George,

It's hard to imagine a Richardson vice-presidency with Obama: not because it's two minority groups but because next to Obama, Richardson has so much experience and is so dry they don't seem to go together as characters.

This may be one of the most important Veep selections in many years by both sides. Bush/Cheney seemed to break the old mold of Veeps being a chosen as possible future Presidents after the eight year term of the President. They introduced a new model: vice-president with power. Mr. Cheney's term as Vice-President has arguably been the most powerful VP in American history, certainly of recent VP's.

So the question is, is America turned on or off by a strong VP choice?

If they're turned on, why not have Bill Clinton as Hillary's VP? I researched the 22nd Amendment and it says nothing about a former President serving as Vice-President.

It seems as if the most dynamic possible ticket at this time is Clinton/Obama. Take the contest and turn it into a love fest. The image of Obama and Clinton running on the same ticket would really bash some old racial /sexist prejudices. Be a pretty hard sell in some parts of the country but then, both Clinton and Obama will be hard sell to the same folks. Leave 'em behind because they're not coming anyway.

Seems Edwards would be unlikely to accept another seat at the Veep table.

How about Clinton/Feingold? Liberals would rejoice. Could get out a whole lot of voters who might otherwise stay in.

How about Clinton/Feinstein? The assumption of course, is that Clinton would choose a man as her running mate.

I don't believe we'll see Obama/ Clinton. Too much baggage for him to assume if he is succesful in upsetting her in the race for the nomination.

What about Obama/Kennedy? That's the Democrats answer to Bush/Cheney.

In the end, the reason neither candidate should choose Richardson is he will drain energy away from the potential candidate because his energy is so dry and reserved: very presidential, very senatorial, not very vice-presidential.

His experience is so much stronger it will look like a repeat of the Bush/Cheny regime, and that will not signify change - which is the most important thing the choice should embody - change.

Joe Clancy (Electronic mail, January 11, 2008)