You know ...... if Obama and Biden serve a full two terms, we will be right back here again in 2016

[Stinky The Clown]

That is, no incumbent running for the presidency.

Biden will be 74 then .... quite likely too old to be palatable as president.

My own favorite for the veep slot is damned near as old, so even though he is who I wanted, he made no sense from a successorship point of view either.

Not saying this is a good or bad thing .... just that it is what it is.

Ideally, we'd have a ticket to run on now and in the future. Instead, we seem to have two successive tickets where the boss guy is looking to the veep for serious assistance in governing and two veeps too old to succeeed to the top job. At least our top guy isn't a bumbling, ne'er-do-well, lifelong drug addict and perpetual fuck-up, who is incurious, bellicose, and rigid of thought while being weak of mind.

Again ..... not crabbing ..... just saying.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I don't think the VP-successor plan is all that important--there are

always bright stars in the future that can't be seen from the present (like Obama), and there's no guarantee that even if Obama did a kick-ass job, people would necessarily elect his veep (Gore).

[Beregond2]

2. Yes; but really, in the modern world,

how realistic is this dynastic kind of thinking? Things change so quickly and unexpectedly, the leader who might seem right today could seem all wrong in eight years.

[liberalpragmatist]

3. Might be a good thing for us though

First off, a lot of promising Dems are not ready to run on a national ticket yet. In eight years lots of just-elected senators and governors (plus several more elected in 2008 and 2010) will be in a great position to run.

Having a VP with no presidential ambitions could keep things from getting complicated -- no clash of egos and a vice president trying to break out on his/her own.

Lastly, it might make it LIKELIER that Democrats could hold the WH for a third consecutive term (assuming -- and this is a big IF -- that we can win both this year and in '12). Why? Because incumbent vice presidents actually have a relatively difficult time getting elected, even from popular administrations. At the end of two terms, when the presidency is open, people seem to want a change and the out-of-power party often has the advantage for reasons including the fact that their nominee is a new face. The VP is someone people have known for years and isn't as exciting.

By contrast, if the incumbent party nominates someone from outside the administration, they might be a more convincing "new face" in politics, with a better chance of holding the White House.

[Taverner]

4. Look at the numbers - VP's rarely are elected Prez

Especially in our party

[Cleita]

5. If he's in good health, why not?

The thing I would worry about is having another president with Alzheimer's but medicine is making big strides toward treating this in the beginning stages so it doesn't get worse. The fact that his mother is still alive and mentally alert shows he has good genes for longevity and mental sharpness.

[Muttocracy]

6. running for VP is not an 8 year commitment

Obama could pick a younger VP in four years and groom them for 2016. One election at a time.