I'd go with Hillary.  Edwards brings very little to the ticket.

I limited the choices to the two most overwhelming  popular candidates of this site - at least during the Iowa/NH season.

it's in his mouth so often

Sorry, I'm not a big fan of homophobes as Veeps:

http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenc hris/2007/07/bill-richardson.html

and if you really wanted anything having to do with "unity", richardson would not be the path to travel down.

I think the only "person" in this year to say they want the spot is Huckabee.

Don't expect that kind of talk out of Democrats, we are too clever for that.

God, we have so many good people I kinda wish Obama could have 5 VP's.
My idea is have enough VP's where you have the best and they can hold their positions in the senate, congress, cabinet and be VP.

Might sound rediculous, but all I can imagine is Obama rolling deep with Feingold, Dodd, Edwards, Dean, etc etc  so I am going to come up with some rediculous VP idea  :)

Yes, it would "unite" some of the strongest Clinton supporters with our nominee, but others will still see it as a bitter consolation prize.

No, it would undermine Obama's message and support dramatically.  We'd lose support in the mountain west and still have a hard time winning FL.  I don't think she'd be a smart pick for the GE (and Obama's said "no" to her regardless.)

I agree with the "unite the party" thing.  But I don't think that would necessarily be the best thing for either Obama or Hillary in the long run.  She's set to have a great career in the Senate if she wants it.

When I saw your first few words I thought you were about to say it would unite the Republicans like nothing else.  OK, so I'll say it - Hillary on the ticket and the Repubs raise money like nobody's business plus they all come out to vote against her. I think that's one of the few ways we could lose in November.

...assuming Clinton doesn't try and sabotage the Obama campaign from the inside (whether intentionally or unintentionally) like Lieberman did with Gore.

We need a veep who will add something to the ticket but not outshine the nominee for president and I can't see that being Clinton.  (mostly because of Bill, I'm sad to say)

Actually, I heard a Washington Post reporter (no fan of Senator Clinton either) make a strong case for why the VP slot is hers to turn down.  

1.  She is currently holding all the cards, which is why she's staying in.  It isn't vanity or lunacy; she's solidfying her power position.  She will have the power to create quite a mess in Denver, or at least spoil the fun.

2. Obama can't offer the VP slot to another woman without half the party going nuts if Hillary didn't turn it down first.  He can't bypass the strongest woman out there for another one -- it will be read as simple pandering to women and sour grapes.  He has to offer it to a white man if he doesn't offer it to Hillary.

3. It's essentially hers to turn down, not Obama's to offer.  Obama is limping right now and the pressure on him from every corner to offer it to her is enormous.  It's not a question of will he deign to have her on the ticket, it's a question of will she accept it and conventional wisdom says she would.  If Obama plants his feet on this one it could cost him dearly in both September and November as the pro-Hillary machines accross the country turn their energies towards pushing down the ticket and allow him to stew in his own juices in the fall.  The party Old School doesn't suffer arrogance or stubborness gracefully.

4.  There is certainly precident of contentious primary rivals serving on the same ticket and in the same White House.  

5.  Hillary would bring her baggage of course, but she would also bring considerable fire power.  Women excited to see a first woman president could get almost as geeked over a first female VP.  She would unpack and serve for lunch anyone the GOP ran in a debate.  She is a tireless campaigner.  (duh) Ad Bill can move mountains if he's 100% on board.

6. The single strong negative she would bring to the ticket is "too much change" as in no one for white males to identify with.  Obama is feeling strong pressure from a different faction to choose a white male strong on defense and foreign policy, top of the list Wesley Clark.

7. This whole idea of Clinton "galvanizing" the GOP base is a red herring argument.  The same people she would supposedly "galvanize" are the same people who dispise John McCain.  They'll vote maybe, but these aren't folks who would bleed in their shoe leather knocking on doors for the MAverick.  

8.  At the end of the day, providing she doesn't attack Obama between now and then, Clinton will want something for stepping aside gracefully -- a say in how Michigan and Florida are seated, a say in how the convention looks and her role in it, a say in cabinet appointments and she will need to agree to her role after January.  Right now, Obama needs Clinton much more than she needs him.  Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

Only if Bill promises to stay away and not meddle.

Webb or Richardson if she doesn't want it.

I disagree with what's she's doing and saying, but she's only trying to gin up heat. she's one of the very few "my way or the highway" players.

...Katherine Harris without a doubt is more annoying than Ferraro.

Do you remember how Harris would throw her chest out everytime she was on camera?  And she was flirty and crazy and very undigified.

she's one of the gang of 14 thats all i need to know claire needs to stay in Mo as a Senator hopefully with a majority in the senate Democrats can retire that gang.

Oh great political sage.