will announce his VP pick TODAY, 3-5 hours before Obama's speech.  We'll see...

Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease ...

Although not much would get me fired up more than keeping Eric Cantor out of the whitehouse.

As much as I would enjoy the schadenfreude of, well, frankly, ANY of Brownback, Romney, or especially Lieberman, the fact remains that Eric Cantor would be the most comically inept pick in probably the history of VP selections. Having that buffoon try and debate Joe Biden would be worth the price of admission alone.

Frankly, it's such a motley crew that McCain's only decent option is Pawlenty -- the only way McCain can hope to have any chance of winning this fall is by confusing the electorate that he's some moderate, pro-choice Republican, and really only Pawlenty can help with that masquerade.

Mittens would also be awesome. Think of how many houses!

Anyone who thinks that Obama is gettinga race card played against him should take heart in the fact that the religious crad got played against Romney. Every time the guy got metnioned it was in the context of being a Mormon in order to alienate evangelicals just as the black card gets played in an attempt to alienate Obama from white, blue collar working class. I met Romney while he was Gov. working both sides of the aisle and his bipartisanship is exactly what Mark Warner was calling for and gets rewarded for in Virginiaby both sides here. Regardless the guy is impressive all politics aside.Its ironic that the two Republicans in the last ten years that have done more to aid and assist quite a few Democrat policies could be on the same ticket. Spin it around all people want but I can recall a time when both were praised by even the most strident MA and NH Democrats. The middle ground is swelling, especially here in Virginia where a recent PPP poll had some 26% declared Independents out of about 1K respondents. Why? Because the middle is swelling with both Democrat and Republican conservatives who think the extreme wings of the Party are the oiling the machine of division and gridlock; intentionally.

absolutely had the religion card played against him.  It was played by members of his own party.  

The big thing with Romney and McCain is that they have shifted to the far right in order to have a viable shot at the party leadership.  Primary voters didn't buy Romney's transformation, but perhaps the party base will suck it up and vote for those guys when the time comes.  Most of the new indys in VA seem to be disaffected GOP voters.  The GOP has lost numbers, the Dems have tended to increase their numbers in recent years undoubtedly getting some one-time indys into their camp.  For a guy who voted for Marshall Coleman a while back and John Warner not so long ago, that's certainly been my journey over recent years -- as far away from the GOP as possible.

My path has been the same for the most part and married to a New Yorker gives way to political comic relief at times. I still keep that place for Chuck Robb in my heart and think that Mark warner is the only Virginia Democrat that seems to have carried on with his vision I think. I cannot make a complete switch to Blue in large part due to the far left rabble but moderate thinkers are popping up here and there to provide hope. Seems many of the conservatives like me had always supported the GOP at the Presidential level, while supporting folks like Robb in the past and now Warner at the State. Its not that much of a leap though many here condem the practice. I do believe though that if Obama manages to lose this election that hopefully the national Party will take heed on how Democrats win here in the South; moderate platforms that challenge GOP for every vote. Heavy Liberal agendas make it to easy for indys to make the way back to the GOP in the national elections. many indys here in VA do not consider Mccain the clone of Bush but do believe Obama is too much like a Teddy Kennedy liberal and thats not good for winning here in VA with the indy vote at all.  

I actually voted for McCain in 2000 in the Virginia GOP primary.  

The issue for me wasn't so much in terms of the liberal v. conservative debate -- the culture war debate -- which predates and doesn't really interest me.  It wasn't even really a policy issue question either.  I think my vote really boiled down to just a question of personalities and background.  

I saw both Gore and Bush as creatures of privilege and entitlement.  McCain's campaign framed the debate in a different way with him as the outsider and underdog.  He moderated himself on social policy, basically neutralizing it, and I think with the Clinton economy -- which was good for many in the middle class -- that the economic considerations were taken for granted.  

In hindsight I think McCain would have probably been an average to slightly above average president if he'd won in 2000.  Even though he inherited a recession, on balance he would have inherited a fairly strong economic and foreign policy legacy.  It wouldn't have taken a great politician or a genius to keep the ship more or less on course.

Unfortunately that didn't happen -- and the end result is a pretty challenging job ahead.  

I realize that there are some who see McCain as independent based on some actions he made in the wake of the 2000 election.  In real terms though -- on the issues that really matter to me -- economic and foreign policy -- there isn't much distance between the two guys at this stage.  In those key areas McCain isn't offering anything different from Bush.  I think the manner that he's run his campaign -- which has been kind of sleazy and under-handed -- betrays a lack of character as well.  Something that wasn't as apparent to me in 2000.

I do think in time that the Dems are likely to become as complacent and corrupt as the GOP currently is -- for the time being though I'd class myself as a former independent and as a fairly loyal Democrat across the board.  No way am I voting for McCain in 2008.

McCain is pumping up the Liebermann talk to make Romney more palatable to anybody who might hold his religion against him, as a lot of Republicans would.  When he inevitably chooses Romney the response will be, whew, at least it isn't a Democrat.

Might make some sense if McCain wants to hold onto some western states.  Perhaps he'll take a stab with Kay Bailey Hutchinson -- I can see this as a possibility too.

I think when push comes to shove the corporate wing -- which includes the wingnut echo chamber -- is going to rally behind whoever McCain picks for VP.  Multi-millionaires like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Fox News ownership stared into the abyss several months ago and realized that Obama would probably raise their taxes.  They may not love McCain, but at the end of the day its all about greed.  Same is true of the money-loving religious right leadership.

When push comes to shove, I think the echo chamber will vocally promote whoever McCain's nominee is -- even an pro-choice candidate.  The base will simply fall in line and learn to love whoever the party leadership selects.  That's the way the GOP works.  Maybe a handful of rebels will vote for Barr.

Her views on abortion also put her in the same boat as Tom Ridge.  I really think abortion is a no-compromise deal for religious conservatives.  In fact, I'll go further and say I know it is.  It would shatter the voting coalition that the party built from 1970s forward.  Actions speak louder than words, and McCain selecting someone outside the very strict pro-life crowd would be suicide.  You see what they did to Harriet Myers and how they prevented the nomination of Alberto Gonzales (but thank god they did).  I don't think they would defect to Democrats or Bob Barr, they would just stay out of the game.  

But, as you may recall, the ticket lost. Not great precedent. But we've got an outstanding team this time, no matter who old McSame picks.

if Mittens is the pick that the media will write about McCain is really highlighting his weakness on the economy by picking someone he hopes can help him fill in his resume.

And FWIW, I think Romney would be his smartest choice, given his situation.

I hope, however, it is Lieberman, because I would just love to see wingnuts really beside themselves, but they have signaled they will be reverting to the old GOP strategy of trying to win the election by turning out the base and trying to pick up just enough independents via negative campaigning.

I think their over-the-top negativity and boorishness this past week means that the best they can hope for is replicating Bush's 2004 victory, perhaps trading Iowa and Colorado for Michigan. Hence, Romney.

I am guessing that your thinking is correct Al, and that this is a play for Michigan and maybe solidifying Nevada.

However, I think this destroys McCain's chances in Virginia, North Carolina, and probably Ohio.

I just looked at the maps of McCain v. Huckabee in the Feb VA GOP primary -- and it echoes very closely the Obama v. Clinton map. In parts of the state where Hillary crushed Obama, Huckabee was crushing McCain. The only chance McCain has of winning in Virginia is to have a fully energized Republican base behind him. If he puts a rich, elitist Mormon on the ticket, his evangelical base in southern and southwestern Virginia will not be there for him in either the numbers or intensity he needs. I think the same trend will hold true in North Carolina. Perhaps he's hoping to appeal to indys and moderates with the selection of Romney (i.e., to reduce the slaughter ahead in NoVa), but I doubt it'll work.

The number one rule of VP choices is to do no harm -- and this will harm McCain's chances with a large part of the base.

You can argue (probably fairly convincingly) that almost any of the short-list Republicans would similarly have hurt McCain with a part of the base, or would have really hurt him with independents -- and I think that's basically why McCain has no real chance of winning, because the Republican coalition that "won" in 2000 (and again in 2004) has become unwieldy and untenable and fractured.

I could be wrong about all this (happened before, will happen again), but I think this is a very bad choice for McCain (although good for the rest of us).  

I can tell you that a large contingent of indys and Republicans in VA were leaning Romney until he pulled out of the race over McCain. On election day it was given Romney was not gonna be the nominee so many I know simply opted to cast a message vote by picking Huckabee. This happened in counties throughout Central Virginia and some of the blogs reported then such actions. Romney plays well in areas like Henrico, Goochland, Chesterfield, Powhatan,Dinwiddie,Amelia, Louisa in reality and had he been a viable ballot option would have done much beter than Huckabee there. Out in SW Va and Chesepeake of course it would have been a different story.
Your point about the coalition is probably accurate except for a point made to me over dinner last weekend; the liberal wing of the Democrats have provided the GOP with the only potential of victory and that was by selecting  Barack Obama. True or not, I know with indys when its a fifteen point lead nothing is really risked from a psyche point of view, but when the polls are a dead heat things are very, very different. Not saying its right, but thats the reality.

It's true that Romney wasn't on the ticket at the time, but I do think Huckabee's performance is telling anyway. Mormonism is still much less popular and much less acceptable in and to large swaths of rural (especially Southern rural, bible belt) America than a black candidate. Ugly, but true nonetheless. I doubt a significant number of these types of voters will now be voting Obama/Biden if Romney is the choice, but many will stay home instead, and the Republican ticket needs a significant, high turnout blowout in Shenandoah and SW Virginia to win the state.

As for Obama being that liberal, no, not really. He's a pragmatist -- liberal, yes, but much more in the mold of Mark Warner than Teddy Kennedy (hence the Governor's keynote speech). And again, the old labels don't really apply anymore -- past versus future is really the best formulation.

Finally, as for independent voters, they usually break 50/50 (the truly independent, undecided ones). Right now, Dems hold a 51-38 margin in self-identification when all voters are pushed. Even should true independents break 2:1 to McCain, that's a max performance of 46% for McCain to 54% for Obama (excluding Nader and Barr).

I'll never put it out of the question that the Democratic Washington insider/establishment/consultant class can screw this up, but the last two nights of the convention have really assuaged my fears of that this time.

All this talk about Democrats needing to pick someone from the center(meaning Republican center) but then why not choose a Republican?  No, the idea is to move the center yourself and then others will follow. The Democratic Party is just moving the country to the left but then the country set it up to move to the left when we won in 2006 as a result of Katrina and the war in Iraq.

Republicans often assert that the U.S. is a Right-Center country, but this is not correct. The U.S. is a left-center country.

I don't think the people move so much as the parties adjust themselves to changing events to claim the mantle of "The Center."

Than explain to me the role of indys helping Virginia forever it seems vote Republican in national elections. Republicans do not have the cork on real conservativism. there are plenty of Democrat conservatives. For example, liberal will not deliver Tom against Virgil Goode. It will be indys and conservatives in the tradition of people like Chuck Robb in rural Virginia. The failure has been for national Democrats to define real conservativism and have yielded it to Republicans the last thirty years at the national level for a liberal position to counter the GOP instead of having more Southern Democrats closer to the center like Warner take the helm. Remember the "liberal" tag did not work against Bill Clinton and there are reasons why. Southern Democrats I believe have greater national appeal than Northeastern Democrats. Just my view.

Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Jim Webb.

The GOP electoral coalition put together by RWR is slowly, but surely coming apart as a result of the Ponzi scheme that Republicans call governing. It was simply not sustainable.

In Virginia, this inexorable march combined with exploding population growth in Northern Virginia to produce these recent electoral victories. I suspect that in individual elections this Reagan coalition will again come together, especially where the GOP is successful at demonizing their opponent.

But the tide of history is against them.

the Indy vote has changed but look at the folks they are voting for aznew. Warner, kaine and to a lessor extent are contrary to liberal environmental policy and energy policy and are more moderate on the issue. For example, Al Gore and the like would never have a chance to be a Virginia Senator because of such indys. Many voted for Webb in a backlash to the social conservatives and Allen and the same ones will support Warner over Gilmore but so far our straws at indy meetings are saying they will go by the way of McCain. Could change after tonight though. I thought Obama speech was the best from a national platform since Ronald Reagan.

but it will be interesting to see what kind of bump Obama gets from this speech.

There are lots of factors that drive responses, but one major one is the media spin afterwards. Most people don't know a good speech from a bad one. I think what happens is that during the speech they experience emotions ("Hey, I like this," or "This guy is a fighter," or "What don't I like about this," but they look to the media for validation. So someone watching last night hears Katie Couric say, "That was the best speech I ever heard," they get comfortable with their own good feeling about it.

So, I'd wait until Gallup has data from today and tomorrow, at a minimum, to evaluate the bump. But I expect it will be significant, based on this morning's buzz.

Now, the Democrats have to start tearing into McCain's VP immediately. I hope they have a Romney ad, a Palin ad, etc., etc. ready to go within an hour after the choice. Don't let the Repubs get any momentum up going into next week.

but Pawlenty has never served in Congress and Cantor has never held executive office. Do either have the experience necessary to be quite literally a heartbeat away from the Oval Office under a 72-year-old president?

be careful with this argument...

Without explanation, Pawlenty called off an Associated Press interview at the last minute, as well as other media interviews in Denver, site of the Democratic National Convention.

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

is now clearly saying it is Pawlenty.

Yesterday, Intrade seemed certain for Romney, but he has collapsed.

I wonder the extent to which this actually reflects whether the McCain campaign was having a hard time deciding who to go with.

We'll be wise not to underestimate Tim Pawlenty.  He's won twice now in Minnesota, against some formidable opponents.  He's still popular in the Gopher State, and he just might make Minnesota truly competitive.

The idea that my home state would vote Republican for president for the first time since 1972 (a longer Blue streak than any other state) is pretty frightening to me.  But Pawlenty might make it happen.

Tonight explains, clearly, why Barack Obama won Iowa -- he connects to the soul of politics. There are probably no more politically active states than Minnesota and Iowa.

Barack Obama took a number of states off the table tonight, Minnesota being one of them. McCain is scrooged anyway you look at it, but he might as well try Pawlenty -- and it won't matter.

DFL is the majority in Minnesota, and Obama will clean up there, Pawlenty or no Pawlenty.