He'd be a damned good candidate. He can take it to the Republicans as good as anyone and he'd defend Obama's record better than anyone. Since the GOP will make next year about whether or not the country wants a 3rd Obama term, that's a good thing.

There's a lot of things I could add, but this field has a personality deficit right now. Biden is a lot of things that Hillary and Bernie are not. He would add some much needed heart and soul to the equation (and, yes, the occasional gaffe and frequent good humor). I hope he jumps in.

really wants to run so am not getting too "het" up about it. Even if ...

The last time Biden entered a Presidential contest was in 2008 and he lagged most, if not all, other candidates. For the most part, Hillary's supporters from 2008 - she didn't lose to Obama by much, after all - will be with her now, and many like me are even more fervently behind her now than they were then. She has also picked up several 2008 Obama supporters and I do not believe that her support is so whimsical or ephemeral that a Biden bandwagon would gain from it, however much voters may like Joe personally.

Yes, Biden has been an excellent Veep for Obama, IMO. He likely can be put to great use in other areas of public service, if he chooses to do so - as I hope that he does. But Biden has never been the first choice of Dem voters for President and nothing in the 2016 election will really change that, IMO. Besides a lot of us still remember his enabling of Clarence Thomas to SCOTUS and that has been an ongoing tragedy for all, given Thomas's performance since.

Because neither candidate that I truly favored (Al Gore or Howard Dean) ran in 2008, the truly wrenching issue for me in 2008 was whether to vote for an extremely qualified woman or an extremely qualified African-American in the primaries. After a lot of soul-searching, I finally landed on the side of Clinton for two reasons: a) she IS an extremely qualified person - who has become even more so since that time - and I as a woman could not find it in my heart not to vote for a woman with her qualifications; and b) I believed that Barack Obama could use more "seasoning" at the national level to see through GOPer BS before becoming President.

We all know how things turned out and I proudly supported Prez O afterwards. Unfortunately, his selection of Rahm Emanuel as CoS confirmed my instinctive hesitations, especially when he followed Emanuel's advice and "dumped" Dean, who was most responsible for Dem majorities in the House and Senate and who really, really wanted to be HHS Sec'y. Dems have lost ground in Congress since the DNC let Dean's 50-state strategy slide and went back to the same-old-same-old key state strategy. Hopefully, DWS will re-implement that strategy in 2016.

Prez O has been a very fast learner and has accomplished a lot since his first stumbles - especially given the consistent wall of obstruction he has had to face from the GOP and occasionally even from his own party. I certainly never regretted voting for him - just as I will vote for whoever is the Dem candidate.

I do not seriously believe that the Dem candidate will be Biden, however, or that Biden will hurt Hillary, in the improbable event he does enter the race.

. . . For those of uslk who support Bernie, and have major concerns regarding Hillary, Biden has many of the same liabilities.

Hillary's support is neither as whimsical nor as ephemeral some DUers might wish to believe.

That support has also been strong - and unwavering - for quite a LONG time and I don't see that changing at all. Joe would just be another "shiny new thing" for the media to hype. In the final analysis, he is just another white male candidate to add to the mix, if he actually jumps in. His policies would be very similar to other Dem candidates, especially those of Hillary, Bernie & Martin O, although his rhetoric may possibly be less fiery than Bernie's. His minuses are similar to Hillary's (he has a Huge Minus in the Clarence Thomas fiasco among those of us who remember), but her strengths and appeal trump his - as evidenced by their respective performances among voters in the 2008 primaries.

It is fitting to say that we Dems are not only blessed in our candidates, but in our potential candidates, however.

Whatever happens, we'll see in the primaries whether your view or mine carries the day. Until then, we're both just blowing smoke.

"It's Clinton's turn"

Hillary isn't the only one to do that. What happened to showing "the world America 'got over race?'"

While 2008 may seem like ancient history, clearly the loyalty which Clintons' supporters and donors hold is strong. Its strong enough to forgive, but not to forget the vicious attacks on the Clintons which emanated from that contest. Accusing the Clintons of racism,

They were getting desperate and the end was near and what started coming out of their mouths? Their surrogates mouths?

When times are good, we are all friends and when times aren't we are all competitors and any advantage is still an advantage.

But the Obama camp provided devastating information about her. I clung on to my support for the first woman president till the primary win of Obama but I was absolutely relieved that she wasn't our candidate by then. I wasn't a Puma that's for sure.

Clinton did not say or do anything racist in 2008. The Clintons, both of them, spent their whole lives helping black people. In 2008, the Clintons had done more for blacks than Obama had up to that point. Not to mention, they got rid of welfare and softness-on-crime as national issues, hence why we're better off than in 1988. Those wedge issues were racially tinged and now don't exist, hence why America could elect a black at all.

The fairy tale remark was about Obama and Iraq, which he wasn't even in Congress for. It was not racist. You do not want to open these wounds.

I know what was said that Clinton had done for PoC, A.A's.

Obama Trounces Clintons’ Racist, Entitled S.C. Campaign

The Clinton campaign kept saying, “He’s black, black, black,” as author and South Carolina activist Kevin Alexander Gray pointed out on Jesse Jackson’s “Keep Hope Alive” program Sunday morning. And Bill Clinton used coded language, like the “old okie-dokie,” which served to remind whites of Obama’s blackness, Gray added. That's like saying don’t fall for the old “shuck and jive.”

And speaking of “shuck and jive,” that’s exactly the phrase Andrew Cuomo used to disparage Obama in New Hampshire, saying he can’t use that “shuck and jive” at press conferences.

Obama’s black, get it.

- See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/2008/01/5995/obama-trounces-clintons%E2%80%99-racist-entitled-sc-campaign#sthash.u0sYjyd9.dpuf

Bill Clinton suggested he is still mad at one politician, South Carolina's Rep. Jim Clyburn, who abandoned his neutrality to back Obama after claiming that the former president had injected race into the campaign.

When Clyburn's name was brought up as a supporter who criticized the former president, Clinton interrupted to say Clyburn was never a supporter of the Clintons.

When Clyburn's description was changed to "longtime friend," Clinton replied, "Used to be."

Pressed on whether Clinton "severely damaged" his standing with African-Americans as Clyburn has claimed, Clinton snapped, "Yeah, that may be. By the time he got through working on it, that was probably true."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5506458

"Not to mention, they got rid of welfare and softness-on-crime as national issues, hence why we're better off than in 1988."

Bill Clinton says he made mass incarceration issue worse
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/bill-clinton-1994-crime-bill/

Black Leader in House Denounces Bill Clinton’s Remarks
By MARK LEIBOVICH APRIL 24, 2008 7:53 PM

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/black-congressman-denounces-b-clintons-remarks/

"They got rid of welfare"? I retired from there after 25 yrs and I still have friends that work there. And, softness on crime? That's different from tough on crime, I'm sure.

They are fed up with the status quo and have been for decades.
If you look at when Democrats won in the past, they have all been outsiders and unknowns...Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama...all unknowns until they won.

Those who call themselves independents have grown over the years and they came mostly from the Democratic party, disillusioned by nothing ever changing and business as usual in DC. Those are the people that will vote or not vote and if not Democrats tend to lose as past elections show.

So if you want the GOP to have another shot at the WH offer them an establishment candidate, and the results will be low turnout and a possibility of a Jeb president. If you think the GOP will offer up a clown like Cruz or Trump you are mistaken...the clowns running are more about scarring the Dems than offering the Republicans a serious choice.

Politics in America isn't meant to be some sort of 'get in line, become the President' sort of deal.

After her racist attacks on Obama in 2008, she's lucky he was willing to give her any position at all in government.

I welcome Biden into the race, and hope he drinks her milkshake, taking large chunks of the centrist voters away from her in the primaries.

no, the fairy tale remark was about Obama and Iraq, not his race. Hillary didn't cry in NH out of racism. Yet that scum Jesse Jackson Jr. peddled that, oh his hucksterism is why he's in jail now.

and he hasn't even announced yet. Well, I suppose that says something for preparedness on the part of the Clinton campaign.

not part of any campaign. Believe it or, the groundswell for Hillary is not just a "corporations" thing.

If Biden decides to run Anita Hill will announce her support for Hillary the next day. I will never forgive Biden for his orchestration of her public stoning and watching how much he enjoyed the attention he got from the Thomas hearings. It was disgusting.

...

He totally mismanaged those hearings, and it was shameful the way he treated Anita Hill.

Thanks for giving us Clarence Thomas, Joe!

I think Anita Hill ought to come out for Hillary now, today.

Stopping the anti-Anita witchunt should've been "on him," Joe Biden.

I will be honest in saying that I did not know he was involved in that. I thought Arlen Spector was sort of the trigger-man in going after her.

Did Biden attack or question Anita? If so, then I am a bit more disappointed in him.

He decided not to let other women testify who had the same experience as Anita proving that Clarence was a serial sexual harasser. He allowed the other senators do beat up Anita at will.

He also would not allow testimony revealing that Clarence had no judicial experience.

Joe was afraid of being called a racist but not afraid of showing that he was a sexist. He used the excuse that Clarence's private life was his private life.

He knew Anita was telling the truth but chose to publicly humiliate her. Meanwhile, you could tell from watching the hearings (I watched every minute and still have the tapes) that Joe was totally playing to the TV audience and he loved every minute of it.

It was disgusting.

Note: Joe was anti-abortion/choice for many many years. Don't know when he changed but would guess it was because of the blow back from the hearings.

Both this time and last, HRC has been almost handed the nomination on a silver platter. If she can't win the nomination starting where she is, frankly she is not a good campaigner.

There have been others who came close and lost who did not get second chances - including Gore and Kerry.

I think the nominee will be HRC and that is why. I am so angered by her email practices. As to people not voting if it is not her isn't that hypocritical when you also correctly say that many of us who at this point don't like HRC will come out to vote for her over a Republican.

...much to admire about Joe Biden, but his presiding over the of humiliation of Anita Hill is something I can't get out of my mind.

Now it's time to kick corporate control of our government to the curb and elect Bernie Sanders.

I don't think Biden should jump in at this point, but if he does, he'll be dividing Clinton's support, not the party, nor the GE. That's actually a good thing, so I should probably WANT him to run.

The very idea that Hillary Clinton might be "owed" a turn in the WH is repulsive, and as undemocratic as it gets.

That meme is becoming so stifling I can barely breath.

I love the posturing by the Clinton camp as the cries for Biden to enter grow louder. It's beyond transparent, and not threatening in the least. But it's good attempt that is logical at this point in time.

We were 'divided' in 2008. As a result it made our nominee stronger, making the general election child's play for President Obama.

Regardless of who you support, we need an open, honest primary, not a coronation.

I'd rather vote someone who cares about the issues I care about - not just because it's their turn.

The Republicans do that.

Joe is a good and decent man who should do as he wants. That being said I will still support HRC and I suspect most of her supporters will stay with her as well.

Joe has NO chance of chipping away at her staunch group of supporters and contributors.

No. If she's that overwhelmingly amazing, it shouldn't matter who else is running. Hinting that people should step aside for Hillary or risk fracturing the party are just admitting that she doesn't have universal appeal.

That is interesting considering the events of the past month. Biden can run if he wants but I don't see why he is an improvement over Hillary. He's a bit less of a hawk but a bit more of a drug warrior, and neither is all that compelling from a financial regulation perspective.

in the cabinet.

Thy seem to do a very good job of taking care of themselves and their friends.

Biden is a gaffe machine with no new electoral votes or constituency. Money and a network helps too: the Clintons have it, Joe doesn't.

And it also had the highest percentage of the vote for the Democratic nominee since 1964. A coronation doesn't help us.

As 2008 two-way GE contest with no centrist 3rd party: of course Obama got the "highest percentage of the vote since 1964." Its a shame you're implicitly using the Perot-myth GOP-originated talking point, which now debunked more times than ever, means that were Perot not in 1992, at least according to empirical data, Clinton would've approached against an incumbent with 37% approvals what Obama could only do against an incumbent with 25% approvals. (Both approvals are low enough to swap parties in the WH, but II's was much lower). Obama should've at least had Reagan's 10% margin of victory. In 1920, Harding, the year's equivalent to Obama in that the incumbent, who was closely re-elected, was highly unpopular, actually had a massive landslide. Hillary actually polled better against McCain as late as June 2008 and would've probably gotten more EV than Obama. And in 1996, Clinton would've gotten way higher than Obama did in 2008 or 2012 if Perot had stayed out. But Clinton still had a much higher margin of victory (8.5% in 1996) for re-election than Obama's 3.9% in 2012. Obama was the first winning incumbent since 1944 to have a smaller margin of victory the second time than the first both in the EC and popular vote margin.

And peddling the Perot-myth is another smear/insult Clinton supporters from 2008 have not forgotten.

But if you like focusing on 1992, Bill Clinton lost 10 of the first 11 primaries. That definitely wasn't a coronation.

and a huge name with electability who beats all the Republicans and serious non-Quinnipiac polls and adds states which the previous nominee lose. In 1992, the party was still scarred from the 24 year wilderness Nixon sent the Democratic Party into so it didn't make sense to defer to any one person as it does today.

Also, this "highest percentage of the vote" thing as if it makes Obama's election results any "better" than Clinton is wrong because its an obvious allusion to the Perot-myth, something that ought to be unacceptable in Democratic circles, ignores the sheer mathematics behind having 3 candidates (if a Perot-like candidate had been in 2008 and had drawn 5, or even 4 million from both candidates, Obama would've still won but with less than 50%: would that become an "unachievement" like is insinuated against the Clintons?) used for one reason only: to downplay the importance and achievement of the Clintons elections. A better way to compare them could be percentage of 2-party vote, given how Perot was a wash, margin of victory movement, or addition of new states to the Democrat formula. I've mentioned before the states Bill Clinton gave our party that we didn't have often or at all from 1968-1988, but are now part of the Blue Wall Bill Built.

First of all Carter won in 1976. The Democrats had the House from 1954-1994. The Democrats were going to win 1992 regardless of their nominee, and yes also regardless of whether Perot ran. Bush's approval rating was in the 30s. Presidents just don't get elected with those numbers. And 1992 had the governor of a state with over 10x the popular of Clinton's running, not exactly that obscure.