After the latest round of Presidential primaries, I am thoroughly convinced of two things:

1. Senator Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nomination for the 2008 Presidential election, and

2. If she does not select Senator Barack Obama as her Vice-Presidential running mate, she will lose to the Republican ticket.

I suppose, for completeness sake, I should add a third self-evident truth:

3. If Senator Clinton is the Democratic Presidential nominee and Senator Obama is the Vice-Presidential nominee, they will be the victors in the 2008 Presidential election.

I have felt, for quite some time now, that the 2008 Presidential election is the Democratic Party’s to lose, regardless of their candidate. There is a large enough coalition of voters that are disenchanted and, frankly, fatigued with the current administration that whomever the opposition party presents as its nominee in 2008, they will defeat whomever the Republican Party’s nominee is. Second terms for Presidents are typically nightmares and the second half of President Bush’s eight years has proved no exception to this axiom. The coalition (more anti-Bush than pro-Democrat) arrayed against any Republican candidate is formidable. It is composed of not just the core Democratic Party supporters but also a significant number of moderate Republicans and a goodly number (probably a distinct majority) of independents voters. I am persuaded that, despite Senator Clinton’s polarizing presence on the Democratic ticket, she will win against any ticket the Republican Party can cobble together. If the Republicans could resurrect their party’s best (Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt), they would still succumb to the prevailing Bush backlash. It’s just a hard political truth.

But since the Iowa caucuses and, in particular, with his strong showing in the "Super Tuesday" of February 5, 2008, Senator Obama has succeeded in making the race for the White House a little bit more of a sticky wicket for the Senator from New York. The caveat was given breath and a strong heartbeat from an unlikely source: the Clinton campaign. Senator Clinton and her husband both stumbled badly in mid-January when the dynamic duo made the mistake of insinuating race into their campaign rhetoric. If you will recall, Senator Clinton said that Dr. Martin Luther King’s hopes of racial equality were only realized when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act on 1964 into law. Within days of this pratfall, ex-President Clinton used "fairy tale" in referring to Senator Obama’s stance on the invasion of Iraq. To add insult to injury, long-time Clinton supporter Bob Johnson (founder of BET and owner of the NBA’s Charlotte Hornets) commented negatively on Senator Obama’s experience when he said:

"To me, as an African American, I am frankly insulted the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues — when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood; I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book — when they have been involved." [Emphasis added]

Johnson was accused by some of taking a cheap shot by bringing up the Illinois Senator’s teenage drug indiscretions that were revealed in his book, Dreams From My Father.

These early indiscretions seemed to galvanize black support for Senator Obama leading, first, to a surprise win in the South Carolina primary and, most recently, to his decisively winning primaries in Alabama, Georgia, Missouri and ten other states on "Super Tuesday." Early in the campaigning, pollsters noted a virtually even split between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama among black voters. In the media, the schism was explained by the prevailing opinion that Bill Clinton was viewed within the black community as "the first black President" and, conversely, Senator Obama was viewed by many blacks as being "not black enough." I have previously commented on the difficult course the junior Senator from Illinois has had to steer here. However, all these concerns seem to have changed dramatically since the bevy of January missteps by Senator Clinton’s campaign.

The combination of Senator Obama’s momentum among the general population (especially younger voters) and his new found popularity among black voters has caused, in my opinion, some serious problems for Senator Clinton. What would have been - again in my opinion - a rather smooth drive down the electoral highway to the White House has, suddenly, become a road that is a bit pockmarked and serpentine. If she is the Democratic Party’s nominee for President - and I believe she will be - she is virtually compelled to ask Senator Obama to be her running mate. If she does not, she runs a very real risk of alienating her once-automatic black constituency and, possibly, a significant percentage of general Democratic voters. She would almost certainly alienate a large segment of the 18-30 year old voting block which has seen (according to Time magazine) Kennedy-esque inspiration in the speeches and manner of Senator Obama. The promise of a "New Camelot" in Senator Obama exceeds all candidates from either political party.

Of course, pundits who suggest that Senators Clinton and Obama could never coexist as running mates are just simply wrong. Politics (as has been demonstrated many times in history) makes for strange bedfellows. In point of fact, during the two-terms that Senator Clinton’s husband was President, he and his Vice-President were known to be often at odds on policy issues. Even after leaving the White House, ex-President Clinton and Gore have not been close. History has proven, time and again, that the two chief executives need not agree on everything or, in reality, anything. History has also shown that the Vice-Presidency - while not as automatic as it once was - is, often enough, a natural springboard from the Senate to the White House. And let us not forget: in eight years, Senator Obama will be a statesman-like 54 years old.

I believe that a Clinton-Obama ticket is not only possible but highly probable. Further, in my opinion, the ticket would be a virtually automatic water slide into the White House. I expect to see the rhetoric toned down between the two between now and the Democratic Convention in August. If the respective campaign staffs are as savvy as I think they are, they will recognize that both Senators will arrive in Denver with half the Democratic delegates divided, roughly, equally. They will want to show cohesion rather than antipathy between now and August. I suspect that their sternest rebukes will be reserved for the current administration rather than each other for the next 6 months. And, when the smoke clears in Denver, the senators will embark on a truly historic march to the White House as the first woman President and the first black Vice-President.

But predictions such as these are prime reasons why I don’t gamble.