Shocking if true

From The Hill today:

For Harris, there was more flexibility to define her brand of change.

She could risk looking hypocritical by making clean breaks with Biden on policies she had supported as vice president, rejecting parts of their record to forge her own agenda. She could identify new issues to run on that avoided the pitfalls of turning her back on the Biden era. Or she could rely on voters to see her gender, her genes, and her “lived experience” — a middle-class upbringing, schools outside the Ivy League, and a career as a prosecutor — as symbols of change.

Biden and his loyalists took the first option off the table.

. . .

But the day of the debate Biden called to give Harris an unusual kind of pep talk — and another reminder about the loyalty he demanded. No longer able to defend his own record, he expected Harris to protect his legacy.

Whether she won or lost the election, he thought, she would only harm him by publicly distancing herself from him — especially during a debate that would be watched by millions of Americans. To the extent that she wanted to forge her own path, Biden had no interest in giving her room to do so. He needed just three words to convey how much all of that mattered to him.

“No daylight, kid,” Biden said.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was true, but it’s still hard to believe Biden could be that self-centered.  And foolish enough to think that his historical reputation would turn in any meaningful sense on Harris’ campaign rhetoric, rather than on the substance of his work as President, and whether Harris managed to beat Trump.  It will be interesting to see if this account gets corroborated.

But my first reaction to this piece was that it would have been so easy for Harris to separate herself from Biden in a perfectly respectful way – which she had every incentive to do.  She could have said something to the effect of “I’m very proud of our accomplishments.  At the same time, there are things we have tried that did not work as well as I wanted, and areas where my views have changed, and in those places I think we need to try a new approach.”