Since when are VP picks determined by ‘the most qualified person available’? Has that ever been the case for picking one?
Also, do I have point out that regardless of what you think of Castro’s qualifications, he’s far more qualified than the Republican nominee for PRESIDENT?
Trump is one of the guys who runs the system from behind the scenes. Politicians dance to his tune. Who is better qualified than one of the paymasters?
But no, of course the VP isn’t the most qualified person available, but the VP is always well qualified, or else becomes a liability pretty quickly. Every cycle we talk about picking some young dude as a VP, but it rarely actually happens and when it does it never goes well.
Seems like it happens pretty frequently. Ryan, Palin, Gore and Quayle were all under 45. (And Edwards, while he was over 50, looked like he was 25 and was a relative new-comer to politics). Generally older candidates seem to pick young up-and coming politicians for running mates to excite the base, while younger candidates pick old warhorses (Cheney, Biden) to alieve concerns about their inexperience.
Biden was possibly the most qualified person available for the job. Gore wasn’t a bad pick as to qualifications - both were reasonable Presidential candidates before they were VP.
We will be quiet on Quayle or Cheney or Palin, however
But they weren’t necessarily picked because they were “the most qualified person available”. Biden was picked because Obama needed foreign policy experience on the ticket. Gore was picked because Clinton wanted to put forward a young, moderate, Southern face to the Democratic Party.
Bill Bradley…?
She looked older running for president? You realize that she’d be running against Trump, who’s set to turn seventy next month? And that, if she drops out, it’d be Trump against Sanders, who’s already in his seventies?
Clinton is, comparatively, a spring chicken!
As for you thinking the US isn’t advanced enough to think a woman is “capable of being the president” – you realize she’s getting more votes cast for her than are being cast for the aforementioned Sanders, right? And that she’s been steadily outpolling the aforementioned Trump, right? How do you explain those numbers?
Generally speaking, the paymasters themselves cannot dance.
Little known fact: A campaign season is one of those things that can cause women’s periods (if they intend to vote) to synchronize. So, it’s all just a collective case of PMS, 'twill pass. 
Monica Lewinsky
Outside the liberal bubble Clinton is widely regarded as left wing. With Trump as far right as he is there is plenty of room in the middle to pick up votes.
People keep suggesting more left wing VP candidates. I think there is opportunity for Clinton to tack left in her choice but it has to guarantee she’ll pick up votes from the far left. Sanders still has the ability to deliver them but that time is running out. The further he polarizes liberals against Clinton the less he’ll be able to deliver. If they can come to an agreement I think we could get a more liberal VP.
If Sanders isn’t going to guarantee the liberal vote she’s better off picking someone more conservative to pick up more votes from people who would typically vote Republican but can’t stomach Trump. A Republican VP isn’t going to happen but I’m sure she can find a Blue Dog more capable of delivering votes than a liberal who can’t get Bernie’s supporters to come along.
If liberals ask for too much we’ll instead get nothing. The Democrats have a history punching the hippies and going right instead before, it’s almost like those voters are more reliable.
Two of those went badly, a third was on a losing ticket even though he arguably didn’t bring it down, and Gore was quite experienced and had already been through a long Presidential campaign before being picked(as had Edwards), which counts as a partial vetting.
The successful VP nominees among winning candidates over 60:
Dan Quayle
George HW Bush
And… that’s it. So we don’t really have much to go on, but the one time an older candidate did pick a young, inexperienced VP and still won, it still wasn’t a good thing for him. Plus there are two examples of losing candidates being dragged down in part by inexperienced VP nominees. One of those was an obvious AA pick, which CAstro would be: Ferraro. A national campaign is not the place to elevate someone before they are ready. The voters and media(at least the real journalists) don’t grade on a curve.
Given who Clinton is running against she can probably take a chance but she’s not the chance-taking type, which is part of her appeal as a steady hand on the wheel. And if she does leave her comfort zone it really should be someone anti-establishment, and Sanders is by far the best choice if you’re going to go that route.
I’m in full on Woo Mode today -
So I’m going to suggest Obama
From the coming press conference
“During my time as Sec State, Barack and I had a great working relationship, we can do that again and achieve much. In addition - there is still much work to be done to make Obamacare work, and improve on what Barack has started - he is a wonderful person to get that work done”
He knows better. People around the Clintons have an unfortunate tendency to go to jail for their sins.
I know you’re joking but can Ex-Presidents be on the cabinet? Has it ever happened? Obama’s going to be 55 when he leaves office, very very young for an ex president. He could still have many years in politics if he wants to.
Yes, they can hold any office in government except possibly for the Presidency/Vice Presidency, depending on 22nd Amendment eligibility.
Tom James
Nice bit of projection there, Mr Cheney. Tell us the one about how Vince Foster was murdered next.
Obama isn’t going to join any future administrations. He’s going to write a few books, do some very well-paid speaking tours, start a charitable foundation or two, get his library built and generally enjoy not having to put up with all that DC shit anymore like pretty much every other ex-President.
I’m still tempted by Brian Schweitzer despite his “unfortunate” comments to the National Journal. He was an O’Malley campaign chair so he’s not tainted by a connection to Sanders, and he’s got the right geographical bent (rural West to balance Clinton’s urban East Coast links), to the extent that that still matters. Assuming he’d be interested, though, I don’t think he’d be a contender for a later presidential bid; Schweitzer is 60 and has ruled out a run in the immediate term, so I don’t see one happening ever.
Vince Foster was not murdered. That’s a conspiracy theory. It is actually a fact that a lot of people close to the Clintons went to jail. Of course, the main reason was that they wouldn’t talk to Kenneth Starr. Obama would probably not fall on his sword to protect Hillary.
Couldn’t be, you know, that those people broke the law. No, that would be too inconveniently true.