I don’t know. In addition to the age issue, there’s Brown’s public persona. Californians may have seen the new Brown in the last few years. But a lot of people outside of California are still going to think of the Governor Moonbeam image he used to have.
Not only is there no barrier, it’s happened twice before:
But Biden is too old and sticks his foot in his mouth 'waaaaay too often for Hillary to want to pick him in 2016.
It kind of surprises me; no Al Gore.
No chance Biden gets picked, IMO.
I’ll second - as I always have - Mark Warner. Not only does he lock up 13 electoral votes that the GOP candidate HAS to find somewhere else but he also brings enormous business and economic gravitas to the table. There’s no one in the GOP primary who can hold a candle to his business experience unless Romney comes back.
How about Bruce Jenner? 
Doesn’t matter. There was no way Bush could hold a candle to Kerry’s military experience, but that didn’t stop the Republicans.
Joaquin or Julian Castro. Young, Latino, from Texas. This one is a lock.
There is no lock. There is only the polling data available in the summer of 2016.
I don’t buy the Castro rumors. Warner or O’Malley seem much more likely, although I’m hoping that it will be O’Malley considering Clinton as a possible running mate.
Warner would be a superb choice. I also still like Bill Richardson, although he might not survive the vetting process. RIchardson is still the most qualified guy on paper to be President in this country, with experience ranging from being a successful governor, to foreign policy, to energy. Plus you get the first Latino VP.
But if you want young and exciting, you probably want Cory Booker. It seems to me that no young Democrat’s star shines as bright as his at this point. Plus he has executive and legislative experience. You also want a clear successor to Clinton, because the Democratic bench is skimpy these days. Most of your big names are pretty long in the tooth.
Evan Bayh from Indiana. Just about to turn 60, looks Presidential, former Senator. About as Vanilla a candidate as you’d want for a running mate.
Jerry Brown is way too old and carries too much liberal baggage.
Shred is an interesting name, does bring Ohio with him; he also seems to me would be a Joe Biden type of running mater who would say stupid things during Hillary’s term that would deflect attention off her.
Booker would be a great choice, although I suspect Clinton will go with someone more boring like like O’Malley.
The idea of grooming a successor via the VP slot seems to have been forgotten lately; one of GWB’s biggest political errors was selecting a running mate who would never be a plausible POTUS candidate. I think Biden is awesome and would vote for him ahead of Hillary any day, but he’d be in his 80s after two more terms as a VP.
I have a feeling it will almost certainly have to be (a) a man, and (b) from a swing state. Having two women on the ticket is just asking for some sort of backlash from moderates who were willing to overlook electing a woman as President, and having somebody from a solid blue state doesn’t do much good unless the party is convinced at convention time that the election is in the bag.
So, of course, the Dems violate both of those rules and pick somebody who is pretty much off everybody’s radar, although her name was tossed around for the VP spot in 1984 - Senator Dianne Feinstein. Then again, she may want to run for governor in California in 2018; the race there would almost certainly be between her and Gavin Newsom.
Having a “leftie” like Jerry Brown, or Elizabeth Warren, in the second spot might keep the less moderate Democrats in line, but I don’t see them voting for a Republican (short of, say, Olympia Snowe) regardless of who the Democrat’s VP choice is - and it could even push away some of the more moderate Democrats.
Of course, if you want a real shock - and I stand by my earlier statements (and I would post links to them if this board’s search was working, although here is a Washington Post article from 2006 that implies that it would end up being decided by the Supreme Court) that there is nothing in the Constitution preventing this - they nominate Bill Clinton for VP. I am quite aware as to what the last sentence of the 12th Amendment and the first sentence of the 22nd both say, but I stand on my belief that the 22nd says “elected” and does not prevent somebody from becoming President through other means.
Then again, the 12th Amendment also says that if Bill and Hillary are considered “inhabitants” of the same state, then they have to vote for someone besides Bill for VP (assuming the state is VP, and also assuming I am reading that state’s laws correctly, the Hillary electors would vote for another Democrat for VP; they do not have to vote for the VP who got the second-highest number of votes), and that could result in none of the VP candidates having at least 270 Electoral votes, leaving it up to the Senate (and it would be the newly-elected Senate, not the lame duck one, as Senators begin their terms on January 3, according to the 20th Amendment, and the Electoral College vote count is on January 6, according to Title 3, Section 15 of the United States Code). Also, I don’t see Hillary choosing Bill because I think she feels that too many people would think that he was calling the shots; while she was Secretary of State, she threw a fit at someone whom she thought had asked her how Bill felt about something (it was a translator’s mistake; he had meant to say President Obama but said “President Clinton”).
The Supreme Court might conceivably rule that a former two-term president is eligible to be VP, though I certainly wouldn’t bet on that. But that’s irrelevant, because the court of public opinion would almost certainly be strongly against it, and that’s important when you’re trying to win an election.
I should vote for them, and hope that Hillary became incapacitated.
I don’t think that’s an error, since it’s tough for VPs to directly succeed their predecessors. I think Bush 41 was the only one to pull it off in the postwar era where the Big Guy didn’t die first?
But it’s still not a terrible idea, since a VP doesn’t have to run immediately. It’s good to have that guy on the bench. Al Gore is still viable, IMO, if he had the desire to run. Nixon couldn’t win right away, but his experience and credibility enabled him to come back and win it eight years later. And while Biden is old and not many people’s #1 choice, I think the electorate would have confidence in him if Clinton faltered and no one else rose to the occasion. Which wouldn’t really have been possible if Biden was still in the Senate. Biden’s qualified and available, unlike Cheney and Gore.
My sense is that SCOTUS would consider such gray areas to be “political questions” best decided by the electorate. The same state issue is a bigger problem.
But no, it won’t be Bill for a multitude of reasons. First being that they are already a two for one deal. Hillary being the face of the administration instead of Bill should change nothing. It’s still a co-Presidency.
Besides, if you’re going to go the “let’s nominate a two term President” path, you go with Obama. Then you’re practically guaranteed to get the Obama coalition to the polls again.
Sherrod Brown doesn’t say stupid things nearly as often as Biden… in fact, I can’t think of the last stupid thing he said. I’m by no means convinced Hillary would ever pick him, but he would not embarrass her.
Bill will never be Hillary’s running mate due to (a) unresolved constitutional questions, (b) the silliness of a married couple likely claiming two different states as their legal residences, (c) public backlash against such a cutesey move, and (d) Bill inevitably overshadowing Hillary as her running mate - the last thing she wants.
It’s a mistake to count on your VP nominee to carry his home state. People just don’t vote on that basis. “Ooh! The VP candidate is from my home state!”
See, Edwards, John.
Or, Ryan, Paul.