As far as I’m concerned, that makes her a “natural-born” citizen. But I’ve seen plenty of arguments over whether that’s the case or not – McCain (born in the Canal Zone) and Obama (allegedly born in Kenya) are two that spring immediately to mind.
Those “arguments” are, respectively, simply wrong and nothing more than bigots pushing an utterly false narrative.
I think she’s brilliant and doesn’t get the attention she deserves. Although, I suspect she doesn’t go out of her way to find it. She’s far too serious and competent a person to engage in that kind of superficial self-promotion.
Dang – there are bigots in this country? 
(Too late to edit.)
And if said bigots manage to yell more often and more loudly…
… it doesn’t make their “arguments” any more deserving of consideration.
You won’t consider them, nor will I, but that doesn’t mean other people won’t.
Fortunately for the US, brilliance isn’t in short supply among the potential picks. Rice is brilliant. Senator Professor Warren is brilliant. Abrams is brilliant (and deft at handling inherent bias in interview questions). If intelligence and raw capability were at all appropriately valued by the American electorate any of these women would practically guarantee a Biden victory. Sadly, no. Biden needs to look at the broad appeal of his selected running mate, on a symbolic level and on the speaking/stage strengths of the Veep candidate as he believes these qualities are judged by his critical demographics and by the on-camera “news” media personalities.
They are all very intelligent and accomplished in their own right. But Susan Rice is probably the best fit, IMO. Warren has peaked, but still has much to contribute as a senior senator or Sec. of Something Important. Stacey and Kate lack experience and sufficient political clout/influence among peers.
I think Rice has the most gravitas of the group. Of course if he selects her, then it’s going to be Benghazithon until the election. Given Biden’s age, I think she’s the one I’d one one heartbeat away from the presidency. Harris would be good as well, she’s got a good head on her shoulders and senatorial experience is a big plus. I’ll hake Harris or Rice any day.
given recent events I think any former cop, even a police chief, is probably off the list. Former prosecutors may not make the cut either .
You may be right, but Harris really seems like a contender for the Biden team right now.
Harris might prefer AG , Rice might prefer Sec of State. But if asked they make take the VP slot .
I think there is a decent chance if he wins Biden only serves 1 term, especially if he has a health issue. That way the VP would be a favorite to run in 2024
Agreed.
It’s a common truism that politicians will do what’s expedient and feeds their ego and career. I find it to be particularly true of Harris, compared to some of the other serious contenders for VeeP.
Of course, feeding one’s ego might include trying to do something meaningful, even with the goal of springboarding that effort into a subsequent career step toward one’s desired position. That sort of ambition, ISTM, is a characterisitic all previous POTUSes and VPs have shared.
Or perhaps it’s the more nakedly apparent manifestations of ambition that you’re concerned with? It would be interesting to see if we can correlate overt ambition with some negative potentialities, using data from previous state or federal chief executives. Maybe we could begin with certain party convention keynote speakers who capitalized well received speeches into later runs at the presidency… WJC certainly had some negatives, but it’s challenging to directly link those to his obvious political ambition (although pursuit of power is definitely correlated to abuses of power, such as pursuing sexual relationships with hirelings and organizational direct reports) (also Bill’s inclination toward “triangulation” is commonly viewed by the left as a failing, but is pretty apparently related to his need for broad political appeal). BHO had few negatives, IMO, but I guess his proclivity toward preemptive compromise (commonly derided by contemporary ‘Progressives’) could possibly be linked to political ambition, although I think it’s more plausibly related to his broad experience in community organizing and his oft-expressed faith in the electorate’s ability to perceive bad faith -I think he strongly believed his rejected hand across the aisle would be more broadly noted and that rejection by the GOP would be broadly condemned.
If those are the low/high bar parameters given, I would estimate KH to be considerably closer to WJC (closer still to HRC) than BHO with respect to her political IQ.
QuickSilver, I think you’re probably right about Harris’ “political IQ”. Although I have no idea who gets the blame for the poorly run campaign; that’s insider info I’m really never interested enough to pursue. But it remains true regardless that KH’s campaign had only one noticeable peak, and that temporary advantage was IMO clumsily gained and never skillfully exploited. Had she the same killer instincts politically as she seems to display prosecutorially, she’d probably be the nominee.
xenophon41, I meant to say that KH suffers from a similar lack of charisma, and perhaps authenticity as HRC. Something WJC and BHO both had in spades. Whether she also lacks competence, like you, I’m not qualified to judge.