YES.
PS/ To be clear, Harris is another wholly sensible choice. But the fact remains: Joe's a conservative Democrat and he needs the 40% of the party that's progressive to be *excited* about him. His VP is teed up to be the next president—and Warren as POTUS would excite progressives.
PS2/ As far as African American voters are concerned, at some point a ticket takes "yes" for an answer. With 60%-85% of African American Dems already supporting Biden in a contested primary, the argument for Harris is slighter than it would be if (say) Sanders were the candidate.
PS3/ In other words, the simple fact—which media has reminded us of nearly every day for 2 months—is that Biden *doesn't* have a weakness with black voters, but *does* have a weakness with progressives and *does* need someone who can be (a) an attack dog and (b) strong on policy.
PS4/ Kamala would be great on the attack, but is not seen as hailing from the party's progressive wing and cannot compete with Warren—only because no one can—on policy. I'd note, too, that if Biden wants Sanders out *now*, he can probably get that by agreeing to Warren at his VP.
PS5/ The fact that we're in the midst of a national emergency has probably doomed Abrams for the VPOTUS nod, as she may be seen as too untested (at the moment). Klobuchar is *way* too moderate—she doesn't add anything to the ticket. So it comes down to Harris and Warren, I think.
PS6/ Those are two *great* options (Warren and Harris, I mean). But as between the two, the stronger argument—and not just because she's already showed herself to be the stronger POTUS candidate—is for Warren. I can *well* understand why Biden allies are saying this publicly now.
PS7/ Besides being a moderate—and the last thing Biden needs on the ticket is another moderate—Klobuchar is a non-starter because she's unexciting and doesn't even deliver anything in the Midwest (she got creamed in Iowa and Biden's Minnesota win was due to his SC bump, not Amy).
PS8/ With respect to the argument people make—largely because they want to disqualify Warren from being selected—about Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker (a Republican) picking Warren's Senate replacement, see this BOSTON GLOBE article from when the same question arose in 2016: 
PS9/ So I hope people will stop it with the "They'll lose Warren's Senate seat for six years!" canard. It's literally untrue—and there's little evidence that *anything* about Massachusetts election law would prevent Biden from selecting Warren as his running mate if he wanted it.
PS10/ My sense is that the opposition to Warren comes *largely* from the fringe (and largely the *male* fringe) of the Sanders contingent—not exclusively, mind you, but enough so that one *strongly* senses the opposition to Warren comes from folks who won't vote for Biden anyway.
NOTE/ Biden is someone who—I think many feel—would only want (or try) to be president for one term, meaning his VP pick needs to be someone who the Democrats can see being the *POTUS* nominee in 2024. Warren came in third this primary season... out of *28 candidates*. It matters.
NOTE2/ My belief is that—if Warren is the VP—Harris would be offered whatever she wanted by Biden: Supreme Court, Attorney General, Secretary of State. So I don't mean to in any sense suggest that Harris wouldn't end up in a role more powerful—likely by far—than the VPOTUS spot.
