First of all, it's evident from recent history that military cred does not help in national elections. In 1992, Clinton beat Bush Sr. In 1996, Clinton beat Bob Dole. In 2000, Bush Jr. beat McCain for the GOP nomination. In 2004, Kerry lost.

Secondly, I question how much Obama needs the votes of the people Webb would attract. I am of the opinion that the term "Reagan Democrats" is a lie; a more accurate term would be "Clinton Republicans". A certain kind of Republican made an exception for Clinton, just as we see this year that there are certain Republicans that are willing to make an exception for Obama. But they're not the same Republicans. Obama should play to his strengths and shore up his support among this new constituency, who are disillusioned by Bush and inspired by Obama's message of change (and, for the most part, aren't Southern and hate the Clintons). We saw what happened when Kerry tied himself in knots trying to get every single last vote. You want Obama to go goose hunting?

Part of the problem the Democrats have had is a confused brand; they're against Republican policies, sure, but what are they FOR? They've been trying to be all things to all people. Clinton managed to find his own brand, and we should let Obama find his. He has already flown in the face of conventional wisdom, and will continue to do so. He will win the White House without the South, but only if the Clintons and the McAuliffes and the Carvilles get out of his way and let him do his own thing.

My pick for VP is Richardson. He's got the executive and foreign policy experience Obama lacks and will help carry the Latino vote. That will put him over the top.

Obama may or may not need the votes of Appalachia. I don't know, I'm not a pundit who handicaps elections like they are cockfights.

A more interesting question, however, is whether or not Appalachia needs Obama. Webb made a good point a few weeks ago in a television interview when he said that there is a natural coalition to be created between poor african americans and poor whites based on each group's enconomic insecurities. But since Jim Crow ended, the Republicans have successfully managed to pit these two groups against each other by emphasizing their differences rather than their similarities.

So if you care about anything except Our Guy Winning, you would likely want to see rural white folks come into the Democratic fold. Their livelihood depends on it.

We have zillions of pundits talking about what Looks Good for the Democratic party. It would be nice to delve deeper and decide what's actually in the best interest of voters.

A big 'no' on Richardson for VP. What kind of foreign policy experience are you referencing, Kalaresh? He was basically your run of the mill ignorant China-hater until Clinton gave him posts. Then, he was disloyal--but not enough to help Obama, he didn't say, campaign in Texas for Obama, just wishy-washy disloyal. Yes, he kisses Keith Olberman's large rump--perhaps because his is also large, but what good is that? I am a Clinton supporter who would like her as VP, but yes, would accept some other would-be populist. But, not BR. He would be a slap in the face to Clinton-supporters; and what states would he really bring in, since his own is pretty much like neighbor AZ isn't it? .

Real Slim K:

He would be a slap in the face to Clinton-supporters.

Ah, but they could use a good, bracing backhand--"Fall in line and get with the program--it ain't about you any more!"

Good post, Kalaresh.

You could TRY back-handing me, and You would get your own large posterior kicked, hellz. (a reference no doubt to your fave little boys metal band AC/DC, right? Typical). How many millions of Clinton supporters are the (dumbest but again typical) Obama supporters willing to flip off for no reason? Not very 'reach across the aisles to bring us together' like your empty suit says, is it? You DO know that the U.S. presidential election come November is NATIONAL right? You try to win the most votes, including people who are not like you. Maybe they don't even like AC/DC (or even heavy metal). Maybe they are thin. Maybe they like country music. Maybe they like jazz or even big band. Do you ever think of how your insult-stuff goes over with them? Why not? Aren't you really saying, hellz, that it SHOULD be all about YOU?

jordon: Appalachia does need Obama, but they're on a learning curve; assuming Obama wins and lives up to his potential, they'll get it by 2012. They need to be convinced, and pandering to them via VP selection isn't going to help.

Slim K: Your post reflects exactly what is wrong with the Clinton mind-set. You place a huge premium on loyalty. Loyalty has to be earned, and it can't take the place of competence or the best interests of the country. We've been putting up with that way of doing things from the Bush administration, and that's one of things that need changing. As for Richardson: what other plausible Democratic VP hopeful has been a governor, a Secretary of Energy, a UN ambassador, and a successful hostage negotiator?

Helzapoppin: Thanks.

Appalachia is on a "learning curve." Can they learn to be 'good enough' to support Obama? Or is their likely fate only to remain 'bitter' and looked down on by hypoctrical and short-sighted Obama fans? YOU be the judge...

As for 'earned loyalty' I was speaking of the dem party, not 'what we've been through the past 8 years.' I remain frankly stunned how often the Obama fans just lump the Clinton and Bush administrations into each other as if they are interchangeable. I believe it was Nader who called Bush and Gore "the choice between tweedle-dee and tweedle dum." Right? I'm tired of trying to educate you on this. You can remain ignorant and proud (of the accomplishments of the only 2-term dem present in the past 60 years). But you cannot say Hillary has not been loyal to the dem party. Not if you sincerely are trying to be accurate and fair.

Richardson is a non-starter as VP from the POV of Hillary supporters. Hillary did not win the nom, but she received more votes and delegates than any other 2nd place finisher in history. THAT deserves more than the backhand helzapoppin and you wish to bestow on her. MUCH more. She beat him in the most liberal states you know? Cal, MASS, NY. etc. I live in California. good state. liberal state. Gay marriage. We voted for Hillary--big time. Should you guys have "educated" us too?

I have stated that though I prefer her, I would accept another populist (with the potential national popularity of a Gore, etc.) though. That's not Richardson, no matter how many posts he's been given. Cheney had quite the active political life. Bad VP though.

Ah, once again we have devolved into a Hillary screed. The problem is that while Hillary can bring in some of the other Dems many will come along anyway but she is repugnant to most Reps. She probably can not even bring much of the Latin vote which would be a plus. Here you go, once and for all.. How about if we offer her Secretary of Education? We definitely need a new speaker of the house but I guess that's a seniority thing...

not sure if she would just prefer to stay NY Senator, but sure, you could ask. I personally think Feinstein would be better than Richardson if you want to go with a foreign policy person from out West who probably would not influence the rust/swing states back East very much. Plus, she has more charisma/is less the bureaucratic lifer.

If it's additonal votes you want, and you think Hillary takes too much guts, then it almost has to be Gore.

Well, maybe it does have to be Gore. He might well be the only guy everyone can agree on. Obama/Gore would be unstoppable -- and no, I'm not so Obama-struck as to not realize that Gore/Obama would make much more sense, and in fact that's the ticket I was hoping for a year ago. But the only way I can see Gore running is if it's a particularly messy convention delegate fight and he is drafted. You can't blame Gore for wanting to sit this mess out. Why he would take the VP slot again is beyond me.

I used to live in the Bay Area, and I can't say that "charismatic" is a word I would use to describe Feinstein. I'm actually puzzled that she's such a Hillary fan -- I would think that she would be resentful that the mantle of First Woman President would go to someone so much less deserving and experienced that she is. I respect Feinstein, but the point here is to find someone whose resume complements Obama's. Another senator is not the way to do that.

Back to your point about loyalty--Hillary said on the campaign trail, loud enough for everyone to hear, that John McCain would be a better commander-in-chief than Obama. Pelosi heard her say that, too, which is the reason she gives that an Obama/Clinton ticket cannot happen. Hillary purposely divided the party and encouraged her supporters to abandon it if she didn't get the nomination. That's all very well that's she's being a team player now, but the damage is done. We see how she acts under pressure; we see how disorganized she is, how disastrous her campaign was. You don't seem stupid--I really don't understand. How can you support this woman? How can you say she was robbed or done in by the media when 6 months ago everyone regarded her as inevitable? Hillary was handed the contest on a silver platter and she dropped it. Look, I was a Biden guy until he dropped out. I know Obama is not ideal. But how can you say, or support someone that would say, that he would be worse than four more years of the Iraq war and tax cuts and No Every Child Left Behind etc etc etc....

Come on: charismatic as compared to Bill Richardson. I stand uncorrected on that...

I suspect Gore could be convinced to take the VP slot again for the sake of winning the election; and to do that, we need peace between the 2 sides that feels respectful AND could mean votes in swing states; and with his experience for 8 years of seeing how the job works so closely, should allay the concerns that Obama has no experience. Simple: Al: we need you. Let's get FLA this time.

I strongly disagree that Hillary "divided the party and encouraged her supporters to abandon it if she didn't get the nomination." Sometimes in her speeches you might have been confused when she used rhetorical worries about what MIGHT happen, what the majority of the U.S. MIGHT believe or vote, etc., which is not the same thing as saying that she believed it, or worse, wished it were so. Hillary is a pragmatist, not a sophist. The people often believe what the media tells them, unfortunately, so Reagan becomes the "Great Communicator" and Obama, "JFK-esque" (yet, we can't ever remember much of what he says exactly). Hillary believed that she would make a better comander in chief than Obama and so do I. "Let's see how she reacts under presssure, how disorganized she is..." What utter nonsense. Hillary has seen more pressure than newby empty suit Obama ever dreamed of. and disorganized? you mean, like how rattled Obama becomes in debates when given even minimal scrutiny by his usually uncritical pals in the media? "How disastrous her campaign was". Yeah, winning the popular vote and getting more delegates than any female candidate for president EVER, as well as winning almost as many delegates as Obama (even considering all those damn caucuses, Texas voting twice, and cheating FLA and MI). I think phrases such as "sense of entitlement" "regarded as inevitable" and "handled the contest on a silver platter" are simply inaccurate and possibly woman-hating in their lack of appreciation for the guts and determination it takes for anyone to sustain a run for the whitehouse. Last night Olberman's guy-pal Chris Matthews (yes, the pudgy guy who suggested Hillary only got in the race because her husband was fooling around...would that accusation have been made at a guy?) last night smugly told the MSNBC audience that she had spent more money than any losing candidate in U.S. history; he didn't mention how much more Obama spent; he didn't mention our bad economy now and rising fuel costs; he didn't even divide the costs per delegate with Obama's costs per delegate. Off the subject, but he also rolled his eyes that Gina Gerschan and Bill had dared to disagree with Vanity Fair's suggestion that they had an affair.

Not sure about your last sentence, Koreshi, since Hillary will obviously support Obama over the old war-monger. I'm stuck with him too. I like Biden too, though, we can agree on that.

Yes, she's seen pressure all right -- that Bosnian sniper fire was really something...

How can you call me "woman-hating" after what I said about Feinstein? You're cherry-picking; leave that to the Republicans.

You do have a point about Richardson's own lack of charisma. He ran a surprisingly weak campaign for his own bid for the nomination, which does concern me. And it could be argued that having him play the token Latino undermines Obama's message of transcending race. But I look at the field and I don't see anyone better. (Yes, it would be a nice gesture to have it be a woman, but that should happen organically and not be forced. Sebelius is a strong contender, but perhaps not strong enough; a foreign policy angle would be good.)

I also agree that the bloviating of Olberman and Matthews and their ilk aren't doing Obama any favors.

I think Gore must be kicking himself for not running, because the reasons he didn't have both been successfully refuted: he overestimated the power of the Clinton machine and underestimated the American electorate's appetite for change. I think at this point he's fine with his Nobel Prize and his speaking fees and not having to care about having a beer belly. I would not even blame him for snubbing the convention. It's Gore, not Hillary, who was the one that was really robbed by the Democratic Party.

I'm very unimpressed with Sebelius (and the importance of Kansas, or of NM in general). I've heard her speak. Kind of underwhelming, kind of Richardson-esque. You don't have to sell me on Gore, though. He WAS more electable than Kerry. Agreed. Blame the DNC for that too. Maybe I am 'cherry-picking' but then what are YOU doing with that Bosnia sniper fire line? or that "Clinton-machine" line? We are told all the time by right wing folk (as well as many Obama fans) how much Hillary is hated. I try to point out that Lincoln, Reagan, Nixon, and B.C. were also hated, but very successful. Still, she has to be aware of the hate stuff, and it must be "pressure" to put up with it. It's WAY out of proportion. It's unfair. Have you personally ever faced such hatred? I contend that much of it is anti-woman. An example I used was the Newsweek cover story demanding 'get out get out now, Hillary' BEFORE Texas and Ohio. That would not have happened to a male candidate. It did not happen to Hucklebee who got FAR less delegates. It did not even happen to Ted Kennedy when he ransacked an incumbent president from his own party.

Interesting you never changed the subject line. You are not offended by that, huh?

I don't pay much attention to subject lines.

Well, you think the mid- and southwest is a waste of time that should be conceded to McCain, and I think the southern and Rust Belt states are a waste of time that should be conceded to McCain. Since Obama is the nominee and he did better in the midwest and southwest, I think I'm right, and as I said at the start of this thread, it won't make any difference who his VP is in that regard. I think overall a VP selection could more likely have a negative influence than a positive one. (Gore's selection of Lieberman nearly -- but, I'm proud to say, didn't -- drive me to Nader. And I'm Jewish.)

Yes, there was a lot of sexism in the media's coverage of Clinton. But that worked both ways: she also got away with things because she's a woman. And yes, Obama got away with things because he's black, and he got hammered for things because of it too. And Kennedy had to deal with all sorts of double standards because of his last name, both good and bad. Politics ain't fair, and I just don't see how Clinton came out worse than anyone else. When I think of all the women who really are victims of discrimination and poverty and abuse, it strikes me as obscene that we should shed tears for someone who is still one of the world's most powerful and influential women, even as a mere senator.

See you then just slip in that your Jewish, so I go "oohhh" (that's why I'm able to have a non-hateful exchange with an Obama fan). Like Trundeyeti. I think he told me he was Jewish too. So how about this comparison: didn't it get on your nerves how much people always said hateful things about Howard Cosell? It was largely the Jewish thing, wasn't it? I thought so. I always stood up for him, like he stood up for Ali. Now, Lieberman....that's another story. (ha).

Your last argument is worded nicely. Maybe. But someone had to be the first serious female candidate for president, and it was her.

I'm not necesssarily saying that your mid and south west should be ceded, just that the states we are talking about, Kansas and NM, have so few electoral votes. Some poster said Webb could get you 11 from VA, which if true, he IS worth a close look (cuz it's more than double pinche' NM). ..I am admittedly selfish on this issue. As a native Texan, THAT's the surprise switcheroo red to blue state that I'd like to see, and I really think it could happen with Obama/Hillary. Race is over already if Texas turns blue, and might be interpretted as the death of the Bush family in National politics. We can only hope. I say Gore would get you TENN and AR this time, and maybe some neighboring states as well. Yes, those swing states Hillary talks about ARE important, PENN, OH, NJ--are musts for us. Next, FLA (and OH too) need some justice after the fact. I don't see the numbers as promising out mid and Southwest.