Obama-Clinton-Clinton 2008?

This continues the series analyzing the Race for the White House from the Barack Obama supporter perspective. This series assumes Senator Obama will claim the nomination until proven otherwise. Most often this series will focus on a mainstream media article, opinion essay, or blogpost.

The Fall Campaign, Part III:

Today's issue: If Barack Obama can force Hillary Clinton from the race prior to Denver, party pressure aside, should he choose her as his vice presidential running mate?

ABSOLUTELY

This would would unite the party and more importantly, as the noted political philosopher Lyndon Johnson once articulated, better to have (the Clintons) pissing out of the tent than outside pissing into it. Bill Clinton in particular remains an enormous fundraising draw and Big Dog knows that his wife would still have a shot to become president following either a) an Obama loss where she performs well in her role or b) eight years later as the party standard-bearer herself. Whether HRC could help Mr. Obama win any state is doubtful (yet how many veep candidates truly do?), but her inclusion on the ticket would likely appease most if not all of her hardcore supporters, people Democrats will need in November.

Additionally, Mrs. Clinton is a ferocious candidate, unafraid to get her hands dirty during political combat. Barack Obama's running mate must have the resolve, capacity, and zeal to destroy the McCain campaign. As of present, New York's junior senator has proved one of the very few women in politics not to shrink from the withering national spotlight. If Senator Obama passes on Maryland's senior senator, then Mrs. Clinton is a top choice.

Finally, the "Dream Ticket" appeal could prove something to the world: America has never elected anyone but a white male to either office, what it elected a black man and a white woman simultaneously? Even though it could be argued that each are extraordinary cases (Obama's 2004 Senate race, Ms. Rodham's married name), perhaps future generations will take some inspiration from their success. On the other hand...

Best Argument: Only one Democratic name has won this office in twenty-eight years; until proven otherwise, you need the Clintons to win national races.

HELL NO! BARACK RUN YOUR OWN DAMN SHOW!

Are the Clintons brazen enough to assume that Mr. Obama's generosity implies a co-presidency? Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford ultimately demurred in 1980 because the former president did not feel constitutionally comfortable with/his ego could not take the vice presidency. And not just co-presidents, but co-presidential candidates? Do David Axelrod and his team really have the ability to stand up to the Clintons--who by the way won twice in these races--and tell them no? Will too many cooks spoil the broth?

America is largely tired with the Clintons' marriage psychodrama, even if it continues to applaud their policies. Furthermore, with Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright (others to follow?) nominee Obama is going to have enough trouble with his past. He does not need to have other replay the lowlights of the Clinton years. And doesn't he need need someone with more federal experience? Mrs. Clinton can boast of nearly eight years of productive service in the Senate and eight more in the White House that may forever remain shrouded in mystery. Officially, though, she was put in charge of one administrative project (health care) and failed in the effort.

And doesn't the Democratic Party need to move past the Clintons, at least until Chelsea? Some speculate that HRC's support collapsed not necessarily because of Senator Obama's surge, but because the Clinton years often saw the president and first lady enriched at the expense of the party. Mistakes in 1993-94 cost the party control of the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years and only a GOP pile-on during the Monica mess allowed Dems to erase some Republican advantage in 1998.

Best Argument: Mr. Obama must prove his own man and not allow warriors of the "War Room" to sully his "post-partisan" message; Hillary Clinton's "experience" barely exceeds his own.

Verdict: She's on the short list.

Recommended List (as of 24 APR 2008), alphabetically:

Barbara Boxer, US Senator of California
Hillary Clinton, US Senator of New York
Richard Lugar, US Senator of Indiana (GOP)
Barbara Mikulski, US senator of Maryland
Sam Nunn, former US Senator of Georgia
Jack Reed, US Senator of Rhode Island
Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas

Thoughts?