You left former Governor Mark Warner off the list of 32...considering that he has already told people that Obama's campaign is considering him and that he has been mentioned by a lot of different people in the media, I think he is a lot more likely than many people on your list. I would have ranked him in my top 10 of possibilities because he would carry Virginia for Obama, even if it might cost us a Senate seat pickup. Can I ask why you left him off?

Jeff,

I'm not a Hillary supporter so I don't have much of a clue how Sebelius would go over with Clintonites. I'm trying to imagine the reverse situation.

So here we go...in this hypothetical world Sen. Clinton is about to go over the number she needs and is considering how to bring Obama supporters into the fold. She won't pick him for VP so she selects...Bob Johnson, founder of BET. Oh yeah, that'll mollify 'em.

I just spent some time googling to try to come up with an African-American Clinton backer who would have the status of Sebelius and came up empty. Charlie Rangel is about it (feel free to correct me, everybody) but he's from New York so he couldn't run with Hillary.

But the point is, I get the feeling that picking a woman would be seen as an insult. The hardest core Clinton supporters would be even more irate....I think. And if the point of the pick is to placate those particular people then this might not work.

How come Steve Novick is not on the list? Is this another example of Kari's rabid anti-Novick sentiment?

I think Obama needs to be prepared for political theater at the Democratic National Convention with Hillary Clinton supporters having "spontaneous" demonstrations to try to force him to pick her. If he seems to be pushed into it , he will appear weak ..He does not need the Clinton is my Cheney image. Hopefully, he will come up with someone he is comfortable with and can trust...rather than someone who is a source of continual problems and intrigue. Maybe a person with military and/or foreign service experience to counter McCain....like a Westley Clark..who was a Clinton supporter who "outranks" McCain!

I can't understand/buy the "critical seat" argument. Given the particular importance of this decision, if the right person lands in Obama's lap, he must choose that person.

The choice needs to reflect a sense of urgency about foreign policy. If Obama can convince enough voters that he won't screw up foreign policy, he will win; if not, he will lose. Prospects like the governors of Kansas and Iowa (or "landslide Chris" Gregoire) will not demonstrate this urgency.

It will also be Obama's first visible executive decision. The decision needs to be relatively safe. Someone already visible and essentially vetted.

My heart says James Webb. But, in the end, I think Obama should hold his nose and choose Hillary Clinton. People tell me she will accept it, in a heartbeat, which surprises me. In hindsight, I bet it will seem like an obvious choice down the road. And in a vice-president debate, she will turn the Charlie Crists/Tim Pawlentys of the world into hamburger.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRIMARY_RDP?SITE=NYPLA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRIMARY_RDP?SITE= NYPLA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Well, John Edwards has too many things going on at home, so I suggest Al Sharpton, who at least shares something with Edwards: a really sharp hairdresser.

I found my self doing this list backwards with Hillary @ 32 and then trying to keep important votes and shifting states in Democratic hands winding up with Kitz as 1. Obama's VP is important but I'm real unsure how it is supposed to outweigh Democratic influence in various states and the Senate. I have Tester way down my list, not because I don't like him, because I do and I like him taking care of his State in DC.

Hillary is a confounded disaster as VP, I don't care how many votes she won in a Dem Primary, she is tactically a mistake in the GE and horrid to contemplate in the office with Obama as Pres. I'd rather she were Pres than VP.

The GE baggage she drags around with her added to Obama's already difficult associations would be a gold mine for oppo.

Pat,

Best to choose a woman or an alpha to balance.

Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho comes to mind.

I voted and all, and like Chuck worked Hillary to # 32 to start, and then worked top down and bottom up until I had all 32 ranked. I admit that some in the middle I really didn't care about, but at least I got my favorites on top and those I don't think should be on the list at the bottom.

But, does it really matter ....????

Obama is winning in a landslide no matter who is VP.

Oh - and Bert, "How come Steve Novick is not on the list? Is this another example of Kari's rabid anti-Novick sentiment?" - aren't you supposed to put a smily faced thing after a statement like that?

"The answer is obvious.

Geraldine Ferraro. "

Kari- YOU funny ! Good job on the gig this morning!

ABC.

As of this writing, only Tom Vilsack and Tom Daschle have failed to get any first-place votes...now watch someone come along to "fix" that...

While it’s entertaining to speculate on the VP, I think it’s too soon to take any of this seriously. In my opinion, the big question now is will Hillary Clinton be true to her word; direct her supporters to stop with this McCain nonsense, and get on the Obama bandwagon. For the sake of party unity she needs to do this ASAP and without conditions… All this is assuming she’s actually ready to concede – I keep hearing conflicting reports on the MSM???

Please standby… Floyd Ferris Landrath

Very interesting results, now in a new stage, with the kos link sending a different crowd here.

Wha? I voted for Jim Webb as my first choice and then it said that my vote went for John Edwards (my second choice). What's up with that?

Bridget,

I'm glad you asked that question! The way this works is all the votes are counted and the last place person is removed. If you voted for that person then your second choice becomes your vote.

One by one all candidates are eliminated except the one winner and in each case your highest remaining vote is your new "vote". So if you had Edwards 4th, Webb 1st and Webb and your #2 and your #3 are eliminated, leaving Edwards and someone else then Edwards becomes your "choice".

Did that help at all?

My own personal preference would be for Richardson, Sebelius, and Edwards, in that order. Richardson can speak for a wealth of practical experience that I haven't heard of in Obama's inner circle. Sebelius comes from a family with a long history in politics and has proven that she knows how to govern effectively, literally in spite of a contrarian legislature. Since Edwards has already been down this road, there's no need to explain that choice.

Considering the seemingly fanatical attachment of many women to Clinton, I have a hard time believing that the Dem VP nominee would be a man. Pitched well, the positioning made possible by nominating a woman would go a long way toward cancelling out the insinuation that the party is pissing on women in general by favoring the nomination of Obama.

However, the apparent frontrunners apart from Clinton herself - McCaskill and Sebelius - are both Catholic, at least nominally. I would like to think that the absence of religion from the discussion about Giuliani's candidacy means that Catholicism is no longer the automatic first strike it once was, but I'm not convinced that it wouldn't be made into an issue.

On reflection, I have a hard time believing that McCaskill would make a good choice. Two freshman senators elevated to the two highest positions in the Executive? Uhhh, that just has trouble written all over it. As someone with ties to Boone Co., Mo. similar in character to hers, I have many personal reasons to smile at the prospect of her placement on the ticket... but I don't think it would be best for the Republic in the long run. Furthermore, picking McCaskill doesn't garner very many votes from Missouri that the Dems don't already have... Missouri voters have always been, and remain, divided along regional and urban/rural lines.

Thanks to the conduct of her campaign, her husband's grandstanding, and her rather brazen effort to cast herself as a progressive despite of her Senate record, HRC makes a lousy fit with any Obama administration we've been led to hope for.

She's taken a big risk in the way she's framed herself as an alternative, and this big risk, like all, should have a downside proportional to the upside. I firmly believe on the strength of the record that she's been poison: she's sunk to thinly veiled racebaiting, and her ultimate refusal to leggo has forced Democrats to spend money for and against her that would've been better spent on the general election. Given what the Democratic Party has stood for these past forty years, I find her conduct impossible to forgive.

So, what of Richardson, Sebelius, and Edwards? Richardson would do a hell of a lot more good in the Cabinet than he would as Vice President; Edwards has the oratorical skills to make a fantastic President Pro Tempore or Majority Whip in the Senate, if he's passed over. And then there's the whole gender issue.

That leaves Sebelius, who is unambiguously pro-choice and from a state few people follow... but has a terrific record in Kansas state government and plenty of applied experience at the task of neutralizing GOP attack politics.

Sebelius offers the best compromise between appeal to women, ability, and inoffensiveness... so right now I'd say my money's on her.

No one has been elected VP since the first few national elections. They are selected by party bigwigs, not elected by anyone. Nuts! If you want a package deal, go to a travel agency.

Parties should offer up at least 2 candidates & let the electorate choose between them.

I agree, Steve, that she shouldn't be on the ticket as VP -- but not for the reasons you state. If he loses with her as VP, the Obama people will spend the rest of eternity blaming her for the defeat. If they win, they'll say BHO won in spite of her. The "progressive" media will spend the entire campaign sniping at her, just as they've done for the past six months.

She should stay away from the campaign completely, doing no direct campaigning for BHO. Instead, she should campaign for Dem Senate and House Candidates. I know the blog community will swear it isn't true, but HRC actually does have supporters out there. She can pile up IOUs for a run in 2012, which I believe she will be making.

If Obama wins, it will be all his victory. If he loses -- and right now the numbers ((see electoral-vote.com) say that this is a distinct possibility -- he will bear the responsibility for the defeat.

Chris, I agree that there are a lot more facets to this issue than race vs. gender... and when we look for an obvious demographic skew, it's along age lines, not those of race or gender.

However, HRC and the media between them have created a meme - "it's time" - that the Democratic Party is best served by fulfilling sooner rather than later, regardless of the extent to which it's actually reflected in the sentiment of the electorate as a whole. To this I add that this is the one respect in which I feel like I might be projecting: it's not only time, it's well past time.

Ironically, I feel I can count on an Obama administration to recognize that fact much more readily than its likely alternatives.

The number one reason to not have Hillary on the ticket is the same reason Chris Matthews opined as to why she ultimately lost the primary and that is her vote to invade Iraq.

The war was a mistake and those that voted for it failed on the single biggest test of political leadership in our time. Having anyone on the ticket who supported the invasion would dilute Obama's ability to debate McCain and the Republicans on that critical issue.

I am going to use this opportunity to reiterate my one man's opinion in favor of a great bipartisan ticket including Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. As the only Republican that voted against the war Sen. Chafee would be a walking talking example of a Republican that got it right and a true maverick who has not abandoned his convictions to cater to the extreme right of his party.

Chafee would be a strong draw for disenfranchised Republicans and the fact that he is pro-choice, pro-basic rights and an early supporter of Obama's candidacy means no down side for progressive Democrats.

I'd like to argue with your reason for taking Mark Warner off of your list. Three arguments against your concern:

(1) Your list includes lots of current Senators. Their seats are as much at risk as Warner's prospective seat.

(2) Most objective analysts expect the party to remain in the control of Democrats, regardless of who Warner's prospective seat goes to.

(3) The state a vice-presidential candidate comes from is taken into consideration because it always gives the Democrats an advantage in the vice-president’s state. This advantage is not limited to the presidential ticket. The benefit will extend to all Democrats running on a Virginia ballot. If Warner runs for vice-president, whichever Democrat runs for the senate race Warner steps out of will have as good a chance as Warner of winning it.

While it’s entertaining to speculate on the VP, I think it’s too soon to take any of this seriously.

Obama and his team have proved themselves to be very skillful and intelligent in running a campaign, so it is a good bet they already have a short list of candidates for Veep and another good bet Hillary isn't on that list.

In my opinion, the big question now is will Hillary Clinton be true to her word;...

She reneged on her oath to uphold the Constitution when she voted for the war on Iraq, and she stood before thousands of people while being filmed for television and came up with a blatant load of BS about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. Does that answer your question?

Mother Jones has an interesting article on Obama's possible picks for VP.

darrelplant,

My advocacy for Chafee is not based on the fact that he is/was a Senator from Rhode Island but that he is a Republican (or former Republican) who would give the Dems a progressive BI-PARTISAN ticket advocating strongly for change from the Bush administration and current Iraq war policy.

In addition when compared to Chafee, McCain's "maverick" status would ring much more hollow.