CNN contributor L.Z. Granderson revisits the debate about President Barack Obama possibly selecting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a his running mate in 2012. The only reason the idea won't fade, he argues, is that a recent poll found that 34 percent of Americans believe the country would be in a better situation if she were in charge.

... Would the move be characterized by critics as an obvious ploy to attract women?

Well, yeah. And to a degree they'll be right: After all, this is politics.

But the critics would have to tread lightly, because Clinton would likely be at least as accomplished, and probably more so, than any other person on either ballot. This would not be Obama pulling a John McCain, selecting someone who isn't qualified in hopes of injecting fresh blood into a struggling campaign. If Clinton had to take over the presidency, I think many people on both sides can agree that scenario would be much more desirable than one in which Sarah Palin was running the show. In fact, comparing Clinton's pedigree to Palin's or GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann's is like comparing an oak tree to a handful of seaweed.

If Clinton was robbed before, she would receive recompense in 2012, and by 2016 be in an even stronger position to be the first female president than she was in 2008.

Obama selecting Clinton as his running mate in 2008, after a sometimes biting primary season, would have rung hollow. Now, after she's spent four years working with him as secretary of state, an executive partnership would be accepted as authentic.

Read L.Z. Granderson’s entire column at CNN.

Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.