I hope this works

[OmahaBlueDog]

In '88, a youngish, wonkish Mike Dukakis picked popular, conservative Dem Lloyd Bensten from Texas. Bensten destroyed Dan Quayle in the debates -- not just beat but literally destroyed his career with the now famous "You, Sir, are no Jack Kennedy." He was the older politician who was supposed to bring knowledge and experience to the ticket. In the end, it wasn't enough to counter Willie Horton, bad pictures atop tanks, stupid comments about Belgian Endive, and sucker punch debate questions about what if his wife was the victim of a violent crime. Dukakis got slaughtered. Afterword, I'd hear folks say "If only the Democrats had reversed the ticket -- I could have voted for that."

It's a safe, do-no-harm pick. In many ways, that's good. Hillary would likely have unified and galvanized both parties. Biden is respected as a tough, no bullcrap guy who is a tough debater and who people could envision taking the helm in a bad storm.

But that's about all he brings. I don't see him inspiring those Hillary supportes who haven't seen the light yet. Maybe Bill and Hill can take care of that in the next 10 weeks -- we'll see.

My take is that Sebelius failed the audition with the SOTU address. I don't think Hagel was ever a real possibility. Bayh and Kaine were probably perceived as having the same experience knocks as Obama. Bob Graham and Sam Nunn have probably been out of the game too long.

Why not Richardson, though? A governor, former congressman, former Sec Energy, and he would have been an asset with Hispanic voters. If (God Forbid) we blow this thing, Richardson will be the next "what if...?" after Hillary Clinton.

And why did Biden flat out lie and say it wasn't him? Or was it a lie? Was there another choice that fell through or failed the vetting?

In any event, good luck and Godspeed to Obama/Biden '08. America is in desperate need of new leadership. I don't just mean new ideology (that's part of it, to be sure), but a new approach to leadership that isn't simply the "we won, you lost, screw you" approach we've seen with the Republicans since Newt Gingrich came on the scene.

[gateley]

1. We all hope it works. We have to do what we can to make it happen. nt

[JeanGrey]

2. I don't believe Byah was EVER a serious possibility.

He was simply to close to Hillary. Biden is the smartest choice he could've made. Confirms to me that Obama is going to be a fantastic president.

[TwilightGardener]

3. I don't think Obama had a really suitable slate to choose from--

we are in difficult times foreign-policy wise, two wars, banking crisis--lots going on, plus he's up against an old war hero, so he couldn't just go with his heart and pick someone he liked, or someone who brought a state. He really does need a governing partner, and he's humble enough and man enough to choose Biden, who will probably at some point try to step on Obama's toes. I'm sure they will work it out, though.

[OmahaBlueDog]

4. Ever since Reagan, the VP has been asked to do an increasing share of the heavy lifting

Biden should inspire confidence with his deep experience in Foreign Policy. I think having two Senators means that, for the first time since JFK/LBJ, two Senators -- people who know how the Hill works -- will be running the show.

[TwilightGardener]

5. I am one of the few who thought that this year Senators were in the

best position to win, as opposed to governors, even though the conventional wisdom was that governors always win because of exec experience. So I agree, it's a solid ticket that should make a good governing team.