A little background. I started out as an Edwards supporter and then shifted to Obama. Hillary was never a personal preference of mine and I donated to both the Edwards and Obama campaigns.
(Edwards could be on the list but only with a DNA test as he meets the criteria below - but I digress).
If Obama wants to win he must choose one of these four for VP.
Why do I say this.
1. the assumption is that Obama nor his campaign seem particularly good or interested in going negative on McCain.
In an environment where McCain will make the swiftboats and Rove look milquetoast, Obama can not simply pray low information voters who decide elections will figure it all out with smear and fear propagated by the MSM. Obama needs someone to hit back hard, and preferably someone who can get under McCain's skin.
2. Obama needs to get a "comfort" factor among the low information voters that are the swing block. He can not afford to introduce the American people to his VP while still introducing himself.
Who the heck is Chet Edwards? (People forget a lot of raising peoples names for VP is for other reasons. e.g. Eric Cantor will not be McCain's VP, Eric Cantor is the best fundraiser for the GOP is Jewish and by mentioning his name McCain can get some more cash. Pelosi is mentioning Chet cause he covers Bush's district in Texas and Pelosi is trying to raise his profile to help him get re-elected or perhaps help him run for Senate.
3. Obama needs to reassure voters either on the Economy or Foreign Policy or both. I don't think he can afford the Sebelius/Kaine route which will do neither.
these are the most important 3 things for Obama. Here is my ranking.
Hillary a familiar face with both strong economy and foreign policy credentials as PERCEIVED by swing voters. (elections are perceptions). While HRC is a DC figure, a woman and black are change and the Clinton policies on the economy are a big change from Bush/McCain trickle down economics. She can go negative and delights in it calling it "the fun part". Now that McCain has opened the door to "karl Rove's JV team" as the pundits call it, and McCain has said Obama needs to lighten up and have some fun, I think HRC is the best strategic choice. I am firmly convince McCain's team is excluding the possibility of Hillary as VP and this would really shake things up. The downside all the video clips of Hillary saying horrible things about Obama in the PRimary.
Clark really pisses off McCain which is a big bonus and seemed delighted in tearing down McCain's military hyperbole. Clark is a DC outsider never being an elected politician. He's a general. Michael Moore may not know about campaigns but he knows marketing and was a big Clark fan early on in 2004. Down side, can clark handle campaigning. The upside, Clark only needs one mission - tear down McCain on military credentials and foreign policy.
seemed the best debater. Really improved. People seem to like him. If McCain brings up plagiarism than that opens up the Keating 5 scandal. Might actually be a way for Obama to introduce the keating 5 and be innoculated. Downside - the classic DC insider, but does seem to be able to take people down.
(you can see from this example, that on a logical basis if Biden is the choice than why not Hillary? Downsides are the same with fewer upsides.)
This would depend on some kind of Western Strategy - OR really getting much more of the Hispanic vote. A likeable guy, but obviously prone to mistakes. His CV qualifies him for president so even if he bombs the single VP debate it won't matter as much. The only problem with Richardson is, who pounds McCain if it's him? Than neither person on the ticket would seem particularly good at going negative.
(again if Richardson why not Hillary? Unfortunately to swing voters a black and female might be more acceptable than a black and hispanic)
Given what we have seen in the last week I don't think Obama can pick a second person to introduce to Americans.
Evidence that Obama is considering a DC person. Why else is he not running against DC given Congress' popularity is 9%.