B...B...B...Brian Schweitzer. Go west young Obama - solidify your appeal in the Mountain States with a Democrat who can bring unity even in a Red State.

Absolutely! Getting out of the defense crouch means not acting like you've got some horrible deficit a VP pick can address.

Obama ought to pick someone sober, sensible, and boring. An Al Gore type. I think Chris Dodd would be great, except he got the Iraq war vote wrong.

That's a great point, Ezra, that the "compensating VP" makes you look like you have something to compensate for (much like SUVs and trophy wives). But I wonder if there's another alternative besides the matching "change agent" VP. I think of it as the "mitigating VP." The one who telegraphs not, a la Webb, "we know he's got weaknesses, but I make up for them," but instead "I lessen his weaknesses just by sharing a ticket with him." Wanting a woman on the ticket fits this model: it (supposedly) answers Clinton voters not by putting a Clinton surrogate (or, God forbid, Clinton herself) on the ticket, but by showing that he can't be a sexist patriarch if he's got a lady running mate. (That conclusion isn't a more logical one than "I can't be a racist, my best friend is black," but I'm going for political symbolism, not truth.) By the same token, though, I'd argue that he needs someone who is more conservative than he is, not because they'd get some conservatism onto the ticket but because they'd counter the claim that all of his bipartisan talk is just hot air. The point of a "team of rivals" isn't so much to include a lot of different types of people, but to show that the leader of such a team is strong enough to profit from disagreement instead of (like some presidents we know) terrified of it.

Veep? I can't shake the notion that if Obama wins, then he should try to get Hillary as VP. OK, so what's startling about that? Lots of people are thinking this. My idea is quite simple...should they win the white house....then Obama nominates Hillary for the next vacant seat on the US Supreme Court! Then, selects McCain as VP. Soooo...he'd have an "era of good feeling", everyone will be happy...and Obama won't worry about having a VP who will challenge him in 2012.
Well, it is just an "idea."

i agree with the embrace-your-change-status argument. it reminds me of that mountain climbing movie, "into the void", about the guy who couldn't climb out of the crevace, so he climbed further down into it, and eventually found a way out. sometimes it's positive to move in the direction of the supposed weakness just to show it's not a weakness.

sebelius for v.p.

The thing about Bush picking Cheney, was that it had no electoral use at all. There was some minimal chatter about gravitas (that as you point out, may have hindered more than helped), but in general he chose an uncharismatic conservative from Wyoming. Because he realized that their value as a partner in power was much more important than the minor electoral bonus.

My favorite changes every day. Today it's Kaine.

I thought Sen. Obama was going to pick Gov. Sebelius early in the race when there was no rift with the Clinton wing. The fact that Sebelius helps heal the rift with the Clinton wing is gravy. Go outside DC, get a reinforcing candidate, and broaden the map. Ding, ding, ding.

And for all the Clinton supporters who think picking a woman other than Clinton is somehow an insult, get a life. Gov. Sebelius is a two-term Governor, was state insurance commissioner, and served in the Kansas House starting in 1986. That's 22 years of ELECTED experience and seeing as she's 60 the same as a certain former First Lady let's just go ahead and credit her with the patented 35 years of experience.

Richardson,a qualified givernor and Hispanic. Change for a generationof voters and help in NM, NV, CO, FL, and even TX, and AZ.

Since we're all trying to push our change agents, here is my longshot: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. She is the Queen of Vice-Presidential Checkmarks:

Young? Check
Woman? Check
Married with kids? Check
Attractive? Check (sorry about that, but it is relevant.)
Red State? Check (FL)
Jewish? Check
Hillary faction? Check
Respected in House? Check (Pelosi has been feeding her all kinds of leadership work)
Liberal? Check
Foreign policy? Oy. Bad on Cuba and Israel. But nobody's perfect.

That's 22 years of ELECTED experience and seeing as she's 60 the same as a certain former First Lady let's just go ahead and credit her with the patented 35 years of experience.

That's some quality rift-healing.

I'm digging Claire McCaskill.

Joe S: I used to be pushing DWS for the exact same reasons as you, but she's said enough really anti-Obama stuff lately that it becomes hard to imagine. She's certainly been one of the bad actors in the whole FL MI debacle.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357206,00.html

DWS on Fox

My favorite changes every day. Today it's Kaine.

Today of all days, the day after he executed a man despite running as anti-death penalty?

I'm a Level 3 Rift Healer in WoW.

Shock Mouse:

Another (ex-)DWS fan? We should form a club! We must (have been/) be the only two in America.

As far as her Clinton sycophancy is concerned, I view that as a feature, rather than a bug. My main concern is about her qualification to be President. I know she is a respected operative in the House. I don't know a thing about her policy chops.

Ha, Joe.

I just think at some point you say enough bad things about the nominee that if you were on the ticket, they'd really bite you in the ass (and also it'd be understandable if Obama did not like her for it).

Also you mention her Caucus leadership. I don't know if we should consider that a feature or a bug (pros: active, cons: useful in the House) but her most recent newsworthiness was how problematic she was there. Co-Chairing the DCCC lately she's had trouble endorsing and helping local Democrats because she is friendly with the incumbent Republicans. That's certainly no good.

However one good point in her favor that you skip: her seat would continue to be held by a Democrat (its PVI D+22 I believe). I really feel this is underestimated when people throw around names like Sebelius, Kaine, Warner, Webb, Schweitzer. Does all the work they and their supporters did to get them their seat mean so little compared to the middling political boost of making them VP?

I don't think any VP nominee, once under the microscope, really "checks of all the boxes" we'd want, no matter what our personal vision of the perfect VP may be. For me, though, the closest person who comes to that, and who I also just have a really good gut feeling about, is Brian Schweitzer. Plus, doesn't he just look like a big cute baby? I just want to pinch his cheek!

Cheney chose himself. Bush had nothing to do with it.

The bottom line of this equation is what brings in voters; in that sense "compensating" may be no better than "amplifying" if it doesn't broaden his appeal. Rather than thinking of it in terms of weaknesses, I'd say think of it in terms of who hasn't voted for him and who needs to be won over. The sense that he needs a broader appeal to white men and women who vote more independently is what leads me to think that a white man - younger, dynamic, but a little safe - is the way to go. And I tend to think it needs to be someone from a state that's not a given - which is why I'd bet on Ohio or Pennsylvania to provide the right person, to stanch the sense that he could lose either or both of these big states, which he can't well afford. Although a Western Senator or Governor might be interesting, there's a question of what's gained as well as what's lost going that route (he's not going to win Arizona, for one, no matter who he picks; and Colorado and New Mexico don't seem to hinge on a VP as much as on how he talks about immigration issues). I do, though, still think a lot of this is premature... not because settling with Clinton is still hanging out there (though that's not something to be ignored), but because we still need some time to actually unwrap him as the nominee, to better understand what the dilemmas are. Rushing to create a "short list" isn't really needed yet, and foreclosing on some options (or overselling others, like Edwards, Richardson, Sibelius, Webb... etc) seems hasty. I do think people overestimate what a VP pick can do; at best it may add a state and a little cushion elsewhere. But most will pick Obama because of him or not pick him because of him, not because of his running mate.

If white males don't trust Obama, will they trust him because there's a white guy in a subordinate position on the ticket?

No, exactly. This is why an Obama/Hillary ticket would not be a "dream ticket." The West Virginians and Kentuckyans who voted for Hillary because the other candidate was black will NEVER vote for Obama, not even if David Duke is his VP pick.

Is the single example of Clinton/Gore really a model? It's one case. In pretty much every other successful pair the VP was chosen to compensate for weaknesses of the presidential candidate and to unify the party around the ticket.

Examples:

Bush/Cheney - Cheney had gravitas and national defense credentials which Bush lacked.

Bush/Quayle - Quayle was a young conservative to match Bush, who was distrusted by the party's conservative wing.

Reagan/Bush - Bush was a moderate/regular Republican, chosen to mollify the party establishment about Reagan.

Carter/Mondale - Mondale was a northern liberal, chosen to unify the party around the ticket, and to mollify liberals nervous about Carter.

Nixon/Agnew - this one is tricky. Agnew turned out to be very much in the style of Nixon (Nixon's Nixon, as Gene McCarthy put it). But he was actually chosen as a moderate easterner to counter Nixon's reputation as a conservative. Ultraliberal New York Mayor John Lindsay actually made the convention speech nominating Agnew.

Johnson/Humphrey. Humphrey was, again, a northern liberal, to satisfy liberal elements in the party who were uncomfortable with Johnson

Kennedy/Johnson. Johnson was a southern moderate chosen to mollify the southern wing of the party, and such.

Eisenhower/Nixon. Nixon was a representative of the conservative wing of the party, to mollify Taft supporters who distrusted Eisenhower and the eastern establishment.

And that pretty much takes us through the modern era. I'm not sure where the idea that you can only win with a Clinton/Gore type pairing came from. That has worked precisely once.

If you're running on a platform of hope and change, wouldn't it be the most helpful to have a candidate who resonates with that message? Some good possibilities (in alphabetical order): Bill Bradley, Sherrod Brown, Tim Kaine, Jack Reed, Brian Schweitzer.

The Vice President's chief purpose ends on election day. That is, the VP's main job is to campaign for the ticket. Therefore, pick the best campaigner. Ticking a checklist might arrive at a person best able to reach the most voters, but the checklist is secondary to the person.

I learned this in high school government class. I was a candidate in our simulated election, and I chose a VP for ideological balance when I should've picked someone who cared enough to campaign.

I learned this in high school government class. I was a candidate in our simulated election, and I chose a VP for ideological balance when I should've picked someone who cared enough to campaign.

Ideally, you should find someone who can do both. Theodore Roosevelt is a good example (and he proved a decent president, as well).

It's just plain crazy to think you can pacify the Clinton wing by choosing some other woman, irrespective of her qualifications or credentials, to be Obama's VP. But the fact that so many of you seem to think it can be done just goes to show how yawning the gap between the two candidates' supporters really is.

AnnieT:
I resemble your remark. But I'm not a Clinton supporter. (I'm an Edwards guy who likes Obama and Clinton equally, but figures that Obama has won, so it is time to get behind him.)

There are some hard-core Hillary nuts who will never be pacified. But that's not the point to selecting a woman as VP. It's about supporting Obama's narrative: an expanded America. Any traction it gets from Hillary supporters is just a lagniappe.