Yes, we have just heard that Hillary Clinton would be OK with being Obama's Vice President...gee, and here we heard that he wasn't good enough to be President, wonder why she wants to be his vice president now..does this mean that she thinks he WON?
Regardless, Hillary Clinton would have a very difficult time passing the vetting process. This is not just about her, but her husband would be included in this as well, as would all of their finances.
Obama will not want his Vice President embroiled in financial irregularities, and the Clintons are up to their necks in them. This would include the pardons when they left office, the problems with the white house "furniture", and all the money earned by Clinton from various speaking engagements and other things. ALL would be exposed through the vetting process.
Vetting Process from Matthew Yglesias at The Atlantic
Very quietly, Sen. Barack Obama has begun the process that will end in his choosing a running mate, Democrats inside and outside the campaign said....
James A. Johnson, who vetted potential nominees for Sen. John Kerry in 2004, is playing a major role. He has advised Obama and the campaign about the architecture of the process, though it is not clear whether he will reprise his role as head of the search committee. Ex-Sen. Tom Daschle is also providing advice.
...Johnson, a former CEO of Fannie Mae who is currently vice chairman of Perseus LLC, a merchant bank, also vetted vice presidential candidates for Walter Mondale, whose campaign he chaired. On the eve of the convention in 1984, Mr. Mondale was set to choose Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, only to find irreconcilable political problems with the business dealings of Ms. Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro instead. Ironically, questions about Ferraro's husband, a real estate developer, would dog her throughout the general election campaign. Mr. Johnson said later that the experience if 1984 had taught him to start much earlier and vet much more thoroughly.
The vetting process entails a rigorous schedule of interviews focusing on everything from politics to potential embarrassments -- Did they ever employ a nanny on whose behalf they did not pay Social Security taxes, for example; did they experiment with drugs or people in college? -- and potential candidates are required to give the search team access to their tax returns and other financial records.
A fascinating piece by Henrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker brings up this exact subject. and how difficult it might be for the Clintons to be positively vetted. Hendrik Hertzberg-The New Yorker
Hillary has her own vulnerability in this general area, and it is larger than the fact, mentioned by Obama in his riposte to her, that her husband, on his last day in office, commuted the sentences of a couple of old Weather Underground jailbirds. ...
My point is that Hillary Clinton has not, in fact, survived the worst that the Republican attack machine (and its pilotless drones online and on talk radio) can dish out. We will learn what the worst really means if she is nominated. The Commie law firm will be only the beginning. Many tempting targets—from Bill’s little-examined fund-raising and business activities during the past seven years to the prospect of his hanging around the White House in some as yet undefined role for another four or eight years to whatever leftovers from the Clinton "scandals" of the nineteen-nineties can be retrieved from the dumpster and reheated—remain to be machine-gunned. The whole Clinton marital soap opera, obviously off limits within the Democratic fold, will offer ample material for what Obama calls "distractions." To take the most obvious example, the former President’s social life since leaving the White House will become, if not "fair game," big game—and some of these right-wing dirtbags are already hiring bearers and trying on pith helmets for the safari. Is this a "there" where the Democratic Party really wants to go?Hendrik Hertzberg-The New Yorker