In my opinion, the following five candidates outlined in this diary - in no particular order - are top tier choices for Barack Obama's Vice Presidential pick, all with their pros and cons.
The criteria for determining the list was as follows:
Consistency With Obama's Message and Record on All Major Issues
Charisma/Likeability
Ability to Make a Case Clearly and Concisely
History of Being An Effective Campaigner
Executive Experience
National Security Experience
Electoral Benefits
Ability to Run in 2016
Claire McCaskill: The true dark horse pick of the list, but she has grown on me exponentially as the weeks have gone by as a tireless advocate for Obama, and an incredibly effective one; her ability to be clear and concise but also likable and charismatic is remarkable. Endorsed early with heartfelt support, and helped Obama win the only February 5 state his campaign's spreadsheet did not predict correctly: Missouri. No executive experience or extensive national security experience, but has all the other five of the seven metrics listed above. More to the point, McCaskill's twenty plus years of service on the local, state, and federal level reinforces Obama's twenty plus years of service on the local, state, and federal level; this could provide the ticket with the chance to challenge the entire experience metric as defined purely by time in Washington, a definition the media has wholly embraced in recent years, but one that four out of the five last Presidents were elected by running against. Can help in the Midwest and possibly the Mountain West, has practically no real negatives for Republicans to target, and young enough to run in 2016. Risks a Senate Seat.
John Edwards: Charismatic, optimistic, does great in recent General Election polls; a Southern white rural Democrat with populist appeal, a very progressive platform, and high name recognition. Could help flip VA, NC, SC, GA, and other states where Obama has a much better shot than Kerry ever did, also helps a little in the rust belt, can run in 2016, and has been an effective campaigner through two primaries. On the con side, the Edwards caricature has already been developed and invested in by Republicans, and he is associated with losing in 2004, which is added fodder for mockery; also no executive or extensive national security experience, blew it originally on Iraq, and (rightly or wrongly) can be used by the GOP to paint Obama as less bipartisan in comparison to McCain, something that is one of their strategic objectives this year.
Kathleen Sebelius: Popular red state governor, executive experience, helps in the Midwest. Like McCaskill, provides middle aged and older female voters with an impressive and qualified woman on the ticket as smart as HRC, but also like McCaskill and HRC, creates a double dose of identity/cultural change in addition to having a black man on top of the ticket. However, Sebelius' placement on the ticket would remind everyone, constantly, without saying a word, that Obama's mom was a white woman from Kansas (when I think back on some of the passages of Dreams From My Father, I wonder if this may ironically be a reason that actually causes Obama to reject this option). No national security experience, low on charisma, criticized for a dull State of the Union response.
Wesley Clark: Former General with very extensive military resume, comparatively hard record for Republicans to attack, from the South. Kind of unclear on Iraq War at the outset, but supported Ned Lamont in the 2006 Senate primary back when no one in the Senate did so. Worked to prevent war with Iran, but buckled on that principle to defend a bad Hillary vote. A weak campaigner in 2004, but by all accounts has improved significantly since then; positive demeanor and telegenic in terms of the aesthetics, but really lacks the kind of political charisma that grabs people. The only HRC advocate on this short list, providing an olive branch to her supporters, but too old to run in 2016; however, the excellent health and shape he is in for his age may actually highlight by comparison McCain's relative frailty and physical conditioning, exacerbating voter fears about the GOP nominee's age and health. Strongest national security resume out there, but no experience in elected office period.
James Webb: Military veteran, served under Reagan, was always against Iraq; an effective campaigner who beat all odds to victory in 2006. Clear and concise economic populist who hit it out of the park with his State of The Union response, and has a son serving in Iraq; totally blew it on the FISA bill. Early writings have received criticisms regarding perceived misogynist undertones, potentially undermining bridge-building to middle aged and older white women supporters of HRC. May help Obama flip Virginia, and possibly help in Rust Belt and other Southern States as well, but probably not possessing the same potential for inherently regional boosts to the ticket that an Edwards pick would have; of the five options listed here, though, could very well be the most likely to appeal to white men across the country, given a tone of discourse more noticeable and assertive than Clark's and a lesser degree of association with negative Demcratic stereotypes than Edwards has. Too old to run in 2016, never ran a state, only in elected office for two years. Modest favorability ratings in his own state also question whether he is as likable a national candidate to put up as some of the other options. Risks a Senate seat.
There is a reasonable case to be made in favor of all of the above five candidates.
--
The following are the five oft-discussed candidates I think Obama should NOT pick, based on, in addition to the aforementioned criteria, the primary rule of do no harm:
Hillary Clinton: Undermines Obama's core message and appeal, irritating all the voters who voted for him to make a real change in Washington, and the independents who switched to the Democratic Party to vote for him. Spurs Republican turnout in an otherwise dejected year, and there is zero evidence that she will flip a single state for Obama.
Michael Bloomberg/Chuck Hagel/other Republican: Obama is about bringing us together; furthermore, he can and will need to one-up McCain in the contest of who is more bipartisan and unifying, but it does not require this kind of sacrifice. Some qualified and reasonable Republicans/ex-Republicans in the cabinet are fine and indeed encouraged, but Vice President? Talk about handing over the incumbency advantage in 2016, even if all goes perfectly.
Joe Biden: He doesn't help Obama pick up a single state, and he is a gaffe machine; he has too many bad moments on record for him not to get torn up by the media if chosen as Obama's VP, including a piece of videotape regarding comments about Indian Americans that appear at first glance to be just as incriminating as George Allen's "Macaca" moment (this would be bad enough on its own; if Bobby Jindal becomes McCain's VP pick, this could turn into an even bigger distraction from the issues) Plus, in just the last week, Biden undermined Obama's position on negotiation with Iran; what happens when a pundit asks him whether Obama was wrong to vote against Iraq war funding in 2006? I'd rather not find out.
Evan Bayh: I'm sorry, I was sleeping, what was that? Sebelius may not exactly be fireworks, but at least there's a groundbreaking sort of excitement to the concept of the first female VP, since there has never been one. I don't even know what else to write about Bayh not to lose interest in this paragraph.
Bill Richardson: OK, he's better than the previous four, I admit, with potential appeal in Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas - then again, most Hispanics who see or hear Richardson for the first time don't know he's Hispanic, and my Uruguyan born girlfriend says he speaks Spanish with a Gringo accent. The main thing against Richardson, though, is that he is as error prone as Biden, and made more mistakes than I can count throughout the primary; I don't mean to be harsh here, but Biden and Richardson were the gaffe brothers of the 2008 Democratic pool, so putting either on the Presidential ticket would signify a complete lapse in vetting and judgment. No resume could be thick enough for me not to acknowledge that basic fact.
I'm not particularly sold on Rendell and some of the other suggestions, either; I don't think you can automatically toss a swing state governor on the ticket without any of the other considerations and assume it's a top pick.
However, there's a lot to consider in this process, and I welcome all comments and counterarguments.