No Hillary hate here. I just think there are so many VP candidates that have many, many positives

[Political Heretic]

I don't feel like Clinton should have a mortal lock on the slot because she ran for president and didn't win. Yes, I do understand she brings benefits to the ticket, just like other potential choices. Like I said, its not Hillary hate but careful, tactical thinking that's going on inside me.

Biden, Clark, Webb, Richardson, others.... they all have unique benefits and I like them all. What I don't want, is to in any way feel like the campaign was bullied by the Clintons or the media into choosing a VP that really isn't the best in the long run.

If Clinton would really be the best VP, then by god put her on the ticket. But I'd like to trust that ALL options were considered and that it wasn't some sense of continuing "entitlement" that ruled the day.

[papau]

1. reasonable - but Pelosi's hate of Clinton prevents "reasonable"

[cloudythescribbler]

3. Fuck Pelosi! This is about maximizing Obama's likelihood of winning!

And I don't know ANYONE who favors Pelosi (perhaps except her) for the VP nomination.

Obviously, foreign policy experience is very important, both for the presidency AND IN THIS ELECTION YEAR FOR A CANDIDATE. That puts Boxer, Richardson, and even Sen Stabenow ahead of Pelosi as a House member.

I know a lot of people favor Sebelius, and I'd be quite happy with her on the ticket (she always opposed IWR).

[Political Heretic]

5. Does she really hate Clinton?

I don't know anything about this, really.

[lisa58]

2. I think an Obama/Clinton ticket would be the worst of both worlds...

...we need someone new to energize the campaign.

[cloudythescribbler]

4. Put simply -- I'd vote for HRC in a second if she were the nominee, but in picking a VP ...

I WANT THE CANDIDATE WHO IS FIRST RATE IN COMPETENCE AND WILL MAXIMIZE OBAMA'S CHANCES OF WINNING!!!!!!!!!

And the prospects of having a hawk in the White House for another four years infuses me with more emotion than just 'careful, tactical' thinking.

If Hillary feels she's entitled, and she would maximize Obama's chances, then fine. But she would be a drag, even if slightly, on the ticket, especially relative to other choices. The difference, as with Dan Quayle, might not be decisive. But then again, if a net of ONE OUT OF FIFTY voters either doesn't vote or votes for McCain because of Hillary Clinton, that could easily cost the Democrats the White House.

Hillary Clinton might get some other position, like on the Supreme Court, just as long as Obama gets into the presidency.

Who would MAXIMIZE Obama's chances AND be best for the presidency? I say that it should be someone who, like Obama, NEVER supported the Iraq War Resolution (IWR). That includes both a key judgment of our time, AND A MAJOR POLITICAL FACTOR IN THE ELECTION. It's high time the Democrats stop nominating semi-fudgy so not a hawk candidates who were for the war when it was popular. That is neither presidential nor helps with voters, especially with the war SO unpopular as it is now.

I also think that it's high time to put a woman on the ticket, including the politics of appealing to Hillary's mass base, in particular disappointed women. Putting Hillary on might be seen as one way to do that, but it has costs. Putting someone ELSE on who is a woman but without Hillary Clinton's baggage and high negatives (which this campaign showed clearly is hardly MERELY generic to her being a Democrat hated by Repugs) could mean a president Obama rather than a president McCain.

As for candidates, I favor CA Sen Boxer -- lots of foreign policy experience, extremely bright and competent as a statesperson, a woman, opposed IWR, strong on Greenhouse (for a pol), VERY VERY popular and charismatic and with little by way of negatives other than from the right, and no serious baggage AFAIK. She might very well be essential if Obama is to carry Florida.

Other possibilities include Sen Stabenow of MI, Gov Sebelius and Gov Napolitano. If Obama picks a male (which I think less preferable, including by realpolitik) then there's Gov Schweitzer (who apparently always opposed the IWR), Webb, and possibly even Feingold. Of the other candidates, neither Hillary nor Edwards, the two most talked-about, would really boost the ticket (what did Edwards add -- not even North Carolina -- in 04?); Richardson has both a lot of foreign policy and other experience and might significantly help electorally, though I am not terribly enthusiastic about Richardson myself.