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.

I think that Obama should offer Hillary Clinton the VP slot, but I also think that Hillary Clinton should decline. It's at best a lateral move for her, and she has a lot more to offer the Democratic Party (and the nation) by continuing her career in the Senate.

What about Obama/Feingold?

I know, he's another senator and he's considered plenty liberal, but he might help with fiscal conservatives (in the old sense of the word conservative), and might also help reassure jewish voters.

Or what about Obama/Waxman?

I think Paul would be a great VP

for Gravel.

Gravel/Paul '08, because one of us just isn't crazy enough anymore.
Or
Gravel/Paul '08, dedicated to getting those damn kids off your lawn with Ron's blimp.
Yes, Ron Paul has a campaign blimp. He's the steampunk candidate.

A bad choice for Obama would have to be Tom Lantos. Pros: a great man, old as time, Jewish, major supporter of the Darfur issue, and is more green than most people a fifth of his age.

Cons: The main one is that he was born a foreigner, so he can't be elected president, a rule customarily expended to becoming president outside of election (i.e: pro tempore).

Oh, and did I mention the minor problem of him being dead? That might come up in a possible vice presidential debate.

I'm amazed at some of the wizards on this site. Kucinich?

Hillary is, let's be clear, a terrible choice for any number of reasons. She is not a number two for anyone, and provides no balance to Obama. Plus, they can't stand each other, and that would be clear during a campaign.

I think Obama would do well to run with a woman - I think Sebelius or Napolitano is the best choice. But he might do just as well if not better with a moderate to conservative Southern or Heartland male: Hagel (a great choice who embodies Obama's themes of crossing over), Sam Nunn (really good choice), or Gov. Kaine. Or Gen. Zinni, an antiwar (Iraq, that is) military guy.

Dark horses on the table only because they could help bring in important swing states: Gov. Strickland in Ohio, Rendell in Pa., and Sen. McCaskill of Mo.

Of the people I don't think he'll pick:
-won't be Clinton supporters (Rendell, Clark, Easley, etc)
- won't be an African-American
- won't be a US Senator (a hunch)
- won't be a former candidate for VP (Gore, Edwards)
- won't be anyone named Clinton (although they may pretend that she declines the offer)

I think that leaves us with these top prospects:
- Richardson
- Napolitano
- Sebelius
- Daschle

I realize only one of these three is a white male, but I don't care. The others have worked hard to campaign for Obama and that matters a lot. They are also all very qualified, each with their own strengths.

Why not Rendell?

Richardson seems weak to me, just a personal impression, not too exciting. I think having a woman would be great, but I think integrity is most important, he has to run with someone who is equal to him in terms of integrity, honesty, because otherwise it would be a "tainted" ticket..IMHO!

Webb outstands Standup McBush by a country mile. Check out his record, what-all he has accomplished. Upon election, Webb went to the mat with BushCo and hasn't let go. He's a scrapper; just what Obama needs to pull in the Midwest, Mountain and a few southern states.

Bill Clinton.

Interesting reading. Kathleen Sebelius's name is mentioned every few posts, so I'll do so again. She seems the ideal choice to me. Best of all, she's a governor. Also smart as a whip and has the heartland coursing through her veins.

But please, god, please, not Christine Gregoire. It would almost be worth it just to get her out of our hair here in the evergreen state of Washington. But she'd be like throwing a clammy dishrag over Obama's head. She's milquetoast to the extreme, cozy with ever big business interest that comes her way, a terrible orator, and looks as if she might snap in two at any moment. Washington is one of the most progressive states in the union, but Gregoire's going to have to fight like a dog just to beat her GOP challenger (a lying-ass real estate con man). Why? Because progressives LOATHE Gregoire. She's poked us in the eye repeatedly.