I like Biden.

why would you limit him like this?

but he would be able to pursue his environmental initiatives and take on major diplomatic challenges like never before.

Not really. As VP you're only as effective as the President you serve under allows you to be. Gore, if you've paid attention to him at all, basically advocates profound, systemic, globally-integrated, even revolutionary changes in how the US handles its responsibility for combating climate change. Gore would be totally disruptive, and both he and Obama know it. Besides, Gore, basically states in his most recent book that he'd rather be on the outside where he can be free to put the necessary levels of pressure on the insiders.

Picking Gore might lead a lot of people to suggest that Gore is really the president not Obama.

Gore would be wonderful, but I doubt he wants the job.

Richardson would be terrific, but he's got the perfect credentials for Secretary of State and we NEED a good SoS to undo the hideous mess Bushx2 has put us in internationally.

Similarly, I like Webb as a candidate, but he's better suited to SecDef, another place that's in need of some serious care.

I voted for Clark -- I don't think he's the only legitimate choice, but he's been a strong, but fair Clinton supporter, and that could help close the gap, plus he's got strong foreign policy cred.

not really.

Think of it this way: He didn't fit in well with the Clinton administration and often felt like a third wheel.  I don't think that'd be the case with an Obama presidency.

Further, Gore is no fool.  He can see how divided the Democratic party has become over the course of the primary, and respect for Al Gore is something that both sides agree with (we all think he should've been president, after all).

He's a known quality and has no excessive baggage.

Great name recognition for the "ticket".

The rumor is that she remains single for a reason, which would make picking her for  challenging.  That's BS, of course, but nonetheless something that will be part of the calculus.  I love Janet Napolitano though, and think she would make a fantastic AG or Supreme Court Justice, if not VP.  

Problem is whether there is a Dem to take his spot. I'd imagine some sort of run off would be held.

I think the time-stamp is broken.

This was written back in November or December of 2007, right?

Sorry to disappoint you but the primaries were pretty much done and over after hillary lost feb 5th. Its just taken some of the Clintonistas more time to realize this.

It's ok, we understand that math is confusing to them and we'll give them time.

At this point the math isn't hard to figure out. How about devoting that fantastic energy to going after the Grinning Crazy John McNasty!

Picking a woman would go the rest of the way in driving Clinton's supporters to stay home all together.

Either one would do well, and although on the surface Nepolitano would be the stronger of the two she is hampered by being from Arizona.  You would want the VP to at least bring in their home state (which is why the Edwards choice in '04 always mystified me) and it would be hard to take it away from McCain as the native son.  Sebelius on the other hand, like Nepolitano, brings executive experience and was re-elected with a larger margin than before.  Kansas could be in play as well as other mid-western states

I guess we are going to lose in November.  That should make you happy.

Kennedy knows better than to take a step near the presidency.  That would be a disaster, if you ask me.

Besides, Obama isn't relying on "experience" arguments, he's just looking for the best person for the job.

Putting all of our eggs in one basket in Ohio or Florida or elsewhere is a strategy that has not worked for us.  50%+1 politics is what got us here in the first place.

We really can't afford to take anyone out of leadership positions.  Yet another reason why I like Gore for this.

Why not write a 'who should Hillary pick for VP' diary?

After a series of discussions, the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have decided to file papers with the Federal Election Commission establishing a "joint fundraising agreement." Under the law, such a committee can accept up to $28,500 from individuals, most of which would go to the DNC.

Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has already formed such an alliance with the Republican National Committee. Their group -- called Victory -- was created in March after McCain clinched the GOP nomination and is headed by McCain adviser Carly Fiorina.

Sources say the DNC has also held talks with Hillary Clinton's campaign about forming a separate vehicle with her, but that no deal has been struck.

The fact that the Obama campaign is moving forward and Clinton is not at this time reflects certain important realities: Obama's team is more confident that he will win the nomination than is Clinton's -- and Obama's campaign has the necessity and luxury of thinking about and planning for the general election to come.

The real, tangible problem with this is that regardless of how good a candidate Clinton is, picking her as his running mate totally undermines his message.  The differences between Obama and Clinton aren't so much on policy as method.  Obama's supported a transparent, grassroots pressure-powered method of getting support for policy.

Clinton is essentially technocratic -- come up with the perfect policy and then convince the legislators it's the best one so they'll vote for it.

Clinton's methods aren't inherently bad, and they're sure as hell a lot better than Bush's "do whatever the hell I want then make up stuff to make it the only patriotic option" method, but it's very different from Obama's, and runs counter to his broad message, which rejects her method.