In negotiation, it's wise to define the best alternative to achieving your primary goals -- the fallback -- no matter how unappealing compared to a clear win. Then you tuck it in the back of your mind and aim higher. As unappealing as it may seem now, the vice presidency could be the best alternative for both of the top Democratic presidential contenders.
For Clinton, the vice presidency would definitely feel like a comedown. But it could also turn out to be the only way for a woman to ultimately become president. She'll consider it if she wants to crack the second highest glass ceiling nearly as much as the first and if she wants to influence the course of history from a position closer than a Senate seat. For Obama, the vice presidency would be a comedown too. But he'd likely think twice before turning his back on a step that would take him closer to being president -- the first black vice president. And he, too, would be better positioned -- in his case to infuse the next presidency with his compelling vision.
Neither of them is perfect, we know that. Paul Krugman gave Hillary more credit on the economic front, and that is proving to be crucial. Barack is more charismatic and may indeed be, as he suggests, more of a bridge builder, but is playing catch-up with Edwards and Clinton on ways to stem the tide of recession and provide healthcare for all Americans. Then again, he was against the war in Iraq before the others, even if he could have done more about it after that insight, while Clinton has voted too long in ways that helped Bush prolong the war. He prefers to define the vision rather than be an operations manager, whereas she wants to hit the ground running on day one. Basically, they're both flawed and both gifted and either is better than any of the Republican options.
Unless Clinton and Obama mutilate each other's candidacies, or it's done for them in the press, they may seek to bolster their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses by taking on the Republicans in what would certainly be both an unprecedented and formidable team. Were they to then select exceptional cabinet members who compensate for the team's limitations and compliment its strengths, the country would surely benefit.
Does this mean we should cease to criticize and analyze? No. But like a skillful negotiator, will we entertain what for so many voters is a far less than desired fallback? Is it just too soft a landing? Will Democrats and Democratic leaning independents put the country first if indeed pairing the current top two Democratic candidates, to borrow from Senator Obama's vision, emerges as our country's best hope?
Foresight of this nature, being able to see past our preferences to what best serves the country does not come easy. But as anyone who has faced and overcome major obstacles knows, often a "win" in politics and in life demands stretching beyond comfortable and preferred avenues to ones previously marked "closed".