Reply #15: I'm sorry, but I've seen too many times (eg Dukakis 88) when the Dems have blown it ... [View All]

to be the least bit complacent or celebratory until the day AFTER the election. But it's good to see Obama gain.

A thought experiment: WHAT running mate raises Obama the MOST percent in the polls over McCain? What running mate, even if not that terribly well-known now (possibly Sen Stabenow of MI) WOULD over time boost Obama the most? The second question (which I saw in Obama relative to the other candidates back when he was polling way way behind HRC, including among African-American voters. I think of potential VPs like Sen Boxer of CA and Stabenow of MI who in various ways have at least the potential to significantly boost Obama's strength as the key, more than contemporary polls. Whoever is or are those electorally strongest nominees are worth the closest scrutiny.

A While THAT individual might not necessarily make the best VP or president, there are probably a very small number of potential VPs who would RAISE Obama's chances of winning the most, and surely in that group there are some great potential presidents (being better than McCain is arguably sufficient to support a nominee, but that approach gets tricky).

I am too worried about the prospect of McCain keeping the country in Iraq 'until we win' to have any desire to deviate sharply from that small group of potential candidates. I don't think Hillary Clinton is in that small group -- her baggage and her negatives/unpopularity for many (I'd have voted for her for president in a second against McCain if she'd gotten the nomination) are NOT going to go away soon -- but there are a number of candidates who at least MIGHT be:

Boxer
Stabenow
Sebelius
Napolitano
McAllister

males -- I think a female would VASTLY energize the ticket much more -- include:

Schweitzer
Webb
Strickland (though he's awfully DLC for my tastes, he might help
carry Ohio)
possibly Richardson (in my view, the strongest VP cand of Obama's
competitors in the primaries)

Lots of folk are pushing Clark, Nunn, and Hillary Clinton, all of whom would move the ticket significantly to the right without any corresponding political gain in my view. Some say Boxer would skew the ticket too far left, but I don't think that voters are as motivated on that issue, unless a candidate is like Kucinich (for whom I voted in 04 in MA after Kerry was already the presumptive nominee) or Pat Robertson. I am not particular impressed with how Edwards did as VP nominee in 04, especially in the debate.

Webb and Strickland both seem to turn towards the right ("center") but also involve potential political trade-offs. But I think the gestalt of a popular, extremely likeable candidate without serious baggage who has special appeal to a range of constituencies and who would generate enthusiasm especially in constituencies not already "fired up" for Obama is much more important.

Anyway, I do think it matters of progressives coalesce around a particular candidate, or more likely, a particular set of criteria.
My criteria are: someone who never supported the Iraq War Resolution, who would make a first-rate president (as good as Obama), and who is maximally electorally boosting. I strongly prefer a female, which also I think would be maximally electorally boosting. This is a year when a lot of people feel it's high time that we not only had a woman on the ticket, but a woman on the WINNING ticket, which surely Obama has at least an even shot at being, especially if his choice of VP is a political master stroke, and HOPEFULLY Hillary doesn't even try to force herself on the ticket (which is what she might very well be trying to do).