The following letters were exchanged today by the RNC and DNC. It doesn't take much of intellectual leap to see that the Clinton campaign pretty much wrote the RNC's talking points against Obama. It's fairly certain that if she's on the ticket (probably even if she isn't) some republican PAC is going to put out commercials with her stating these same arguments against her party's nominee. That will be a very strong attack undermining Obama's candidacy in the eyes of undecided and independent voters.

After winning such a grueling campaign, why would he want to have someone on his ticket who basically wrote the opposition's attacks on him!? There's also the additional problem of concerns about her loyalty to him. The VP has to be the campaign's attack dog who can get down in the muck and sling mud with the best of them while the candidate stays above the fray and keeps their hands clean and their attacks principled. Or at least that's the conventional wisdom. While it's certainly clear from her final few months of campaigning that Clinton would be very comfortable in such an attacking mode the question remains will she really have her heart and soul into it? Or will she in some way (possibly even only  unintentionally) undermine the top of ticket as a sort of payback for her not being there?

I guess my real reason for asking is because this seems to violate a basic machiavellian principle of making sure the people closest to you are beholden to you for their power as a way to guarantee their loyalty. Clinton has (by virtue of her husband's eight years as president and her own senate term) her own power base in the party independent of Obama. She's not beholden to him in any way and has publicly questioned his capacity to hold the position he seeks (as noted above by the fact that the opposition is now using her attacks against him). At worse, that could mean that she would feel much more comfortable challenging him on issues and possibly going public with any dissenting views. At best, it may mean that she attempts to play a role similar to the one many think Cheney plays (or played) with Bush where he undertook his own initiatives independent of and possibly in opposition to those of the president. This doesn't even begin to consider the implications of having a former president involved as well. He will certainly not feel any need to abide by the directives or requests of Obama if they clash with his own feelings and ideas. This much should go without saying since it appears certainly to have been the case during the campaign of his wife for the presidency.

The other more plain english reason is the appearance of weakness that is implied if he is picking her because it is forced upon him. This would have an even more exaggerated effect in the sense that it would underscore the reasons noted above by suggesting that Clinton is the one holding the chips and it would be in his best interest to make her happy or else...

 I would strongly advise him to avoid such an entanglement because if his goal as he has stated is to change the way things are done in washington then he needs to show that he is strong enough to resist the strong-arm tactics, bribery and blackmail that define how things are done in washington. I must admit to being quite a bit of a skeptic in this regard because such tactics have been the way of the business of politics for much, much longer than washington dc has even existed!! It would be an impressive feat indeed if one man is able to change that. I won't hold my breath. But if he is to even try then it's imperative that he choose a VP that fits with his style of politics and governance as well as being a loyal member of his political movement so that he can establish and cement his OWN power base within the party. It thoroughly undermines what he is attempting to accomplish if he must depend on someone else's political power to gain office.

While I acknowledge the obvious strength of the Clintons within the democratic party it would also be prudent to consider the depth of the opposition to them outside the party when considering whether or not to add Clinton to the ticket. The democratic nomination process has been very principled in its refusal to delve into the details of each and every scandal or supposed scandal of the Clinton administration. It is an absolute certainty that the republicans will not be as principled in their campaign if Clinton is added to the ticket. Obama must decide if he is prepared to defend each and every controversy from those eight years (as well as any controversies which have arisen since leaving office) . Even more, he must also decide if he is prepared to Hillary and Bill being forced to defend those controversies as well since they will once again be right back in the republican crosshairs. The possible liability this can pose should not be understated or dismissed lightly. It is a very serious strategic calculation about what issues he wants to have framing the debate for the general election. Does he really want weeks/months of whitewater, foster, monica, pardons, clinton library etc dominating the news cycles in ADDITION to rev. wright/trinity united, ayers, flag lapels, etc? Does he want to defend himself against why his own running mate questioned his readiness for office and also supported the war he opposes? Or does he want to put McCain on the defensive for supporting the war and being a washington insider directed by corporate lobbyists? As a candidate who is offering the promise of a change with the way business is done in washington and who is constantly contrasting himself as an outsider vis a vis McCain in this regard, it would be very curious to select such a washington insider as Clinton for VP. It would be a much tougher sale to contrast with McCain if his own running mate is open to same attacks.

Believe me, I understand the reasons why people think it's a dream ticket. I understand the bitterness felt by Clinton supporters for getting this close and not winning. And I understand the desire to brush the differences aside and try to unify the party in the easiest possible manner. I just think the reasons for NOT doing so are much more compelling.

Since I'm sure there are a bunch of folks who will disagree with me, please post your thoughts. I think it's an important debate to have. All I ask is please leave the emotional attacks and bitterness at the door, just argue on the merits and the issues. There are plenty of them!