DDAWD writes
"The funny thing is that Will goes to disparage a bunch of other Supreme Court decisions. Were THOSE justices fools or knaves?"

Will did pick out three of the absolute worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. Based on those decisions, the Justices in the majorities were fools. Or, more charitably, they were caught up in the zeitgeist of their respective eras -- which is still no excuse for the Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu decisions.

Listen, you anonymous idiot:

There were 57 Democratic contests this year (primaries and caucuses).

THAT's why Obama misspoke.

Get over it.

And get ready for President Obama in January 2009.

Chris:

Would you please do a piece on what apparently is a distinction which the Obama smear pages have drawn: the Obama smear people say that Obama did not attend a radical Muslim school, however OBAMA DID ATTEND A REGULAR MUSLIM SCHOOL.

Is that the distinction?

First people should be aware that such a distinction is the position of the Obama campaign.

Obama thinks there are 57 states - there are 57 Islamic states.

That is why he got confused - his MUSLIM TRAINING. I would like to see some facts here by the media - a great deal has been over the internet and I suspect the media is AFRAID to talk about the facts - I really would like to know if the OBAMA SMEAR PEOPLE ARE PRACTICING A DECEPTION ABOUT OBAMA'S MUSLIM SCHOOLING.

.

Chris:

Would you please do a piece on what apparently is a distinction which the Obama smear pages have drawn: the Obama smear people say that Obama did not attend a radical Muslim school, however OBAMA DID ATTEND A REGULAR MUSLIM SCHOOL.

Is that the distinction?

First people should be aware that such a distinction is the position of the Obama campaign.

Obama thinks there are 57 states - there are 57 Islamic states.

That is why he got confused - his MUSLIM TRAINING. I would like to see some facts here by the media - a great deal has been over the internet and I suspect the media is AFRAID to talk about the facts - I really would like to know if the OBAMA SMEAR PEOPLE ARE PRACTICING A DECEPTION ABOUT OBAMA'S MUSLIM SCHOOLING.

.

Presently, Democrats barely control the House and Senate. Despite this being a so-called "change election", I have a feeling that the numbers in the House and Senate aren't going to change significantly in November. If that is the case, why would the Obama camp consider VP candidates who are in the House and Senate? All that would do is cost them a key seat. Also, given Obama's sketchy foreign policy & affairs resume, why would he choose a governor with no foreign policy experience either? Come on, what would a Governor Strickland really bring to the ticket other than strengthen Obama's chances a bit in Ohio. Wouldn't make for a very credible ticket in my book. I think he has several options. One is to select someone like Sam Nunn; someone who would bring real foreign policy credibility to the ticket and might open up some southern states to a Democratic win as well. (Someone like Senator Webb of Virginia would do that too, but again that would cost the Party a key seat in the Senate.) Another possibility would be to select someone retired from the military. Not sure who the best person in that area would be. Finally, while it may sound a bit out of left field. . . here's a crazy thought. I looked at the picture of Caroline Kennedy and Barack Obama on the front page of the Washington Post this morning and a crazy thought crossed my mind . . . wouldn't a Obama-Kennedy be unbelievably interesting and captivating? Hey, she could pull a Dick Chaney and nominate herself. Not likely, I know. But you have to admit, wouldn't a ticket like that be breathtaking. Finally, why not be as pragmatic as Robert F. Kennedy was when he convinced his brother to select LBJ as his running mate and select THE one person who could definitely deliver a number of key states? -- Yes, Hillary Clinton. Personally, I think it is very foolish for the Obama camp to write her off just because they don't like her and/or Bill. Face it, she WOULD bring the party together in a way that no other VP candidate could. I know, I know the broadcast media (including all of the biased CNN, MSNBC, political wonks do nothing but talk about all the negatives she'd bring with her to the ticket. Perhaps they should at least give some credible amount of time to more seriously considering the positives that a Clinton VP candidacy might bring to the ticket. Some Obama supporters might not like her, but there are a potential 18 million+ Clinton supporters who would. Look at the numbers. Making Hillary Clinton a part of the ticket makes sense.

I haven't seen anyone mention Chuck.

I think he is the perfect choice for Veep since Obama has promised bi-part.

PS - I am a Dem and & white mail earning well over 100K so don't take it wrong.

Napolatino brings nothing to the ticket- she can't win AZ vs. McCain as the #2- she has sexuality rumors flying around her and she is a woman who is not HRC- forget her.

Richardson has no chance of "delivering Arizona"- McCain wins the Senate seat there handily every 6 years and Colorado is really a toss up- but he can definately deliver NM. However an AA/Latin ticket means sure losses in MI and OH and a more competitive race in PA- so there are downsides.

Evan Bayh is a better choice- moderate, HRC supporter, midwestern.

Sam Nunn is an aweful choice- although he puts GA in play, he disappoints any real liberal that is voting for Obama (as a real leftist- I personally don't see why liberals backed him to begin with- his policy proposals were less ambitious or progrssive than HRCs or JEs although he said "change" better)-also the Obamites would have to stop with the "old", "confused" and other obnoxious agist comments because Nunn is ancient.

Stebelius pisses off anyone who voted for HRC and recognizes that the Kansas gov is not nearly as qualified.

Biden is a terrible candidate- he can't stop making verbal gaffes- he doesn't shut up. The whole lifting others speeches issue rises again- no chance.

Jim Webb is a good match- puts VA in play as well as helps in CO (airforce), OH and MI- but he is definately not a "yes man" and that is what Barak keeps around him- additionally he has a habit of saying whatever is on his mind whether or not it is appropriate and he has some bad history with women's groups.

The best choice politically would be Hillary- she brings in MI, OH, FL and NM, solidifies PA and NJ and makes Missouri more likely and maybe even Arkansas. However, I prefer that she does not take it because she would be better off away from the electoral arena where she will always be tarnished by the "Lady McBeth" stereotype and other sexist BS that has been attached to her by our culture. I would like to see her as Barak's first supreme court justice- if he can figure out a way to get elected.

Given the way that he ran his primary- he of all people knows, it is not about popular vote or what the members of the party want- it is about accumulating delegates (electoral votes). Electorally, he has a challenging road because of what the Dems did in MI and the way that he and his people prevented the revote. That is particularly true if McCain picks Romney- who will help him in NV, MI and NH.

Leon

Bob Casey for VP. Appeals to the working class; moderate to conservative Dems will help Obama shore up PA and OH and help put Florida into play. The guy is telegenic, sharp and articulate.

My bets:

1. Sam Nunn
2. Jim Webb
3. Joe Biden
4. Kathleen Sibelius
5. Gov Richardson
6. Evan Bayh

The MSM should simply forget about Edwards. He's a loser, nobody likes him. Also, the whole geography thing is overrated, so Obama needs a ticket that will emphasize his message of change and bring an experienced national security hand. Any of the above would be OK for that.

Bayh or Richardson are the best bets. If Bayh can carry Indiana and Ohio (He can spend the entire campaign and never so much as need a bus in those two states. If the Republicans lose either it is probably over for McCain. If they lose Ohio it is definitely over. If they lose both it is Landslide Obama) he is the front runner. Richardson might be 20 Electoral votes from Reagan's back yard. Again, if he stays home and delivers New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado, (three of the four corners) he pulls his weight and then some.

Is there anything left of Chuck Robb? Can he carry his own state? He could remind people that there is a good possibility that the $10 million war chest Ollie North used to run against him was the same $10 million Ollie and Richard Secord stole from the U. S. and stashed in a Swiss bank account to use on the Sandinistas. Remind the people that the Iran Contra Scandal and the Dick Cheney Government look a lot alike.

Strickland's quote is word for word William Tecumseh Sherman. Sherman, of course, wasn't any where in the running when he said it.

"The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves."

The funny thing is that Will goes to disparage a bunch of other Supreme Court decisions. Were THOSE justices fools or knaves?

Evan Bayh - Moderate Democrat, 8 years as governor of Indiana, where he balanced the budget. In his second term as a popular Senator from Indiana. AND he is an aw shucks white guy from the corn fed Midwest to attract those unnerved by a biracial guy with a funny name.

Well, Strickland might thought if presidential candidate was bit more mature. Being second fiddle to someone 20 year junior is not easy choice. Ditto for Randell, I think. Warner have reason to wait 4 more years, his reelection would be in 6. And Edwards... He would bring "experience" on Obama ticket. *Whole* Senate term... Bit more then Jim Webb, thinking about that.

By my opinion, If Obama *truly* does not want Clinton on ticket then some governor, preferably one who served 4 or more years, would be good compliment. Richardson? He would be good fit in terms of personality. Bite the bullet and go for non-white ticket. In North-East and California will be fine and would have good shot on Florida too... Sebelius or Napolitano? Worth thinking. However, you can't preach "change" and put someone who was in Senate for 20 years or more. And please forget wet dreams about Al Gore. He won't do it. If Obama politely asks: "Let me be your Veep and learn" he might think about it. Otherwise, with all celebrity and money revolving around him, he is Fairy Godfather of Environmental movement in USA (and beyond) So he can set his work as he sees it fit. Being "Free Artist" can be better then regular job...

Arlington Voter:

I did see the Will piece. The money quote for me:

"The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ."

I might argue that one of the nine is not in the same league as the others, but even a 5 to 3 split indicates that some of our best legal minds disagree on this particular point of law. Which is a good thing for the health of our Constitution and legal system.

Obama made that statement a year before he announced. Lots of things can change in a year. The Veep candidates haven't been looking at a long timeline, so if they say they aren't going to run, I believe them. (Although I don't think they'd necessarily turn down a Cabinet post.)

Mark, bsimon, mnteng ~~ if you folks are around.

I don't know if you caught this in this morning's Post but I think you will find this interesting. George Wills' comments on McCain's "Posturing On Guantanamo".

McCain won't pick Lieberman for the same reason Obama won't pick Hagel: too many other differences, despite their common views on Iraq.
Posted by: bsimon | June 17, 2008 10:55 AM

bsimon ~~ What position do you think Lieberman is hanging around for?

Its exciting to speculate. I like the following, with national security expertise coming generally first on the list:
1. Sam Nunn
2. Jim Webb
3. Joe Biden
4. Chris Dodd
5. Kathleen Sibelius
6. Diane Feinstein
7. Gov Richardson
Those are a good seven!

JerseyBoy, people only see the corruption they want to, that serves their purposes. How many times do you read about Bush's approval rating? It's 29.8. But the Democrat-controlled Congress has an approval rating of 17.5. Not exactly an overwhelming endorsement of the Democratic Congress is it? Off my lunch hour and back to work. Great documentation and posts neighbor.

Tarheel,
I see you have no shortage of Democrats in jail in North Carolina, either. In addition to the Jim Black jailing a couple year ago you had the Ballance case.

Frank W. Ballance, Jr., was the Democratic Congressman from the 1st District of North Carolina from 2003 to 2004. On September 2, 2004, Ballance was indicted on federal charges including, money laundering, mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit mail fraud with his son, Garey Ballance, a state district judge in Warren County, North Carolina. On October 12, 2005, he was sentenced to four years in prison, two years supervised release, and fined $10,000. He began serving his sentence at the medium-security federal prison in Butner, North Carolina, on December 30, 2005.

In fact, a recent poll of North Carolina citizens revealed that 87% of voters believe the North Carolina Democratic Party is corrupt. Looks like Lizzy Dole should be a lock with those sentiments throughout your state.

Thanks JerseyBoy for putting Dave in his place. That strange place where local political corruption is AOK with him.

I can see why you are upset with the Dems corruption headlines. New Jersey is looking at most of its Democratic Party being investigated. This from the wire services: New Jersey Democratic legislative officials were hit with a volley of federal subpoenas in a rapidly expanding corruption investigation into the Statehouse by U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie. Christie is seeking information on how millions in public funds were handed out over the last three years of the Democratic party controlled legislature. It was the latest development in a federal probe that began in April 2007 with an investigation into state Sen. Wayne Bryant D-Camden, who was accused by a federal monitor of using his position to steer funding to the states medical university after he received a no-work job there. Among those who received subpoenas were Senate President Richard Codey D-Essex Senate Majority Leader Bernard Kenny D-Hudson Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts D-Camden and Assembly Majority Leader Bonnie Watson Coleman D-Mercer, legislative officials confirmed.

JerseyBoy:

I posted a while ago, and got a message that said the owner of the blog (Chris? the WP?) had to review it before it could be posted (first time THAT's happened!).

Anyway, while no one party has a monopoly on corruption, you might want to take a look at Slate.com--they have a whole interactive piece on the oh-so-numerous Republican scandals of the last couple years.

Even today, we're learning more about Halliburton's bilking of the government through their friends in high places.

Now go give some money to Obama like a good Jersey Boy.

Slap in the flace --- give her the finger --- stab in the back -- falsely accused of racism ...

. . . the American people can expect the same treatment.

So much for the overtures from the Obama campaign to Clinton supporters. All I have seen is my mail box stuffed every day with solicitations for money, how inspirational. And the following are his overtures towards a potential Clinton VP role:

"Some Clinton loyalists are pretty sure they know how to read it: "It's a slap in the face," 1. Susie Tompkins Buell tells The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut. "Why would they put somebody that was so clearly ineffective in such a position? It's a message. We get it."
An anonymous former Clinton aide delivers the coups de grace: "Who can blame Obama for rewarding Patti? He would never be the nominee without her," the aide tells Kornblut.
Sensing a message? "Solis Doyle 'is the reason we lost,' said one Clinton insider, noting the campaign's profligate spending and other problems in the lead-up to the Iowa caucuses, where the one-time front-runner came in third," Maggie Haberman writes in the New York Post.
More delicious anonymity, courtesy of CQ's Jonathan Allen: "Translated subtitles aren't necessary," a "Clinton insider" tells Allen. "There is no other way to interpret this other than '[Expletive] you.' "
And from the annals of unity . . . "The crowd booed when [Gov. Jennifer] Granholm mentioned the name of Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama's rival during the primaries, whom she supported until she dropped out of the race this month," per the Detroit Free Press write-up."

Apparently absolutely nothing has changed with the Obama supporters booing even the mention of Hillary.

Good Luck with that in November

So, only the behavior of federal politicians is important, Dave? So governors (Corzine), state senators, state assemblymen, mayors (Detroit), and the like all get to be as corrupt as they like if they're Democrats. Interesting world you live in. I don't want to live there. I want my party representatives to be honest at every level, moreso at the state and local levels where they impact the lives of my family the most. Good luck with your corruption is only important at the federal level philosophy. Most of the countries that let local corruption run rampant are the armpits of the world.

I think Obama is running out of options for the VP position. I actually think that Hillary is his best option, although he has to force Hillary to be his VP. For Hillary, I don't think it would be a wise move for her to team up with Obama - might as well stay in the senate. This way, many Hillary supporters who may now support McCain would not have to change their minds, and thus give Hillary the 2012 option.

JerseyBoy

So you are basing your corruption charges ,against the Democrats,on state politicians? Take off you tin foil hat and try and concentrate on the NATIONAL election. It is amazing and really quite sad how the republicans are trying ANYTHING to hold on to power.

Bobby W-C - I hope that you are healthy.

Do you see Rick as a lost cause in the LRGV?

Jimibristol: I like your first two choices, Biden and Webb. Rendell publicly complimented Farrakhan a few years ago, and this would come back to bite a Obama/Rendell ticket. There are so many excellent choices, but Gore or Edwards as vetted experienced running mates with name recognition would anchor the ticket. Those are the best choices.

BEing VP is all about what the President actually allows the VP to do. I doubt Pres Cheney is complaining he has been underused.

Brooklyn. It's a deal! Here you go. The first one's in your backyard. Are you friends? Thanks for the McCain vote!

1. Clarence Norman Jr., leader of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, the biggest Democratic organization east of Chicago was convicted February 23, 2007, of coercion, grand larceny by extortion and attempted grand larceny by extortion in what prosecutors said was a scheme to shake down judicial candidates in exchange for party support. This was Norman's third similar conviction. After his first conviction, Mr. Norman was stripped of his Assembly seat, which he had held for 23 years, and his leadership of one of the largest Democratic Party organizations in the country.

2. Jim Black, North Carolina Democratic Speaker of the House, pleaded guilty to taking about $29,000, mostly in cash, from some chiropractors, is looking at a 10-year maximum and a possible $250,000 fine. He also committed crimes related to the state lottery and allowing a lobbyist to use his office and resources. But to lighten his sentence, Black will name other corrupt Democrats. Black is cooperating with the feds in their investigation as part of his deal. Black was the most powerful politician in North Carolina and directed Democratic party politics for decades. This is just the tip of the iceberg in North Carolina.

3. John Celona, Democratic state representative from Rhode Island, who was already headed to federal prison for four years for corruption faces an additional one and a half years behind bars after pleading no contest 2/20/07) to similar state charges.

Would you like some more?

Hey JerseyBoy. What Democratic Party scandals? I'll make a deal with you. Name two scandals anywhere, other than Jefferson, and McCain has my vote. If you can't, you vote Obama. Deal? I doubt we'll hear from you again.

The Post published an article titles, Democrats Offer Up Chairmen for Donors (2/24/07). They should be worrying about this outrageous slap in the face of the voters who gave them the majority. Plus the mounting democratic party scandals in our daily headlines are killing their culture of corruption cries, because it turns out its the Dems that are corrupt.

I think the problem is many people are concerned the next president will be a one termer because of the war and economy - personally I believe the best thing which could happen to the Dems is for McCain to win. This should then give them 12 years a least in the White House - really who wants to be a one term veep?

People are mad - here in South Texas I have been looking to run for school board and I cannot get people to stop telling me why they are voting for McCain - the myths about Obama are incredible -

Along these lines - VETERANS IN SOUTH TEXAS ARE MAD AS HELL - the quality of care being delivered by the VA in San Antonio is dismal -

The Bush Admininstration is defending the Dept of Ed policy which denies disabled Iraqi veterans discharge of their student loans because they earned one penny over the poverty level on the day of their disability - this is leading to even more financial ruin - the case is in DC federal - 080602

I have never seen so much anger by Veterans, Latinos, in South Texas as we have today - if you are over 50 you are either not voting or you are voting McCain - in South Texas the Democratic Party is a huge criminal enterprise and the people are just fed-up

sad, very very sad

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
brownsvillevoice.blogspot.com

Hey, we have the Chi-town machine behind Barack. We are gods when it comes to politics. Who else could produce 40,000 votes from cemetaries (registered death certificates) so they could vote for JFK in 1960, giving him Illinois and the presidency. Hillary never had a chance. Neither will McCain. Chicago politics rule!

Obama's 'Key' Foreign Policy Adviser: "Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security."

A runaway metaphor is not the worst sin in the world. But if former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig really is a potential national security adviser under President Obama, he's doing his potential future boss no favors when he talks like this:

Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else.

Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: "Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security."

He spelt out how American troops, spies and anti-terrorist officials could learn key lessons by understanding the desire of terrorists to emulate superheroes like Luke Skywalker, and the lust for violence of violent football fans.

(Lest anyone suspect that the Telegraph is exaggerating Danzig's role in the campaign, note Obama called Danzig "one of our key foreign policy advisers" in November 2007.) The best explanation of the metaphor in the article comes here:

Mr Danzig spelt out the need to change by reading a paragraph from chapter one of the children's classic, which says: "Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it."

(So in the Danzig/Obama foreign policy vision... who's Tigger? We know Piglet has already been banned from the metaphor out of sensitivity to Muslims. Apparently Sen. Harry "the war is lost" Reid is Eeyore under this scenario.)

Jen Rubin suggests "Obama get rid of advisors who make people wonder if he is really ready to sit at the grown-up's table." We've already seen Obama defend his summits-anytime-anywhere-with-anyone policy by pointing out that Iran, Venezuela and Cuba are geographically tiny, a strikingly irrelevant piece of data in a world of asymmetrical threats.

It's good that Obama is going to Iraq and Afghanistan. And he would be wise to articulate a national security policy that relied more on personal meetings with Gen. David Petraeus and less on reading Winnie the Pooh.

Jim G

How come no one with any substance or brains wants to be my Veep? what do they know that I don't? I know that leaves a lot of room.

"I hope John W. McDole taps Sore Loserman for veep."

McCain won't pick Lieberman for the same reason Obama won't pick Hagel: too many other differences, despite their common views on Iraq.

Al Gore as Veep? I don't see it. He's already spent eight years in the job, waiting around for something bad to happen, while the real power was somewhere else. Big Al is now in the best place he could ask for -- Oscar- and Nobel-winner, making money, acknowledged as The Man on climate change, fondly respected by many as the President Who Almost Was, the very picture of the elder statesman. Being Veep again would be a demotion. He doesn't need it, and he won't do it.

I hope John W. McDole taps Sore Loserman for veep.

That way, Loserman will be remembered as the answer to a great trivia question, and not much else.

None of the above.

If you're running as the "change" candidate and pick someone from the old political establishment as your running mate, you will effectively blunt your "change" message (or allow your opponent to do so). My guess is that BHO will go the same route as Clinton and choose another young-ish politician who shares his, but someone from outside the Beltway.

Mark Warner would have fit the bill. Govs. Sebelius, Napolitano, and Schweitzer would also be appropriate. Sens. Webb and McCaskill, maybe. But I think Sen. Biden and Govs. Richardson and Rendell are probably long shots.

I think the Jimmy Carter comparisons were a little better during the Dem nomination struggle, but McCain as the GOP goat has more troubling historical parallels.

Quick - name a cranky, aging, veteran divorcee who finally got the GOP nomination he has coveted for so long, only to get pasted by his younger and more popular opponent in November. John McSame? No, I'm thinking Bob Dole.

All right - name an out-of-touch Arizona windbag senator whose ham-fisted foreign policy opinions have painted him into such a corner his landslide defeat is inevitable. John McLame? No, I'm thinking Barry Goldwater.

I think Jim Webb, Joe Biden, and Ed Rendell are the logical choices.

Though Rendell doesn't have foreign policy chops, he would likely give Obama a much needed big state. He also comes across as a decent guy, and could help the rift with white working-class voters.

But, Obama is going for the "50 state strategy" so...

My money is on Webb, as it has been all along. Some say that he's too uneasy as a public speaker, but in a way, that may be just what BHO needs to look less "elitist." Plus Webb cuts into McCain's strengths, military experience and an appeal to "Reagan Dems".

If I've learned one thing from the Clinton/Bush/Rove era, it's that you win by attacking your opponents strenghts as much as accentuating your own strenghts.

Bill Richardson sounds so good on paper. On policy, he rounds out Obama's short resume with his extensive foreign policy experience. He could even help gain the Hispanic voter bloc. But, a VP also has to make a good president and Richardson doesn't quite fill out that suit. Although he seems like he would make a good veep choice in theory, I see him more as a secretary of state.

Gore would be a surprise pick. I think Obama will make a surprise pick, but not someone who has held or run for the job before.

"Conservative activists and bloggers seem to like McCain's "Jimmy Carter" attack on Obama. Here's Jennifer Rubin: "The connection works on some level -- concerns about toughness in foreign policy and an untried leader running on a 'change' theme. (Oh, yes, and Carter is none too popular with the Jewish community, given the drumbeat of invectives and unbridled criticism he has directed at Israel.) "

Expect more of the same, tired, irrelevant, witless attacks on Obama. I guess the McCain camp doesn't understand that nobody under the age of 40 knows much or cares at all about Jimmy Carter.

JD: But what's in it for Gore? He could easily have been the presidential candidate, either this year or in the 2004 election. But he didn't even try. If Gore isn't interested in being president, it's hard to believe he'd be willing to be VP again. He has nothing to gain.

I would love to see Gore as VP. He IS an elder stateman, no question about it. He's already won the popular vote for president, so he definitely adds something reassuring to the ticket, as well as gravitas, knowledge and certainly name recognition!

But why would he want it? Biden might, would be excellent too, great on foreign policy.

These calm, sane, rational guys would look especially good if McCain chooses a ranting war hawk like Lieberman, as the rumors suggest.

There is another VP poll, but this one includes all of the candidates.
Go to http://www.votenic.com and see what America thinks.
2008 Presidential Election Weekly VP Poll.

How come former Georgia Senator Max Cleland isn't turning up on anyone's conjecture lists for VP?

Leaving three limbs in Vietnam, Cleland takes some points away from the only this McCain has going for him - his life story. I really hope Obama considers this well-rounded, well-spoken, experienced gentleman for a spot on the ticket.

I heard a very compelling argument on the radio yesterday (on the left-wing station, which has a signal so far up the dial only dogs can hear it) for Al Gore as Obama's vice.

He's something of an elder statesman, sort of brings the Clintonistas back into camp, is from the demographic mainstream (read: white male) candidate, and has a lot of goodwill among the fanatics. Plus he has some foreign policy chops, and there is no constitutional bar against being Vice again.

Edwards is the odds on favorite. He's ambitious, brings a white man to the ticket, and is popular with the working class (without bringing Hillary along...)

http://www.political-buzz.com/