I actually wouldn't mind a moderate republican on the ticket. I would actually prefer a fiscal conservative to be on the ticket with Obama and even though Republicans screwed up the budget big time, there might be a few who have budgetary skills that might come in handy.

I want a liberal republican. Either Main senator will do.

I was pushing Obama-Webb for months. I like Jim Webb very much, and I don't feel he's "too right". Judging, however, by his response to the "Would YOU like to be VP?" question, I'd say he prefers to remain an important Senator in Virginia. I applaud him for going left and I applaud him especially for his very loud anti-Iraq stance.

I like Chuck Hagel's anti-Iraq stance and the man himself seems very level-headed to me. But the reason I don't want to move "right" in the VP choice is because of the pro-choice issue.

I like Bill Richardson very much, Chris Dodd could also be a great choice, but -- again -- I think I'll be happy with whomever Obama and his top advisors feel happy with, because their campaign so far has made nothing but spectacular moves and excellent choices.

I fail to see how recommending this post will accomplish the goal of persuading Obama to not pick a right wing VP.

I am in agreement, though, that the three possibilities you mentioned are all bad choices, though Webb is less bad than the others. If a VP is intended to balance the ticket by contributing in some area in which the nominee is unsteady, I'd say a heartland type more connected to the blue collar voters. That and some credibility on military issues to balance the perception of Obama as soft on national security (fair or not), though not necessarily a hawk. Oddly enough, Hillary Clinton would appear to satisfy both those criteria, but given the campaign each of them has run (Obama being against "politics as usual" and Hillary being "ready from day one"), and their personalities, I don't see it working for either of them.

Obama-Cheney '08

Jim Webb is not a former Republican Senator. He is a former Republican. He is a current Democratic Senator. He is not a hawk. He is well aware of the strtegic limmits of what can be achieved militarily and can argue forcefuly for not exceding those limits without sounding like a wuss. He is about as populist as they come on economic issues. He is also way populist/liberal on the issues of criminal justice/prison reform. He cannot be spun as a right winger except by ignoring those issues which are most important. I think he would be an excelent vice presidental choice.

Obama needs to pick a running mate who can help him govern, someone to whom he can delegate major responsibilities. He needs to pick someone with whom he is personally comfortable & whom he trusts. These criteria override any political considerations. VP candidates have very little to do with winning elections.

The next president will have to deal with 3 major issues: climate change, the economy, & war. Any one of these would be the all-consuming priority issue for any president in history & will require the equivalent of Kennedy's man-on-the-moon-by-the-end-of-this-decade level of commitment. Obama will have to deal with all 3 at once & to do this he needs a competent VP to whom he can delegate major responsibility.

I don't care what your issue is - gay rights, pro- choice, environment, education, minority rights, etc. None of these matter right now. We are facing a level of crisis that threatens the existence of civilization as we know it! And that's from the 3 big issues we know of. Rogue regimes, nuclear proliferation, Israel, etc. are all capable of generating international crises that would also demand immediate action.

Jim Webb is a very capable guy, bright & articulate, who has demonstrated clear thinking & an understanding of nuance on the war that makes him ready to take major responsibility in this area & to articulate administration positions both on the campaign trail & from the White House. He is a strong Obama supporter & the 2 appear comfortable together. He should be on Obama's short list although I don't like the idea of wooing a recently elected senator to the White House & ignoring the feeling of the constituents who just elected him.

Bill Richardson is another capable guy to whom much responsibility could be delegated - especially in the realm of international diplomacy - something that is badly needed in the war effort. He & Obama also seem to be comfortable with each other. He should also be on the short list.

I'd like to know more about Kathleen Sebelius & Janet Napolitano, both of whom are 2nd term governors in term limited states. I don't know enough about them to know if they bring skills & knowledge in the 3 major areas of concer. If either of them does, she should be on the short list. Perhapa Gov. Gregoire of Washington belongs in this group as well.

I don't know who else is out there with sufficient stature to qualify for the job a heart beat away, but I'm sure that the Obama campaign does. The members of Congress who can be considered are few & far between because one member of Congress on the ticket is enough & Obama already has that spot sewn up. Webb is an exception to the rule despite some people's dislike of his past positions. His skills & knowledge are just to great to be passed over lightly. Too many members of Congress bring with them the "been in Washington too long" persona which would undermine Obama's "change" message. The trick will be to bring in a fresh face who also has sufficient stature to pass the VP threshold test.

Hillary eliminated herself from consideration long ago. Her ego is too big to make her anything other than an obstacle to a president's efforts to effectively govern. Some of the wacky ideas that she has presented on the campaign trail have raised serious questions about her knowledge & judgment. Bringing Bill along for the ride is just too much baggage for any president to tolerate - not to mention Hillary's baggage of her own.

I like this thread. The fact that there's no mention of you know, that person, really makes political speculation fun again. Recommended.

However, I kind of disagree with the thesis on these grounds: pre-Cheney did a VP ever really have that much influence on policy? I mean, so what if Hagel or Webb isn't super progressive. If Obama acts as the kind of leader most of us believe him to be he isn't going to sell out his core principles for some Republican position on any meaningful level. (That's so 90s, anyway.)

Obama has a sterling record as a progressive. When he compromises-- and compromise is necessary to govern effectively-- he doesn't do it cravenly. Often the real compromise he makes is simply in his rhetoric, not in his policy goals. He has a great ability to make his principles palatable to people beyond those of us who define ourselves as liberals or progressives without alienating us. Very few politicians can pull this off and it's what makes Obama a once in a lifetime candidate.

I think a more conservative VP will have some influence on an Obama administration, but I don't believe he or she will unduly influence it. And I expect Obama would employ that VP as an extension of his rhetoric, using their influence and credibility-- with the military or GOP-- to help achieve his core progressive policies.

Obama |Henry 2008

I have long thought Obama would choose a Republican VP if he wins the nomination. Not acceptable to me, but it wouldn't surprise me.

taking a hawkish stance to try to avoid being labeled as "weak on terror" by the GOP... amounts to embracing the GOP framing

[applause]

There's been some polling on VEEP choices and most have no effect on the outcome except for Edwards who gives Obama a huge boost. Of course, some of that is name recognition. The plus for Edwards is that he actually is a progressive.

However, I just have to say that anytime a candidate selects a running mate based on how "manly" or how "forceful" or on his perceived superior judgment on some issue, then he is publicly conceding his failings in that area. That's just stupid. Yeah, it worked for Bush to say he's a total fuck-up but Cheney will be running things anyway, but that's because no one really expects competency from Republicans. That's why they nominate candidates who are entering senility like Reagan and dry drunks like Bush.

Democrats claim to be competent, so they cannot say I am picking this guy because I am weak on this. Besides, if Obama did that the media would slice and dice him into 1 inch cubes. I don't care that it was okay for Bush to do that. the rules are different for Republicans.