Ha, ha, whatever.

Oh .... Jerome Armstrong as bizarre as your pick of Tom Daschle is I think you have better odds with that than the loser John Kerry.

John Kerry would be the pick over David Axelrod's dead body .

Evan Bayh has been picked a few weeks ago

Seriously.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/20 08/08/21/mccain-not-sure-how-many-houses -he-owns/

How did Kerry and Daschle make it into the conversation.  Fairly or no both have been branded as losers, and so wouldn't help winning over low-info undecideds or disgruntled Clinton supporters.  Gore is another nutty pick--for starters who think he'd do it?  

is worth what a Democrat paid for it.

Obama has already decided. I have no problem waiting a few more hours to find out.

And, as some pundit said yesterday -- everyone will care about the selection until it's announced, and then it won't matter any more.

Obama campaign is naive in running on post partisanship.  The Clintons were disliked because they were interlopers that prevented the wealthy special interests from running the government.  Unless Obama embraces the wealthy special interests, he too will be the target of the wealthy special interests.  Post-partisanship ends the moment Obama is sworn in.

The economy was great under Clinton.  It is a mistake for any Democrat to NOT run on a return to the Clinton economy.  The Clinton economy is why Hillary got so many votes in the primary.  The Clinton economy is what the older voters remember.  Clinton was more popular when he left office than Reagan was when he left office. Gore and Loserman (I have to admit the Repugs called that one right) distanced themselves from Clinton and KerryEdwards failed to embrace Clinton and both lost.  Having Bill on the campaign trail would be a huge asset.  He is the most popular living ex-president.  Obama has yet to use him effectively.

The only person that can change the game is Obama.

He needs to crisp up his message a bit.

Whoever he picks, it will obviously be way way way better than what Republicans have to offer.

Can you please tell me why asking whether someone is a patriot is a polling question.

Kerry?

It truly is silly season at MyDD.

It has to be a "star" in my opinion and we need every vote and some momentum and I trust Obama will deliver on that. We need Clinton she is ready for battle. Gore would be great too but is he ready? Is he hungry? Maybe I don't know.

It would be absolutely absurd for Obama to pick Kerry. "I'm the candidate of change -- and to prove it, my running mate's going to be the guy who lost the prez race in 04 by running an utterly incompetent campaign."

Tom Daschle? Really? If he picks Daschle or Kerry and McCain picks Palin or Whitman, Mac might win by 5 points... and I'm an Obama backer who has given money to his campaign.

Don't do it, O. Don't listen to these folks.

Just pick someone damn it.  I am praying Obama picks someone today.  It is next to impossible to avoid the VP speculation of progressive blogs.  Please, please, please make this end today.

While not necessarily a "game changer", Dick Gephardt certainly fulfills the "well known and ready to go" criteria. He's popular with seniors and working class voters, was under constant media scrunity for nearly two decades as a presidential candidate and congressional leader, is from a bellwether state, and has some key allies in the Obama inner circle (Plouffe and Burton). While he wouldn't be the most exciting choice, he'd bring the Biden/Kerry style gravitas without the gaffe potential.

Kerry to be his VP when McCain is the opponent?  How can he pick Kerry -- the same Kerry who lost to Bush because he was seen as not being able to fight back... the same Kerry who ASKED MCCAIN TO BE HIS VP!!!!

I would shit my pants if he picked Kerry.

If it's not Clinton, Obama will not win Pennsylvania. So, the question is, can he win the presidency without Pennsylvania? If he picks anybody other than Clinton, his strategy has to include conceeding PA.

Without Clinton on the ticket, close races on the down ticket will suffer. Winable contests for the Pennsylvania Legislature will be lost.

I'd agree with the basic thesis about Clinton.

If Obama picks Clinton, he wins the election the moment after he, Michelle, Hillary, and Bill are photographed taking the stage together after Obama's acceptance speech.

The problem with Clinton isn't electoral, it's with what happens afterward in the White House.

Kerry is complicated. US Senator John Kerry is objectively better as a VP pick than Bayh, Biden, or Kaine. Former Presidential Candidate John Kerry is not, and would further sour independents and other on-the-fence Dems against him.

You make it sound like Obama is just a puppet of Tom Daschle. What does Daschle know about picking a VP, anyway? He's never been President. Obama is going to choose a VP however he wants, I doubt he's so stubborn that he'd refuse to even consider Clinton if his campaign's internal polling indicates she might be able to guarantee his victory.

This is one in a long line of bizarre posts. Obama is not picking Daschle and he is not picking Kerry.

Clinton would be a game changer, but I'm not certain if it would be good or bad. It would instantly change his strategy from focusing on Independents in the suburbs to blue collar whites in Appalachian Ohio.

The rust belt still thinks that Kerry should be president, the same way that Florida thinks it shoulda been Gore. Picking Kerry would definitely help push Obama over the edge in those places.

But while we're entertaining these outlandish thoughts, why not Ted Kennedy?

Obama-Kennedy: No fucking way we're losing this one

I won't need to keep my cell phone handy for the text message.  I'll just hear the hysterical laughter coming from the street.

Hillary or bust.  This shit is so damn obvious.  Put aside your ego and select a fighter of rural America.

another thing Kerry could bring to the game is a sense of outrage.

Kerry at the top of the ticket in 04, was reticent about responding tho the swiftboating attacks, but as a VP to Obama he would be doubly free to do so.  

First, because it would fall within the historical 'attack dog' roll of VP's in the campaign.

Secondly, because he himself has been wronged by these sorts of attacks and his responses to such lines of attack, might burnish his reputation while reinforcing the idea of McCain as Bush 2.0

is what I call damning with faint praise. Daschle's name keeps coming up, proving that the silly season for Veepstakes is still in full swing. Let's keep a couple of things in mind:

1) Daschle is the first Majority Leader in history to be defeated in a bid for re-election to the Senate, and
2) While he was an early Obama supporter, South Dakota went for HRC in its primary. Keep in mind, this was the very day that the DNC had selected to hand the nomination to Obama, with an hourly announcement of new super's declaring for Barack. That SD voters still went to the polls to vote for Hillary is not a ringing endorsement of Daschle's clout.

To put in charitably, Daschle's best days are behind him. With respect to Kerry, he violates one of the cardinal rules in politics: you have to be liked.

I don't completely agree that Obama's VP has to be a huge name. If he picks someone with relatively low name recognition, he can help form the narrative around that person, although there is little time to do so. Kerry and Daschle both have strong narratives already established for them, which is not a good thing in their cases, and they aren't going away easily.

I'm really concerned about Obama picking a Senator with a Republican governor. Bayh, Dodd, and Reed should be off the table, along with any other senator in a state with a GOP governor and no rules about the party affiliation of replacements. With the Democrats flirting with that 60-seat line (or 61-seat, to trump Joe), I can't believe that Obama would do that or that Schumer would let him without a fight. Bayh as VP would be bad enough; allowing Mitch Daniels to replace him in the Senate would be a double disappointment.

Lieberman's status also worries me. If McCain wins the presidency, Jodi Rell will be appointing a Republican to fill the remaining four years of Lieberman's term. There is no way that Lieberman will not be in McCain's cabinet, unless he was already his VP. So losing the presidency comes with a guaranteed "loss" of Lieberman's Senate seat and his votes on some core Democratic issues. However, losing Lieberman would have plenty of benefits, namely that it would be easier to defeat a Republican replacement in 2012 than to defeat Lieberman (although that probably wouldn't be hard either).

If Obama wins, Lieberman stays in the Senate but will be of no importance and probably will have no seniority in the Democratic caucus. So Lieberman's fate is tied directly to McCain's at this point. Either way, he will be of no consequence in the Senate.

No, no, no, no, no.

Not Kerry, Not Clinton, Not Bayh, not Dachle.

Schweitaer.  Clark.  Clarke.  Feingold. Richardson.

John Kerry is a stupendously bad choice.

Kerry was succesfully painted as an elitist out of touch.

Kerry hits far below his weight, he just isn't a credible attack dog.

Kerry has a wife every bit as rich as McCain and totally removes what may be Obama's last hope on the personal attack front.

Even the unknowns are better picks than Kerry

If you want to pick the 2nd best after Clinton look at Powell, Gore, Biden, EVEN CARTER is a better VP choice.

I thought Kerry was a drudge joke but if there is serious movement in that direction it just shows you that Team Obama caught a lucky wave and generally don't know what they are doing.