Biden is a gasbag and a horrible choice for VP- he talks too much while being politically disengaged. A man with a good heart who vastly overates himself.

Biden might also help with the Catholic vote, which, for reasons beyond me, seems to have been going Republican in recent elections. (Then again, it's beyond me why any demographic would go Republican, but what did you expect?)

Of course, the strongest argument against the point I make is that Kerry is Catholic, and that didn't seem to get him anywhere.

NO. No no no no no no no.

NO.

Sorry Kevin, Warren Buffett for SecTreasury, not VP.

Seriously.

"The war against hunger is truly mankind`s war of liberation" - John F. Kennedy

Couldn't say it any better than Tilli just did.

Biden would be a horrible choice. He comes from tiny Delaware, with a miniscule number of electoral votes. While he might be qualified, a VP from DE will never happen.

Don't the data show that VP candidates don't really help draw-in voters? I'm sure they can dissuade voters, like: "OmiGod, he'll be the Vice President?!?" But they don't really bring-in the states.

If a VP candidate had any pull, Obama should pick a rip-roarin' hard-drinkin' guns-blazin' hootin-hollerin crazy-ass-yahoo from a red state that will make those voters feel right at home... You know, someone like GWB.

I think you make a great point about him needing to avoid purity. You can't be a Grand Mediator, an implied promise of his campaign, and hold people to pure standards.

I object to Biden for a different reason. He makes terrible gaffes and is occasionally a pompous bore.

I think he and Obama both share the same level of intellectualism and impressive thought, but Obama carries his with grace, whereas Biden does not, as much as I like him.

I would rather keep the intellectual broodiness on Obama's plate and compliment it with a vice-president who is more bluntly populist. He needs a Teddy Roosevelt to balance his Woodrow Wilson.

A link on the merits of Buffet as Veep.

http://indytyrion.blogspot.com/2008/02/draft-buffet.html

He needs to pick someone who showed the SUPERB judgment to vote FOR the war? Someone who will then be one heartbeat away from the presidency? Please think about that again...

Biden for VP? How does that really help Obama's chances at all? What swing state does it put into play? Does Biden have some vast national web of supporters who remained entirely invisible during his run? Is Obama really concerned with getting that huge crop of electoral votes from Delaware?

It seems there are a lot of politically prominent folks who once supported the war, but have changed their minds - perhaps Obama could find one who's not a fatuous blowhard, is from someplace useful (Ohio, PA, FLA, VA, etc.), and could actually bring in some votes.

I don't think Obama should pick ANY Senator. The Dem's margin in the Senate is too close to risk losing a seat. A governor would be better. Or maybe someone like Wes Clark, who could bring some foreign policy expertise to the mix.

I'm sure that Biden's unwavering support of the credit card industry and his big "bankruptcy reform" gift to them a couple of years ago will go over well with Dem voters too.

Kevin wrote: "People won't vote for a candidate who tacitly seems to be calling them idiots."

Bush got a lot of votes, and he made it quite clear that he thought his supporters were weak-minded, ignorant, gullible rubes who would swallow any line of BS he fed them. I don't think there has been another candidate in my lifetime who exhibited such blatant, sneering contempt for the voters' intelligence.

I've thought the pick will be Biden for a few weeks now. He can attack and get media attention. Biden has foreign relations cred. Delaware doesn't have a lot of electoral votes but it is fairly northeastern, where McCain does well and may try to pick off some blue states. Also, he appeals to the rust belt lunch bucket population that has been Obama's most difficult demographic.

Biden is a terrible choice. His pathological need to speak and be the center of attention would be the deathknell for any campaign. Hey...McCain...?

Chris Todd would be a much better choice, although I don't think it's a good idea to have 2 sitting senators on the same ticket. A sitting senator hasn't won the WH since JFK, what chance does a ticket with 2 have? Pick Bill Richardson and call it a day.

to SecularAnimist:
Kevin wrote: "People won't vote for a candidate who tacitly seems to be calling them idiots."
But GWB didn't do that tacitly but quite openly. And the electorate agreed.

Just out of curiosity, if Buffett was on the ticket,would there be any limitation to his ability to self fund the campaign?

JMHO, but it would seem to me that Obama choosing a white male as a running mate would kinda piss off a large fraction (middle aged to old women) of the democratic party base.

Obviously Bill "Judas" Richardson thinks he's going to be the one.

Chris Todd would be a much better choice

I thought you meant Chuck Todd at first.

fostert: "Or maybe someone like Wes Clark, who could bring some foreign policy expertise to the mix."

Wouldn't that look too much like an admission that Obama needs foreign policy training wheels?

I'm with you on the "no senators," though.

The problem here is that Obama is making the claim that his opposition to the war from the beginning makes him more fit to be commander-in-chief than either of his opponents. It's not a claim that those who initially supported the war are bad people or are tainted. He is claiming, though, that someone who had access to all the intelligence estimates and still voted for the war anyway lacks the judgment necessary to be commander-in-chief. So if Biden lacks that qualification, how can you suggest that he be next-in-line to the presidency. Someone like Richardson, however--who was not in Congress at the time--might be acceptable. Yes he supported the war, but that was based on the limited information he had available at the time. As he learned more Richardson quickly became quite outspoken of it. I think Obama could get away with Richardson in this regard, but not Biden or Clinton.

Biden is charismatic and likable, but unfortunately doesn't bring a lot to the table otherwise (including substance). He has advocated partitioning Iraq, which certainly has its casual appeal, but would be more likely to provoke civil war than staying the course or leaving, not to mention inviting intervention from neighboring countries.

Biden's candor is also his Achilles heel. His collection of gaffes aren't McCain bad, but they could certainly be presented as such in a general election.

Most importantly, as a senator from Delaware Biden wouldn't help Obama's carry any important swing states the way, say, a governor from the South or Midwest might.

Governor Richardson would be a better choice than Biden, though it would be a somewhat unorthodox pick. New Mexico isn't an important swing state. However putting a Hispanic man on the ballot could be part of a strong, multi-decade strategic move by the Democrats to help win over Hispanics as a voting block. It might also help a put Arizona and Texas in play (still unlikely) and even help woo newer generations of Cubans to the Democratic party.

The more orthodox move for Obama would be to pick up a (former) governor from an important swing state (Ohio) or region (someone to help carry a couple of states in the South or Midwest).

But it's starting to look like a moot point. The Clinton vanity tour (which is as self-destructive and selfish as it is negative and vacuous) has badly damaged Obama's favorable ratings (and hers are now at all time lows). There were plenty of states in the Midwest that Obama led McCain in the polls as recently as a 6 weeks ago that are all now trending solidly for McCain over both candidates.

Hillary can't beat Obama, so Bill and Hill's insistence on staying in the race and bloodying Obama seems to be premised on a 2012 "I told you so" run.

The notion of picking a VP to enhance electability is wrongheaded and shortsighted. Wrongheaded because it doesn't work, and shortsighted because it misses one of the most important functions a VP can fulfill, namely serving as the president's heir apparent.

As Kevin has noted elsewhere, the most common time for the White House to switch parties is at the end of a second term, when the incumbent president can't run again. One way to make losing the executive branch less likely is to have a VP who is the prohibitive favorite for the nomination, discouraging challengers and providing an uncontested primary so that the VP can run as if (s)he were the incumbent. But this only can happen if the VP is a credible successor.

In addition, having the VP set up to succeed also helps with the second-term lame duck problem. If there's no obvious successor, the entire field of potential nominees will be out trying to differentiate themselves, both from one another and from the outgoing president. This leads to a breakdown in party discipline and a dimunition of presidential power.

If Obama succeeds in November, and then gets reelected in 2012, he won't want to spend the last two and a half years of his administration flailing fecklessly the way Dubya is doing now. The best way he can insure that is by picking a VP who will be able to succeed him, and who can keep the party together in his second term's waning days. That, and not some spurious electoral strategizing, should guide the VP choice.

BTW, Biden would be a wrong choice for VP. It would be like picking another Cheney, a snarling attack dog too old and out of it to be a successor.

"Wouldn't that look too much like an admission that Obama needs foreign policy training wheels?"

Perhaps. And given the fact that McCain really does need Joe Lieberman whispering in his ear all the time, I don't think Obama is any weaker than McCain on foreign policy. But Wes Clark does have experience commanding the military in times of war. That might come in handy. McCain will probably make an idiot of himself on foreign policy issues during the campaign (yes he's doing it now, but nobody's watching). So Obama won't really need "training wheels" then. But in an actual presidency, Clark's experience will be valuable.

Don't hold back, Tilli. Tell us what you really think.
I agree! A big NO to Biden (D-Mastercard)
Clark is a good choice, IMHO.

So why not make Clark Secretary of Defense and Biden Secretary of State? The VP candidate should be the person who is next most qualified to lead the country. At the very least one should be able to make a plausible argument that is the case.

Uh doooods, Wes Clark has endorsed Hillary.

Biden is a horrible choice and I actually like the guy. He doesn't bring enough to the ticket electorally and is always a danger to put his foot in his mouth which is not what Obama needs from his VP.

Jim Webb & Ted Strickland help in battleground states and with blue collar whites. I would go with one of them.

I think Obama needs to stop talking about being "right" about the war a lot. He seems to think it is a magic ticket to winning the White House. The American people were largely in favor -- rightly or wrongly -- of the war. (I wasn't, but opinion polls at the time showed it was popular.) Thus most people -- esp. swing voters -- have changed their opinion over time. Each time Obama brings up the "I was right and you were wrong" theme I think it rubs people the wrong way.
Plus, I think he needs to come up with a new selling point.

BTW, I think Jim Webb makes the best sense for VP. Solid military background, anti-war (or stupid wars), son in Iraq, good grasp of economic issues, and that certain manly man gravitas that Obama lacks at times, but that appeals to the press and white male voters.

Buffet is 78, so that's out.

I'd rather see Biden stay a Senator, but a cabinet post would be OK I guess... he can be awesome in a hearing setting, but he had a pretty disastrous campaign. Not a good choice, I'd say.

I'm holding out for Webb.

You're right Weenie.
But still he is,
a) experienced in foreign policy. which does not have to imply an admission of weakness on Obama's part
b) qualified to lead the country, which as Galois said should be a consideration (and often is not)

Also, selecting Clark or someone else from the Hillary camp would be a gesture toward healing the damage done.

We need to make a semipopulist appeal against the nasty bankruptcy bill that Biden was so implicated in creating. So he should be out. Choices could be Richardson, Webb (highly respected even if he violates the Senator rule), or perhaps Mark Warner -who until he said he wasn't interested seemed like the rising star of the Democratic sky.

I still think Sam Nunn's the ideal choice for Obama.

I think Matt's wrong: I don't think having someone who voted for the war but now opposes it on the ticket would do all that much to hurt Obama's message.

On the other hand, this idea that voters would be offended by not having a war supporter on the ticket doesn't seem to make much sense to me, either. For one thing, people didn't vote on the war, they had evolving positions, and if I remember correctly, a plurality (if not a majority, I can't recall) supported getting a UN resolution pretty much right up to the invasion. Certainly Obama shouldn't go around calling people who supported the war idiots, but I don't think that most voters feel the kind of ownership over the war that pundits, politicians, and bloggers feel.

(To take your argument to the extreme, he'll need to win voters who voted Republican in the last election. So clearly he needs Cheney as his running mate, so they won't feel he's calling them idiots for voting for Bush.)

No, the ones it would help him with by having a Biden on the ticket would be Democratic congressmen who voted for the war -- showing them that their former position won't necessarily cause them to be kept out of his inner circle. However, the necessity and value of this is debatable.

Obama should pick McCain as his running mate. John would be so confused, he just might go for it, leaving the Republicans to settle for Ron Paul or Joe Lieberman.

Thersites, Wes Clark is 63 now and will be 64 in Dec. If he were VP and wanted to run after 8 years of Obama he would be how old?

I think JimBoB at 3:05 made some quite salient points on what to consider when making the choice.

Obama should pick McCain as his running mate.

It's a far more likely path for McCain to get to the White House than the one he's on.

Obama-Webb '08

The only person I feel less well disposed to than Joe Biden is Joe Lieberman.

I wouldn't say that a mother of young twins was tainted forever if she assumed that the Fools and the Top knew what they were doing and didn't have time to check out the story. I'd be willing to forgive anyone on chemo at the time as well. But pundits, editorial boards, Congressmen, Senators? What's their excuse? Tainted forever, I'm afraid.

"sneering contempt for the voters' intelligence."
He won. Clearly he's right on this one.

Actually, I find Matt Yglesias' just-prior post to be far more psychologically enlightening:

"Andrew traces another step in the machines' inevitable rise to world domination: A computer capable of telling which women are the attractive ones. In conjunction with their three-dimensional printers, the machines will be able to use this technology to create the sexy spies who ultimately lead to our downfall."

Analyze that, why don'tcha?

Nah, Biden is a good pick for Secretary of State.

General Wesley Clark would be the optimal pick for Obama's VP. Slam dunk.

Biden, no. Though I like him, he will undoubtedly say something stupid. Richardson might be cool. Nunn would also be an interesting option. Gov of Ohio, Ted Strickland, no.

How about Boob, ooops, I mean Bob Kerry? Sure he endored HRC early on and belabored the Muslim issue, but he is a Medal of Honor winner, a somewhat loose cannon on the 9/11 Commission, and a former governor. Besides, reaching out to him would be seen as reaching out to the HRC mob,

No matter, Nunn and Ricardson need to be on the short list.

Obama, Richardson. Gets the West, gets the East. Gets a big chunk of the South.

Weenie, I suspect that Clark has given up his presidential ambitions at this point.

Personally, I think he would be a good President but he's charisma-challenged and thus unelectable. In the VP slot that matters less. See Cheney, Dick. Whatever he is or isn't he's never been accused of being charismatic.

Hee!

How 'bout Mike Dukakis?

[eyes alight with mischievous glee]

We are gonna need a serious technocrat to help deal with crumbling infrastructure, and not just transportation ...

Biden's populist appeal should not be underestimated. Working class males find him extremely engaging due to his affability (in an Irish-Catholic kind of way), his consistent support of labor, and for a variety of other reasons. I'll never understand this myth that Biden is a Republican in Democratic Clothing (National Journal ranking him as the 3rd most liberal member of the Senate in 2007). While Obama's policies are in line with the best interests of this group, he continues to have trouble connecting with them. Biden could definitely add populist appeal to Obama's candidacy. Many people sincerely appreciate Biden's candor and down-to-earth pragmatism, which I think may compliment Obama's intellectualism fairly well.

We are gonna need a serious technocrat to help deal with crumbling infrastructure, and not just transportation ... kenga

Well then why not Spock?

An exmilitary VP would send a clear message that BO is not anti-military, a charge the Repubs made against Clinton regularly. Remember the crocodile tears the Repubs cried about how Clinton was overstressing our military. Clark would be good, Zinni even better.

I thought you meant Chuck Todd at first.

Todd, Dodd, what's the diff?

[use the damn preview button!]

If it's a choice of assholes to pick from, I think I'd prefer to see Mike Huckabee as VP instead of Joe Biden. Huckabee is funny and he genuinely seems to care about poverty.

Well then why not Spock?

He's an Alien who had himself beamed over the border, no doubt.

Jim Webb is a terrible choice for one reason, the Senate dems can't afford to lose Virginia, and risk doing so in a state where dems don't have a huge track record of success.

secularAnimist,

Bush got a lot of votes, and he made it quite clear that he thought his supporters were weak-minded, ignorant, gullible rubes who would swallow any line of BS he fed them.

That is one thing Bush was actually right about. I disagree with the weak-minded part. These are the attributes I think the core Bush supporters have:

willfully ignorant
close-minded
pious
self-righteous
fearful
hard working
charitable
cheerful
gullible
unreasoning
prejudiced
zealous
law-abiding
sincere

Did I forget anything?

Also, I'm not sure if Spock is Vulcan enough.

"How about Boob, ooops, I mean Bob Kerry?"

I like Bob, but his war record has a little problem: he was involved in the My Lai massacre. Not that America really has a problem with war criminal presidents, but I don't think Bob Kerry really wants the issue brought up again. He'll turn down any offer to avoid that bad press.

I like Bob, but his war record has a little problem: he was involved in the My Lai massacre.

Kerrey was involved in the Thang Phong Massacre

Not Vulcan enough? Boy Thersites you sure set high standards.

Actually I would like to now posit that INKBLOT be the VP for whoever gets the democratic nomination.

Look, with Florida doubtful for Democrats, with Ohio questionable or at least in play, Obama cannot have the luxury of picking a neat choice. He must be JFK and solidify the electability of the ticket and broaden its electoral possibilities with the VP choice. Some here say thats wrongheaded, but JFK had the courage to do it and he won, and most times in our past thats how VP's were chosen, to enhance the ticket's electability, not to put someone capable of being president in there. People dont look at that any more than they looked at Andrew Johnson or Harry Truman as potential presidents, to name just two of myriad examples.

Biden, from a tiny NE state, brings nothing to the ticket except the potential for gaffs, as much as I love the guy. There is no state he helps Obama with that Obama is not already strong in. Dodd also comes from a small NE state and has shown no drawing power anywhere else. My choices would be Richardson (puts SW into play and puts Hispanic vote in Obama's column for a historic ticket), or Wes Clark (all of the military experience and prestige one could want which helps in pinkish states), or Ted Strickland of Ohio (puts Ohio in Dem corner plus administrative experience), or even Clinton if she would take it which would unify the party and make it competitive most places including Florida, and Ohio. (Oh I know she and Bill want Obama to be crushed.....NOT. Memo to those still on the hatred bandwagon: there has been nothing negative towards Obama from her for weeks and overall this campaign has been tame. Dont take my word for it. Do your homework in history. Wright did some damage to Obama but that was not Clinton, that was the press and I am damn glad it came out now and not in the fall. McCain was bound to do better in the polls over time. A lot of people like him with leftover love from 2000. Some bitter and angry Clinton supporters may stay home or go with McCain. I posted on blogs until my face was blue that all the hatred and spew directed at her and Bill would have that effect. Take away 20-30% of half the party, and Obama doesnt do as well. Unify the party, bring the 20-30% back home, and the ticket may be unbeatable. But I dont think she will take it if offered. So I guess Richardson floats to the top
with Strickland or Clark second in my mind.)

Cute choices are useless. Make the ticket more electable in more states. Winning is the only thing here. In that context applying a litmus test that only those who voted against the war can be his running mate makes absolutely no sense to me. This election is not about 2003. Period. Obsessing over that and not keeping your eye on the current politics is a recipe for losing. I have news for you: 12 months after anyone is elected, we will still have substantial numbers of US troops in Iraq.

Webb would be a useful mate, if you're going after the "Jacksonian" vote that McCain considers his own, but do you really want to spend three months listening to the minor plot details of that novel he wrote? Trust me, if you don't know already, you don't want to know.

Dodd's out because CT has a Republican Governor.

John Edwards doesn't want it. Understandable.

Al Gore's got better things to do.

HRC couldn't accept it. And Obama couldn't stand having Bill in the house all the time.

Biden would be a bad Secretary of State and worse VP.

I think that leaves Richardson--who also had Bidenesque tendencies, but what are you going to do? Just hope he keeps on message.

Cute choices are useless. Sorry, Inkblot.

Seriously, Jammer is exactly right. It's about winning, not just for winning's sake but to keep McSame out.

Joe Biden would be a good choice, but I believe he would be a great secretary of state. His experience as a senator has given him the background and knowledge needed in our changing world. Remember all the presidential debates when the other candidates were defering to his postions. He is a great man and life long public servant.

Is Dick Cheney still available? I thought that Condi Rice would convert to Judaism and become Israel's 2nd female prime minister.

Other winning thoughts I had was for Clarence Thomas to be McCain's veep.

As for Obama, it gotta be Al Gore or, for a killer ticket, Nancy Pelosi.

Call me when it's over. And please let me know if I won anything..

Webb's a brand-new senator. Good way to get the cries of "Inexperience! Inexperience!" up to ear-splitting volume.

Clark is a) too old, b) firmly in hock to the Clintons and c) a poster child for the 1990s. A has-been who never was.

Richardson...maybe.

Nunn...maybe.

Sebelius? Doubt it, but maybe.

What about Brian Schweitzer? Hmmm. Maybe.

Good lord, is Sam Nunn really 69? Scratch him, too. I always think of him as much younger FSR.

McCain can't pick a black or a woman as VP--much less somebody who is both. Racism and mysogyny is the core of his support . . .

Isn't this blog supposed to represent progressives?

Where are the suggestions for female candidates. Only shortstop so far has stepped up to the plate.

Come on you guys, put your thinking caps on.

So why not make Clark Secretary of Defense and Biden Secretary of State?

I think Clark hasn't been out of uniform for the 10 years required before becoming Sec Def.

Regardless, I'd prefer a civilian (with some military experience, but not flag rank) as Sec Def. Clark would make an excellent Sec State.

I'd echo jimBOB on the VP - make it an heir apparent. I'd be ok with one of the two female governors - Sebelius (KS) or Napolitano (AZ).

Tilli had it right. NO NO NO NO NO. Biden gets off a good line now and then, but given the amount he talks, it's not surprising. He's a total grandstander in love with the camera and the sound of his voice. Let him stay a Senator--the margin isn't all that great.

Wapiti,
Thank you! Gregoire (WA) is also worth a look.

I don't think Obama should pick ANY Senator.

I do think Obama should consider Senators for his cabinet. Provided that the cabinet position is not Sec Def, Sec State, or Sec Heimatsicherheit (er... Homeland Security... it sounded more authentic in the original German). And provided that the Senator tapped to fill the Cabinet position is a Republican from a state with a Democratic Governor who can appoint a replacement.

Memo to Senator McCain.

Please please please please please pick Condoleeza

Webb's seat isn't up for reelection until 2012, and Tim Kaine will be governor through 2009, so were an Obama-Webb ticket to win, the Democratic Senate seat would be safe.

Gregoire's ratings are decidedly mixed, and she's in distinct danger of losing her seat to a Republican. Napolitano's been a good guv, but is from Arizona...McCainland. If we're going with Washington state (a goal worth pursuing), I'd be more inclined toward Cantwell--though she's been good on the environment and bad on Iraq.

Definitely not Biden, Richardson or Napolitano would be the best choices.

How about Kathleen Sibelius?

Nunn would fit right in with the Unity Pony theme, but he's too old, has said he wouldn't be interested in running for anything but president, and has a constituency that includes Michael Bloomberg and a few hundred other Republican-leaning Democrats and nobody else. He's also very conservative: he was Reagan's favorite Democratic senator. And then there's the George Wallace connection. But he is a very Serious Person, so he'd get the Cokie Roberts vote.

Biden, I gurantee, would say something utterly stupid or plagiarize someone, possibly both simultaneously.

Webb has considerable experience outside the Senate; he'd be okay, but he has suspect positions on some key issues. The military background and the fact that he used to be a Republican might be helpful. Plus he's a rugged guy that Chris Matthews could swoon over to balance the McCain lust.

Obama should chose Edwards as VP, even if his wife like's Hillary better. Its kind of like when Bill Clinton choose Gore. I think Obama needs a populist on his team, and thus it would aid in keeping Hillary's people happy, particulary since I think alot of people associate Edwards with Hillary style liberal politics.

Progressives will all vote for Obama, regardless of the VP choice. The right will, likewise, vote McCain. The voters who will swing the election will be the independents and so-called Reagan Democrats. The best choice would be someone who has appeal in areas where Obama doesn't and who pulls votes from this group. That person would be Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer.

He has amply demonstrated his appeal to blue-collar voters. He would complement Obama's strengths nicely.

Biden? You've got to be kidding. The Senator from Citi Bank will be increasingly despised for his unwavering allegiance to the the financial industry. That's right, the same people responsible for millions of Americans losing their homes through foreclosure and destroying our economy. Biden will be remembered as the jerk who championed the bill that turns all the people hurt by the recession into indentured servants of the banks.

Ridiculous. Why in the name of God would Nancy Pelosi, one of the most powerful people in the entire government, certainly the most powerful person in Congress, leave that lofty position to play second fiddle to the risky presidential bid of a newcomer who has been in Congress for three years -- one of them running for President? Answer: She wouldn't. She's not an idiot.

As for Joe Biden, I would rather nail my cock to a burning bulding than have to listen to that guy, let alone have him as VP. I suppose he and Barry could plagarize each other, though.

The best choice would be someone who has appeal in areas where Obama doesn't and who pulls votes from this group. That person would be Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer.

Agreed. I really think Schweitzer's his best choice.

Biden never saw a bankruptcy bill he didn't like. The man's a stooge.

I'd much prefer Dodd.

No, not Biden. A motor mouth who spout too many inanities and does not wear well with time and scrutiny.

But I don't know who.

White southern male governor.

I would rather nail my cock to a burning bulding (sic) than have to listen to that guy

I think "Barry" just might take you up on that.

Sen. MBNA as vice president? I already have enough reasons to not vote Democratic.

I agree with Matt Y. this time. Putting Biden on board is going to take steam out of Obama's engine.

Putting Biden on board is going to take steam out of Obama's engine.

That is exactly right, makes you wonder why Drum would suggest a Senator like Biden? Another Republican hidden in Dem cloths trying to supplant stupid ideas.

Maybe Obama should pick Chuck Hagel, a old style Repug that doesn't like war and is not a neo-con and who briefly considered running as a Prez candidate himself because he doesn't like the direction of his own party. Obama seems determined to make good on his being a united and not a divider, bring the parties together kind of guy, so why not pick an old style conservative.

Actually Webb seems a pretty good bet too.

Frankly, Obama will need a baby-sitter on foreign policy, and Biden is the best choice.

Someone at 9:46 wrote:

Frankly, Obama will need a baby-sitter on foreign policy, and Biden is the best choice.

Why exactly is that? He seems pretty confident in himself on those issues. He was right about the Iraq war before almost anyone was. His answer on, for example, military intervention in Pakistan was 100% solid. Only the media was trying to give him a flat tire on it- his words had to have sounded like good sense to anybody, unless the listener is the type of person who is gullible enough to be completely convinced by news commentators instead of their "lyin'" ears.

I think Barack is not going to get schnookered. If you can extrapolate at all from his and his campaign's responses to criticism of him on other (including all sorts of mundane) matters, his savvy seems to be refreshingly better than the norm for an elected federal government official, not worse.

He needs a good way to signal these folks that he doesn't consider them tainted forever by their erstwhile support, and what better way than by choosing a moderately hawkish senator who once favored the war but has since changed his mind?

I think he would do better to choose a running mate that helps him sell his ideas than one whose main use is as a signal that he doesn't really mean what he says. That is, of course, presuming his interest is in doing something productive, rather than seeking the Presidency purely for personal gain.

Plus, that aside, Biden has perpetual foot-in-mouth disease rivalled (in this years primary field) only by Bill Richardson. Even from a nonsubstantive, purely political standpoint either would be a practical liability for that reason despite the attractiveness of their resume.

People won't vote for a candidate who tacitly seems to be calling them idiots.

I don't think that saying that they had better judgement on an important issue is even remotely seeming to call everyone in the electorate who had a different view an idiot.

God, Wes Clark would be a horrible VP choice. He would bring with him his constituency of exactly zero voters. Next choice, please?

Re: Possible female VP nominees.

1) Gregiore. She has a very good shot at being re-elected, but Rossi is a potent challenger and might well defeat a last minute replacement Democrat for governor. Besides, the Dems don't need her to capture Washington (or Oregon). Both states are very likely to go Democratic in the GE.

2) Napolitano. From what I've read, she is content to stay as governor until McCain's seat is available. She would be almost a shoo-in if McCrazy retires, and probably at least even odds to beat him if he runs again. She probably couldn't bring Arizona with her anyway.

3) Sibelius. She is popular, though probably not good enough to swing Kansas in the GE. She certainly would not have enough coattails to bring along other prairie states. Besides all this, the one time I saw her on TV, I had to be shaken awake after about two minutes. Not very dynamic. (She does have a good history and connection in Ohio. Could she give a little extra spark there, even if she doesn't help much in her own region?)

4) Women who are Democratic Senators. I firmly believe that we have to keep them in the Senate to protect and expand our majority. (This is not meant as a hit on Clinton.) This eliminates all four West Coast women senators. Also McCaskill.

5) Others. Granholm of Michigan. I don't have any idea of her skills as a speaker or as a politician, but I am under the impression that she is not particularly popular in her own state right now. Is that right?

Anyone have other ideas? Are there any high-profile, dynamic Congresswomen who could carry the number two spot?

"The opposite tack — insisting that he'll associate only with the pure of heart who opposed the war from the beginning — would be something of a disaster. People won't vote for a candidate who tacitly seems to be calling them idiots."

Yeah, people who are idiots really hate it when anyone points out, even implicitly, that they are, in fact, idiots.

"People won't vote for a candidate who tacitly seems to be calling them idiots."

But more seriously, isn't this yet another case of applying a higher (and therefore crippling) standard to the Democrats? The Democrats are always expected to be conciliators and nice guys, which earns them a well-deserved reputation as weaklings.

I think Biden is a terrible choice for Hillary to make. There are so many able people to select.
I doubt if she would even consider Biden.

As I said on Yglesias' site:

Joe Biden is a fucking blowhard. He's a Joe Klein type of weasel who gets real confident when beating up people to his left in order to prove his bona fides to his overlords on his right. How many times have I seen that smarmy little pussy kissing GOP ass? Biden is a huge fucking pussy.

I don't have time right now to look up the quotes but here's what Ari Berman in The Nation said about Biden in 2005:

"In July 2002, at the first Senate hearing on Iraq, then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden pledged his allegiance to Bush's war. Ever since, the blunt-spoken Biden has seized every opportunity to dismiss antiwar critics within his own party, vocally denouncing Bush's handling of the war while doggedly supporting the war effort itself. Biden carried this message into the Kerry campaign as the candidate's closest foreign policy confidant, and a few days after announcing his own intention to run for the presidency in 2008, he gave a major speech at the Brookings Institution in which he criticized rising calls for withdrawal as a "gigantic mistake.""

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, let's not pick anyone who blew the most important foreign policy decision of our era. Doesn't Biden fancy himself a foreign policy guru? Well, he blew it on Iraq, so that disqualifies him. Sorry, but it does just like it disqualified Hillary.