Yup, Lieberman.

Shares his philosophy. Pulled votes as an independent. Balances the ticket. Will get the right wingers anyway. Jewish vote. Delivers Connecticut, Massachusetts and puts New York and Florida in play. Ethical and honest. Name recognition. Could be president tomorrow. Holds the "radical center".

how about al sharpton?

Doesn't matter. Mac doesn't have a chance. The dems will win in 2008. Too bad the party couldn't get behind the smartest guy just because he's a Mormon. We deserve to live in the hell of Hillary's reign. Let's just pray that Romney will be back in 2012.

Comments about the choices I've seen here:

Condi? NO CHANCE!!

Jeb Bush? Even less

Huck? I think people have had enough of god running the country.

Brownback? He's more christian wacko than Huck.

Perry? He needs someone from another part of the country.

Lieberman already said no. I think he's waiting for a seat in the admin.

Duncan Hunter? That's a possibility because he's from California.

I'm thinking the former Gov from New York... Patacki

How about Alan Keyes to bring McCain the African American vote? Just kidding!

Having Romney as the VP nomination would appease a block of voters that would otherwise be looking for a strong Independent candidate in the general election. Without Romney these voters would split between Republican, Democrat, and Independent. The Republican Party must have all of the Romney voters to win. A Huckabee VP would not hold this block of voters together. A Romney nomination for VP would appease me. Until then Romney supports should still be diligent in voting for Romney as long as he is on upcoming ballots.

I respect Mike Huckabee a lot, but the very best, most qualified and trustworthy, experienced and brilliant choice for Vice President would be Newt Gingrich!!!!!!!!!

Mike Bloomberg.

Adds maximum stregnth as a brilliant business/economic talent. Delivers New York with high popularity. Major source of funds. Balances McCain geographically. Could step in "in a heartbeat". Would carve up VP competitor in debate. Ready to play traditional attack role in national campaign against fiscally irresponsible economic theories.

dk - I doubt any running mate could deliver New York for the Republicans, so I'm guessing not. Isn't that a first criteria - be able to deliver your state?

But one thing I do remember from past cycles, if you aren't on the inside, you don't have a good sense of the likely short-list people. More times than not, the final choice isn't one of the other former candidates for president.

It is fun trying to guess, though.

It is not a foregone conlcusion that "if McCain wins, the GOP base will be with him no matter what." Not so, mon ami. Four Republicans in our household will never vote for McCain. And if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, then the four of us will sit on our hands at home and wait to see how the chips fall -that is unless McCain continues to clinch his teeth and to harp on bombing Iran and widening the war. In that case we will vote for the Democrat just to make certain McCain NEVER is elected. If the candidates are Obama and McCain, Obama gets all four of our ex-Republican votes. Republicans had a clear hope in Ron Paul, but they have blown any hope for real change and a real conservative and an honest man attaining to the Presidency.

Not that it matters (he'll not win) but, McCain will go for a Washington *outsider,* probably a governor, definitely more of a manager than a career politician. My guess (*if* he and McCain can swallow their mutual hard feelings) is ROMNEY.

There's no hope for neocon Joey "Ego Joe" Lieberman (a former Democrat? McCain's got enough trouble with the GOP base already) or Jebbie Bush (the Bush name Bush on any GOP ballot for the next two decades will be about as welcome as Charles Manson or Marilyn Manson).

How can a pure blood conservative ever vote for Obama. I understand he is a crowd pleaser and he talks about bringing people together but every newb politician has said this before. Obama is a socialist and a bad one at that. He is careless and niave about the world and its politics. People who vote for Obama must either be under 25, black, or just retarded because a 46 yr has no business running the country without ANY experience leading a state government. No his state tenure does not count it was worthless if he was a senator for a full term I would say yes but but NO he is a neophyte and should not be voted for.

Two weeks ago, I thought Huckabee could be angling for the job. He helped McCain in the debates, his staying in pulled votes and states away from Romney on Super Tues. Huckabee would be palatable to the neo-cons and religious voters and likely cement the South for the Repubs. I don't know who else who could offer more than that, though Newt is an inspired choice, I'm afraid the polarization thing would hamper the ticket. He's an established and known target of the liberal voters. I don't think anybody could pull Northeast states for the ticket. McCain is the maverick, so he can balance with an establishment choice. A woman on the ticket would look too much like a stunt this year, as would a minority choice. I personally would love to see Lieberman change his mind (but the neo-cons/religious voters would blow a gasket). Maybe Charlie Crist is owed a debt of gratitude.

I agree with Charlie Crist in order to hold on to Fl in the general election. I expect Guiliani is looking for a cabinet appointment. He might have to kiss up to the conservatives and pick Gingrich or Brownback. However, either one would mean disaster among centrists and independents.

I suggest since McCain wants to keep the wars going he choose General Norman Swartzkoff.

Tim, I find it interesting that you say that "a 46 yr has no business running the country without ANY experience leading a state government."

I guess that means that:

John F. Kennedy should not have been President. After all, he was actually PRESIDENT before age 46 but his entire previous experience was in the US Congress.

And, since the Vice-President is just a "heartbeat away" the following individuals should have been disqualified from serving as Vice-President before age 46:

Dan Qualye (ok, I'll agree with you there)
Richard Milhous Nixon
Al Gore
John C. Breckenridge (he was only 36!)
Aaron Burr
John C. Calhoun
Schuyler Colfax

That is 7 out of 46 VPs who should not have been Vice-President under your criteria. I'm sorry but NO ONE has ANY BUSINESS adding A PRIORI criteria to the Constitutional requirements for the office of President.

Posted by: James C. Karmer | Feb 8, 2008 11:53:11 PM

Yup, Lieberman.

Shares his philosophy. Pulled votes as an independent. Balances the ticket. Will get the right wingers anyway. Jewish vote. Delivers Connecticut, Massachusetts and puts New York and Florida in play. Ethical and honest. Name recognition. Could be president tomorrow. Holds the "radical center".

MCCAIN WILL NOT TAKE MASSACHUSETTS...IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN...NEVER...Connecticut maybe florida maybe but no way mass and if its clinton no way new york

McCain definitely needs a more conservative running mate to appeal to the diehards who think he's more liberal than Obama or Clinton, which is absolutely ridiculous.

As for who, I think Huckabee might be a strong political choice for McCain. He's certainly more conservative than McCain, and Huckabee can appeal to the conservative voting bloc, an area that McCain's clearly lacking in.

As a Brit and a European I am taking a particular interest in the 2008 campaign to see who will eventually assume the mantle of President and Leader of the Free World. After the disastrous foreign policies of Republican George W Bush and with America's esteem at an all time low in the world, I think any Republican candidate, be it McCain or anyone else, will have a hard time convincing the broad American electorate to usher them into the White House this year, especially if the US economy continues to deteriorate. As for the Democrats they are spoilt for historical choice in either having a potential first female candidate for the presidency or a black American one. That choice, however, is increasingly proving to be a very painful one for the Democratic Party if one is guided by the delegate count so far. While Mrs Clinton's personal abilities and experience as a NY Senator are not to be underestimated she does appear, however, to be a divisive figure among the electorate and in a general election she could conceivably hand the White House to the Republicans by default. From my own observations I believe a majority of Americans are looking for a fresh start after 8 yrs of George W Bush, not only to restore America's esteem in the world but also make an effective start in dealing with the multitude of economic and domestic problems that are of pressing concern to most ordinary American voters. Finally,I must say its nonsense to suggest that a 46yo politician is any way less able to be an effective president than either a former First Lady or a Vietnam war veteran. Be bold in your choice America !

The far right wing of the Republican party is howling over the presumptive nomination of John McCain. If they do not turn down the rhetoric, and get behind the candidate, they will force him to look towards more moderate elements to support his run for the Presidency. He will pick a moderate to be his running mate, and the conservative wing of the Republican party will have only themselves to blame. If they want conservative planks in the platform, better start making nice to the candidate who will promote that platform. How about Greenspan as VP? this would allay fears about his own admission that he is not an expert on the economy - which, by the way, I find refreshing that a candidate does not pretend to know more than he does - no one can be an expert on ALL aspects of the complex position of President. Good that he knows where he needs expert help. More than can be said for many other candidates who seem to consider themselves to know what is best for all Americans, at all times, and in all areas.