Should Obama replace Biden in 2012 as VP candidate?

[rurallib]

The reason I ask is that Obama cannot run again in 2016. I doubt Biden would run (believe he will have passed 70 in 2012).
So should Obama pick a VP to groom in 2012 or show loyalty to Biden and let the Dems scrap it out in 2016?

Really just curious how people feel. And if not Biden in 2012 then who?

[Skink]

1. with a progressive please.

[stray cat]

4. Are there one or two people that would qualify by DU standards?

and actually not ruin any chance at re-election

[salguine]

28. Why would Obama pick a progressive? He's not even a liberal himself, let alone a progressive.

[Skink]

30. I said that long before the election.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

51. Lemme guess, DK or Thom Hartmann are the two that have your blessing, right? (nt)

[stray cat]

2. With?

[rurallib]

14. you tell me. I am just curious.

The thought popped into my head while doing yard work earlier.
If I were choosing, I know not who as of now. Doubt if I would tap the Senate or house.

[bigwillq]

3. No (nt)

[xultar]

6. I think they want Rachel Maddow. They loved her speech tonight.

[bigwillq]

7. Well, they can write Maddow in then.

I think Obama should stay with Biden.

[gateley]

5. No! Do you think he should? nt

[rurallib]

15. Not sure. I think Biden himself took a run for president off the table

when Obama picked him. Just got me to thinking that some Veeps are auditioning - is that what we'd want?
Obama seems to be fiercely loyal so I doubt this would happen.

[gateley]

39. Joe is fiercely loyal, too (which is why we had to listen to him say good things

about McCain during the primaries - before shredding his platform). I think Biden knew this was it and this is what he's focused on and happy to do. He's worked hard at being #2, a role that doesn't come easily to him, I don't think. I do think he's got Obama's back.

I think Obama would want a proven, trusted VP by his side for a second term.

[rucky]

8. Is there actual talk of this?

why so?

[rurallib]

16. no - just popped into my head. Really.

[Lifelong Protester]

9. I think Joe is more valuable than we might think

or more so than the MSM likes to let us know.

I like Joe. I think he is a good balance to the cerebral, and has a LOT of valuable expertise to lend our president.

[Skink]

11. Health reasons.

enjoy your long deserved retirement Mr.Biden.

[elleng]

10. Please pardon me for this, folks, but

WHAT A F.....G STUPID SUGGESTION!

[rurallib]

18. could you call me a dumb fuck in a more respectful manner.

DU should be about civility.
I would like an apology.
Seriously

[SemiCharmedQuark]

19. Hats of to you there.

That is probably the best response I've seen to a rude post on DU.

"Could you call me a dumb fuck in a more respectful manner.'

[elleng]

22. I apologize.

I apologized going in.

I think its a ridiculous suggestion, and mistakenly used the 'jargon' used by so many here.

[rurallib]

54. OK - but curious - which jargon is that?

I seriously try not to use catch phrases and cliches.
Damn near cost me a promotion once when I refused to speak in the then current business speak because I thought it glossed over issues.

[elleng]

64. The much belabored 'f' word.

PS, I lost a JOB, for the same; Debt is NOT good, and competition IS. (PPS, this was a Fed. Gov. job.)

[WeDidIt]

12. I think I know Barack Obama well enough to know that

he will let Joe Biden decide if Joe Biden remains on the ticket in 2012.

[Me.]

13. You Served Your Purpose Joe So Here's Your Hat And Out With The Garbage?

[rurallib]

20. Certainly not what I meant. FDR had 4 Veeps. Should we condemn him for that?

No I was simply speculating, that is all. Read nothing into it.

[customerserviceguy]

27. It's a reasonable speculation

Biden was added to the ticket to give gravitas to Obama. By 2012, if he doesn't have his own gravitas, it will make no difference who his running mate is that year.

[Arkana]

43. Three, actually.

Garner was VP for the first and second terms, then Henry Wallace for the third, then Harry Truman.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. Hell no. I love Joe. I think he is a good compliment to Obama

He tells it like it is. His so called "gaffes" are the result of him telling the truth.

[rurallib]

21. Lots to like about Joe. The question is grooming a successor.

Were I to speculate on a successor, I might look to the ranks of governors. Maybe a Schweitzer of Montana?

[gateley]

40. I'm a big Schweitzer fan! My only hesitation would be his enthusiasm for

"clean coal". Understandable since his State would benefit, but I'm -- especially now -- convinced we need NEW sources of energy. But other than that, I'd love to see Schweitzer as President in 2016, although I don't think he wants to leave Montana. :shrug:

[depakid]

23. No real need to replace him

Just keep him on a short leash and be wary in advance what he might say in unscripted environs. If there's one thing he likes, it's to hear himself speak- and that's not meant in the past that he's always had his brain engaged.

[customerserviceguy]

24. One of the big reasons

that the Repukes lost in 2008 was that it was a free-for-all, where the Rethug candidates just beat the hell out of each other, until the prisoner of war crawled out from under the wreckage. If Chimpy had replaced Darth Cheney with somebody, things might have turned out differently.

Let's not repeat the GOP mistake.

[karynnj]

56. Bush was in the thirties in popularity

Every Republican ran away from him. Had he picked a new VP, that VP would have been challenged. Consider that Bradley partially ran on Gore being too closely connected to Clinton. Clinton's approval had dropped into the low 40s in the early primaries - nowhere near where Bush was.

I assume that if Obama win in 2012 and replaces Biden immediately, unless the person is already seen as a potential President or has a higher profile than Biden, who has a high profile for a VP, he will be challenged by others seeking to be President. The VP might have gained the gravitas to be the prohibitive favorite. If Obama waits, that likelihood diminishes.

It is hard for me to see the new potential Democratic Presidential nominees. There is always the tendency to look at who is ready right now - and that usually boils down to who has run. Here, all the top 2008 candidates other than Obama are far less likely than they were on January 2008. This thread is implicitly ruling out Biden - of all the first and second tier candidates in 2008, only Clinton has not crashed and burned. Edwards, Richardson and Dodd all had scandals that prevent their ever being reconsidered. If you are talking of grooming a fresh, younger leader, it's hard to see who would be picked.

[customerserviceguy]

73. Being as GWB never picked an heir apparent

we have no idea what would have happened if he had chosen someone to be the instant front-runner for the Rethug nomination in 2008. Yes, that person might have faltered, but by one Repuke candidate having the role of giant-killer, that individual might have emerged from the GOP nomination fight with a strength that McInsane just didn't have. All he did was beat Mittens, who was anathema to the fundies, and that's not saying much.

President Obama's nomination fight, including the extended battle with Hillary through Operation Chaos, built him up for the general election, and made him a stronger candidate. McLame didn't have to go through that experience, he was merely the last Repuke to be voted off the island, and it showed in his weak performance in November.

[CakeGrrl]

25. Why?

Who in recent memory, besides Bush I, had been a VP before becoming President?

[customerserviceguy]

26. If you include the people who ascended to the Presidency

by the death of the sitting President, you have a sizable number. The only one I can think of that used to be a VP then attaining the Presidency without coming to that office without the death of a President is Richard Nixon.

[Dr Morbius]

31. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were VPs.

As was George Herbert Walker Bush. All of them got elected to the top office.

[customerserviceguy]

32. OK, I wouldn't call either Adams or Jefferson

as being within recent memory. Nixon is still remembered by people alive today, you can't really say that about Adams and Jefferson.

[Dr Morbius]

38. I'm sorry. I saw a difference between "...I can think of" and "recent memory."

I don't see what was wrong with my post, but it wasn't intended as an attack.

I am truly sorry to have replied to you and will make every effort in the future to avoid it.

[Ter]

48. The user you replied to replied to another user

Who said "in recent memory." So while you thought you were replying to "can think of", the person you replied to was still thinking "recent memory." There, I just played peacemaker. :)

[customerserviceguy]

52. And magnificently!

People are sometimes really ready to take offense at something that doesn't completely, 100% positively agree with them. I find that I learn more from people I disagree with than from people who pat me on the back.

[Dr Morbius]

67. Would you mind explaining where I went wrong?

And what justifies the current snarkiness?

[customerserviceguy]

70. I did go back and read my post

And yours, as well. I'll admit my mistake in the choice of words I used, they could have been construed to apply to all of US history, whereas I was meaning them to apply to the "recent memory" in the post I was responding to.

I apologize for any snarkiness, I guess I have been beaten up a bit over on the Alvin Greene threads I've posted on (I think Greene is just a fluke, rather than a sinister plot by powerful evil forces) and some of that seeped into my response above.

Can we all be OK with this? Thanks.

[Dr Morbius]

74. I accept. I've been a little testy lately myself.

I saw the "people...sometimes" in the above post and the needle of my personal rage-meter went into the yellow - fairly or not. Moving forward, and thanks!

[Mass]

53. You realize that presidents were not elected the same way in those days.

You did not vote for a ticket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1800

[awoke_in_2003]

65. Adams, Jefferson, and Bush....

"one of these things is not like the others" :)

[karynnj]

57. You missed GHWB

You only get a VP running if a President ops not to run (Johnson/Humphrey) or if the President was in his second term. Since 1950, only Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton had 2 terms. Running as the sitting VP, only one of the three won. Now, a caution here is that it is hard to use statistics and the past on things where there are only three observations. (Going back further is not the answer, too much changed even in the interval since 1950.)

I think the one thing a VP does get is better shot at the Presidential nomination than if he/she were not VP. (Gore is a good example, he ran very very unsuccessfully as the first DLC candidate in 1988 and was second tier at best. Had Clinton picked an older VP as Obama did and Gore remained a Senator, he very likely would never have won the nomination. (He would have been a better President than candidate.)

Nixon winning in 1968 should be considered a bit differently. It was not even a nostalgic "return to Eisenhower times" campaign.

[customerserviceguy]

72. I have to disagree with your last sentence

The tumult of the 1960's was very disturbing to people who had the memory of the white-bread blandness of the Eisenhower Administration years. Richard Nixon ran on a slogan of "Law and Order", which were code words for, "Let's go back to the Nifty Fifties where Americans were all in favor of our wars, there were no hippies, and people of color knew their place."

Nixon voters wanted exactly that when they elected him, even with George Wallace bleeding off the most racist part of the electorate in 1968, there was still enough sentiment among older voters to return to Eisenhower times.

[karynnj]

77. I agree

I was mislead by the fact that there was no talk of Eisenhower, but there was a huge backlash at the "weird 60s".

[Sebastian Doyle]

68. Al Gore, in 2000

The fact that 5 Bush Crime Family appointed assclowns in black robes stole it from him doesn't change the fact that he was elected, as a sitting VP.

[Dr Morbius]

29. 1. Gentleman Joe is an able fellow if the President should become incapacitated.

Or worse. And it would be foolish to assume nothing bad can happen to Barack Obama in the hateful, poisonous climate of America. So that's the first point: should something terrible happen, Joe Biden can do the job.

2. Joe Biden holds Barack Obama from going too far to the right. Or "the center," if ya like. Joe's an honest-to-goodness liberal, and I like that we have someone on the left balancing Obama.

3. Joe Biden has a big mouth, and he sometimes opens it without thinking. But he also has quite a decent brain; Obama may be smarter than Biden but not by a whole lot. Biden is much smarter than most people know. His experience and intelligence are assets.

4. I don't cotton to Presidents, however much I like them, picking out their successors. Grooming them. Look at how it has worked out, historically: maybe Monroe was groomed well as Madison's successor, but William Howard Taft and George H. Bush more than balance him out. The best thing for the Presidency, the Democratic party, and history is for the Democrats to "scrap it out," and allow the person who has the right stuff to emerge. Unless that means a Republican wins, mind you, but the best way to win any election is to field a charismatic candidate. Who appears to have the right stuff.

[customerserviceguy]

33. The Repukes scrapped it out

and we see how that turned out for them the last time around.

As they say in business, the best way to be promoted is to groom a worthy successor, so that you can leave your position knowing that someone competent will succeed you.

Joe's a fine fellow, but the Democratic voters made it clear in Iowa what they thought of him as Presidential timber.

[Hekate]

37. Very well said, Dr M. nt

[jillan]

45. Excellent post Dr M. Not many people understand what an asset Biden is to this administration.

[treestar]

34. No, the reason for picking Biden was his greater experience

IMO Obama cares more about that than worrying about who is POTUS next.

[tekisui]

35. When I read your question I thought you were asking about Obama being the VP.

I was going to ask who you thought should be the Presidential candidate.

[Hekate]

36. Asked and answered before this. Joe stays unless he wants to retire, and I doubt he does. nt

[saltpoint]

41. I like Biden. I hope he's around for as long as possible.

IMO Joe Biden is one of the Great Democrats.

[Arkana]

42. No. Sitting VPs do not do well, traditionally.

Better to have an outsider not connected to the administration, no matter how his Presidency turns out.

[AtomicKitten]

44. No way. Joe B is Pres Obama's wingman. I like the fit. nt

[bornskeptic]

46. Keep Joe.

It's not President Obama's prerogotive to choose a successor. I don't believe that sitting VPs are especially effective candidates anyway.If Biden should decide to quit, I would hope that he would be replaced with someone who would not be a likely 2016 presidential contender.

[NYC Liberal]

47. I thought this was suggesting Obama run for VP in 2012

and Biden run for president.

:rofl:

Sorry but no either way.

[lamp_shade]

49. Keep Joe. If for some reason he can't... then run Michelle.

[Jennicut]

50. Keep Joe. "Grooming" someone else is a headache. There are plenty of potential candidates out there

don't need to be VP first to win. A VP doesn't always win anyway. And I think Joe's advice to Obama is something he enjoys an does not want to get rid of.

[Dr.Phool]

55. I like Joe, but, I'd replace him.

He'll be older than McCain by then.

[onpatrol98]

58. Keep Joe!

:)

[LWolf]

59. McKinney.

:evilgrin:

[AspenRose]

60. stupid dupe

[AspenRose]

61. Joe took this job with the understanding that this would be the pinnacle

of his career.

Obama picked him for his experience, candor (they don't always agree) and loyalty.

He's staying put (as he should).

[WI_DEM]

62. No, Biden has earned his place on the ticket and I want him to run again

Besides, Reagan was elected president at 69--and Joe is much more on top of things than he was.

[TheKentuckian]

63. Seems utterly pointless to me. I'm not a big fan of Obama's appointments

and certainly would be against getting rid of one of the better ones to get Tim Kaine or to bring back Bayh or some such flunky.

[Ikonoklast]

66. Fuck, no.

[ShadowLiberal]

69. I could only see it if Biden was tired of being VP, or if he traded jobs with someone

The only way I can really see it happening is if Biden trades jobs with Hillary Clinton in 2012, since sec of state is probably the most prominent cabinet position of the president, and Hillary herself has admitted while she likes the job she wouldn't want to do it forever because it's a lot of work.

Still, I'm doubtful it'll happen, especially since people in the talk shows say that insiders say that Biden is Obama's closest advisers, and that most of his picks for cabinet positions were on a short list that Biden suggested when Obama asked him and a few others for advise on who to pick. Heck, Biden himself even implied that over a year ago on Meet the Press.

[2Design]

71. joe is the democrat on the ticket - keep him - his gaffe's are great n/t

[cleveramerican]

75. I think his role should be expanded within the administration.

[Balbus]

76. Hell no! It's good to have a VP that people can make fun of again.

He's the stereotypical vice president - A big, goofy doofus. Like the first Bush, Quayle and Gore. Everybody was a afraid of Cheney, so it's good to get back into the routine.