This started in response to some posts I've seen by people slashing at any rumored potential VP hopeful with a single statement or vote somewhere they unilaterally deemed insufficiently progressive for their (and by extension America's) tastes. Well, you're likely to be disappointed on that score if (as I deeply hope, in the interests of full disclosure) Obama gets the nomination. The last thing he needs is a running mate with utterly faultless progressive credentials. He needs someone solid, plodding, stolid, even, dare I say it, on the dullish side; fortunately the Democratic Party is just the place to find them. And don't worry about an attack dog, Barack seems to have bought Ronald Reagan's teflon on ebay.
Among other things, it's really really neat-o that he's got this crossover appeal, but let's not overemphasize appealing to independents and Republicans in February. They moved the general election to November this year, those tricky wabbits, and if you're looking for a mandate--and whether you know it or not, you ARE looking for a mandate--you might want to stop dreaming about Dennis Kucinich, at least in your political REM sleep. What you do with the rest of your time is your concern.
So here's the question. Do you want to fight, or do you want to win? Seems like one of the biggest differences between Democrats and Republicans in the last, oh, 28 years or so has often come down to that. And yeah, if you just want to fight, you get into a lot of great dust-ups, but guess what? You lose a lot.
Let's win one, and then do something with it.