And I realize I haven’t really commented on Biden’s remark last week that if Obama is elected, the world’s leaders would test his mettle as a young president. It’s probably true. Remember, John F. Kennedy came out of his first meeting with Nikita Khruschev feeling like he just got eaten for lunch. Remember also though that Kennedy quickly recovered and deftly averted world war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

So it’s probable that Biden’s right, and the world will throw a few elbows in Obama’s direction just to see how the new guy reacts (keeping in mind that they’d do the same to McCain to see how the old guy reacts). But it strikes me as politically a dumb and unnecessary thing to say two weeks before an election.

–Aren’t you embarrassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACORN, an organization that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?

–Sen. Obama famously told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread his wealth around. Gallup polls show 84% of Americans prefer government focus on improving financial conditions and creating more jobs in the U.S. as opposed to taking steps to distributing wealth. Isn’t Sen. Obama’s statement a potentially crushing political blunder?

–You may recognize this famous quote: “From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.” That’s from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

–Now you recently said, “Mark my words. It won’t be six months before the world tests Barack Obama.” But what worries many people is your caveat asking them to stand with him because it won’t be apparent that he got it right. Are you forewarning the American people that something might not get done and that America’s days as the world’s leader might be over?

–Getting back to the “spreading the wealth” question, what do you say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?

The question on Obama being a Marxist led Biden to remark, “Are you joking?  Is this a joke?  Is that a real question?” Watch for yourself:

West later defended her interview to the Orlando Sentinel, saying she simply asked “some pointed questions … that need to be asked.”

But what’s funny about West’s interview is that it’s a perfect example of the conservative movement’s lack of faith in its own principles. Rather than defend conservatism in this election, they’ve devolved into a platform of name calling and guilt-by-distant-association scare tactics.

American presidents have been raising and lowering taxes for centuries. But suddenly, because Barack Obama wants to lower taxes on the struggling middle class and return the tax rate on the rich to what it was under the Clinton administration, he’s a Marxist who wants to turn America into Sweden. It’s completely ridiculous.

If conservative principles work, defend them. Explain how the Bush administration mangled them, and how they would be implemented properly under a McCain administration. But even John McCain won’t do this. When the financial crisis hit, the man who in the Republican primaries bragged about his record of deregulation and his faith in the free markets suddenly became the foremost advocate for strict regulation, the guy who had been warning us all along this would happen. If deregulation and free market faith works, defend it. Say Bush and Greenspan screwed it up, and defend it. Don’t suddenly put on a fiscal liberal hat and hope nobody notices you changed teams.

A big reason why the Republicans are about to get trounced in this election is because of their fundamental dishonesty with the American people. They’ve done almost nothing to take responsibility or adequately explain why so many principles of conservatism have failed so disasterously over the past eight years. They have shunned serious analysis and conversation for tricks and political games.

The entire Republican primary season should have been focused on what went wrong under Bush and which candidate was best equipped to fix– and change– conservatism, to bring it into the 21st century. But instead, they all dutifully bowed to Reagan/Bush government, and obediently bent over for the Republican Party’s special interest groups. Which is why McCain now has no ideas to run on, no solutions, and would much rather talk about Bill Ayers and ACORN than the middle class– you know, those 200 million Americans McCain never once mentioned during the three debates.

And the same thing goes for the Sean Hannitys and Barbara Wests out there, who think name calling and fearmongering equate to journalism. If you really believe Obama’s plan to lower taxes on the middle class will be harmful to the American economy, talk about it. Show us the numbers. Just calling it “socialism” and “Marxism” is lazy, counterproductive, fundamentally dishonest, and a complete failure of duty by the conservative media.

It’s exactly why the American people are looking at the Republican Party right now like, “Are you joking? Is this a joke?”

UPDATE: Apparently, conservative bloggers are overjoyed by West’s line of questioning. Finally, somebody’s asking the tough questions! LOL! The fact that this interview is their idea of what Americans care about shows how badly out of touch and mildly delusional conservatives have become this year.

Americans have lost $2 billion trillion in stock value in the last month alone two years. That’s money that many retirees and near-retirees were counting on to live. But thank God someone’s finally hammering Joe Biden on Marxism! Once again, I repeat…….

Are you joking? Is this a joke?

First, Palin is apparently one of those U.S. Americans that can’t locate the New Hampshire on a map. She tells a New Hampshire crowd that she likes visiting there and ”other parts around this great Northwest” and promptly gets booed.

And not to be outdone, Joe Biden seems to be more concerned with Main Street than he is with Sesame Street. How many letters are in the word “jobs,” Joe?

This post is brought to you by the number four.

Last night, pundits and conservatives applauded Sarah Palin for not tripping over her feet on the way to the podium and not using the phrases “U.S. Americans” or “the Iraq.”  They applauded her strategy of not answering questions she didn’t know (because what American really needs from its government right now is less transparency and competence).  They even applauded her for speaking broken English.  Here’s Roger Simon of the Politico explaining how Palin “ended up dominating” the debate:

Sarah Palin was supposed to fall off the stage at her vice presidential debate Thursday evening. Instead, she ended up dominating it.

She not only kept Joe Biden on the defensive for much of the debate, she not only repeatedly attacked Barack Obama, but she looked like she was enjoying herself while doing it.

She smiled. She faced the camera. She was warm. She was human. Gosh and golly, she even dropped a bunch of g’s.

Here I thought America’s problems in Iraq and on Wall Street were complex and needed someone who could, you know, at least be able to point either out on a map.  But the answer is so simple: we’re not dropping our g’s!

We shouldn’t be stabilizing Iraq, we should be stabilizin’ it!  And why are we regulating Wall Street, when we clearly need to be regulatin’ it?  If only we had a folksy, average Joe president who was in way over his head, avoided dealing with issues he didn’t understand, and dropped his g’s.  Oh, wait.

Simon goes on to reveal that he’s learned exactly nothing from the last eight years:

True, a lot of her statements were of the fortune cookie variety. “At end of day,” she said, “if we are all working together for the greater good, it is going to be OK.”  But a lot of people like fortune cookies.

…

She said what she wanted to say, and she was so relaxed she even winked at one point. Really! An actual wink during a national debate…

Of course!  Why isn’t someone winking at Pakistan?  Why aren’t we sending fortune cookies to Ahmadinejad?  Somebody get the State Department on line one!  And Panda Express on two!

Listening to pundits praise Palin’s substance-less performance last night was like watching a Little League game where the small kid who always strikes out steps up the plate, finally makes contact with the ball, and the crowd goes wild.  No one cares that the kid just grounded out to the pitcher.  All he hears is, “Wow, you really hit that ball, champ!”

And that’s great for Little Leagues– hell, I was that kid– but when it comes to a grown woman who could potentially be the President of the United States in less than four months, all this lowered expectations cheerleading is pathetic, condescending, and let’s face it, sexist.  Any man who got up on stage and so obviously dodged questions he hadn’t studied for, stuck so closely to rudimentary talking points, and whose goal was clearly not to communicate but to survive would have been torn apart.  But Palin?  Wow, you really hit that ball, champ!  Sure, you didn’t win, but here’s a trophy with your name on it!

My own sense of the debate was that it benefitted both campaigns by being almost completely newsless.  For the Obama campaign, it didn’t change the trajectory of a race that is threatening to turn into an electoral college landslide.  For the McCain campaign, it temporarily stopped the bleeding from the week-long Katie Couric– there’s no other word– massacre.

But before conservatives start getting too excited, Palin isn’t out of the woods yet.  The difference between her crashing and burning in front of Charlie Gibson/Katie Couric and surviving last night was simply the lack of follow-up questions.  With the debate format as it was, she never had to explain, never had to clarify, never had to be specific.  She said the problem with No Child Left Behind is its lack of flexibility.  If you had asked her right then what specifically we need to do to make it more flexible, her head might have exploded.  She will get follow-up questions in the next five weeks, and realistically she’s no more prepared for them now than she was last week.

On both style and substance, last night was as good as I’ve ever seen Joe Biden.  He communicated a clear, substantive message about how an Obama administration would operate, he connected to middle class concerns, he picked apart John McCain’s record (pointing out that McCain has also voted against funding the troops was brilliant), and he avoided all the pitfalls of debating the delicate Palin flower.  Biden also got off the riff of the night when he pointed out that John McCain’s plan to fix America is two-fold: 1) Continue George Bush’s policies; 2) Call himself a maverick.

It’s clear that the Obama campaign’s debate strategy is to come across as the safe choice in this election.  Neither Obama nor Biden, in their performances, has seemed especially interested in making the morning news clips.  They’ve been more concerned with consistency, even-temperedness, and facts, rather than soundbytes and gimmicks.  It’s a strategy that places a bold amount of faith in the intelligence and seriousness of the American people.

Right now, we’re 32 days away from the election, with nearly every poll in every state moving toward Barack Obama.  Yesterday, the McCain campaign pulled out of Michigan completely.  If the election were held today, Obama would win by 125 electoral votes.  Every day that trend holds, every day the race isn’t completely turned around, is a day McCain loses.  And he certainly didn’t make up any ground last night.

As far as tonight’s debate is concerned, my pre-game analysis boils down to this: I think Palin will be okay to the extent that she isn’t asked any follow-up questions. Anytime she gets pressed for specifics or asked to demonstrate an understanding deeper than talking points, she falls apart. I’m sure she’s been preparing hard this week, but I’d guess that most of her studying has been memorizing answers and practicing debating tricks to get out of jams, not understanding issues. If she finds herself in the crosshairs of a question she hasn’t prepared a scripted answer for and can’t find a way out of, it’ll be ugly.

The debate format is pretty structured, which means Biden won’t be able to challenge her directly. It’ll be up to moderator Gwen Ifill whether to press Palin off her script or not. Palin’s performance also depends on whether Ifill stays on comfortable turf (hot-button social issues, energy, Alaska, Sarah Palin) or if she forces Palin onto less familiar territory (foreign policy, domestic policy, American history, federal government).

If Ifill takes it easy on her, Palin will survive. She’ll survive, but she won’t look good doing it. No matter what happens, whether she avoids an earth-shattering gaffe or not, the contrast between Biden’s grasp of the issues and Palin’s will be stark. There’s simply no way for Palin to stand on a stage for 90 minutes with the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and fake her way through the whole thing. The best she can hope for tonight is to get in a few good shots at Barack Obama and to make no other major news. Worst case scenario, and I say this in all seriousness, she effectively ends the race. The McCain campaign– sinking in the polls since the start of the financial crisis– will lose more ground tonight and they know it. The only question is how much.

There’s a version of this video circulating on Youtube that cuts out Joe Biden’s segment completely, and I think that does a disservice to it. In order to appreciate the enormity of Palin’s gaffe, you have to view her non-answer in proper context– the proper context being that she’s running to be Vice President of the United States. When you watch the ease with which Joe Biden not only answers the question, but then expounds on his answer– with no prodding from the interviewer required– you hear what a vice presidential nominee is supposed to sound like.

Regardless of whether you agree with Biden’s views or not, it is clear that he has given the matter a great deal of thought. With Palin, it appears as if she’s gone 44 years as a citizen of the United States and hasn’t given a day’s thought to any legislative decision in our history outside of the hot button Roe v. Wade. This is the equivalent of interviewing to be a sports reporter and not being able to name a football player other than O.J. Simpson. As president, this is the woman who would be in charge of granting lifetime appointments to Supreme Court justices.

The other reason to watch Biden’s segment first is that it eliminates any question of media bias. You can’t blame Katie Couric for this one. She asks Biden the exact same questions she asks Palin, with the exact same tone. The only difference is Joe Biden answers the questions, Sarah Palin can’t.

COURIC: Are you disappointed with the tone of the campaign? The lipstick on the pig stuff and some of the ads. And you guys haven’t been completely guilt-free, making fun of John McCain’s inability to use a computer.

BIDEN: I thought that was terrible, by the way.

COURIC: Why’d you do it then?

BIDEN: I didn’t know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it. And I don’t think Barack, you know… I mean, I just think that was, uh…

COURIC: Did Barack Obama approve that ad? He said he did, right?

BIDEN: The answer is I don’t think anything was intentional about that. They were trying to make another point.

And just like that, the meme goes from near universal media acceptance that John McCain’s campaign is the one playing dirty to the inevitable takeaway from this interview: “Even Joe Biden thinks the Obama campaign has gone too far, calling their own attack ads against John McCain ‘terrible.’”

First of all, there’s the obvious problem, Joe. You never, ever criticize your own campaign’s ads. Ever! Why? Because they all end with this: “I’m Barack Obama, and I approved this message.” When you criticize the ad, you’re directly criticizing your own candidate. And when you say that an ad being run by your side is “terrible” and that if you were in charge, “we never would have done it,” you– the man whose sole job for the next six weeks is to be the lead attack dog against John McCain and the lead surrogate for Barack Obama– are simultaneously drawing sympathy for McCain and calling Obama’s ethics into question. That strikes me as the exact opposite of what you’re supposed to be doing.

Second, there’s the other problem, Joe. As I’ve said before, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the ad (watch for yourself). There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that your opponent, who is running to lead the most technologically advanced government of the most technologically advanced nation in the history of mankind, doesn’t even know how to send e-mail. If John McCain’s admission that, “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” is fair game, then so is this. Computers are quickly becoming the means by which every American business and individual do everything, and that’s been the case for the last two decades. Not only is John McCain’s computer illiteracy relevant, but I’d argue that it’s crucial. In fact, the best thing that happened in that short interview clip is that Katie Couric relayed to viewers through her question that John McCain doesn’t know how to use a computer. But why is she doing Joe Biden’s job for him?

Later in the same interview, Biden took another swig of shoe, outlining the type of leadership it will take to solve the current economic crisis:

When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed. He said, “Look, here’s what happened.”

Jesse Walker at Reason quips, “And if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929, you would have seen him. And you would have said to yourself, ‘Who is that guy? What happened to President Hoover?’” Biden will likely get a pass on this one, and it’s a pretty trivial mix-up, but imagine if Sarah Palin had made that quote. She’d be absolutely crucified by the left. Furthermore, the next time Palin does make a history-scrambling gaffe (that is, if she ever gives another interview), even if it’s a much more fundamental one, she’ll have this Biden gem to point to and shrug, “Nobody’s perfect.”

And these two gaffes come in a week when Biden has contradicted Obama on both energy policy and financial policy, the latter leading Obama into an awkward moment with Matt Lauer (3:15 into the video).

Look, I think Joe Biden will make a great vice president, and I think it’s fantastic that he doesn’t agree with Obama on every issue and will bring a bit of much needed devil’s advocate to the executive branch. But you have to get there first; you have to win the election. You have to effectively communicate your vision to the American people. And you’re not going to do it with mixed messages and contradictions. There are only two people on the ticket; it shouldn’t be this difficult to get them on the same page.

Get your head in the game and your foot out of your mouth, Joe.

1. Stop complimenting McCain and Palin - Senator Obama, as I’m sure you’ve realized, your campaign has the extremely annoying habit of preceding every attack on John McCain or Sarah Palin with some kind of compliment.  (Somehow you must think this will allow you to attack without being polarizing, which is flat-out ridiculous.)  For example, you’ll begin an attack on John McCain’s economic plan with, “John McCain is a war hero who deserves all of our admiration, however…”  What?!?!  Why would you basically place a five second ad in favor of your opponent right before you try to convince people not to vote for him?  And I can’t count how many times Joe Biden has referred to McCain as a dear friend who he would do anything for.  SAVE IT FOR THE HONEYMOON, JOE.  This election isn’t Senate poker night, it’s war.  And you do this with Palin too.  “Sarah Palin is a historic step forward for women and a fantastic mother, however…”  STOP IT!

The effect this has on voters is that they begin to think, “Yeah, I disagree with John McCain on Iraq and on tax cuts for the wealthy.  Barack Obama’s got him there.  But, you know, McCain is just such a nice, honorable guy.  I like him.  Even all the Democrats who disagree with him admit that he’s a national hero and an all-around great guy, so how bad a President could he really be?”  Yeah, voters begin thinking this about 10 seconds before they walk into the booth and pull the lever for John McCain.

To put the foolishness of this in proper context, imagine any Republican in America beginning an attack on you like this: “Barack Obama is a bipartisan reformer with a record of change, however…”

2. Realize that you, Barack Obama, are the boxer not the ringside commentator - Stop responding to John McCain’s attacks with analysis of how and why it is misleading, as well as commentary on the current state of our politics and media, and what it all says about our culture within the historical context of mid-18th century England.  Hit back!

Here’s a perfect example, raised today by Politico’s Jonathan Martin, who was stunned by Obama’s overly analytical response to the McCain campaign’s ”lipstick on a pig” smear:

This is what makes some Democrats nervous.  Instead of hitting back with, say, a reference to McCain’s years-old crude comments about Chelsea Clinton (as one Dem suggested to me), he puts on his analyst hat and dissects the modern political-media process.   

Of course, there is truth to what he said.    It’s as plain as day to those of us who live this stuff and appreciate the finer points of the Drudge-cable news nexus.   

But, to the broader world, he’s being accused of outright sexism and his response is a disquisition on why the charge is gaining traction.

In other words, Obama, after getting punched in the face, drops his gloves and begins explaining to the crowd why he doesn’t believe the punch was effective.  It might get him a job as a talking head on Larry King Live, but it’s absolutely terrible, atrocious politics.  Perhaps Obama is playing rope-a-dope and saving the heavy artillery for October, but by the time we get there, he may be out on his feet.

So to condense point number two into two simple words: HIT BACK!  When John McCain accuses you of sexism, here’s your very simple, very effective response:

“I don’t think someone who called a teenage Chelsea Clinton ‘ugly,’ and who publicly referred to his wife Cindy using a four-letter word really wants to get into a debate about gender sensitivity.”

Bada-bing, bada-boom, just like that you’re on offense, McCain is on defense, the debate is now about whether John McCain is really the sexist, and voters begin swarming Google to find out exactly what John McCain called Cindy.  Presidential politics is not checkers, Barack, it’s chess.

3. Reframe the Iraq War – McCain keeps scoring points on his support for the surge and on his assertion that America is now “winning” the Iraq War.  Likewise, you, Senator Obama, continue getting asked questions like, “Why can’t you use the word ‘victory’?” and “Why can’t you just admit the surge worked?”

There are two very simple ways to rebut this idiocy, if it’s not already too late:

A) “We already won the Iraq War.  We won back in 2003 when we defeated and disbanded the Iraqi Army.  The Iraq War has been over for five years.  We are now engaged in the Iraq Occupation.  You can’t win an occupation, you can only either stay or leave.”

B) “If the surge worked, why are we still there?”

4. Stop going for lost votes (i.e. the racist and crazy vote) - This Sunday, you got into an in-depth discussion with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos over the Muslim smear.  Again.  Why, Senator, are you still getting into this argument?  Drop it!  The evidence of your Christian faith is overwhelming and has been so to even the least informed voter for well over a year.  At this point, nearly two years into your presidential campaign, anyone who is still convinced that you are a Muslim will never ever be convinced otherwise.  It’s fine to continue combatting this smear through Internet channels and grassroots efforts, but you, the candidate, should never dignify this type of garbage with a response again.

5. SIMPLIFY! SIMPLIFY! SIMPLIFY! - Stop getting stuck in the explanation weeds.  You don’t have to explain every detail and correct every misconception about everything.  Keep it simple, keep it simple, and search for ways to make it even simpler than that.  If you’re confused about what this means, here’s an example.

Republicans win elections because they promise that they’ll cut your taxes while Democrats will raise them.  It doesn’t get any simpler for voters than that, which is part of the reason why three of the last four presidents have been Republicans.  So, Barack Obama, rather than proclaiming that “95% of the American people will receive a $1,000 tax break under my plan, a tax break that they will not receive under John McCain’s plan” (because combining fractions, whole numbers, and coherent sentences can become very confusing for voters) put it like this:

“I will cut your taxes, John McCain will not.”

And when the McCain campaign fires back that your plan will in fact raise taxes on the top 1%, respond with this:

“I will cut your taxes, John McCain will not.”

Period.

6. Compare and contrast Senator McCain to Candidate McCain – I can’t take credit for this at all.  John Kerry first did it brilliantly two weeks ago in his convention speech.  The premise is simple.  John McCain had a to change a lot of his views in order to make himself more acceptable and in line with the Republican party’s strict ideology.  He’s on record supporting a lot of things he now opposes, including bills that he himself authored and fought for a mere two years ago.  As much as you need to link John McCain to George Bush (and for God’s sake, if you haven’t seen last week’s Daily Show report from the Republican National Convention, WATCH IT!), you need to contrast the mavericky Senator John McCain with the guy who also happens to be named John McCain, who has spent the last two years obediently bending over for the Republican party.

Speaking of which, Republicans seem to have forgotten how much they hated McCain’s immigration reform bill.  Remind them.

7. Compare and contrast Governor Palin with Candidate Palin – This should be relatively easy since literally everything the Republicans have put forth about Sarah Palin’s public record has been the 180-degree opposite of the truth.  This “No Maverick” ad was a good start, but I agree with a HuffPo blogger earlier this week who said to stop using the words “maverick” and “John McCain/Sarah Palin” in the same sentence altogether, even if it’s to say they’re not ones.  Linking words in sentences tends to lead to mental associations.  It’s how the Amercian public came to believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, even though that was never explicitly said.

8. Insult Alaska – The state is lost.  Once McCain picked Sarah Palin, he gained a 20-point advantage in her home state.  And it’s only good for three electoral votes anyway.  All of which should make you feel more than free to inform America what a sparsely-populated, inconsequential after-thought the state of Alaska is.

I mean, let’s face it, Alaska is practically another country.  It’s closer in every measurable way to Canada than it is the lower 48.  It’s basically some land we stole from Russia for shigs and gits.  The major issues in Alaska, the issues that are Sarah Palin’s bread and butter– moose hunting, shooting wolves from helicopters, courting the Eskimo vote (seriously, those were all real issues for her)– are completely irrelevant to the American presidency.  Likewise, Alaska has 670,000 people (equivalent to a city the size of Memphis, Tennessee), yet it receives billions in oil revenue every year.  Which makes balancing Alaska’s budget about as difficult as balancing Warren Buffett’s checkbook.

Sarah Palin touts her “executive experience” as though anyone who ever managed the night shift at a Starbucks is more qualifed than Barack Obama (and ironically John McCain) to be president.  But the truth is, the quantum leap from Governor of Alaska to President of the United States is like putting the owner of a small pet store in Detroit in charge of General Motors.

So to simplify, Democrats need to do everything possible to help America grasp how deep into the butt crack of nowhere Alaska really is, and more than that, how essentially meaningless Sarah Palin’s 20 months as governor of that state are.  Forget the moose hunter vote, look down your nose as far as possible.  Laugh if you must.  The word “Alaska” should not leave Democratic lips without the tone of a snide scoff.  Try it like this: “She’s the governor of (fleeting smile, rolled eyes, pause)…. Alaska.”  See how easy that is?

If you’re still confused, James Carville has already demonstrated this tactic brilliantly by printing out this picture of the mayor’s office in Palin’s hometown of Wasilla, Alaska and holding it up for CNN’s cameras:

“Would you like fries with that legislation?”

9. Contrast Candidate McCain to Palin’s record – If John McCain cares so much about earmarks and pork barrel spending, why did he pick for his running mate the worst pork barreling earmark offending governor in America?  If John McCain cares so much about Washington ethics, why did he pick a governor who is under investigation for ethics violations?  If John McCain cares so much about climate change, why did he pick a governor who is an avowed global warming denier?

I think you get the idea.

10. When in doubt, think like a Republican – In other words, don’t let your high ideals and noble vision of America keep you from doing whatever the hell it takes to win.  Understand that the American presidency is the most powerful office in history, and people quite literally kill for significantly less influential positions in other countries (and have throughout history).  And I don’t have to tell you how high the stakes in this election are.

So here’s the bottom line: Republicans win, Democrats lose, and even the last Democratic president won by acting like a Republican.  So don’t be afraid to make a few campaign promises you fully intend to break, don’t be afraid to throw a few interest groups under the bus, don’t be afraid to make half the country mad, and please don’t hesitate to throw a few sucker punches.  Yes, it’s important to win the right way, but it’s even more important to win.  So, hope, peace, love, and unity.  But just in case we aren’t the ones we’ve been waiting for, then by any means necessary.

Barack Obama VP picks
Joe Biden – DE senator
Bill Richardson – NM governor
Mike Bloomberg – NYC mayor
Tim Roemer – former IN representative
Sam Nunn – former GA senator
Tim Kaine – VA governor
Janet Napolitano – AZ governor
Colin Powell – retired general
Mark Warner – former VA governor
Jim Webb – VA senator
Tom Daschle – former SD senator
Hillary Clinton – NY senator

Hillary Clinton VP picks
Ted Strickland – OH governor
Tom Vilsack – former IA governor
Evan Bayh – IN senator
Barack Obama – IL senator
Bill Nelson – FL senator
Wes Clark – retired general

My take on Obama’s picks is that Bloomberg or Powell would be enormous mistakes. Bloomberg would make the ticket so socially liberal, it would fall off the map. And Powell, besides being a (albeit somewhat unwilling) key figure in the planning and execution of the Iraq War with close ties to both Bush presidencies, has admitted to not caring much for politics.

As for the concept of Hillary Clinton as Obama’s vice presidential nominee, she is– as Ben Smith points out– as divisive as any figure in American politics, and her track record of slash and burn politics, especially against Republicans, would undercut Obama’s message of national unity. The other problem is that for however long Barack Obama would be president, he would have Bill and Hillary Clinton looking over his shoulder, no doing everything possible behind the scenes to push him out of the way, putting their own interests as always above that of the administration, the party, and the country. Which is about the very last thing a president needs.

Obama’s best bets would be Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Jim Webb. All three would bring tremendous foreign policy experience to the ticket– Richardson as a former UN ambassador, Biden as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Webb as a former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan.

Richardson, as the first ever Latino on a presidential ticket, could energize that rapidly growing community and swing traditionally red Western and Mountain states toward the Democrats, not to mention what would be a highly contested state of Texas and the always important Florida. He would also be the only choice of the three to contribute substantial executive experience, with his two terms as governor.

Biden, with his 35 years in the Senate, would somewhat offset the experience in Washington edge of John McCain and would help Obama with older voters who have thus far been reluctant to support him. He is also a great campaigner– his foot-in-mouth-tendencies notwithstanding– as he showed during his 2008 campaign when he threw some of the hardest, most effective punches against the Republican candidates.

Webb, with his experience as a highly-decorated Vietnam combat veteran, his service in the Navy, and a son in Iraq, would bring instant military credentials to the ticket, offsetting John McCain’s ability to run solely on his military service and biography. And as a former Republican and Southern white male, Webb and Obama would embody the united, reconciled America of Obama’s campaign message.

My guess is that Obama goes with Richardson or Webb. An Obama-Richardson ticket would completely destroy the traditional electoral map and could potentially sweep the entire Western half of the United States (along with the usual Democratic East Coast strongholds). An Obama-Webb ticket would be more convential, but would be stronger in the mid-Atlantic and Southern states. From a purely who-gives-the-best-chance-to-win standpoint, I think the pick is Richardson.

My take on Hillary Clinton’s picks is that she would be foolish to pick anyone but Barack Obama. Evan Bayh and Ted Strickland would bring much-needed executive experience (and in Bayh’s case, youth) to her ticket, but neither has the political support, the money, or the popular appeal of Obama. Besides, the only way Clinton can get to the nomination at this point is to run over and through not just Obama and his supporters but the certified will of a clear majority of Democratic primary voters. The only possible way for her to mend those fences in time for the general election in November would be to offer Obama a promotion in the form of a spot at the bottom of her ticket. In that scenario, the bad blood between them would probably never go away– no matter how well Obama campaigned for Clinton or served in a Hillary Clinton administration, no matter how good a face he put on, he and a lot of other people would never be able to shake the feeling that he rightfully deserves to be the one at the controls.

Could a Clinton-Obama ticket win? Yes, and it almost certainly would. But it would win in the same way that Clintons and Bushes have won for two decades– by just enough to carry the electorate but not enough to get anything meaningful done afterwards.