For Cheney to be pushing the envelope on executive power is especially ironic, given the original constitutional status of the vice presidency: That office is a vestigial afterthought tacked on to the Constitution toward the end of the 1787 Constitutional Convention to solve a gaggle of unrelated problems. And it quickly proved more trouble than it was worth.

The vice presidency, in short, was never intended as an independent center of constitutional power--let alone home of a shadow EPA (the rather wonderfully named White House Council on Environmental Quality); the secret architect of national energy policy; and the shameful global detention and torture policies--including the wretched military commission system.

Perhaps we do need to start thinking about why perhaps the most powerful office in the country is not on the top of a ballot, and why its powers are not defined -- or circumscribed -- by any law or constitutional provision.  It's long past time for Congress to take this on. Past legislation has further provided clear channels of responsibility, particularly on military matters. It would be a good debate to have before the 2008 election, when Cheney will start opening the envelopes.

She wouldn't bring any political base to the ticket, since she doesn't have one. She wouldn't bring any regional advantage, since McCain is almost certain to beat either Democrat in Rice's native state of Alabama, and almost certain to lose to either Democrat in Rice's adopted state of California.

And while McCain has tied his candidacy to the Iraq occupation, he maintains some distance from the Bush administration by charging that until recently the war was woefully mismanaged. Rice, as national security adviser in Bush's first term, was one of the mismanagers.

I can't help but imagine having another controversial, larger-than-life character wade into the fray, one who not only raises McCain's big wager on Iraq but also takes us further into terra incognita on issues of race and gender. Whatever you think of Condoleezza Rice, she's a formidable woman with more qualifications than almost any other vice presidential choice I can think of.

Clinton, especially campaigning in a state in which she’s the underdog, subtly seems to be arguing, “You may like Obama, but if you vote for me, you can get Obama anyway — he’ll be on my ticket.” Indeed, a month ago, longtime Clinton apparatchik Lanny Davis and Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe floated the same idea, rather explicitly. If you like Clinton and Obama, the argument went, the only way to get them both is to vote for Clinton (because she’s more likely to tap him as a running mate than the other way around).

But there’s also the broader context to all of this, which makes Clinton’s comments rather … confusing.

Just over the past four days, Clinton has publicly suggested that John McCain’s experience is preferable to Obama’s, and McCain meets the “Commander in Chief threshold” that Obama does not. They were, at least to me, some of the most disappointing attacks Clinton has made in this entire campaign process.

And yet, interspersed with these criticisms, Clinton is also publicly raising the notion that she’d strongly consider Obama for her ticket. Isn’t there a disconnect here?

Democrats who think it's going to be a cakewalk into the White House next November had best remember one name: Condoleezza Rice.

John McCain is a formidable candidate in his own right, but if he has the political imagination to do it, he can cause the party of Jefferson and Jackson indescribable angst with Rice as his vice-presidential pick.