The very fact of becoming the nominee is that you are suddenly seen as a "president". This is not true of the VP, who is in a secondary role and his/her main job is to enhance, protect and promote the entire ticket. Even media favorites designated as very charismatic ever come remotely close to outshining the nominee. (In fact, one wonders if the media is - to some degree - putting its thumb on the scale - in the 2004 GE, Edwards absolutely paled vs either Kerry or his primary season self.)
Early in the 1992 race, the odds on favorite was Mario Cuomo, who after Hamlet like mixed signals opted not to run. Many people spoke of him as being far above the "dwarfs" also competing. Bill Clinton did not immediately easily win the nomination -- he clenched it in June. Yet, as he moved into his convention, the halo of being the nominee gave him a presence he didn't have before. Even if you could have swapped Gore's and Clinton's personalities, Gore as VP would not have outshone Clinton.
Clinton has credentials for foreign policy and domestic policy and she is seen as having gravitas. There is no policy area weakness that could be fixed by a VP. (think Biden's 30 or so years on the SFRC vs Obama's significant, but short FP credientials) A VP choice is unlikely to counter any (unfair or not) integrity/honesty issues. I suspect that HRC is in the position that a VP is unlikely to make a difference either way. Thus insuring that the VP has no baggage is likely what is important to prevent the VP from being even slightly a negative.
I think HRC is in a good place to select the person she wants at her side who she believes in a good choice to be President if - heaven forbid - that is needed.
= new reply since forum marked as read
