Hunter Biden

As far as one can see from what (little) has been reported, Joe Biden did not act in any official capacity as vice president that would have benefited his son, who was appointed to the board of a Ukrainian oil company while his father was in office.  But the "there's nothing to see here" defense is insufficient.

To the layperson, Hunter Biden's lucrative appointment to Barisma's board had nothing to do with his knowledge or experience, and everything to do with his being the son of the sitting vice president. Just a Trump can't use as a defence "Ukraine got their aid and the phone call so nothing's  wrong here", neither can Joe Biden claim that just because he didn't do anything that would have benefitted Hunter that's OK too. Family and friends who have access to powerful people often try to leverage that access for personal gain; and there is no other word for that but "corrupt". Not calling it out is precisely what (thinking) people mean by the swamp of political influence in DC, namely the acceptance of bought and paid for influence.   

Biden's defense would be far stronger had he not dismissed the concerns his aids expressed to him at the time. That in hindsight was poor judgement. Simply asserting that it wasn't his decision to make wasn't good enough; he should have gone on record as disapproving of his son's choice to take up the offer. That may be hard for a father of a troubled son to do, but it would have been the right call.

The Democrats are wrong not to call him on this; yes, he may be their best bet to oust Trump next year, but by pretending the issue will go away - Trump won't let it - they are both deluding themselves and displaying the same double standard as the GOP. They rail against nepotism in Trump's white house yet are silent when it's in their own camp. That makes them look both corrupt and hypocritical to boot. 

Biden needs to get out ahead of this by making clear that even if at the time he didn't think it was an issue, in today's context he wouldn't have made the same choice. But that's a weak defense given that at the time he was advised against letting his some take the position which makes it clear that it's not that times have changed. Better would be to own it; to admit that he let his love for his son cloud his judgment; and that he won't let that happen again.

Of course that's a risk since admitting to poor judgement isn't going to help his election chances either in the primary or the general election. Letting it slide, on the other hand, may help him to the top of the ticket, but will compromise his chances of reaching the White House. 

Whatever Biden Snr. decides, everyone should be clear that when family members take positions that can only reasonably be attributed to their proximity and access to power, at the very minimum, holders of public office, elected or otherwise, need to go on record and state clearly that they will erect a Chinese wall between them. That may not be sufficient to drain the swamp, but a necessary starting point is stating publicly that buying access to power isn't right. And that applies to both sides of the aisle.