But he might get bored, start freelancing, and turn that head of hers gray.

no, she can't have "freelancer."

Obama himself was a rockstar. Also, with Bush's foreign policy people were willing to forego that aspect. It was suppose to be the republicans strongest issue but Bush deteriorated that. I would really like to see someone in the role who is an epic negotiator. Do we have a Rham Emanuel for the left. lol.

from tiny Delaware. In the primaries, he ran on his foreign policy experience.

He wouldn't gain or lose votes for Obama. Even when he makes a mistake people laugh, smile, and say "that's Biden." Obama was a one man show. It was probably one of the best run campaigns ever. The insignificance of his VP was what was considered. They nailed it. How many times did Obama reference Bidens foreign policy experience? How many times did Biden? It was the Obama show and it was impressive.

And Biden had supporters due to the primaries (my son in law in MA was a big fan of his).

I like Sherrod Brown of Ohio. He was on TV recently and I remembered how much I liked him and really admired his style and his background.

Really exciting.

They could rock the house!

in making their choices, especially in times like these. They tend to vote their pocketbooks.

Guy gets it:

America on a War Footing: Three Members of Congress Just Reignited the Cold War While No One Was Looking

by Dennis Kucinich
Truth Dig, Dec. 15, 2014

Late Thursday night, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a far-reaching Russia sanctions bill, a hydra-headed incubator of poisonous conflict. The second provocative anti-Russian legislation in a week, it further polarizes our relations with Russia, helping to cement a Russia-China alliance against Western hegemony, and undermines long-term America’s financial and physical security by handing the national treasury over to war profiteers.

Here’s how the House’s touted “unanimity” was achieved: Under a parliamentary motion termed “unanimous consent,” legislative rules can be suspended and any bill can be called up. If any member of Congress objects, the motion is blocked and the bill dies.

At 10:23:54 p.m. on Thursday, a member rose to ask “unanimous consent” for four committees to be relieved of a Russia sanctions bill. At this point the motion, and the legislation, could have been blocked by a single member who would say “I object.” No one objected, because no one was watching for last-minute bills to be slipped through.

Most of the House and the media had emptied out of the chambers after passage of the $1.1 trillion government spending package.

The Congressional Record will show only three of 425 members were present on the floor to consider the sanctions bill. Two of the three feigned objection, creating the legislative equivalent of a ‘time out.’ They entered a few words of support, withdrew their “objections” and the clock resumed.

According to the clerk’s records, once the bill was considered under unanimous consent, it was passed, at 10:23:55 p.m., without objection, in one recorded, time-stamped second, unanimously.

Then the House adjourned.

I discovered, in my 16 years in Congress, that many members seldom read the legislation on which they vote. On Oct. 24, 2001, House committees spent long hours debating the Patriot Act. At the last minute, the old bill was swapped out for a version with draconian provisions. I voted against that version of the Patriot Act, because I read it. The legislative process requires attention.

CONTINUED...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-on-a-war-footing-three-members-of-congress-just-reignited-the-cold-war-while-no-one-was-looking/5420146

Though I don't think America is ready for an all female ticket.

if we COULD elect a Black man after all...I think many didn't believe America was ready for a Black President either....judging by how many African Americans were SHOCKED that he won! Who's to say then that they aren't ready for two women....now THAT would be change you could believe in!

As a senator, she'd be better off with a running mate from outside the beltway.
As a Yankee, she needs regional balance.
As someone with no executive experience, she could use someone who has that.

She needs that, but needs a VP who embraces her economic populism 100%.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Vice President Jerry Brown.

I can see some merit in having him on the ticket, tho. It might be very cool!

you did say "just for fun"!

I actually think our likeliest VP nominee is Steve Beshear, regardless of who's at the top of the ticket...

what do you think about sherrod brown?

I think that a ticket of two ideologically-similar senators is a tough sell. Tickets rarely pair candidates with the same job, and if they do it's because there's some other kind of diversity achieved like new blood versus experience (Obama/Biden, JFK/Johnson) or ideological diversity(Kerry/Edwards). A Warren/Brown ticket would be a bit too narrow for a big-tent party like ours.

a great ticket with two Southerners in Clinton/Gore) being midwestern. He is very liberal I know but the way things stand Dems have a pretty strong position nationally. We know we can't get the solid South, but we are in a good place with national elections. AND the populist message is growing in popularity with people. I don't see why these two very attractive candidates wouldn't sell with that message, esp. if we get the unappetizing combo of Mitt and Jeb.

But IDK, and things can change a lot between now and 2016...

and take his LT

I don't think Foreign Policy experience is required if they pick a good SoS.

within an organization. Making statements and voting are definitely important but not the same as managing large groups of people many of whom have different or even antithetical goals.

She'd also need to really explain how she managed to vote Republican for so long.

So the VP wouldn't have an effect on running, but it could have an effect on winning the race

he had gotten the experience of, and growing support generally from, having run in the primaries. It bulked up his strengths as a running mate candidate. His choice by Obama was the right one, IMO.

I was reading through this thread and hoping someone would point that out.

I honestly don't know if the VP pick matters at all in the long run, other than the (thankfully somewhat rare) times that person assumes the office. I know I thought Joe Lieberman was a truly terrible selection for VP (with Gore in 2000 in case anyone doesn't remember), but I still voted for Gore. I find it almost impossible to imagine that the VP candidate would make me change my mind and vote for a President I otherwise wouldn't vote for.

Let me put it this way: If the Democrats nominated someone I truly despised, no matter who was in the VP slot, I doubt I'd vote for the Democratic ticket. Perhaps if the Republicans nominated someone I respected and could vote for, then I'd switch parties (given the "nominee I despise" scenario) and vote Republican. In the current political climate I cannot begin to imagine this scenario, however.

in the general election. Even Sister Sarah didn't change the outcome, Obama would have won no matter what in 2008.

I do try to keep in mind that my preferences in this area may well be totally unlike those of the average voter.

Another totally random anecdote is this: In 1988, a friend who was Republican -- and this is before the extreme polarization we have now -- was genuinely offended at the selection of Dan Quayle as the Republican VP candidate. She was insulted that women (like her) should be more likely to vote for George HW Bush because of Dan Quayle.

I feel very much the same way. If I like my party's nominee in the first place, the VP either doesn't matter (if that choice is either neutral or favorable for me) or still won't make me stay home or vote for the other guy -- if the VP nominee is someone I don't like.

I need to be honest here and address the elephant in the room: Hillary Clinton. I am one who is not at all crazy about her, to the point that I don't think she is a remotely good candidate as presidential nominee. If (the gods forbid) she does become our nominee, I'll be faced with a very tough choice: do I vote for her because she's my party's nominee? Or do I not, because I am so opposed to her and all she represents? And what if she selects a VP I really like, such as Elizabeth Warren?

I can't now answer those questions, but I will tell you I'll be very, very conflicted if that happens.

Oh, and I absolutely agree, that Obama was going to win in 2008, no matter what.

Quayle was the best life insurance policy that George HW Bush could get

And he's been out of the public eye a lot (altho I've seen him on Morning Joe occasionally). Same with Sanders on geography (plus age), don't know that much about Webb. Of these Brown makes the most sense...plus he is very engaging...an attractive guy.

news a lot more lately. Tremendous talent, huge blunder for Dems, he was too much a threat some say. In person he comes across as serious, confident and very capable in a leadership role. Two from NE doesn't bother me cuz the choices are so slim. Look at Jeb and Rubio now, both from FL. The county's a mess.

Much respect for Brown, so bright, likeable and his progressive style would be my choice, if we had a more aware population of voters. And with him and Warren there would be two non-centrist 'leftists'. Brown doesn't come across as very confident sometimes, and I don't mean slick as in Bill. C. But I know he is clear, and on the right side of issues. Could he withstand attacks, debates and sharks on the right I wonder. I think Dean and Webb definitely could.

Seems Warren would need a 'manly' type to strengthen concerns about the first woman and for dealing with serious foreign affairs we now face, where she's weak. Some have suggested Julian Castro, smart move not to let GOP get the jump on large, Hispanic vote. But don't know if he's powerful or mature enough yet. (But we had VP Dan Quale!) He's a definite for the near future.

Webb is strong on defense, military, brainpower, supports prison reform and vets, has all-American quality. Also might bring in white males obviously; was a Repub. years ago too for what that's worth, and so was Warren. His reputation as a maverick subsided after he became a VA Senator in 2006. But then he left, didn't run again-not good, disappointing, though he reappeared pulling hard for Obama in 2012 in Va Beach. Met him at a law school conference on LE, Crim. Justice. He's impressive, very intelligent, leadership experience like Dean.

Webb, Dean, Brown could contribute more in some way or position, cabinet level maybe. Dems. are very sparse, need all they can get. I find this concerning, the lack of national leaders now, with much of the old guard fading-Kennedy, Leahy though still there, others. That may be just me.

I think it's the same as the presidency, two terms.

Rocky Mountain populist.

His presence on the ticket might even bring Montana along; definitely would help nail down Colorado.

Let's just hope and keep on the pressure for Warren to run. We cannot afford another Bush in the White House. If Jeb is able to get through the GOP primaries, he'll beat Clinton in the general election.

Warren, on the other hand, will be able to take the people's fight right to Bush.

He's a coal and oil shill. After two terms of him in office backtracking many of his campaign promises, I've had quite enough of him. I cringe whenever he appears in an interview.

And he has some environmental baggage that would offset his geographical appeal...

Foreign policy is not going to be important in selecting a VP for Democrats. It will be holding the support of the Hispanic demographic.

I suspect her foreign policy will mirror Obama's, should she decide to run and be elected.

No, I am leaving "Willing Suspension of Disbelief Land."

Warren is not running. She is not exploring a run. She is not creating a "Progressive Leadership Pac" to help her explore a run. She is going to wield her support by progressives to influence the direction of the party.

JFK, from MA balanced with LBJ from TX while GA Carter countered with MN Mondale

Why not work on something that will mean something? She said I"M NOT RUNNING. SO, you think Elizabeth is a liar?

If you are interested in art, I am posting an art essay in GD on Friday afternoon. You might be interested. Drop by if you can. My art stuff usually goes up at about 5 pm.

Even how to get the war criminals would be a better use of our time.

so I'll definitely be looking for it!

Perfect for winter!

...yes, yes...I'm just kidding...honest. A real pick? Hmmm...how about a Warren/Gore ticket? Or some Southerner...actually, Jim Webb makes as much sense as anybody...

I'm damn proud of it too! That effing traitor!

Don't get me started on Joe...what a pisher...

...it's really too bad in a way, because I've met Joe a few times, and he's a nice guy. But I despise his politics, and his morality...

unless someone can come up with someone better from an obvious swing state. And not Jim Webb.

JKF was 43 when elected president. We're talking VP here, right? So, yes I think 40 is just right (he is 40 now - will be 42 in Nov. 2016) for VP.

And I think all DUers could unite around such a ticket.

The rise of the progressive Dems in this country is a real phenomenon of our time. I had not anticipated it, altho I am pleased as I can be that it is. Wow, progressive Dems getting their message out, who knew?

poking mission.