The case for, and against, Clinton

After 17 months, 18 million votes and 1,600 pledged delegates, the only question remaining for U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton now is whether she will spend the fall campaigning as part of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's Democratic presidential ticket or on behalf of it.

The topic is of constant discussion in Washington: Clinton backers don't understand how she can be skipped over for the vice presidential nomination. Obama supporters dread the notion of a combined ticket. And virtually every Republican salivates at the prospect of getting to run against both the most liberal senator in the country, according to National Journal's rankings, and a Clinton.

Both sides have their points, and until Obama drops his vice presidential bombshell, Clinton's inclusion or exclusion will remain the hottest parlor game in town.

The case for Clinton
Hillary Clinton remains one of the best-known and most popular politicians in the Democratic Party. No one Obama could pick would bring more fans, many of whom are not immediately inclined to back the Illinois senator. And no one would do more to instantly heal the rift left by a long, and at times, nasty primary.

Although she and her husband earned heavy criticism for their perceived negative roles in the primary, the two remain widely popular in several states Democrats desperately need to win. In Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Ohio, three swing states Obama needs to win, Clinton's relationship with critical Reagan Democrats can help Obama, and her volunteers in all three states, which she won, would be much more inclined to work for a ticket on which she played a prominent, and official, role.

While this election will largely be fought on the change theme -- even U.S. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is trying to appropriate the change mantle -- there is a powerful case to be made that McCain's years of experience fighting Washington makes him more suited to changing it than Obama's relative newness to the scene.

Clinton tried to wage a change versus experience campaign in the primary as the more seasoned candidate; in the Democratic contest, she came within just a few hundred delegates of victory. Facing a more conservative electorate, Obama may need to spend more time addressing experience. And while Clinton's eight years in the U.S. Senate don't match McCain's two decades, coupling change and experience is likely the winning ticket (Consider the committees the unified Democratic ticket would represent, as well: Obama, on the Foreign Relations Committee, could be aided by Clinton's time on the Armed Services panel. Diplomacy and military strength!)

And while the media was once infatuated with John McCain, the two finalists for the Democratic nomination were nothing short of rock stars. During the last half of the Democratic primaries, including the six-week dead zone between contests in Texas and Ohio, in early March, and Pennsylvania, in mid-April, the media covered the two Democrats obsessively.

Surveys of the public showed fewer than 10 percent had seen the most news coverage, in any given week, about McCain; Clinton and Obama, on the other hand, dominated the headlines. With both on the ticket, McCain could be marginalized more than any major party nominee in recent years, giving the Obama-led ticket all the free media he can handle.

That final sprint, too, did something to Clinton. No longer is she the tepid, stiff politician who underwhelmed crowds throughout the primary season. Now, she is a more energetic speaker, and insiders have told reporters that she seems to be having more fun after finding her voice. One does not come so close to the nomination without being a skilled politican already, and her talent could be an asset that others in the party would have trouble matching.

The case against Clinton
Some who advocate Obama take a new direction become apoplectic at the notion that Clinton might join the ticket. The animus that exists between the two candidates is enough of a reason; when two people simply dislike each other, they're not going to work well together, and distrust could breed infighting and anonymously sourced leaks, blaming bad strategy on both sides, worse than those the Titanic experienced.

Clinton would also limit Obama's opportunity for growth and bolster his enemies. No one in the country is undecided about the New York senator; once the fallout from the primary settles down, polls will reset, and as in the past decade and a half, half of America will view her favorably and half will view her unfavorably. Clinton would attract her supporters, yes, but she would also enrage Republicans who might find a more powerful motivator in voting against Clinton than in voting for McCain.

Obama's campaign may see hiring Clinton as akin to lighting a match near an open gas source: It's simply not good for one's health to ignite so much passion on the other side with a single maneuver.

To choose Clinton would also fly in the face of Barack Obama's entire message, which rests on change. Clinton is the old guard, someone who epitomizes the evils of Washington -- at least in some people's minds, in a profession in which perception means more than reality -- and to choose her would indicate anything but change.

In fact, as John McCain tries to imply that Obama's change is backward-looking, Clinton on the ticket would only add to the Republican's point.

Leaving Clinton off the ticket could also provide the Illinois senator a powerful insurance policy. If Clinton does not campaign full-time for Obama, on the ticket or not, she will be criticized for allegedly fatally wounding her one-time rival's campaign in order to set herself up for a 2012 bid.

In that case, Clinton will be labeled a pariah, her future in the Democratic Party will be all but over. Obama's, on the other hand, could just be getting started, and his repeat bid could begin virtually the next day.

The first rule Democratic super-lawyer Jim Johnson, former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy, Obama's vice presidential selection team, will follow is the same a young doctor pledges to observe when taking the Hippocratic Oath: Above all, do no harm. Clinton would simply do more harm to Obama's campaign than anyone else in the Democratic Party, and that makes her an untenable choice for Obama.

But the debates, with two sides equally fervent on their stands, rage on. Clinton has not said outright that she does or does not want to be on the ticket, a telling sign that the answer to that question is a positive one. But whether she ends up there will be all Obama's doing. Making the wrong choice could also be his undoing, as well.

Reid Wilson, national columnist for Politicker.com, is also an associate editor of RealClearPolitics.com and covers Senate, House and governors' races at PoliticsNation.com. Contact him at reid@realclearpolitics.com.