Sen. Clinton came into office in 2000, besting her opponent Rick Lazio by twelve points (55-43).  She gained support between her first election and her re-election in 2006, which she won by more than thirty points.   In her time in office, Clinton has built solid constituencies, gaining the approval of 68% of Hispanic voters according to an April SUSA poll.  She also polls strongly among women of whom better than 60% support her.  Her standings among various political ideologies underscores Hillarys negatives: she recieves only 33% support among conservatives, while splitting independents (50 percent approval vs. 48 percent disapporval), and receiving 59% of moderates.  She has the highest negatives of any candidate in the race with 40% of voters disapproving of her.

The argument most commonly made against her negatives is that after eight years as First Lady and eight years as senator, Hillary Clinton's negatives are as high as they will ever be.  Given just how high they are, I'm not going to dispute this.  Moving forward, she polls better than Obama in Pennsylvania and Ohio, where Obama is statically tied with McCain.  She leads by roughly ten ponts in both Pennsylvania and Ohio, though she loses by about the same margin in Virginia.  In Virginia, Obama performs better than Clinton while still losing to McCain.

Needless to say, Clinton is strong on nearly every issue a progressive might care about.  She supports lifting the ban on stem cell research in order to allow scientists to find new cures for devestating diseases.  She supports programs which encourage adoption over abortion.  She voted no on an amendment to ban flag burning.  Regarding crime, she believes mandatory sentence laws have been used too often and are detrimental to the pursuit of true justice.  She believes in a cap-and-trade system to control pollution.  I personally favor a simple tax system on emissions, which the CBO has demonstrated are far more effective at reducing pollution, but Clinton's proposal for a $5 billion investment in alternative energy is nothing to scoff at.

So, what are the negatives of a Clinton vice presidency?  First, it's difficult to imagine her taking a back seat to an Obama adminstration, especialy considering that there would be a former president by her side.  She does gain the support of women and Hispanics, but there may be another candidate who can perform just as well in these demographics (see Janet Napolitano, Brian Schweitzer, and Bill Richardson).  At times, she has suggested that Obama has yet to reach the threshold for the presidency.

Given the closeness of this primary, Clinton offers an Obama ticket enormous advantages.  She's popular among working class whites, especially those living in the Appalachian mountains.  She has the advantages of putting Ohio and Pennsylvania well within Obama's grasp.  While nearly a third of her supporters claim they will vote for McCain should Clinton not appear on the ticket, it's likely that the current primary race is causing Clinton supporters to voice support for McCain.  History suggests that they will not follow through on their threats in November. A substantial number of McCain voters claimed they wouldn't vote for Bush in the 2000 election, but their threats did not come to pass.

While Hillary Clinton looks good to those who wish to see a "unity ticket," Obama also must select a vice president who can be counted on to support his campaign and his message.  Despite Clinton's strengths on most progressive issues, it is difficult to imagine she has the discipline to fall in line behind an Obama campaign.  Moreover, her refusal to admit any mistake regarding her votes on the Iraq war cuts against Obama's theme of judgment.  It is difficult for me to imagine Obama selecting a candidate who not only voted to authorize the use of military force against, but has since refused to admit the failings of their decision.  I believe Clinton will make a concerted effort on Obama's behalf this fall, but it will be as a surrogate, not as a vice president.