OK, I didn't watch tonight's debate, but what I've read this eve suggests that Hillary should stick a fork in it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-cooper/hillarys-ignominious-fin_b_88634.html

Now is this guy right? fair? biased? In the pay of Obama? I don't know, but how about this: A pool where you can, for $10 CDN, jump in and predict Obama's running mate.

I'll start off by picking Bill Richardson. No real basis for that except that so many other choices stink. If you want to pick Richardson, we'll just split it however many ways.

To be eligible to enter you must have at least 2 posts to the BBS prior to this post and you really shouldn't be named Saddam Hussein, God or something like that.

If there are more that 3 people who actually care, we can figure out how to pay this out at some point in the future.

To be able to hypothesize without picking, your actual pick should say something like "I pick Bob Dobbs".

You could wait until the very last minute to pick (like to see if Texas/Ohio fall to Obama) but once Barack gives somebody the official nod, that's it (Now *must* that be at convention in Denver to be "official"? I think so.) First pick counts; if first pick is found to have skeletons in closet and gets replaced, 2nd pick doesn't count.

US readers can join the pool at par and everybody else can enter but might want to think about using Paypal. If somehow Hillary still gets the nomination, I'll give that $10 to some charity. Or Ralph

I'm in for $10.20 USD (locking in my CAD->USD conversion rate right now) on Jim Webb (D-VA.) Former military guy, moderate enough on some issues to steal votes from independents, etc. He wouldn't be my first choice but I think he'll be Obama's.

Dang, Webb. Good pick. I should have thunk it. Richardson could be happy as Secretary of State Yeah, Obama needs the big "D" and some South. I've seen somebody mention Wesley Clark, but I would be underwhelmed there. Webb. Hmmmm.

Clark has been supporting Hillary. Given how angry the debate has gotten, I doubt that Obama would tap Clark.

Not that I have a better notion at the moment. Edwards would be a good choice, but he has explicitly said he won't do it.

Webb: I dunno. It's probably a good choice strategically, but other than his position on the Iraq war, he might as well still be a Republican. Of course, that's what makes him a good strategic choice, though.

I'm not putting my money on him, but how about Tim Kaine? I would have said Mark Warner, but he's running for Senate.

Well, there's always Mel Carnahan. With his victory over John Ashcroft in the Senatorial race, he proved to be a successful campaigner, even though he did keep a pretty "low" profile.

tanstaafl.

Maybe I'm confused here but you do realize Mel is dead right? Died in a plane crash orchestrated by Republican Airplane Mechanics (if you like conspiracy theories).

Ahem "kept a pretty *low* profile" (like deceased!) but still won.

I think you've been stung by the Great Viper of the North

Clark was recently mentioned on Groklaw -- denying ties to the outfit that is proposing a SCO bail out; I thought I saw some mention of Obama, but it looks like I imagined that completely.


Pique? What about if his "country called him/me"?

Oh, well, looks like all this speculation is moot, anyway:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks

Obama has a fair amount in common with George W. when he was running in 2000, notably that he talked a good talk (toward his respective base of support, anyway), but was often accused of a lack of experience. Just like W. picked up Cheney as his V.P., I predict Obama will similarly reach for an "experienced" V.P.

If you want to follow that "experience" thought to its logical conclusion, several people are possibilities, including Bill Richardson or Joe Biden. At this point, I think it's going to be Richardson. If I had to reach for more of a wildcard choice, I'd go with NYC Mayor Mike Boomberg (who would probably say no) or with Sen. Ted Kennedy (to continue playing up the mythos of Obama as the heir to Jack Kennedy).

Conventional thinking would have Obama select a running-mate from the South. No Democrat has won the Presidency without a Southerner on the ticket since FDR. (It didn't seem to help Kerry or Dukakis, though.) I don't think New Mexico counts as the South.

Obama, for whatever reason, seems to play exceptionally well in the South all by himself. The unstated reason why you want to have a (white) southern (male) running mate is that they'll help you appeal to the red-neck vote, among other things. I'm not terribly confident that Obama's going to do well there, no matter who is running with him. On the other hand, if he can clean up with the Hispanic vote, that could well be enough to make the difference.

Good point. How about a Richardson endorsement of Obama before Texas Tuesday?

Richardson, perhaps channeling his ambassadorial experience, hasn't made any endorsements. This could be interpreted as hedging his bets, since he would be an attractive VP candidate for either Clinton or Obama.

Richardson's main problem is his tendency to stick his foot in his mouth all the time, making him a really bad campaigner. He also supported the war initially, which undermines Obama's message of being opposed to the war from the start.

It's possible that his appeal to Latino voters would outweigh any of those disadvantages, but it's hard to say. There's also the issue of having no white guys on the ticket at all, which should not be discounted. It's one thing to say that Democrats will never win in the deep South, but having a ticket with no white guys on it is going to have an effect in purple and blue states as well, especially with McCain's fake moderate credentials and appeal among his fellow AARP members.

If Hillary ends her campaign soon and numbers come out saying McCain is beating Obama head-to-head among Latinos (certainly a possibility given McCain's position on immigration issues) then maybe it's time to start thinking about Richardson as VP, or perhaps announcing that he'd be Obama's pick for Secretary of State or something. But I think there are other VP choices that would be more appealing to a wider segment of the population, and that's usually how campaigns pick their running mates.

I just sent Bill an email at lunch. I didn't mention SoS or VP, but just asked if he might get off the fence before Texas. Never hurts to ask

Keep in mind that a substantial fraction of the votes in Texas have already been cast. Early voting has been going on for the past two weeks and ends today. If Richardson wanted to have an impact on this primary, he's already too late for many of the voters.

Meanwhile, the weird thing about Texas' Democrats is that they have both a primary *and* a caucus. As I understand it, the votes cast in the primary are used to select 2/3 of the delegates, and the caucus procedure selects the other 1/3 of the delegates. And, just to make it more fun, none of these caucuses have actually mattered before, so you don't have a huge body of people who know the rules of the game. Suddenly, you have all these fresh faces showing up, which could lead to some measure of chaos.

(I was reading our student newspaper today, and it had a full-page ad from MoveOn.org, explaining to students how they should get engaged in their civic duty and "vote twice.")

Well, from the looks of it, my running mate pool is no foregone conclusion and it is on to Denver. Not sure what would keep this Democratic race from being decided at convention with HRC's showing on Ohio. I don't think it will be fun to watch.

Listening to GWB for 8 years has been just painful. Painful. Disgusting. Disheartening. If we have a McCain/Clinton matchup, I think I am going to pass on that digital TV adapter and just buy some big wind chimes and a huge electric fan.

Yep, this is shaping up to be a real mess. Obama still has the lead in delegates. Unless Hillary really steamrolls him from here on in I don't see that changing. Perhaps the only solution at this point is the "Dream Team".

Joe Biden