I understand the political logic of this, as she is the #2 candidate.

But I don't see how someone with her negatives, especially with the distinction that's been clear about new politics v. old politics, and all the other Clinton baggage, could be a good choice.

I would think Obama would need to have someone with the same vision and someone he could trust. After this campaign, how in the world would he ever be able to turn his back on Hillary and Bill for two minutes? I just imagine them constantly scheming to take over. It would be like Byzantium, when we have the chance to have a clean break with the past.

It's a problem.

Hillary would add nothing to the ticket. New York is a safe State without her. On the other hand, she would chase away a lot of Independents and even some moderate Republican cross over votes. She would be a drag on the ticket, not to mention having to put up with Bill around all the time.

McCain is going to take Florida with that States popular governor on the ticket. That means that the Democrats have to take Ohio and Pennsylvania. That leaves ony two logical choices for the VP slote. Either the governor of Ohio or the governor of Pennsylvania. I predict that
it will be Ted Strickland of Ohio as the VP candidate that will be picked by either Obama or Hillary. They have to carry Ohio, because theyHillary would add nothing to the ticket. New York is a safe State without her. On the other hand, she would chase away a lot of Independents and even some moderate Republican cross over votes. She would be a drag on the ticket, not to mention having to put up with Bill around all the time.

McCain is going to take Florida with that States popular governnor on the ticket. That means that the Democrats have to take Ohio and Pennsylvania. That leaves ony two logical choices for the VP slote. Either the governor of Ohio or the Governor of Pennsylvania. I predict that
it will be Ted Strictland of Ohio as the VP candidate that will be picked by either Obama or Hillary. They have to carry Ohio, because the will have no shot at Florida. will have no shot at Florida.

Obama would be a fool to offer her the VP spot. Not only does she bring nothing to his campaign other than the potential to alienate a bunch of independent supporters; but he would have to spend the next four years having his food tested and paying snoops to keep tabs on Hill and Bill to make sure they weren't plotting his downfall in some way.

But would Clinton accept it, if it was offered? I don't think so. She already had to spend eight years gazing at the throne and wishing it was hers. I doubt she really wants to go through that again. And ultimately, the VP has very little real power - much less than a powerful Senator.

Although there are reasons enough to be concerned with Hillary in the VP slot, she may simply have enough supporters to make this happen. It may be what is needed to avoid a convention fight and it may be what the super delegates demand.

There are positivies to Hillary's VP candidacy. She would put Bill in a "safe" place. She would bring the history of the GE to women--and would be in play as the first female VP which is a significant gain forward and certainly puts her in the history books going forward.

It would be a historic unity candidacy and I do think they would win the GE.

My two cents....

For some reason your post about Hillary becoming Obama's VP puts me in mind of an old recipe for rabbit stew that begins, "First catch your rabbit".
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com

Check out what just happened to Admiral William Fallon. He has been pushed out of his command by the Bush Warmongers.

He would be a great VP pick for Obama. Then let us see McCain go after him on the National Security issues.

I might be missing something, but I think we may be discussing smoke and mirrors.

Do you really believe that HRC offered, or suggested BO, for her VP? Sure, I heard her say it too, but let's not confuse genuine offers with stagecraft.

Listen to it this way: HRC offers BO her VP slot. Subtext is magnanimity, statesmanhip, the inevitability of her ascension, the natural fit of BO in it, the good of the party, the realization of the “dream ticket.”

BO responds, too early to talk about it, wait a minute I’m in the lead, no way, she said I was inexperienced but willing to make me an experienced heartbeat away from the presidency. Then he mocks her from the stump for suggesting it.

Now who looks good in this scenario, and who looks not as good?

The wonkers and wankers who read and post at rarified places like TPMCafe are not the intended audience. Why would they be? They’re just such a small and intractable part of the electorate. The target are those who get their news from ABCNews, CNN and Time Magazine.

For s&g I just trolled those sites. I’d say HRC’s stratagem works. Lead ins like “Obama finally struck back at the Clintons' suggestions that he would make a fabulous vice president…” are loaded with subtext.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Some have made valid comments that geography may play a more important role than name recognition, or even competence.

Those who believe the Vice Presidency is some ceremonial do-nothing post haven't watched the career of Dick Cheney too closely.

The amount of power a Vice-President has is exactly equal to the amount given by the President. Because Bush was willing to give Cheney unprecedented power as Vice-President does not mean that the next President will (especially if it's someone forced onto the ticket for "party unity").

The position could easily revert back to the one that John Gardner Nance described as "not worth a bucket of warm piss."

News flash:

According to the polls, popular vote, and delegates, most of the Democrats aren't too fond of Hillary Clinton.

Indies dislike her too.

Republicans absolutely loathe her and will turn out against her and Bill like nobody else.

Her negatives going into this race, before she got nasty, before the cackle, before everything she's done to hurt herself with Democrats, her nationwide negatives of "wouldn't vote for her" were already in the 40s.

Hillary is a net negative.

Her followers are the delusional ones. Hillary and her fans thought she was inevitable, before she had any real competition. Now she and her fans can't cope with the reality she's already lost. And lucky for Dems she has, because she's at best a 50/50 chance with McCain who appeals to Indies more.

Even if she wins Pennsylvania by 15 points, even if Florida and Missouri have do-overs, she just can't close the pledged delegate gap which is now about 140-145.

If the Supers throw a coup, I guarantee it'll suppress turnout and she'll lose.

Hillary's followers need a "reality check." They're beyond hopeful. They're delusional and going to wind up throwing the Presidency to McCain.

Hillary + Bill won't be offered the VP slot.

The whole idea they're a "dream team" is a complete myth. They're together less than the sum of parts in the GE. The only people who think they're a "dream team" are partisan Dems who want party unity. With independents and swing voters their perceived positives (reform/experience, establishment/outsider) are mutually canceling.

The Clintons said too many nasty things and going back now will only make them look weak and phony.

Antiwar and reform indies don't like Hillary, and indie hawks wouldn't don't like either of them. Hilalry brings NAFTA, deregulation,a nd alll of Bill's DLC poltiices with her, which Obama would be stuck trying to defend in debates with MCain, which would be a disaster.

Bill is a loose cannon and disaster waiting to happen.

By this rationale she should be McCain's running mate. He's much more likely to croak than Obama is to be assassinated.

Awwww, appalachianblue......this is so depressing. You just killed the last little bit of hope in me. I will sit it out. Lots of us will. Its McCain then?