...making the case for Obama/Clinton.

Fox News: The only channel that hates Democrats enough to promote Obama/Clinton

is that as I channel surf in the morning, I will occassionally stop at Fox for a minute or two. I don't know this woman's name, but the little I have seen of her, she is fairly stupid, even for Fox, which is saying a lot.

Anyway, my point is that her head is so empty that I would be concerned that speaking to her might result in her sucking the intelligence right out of you, in the way that air rushes into a vacuum, or like those dementors in the Harry Potter movies.

I have to say Cillizza is pretty darn off on this.

Sam Nunn will not be under consideration. Why? He is anti-choice. The Democratic Party has never had a anti-choice VP and we never will. Period. And thank god. Nunn would be a revolting pick.

Instead of Nunn I would put Webb on that list. I don't think he will be the pick but he brings everything that Nunn does and a lot more.

Also Kaine would give Virgina over to Republican rule for a year. That's not going to happen. I'd give Bill Richardson that slot.

And again. Clinton is not going to happen. That would kill Obama's message and they would be a horrible ticket. Instead put Wes Clark in that spot. He fits the military bill and the Clintonite bill but Obama could work with him and he still fits Obama's message well.

If it's going to be a Clinton supporter my first choice is Strickland but I think the best choice and the most likely choice is Kathleen Sebelius. I think The Line nails it on her.

The second-term Kansas governor earns the top spot on the Line because of her ability to further bolster Obama's strengths while not exacerbating his weaknesses. Picking Sebelius would affirm Obama's core message of change and would give Obama's run even more historic weight. Sebelius' electoral success in ruby red Kansas would also echo Obama's pledge to broaden the playing field in the fall and ensure that the party is competitive in every state. The one knock on Sebelius is the dearth of foreign policy credentials on her resume. But she has six years of strong executive experience and could be the kind of political partner Obama needs in the fall.

Obama/Sebelius 08

Richardson for Secretary of State
Webb for Secretary of Defense  

First, Kaine has made it clear he is not interested in the VP slot. He told reporters in Charlottesville about two weeks ago:

"You're not going to see me leave. I'll be Governor of Virginia through January of 2010. Maybe after I'm governor I'll be able to help him."

Of course, if the call came, he could always wiggle out of that, but that seems pretty unequivocal to me as far as these things go. Perhaps life after Governor for Kaine is a Cabinet post to get some experience at a national level to go along with his executive experience, and a shot as the presidency in 2016, if I had to guess.

I think Obama can go round and round on this, but in the end, he will come back to Webb.

As for McCain, I don't know much about the GOP, but I think from his perspective Charlie Crist would be a great choice, helping cement Florida, which is a must win for the GOP, and appealing to independents. Also, Crist's popularity in Florida makes him a credible symbol for working with Democrats.

Kaine might become DNC Chair. He is very close to Obama and DNC doesn't require that would resign your position.

I don't think it will be Webb beacuse of the risk of losing the seat but I do think he will be on the short list.

Crist would probably be electorally the best canidate but he is gay (closeted but everyone knows he's gay) and the base HATES him beacuse he is a pretty decent, common sense kind of guy.

It will be Pawlenty if McCain goes with his gut or Romney if he goes with the big donors.  

No way in HELL we lose Webb's Senate Seat merely for SecDef.  He's either VP, or he ain't going anywhere.

I would be totally against losing that seat we worked so hard for unless Webb is Vice President.

n/t

We don't need another Cheney.  We need to go back to the old model of attending funerals, cutting ribbons, doing the social calls that the President doesn't have time or doesn't want to do.  No more operating the federal government from the Naval Observatory.

Just because Cheney's been a disaster, I think we should have a VP who is a strong contributor to the president's administration.  Look how much Al Gore did in the Clinton administration. I'd expect the same of Vice President Webb in an Obama administration.

Sam Nunn is also 70 years old. Too old to be starting out as VP. He'd have made a good running mate for Al Gore in 2000 but his time has passed.

But I respectfully disagree with your Tim Kaine logic there. Barack Obama is going to be choosing a running mate based on whom he thinks can do a good job of being President in an emergency and based on whom he thinks can help him win more votes in November. Both of those considerations will far, far outweigh any concern for the fact that Virginia would have a Republican Governor subbing for Kaine for a year or so. In fact, I doubt that Obama would allow that fact to affect his judgment in the slightest.

As for Tim Kaine, c'mon. Nobody in their right mind turns down an opportunity to be Vice President of the United States just because the Governorship of a state would flip to the other team for a year (to a guy who has already ceded the '09 GOP gubernatorial nomination to the current AG anyhow). Seriously. Imagine yourself in that position. You'd spend the rest of your life kicking yourself for passing that up. Especially when there is no particular place for Kaine to go after being term-limited out as Governor. Both Senate seats will be held by Democrats when Tim Kaine leaves office. Hopefully there will be a Democrat in the White House with the 2012 nomination automatically locked up. Of COURSE Tim Kaine would jump on an opportunity like this. Literally, he's got nothing else in politics to look forward to.    

I saw something on the news the other day that talked about what Romney has done since dropping out of the race, saying basically that he was trying to set himself up as McCain's VP. They cited that he had "executive experience," "faith" (to win over conservatives), and a boat-load of money (something else McCain lacks).

While all that may make sense for the Rs, I think a McCain/Romney ticket would make for a landslaide Obama/whoever win.  

This has been weighing on me for the past few days - it's to the point where I would practically (for a second) consider not voting at all rather than vote for Obama/Kaine.  Yes - Obama needs to win, but our country also needs good leadership.

Few (if any) issues are more important than the climate security of our country and the world.  I think Tim Kaine would be more comfortable and expressive of his real environmental views in Washington but his cowardice in Richmond has shown that he is not a good leader.  If I got a polling call today asking if I approve of Kaine as a governor, I would say no.  If I had a choice between making Kaine the next governor somehow or leaving it to Moran or Deeds, I'd pick one of the latter two.  Mr. Kaine has just about overstayed his welcome amongst the Democratic party in my view.  I look forward to the day where he is either a private citizen or a member of the Obama cabinet in a post so far removed from the environment (there are few, if any) that he can no longer wreak havoc on our planet.

Kathleen Sebelius personally shut down the creation of a new coal plant.  Her state is home to Greensburg - where hope and environmentalism joined forces to create a miracle.  She is eloquent, and, in all honesty - a black man/white woman ticket would rock the politics of this nation like no event since the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, and it would amaze the world.  And they would win.  I voted for Ms. Sebelius in the RK poll, I'm glad she's at the top of Mr. Cillizza's list, and I dearly hope we're both right on this one.

(That having been said - two (relative) political newcomers, both from Plains states, isn't exactly the smartest move, geopolitically)

The two people I think Obama wants most for VP are Kaine and Sebelius but just judging by the coal issue which in my opinion is the most important to our future Sebelius clearly stands out.

But let's not get too focused on one issue here. The vast majority of the decisions that Tim Kaine has made as Governor have been ones that you and I have agreed with him on. Nobody is going to be your guy 100% of the time.

I'm still annoyed with him for vetoing certain firearms bills a few months ago. But it's not like he's rabidly anti-gun, so I still support him. And while I disagree with him on the coal plant, he's still with us on other environmental issues.

This really bums me out to say so, but I think that the next administration is going to have to do a lot of things that are not very environmentally friendly in order to prevent a total collapse of the American economy and an end to our way of life and our position in the world.  I guarantee you that we're going to end up with an omnibus energy bill next year that involves not only increased CAFTA standards for all classes of vehicles and heavy funding for development of electric cars but also drilling in ANWAR, construction of new oil refineries, off-shore drilling in Florida and a number of new nuclear power plants.

There will be something in there for everyone to hate. The next Administration will need to ensure both the short and long term energy security of America. It's going to be the dominant issue as food prices continue to climb and the old 'guns or butter' question hits us square in the nose.

While I don't think that more coal burning plants are the answer, I do want a Democrat in office who will give me the finger now and then over some of my pet conservation issues in order to prevent an actual depression. I think I'm ok with Tim Kaine being part of that team.

[ducks under desk and covers face from inevitable flaming]

with the entire concept that there's a negative tradeoff between "the economy" and "the environment."  To the contrary, I strongly believe -- as does Mark Warner, btw -- that "clean tech" offers a huge potential growth industry for America.  Also, to the extent we slash our oil consumption, we also slash our trade deficit, strengthen our national security, and help the environment.  Finally, the bottom line with the environment is that there's always an excuse NOT to do something, but the inevitable fact remains, we have to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80%-90% over the next few decades if we want a planet that's worth living on.

I like everything that you are saying. But I don't see 'clean tech' maturing fast enough to prevent a major economic disaster. I think we're going to need a national energy policy that not only mandates higher efficiency and cleaner energy sources being phased in, but also keeps us well supplied with energy during the transition.

Realistically, I think we need to deal with getting less expensive oil into the American market during the next 10 years. That means quickly building new refineries to eliminate that as a bottleneck and probably drilling in new domestic crude oil sources. I would like to see a federal requirement that bonds be posted or something similar to guarantee funds for decommissioning those refineries and drilling sites in an environmentally responsible manner once we have moved over to better energy sources.

Look, I favor a major increase of CAFE standards ASAP. But that will only affect new vehicles and like most Americans, I can't afford to buy any new car right now. Or even one made 2 or 3 years ago. It will be years before newly made vehicles with greater fuel efficiency get out there into the market in high enough numbers to significantly affect oil consumption and energy costs in general. We've got to cross that bridge and I just don't see how to do it any other way (but I'm all ears).
 

That is simply not true, but politicians love to repeat it because it sounds like they know something when they actually don't.  The fact is, if refining capacity were really a bottleneck, we'd be seeing it in terms of higher gasoline prices RELATIVE to crude prices, and we're not at all.  In addition, a true refining bottleneck would results in lower demand for crude and, ceteris parabis, a lower crude price.  Finally, I'd just point out that U.S. refining capacity has increased from 15.2 million barrels per day in 1994 to 17.6 million barrels per day today - a 2.4 million bbl/d increase.  That's not exactly "no new oil refining capacity in the United States," as many people like to say.

As to an economic disaster, I strongly doubt there will be one, but if there is, it certainly won't be the result of the United States moving as rapidly as possible off our oil addiction.  To the contrary (180 degrees, actually), it's our oil addiction itself that is exacerbating our economic problems, not to mention all the national security and environmental issues that go along with dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iraq, etc.

Finally, there are tons of good ideas out there for how we transition to a new energy economy, the problem is a lack of political will, combined with ignorance and vested interests resisting change.  See here for some ideas on how we can slash our oil consumption while INCREASING the number of jobs in this country AND solving our enviro problems AND stopping the flow of money to countries that don't like us and to terrorists.

This is fascinating if you haven't read it before:

The root of problem is that the American economy has become a giant "paper-for-oil" deal. We buy energy, both directly as energy, and indirectly by importing goods made more cheaply in other nations where people command a smaller bundle of energy.[8] Goods from China cost less, not because Chinese factories are more efficient, but because Chinese workers have a smaller claim on resources than American workers. America prints paper - in the form of Treasury debt and US assets such as stocks - to buy energy from abroad.

   Because America runs an energy deficit, and must import it, and we cannot export other goods to others to pay for it, we run a trade deficit. It is a problem because there is one scarce commodity which all others are denominated in: oil. Oil is scarce, not because there is not enough energy in the world, but because it is so much cheaper to extract energy from oil than from other sources, and oil can be used to transport goods and people.

   The competition is not over scarce energy in itself, but over a particular form of energy which can be used to substitute for everything else. There is nothing in this world that one cannot get more cheaply by using more oil to get it - whether by importing it, mechanizing its production, or using more energy to extract it. This is not only true of industry, but of people as well: Americans moved to the suburbs because it was cheaper to drive farther than to work through the problems of urbanization, and one could get a larger house with a larger yard in the bargain. As long as it was cheaper to pay rent to Saudi Arabia for the oil, because that is what we are doing, than to pay rent to the government for a working city, people chose to pay rent to OPEC rather than taxes to the government. This ability of oil to be used in place of almost everything else, and not whether there is "enough" oil, is the special property that makes it the basic scarcity of the world economy.  

Going green will increase economic activity, the transitions will require labor and resources to accomplish.  If everyone upgrades the insulation in their homes, there will be tons of insulation workers and drywall repair folks employed to accomplish that.  If we are expanding public transportation and mass transit, again economic activity.  If we build concentrating solar plants in Arizona and Nevada, we will need a new grid to get that power to consumers.  If we are radical and everyone starts moving to high-rise, mixed-use condos and apartments where you can walk everywhere, there will be a lot of money involved in restructuring our communities to that model.  

We can do a lot to reduce our transportation demand.  It just means Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, LA and the Washington Metro cannot exist as they do today.  

It's going to cost a lot.  There will be a huge capital requirement.  So economic activity is something we need not worry about.  And people will still be consuming.  

This will be an enormous investment, which in the end will give America the premier, 21st century infrastructure in the world.  In short, we will be on MUCH more solid footing both during and after the process.  So let's get going already!

From Wired Magazine, "green tech"/clean energy could be the answer to our economic problems:

"As the price of oil goes up, there's got to be a green revolution. I think of what will be the next driver of the American economy, and it's green energy. That's a huge growth opportunity. It's not about the pollution. It's about the energy. Gas will go to $10 a gallon," he said.

Also,  I love this:

Note: "The politicians' response should be, 'Get used to it,'" said Novogratz of the emerging energy crisis now fuelled by rising oil costs. He was particularly scathing of Hillary Clinton's gas tax holiday, which he called "the stupidest idea I ever heard."

We have to be able to recognize that there are tradeoffs and some of them are neagtive when we are talking about this. These negative tradeoffs may be shortlived though, but they exist. I would hope that we would all agree that the impacts of the Ethanoyl vision were not fully predicted and its impacts on food stuffs and commodities pricing in areas of corn and soy has seen prices spike north siginificantly. The falling dollar has not heped for sure, but by attempting to address oil there are certainly impacts that are negative. The excessive uses of water for example that were not perceived with this vision in the treatment plants in Iowa is another example.
We have to determine to mitigate these negatives with a long term strategy and not dismiss them as uneventful or established. We will have to see if the vsion of Ethanoyl as a first step created more jobs in totality than it cost and I say this only because the recent pricing trends have begun to lead toward some losses in jobs and we will have to see how long this continues and its overall impact.
There are folks who would take losing every coal job if we were to get our nation off of coal for good and would not see that as a "negative tradeoff", but the fact is in the short term it would be negative but in the long term very productive if you subscribe to the coal vision. FRankly, if we would just do what was done in Europe in the 1930's and 40's and now by South Africa and turn coal into liquid fuel and have that debate maybe some ground could be made up through a compromise approach as we address our foriegn oil dependnce but thats another issue altogether.

all on Kaine.  The re-regulation bill of Dominion passed both houses of the GA by nearly unanimous consent, there were a handful of no votes.  This is the bill that contained all the sweet provisions for building this coal plant.  And is there leadership in the House or Senate now that is trying to stop this?  And do more than a very small minority of people in Virginia care enough about stopping this plant to do something about it?  So, can you fault Kaine for not putting himself out there and going toe-to-toe with Dominion (the largest political contributor in the state)?

...Gov. Kaine still should have vetoed the reregulation bill.

Gives me pause in taking it seriously.  Sam Nunn?  Not a chance in hell.  Besides, he said he won't run as somebody's VP.  Tim Kaine already said "no thanks", as did Ted Strickland.  So three of his top five have already said (to quote an Irish drinking song) "No, nay, never...no nay never, no more!"

The only two legitimate candidates up there are Hillary and Sebelius.  Judging by Obama's responses when the "unity ticket" is brought up, it's quite clear he doesn't like the idea.

I think Mr. C was off by a long shot on this one.  If he'd merely pay attention to what these people have said about running, he'd be a lot closer.

The only caveat is that stranger things have happened in American political history than an Obama-Clinton pairing (e.g., JFK-LBJ). I doubt it will happen, but you never know...

The Politico reports:

It's fun to think about, but there are so many obstacles, and Ted Kennedy isn't buying, he said on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital With Al Hunt," which airs this weekend.

"I don't think it's possible," he told Hunt of the joint ticket, continuing that:

   Obama should choose a running mate who "is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people," Kennedy said. "If we had real leadership - as we do with Barack Obama - in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful."

Ouch.

One paragraph more, Lowell:

Kennedy, 76, without naming names, said Obama should pick someone who ``is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people.''

``If we had real leadership -- as we do with Barack Obama -- in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful,'' Kennedy said.

A vice presidential candidate with national security credentials would be ``useful'' though not necessary because Obama, an Illinois senator, has a good understanding of foreign policy, Kennedy said. ``I think he's been eloquent; I think he's been incisive; and I think he's been right,'' he said.

As to a sympatico VP candidate with useful national security credentials who has also been eloquent, incisive and right:

Heading for Trouble
Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?
Washington Post
September 4, 2002

http://www.jameswebb.com/artic...

and I think it's important to have someone in the VP slot who has been vocal about their disagreement with invading Iraq.  Webb seems to have all the right credentials.

This whole idea that Democratic party voters would feel betrayed if Kaine left office early to become VP is ridiculous. You hear people saying it about Jim Webb as well.

Think about it - what other choice is there? The vast majority of people whom we could think of who would be serious, credible picks for VP are Democrats who currently hold elected office. Practically ANYONE we suggest for VP would have to 'betray' the voters who elected them to whatever position they hold at the moment. The only exception is Wesley Clarke, who also provides a perfect example of how someone who has been out of office (or out of the service, in his case) for a while becomes a less compelling choice.

Just about nobody turns down an offer to become Vice President. No matter what the other considerations are, when you get offered that spot on the ticket, you take it. The notion of any politician saying 'no thanks' because they don't want to 'betray' their current constituents is hogwash.

John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Al Gore, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, Bill Clinton, Dan Quayle, Michael Dukakis, Lloyd Bentson, Ronald Reagan and Geraldine Ferraro. All people who accepted their party's nomination for President or Vice President while they held some other elected office. Since 1980, George H. W. Bush, Walter Mondale and Dick Cheney are the only people to appear on a major party's ticket who did not hold some other office at that moment whose constituents they were 'betraying.'

is that we get Gov. Bolling if Obama/Kaine win.  If there were a Democratic LG right now, I'd say "no problem."  But there isn't. :(

If Kaine were elected VP, Bolling wouldn't take office until the end of January 2009.  Democrats control the Virginia Senate and can stymie anything Bolling might try.  Bolling has already committed to run for Lt. Governor in 2009.  His being Governor for a few months could actually cause tension between him and McDonnell.  Would Bolling reverse himself and run as an incumbent (I'm not sure the one term limit would apply to him, since he would have served less than half a term).

Now, consider what the Democratic gubernatorial race for Governor would look like in 2009:  Imagine our candidate, either Moran or Deeds, and standing behind them are President Obama, Vice President Kaine, Senator Webb, and Senator Mark Warner.  It would be the ultimate political "flying wedge."

What would the Republicans respond with?  A podium with Bob McDonnell, George Allen and Jerry Kilgore just wouldn't have the same visual "oomph," now would it?

I particularly like the part about messing up the Republicans' best-laid plans for 2009. :)

is that this election may end up being more about domestic issues than the Iraq War.  The Iraq War will be important, but the nation has already made up its mind that the war was a colossal mistake and almost entirely the fault of the Republican Party.

Kaine is a strong and enthusiastic campaigner.  He's someone who loves to campaign positively, but who isn't afraid to roll up his sleeves and duke it out if he needs to.  Jerry Kilgore ran the typical Republican negative campaign and Kaine completely outfoxed him.

I think Obama could do really well with Kaine as his running mate and then just appoint a strong cabinet to ensure his administration can get the job done.

poll up on HuffPo......Webb in the lead

From Huffington Post

Jim Webb
Webb is the closest thing to a frontrunner for Obama's VP these days. A former Republican, he served as Secretary of the Navy for Ronald Regan. Webb defeated George "Macaca" Allen to become a junior senator in Virginia.

Pros: Webb is a good foil for Obama's post-partisan message, and he's the military credentials to go match up with John McCain. He's good at playing the attack dog, which will let Obama keep the high road. And he's from trending-blue Virginia, which would be a great pickup in November for Democrats. He's also pro-guns.

Cons: Webb can be a little out-of-control as attack dogs go.

Can someone please provide even ONE example of when Webb has been "a little out-of-control" as an "attack dog?"  I must have missed it.

why no one mentions Webb's vocal disagreement about invading Iraq.  That was NOT the popular opinion at the time - and many are thankful he was smart enough to "get it"

Webb did almost no attacking during his campaigns against Miller and Allen:  we did his attacking for him!

;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

That's how you respond to swift-boating.

Possibly my favorite moment of the entire Webb-Allen campaign, just a few days before the election.  Go Webb! :)

I wonder who blinks first. When are we looking for Obama to make his selection. May 20th, June 3rd or July. And does McCain wait for that selection and then make his. I have always supported Webb but laso realize the format in which he shines and that is not debates. He by far lacks the charisma but makes it up with intelligence but cannot help but wonder what it would be like to see say Webb and Rice debating international affairs. With that selection I think we would be able to see two rather brillant folks on display, independent of Party loyalties one would have to admit that would be a great debate. McCain would also not only match the policy understanding, even if you do not agree with it but also address some other potential gains in the area of women and minorities.

First I want to say that I haven't read everyone's comment; for some reason when I try and go to the comments section, the page fails to load, so I had to pick a comment from the recent comments menu and respond through that.  I therefore apologize if this has already been pointed out:

One of the key things Kaine has on Webb politically is that he consistently polls better than 50% in public approval surveys in Virginia.  Webb consistent polls under 50%.  The last Survey USA sample rated Governor Kaine at very respectable 57% approval and pegged Webb ten points behind the Governor at 47%.  There seems to be a disconnect between the blogosphere's impression of Sen. Webb and how Virginia voters at large feel about him.  On the other hand, Virginia at large likes Kaine, and if the Governor could run for reelection, he'd probably win.

My argument in favor of Webb has nothing to do with Virginia.  I believe he'd be a much better boon to Obama in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Jersey than in Virginia.

Webb's isn't a regional choice.  Regional choices are becoming less and less important since the Mass Media has taken an effect.  (Both Clinton-Gore and Bush-Cheney didn't have a lot of regional diversity)  What Webb does is fill in a cultural and ideological gap that Obama has.

Broadly the average voter doesn't consider the VP when picking a President--they tend to care more about his spouse than his running mate, and generally pick or reject the man on his own merits.  And the running mate's name ID is always much, much lower than either of the candidates.  Finally, most regular voters agree that "I'll let my Vice President handle that" isn't an appropriate answer for anyone who wants to be the leader of the free world for anything bigger than a ribbon-cutting ceremony.

Which is why the Fix was smart to pick successful, popular statewide Democrats from red states like Georgia and Kansas and swing states like Ohio and Virginia.  Strickland, for instance, polls at 54% approval in Ohio, a primary state Obama lost, and he polls exceedingly well with the sort of voters who broke for Clinton.  Sebelius clocks in at an astounding 61%, good for anyone, let alone a Democrat in blood-red Kansas.

It's been nearly a year and a half since he was elected, and Webb still can't get more than 50% of the voters who know him best to express a positive opinion of him.  I'm just saying....

Different candidates look for different things in VP picks, but VP candidates (particularly senators) do not typically help you carry their home states, as Mike Dukakis, John Kerry and Bob Dole all discovered, if you couldn't do it on your own.

For Obama, I think the most important criteria are:

1. A southerner
2. A military background
3. An aggressive and effective debator

THe AP has reported all day that Obama picked up another super delegate from Virginia today but they never name who it was.  Anyone know who this is?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...

former executive director of Rainbow PUSH, who is one of those national superdelegate types. According to the handy dandy 2008 Democratic Convention Watch blog, the Obama campaign has been counting him for a while, but he didn't actually announce until today.

Thanks for that Randy.

Do ppl here seriously believe that either Gov. Kaine or Sen. Webb are even on, much less near the top of Obama's list? It makes no sense, with so many nationally known (and vetted) potential running mates who would bring major constituencies to the Dems in November. IMHO, this speculation is more a vanity thing for Virginians than a serious prospect for either of these worthy favorite sons.  

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

I actually do doubt that Kaine is really on the list -- with a Republican LG, it just doesn't seem plausible, as it would screw things in Virginia up badly.

But I would be surprised if Webb weren't VERY high up on the list. And as for bringing major constituencies to the table, inasmuch as any VP candidate can do that, Webb would definitely be an asset in appealing to working class, military/veteran, and more culturally conservative whites, especially men.

Webb makes a lot of sense, since he strengthens Barack's core argument of a new type of politics/politician and also brings foreign policy/military heft to the ticket. Now, I happen to think there is at least one better fit for Barack's ticket, but I'd be very surprised if Webb weren't heavily considered, especially as the Dem governor can appoint a Dem replacement for 2 years.

Pretty much all the candidates on the RK poll seem plausible to me except for Kaine, and maybe Clinton (considering how the campaign has unfolded). I'd be surprised if it doesn't end up being someone on that list.

that Webb is on the "short, short list" for VP.  As to Kaine, it seems really obvious that he'd be on Obama's list, if not his "short" list.  Why would you think Kaine and Webb would NOT be seriously considered?

If I were sitting in on the meettings that are taking place I would advocate that there is no real neccesity NOW after all that has transpired in the last six months that Kaine would bring anything more in terms of the criteria set forth by the advisors. I would assume if tradition holds thaey would like a VP who could "deliver" something in terms of the electoral college, and yet the situation in Virginia right now bears out that with Warner retiring and Mark Warner a virtual dominant winner in the SEante race the need for Kaine on the ticket to deliver Virginia is minimized. The Warner campaign could deliver Virginia for Obama without the need for Kaine on the ticket in the VP slot. Nothing against Kaine but the politics of this come into play. It would be different if the State was not experiencing a greater chance of turning blue with 2 U.S. Senators and a Governor in office.

Al Gore didn't exactly help Clinton that way, and Cheney had to change his legal residence to pretend that he and Bush weren't both Texans. It's a consideration, but a minor one.

Good grief. I thought Obama is all about change. Sam Nunn has been mentioned for president and vp for as far back as I can remember. And that's pretty far!

And nix on Kaine. Interesting, but no fopo experience is a deal breaker.