Veepstakes: The Ambinder Shortlists

Here we go -- the Ambinder Shortlists, based mostly on educated guesswork and as many conversations as one reporter can reasonably have. I have excluded from these lists candidates I consider -- based on reporting -- to be implausible. These lists will change as the information changes.

Sen. John McCain.

1. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) -- He's the favorite.

The rest, in no particular order:

#. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) -- working hard to earn respect of McCain
#. Gov. John Hunstman, Jr. (R-UT) -- nice man; solid tenure as government official
#. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) -- underwhelms as a surrogate but McCain bonded with him over family history
#. Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) -- McCain respects his decision not to endorse in the primary

Sen, Barack Obama

1. vacant. Just to be provocative, I'll throw out Joe Biden's name. His hidden asset is his connection with white, working class voters. His obvious asset is his foreign policy experience and.

The rest:

#. Ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) -- he has powerful allies in Obama's inner circle; Midwestern credentials; government know-how; credibility with white working class voters;
#. Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ) -- Obama really likes her.
#. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) -- his donors will pressure Obama; Dodd and Obama have become close friends
# Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) -- the narrative would be awesome
# Chuck Hagel (R-NE) -- Hagel himself seems to want Obama to ask him to join the ticket.

Comments

Chuck Hagel (D-NE)

Oops?

Posted by DaveWoo | April 9, 2008 11:21 AM

Why no Bill Richardson? He seems the natural choice for Obama Veep.

Is there some baggage we don't know?

Posted by Chuck | April 9, 2008 11:21 AM

Chuck Hagel is not a D.

Posted by kid a | April 9, 2008 11:22 AM

Hagel is not a Democrat.

Posted by Anonymous | April 9, 2008 11:22 AM

Was the (D-NE) intentional?

Posted by JBS | April 9, 2008 11:23 AM

Not only is Hagel a Republican, he also has a very conservative record on everything from abortion to gun control to taxes. Only on the war has he really departed from Bush.

Having said that, I wouldn't necessarily be against such a ticket.

Posted by Barry | April 9, 2008 11:25 AM

I was watching Bush's War last night and another name occurred to me: What about Bob Graham, the retired Democratic Senator from Florida? Sam Nunn's also a name I've heard mentioned as a possible Obama VP.

Posted by trza | April 9, 2008 11:29 AM

What about Sen. Webb of Virginia? He would check all the boxes that BHO needs; foreign policy/military credentials, solid with white working class voters, could put Virginia in play, similar opposition to Iraq War, strong belief in economic justice. Is there a specific reason he is not on the short list?

Posted by Kobe Berg | April 9, 2008 11:30 AM

As a Minnesotan I can assure you, Pawlenty is a loser.

Posted by DP | April 9, 2008 11:30 AM

Marc really have them by the shorts!

Posted by D | April 9, 2008 11:31 AM

Pawlenty? The GOV who vetoed a bipartisan transportation bill to fix state roads not long before the I-35W bridge collapse? Maybe not the best choice...

Posted by MDS | April 9, 2008 11:32 AM

@ Chuck:

1) Not great on the stump whether speaking positively or negatively. Not great in debates, either.

2) Skirt-chasing past that would likely resurface.

4) Might make for one-too-many "firsts" on the ticket. Many observers & Obama supporters like the idea of a white male from a Red or Purple state. I know, I know...

5) Yes, maybe helps with Hispanic/West/Southwest vote, but can probably be just as effective stumping throughout the SW even if NOT on the ticket (if he agreed to stump heavily without being on the ticket). Even if he didn't stump at all, Obama can and should still win Colorado.

6) Goes against the Obama tendency/message of "non-conventional wisdom." Perhaps nobody is more of a CW choice than Richardson. And I think Obama wants to do something big with this pick - the first big decision that the nominee makes.

In other words, Obama would be giving the VP slot to somebody whose positives don't even outweigh his negatives.

Posted by JBS | April 9, 2008 11:33 AM

Oh, and why not Sam Nunn for Obama's VP slot?

Posted by MDS | April 9, 2008 11:33 AM

Bill Richardson has too much baggage to pass the vetting.
I am surprised Kathleen Sebelius is not on there. I would have thought she would fit the exact same boxes Napolitano does without the "rumors"

Posted by Benjamin | April 9, 2008 11:34 AM

Agree that Biden is absolutely Barack's best choice.

Posted by Howard B. | April 9, 2008 11:40 AM

re Obama:
Bob Graham is too old. Otherwise, he'd be great.

I can see Hagel in a cabinet post, but not VP.

Wes Clark would help mend fences with the Clinton camp.

Jim Webb is ideal, but I don't know if he'd take it. Plus it would be hard to leave open a Dem Senate seat in Virginia.

Posted by lina | April 9, 2008 11:47 AM

#. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) -- his donors will pressure Obama; Dodd and Obama have become close friends

They will? I don't know anybody who will pressure him. Dodd got some love in the sphere when he went hard against the FISA stuff... But other then that I don't know what evidence you have for this statement.

And why is Sherrod Brown and Brian Schwietzer never part of the conversation?

Posted by recusancy | April 9, 2008 11:48 AM

Sam Nunn is the crazy name that keeps coming up. Nunn is a hawk and sam nunn is defense-spending nut. He's been out of office forever And he's the guy who pushed hardest on clinton in his first administration. Gays in the military? he tried to bury bill on this alone.
Is he a long-time lobbiest now? How does that fit in with
This is a terrible and implausable idea.

Hagel? anti-choice and pro-gun? Another nutty idea that can't work.

Remember that obama more than anything needs to reassure half the party who did not choose him to choose him now. He has to convince Hillary voters that he will protect the supreme court from the right, that he will preserve abortion rights. If he goes third party crazy and picks a republican he loses a lot of women who rightly have a central concern about the courts.

The only sure fire way of getting the hillary voters behind him is to pick the lady who is bringing more than 1500 delegates to the convention with her.
the third party crazies behind obama and the hillary haters ignore that she represents a huge and crucial party of the party faithful.
go suck eggs if you can't face that simple fact.

Posted by Michael C | April 9, 2008 11:48 AM

Jim Webb and Sam Nunn would be great picks.

Biden has his merits - but it's hard to run against "the same old Washington players" with the most senatorial of all Senators.

Posted by Simon | April 9, 2008 11:48 AM

What about Bill Bradley on the short list for Obama? He's been a relatively strong surrogate for Obama so far and seems pretty good on the attack dog front.

He ran pretty well in 2000 against an incumbent VP in the primary. Also could help shore up Obama's NJ numbers.

Posted by John B. | April 9, 2008 11:50 AM

Hello? No Rob Portman? he's only been mentioned a zillion times by the media and fit's the profile Sen. McCain is looking for...

Posted by Rob Griffiths | April 9, 2008 11:57 AM

Hello? No Rob Portman? he's only been mentioned a zillion times by the media and fit's the profile Sen. McCain is looking for...

Posted by Rob Griffiths | April 9, 2008 11:57 AM

Hello? No Rob Portman? he's only been mentioned a zillion times by the media and fit's the profile Sen. McCain is looking for...

Posted by Rob Griffiths | April 9, 2008 11:57 AM

Hello? No Rob Portman? he's only been mentioned a zillion times by the media and fit's the profile Sen. McCain is looking for...

Posted by Rob Griffiths | April 9, 2008 11:58 AM

What about Wesley Clark?

Posted by Ben Atkinson | April 9, 2008 12:01 PM

What about Wesley Clark?

Posted by Ben Atkinson | April 9, 2008 12:01 PM

I have excluded from these lists candidates I consider -- based on reporting -- to be implausible.

Who are these?

Posted by Sam | April 9, 2008 12:04 PM

I have excluded from these lists candidates I consider -- based on reporting -- to be implausible.

Who are these people?

Posted by Sam | April 9, 2008 12:04 PM

I think Dodd would be an excellent choice for Obama - though what are CT's laws for replacing a senator? Would Rell (R) get to name a successor for a full two years? And yeah, interesting that Richardson and Sebelius are not on the list - and that Webb is (seems tempermentally unsuited to be a #2).

As to McCain - any sense at how much his personal likes and dislikes will play into his pick? More than average? His list looks completely predictable - though I wonder if he'd be inclined to pick a trusted buddy (don't he and Tom Ridge get along)?

Posted by Scott | April 9, 2008 12:05 PM

For Obama, add Tim Kaine (great narrative, purple-stater). Take Daschle off the list. He has a big "L" on his forehead and wouldn't even make his home state competitive.

For McCain, how about the three P's? Pence, Portman, or Palin?

Posted by Atlanta Dem | April 9, 2008 12:08 PM

Obama is NOT our party's nominee. With 10 contests yet to go and scores of super delegates yet to weigh in, don't you think this is more than a little premature?

Cart before the horse guys. Cart before the horse.

Posted by Alegre | April 9, 2008 12:12 PM

Obama is NOT our party's nominee. With 10 contests yet to go and scores of super delegates yet to weigh in, don't you think this is more than a little premature?

Cart before the horse guys. Cart before the horse.

Posted by Alegre | April 9, 2008 12:14 PM

Obama is NOT our party's nominee. With 10 contests yet to go and scores of super delegates yet to weigh in, don't you think this is more than a little premature?

Cart before the horse guys. Cart before the horse.

Posted by Alegre | April 9, 2008 12:15 PM

Poor, sweet, little Alegre.

Your dream has died already.

Those "scores" won't overturn the pledged-slash-won delegates.

Damn that math! Damn those rules!

You lost, babe. Tell your candidate.

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | April 9, 2008 12:19 PM

Alegre, please do the math. While neither may get to 2024, Obama will have more delegates than Clinton. Superdelegates are trickling to Obama-- which is a good indicator of momentum.

With 10 contests left, Hillary at best can only win 4 of them.

Posted by Natascha | April 9, 2008 12:22 PM

No Charlie Crist?

As a MA-er, I could see Romney if he'd run as Mr. Economy. But he ran as Mr. "I'm a religious fundamentalist just like you," and his economic message in MI was a joke.

I don't get those vibes from Hagel at all. An FP post, that I could see.

Biden's really good, for both FP and working class connection. Governors are also good, for executive experience.

Webb I don't get--he's a freshman senator. And having people wax rhapsodic about the black man leading the redneck (I'm assuming you're referring to the TNR piece) is going to lose more voters than it wins.

Alegre--Obama is just over a mile from the finish of a marathon, and Clinton is just over 2 miles from the finish. Yes, if she runs twice as fast from here on out she'll win. But that isn't going to happen. (Analogy drawn from 5% gap in pledged delagates as being roughly 5% of course, and Clinton's need to win remaining states at a hair under 2 to 1 just to tie.)

Posted by Deborah | April 9, 2008 12:25 PM

IS there is a particular reason that you have omitted Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) from the list of Obama's potential VP's?
She would be an AWESOME pick for VP - white, woman, Catholic, connects with working class, executive experience, only the second female gov. of Kansas, 8 years in KS legislature, 8 years as Insurance Comissioner, strong political ties, bipartisan - she would be FANTASTIC.

Posted by Adrienne | April 9, 2008 12:30 PM

Why not Jack Reed -- Catholic with a great military record.

Posted by Chester | April 9, 2008 12:30 PM

Sam Nunn is, or should be, a nonstarter. Bob Graham is a year younger than McCain. Why should he not be considered? Daschle and his wife have lobbying problems. He'd be chief-of-staff, but not veep. Richardson would piss the Clintons off; besides a black-brown ticket would probably be too much for a lot of the electorate to swallow.

As I've said before, three choices for Obama make the most sense: Strickland, Webb and Biden.

Posted by Paleo | April 9, 2008 12:30 PM

I like the idea of Tim Kaine. Although, he could be accused of nepotism. Aren't they related? Jim Webb is pretty cool too but I don't think a senator should be on the same ticket as another senator. Christ Matthews threw out the idea of Ed Rendell as a VP pick.

Posted by Morg | April 9, 2008 12:43 PM

Jim Webb is a great choice. And though he is a freshman senator, he was also Assist Secretary of Defense for 3 years in the Reagan administration and Secretary of the Navy in his 4th year. I think this executive experience is impressive, and unique amongst the other veep candidates. Also, hes a great attack dog-type. And lastly, Obama's weakest group is amongst white working class voters and Reagan democrats; Webb is not just a white working class type, he is a very PROUD working class type, and he made the issue of Reagan democrats "coming home" to their own party a central theme of his Senate campaign.

Biden would be a great choice too, as he is also one of the more knowledgeable foreign policy experts in Washington. The one concern here is that his long time in Washington doesn't jive with Obama's "washington is broken message."

The last choice has to be the five governors: Sebelius, and Napolitano because many women will be turned off instantly once obama wins the nomination, and their states, Arizona and Kansas could be put in play. Tim Kaine, and Mark Warner: Kaine was an early and vocal supporter of Obama, and they put Viginia in play (as does Webb of course). Finally Richardson, who brings the rare combination of executive leadership and foreign policy experience, and brings in Latinos and puts New Mexico in play. His downside is he seems like an awkward, bumbling campaigner.

Of these 7, I think it comes down to a choice of Webb, Sebelius, or Biden.
I'll go with Webb. Give Biden and Hagel cabinet positions, and to win disenchanted women voters, the campaign will just have to settle for big Women for Obama rallies with Sebelius, Michelle, and Oprah.

Posted by JY | April 9, 2008 12:47 PM

Jim Webb is a great choice. And though he is a freshman senator, he was also Assist Secretary of Defense for 3 years in the Reagan administration and Secretary of the Navy in his 4th year. I think this executive experience is impressive, and unique amongst the other veep candidates. Also, hes a great attack dog-type. And lastly, Obama's weakest group is amongst white working class voters and Reagan democrats; Webb is not just a white working class type, he is a very PROUD working class type, and he made the issue of Reagan democrats "coming home" to their own party a central theme of his Senate campaign.

Biden would be a great choice too, as he is also one of the more knowledgeable foreign policy experts in Washington. The one concern here is that his long time in Washington doesn't jive with Obama's "washington is broken message."

The last choice has to be the five governors: Sebelius, and Napolitano because many women will be turned off instantly once obama wins the nomination, and their states, Arizona and Kansas could be put in play. Tim Kaine, and Mark Warner: Kaine was an early and vocal supporter of Obama, and they put Viginia in play (as does Webb of course). Finally Richardson, who brings the rare combination of executive leadership and foreign policy experience, and brings in Latinos and puts New Mexico in play. His downside is he seems like an awkward, bumbling campaigner.

Of these 7, I think it comes down to a choice of Webb, Sebelius, or Biden.
I'll go with Webb. Give Biden and Hagel cabinet positions, and to win disenchanted women voters, the campaign will just have to settle for big Women for Obama rallies with Sebelius, Michelle, and Oprah.

Posted by JY | April 9, 2008 12:47 PM

McCain is NOT our party's nominee. With 10 contests yet to go and the convention months away, don't you think this is more than a little premature?

Cart before the horse guys. Cart before the horse.

Huckabee '08!

Posted by Bizarro Alegre | April 9, 2008 12:55 PM

What about Jim Webb or Tim Kaine? I think if he goes with either one, he puts Virginia on the map. Also, I could see him going with Webb because not only is Webb a military veteran, he's also an economic populist.

Posted by David | April 9, 2008 12:59 PM

I've never heard that Obama is related to Tim Kaine in any way.

Kaine would be an asset not just because he would put Virginia instantly in the lean-dem column but also because of the narrative: Kaine is married to the daughter of a former Republican Governor of Virginia, Lin Holton. Holton (who is still alive) was from the hillbilly wing of the VA GOP and was essentially hounded out of office when he refused to support Massive Resistance against integration in the 1970s. Former Governor Holton has remained fairly active in politics and had endorsed many republican candidates (e.g., John Warner) before endorsing his son-in-law in the gubernatorial race.

Kaine is also from the midwest originally (connections to Minnesota and Missouri, I think), and he worked as a fair-housing advocate before entering politics.

Posted by Atlanta Dem | April 9, 2008 1:02 PM

Hagel would be good for Obama's Sect. of Defense.

Posted by Kristi | April 9, 2008 1:10 PM

Though Obama has recently stated that he does not believe he has any shortcomings on the foreign policy front, I believe he has to have a VP with strong foreign credentials.

I've long gone on record that Biden's my man. He would also quell any concern about being a heart beat away. If the worst happened, Biden would be ready at first second. For all of Biden's bluster, he's a good, decent man. Too decent, really... He refused to take on HRC's claim of "most experience" and paid for it.

As for Richardson, I recently heard that he actually covets Biden's long-held dream: Secretary of State. I say, give Biden VP and Richardson State, unless he can be cajoled into running for the Senate.

Hagel: My dream Defense Secretary. His social conservatism would be a non-issue here. It would also send a strong bipartisan message.

Daschle: No way as VP - far too much political baggage from the Senate. Besides, isn't he already Obama's Chief of Staff???

Webb: Interesting choice but I also wonder if he's even interested. Something tells me he's happier stirring the pot in the Senate.

All those governors: Again, Obama needs someone with foreign policy cred. Governors don't bring that. I've been perpetually amazed at the love for Tim Kaine. Yes, great bio and early Obama support, but the GOP is going to slay Obama as a neophyte compared to McCain - the last thing Obama needs is a running mate with merely two years as governor, a few more as lieutnant governor.

HRC: As soon as Obama is inaugurated, I want Justices Stevens and Ginsburg to retire. Obama's first appointment to the Supremes will be Hillary Rodham Clinton. I can't think of a better place for her. She'd be an awesome foil for Scalia. It should also guarantee that Bill Clinton will never again reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Posted by Judy | April 9, 2008 1:11 PM

Hagel would, in most respects, be an excellent electoral choice for Obama. I think Michael C overstates the threat of women bolting over the abortion issue -- (a) Obama is pretty darn strong on the issue, and it's not like Hagel would be vetting SC noms, and (b) what, women are going to break for McCain on abortion?!? There's some risk of depressing turnout among female voters, but women are more likely to vote than men to begin with, and I don't think an anti-choice veep candidate is going to knock it down that much.

The longer-term problem with choosing Hagel is the party-/movement-building aspect. But, of course, one has to get elected before one builds the party/movement from inside the Oval Office.

Personally, I like Webb as a #2 choice for Obama -- most of Hagel's positives with none of his negatives.

My out-of-left-field choice for Obama's #2: Gore.

My out-of-left-field choice for McCain's #2: Hillary. If McCain picks Hillary once Obama nails down the D nom, I think he virtually guarantees himself a narrow victory in November. (Of course, Hillary as veep under McCain poses more -- and more intractable and more immediate -- problems than Hagel would for Obama. But, again, you gotta win or the question is moot.)

Posted by The Confidence Man | April 9, 2008 1:27 PM

Oh, and HRC for SC? Yes, yes, yes, a million times, yes.

I have a feeling she'll ultimately be a disappointment and drift rightward over time (though she'll likely "drift" rightward immediately on two issues: corporate rights and the "unitary executive" powers of the presidency). But the immediate and medium-term impact would definitely be positive from a left/liberal perspective. It'd also get her out of Obama's hair as an antagonist in the Senate.

Posted by The Confidence Man | April 9, 2008 1:34 PM

Obama should stay away from all of the politicians and pick a CEO who can credibly pull us out of this mess. There are a whole lot of Republicans who fear an economic meltdown more than a Barack Obama. Give McBumble his half century of war and let him ride his hard on over to Iran while we forgo the next great depression.

Barack is all about getting folks together to fix things. Who fixes things in this country that every Bot like myself can relate to? Steven Jobs. Now THAT's change we can believe in.

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | April 9, 2008 1:34 PM

Confidence Man, your McCain-Hillary ticket idea just caused my head to explode.

Quite a mess on my keyboard, actually.

Posted by Mr. Creosote | April 9, 2008 1:35 PM

At this point the veep lists that are getting published aren't filled with any surprises; if you're not going to rank them I'd be more interested why people are left off. Let's see some Clinton rankings too, it's fun to discuss this stuff.

If Obama goes for a governor, it should be a high-rated, experienced red-state governor with strong accomplishments and independent appeal. Sebelius and Napolitano best fit the bill, and the fact that both happen to be female is a bonus. Obama likes Sebelius a lot as well from everything I've been able to see - I'm curious if there's things I don't know that explain why she's off the list. Napolitano has a charisma gap and there are rumors about her sexuality, after all. As for governors, I don't know exactly what Kaine has done, and he costs the Dems a governor seat to boot. (Webb might cost us a senate seat too, and Warner costs us a guaranteed pickup.) Might think about putting Strickland on the ticket as well.

Otherwise Obama should go for foreign policy expertise - Biden, Richardson are the best but all tend to be gaffe-prone. Don't know if Zinni or Clark are ready for primetime, and appointing a general would probably be overcompensating anyway. I have to admit the argument on foreign policy annoys the heck out of me - why does Obama need that expertise in the VP slot when all of these people will be around to consult, fill cabinet posts, etc?

As for McCain, what a list. Thune, Huntsman, and Pawlenty are young and satisfy conservatives while seeming moderate enough, but each is a weak candidates who has been mediocre in office. Romney is a highly unpopular sleazebag and Sanford is ultra-right.

Posted by John M. | April 9, 2008 1:51 PM

Here's one from the backfield: If Obama were to have a woman, how about Dianne Feinstein?

Yes, she's older than McCain (75 this year) but appears to be in blooming health. Though representing California - and from uber-liberal San Francisco - she's deeply centrist, very pro-business and Jewish. If the worst happened, she's already proven to be ready on Day One. I disagree with her on some issues but still weep when I see the video of her first public moment as Mayor of San Francisco - announcing that Mayor Moscone and Councilman Milk had been assassinated.

Posted by Judy | April 9, 2008 2:11 PM

Erm Betty - you might as well have patted me on the head along with that condescending remark.

Thank you for providing us with an example of the way Sen. Clinton's been treated during this election.

Either way, keep telling yourself this is over. Your overconfidance will be your candidate's undoing.

Posted by Alegre | April 9, 2008 2:17 PM

Who knew this election hinged on Betty's degree of confidence?

Alegre, obviously!

Outstanding analysis, as always.

Posted by Jenny | April 9, 2008 2:32 PM

Judy,

The choice of Diane Feinstein would be vomit inducing.

Posted by paleo | April 9, 2008 2:38 PM

Either way, keep telling yourself this is over. Your overconfidance will be your candidate's undoing. Posted by Alegre | April 9, 2008 2:17 PM

Cue the dramatic music. wah wah wahhhhhhh.

Anakin it's over, I have the high groud.
Don't try it.

Posted by Northern Observer | April 9, 2008 2:41 PM

"Thank you for providing us with an example of the way Sen. Clinton's been treated during this election."

Yes, because that's a reason to elect someone for President--because other people have picked on them.

Hell, that means the 11-year-old ME could be President!

Rob!'08!

Obama/Webb sounds like a home run. Biden for State, Hagel for Defense? Clinton(either one) in an undisclosed location, very far away?

Posted by rob! | April 9, 2008 2:50 PM

Alegre, people don't pick on Hillary because she is a woman. They pick on her because she is a horrible woman. A manipulative, lying, phony, and fraudulant woman. There isn't a single word she says that isn't politically motivated and calcuated. How some people don't see through her is a mystery to me.

A lot of us would have no problem voting for a woman for President. Just not that woman.

As for VP...where's General Anthony Zinni? Read his bio on Wikipedia and tell me he's not perfect for Obama.

Posted by Johnny | April 9, 2008 3:03 PM

What about Sebelius as Veep, Biden at State, and Webb for Defense. A tough, no-nonsense DEMOCRATIC veteran would be far preferable to any Republican, even Chuck Hagel.

Re: Kaine, Strickland, etc. - this is the other option that has me torn. If you can put a swing state in play or finish it off with a VP pick, that's awful tempting.

Posted by Peezel | April 9, 2008 3:07 PM

I really think Webb is the best choice.

Posted by rikyrah | April 9, 2008 3:07 PM

Speaking from Minnesota, I can say that Pawlenty is actively campaigning for the veep. He vetoed funding for a proposed light rail system between Minneapolis and Saint Paul, and struck quite a few educational and social items.

While most people I know want to take various solid objects to the back of his head, Pawlenty certainly has enough support to put Minnesota in play...if Clinton is the nominee. Obama is extremely popular here.

Posted by Rob | April 9, 2008 3:10 PM

I think Obama is a smart enough politician to make sure his VP pick helps a lot in a swing state.

Here's my list:

1: Mark Warner

Despite him running for Senate, see the following link, which has been followed up some and not shot down:

http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-warner-scenario

Warner would be a slam dunk. Two extraordinarily talented, appealing, and progressive bring-us-together fresh faces.

I expect Virginia, along with Ohio and Colorado, to be ground zero for the general election campaign.

2: Wes Clark

Brings a successful general with a great story, an aggressive Clinton partisan, an articulate critic of the war, and an Arkansas onto the ticket.

3: Bill Richardson

A very effective surrogate for Obama since jumping on board. Plus, obviously, a Hispanic, a popular New Mexican, and lots of experience in foreign policy.

4: Jim Webb

For all the reasons others have given.

5: Colin Powell

Doesn't bring a state, but brings obvious "independent" cred and national security credentials.

Any nominee, of either party, since 1992 would have loved to have Powell as his running mate. His early positive comments about Obama suggest that he might well say "yes" this time. I don't think he wants his last significant political act to be selling the Iraq War to the UN. He may want to write a different final act to his public story.

6: Hillary Clinton

Doesn't bring a swing state, but Obama could choose her as a way of solidifying his bring-us-together message. Recall how often he positively cites Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals, about how Lincoln built his administration around his rivals for the Republican nomination.

Posted by John Z. | April 9, 2008 3:14 PM

My party would never forgive me if I put an "R" one bullet (or stroke, heart attack, lung cancer diagnosis) away from control of the Oval Office. However, Chuck would be a great choice for secretary of defense, and would further my message of reaching across party lines while neutralizing those areas where he and I have strong disagreement (choice, guns, etc.). Jim Webb would undercut what many see as my second greatest weakness: foreign policy (with bowling being #1).

Posted by B. Obama | April 9, 2008 3:15 PM

I think it has to be Webb. The others just don't neutralize what's strong about McCain without creating problems for Obama. Biden is the next best choice, though he's such an old Washington hand that that's a problem. I think the fact that they've both made racial gaffes only strengthens their candidacies -- cynical though that is. Webb would be ideal. White, working class, swing-stater, tough and experienced on defense without being part of the Washington machine. Obama/Webb!

Posted by Arabella | April 9, 2008 3:16 PM

My favorite Obama VPs:

* Richardson - governor, Latino, likeable guy

* Powell - gravitas, bipartisan, military (the Iraq tarnish can be overcome by Obama's bonafides on the issue)

* Bloomberg - great economics, bipartisan, Jewish

I wish he could get all three, since they bring different things to the table. Perhaps he can bring them into the cabinet. A DreamTeam if you will....

Posted by James | April 9, 2008 3:17 PM

For McCain, the only shot for him to win the general is to scare the crap out of people about future terrorist attacks.

So what VP choices would help him do that?

Here's my list:

1. Rudy Guiliani

Islamo-fascism, 9/11, Islamo-fascism, 9/11.

Plus, they like each other.

2. Joe Lieberman

They see the world similarly. Lieberman is good at his sadly-head-shaking-and-regretful dismissal of the weakness of fellow Democrats.

3. Zell Miller

Another Dem turned right-wing fearmonger.

4. Condi Rice

In the run-up to the Iraq War, she's the one who said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

5. David Petraeus

McCain wants to identify himself with the "successes" of the surge rather than with the earlier occupation policies.

Posted by John Z. | April 9, 2008 3:26 PM

Just replace Sebelius with Napolitano. They're essentially the same, but Kathleen has the Ohio connection, paired with Obama's Kansas roots. No use going for AZ with McCain as the nominee, but Sebelius opens up more of the Midwest.

Plus, Napolitano is single and never married which unfortunately would be an issue.

Posted by George | April 9, 2008 3:32 PM

The only viable VP pick you mentioned is Jim Webb. Daschle voted for the Iraq War Resolution and will therefore undermine Obama's antiwar rhetoric. Napolitano will allow Republicans to characterize the Democratic ticket as the "Black/Gay" ticket regardless of whether Napolitano is or is not actually gay. Biden and Dodd don't give Obama any state he can't get on his own. Also, neither is that charismatic or well spoken--though John Edwards proved that having a charismatic VP candidate doesn't help anyway.

Jim Webb definitely has some baggage, but he's better than any of the choices you listed.

Posted by JD Smith | April 9, 2008 3:32 PM

Oops. Correction from above:

Just replace Napolitano with Sebelius. They're essentially the same, but Kathleen has the Ohio connection, paired with Obama's Kansas roots. No use going for AZ with McCain as the nominee, but Sebelius opens up more of the Midwest.

Plus, Napolitano is single and never married which unfortunately would be an issue.

Posted by George | April 9, 2008 3:39 PM

America faces massive crises. Most domestic.

1.Energy crises, oil heading towards 200 a barrel oil with the collapsing dollar.

2.The fiscal mess, with Bush adding 3 trillion onto the national deficit and another 12 trillion in unfunded mandates.

3.Loss of American competitiveness. A trillion dollar a year outflow of America's saved wealth to other countries, mainly oil exporters, Japan, and China.

4. Mass illegal immigration.

5. Loss of good American jobs, gutting of US industry, shrinking middle class, all wages but those in security , law, or Ruling Elite positions coming under "race to the bottom" labor challenges.

6. Health care crises. Almost 1/6th of working Americans lack health insurance. 1/5 of Americans lack a dental plan. Medical costs exploding - now 50% higher than in other advanced nations that have universal coverage and longer life spans.

7. Our crisis of faith and family values.

8. Our educational system produces the lowest ranking students of advanced nations, not surprising because other nations have 220 day school years, while our teachers top out the pay scale in students taught/per day. And higher ed costs have exploded, making claims of "retraining US workers to great careers", allowing working and middle class students access to great educations even more difficult.

9. Near-economic collapse in several northern industrial states and cities.

Given the VP picks, which person would be able to help McCain adress them with energy and savvy? Fred Thompson after a nap? Pastor Huckleberry? Has Pawlenty ever BEN in a crisis or fixed anything, selected teams best able to address problems?

Is it nuts to ignore things that can eventually put America in the "former great nation" status of France or Britain so we can continue being misdirected into ignoring those things - because ONLY IRAQ MATTERS???

Romney is an excellent choice.

Obama's VP choice doesn't matter that much because his backers believe Obama the Messiah can fix these problems with an inspiring, soaring speech on each.

Posted by chris ford | April 9, 2008 3:39 PM

HRC is not qualified to be on the SC. Anymore than Harriet whatsherface. No, sigh, I'm not a sexist.

Posted by Phoebe | April 9, 2008 3:42 PM

Obama can't pick Webb. He's a Democrat with a safe senate seat in a red state. With the Dems majority in the Senate so small wouldn't it be unwise to take him out of the senate and possibly stand to lose the seat to a Republican?

Posted by Allan | April 9, 2008 3:43 PM

None of you have suggested Gov.Rendell as Obama's running mate. His spot on the ballot could be the deciding factor in carrying Pennsylvania; and Obama must win there to win the general election. Granted, Rendell has campaigned hard for Clinton; but, aside from one candid albeit non-PC remark about the reluctance of some white voters in Pa. to vote for a black candidate, he has not gone along with Clinton's strategy of attacking Obama's record or experience.

Posted by Steve | April 9, 2008 3:46 PM

1. Powell - gravitas that outweighs McCain's ten times
2. Bloomberg - economic gravitas that makes McCain look even more like an economic amateur
3. Clark - fence-mending with HRC & military cred
4. Sebelius - kind of bland, and VP woman might still seem kind of tokenish to HRC supporters

I agree with the consensus: *HRC for SCOTUS. She'd be good there. A good fighter against he GOP trolls dominating it.

Webb is too brash and just won a tough senate seat in VA. Don't want to lose that seat.

Hagel - no way. He's a good Reep but he is in fact a Reep. It would incentivize an assassination even more.

Posted by Jake | April 9, 2008 3:47 PM

Obama: Admiral William Fox Fallon. Military commander, fierce negotiator.

Posted by D Pramuk | April 9, 2008 3:49 PM

HRC: As soon as Obama is inaugurated, I want Justices Stevens and Ginsburg to retire. Obama's first appointment to the Supremes will be Hillary Rodham Clinton. I can't think of a better place for her. She'd be an awesome foil for Scalia. It should also guarantee that Bill Clinton will never again reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Posted by Judy

If I was Obama, I definitely wouldn't want Hillary as VP knowing she was just a single heartbeat from inevitably being back in the White House again.

Judy's suggestion for a SCOTUS slot is interesting, but Hillary actually has very weak legal credentials. She failed her DC Bar exam. She briefly taught law, but only on a sweetheart deal Bill Clinton finagled through Fulbright that he would teach but only if his training spouse got a job. Fortunately, Hillary did manage to pass the Arkansas Bar exam. But after that, despite getting great deals at law firms, like near instant partner at Rose despite 20 hour workweeks and no court litigation - Hillary was mostly used to get clients wishing to do business with the State, not in churning out meaningful legal work. She would face the same problem she did in running for President - there really isn't that much substantial about her past as a leader, or as a lawyer, despite some feminist writing how she was "One of America's Top 100 female lawyers"...
She lacks the brains and credentials of her husband, who WOULD have made a great judge - but for his "side issues".

Posted by chris ford | April 9, 2008 3:52 PM

The only virtue in McCain choosing Pawlenty is that it would get him out of Minnesota. Pawlenty is such a dink!

But, were McCain not to survive his term, Pawlenty as president would be GW Bush all over again - rigid ideologue with galloping incompetence.

Posted by Hrrm | April 9, 2008 4:08 PM

The tickets on the ballot in November will be:

Obama/Webb

McCain/Cox

Mark it down, seal it, book it. It's already done.

Posted by Oracle | April 9, 2008 4:25 PM

Webb is more than obvious.

Posted by HA | April 9, 2008 4:28 PM

OBAMA/WEBB - makes the most sense.

Posted by john | April 9, 2008 4:29 PM

Allan & Jake,

The Governor of Virginia is a Democrat. If Obama picks Webb, it's a virtual certainty Kaine is going to appoint a Democrat to replace Webb. Why are you under the impression that Dems will lose the seat if Obama selects Webb?

That said, I have concerns about Webb's ability to survive a vetting process (nothing specific; more generally, concerns about the full-range of his military and foreign policy views, his record as Navy Secretary, and vulnerability to serious charges of sexism).

Posted by dry_fish | April 9, 2008 4:30 PM

Tim Pawlenty is and would be a terrible choice. He vetoed all of these transportation bills before AND AFTER the I-35 bridge collapse, making him look like a fool, not a visionary.

Unlike McCain, he has NOT reached across the aisle at all to work with Democrats - in fact, he has angered and embittered them and his latest move, vetoing bonding money for light-rail transit that he had already previously given his word that he would approve, has really made things worse.

He's not that charismatic, and he's not that popular. He's never won even close to a majority in state elections (3rd party candidates ran well in both of his victory years - we are the state of Jesse Ventura, after all - to the shame of many of us).

He's not that good-looking and he's not that smart. And he probably wouldn't even help McCain carry Minnesota - because it's unlikely the GOP will win here no matter who is on the ticket.

How does all of this make him the "#1 choice." Frankly, he's just about the worst choice of anybody mentioned yet.

Posted by Dan | April 9, 2008 4:34 PM

@ Steve:

As a Pennsylvania resident, I'm not sure I agree that Rendell would solidify PA for Obama. He's not universally disliked, but there isn't necessarily a lot of enthusiasm here for him either.

On the other hand, a Pennsylvanian that might inspire PA voters -- Tom Ridge. Very popular here, and pro-choice. I personally don't care for his record as governor, but I think his Homeland Security service will trump that for a lot of voters.

Posted by TyWebb | April 9, 2008 4:43 PM

I also meant to add that Pawlenty's veto on the big transportation bill this legislative session was overridden, meaning he couldn't even get his own party to back him up on a major funding issue.

He may be buddying up to McCain, but that doesn't mean McCain sees him as veep material (I said hopefully). My pick is for Condi.

Tim Pawlenty is vastly overrated by people outside of Minnesota who have very little knowledge of Minnesota politics and, frankly, no idea how much this guy has alienated friends and enemies alike with his arrogant, vindictive behavior.

My sense is that a guy like McCain, who is among the best in either party at reaching out to members of the other party (Feingold, Kennedy, Lieberman, etc.) is far too honorable and gracious and above-the-fray-of-cheap-partisan-politics to select a low-grade GOP politics-trumps-everything hack like Pawlenty as veep.

Posted by Dan | April 9, 2008 4:53 PM

Deborah,

You ask: Why not Crist? He's, hmm, not exactly a ladies' man.

Posted by MarkQ | April 9, 2008 4:54 PM

Webb is a good choice in most ways. But he's far from a no-brainer.

Ross Douthat had a post a couple of weeks ago about some controversial passages in praise of the "redneck" Scots-Irish of America in Webb's past
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/obamas_veep.php

Posted by Ban Johnson | April 9, 2008 4:55 PM

any non-white non-male choice would be suicide for obama.

Posted by alex | April 9, 2008 4:58 PM

Obviously, many of you here have bought in to Hillary's argument that, with John McCain as the Republican nominee, it simply must be a National Security Election.

But why?

Is John McCain really that strong? What has John McCain's being a Vietnam War Hero 40 years ago ever done for his ability to think or speak with any insight or judgment about Iraq?

Isn't it the Democratic nominee's responsibility to tell the Republican nominee -- and, indeed, the country -- what this election is about?!!

Stop being such white-flag-waving whiners! Stop saying that Obama's VP simply must be a white military man who has a thick neck and spits nails!

And please -- please -- stop pimping Jim Webb, just because everybody else told you that Jim Webb fits the mold!

You're being lame. Please get some Democratic imagination -- and a little spine.

Posted by horizonr | April 9, 2008 5:01 PM

Isn't it the Democratic nominee's responsibility to tell the Republican nominee -- and, indeed, the country -- what this election is about?!!

No, it's the country's responsibility to tell the candidates what they care about. They care about two broad issue categories: the economy and national security. McCain's perceived weakness is in the former; Obama's perceived weakness is in experience in the latter. Fair or unfair, that's the way it is, and it will effect their choice of running mate.

Posted by Oracle | April 9, 2008 5:14 PM

Re: HRC for the Supreme Court

I'm more than aware that her experience wouldn't seem to justify her seat. Still, wasn't Orrin Hatch's name thrown around for the Court, not just AG? I remember when he was mentioned as a possible Gonzalez replacement, it was said that Senators love to confirm one of their own.

For all the reasons HRC gets under my skin as a candidate, I do believe she's brilliant and could be a fine justice. Her legal biography may not be particularly distinguished but her story is different than Meirs'. Where Meirs has forged her own path, HRC's career always took the back seat to Bill's political ambitions. If she had not chosen to follow him to Arkansas, I've no doubt she'd have a more stellar resume.

Maybe I'm putting too much into this, but I can't shake the feeling that it would liberate her. For once in her life, she'd be able to make a decision without the considerations of an election down the road.

Posted by Judy | April 9, 2008 5:14 PM

What Hrrm said. As a Minnesotan I would be torn if McCain chose Pawlenty. I would never vote for such a ticket, but if they won, Pawlenty would at least be out of Minnesota, and how much damage could he do as VP. McCain is no Bush and T-Paw is certainly no Cheney. He has enough people fooled here that he continues to have high approval ratings despite absolutely sucking as a governor. The frightening thing is the thought of President Tim Pawlenty (shudder).

Posted by Gus | April 9, 2008 5:15 PM

First, thank you for not including HRC on the list. Richardson is a big miss, though, because I think he has a shot. However, as much as I like him, he is a gaffe waiting to happen. During his own campaign, the only time he got in the spotlight was when he screwed up some interview or debate. I also think Warner or Kaine are real possibilities.

Clark used to be high on my list of VP choices, but then he went after Samantha Power hard for her mistake, which was really unfair and uncalled for. So, he's off my list. Janet N. would be wonderful, but I don't see it. I adore Claire M. -- she's the best surrogate he has on television -- but, of course, she's way too new herself. Webb is a real possibility, but he is a terrible, terrible campaigner. ('Course, so is Cheney...)

Republicans have to be off the list. They are welcome to a cabinet position, but not VP. The most important job the VP has is to take over if something (God forbid) were to happen to Obama. We can't suddenly have a Republican in office to deal with, in addition to the crisis of losing the president.

alex - I don't think it's true that any non-white, non-male choice would be suicide. A year ago I would have agreed, but not anymore. Both Obama and Clinton are so integrated into the consciousness at this point, it already feels like we practically have an AA or a woman president. I just doesn't feel so earth-shattering anymore.

Honestly, though, part of me feels like he is going to pick someone no one thought about. He has run his campaign unconventionally, so it wouldn't surprise me if he has an unconventional VP pick.

Posted by evie | April 9, 2008 5:16 PM

alex, I totally agree. Obama must pick a white man. With defense experience and hopefully a working class background.

Posted by Arabella | April 9, 2008 5:20 PM

Take this one to the bank:

GOP: McCain / Yosemite Sam - they share a rootin' tootin' focus on blowing fur-bearin' rebels to smithereens;

Dem: Obama / Foghorn Leghorn - a white male (rooster, but I digress) who is as verbose as Obama, would balance out the ticket for latinos and whites concerned with such things, and could bring in the Southern vote.

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | April 9, 2008 5:24 PM

The more I think about it, the more I believe Obama has already tipped his hand a bit about the choice. He is not going to choose someone to boost his