Recently, there has been some talk about President Obama replacing Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton.
The benefit of this?
t's inside-Washington speculation at this point, but the strategists make a good case for such a shift. "Biden was named in the first place to shore up Obama on foreign policy issues, and Obama doesn't need that anymore," says a former Clinton adviser. That's because Obama has learned the ropes and has assembled a strong foreign policy and national security team including Robert Gates as defense secretary, Jim Jones as White House national security adviser, and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.
Elevating Clinton to the vice presidential slot would accomplish several objectives: It would appeal to female voters and the still-powerful cadre of Clinton admirers, give Obama more of a pragmatic luster, and shunt the gaffe-prone Biden aside. And it would theoretically discourage Clinton, a former senator from New York, from challenging Obama in the 2012 primaries, Democratic insiders say, because as vice president she would be considered Obama's heir for 2016. Clinton would be 69 that year, the same age as Ronald Reagan when he won the presidency in 1980.
It may not happen. After all, talk like this has been going on since '08.
Questions for debate:
1.)Should Obama dump Biden or should he "voluntarily" step aside for a younger, more appealing candidate?
2.)If Biden were to step down, who should the new V.P. be?