As for violating the rules, about those (nationwide) Obama commercials I saw down here in Florida....

Was that a violation of the rules, or merely a violation of their spirit while  adroitly playing them?

How about that organized campaign in MI to get votes for uncommitted?

You act as though we are ill informed down here. Don't piss off voters you need by foolish,  insulting comments.  

Don't be so holier than thou that you are blind to the fact that Obama is every bit the ambitious Pol that HRC is.

1.  Obama's visionary change agenda is best expressed and carried into reality with him setting the tone from the top.  

   -- Obama is bound to look less substantive standing next to a policy wonk like Clinton.  It looks too much like Bush/Cheney, that she's going to be the one really running the government.  

2. The VP is traditionally the attack dog in the campaign, and (don't hold it against me for saying so) HRC can do that better than Obama can.  She's been through the forge and hardened.

   -- In theory, I'd agree, but in practice every time Clinton says anything even vaguely critical, the press jumps all over her.  Meanwhile Obama has proven he can go negative without the press calling him negative.  

3.  Looking at the way Bush/Cheney worked out, you want a VP who's even more odious to the opposition party than is your president.  A friend said to me, pre-2000 election, in regards to Cheney as Bush's choice:  "best life insurance policy ever taken out".  We saw the analog in one of Pelosi's excuses for not impeaching Bushie:  "and what, then you get Dick Cheney."  It's a workable model.

   -- First, I reject your belief that Clinton is more odious than Obama.  By the General Election, either (both) will be odious to Republicans.  Second, again, reminding voters of the Bush/Cheney
dynamic is absolutely awful politics.

4.  HRC has the experience in the ins and outs of DC and the govt from her experience in the WH which will allow her, working with Bam, to undo a lot of the devastation Bush/Cheney have wrought.

   -- Again, an argument for her to be on the top of the ticket.  We've seen what happens when we have a Vice President who understands the executive branch much better than the President.  And even if Clinton wouldn't go out and usurp the President's role, it's terrible optics to have a ticket where it looks like the VP will have to conduct on-the-job training of the president.  Where it looks like she's going to be the one running the government day-to-day.  

5.   I think she'll be better twisting arms on the Hill than Obama would be.

I don't see how Obama/Clinton works.  It's weaker than either would be without the other.

I just explained how it's stronger.  

One of the big gripes about Obama has been that he's only been in the Senate a couple years, and has little real governmental experience.  HRC, OTOH, has been waist-deep in the big issues since she was a junior attorney fresh out of law school working for the House Judiciary on the Nixon impeachment.  

The job of a president is not to micromanage - I first got to know that term when Carter was criticized for doing just that with all sorts of issues, like he was still the governor of Georgia.  Rather, the job of a president is to set a tone for how the executive branch of government will be run, select competent underlings, and make sure they carry out both his directives and comply with the tone of his policies.  A policy wonk will (almost certainly) get swamped by the details, but details are for subordinates.

Obama promises change, and is often (rightly, IMHO) criticized for having not a lot behind that word.  With HRC as a VP, he can finesse that problem nicely.  

Inexcusable stupidity onhow they handled the Michigan and Florida situations.

Maybe Michelle's hesitancy to endorse whomever wins the nomination is because they haven't decided whether they are going to run a third party campaign or not.

Okay, I admit I am a dreamer.