Good posts -- up to the point of inclucing HRC on the ticket with BHO.

The problems with Hillary as VP are many:

1. The 'publicans were salivating at having her at the top of the ticket. There next best option would be to have her (and Bill) in the #2 spot.

2. Polls have shown that when Hill is not in the picture, BHO does much better against McCain than when Obama's support is diluted by Hillary hanging around. For example, with John Edwards in the #2 spot, BHO wins quite nicely, thank you, in OH, PA, and even in VA.

3. There are lots of other powerful choices for a VP among democrats that add to BHO's electability, Webb, Richardson, Biden, etc. By comparison, Hillary's negatives could be a real electoral liability.

4. The reasons above turn just on electability - but the VP candidate has rarely had much influence even in this respect. Moreover, a VP choice really has far more important and practical long-term implications - and these are many:

The first big decision a future president makes is so crucial. Do we want a president who turns this into a political calculation? Or do we want to be re-assured that a new generation of vision and energy becomes part of the decision-making process in the White House, a la Jim Webb?

Do we want to have a ruthless, power-hungry, resentful Clinton in the wings, or do we want an experienced Richardson or Biden, or a well-spoken, thoughtful Amy Klobuchar ready - but not pushing to take over? (By the way, Klobuchar would probably cement the fate of that traitor Norm Coleman in MN.)

Clinton may have a role to play in an Obama administration (I don't know if she'll ever be a really great senator) - and this is likely to be as a major cabinet officer. Give her something she can dig her sharp teeth into, like Defense, or her energy, like State, or her wonkishness like Health. But VP - no way - unless the "boss" decides otherwise - and still I think that would be a bad decision, and I will tell him so.