I've been making this argument for a month.

I find it OFFENSIVE that people are claiming that Hillary wins so-called "Reagan Democrats". That is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. It's based on several faulty premises:

[Myth 1: Bill Clinton won Reagan Democrats!] No he didn't! He won a sliver of them, but they went to Perot. 1996 was a low turnout election and Bill Clinton still didn't break 50%.

[Myth 2: There are no loyal working class white Democrats left on earth] This is also false! There are plenty of working class white Democrats. Some are liberal, some are conservative, but there a millions who are loyal Democrats (they vote for Democrats every year). They trend older than other Democrats. Hillary is winning these Democrats.

[Myth 3: Hillary is the party's only hope to bring back the Reagan Democrats] Absurd!!!! In 1994, the Reagan Democrats ran kicking and screaming away from Bill Clinton (though arguably, it was away from her) into the arms of Republicans. This was the final reallignment where Reagan Democrats basically became Republicans for life in federal elections.

The only "Reagan Democrats" that Hillary is collecting are racists who have temporarily alligned themselves with her during this primary (for obvious reasons). Does anyone think these people won't come home to McCain in the General Election, when Hillary is defined by the Republicans as a phony?

Hillary is just a bad idea on the ticket, period.

As another Virginian, I've got to second the first's argument, but also add that the two of them are NOT going to win working class whites any more than McCain will.  They're too bubbled and faux (Chevas Regal for crying out loud!) and will be shot full of holes by left handed Mauser rifles (that were never made).  The last paragraph of virginiacenterist's comment is totally correct, and the flip side is that Obama has been collecting sexists.  Keep them apart!

Can anyone point out a #2 in modern times who has swung an election let alone a single state? I know it is hard to measure exactly, but working backwards, Edwards (no), Cheney (probably not), Lieberman (no), Kemp (no), Gore (probably not), Quayle (no), Ferraro (no), Bush I (no). I just think the idea of a #2 helping in any real electoral way on the basis of geography is not supported by a shred of evidence. Obama should pick the best person for the job, period. I have been a Clinton supporter so I am very biased, but I think he could accomplish one important thing by choosing her: he would lend real credence to the notion that he is truly "beyond partisan." What better way to prove to the world that he is other than to pick his arch enemy to be his running mate. I also happen to think one can make a real argument based on her historically strong showing in these primaries that she is the best qualified for the job. Indeed, if it were not for Obama's freakishly strong talent as a politician, she would be the candidate. She is the choice of nearly 50% of Democratic voters. With all that, he would have an easy time selling the public. After all, the job of the Vice President is to be there to run the country if the President cannot. Who better to do that than the person who was a hair-length from winning the nomination? I would be saying the very same thing if there was no such thing as proportional primary voting and HRC was the likely nominee looking for a #2.

Noam, it's not that I think this analysis is wrong, but that there is so much bitterness in this race that the primary job for Obama is to de-sour the party.  I think (most of) Obama's supporters have a tin ear as to how they came off in this election -- they called everyone who voted for Hillary either a racist or an idiot.  

That said, how about this: don't make Hillary veep, make Bill your pre-election pick for secretary of state.  This would give Bill a chance to repair the damage done to his reputation and further his legacy (solve Iraq!  Israel-Palestine!)  And at a time when we need all the foreign policy prestige we can get, it's not a bad pick on the merits either.  

As for veep, play it safe, get the gravitas, go with Biden.  

Eweiss -- but I think Gore did help Clinton -- a "reinforcement" pick of youth + intelligence.  And while Quayle and Ferraro may not be the main reasons behind their nominee's win/loss/loss, I think they had a definite effect.  

lymon, I agree it is hard to measure. My point was really that that the impact of the VP on the electoral map based geography is minimal to non-existant and the overall impact is low.

Gore did carry Tennessee for Clinton in '92 and '96.  Before that, it probably was way back in 1960 (Johnson carried Texas for Kennedy) that a VP choice made the difference in carrying his home state.

That notwithstanding, I think Strickland would be a terrific choice this year. Ohio is once again the principal swing state, and he is generally popular there.

It ain't going to happen because Michelle Obama is not going to let it happen. It doesn't really matter what anyone of us thinks.

If it were possible the best choice would be Al Gore, if he would accept.

naomi, Strickland is completely unknown outside of Ohio. I think it is better for him not to choose anyone most people say "who?"

Naomi, yes Clinton carried TN in 92 and 96, but it could be argued that he would have anyway. Hard to know, but it was certainly not a game changer the way that Webb or Warner carrying VA or Nunn carrying GA would be.

Doesn't mater . If Clinton wans a VP , she'll get it. It's not up to Obama.

There is no reason for her to concede nomination. People who hate her are not going to hate her more. She has nothing to lose.

Would Sam Nunn really carry Georgia? He hasn't won a statewide election there since 1990.

Anyway, Webb barely carried Virginia for Webb in 2006, and his popularity hasn't exactly soared since. He has a 47 percent approval rating, 41 percent disapproval. Webb probably would not make a difference for Obama in Virginia. Warner might make a difference, but he's already on the ballot across the commonwealth, and if anything his coattails for Obama will be larger as a candidate for Senate than they would be as VP. Warner's lead in the Senate race right now is commanding enough that he may be able to devote much of his campaign to a statewide vote-Democratic effort, which he would not be able to do if here were on the national ticket.

Peoples, please stop fantasizing about Webb and Warner as VP. Even if either one were a good choice for VP, it won't happen -- which doesn't matter because they are not, in fact, good choices this year.

If we're going to develop a fetish for successful red-state Dem governors, why can't we go ga-ga for Brad Henry? He's the whole package for Obama, he aspires to the presidency next decade, he's available this year. Obama-Henry: The Hopelahoma ticket!

"If we're going to develop a fetish for successful red-state Dem governors, why can't we go ga-ga for Brad Henry?"

Because he delivers zero EVs.  Certainly not blood-red OK.  Strickland should guarantee the most competitive 20 EVs out there.

eweiss, Tennessee is also pretty darn red.  Clinton won in '92 by less than 100,00 votes out of almost 2 million cast.  I think we can assume that he would not have carried it without Gore on the ticket.

Blackton, nobody knows Strickland outside of Ohio now.  But by November, they will.  Anyway, any ticket with Obama on it already has plenty of the "wow" factor going for it.  

Somebody solid, respectable, and from Ohio is what we need.    

Hopelahoma, yes, me likey.

Agreed on the VA veep sentiments.  Warner is far too valuable as a Senate seat pickup  and if this Childers-Cazayoux red-to-blue storyline develops as I think it will, he'll be a good posterboy for a blue tidal wave scare in the fall.  

I actually agree with two things I heard Huckabee say tonight. One, veeps are going to be exclusively about independant voter pull.  A solid red state dem's appeal (especially in the bible belt), is a bonus for Obama.  Two, there is such a thing as too much change to voters.  A woman or another minority sounds good to me as a veep, but I can get a latte at three places within two blocks of my home.  In stripmall land, I think we're still shooting the moon a little.  Henry is a good pick.  

HOWEVER, where is there a Brad Henry with foreign policy experience?  This is why I think the smart money is on Wes Clark.

Did anyone else think, despite the pundit praise, that Hillary phoned in her speech tonite? She was obviously reading most of it for the first time.

Maybe Henry doesn't deliver Oklahoma,  but I'd be willing to bet he could tip Missouri (SW Missouri is the key this year), might make the difference if Kansas is actually competitive, and if the Libertarians have anything to say about it, might make the difference in Georgia.  But maybe I'm too high on the Barr announcement today.

I really think that African American turnout is going to be THROUGH THE ROOF this year like we've never seen another voting bloc in any election.  It could throw some norms out of balance.

Lymonl: Good point. Here comes the Obama Brigade, snickering at the rubes. Doesn't seem to comport with the high - mindness of the Great One himself.

Rhubarbs: You are dead right. Webb's numbers aren't good. Plus, he is not a glad - hander at all. End of matter.

If you want Appalachian white voters, put Edwards on the ticket. But frankly, I don't think even that will work (and I would prefer to see him as AG but his sideline stance has cost him leverage). But I also don't think it is necessary. Bayh, Webb, or Richardson will boost his bonafides. In terms of making pre-election cabinet appointments, doesn't work that way, we'll get to know who wins that lottery in January. So healing the party this way won't work. But neither will putting her on the ticket, and her price in terms of appointing her loyal supporters to other positions will be high (she has a habit of trying to overplay her hand...)

VPs don't pick up votes. They increase the vote margin in their home state (possibly) by 3 points.

VPs get you 2 days of media coverage and they MAYBE help with your weaknesses as a candidate.

Wes Clark is my favorite - but he carries the risk of increasing Obama's Jewish problem.

Dick Morris makes a smart point in between excretions of venom: There are two kinds of people who backed