming a Hydrogen Guy.

Want to set some gas on fire without releasing carbon dioxide into the air?

Friends, let me tell you about the H2 molecules.

Don’t know what to do with your surplus production of intermittent solar power?

Try running current through some water and see what happens. pic.twitter.com/6Litj5Xxpu

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) November 22, 2022

Cute pic will fend off the inevitable naysayers, maybe.

"The bottom line is that they were elected on a mandate to get the nation out of the mess in Iraq."

Do you believe that? Or is that an interpretation concocted after the election? And if it's true, isn't it apparent that the Democrats, despite winning the majority in both houses of Congress, really won't be able to do much of anything about Iraq?

The quote above is from Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, and the linked article recounts the Democrats' struggle to figure out what to propose now that they have the majority. One idea, pushed by Senator Kennedy, is to attempt to block funds for a troop increase, but it looks as if the key question is not whether to pass such legislation but whether it's in the Democrats' partisan interest to have that be openly debated at all.

(By the way, Matthew Yglesias and I talk about this subject in the last segment of the new BloggingHeads.)

Suggestions?

I'm doing a BloggingheadsTV with Matthew Yglesias tomorrow. Any suggestions about what we should talk about? And then there's the podcast... what should I be digressing about today?