Verrry cute!!!! It is clear that you think Hillary Clinton is the better candidate, and your snotty essay makes that very clear. In fact, you make just about as many passive-aggressive comments about Barack Obama as she and her "surrogates" did during the primary campaign! Why don't you just "bite the bullet," so to speak, and come right out with it. I dislike the innuendo and insinuation!

Also, you should know that there are many, many Democrats (many of us older women) who do not have big doubts about Obama. In fact, we are thrilled to have a person of his caliber as our nominee! I do not think in my lifetime (I am 68 years old) we have had a more intelligent, visionary candidate with such good judgement and common sense! Now put that in your smoke and pipe it!

"Let this be said for Hillary Clinton: During the primary's final three months her grit and determination earned her the right to serious consideration, perhaps first consideration. Yes, there were comments by her, her husband or her advisors that created tensions with Obama's campaign and his supporters. (Notably among these was her tendency not to congratulate Obama when he won states, and her thinly-veiled implications that he was unprepared to be commander in chief.)

But overall, Clinton forced Obama to work harder and be more policy-specific than he was during his whirlwind run through the January and February contests. Nonetheless, and despite her strong appeal to the half of the Democratic coalition Obama struggled to impress -- women, seniors, working-class whites and Hispanics -- the risks of picking Clinton outweigh the possible benefits."

--Thomas F. Schaller

I would like to respectfully disagree with this common notion you have repeated in your article.

When it became clear that Hillary Clinton was going to lose and Obama was going to be the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary went negative with her "kitchen sink" strategy, why not, she had nothing to lose. These were not policy issues she was throwing his way but were every kind of smear and innuendo you could think of. Because Obama was going to win he had everything to lose and could not afford to fight back because doing so might alienate many of Hillary's supporters.

The result was Clinton had a free shots to damage Obama when he had his hands tied behind his back. That will not be the case in the general election where Obama has already shown he can and will fight back against smears. All Hillary did was help McCain, not Obama, herself or any other candidate.

I whole heartedly agree - Hillary Clinton would likely be a disater as veep.

I voted for Obama because I found his thinking to be mostly a breath of fresh air.

I voted against Hillary because I lived through the 1990's and felt betrayed at almost every turn. If Hillary's alleged "experience" matters, I voted against NAFTA, DOMA, "Dont' Ask, Don't Tell," the 1996 Terrorism Act, the 1996 Telecomunication Act and oh yeah, that Universal Health Care Plan that got nowhere.

Her REAL "experience" of six years on the BOD of WalMart, voting for the misnamed Bancruptcy "Reform" bill, Bush's Iraq war, and making up the "war story" about flying into Bosnia under sniper fire - sex or race hoad nothing to do with my vote against Hillary. It was her experience and character.

It's time we left behind the capitulation policies of the Democratic Leadership Council, of which Hillary is the central player. It may not happen with Obama, but it absolutely will not happen if Hillary is on the ticket.

Let's say goodbye to both Hillary and McCain this November.

Regardless of anything else, The Clintons, plural, as VP would be a competing power center. The Clintons are not built for second place and would not allow Obama to set the agenda for the administration. They would be a constant distraction. It would not matter to them that they would destroy Hillary's own chance for a rerun 4 years later; they are far too power hungry to simmer down and follow someone else.

Thomas Schaller makes some interesting points about the dangers for Obama in choosing Clinton as a running mate, but his arguments for why Clinton would be fatal — not to mention his convoluted scenario for appeasing Clinton supporters — isn't very persuasive.

For one thing, Schaller simply doesn't mention Clinton's chief liability as a vice-presidential choice: choosing her undermines the idea that he can compete, win, and consolidate victory. It is, in a sense, an admission of weakness — that maybe she should have won, or that if she had it wouldn't have made any difference.

Now, to some extent there's an unavoidable truth there: Clinton and Obama are not wildly disparate political figures. But just because many of their supporters would have been equally happy with either of them as the Democratic nominee, that doesn't make it treacherous for either of them to act as if that's the case. They are distinct people and projecting the attitude that it didn't really matter which of them won opens the winner to attacks that hinge on portraying them as a nonentity.

That's not quite the same as Schaller's argument #1 against Clinton. This isn't about Obama as independent of the party establishment — it's about Obama as Obama, as opposed to Obama as "insert winner's name here."

His challenge now is that he needs to use the next phase of the campaign to create as strong an impression of himself as possible. Ultimately that strength will win over (sincere) die-hard Clinton supporters more than trying to appease them will.

As for Schaller's other arguments:

2. The Clintons are no more combustible or attention-grabbing than the Obamas themselves, as the world is about to discover. Obama will either be able to manage the press (as Bill Clinton) and will win, or he won't (as Gore) and will lose — the presence or absence of Clintons on his ticket won't affect that calculus in the long run.

3. Demographic groups are exactly the basis of Obama's 50-state strategy. If Clinton can convincingly deliver to Obama groups that he would otherwise have a hard time reaching, then she deserves serious consideration. (It's not at all clear that she would — Clinton's presence isn't going to make racist Democrats want to vote for Obama, for example.)

4. Calling Clinton's bluff? That seems like a reason that applies to about mid-June 2008, and no other time in the campaign. It's hard to see how, in October, Democrats will be sitting around saying, "Damn, it's good that Obama called Clinton's bluff when he did, or we'd be in serious trouble now."

Clinton should be a "maybe" in Obama's short list — and he should take his time thinking about it.