Well if she really really wants to lose the South. Two from New York and one a New York Jew? Golly.
(Bloomberg, not Strickland) 
It’s funny about Strickland. It seemed that it was all-Taft all-the-time around here while he was in office. There was always something to go all eyerolly over. But Strickland hasn’t made much impact. My husband follows politics and he couldn’t remember last night who the Ohio gov was. It finally came to him, but there was a definite lag.
Anyway, I don’t think Strickland would have much impact on the race either way.
Obama should offer it to Edwards to get Edwards out of the race.
HRC should offer it to Edwards for a promise from Edwards to stay in the race as long as possible.
Edwards is siphoning votes from Obama far more than HRC. Without Edwards on the ballot I bet Obama would have taken New Hampshire.
Additionally Edwards would be a suitable VP for either one.
I’ve heard Rendell’s name mentioned, too, but only if Hillary gets the nom. Ed’s very friendly with the Clintons and he’s only got two years left on his term. That pops Catherine Baker Knoll into the governor’s chair here and sets her on her way to face Ricky Santorum in 2010.
She still wins New York in a walk.
The old joke is that by picking Cheney, it made Bush assassination-proof.
My guess is that the candidates already have their short lists, so the best bet would be to see which Senators, Governors or other politicians have been strong supporters over the past few months or so.
I don’t claim to know every politician in every state, but if you can find one that is:
A: Very popular in their home state.
B: From a state or region that might not be a strong-hold for the candidate.
C: Has been an open supporter from early on.
D: Appeals to a different audience than the candidate (different gender/race/age group)
E: Has been around long enough to have been vetted by the press and opposing party to ensure no major skeletons in the closet.
Well, that would be the ideal VP.
Still, I can see Obama just maybe consider it - he is young enough that even if he is VP for 8 years, he would be primed and in the position to be the next President.
He will no longer be a fresh face in the crowd in 8 years, so a VP position would be his best chance to almost be ensured the slot as the next candidate.
I see your logic, but being a fresh face is arguably his strongest point. The VP spot isn’t a stepping stone to the Presidency, and in eight years he’d also have to defend somebody else’s record and voice some support for moves he didn’t agree with.
I’m pretty sure that no Republican would pick Bloomberg, who is really a converted Democrat and recently gave up his Republican party membership. Although he would probably appeal to the fiscal wing of the party, he’d be a big turn-off to the larger (voters-wise) social conservative wing.
Clinton can’t pick Bloomberg. Under the Constitution, the President and VP cannot be from the same state. Bush and Cheney got around this by Cheney’s quickie move from Texas to Wyoming, but neither the sitting New York Senator nor the sitting New York City Mayor would really be able to move the way a corporate executive like Cheney could.
Obama/Bloomberg would be really interesting, but I’m pretty sure it won’t happen because he’ll need someone with international relations experience to balance his ticket. Beyond hopping his private jet to Bermuda every weekend, Bloomberg really doesn’t have any. This is disappointing, because I think Bloomberg would be a great candidate.
If it is Obama, I’m betting his running mate will be Richardson, if Richardson doesn’t run for Senate (which he has until Feb. 12 to do). Actually, he’d be a pretty good choice for Clinton, too. I think that after the Feb. 5 primaries, he’ll be in a very interesting horse-trading position.
I doubt that Obama would want to be VP under Clinton, because another four or eight years in the Senate will give him much more exposure. On the other hand, as VP, you don’t have a voting record to use against you. Nixon got the top seat after serving as a relatively junior VP to Eisenhower’s, so it work for Obama. I’m not sure that Clinton would want to choose him, particularly if she’ll be going against someone with a lot of foreign policy experience like McCain. This would play out even more strongly if Obama were considering Clinton for the VP slot.
Edwards wouldn’t be a particularly good addition to either an Obama or a Clinton ticket as he doesn’t add much and doesn’t really have a committed constituency.
Absent Richardson, either of them could pick an elder statesman, perhaps someone like Bill Bradley or George Mitchell.
Across the aisle, it’s a toss-up. Of the candidates, Guiliani just isn’t the type, even if anyone would take the risk of nominating him. Romney would probably be a good choice, but I can’t see any of the others nominating him. Huckabee might be chosen balance out any of the rest of them. McCain would probably give up his Senate seat for the job, and I could see the others perhaps selecting him if the race doesn’t get too ugly. Forget Freddy ‘Snoozer’ Thompson.
Off that list, I could perhaps see a pro-war candidate like McCain selecting Condi Rice, particularly as a counterweight to an Obama candidacy. It’s a high risk strategy, but it could work (but proabably wouldn’t).
Is there any chance at all that Al Gore would be someone’s running mate?
I’d love to see an Obama/Gore ticket, but I figure it would be so unlikely that I’ll get laughed out of the room.
That’s not going to happen. Gore would have been the shoo-in candidate if he’d actually wanted to run for president this year, but he didn’t. There are still grassroots Draft Gore organizations, and he’s shown no real interest whatsoever in taking the nom. He has a new career and a new vocation educating and advocating to mitigate climate change. He’s not going to go for 8 more years of second banana. Besides, as much as I admire Gore, another 8 years of Clinton/Gore (albeit with a different Clinton) would be kind of grotesque.
Nixon last the election after his second VP term ended, and became President eight years later. I’m not sure Obama wants to go that route. 
Yeah. But it was NIXON! Against KENNEDY!
Obama, on the other hand, IS Kennedy, for the purposes of this comparison…
Bildo: Nice analysis. But why do you think McCain would want to be VP? At his age, it can’t be a stepping stone to the presidency, and he’s probably more effective in the Senate where he has a lot of seniority. VP is a thankless job, unless you get to run for prez.
And Obama or Clinton might want to try and run again in '12 (jeez, are we getting to the double digits in the 21st century that quickly!!), so I can see them not taking the VP slot even if offered.
I was thinking McCain/Rice quite awhile ago, but I’m getting a sense that she really wants to get out of Washington.
The VP is a stepping stone to the nomination at least. An incumbant VP should have no problem being his or her party’s nominee if desired. That’s the main reason to take the gig.
Alternatively, being a Senator for eight years is more of your own record to defend (HRC has tried hard to not create much of a paper trail and Obama hasn’t had a chance to create one.) It is a tougher shot.
HRC would do it if she warn’t so old, just for that reason.
Not wanting to run for president again doesn’t necessarily mean that he wouldn’t be willing to be VP again.
I know it’s not likely, though.
I knew he was a converted Democrat and I knew there was noise about a third-party run, but I didn’t know he had officially de-Pubbed himself.
I was thinking that someone who was solidly socially conservative could use the moderation of Bloomberg, plus the appeal to the fiscal conservatives.
I know that Sam Nunn was also talking third party, but I haven’t read up to understand what his deal is. I know there were a lot of Pubs who respected Nunn. Would anyone have a chance of luring him in as a VP for either party?
I wouldn’t be too suprised to see George Allen from Virginia brought back into the mix as a VP for the Republicans. Before the ‘macaca’ incident he was a possible anointed front runner this time around. If McCain takes the nomination, then Allen offers geographic balance, and plays well to the Christian Right factions (where McCain is weak). Then, Allen is lined up for running for the oval office in the future.
Regarding Allen’s crash-and-burn, the time he has spent out of the media spotlight will wash him clean.
As for the Democrats, I give Richardson a lock on the VP spot. If, however, Richardson is not chosen, I really don’t see one of the other known candidates being selected. I would put money on it being a current or former Governor.
In any case, I can’t see the Pubs putting a lesbian on the ballot.
Oh, I doubt that. Once a macaca, always a macaca. He’s not going to be on anyone’s short list.
I agree about the governor part. But maybe Richardson would make a better SecState than VP.
John Mace I think Condi is in a hurry to start her CFR retirement with her $ 50k speaking engagements.