Obama's VP choice as a catharsis ...

I have had it with the emotional roller coaster of this election.  I have been through enough.  From Florida in 2000, to the nauseating feeling when I realized at 10:00 PM that Kerry wasn't going to make it in 2004, to the Obama/Clinton blood-letting ... Well, let's say that I need to move on and think about something fun.  Maybe others among you are feeling the same way.  Might I suggest ...

Obama's VP choice?  This is fun and interesting and it brings a positive attitude about what has become a very unsettling situation with the current battle.

I'll start ...  My opinion, which is shared by many, is that Obama needs someone with gravitas.  You can argue about whether that person needs foreign policy or economic prowess.  I would say one or the other.  Military cred?  I don't think so.  My impression is that the Wesley Clarks of the world haven't done too well on the national stage running for President.  Argue away, but as I said, I'll start.  

The successful VP choice should bring in a few swing states.  The pessimists say that he/she should bring in a LOT of swing states.  I think that being from a swing state isn't such a big deal.  Gore couldn't win his own state and Edwards did little for Kerry in South Carolina so ...  I think that demographics are more important than where you are actually from unless you are very popular there.

At this moment (be nice because I have been prone to mood swings recently), I favor Richardson.

He has strong foreign policy credentials being the US Ambassador to the United Nations; he brings in the environmental vote with his position as Secretary of Energy; he has strong executive experience as Governor of New Mexico.  I think he helps with the "regular guy" vote and was endorsed by the NRA (or so I read but don't know the status of this).

As for the swing states, I took what I called the "purple" states from 2004 with between 51 and 45% of the vote for Kerry, and then fudged it a tad to get:

Oregon, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada, Florida, Colorado, Missouri, and Virginia.

My thought in looking at what a candidate brings to the ticket is that it is like a Venn Diagram.  If the circles are concentric, this person doesn't help.  So, with Richardson being Hispanic and Catholic, you don't worry about the Catholic vote except in states with few Hispanics.  Bowlers all drink beer so why worry about them separately?

Among the swing states, Richardson helps with the Hispanic vote in New Mexico (clearly) and Nevada, Florida, and Colorado (all over 18% Hispanic).  The swing states with a high Catholic population where he might help are: Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin (all over 23%).  The “regular guy states” ... Oh, I don’t know about that so let a regular guy comment.  But, you can even consider states with a high black population AND also a large catholic population like, believe it or not, Louisiana with over 30% of each and I bet very few blacks are also Catholic.

So, I am happy with my choice.  The only argument that I think might be better is a strong woman who helps with the disenfranchised Clinton voters.  I have been thinking about Jim Webb also.  And, I think that if Obama threw a few names out the next time he is asked, he could defuse some of the b.s.  Why not?

Any thoughts before we get into the Meet the Press dissection?