Round '16: Biden vs. Clinton?

This may be neither here nor there, and in fact it might be nothing but the idlest of thinking, but pondering this -- the early stages of jockeying for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination -- also possesses the appealingly restful attribute of having nothing to do with Max Baucus or merger committees or the beatitude of the number 60 or the apocalypse of 59. Consider it therapeutic.

My own therapeutic pondering was triggered yesterday by two background stories on the advice President Obama is receiving from two principal advisers -- his vice president and secretary of state -- on that one issue of the most durable consequences for this presidential term and the next: Afghanistan.

Both advisers are offering, I would hope, what they genuinely regard as the sounder advice. But one can't help wondering how much of the political beast of ineradicable ambition informs their views, which, on the matter of our national security vis-a-vis Afghanistan, represent a classic square-off between mainline dove-ism and moderate hawkishness.

As you know, in the former corner stands Vice President Joe Biden, who now "mirrors," as the NY Times characterized his foreign-policy position, "America’s slow but steady turn against the war, with just 37 percent supporting more troops in last week’s CBS News poll."

It's true there are seemingly unmovable mountains of excellent and entirely objective reasons for Biden to have joined the popular majority -- as he wearily pointed out to the Times way back in January, "There’s very little governance" in Afghanistan and "there’s significant corruption and the drug trade is humongous" and the situation "has deteriorated significantly"; and by now it's even worse -- yet there may be, as well, a motivating domestic consideration in play.

"Beyond Mr. Biden’s strategic concerns," the Times added, "some who participated in administration deliberations earlier this year said he was keenly aware that the country, and particularly his party’s liberal base, was growing tired of the war and might not accept many more years of extensive American commitment."

Now, it's also true that gauging domestic support for any foreign adventure is an inseparable consideration in purely foreign-policy terms, but, with most politicos, there are congenitally self-interested reasons to boot. Think Iraq, think 2002 through 2008, think Iowa -- all of which burned Biden but good.

Oh, by the way, Biden will be the keynote speaker at Iowa's Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner next month -- "a highly coveted slot for politicians with their eyes on the Oval Office," noted ABC's George Stephanopoulos -- and yes, it's fundraising time for 2010 and all that, but still ...

And when recently asked on "Meet the Press" if he has ruled out another presidential run, Biden said, "No, I won’t. I won’t rule that out. No."

Shifting to Foggy Bottom, we find a divergent but essentially 2002-consistent view. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, allied with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will, observed the Times, "constitute a critical voting bloc" of advice to President Obama on what to do about Afghanistan; "the likely leaders of an argument for a middle ground between a huge influx of soldiers and a narrow focus aimed at killing terrorists from Al Qaeda.... That swing vote would put them at odds with the bare-bones approach still being pushed by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr."

How much is Clinton's advice colored by the prospect of 2016? -- and the accompanying, inescapable urge (despite her owning burning in Iowa) to show the nation that a Democratic woman can be every bit as tough as a Republican man? That's impossible to gauge, probably even for the secretary of state herself. But it's there. You know it is. Because it's only human.

What's less difficult to weigh is our monumental skepticism of Ms. Clinton's answer to a "Today" show question about her possibly enduring presidential yearnings: ''No. No, I mean, this is a great job. It is a 24/7 job, and I'm looking forward to retirement at some point.'' My guess, that point will come immediately after the 2012 election, when she'll suddenly discover a need for some quality family time with Bill, which in the Clinton household invariably means political-strategizing time. The latter isn't a criticism; just an empirical fact.

In short, both presidential advisers-cum-presidential hopefuls, I'm sufficiently convinced, are taking familiar gambles: Biden, with at least some touch of political motivation, is betting that Afghanistan will be another Iraq, while Clinton of course is betting it won't -- and both are aiming long term at different ideological constituencies.

And all that, I'm equally convinced, isn't anything that President Obama, as he weighs their respective advice, doesn't already suspect.