Hillary Won't be VP Because of Bill?

That's the thesis put forth today in the Wall Street Journal. You may recall that Bill has been a big proponent of the "Dream Ticket" for some time, so what could be the problem? According to The Journal, the former president would not be prepared to go through Obama's formal vetting process:

Some in the Clinton camp also notes a possible deal-breaker for a party-unity ticket: Bill Clinton may balk at releasing records of his business dealings and big donors to his presidential library...

...For Sen. Clinton to be considered, she would have to undergo an invasive vetting of both Clinton's private and public affairs, just like other recent vice-presidential aspirants, say veterans of the process. They said it would likely require Mr. Clinton to reveal donors to his library in Little Rock, Ark., which have included the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Middle Eastern businessmen, as well as details of his confidential business dealings.

So, if you buy this theory, then it was fine for Bill to go for First Gentleman, but the intense spotlight of Vice Presidential spouse would prove just too revealing. Or, if you're feeling especially cynical, since the Clinton's didn't stand for that almighty CHANGE in the same way Obama does, past business dealings wouldn't have mattered had Hillary won.

The article is right, however, when it stresses the inherent conflict of having the former first family playing second fiddle to Obama. We all witnessed the difficulty Hillary had at times in keeping her husband reigned in and on message. The loose cannon argument seems to me to be the biggest reason she won't be on the ticket. The last thing a presidential candidate wants is a question mark in the minds of voters as to who is setting the agenda. So maybe we can blame Bill, after all, if we're desperate for a fall guy, as to why the Obama/Clinton merger will stall. As for shady financial dealings and the presidential library, the Journal floats a lot of innuendo (Arab donors are all bad people), but doesn't really have the goods.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne sees Hillary's Tuesday night victory speech (the one that should have been a concession) as the real reason we won't be seeing her presiding over the Senate come January. In essence, like many commentators, he heard what essentially amounted to a sour-grapes tone from Clinton:

...gaining the vice presidency by invoking leverage just can't work. It makes the presidential candidate look weak. It breaks in advance the trust that running mates need. It can only presage conflicts and power struggles in a new administration.

Hillary Clinton is an enormously talented public servant. Many who ended up supporting Obama once hoped to support her. But Clinton's political future requires her to accept that Obama has prevailed, that the primary campaign is over and that graciousness in defeat can, paradoxically, be turned into the most powerful leverage of all.

So, we'll have to see just how gracious Clinton decided to be this Saturday. She's got her work cut out for her.