FT column by Clive Crook.
You remember my Esquire column of 7/31/09? It ended thusly:
End Game: A Swap with Biden?
Say Clinton puts in her four years dutifully, achieving a reasonable fraction of her ambitions. So what's her reward? Four more years of President Obama, quite possibly. But will Hillary be happy enough with four more for herself at State? Or could a bigger compensation package be in the works?
Let me lay out for you a scenario I consider most worthy for all sides to consider: Remember Don Regan and James Baker switching jobs between Ronald Reagan's two terms, with Regan going to White House chief of staff and Baker assuming the Treasury's top spot?
Well, try this one on for size: Biden has no legit hopes for the top slot in 2016, but Clinton can't be ruled out. Why not have them switch jobs in concert with the 2012 campaign run? Biden can run out his string in the job he's always wanted (four years at No. 2 is enough time served for anybody with his ego, yes?), and Hillary can make history as the first elected female vice president. Obama is thus doubly credited for shattering one glass ceiling and generously setting Hillary up to crack the ultimate one.
You heard it here first.
Well, Crook makes the argument for Hillary as a better running mate for Obama in 2012 without going the extra step of job-swapping, which I think would make the deal work for Biden (recalling Baker-for-Regan in Reagan II).
Crook's larger argument: if you want a more successful Obama II, this would be a great way to shift course and move more to the center. Crook actually explores doing this prior to the full-up election (as in, why would Clinton automatically rule out running in 2012?), but I don't consider that to be anything but fantastic.
I think the swap-out could work for everybody--at virtually no risk to anybody.