An antiabortion VP is not gonna happen.  If you're going to piss off the progressive wing, do it with someone like Joe Biden, who brings some foreign policy cred, probably enough to offset his tendency to make gaffes.

stgla, what, they are going to stay home and watch the supreme court overturn Roe Vs. Wade because Obama's VP is anti-abortion? That would be beyond brain dead (although truthfully, considering many Hillary supporters among that crew foreseeable.)

The only knock against Casey is that he has only been in the Senate two years. He needs someone with a lot of experience. Richardson, or Biden. I would love Richardson only to watch that cueball Carville's reaction. "He is as bad as judas and will make a fine VP"

I voted for Casey, he is a good centrist candidate, and doesn't make gaffes like Gov. sh*tforbrains does.

I agree with stgla and blackton here -- a pro-life VP is probably not a great idea, but also probably not a killer. The part of Casey's profile I think might have most resonance is his pro-gun stance. Public opinion on guns has lately reached a sort of equilibrium that's far to the left of the NRA/conservative axis, but far to the right of Democratic orthodoxy. In House and Senate races in 2006, several Democrats showed that it's possible for our side to get out in front of this new consensus and win by being "safe" on guns rather than "strong" on guns. That's an important cultural-identity component of the GOP base that we could take away from them for a decade or more with a VP who is of the Casey/Warner/Talent/Webb school on guns.

Seriously, two frst senators? Now that's the way to blow the easiest general election since 1932!

Please get used to these words ... Obama/Warner all other speculation [that doesn't include the name Sebelius] is silly.

Seriously, watch Warner's 2005 Charlie Rose interview. The two of them sound like they share a brain.

While there are certain structural advantages, I just think it's unwise to poach sitting senators in purple states.  Yeah, Casey won with 60% in 2006 and Rendell could appoint another Democrat in Casey's stead, but how likely would that replacement be able to hold onto the office?  As a partisan Democrat, I want the power of incumbency to keep Democratic senators in the purple states (and for the same idea I'm against Jim Webb as VP).

And cypess nails why it won't be Obama-Warner. Without Mark Warner, Dems almost certainly do not pick up the Senate seat that John Warner is vacating.

However, I don't think an Obama-Kaine ticket is beyond the realm of possibility. Kaine sounds even more like he shares Obama's brain; he's a Catholic who speaks fluent Spanish; he's done a lot of foreign missionary work; and he's actually a more charismatic speaker than Warner. He has strong Midwestern roots, but he also won a tough race in Virginia three years ago.

Wouldn't be my first choice for a VP candidate (though he might be my first choice for VP if he didn't have to face an election to get there, sort of like how Biden would have been my man if there weren't an election in November), but if you want Warner's virtues without costing Democrats a Senate seat, Kaine might be your guy.

cypess is right in that the major dilemma for Obama will be whether he wants to risk tipping the Senate.  Mark Warner is poised to pick up a seat in VA from John Warner (R).  Biden's, Webb's, Casey's, or McCaskill's seat could easily go red or at least be costly to keep in the D column and those particular Senators are too inexperienced, with the obvious exception of Biden.  Biden may be close enough to retiring from the Senate that he'd not be a bad choice.  Dodd too, even though CT has a Republican governor.

Democratic govs?  Bredesen and Sebelius are possibilities.  The other D govs are too new in office (Imagine an all black ticket with Patrick!)  Schweitzer would be an interesting pick.  So would Shaheen, but they are from small states.

House Dems?  Not a deep bench.  I can only dream of Rahm Emmanuel.    Jane Harman?

Other prominent Dems?  Richardson supposedly brings Hispanics but I don't see it.  He's an obvious short-lister though.  John Edwards too.

My short list for Obama would be Biden, Warner, Richardson in that order.

And as much as this PA Dem likes Casey, primarily for knocking off the odious Sanctum Santorum, I don't have ANY sense that he's ready on day 1 or 101 for that job.  Politically, maybe, maybe smart, but would really not work for an Obama who actually cares about such things...Richardson is way better, maybe Biden.

Thanks Rhubarbs.

While I have been thinking that Obama needs to shore up his 'foreign policy' experience (a.k.a. old white male DC-insider senator) you're right that a popular purple state politician may be more important.  

Kaine is a good idea... especially if VA has term limits, then Kaine needs a next job anyway.

Thanks stgla.  

As for House members, I thought Reyes would be an interesting idea - he's a Texas Hispanic who's head of House Intelligence.

In any case, I think Obama can repudiate some of the 'dream team' naarishkeit coming from the Hillary crew by choosing a talented female politician who could conceivably run in '16.  

Since it looks like I'm far from alone in my Bidenophilia, do other Biden-backers think he's capable of not sticking his foot in Obama's mouth in some fatal way if he's named the VP? For a long time, Biden has been the Democrat I most want to be president, but also one of the Democrats I'm most afraid to put on a national ticket. His past career has shown an absolutely monumental gap between his core competence in office and his abilities as a campaigner. Are you more confident in his ability to run a good national general-election campaign than I am, and if so, what am I missing?

Here's my basic problem with the Warner analysis. You're thinking about now, not about 2016. Biden may seem like an okay today, but he is never going to be president. Warner's the obvious choice, because once Obama's off the table, he has the best shot at being the next democratic president. That's why Biden, Webb, and even Sebelius are lesser choices in the end. The VP pick has to be about prioritizing the future. Think about how much better off we'd all be if Gore had picked Edwards back in 2000?  

As for the senate senate seat, would it be illegal for Warner to leave his name on the ballot? I'm not sure.

cypess, Virginia has a one-term limit on governors. So Kaine will be out of a job after the 2009 state elections with no obvious place to go. He seems to be both highly ambitious and exactly the kind of relatively young talent Democrats need more of on the national scene, but Virginia's constitution puts him in a tough spot.

However, if Kaine were elected VP, Virginia would revert to a Republican governorship. (And if that happens, our Republican lt. gov. would be kicking himself, because he just renounced his own gubernatorial ambitions and instead declared he would run again for lt. gov. in '09.)

(Oh, and in case you're wondering, Virginia elects its governor and lt. gov. independently, not as part of a ticket. So we have a Repub lt. gov. because the Republicans won that race separately from the governorship, not because Kaine picked a Repub running mate.)

Rhubarbs, re: Biden.

You've highlighted (highlit?) the key issue with VP - campaigning vs. competency.  Only since '92 have we considered the VP a real job. Gore was to be a co-president (even if he turned out to be a third wheel to Hillary) and we all know that Cheney is more than Bush.  But VPs historically have gone to either party-favorite runners-up (e.g. LBJ, GHWB) or coalition builders (FDR's Gardner - who remarked about how useless he felt).  

Biden is a good, experienced DC hand but a terrible campaigner.  And that's the most important thing a VP needs to be (aside, of course, for being capable of stepping into the Oval Office in an emergency).  

By the way. Obama can't run with Biden and be the future and not from Washington.

Rhubarbs said: "one-term limit on governors"

Thanks for the info.  I didn't know that (and it seems draconian).  

"However, if Kaine were elected VP, Virginia would revert to a Republican governorship"

OK, so that'd be a bad thing.  

All in all, after seeing these weird state dynamics, I think Obama would be best in choosing a VP from a former politician from a purple state or if necessary a sitting politician from a true-blue state.  

The 'true-blue' is hard to come by if we want to balance the ticket.  Even Dodd isn't from true-blue because the gov. is GOP.  

Rhubarbs,

I'm also a pretty big Bidenophile (grew up in Wilmington).  I don't think the foot-in-mouth factor matters as much as you think.  It's certainly not why he failed in his presidential bids.  Biden says what he thinks, and people generally appreciate that, to the extent that they're usually willing to overlook the occasional comment that doesn't come out right.  When people are asked what factors they want in elected officials, "says what he means and means what he says" comes in at or near the top of the list.  If Obama can weather Wright, he can weather anything Joe would ever say.

At any rate, if you were to make a list of things Obama would want in a VP, "silver-tongued campaigner" would be pretty far down.  Things like experience, foreign policy cred, general competence/knowledge, affiliation with a swing state, and demographic factors are probably more strategically important, which is why I think Biden and Richardson are viable, and probably my top two personal choices .  I'm not totally sure which of the two I would prefer, although Richardson seems more valuable from a strategic perspective.

""Don't worry about white working-class defections. Bob Casey is going to help me lock down that demographic, and we're not going to have trouble holding this state." "

Yeah, cause that worked so well with all the other endorsements locked down. Obama's history of endorsements has demonstrated only how meaningless they are.

To say nothing of what you shrug off--if Casey can't help him win the primary, how on earth are you dim enough to think it's a code to reassure Dems about the general?

And a "yes" to the idiocy of your suggesting that Obama should pick a single term Senator with less experience than he has. Lord, I sometimes wonder what exactly you did to get this job, and who played the part of Elliot Spitzer.

jmkerr

" Lord, I sometimes wonder what exactly you did to get this job, and who played the part of Elliot Spitzer."

Why is this necessary to say? There was a decent conversation going and it did not need to be marred with crude bile.

And it's a myth that "Obama's history of endorsements has demonstrated only how meaningless they are."  

First of all, look at the data as to how Obama did in a state before the endorsement and after it.  I've heard many people say, for example, that Kennedy's endorsement didn't help in Massachusetts because he 'lost' the state.  Except that no state is winner take all. The endorsement - among who knows how many other factors - seemed to close the gap from 20 points to about 10.   Those 10 points didn't 'win' the state but got him a bunch of delegates.  5? 8?  And that's the currency of the campaign.

Second of all, endorsements matter to certain constituencies.  And the most important constituency right now - for both camps - are the super-delegates.  The more supers who go over to one side, the easier it is for the mob to follow.  And especially when Casey broke neutrality to go to Obama, this is a very big deal.

I guess what I'm saying, jmkerr, is that I for one don't appreciate nasty comments on the TNR boards.  But also if you *must* be nasty, at least try to be correct.

jmkerr aside, I am starting to buy arsonplus's arguments for M. Warner as a running mate.  The point about not being able to talk about changing Washington with a DC insider on the ticket is a good one.  Tim Kaine could run for the Senate seat but he'd had have to leave the governor's office early, which I don't see him doing.

(btw, VA gov term limit is on consecutive terms, so there was a lot of speculation about Mark Warner running again to replace Kaine).  

I don't think Tim Kaine would be as strong nationally as Mark Warner.  The only problem with Obama Warner is lack of foreign policy experience.  Warner would be a good person to replace Vice President Biden in a second Obama term if Biden has "health problems."

I always wondered whether Wes Clark would switch teams, so to speak, if Hillary lost and be willing to interview for the Veep spot.  It's hard to imagine Obama recruiting die-hard Camp Hillary supporters though.  But General Clark would be a nice addition to Obama on the ticket.  

Oh, and one comment about superdelegates...

I live in Connecticut.  According to the Times (politics.nytimes.com/.../CT.html) there were 48 delegates at stake.  353,515 people voted.  That means, roughly, that each delegate is worth 7365 voters.  In this simple experiment, then, a super-delegate from my state counts as much as 7365 people.  Each gives a delegate.  

That's another reason why each super-D carries immense weight.

In light of the increasing likelihood of McCain-Romney, I wonder why no one here is talking about the Obama-Bloomberg possibility.  Bloomberg was initially for Iraq, though he agrees with Dems for the most part right now.  Particularly if the economy stays front and center, he helps to immunize Obama from some of the inevitable Romney attacks.  Added bonus: Bloomberg as VP should help to shore up the Jewish vote and put to rest questions about Obama's pro-Israel bona fides.

That said, I like Biden better.  I liked how he campaigned and debated.  And there's no question that he helps Obama against McCain's attacks on foreign policy inexperience.  I wouldn't worry about whether having a DC insider hurts Obama's change message.  In the end it's going to be hard to find someone with  "experience," particular FP experience, who is simultaneously not a DC insider.

thetraytiger, I like bloomie too, but just don't see the call for him with party regulars

Yeah, if only Joe Biden were also a Latino governor instead of a very Anglo career senator.

And thanks to stgla for clarifying the VA term limit -- I hadn't found an elegant way to describe that. There have been recent examples of governors serving a term, sitting out a term, and then serving another term. Virginia politics is getting a bit more crowded at the top, making that sort of thing less likely, but it is still possible.

"There was a decent conversation going and it did not need to be marred with crude bile."

Crude bile? You don't spend much time around this site, do you?

I just am amazed at what occurs for "punditry" these days, so occasionally I wonder if something other than expertise got some folks the job.

Noam makes the case here . I don't disagree with any of his arguments, but I think the possibility

Biden has no charisma

Jews vote only in states (except Florida) that Obama has and probably will carry or it will be a McGovern rout in the general

Forget about Casey, Kennedy or anyone else shoring up the HRC core constituency for Obama.  I just was doing some registration in NW Indiana today... What a down at the heels bombed out place. And what a core electorate!  Dour, sour and as my husband said, scared.  They seem like truly uneducated know nothings without any minds to change... I'm sorry but I've done a lot of precinct work in my time, but this is a really sorry lot.  They come across like the types that would sign up for the nearest Brown Shirt party if given half a chance.  There is no way on God's tawdry earth (and that's what that neck of the woods sure looks like) that they are ever going to vote for a Black man if Jesus himself were on the ticket with him  And if that is the future of the Democratic Party with might as well start the funeral mass right now.