Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Biden is a decent politician who is somewhat gaffe-prone but who enjoys the respect of both sides of the aisle. "

yes, but enthusiasm generating - not so much.

Unfortunately she generates quite a lot of "enthusiasm" on the political right. They feel about her what we feel about Pat Buchanan or Rush Limbaugh.

That's a bug, not a feature. No one who's a far-right "Hillary hater" is going to vote Democratic anyway. So you do what the GOP does: nominate a very polarizing figure who can eke out a victory, thus stoking your base, and demoralizing your opponent's. The key is, you must nominate someone who is electable--barely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Biden is a decent politician who is somewhat gaffe-prone but who enjoys the respect of both sides of the aisle. "

yes, but enthusiasm generating - not so much.

Unfortunately she generates quite a lot of "enthusiasm" on the political right. They feel about her what we feel about Pat Buchanan or Rush Limbaugh.

That's a pretty outdated perception, you know. It isn't 2008 anymore.

Really? Do you think there are a lot of Republicans who have rethought how they feel about her?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Biden is a decent politician who is somewhat gaffe-prone but who enjoys the respect of both sides of the aisle. "

yes, but enthusiasm generating - not so much.

Unfortunately she generates quite a lot of "enthusiasm" on the political right. They feel about her what we feel about Pat Buchanan or Rush Limbaugh.

That's a pretty outdated perception, you know. It isn't 2008 anymore.

Anonymous wrote:"Biden is a decent politician who is somewhat gaffe-prone but who enjoys the respect of both sides of the aisle. "

yes, but enthusiasm generating - not so much.

Unfortunately she generates quite a lot of "enthusiasm" on the political right. They feel about her what we feel about Pat Buchanan or Rush Limbaugh.

"Biden is a decent politician who is somewhat gaffe-prone but who enjoys the respect of both sides of the aisle. "

yes, but enthusiasm generating - not so much.

Ford/Rockefeller to Ford/Dole...and you see how well that turned out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When do you replace a vp? Has t ever happened since the dates when the two posts ran together?

Sure it has happened. Spiro Agnew was replaced in the middle of a term. But is it likely....no way. Unless Joe Biden keels over soon, he will be on the ticket in November.

Spiro Agnew resigned because of criminal charges against him. Biden is a decent politician who is somewhat gaffe-prone but who enjoys the respect of both sides of the aisle.

If Clinton was the VP it would bring some enthusiam back. But I don't see it happening. That's too bad since what we need is enough enthusiasm to boost turn-out across the board so that Obama has a Congress he can work with. I am usually in favor of divided government (seems to have worked well for Virginia lately), but God help us if we have a Rep Congress and Obama as president, we'll have another 4 years of gridlock while our serious problems get worse and worse.

Robert Reich predicted it (http://robertreich.org/post/14932718385) as a switch, with Biden going to State.

Anonymous wrote:When do you replace a vp? Has t ever happened since the dates when the two posts ran together?

Sure it has happened. Spiro Agnew was replaced in the middle of a term. But is it likely....no way. Unless Joe Biden keels over soon, he will be on the ticket in November.

When do you replace a vp? Has t ever happened since the dates when the two posts ran together?

Wow; you need to dream bigger.

Anonymous wrote:I'd prefer Clinton/Obama. That would work. She'll bring the experience and brains and he'll bring the popularity.

+1

I'd prefer Clinton/Obama. That would work. She'll bring the experience and brains and he'll bring the popularity.

Obama/Clinton? Tell me this could happen!