It should be Hillary. Picking her would be a wonderful magnanimous and unifying gesture on Obama's part. It would also help to keep many Hillary voters who will vote for McCain over Obama. My own mother said she'll only vote for Obama if Hillary is his running mate.

I tried to game the whole thing out yesterday: It looks to me like there are five strategies, organized around five different lead contenders.

* Wes Clark (The Foreign Policy Ploy)
* Kathleen Sebelius (The Female Gambit)
* Tim Kaine (The Virginia Strategem)
* Brian Schweitzer (The Western Experiment)
* Chuck Hagel or Sam Nunn (Wild Card)

The full version of the argument's at my blog, but it looks to me like Obama's leaning towards some variation of the Virginia Strategem with Kaine, Webb, or (longshot) Warner.

PS: Chuck Todd says our side is finally going to win, and win big.

Don't know that Graham has the commitment for a campaign --- didn't he drop out way early in 2004? Anyways, Wes Clark all the way.

It can't be Hillary. Too much dirty money in the millions Bill has made since 2001 and the Library fund. They'd have to release all that info to be vetted and Repubs would mine it all summer and fall.
That's not the way to change the way we do business in Washington.

It won't be Kaine, because a Republican would then step up from lieutenant governor to be his successor, and Virginia Democrats don't want that. In contrast, if Webb was chosen, Kaine (who will serve through the end of 2009) would be able to name a Democrat to fill his Senate seat.

Anyway, I don't think Kaine brings enough to the table, particularly on a foreign policy angle.

THANK YOU dday. I was feelin' mighty lonely.

Although I think you've got a couple of Graham's good points out of order:

1) Graham CAN deliver Florida, and this is hugely important. There are so many diverse and vocal micro constituencies down there: Miami Cubans, Palm Beach County Jews, Panhandle military folk, Central-state farmers, Duval County soccer moms, that if you don't know the territory, you can get tripped up on your tongue really easily. The repercussions of which can be bad.

2) While I love Graham's intel gravitas, and while I think Obama can use the counsel, a veep candidate's strengths sometimes serve to point out the POTUS candidate's weaknesses.

Still, Graham would be a GREAT pick.

Graham will be 72 in November. Not a disqualifier, necessarily, but still...

Hi dday --

Bob Graham would be okay, especially if he could deliver Florida -- kinda dull as a campaigner, though.

I've liked Jim Webb, because his blunt talk and military cred could peel the bark off the phony from Arizona; his inconsistency as a campaigner and progressive are problematic.

Open Left has an exclusive -- Patty Murray is being considered as VP. Sounds good to me, but while she might bring Hillary's base back into the fold, she doesn't drink the cranky old guy's milkshake.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6188

While Hillary is strong on the issues, choosing her as VP weakens Obama instead of strengthening his ticket. Even worse, her loose cannon of a husband is a disaster waiting to explode.

Other than that, I'm fairly agnostic -- but no DLCers, Blue Dogs, or Republicans please. So scratch Evan Bayh, and several others. Other than that, the list looks okay.

Graham's good. He should at least be on the shortish list. I can also see good arguments for Kathleen Sebelius, Mark Warner, Jack Reed, Janet Napolitano and Bill Richardson. Maybe Wes Clark too.

But yeah, picking someone who's always been against the Iraq War reinforces the judgment argument - and makes it that much easier to take Clinton out of the mix.

I think the reign of Dick Cheney has given many people a deeply mislead view of the role of the VP as some kind of co-presidency; or that the President and Vice-President are some sort of almost-equals with different spheres of responsibility.

I don't like Chris Matthews, but he's right: VP is not the silver medal. It is not the 2nd most important or powerful position in America. In fact it is totally powerless. Your job is to attend funerals of foreign leaders and oversee (but not have much influence on) the US Senate. Hillary Clinton would be a terrible VP choice. The position is not good for her, and she is not good for the position. She should stay in the Senate where she can do infinitely more good.

Also, the press would constantly be trying to stir up an sign of disunity between the two, and Bill Clinton would give them plenty of fuel to do so. And no, walking it back the next day with excuses about being a loving and dedicated spouse don't make it better.

Also, Bob Graham is too old, no offense to him. He is the same age as John McCain and would immediately become to be seen as the liberal version of Cheney: the old steady how to guide the inexperience youngster. Obama needs to find someone near his own age who reinforces his image, not undercut by implying a weakness.

Well, the polling data has Obama/Edwards beating everybody everywhere, and he's also the best pick for helping with Universal Health Care.

I know I shouldn't be, but I'm surprised at the number of otherwise intelligent people buying into the 'Sebelius' argument. Nothing against her at all - I'm just saying if the Obama camp is actually thinking 'we can get the Hillary supporters with this other chick', they're smoking. It's like telling a kid whose pet died 'aw, it's okay. I'll get you another one.' There's an emotional investment in Hillary, not 'any old female candidate'.

I do concede that Graham isn't the sexy young pick we've all come to expect from an operation as slick and effective as Obama's. But he's got a lot of things going for him - particularly Florida's electoral votes.

Jim Webb is my second choice, but I fear a slip of the tongue.

Then Hagel. Not because I love his track record, but because the appearance of reaching across the aisle would shock the world.

Then Schweitzer. He's a cool guy. But doesn't deliver that many votes.

Nunn seems overrated.

Kaine is death. That guy's as charismatic as oatmeal.

Matthewcc is correct - the job does not fit Hilary, and vice versa.

Edwards as attorney general is too good to waste.

I still like Bob Graham. But I bet Obama will surprise us.

I'm not of the view that a Vice President gets you a state

That just means you are living in reality.

In 2004, North Carolina voted for Bush/Cheney.

In 1996, New York voted Clinton/Gore.

In 1988, Texas voted Bush/Quayle.

In 1984, New York voted Reagan/Bush.

Even if one credits Gore with carrying Tennessee in '92 and '96, and Quayle with Indiana in '88 and '92, that just brings the tally backs to "makes no difference." Other VP candidates (Cheney, notably) have either been from states that were never in play or that nobody cared about anyway. It's become a real non-issue in strategy, or at least it should become one.

@matthewcc

Agreed. The last thing President Obama needs is to be shooing President Clinton out of the oval office five times a day, "hey, I remember that couch..."

Also, Bill Clinton would become a defacto member of the Obama administration - his problems in being a first husband would even be more so as being a VP first husband

I'll let Obama pick his own V.P. it seems that he is smarter then all of the pundits.
I will support him who ever he picks unless it is Hillary. After last Saturdays hissy fit of the Clintonistas, (like a two year old in the cereal isle) I doubt I will ever support any woman for any elected office again, they have shown they are not emotionally equipped to handle it.

I'm not of the view that a Vice President gets you a state...

A Vice President gets you his or her campaign machine in that state. Which is worth something -- if you pick a veep with a machine.

Which, BTW, is why I doubt McCain will pick Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his VP. Not because of her state's paltry 3 electoral votes, but because she has no machine.

What do you want in a veep?

First of all, the veep is in one sense directly analogous the backup QB in football. So it's essential that the veep be able to take the same team, and lead it in the same direction in a creditable manner.

So no Republicans, Blue Dogs, or DLCers, please.

I'm a bit worried that Graham is past his sell-by date here. We've got big things that need dealing with, and the President will need energy as well as knowledge - particularly, he'll need energy to sell his program to the public, and twist arms in the Senate.

Second, the veep is going to help you get elected - or at least, not hurt you. That means that the veep should be able to not go off the reservation (no Hillary, no Webb), or have skeletons in the closet, or point up shortcomings of the Presidential nominee.

I'm a bit iffy on Graham on this score.

Third, the veep is someone you want to give a major voice to inside the Administration. You want him to be able to push things that you don't have the time and energy to focus on, but you know still need to be pushed by someone almost as high up as you.

Fourth, if possible, you'd like the veep to be a plausible successor. This one isn't necessary, but a veep who will keep the country moving in a similarly beneficial direction after your eight years are up can significantly extend your legacy.

And Lord knows we Dems have more than eight years' worth of work ahead of us. So I'd rather have someone who will be under 70 when 2016 rolls around. (In a world where Hillary and Bill had both been more rational and temperate actors over the past three months, I'd be all for Hillary, who will be 68 then. Now I'm thinking Edwards.)

I definately think Bob Graham should be considered.

As an aside, I can't understand how anyone who considers themself a Democrat would even remotely entertain picking a Republican as VP - even someone like Hagel.
If you project a little further, you will hopefully realize that if, God forbid, anything happens to Obama, we would suddenly have a Republican president (a conservative one no less). What could possibly be worth taking that kind of risk?

JoeSixPack,

Have you seen some of the men who have held that office? Nixon and Clinton could blow-up at the drop of a Hat. McCain's emotions scare me as well. Maybe you shouldn't vote for a man either.

McCain will pick Huckabee or Romney -- Huck to shore up the snakehandlers, Mittens to reassure the K-Street money men.

Question -- who hearts McMaverick? The answer gives the odds on the Veep choice.

Graham is too old. When (not if!) Obama is successful, I want someone who can carry it forward in 8 years. Graham would be 80. I hope he picks someone around his own age, who reinforces his message. Like Clinton's pick of Gore, who would have won in 2000, minus the media assassination (or Nader, or Clinton's zipper problem, or his own mediocre campaign, or the Supreme Court, or the vacuous American public).

McCaskil of missouri... Swing state women.. Obama best surrogate in the primaries...

Have you seen some of the men who have held that office? Nixon and Clinton could blow-up at the drop of a Hat. McCain's emotions scare me as well. Maybe you shouldn't vote for a man either.

Posted by: Jason
----------------------------------------

And in those cases other men stood up against them and denounced their actions and sought to remove them and their childish behavior from such a high office. I have yet to see any one stand up to Ms Clinton and denounce the actions of the group she called upon to be there. If she now needs several days to digest her defeat and take on a guise of class and dignity to concede and congratulate Obama, she could have never handled a 3am phone call.

I still prefer Edwards as AG; the other day, NPR mentioned the possibility of a promise to nominate Hilary for SCOTUS, which I could see. Going further afield for VP, how about Barrow (GA)? Young, but not too young, dynamic, quite intelligent, moderate (but liberal; in fact, he's had to moderate his voting record because of being gerrymandered out of his home district [Athens, GA]).

no one has mentioned richardson.
he seems like a bit of a doofus
when he adlibs, but he should be considered.

Those are good points re: Hagel, and I sure did forget Richardson, who'd be pretty good.

I really don't think Graham's age is that much of a hindrance, though. In Florida, 72 is young. ;-)

anon: "Graham is too old. When (not if!) Obama is successful, I want someone who can carry it forward in 8 years."

Graham only needs to help Obama get elected in 2008. As an incumbent in 2012, Obama can pick a new understudy, the heir-apparent for 2016.

As matthewcc said, the Vice President is not as important a job as Cheney has made it out to be. The most significant task is helping the ticket get elected. After November, there's not much left to do.

I think Webb is good. He can be used to deflate any "I served in the military not like the other guy" arguments, he is young, a southerner, a white male (sorry but I think its important), and could anyone not see him being a candidate for President in the future?

I think a previous poster's argument about Cheney screwing up the public's perception of what a VP is is right on - but why shouldn't Obama use that to his advantage in this election? Pick a guy which can help him politically, and let the public believe he is filling in the gaps.

If Obama wants to try something really transformational and thrilling, I agree with those above who say he can do this: cut through centuries of partisanship and conventionality by picking a member of the opposite party to be his Veep. Chuck Hagel is the likely top pick in that category. (REM Kerry thinking of asking McCain? Did McCain ever clear up if that was even on the table, not that he can afford to admit it now?) We'd pick up more votes from fascinated and charmed Republicans than we'd ever lose from the few put-off Democrats and those figuring it was pandering (which it wouldn't be - but if McCain picks any non-spectacular woman or black, that would be seen as pandering. Suppose McCain picks Lieberman - wouldn't that be weird, and he'd get some cred for doing the same thing in appearance, albeit Lieberman hardly counts anymore as a true pick "across" the aisle.)

McCaskill's too conservative and too infatuated with Realpolitik to make an effective Vice-President under Obama. She was a great state auditor, and while her politics are a little too far to the right for my taste, she seems to have been an effective Senator so far. (She jumped into all her freshman committee assignments with fgusto.) She can probably do more long-term good in the Senate for Obama's agenda, and I'm loathe at any rate to pluck out one of America's all-too-rare female senators.

Ditto for Clinton. Forget that the veep slot (and, god forbid, SCOTUS) isn't right for her ambitions or her temperament. She could be Obama's most power ally in the Senate. Hell, Obama's best "deal" with her might to support her in a bid to oust Reid as Majority Leader. She's demonstrated a phenomenal ability to absorb policy details quickly in her time in the Senate, and unlike Reid she's a bit of a head-cracker. Come to think of it, she's done some of her best Senatorial work on the Armed Services Committee, so how about offering to make her the first female SecDef? That could energize her Second Wave feminist supporters; it would keep Bill out the limelight; it's one of the most powerful cabinet positions; both SecDef and AG have more independence than the other cabinet slots, which would in turn satisfy a bit of Clinton's ambition and need to be her own woman. Not sure it's more desirable for Obama than Clinton as Senate Majority Leader, though...

An outside the box pick that I think would be fantastic is Rush Holt. Ph.D. physicist with extensive arms control and intelligence experience, Holt also voted against the Iraq authorization act. He's also super strong on science funding and the environment. As others have mentioned, states don't really matter, although Holt's father was a senator from WV, and he went to college in Minnesota. He'd blow the Republican VP nominee out of the water in their debate with his brains and experience. At 59, he's the right age, too.

I'm a Floridian, and I love Graham, but he's more suited to Sec. of Defense than Veep.

For those of you pushing Hillary: STOP IT! 1) Obama's not gonna be stupid enough to put someone willing to backstab him that close to himself, 2) Reports are Bill is unwilling to let Obama's people vette his finances, and 3) she's evil. Get with the program.

As of now, Richardson makes the most sense in terms of balancing the ticket without overwhelming Obama's presence. Chris Dodd would be nice, if not for all those lobbyist ties he has. Joe Biden would be the safe/bland choice. Kathleen Sebelius would work as she's facing a term limit in 2010, but it would look too... well gimmicky.

If the VP pick is based on "enhancing" the ticket, Graham wouldn't add much, with the possible exception of Florida. If it's based on governance, the actual point of the exercise, Graham might be a good choice. He's a smart, honest man who knows congress. Wes Clark would be a better choice, in my view, and for both "ticket appeal" and governance. Clark is also a smart man who understands foreign policy. He has great military credentials, but he knows military solutions are last resorts.

Absolutely no Hillary and no republicans.

The next president will have his hands full simply trying to repair the damage from Hurricane George. Plus, there are very major crises that Bush has accelerated by at least a decade.

In my opinion, the dems will win the presidency this year, no matter how hard they try to blow off their feet. By November, Bush will be doubly detested, and republicans will be the target of all wrath. Dennis Kucinich could beat McCain in November -- on a ticket with Leon Trotsky.

I want an Obama administration ready to work.

OK, let's game this out:

1. Obama picks Graham
2. Obama/Graham stomp the livin' daylights out of McCain/whoever
3. Vacancy in Florida Senate seat...
4. Christ picks Jeb Bush as Senator...
5. 2012: Obama vs Jeb Bush...

I don't ever wanna go there...

Obama needs a good attack dog as VP, to do the attacking while Obama remains statesmanlike and cool.

I don't know that Hillary needs to be the VP, but she needs to be consulted and seen to play a major role in the campaign. Her supporters do not want to see her dissed.

> Clinton as Senate Majority Leader

Give up on this fable -- the Senate picks the Majority leader, and no way is Obama going to waste his chips in the Senate pushing them to put the 34th highest Senator into that job.

Graham -- he isn't too old too do the job, except that part of the job is to become the standard bearer in 2016, where he will be 17 million years old.

Patty Murray is my senator, and she's a very nice lady. But standard bearer of the Dem party? Oh *god* no.

How come no one's talking about Barbara Boxer? (Would Arnie get to choose her successor?) She's pretty progressive, a woman, a tough debater...

"OK, let's game this out:

1. Obama picks Graham
2. Obama/Graham stomp the livin' daylights out of McCain/whoever
3. Vacancy in Florida Senate seat..."

Graham is not a sitting US Senator, so no vacancy.

Art Smith:
Bob Graham is no longer a Senator. So Jeb Bush ain't going anywhere near the Senate. Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez are the current Senators. Graham decided not to run for re-election a few years ago.

About Hagel: I suppose Obama would expect him to drop formal membership "as a Republican" and declare as an independent. He'd need to agree also not to run for President "as a Republican" in the future. Weird as it is, disturbing as the risk of losing Obama is, think of the buzz factor for getting elected. Not just in the USA: the World is already impressed with our having nominated a black man and almost nominated a woman, they would also be impressed with a cross-partisan ticket.

Bob Graham? Now??? Besides the fact that he's a bit old now, if Bob Graham were Al Gore's choice for VP in 2000, the world would be a much better place. Florida is not nearly the swing state it was then. If we want someone who can flip a whole region, how about Gov. Schweitzer from Montana? Imagine the entire northwest becoming blue...

If only Al Gore had picked Bob Graham instead of Joe Lieberman....

If only Al Gore had picked Bob Graham instead of Joe Lieberman....

If only Al Gore had picked Bob Graham instead of Joe Lieberman....

Yes, yes, yes, George ;-)

I've always liked Graham a lot, although I understand he's an obsessive diarist, which some people find odd. He's a bit old, but so is Nunn, who would be a great pick too, imo. At least both counter McCain's "I've got tons of experience," schitck.

Obama needs a veep who is an experienced and capable debater, since Obama's veep choice will be debating McCain's veep choice, so I would go with either Clinton or Edwards. Graham is getting pretty long in the tooth, and if he had an off debate, the media would waste no time in portraying him as a doddering old man. Wes Clark is a lousy debater with zero constituency, so forget about him. Not sure about Webb.

Nunn?!! Isn't he one step away from Zell Miller!

Floridian here. Graham is well-liked and could carry this state. Another argument for Graham is "coattails". The 3 Miami Republicans (Diaz-Balart, Diaz-Balart, and Ros-Lehtinen) are being opposed this election and an Obama/Graham ticket could help the Democratic challengers.

At first I thought Graham was too old. But on second thought, how about the following: Graham VP in 2008 with the understanding up front that he's a one-term VP. Whoever helps Obama the most get health care through the Senate gets the VP nod in 2012 (Hilary, I'm looking at you. Play nice and maybe you'll get your reward after all.)

/Applauding JohnG.

Really nice post. Very interesting.

I'm not of the view that a Vice President gets you a state, the way it may have in the more parochial media landscape of the past.

Agreed. But how about an entire demographic -- or two?

Not a fan of HRC here, and I know there are big differences between the primaries and the general, but when have we ever seen a candidate stir the passion of voters like she has? I have been for Obama from the beginning, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, had HRC won the nomination, she would have won in November. And that she would have been a far better president that her husband.

I know all the arguments against her -- and against Bill. I've made them repeatedly myself. But I think they all pale in significance compared to the power of the so-called "dream" ticket.

Never thought I would say this, but now that Obama has won the nomination, I feel he should go with Hillary. I think that ticket shows what we're capable of as democrats and progressives, and wins in a landslide.

As an Obama supporter who has deplored many of her tactics throughout the campaign, I think we owe it at least to her supporters -- all 18 million of them -- to respect their vote in a meaningful way. I don't want them to hold their noses and vote for Obama or, even worse, vote for McCain. I want them to go to the polls thinking and feeling that they have won also.

If we can just put the bitterness behind us, we have the twofer of a lifetime right in front of our noses. We can not only win but also keep the promise and make amends to the two most historically disenfranchised blocks of voters in America.

Bob Graham is one of the smartest, calmest, funniest (trust me), most thoughtful people to ever serve in the senate. Few VP nominees can flip a state, but Graham is the exception -- if he had been on the ticket in 2000 or 2004, the Dems would have carried Florida, without losing anything elsewhere. He's an ideal candidate for vice president, and the only question is his age -- but picking someone 72 may be brilliant. Obama's going to lock down younger people, no question. Graham could have huge appeal among the seniors who have doubts about a young presidential candidate. Food for thought.

Check out Survey USA.... John Edwards adds more votes to the Obama ticket than anyone else in a vry varied set of states

Check out Survey USA.... John Edwards adds more votes to the Obama ticket than anyone else in a vry varied set of states

Re Graham as a sitting US senator - MY BAD!!! Sorry about that. I usually keep up on those things... :-(

I think having Obama as the nominee affords us the chance to micro-target voters in a way that few other Democrats could. Because he has the ability to attract tens of thousands very easily, it's probably less important that the vice presidential candidate be able to do the same. But while Obama's crowds are busting down the doors, someone like Graham can be dispatched to much smaller venues. We could send him into the redder parts of Florida, or perhaps into smaller towns in North Carolina or Virginia, where he could make the case for an Obama presidency. I have to think that if he could do this and win over a few thousand voters in Florida alone, it help Obama in several ways.

Why should we ever think of picking a Republican as VP? Anyone who has stuck with that denomination this long is not one of us. Please, let's dump the whole bipartisan crapola right now.

It's tough to overstate how well-liked Bob Graham is in Florida. It really could make the difference.

Bob Graham is a perfect choice.

To which church do the following people belong?

Obama?
Howard Dean?
Bob Graham?

They are all members of the United Church of Christ.

It would be a bit weird for the POTUS nominee, the VP nominee and the chair of the party to all be from a small Protestant sect.

It would be a bit weird for the POTUS nominee, the VP nominee and the chair of the party to all be from a small Protestant sect.

And yet if they were all from Union Carbide Corporation nobody would bat an eye. Go figure.

Before we start printing ballots here, does anyone know if Graham has said anything about his future plans/desires?

Just for the record: Women are not fungible commodities.

How about my mom?
She's a woman, a Floridian, and a senior (77) -- all important voting blocs, no? Plus, she's an Obama supporter, and would be a loyal No. 2.

Obama/Mama '08!

Bob Graham would be a great VP. He would reinforce Obama's foreign policy message and he would make a great President.

No kidding, I just heard Bob Graham on my local public radio station answering the question. He's currently working with/at the Univs of Miami and Florida. He said he would consider the VP slot if offered and is enthusiastic about getting re-engaged in politics.

Er, has anyone reviewed how painful Graham's campaign was in 2004 before he packed it in? It was the most excreable performance in history in a field that attracts a lot of excreable performances; Fred Thompson looked like Slick Willie in his prime compared to Graham. His personal approval with these Florida sub-groups wouldn't translate into votes for an Obama ticket either; I don't think Graham could reassure the codgers in Century Village, or the old-line banditos on Calle Ocho, only Obama can do that. [Or maybe McCain could have a few senior moments, no one is more worried about McCain on that issue than seniors.]
I go back to my recommnendations on prior posts -- either Mark Warner, on the ballot for the Senate and VP at the same time, or Lamar Alexander from Tennessee, with a commitment to work for the Dem platform if the time came. We need Dems in the Senate to override McConnell's vetos.

hit post instead of preview - last word should have been filibusters, not vetos.

Graham's main usefulness would have been as an anti-Hillary campaigner in Fla. during the primary.

Endless repeats of Graham saying to the camera (in a MoveOn ad?), "I TOLD Sen. Clinton to read the entre National Intelligence Estimate. I BEGGED her to read it. But she chose not to, one of the worst decision any Senator has ever made."

I don't think he'll be as useful against McCain.

The native racist fear many Americans have of Black people, the national security issue that so many Americans snap attention to and the youthfulness of Obama can all be somewhat alleviated with Graham as Obama's running mate. Plus he is from a Southern state.

Hey, JoeSixPack, in case you're not kidding, how does Hillary = "they."

By your logic, Bush the Lesser has shown that MEN are totally incapable of being President.

OK, from subsequent comments, it's clear you weren't kidding. So you ask "I have yet to see any one stand up to Ms Clinton and denounce the actions of the group she called upon to be there."

Uh, how about Claire McCaskill, then? She was Obama's no. 1 defender on the talk shows.

As to VP, if Graham could REALLY carry Fla. he'd be worth consideration on that alone. Warner is bizarre looking, don't know any other way to put it, and I believe he wouldn't appeal to women voters. I love Hagel on the war, but no ReThugs, please. Hagel is too conservative on all other positions.

Edwards, maybe. ELIZABETH Edwards. Hubby is a Loooseeeer.

Richardson ... demographics and resume so good. Performance on the stump so bad.

My very own Senator Boxer? I'd love it. She's an attack dog, I see her as a rabid bichon frise. But she might be able to energize the ReThugs and Reagan Democrats to actually vote -- against her. Her numbers are not that high here in Cal. The better California Senator would be Feinstein (tho she's another DINO, in my opinion). A woman, already seriously considered for he job, loads of experience, Jewish, etc.

I still want to see Webb set loose on St. John McSame, tho.

1) Graham CAN deliver Florida, and this is hugely important. There are so many diverse and vocal micro constituencies down there: Miami Cubans, Palm Beach County Jews, Panhandle military folk, Central-state farmers, Duval County soccer moms, that if you don't know the territory, you can get tripped up on your tongue really easily. The repercussions of which can be bad.

Better believe it!
Nobody in Florida knows or gives a crap about any of the other choices. And we Floridians have no stoamch for people that fly in on the big silver bird and give us their wisdom and then leave. Hell, that's worse than the damn Snowbirds.
Graham makes Florida in the Blue column. Anything else loses it.

I just watched the YouTube of Brian Schweitzer on Charlie Rose last fall, and he would be a fantastic pick.

My hobbyhorse is energy policy, which I think will make or break this country over the next 10 yrs, and he's ON IT!

Who gives a crap what any "National Poll" says. You win the Presidency by winning the Electoral College. That means winning states. The bigger the the state the better, as it has more electoral votes.

Stop with National B.S. You have to peel off states. Or did you all forget that little point?

I don't think Graham could reassure the codgers in Century Village, or the old-line banditos on Calle Ocho, only Obama can do that. [Or maybe McCain could have a few senior moments, no one is more worried about McCain on that issue than seniors.]

You sound like one of those damn yankees to me. How many years have you been in Florida? Note: Spending the winter here doesn't count.

Rush Holt is a five time winner on Jeopardy. He's gotta be the guy.

Mr. Graham would be a very astute choice that would dance all over McSameo & the rest of the ReThugs. Same with Wes Clark.

Rout them, chase them down & round em ALL up, YEEEE HAAAAA !

"Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage." - H.L. Mencken

Have you ever dealth with Bob Graham up close and personal? I have, and trust me, he is a very strange individual. Quite knowledeable, certainly not dumb, a good democrat, but pretty darn wierd. I would stay away from him. Add to that that he's a bit past the sell-by date in Florida politics. His glory days as Governor were more than 20 years ago.

Have you ever dealth with Bob Graham up close and personal?

No, and neither have you.
But, I have met him several times.

"Add to that that he's a bit past the sell-by date in Florida politics."

I wouldn't fret about that much. In Florida yah gotta be 65 just to get the senior discount. :-)
Unless you would rather spot McCain Florida's electoral votes like we did in '04. No Yankee is gonna help you here.

politicology: pretty darn wierd. I would stay away from him.

i remember from 2004 that bob keeps a diary...
but not just any diary...
this one includes every facet of his life..
every minute accounted for..
like even when he goes to the bathroom...
that is pretty darn weird...

Have any of you damn "know it alls" bothered to ask yourself why he would keep that kind of diary?

Take a moment to ponder the value or such a diary in a courtroom someday. He has insurance in spades in case somebody would ever try and screw him over. And enough to drag anyone down with him. It is precisely that type of detail that gives it crediblilty and takes it out of the CYA realm.

I'm from FL and believe me, Bob Graham is STILL loved here. As for him not being a good campaigner - he's won many times here in FL, so he must have something going for him! He might talk slow, but he sure says a lot.

Yes, he can be an odd duck, but one with no baggage. Quirky can be endearing. His record in and out of politics is spotless. And boy is he intelligent. If you want to add EXPERIENCE to the ticket, he's your man. It would take all the wind out of McCain's foreign policy sail. Here's a guy who was on the Intelligence committe - wasn't he head of it? - not sure - and was very vocal about not going to war with Iraq. He doesn't just have experience, he has GOOD JUDGEMENT!!!

I think he dropped out of the Prez bid in 2004 in part because he had bipass surgery either shortly after announcing or right before. I forget. But it takes a while to come back from that and 2004 just wasn't his year.

I've been touting him for VP for a while now. I think he'd be great. I think a strong and steady VP is just what Obama needs. It would be a very strong ticket. I'm so glad to hear that Bob would consider accepting if asked.

Don't underestimate his ability to campaign. He'll appeal to those who aren't young and hip. Make no mistake about it, Bob Graham is TIMELESS.
He doesn't belong to the past - he's always been on his own page. And that's a good thing.