Sam Nunn, the former Georgia Democrat senator, is contemplating a run for the White House:

the Georgia Tech campus, Nunn acknowledged that he - like former Georgia congressman Newt Gingrich - is considering a run for the White House next year.

But unlike Gingrich, Nunn would run outside the traditional two-party structure.

"It's a possibility, not a probability," said Nunn, now the head of a nonprofit organization out to reduce the threat posed by nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry. "My own thinking is, it may be a time for the country to say, 'Timeout. The two-party system has served us well, historically, but it's not serving us now.'"

I like Nunn and did ten years ago when he was still a senator. He's pragmatic and intelligent about military affairs and national security -- a rarity for a Democrat, and he's very well-versed on the threats we face as a nation. Some of the newer "Blue Dogs" and Joe Lieberman are of the same mold on major security issues.

Now the question would become, who would it hurt more, the Democrat or GOP nominee? I would posit the Democrat one suffers more. Nunn is not Ralph Nader nor is he Ross Perot, he a very experienced politician who would appeal to the Democrats who are pro-military and pro-national security (yes, some of those Democrats still exist). The election will be close and any votes siphoned off by Nunn would be disastrous to whoever loses them.

While he says he won't accept a VP offer, one has to think that he would indeed make a great running mate and give the Democrat nominee more gravitas on foreign affairs. As a Republican, I'd hate to see him on the ticket.

Update: Johnathan Singer at MyDD is worried that Nunn would hurt the Dems as well. However, the first commenter has a great point that Nunn's social conservatism could hurt a candidate like Giuliani in the south. He wouldn't hurt Fred Thompson though.