RE: BLOOMBERG AS VEEP. Paul makes some good points on Bloomberg's potential attractiveness as a VP for Obama. On the other hand, the case for Bloomberg is actually a better case for somebody like Mark Warner. Both are rich technocrats with a record of executive competence. But while Bloomberg does nothing for any region save the solidly blue Northeast, Warner possibly puts Virginia in play, and probably appeals to Midwestern border states like Ohio. Additionally, Obama's unity message is better enhanced by a white Southerner than a liberal Jew. If I were actually worried about Giuliani stealing New York from the Democrats, I could see the appeal of Bloomberg, but in presidential elections, partisanship tends to overwhelm personal affection, and New Yorkers seem fairly solidly behind Hillary in match-ups with Giuliani. I have trouble imagining Obama would do worse, rather than better. All that said, I am glad to see talk of a narrative-enhancing, rather than balancing, VP candidate. VP's don't seem to win their states very often, and picking someone who improves the tickets national appeal (Like Clinton-Gore), rather than highlights its regional weaknesses (Kerry-Edwards), seems wise. --Ezra Klein
