SOS: The End Of The Line For Hillary?

Ezra Klein thinks so:

Presuming that Hillary Clinton will remain one of, if not the, central actors in Democratic life from the year 2000 to the year 2016 displays a certain poverty of imagination about the path of Democratic politics. With every passing day, her singular political position erodes. In 2004, she would have won the nomination in a walk. By 2008, there was a new politician who better tapped into that particular moment in the party's life. By 2016, there will be many politicians like that, most of whose names we don't know. It's very hard to imagine that eight years in the future, the party will want to move back to Clinton. Indeed, if Obama fails in governance and loses in 2012, there will be a new politician articulating a theory of relevance to that failure, and that moment. If he succeeds, then the party will look to a more logical successor -- not his predecessor.

This is very faulty analysis. I'll explain why on the flip.

One thing for sure, Ezra is not suffering from a poverty of imagination in this post. The entire post seems a figment of his imagination to me.

Hillary Clinton first won elective office in 2000. Could she have won the nomination in 2004? Maybe. In 2008, she lost by a whisker to a pol who is now considered one of the greatest ever. Right now, other than Obama, Clinton is the best and most important politician in the country.

Barack Obama will dominate American politics for at least 4 years and likely and hopefully 8. Will a new dominant Democratic figure emerge in those years? Here's a question - did one emerge during the Clinton years? Hardly. A dominant REPUBLICAN figure will emerge of course as the out party will be the one where the jockeying goes on.

I think the complete opposite of Ezra - If Hillary wants to be the Dem nominee in 2016, she will be the Dem nominee in 2016. Only one person theoretically could possibly challenge her - Joe Biden. I believe it would be impossible.

Here's the thing, by joining the Obama team as SOS, Hillary actually covers her one potential weakness for 2016 - being perceived as not part of the Obama Democratic Party. Unless Obama is Jimmy Carter, that seems to me to seal the deal.

Will Hillary run in 2016? Who knows? Would she win the Presidency in 2016? Who can possibly know? But there can be no doubt that she would be almost unbeatable for the Dem nomination in 2016. Let's check back in 8 years and see who was right.

by Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Lieberman Gets A Pass >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Mebbe (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:34:34 AM EST
    Mebbe not.

    But if Obama bombs, the Dem nomination won;t be worth a warm bucket of spit anyway.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:36:05 AM EST
    I certainly do not think (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:49:09 AM EST
    that Hillary would have "won the nomination in a walk" in 2004.  Perhaps I lived through a different version of history than Ezra did.

    I'm amazed at people who think it's so easy to predict the shape of politics eight years in the future.  But you know, what ought to really matter is whether we can enact progressive policies and get the country moving in the right direction.  Hillary Clinton will certainly be a key figure in all that, but her personal fortunes are a means to the end, not an end in themselves.  If the country ends up in the right place, I couldn't care less who gets us there.

    I'm predicting (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:54:28 AM EST
    I think it is a sound prediction.

    Your analysis is myopic (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Belswyn on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:50:15 AM EST
    It's too early to call 2016 for Hillary. There are many possible scenarios in which strong challengers emerge. Here's one: Biden bows out of the ticket in 2012, and Obama chooses another VP candidate - Jim Webb or Sebelius, for example - then wins re-election and does well. Now you have a strong challenger.

    Or..... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by trillian on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:52:37 AM EST
    Biden bows out and he chooses Hillary ;)

    Yes indeed (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:24:20 AM EST
    VPs are always dropped.

    I'm myopic? Sheesh.

    though FDR did it all the time. could it be Obama as FDR in all facets?


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:40:29 AM EST
    Well, FDR dumped Garner after his first two terms after Garner ran against him for the nomination in 1940.  We're not likely to see that scenario repeat itself.

    Dumping Wallace in 1944 was pretty much attributable to a combination of Wallace's nuttiness and FDR's health, another sui generis situation.

    Then again, you have to go back to FDR's era to find one party holding the Presidency for 16 years, so who knows.  It's anybody's guess how long the nascent Democratic era will last before they screw it up.


    The 2nd most important D (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:55:15 AM EST
    in the Obama years will not be a figure within the Adsministration, but one who pushes him. That'd likely be Feingold.

    From your keyboard (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:59:52 AM EST
    I announce my support for Feingold for President in 2016 right now whatever Clinton does.

    So, giving Hillary the most high profile (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:05:42 AM EST
    cabinet position is going to kill her political career. Now there is some escapable logic!

    Once upon a time (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:11:14 AM EST
    being a Senator was thought to be a near-total dead-end as far as aspiring to the Presidency.

    Now, apparently, being Senator-for-Life is the one and only way to get there!


    No, longtime Senators don't win (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:55:14 AM EST
    but new Senators with no record in the Senate do.

    Yep, the old lady (none / 0) (#25)
    by nemo52 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:09:53 AM EST
    might as well just lie down and fade away, now.  (As if Eleanor Roosevelt had no life after First Lady!)

    Ezra is a comedian (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by blogtopus on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:10:20 AM EST
    Adding another dire prediction of Hillary's political demise, this time in the form of 'oh, she's all played out after THIS job'.

    Hillary won't stop until it's impossible to go on. That's just who she is. If anyone thinks that her performance in the primaries this year points towards a dead end, they are in for a ruuuuude awakening, similar to those who didn't think she'd even be able to get a job as a dogcatcher in Obama's America.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by LogopolisMike on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:30:27 AM EST
    Even though she ended up losing, if anybody came away from the primaries with any picture of Hillary Clinton other than "unstoppable amazing machine not unlike the T-1000 in <em>Terminator 2: Judgment Day</em>", they were obviously watching a different race than I was.

    (Please don't take this as an insult; I actually mean it exactly the opposite.)

    Hillary Clinton  is done when she decides she's done -- and not a moment sooner.

    Her willingness to consider a job that others see as a dead end and ties her to what seen by many as Obama's weakness is only proof of this. Foreign policy will not be nearly the problem for Obama that others tried to paint it out as and anybody would be wise to be a part of that winning team, especially if they want to do right by America, which, despite what various folks in each of their camps might believe, both Obama and Senator Clinton do.

    I really wanted her to stay in the Senate and become a powerhouse there, and I didn't want her as VP because I worried what damage she could do to the independent vote nationwide, but now that the possibility of she and Obama working together is becoming more and more of a real possibility, I feel like I'm drinking the SPIKED Kool-aid when I imagine the good they could do.  I just hope there's not any BS in the CGI that could screw it up.


    Implicit in Ezra's reasoning is the (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:16:18 AM EST
    assumption that Obama will have an unsuccessful foreign policy---otherwise Hillary would be basking in the glory of this and that diplomatic success, burnishing her reputation and positioning herself for a run in 2016.

    Hillary Has Future If She Wants It (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by joegandelman on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:24:29 AM EST
    Analyses are fun to read, to be sure, and Ezra is one of my favorites. But the reality is: if Hillary wants a future she can still have one. As I've said on my own blog, other countries had LONG had leaders who are into their 60s...and many of these countries have had women in their top post and it is no big deal like it is here in the United States. If a candidate has good ideas, charisma, runs an affirmative campaign he/she can attract younger voters. Strip away what some people may wish from their personal standpoint and you get this: she HAS a future if she wants to go out and campaign for the nomination...and all of the conventional wisdom that has been worth about 1 cent (or less) this year will surface then. But she has the intelligence and energy and know how. If she can put it together, she has a future. The other question is: she was not innovative enough this year when she faced obama, in terms of how he used the Internet. She will need to have people around her who are on the cutting edge of whatever the technology is when and if she decides to run. In reality, Hillary Clinton will benefit if a lot of people count her out -- lowered expectations. But world political history shows many cases of people in their 60s (even late 60s and in India's case even older than that) doing quite well in campaigns IF they had ideas and energy and organization and were smarter than the other guys/gals.

    Hey Joe (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:25:26 AM EST
    Loved your post last night.

    Linked to it here.


    Other countries (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:58:17 AM EST
    do not have a term for "teenagers," according to the Dictionary of American Slang.  Tells us something about the worship of youth here -- and the disrespect of the gracefully aging.

    (And no, one is not aging gracefully if one gets hair transplants and teeth-whitening and eye tucks.:-)


    And your opinion of "highlights"? (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:17:17 AM EST
    Ezra, Ezra, Ezra.... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by oldpro on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:44:28 AM EST
    Do you imagine that candidates grow on trees?  Good ones, much less extraordinary ones?  At the national level?

    Ezra is young and hopeful - as the young should be - and doesn't know enough history yet to balance his enthusiasm for tossing aside the 'old and experienced.'

    It's OK though.  He's bright and time and events  will inform him if he retains an inquisitive mind and gains some distance from conventional wisdom.

    You're right (none / 0) (#59)
    by in the future there is only war on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:31:00 PM EST
    Ezra's just not fully aware of the complexities of our world, not like you and me. Great candidates appearing out of nowhere? HA! You have to work at it for years.

    Obama's been in the Senate for 16 years now, and he barely won. It took Clinton 10 years on the national stage before he could challenge the likes of Jerry Brown. And Reagan, well, he had to work for almost 25 years before he completely dominated the Republican party.

    No, that young boy just doesn't get it. There will be no new exciting candidates in either party over the next 4 or 8 years. Old pros like you and me understand that.


    I'm going to have to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by OldCity on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:00:07 PM EST
    per usual.

    Bill clinton was not known on the national stage when he declared, ran and won.  He was the governor of one of the (if not the) most poverty stricken states in the country.  And yet, he became a transformative figure.  

    So, any idea that some young, energetic person couldn't take the stage away from HRC, just as happened this year, is myopic in the extreme.  

    In 2016, HRC will have been an American national political presence for 25 years.  She will be 70 years old, or so.  If Obama is successful at injecting any kind of dynamism into governance, she stands a better chance of being a respected party elder than she does of becoming the nominee.  

    Her loss closed the door for her on the Presidency.  If she wasn't given this opportunity, she was going to be the junior senator from New York...she wasn't going to challenge for leadership.  I'm not saying that she wouldn't be high profile, but anyone who thinks that the Senate would give up such a lengthy tradition of respecting seniority to accommodate her is delusional.    


    Wide open race in 92 (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:05:43 PM EST
    And there had been (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Landulph on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:49:38 PM EST
    no Dem President for TWELVE years, remember--a whole generation in politics. And thus a wide open field in terms of PR, media, etc. How many prominent Republican pols emerged under Reagan? None, because he was THE Republican. Look, for the next 4 years (at least) Prez Obama will be THE Democrat. If Clinton chooses to be SOS, she will be a close second (former First Lady and tied for nomination, in addition to holding the most prestigious and high-profile cabinet post). Add in Veep Biden, and there just won't be that much oxygen in the room for anyone else on this side of the aisle. The only consideration (and it's a big one IMO) regarding '16 is age. She'll be 69 (IIRC) then.

    SOS is such a dead end (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 05:37:33 PM EST
    that, by virtue of her performance in that job,  even Condoleeza Rice is seriously considered as a presidential contender - complete with video from her former job of "ahhh, I believe that was called 'Osama determined to strike in US'".

    Clinton would have a permanent microphone for at least the next 4 years, plus be partially sheltered under the Obama teflon blanket. It is a much better spot than the Senate from which to run in the future.

    Ezra wrote some good things (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by hairspray on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:34:43 PM EST
    about health care fixes early on in the American Prospect. He seemed to like all of the plans that Hillary had although he didn't use her name.  Then suddenly he began to "worry" about Hillary and all the things she was doing wrong. He drank the koolaide and I think this story is his trying to trash her again, but more gently now.  Anyone with half a brain has learned that Hillary is a powerhouse, intelligent, hardworking and well prepared. People who didn't like her before have come to respect her especially since they see she could have won the nomination and the GE given a different set of superdelegates.  So some like Ezra have to tread more carefully especially if Hillary gets SOS.

    So when HRC said (none / 0) (#1)
    by smott on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:31:56 AM EST
    the chances of her running again were close to zero, she was just keep cards close to the vest?...

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:33:59 AM EST
    What she says now does not matter.

    Let's talk after 2012.


    For sure (none / 0) (#9)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:48:18 AM EST

    IMO, if Hil wants a shot at 2016 she should do one term as SOS, and then do a governorship for four years.

    Funny how that's required of Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:01:47 AM EST
    when it wasn't required of Obama....

    Not required (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:07:01 AM EST
    Obviously since she ran this time on the "experience" meme.

    But it doesn't hurt to stay in the limelight.


    I did not say it is required (none / 0) (#58)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:26:23 PM EST

    A record of governance is a good thing to have for any presidential hopeful.

    She Said The Same Thing (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:36:04 AM EST
    About running this time, a ways back.

    "Close to zero"... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    ... is not really a phrase to put much stock in from a politician.

    I think if Hillary was certain she'd never run for President again, she'd be settling in for an exteneded stay in the Senate. Taking a role on Obama's team will likely make her the most prominent member of that team (other than Obama himself), and in 2016 she still would not be too old (unlike Biden, who'll be 74 then) to run again.

    What will be true by 2016 is that her role in the Bill Clinton administration won't be much help on her resume, as an increasing percentage of the voters won't personally remember the Clinton years. And she's already been in the Senate long enough that staying on there wouldn't help her much. Secretary of State would allow her to be seen actively doing things, and as long as the Obama team is successful, that would have to help her.


    I hope Ezra is right (none / 0) (#7)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:36:59 AM EST
    It would be wonderful to have a new and exciting leaders in the democratic party.  Now I don't think there needs to be a diminishing of the current or old guard to get there.  

    The Center for American progress giving new ideas along with people like Emanunel and Schumer finding great talent gives me hope that we can find new, exciting and hopefully even better crop of political talent to lead the democratic party.   I also hope that with the importance of political blogs we will see even more people interested in politics, which will lead to more people running for office.  

    It seems that the two sides of this debate are those that defend the old guard vs. new is better.  The answer, like almost everything else is in the middle.

    2016 is 8 years away. This statment that Hillary (none / 0) (#12)
    by Blowback on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:51:47 AM EST
    will be the nominee in 2016 if she wants it, is just so far off, pure, pure speculation, no basis in fact (politics, facts? political science???)

    8 years ago who knew the name "Obama"?

    "But there can be no doubt that she would be almost unbeatable for the Dem nomination in 2016. Let's check back in 8 years and see who was right."

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:53:40 AM EST
    Of course it is speculation. Is this comment a joke?

    I predict that in 8 years, blogging (none / 0) (#31)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:17:18 AM EST
    will be a relic of the past, and no one will remember BTD's name, or Ezra's.

    BTD's name for sure (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:23:21 AM EST
    Ezra is head to the top - he will be on MTP regularly.

    Oh, I dunno (none / 0) (#47)
    by wystler on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    Once I get that big DC gig, I hope to offer you a chief counsel gig, BTD. The sky's the limit baby.

    (Don't hold yer breath though)


    Who will be reading Ezra Klein in 2016? (none / 0) (#19)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:03:41 AM EST
    Or in 2010, for that matter.

    Time magazine subscribers (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:04:34 AM EST
    Ezra is a comer.

    Great, just what our discourse needs--- (none / 0) (#22)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:06:49 AM EST
    pundits for life, who start at 18 or 19, and never have to actually think after that.

    He's pretty smart (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:08:30 AM EST

    I'll agree to that, but my view is that (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    becoming a pundit is generally the end of wisdom---very few people survive the transition from active intellectual life to punditry with their critical thinking abilities intact. Krugman is the only example I can think of. Josh Marshall is an excellent example of the failure.

    Your take on punditry... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by LogopolisMike on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:21:27 AM EST
    is one I agree with when it comes to "old media" and the "older generations" -- that is to say everyone around my age (34) and older... which is not old at all btw :)  But Ezra, M Yglesias, and many of the other youngsters who seem like they may very well be pundits for life so far, at least, seem to be bright and willing to challenge their own ideas as well as others.  This may just be a function of their youth and this may go away as they get older.  Or it may be a function of how they came into the business.  Either way, even when I disagree with the "kids", which is often, I feel the future is in good hands... certainly better hands than they found it in.

    Really? I don't really see (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by dk on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    how Ezra and Matt's "analysis" of the campaign this year was substantively different than that of Andy Sullivan or Tim Russert.  Sure, they are a little wonkier at times, but that will dissipate as they move up the punditry chain.

    One of the reasons that Krugman is someone worth listening to when discussing policy is that he, you know, actually is an expert in his field.  Matt and Ezra, as far as I am aware, are amateurs.  Now, I suppose they could just focus on the political races (there really is no actual course of study to become an expert in that, I suppose), but their instincts have been so bad (as BTD pointed out here in the case of Ezra) I'm not sure why they should be trusted.

    All that is not to say that they aren't intelligent.  I just don't really see them applying it.


    I couldn't disagree more: (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:47:19 PM EST
    their political analysis is completely uninteresting. When they speak about specific issues, they sometimes are worth reading.

    When Ezra talks policy (none / 0) (#53)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:51:31 PM EST
    he is pretty darn sharp.  Especially when it comes to health care.

    When it comes to random political prognostication he's as useless as anyone else who engages in that pursuit.  As a reader of blogs, you basically have to be good at sorting the wheat from the chaff.


    Yeah Ezra knows health care (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by smott on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:13:08 PM EST
    ...yet he supported Obama's plan which seemed inferior to CLinton's.

    Well (none / 0) (#57)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:31:23 PM EST
    Ezra wrote, over and over, that Clinton's health-care plan was better than Obama's.  He strongly criticized Obama's "Harry and Louise" ads against Clinton.  I believe he played it pretty straight on this issue.

    Really? I saw him turn rather (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by hairspray on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:43:01 PM EST
    abruptly into an Obama cheerleader over at the American Prospect.  He went after Clinton on the thinest pretext on several ocassions.  I quit the magazine when my subscription ran out. The only writer over there that I thought was pretty even was Robert Kuttner.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:10:24 AM EST
    I couldn't churn out polished writing the way he does every day.

    He produces content that reads well. Now, the value of that content. . . it's variable.


    in 2008? (none / 0) (#42)
    by wystler on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:04:16 PM EST
    I think the complete opposite of Ezra - If Hillary wants to be the Dem nominee in 2016, she will be the Dem nominee in 2016. Only one person theoretically could possibly challenge her
    - Joe Biden. I believe it would be impossible.

    Funny how a few years can change that which one believes possible

    In 1984, did you believe a governor from Arkansas would be nominated and elected in 1992

    In 1962, did anybody believe Dick Nixon would become president in 1968?

    Eight years is a long time. Such crystal-ball gazing befits nobody. Not Ezra Klein. Not BTD. Not me.

    But I think Ezra is closer to truth here. The passage of time will likely create enough political vortices to create a new politican-of-the-age. That's why, constantly, the most important political work now is done at a state/local, from whence the next leaders will emerge.

    So you a crystal ball gazing too then (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:05:17 PM EST
    yeah (none / 0) (#49)
    by wystler on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:13:17 PM EST
    can't help myself

    between the crystal ball and my navel ...


    Did Ezra sleep through the primary? (none / 0) (#46)
    by WS on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:08:06 PM EST
    By the way Ezra writes, you would think Obama won the primary running away.  In 8 years, there will be a lot of pent up demand for a Hillary run from her supporters.  

    And Obama wasn't the only one with undying support.  I remember that delegate lady who was interviewed right after Hillary's convention speech and she was heartbroken that Hillary didn't get the nod this time.  I'm sure she'll be there for a 2016 Hillary run along with many others.  

    Also, there would be sense of urgency because 2016 would be her last shot at the Presidency.  

    Like with Kerry (none / 0) (#48)
    by WS on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:13:10 PM EST
    resumes don't win elections.  Warner's keynote speech was a bit ho hum.  

    And Biden will not just step aside.  If you've watched the guy, he likes campaigning and he likes attention especially TV attention, which the VP position will give him.  The last time a VP was replaced was Spiro Agnew and we know what happened there.  

    perhaps it's become poor precedent (none / 0) (#50)
    by wystler on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:23:03 PM EST
    FDR changed VPs twice

    Though Garner served the first two terms, his characterization of the office ("... not worth a bucket of warm piss ...") suggests that it's possible Joe Biden may choose to pursue other interests after four years.


    Did FDR (none / 0) (#62)
    by WS on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 05:00:50 PM EST
    give Garner things to do?

    The VP is completely dependent on the President allocating them responsibilities.  Both Clinton and Bush II gave their VPs plenty of substantive things to do (Bush more so).  

    I'm sure Obama will give Biden substantive policy areas where he thinks he is needed.  The two seem to genuinely like one another.  


    Obama (none / 0) (#61)
    by WS on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 04:57:09 PM EST
    didn't pick Biden as a prop.  He picked Biden because he thought he would help him govern.  The VP is the pinnacle of his career and he is not about to let that go.  

    I think the only way he will be dropped from the ticket is if there's strained relations with Obama and from the looks of things, both of these men seem to be friends.  

    Biden will be 70 in 2012. Ronald Reagan was virtually (a month away) at that age when he was elected President.  


    I agree that (none / 0) (#68)
    by WS on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:39:14 PM EST
    Biden will probably not run in 2016.  I assume he does want to be VP with Obama for 8 years and I'm sure the President elect will want to avoid drama and keep him on the ticket.  I haven't heard any indication that Obama was displeased him so I don't know why there's even a kick Biden out of the ticket train. Judging by his personality, Biden won't ever tire of being an important part of a White House  Administration.  

    Slow News day I guess. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Radix on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:17:35 PM EST
    Must be, if people have taken into scrying the future and pretending their prognostications have some merit.

    Isn't Biden 66 as we speak? (none / 0) (#64)
    by hairspray on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:22:59 PM EST

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:14:54 AM EST
    and in 2016 he'll be 74.  Biden won't be a candidate.