I have not yet convinced myself that Clinton is the best VP choice for Obama, or that Obama would be the best choice for Clinton, but since the pundits-cum-papparazzi are gushing over the "first date" at the debate, such considerations may be seeping into the public consciousness just before the big vote on Tuesday, and thus worth comment.
Considering their self-proclaimed advantages over the other, the clear preference would be for an Obama-Clinton ticket over Clinton-Obama. Why?
The Campaign. The best posture for a campaign is for the presidential candidate to take the high road, and the vice presidential candidate to be the hit person. Barack is the greatest high-road, inspirational, big-picture leader in half a century; whereas the Clintons are geniuses at undercutting opponents. That is not to say that Barack could not attack or that Hillary could not lead, but one of the unambiguous distinctions in this campaign is that these two skills are heavily skewed to Barack on the one hand, and the Clintons on the other.
Electability. A Clinton vice presidential run is not going to coalesce the Republican base behind McCain as would a presidential race. Moreover, on the margins there would be a better chance of the Democrats gaining seats in Congress if there were not the spectre of having to "stop" HIllary.
Governing. Hillary's "35 years of experience" is primarily in policy, not executive functions. That's a good role for a vice president, and Hillary could become a key part of an Obama administration's policy team. By contrast, the vice president, or "co-president," of a Clinton administration is Bill. And, between the two Clintons the role of the front person is better suited to Bill for the same reason that it is better suited to Barack.
There is another factor. The Clintons lost Congress for 12 years. If that should happen again, nothing game-changing will happen.
Finally, we do not know how the Clintons actually view lobbyists and their power. When Bill tried to run Arkansas by combating the special interests in that state, he was roundly defeated in his next election. That was a lesson they seemed to have learned. Whether they can "un-learn" it, and really rally the nation for change, is more questionable than it is for Barack.
Bill Clinton. To borrow a phrase from former Supreme Court Justice Cardozo, the former president seems like a "brooding omnipresence" in his role as political adjunct to his wife. His foundation work is extraordinary, and extraordinarily important. There will be an enormous amount of ink and hot-air expended in the media, and even at press conferences, for whatever Bill Clinton does as the spouse to the president. A national security clearance? It would be idiotic for him not to have it. How does he then trot off to Khazakstan to meet their "Dear Leader" on behalf of a Canandian Mining company?
For the Clinton Foundation to continue to receive donations for its critical work, and thus remain functional, while Bill is the "First Laddie," also raises their whole baggage with the Marc Rich pardon.
All these issues will exist with Hillary as vice president, but will not be nearly as front-and-center.
For all those contemplating a unity ticket between Obama and Clinton (and I am not there yet), there are strong reasons for that to be the order, (Obama-Clinton'08).