1.  Picking Clinton as VP all by itself won't unite the party.

2.  He could unite the party without picking Clinton as VP.

After all, the dems have picked their candidate not based on who could win in November, not based on who has experience or who can be a great president and fix the mess we're in, but instead have based it on who they think the media likes the best right now. Same should hold true for the VP slot.

This troubles me. The problem I, and many people like me, have in supporting Obama has nothing to do with support for Clinton. It is this paranoid, conspiracy-minded, hateful element in the Obama "movement."

Obama is, more than any candidate in my voting lifetime (other than, perhaps, George Wallace or Perot), selling himself as the leader of a "movement" bringing all kinds of "new" people into the the political process and the Democratic party while promising "change" that "reforms" or weakens some parts of the party's traditional coalition.

But there appears to be evidence, from their own mouths, that many people attacted to this message and movement are voting on the basis of hatred, paranoia, resentment and exclusion (as the Wallace people were), and, often VERY forthrightly and unapologetically, on gender and class prejudice, rather than on a new, positive, more expansive and eqalitarian view of politics and the party.

I'm deeply uncomfortable associating myself with such a movement. It goes against every principle I've stood for over a lifetime.

I know other Obama supporters will point out that not all Obama supporters can be judged by the haters. But when will they, and Obama, stand up to and condemn the haters?

Will Obama's campaign continue to ignore this dangerous and ugly element in their movement, or even encourage it, because they believe they can continue to exploit these people, and their prejudices and resentments, for their candidate's benefit?

Webb?  Really?

She's overqualified to be VP to the less qualified candidate, and to be the earmarked scapegoat for his failings as a candidate and -- should he win -- in governance.

She should step back from this and rest on her laurels and considerable muscle until the convention in August. She might even take the time in between to finish collecting her well-deserved applause and admiration while stumping downticket races ... well AWAY from Obama's ambitions.

If the Dems aren't suffering from buyers' remorse before going with the Obama/Non-Entity or ticket (or Obama/Propper-Upper ticket)

It's beyond disingenuous for the Obama camp to even touch the issue of unity, given everything that's transpired the past few months.

In short, I'd think it would be more interesting to talk about the real strategy for Dems in the Fall, that Plouffe seems to be pushing.  Either Obama's new-coalition/new-voter/Red-State strategy can effectively counter the potential loss of old Dem coalitions (I choose not to engage whether Hillary's choice of VP will effectively stench that loss right now) or it will not. What say you?

Second, and this I think will actually be the more important question for voters in the Fall. While the focus will be on economic issues -- two stories in the Globe this morning illustrate that the economy is increasingly a global economy and the link to foreign policy and the war in Iraq cannot be ignored. (see Maliki visits Iraq, and China seeks to protect oil lanes). I'm not trying to be an alarmist here, but increasingly, it seems to me that a longer term US military presence in the Gulf might be necessary for stability -- not just in  terms of politically combating terrorism and keeping an eye on Iran, providing buffer-zones for Turkey and Israel -- but to ensure stability in the oil markets which directly impacts the US markets and the global economy.

If that's all it takes...hasn't all of America already "heard him speak"?

And didn't half of Dems want someone else?

And if he really is/was so inspirational, why didn't he blow HRC out of the water with voters after Super Tuesday in February?

And why did he only win via Super Delegates?

And why - seriously - isn't he ahead of McCain by 25 points in the polls right now?  I mean, these are his glory days...but the "old man"/Bush II is right there with him?

I have my answers to these questions?  What about some answers by a BO supporter or two?

I'd easily have gone with either one, as my earlier choices were winnowed out.

The ensuing campaign showed me a lot about each candidate. She did more to prove herself as a campaigner and leader

He did not. His focus was more on tearing her down -- whether explicity or obliquely in a riff complaining about "politics" and "the politicians in Washington". (WTF?!? That's his whole platform?) He didn't affirmatively show his own qualities and explicitly offer his own original solutions.

"What he needs . . . is a person who can compensate for his obvious potential defects: his youthfulness and his lack of long experience in military and international affairs."

But that's not what you are arguing here.

Since I can see we're going to be reading this column in many different forms between now and late August (as we have for a while already), I'm hoping you can devote just one to answering this question:

Even if Senator Obama were to decide he wanted Senator Clinton as his running mate, what does he do about his campaign demand, as early as last year, that former president Clinton publicly disclose the donors - their names and the amounts - to the Clinton Library?

Clearly, in the vetting process, this will be asked. But what if former president Clinton determines that he is not willing to do that?

Should Senator Obama simply flip-flop and back down over that call for greater transparency?

It would be a question that would pop up repeatedly on the campaign trail, during debates, etcetera.

OK Obama I will help you get elected.  I will convince my supporters to vote for you but with the following conditions:

One, you pick me as VP
Two, you do not run for two terms, so I can run in 2012, and then it will be your turn to help me get elected.

Obama says.

OK its a deal.

However, what Hillary may not actually want is the VP slot, but just to be asked publicly as a show of respect. Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see.

What if several weeks from now, Hillary were to introduce somebody like Wes Clark or Evan Bayh as Obama's VP nominee, throwing her full support behind the ticket and announcing her eagerness to get back to the Senate and work for a Democratic agenda?  And from the same podium, Obama says how the he and Clark/Bayh are going to drub McCain and then look forward to working with Senator Hillary Clinton to pass her universal healthcare plan?  No powerful unity mojo there?  

Yes she will unite party, if she is VP but then would have to wait 8 years to run again. Of course as a rule the incumbent VP does had an advantage. Don't know if she would want wait that long though.

If people don't want to vote for him because Clinton is not on the ticket, they probably did not want to vote for him anyway, and was just looking for an excuse.