Triple hearsay but all named sources: Mona Charen heard it from John Batchelor, who heard it from Chuck Todd at NBC, who heard it from Hillary’s people. We’ve discussed why Obama would never, under any circumstances, want the Glacier looming over him from the number two spot. Why would Hillary want it any more than he does? Even if you assume the worst, that she’s after power any way she can get it, arguably she’ll retain more in the senate as a Moynihan-esque Democratic counterbalance capable of thwarting Obama’s legislative initiatives than in the vice presidential sinecure, where he’s bound to try to marginalize her. Is this just her way of leaking bogus info suggesting she’s a good soldier, willing to do what’s best for the party if need be, so that she can chide Obama later if he refuses to be equally “magnanimous”? It’s all part of her self-aggrandizing “you’d make a fine number two, Barack!” strategy. If that’s true, though, shouldn’t be taking a more public stance with some sort of formal statement that whoever emerges as the loser at the convention should agree to be the other’s veep, instead of with penny ante leaks like this?

Surprisingly, despite the hard feelings, both sides’ supporters seem fine with the “loser veeps” idea. Scroll down halfway through the new Gallup data; not even 20% of Obama’s supporters have a problem with Vice President Hillary?

And speaking of bad ideas for VP, a little more hearsay for you:

Romney has allies in the Bush wing of the Republican party. President Bush favors him as McCain’s veep. Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, preferred Romney over McCain in the primaries, but never endorsed him publicly. Karl Rove, the president’s political strategist, has hinted that he considers Romney to be McCain’s best running mate.

We’ve discussed this before too. Exit question: Bush and Rove trying to sabotage McCain? I’m out of alternative explanations.