I think it is crucial to find someone who can be subordinate, but who is a rising star to promote. It is nice if he has some experience in areas the candidate is weak, but really people don't elect a VP (although it can prevent an election)  From what I know of Obama, he would select someone who would be a good contributor on his team, possibly with some contrary opinions, maybe with some GOP cred. What I doubt is he would pick someone to hurt him with his "Appalachia problem', 'white-working class problem', etc. because there IS no one who can do that but Obama. From day one, he seems to have realized that a smooth running team, with clear goals and careful strategy is the way to get things done, not short-term quick fixes. I expect we will be a little surprised at the eventual pick, but realize it was very smart afterwards; it is his way.

The rising-star thing is particularly critical under the Twenty-Second Amendment. Since it was adopted, second-term presidents are only effective to the extent that their VP is seen as a natural successor. Without the "threat" of an effective third-term under the VP, second-term presidents have no medium- to long-term influence over their own party in Congress.

For this reason, George W. Bush has been a lame duck since December 2004; his influence over his own party since then has extended no further than short-term dealmaking within specific bills. He can't even get his own party to consider, much less pass, his legislative proposals.

Of course, a president can switch VPs when he runs for reelection. As Dubya should have done; whatever value Cheney offers Bush, he could just as easily done from an appointed post on the White House staff. If Bush had done so and put, say, Norm Coleman or somebody on his ticket in 2004, the threat of a "third term" under his VP would have renewed his leverage over his own party by (A) giving them a continuing stake in his personal political welfare and (B) raising the potential personal costs to them of defiance should the VP win his own term and have the chance to punish lame-duck-period disloyalty. But that hasn't been done since, what, Ford in 1976? And before that, FDR in '44? So odds are, if a president takes office with a VP who is not seen as a viable successor, he will be likely to face a full four years of second-term lame-duckancy.

Oh, and Brad Henry for VP.

Wow, great point Rhubarbs.  I'd never put it together that way before, but somehow it seems right.

My only worry though is, besides Bush/Cheney, what modern examples are there of 2-term presidents without "rising-star" veeps?  Sure, Quayle was unlikely to assume the presidential mantel, but George the First didn't achieve the second term required to prove whether or not he'd wind up a 4-year lame duck.  Could it be that George II's lame-duckism has more to do with his gross negligence than with his VEEP?

I think Obama would be wise to pick up at least one mantle of the Bush presidency - giving the Veep substantial responsibility in the administration of the government.  I don't like what Cheney has done with that responsibility, of course, but intellectually it is a good idea to put a good public servant to work if you put them in the White House, albeit in a constitutionally weak position.  To that end, I think that Obama could craft the position as more of a "chief operating officer" for the federal government.  And though it wouldn't help him with the Appalachia problem, a proven private-sector/public-sector operator like Mike Bloomberg could fit that bill.

Do they like Bloomberg in OH?

Obama will never select Michael Bloomberg. Bloomy is too unscripted to ever run on any ticket other than the one he himself bankrolls. The Webb watch can probably be discontinued. His dislike of campaigning will get him disqualified before he is considered.

It would hurt to lose such a great Senate candidate, but Mark Warner would be a superb choice.

Mark Warner fits the COO job description, and would be an exception to Josh's rule: he would clearly deliver Virginia. It was Warner's popularity, more than the "macaca" comment, that out Webb over the top. The challenge would then be how to nominate Don Beyer for the Senate race.

Jonah Goldberg likes Sarah Palin. MSNBC has its own VP brackets game. Jindal insists he and McCain did not talk about the VP search. Often talked about VP candidate Tim Pawlenty vetoes a human cloning bill. It was bound to happen eventually--pro-life

Ken Salazar. Marty's coming around to this; others will follow.

Obama doesn't need to appeal to the MoveOnners. He needs to win over small-town whites and hispanics, especially in Colorado and Nevada and New Mexico. Salazar can win over all these groups, much more easily than Obama ever could. He brings instant credibility in the eyes of exactly the kind of voters who are skeptical about Obama.

Well tep,

If there is no one who can bring OH over (more votes than CO, NV and NM put together, some of which Obama will get anyway), then it sounds good to me.  Barring a way to swing OH, Mark Warner would do too in order to swing VA (assuming in every case that Obama has poll data that gives him the likely outcome).

Even TNR's offices are not immune to veepstakes fever. It all started when John Judis put the "unity