It's not much of a secret if the AP is writing about it. As close to the vest as Team O has played things, anonymously sourced articles ("Democratic Officials) have almost ALL been wrong (Greg, you remember getting burned by one don't you).

This is just an attempt to FURTHER raise Clinton's pseudo-ire. Her campaign will be in full victim mode this morning....

Good Chess move. Now when someone asks Senator Obama about picking Hillary, he can just say that he does not want to inject himself into the preliminary search process.

Sorry. He can not put someone on the ticket that has been in Washington that long.

It would torpedo his "change" campaign.

Jim Webb or even Wes Clark would be great - impeccible and impressive military backgrounds, something that can supplement Obama's lack of military experience that the GOP would love to nail him on.

Hillary meanwhile has a draft dodger husband to bring to the table.

OK Folks:

A tip on how you can rebut the expected Clinton whining about Senator Obama being too presumptive, and not given the remaining voters a chance to cast their votes before he conducts a VP search.

Simply remind them:

A long time ago, Hillary offered the VP position to Senator Obama. She was the one who did not wait until someone had won a majority of the selected delegates, like Senator Obama has done.

lol, so democratic officials leaked a story about a veep selection process that the nominee wants TOP SECRET?

sound like Clinton supporters I guess.

Hillary. Just say NO! (not that I think she has a snowball's chance to get it).

Tip O'Neill is the person to blame for the Ferraro pick. He is the person who pushed Mondale to put a woman on the ticket, and urged him to make it Ferraro.

Pick Webb, pick Webb!

Obama/Webb 08.

Obama's working on two fronts: patronizing she-who-doesn't-need-anymore-attention and getting on with the general election. Bravo!

The former will be dealt with in the next two weeks, this has been the same story for a couple of months now. The later will takeover in the coming weeks. Obama and McCain are basically parallel in their VP timing, so all is fine there.

I'll make a plug for Richardson. I'd like to see the Dems sweep the West.

I agree , I adore Webb...I am just afraid that the Hillary women will call him sexist and boycott the vote ! Barack could also choose General Jones, or Zinnini.. But he needs some military experience on the ticket..That is for sure ! I love Webs take not bullshit style ! It's a good combination with Barack. I have always thought that if the poor whites and other minorities would join forces instead of seeing each other as competition; The government could be changed for the better !

Two Senators or a Senator and Congress Rep on the same ticket is a certain loser. Just look at your history folks.

It has to be a popular governor that put a large state in play.

We need a proven winner that can deliver a large state, such as Ohio. It is not about who you like, it has to be about who can deliver the state that puts us over the top.

I've been thinking about this for quite some time. After listening to the various contenders endorsement speeches and how they speak of Obama, I've reconsidered somethings.

Gov. Time Kaine or Sen. Claire McCaskill deserve definite reconsideration. They speak very well for him.

Tim Kaine inparticular seems like a good choice to me. I was very moved by this speech and he was one of the first people to endorse Obama. Give a listen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkQ04Tk7dTk

Also, here's another in Spanish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqz9unCxJgM

Obama said he was looking for someone he could trust more than anything- that's Kaine.

Richardson should be Secretary of State- end of story. He is sooooooo qualified for the position.

Following Jim Webb's recent insightful and highly relevant comments about Appalachia and racial sentiments he really should be considered the top-tier VP candidate, as long as he passes a vetting process for skeletons.

Webb argues very well that

1. There is bias against black and brown minorities in Appalachia, creating a wall for Obama.

However, 2. It is not merely racism, but a feeling that the affirmative action programs of the 60s went beyond historical justice for African Americans to aiding other minorities and in effect at the expense of the socio-economically poor in general (e.g. whites also in poverty).

Therefore, 3. If Obama were to speak to this cultural group with this understanding in mind he would be able to reach them.

I have heard this idea floating around before (on Slate?) that perhaps one of the most dramatic, powerful things Obama could do to win mainstream America would be to propose transforming affirmative action programs from being racially based to being purely economically based.

That is supposed to be MI or OH or PA....and I know he will win 2 out of 3 if not all three of these states.

There was already a thread on the Obama VP debate, and I posted some of these thoughts there, to little response - but my ego prefers to believe that's because the thread wasn't listed on the front page shortly after I posted (coincidence, I hope)...so undaunted, I'll try again:

I'm just thinking back historically, and I wonder: how often has a VP choice really made the difference in the election? Rarely, I think. IMO, you'd have to go back to JFK/LBJ to make the point that it mattered, and I'm not sure that's even true. And a bad one doesn't hurt: I mean, HW Bush won with Quayle, for God's sake, and there was Nixon/Agnew for 2 terms. (BTW trivia question: who was Humphrey's running mate in '68? Muskie, maybe?)

Now, McCain - there's a guy who needs to take care with his VP pick, because his/her day may come before they know it. But if political calculation is the big issue - is it really a big deal? Assuming Obama doesn't pick Al Sharpton, is it that important?

Air America email from Thom Harmann. Grode!

"Air American:

The issue at hand for the Democratic Party for winning in ‘08 is not losing to McCain but losing to a divided Democratic party. The first thing Obama should do if nominated is put Hillary on the ticket. Will the Republicans have a field day with her on the ticket? Yes! Is their some bad blood in the water due to some negative campaign strategies on the part of the Clintons? Probably. Can Hillary be a tough fighter able to play tough allowing Obama to stay higher above the fray? Yes!

Howard Dean said a few months ago that the loser will be the most important person in the Democratic presidential run this year. Hillary's legacy in this 08 election could place her as the healer and bring together a united Democratic party. As a winning ticket they also move this country closer to healing the racial and misogynist undertones that still have roots.

Can you picture Denver with Hillary's delegates close to half of all delegates demanding that she be included on the ticket? To some it's a crusade. If Hillary was the one out ahead - by just a little over half - wouldn't Obama supporters want the same?

Obama's offer and Hillary's acceptance of an Obama/Clinton ticket hold the healing and the power to move this country in the direction of the real change in Washington that Obama talks about. First he must bring the Democrats back together again.

Obama - ask Hillary first. And if she should say no, the offer would still have a unifying affect.

--Thom Hartmann"

Yep. I told you: Grode!

Uuuhhh... Wait. I though HILLARY was the VP choice? Isn't she? Oh, I hope so. If she's not on the ticket, Obama can't possibly win. He's a negro. He'll need the help of a white person.

Dick Cheney

A very informal poll: based on browsing the comments on the Caucus in the NY Times, the favorites among Times readers seem to be: Webb, Richardson, and Sebelius.

Interestingly each of these picks would address a specific demographic: Webb - Scots-Irish working class; Richardson - Latinos; Sebelius - women.

Now if we had a Scots-Irish female governor from a working class family who is part Latino, we would have a super VP candidate.