Now that the 2008 idea to "make history by voting for the first African-American president" is yesterday's news, what will be done to spice up the current election season?  Two more white guys running on the Republican side?  Not a chance.  But a woman as a running mate for the Democrats?  Now, that could do it.  And not just any woman, but the woman who was left high and dry the last time around.  The woman currently ranked more popular than Oprah.  Yes, a "reluctant," hope-we-can-convince-her Hillary Clinton.

And, best of all, having Hillary replace Joe Biden on the ticket would be the perfect way for a do-over, a way for voters to atone, to collectively tell Hillary: "We're sorry!"  Many are regretting that Hillary didn't get the nod for the top spot four years back.  Now they'll be perfectly willing to enhance their race-oriented vote of 2008 with a gender-targeted one in 2012, even if it does mean resigning Mrs. Clinton to second chair.

On Bill O'Reilly's show a few nights back, a couple of pundits were arguing that replacing Joe Biden on the ticket would be tantamount to the Democrats admitting that the Obama/Biden ticket is in trouble.  Although true, these pundits failed to realize that the yellow-stream media would spin a Biden jettison in a positive way.  He's graciously taking one for the team, they'd say, and, pointing to his long and noble years of public service, they'd tout his well-deserved, well-earned retirement.

These same O'Reilly analysts also asked, "Why would Hillary want to leave her current role as secretary of state?  It's a terrific position of power and influence."  But what is the truest desire of both Hillary and Bill Clinton?  The historic First Female President trophy.  As Obama's vice president, in four years, Hillary could quite easily slip right into the presidency.

We need to admit it: Hillary on the ticket would truly be a brilliant move.  It would reinvigorate the dreary Dems and certainly give the wall-sitting independents a reason to jump back on board the history-making bandwagon.  And, again, Hillary is a known commodity -- she's been thoroughly vetted (not like, as we were told, that far-off-in-Alaska, far-off-base Sarah Palin).  Mrs. Clinton has the all-important foreign policy part down pat as well.  Since foreign affairs seem to be the only area of quasi-success in the Obama administration's tenure, why not give the "successful" secretary of state a seat in the trumpet section?

And the timing for the big switch will be incredibly well-orchestrated.  Most likely it will come this summer in Charlotte at the Democratic National Convention.  We can expect a very big tuh-do with lots of hugs and hype and maybe even Joe Biden himself, in a "terribly gracious" speech, introducing his replacement.

However, if  you see the ticket remaining Obama/Biden as the convention comes and goes, do not rule out a September -- or even a traditional October -- surprise.  The liberals and progressives cannot and will not let the transformation of America be stunted.  The Obama presidency may be their last best hope.  Look for some sort of tricky ailment (heart problems? stroke-like symptoms, perhaps?) that will force Joe to very reluctantly step aside.  Then who could blame the Democrats for pulling the last-minute switcheroo?

So what can be done to minimize the effect of a Clinton vice presidential bid?

The Republicans have to do something they haven't been able to do in a long time -- beat the Dems at their own game.  They have to get way out in front of the Big Switch.

In fact, just by letting Americans know loudly and clearly that this sort of game plan may be in the works, the Republicans can knock the steam right out of the Democratic engine.  If and when the switch is finally announced, then at least the result will be a fizzled thrill-factor.  The best result: voters would see that they're being distracted from the abysmal Obama/Biden record -- and manipulated into a knee-jerk voting response to boot.

It's been said over and over again, here at American Thinker and in many other places, that this nation will simply not survive four more years of Barack Obama.  If that is true (and it certainly is), what, then, will America be like after four -- or even eight -- additional years of Hillary Clinton?