Obama's running mate choice

I don't think I've speculated on this before, because I never really thought of Obama as winning the nod for the Dems. I'd like to think I didn't fall into the Hillary's-inevitable media spin, and had my own reasons for thinking that Obama couldn't win (overcoming lack of experience, the Clinton war machine, voter demographics with lower turnout, and the name "Barack H. Obama" were tops on the list), but perhaps I was not being as independent in my thinking as I like to think. I still think a lot of the support for Obama has to do with Hillary being unlikable as it does him, but again I am probably underestimating the wide appeal he has.

O.K., Forbes writes this, with my commentary added in-between:

Among the defeated candidates, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut or Delaware Sen. Joe Biden offer that elder-statesman gravitas.

You're not really balancing the ticket with Dodd and Biden, since New England liberals will go ga-ga for O-ba-ma. Gravitas is certainly an issue, and in that sense would balance Obama. Senators have trouble getting elected president because of their long records, but people wouldn't care about a running-mate's record as much. Dodd maybe, but Biden has a tendency to shoot his mouth off. And his foreign policy knowledge might overshadow Obama. Dodd might not be such a bad choice. Richardson is a buffoon and would be a terrible choice.

And of course there's always former Sen. John Edwards, who's been 'round the block once before as John Kerry's partner in 2004, but has said in the past that he wouldn't want to be the bottom half of a ticket again.

It would be too weird for Edwards to be a running-mate again, though he would make a great choice. He southern, wouldn't overshadow Obama, could garner working-class support (which Obama needs) is young-looking, has a proven ability to garner votes, and would be a worthy heir to pass the mantle to in eight years perhaps (he'd be 63). I'm convincing myself here. Still, it would be weird...

But either Clinton or Obama could look to someone like Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia--one of the "Blue Dog" Democrats--a Vietnam veteran whose articulate position on the Iraq war could at least ameliorate some of McCain's appeal.

This is a no-brainer; Obama should go with Webb. He'd be an articulate expositor of the Iraq issue (Obama needs help here), and that'll be the crucial issue of the election. It could perhaps help Obama win VA (Kerry lost it by 260,000 votes). It would balance the ticket ideologically and geographically, and Webb hasn't been in the Senate long enough to have a long track-record.

Likewise, from a service perspective, General Wesley Clark is also a possibility as a Clinton running mate.

I don't think so. Clark is funny, engaging and articulate when talking about himself but not when talking about politics. He sure is good-lookin' though, but that's not enough.

Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio might also be a good call in appealing to crossover voters.

Interesting, with Ohio being crucial. He's already endorsed Clinton and is a Clinton superdelegate. This might be a point in his favor, as Mark Daniels notes, because it would be seen as a sign of party unity.

Two Midwesterners could also feature: Evan Bayh of Indiana is one of those names that seems to come up every four years, while Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin--and of course, the other half of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance-reform double-act--has impressive progressive credentials.

Evan Bayh is a real possibility. He's a centrist from the Midwest who would shore up national security. But the Democrats aren't going to win Indiana--Bush got 50% more votes than Kerry. And he's cushy with special interests, as this blogger notes. Feingold? No way.

Unlikely long shots could include Ambassador Joseph Wilson, General Colin Powell, or even former Vice President Al Gore.

Now you're being ridiculous.