Hunter might make an ideal VP choice for the sake of social conservatives. But he has NO chance of winning. He has no name recognition, no "gravitas" on a national scale, and lacked the media savvy to wait until he was ready to blitz the airwaves before announcing his candidacy.
On top of all that, history stands against him like a brick wall. No candidate who was neither a former Governor, a former Senator, or a retired General credited with a war victory has won a major party nomination since Wendell Willkie (who lost in a landslide to Franklin Roosevelt). The last nominee to rise only as high as the House was John W. Davis, who lost to Calvin Coolidge.
IMHO, Hunter is laying the groundwork for a 2012 run. I think he knows darn well he's not going to be nominated this time around, and that should the unexpected occur and he is, he will not win.
If Hillary or Obama or Edwards are nominated, Gingrich could mop the floor with them intellectually. It has been a long, long time since someone has caught Newt being at a loss for words. If he is smart as I think he is, he could deflect any criticism of his personal life and lack of military service by pointing out the hypocrisy of the left in by-passing those requirements when it came to Bill Clinton. After all, Slick came into the White House with a bad reputation and came out with a worse one, and was on record in a personal letter speaking on behalf of people who "loath[e] the military."
Anyway, I don't think Hillary wants to get into finger-pointing about messing around in Washington. She may not be smarter than Newt, but she's at least that smart.
As regards Newt, I have no problems with his ideas (although some I've heard border on naive/childish), it's just as a person he is a degenerate. I want a decent individual in the oval office. My point was the Newt would have problems with the conservative base. As for Hunters media savvy, I've seen/heard him four times now and he's done well, in my opinion. He has a knack for answering direct questions honestly.