Until recently I might have said Richardson, but I'm starting to like Tim Kaine (VA-Gov). I don't know a lot about him yet; he seems like a pro-life moderate, which is not what I particularly like about him. What I do like is that he's young (by politician-standards :-) and energetic and the governor of a swing state. Choosing the other Virginia contender (Webb) could hurt Dems' strength in the Senate.

And also, perhaps paradoxically, I like that Kaine does not have many years of experience as an elected official. The "lack of experience" theme will continue to be one of the main lines of attack against Obama, and I prefer to counterattack aggressively ("good judgment matters more") rather than to play defense by choosing a candidate like Richardson (who has major experience) or Clark (who has major foreign policy cred). (That said, I still like either of those two guys that I just named).

I like Biden for his temperament as well as his experience, and the VP role would benefit from his talent for debate. He probably would rather not be asked, but I know he'd be clean and articulate.

I'm pro-Phil Bredeson (D-TN). He's not yet committed. He's a state-wide twice-elected Dem from Tennessee with a history in health care management. He's a smart guy, good enough on core issues like choice and labor. Keep him in the souteast and southwest, bring the Obama christian caucus through those states enough and they are in play.

Governor Ted Strickland. He would put Ohio in play.
He is very popular, and proved that he could deliver the state to Hillary. It would be an olive branch to the Clinton supporters.

Gov. Strickland was a congressman, before becoming governor, so that gives him a double experience edge. Before entering politics, he was a Christian minister, so that would help Obama to gain some traction in Appalachia.

Bottom line: Winning Ohio is very important.
Strickland gives Obama the best chance to do so.

I like Virginia's Senator Jim Webb. Yeah, he's not a governor, but hasn't Dumbya tarnished the brass of the gubernatorial gambit a bit? Webb is tough, independently minded, popular with independents and some Republicans (he used to be one himself), could probably deliver Virginia for Obama, could counter McSame's supposed National Security credentials, and might just bring in some of those White Working Class voters that Obama has had trouble with. He would/will face some criticism for his past statements women, but any candidate you find will have SOME things that will be criticized and attacked.

As a big supporter of Hillary Clinton and someone who will happily support Senator Obama if he is nominated, I believe that Wesley Clark would be a great fit as his VP. General Clark has the experience of running form President and actually winning some primaries in the south. He is cerebral while having the military experience to offset Sen McCain. Wesley Clark is eloquent and speaks to why a decorated war hero chose to be a Democrat. He can help Obama with a demographic he has struggled with while projecting a positve vision.

Wesley Clark would be a great choice for VP. He's out of the DC loop, quadruple (star) trumps any military cache Mccain has and is an eloquent speaker who has charisma to spare. As a Clinton supporter, he'd help bring the HRC people into the game.

I like Evan Bayh. He's a Clinton supporter. He's young (52) but experienced (8 years as governor & 10 as senator). He would help in the Midwest (OH, MI, WI, & MO--and possibly bring Indiana in play). Most importantly, he's the safe choice; he won't cause any problems for Obama either during the campaign or in office.

Given the wildly successful job Obama, Axelrod et al have done in thinking through and executing a successful primary strategy I expect they'll figure out and select the right candidate.

We'll all know soon enough.

I'm all over the lot on this one. I do not see a sitting
Senator because of Obama's thrust of 'new politics'
and 'change', maybe Nunn, or maybe someone completely
off the scope.
Richardson has strengths and weaknesses; not sure he can
survive a serious vetting. Maybe a man for foreign affairs such as Richardson or the economy, Bloomsburg, or a woman governor to bring in disgrunted Clinton supporters. These are the highest polity areas for Obama. Who? Don't Know!

Wes Clark.

You have to have a Politician that has already proven that they can win a fairly large state wide race. That is one way of vetting their campaign skills. Wes. Clark has not ever done so. He is too much of a risk. You need a seasoned political big time winner.

Gov Brad Henry (D-OK)

You heard it here first.

I hate to recommend a David Brooks column, but I actually like his last one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/opinion/27brooks.html

He argues that the VP is more important for governing than for winning elections. I think that he undervalues the role of the VP candidate in elections, but his analysis of who would best be able to help Obama govern is interesting. He argues that Obama needs a Washington insider who can help to press his change agenda on a recalcitrant Congress and federal bureaucracy. For that job, he suggests Daschle or Nunn.

I see the need for such a person. I don't think that person would have to be VP, but the clout of the office could help.

Obama's road to the White House goes through CO, NM, NV. Therefore, Bill Richardson.

However, does anyone else wonder if a Black-Hispanic ticket is too much?

Why not pick a VP who represents the Hillary voters - someone like me? This choice is female, white, over fifty, well-educated, and has experienced degrading gender and age discrimination up close and personal. She supports universal health care, family friendly work environments, choice, academically strong K-16 education, immediate withdrawal from Iraq, equity of opportunity, and economic strategies that will reduce the gap between the rich and poor. California's two senators fit this category and would make excellent, experienced VPs.

Obama needs to narrow down the field to two or three people who he could live with, who have possible appeal to the Clinton wing of the party: maybe Ed Rendell and Kathleen Sebelius, or Strickland and Napolitano. (Maybe throw in Edwards, though I tend to prefer Governors.)

And then...?

Turn to Hillary. Have her choose from among the finalists.

It would be an unprecedented show of respect to a defeated candidate, and would ensure a united Convention.

Me? I like Rendell.

I'm completely off the Webb VP Bus after reading Kathy G's case against Webb. She's right and everybody pushing/considering Webb should read it.

I think Edwards made too many statements strongly for the war and re-iterated his stance in order to appear tough with Kerry in 2004 when the talk was all about not wanting to change horses midstream.

I really like Joe Biden, however could his credentials undermine Obama more than help him? I know Biden has said he has no real interest in the VP spot, but that could be just playing the game. His straight talk on issues could get him into some trouble on the campaign trail, however the Dem's probably don't have a better attack dog. He'd much rather be Sec. of State though, but the key is for Obama and the Dems to get elected first.

My darkhorse is Brian Schweitzer, however given he is up for re-election in Montana this election, I don't think he is a viable option. I'd love Mark Warner, but he seems to want certain stability for his young family and he's pretty much a lock to grab the Senate seat in Virginia, and could probably keep it as long as he wants it - that's stability (and it wouldn't hurt him if he wants to make a Presidential run himself in four or eight years).

I'm incline to believe that Virginia will be the "Florida" of this election. Obama will be well-served to pick one of the three prominent Dems(Webb, Kaine, Warner) with VA connections. Of the three, Webb is the most unlikely despite the buzz around him as a veep candidate. Webb is way too blunt-spoken and does nothing for female Democrats(a group Obama needs to win). Warner would be a great choice, but it appears that he's set on running for Senate. Kaine looks like he might be the one. Given the term limit restriction on VA executives, he is the most likely pick for veep.

Thoughts?

I agree that Wesley Clark would be right. He'd be a big plus to the ticket. The fact that he strongly backed Hillary doesn't hurt (and he may well have been her planned choice for VP).

No to Webb: I like him but in addition to not wanting to potentially harm the Dems' majority in the Senate, there is just too much baggage in his past writings and statements. Obama needs someone who isn't going to produce a lot of headaches in the next few months. Webb's writings & comments about female soldiers alone will become a big distraction.

Wes Clark provides all the military experience Webb has without the negatives.

Senator Chuck Hagel: There are ways to deal with' a president who says 'I don't care' - strong and great name recognition.

or

Edwards!

I don't think it's likely but I like an Obama/Gore ticket.

Gore is from Tennessee so I think it helps with the white working class Appalachian (aka. racist) vote.

I know Gore has said he isn't interested in the presidency because he has found a "bigger calling" vis-a-vie the climate crisis but maybe in the Veep position he could affect more positive change in that area.

And after all he did win the popular vote in 2000.

I'm with you on Wes Clark up to the part about being a Clinton partisan. If I'm Obama (which I'm not :), no way do I want a potential Clinton mole inside the White House.

Sebelius: Popular Dem governor in a red state, good economic record, Woman (cougar), delivered a democratic response to the SotU address that was about as lame as Gov. Kaine's (VA) before.

Richardson: Best overall resume, likable, Latino, Delivers New Mexico and increases chances in south western swing states, possibly Florida. Once in a while though he totally shits the bed when asked questions most democrats should be able to give a decent answer to in their sleep.

Edwards: I could listen to him talk or not talk for hours about the two Americas in his southern accent. I'd rather see him run Justice or take seat on the supreme court.

Webb: I think he'd be more effective as a Senator. I was on the fence about him until I was reminded yesterday that he has a pretty long record of saying fucked up things about women serving in the military. That won't win women over in the GE and certainly won't win over any Hillary supporters. Plus, back when he ran for the senate, my republican dad swore that he wrote a book that has a line about a man putting his mouth on a little boy's junk. I don't know if that's true, but if he's on the ticket, people like my dad will be telling everyone they can, which makes it true enough.

Kaine: As mentioned in another post his vacancy would put a republican in charge of VA, and as I noted about Gov Sebelius, his democratic response to the state of the union address was really weak.

Wesley Clark: Counter's a lot of McCain's national security and military cred. In 2004 when democrats were still being called French Kissing Surrender Monkey's, I thought Kerry/Clark would be a strong enough national security/military/war decent ticket to counter the swift boating. His own presidential campaign was pretty lame though. His early support of Hillary smacked of VP desperation too. Same thing with Vilsack.

Rendell: He has serius diarrhea of the gaffe. As a Philadelphian I can also say he was just OK as mayor and as governor of PA he's rubbish. Not one of his policies has made my life better. Indeed most of them have made my life worse.

Napolitano: Yoinks AZ from McCain and adds the female cred to the campaign I think this election needs.

Let me make a few suggestions on who should NOT be the VP choice:

a. No one who switched from the Republican Party after being elected to an office.

b. No one who has mounted a failed Presidential campaign.

c. No one who is a current or former Senator.

d. No one associated with the leadership or consultariat of the DLC.

e. No one who voted for the AUMF.

--------------------------

Personally, I favor a West-of-the-Mississippi governor like William Ritter or Kathleen Sebelius.

HAving read all the previous thoughtful comments, I am impressed both ny the nominations and the logic behind them.
Hillary-despite the hype, Hillary would not bring in Red States into play-Her vote in Ky and West Virginia probably reflects that either candidate would loose those states, they simply preferred her to Obama but would prefer McCain to either.Last Obama/Clinton give the Republicans the chance to use all the prepared attacks they have prepared for either if nominated. I frankly do not wish another, Whitewater, Clinton scandals campaign.
I like the idea of Clark balancing McCain, Sebelius would give both the women HRC backers, the red state issue and the non Washington insider factors.
There was something appealing about the Obama/Edwards endorsement rally about the chemistry and attractiveness of the duo.
Sebelius, Clark, Strickland are my short list, Edwards as a sentimental favorite.

Tom Brokaw.

(1) He's spent his whole life being an objective journalist, so he's a blank slate. Nobody can complain that he's too liberal or too conservative on some issue. He won't have to backpedal from views that differ from those of the nominee or the party (cf. Lieberman and affirmative action).

(2) He's spent his whole life on TV, so he'll certainly do well in the VP debate.

(3) He can make a case for Obama among old while people (i.e., the people who actually used to watch Brokaw/Jennings/Rather every night), who trust him and don't trust Obama (because, on average, they're more prejudiced than younger people).

(4) How better to emphasize that the Democrats are the party of reality than to put a lifelong news reporter on the ticket? People are more likely (for good reason) to give weight to the opinion of someone who rarely voices his opinions -- when he does, it's an event. Brokaw can say, "I spent my whole life reporting the news, finding out the facts, interviewing people, trying to get the whole story. And over that period of time, I've come to my own conclusions about politics and our political system." And then he can say that he has come to the exact same conclusions as Obama. Brilliant.

(5) Obama represents a lot of change. Brokaw would be a change, too, because he's not a politician. But he also represents continuity with the past -- with the "Greatest Generation," with the era of the network news, with all the historic events that he reported to us over the years. He can provide the feeling of continuity that you would get from an old, familiar politician from the Clinton-era past (Gore, Rendell, etc.), but without the associations to the old politics that Obama is trying to get us to leave behind.