Does John McCain risk losing the conservative base if he picks Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman to be his vice presidential running mate? Rich Lowry thinks the Ridge trial balloon last week may have been more than coincidence:

NR has learned that the McCain campaign has been calling key state GOP officials around the country the last couple of days and sounding them out about the consequences of a pro-choice VP pick.

While others have speculated that McCain would benefit with independent and women voters by choosing a pro-choice running mate. John Hawkins says Lieberman is too liberal, but Ridge might make sense if it appears he could put Pennsylvania into play.

I do think the dire warnings of a pro-choice VP selection are somewhat off. While there would almost certainly be backlash from conservative figures over a Ridge selection, those same figures didn't have much of an impact opposing McCain in the Republican primaries. What will matter more to evangelical voters is what sort of abortion policies McCain would have as president, and he forcefully addressed those questions over the weekend. Also, you'd have to assume Ridge would make a point of noting that his job as VP is to implement the policies of the president, not oppose them. And even though it's already been stated before, I do not think you can underestimate the value of Ridge as someone McCain has a personal connection to, and how important that is to maintaining McCain's authenticity on the stump.

I'll go on the record now as saying Joe Biden seems like the best VP choice for Obama at this point. He's seasoned on foreign affairs and brings a moderating personality and record.

In related news, influential blogger Steve Clemons won't reveal his sources within the Obama camp, but he does whittle down the list of perspective vice presidential nominees, confidently excluding Evan Bayh, Tom Daschle and Wesley Clark:

I just received word that it is not Senator Jack Reed either, though Obama thought very highly of him. In my estimation, that leaves Joseph Biden, Chuck Hagel, and Sibelius. I don't think that Tim Kaine would be the nominee given the elevation of Mark Warner as the keynote speaker at the Dem convention.

CNN adds that the "VP buzz is squarely on Biden." Over at Open Left, Chris Bowers promised to not "freak out" if it's Biden, but does add this warning:

Biden is not a reinforcing choice, as he has served in the Senate for 36 years and supported the war back in 2002-2003. In two key ways--Iraq judgment and "change" election--that is very much the opposite of Barack Obama, and could muddle his message. Still, when it comes to ideological leanings and campaign ability, Biden is a preferable choice to Bayh and Kaine.

Josh Marshall is also not thrilled about the Biden possibilities, but acknowledges it could in fact be a very smart pick:

Most senators grasp of foreign policy is fairly thin -- and it tends to be heavily influenced by whatever lobbyists or power players are in their orbit. But Biden has a pretty deep knowledge of pretty much every big foreign policy question. And his ideas and judgment strike me as fundamentally sane.

For the best of CQ Politics' reporting on the Veepstakes, be sure to read Jonathan Allen's VP Watch Blog.

With rumors circulating that a McCain vice presidential pick could come as early as this week, The Ethics Guy, aka Bruce Weinstein, outlines some of the ethical considerations of picking a VP. Weinstein argues that the pick should go beyond simple electoral vote calculations:

With so many critical issues before us, including a flagging economy, rising food and energy prices, a housing crisis, almost 50 million citizens without health-care insurance, and the ever-present danger of terrorism, it's reasonable to think that the next President may continue in the tradition of having a Vice-President who plays a significant role in determining the direction of our country.

I still think Novak's story was a distraction from the McCain campaign to put a dent in Obama's overwhelming, and overwhelmingly positive, blanket news coverage from overseas this week. But if the news is accurate, this would be a foolish decision on team McCain's part.

Unless, of course, you buy into my theory that McCain has already resigned himself to losing the election and is going to select Mitt Romney as his running mate because his dislikes Romney so much that he wants to critically damage his chances of being the 2012 nominee by putting him on a losing ticket this year. Zing.

Get all the latest on VP chatter by checking out CQ Politics' VP Watch.

The "libertarian Democrat" (and personal longtime mentor) Terry Michael predicts the two vice presidential running mates: Claire McCaskill for Obama and Mitt Romney for John McCain. Last year, Michael predicted that Obama and Romney would be the two major party nominees. I haven't heard McCaskill's name mentioned much as a VP contender (she denies interest), but she fits several needs:

1. Women voters
2. Swing State
3. Comfortable, and experienced, being Obama's "attack dog"

Meanwhile, the chatter about Romney seems to be exciting Republicans in his home state, but little elsewhere.

The Clinton and Obama mouthpieces both tell Talking Points Memo that CNN's report about formal talks over Hillary Clinton as a potential vice presidential nominee are "100% false." 

A week ago, the buzz was that Mike Huckabee sat atop the list of potential vice presidential running mates for John McCain. Seven days later that seems a distant memory, after Huckabee's joke at the NRA's annual meeting about Obama having a gun pointed at him. Despite his strong showing with evangelical voters in the Republican primary, Huckabee has never been a favorite amongst conservative bloggers. And many of those same bloggers see the NRA joke as taking Huckabee out of the VP race:

AmSpec's James Antle:

I don't think there was any malice on Huckabee's part when he made his Obama gaffe. But I do think it shows spectactularly poor judgment and the potential for some Quayle-ian moments should he get the vice presidential nod.

NRO's Jim Geraghty:

A momentary lapse of the tongue shouldn't be enough to keep someone off the ticket, but it probably will be enough. A McCain selection of Huckabee in a race against Obama would get this joke played and replayed about as often as "macaca."

Hot Air's Allahpundit:

The left will use it as a Larger Truth about the NRA; the media will use it to find some racial subtext that isn't actually there; and righteous conservative bloggers will use it to gently suggest that perhaps Huck isn't VP material.

In his New York Times column today, Bill Kristol makes his case why Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, 36, would make a good vice presidential pick for John McCain:

They’re tempted by the idea of picking someone so young, with real accomplishments and a strong reformist streak. It might also be a way to confront the issue of McCain’s age (71), which private polls and focus groups suggest could be a real problem. A Jindal pick would implicitly acknowledge the questions and raise the ante. The message would be: “You want generational change? You can get it with McCain-Jindal — without risking a liberal and inexperienced Obama as commander in chief.”

However, that assumes implicitly acknowledging McCain age "questions" is the best route for the presumptive Republican nominee. He seems to have had more success defying expectations about his age by running a vigorous campaign scheduling and regularly having his 96-year-old mother appear at campaign stops.
There are plenty of very good reasons to pick Jindal: his accomplishments, proven ability to win in a toss-up state in a bad electoral time for Republicans, solid conservative record and appeal to a growing minority segment of the population. But picking him primarily because his age stands in stark contrast to McCain's may not be a good choice at all.

The reaction from conservative bloggers to Kristol's column can be described as lukewarm at best. Blogger reactions after the jump...

Marc Ambinder places Joe Biden on the shortlist for Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate choices. The rationale:

Just to be provocative, I'll throw out Joe Biden's name. His hidden asset is his connection with white, working class voters. His obvious asset is his foreign policy experience.

For what it's worth, Condoleezza Rice does not make the list of Ambinder's prospective picks for McCain (Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty leads that list).

The Biden suggestion is being met with mixed reactions from liberal bloggers. Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum offers a well-thought rationale for why the Biden choice would work.

Once he leaves the cozy confines of a primary where the anti-war base is enough to win, Obama is going to enter the chillier territory of a general election where he'll need to draw a bunch of votes from the ranks of people who once supported the war. He needs a good way to signal these folks that he doesn't consider them tainted forever by their erstwhile support, and what better way than by choosing a moderately hawkish senator who once favored the war but has since changed his mind?

Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias, who incidentally supported the war during its popular beginnings, must never want to be president himself. He says Obama must pick someone who was against the war from the beginning:

But putting someone who voted for the war, even someone who did so half-heartedly and after making a quasi-promising effort to restrain Bush, seems to muddy way too much of the argument Obama is making.

My take: Obama has several good options. Jim Webb offers a great counter-narrative, Hillary Clinton could help unite Democrats (although I think that concern is overrated) and Kansas' Kathleen Sebelius is popular. But Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano could be too enticing too pass up. Imagine the negative coverage if John McCain is forced to battle for his home state in an election season where he will already have a tough enough time getting used to being the media's second favorite candidate.