I haven't seen any rec'd diaries lately giving any in depth analysis of the ramifications of a Clinton VP nod. So far the opinions I've heard vary from "It makes the most sense for party unity" to "It would be impossible for Obama to pick her".
I personally fall into the latter camp. Clinton represents every shady campaign tactic, every divisive notion, the identity-obsessed mindset, and an understanding of politics that predates the internet.
We do have to factor in party unity to the degree that Clinton's supporters may decide to vote their class instead of their social beliefs. That said, I think scenes like the one Harriet Christian made the other day represent a brief lapse in judgement. Furthermore, and most importantly, the most understated aspect of Obama's candidacy is his ability to get common sense republicans to come over to our side. So I'm not that worried.
If their sexual identity is all that needs appeasing, there's no short list of qualified, dignifies women Obama can choose to be his running mate. I find this kind of gender baiting the dignity of the Obama campaign, but elections are meant to be fair and won. I'm also a fan of Gov. Sebelius (cross my fingers).
On to the converse argument, Clinton is the antithesis of progressive politics. She has deliberately conspired with first wave "feminist" organizations to derail the party. I think his picking her is highly unlikely. That much baggage on the ticket is the only thing that could get John McCain elected.
All that said, it took Obama's candidacy to inspire this once green party member to become a money-giving, time donating citizen; loyal to reforming the party (although not yet a member). Taking back this nation at a time where our actions matter most is the imperative narrative (poet and I knowit) of our time.
But enough about me. What do YOU think?