I thought from the very beginning when Mrs. Clinton was chosen for and accepted the position of Secretary of State, that this was part of Obama’s discussion with her.
No VP-ship in 2008 as it was too early, she runs for VP in '12 and Biden steps aside (citing family, health or family health), then Slick Hillie for Prez in '16.
Regardless of their relative positions in the line of succession, the Secretary of State has a much more important and powerful job than the VP. Why would Hillary want a demotion?
You’re probably wrong. And **John Mace ** is correct - we went through this regarding Cheney, too. Biden accepted the VP job on condition that he would advise Obama on all major decisions. That’s what he does. He has a few specific responsibilities but didn’t want to focus on just one area to the exclusion of all others. Since he spent many years on the foreign affairs committee I think he’s most prominent on those issues. Vice Presidents don’t get a lot of credit from the public, but if you agree to become vice president, I don’t think you expect a lot of credit. You take the job because you want to be that close to the center of power, and (I’m borrowing someone else’s words here) to be 'the last voice in the room - the final advisor to the president. Why would he want to give that up?
How common is it to go from VP -> President? Relatively speaking, how common is it to go from SoS -> President?
A good point was made about the history of VP selection above, which I didn’t know and changes the calculus. Another good point was that Clinton has the name recognition to run no matter what she’s doing at the time, if she so chooses…
From my POV, it’s not that he’d want to give it up; it’s that there’s a strategic political gain for the Dems to have the likely candidate in the VP position.
Both are relatively rare. Apart from Bush I, no VP has become President except through a President’s death since 1836. No Secretary of State has become president since 1856.
Statistically, the best shot a VP has to become President is by the sitting President’s death.
You mean no sitting VP, because there was Nixon in '68.
But I don’t think it’ll make a difference for Hillary. She’s got all the street cred she needs, if she chooses to run.
I guess my question would be…what problem are you trying to solve by getting rid of Biden and bringing in Clinton? Mind, I’m no fan of Biden, but afaik he’s not a huge drag on the ticket and, afaik, there isn’t any kind of rift or problem between Obama and Biden and Biden is doing what he’s basically supposed to do as VP. Is it just so you can have a woman as VP??
-XT
Yeah. That being the case, I also need to amend my point about Secretaries of State - no sitting SoS has become president since Quincy Adams in 1824.
I also agree with your point about HRC. she’s got huge name recognition and tons of support - so much that whether she’s Secretary of State or VP won’t really impact a potential run for president.
No problem, I was just wondering if Hillary Clinton still had any ambition left to hold an office with President in the title, even if it’s Vice President. And I’ll ask for a second time, what does Joe Biden do for Obama? I’m not trying to make a statement, I’m honestly in the dark about what tasks he’s been doing. Someone said he’s an adviser. What else has he been doing?
He does what all VP’s do for their presidents…he draws fire away from the president, tosses out trial balloons that, if they turn out to be lead reflect on the VP and keep the president clean and squeaky, goes to all those boring low level VP functions that are important but not enough to weigh down the president, and otherwise is just there in case some nutter kills the president, or he dies while spilling DNA on a dress or something. AFAIK, Biden is fulfilling all of his major functions, especially the drawing fire part, and I really can’t see why Hillary would WANT to be VP, or why Obama would want to make a change.
-XT
And Ford became President without Ford dying, but resignation is practically the same thing?
A couple of people have already explained that that’s not necessarily true. And if they tried to force Biden out when he didn’t want to leave, it would get ugly. Not that it’s going to happen anyway. Unless he has some huge crisis, he’ll be on the ticket in 2012.
Right, which is why I said “from my POV”. And also why I’ve consistently presented “sitting VP most likely to run for President” as an assumption, and always as a weakly stated assumption at that.
Thinking about it more, taking into account the posts here, I’m forced to ask myself why I have the perception that a sitting VP has a campaign advantage. One thing that occurs to me is that it’s akin to the “incumbent’s advantage” – obviously not an exact match, but a sitting VP is able to use their office responsibilities and functions to campaign, even if it’s indirectly and simply by being in the public eye.
Hmpf. Even though I still perceive it that way, it’s not clear to me that the view is justified, even in the general case. And, in terms of Clinton specifically, I no longer think it is – in fact, assuming she finally gets her Mark Penn bill paid (what a frickin’ scam that guy pulled on her!), she’d have the benefit of being able to campaign full time. Hopefully with better funds management this time around…
Sitting VP as an advantage in his/her party’s primary.
Right, but I also have the perception that if the VP is going to run for President, getting primaried is pretty much just not gonna happen, as it would be the source of too much in-party fighting.
Of course, that’s not necessarily the case (doesn’t '68 fit the bill?), but I think it’s the most likely case.
Missed the edit window, then got distracted.
Despite my previous post, we are specifically discussing a sitting VP and challenger, so being primaried is a perfectly relevant point to raise. And it seems like something Dems would do, actually – just another instance of the Will Rogers’ quip (“I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.”). 
Gore was challenged by Bill Bradley in 2000 and Pat Buchanan challenged George H. W. Bush in 1992. The challengers had a little momentum early but couldn’t sustain it. Guys who really think they can win are not going to worry much about something like in-party fighting. The fighting pretty much ends when the primaries are over in any case.
Huh. I don’t remember that at all. Perhaps my perceptions are totally an extension of my faulty memory…
Based on what he’s done during his first 16 months, I would say wondering about Obama’s running mate in 2012 is a moo point (like a cow’s opinion: it doesn’t matter.)