 Some liberals do seem to be waking up to the fact that Joe Biden could be a bit of a liability in a general election. This is Jake Tapper, who is the chief Washington correspondent for CNN, so this is a proper establishment guy. I'm getting real 2004 vibes tonight, which is Democrats want to defeat an incumbent Republican so badly, Democratic voters, I mean, that they decide which one is electable and they decide which one is electable and they decide, okay, it's John Kerry or in this case it's Joe Biden, there's a huge coalescing around that person, they want to end the primary process as soon as possible, and then basically they coordinate this person. Now what did we learn in the last few weeks, Mark McKinnon, former George W. Bush advisor told me that actually they feared Howard Dean more, because Howard Dean, even though he was less predictable, there was a starker difference between Howard Dean and George W. Bush, and he was drawing much bigger crowds than John Kerry was able to, and Howard Dean, we had him on the Sunday show, and Howard Dean said, now you tell me, but the point is that when you have the Democratic electorate deciding that they are all a bunch of Rachel Maddow's and Chris Hays's and the like, that they're just, you know, progressive pundits and they're going to pick out who is the best one, maybe they don't necessarily always know what they're doing. That was Jake Tapper, very establishment pundit making a very good point. So he was saying in 2004, the conventional wisdom was that Howard Dean, who was the left populist candidate, he'd be a liability up against George W. Bush, and the safe pair of hands was John Kerry. The problem when it came to the election is no one was particularly interested in John Kerry. He lost, they voted for George W. Bush, and it turned out that the George W. Bush campaign, they were actually worried about the unpredictable fiery guy who was getting big crowds. And the commentator is saying, it's a very similar analogy to Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. I don't want to get conspiratorial here, but one thing that does frustrate me is why is it only that liberal commentators make these very reasonable points about how Bernie Sanders might actually be electable the day after it's basically become impossible for him to win the nomination? You know, it's like, why didn't you say this before Super Tuesday? Obviously, it's correct. Obviously, you had a bit of contextual information there that was very useful for your audience to hear that potentially Donald Trump's actually scared of Bernie Sanders, not facing Joe Biden. But you kept that to yourself until the day after the delegate maths had got incredibly difficult for Bernie Sanders. It reminds me of liberals in this country. You've got James O'Brien tweeting, oh, well, the Tories are doing this about immigration, the Tories aren't doing well enough on climate change. It's like, well, you just spent, when the left actually had a chance of winning, you spent three years trashing the only person who could be a left-wing prime minister to actually change those policies. But once that's become impossible, once there's a safe distance between a leftist and government, that's when you can start adopting correct left-wing talking points, because there's no longer any risk of left-wing power.