Because I am feeling particularly stubborn (just work with me) today, I will reiterate my thought for a great veep - Senator Russ Feingold.

He shores up Wisconsin (and probably cements MN as well).  He was against the war.  He is a true progressive, but with an independent streak.  He actually has a few thoughts regarding that funny little document called the Constitution.  He is a terrific campaigner, with some of the best ads in the business.  He is connected to the voters in ways that most politicians can hardly fathom (his annual listening sessions in every county in Wisconsin), which blunts the facile 'elitist' charge that the Republicans always trot out against the Democrats in the general.  He knows his way around foreign policy.  Actually has a very good legislative track record.  He is also outstanding in debates (something that John Edwards was not, at least during his Veep days.)

I know, I know.  He has no chance, but I can dream, can't I.  

If not veep, than at least make him AG.

David Brooks has a small business in disinformation for Democrats.  Anything that he suggests for the ostensible benefit of the Democratic party, you can be sure it is drop-dead wrong.

One name I haven't seen floated here much is LEE HAMILTON, an early Obama supporter and a Democrat who personifies the bipartisan message of his campaign. I doubt he'd be a thrilling campaigner, but his bona fides (particularly as it relates to 9/11, Iraq and homeland security) are impeccable. Like Biden (still my first choice), he's serious, extremely well regarded by his colleagues and has long ties to the Hill. And you could do worse than put someone from a swing state on the ticket.

Pardon my asking, but isn't Nunn older than the Blue Ridge by now?

(Oops, I forgot.)

John McCain would be a great running mate for Obama.

roidubouloi-

I agree that the judgement of David Brooks is not to be trusted (for a variety of reasons), but I think Sam Nunn could be a brilliant choice for VP: a white southerner with military/stars-and-stripes-street-cred and vast foreign policy experience, who also opposed the Iraq war.

As for Michael Crowley's suggestion that Nunn is lacking "on the politics-and-campaigning side," I agree that SM is no Mr. Charisma, but Obama has enough charm and poise and oratory skill for an entire ticket (if not an entire party).

I also like Webb, but he is deficient in an exactly the same realm as Obama: experience. Nunn, on the other hand, brings to the table exactly what BHO lacks, and lacks exactly what BHO has in abundance.

So: Obama/Nunn in November sounds strong to me.

I dunno, Joseph.  I don't think it is a terrible idea, but I don't see that it is likely to help gain any votes which is exactly why Brooks thinks it is a good idea.  It would make people who support Obama feel better about it, and make people who will support the Democratic nominee come what may but have reservations about Obama feel better about it.  But I don't quite see what constituencies move Obama's way.  And, he is too old to be a credible successor.

The prospect of a President Milquetoast Daschle does not leave me sanguine.  I'm not sure Brooks is truly trying to be helpful.

roidubouloi-

I think Sam Nunn would strengthen Obama where he is most vulnerable, with white southern voters, white rural and working class voters, and voters who worry over Obama's lack of experience. Nunn would be, in that respect, a kind of couterweight to McCain, undermining the GOP argument that their nominee is more tough militarily, more vetted in terms of foreign policy knowledge, more seriously prepared to deal with the wide, dangerous world.

No one in the GOP could convincingly argue that Sam Nunn lacks such serious preparation, such knowledge, such toughness in the military/foreign policy realm.

Which makes it easier, I think, for Obama to make the case that the administration's adventure in Iraq has weakened us--and not, as McCain argues, that BHO is weak on defense. No one could credibly argue that Nunn is weak on defense, and his own opposition to the Iraq war lends a certain kind of credibility to Obama's own foreign policy positions.

As for being too old to be a credible successor, I don't see this as an issue. VPs almost never succeed a sitting president (except via some crisis, like an assassination). And so I don't think voters would look to Nunn as a potential successor to Obama in, say, 2016. They would only need to feel confident that SN could step in during a crisis and more than competently fill the void.

Why are you guys so obsessed with the war? Isn't it good to have Saddam Hussein gone?

I don't disagree, Joseph, I just doubt whether the right voters in the right places will be moved.  Obama isnt going to win Mississippi, with or without Sam Nunn.  Bill Clinton also showed us that, "It's the economy, stupid."  I also question just how important f/p really is to a presidential election.

I read Brooks' piece again.  It is his usual bit of anti-Democratic party venom dressed up as "advice" that is supposed to sound measured and rational to the crowd that is consistently taken in by him.  Thus, he begins opining that an Obama administration would be a "Potemkin village" in which all the powers that be in DC run him around in circles while he makes speeches.  But, have no fear, by ignoring the electoral impact of the VP choice and picking some elder who knows the ways of Washington for VP, all this can be avoided.

Nonsense and extreme stupidity, as is usual with Brooks.  (I used to write him e-mails asking him whether he was really Jewish because I couldn't believe anyone really Jewish could say so many stupid things.)  It is not the VP's job to shepherd legislation through Congress.  There are congressional leaders who are expected to do that.  Nor is it the VPs job to be the president's top military or security adviser.  It would be great to have a knowledgeable VP who can give sound advice from a broad perspective, but the president is not short of opportunities to appoint great and distinguished advisers and executives regardless of what the VP is asked to do.

What Brooks is really doing, as is his custom, is trying to level withering criticism without being seen to do it.  His real point is to say that Obama is as stupid and incompetent as Bush and therefore needs a Dick Cheney.  But no one could be as stupid and incompetent as Bush.  Certainly not a gifted writer and orator who has been a professor of law at the Univ of Chicago.  Try imagining Bush in that job for a second.  Try imagining Cheney for that matter.

Like I said, if Brooks says it, odds are long that the Democrats should do the opposite.

roidubouloi-

I don't disagree that David Brooks is not worth listening to (or, for that matter, reading).

And, yes, I agree that we shouldn't allow someone stupid or manipulative or shallow (ie, Brooks) to influence our decisions. But when we automatically reject whatever that inane person says, aren't we still allowing that person to influence us?

I would suggest, instead, that we simply ignore David Brooks, roidubouloi, and evaluate Obama's possible VP choice on their own merits. And when we do so, I think it is clear that BHO needs to do what countless other presidential nominees in the past have done with their VP selections: balance the ticket.

In the case of Obama, the balance is rather obvious: he needs to pick a VP who is southern, who is white, who is convincingly knowledgeable and experienced, especially in the f/p realm (I think given the horrors that Bush has bequeathed to us, f/p experience is an absolute necessity), and who, as a consequence of said knowledge and experience, chose to oppose the Iraq war. Sam Nunn fits that description. I imagine there are others as well.

one more thing, roidubouloi-

You write: "I also question just how important f/p really is to a presidential election."

One potential problem for Obama--and it could be a huge one--is that McCain is trying to paint him as soft or naive when it comes to dealing with our enemies. This is a meme that GOP candidates have used to great effect for several decades now, in election after election after election. (There is already a Republican campaign, for instance, to paint BHO as another George McGovern, another spineless peace candidate.)

A tough, knowledgeable, experienced VP like Sam Nunn would help blunt McCain's argument, and perhaps even turn it on its head, especially if said VP nominee opposed the Iraq war (and favors diplomacy) for hard-headed, practical reasons, reasons that have to do with making us safer, stronger, and more secure.

There is no doubt, Joseph, that Nunn would blunt that important theme of McCain's.  I'm just not sure whether the outcome anywhere turns on doing so.  Maybe.  Maybe not.

I think Brooks, in his devious way, essentially made that point when he started out by saying that the VP pick is not a political campaign decision, because it has no impact, but a "governance decision"  - hence pick Nunn, for example.  I think what Brooks observes is that Nunn won't help the Obama campaign so he would like to influence the decision in that direction.  I actually agree with Brooks about that, but I know that his advice is not well-intended, particularly as it comes wrapped in a whole lot of unfounded attacks that Brooks, as is typical, dresses up as just his "musings about things."

Remember, the Repugs tried the same shtick with "draft-dodging Bill" and it didn't take.  Nunn might be able to accomplish just as much for the campaign if he were a forceful surrogate.  Zinni could too.  It is not necessarily the case that someone needs to be the VP candidate to do so.

roidubouloi-

I agree with you about Brooks and his nefarious intentions, but I don't think a nominee's (unoffficial) surrogate would be able to take the sting out of a GOP attack the way that nominee's VP might.

A voter votes for the VP (and the nominee), not the surrogate (or any surrogate).

Which is to say, the VP represents the nominee in a way that no one else does, except of course the nominee himself (or herself).

I'm not sure Nunn is a useful VP candidate--how long has it been since he's had much public profile beyond those hardcore junkies who read and comment on sites like this?  (He was once my senator, and I don't even remember how long ago that was.)  Seems more like a cabinet pick here.