For the record, my #1 choice is Wesley Clark.

But, I'm wondering that if Obama had wanted Hillary as his Veep pick he might've played the game exactly as he's playing it. Let the tempers simmer down, go through a long and thorough process that includes other worthy candidates (including other women), test Clinton's loyalty by seeing her follow through on her pledge to unite (which, some of her supporters notwithstanding, by any standard she has) and then, surprise, come to the conclusion that she's the unity ticket.

The point of doing it this way is that it makes it HIS choice rather than something he was badgered into doing. The decision ends up being about him -- rather than all about her (in other words, the pecking order is made ultra clear.) He gets to be the independent leader, the gallant guy who can get past a brush up and keep on working for the greater good -- and he generates a helluva lot more press than if it had appeared it was Clinton all along.

Most importantly, the tremendous burst of press and energy that comes from it could very well create a sense that the Democrats are unstoppable.

Yes, it's probably very unlikely. But if I were to pick Clinton, this is how I'd do it.

According to Wikipedia:

Clinton announced Gore as his running-mate on July 9, 1992. The convention was held at Madison Square Garden in New York City, New York from July 13 to July 16, 1992.

Granted, the whole shebang was scheduled much earlier that year, but a week or so before the convention sounds about right.

In 2000, Gore named Lieberman in August, and the convention began on Aug. 14. In 2004, Kerry announced Edwards on July 6, almost 3 weeks before the convention.

What a great line!

None of Barack's trial balloon VPs has flown. As the great first post here said, Hillary will turn out to be a marvelous, happy surprise VP choice, and she will be the best choice.

Not because crackpots are good or bad. But just to see you people tear your own heads off attempting to explain and defend it. The Ways of Obama are ineffable.

VP choice. And, Hillary is beginning to sound very palatable, given the stuff I am reading about Obama's extended trip to Indiana being all about announcing Evan Bayh as his VP choice. Please don't give me any more of this "move to the center" crap that isn't really a real center: it is the old right. We need to migrate leftward with a vengeance. Please, no Evan Bayh!! Mr. Milquetoast pseudo Republican.

and get whoever wins the most gold medals for the U.S. for his VP?

This implies that Obama will pick a "safe" VP. As noted, Kathleen Sebelius is not safe. Sen Bayh is from a state with a Republican governor so the loss of that seat might just be the one that prevents a filibuster proof Senate.

David Axelrod and David Plouffe have made very few errors. If Obama is consulting only with them he will do well.

My guess remains Michael Bloomberg, mayor of Nw York City. He would be safe and would get the jewish vote from everywhere. He has the same post-partisan ideas. Obama also has the option of making a quiet choice by announcing it during a high point in the Olympics. Or let it leak out.

Who would be safe for McCain is hard to say. Mitt Romney is a Mormon and that might not fly well with Christian conservatives. McCain will win Utah anyway. Ron Paul should do for McCain.

McCain can win the game of chicken because the Republican convention is later.

I think that Obama needs to give a speech on sexism, or perhaps his wife should..sort of like his one on racism. Acknowledge that it exists, that it showed up in the primaries, and make an announcement that he does not intend to perpetuate it in his candidacy or his cabinet. That he has been looking at both men and women, that there are many qualified people of both genders...That he will not exclude a capable woman because she is a woman, nor will he choose a less qualified woman just because she is a woman. He will be selecting a vice president and a cabinet ultimately composed of men and women, hopefully of various backgrounds etc..and that there will be a personal component to his selection..that he has to have a good working relationship with whomever he chooses. That he realizes that many women think Clinton should have the VP slot, but it will not necessarily happen, and that though they might be very disappointed it is not appropriate for them to insist that other women not be under consideration. That is against the law frankly. mg

Wesley Clark has the military credentials, and is the likeliest to satisfactorily fill the attack dog role.

Evan Bayh and Joe Biden just don't seem right to me. No easily quantifiable reason I can come up with, I just don't feel like either would be a strong choice.

Hillary Clinton would be a double-edged pick. Her strengths are many and well-documented. Unfortunately, her negatives are many and well-documented also.

I don't think it would be the best choice for her. She needs to do more than go to state funerals. She will have a better outlet for her talents than that. She can accomplish so much more in the Senate.

Although, that would be an historic ticket. A black man and a woman.

But I think Obama needs a well-known white man. Sad as it is, we are not grown up enough as a nation to easily elect a ticket with no white man on it.

McCain is another story. He probably needs someone who the evangelicals can relate to.

I wonder what Huckabee is up to these days. He really pissed off the people here in Oklahoma. This state should have been strongly behind him, but his cavalier attitude about the chicken farm pollution being dumped into the Illinois river and flowing into our state lost him what should have been a natural constituency.

I think Mitt Romney would drive a lot of evangelicals over to Bob Barr.

McCain could really throw a wrench into things by picking a woman, but I don't really expect that.

I really don't see either candidate's choice making that much of a difference, as long as they both avoid a Quayle.