I think Strickland makes the most sense for Hillary. It's a little less clear if he would be Obama's best choice, but it could work.

Strickland is an interesting choice. If he can tie up Ohio, I don't see how Republicans would even have a shot at winning. Giuliani picking up New Jersey? I don't see the blue/red states from the last 2 elections holding up that solidly if Hillary and Rudy are the nominees. I'd expect surprises on both sides. Sabato just had an article on this, I will post it. I still expect Richardson to be Hillary's choice. Strong ties to the Clintons, great resume, play for the Hispanic voters which will be big in NM, CO, AZ, NV. I agree that Bayh would be a bad choice. Clark is a remote possibility with his Clinton connections, but I don't see him bringing much to the ticket electorally either. Obama isn't likely - Hillary (and certainly Bill) outperforms him in popularity among African-Americans and he hasn't advanced much with his star power. Only risk with not picking him is college kids who could possibly go Giuliani or 3rd party without him, but they're notoriously low in turnout anyway.

I don't think Strickland will abandon his office barely 1 year into his term to start campaigning for VP.

expect Richardson to be Hillary's choice. Strong ties to the Clintons, great resume, play for the Hispanic voters which will be big in NM, CO, AZ, NV. I agree that Bayh would be a bad choice. Clark is a remote possibility with his Clinton connections, but I don't see him bringing much to the ticket electorally either. Obama isn't likely - Hillary Clark will be a stronger runningmate for Hillary than Richardson. The problem with Richardson or Obama is whether or not the Country is ready for a Hispanic VP President- especially when Illegal Immigration is a big issue or a candidate whose name rhymes with Osama. Clark is a better candidate being a southerner and a military man. Rhodes Scholar.

Brian Schweitzer, Mike Easley, and Brad Henry could be intersting picks.

Hillary won't pick Richardson for VP. Given all of his gaffe's and HORRIBLE debate performaces its too risky and Hillary doesn't take risks. I think Hillary will pick Strickland, paving the way for Governor Lee Fisher in Ohio

He'd be fine in head-to-head debates. The problem is that in the primary debates everybody except Hillary needs to try to distinguish themselves.

Richardson, Vilsack, and Easley are the best picks.

I agree. If its Hillary its almost a sure bet that Richardson get it though.

I think it's far from sure that it'd be Richardson. Although I agree he'd be a pretty good choice.

I have thought for a long time hill would either pick clark or richardson as her vp. There is something attractive to the idea of Evan Bayh though...

Any reason Vilsack is not here?

I agree Vilsack would be a likely pick if it is Hil-Dog as the nominee. She needs Iowa, and other Midwestern states to win. And he was the first candidate to drop out, and he has endorsed Clinton.

I'll add (or re-add) Vilsack.

Vilsack wil definitly be Hillary's VP.

God help us if that is the case. I doubt it though. I think Wes Clark would be much a much more likely pick.

i highly doubt vilsack will be her nom, but he could def be a good member of her cabinet. If she wants a midwesterner, shell pick Bayh, or Gov of Ohio.

Clark brings nothing to the ticket. It'll be Strickland or Vilsack.

Hillary's going to pick this strategically-if she feels she needs electoral help come next year, she'll go with Strickland. However, the fact that he's been that office for about a minute now may not play well, and Hillary isn't known for making mistakes (possibly the reason that Bill Richardson will be the Secretary of State rather than the Vice President). So why not pick the attractive, good-ol-boy general with sterling credentials and unwavering support of the Clintons? Also worth noting: if Clark ran for VP, and Clinton stayed in office for eight years, we may have another completely open primary season, as Clark would be 72 in 2016.

I think Ohio wouldn't hold it against Strickland if Clinton picked him. His Lt. Gov. can finish what he started. Strickland would be by far the strongest pick for Clinton. He knows Washington well, and is a smart guy.

Sprio Agnew had the same time as governor as Strickland. Granted, times have changed. Remember too that Strickland was a Congressman for years. And he has a great and different career background outside of politics. I think he'd be a solid choice. But Hillary could very well feel more comfortable with Clark. I too think Vilsack has an above-average chance.

Isn't Ted Strickland going to be 65 in 2008? Hillary is probably pretty likely to give a big "FU" to Obama's supporters anyways.

i think bayh needs to be added to this list...and how bout an idea of fmr senator bob graham or senator nelson of fl? if shes looking for electoral votes.....

He will be 67

Picking one of the losers of the nomination is almost always a bad idea. 1960 and 1980 are notable exceptions.