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.

Campaigning for VP isn't like campaigning for president. The VP candidate can be casual, and attack. Richardson can do that, and look amiable at the same time. The charisma on the ticket is Obama, not Richardson, in that case.

They'll win easily, because black+hispanic+not many whites=270 electoral votes.

Repeat after me..."We cannot afford to take a sitting Senator or Congressman". Repeat over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. And repeat.

The good news is that there are soooo many good choices!

I don't want to see Hillary on the ticket; I think she would lose him appeal with independants.

Wes Clark is way down on my list too - there are less known former military people who'd be a better fit.

Gore is my first choice although I don't think he'd do it. He is more popular than ever and would be a great Dem version of a Cheney.

Edwards is choice number 2 for me. I love his energy and his populist appeal. He'd be a good assest for Obama.

Richardson is choice number three. Again, they seem to get along well and his resume is second to none. He is a very likeable guy.

Beyond that top three the rest all sound appealing. I'd rather not see another sitting senator be the choice but a current governor would be fine.

In the end, I don't think any choice would hurt him except Hillary.

I would be happy with either of:

1. Kathleen Sebelius. She is, in my opinion, the most "Obama-like" of the potentials. She has the same kind of "experience" Obama does-- she's been quietly building up a record of service at the state level and is not entangled with the national-level politics the Obama campaign says it wants to change. And she seems to have a grasp of the same political-judo approach to politics Obama does, that of approaching issues sideways and defying expectations of how the mechanics of politics work. Most importantly, she's a governor in a red state and has stayed more solidly and reliably progressive than many blue-state Dems; this shows us she stays true to principle even under pressure. And although I don't know how well this works, his choice may serve to reach out to female and rural-state voters.

2. Bill Richardson. He has a history of administrative competence and he's good on the issues. I don't agree with him on everything but out of everyone who was running for President this year he has the best position on Iraq and the best position on immigration. Also he has demonstrated he is better at growing a beard than any competing choice. And although I don't know how well this works, his choice may serve to reach out to hispanic and southwest-border-state voters.

And I think I want to run over a couple of other people to explain why they're not my pick:

How about Colin Powel for his first term and a young governor or senator in the Obama or Edwards mold for the second term?

I think the VP choice is somewhat more important than usual for Obama, given that he is a newcomer on the national stage and someone with less experience in office than most party nominees.

It's an opportunity, for him, in that it represents the one major governing decision he can actually make before taking office. People can extrapolate from his decision to get a little bit more sense of who he is and how he undertakes his responsibilities. This is why all the pushing over getting Hillary on to the ticket is dangerous. She is not the kind of choice that helps him ... plus it would appear forced and take away that chance to impact the way he is viewed as a decisionmaker.

He needs to look for a couple of related qualities in making this choice. First and foremost, the person should come across as supremely well-qualified. The selection should convey the notion that Obama is serious about governing skillfully. He can partly fill his one biggest deficit, as a candidate, while at the same time drawing a contrast with the Bush years.

A second related quality is communications skills. The candidate needs to not only be qualified, in terms of his/her resume, but to give the impression of being comfortable, confident, capable, etc. We live in the age of the 24-hour news cycle, so a certain comfort level with the limelight is a pretty significant boost to the ticket.

With those qualities in mind, and given all the discussions of VPs I've seen, I don't believe there is a "silver bullet" candidate for Obama this year. Nobody is just absolutely perfect for him. There are, however, several very good options.

The best, in my opinion:

1. Mark Warner

Spectacular achievements in government (making Virginia "the best managed state in the nation" and "the best state for busines success"). Also won awards for best education policies. Huge strength on economic issues, due to his business background and record as governor.

I wouldn't say that his communications skills are spectacular. He's actually a little awkward and doesn't project his personality in a way you might expect from someone with his life achievements. On the other hand, in terms of his governing vision, he has actually been promoting the same kind of national unity message that we see at the core of the Obama campaign.

2. Janet Napolitano

Another remarkably successful governor. I think she comes across as quite a bit more centered, confident, and a little more dynamic than Kathleen Sebelius. I saw a few Youtube clips of her at Obama rallies, and looked at interviews, speeches, etc. She exudes competence and quality leadership. Like Warner, she is somewhat short on the charisma factor. She gives that distinct impression of a dedicated, determined, accomplished, and hardworking leader.

She's rated one of the top five governors in the country by Time magazine. She's former chair of both the Western Governor's Association and the National Governors Association. Very popular, elected and reelected in a red state. She might not be able to pull Arizona, since it's John McCain's home, but she could make a favorable impression on neighboring western states.

3. Joe Biden

Here we have the niche foreign policy expert. Passionate, articulate, and experienced on international issues, with something of a national reputation given the number of times he appears in TV interviews. There's no quicker path to winning the Iraq debate in this election than putting Biden on the ticket. Obama can certainly make the arguments, but Biden gives both a balanced and passionate backup to those arguments.

When thinking about Biden, try to picture two things. First, picture Obama losing the foreign policy argument to John McCain, with Biden on the ticket. Both Obama and Biden are articulate and forceful. It's a never-ending one-two punch in that particular issue area that McCain would never be able to rhetorically counter.

Second, picture McCain winning the 2008 election while losing the debate on international affairs. What other issue areas does McCain win on? The economy? Health care? It's clear to me that McCain's gambit to unify his own party and to lock down red-state America rests on being the "tough guy" on foreign affairs. Losing that debate pretty much kills his candidacy.

The downsides of Biden include the lack of regional appeal and lack of executive experience. An "all senator" ticket is also a bit of a liability.

4. Ted Strickland

My governor here in Ohio. Very popular, and from the appalachian southeastern region of the state, where he could help blunt McCain's advantage. Very good resume. Comes across as quite strong and solid and reasonable in an interview. Brings obvious electoral advantages on top of being a strong governing pick.

I think all three of these guys (and a gal) are strong picks. I guess I'd say I think the Mark Warner pick is particularly strong. I just have a feel for those guys as a governing partnership that is both philosophically meaningful and full of competence, skill, and youthful dynamism. It almost feels like a Bill Clinton/Al Gore ticket from 1992, where you have youth, dynamism, governing skill, and a candidate with the sizzle at the top of the ticket and heft at the bottom.

jac wrote:

"No one who has mounted a failed Presidential campaign"

Does that include or not include Hilary? She has certainly mounted a President.

The most important factor in the selection of a VP is that it be consistent with what Obama is trying to do. Basically, this is a watershed election pitting progressives who want to move on to a new paradigm against retrogressives who are clinging to the past. It's about reconciliation, not division. It's about peace, not war. It's about talking to adversaries, not labeling them with names that demonize them. It's about reason, not emotion. It's about responsibility, not fantasy.

These factors, in my opinion rule out candidates that are inconsistent with this theme. What's needed is a fresh face that in compatible with the new objectives. Clinton, Gore, Nun, etc. are the old contingent, even though they are good people and still doing good things. They should continue the work they are doing now, as Jimmy Carter has done.

New blood would include people like Mark Warner and Kathleen Sebelius. I'm sure there are others that fit the profile and have credentials that would add experience to the ticket.

John Edwards.
I think poverty is the worst stain on our country right now. I know there are good arguments that Iraq or other things are worse, but to me, poverty in this country is the one thing we should be most ashamed of.
People--many of them children--in the richest country the world has ever seen go hungry or sleep out on the street every night. People freeze to death for lack of money to heat their homes; they die from easily treated sicknesses because they can't afford to see a doctor or buy medicine.
Edwards has made this his cause, and I would love to see him take the vice presidency and use it to do for poverty what Gore did with the environment. He could zero in on poverty and not have to get sidetracked by all the other responsibilities a president has to handle.
He has plans to cut poverty in half in 10 years (I believe that's right; I could have the number of years wrong or something), and with the bully pulpit of the vice presidency--it's admittedly, less bully than the top job, but it also has, as I said, fewer distractions--I think he could help us make amazing strides toward wiping out poverty.
Maybe he could even get Americans thinking about poverty in other countries and getting us going on doing something about that, too...

Astonishingly I don't see that anyone has mentioned the most obvious choice...Obama.

1.Biden 2.Bayh 3.Clark 4.Obama

Mike Easley, Guv of North Carolina. Becuz:

1. He supported Hillary, so he's a "party unity" pick, minus her baggage.

2. He's an old-looking white guy.
="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mike_Easley.jpg"> Mike_Easley.jpg

3. Could put NC and its 15 votes in play. According to Pollster.com, Obama is currently 8 points behind McCain there, while Hillary is just about even. So it could be winnable with a popular guv.

But not with Edwards, who's run for president twice and won all of one state (SC not NC) and ran for VP and lost. He wuz my first choice in '04 and '08, but the first job of a VP is to help the candidate win. Losing three different national campaigns is not such compelling evidence that he can do this.)

4. The conventional wisdom that Dems need a southerner on the ticket to win (true since Truman) is wise to this extent: It's not so much about the south, it's about the southern parts of the north. A southern, more-conservative-than-most-Dems guv sends an inclusive message to voters in rural and suburban Indiana, Ohio, PA, MI and elsewhere that Obama must win to get to 270+.

I once stopped at a rodeo in western MI and saw Confederate belt buckles for sale. There's lots of Bubbas and Bubbettes up north these days -- and Howard Dean was absolutely right when he said in '04 that we have to find a way to talk to these folks.

I think Obama might have enough experience to be VP by 2012, but I don't know if Hillary will really want him, he will certainly be damaged goods after 2008.

Oh well, I'll trust her judgment on that.

Hillary 2012!!!

Kathleen Sebelius. The 50-state strategy includes Kansas. She's also a great reinforcing candidate, and would play well with Catholic voters in the Midwest.

I do think it would be nice to put a woman on the ticket.

It has to be someone who can go toe to toe with Mac on national security. It also has to be someone that brings in Hillary followers. The only one that can do that is Wes Clark

I think he should pick a Republican for VP. Maybe someone like Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snow or Hillary Clinton.

jk

Long list:

Bloomberg
Edwards
Kaine
Sebelius
Strickland
Warner
Webb

Short list:

Edwards
Sebelius
Webb

One of Obama's biggest challenges is finding a VP candidate who speaks to change, both in ideas and personal characteristics. Let me throw out a name that hasn't been discussed yet: Claire McCaskill.

Yes, she's a Dem Senator from a state with a Republican governor, but there would likely be a special election to replace her.

What she brings:
1) She's been one of Obama's strongest advocates throughout the campaign
2) She's a woman who will be able to speak to Hillary supporters about the importance of staying with the Democratic ticket
3) She's from an important swing state, and she'll have pull throughout the Midwest as well
4) She is youthful and attractive, both in appearance and personality. Man, nothing would say "change" better than a photo of Barack and Claire together.

Just think about the contrast: Obama/McCaskill vs. Doddering old man/Stepford politician

Me. That Yglesias article seems to have instantly turned people off to him, though. We're also faced with the odd "angry older white woman" vote this year. But I love his style and think he should be at the top of the list at least.

The more I look at the possibilities, the more I keep coming back to Kathleen Sebelius. In the beginning, I favored her simply because I thought the ticket needed a Kathy on it.

But the more I learn about her record, the more I'm impressed. No, I don't think she brings Kansas, but she does reinforce Obama's Kansas roots. (For that matter, I don't think any candidate brings a state automatically.)

And I don't think he needs any more gravitas on the ticket when it comes to foreign policy. He trumps all McCain's experience with his judgement argument: Obama was against the war. Nuff said.

But he does need to address his weakness on the number one topic on most Americans' minds: the economy. She's great on that, and would be an excellent choice to head up health care reform. (She was Insurance Commissioner for 8 years, never caved to the industry.)

Check out her wiki, and search YouTube for her 06 ads. They're very good.

And of course, a bit more Kathy on the ticket won't hurt.

George Mitchell - how's that for a candidate from left field? Made peace in N. Ireland (foreign policy), back in the news with the Mitchell Report. Gravitas. Experience. A comfortable old, white man.

Frankly, I'd just as soon look at a Republican as a blue-dog Democrat. If, and that's a very big if, people were to consider a Republican, I'd be interested in seeing Jim Leach, ex-Representative from Iowa to be considered for the first term. He voted against the the AUMF, is strong on environmental issues, he's pro-choice through the second trimester, voted against the 2003 tax cut, takes strong stands for accountability in financial institutions, and he lost in his 2006 bid because he refused to allow anti-gay mailings to be sent out by Republican Party activists, which resulted in him losing the support of Iowa's social conservatives. And he'd be too old to run in 2016.

Otherwise, I love Gore and Edwards, and would be interested in knowing more about Daschle.

I should add that I'm really, really surprised at who Obama picked to do his vp search. That dude was almost ready to pick Gephardt as Kerry's runningmate. Yuk, what poor taste, if true--two cold, dead fish on the same ticket.

Centerpunch and Doofus: check out the previously cited Atlantic Monthly article by Yglezias. These last few months I've been an ardent Webb supporter for V.P. but Matt's article really brought me to my senses. The biggest liability would be Webb's dour combustible personality. On the campaign trail, he would make John Kerry look like Robin Williams. THAT would be deadly with the press. Remember what they did to Al Gore in 2000. Webb would be mincemeat going in and it would all be over in a couple of weeks.

Still, a southern white guy is needed to fit the bill in Appalachia. Edwards has said a lot in regards to poverty and lack of opportunity and that may turn the tide in coal country.

Based on the criteria I outlined above, I'll suggest Patrick Murphy, freshman congressman from Pennsylvania. This would be going all in on the generational thing (Murphy will be 35 in October, just barely old enough to serve as President, if necessary). On the other hand, he's an Iraq war vet, moderate liberal (blue dog democrat, but held tough on the FISA fight better than a lot of so-called liberals), very connected to the netroots. He's got Iraq war street cred that McCain can never match.

I have flirted with wanting Biden (but he says he won't take the VP spot), Webb (based on early hype, but now I don't think he's credible), Dodd (still credible, but dull), Bayh (really amiable and strong executive experience and a Clinton supporter, but I fear he could be another Dan Quayle), and Clinton (who would help the ticket with just about every key demographic group EXCEPT the passionate Obama afficionados who The Chosen One can't afford to piss off) ... and now I'm leaning towards John Edwards.

He's well known, loved by the base, a Southern white male who doesn't scare people, he polls well in states like Pennsylvania, and his message is VERY Obama "change you can believe in" friendly.

I really do feel that Chuck Hagel would be ground-breaking.

Yes, he's a pro-life Republican. Selecting him would send a message that this election is more important than a single issue. It would neutralize the anti-abortion call to get out the vote for that single issue.

He has taken a consistent, principled stand against Bush-style Republicanism. This is the sort Republican Bush and Rove alienated. This is the sort of Republican that can redraw the electoral map. His military record will neutralize McCain's apparent advantage there ... Obama / Hagel - can be reasoned and strong...

Reasonable people can disagree about abortion. The change from Bush will incorporate more than just that issue.

Let's redraw the electoral map with Hagel on the ticket.

Agree that a non-Hillary woman would be great, but also think that Hagel would be a slap in the face to women who support Hillary and need to be sold on Obama.

One of the big arguments for women to come back to the fold is preservation of choice, and picking Hagel really would be a slap in that regard.

Look, it's been political practices of the past based on which vp possibility can bring in a big state's elecoratal votes which have determined for the most part who the choice will be. But it's all the ridiculous cronyim goofs by this administration, and by John McCain, I might add, that will cause voters all over the country to pay very close attention to Obama's ability to sift through and find the candidate with the strongest skills to be president, a person whose appeal is not limited by geography, gender, race. While the choice of a candidate from Ohio, for instance, might impress voters of Ohio, that person may not impress Bush-weary voters in the rest of the country. Remember Michael Brown, Meiers, Kerick. Gonzales, etc.? Bush's lack of skills, I believe, may have changed political considerations for the future. Obama's ability to judge people is going to be very much on the line.

Obama needs someone with national "gravitas." In the few months that will remain, he will have to define himself for the American people, and his VP will have to have a record already established and name recognition. I, too, like some of the younger governors and senators, but they are only known in their own states. There isn't time to bring the people up to speed on TWO candidates.

Picking a governor from a state we need for electoral votes is also a questionable call. Barack's going to have to win this a different way, just as he has won the nomination: with registration of young and previously disenfranchised voters, and a sweep of new ideas. I like Edwards for anti-big business and southern appeal (but he didn't help Kerry much, did he?) I love Biden. We should relish his honesty, though he'd be hard for the "handlers" to handle (but don't we want to get rid of handlers?)
I think previously commenters have made a good case for Dodd.

I'm a fan of Hillary's, but I can truly see the handwriting on the wall (from the very BEGINNING of this campaign), and therefore voted for Obama in the CA primary. I agree with previous writers who raise the caution: do NOT, under any circumstances, pull a woman like Sebelius out of the hat. She's little known, lackluster, and any woman put in instead of Hillary will make some women furious. Hillary's the one who fought the fight. Don't put another woman in there and expect women to accept it easily.

I do love Pat Schroeder. She's amazing.
The end.

Not who I want, not by a long shot, but I predict that Obama is going to pick Hagel. I give this about a 40% likelihood. I think that is why he has been talking about admiring Lincoln for putting rivals in his cabinet. I have been pulling for Clark as VP, I think he gives the gravitas and military background necessary for pulling out of Iraq, but the best political decision is Clinton.

Now let's see:
Olympia Snowe would be nice. Does anybody actually know why she's a Republican? She is a female with the right positions, high popularity, and a seat we can fill with a dem when she leaves. The only problem is that she already gave her endorsement to McCain (although she could possibly claim that it was only for the primary). She seems honest enough that the offer of a position probably wouldn't make her betray her party.
Susan Collins, while slightly more conservative, might be open for conversion, as she might be a little pissed at her own party if she loses her election. Still unlikely though.
Scott McClellan would never accept the offer, but I still like to imagine McCain's reaction.
William Fallon would be really nice, but I think Bush had him disappeared, as I haven't heard from him since he quit. If we can find him, he would not only negate McCain on national security, but upstage him. He should at least get a cabinet position.
Tom Lantos is a shoah survivor, closing any problem w/ Jewish voters right up. Unfortunately, he isn't a natural-born citizen, which would make his ascendancy against tradition, even though the rules only state that you have to be a natural born citizen to be elected president. Also, he's a senator, which gets those senator-senator issues. Oh, and there's the little issue of his death. All in all, we should probably just make him ambassador to Canada or something.
Bill Richardson is nice, but, unfortunately, I don't think you're allowed to be VP and Secretary of State at the same time.
Eric Shinseki sounds kind of nice in theory, remember that he was forced out because he shilled for the Iraq war unsatisfactorily. Competing w/ Fallon for the cabinet it is.
Clark: nice guy, might be a good idea if we're really confident, as we know he can't run well. Otherwise pretty good.
Sebelius is a great VP idea, as long as we're not worried about running. As the analysis from Big Blue notes, she doesn't seem to be a good idea for the campaign.
Edwards and Gore: no.

Now, of the people I'm knowledgeable about, remember, and bother mentioning due to common sense(that means both Clintons are out), that leaves one: Bloomberg! He is among the greatest leaders I know of, is immensely popular, and guaranteed to get you Florida or your money back (he's rich enough to back that up).

For the record, I like Richardson for several reasons: experienced, Western, Hispanic. And I think anyone put off by his ethnicity is already lost because look who's on top of the ticket.
That said, one name that I haven't seen in all this discussion here and on other sites is Sen. Carl Levin. He's chair of Armed Services, blue-collar as they come, and he brings Michigan and probably helps in Minnesota and Wisconsin. I know he's getting up there in years, but so are Biden and Dodd and several other dark horses mentioned already (i.e. Schroeder, Mikulski, Carter). Anyone out there from Michigan care to weigh in?

For amusement value only, I would love to see McCain-Lieberman against Obama-Bloomberg.

The "Red Rover" Veepstakes.

"VP is not a reasonable step to the presidency unless by tragedy."

Sad but true. As one who lived through the sixties, I want Obama's VP to think like him.

Please please please no Joe Biden. I'm sure he's a nice guy & all but he's 1) another Senator; 2) a total Camera Whore; 3) a gaffe machine -- pick him & you're guaranteed to lose at least two news cycles cleaning up after something he said; 4) was wrong on the war; 5) totally sabotages the whole "new politics" meme -- the guy who's been in the Senate since the Nixon administration -- who chaired the freakin' Anita Hill hearings (& screwed that up) is supposed to be turning the page on the partisan gridlock of the past?

No thanks Joe. Stay in the Senate & keep going on Tim Russert every week.

Nobody has rec'd Sherrod Brown yet? I'm really surprised. Popular senator from a key swing state (Ohio, beat a popular incumbent by 12% in 2006), particularly strong with labor, brilliant mind (Rhodes Scholar), a true fighter and/but eminently reasonable, solid voting record, Eagle Scout. Not up for reelection this fall. Is there any downside to this guy?

I wish we would just let the nominee pick without all sorts of persuasion and lobbying for one candidate or another. I certainly trust Obama or Clinton to pick better choices than some of the TPM board favorites who trend far too conservative for me.

But....since we are at it, I would like John Edwards. Edwards carried on the real Democratic tradition of being the champion of ordinary people - people that Obama's campaign is perceived as having contempt for. Additionally, he means it and would pressure Obama, I would hope, to move to the left on economic issues and to stop being such a Wall Street puppet.

Women are the Largest Voting Block

For women—Obama, Clinton, and McCain supporters alike—seeing a woman as educated and accomplished as Clinton work her ass off inspiring new voters so much that she comes within an inch of the nomination... and then watching as both parties elect all-male candidates again, would be INFURIATING. It would be clearly saying to woman that their votes do no matter, even though they comprise the largest voting bloc in the U.S. It would be adding symbolically that their accomplishments, patience, and hard work mean nothing to American men. Women will see two parties that do not represent their interests at all, and many women that voted in the primary will stay home. People keep talking about picking VPs to help get Obama a state, or the Jewish vote, or the Catholic vote. The Woman vote dwarfs all those votes. If Obama doesn't pick a female VP, he will be much, much closer to losing the Presidency as well as losing the Democratic party many of its supporters.

what i find most troubling about the comments here, is how the commentors are just as disconnected as one would have expected them to be in 2002 thru 2006.

it's as if you still haven't realized that the fundamentalist left is in the extreme minority, they don't win campaigns. they're out of touch with the vast majority of the population, and in all reality, that means the vast majority of democratic voters, who are black, brown and white.

as disconcerting, is the fact that for the most part they either are willingly indifferent or just plain clueless about the records of some of the candidates they put forward. bill richardson is no one's idea of a worthy vp candidate. i don't want a vp, someone who is a heartbeat away from the presidency who has as bad a record as governor as george w bush. look at his record in new mexico. he has made poverty worse in his state, and when called upon it, shrugged his shoulders.

he treated the native peoples of the state like garbage. i have navajo friends who have documented the corruption in richardson's administration, his being in the pocket of every corporate interest that waves money in his face. richardson also has a record of sexual harassment of female staffers. perhaps the extreme left are as unethical as the extreme right when it comes to the issues and the facts?

if obama is to win, his vp choice has to be one that will attract more support from white working class citizens, who have every reason to feel ignored. the far left have alienated them at every turn, demeaning their legitimate concerns about the economy and jobs.

it's going to have to be edwards, webb or another similar candidate who has the credibility, and treats the real issues with respect.

frankly, the single issue types will fall into line and vote for obama. they neither need or deserve any catering to.

as to the lolo who brought up edwards' iraq war vote, wake up and get over it. the nutroots are irrelevant, alway have been, always will be. it's your kind that lost the elections in 2000 and 2004. unless you want to have a mccain presidency in 2009, rid yourself of your ridiculous prejudices and ignorance, and remember that you never have been, nor will you ever be the center of the universe. also, it should be more than apparent that the ivory tower you felt safely ensconced in over the years isn't insurmuntable. you are as at risk under right wing government.. and even less capable of surviving it than your less affluent peers.

Amen, my brother!

This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of windows 2008 hyper v, iscsi initiator connection failed