Democratic Vice President?

Another moderate Democrat and potential Vice President (although not on the poll) is Bob Casey.

* supported the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007
* pro life
*in the swing state of pennsylvania
*only 48, which would make him 56, when it comes to successing Obama is 2016

Or how about Mary Landrieu.

*would appeal to women democrats
*from the republican state of Louisiana
*critic of the Bush adminstration's handling of Katrina (which I think would be very powerful, in criticising McCain, who supports Bush)

Landrieu voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (as did Bayh and Biden) which should technically rule them out. It would be contradictory to the rhetoric of anti-war, "change" blah blah blah.

Bob Casey Jr has only been in the Senate two years.

Just out of interest, is a former Governor, say Mitt Romney, still called Governor Romney?

I don't think so. Or if the title is used it would always be preceded by "former."

On closer inspection Obama's potential pool of running mates is rather shallow if he is to:
a) stay on message as the insurgent anti-establishment "change" and/or "post-partisan" candidate
b) regain any electoral advantage with groups he has not done particularly well with (white women, hispanics) and/or be a strong campaigner
c) gain policy credentials in areas where he is perceived as weak (national security, foreign policy) and/or add governance experience
d) maintain his advantage on issues he can use to attack McCain
e) work well together, or at least be perceived to
f) a combination of two or more of the above
g) and of course be potentially a good President

While she's good for B; A, D and E would effectively eliminate Clinton.
A and E may or may not also rule out Clinton endorsers like Ed Rendell, Wesley Clark and Ted Strickland.
To fulfill A and D effectively eliminates some of the proposed Senators due to their Iraq votes. Biden, Bayh. It would remove an area of attack for Obama in November.
I don't really get what, if any, Edwards would bring.

I think Bill Richardson probably fulfills the most positives without racking up too many of the negatives. He has foreign policy experience, he may appeal to Hispanics, he may help to deliver a leaning Blue swing state, he doesn't have a vote on record for the Iraq War, he has executive experience as a Governor and backed Obama early on despite incurring flak.

Who he picks will probably be indicative of which of these he values more/most.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Just out of interest, is a former Governor, say Mitt Romney, still called Governor Romney?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Another moderate Democrat and potential Vice President (although not on the poll) is Bob Casey.

* supported the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007
* pro life
*in the swing state of pennsylvania
*only 48, which would make him 56, when it comes to successing Obama is 2016

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't think so. Or if the title is used it would always be preceded by "former."

On closer inspection Obama's potential pool of running mates is rather shallow if he is to:
a) stay on message as the insurgent anti-establishment "change" and/or "post-partisan" candidate
b) regain any electoral advantage with groups he has not done particularly well with (white women, hispanics) and/or be a strong campaigner
c) gain policy credentials in areas where he is perceived as weak (national security, foreign policy) and/or add governance experience
d) maintain his advantage on issues he can use to attack McCain
e) work well together, or at least be perceived to
f) a combination of two or more of the above
g) and of course be potentially a good President

While she's good for B; A, D and E would effectively eliminate Clinton.
A and E may or may not also rule out Clinton endorsers like Ed Rendell, Wesley Clark and Ted Strickland.
To fulfill A and D effectively eliminates some of the proposed Senators due to their Iraq votes. Biden, Bayh. It would remove an area of attack for Obama in November.
I don't really get what, if any, Edwards would bring.

I think Bill Richardson probably fulfills the most positives without racking up too many of the negatives. He has foreign policy experience, he may appeal to Hispanics, he may help to deliver a leaning Blue swing state, he doesn't have a vote on record for the Iraq War, he has executive experience as a Governor and backed Obama early on despite incurring flak.

Who he picks will probably be indicative of which of these he values more/most.

In my opinion, there is no stronger VP candidate in either electoral math or potential effectiveness than Hillary Rodham Clinton. And as I always caveat, this is not just because I was a Hillary supporter. This is as objective as I get.

Originally posted by Strangelove
this is not just because I was a Hillary supporter.

Are you absolutely certain of that?

Originally posted by Strangelove
I disagree that E disqualifies Clinton. Despite what their campaigns may have said about each other, I think the Senators themselves remain friendly colleagues. I also believe she embodies C, because she's gained a reputation in the Senate as a bipartisan, consensus building workhorse, which helps with the "governing" aspect.

In my opinion, there is no stronger VP candidate in either electoral math or potential effectiveness than Hillary Rodham Clinton. And as I always caveat, this is not just because I was a Hillary supporter. This is as objective as I get.

Imo, they really don't particularly like each other - although they may respect each other as colleagues. That in itself wouldn't necessarily make it impossible to work together. But she also brings a huge shadow named Bill Clinton.

Also I don't know if a "workhorse" legislator doesn't necessarily adds executive/governance experience. I don't know if choosing the person who has been characterizing you as weak on national security and foreign policy really bolsters your image on either issue. And at the end of the day - if he does ask Clinton it will always be perceived as having been done out of necessity and pressure than pure choice, which again elicits perception of weakness. And in politics perception is reality.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Obama needs a VP that will help dissuade the "inexperience" charge. Casey does not help there.

Anyway, Dan Quale was inexperienced, and a moron. So I guess it doesn't really matter that much.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What's with all this inexperience Bullshit, anyway? I don't know where people get that idea from, is it because he's young, because he's only been in the senate 4 years?

Anyway, Dan Quale was inexperienced, and a moron. So I guess it doesn't really matter that much.

That is not to say he will be a good or bad President if elected. Particularly if he surrounds himself with a Cabinet of people who do have governance and policy experience. He will no doubt be better than incumbent President Idiot.

But it would be imprudent for an electorate to not pose the question of experience, because at least imo experience is important for someone who aims to lead the richest economy, most powerful military and most influential nation in the world.
Especially at a time where oil is $140 a barrel, Iran may be seeking nuclear capability and the world's economy may be headed towards recession.

Well, you know, Abraham Lincoln was a one term congressman and had to deal with a split party.

It can happen, and he's our best bet over Insain.

Not a particularly current comparison.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Not a particularly current comparison.

Prof. Sean Wilentz, LA Times:
The Lincoln comparison is equally tortured. Yes, Lincoln spent only two years in the House after winning election in 1846. Yet his deep involvement in state and national politics began in 1832, the same year he was elected a captain in the Illinois militia -- and 28 years before he ran for president. He then served as leader of the Illinois Whig Party and served his far-from-undistinguished term in Congress courageously leading opposition to the Mexican War.

After returning home, he became one of the leading railroad lawyers in the country, emerged as an outspoken antislavery leader of Illinois' Republican Party -- and then, in 1858, ran unsuccessfully for the Senate and engaged with Stephen A. Douglas in the nation's most important debates over slavery before the Civil War. It behooves the champions of any candidate to think carefully when citing similarities to Lincoln's record. In this case, the comparison is absurd.

Additionally it probably shouldn't be needed to point out it's not 1860.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, but it does rule out the impossibility.

Just simply not valid.

It's like you claiming I should be able to write a classic, because Mary Shelley did at the same age. Things change over hundreds of years, radically.

Originally posted by Devil King
Are you absolutely certain of that?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And at the end of the day - if he does ask Clinton it will always be perceived as having been done out of necessity and pressure than pure choice, which again elicits perception of weakness. And in politics perception is reality.

Originally posted by Strangelove
as certain as I can be Which is why if he does end up choosing her, it needs to be a result of a substantive process, like his VP search committee. Just offering it to her would be characterized as weakness, I agree.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Just simply not valid.

It's like you claiming I should be able to write a classic, because Mary Shelley did at the same age. Things change over hundreds of years, radically.

Every campaign is about change. Every election is about change. Otherwise, what woud be the point of having any election? And every campaign needs the voters to think change is an original idea, as amorphous a concept as it is.