Clinton/Biden 2016!!!
Bonus: Obama as Secretary of State

The Onion series alone would doom him: http://www.theonion.com/channels/joseph-…

Cue the airbrushed photos of an older, hip, Neo-libreal Hillary. A guarantee we will see Neo-cons in the White House next round. Almost as if by design.

Biden is five years older than Hillary, who is probably too old to be an effective president herself. He's also completely made out of straw, and regardless of whether he's too old, he'd be a laughingstock as a candidate. He has no constituency except the extremely old.

That Jason Sudeikis would make a fine president. Have you seen him dance?

PS -- if the Democrats can't come up with someone younger -- someone who's not a Boomer -- they're going to be in trouble. The only thing that will save them is if the Republicans nominate a complete idiot (as is fortunately likely). We need someone who was BORN in the 60s, not someone formed by them. And we also do not need to face the future with faces from the past; the Bush-Clinton duopoly will have been in power for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS in 2016. Surely there are some other families in this country? Or must we relive the battles of the sixties for eternity?

The world will be less entertaining place without Biden in the public eye. I LOVE that the man has absolutely no filter, and says whatever crosses his mind. Remember, he's the guy who ended Giuliani's presidential bid with "Noun, Verb, 9-11". He also probably forced the President to back marriage equality sooner than he might have otherwise when Biden started speaking his mind on the subject. I've actually become quite a fan of Biden's over the last few years and I'd easily back him in a primary over Hillary.

@6, I disagree - Dems will attract younger voters if they nominate Elizabeth Warren.

@6: Our current president was born in 1961.

If it came down to it, I'd rather see Jill Biden as First Lady than Bill Clinton as First Gentleman.

@6: Okay, I can see counting Reagan's two terms as part of the "Bush-Clinton duopoly", but counting Obama doesn't make much sense to me (even w/Clinton as Sec of State). So we've had some respite. But to your point: yes. I never want to see another Bush/Clinton presidency.

Also, we need an end to Yale/Harvard grads...for both POTUS and SCOTUS.

I like Biden's personality (or his public image anyway), but he's a bad presidential candidate (and probably a bad president if he won). He's too old, but unlike Hillary who is also too old, he's a man. She offers something new in terms of her gender, while also being comfortably familiar to the many voters who like that.

Biden on the other hand is a walking embodiment of the past.

The Democrats need someone credible who was born after 1960. No one like that has the profile to get the top slot (except Obama, who can't run again), so they need to get someone like that into the VP slot ASAP. If Clinton wins, it will be at least 2024 until someone of my generation or younger can be the Democratic nominee again, and that person needs to build credibility now. If Clinton runs and loses in 2016, having a VP nominee who can build for a 2020 run would be very helpful.

@13: "except Obama, who can't run again"

I wouldn't be so sure. I wouldn't be surprised if discussions are going on in White House about retaining power after Jan 20, 2017. This is a president who, although does not have absolute power (yet) - is nevertheless corrupted absolutely.

@10, precisely. More of that. Less of the other. I'm a little older than Obama, myself, and there should never be another president older than me.

@12, A Bush was VP during Reagan's terms, and a Clinton is SoS during Obama's second term, so I'm counting only Obama's first term as respite. Probably coincidentally, only Obama's first term was a time of accomplishment.

Little-known fact: right now is the first time in US history with four Ivy League presidents in a row. Many of our supposedly "best" Presidents never went to college or indeed much of any school at all, including Lincoln and Washington.

On the other hand, our three most recent non-Ivy guys have included Reagan and Nixon, hardly advertisements for smaller, less prestigious institutions (the third was Jimmy Carter).

Comparing ages, Biden would be by some distance the oldest president to take office -- and Hillary would be second-oldest, after Reagan (who was visibly not all there by the end of his term). Warren would be third-oldest, after William Henry Harrison (who survived all of a month in office).

The mean age of all presidents at first inauguration is a shade past 55, which would mean someone about Obama's age in 2016. Obama was younger than average. I believe that the physical demands of the office require a younger man or woman compared to the past. Unfortunately, the politics of the day make such a thing extraordinarily difficult. Sadly, most of the people in traditional stepping stones (like governorships) are old -- even Jay Inslee, no one's idea of a great presidential candidate, is going to be 65 in '16.

If age wasn't a factor at all, my pick would be Jerry Brown, who is TEARING IT UP in California, probably the best-governed state in the union in recent years since they broke the back of the GOP (or, the Cal GOP committed suicide, rather). But he's ancient. Deval Patrick is going to be 60, John Hickenlooper 64, Cuomo at 58 and Martin O'Malley at 53 would be people to look at -- or Julian Castro, mayor of San Antonio, who will be only 42! God, how I would love to watch the Republicans lose their shit over a Mexican-American!

@14, you're on crack. Of all the stupid things you've said, this is surely the stupidest. The right-wing echo chamber was once full of talk that Obama was surely going to cancel the 2012 elections, too. You don't want to be one of those people. You don't want to be with the Birthers and Truthers.

But we've got you on record now, which makes it easier to ridicule anything else you've got to say about anything.

Joe's not dumb enough to run. He's off into the sunset in 2016, and he's fine with it.

Fnarf is spot on @4 (as I've argued myself). Warren is NOT going to run. I'd prefer Kirsten Gillebrand as the 1st woman president, but Hillary wants this, and the women of 'Merica want her.

Gillebrand isn't dumb enough to get in the way.

@15 Many good points there. I only want to throw in a quick "Dear sweet raptor Jesus, not Martin O'Malley." I've lived in Maryland most of my life, and O'Malley is one of the most venal, ineffective politicans I've ever come across, a man who came out against marajuana legalization (which would certainly go a very long way towards addressing some of the horrific social ills of the city he was mayor of, Baltimore) solely because he's worried it would hurt his electibility nationally. He badly needs to run, get eliminated early in the primaries, and then be sucked up into some cabinet level position where he can't do too much damage. Secretary of the Interior? Maybe ambassador to Lichenstein? Anything requiring a dynamic, young-ish face and no spine is right up his alley...

@16: Yes, it seems far-fetched, however it is plausible so it is not stupid. On that point, we will have to agree to disagree.

Julian Castro as VP a dynamic Stanford grad!

@11 Bill has already come out and said he prefers First Dude.

@14 LOL

@19 ROFL