I'll be honest, since I started following politics closely in 1988, VP predictions are useless. Who saw Dan Qualye coming? Dick Cheney? Al Gore? All this speculation by the so-called insiders is so useless to the national debate. Novak and name- your-pundit like to show the "depth and breadth" of their Beltway knowledge and what will "play" to the rest of America. Dumb and stupid commentary. Anyone with half a brain knew Hillary would never, in a million years, be Obama's VP selection because she goes against his message of change. But yet the Beltway pundits could do nothing else but talk about her as VP.

I think it's interesting to analyze the potential VP picks.  I mean, it's not like much else is going on now in terms of presidential politics, so why not?

...if you think we shouldn't be discussing VP picks in mid-July, a few weeks before the conventions, you really don't understand what people on political blogs are interested in.

....all these columnists, TV pundits and bloggers act as experts on everything claiming they know who's going to be the VP or who the darkhorse is. It's all nonsense. No one knows what Obama is thinking. No one knows what the background checks are revealing.

Point is, it's a feeding frenzy for pundits to talk and talk and talk with no knowledge, just guesses that come across as their high and mighty "informed" choices. Most pundits are full of crap and like Jon Stewart said about "Crossfire" some pundits harm American discourse by devaluing real discourse into uninformed opinions or two-second sound bytes/talking points.

In case you missed it, Barack wants us to move beyond that kind of discourse, so you may not really understand what some influential people are thinking/interested in and why discourse and silly banter need to stop on minor issues like this or major ones like energy and war.

diaries on any subject you want.  If you think something's not being covered adequately, step up to the plate and cover it; that's what community blogs are all about!

Who will the Nats ship out at the trading deadline? Who will the Redskins draft? Who's going to be VP? What's the weather going to be like tomorrow? People love to guess at things they  have no control over and little actual information on. No need to get worked up about it.

Kaine would be an unWise choice. Obama already has environmental and energy question marks against his record and in his rhetoric.  unWise Tim would worsen that.

Now, surprisingly not on that list:  Brian Schweitzer. he is my dark horse candidate to watch out for.

I still think the fact that Bolling would become governor makes Kaine an unacceptable choice.

I understand the last year of an administration is the least signifcant in many ways, mainly because there won't be a budget discussion in the next GA session, but the real problem with this is not letting the GOP get their foot in the door at this point.

Right now, the GOP in the Commonwealth cannot lay claim to any kind of positive agenda. In fact, with Gilmore, their sole idea is no additional tax, no matter how needed or how fair it might be -- all they can do is obstruct Democratic ideas. This is not the kind of platform that wins elections in tough economic times.

So why even give them a shot at changing this dynamic? Bolling as Governor immediately puts Democrats in the Senate on defense, as Bolling combined with the HoD would allows the GOP to go on offense, particularly with respect to transportation, and making Democrats seem like the obstructors.

Yes, there is the possibility that Bolling becoming Governor would create a challenge to McDonnell in the primary, but even that may not be a bad thing for the GOP. As we see in the presidential, a tough primary forces a campaign to organize a lot, and then when the primary is over, a superior organization is in place to tap into for the general.

The 2009 election is a critical one for Virginia and Virginia democrats for a number of reasons. Given all the choices out there for Obama, Kaine's presence on the ticket would, at best, be a negligible positive compared to others, but it could have a huge negative effect on 2009 in this state.

Last, but not least, typically when Novak is writing this sort of column, he doesn't have the best interests of Democrats in mind. More opften than not, he is just trying to make trouble.

It seems like a no-brainer to me that Kaine can't, and won't, do it.

apparently couldn't care less that a Republican would run the State as long as he gets the chance to be in the spotlight.  I stood right next to him in Hampton while he answered questions and it was obvious that he was not throwing any monkey wrench into that possibility, even though Warner had just turned it down, and now, Webb.  He's a good governor but I don't see him as an asset as a campaigner, such as Warner or Webb would have been.

I agree with your analysis, except for the final sentence. Nobody turns down a VP offer simply because someone else will get their old job. Especially if that somebody is term-limited out and has literally nothing else on the horizon to run for.

Just stop and think about what is at stake when one gets that particular phone call. Being next in line to be the President of the United States. Your name potentially in the history books forever.

Nobody in their right mind would turn that down on account of the other party getting brief control of their former seat. Or rather there are people like that, but those people never get to the point in a political career where they would be considered for VP. You don't get to be a Governor or a Senator unless you really, really want to win on a level that most people do not experience.

Anyone know anything about Nunn and whether he would be a good choice (or why he would be a bad choice)?  I read a short biography on him at Wikipedia and felt he would be a good choice.  Selecting him wouldn't require a sitting Democrat to leave their office and he has great defense credentials.

Nunn is almost 70 years old. Maybe a cabinet position but NOT VP

This is why I asked whether others thought he would be a a good choice or not.  I didn't pay attention to his birth date.  Would his age inhibit him in any way?

I just don't see anyone that adds too much to the ticket and wouldn't require us to lose an office.

OH SNAP

Anyone but a member of the DLC.

As a native Hoosier, I was an early supporter of Bayh for President (although his decision to drop out early was realistic). In person he's not as boring as he is on TV, but I understand that TV is what counts. Still, if Hillary doesn't want to be on the ticket or Barack doesn't want her, I could see Bayh as her surrogate--he endorsed her early and worked hard for her.

But why isn't Edwards on the list? I gather no one likes him, but he polls very well for the potential ticket, and does fill a couple of Obama's weak spots.

Maybe because he already ran for VP before?  Got me.

I have thought about Edwards as well, but I always question what demographic he could realistically brings in that we don't have already.  Obama's weakness will be on "experience" (code for how long someone has been in Washington) and defense.  I am having difficult time grappling with this "experience" concern many voters have.  On one hand, they dislike the politicians in Washington, but on the other, they want someone who has been there for a whole.  Edwards doesn't seem to have much "experience" himself and doesn't really do much for the ticket's defense credentials either.  I see Edwards as an AG because of how aggressively I think he would pursue violators of civil liberties, civil rights, and labor laws.  

You're right that Edwards doesn't help on defense or experience. Very good point. Because of his civil liberties/labor strength, though, he appeals to blue collar more Obama does on his own. That, I think, explaiins the poll bump Edwards seems to provide.

Novak has his ear to the ground in Republican politics, but I have a hard time believing that any insiders at the Obama campaign would choose him of all people to leak anything to.

I like Tim Kaine. I want to be pushing him for VP now that Webb is out, as a matter of loyalty. However, I just don't see him adding much to this ticket.

What Tim lacks is a major constituency. He's popular in Virginia and can continue to win races here (if he manages some sort of accomplishment before his term as Governor is up). But he has no natural constituency that would follow him outside of Virginia.

You look at Jim Webb and Brian Schweitzer and both of those guys have a national constituency. Hordes of blue collar, gun-owning former Reagan Democrats will vote for a ticket with either of those guys on it. John Tester too, actually. John Edwards has a national constituency that he spent years building, which includes a lot of middle class, blue collar men and women. Bill Richardson has a national constituency, that being voters of Hispanic descent. Hillary Clinton has a national constituency of women over 50.

That is the difference between talented politicians who can thrive at the level of state-wide elections and the kind of rare bird that can have a serious shot at winning on a national ticket. A natural constituency beyond the 'native son' factor within his or her own home state.

Tim Kaine has no such national constituency. Perhaps some day he will, if he decides to run for President in the future and spends years on the ground around the country, building one from scratch like John Edwards did. But presently he does not. I don't think that very many American voters would look at Tim Kaine on the ballot and say to themselves 'this guy is kind of like me, he understands me and he's one of us.'

I'm not sure whether this is true, but I've heard from others that Tim Kaine could bring Hispanics and the Catholic vote.  And labor in Virginia still likes him.

Still, I don't see him on a national ticket just yet.  And yes it bothers me that it would put a Republican in the Governor's mansion in Richmond. So, I'm not really enthused about him as a VP pick.

I honestly don't know who I favor right now.  All of those mentioned have good points and some not so good ones.  The one I like least is Sam Nunn.  If I remember correctly from when he was Georgia's senator, he was very strong on defense issues, which is good, but he was considered a Blue Dog.  Not sure I really want that so close to the White House.  I'm not sure we are fighting so hard to have the most conservative of Democrats rise to prominence on a national stage.  That's different from supporting a moderate.

Sam Nunn is seriously not even remotely on Obama's radar. Every mention of him has been just from people from way outside of the campaign musing about it. At this stage in the game, the only serious contenders are people who are actually being vetted. That does not include Sam Nunn (yet somehow does include Chris Dodd).

Having been born and raised Catholic, I've never noticed much of a tendency for Catholics to go out of their way to vote for other Catholics.