Given John Edwards recent endorsement of Barack Obama, media pundits have been discussing the viability of an Obama-Edwards ticket. This is no doubt better than an Obama-Clinton ticket, as Obama can rightfully claim he is moving on from the past.
Clinton, however hard she tries, just cannot disassociate herself from years of bitter partisanship. Clinton's record on progressive issues does not match her rhetoric, and Republicans will expose it ruthlessly in the general election. From a progressive point of view, Clinton should also be a no-go. In an ideal world, voting and campaigning for NAFTA should automatically eliminate her from working class votes, and voting for the invasion of Iraq should eliminate anyone who expects her to provide meaningful change.
Edwards record on the issues is patchy at best, but his new found zeal for issues pertaining to poverty seems far more genuine than Clinton's. Edwards point blank accepted responsibility for his vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, calling it the greatest mistake of his political career. He made poverty a central theme of his campaign, and publicly admitted mistakes regarding trade issues.
Edwards is a tireless campaigner and would do an awful lot to siphon rural voters away from John McCain. In strategic terms, Edwards is an excellent choice.
At this point, the Democrats should be gearing themselves up for a serious fight with the Republicans. Although Clinton is a good scrapper, the Democrats should do their best to take the high road and present a ticket that symbolizes serious commitment to change. Clinton symbolizes all that is bad about the Democratic Party, and it is time to move on.