I think Jim Webb's the most likely pick - he helps Obama play geographic offense (Virginia, along with Colorado, is his chief red-state pickup target especially with Mark Warner running a strong and very well-financed campaign there), he's the classic macho white guy who matches McCain's Naval Academy and Vietnam vet bio, he provides a cost-free patina of bipartisanship without actually disagreeing with the party line on any issue of consequence...the downside is that he's also a very inexperienced and, to put it mildly, unpredictable campaigner and debater. I could easily see Webb play the "I served and you didn't" card in a debate while completely forgetting who the top guys on the ticket are.

Among the women, I would think Kathleen Sebelius, since she's a heartland-state governor and is, shall we say, not as un-telegenic as Janet Napolitano. Like McCain, Obama would be fool to take another Senator with no executive experience (at least Webb has been a Cabinet Secretary).

Obama will also be tempted to take a man-in-uniform type like General Anthony Zinni or Wes Clark, but Webb is green enough as a politician; taking a complete political novice and domestic-policy cipher may not be as disastrous as it would be for McCain, but it's still a high-risk strategy. It didn't work out well for Ross Perot, and you can't pick a more distinguished miliary man than Jim Stockdale. Also, Wesley Clark is nuts, and looks nuts (the man never blinks).

Then there's the Rust Belt governors, Rendell and Strickland. Assuming they hold up under vetting, which may be a questionable assumption in both cases, I could see the case for them, but Strickland's basically a nonentity who backed into the governorship and Rendell is just more big-city machine-politician than a guy from Chicago needs. Rendell's great on TV, though.

But I would not count out Bill Richardson - yes, it would mean two non-white males running together, but Richardson covers all the kinds of experience you could want, he's an excellent retail campaigner (though a poor, gaffe-prone debater), would excite Latinos and help put more Western states in play. If I was advising Obama, I might lean towards Richardson.

Adam C: If I were advising Obama, I'd recommend a shortlist of Strickland, Rendell, Sebelius, Webb, and Richardson in that order. The GOV of large swing states where Obama polls below the generic D are at the top of the list for electoral purposes.

The only major problem with them (barring a vetting issue) is that neither has foreign policy experience. I'm not sure how big of a deal that will be to Obama's decision-making.

Sebelius and Webb both will probably appeal to Obama's "change" mentality as they are not run-of-the-mill Ds.

Dark horses include GOVs Easley (NC), Bredesen (TN) and Kaine (VA).

Ben Domenech: Rendell is not a realistic option. Too many skeletons. Richardson has many of the same problems, and I think he's kind of tapped out on the national stage...post his Judas action, he doesn't bring along the Clinton people I think.

I think Obama's emerging staffing weakness is that he appears to like people who are like him, not necessarily because they are the right person for the job.

Webb would absolutely fit that pattern. On paper, he's a straight-talking "new kind of politics" guy, a Scots-Irish guy who immediately brings up the racialism and Confederate-leanings of the Republican Party as a symbol of its defeat. Obama would rationalize it as even though he's another Senator, he's from a swing state, has even less voting history, and though a vet, is clearly a nutroots candidate on the war - he'd be a huge play for Appalachia and winning West Virginia and VA. He solves the most problems of all of the potentials on paper, as being an outreach to the white working class, to vets, and to a swing state where McCain is still likely to win absent a big ground game.

The reason I'd love it, of course, is that Webb is one of the absolute worst trail politicians you can possibly find. He hates everything about campaigning and what it demands. He wants things given to him on a silver platter - just like Allen's head was in 06 - and he will profoundly dislike doing anything but rallies with Obama, where he can exult in the crowd's cheers. And what's more, he's ripe for his own macaca moments...the great irony of the 06 cycle was that Webb said nearly as many nutty things, they just didn't get put on YouTube. So they don't exist! But as a Veep nominee, there's no escaping the cameras.

Easley's an interesting idea. I don't think Bredesen brings anything to the table. Kaine was disliked by the nutroots prior to this latest endorsement. Now, he is HATED. He's got no presence on the stage, he's only popular because of Mark Warner's coattails, and as a truly moderate guy, he's got no natural constituency. He'd be a terrible choice.

Dan McLaughlin: Unlike McCain, one thing that might work for Obama is picking an older guy who has been semi-retired, most likely Sam Nunn. Nunn has a true Washington Wise Man reputation, he's old but still 2 years younger than McCain, and he's got credibility on defense issues. That said, he's deadly dull as a speaker, he's been out of the public eye for 12 years, he wouldn't make a dent in his own state, and Wikipedia's quick list of his positions shows why he'd be less than popular with the party's base:

Overall, Nunn was a moderate-to-conservative Democrat who often broke with his party on a host of social and economic issues. He strongly opposed the budget bill of 1993, which included provisions to raise taxes in order to reduce the deficit. He was also vehement in his opposition to President Bill Clinton's proposal to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. He voted in favor of school prayer, capping punitive damage awards, amending the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced budget, and limiting death penalty appeals. On certain issues like abortion, the environment, gun control, and affirmative action, Nunn took a more moderate line. He consistently voted in favor of increased immigration. One of his most controversial votes was his vote against the Gulf War.

(ed. - this is why Goldberg's talking up Nunn as a McCain running mate)

I'd agree with Ben that Bredesen is too conservative for Obama (the man dismantled his state's version of HillaryCare) and Kaine is a non-starter.

Pejman Yousefzadeh: I don't think that we should underestimate the possibility of someone like Sam Nunn being selected. He certainly brings defense and national security credentials to the table and he is currently working on nuclear proliferation issues--cooperating closely with Bill Cohen, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz to actually eliminate nuclear weapons. This is unrealistic, to say the least, but it will allow the Obama campaign to highlight the Senator's own work with Richard Lugar to curb proliferation problems. And Obama may potentially use Nunn's efforts to establish a bipartisan consensus on national security issues to claim that he too is prepared to be a uniter, not a divider on policy matters.

Ben Domenech: I suggested Nunn to a friend about a month ago as a great way for Obama to pick an older professor type to connect himself with the old guard without compromising his new politics message. Then I went back and looked at Nunn footage, and decided against it - he's just too soporific. But he's still an interesting choice.

Academic Elephant: What about Bill Bradley? He's tanned and rested.

Pejman Yousefzadeh: From the Democrats' perspective, of course, the downside to Nunn is that he opposed Clinton on integrating gays into the military.

Mark Kilmer: Obama's main problem against McCain will be his political immaturity. Jim Webb, besides being one of the least bright members of the Senate, has no idea what he is doing. He's a buffoon who could only add a touch of clownhood to Obama, which is something to which Obama will be vulnerable but must avoid.

I don't know what is going on between Barrys ears, but he ought to select New Mexico's Bill Richardson as a running mate. By the running media account, there is not a politican in America who can be taken more seriously than Richardson. They see him as an expert to lead on any issue. Gas prices and alternative fuels? He was a Clinton Energy Secretary. Diplomacy to avoid these nasty wars? He was a Clinton UN Ambassador. The bold "change" ticket? Richardson is Hispanic. For the insane base? Richardson campaign on GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!

And some dopey NYT reporter would love concocting a late night sessions at which Obama and Richardson "talk shop" in an intellectual discussion covering all that ails America.

Pejman Yousefzadeh: Oh, please, God, no. Listening to Richardson at a debate is a nightmare. "Diplomacy" is his answer to any and all foreign policy problems and while I don't have an issue with diplomacy per se, I do have an issue with someone repeating the word "diplomacy" over and over and over and over and over during the space of a debate answer to the point where you want to stab yourself in the eardrum with a dull pencil just to relieve the agonizing pain.

Bill Richardson is the political equivalent of smooth, light jazz at a dentist's office. He actually makes you look forward to the drill and the root canal.

Dan McLaughlin: AE, I could see him taking Bradley. Bradley is a longtime favorite of 'good-government' liberals (though he did no more to clean up his own state's party than Obama has) and he has the requisite air of gravitas. He's also, like Nunn, impressively dull, but I think dull would do Obama some good, actually. Some people mistake dull for serious, and Obama brings enough flair for two candidates (nobody minded that Bradley was dull when he played with Clyde Frazier). Both would be very Cheney-esque picks.

Then again, the guy who is running the vetting process presided over the selection of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and John Edwards in 2004, neither of whom was at all that kind of candidate.

Dan McLaughlin: Pejman - One of the really telling anecdotes from the Democratic debates is this, as told by Richardson:

"I had just been asked a question -- I don't remember which one -- and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn't going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, 'So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?' But I wasn't paying any attention! I was about to say, 'Could you repeat the question? I wasn't listening.' But I wasn't about to say I wasn't listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, 'Katrina. Katrina.' The question was on Katrina! So I said, 'On Katrina, my policy . . .' Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, 'Obama, that was good of you to do that.'"

Mark Kilmer: I can hear the violins.

And, Pej, what you said about Richardson is also true, to a less developed extent, of Obama himself. You'll hear the mesmerizable masses murmur: "Obama, Richardson, Hope, Change. Obama, Richardson, Hope, Change," and it's off to the airports to buy the flowers they're selling.

Pejman Yousefzadeh: The difference is that Obama--to his credit--has access to a thesaurus and can occassionally change his word choice. With Richardson . . . not so much.

Brad Smith: Strickland would be a strong candidate - a guy who might actually help carry a state vital to McCain's chances, and who would soothe the waters roiled by Rev. Wright.

But if we're going to speculate, let's get beyond the obvious candidates whose names are circulating. I could see Obama going to an old Democratic sage, a Lloyd Bentsen type. Experience, military background, more conservative, geographic balance. If he wants a legacy he can replace this pick with a younger man for his second term in 2012.

So who fits the bill? The name that comes to my mind is former Georgia Senator and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn, who is 69 years old. He meets every item listed above, he's not too old, but he's old enough no one seeking to succeed Obama (Clinton? others?) will be threatened, and old enough to bow out gracefully in 4 years if Obama wants to annoint a younger successor. Plus he's been out of the limelight so he hasn't had to take votes on the war, etc., that could clash with the campaign's positions (unlike Lieberman in 2000, who had to do lots of embarrassing gyrations to make his past statements jibe with the position of his running mate in the 2000 campaign). And he'd help carry Georgia, a state Obama thinks he can at least put in play and maybe win.

Brad Smith: I see Dan beat me to Nunn by a couple minutes! Darn!

Academic Elephant: I still don't see why more people don't think Bradley is better than Nunn.

Dan McLaughlin: Well, Nunn's a Southern moderate, and was considered a bipartisan kind of guy. Bradley's a northeastern egghead liberal, which is a demographic that Obama already has locked up.

Nobody's mentioned Al Gore yet, but he seems like the one guy who would genuinely not want the job again.

Academic Elephant: Bradley could help in PA and the egghead part could help shore up Obama's lightweight problem. I think he's a more attractive choice than Nunn.

Thomas Crown: (1) He's from New Jersey. In many parts of this great land, that eliminates him on its face.

(2) He's kinda ugly.

Dan McLaughlin: AE - True. And I could easily imagine photo ops of them shooting a few hoops. They'd definitely be the tallest ticket in history.

Mark Kilmer: But isn't Nunn too old school for the HopeChange bit? A return to the politics of yesterday doesn't work for the Obama campaign.

Thomas Crown: Al Gore is praying for a fight that goes to the Convention, so he can be a man -- the man -- for the hour.

Academic Elephant: I agree with that.

Dan McLaughlin: If Obama thinks he's going to carry Georgia, either (1) he's out of his mind or (2) he knows something that we don't that will render any and all decisions about this election pointless.

Academic Elephant: Is that a state where Barr might make a difference?

Thomas Crown: Doubtful.

Academic Elephant: Well, if Barr polls at 5-8 in GA, would Nunn make it competitive if Obama takes 95% of African American voters?

Thomas Crown: Barr won't poll at 5-8; and I believe Black turnout would roughly have to increase by half again.

Dan McLaughlin: We're off topic here, but basically I think Barr will only be trouble in some of the narrowly-divided Western states like NV & NM, where 1-2% of the vote could tip the outcome. I know Thomas likes to remind us that the Western states are not the libertarian utopias sometimes portrayed by the people who lay claim to half of Goldwater's legacy, but there are a few percentage points of people there who have strong libertarian leanings, at least some of whom are potential Republican voters in a 2-candidate race.

Getting back on topic, I don't think either candidate should worry much about Barr in selecting a running mate.

Thomas Crown: I agree: This isn't about worry about third-party candidates, because nothing either major candidate will do change that dynamic.

Pejman Yousefzadeh: Now that Chuck Hagel is retiring and likely ending all association with the Republican Party as a consequence, he could be a potential maverick pick.

Dan McLaughlin: Hagel will get considered, but he's basically voted as a down-the-line social conservative. That's not going to keep him in contention for long.

Brad Smith: Bradley is clearly better than none.

Bradley Smith

Brad Smith: Another out of nowhere senior statesman with military experience would be former Senator, Oklahoma Governor, and President of U. of Oklahoma David Boren, who is under age 70. Boren endorsed Obama a month or so ago. He's avoided divisive votes in recent years being out of DC, but voted against the First Gulf War in 1990, which might satisfy the hard left.

California Yankee: Obama should pick Hillary. There would be a great love fest, and unification, among the Democrats. I do not see that happening. But I wouldn't have predicted Reagan to pick Bush either. I agree with Dan about the necessity of selecting someone with executive experience. I would not suggest a female. The folk in flyover country can only be pushed so far. Obama needs someone who is white, or Richardson-like Hispanic, and male. I would rule out Richardson for a number of reason. He was irrelevant as a candidate. Then there are the security issues when he was Secretary of Energy. I see Obama left with the likes of General Zinni, Governor Corzine, Bob Kerrey and Mayor Bloomberg.

Dan McLaughlin: Richardson is indeed something of a scandal Typhoid Mary. He was the UN Ambassador when we set up Oil-for-Food, too. But I still think he beats many of the alternatives.

Kerrey's too supportive of the Iraq War and too critical of his own party on the same score.

Corzine would be a terrible pick for a host of reasons.

Mark I: Obama's biggest weaknesses are foreign policy/military experience and executive experience generally. But if the Obama campaign were asked to pick one, I'd bet they pick executive experience as the most in need of shoring up. I believe that Obama believes in himself so much that he won't think his relative lack of foreign policy gravitas is all that bad. He probably just think that if he does the opposite of Bush he'll do just fine. For that reason, I don't think he goes with the military guy. Jim Webb, Gens. Jim Jones, Anthony Zinni, and Wes Clark will be considered but probably passed over. Webb would be the best of the bunch, but another first-term Senator as the VP might get him laughed off the stage.

So that leaves Obama with the governors. I don't see him picking a woman as a running mate. I think the list of acceptable women is one name long and Obama would be making a mistake along the lines of Hannibal crossing the Alps on elephants by picking her. So Sebelius and Napolitano are out. Rendell is long on experience and gravitas but short on loyalty. He is too closely connected with the Clintons to be trusted. Plus he campaigned very actively for her in PA, where Obama lost by 10 points. Strickland is also a Hillary guy albeit to a lesser degree. If he goes governor, I think he looks to moderate Democrats from swing or Southern states. Bredersen from Tennessee could get a look, but if I were advising Obama, I'd look closley at Joe Manchin from West Virginia.

Manchin was officially neutral in the West Virginia primary when he could have very easily sided with Clinton and the 68% of the state's Democrarts who voted for her. He has cut taxes and is viewed as fiscally responsible, which won't mean much to Obama but would help with outreach to rural working class Democrats. Manchin has a decent national image, being hailed for his swift and genuinely caring response to the miner's tragedy in the state some years ago.

If Obama decides to go the elder statesman route, I wouldn't overlook former Sen. George Mitchell. He is known as an international peace maker for the Northern Ireland deal and may lend some credibility to Obama's desire to negotiate with Iran and Syria. Plus, as chairman of Disney, he has executive experience and a foot in the business world, the better to soothe Wall Street executives nervous about an Obama led economy.

Dan McLaughlin: Manchin's one of the people I forgot to mention - if Obama's picking a governor he'd be one of the better choices.

Adam C: Ditto Dan. I thought I was forgetting a rust belt GOV and that was it. I think the new KY Governor is too new. But Machin (WV), Strickland (OH), Rendell (PA), Bredesen (TN), Easley (NC) and Kaine (VA) cover a wide region.

Moe Lane: First off, let me repeat: assuming.

Second, I think that we're going about this all wrong: we're all a). policy wonks and b). not particularly impressed by Barack Obama. His supporters, on the other hand, are either not policy wonks, or are else allowing themselves to be overwhelmed by the idea of Barack Obama - and he's playing to them, not to us. So, nobody will be picked in order to balance the ticket: from their point of view (and, happily, Obama's) there's no need for balance.

What they'll want - expect - instead is somebody that they can perceive as being almost as cool as Barack Obama.

If I had to guess, I'd guess Mark Warner. Sure, it'd mean quitting the Senate race, but the Obama's whim must be deemed more important than the needs of Virginia.

Moe Lane: Jim Webb would make an excellent Eagleton to Obama's McGovern. Only with more barely-repressed rage.

Plus, I will highly enjoy watching people ask Webb about this article. Over and over and over again. At every opportunity. Until he punches somebody.

Dan McLaughlin: Well, Moe, I don't think Warner would accept or the rest of the DNC would sit for punting a Senate race that right now looks like a lock (Gilmore may be a comparatively weak candidate, but he's strong enough that if you replaced Warner with a totally unknown Generic D, Gilmore would suddenly have better than an even shot).

Also, I'll say it right here: if Obama loses the general election, I regard Warner as the favorite to be the Democrats' POTUS nominee in 2012.

Obama's people may be impressed with Obama but they can read polls and newspapers and listen to McCain, too. They know two things:

1. Obama's having trouble nailing down some segments of the Democratic voting public.

2. McCain is hammering him on foreign policy experience.

I think they will focus on those as the areas Obama needs to shore up. Which brings us back to the fact that Webb's the one guy who best fits the profile on both counts, and why I expect him to end up as the top name on the list.

Thomas Crown: I really, really think we're making too much of the Double Senator pick. Political junkies and folks who pay attention might be unnerved by having too little executive experience; morons won't be. Vice Presidents are chosen (a) to succeed the President in case of tragedy, (b) to placate some wing or other of the Party, and/or (c) to reassure the morons. Kitten has a problem with a particular subgroup of morons (arguably, some heavily overlapping groups of morons). Kitten reasonably expects not to have a heart attack during his first term. Kitten only needs to pacify one wing of his Party.

This leaves two choices: Cankles or Webb. He'd be certifiably insane to bring the Clintons into the White House with him without a legion of food tasters and neutering Bill, so Cankles is probably out. That leaves Born Fidgeting.

Mark Kilmer: But, Moe, Obama has to play to the people who aren't already entranced by HopeChangeHope. He has to make HopeChangeHope appealable to the more serious, bread-and-butter electorate, and I still think Richardson fits that bill. And to hear the media recite the qualities, Richardson is as hip as Obama. Bill Richardson is Uomo Universale, and you don't get much kewler than that.

That's what I'd be pushing if I were a member of Team Obama. Then I'd kill myself.

Moe Lane: Well, we are assuming that Obama's the nominee, Dan. At this point, that sort of implies that the DNC is going to sit still for giving him the nod; why not keep going, and have them cater to his every whim?

As for Webb... he says things. Things that his new Party can only ignore because he's just a Senator from a Red State.

Moe Lane: Mark, that's the glorious thing about this election, and why the nomination hasn't been settled yet: you and I may think that he has to, but his supporters don't. We've all seen how they get when the slightest imperfection is suggested about their idol; and that's a double-edged sword. It's like that Sacred King anthropological nonsense, only for real.

Anyway, they look at Richardson, they see an overweight old guy with a beard. Not Obama-worthy.

Neil Stevens: Moe, isn't there also the Strange New Respect effect, too, since he's an ex-Reagan guy?

Moe Lane: Actually, no. He skipped the most important part of SNR: the repudiation of heresy and the affirmation of orthodoxy. Webb hasn't repented in public yet.

Let's make him.

Francis Cianfrocca (blackhedd): Not sure if anyone has said this yet, but the only logical choice for Obama is Hillary Clinton.

There, I said it. Yes, her negatives are high, but it does give Obama a chance to claw back some of the support he would otherwise have trouble with in swing states. Yes, it’s possible to overestimate the support she can bring that he can’t (the old “they’re Democrats, they won’t vote for McCain” argument), but even if we’re not talking about much, it will still matter.

The objection to this is that Obama and Clinton hate each other. Sure, but so what? This is all about getting elected President of the United States. It’s totally underrating both Obama and the Democrat Party to assume that he won’t ever go near her again, or that the Dems won’t successfully heal all of their division that we’ve enjoyed watching these last few months.

If all Obama has to do is grit and grin for the cameras while holding Clinton’s hand for the next few months, he can do it. Hell, if he can’t, then he’s too thin-skinned to be a school-board president, much less POTUS.

Thomas Crown: Well, like I said, you'd be right except for the fact that he'd have to be freaking nuts to take her on board without making sure she can't de Medici him.

Dan McLaughlin: Yes, blackhedd, but here it does matter that Obama thinks the stars are well-aligned for him and he can choose from a position of relative strength. He believes he's a strong candidate in a good environment; thus, he will seek to patch weak spots, not do drastic surgery, and will do so with an eye to governing after the election.

That means the last thing he wants is a VP he can't trust who has an independent base of support in the party, knows the place better than he does and has a limitless capacity for generating distraction and scandal.

If Hillary's the VP, Obama will still be awake when the phone rings at 3am, because he'll be afraid to put the lights out.

Francis Cianfrocca (blackhedd): Interesting and cogent analysis. This is certainly an argument that Obama might go for.

But I’m imaging how I’d react in his place. There are tremendous near-term political benefits (becoming the great uniter, etc) to putting Hillary on the ticket.

And if it were me, I’d listen to all the arguments and counterarguments around the table, and then I’d probably say to myself: “I can handle this b****, no problem.”

I probably wouldn’t say to myself: “A man in my position has to know his limitations, and she’s one of ‘em.”

Thomas Crown: I agree with that last part. To be President, you have to think you're more or less invincible.

Charles Bird. Nominating Richardson or Hillary will not help Obama there's already a minority on the ticket. Like with McCain and my endorsement of Jindal, Obama needs someone who will balance the slate. He needs someone who is white and male. His running mate should not be hard left, because Obama already has that ideological sector covered. The VP choice should also have experience, gray hair, and a good military background, and is more centrist. The best candidate, the one who fills all those categories, is Wesley Clark. The general wasn't that good of a presidential candidate, but all he really has to do this time around is neutralize McCain's advantage on military and foreign policy military. Jim Webb would be a good choice, too, and may just be Obama's guy.

A surprise wild card pick would be Chuck Hagel. He's already retiring from the Senate, and most Republicans (and pretty much all conservatives) don't like him anyway. The pick would be conditioned on Hagel leaving the GOP and going either Independent or Democrat.