How 'bout vice president James Jones, the author of From Here to Eternity?

Bring him back to life, dammit.

Darn.  Now I can't get the image of a Vice President James Earl Jones out of my head.  I think he should run as a combination of the experienced national security expert of Tom Clancy's Harrison Ford-as-Jack Ryan movies, and the down-home misunderstood neighbor-who-likes-baseball in The Sandlot.  He should avoid being Darth Vader's voice at all costs.

The lesson of Wesley Clark in 2004 will carry over into 2008, I believe: no politically unvetted military men on the ticket.

Of course, the mentioning serves a lot of purposes other than finding a nominee -- appealing to various egos and constituencies.  But, what do you suppose Strickland and Kaine are doing on the list?  Is it because they are "ready Day One" to assume the presidency as Josh Cohn advocates?  Or might it be something else?

The only name that surprises me is Kerry.  That can only be for the purposes of vanity.  I don't think Sebelius is serious, not going to break two glass ceilings at once.  Just there so the Hillary is not conspicuous for being the only one.  I discount Bayh and Daschle as well.  Bill Nelson is a bridge too far.

The shorter list?  Clinton, Edwards, Strickland, Warner, Kaine, Webb, Reed, Biden, Dodd and Nunn.

There are three groups:  the military-f/p cred group -- Webb, Reed, Biden, Dodd, and Nunn.

The swing state group:  Webb, Warner, Kaine, and Strickland.

The national constituency group:  Clinton, Edwards.

Interesting to me that Webb fits in two, that Rendell is missing.  And where's the Hopaloma candidate?

If the polls that show Edwards giving a BIG boost in MI, OH, and PA are really solid, I pick Edwards.  If not, Webb as a two-fer.  Why?  Because if Obama can take MI, OH and PA, the election is a done deal.  If he can only take PA, he needs VA for sure.  Which way is Obama going to play it?

I agree with LR.  People with no experience campaigning are useless.

Thanks, roid. I learned my lesson in '04. With Jonathan Chait, I thought that Clark would be an attractive candidate , especially because he would insulate the Democrats against the perpetual Mau-Mauing by the Republicans on security and foreign policy issues. Campaign skills are hard-earned and don't come easily to the novices.

I had exactly the same experience with Clark for exactly the same reasons.  And when he was a total flop, I smacked myself in the head and said to myself, "Idiot.  What were you thinking?  Campaign skills are hard-earned and don't come easily to the novices."

Glad to see no Richardson.

Kerry?! I'm sorry, but no matter how much you might respect him on the merits, he'd have a Hillary Clinton-like effect on many Republicans ("Gee, I thought he was terrible 4 years ago -- I must have been right"). We need somebody N E W.

roid: I similarly smacked myself. I should have known that it was too good to be true. What looks good on paper does not necessarily translate well into the text that is the world.

Clinton, Kerry and Edwards are all on the list as a courtesy.  Strickland, Kaine and Bill Nelson are all there for purely geographic purposes; none is a Commander-in-Chief in waiting.  Ed Rendell and Bill Richardson are probably off the list for "personal" reasons.  Tom Daschle lost his last Senate race (as Dem leader, no less), and Sam Nunn last ran for office in 1990.  

Everyone has a different answer to the question, "what does Obama need in a running mate?" My two cents goes with, "the most boring, colorless man who is nonetheless a plausible president."  Evan Bayh is a smart choice, under the theory of "do no harm."  With Webb and Biden, each day brings with it the possibility of a verbal miscue (or, in Webb's case, a blunt force trauma to some journalist's question).  Bayh was a two-term governor of Indiana, and is in his 10th year as a U.S. Senator.  So: executive experience, knowledge of D.C., and proven ability to win as a Democrat in a red state.  Plus: he was a Hillary supporter, so he can be Obama's olive branch to the disenfranchised 18 million.  Generally seen as a centrist, but voted against both Roberts and Alito for the Supreme Court  (while eying his own run in '08).  Finally, he's a straight arrow, unless something has been exceptionally well-hidden back home in Indiana.

For Democrats, the only real downside is that Bayh has that rarest of assets: a safe Dem senate seat in a  still-Republican state.  (Mark Warner would also be a decent pick, but he's about to coast into what will be another safe Democratic senate seat in a red/purplish state.)

Jim Jones? Didn't we hear enough about kool-aid drinkers?

garyatlarge:

Good points about Bayh, but I think I see a potential problem with him. Picture it. Obama and Bayh. Two relatively young, slick, good-lucking guys. Isn't the whole thing a little ... TOO slick? Too charming? Wouldn't people write him as being in the line of Edwards and Quayle -- inoffensive, nice-looking, safe choices? This is totally unfair to Bayh, but I'm picturing that that would be the response.

I think he needs someone who more clearly signals: "the real deal." I'm thinking Biden (see today's TNR article).

The intangibles matter.

Gary,

Why do you think Kerry is there as a courtesy?  And why do you think "CIC in waiting" is Obama's criterion of choice?

The fact that Bayh and Warner could cost a senate seat is a big downside, although I assume the Kaine could appoint a Dem in VA.

I assume the reason no one is talking about Brad Henry in this article is that these are conversations on the Hill, where people are unlikely to have much contact with holders of such picayune offices as governor of states not contiguous to I-95.

I would add one category to roid's list: the "dammit, Obama likes them" category, which might include Webb, Kaine, Sebelius, Daschle, maybe Nunn, and maybe others above; folks with whom Obama has an ideological or personal affinity and believes he can work with them well and immediately.

Does a retired general really get credit for a swing state effect?  How many Missourians are going to know or care that Gen. Jones is from KC?  

And by the by, isn't the whole 'ready from Day One" thing a myth?  There really isn't any job in the world, Vice President included, that prepares one to be President.

No, roi, Warner would run for veep, not the Senate.  The Dems would have to find someone else to beat Jim Gilmore.  any homeless person in Alexandria would do.

And I don't give advice to Dems, but, jeez, a completely inexperienced VP to go with your lightly experienced Prez?  Really?  OK by me.

Rhubarbs, I think the reason Brad Henry isn't mentioned is because you aren't on VP selection team (their loss).  I think you've made a good case that he would be a solid choice, and Hopelahoma is certainly catchy, but I just haven't heard anybody else mention him at all.

Maybe it's the Obama team's best kept secret (I wouldn't put it past them), and, to be fair, if you wanted to get feedback from Oklahoma Democrats on Henry, the only person in Washington to talk to would be Dan Boren, who's currently trying to distance himself from Obama as much as possible.  www.politico.com/.../Another_nonendorsement.html

Assuming he is still alive, how about Tony Soprano?  He would solidify New Jersey for Obama.  His views on law and order will appeal to the libertarian crowd.  He might play well with social conservatives because he is pro life - well, unless you happen to have a gambling debt.  And, no one will question his views on national security.  Or anything else, if they know what's good for them.

I had meant to say, why assume Edwards is there as a courtesy since the are polls that show he gives the ticket a big pop in OH-MI-PA.  I wonder what the private polls are saying.

roi actually understates the polling results for Edwards.  The SUSA polls show him giving the ticket a boost pretty much everywhere, not just in OH-MI-PA.  And it's hard to argue that it's solely name recognition (although that's certainly part of it), given that he polls better than Rendell in PA, and about the same as Sebelius in KS.

That said, there are some major caveats to this.  First, Edwards has said he doesn't want to run for VP again, in pretty clear terms.  Second, the number of people that *say* the VP pick will affect their vote is probably much bigger than the number of people whose vote it actually affects.  I just don't think it's realistic to think that VP picks can lead to 10-20% swings in the vote.  The problem is that it's hard to gauge what the actual effects are until after you've made the pick (and even then it's difficult).

It is a conundrum, Alan, as to whether Edwards reallly can give Obama a boost.  I certainly find it counter-intuitive, but I could be persuaded by some clever polls designed to winkle out peoples intentions.

I think Edwards would in the end be willing to be Obama's VP if he thought they would win together and if he had the expectation of and important role in the administration.  He would also anticipate running for president in 2016.  He would be 63, hardly too old (and he might by then not look like he is 35).

The kind of polls you would have to do would be some deep polling about how people intend to make their choice of whom to vote for.

It's one thing to be William Jennings Bryan or Adlai Stevenson and run for president again and again. It's kind of sad, but there's a certain dignity in it too. But running for VP again and again? No thanks. Edwards would look weak if he took the VP spot again, and that would be bad for Obama. He needs a VP pick who makes people say, "Yeah!" not "Huh."

Also, I wonder if my own ideas about Obama needing a "reassurance" VP to balance his lack of executive and foreign-policy experience are really so smart. After all, such a VP would begin to look like he'd be taking over Dick Cheney's role, and I'm not sure that's a message Obama would want to send, even implicitly. If I were Obama, I'd be looking to minimize any expectations of vice presidential involvement in the administration -- we've just had a powerful VP, and even Republicans mostly no longer think the experiment has been a success. Maybe Obama needs more of a "backup" VP than a "partner" VP, which would auger against using the VP slot too openly to complement Obama's own weaknesses.

It's one thing to be William Jennings Bryan or Adlai Stevenson and run for president again and again. It's kind of sad, but there's a certain dignity in it too. But running for VP again and again? No thanks. Edwards would look weak if he took the VP spot again, and that would be bad for Obama. He needs a VP pick who makes people say, "Yeah!" not "Huh."

Also, I wonder if my own ideas about Obama needing a "reassurance" VP to balance his lack of executive and foreign-policy experience are really so smart. After all, such a VP would begin to look like he'd be taking over Dick Cheney's role, and I'm not sure that's a message Obama would want to send, even implicitly. If I were Obama, I'd be looking to minimize any expectations of vice presidential involvement in the administration -- we've just had a powerful VP, and even Republicans mostly no longer think the experiment has been a success. Maybe Obama needs more of a "backup" VP than a "partner" VP, which would auger against using the VP slot too openly to complement Obama's own weaknesses.

I know this will sound heretical to our resident political scientists, but sometimes you don't need polls; you just need common sense.  For example, neither Richardson nor Rendell will be veep candidate because two "exotics", an African-American and a Latino or an African-American and a Jew, would be considered too steep a gradient.  Ditto for Sibelius and Napolitano.  Edwards is highly unlikely because he was a flop the first time he did it and doesn't want to repeat the experience.  Brad Henry is invisible, and Kerry is a joke.  I think roid's "military-f/p cred" and "swing state" groups constitute the current likely universe of veep candidates.  Those groups pointedly do not include Hillary.  If I were a betting man,I would place a wager on Webb.

rhubarbs,

Your comment about running twice for VP is exactly what had me thinking that the benefit of an Edwards candidacy was "counter-intuitive."  It is, and I am suspicious of the meaning of those polls showing Edwards giving Obama a big boost.  But you and I are not the target audience.  The fact that my instant reaction is, "Huh?" doesn't mean that that is the general public response.  Those poll results have to at least be taken seriously.  If I were Obama, I would be doing plenty of my own polling to try to figure this out, and if I became convinced that the Obama/Edwards phenomenon was real and likely to endure, I would swallow my Huh and go with it.  I would say the same in response to JackR.  I'm not saying that Edwards would work, but I would sure as hell want to know what those polls mean.  Sometimes common sense is wrong and you have to be willing to accept at least strong evidence that it is wrong.

Edwards didn't flop the first time.  Gore/Edwards won the election, despite Clinton fatigue.  Scaliia thought otherwise.  If Obama hadn't come along, the not Hillary sentiment would have coalesced around Edwards and I don't know what the outcome of that would have been.  I can see it going either way.

espencef,

I agree with your "dammit I like them" group, but I don't think that is going to matter in the end.  Nice for him and them to contemplate, not going to miss a campaign opportunity for love.

Well, one other point about the "dammit I like them" group; sometimes a candidate can gain a little integrity cred for being perceived as saying "screw the calculations, I want X as my running mate".  I've wondered of Bill Clinton got a little such bump for picking Al Gore in '92.  Mind you, most of the folks on that list have other potential pluses to them so it wouldn't be quite such a surprising stroke as '92.  

roid, I see your point, and you're probably right, except this: Gore/Edwards never won anything. That was Gore/Lieberman. Edwards was on the ticket in 2004, and that ticket just plain lost.

But I admire your ability to airbrush Joementum out of the 2000 race. It takes a hell of a lot of bourbon for me to get to that particular happy place.

Thank you rhubarbs.  The conflation of wish with reality.  Memory is such a forgiving thing, especially at my rapidly advancing middle age.  I really am trying to forget that Holy Joe even exists.

Okay, Edwards was a flop in that he couldn't rescue Kerry (who could have).  But, despite that, one has to respect strong evidence that the broad voting public thinks otherwise, however odd that may seem.

My apologies for wasting your time jogging my memory.

I was an Edwards supporter in 2003-4 and again in 2007 until about November when I converted to Obama.  I was delighted when Kerry picked him for his running mate but was ultimately disappointed with his performance.  He couldn't carry his home state of North Carolina; his loss in the debate with Cheney was ignominious;   he made no noticeable impact in the rural areas of the South and Midwest in which he campaigned.  The word "flopped" is supported by the facts.  Moreover, he does not appear to be hungry for a return engagement.  "Been there, done that" refers not just to him but to the rest of us.

Just a quick thought on Obama's VP deliberations per yesterday's post on all the people being

So, jackR, what do you make of this RCP polls that show Edwards giving Obama a big boost?  I'm not suggesting you should  be persuaded by them, I am very wary, but what do they mean?

Surprised I haven't seen anywhere on the TNR domain anything about Strickland's channeling of his inner Amy Winehouse ("they're telling me to run for VP, and I say no, no, no")...