If it's not Clark or Sebelius. I'd also be fine with Hillary, especially after the results of a recent poll:

Sen. Clinton has little or no effect on Republican preferences in a race against Sen. McCain -- and she helps Sen. Obama significantly among Democrats.

According to the July 22-23 Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll, in an Obama-McCain head-on match-up, Sen. Obama gets just 74% of the Democrats and 6% of the Republicans. With Sen. Clinton as his running mate vs. a McCain-Romney ticket, Sen. Obama's Democratic vote goes up to 86% -- a significant 12% increase. As for Republican voters, rather than getting "revved up" because of Hillary's presence on the ticket, there was no effect at all: The Obama-Clinton ticket gains 3% (from 6% to 9% among Republicans), whereas McCain-Romney gains the same 3% (from 82% to 85%).

So what about independents? An Obama-Clinton ticket appears to gain some strength in this critical swing-voter group. With an Obama-McCain head-on contest, independents are evenly divided, 32%-30%, with Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain. But with an Obama-Clinton ticket vs. a McCain-Romney ticket, the independents favor Obama-Clinton 38%-30% -- a statistically significant 6% increase in a crucial voter group.

sebellious too.

Even I would be ok.

Mccain is not able

that General Clark would be an excellent choice, and I signed the petition, although I am sure that the Republicans will claim Clark was "fired" from his military job. I also agree that Senator Clinton would be a good choice. I have been puzzled by the continued persistent public debate over Kaine (see Michael Gerson in the WaPo this morning, for example). It seems like an artifically created boomlet, a trial balloon perhaps to test reaction?  

.........to sign a petition telling him who to choose as his running mate.  I contacted the campaign to express an informed opinion that one candidate was not receiving enough public scrutiny concerning stands on important issues.

to the Obama campaign.  Anyway, this isn't "telling" him who to choose, it's demonstrating that there would be strong support if he DID choose Wes Clark as his running mate.  Just like we were not TELLING Jim Webb to run with the "draft," we were encouraging him and demonstrating that there would be support for him if he decided to "go for it."

And I know the two of us greatly respect Barack Obama as well.

The campaign is capable of choosing the correct person.  I think these sort of public campaigns are inappropriate.

These "campaigns" are an activist's expression, presumably as to what is good for the Obama campaign and the country as a whole.

Jim Webb was thinking about running .... hadn't really decided to run and the Draft movement was certainly a very positive development in terms of getting him to run.

Wes Clark compared to Tim Kaine is in my opinion a much better choice for V.P. ... for the sake of the country - not the campaign and not necessarily for the candidate.

But in the end. Mr. Obama will make the call .... I sure hope it's a GOOD ONE!

in 2006!!! :)

I just want to be clear about that.  What was holding him back were the very obstacles we so skillfully addressed for him.

Furthermore, I submit that this discussion is off subject.  A potential candidate for office is his or her own person.  In this case, it is our Pres nominee making the choice.  It is like comparing apples and oranges.

My sense is that the short-list may already be near completion sans Clark, but hopefully Obama gives this one some serious consideration.  Clark will be a tremendous asset as VP.

While I love Wes Clark and Voted for him in the Primary in 04 I think he would make an awful VP. The main job of the VP is to be a spokesmen/attackdog for the president, and Clark tends to stick his foot in his mouth if you leave him in front of a microphone for too long. Picking him would also underline the fact that Obama has no military experience, making it seem like Obama would have to refer to Clark on what to do on foreign affairs.  

Job of being Vice President is to be an advisor, a second in command, to be ready to step in and take over if need be, to focus on specific areas within the govt and to take action as needed---many of the same roles as a Deputy Cdr in a military unit or any second in command in business.  Attack dog role came from Bush "presidency" and Nixon's regime with Agnew.  Don't recall Gore, senior Bush, Mondale, etc filling that role.

In this campaign I anticipate both Obama and his VP candidate to remain largely positive.

They need Clark off the ballot so he can be that attack dog referred to in other comments. He does an awesome job calling out McCain on his supposed international security credentials.

My prediction for Clark: Sec Def (or Sec State).

Although I think he would excel in many positions, don't think either Sec Def (which is Hagel's if he wants it) or Sec State (assumed to be Holbrooke if he meshes with Obama--or Susan Rice, although that may be a push); Zinni likely has National Security if he wants it.

Clark definitely should have a major position in the administration if he wants it, just don't see where he fits in smoothly.  Ambassador to the EU, or any number of other Ambassador positions I would think would be a good fit.