A pretty open-ended question really. Consider this from all perspectives.

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, who would make a good second-in-command? She has certain appeals, and weaknesses, that a vice presidential pick could offset.

On the Republican side, the battle seems to be between establishment types and the Tea Party. There are some in the middle, but would we see an establishment/Tea Party ticket? Lets say, and I doubt this will be the case, that Chris Christie is the nominee. Would he reach to the base of the party and pick Ted Cruz or Rand Paul as his veep?

On the other hand, would someone like Paul or Cruz choose someone like Christie as a veep? In that case, would Christie even accept it given his public loathing for the “libertarian” foreign policy wing of the party.

It’s Friday and news is slow except for the games happening in the Senate.

President Obama will get a short-term lift for his nominees, judicial and otherwise, but over the immediate horizon, the strong-arm move by Senate Democrats on Thursday to limit filibusters could usher in an era of rank partisan warfare beyond even what Americans have seen in the past five years.

The decision to press the button on the so-called nuclear option was no doubt cathartic for a Democratic majority driven to distraction by Republican obstructionism. President Obama had predicted his re-election would break the partisan fever gripping Washington, especially since the Tea Party movement swept Republicans to control of the House. It did not.

“Doing nothing was no longer an option,” said Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, one of a new breed of Democrats who have pressed to reform Senate rules.

The Seventeenth Amendment seems to have destroyed the intention of the US Senate over the past century. That’s a good topic for discussion right there.

Feel free to talk about anything.