I know x4mr spends a lot of time perusing the blogs, but I had no idea Newt did ... both, however, obviously saw my comment last week in a thread at The Data Port, which included the following:
I can't see Obama/Clinton for partly the same reasons you give for not seeing Gore/Clinton -- why would Hillary take the second post instead of the safe Senate seat? About the only reason I can think of is if her reasoning ran to the macabre and she basically decided "Hey, 2008 was my chance, If I couldn't win then, I am not going to when I am 4 or 8 years older either ... so maybe I'll take the VP job now, and who knows, maybe Obama has a stress-induced heart attack or something."
On the other hand, I could very easily see Clinton/Obama, particularly if a deal were struck to give Obama some high-profile foreign policy portfolio. Eight years as VP would set him up nicely as the "heir apparent" in 2016, when he would still only be 55.
Now, I respect x4mr's opinion a heck of a lot more than I respect Gingrich's, and in all seriousness I am sure my comment above had no affect at on either of them reaching the conclusions they have. However, with all due respect to both (x4mr is due a lot more than Newt), and despite my prior musings, I think they are both wrong.
That's not to say I wouldn't like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket. I agree entirely with x4mr's assertion that ticket would win the race, and, in addition to merits I think both candidates have anyway, I confess I would love to see a White House with a women and a minority filling the two top slots of our government. It would just add to the attraction for me. I don't see it happening, however.
Clinton and Obama are clearly shaping up as the two most serious claimants to the Democratic nomination, and this is reflected in both camps starting to snipe at each other. By the time the convention actually rolls around, there will have been a lot of hard campaigning, and certainly some hard feelings generated by both sides.
Furthermore, there is another candidate who would seem to make much more sense to be Hillary's running mate should she win nomination - Bill Richardson.
Yes, Richardson is running for President as well, but odds are any conflicts between his campaign and Clinton's during the run up to the convention will be far smaller and less bitter than prospective issues between Clinton and Obama. Also, having served as both UN Ambassador and Secretary of Energy in Bill Clinton's administration, the Clintons and Richardson should already have some degree of comfort working with each other.
Richardson has been (in my mind, at least) somewhat disappointing in the initial debates, but would add a lot to the ticket for Clinton - some foreign affairs experience, his own experience from governing a state executive branch. He would also provide representation from the Mountain West, an area with a growing population that has been trending increasingly Democratic in recent years. There's no real reason a Clinton/Richardson ticket would be any less competitive in the national race than Clinton/Obama.
So while I would personally like to see Clinton, should she win the nomination, select Obama as her running mate (I am particularly drawn to the notion of it setting him up as the natural Democratic "successor" when she leaves office), I think Richardson is the much more likely choice.
Don't just take my word for it though -- those futures traders down at Intrade happen to agree with me ... and for the record, I came to my conclusion before I checked the market listings.