For a somewhat neutral article? I tried my best.

(PS-my vote was for Wes)

Whoever Obama picks will be allright with me. They got here by being shrewd and playing the system well. Their calculus will apply to this important selection.

Personally. I would like that person to be Hagel. Obama is a uniter. That is his core message. Obama is positioning himself as the post-partisan candidate, someone who can work with conservatives as well as liberals, Republicans as well as Democrats to unify the country for loftier goals.

I suggest the two-term Republican senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel. Like Webb, Hagel is a Vietnam veteran -- an infantry squad leader with two Purple Hearts -- who has been vocal in his criticism of the Iraq war and his disillusionment with the Bush administration. Hagel has long been admired by both sides for his integrity and independent thinking. A strong supporter of McCain's 2000 bid for the GOP nomination, he broke ranks with McCain over Iraq.

He shows Obama can think outside the box and reinforces his uniter credentials.

Obama/Hagel 2008.

I voted Strickland.  Putting Ohio in the bag would pretty much lock the electoral vote down for Obama.  Strickland also compliments the ticket in important ways, appealing to socially conservative labor-oriented Democrats who have strayed from the party in the past.  He is 66 years old, so we wouldn't be running him for president 8 years now from, but that's not a dealbreaker.  In fact, due to the age difference between Obama and McCain, we risk seeing a lot of older voters shifting to McCain; Strickland could help with that.  He would also solidify Obama's standing in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa.

Yeah, he's socially moderate (rated A by NRA, some iffy votes regarding choice in the past), but as Vice President, that wouldn't be his concern, and as previously mentioned, he's not going to be running for president in eight years (74 years old).  As long as he's there keeping our message strong on the economic and foreign policy issues, his personal beliefs regarding abortion and gun control shouldn't become a problem.

Also, the fact that he endorsed Clinton is irrelevant.  We're all Democrats at the end of the day, as long as he didn't say anything truly awful about Obama during the campaign it shouldn't even matter.  In fact, picking a high-profile Clinton supporter to be his VP would help assure Clinton voters that Obama respects them and their concerns.

All in all, a pretty solid package I think.  Tim Kaine is my second-place choice, I would prefer that Jim Webb remain in the Senate.  Not too sure about the potential benefits of a Sebelius or Richardson VP.

But my favourite choice is Michael Bloomberg. He would take the independent vote by storm, and he would be a great complement to Obama because of his lack of executive experience.

I don't think there is a "easy" choice for VP.

Webb intrigues me because he would further Obama's populist post-partisan message (Webb was in the Reagan administration) while also subtlely filling in some of Obama's perceived weakness. Webb's military background and his appeal to the Scots-Irish electorate (notably found in Appalachia) could help, as long the team keeps the focus on their similarities.

You don't want a VP pick to highlight perceived weakness. Ideally, they should complement each other while championing the same message.

I loved her SOTU response.  I guess I was the only one. :(  That was the first time I saw her, and she certainly made an impression on me.  If you look her up on You Tube, you can see her in other venues.  She's very tough, sassy, down-to-earth, down-home, on-message, and knowledgeable.

I have serious problems with Webb as a woman for his articles about women in the military.  He is the ONLY VP choice Obama could make that would give me pause in voting for him.

I don't like Strickland because I can't forgive him for nodding his head emphatically behind HRC with her "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" outburst.  (Yes, I'm clearly partisan.)  I have similar feelings about Rendell, although he has made much more conciliatory statements during and after the campaign in his state.

I don't have my own personal issues with Richardson, other than he's a horrible campaigner.  But you also need someone who can win the Presidency when he runs, and I just don't see him doing this.  His own campaign went nowhere despite vast name recognition and a stellar resume.

Wes Clark always kind of strikes me as a pushover, which is ironic considering his experience.  I'm sure he's one tough cookie in the situation room, but I've never seen this part of him at all in public.  He does have an even temperament, which is a plus.

I am just not a fan of Edwards.  I never was.  I didn't like him in 2004, and I don't like him now.  He has always struck me as opportunistic, and this year was no exception.

And HRC.  I would have been fine with HRC as VP until mid February.  That was when the campaign started turning ugly, and regardless of who you think started it, lines were drawn at that time that became impossible to bridge, hence my disdain for Strickland.

You forgot Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia.  He is a solid campaigner, popular, well-versed on the issues, and he appeals to the groups that Obama does poorly with.  He's probably the best for Obama, but my heart belongs to Sebelius.

Thanks for shooting for the middle, its diaries like these (and hopefully some outreach from the 'other' side) that will go a long way to bringing us all back together.

Its weird, I always said if Clinton was the nominee I would still have loved to see Obama as VP.  I think that scenario would be awesome.  But as my prefered POTUS candidate is Obama I didnt want to entertain that thought until absolutely necessary.

That said, I agree that I dont see Hillary as VP.  Obviously not out of competence, I just dont see the fit.  And honestly, my main reason is Bill.  I believe it would be too 'weird' having Bill, an ex president, seen as in any way 'subjugated' to Obama (even if it only in appearance).  Plus, I think Hillary would be a better fit for the senate leader (I think Reid sucks).  Plus nothing wrong with having a good level of competition between the senate leader and the president.  Weve seen all too well what a compliant senate and house can lead to (because we dems aint perfect and can go overboard if we arent careful).

As for the other candidates - couldnt agree more on Richardson.  Just doesnt seem right.  And a republican, maybe in a cabinet position but not as VP.

The rest, Im sure theyre OK, but I believe Obama is going to pull someone completely out of left field.  Someone not on most peoples short lists.  I could even see him pulling someone not in politics.  I see some of the pratical reasons these other names are thrown out, but none are hitting home with me.  Then again, no one really is right now.

The only semi-cool one I liked (as an ex-Missouri boy) was Gephardt.  But thats more nostalgia than practical.  Either way, it will be interesting to see.

He needs two big things.  First, he needs an attack dog.  Obama just isn't good on the attack.  He just flopped around on stage at the SC debate when he and Hillary went at each other.  I think that Joe Biden is great on the attack:  Rudy thinks there are three things in a sentence:  a noun, a verb, and 9/11.  Second, he needs some national security creds.  He won't get that from a governor.

I don't think that reaching out to a Clinton supporter like Clark will appease the Clinton people.  He needs Hillary to persuade them to vote for him.  Picking Wes Clark or Ed Rendell won't do it, IMHO.

3 others to consider:

1. Bayh, but we still won't win Indiana.

2. Vilsak, Iowa is a battleground.

3. Dodd, could help with congressional relations, which, s Jimmy Carter demonstrated, are important.

Obama would make a great VP for Hillary. BTW, no strong supporter of HRC would even be having this discussion so you can come out of the closet as an Obama supporter now.

In response to a direct question a while back, John Edwards has already said that he would not be interested in the VP slot.

I'm sure that if Obama asked him, he'd consider it, and maybe he'd even let himself get talked into it; but I don't think he should. For one, it's too much of a re-run of 2004; but, more importantly, it would involve the months-long grind of campaigning at a time when he probably wants to spend more time with Elizabeth. After all, their remaining time together is not infinite.

I believe him when he says he is not interested (he didn't use any of the typical politician weasel-words in his statement), and I don't think it's fair to him and Elizabeth to ask.

Now, later on, after the election: AG? Secretary of Labor? Much better, I think.

He's 2 for 2 as a VP candidate

Otherwise, Richardson. He's sure to turn the Hispanic vote around.

All this assuming Hillary doesn't want the job. I assume as a loyal Dem she would accept the position if offered.

As Senate Majority 'Leader' . . . well, to get much done from that position you need to be in tune with the Senate, and she is too liberal. Sad to say.

I thought we would end up with a Clinton/Obama ticket. I was (and am) an Obama supporter - just didn't forsee what a brilliant campaign he would wage, and how Hillary could blow it so badly. I was fine with Clinton/Obama if he didn't win the nomination. Am I fine with Obama/Clinton? Sure! I just don't think she'll accept the VP slot. So who will be the best VP? I agree that a prominent HRC supporter would help heal the party. A Governor of a critical state (OH/PA) won by Clinton is my guess.

To be honest I think Hillary would make a tremendous Senate Majority Leader, Reid doesn't seem to have a backbone a lot of the time, and I don't think there are many people who will argue that Hillary will capitulate to the republicans like Reid has (though to be fair with Obama and Hillary out campaigning, and Johnson being sick it was like the dems were a minority).  This role I think would suit her more than veep in my opinion.

I trust Obama to pick who he thinks will help him will the election and who he would work well with.  I agree with you that Richardson would be disappointing.  I would think that Rendell would be a bit disappointing too, he suffers from the same foot-in-mouth disease as Richardson (he made a kool-aid comment about youth).  

I think Gov. Kaine would be a very good pick.  He is popular in Virginia, he is a catholic (helping Obama with a group he faired poorly in), and from what Ive heard has a decent reputation among latinos.