Obama can run again in 2012. Or Salazar, if he wishes.

Marty, are you still going to vote for Obama if McCain chooses Lieberman for his VP?

It's necessary for Dems to take Colorado in this election.  Salazar will achieve this.   But it could leave McCain open to nominating Romney, who can make Colorado competitive, and would also pose a problem in Michigan, where Romney has a following.  I think Biden makes a lot of sense, because the GOP making a turn toward the nasty, and Biden has a mouth full of rebuke for them.  

But Salazar does put Colorado back into the "win" column.

"I do not believe that a black and a Hispanic on the ticket would scare anyone who would remotely think of voting Democratic."

You are right.

I'll have no trouble voting for a Salazar/Obama ticket.

Salazar has the stronger resume.

Excellent suggestion...very out of the box and considering the source, surprisingly nimble in thought and analysis...

score one for peretz...I like it a lot...

I disagree, or at least I think it's riskier than Marty says.  With all those reports of the nation turning 1/3 Latino within a generation Salazar would create another Bradley effect.  Illegal immigration still resonates with Reagan Democrats -- right now it's a draw and not a hot issue, with Obama getting most Latino support but McCain unable to risk complete erosion and so not windsocking on his pro-"comprehensive reform" record.

Salazar also reinforces the "inexperience" trope (though I think McCain should pick Sarah Palin, so what do I know...)

What's up with Marty. He seems to be capable of writing a few coherent sentences that make some sense.

As an addition bonus he didn't smear  Clintions or Condi.

Sounds good to me, but how good a speaker is Salazar?

It seems that McCain will choose Pawlenty (he doesn't seem to have any choice), so who matches up better against that? Bayh or Salazar?

And neither Romney or Lieberman will be the VP. Obviously Tep has never met an evangelical in his life.

McCain has to pick someone that has the approval of Mike Huckabee. No question.

Jackson,

Saying that you'd have no qualms about voting for Salazar but that Obama is woefully underqualified is simply incoherent.  Salazar and Obama have approximately the same amount of experience at the state level and were elected to the Senate the same year.  You've explicitly said that Obama lacks the necessary experience, that McCain would have ways of dealing with Congress that would take Obama another 4-8 years to learn (never mind what these ways actually are).  How do any of your arguments not apply to Salazar?  Is there something that you find particularly impressive about being a State AG as opposed to State Senator?  That seems to be where you're drawing the line between someone who is too inexperienced to be President and someone you'd have no qualms voting for.

I think we're going to see enough Bradley effect w/ just Obama, frankly.  Put Salazar on the ticket and expect a couple thousand attack ads about immigration w/ the unspoken suggestion Salazar himself is illegal.  I hear Corsi's already at work on a book.  KS could well win him CO -- but then, Bayh could well win him IN.  Face it, in our plain-jane politics BHO is as exotic as it's been since some dude from the Virgin Islands ran the Treasury, and rightly or wrongly, that scares a lot of people.  Honestly, I know next-to-nothing about Salazar, and if you say he's a good pol, I'll take you word for it.  But this is an opp for Obama to reassure white Joe Public he isn't some race-baiting radical Muslim plant in league with Satanic Shiite Mohammedans out to Destroy America.  I know he's boring, but just by dint of his name and looks -- in fact, specifically by dint of his blandness -- EB does this better than KS possibly could.

Also, a statistically insignificant lead in a single poll should have nothing to do with picking a VP.  "Home-state advantage" in general is a dubious reason for picking a VP to begin with(Josh Patashnik had a nice article about this a while back).  If you think Salazar is the best choice on merit, fine (although personally I think there are more impressive options), but Obama doesn't "need" him because he's from Colorado.

I heard Salazar wants to becoem VP so he could bring his family in from wherever he's from, illegally.  Like Hussein Obama and Zambia or Kenya or Basuthuland. ...

Methinks that an Obama/Salazar ticket risks overspicing the strudel.

jacobt, you're absolutely right....I just hate it when Peretz actually makes sense and I find myself in agreement with him. I think Salazar is just excellent and an Obama/Salazar ticket would be formidable. I had the pleasure of hearing Salazar in a small group setting a few months back and asked him about immigration policy as a potential wedge issue (which he actually hadn't identified as a big ticket general election issue). He was simulataneously passionate, clear thinking and sensible in response. And in his adamant opinion, immigration is not a political issue, it's a moral issue. Though I don't know his full record, I do believe, however, that he moves right on some important issues like (I think) surveillance/FISA and unsurprisingly, energy.

But he has a wonderful life story, is a superb campaigner and is of impeccable reputation. He'd be a great addition to the ticket and if there's any remaining possibility of that happening it should be closely considered.

And if it doesn't, then let's figure out some way for Marty to blame Hillary. He'll be happy and we'll be relieved of the burden of agreeing with him.  

Salazar is whip-smart and very experienced in government.  His family has been in Colorado more than 400 years.  His wife runs a small business and his kids are great.  He's had some really bitchin' fights with James Dobson of Focus on the Family.  He has only a few faults that I know of--he was a big supporter of Alberto Gonzalez's nomination for Attorney General, and he opposes adoption by gay couples.  He's also a bit short on charisma.

Good guy, but he won't move the needle. Obama's got much bigger problems now than his VP. Given that the chief of the Russian general staff has just threatened Poland with a nuclear strike, I think Obama will have to work very hard to convince Americans that he's ready to go toe to toe with Putin next January.

..Methinks that an Obama/Salazar ticket risks overspicing the strudel..

Methinks what thee thinks is right; and I think it will never happen and which shows how bad Peretz's political instincts are, which is why he is who he is and, say, David Plouffe is who he is, making real world decisons and not spinning fantasies in a blog, for as much fun as that is.

But is not the better metaphor "overegging the pudding?"  I'd go to the mat on that one.

AlanSP said:   "Jackson,  Saying that you'd have no qualms about voting for Salazar but that Obama is woefully underqualified is simply incoherent. "

I have had this discussion before, maybe with you, Alan.

No, Salazar's experience is substantially more impressive than Obama's.

Besides, if you were right that would mean two light weights on one ticket. What's the advantage there?

Itzik: "Overegging the custard" - and it is overused.  We were talking about "exotic" candidates, and I wanted to use a less hackneyed and somewhat more apt turn of phrase.  Sorry if it did not tickle your tastebuds.

Yes, we have had this discussion before (glad you remembered it).  I don't recall getting an answer then either.  What makes Salazar's experience "substantially more impressive than Obama's"?

"Besides, if you were right that would mean two light weights on one ticket. What's the advantage there?"

I'm not the one who said he'd have no trouble voting for a Salazar/Obama ticket.  Personally, I put less weight than you do on time in office as a criterion for being President.  Being a relative newcomer does not, in itself, make someone a "lightweight."  Jim Webb, for instance, has very little experience in government, but I doubt many would consider him a lightweight.  All else being equal, more experience is a good thing, but I don't think it trumps talent, intelligence, and policy positions.

Reasonable people can of course disagree about what criteria are most important, but what does strike me as unreasonable is saying repeatedly that someone is too inexperienced to be President and then proclaiming someone else with similar experience would be just fine.

Obama will run again in 2012, tep.  As the incumbent.  You'd better start getting over it because your take on what moves the American electorate bears no relationship whatsover to what moves the American electorate.

Salazar?  Dunno.

Colorado is a good backup plan, but the game is to win MI, PA and OH.  If the VP pick has any impact on those states, then that is the way to go.  There is no plausible scenario under which McCain wins if he loses all three of those states.

Icarus, you have spiced my strudel. I have egg, it turns out, on my face. My yolk is broken;  my custard runny. Victory is yours and let the mat be spared.

"Colorado is a good backup plan, but the game is to win MI, PA and OH."

Hell, Obama needs at least four VP's to run with him.

Maybe a conference of VPs will help Obama win 49 percent of the vote.

How about Bill Ritter? A nice popular white Catholic with executive experience. Check!

Ritter is anti-choice.  Screw him.

How about Jack Ritter?

OK, OK... then would you go for Suzanne Somers?

Michael Crowley stumped for Al Gore yesterday. Not only stumped for Gore but predicted he was the man

As some of you may recall, I kept on advising Barack Obama to pick Senator Ken Salazar as his running