It would be a brilliant choice. In addition to the reasons you list, Kerry would remind voters of the choice they should have made in 2004. And he is bullet proof against Swift Boating this time, because military credentials are the one thing McCain can't afford to slime.

I like the idea. It's not the best, but Kerry as VP is something I can get behind.

Something weird happened when Kerry lost the election. Somehow, from somewhere, he grew some balls. After losing in 2004, Kerry has had some concise and scathing things to say about Bush and Co. Why he couldn't think of those things when he was running is beyond me, but he seems to have found his indignation and will to fight back.

So yeah, I'd take Kerry over Bayh. I'd rather have Edwards over anyone, but hey, that doesn't seem to be an option anymore.

Barry = Kerry.

Two losers.

Swiftboats would sink! It's so accepted now that that was untrue and unfair attack that "swiftboat" is now a verb with recognized meaning.
---- And it WOULD remind people of what they lost ... the chance to be rid of Bush FOUR YEARS AGO!!
---- He's certainly vetted.
---- He's Presidential calibre (said the second-largest number of voters in the history of America)
--- Much as I hate to admit it, he's got a measured quality, a self-control that perhaps Joe Biden doesn't always have (which is why I'd rather see Biden as VP and Kerry as Secy of State, actually)
--- He, like Biden, would appeal to those older people, moderate Reps, and independents that are drawn to McCain
--- And he would "wipe the floor" with any VP candidate the Republicans could put up (unlike Edwards did when it was his turn)

And he has shown by his strong surrogate work that he's way above the pouting need to put down someone who may well succeed in ways that he didn't (unlike a certain ex-president). Still prefer Biden but I could get very excited about an Obama/Kerry ticket.

Folks, it really does have to be someone *known* - not to put down the Warners or Kaines or Schweitzers, etc. But the undecided and older voters (who are numerous and who vote very consistently) are going to veer toward the *known* at the last minute, just as those last-minute deciders went for Clinton in all of the primaries. A Joe Biden or John Kerry "trump" John McCain when it comes to giving people a sense of familiarity, respect earned over the long haul, etc. Even Evan Bayh isn't in that ball park (although the same voters are more likely to remember his father)

George Bush may be a lousy president but he's no fool and he would never have won the first time except, being a relative unknown, he chose Dick Cheyney as his running mate. (Cheyney was, at the time, quite respected by moderates and even some liberals.) Newcomer Bill Clinton ran with a very familiar, respected person who had an even more familiar and respected name. Even JFK took the very powerful Senate Majority Leader to, among other things, give him some 'gravitas.' ---

And Obama is "newer" and more "unusual" in many ways than Bush, Clinton, JFK and "riskiness" has been the most powerful argument against him all along, in the primaries and now. The only argument *against* selecting someone strong, respected, well-known and reassuring is that it takes a big person to have someone like that standing behind, partly in their shadow. Michael Dukakis misplayed it in that regard ..... but I really, truly do not worry that Obama isn't "big" enough for that or any other challenge.

And, finally, there is a BIG difference between McCain's many years in the Senate and the equally long careers of Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. Go back and count up which party was in power (Congress and White House) during that span of time. A Republican Senator, such as McCain, could have achieved FAR, FAR more than he did, had far more power to change the "way things were done" than any of the Democrats. It's what you achieve with what you have to work with: Biden, Kerry, Kennedy and others have achieved far more than McCain ever has ..... and they had to do it "dancing backwards and in heels" so to speak.

Or Bill Bradley.

Connie, you are funny!

Thanks for the laugh. I *really* needed it.

Actually at this point considering all of those names being tossed the names I feel most comfortable with are all senators... Kerry, Dodd, Biden (not into Clinton or Bayh as a choice personally)... the only exception being Governor Bill Richardson. Any of these choices I feel would provide good leadership and someone I could feel comfortable with should something happen to Senator Obama while in office. I am just not comfortable with the governor's names being touted. I don't have the sense that they are ready to lead the nation... and with others in the nation a little uneasy about Senator Obama's inexperience it wouldn't hurt to choose someone who is well known and experienced to provide some reassurance.

That's it --- it needs to *feel* safe to vote for Obama. (For many people, especially those my age and older, McCain is going to *feel* safe even if he won't *be* safe.) So who is "a name with experience and a track record on the back of the ticket" who would bring that? You say not Kerry (tho I don't consider him particularly energetic, exciting and 'change'). Then who?

I truly think this is very important, perhaps critical. Those 'last minute deciders' during the primaries were - and are - a big concern and I think this is why they veered away from Obama. The VP selection could well be the answer to that problem. In fact, it may be the only way to answer that problem. So ... who?

As indicated, I think Biden or Kerry would fit best. Maybe Dick Gephart (you did say they don't need any more excitement, right?) Tom Daschle? Gore obviously but don't think he would.

Clinton just wouldn't do it, I don't think. Talk about anxiety-producing images! Just think about tossing Obama, Hillary and Bill in the White House! And frankly she doesn't have all that experience and track record, not when compared to McCain.

Who?

kerry would be a retarded pick. He has the 'loser' taint on him. Same reason (outside of the lovechild rumors) you couldn't pick Edwards. Obama represents a new day for Dems and it would be foolish to have anyone with any negative baggage from previous elections or administrations (read kerry, edwards, gore or clinton) on the ticket. if he's gonna be the new kind of transformation democrat who actually wins an election rather than just being a better candidate then he has to cut the line from any of the previous dems who were losers or could be branded that way by the repubs and the press.

i'm not saying there's a perfect pick out there but kerry would be a very very dumb one.

I liked your thinkin, and elizabeth's dancing backwards line. both spot on.

However it's late and i say no cuz i can just see the line now:

"Empty suit and stuffed shirt"

no can do...

or maybe they find a way to make it work for them.....hmmmmmm

Got to admit the (unwarranted in both cases, esp Obama) "elitist" image would be a real drag to deal with in an Obama/Kerry ticket.

So, personally, I'm back to Biden as being the best possible choice. He's from Scranton PA, dad a car salesman, takes the train home every day, went to Syracuse not Harvard, and had the lowest net worth of anyone running in either party. Hard to get to "elitist" from that.

Looking at Atreideshawk's helpful list, with the "safe feeling" requirement in mind, I'd rank them after that as Richardson (tho there may be other problems there), Bayh, Clark, Rendell .. and then branch off into Gephardt, Daschle, maybe Nunn(other problems there), or someone logical that just hasn't been mentioned, or a Republican (Hagel? Lincoln Chaffee? Really like William Cohen, except he's a close friend of McCain's) Webb would do but he's taken himself out and there are the other problems (statements about women, 3 marriages, etc.)

Kaine, McCaskill, Sebelius, et al. - even Warner -might well be absolutely excellent, but to Joe Q. Public (including all those white males in MA), they are just about as "new" as Obama.

Governor Kaine went to college in Michigan

Biden has a compelling life story as well, being sworn in as the hospital bedside of his sons, after his wife (their mother), and his daughter was killed in a car accident. He also has a son heading over to Iraq soon (might already be there).

Biden's voting record is one that would probably look a lot like Obama's if he was in the Senate for 35 years - http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm

As if we didn't have enough smokescreens with Bayh, Biden, Kaine and Sebelius...

Barack's VP has been on the campaign trail grappling with the issues and speaking with voters for months.

It's so obvious, yet no one can see it.

Obama, Axelrod and Plouffe are playing this brilliantly. But then again, they have to. The recent mumblings from the Hilliary's folks only serve to remind us why they had to run the VP play this way.

The problem is... I wasn't all that enthusastic about Kerry in 2004.

Kerry's better than a lot of suggestions I've seen, and certainly better than Bayh but he's not an inspired choice.

how in the world did i miss this post?

kerry has been the most exciting and vocal surrogate for obama..and yes, i do think he would mobilize DEMS b/c he would remind us of power of swiftboating and why a repeat performance is UNACCEPTABLE!!!

Obama needs a good debater (that was HRC's strength big time) and Kerry can do that with great aplomb!

Hmm, I can get used to that idea...yes I can!

Oh, please. Kerry is probably the only pick worse than Hillary. Kerry doesn't carry a single state for Obama, and could lose several, like Ohio and PA and VA. There couldn't be a worse choice.

Gore/Kerry, nostalgia tour 2008.