Right now, I am open to it too. I know I've said differently in the past but, if it would assure an Obama win in November...

Oof. I'd almost rather have Clinton than either Edwards or Sebelius. What do they bring to the ticket?

I'm holding out naive hope for Gore, but I think that Bil Richardson is a far superior choice than either Edwards or Sebelius. Sebelius seems like a token choice, and I think it'll play that way to Clinton supporters, and Edwards has proven in the past that he's not going to deliver Southern states.

Alternately, a Clinton creature like Wesley Clark (who gets bonus points for not being a politician, thus driving home "hope" and "change") or even Evan Bayh (who could deliver Indiana) seems like a good compromise. But I just can't see what we get out of Edwards or Sebelius.

--d

Any thoughts on Phil Bredesen? I only ask because his mother lives across the street from me and my dad graduated from high school with him. Not too sure how he's viewed in the Democratic Party.

Obama needs to attract moderate Republicans in order to win a Presidential victory with legislative repercussions and that will not happen with the Clinton soap opera on the evening news for the next 5 months. Anyone think Bill will open his financial statements for personal investments and contributions to the library ?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807

I"m going with Wes Clark. He's the most authoritative voice on "tactical diplomacy" alive in the USA at the moment and that's going to be a VERY big issue in the next 5 months.

Clinton is a completely wrong option and I hope to the heavens above he doesn't ask her.

Chuck Hagel or Jim Webb. Two war-hardened Republicans to shut John McCain up and appease the idiotic "working class" And by working class I mean racists.

Racist idiots aren't going to vote for Barack Obama if he names Larry the Cable Guy his running mate. You don't need them to win, and you won't get them, so why pander by putting a Republican on the ticket? If they want to vote for a Republican, they've already got one.

Looking at the electoral map, the question about Clinton almost becomes: does she deliver Arkansas and Missouri? Because if she does, and they carry the exact same states that Kerry did in '04, then we win the White House. Since I think the odds are good that he'll do better than Kerry did, especially in the Southwest and parts of the Midwest, I don't see how an Obama/Clinton ticket is poisonous to our chances of winning in November. A joint ticket isn't going to lose the Northeast or the West Coast; it isn't going to lose Illinois or Minnesota or Wisconsin.

I can think of a good handful of reasons not to put Clinton on the ticket, but I haven't heard a compelling argument that says she's going to cost us the election in November.

--d

She will be forgotten soon enough. Obama will choose someone who adds to his appeal, Hillary doesn't. NoDramaObama plus the mememeDramaQueen makes no sense at all.
Once the choice is between McCain and Obama, Obama walks away with a big win and lots of new Dem congressmen. No doubts at all.

Redmond: "Chuck Hagel or Jim Webb. Two war-hardened Republicans..."

Er, um...last I checked, Jim Webb was still a member of the Democratic Party. In fact, his election is what clinched the Dem majority in the Senate.