Hillary doesn't jive with Obama's conceptual platform. That's not to say that he won't effect real change when he's putting his neck out on the line for the many progressive Dem/Repubs who do want to inprove the system from the inside out. I am not expecting 100% or even 70% success, but at least it is the experiment in democracy we as a nation are supposed to be pumped about.
To clarify, No way in hell would Obama~Clinton be a good ticket. They would lose in an election the Republicans aren't trying very hard at winning. I would say the same thing for Obama~Edwards. He'd be better off with someone from Arizona, Pennsylvania, or Maine.
I am more of the Jim Webb or Joe Biden type of Obama fan. He needs someone post partisan while not really floating too far across the aisle. And given Clark's Clinton affiliation, even that might be too far across the aisle. Webb and Biden are tough. For me, the only question is which one has a cleaner biography. Both these men should be in his cabinet.
Obama has been playing it safe since Texas/Ohio. He won this thing pretty much back then. Yeah, he did. He should be playing it safe. Now he's overtaken the superdelegate lead, and as far as I can tell, all he needs to do is champion a universal policy before he is President that would give a taste of what's to come. It's not fail-safe, but it also indicates to us that he hasn't yet been fully sucked in by all the grooming and fanfare. The Kenya thing was an good but ineffectual example as it is too far removed from the American conscience to have substantial impact.
Edwards could help him (and every Democrat) out by taking on voter fraud and anti-Rovian strategies that make the politics of government not merely something clever and dirty, but something closely resembling evil. Gore, Kerry and Clinton could help by disappearing until December. He would need Congress reps to rally with him and point out specific, rectifiable travesties.