The idea of replacing Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton on the 2012 Democratic ticket is preposterous, an idea that won’t go away and one that is growing on me.

Bill Keller offers the most compelling argument for an Obama-Clinton ticket in The New York Times, and while I have known Biden since we were in our teens and I deeply admire him, my own views track closely to his.

I was disgusted with Clinton by the end of the 2008 primary season because of her refusal to rise above the fray and instead run a man’s campaign replete with negative and sometimes dishonest attacks on Obama, but when she eventually conceded to the young Chicagoan she did so with dignity before accepting his invitation to serve as secretary of state, something that she has been spectacularly good at.

At age 64 Clinton has been, according to Gallup, the most admired woman in America for 10 years in a row, far outdistancing Oprah Winfrey (remember her?) and Sarah Palin (ditto). Biden, who is 69, has been a peripatetic veep who has exercised his foreign policy chips well.

Keller’s argument for an Obama-Clinton ticket goes something like this:

Although the president’s inner circle believes that he doesn’t need Clinton to win a second term given the utter mess that is the Republican field, it shouldn’t allow itself to get cocky and there is much to be said for running up the score and perhaps help some Senate and House candidates along the way.

In the late winter or early spring, Clinton would step down as secretary of state to rest and write a book. The president would add State to Biden’s portfolio. Come the party convention in September, Obama invites a refreshed Clinton to join the ticket while Biden keeps State.

What’s not to like about that?