Harrop: The bitter Biden story could be just baloney

This, like similar writings, identifies no sources but instead links like mad to pieces in Politico that also name no names.

And Politico insists that Biden still harbors frustration toward party members who didn’t help him hang on.

How does Politico know this? “Three people familiar with Biden’s thinking who are not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations” said so.

This particular Politico piece is headlined, “Biden harbors lingering frustration at Pelosi, Obama, Schumer.”

In it we also read, “A senior White House official, also granted anonymity to describe private conversations, said Biden views Pelosi as ‘ruthless.’ ” The official added, “That’s who she has always been.”

Do you get the impression that this individual doesn’t like Nancy Pelosi?

The reasons could be various. One possible explanation is the “private irritation” that “White House senior aides” expressed over a recent story in The New Yorker in which Pelosi said she was unimpressed with Biden’s 2020 political operation.

Politico tells us that some unnamed Democrats “privately muse” that Pelosi worked behind the scenes to have Biden step aside.

Oddly, that was after she went on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and side-stepped a question as to whether she still supported Biden for a second term. “Morning Joe” isn’t exactly where you go to hide thoughts.

So much anonymity. So much privacy.

What a nice deal for palace intriguers, the best of all worlds, really. They get their annoyance with Pelosi or others made public while hiding their identities under a veil of secrecy, thus preserving their employability, even by some of the politicians they malign.

The Daily Beast concludes that Biden can talk all he wants about unity at the convention, “but if he skips key speeches by Obama and Harris in the subsequent days, then questions will continue to be asked about just how unified the Democratic Party really is after a historically turbulent summer.”

Chances are Biden won’t skip those speeches. He’ll watch them on TV the way the rest of America will.

Then he’ll go back to pressing business in the Oval Office.

The man’s got things to do, for instance, managing America’s role in two major wars.

If political writers are going to go psychological on us, the least they could do is reveal who are the “high administration officials” whispering the president’s inner thoughts in their ears.

From such information, the public might be able to guess possible motives for saying what they’re saying.

Who knows? The motives might even be honorable.

We’ll assume the journalists here are not making up the quotes. But we know that’s been done, and by not naming the source, there’s no one to complain, “I never said that.”

One thing we can be sure of is that “questions will continue to be asked” in the passive tense about politicians’ true feelings. And the questions will be asked by who-the-heck knows who.