...the key point that the folks who hate HRC really, REALLY hate her. Irrational? Probably. But putting her on the ticket is likely to antagonize at least as many folks as it brings in, if not more. Nothing will get Republicans to the polls on election day like the chance to vote against HRC. It's just too risky to have her--even without Bill in the equation.

Nothing will get Republicans to the polls on election day like the chance to vote against HRC.

Once again, in case you missed it.

Nothing will get Republicans to the polls on election day like the chance to vote against HRC.

Apologies to all Clinton supporters out there. I am willing to entertain arguments to the contrary, but...

It is largely why she lost the primary to Obama.

A key fight of the election will be framed as experience (read age) and judgment. McCain will claim better judgment because of his advanced age. Obama will counter, correctly I might add, that McCain has been wrong every step of the way on the Iraq war and Obama has been correct.... so who has the better judgment.

You add Hillary to the Democratic ticket and you take that away. That's why the repuglicans are desperate to have Hillary on the ticket.

If Hillary had won the election she would pursue a different strategy against McCain and therefore Obama would also have been a bad choice for her VP.

The dream choice has always been Jim Webb, and it will be Jim Webb unless he refuses the offer.

Your repeated use of "Bill & Hillary" throughtout at least the first half of your article destroys your suggestion.

Why would Hillary Clinton want to serve as vice-president to someone who has not crossed the commander-in-chief threshold, unless she fancies herself a twenty-first century Lady Macbeth?

"Aside from the dubious nature of the claim that many voters are particularly interested in Obama's specific "theory of change"..."

Actually many voters *are* particularly interested in his theory of change, although many party leaders may not be.

Bill Richardson is a much finer pick and without the baggage.

Don't weaken our ticket with a damaged centrist who also happens to be the most hated Democrat among Republicans. Fair or foul, that is what it is. I'm a chick, too, so don't start laying any 'sexist' nonsense on me.

If you don't care for Webb (he's my own first choice,) then Clark, Biden, Hagel ... anybody you care to name with military credentials (and I don't mean fake Bosnian sniper fire) will do just fine.

Another problem for the Clintons being asked aboard as V.P. is that the normal procedural vetting process would force Bill Clinton to list all the donors to both his Presidential Library & Foundation. He has flatly refused to do this in the past, since there is rumors the list of donors would be quite "interesting".

I trust Obama to use the same shrewd foresight he used to create his winning primary election team for picking his VP choice.

The vast majority of Democrats - and even many registered Republicans like some of my family members - simply want to do whatever is necessary to defeat McCain and crush the neo conservative movement. Having Hillary on the ticket is probably a good idea if that is what you truly want.

Sebelius, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Clark, my mailman, the guy at the deli ... anyone but Hillary Clinton. Sorry, Ed ... this woman's true character oozed out on her Tuesday night speech, and Obama would need a food taster. She's a stone liar, a phony, and Obama would have to fight her for TV time because 'attention must be paid.' No thanks.

First off, I am sick and tired of these Bush/Reagan and Clinton dynasties, and THAT is what Obama represents mroe than anything, a real change without the baggage of the last 28 years. To saddle him with the Clintons would destroy this chance for a fresh start.

Not only would this waste Obama's real hope for change, it would also waste Hillary's power in the Senate and as an independent leader. Why would someone who is so ambitious settle for second string, and why would anyone expect her to?

And lastly, you forget Bill. The last thing any President needs is an ambitious VP whose spouse won't settle for her being second string either.

..Why must people who are against a HRC VP spot be Hillary haters? Maybe we're just Hillary REALISTS?

HRC always makes mention of the "18 Million cracks in the glass ceiling" but there are 18.3 more cracks in the ceiling from people throwing rock AGAINST HER or FOR Obama.

She has proven herself to be untrustworthy and unpredictable. You can not manipulate and lie your way top the Vice-Presidency. Especially after spending nearly 6 months trashing your fellow democrat and indirectly blaming him for sexist comments you made up in your head and only complained about when you were on your way to losing.

Sadly there is one bottom line. There will be two VP choicing for Obama.

The one he picks to be his VP if he is leading in the polls with "rednecks" (sorry I refuse to say "hard-working whites")( And the choice he will make if he is doing terrible in the polls come August.

If he doesnt need HIllary she wont be on the ticket. And from the looks of things the vast majority of women are coming to their senses and not every woman is falling for the ole "Sexism is to blame" trick.

Ed Kilgore has one brilliant characterization of the Democratic campaign:

[The divisions in the Democratic party] are largely feudal, in the sense that they have emerged from the passionate personal attachment of activists and voters to these two powerful and historic chieftains.

But his sharp insight aside, his larger argument remains unconvincing.

To be fair to Kilgore, he's not really making an attempt to present an unassailable case. He comes right out and says so — that he simply thinks that Clinton should be the presumptive choice and that any alternative must be weighed against her.

Even so, it's not entirely persuasive. In fact the idea that Clinton should be the presumptive choice — the standard, the default — is exactly where the scenario of her selection is at its weakest.

The main appeal of a unity ticket to many Democrats is that it permits a kind of "wait, you're both right" compromise — Clinton chocolate in Obama peanut butter, so to speak. But this is one case where it really does seem that one can't have it both ways.

A compromise on Kilgore's feudal basis is exactly the kind of arrangement that would serve neither candidate very well. Whatever their differences as symbols, the two candidates aren't that different as working politicians. We're not talking about some rapproachment between Southern conservatives and Northern liberals — we're talking about two midwestern moderates, with very similar platforms, neither of whom could decisively break from the other.

So blending their campaigns isn't going to make either of them seem any more decisive. And where the two senators do differ — in their competing circles of loyalty and their disparate views on the sources of political power — those differences are substantively counterproductive.

Hillary Clinton may very well be Barack Obama's best choice as vice president. But there's a great danger in the presumption that she must be. If Obama is going to pick her in the end, it should be a convincingly considered decision, not one that he appears to make in an attempt to offer voters a way to not choose.

That would make him seem weak, and will backfire — so much so that it may disqualify Clinton entirely. She should be an outside choice if any, not a first choice.