anybody who recommends Kucinich for the Supreme Court has destroyed all their credibility.

Chuck Hagel: Coming to his senses about the misguided war in Iraq DOES NOT make him a good choice. (I'm pretty sure I agree with him on two issues and thats about it.) He is a staunch conservative and I don't want him that close to the presidency.

Bill Richardson: He's got plenty of street cred in foreign affairs but Obama's has said he feels like foreigh policy is his strong area. Plus Bill's rumored "womanizing" has legs. Besides HRC is probably going to make one of her exit conditions a say in the VP slot.

Hillary Clinton: Massive waste of her talents. She would make a great addition to the Democratic leadership team in the Senate and may eventually be the Majority leader. She's just coming into her own in the Senate. It would be a loss to the progressive agenda to put her on the ticket.

Actually I am opposed to putting any sitting Senator on the ticket with SENATOR Obama. Just plain dumb. We need every Democrat and every ounce of Seniority to continue on with the progressive agenda.

One TO consider .... Joe Biden

Pluses: foreign policy expertise, knowledge of legislative process, 'associated'/friendly with Clinton even though he didn't endorse anyone, would be good in VP 'attack' role, fully capable of serving if there should ever be a need, NOT a greedy power-hungry politician (least net worth of any of the candidates), intelligent enough to really work *with* Obama, sense of humor (saving grace of any position), and the most photogenic poster you can ever imagine!

Minus: removing him from the Senate (but that might happen anyway - Secy of State, etc.)

Dick Cheney

Kathleen Sebelius. She's agovernor of a Midwest state, so we won't lose a Senate seat. She would attract the female, and the blue collar votes.

I commend you for some really bad choices. Some items you neglected to mention: in addition to being a bad choice, Wesley Clark has been a strong supporter of Hillary. In addition to the many problems with a Hillary selection detailed by Josh Marshall (it makes no sense for either of them, actually), there is the frightening prospect of allowing Bill back in to the White House. Ron Paul is a certified wingnut whose opposition to the war originates in a pure isolationist worldview that is of a piece with his belief that the income tax is unconstitutional and should be abolished. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but for all the appeal of some of his policies, has Kucinich ever mustered more than 5% in a primary?

How bout Oprah?

I second your nomination of Kucinich as a supreme court justice. This country is badly in need of a liberal on the supreme court, it's so right-wing right now, it's scary.

Please do me a favor: stop with the "assassin's bullet" conspiracy metaphors and memes. We really don't need to keep raising red flags in the blogosphere that somehow Obama, being a popular choice and a harbinger of new politics is automatically a target for an assassin. Come on now!

yikes, sorry for the dupe - the system gave me a "failed" message which is why I resubmitted.

I wonder if Janet Napolitano could bring Arizona with her? Might be a stretch.

Bold Prediction: The pick will be a 50-60 y.o. white male ret. military General or Admiral, possibly former Republican with a gravely voice, the sense of humor of Jeff Foxworthy, the debating gravitas of Dick Cheney, and the unquestionable patriotism of "American Dad" or Jack Bauer.

Obama is revolutionary enough. He needs a solid rock on which to plant his flag of change, bipartisanship, and hope & inspiration.

I know we're thinking up bad choices, but here's a good one. Rama Yade, currently the French State Secretary in charge of foreign affairs and human rights. We could actually have an Obama-Rama bumper sticker. Plus, she's really good looking. And the French connection is sure to rile conservatives. Go Obama-Rama.

Judging from a lot of the posts on this site there is still quite a bit of bitterness on the part of Obama supporters. Given the fact that he is apparently going to be the nominee that suggests a very divided party. One would expect Hillary supporters to be bitter. Therefore that is a very big reason to have Hillary on the ticket. I'm one of those Hillary supporters who will vote for Obama even if Jeremiah Wright suddenly announces that Obama was wearing panties and a bra at his baptism. But I have no illusions about many voters - not after Bush won twice. I can understand how many Democrats will not vote for Obama, even if his supporters can not fathom it. Add to that all the stuff that is going to come out during the Fall. The ticket needs Hillary. There's going to be major ugliness in this campaign, and we will need all the support we can muster.

Also the suggestion that Obama will be better able to break with the "old ways of doing politics" without Hillary is naive. That was a campaign slogan. Many continue to cling to it, overlooking all the negativity on the part of Obama during the campaign, while he somehow managed to maintain the aura of being above it all, at least until Pennsylvania when it became too obvious that he used negative attacks. It was a campaign slogan. He will use it as he runs against McCain, again painting himself as the victim of vicious attacks. He will again spin that his attacks against McCain are only responses. But he will be equally negative.

And more importantly, if he somehow manages to get to Washington, he will again discover that he has to play the old game. That's when Hillary will be a help.