What to do with the ex-inevitable candidate

Steve Chapman:

People who are under the influence of alcohol often are seized with impulses that seem brilliant at the time but end up looking like horrible mistakes the next day. We are now at the stage of the presidential election when intoxication at the prospect of the fall campaign produces ideas that, if adopted, will lead only to regret.

One came in an article on the influential op-ed page of The Washington Post, proposing a simple way to reconcile Hillary Clinton and her supporters to Barack Obama's looming victory. "It's likely that the next president will face at least one Supreme Court vacancy," wrote James Andrew Miller, formerly an aide to Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker. "Obama should promise Hillary Clinton, now, that if he wins in November, the vacancy will be hers, making her first on a list of one."

In Miller's view, it would guarantee a quick Senate confirmation, gratify her supporters by assuring her life tenure in a job more consequential than vice president and add a solid liberal vote to a conservative-leaning court.

No doubt. But it would brand Obama as an unsavory deal-maker willing to bribe a rival for her blessing, badly tarnishing the rationale of his candidacy. It would also give Republicans a matchless opportunity in the fall campaign -- trumpeting the specter of an Obama presidency and a Clinton court.

Making her his running mate, as many people have suggested, would be nearly as bad an idea. It, too, would taint him as a cynical pol bartering his soul for the White House. It would do little to attract the independent voters he will need, many of whom detest her. And who would trust Obama to negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after this craven appeasement of Clinton?

...

Democrats are treating Hillary Clinton like an ex wife they don't want to kick out in the snow, but they are not sure what to do with her. They should respect her enough to let her make her on way if she loses.

Chapman also looks at the McCain ticket but his suggestions would be disastrous. Lindsey Graham would upset already upset conservatives who don't trust McCain on the immigration issue. It makes zero sense.

This look at results from Survey USA polling suggest that McCain strongest ticket is with Huckabee and Obama's is with Edwards. I tend to agree, although I am not a big Huckabee fan. It would be nice to see Edwards lose twice as a VP candidate though. What Huckabee brings to the ticket is an ability to appeal to evangelicals who have been key to Bush wins in both of his races. The poll for some reason did not look at an Obama-Clinton match up. Perhaps it is just too improbable. Joshua Spivak explains why.

David Broder ponders VP choices and does not come close to the Survey USA suggestions. However, he admits he has only been right once and that was when Nixon gave him a heavy handed clue about Agnew.