If Obama runs with someone else now and loses, that's her best shot in 2012. If she's on the ticket now as VP and they lose, she'll have as little chance of getting the nomination in 2012 as John Edwards did this year.

I am perfectly willing to watch Obama lose and support her again in 08. If she is the VP candidate and he loses she can't run again and win anyway. Look how well that strategy worked for Edwards.

Now is her time.  And not as VP - as POTUS.

Why not?

No offense but, apparently you've been sound asleep the last 16 years. Clintons, any Clinton, are blamed for any failing. Your candidate has attacked the efficacy of the Clinton administration, the press does not acknowledge a successful Clinton Presidency.  The press (and your candidate) routinely demonize Hillary Clinton and have, in the case of press, for the past sixteen years.  

If an Obama/Clinton ticket were to lose, the press would crucify Hillary Clinton as the poison pill in spite of any polling or studies to the contrary and if for no other reason than to build animus for 2012.  

Don't you get it yet that the press and the Village establishment hate all things Clinton.

And what makes you think the party establishment would tolerate a Clinton candidacy in 2012?  A burning desire to win the White House? Haven't you seen enough already? This is the crew that joyously savages its own in the mistaken belief that they're performing some act of cleansing that the public will reward.

I can't believe you haven't noticed what's happening underneath.

Now.

On point 1 - HC does not have to be the VP condidate on a losing ticket to be the presumptive nominee in 2012.  It might help, but could hurt if this turns into a massive loss with her on the VP slot.  Someone could challenge her then.

On point 2 - The VP condidate, should the ticket lose, might be a stiff challenge to HC in 2012.  The party has got to find someone with some real backbone first, but not enough charisma to outshine their candidate.  If the ticket wins, you are presuming this would be asuccessful administration and not Carter Part II.  I don't have that faith in the "presumed candidate".  In that case it won't matter in 2012, as the party would have a snowball's chance of holding the WH.

On point 3 - No matter how bang up a job HC did in campaigning as the VP candidate, a loss this year will somehow get blamed on her, the party "elites" won't learn their lessons, and she would have to step on their necks to get the party nomination in 2012.  Actually, I kind of like the sound of that last part.

On point 4 - If she actually had to sit as the VP for 8 years (again, I feel that is unlikely), then I respectfully disagree that the age would not be a factor.  Just because the Reps can get away with it does not mean a Dem female cadidate could.  By the time the election would occur, she would be 69.  After 8 years of BO, I am sure that there would be cries for change coming from the other side, and having a grnadmother running for the big chair is not likely to fit many American's view of whom they want in that chair.  Maybe I am being cynical, but I don't see it.

My suggestion to her would be to decline the VP slot if offered.  Campaign for the ticket like a good Dem.  But, let the Boys sink on their own.  Then maybe in 2012, the party will be ready for some adult supervision.  And perhaps, Dems can actually grow some other worthy candidates by then.  Who konws?  She could decide she could be more effective outside politics if the party leadership is just not worth working with.

My worst fear?  That the party pushes a candidate who is not ready for the job (it won't matter who the VP is then as they can't really tell him -POTUS- what to do) and we get Carter Part II.  And remember, Carter had bright people in his administration.  Then we get stuck with Reps in the WH for the following 12-20 years!  For those who argue about SCOTUS selections for the next four years, think of longer term consequences in this scenario.