A reader writes:
I have to share your Dissent of the Day's sentiment, though for different reasons. I'd given some thought to the possibility you propose, but then I began imagining the liberties our current Vice President has taken with regard to the powers of his office--terrible, and disturbing, precedents. I know you'd agree. I'm not and have never been among those spouting the she-had-Vince-Foster-murdered meme, but we've all been witnesses to the Clintons' hunger for power, their sense of entitlement--remember the "inevitability" meme? Why feed that by granting her the vice-presidency? To put her a step away from the Presidency, though it would certainly be a magnanimous gesture on Obama's part, would be, I fear, far too much temptation. She--both directly and through those closest to her--has shown herself to be far less magnanimous, especially toward those whom she feels "owe" her and her husband.
She's willing to be destructive in the quest for power;
I'd as soon not contemplate what she'd do if she had any actual power--especially power that, like Cheney's, could/would be exercised mostly out of sight. Obama, I'm certain, is not nearly as malleable as Bush is, but it's not Clinton's influence over him that I'd be worried about.
Finally, why let the foot of the Clintons' personal psychodrama anywhere near the door of the White House again? You have warned against this throughout the campaign; why, now that she is all-but-officially defeated, should you now be ignoring your own warnings?
So, no sir. If it is indeed true that the Clintons represent the last gasp of Rovian politics, then let them gasp. And don't resuscitate them.
Another reader's e-mail captures the tone of those more aggressively opposed to the idea:
CLINTON AS VP????? What drugs are you doing??? I'll vote for McCain, 2 Huckabees, and 10 Romneys before I EVER cast a vote for Obama/Clinton. Period.