The formatting option for TPM redacted my blog again. Here it is, in its entirety:

This is not a popular opinion with Obama supporters, but I would like to throw my hat in the ring anyhow. I believe Hillary Clinton would make an excellent Vice President. She has run a campaign that has finished in a close second place. She has delegate clout, a dedicated voter base, and her legislative skills and mindset would make her an ideal Senate kingpin. I compare her potential as Vice President to Lyndon Johnson serving under the youth and idealism of John F. Kennedy. Johnson proved to be an able legislator and negotiator and could be counted on to push through bills and craft shrewd compromises within the Democratic Party and across the aisle. I believe Hillary would be just as able a leader.

I can understand the hard feelings engendered by this campaign. I have been on the sensitive and defensive side. I was especially outraged when Hillary Clinton made the claim that it was LBJ who ultimately deserved the credit for signing civil rights legislation because of his leadership. I believe strongly that many men and women sacrificed their time and in many cases their freedom and lives to send LBJ the message that his pen was vital to heal the torn fabric of our moral heritage. Martin Luther King went to jail, suffered beatings and endured a decade of FBI counterintelligence operations and still went on to galvanize the civil rights movement. Yes, LBJ ultimately signed the legislation and pushed it home, but this never could have taken place without the sacrifice and fortitude of the grassroots movement for equality. Hillary may not have intended to minimize this sacrifice, and did her best to clarify her position in the future, but that one statement did more to alienate the youth and black vote than every other statement and act combined. She appeared to minimize the legacy of not only Dr. King, but W.E.B. Dubois, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and the legions that stood behind them to finally make a government built on inalienable rights to recognize minorities once and for all.

Hillary has also gone on to craft a divisive campaign of liberal elites versus small town values that stinks of Reagan and Nixon. While she does have a point that this divide exists within the greater Democratic Party, she did no service to this country by driving a prejudicial wedge between blocs of voters who will ultimately be served by anyone but McCain in 2008. However, she has driven this wedge, and has tied herself to it for better or worse. That is why, ultimately, the best and most pragmatic option for this election and the future of the progressive movement is for Obama to select Hillary Clinton as the Vice President.

Hillary and Obama have a similar platform that is ultimately reflective of the Democratic party. Obama has presumptively won the nomination, but not without permanent symbolic problems that the McCain campaign can exploit to their advantage. The unseated Florida and Michigan delegates, for example. Also, McCain can exploit the “hardworking white American” voter divide and pull more than his fair share from Obama by simply painting himself (at media expense) as the straight talking maverick.

History is full of pragmatism and compromise. I for one can not abide Hillary Clinton’s hawkish foreign policy, but she has stood up for ending the Iraq occupation, and as Vice President I expect her to engage that solution. That leaves one major problem: Bill Clinton. I would recommend that a position be found for Bill Clinton that suits his current loose canon elder statesman persona: Secretary General of the United Nations, or ambassador to the United Nations. That puts him in the ideal busy role on the world stage that would keep him from becoming the bull in the china shop.

I am not entirely pleased with my argument. I want a clean break from the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton wheel of fortune… but I don’t think it is going to be as simple as cutting the cord. Obama’s candidacy and Presidency is going to be built on unity and compromise. He cannot simply put up a firewall between his campaign and his second place rival. Nor can Hillary continue to slash and burn every demographic until she is left with the Reagan Democrats that will defect to McCain. Further, Hillary does have a credible argument, based on image, of having the necessary experience and judgment necessary for the number two slot. Yes, she has disparaged Obama, but if she is truly behind party unification, several heartfelt apologies and stirring defenses of not just Obama but the entire Democratic Party will go a long way to heal the bitter divisions and unite us against the GOP-media complex.

I want to hear counter arguments, because I am still not easy with this choice. I fear Bill Clinton’s alpha male syndrome and I further fear the nasty War Room apostles such as James Carville who will not simply fade away. However, I see the immediate goal of pragmatic unity, this uneasy partnership, as ideal for all of us to come together and defeat the greater evil of the neoconservative ideology.

Can she swallow her pride enough to say, "I'm not going to get the top spot, but I'd be happy to accept the vice presidential nomination if it was offered"? I doubt it, and that's the big hurdle. If she takes the fight more than a couple days past the last primaries, she's slamming the door on that option. No way she would be tapped if she can't show a trace of humility and bow out gracefully while she has a chance.

On the other hand, she'd be an excellent deterrent to assassination...

"She has delegate clout, a dedicated voter base, and her legislative skills and mindset would make her an ideal Senate kingpin. I compare her potential as Vice President to Lyndon Johnson serving under the youth and idealism of John F. Kennedy. Johnson proved to be an able legislator and negotiator and could be counted on to push through bills and craft shrewd compromises within the Democratic Party and across the aisle. I believe Hillary would be just as able a leader."

Here's a problem I've had with Hillary's campaign (and a number of her supporters) all along: If Hillary is such an incredibly skillful actor in the Senate, don't we NEED her in the Senate? I won't even make the argument that we should've seen a great deal more work accomplished on all of her many wonderful initiatives. And I've read the puff pieces about her coming in and shocking everyone by being humble and low-key and going to prayer breakfasts and holding hands with the Republicans. That's great and all, but I don't understand why we should take someone for whom Republicans are suddenly so fond, and put them in the OEOB where they'll have the same skills but no vote and no legislative role. I don't see anything stopping her from being able to "push through bills and craft shrewd compromises within the Democratic Party and across the aisle" while continuing to serve in the Senate. Contrary to the false-feminist assertion, being a sitting U.S. Senator is not something that Hillary should be ashamed of simply because she isn't being nominated by her party...

As others pointed out on this topic yesterday, LBJ brought Texas to the ticket - Clinton brings no such advantage. Her pluses can be gained from other VP candidates without her negatives. I agree that she would be disastrous for the ticket. Her campaign tactics have now added many Democrats to the many Republicans and Independents who detest and mistrust her.

Not only do Democrats want to see Clinton out of the race, they want badly to see the last of Penn/Wolfson/McAulliffe. Obama will not burden his campaign with the worst of the past.

Enough of her insiders have floated the idea, it's clear that Clinton does want to be VP. WHY does she want the VP slot so badly, when she could be more effective in the Senate?

It's not a popular opinion with independents or Republicans, more to the point.

I like that leak, but just think that before she walks away, she will get one more dig at Obama, so dont think she would ever allow her ego to take something so rational. I hope Im wrong about that, God please prove me wrong!

Hey Zip, how's it hangin'? You know I love you but the election must be getting to you. You asked for an argument so....where do I start? I totally agree with you from the perspective of your historical references (especially Johnson), but times - they are a changin'.

O.K.
#1) Obama will need a food taster.
#2) There are so many Obama supporters who will never forgive him that the gain in demographics may actually be close to a wash.
#3) It is possible to pick a suitable Clinton surrogate who will actually deliver one of the states that are deemed neccessary. After all, she has some really impressive Democratic strongarms covering her back. (Strickland, Rendell, and the like).
#4) It is possible to find a female candidate who can deliver a state and be completely popular with the electorate (Sebelius, Napolitano).
#5) It is entirely possible that the Republicans really did have a dirtier campaign lined up for Hillary, since they were so anxious to run against her in the first place (we all know the arguments). Do we really want to open Obama up to all of the criticism they have for her as well as him?
#6) This combination might actually result in a Republican feeding frenzy.

If you really want to suggest someone who would shut up every middle-American, John McCain, and the entire Republican party, try Chuck Hagel. You might have a hard time getting him past the left-wing of the Democratic party. But every argument against Obama would be gone in one Veep.

Hope I gave you something else to think about.