I'm lucky to be a somewhat-regular guest on a synidcated radio talk show called Beyond the Beltway. The host, Bruce DuMont, makes a concerted effort to generate a diverse set of guests, so lately as the unofficial Obama guest (since I'm an Obama supporter), I get the chance to talk with a Clinton supporter on the air.
The latest logic from Clinton supporters goes something like this: Senator Clinton came in a very close second in the nominating process, so therefore she deserves and is entitled to an offer to serve as Obama's Vice-President. She earned it, you see.
I find the logic bizarre. The whole point of a vice-presidential candidate is to make the presidential candidate stronger. And so the only calculation for Democrats in advocating for a particular vice-presidential candidate should be who is able to strengthen the ticket. The notion of earning a place on the ticket ought to be rejected out of hand. But that's what is motivating many Clinton supporters -- out of a sense of duty or respect, Senator Clinton is *owed* an offer. At least, that's what I'm hearing.
Now, it's possible that behind the argument for earning a spot is the notion that the half of the Democratic Party that voted for Senator Clinton might somehow be attracted to Senator McCain and therefore slotting Senator Clinton as the V-P will solidy the Latinos, women and seniors who skewed to Clinton in the primaries and caucuses.
However, I think that idea is oversold (how many Democratic primary voters are really going to choose McCain -- particularly women?). And more to the point of this post, I think that idea is really more a justification for the sense of entitlement among many Clinton supporters for a V-P slot rather than a driving force to make the case for a V-P slot.
Clearly, it's harder to make the case for change with the Clintons as part of a new Administration. And clearly, there are a lot of independents that are attracted to Obama who, fairly or not, are not attracted to the Clintons. It's hard to imagine that the number of independents and Republicans who would be repelled away from voting for Obama if the Clintons are part of the ticket is smaller than the number of Democratic primary and caucus voters who would not vote for the Democratic candidate because their preferred Democratic candidate for president isn't the vice-president. That's the crux of the Clinton for VP campaign (to the extent it extends beyond "she's entitled to it").
If anyone has any data to suggest otherwise, I think that would be important to share. But given Senator Clinton's large negatives among Republicans (something like 95%) and independents, and Barack Obama's ability to attract independents and Republicans, the last thing anyone who wants to see Obama in the White House should be advocating for is a vice-president who will mitigate Obama's appeal to independents and Republicans. Unfortunately, that's what I hear from many Clinton supporters (at least, that's what I'm hearing at the moment when emotions are highest. I hope cooler heads soon prevail in the Clinton camp with a cold calculation on the likely negative consequences of saddling the presumptive Democratic nominee with Clinton baggage in the eyes of Republican and independent voters).