With Hillary hinting at (well, blatantly talking about) a Clinton-Obama ticket, I began to wonder. I'd have a lot of concerns about Hillary as president (like arseclowns like Mark Penn bollixing up the election and/or presidency) but I think my main concern would be that Obama would be so marginalized or destroyed by the vice presidency (this as I see an ad with Al Gore in the sidebar and remember how it took him four years to recover from a Clinton presidency) he'd be less viable in 2016.
But, let me throw out a hypothetical. The question boils down to this: would you accept eight years of Clinton if it guaranteed eight years of Obama (poll below)?
For all of her faults, a Clinton-Obama ticket would be strong. She'd keep her base support of working class whites and draw a ton of women. If played right, and if Obama was seen as not a ticket balance but instead an apprentice for the job, the ticket could do quite well.
(a bit more below)
They could split campaigning. Hillary could do what she does well — talking to older working class whites, Hispanics and women. Saying to select groups that it was time for a woman to be president. Obama could go around hosting two 20,000-strong rallies per day across the country. Clinton's candidacy would guarantee the entire northeast and bring the whole southwest in to play, as well as Arkansas. She could focus her campaigning there. Obama, on the other hand, could barnstorm the country, bringing in the midwest, the west coast, and perhaps the Plains. Combined, they could go to the south, with Obama firing up blacks and Clinton using her Arkansas street cred to bring out whites. They would be competitive everywhere. The Republicans would be up a tree.
That is, if it were run right, the Republicans would be up a tree. They could pick a white male running mate and look totally out of touch (only about 1/3 of the country is white and male, and that proportion is decreasing every day) while the Democrats built a really big tent (women, minorities, pretty much everyone but blatant racists). Or, they could find a woman or minority rising star (I can't think of a single one. Mean Jean?). Doing this would bring a total unknown in to the race, and also alienate their racist/anti-feminist base. Their choices would be pandering to a shrinking base and alienating the vast majority of the country or alienating the base whilst looking like copycats. Neither would look good.
The race for the Democrats would not be easy. To keep the grassroots support for Obama going (assuming that he was the Veep) they'd have to do something creative. Perhaps frame it alternatively as Clinton/Obama and Obama/Clinton. Since the press would latch on to C/O all literature, signs and bumper stickers could be O/C. They could keep the base excited by talk of long coattails. They could excite the young base (most of whom will still be around in 8 years) for the Obama presidency. Up until now, there has never been a woman presidential candidate. There has never been a minority president or veep candidate. They'd be breaking new ground, smashing glass ceilings, everything.
They both lead Yawn McCain (the Republican's strongest candidate) bydecent margins. They could force the Republicans to adapt or die, probably the latter.
And they could raise an inordinate amount of money.
Now, don't get me wrong. I want to see this end peacefully with Obama as the nominee. I can't stand Hillary's tactics. I think she is a strong candidate, but her people scare me. But, no matter what folks said, too much more contention will be bad. If it goes to a nasty convention — that's bad. But if they join hands and talk about a better tomorrow (with Hillary's supposed experience), it might go well. It would be a risk, but the reward could be the demise of the Republican party.
So, again, the question: would you accept eight years of Clinton if it guaranteed eight years of Obama?