My current pick is Biden. He's great on his feet, well-known as a foreign policy leader, and he did great domestic work with the Violence Against Women Act.

Oh, and don't look for news to leak. Obama's campaign has bee highly disciplined.

What would you do if you became more and more convinced that it was going to be Veneman, and then he picked Sibelius instead?

That's just a crackpot theory I have.  Sibelius is the best of all the VP selections left (governor, early supporter, excellent advocate, moderate and crossover appeal, roots in Ohio) - BUT she's a woman and that would anger Clinton supporters (a fact which I sort of get, but when I step back for a moment I can't help but find incredibly bizarre).

So he goes for the headfake: he floats the name of somebody just totally unacceptable, and then when he picks Sibelius everyone is relieved.

Floating the name of Ann Veneman is a smart political tactic by the Obama campaign and nothing more.  It gives him appeal to some of the demographics he is targeting.  In this case... conservatives/women.  

He has no intention of selecting a Republican as his running mate, however as November draws closer he can claim that he took both sides of the aisle into consideration when selecting his VP.  This will score huge points among Republicans and Independents who are attracted to Obama's pledge of "bipartisanship"

Clark by a mile. The McSame's are terrified of him.

The one thing Obama really needs is for Hillary to come out and say she wouldn't accept the VP position if offered, because (litany of reasons), unless she's going to be the selection.

Until then, all "not-Hillary" picks, especially other qualified women, will be under a dark cloud.

I think Obama is getting just too cute by half.  I see no advantage in throwing out the name of a Republican female corporate hack.  It just erodes his original branding of being something other than your usual cynical  politician--unless he is truthfully considering a Republican female corporate hack for VP.  And that would be even more annoying/disturbing, if true.

I be fine with Biden, Clinton, or Clark.  

I'd think that he was so arrogant that he couldn't bear someone with any national stature as VP if he picked Siblelius.  Floating a more inappropriate VP than Sibelius certainly doesn't make me feel either more positive or negative about Sibelius.

But Obama does need to get this choice right.  Right doesn't mean right for me.  I'm probably not representative.  But he has to get it right.

According to an AOL poll in the last couple days, 65% of those polled said the choice of a VP candidate was going to influence how they voted in November.  Roughly 80% thought Veneman was a bad pick.  

Granted AOL is not a particularly representative crowd, but it does point out that the VP choice actually is important this election year.

I also like Hagel, althought I understand all the reasons NOT to go with him.  I think that he needs military or foreign policy experience.  Hillary could do that, even though her experience is not that good.  Biden would be okay, although I think he voted to go to war in Iraq.  I think Reed voted against going in, so that would put him a bit ahead in my book.  No one knows who he is.

Clark would drive the wingnuts crazy.

I have never understood the "all females are unacceptable except for Hillary" rule.  Do you apply that rule to males as well?  Is there only one man who can be chosen?  

Sounds like quite a double standard.

"Hillary Clinton would be on anybody's short list," he said. "She is one of the most effective, intelligent, courageous leaders that we have in the Democratic Party. ... I would love to have Bill Clinton campaigning for me."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/2008072 7/pl_politico/12083

And the reason why you aren't seeing a progressive is because no one has pushed for that. That's a separate issue to me. If you wanted a progressive you should have been pushing for one since the primaries. I've been saying this for a long time. Instead, its all been rabid opposition or rabid support rather than strategic placement of influence.

It's down to six names: Reed, Clinton, Bayh, Biden, Kaine, and Sebelius.  It's five now that Reed has issued his Shermanesque statement.

Kaine has run into trouble in his home state and Sebelius has not handled very well this "controversy" involving the abortion doctor.

So, that leaves Clinton, Bayh, Biden.

OpenLeft has a completely different list: Biden, Bayh, Dodd, Clinton, Reed, Kaine, and Sebelius.  Let the rumormongering commence yet again.

Is that Veneman is thinking about endorsing Obama, but at this point her name recognition is so low as not to provide much ofany symbolism. Throw in a leak about veep speculation, all the sudden her name is in the minds of the chattering classes, and her endorsement (were it to occur) would be more meaningful - at least inside the Beltway.

Two Words:

John Edwards

I think the bogus "Love Child" story is a pre-emptive attack to try to keep it from happening, but I would still love to see it.

I think it's a pretty dangerous idea to make a vice presidential pick about winning an election.

If Obama truly thinks he would be better able to govern, that the executive office would be a more cohesive unit without Clinton or Clark in the VP spot, if there's other candidates that more share Obama's vision of the world and are more in line with his policy ideas than Clinton and Clark, then why should he still be obliged to pick them?

The election is only two months, but if he wins, he has four years (at least) of working with his selection. I like the idea of picking an elder statesman, someone who's not pandering to a gender, ethnic group or geographical region.

I think Bill Bradley, although not the most vicious attack dog (and with Obama's PR team, I'm not sure the VP has to be) is the best selection (followed closely by Biden).

If Obama picks someone that reeks of pandering, then it undercuts his message of not being a usual politician.

I would like to point to a not much discussed FOX poll (OK i know they are the devil, but whatever, a poll is a pool).  BO versus McCain has BO up one (OK i agree it should be more like 5%).  If you add Rommey to mccain and HRC to BO the lead goes from 1% to 10%.  Just saying.

Now i know that HRC cant be on the ticket because it is not consistant with BO theme of change but IMHO i dont see much change from BO i mostly see trianglation.  But dems can agree to disagree about this.

david

just so you could make a reference to The American Meat Institute?  

Ben Smith (who along with Chuck Todd have done the most to advance their reporting careers in this cycle) is a little sloppy about his sourcing/timing in this article. (Hi Ben!)  

If you remember, the Obama VP team held meetings with Congressional Dems in early June.  Several names leaked out of these meetings (James Jones was the one that got the most attention at the time) and Obama personally got torqued off about the leaks and really clamped the lid on any VP leaks from the campaign.  I suspect that Ann Venneman's name was brought up at this meeting six weeks ago.    

I know that it is now conventional wisdom that Kathleen Sebelius cannot be the pick because of how Clinton supporters would react.  But I'm not sure I buy this.  Sebelius meets every criteria that Obama talks about when he discusses the choice.  There are legitimate reasons to choose Sebelius and not Clinton.  The personal Kansas connection and history making aspect of it are strong assets for a Sebelius pick.  I do think that Sebelius would need HRC's blessing which admittedly might be tough but HRC does not need to be Obama's VP to keep all her options in the future.  They'll internally poll Sebelius who I would bet anyone a dollar is in the top three possibilities.

However, Sebelius is a risky choice.  I'm not sure that the campaign would want to go through the media storm that would follow.  One of the things we've learned is that the "no drama" Obama mindset (which I heard as early as last Spring) is real.

I'm sticking with Schweitzer who also meets all the criteria for the pick that Obama has mentioned publically.  

As I see it, five previously mentioned names are no longer realistic considerations.

Withdrew voluntarily: Strickland and Webb

Self-destructed: Dodd, Edwards, and Clark. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with what General Clark said on "Face the Nation", but it was not well-received in the electorate at large.

Bayh satisfies the #1 requirement: he will do no harm. Secondly, he could possibly bring Indiana into the Dems' column. Third, he's qualified; experienced executive and legislator. Best of all, he's a quality person who will never stick you--Obama would not have to be looking over his shoulder for four years.

Long-shot possibility: Bill Richardson. As to Anne Venneman or Sibelius, I don't see either as serious possibilities. Tim Kaine gets discussed, but the onvention will not consider a pro-lifer.

Where this is coming from. Why are people reporting on this as though Obama himself said it. There is NOTHING to stop someone from writing this garbage, considering it would be impossible to prove otherwise.

about a specific name. Until then, neither you nor anyone knows anything about it and you might as well argue about any name pulled out of a hat.

(This a stupid diary for the front. None of the regulars wanted to sully their reputations with it? A McPuma concern troll diary just like this about what's-her-name was shot to pieces a week ago.)

Any Republican as VP pick is a deal breaker for me -- then I vote 3rd party. I prefer HRC, but any Democrat will do. I'd like to see a tough, partisan Democrat as VP, therefore not too enamored of Bayh.

If Obama picks a Republican,  I will not be able to vote for him.

Re Sebelius:  she has no international experience and doesn't know the ropes in DC.  I really feel that Obama needs to shore up his foreign policy credentials and she brings nothing to him.  Plus, choosing her would be a gratuitous slap to 18 million Hillary Clinton voters since Sebelius has nowhere near the same experience as Clinton.

I could support Biden, Dodd and even Bayh, but I think Hillary would make the best VP of all.  

I can't imagine anyone else.

The more I think about it the more Tim Kaine seems ideal. He brings pull in a major targeted swing state, but most importantly he enforces a youthful image like Clinton/Gore in 92. He's a pretty solid progressive to boot.  

First because while the economy will be the major driver of the campaign and the presidency, military and diplomatic affairs may be the more complex driver. If only because of the way they interact with the domestic side. Clark's stint as SACEUR is less important in many ways as his stint as J5. Having a strategic planner in a position to advise and coordinate will allow Obama to take advantage of the early wave of relief the world will feel. Normally I'd say this means that NSA would be a better fit for Clark. But the NSA and department Secretaries will almost have to be thinking tactically as the rebuild there bureaucracies infected by eight years of ideology over competence. I shudder to think about just what a monumental task that is going to be.
So we have a skilled and effective strategic thinker who knows the military, Europe (NATO), diplomacy (Bosnia negotiations), has credit in the Islamic world (Kosovo) and he just happens to be one of the smartest people you'll ever meet.

But none of that matters if he is not elected.

He does no harm. Is there a group in the Democratic coalition that would be even moderately offended by his choice? A quick look at the 2004 exits shows why. While his support wasn't all that deep it was exceptionally broad across all the major demographics. Obama can use that to position Clark just about anywhere and can use him to force  McCain into defense. Clark would play well in Appalachia  and the Ozarks for example.
He is probably the best person to connect the Clintons to the campaign. Having the Clintons make the majority of their joint appearances with Clark one step removed from Obama would be natural and could have a profound electoral effect.  Capturing the Clinton economic glow, filtering out the Clinton drama and always having the implied military competence. Wow.
Heck even the visuals would be good.

I think it should be Clinton.  She certainly disagreed with him on several issues during the debates, including health care.  And I happen to agree with her on those points of contention.

I think the other candidates like Bayh or Biden might be better if he is looking for a "do no harm" candidate, but I don't think they will bring many voters out either.

Adding HRC to the ticket is a bit more of a risk, but I also think it has a lot more upside than any other pick - I could certainly see how in some states that will bring out more voters against Obama / Clinton, but I think in many states it would play very well.  I know I would be more excited at the chances of 16 years of the presidency with Clinton as VP.  With Bayh or Biden, not as much - although of course it could still happen.

This is a diary filled with unfounded, unnecessary concern trolling.

I mean, really, does anyone actually believe that an unknown agriculture secretary under Bush will be VP for Obama, especially after being leaked to the press?

Obama plays poker, and plays his cards close to the chest.  He wouldn't leak a worthless name like that unless it was simply to soften the ground up (or if the "sources" the media got were simply hungry for some attention).

My personal picks are Sibelius, Clark, Clinton, and Kaine, in that order.  Edwards is in there somewhere.

Kaine, Clark, and Sibelius all have that vaunted "executive experience", so they're they most likely.

Hands down my vote is for Clark.

His chances grew after the right wing "tried" to smear him.

...but I really like the feistiness of Jim Webb. I know he has taken himself out of the running, but his profile as tough military guy who is also an economic populist is hard to resist. He would put the repugs on the defense on every issue...and he is not inclined to whither like most standard issue dems.

I think he tears open the race in almost every state.

The only Republican I could support would be Linc Chaffee.

I don't have the same problems with Veneman that you do, but, that being said, I agree that Clinton and Clark would be my two top choices.

I've always considered Richardson a good possibility (even though I don't like him that much).  Richardson endorsed Obama during one of his most difficult weeks in the election.  I think that endorsement meant a lot to Obama, both politically and personally.  I will be surprised if Obama doesn't return the favor with either a VP offer or a top cabinet post (e.g., State, Defense).

Just putting this out there---it seems to me that there are a lot of people putting it out that they don't want the job.  Virtually all the "top tier" guys seem to be pretty well not interested.

I wonder if Obama's staff is turning people off.  As in, ahey just don't want Axelrod and Plouff dictating their lives for the next several years.

Other than being a great campaigner and a great fundraiser --- there is nothing else a VP adds nothing to the ticket.

Regionalism, Balance, Experience,Critical State, etc are all pretty much BS

Who's left ---- Richardson, Clinton, McCaskill, Biden, etc all fit the bill

I like Biden and Richardson but anyone will do.

Clinton is a great choice but its going to be a train wreck of "you guys took ddifferent sides on this issue..." and "you attacked her/him on this"

McCaskill is a scrapper.  Closely fought elections in Missouri and she's only lost one.  

If this really is a head fake by the Obama team, I hope they are not planning to govern that way. People (even strong supporters) get tired of repeatedly having the wool pulled over their eyes after awhile.

More likely, it is just the media trying to stir the pot, because Obama's team has been pretty close-lipped lately. If they can get him to deny someone is being considered, that is almost as good as having him leak a name that is being considered.

He could possibly be floating Veneman's name around  as a way to relieve progressive if he truly picks HRC. I believe many are still angry at her for the way she conducted her campaign during the primary.  

Gen. Tony Zinni. Read "The Battle for Peace" and tell me you do not want this man in the White House.

no matter who he picks...if is ISN'T Hillary Clinton, he will have a lot of explaining to do.

Her supporters will be angry and he risks losing alot.

First and foremost, if he choses HRC then he proves to her supporters that he's serious about party unity.

Second, she can release her delegates and it'll be one big LOVE FEST at the DEN convention.

If

he doesn't chose Hillary - you will have protests and angry HRC supporters and a demand for her name to be placed into nomination at the convention.....

It would not bode well, at all, for party unity and it puts into play the possibility that 1900 (or so) delegates will be pissed off at the convention....

So - as I said - if he choses anyone else (male or female) - he has alot of explaining to do....

You will be hard pressed to find a better suited VP candidate who can step in and be Prez should something happen. She has the full range of qualifications, and she brings a much larger group with her then any other candidate.

dark horse pick could be former Maine Republican Senator and former Sec. of Defense William Cohen from the Clinton administration.

After Webb withdrew and with the new Edwards scandal fiasco.
She matches Obama's message of bipartisanship (Popular governor of a red state), is progressive and Obama seems to like her a lot and is comfortable with her (and she was an early supporter to boot)

My only thing is is she good to be in line for the next presidency? she is60 now and in a successful Obama admins she would be 68 and she is not the best campaigner that i have heard of.

for a list of Obama's top criteria refer to this post on open left (or maybe update the top story with this info)

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId =7180

1) Sorry, but I think it's silly to say that Hillary is the only woman he is allowed to pick.

2) Veneman is a bad pick.  I disagree with picking a Republican, and I dislike her coziness to corporate interests.

3) That said, all these these rumors are... rumors.  I fully expect Obama to pick someone like Biden, Richardson, Clark.  Maybe Sebelius.  Maybe Hillary.  Maybe Edwards.  I'm fine with any of them.

If it's Hilary, he wins going away.  Hilary brings a lot to the table.  Anyone else?  Not quite sure.

I've also said I think it would backfire for Obama to choose a woman other than Hillary Clinton for a running mate. If he wants his VP choice to help boost his support among women, he should pick the woman who received more than 17 million votes for president in the primaries.

That's PUMA power, baby!

If he's considering choosing Veneman because she's a woman, GOP and a breast cancer survivor, he ends up insulting all women and cancer survivors.

Obama's implicit endorsement of the GOP's regressive policies towards cancer research and access to treatment are bad enough. Even worse are Veneman's battles to protect agrichem polluters who, to a large degree are behind the rapid increase in US breast cancer incidence since the 1960's.

Such a move would appear to be a cheap publicity stunt designed to exploit women voters fears of a dreaded disease.  I'll assume Obama isn't this craven and misguided in his desire to get elected and that he didn't realize the implications of such a poor choice.

I'm going to assume Obama is much smarter and more respectful of women voters than to pull silly, shallow tricks to get elected.  

You are an intelligent woman DemoinesDem... So why on earth would you WASTE your time and the time of everyone on here writing a post on a RUMOR from a second rate reporter.  Half the party and most of the moderate GOP have been mentioned as potential Obama Running Mates.  THEY ARE ALL RUMORS!!!!!!  Much of this info is third and fourth hand.. and lets not forget names released to throw the media off track.

Really, this is nearly the same as writing about a piece from the Enquirer on Bush or Obama or McCain or Clinton as if there is some or a lot of truth related to them.

I think the comments, by and large, prove the point of the diary.  The Obama campaign has no interest in throwing a bone to progressives because progressives have made it clear that they don't care if they get a bone.  In fact, if you complain that you want to see something more progressive from Obama, that apparently makes you one of those McSame-loving concern trolls.  I confess I thought I would never see the day when desmoinesdem was accused of wanting Obama dead.

If the campaign felt their netroots fundraising was going to dry up if they picked a centrist or worse for the VP slot, you better believe they would at least put the word out that they were considering a strong progressive or two.  Whether or not it would impact the decision, who knows, but in politics you seldom get something without asking for it.

You know Clinton lost ergo it doesn't matter how many votes  she had.

More over she has her own pros and cons and to insist that the only woman that could be chosen is Clinton is just stupid.

My guess is this was leaked by people that feel the same way toward Veneman as you do, and they were moving to nip it in the bud.

If he wants to pick a woman,it has to be Clinton?

What so if he does pick a woman, obviously that's the ONLY reason he picked her - because she's a woman?

That's just straight BS.  I don't like HRC, and if he picks HRC it will 'dampen my enthusiasm' - ie I will not be donating or working for Obama any more.

I don't give a rat's ass about Sibelius.  But I would guess that she is on the list for reasons that include more than her double-X chromosome.

As for a GOP pick - nope.  Hagel can go to SecDef.  That's it.  If that happens, someone has to give Lieberman a wedgie as well.

Edwards, Feingold, Kucinich - maybe even Dodd.  These are my A Squad.

Obviously I expect to be severly disappointed.  If it's HRC, though, I will be FISA-level pissed.  Again.  Seriously - I hate her.  Like John-McCain hate, Joe-Lieberman hate, George-W-Bush hate.  I would say it's even irrational atred, except that she was just so GREASY in the primary that to me its as rational as the others on the list,which is 100% justifiable.

I agree with the people saying this is probably a headfake to make whoever he does choose seem more acceptable.

I really wish he'd pick Hillary, but i can't see it happening.

I was a strong Hillary supporter, but i won't be angry if Obama picks Sebelius. I think she's a strong choice. I really wanted Hillary to break the glass ceiling but ultimately its more important that it gets broken than who breaks it.

I'd be happy with Sebelius or Clark. Biden ok. Not Dodd. Not a Republican. Not Bayh.

Other than Hillary, none of the choices inspire me much. I guess Obama has enough ability to inspire by himself though.

My wife has family in KS so we visit a couple of time a year. For a female progressive to be a popular Governor of That State?
Being a woman..Gov...from a Mid-West State are bonuses...
She is in tune with where Obama wants to lead the nation.

That said..in his interview on MTP he talked about how directly involved his VP would be...
I'm thinking John Edwards and his focus on  Poverty(which would include Health Care and Education)...

Of course the Perfect would be GORE and a focus on turning our National Energy policy around.

He should pick Hillary Clinton in order to unite the party and to ensure a smooth convention in August.  I really don't understand why she isn't on the top of the list.  She deserves more than anyone to be on the ticket.  If the situation were reversed and the super delegates had given the nomination to Hillary...Hell would break lose if Obama wasn't chosen as VP.  Hell is going to break lose if Hillary isn't VP.  She's got 2000 loyal delegates at that convention who will not allow another VP through a floor vote if HIllary wants the job.  It will get ugly if Obama tries to divide the party even more by not choosing Hillary as VP.

Obama is not going to pick a R VP, if for no other reason it make the senate balance harder to control as the VP serves as a tie breaker. A Repub VP is just setting the stage for Prez/VP fights over Senate votes. I just don't see the Dems picking up enough to get to 60 Senate seats, and there are enough blue dogs/mod repubs that there may be a few votes that come down to the wire, especially closure votes on filibusters.

No... Ben Smith is a nut job, I don't respect anything he "reports". If he said the sky was blue I would go outside to check.