kimblr.com

Barack Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, has two options in his hunt for a partner on the Democratic ticket. He can double down on strengths or he can compensate for weaknesses. If he mimics the last Democratic president and chooses the former (Bill Clinton selected another young Southerner, Al Gore, in 1992), the decision-making process is relatively easy: Find someone youthful and energetic with a devotion to reform, a foreign policy approach that rejects conventional wisdom, and a short or nonexistent Washington resume. If Obama chooses the latter, however, things are decidedly more complex. Does he choose a VP who bolsters the ticket on foreign policy or on executive experience? Is there anyone with foreign policy expertise who isn’t a creature of Washington? Does he find someone with appeal to working-class voters in Appalachia or white women nationwide? What about Jews in Florida and Latinos in the Southwest? And hanging over all of this is the geographic question—does Obama pick someone who hails from a swing state that he or she can deliver?
There is not a lot of evidence that suggests vice presidential candidates make a serious difference (good or bad) for the ticket. Two words: Dan Quayle. One study showed that a veep pick can increase a ticket’s performance by less than one half of one percent in the VP’s home state. Presidential candidates do not assume the assets (or race, or gender) of their running mates, and voters generally focus on the top of the ticket. The most important questions for Obama may be the simplest. Which potential VP can be president should the unthinkable happen, and whom can Obama spend four (or eight) harmonious years with in the White House?
With these caveats in mind, let’s look at the contenders. Hillary Clinton isn’t on this list—not because she is an unlikely pick, but because the merits of adding her to the ticket have been debated ad nauseam.

motherjones.com