A: Josh is too associated with Bartlet and Santos to be an advantage. Easy to tar the Dems as moving backwards not forwards or Sam as just Bartlet mk IIWell well, I'm not going to be the one to say to Sam Seaborn, "I told you so" but remind me later. How did he not see that the Hollis selection might come back as a big negative? Seaborn may have spun it as thinking "outside the box", but it was reckless & a touch of hubris if not downright naive. Maybe if Josh Lyman had a more prominent role in the inner circle, then C.J. Cregg may have not been the only person offering advise. Andrew Thorn should have been at least considered. His selection would have gone a long way to unifying the party. If I was Seaborn I would have Thorn waiting in the wings, encourage Hollis to withdraw, and get Thorn in there. Maybe Jimmy Fitzsimmons might be useful. This needs to be fixed. Also Lyman needs to be given a more high profile & meaningful role in the campaign. I would reduce Creggs role, not substantially as she has some good instincts. But Cregg's role in making the Hollis choice happen in my view was a doozy.
B: No way Thorn could be the VP. You need someone you trust, someone you agree with, and someone you like and after the way that he and Sam spent the primary season beating the crap out of each other, it couldn't work. It wouldn't work. See Bartlet/Hoynes or Bartlet/Russell for how it would pan out.