Less clout as VP? Not if HClinton assumed Cheney's role as Imperial VP.

BT Dem, also known as Armondo, is a huge Hillary fan. I don't pay any attention.

Obama must now sell himself to the disaffected Hillary supporters, and must ensure that the incompetent McCain campaign does not pick these people up. By August, when we have our convention, Hillary will be history. Obama will pick someone who can help HIM, not Hillary.

Personally I think Hillary has to have her eyes on a SCOTUS appointment at this point. It would give her a second job that her husband wasn't able to attain and the family a clean sweep of the top job in every branch of government. And we all know that the next POTUS will have at least two SCOTUS appointments.

Frankly I think the SCOTUS job would be a perfect fit for HIllary.

Kevin, I think you're right on. If Obama gets elected, and the Democrats maintain their Senate majority, I could see her as an effective majority leader. And there are always cabinet appointments, which would have less of a second-fiddle feel to them. Secretary of State? Secretary of Defense? Secretary of the Interior? There are a whole slew of options for her that would allow her to serve the administration without being on the ticket. I doubt she wants to be VP under these circumstances.

Lloyd Bensten, anyone?

I believe that she still wants to be President and recent Democratic Vice Presidents have all received the nomination. (Vice Presidential candidates who lose, however, don't.)

She'll be 68 in 2016 and, after 8 years of an Obama administration, she will no longer just be identified with her husband's administration.

The question is not whether she wants to be VP. Her campaign advisors continue to bring it up. The cable news channels have dwelt on nothing else. She fails to deny interest. The bigger question is whether she will deny a serious endorsement without the position. And let's not pretend that yesterday was anything other than a formality.

The government department that needs the most help is Justice. How about Hillary for Attorney General?

Nah. Gah. Happen.

Obama took the reins so quickly and firmly that it would be a step backwards to bow to pressure from the HRC camp and put her on the ticket. He's the Big Dog now, and he's acting like it.

She has many more opportunities in other parts of the gummint, and I agree that dangling a SCOTUS appointment (for someone who has never practiced as a judge) would keep her out of the way.

That would surely frost some right wing cookies.

Or a cabinet post where she can put her health plan in place.

But Veep? Not never, not no how, nah gah happen.

Less clout as VP? Not if HClinton assumed Cheney's role as Imperial VP.

Only way she could do that is if Obama turns out to be as dumb as Bush. Which is something only the most ignorant Hillary dead-ender could expect.

I think the SCOTUS job would be a perfect fit for HIllary.

Have you ever heard Hillary make a brilliant legal, as opposed to political, argument? I haven't. Hillary as a Supreme Court Justice would likely be a reliable liberal vote (though I don't imagine corporate America quaking in its boots), but I don't think there is any evidence that she has the particular kind of legal brilliance that it takes to actually be an intellectual leader and move the Court and the law in a more liberal direction.

President Obama needs to be looking for the next Justice Brennan every chance he gets to fill a Supreme Court seat. That's not Hillary, unless there's a whole side to her that she's not yet shown to the public.

There's history in being the first female VP. That's the motivation.

I think SCOTUS is good. A formal announcment of "I'll appoint Hillary" would probably be impolitic, but it could be noised about informally.

1. She'd probably be a good one. I thought highly of Bill, but always suspected that Hillary out-brained him by about two to one.
2. Politically, it might be more pleasing to her feminist supporters than the VP slot because
3. Short of President it's about the most consequential job one can have, and she's young enough that she would be a force to be reckoned with for a long time to come.
4. Bill could go back to being a senior statesman, which up until the campaign he was pretty good at.

VP seems like a terrible waste of Clinton's skills and passion (unlike VP for Cheney which is a perfect match for his desire to exert secretive puppetmastery). A role as a leading, or the leading Democratic voice in the Senate seems much more compelling, both for her and for Democrats.

Considering the savagery the media has piled on her from the beginning of the primary, I have a hard time understanding why she would want to go through 5 more months of that just to be second on the ticket. I also wonder why some of her supporters would want to put her through that as well. I think Hillary will be just fine.... whatever she decides.

I can understand why the Obama campaign wouldn't want the excess baggage of media hatred towards her drag down their GE campaign. One of the things I've cone around on (as a supporter of HRC) is that in the main, the Obama campaign had a lot less to do with the overt sexism and and absolute disrespect for her than the media did. Yeah, sure, there's the shrillosphere, and my amazement that so many fellow Democrats could be so savage toward one of the party leaders to consider, I'll chalk that up to high emotions in a close super-charged effort, but like Hillary, I'm willing to set that aside to win the White House.

But, that said, there's something to be said for the media's obsession with all things Clinton, it keeps McCain on the sidelines, and issues Democrats care about front and center. Ultimately though, it's Obama's choice to make, I'm happy either way.

I think the negatives of a Clinton Vice-Presidency far, far, far outweighs any announcement day disunity: she would fire up the _Republican's_ base, drama, Bill, drama, drama, in-fighting, drama, drama, and drama.

Clinton supporters have a simple choice in the fall. Vote for someone who supports their cause or vote for someone who doesn't.

If they end up voting for McCain, they are proving that their loyalty derived from a cult of personality rather than any actual principles, and they deserve the world they live in. When their daughters seek abortions in dark alleys, they will have themselves to blame.

Big Tent Democrat is outside the Democratic Big Tent pissing in. Nothing Obama can do will ever get Big Tent Democrat to come inside the Big Tent and piss out. Fortunately, the Obama Democratic Big Tent is bigger than Big Tent Democrat can possibly imagine and is, moreover, open on all sides, completely easy to enter. He's annoying, Big Tent Democrat, but everyone sees what he's up to and it's easy to stay out of his stream.

I agree that people will unify around Obama just fine unless he acts like an ass, and he has been just about perfect so far. As has Hillary, frankly. She's *already* given a "serious endorsement."

I imagine Obama will find out what HIllary wants by asking her. Then they will negotiate.

In this case, it seems like BTD is a concern troll who got promoted to blogger.
There's lots of chatter about how Hillary's campaign failed, but in fact her organization simply got beaten by a clearly superior operation. Which gives me confidence that Obama's organization can navigate that particularly sticky wicket without BTD's guidance.

Agree-- I can see her wanting to be offered the position as a sort of tribute (seems like second-wave feminism is big on tribute these days), but can't imagine why she'd want it. I was discussing this with my boss the other day, and we agreed that if her name was on universal healthcare that passed, it would really be more of a lasting, tangible legacy than anything Bill accomplished in office. We tend to forget this, but the big, paradigm-changing legislation immortalizes its sponsors in a way that the constant maneuvering of the presidency can't... in any case, passage of something like the Clinton-[??] Healthcare Universality Act of 2009 actually seems more her style than the usual VP duties.

I can see Obama going after a Hillary supporter in a key state like Rendell or Strickland. Won't sooth the feelings of all Clinton diehards but will among many, especially the party organizational people, while also having a PA or OH tactical advantage.

Clinton wants to be president, not vice president. There is nothing to be gained in being the VP candidate that leads to the real goal. For Clinton' presidential ambitions, the best scenario is for Obama to lose in November; Clinton can then say, "I told you so," and be the nominee in 2012, either running against an even older John McCain, or against McCain's VP.

If Clinton were a younger woman, she could take the VP slot and run in 2016, but she isn't.

What I expect to happen is this: Obama will offer the slot to her with the understanding that she will not accept it. He will then pick Evan Bayh as the VP. She will campaign for the ticket, but will never fully support it, hoping it will go down to defeat in November.

Actually, it's closer to the truth to say BTD/Armando is a blogger who demoted himself to concern troll.

On the "political level:" Lyndon Johnson, far more powerful in the Senate, wanted the job enough to demand it.

I have no clue whether she wants it. But she has EARNED the offer as the choice of a full HALF of the party. I think it's clearly an insult and a slap in the face if it is not at least offered to her. I'm not really sure it will lose him hat many votes in the end...but why risk it? She EARNED the spot...the ticket can't really be representative of the party without her....and, most importantly, she's at least as well qualified to actually BE president as any of the others in the discussion.

He may wish he had the prerogative to choose his own veep without risking it...but he blew that by losing 9 of the last 14 primaries and not KO'ing the competition. Being hamstrung is a consequence of that failure.

Cheyney as VP is not what we need again; powerful and below the radar. Time for the VPship to return to a more Spiro Agnew type caliber.

By focusing on the VP being the end-all for Obama's ticket we belittle his own accomplishment.

And, god help us, what are we to do with HRC as VP and something "happens."?

Focus on Obama as POTUS. I don't care who's Veep... but it ain't gonna be Hillary!

BT Dem at TalkLeft is thinks that Hillary is the second coming of Jesus. Almost.

BTD is, along with people like Taylor Marsh, so wrapped up in the idea of Hillary as Pres that the only thing that matters is to place Hillary closer to the prize.

Obama should pick the candidate that works for him.

HRC's advisers push her as Obama's VP because they think she can play another Dick Cheney to a weak President.

That ain't gonna happen. Obama and his people are too smart to even take the first step down that road.

Unless your name is Dick Cheney, and unless the president is as weak and stupid and easily manipulated as George W. Bush, the vice presidency will return to what John Nance Garner, FDR's first VP, said about the office: it's not worth a bucket of warm piss.

She's too old for the Supreme Court; not really, but we need to work out of the Republican playbook and pick a dependable liberal who is about 35 years old and hence will be on the SC for 40-50 years.

Majority leader is a job that would be better suited to her strengths, Supposedly if the vote were held today, she wouldn't get the leadership post, but surely if Bush could foist Frist upon us then Obama can make it happen with someone who deserves it and would be good at it.

Count me in as one who would like to see the VP demoted to taking care of polishing the unused spittoons in the White House. I doubt Hillary Clinton would want to be a VP with no responsibility or power, given she's already a Senator from New York that now has a huge national constituency.

The people who say that the Demnocrats will unite just fine around Obama are usually Obama supporters. For me, anything short of Hillary as VP (with the exception of Al Gore, of course) is a deal breaker. I won't vote for McCain, but I won't vote for Obama, either. I just won't vote for president.
I think without Hillary, you're going to see a lot of people either not voting or splitting their ballots, resulting in a lopsided Democratic majority in the house and Senate but with McCain very possibly getting elected president. Which would still be considerably better than what we have now, with the chance of a president acceptable to Hillary supporters in '12. Unless Obama really thinks he can win without OH, FL, PA, etc. . .

I don't know what's on Hillary's mind, but a few possible explanations for wanting to be offered VP include:

A) What makes you think she likes being a senator? When she originally ran for Senate it was widely believed to be a stepping stone to a presidential campaign. Maybe that was always true and legislative politics isn't her thing and never will be.

B) Perhaps the offer is all she's really after - as proper respect - which she would then turn down. (That, incidentally, ought to meet BTD's criteria adequately.)

C) I think most likely it's the recognition that VP is a genuinely high position that would put her in the history books. It may not be what she hoped for, but it's still a great achievement for herself personally, and for the women's movement generally.

Careful what you wish for, Juliet.

Every indication from her and her supporters is that she wants the VP nomination.

I think that Witter put it in proper perspective. No Senator in history was ever as powerful in the Senate than LBJ was and he wanted to be VP.

The people who say that the Demnocrats will unite just fine around Obama are usually Obama supporters.

I'd counter that most *Democrats* believe the party will unite just fine. One of the issues I've seen with many Clinton supporters is Hillary first, party second. There are a lot of very very capable VP options in the Democratic party and Hillary is just one of them, albeit near the top of the list. But this attitude of holding the party hostage unless your VP choice is picked is immature and ultimately self-defeating both to her supporters and to the party. Hillary has a large support base, but that doesn't make her the ideal VP choice by any means.

Unless she really wanted the job (which I seriously doubt) his best choice is to not offer it to her.

Look, Hillary can't win either way, if he offers her the slot and she turns him down she'll be blamed for putting herself above party interests, and laying low for the possibility that he might lose this year. If she accepts, she'll overshadow the entire GE campaign because the media will be relentless in picking apart everything she does, and promoting the narrative that she somehow "emasculates" Obama.

She'll never be majority leader unless she serves two or three more terms in the senate, that aint gonna happen either.

But the bottom line for her is, if I can't be No.1 why bother?

I disagree with Juliet. Give us HRC fans a bit of time to lick our wounds and then we will come around.

Regarding VP. Can we all just stop hyperventilating for a while? We just got through a bruising primary. Why not let things just wait a month or so and in the meantime we can go after McCain.

I am an Obama supporter who believes he won fair and square. Still, the number of her voters was roughly the same amount as the number of his voters. Furthermore, her voters view her candidacy with the same passion that Obama supporters view his.

Put her on the ticket. Deal with the issues. We're all grownups.

Never heard Clarence Thomas make a brilliant legal argument. Never heard Antonin Scalia make a brilliant legal argument. History of the Court is full of people who didn't make brilliant legal arguments before their appointment. If all Hillary is is a "reliable liberal vote," that's enough.

SCOTUS or Health & Human Services for Hillarycare.

I don't think Hillary wants to be VP, but she wants to be on the shortlist because (a.) on an ego level, she wants to have the power to force Obama to make a particular choice like that, and (b.) on a practical level, her supporters demand it and she knows that they will not follow her lead and support Obama unless she is offered the position on some level. If Hillary loyalists are convinced that she was offered the post and turned it down, and a centrist woman is chosen as Obama's running mate (can somebody give Sebelius some speaking lessons--she is absolutely perfect except for her lackluster speeches!), Obama's star will rise.

Woohoo! This must be one of those "there's no hate like liberal hate" threads, right?

Concern troll! Vince Foster!

Who would want a candidate that brings with her half the party on the ticket? I am so confident of my guy that I am willing to fight with one hand tied behind my back.

To explain a bit further. For me, and I imagine a lot of us in the Hillary camp, yesterday was a good day for one reason: It made the notion of Hillary as VP more possible. By the way, I didn't watch the speech, just read about it, because I couldn't bear to see it. Again, I might be the only one, but I doubt it.
If Obama supporters really want to bother getting into the head of the OTHER 50.1 percent of the party, instead of telling us how we should be feeling, they should think about this: A lot of us are devastated. And for a year, Barack Obama has been the enemy -- not John McCain, but Obama. Is it emotional? Yes. But emotions are real things, too, and can't be easily swept under the rug. If Obama wants to win he picks Hillary. If Obama wants to roll the dice, he picks someone else. And if he wants to definitely lose, he picks Richardson or a woman other than Hillary, both of which would be insults -- not just to HC, but to everybody who voted for her.
Remember how you (we all) felt when Gore was robbed in FL? That's how a lot of us feel now. You want to tell me that we shouldn't feel that way? Go ahead and try it. But as you know, it didn't work for the Republicans.

Personally I think Hillary has to have her eyes on a SCOTUS appointment at this point. It would give her a second job that her husband wasn't able to attain and the family a clean sweep of the top job in every branch of government. - Majun

When was a Clinton Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader?

Kevin, are you really that far behind the loop even after three days back in America?

The fact that Clinton's campaign practically shoved her in Obama's face should indicate that she wants it, or at the minimum, some of her advisors think she wants it.

POed: Ahh, yes, corporate suck-up lawyer Armando of Kos days, responsible for getting a number of people (yours truly included) banned from Kos. Is it any surprise he backs Clinton?

Majun, Thersites, et al: Hillary as SCOTUS? Not a chance. First, Obama isn't pulling the trigger on that. Second, many Dems would be leery.

PE: No chance she gets the nod in 2016. The sexism, primarily from the MSM, but also, yes from some Obamiacs, against a 60-year-old woman presidential candidate wouldn't hold a candle to the sexism against a 68-year-old woman presidential candidate. Hillary knew this year was her shot. Why do you think she fought to the bitter end?

Doorknob, we got some effing stupid comments here today.

BTD is retarded. Hillary is NOT enttled to the VP slot. Hillary lovers need to get over themselves.

If Obama supporters really want to bother getting into the head of the OTHER 50.1 percent of the party,...

The other 50.1 percent Juliet? Still in denial, aren't you? Ignore the caucus results 'cos they didn't go your way.

Eight words. Heartbeat away from the presidency. Anything can happen.

That said, I think Obama is smarter than this, and no, we have enough drama in the Supreme Court without adding another justice who continues stubbornly along a track long after it becomes clear that it's time to throw a switch. It would be fun to watch her and Scalia in a Celebrity Deathmatch though. Look Ma-- the nice conservative's head just blew up!

I would be much happier to have one of the other women on the short list chosen instead. Of course I expect that any offer that is declined would happen in private, I don't expect any public, I was offered but didn't want it speeches. Although if she really doesn't want it, I can imagine her telling that to her supporters.

A question for discussion, if the VP candidate is a woman other than HRC, how well does that play to the feminist crowd? And if the democrats don't choose a woman, but McCain chooses Condi, where does that leave the democrats identity-politics wise.

George Will made a good case (albeit not very original, we've heard his arguments before) about why Hillary wouldn't be a good pick for VP. But to some extent it's about deserving to be asked and not just a purely independent decision, or is that overrated? Well, how about SCOTUS Justice? But she'll have to show she's got the legal mind.

Well, how about draft Gore for VP? That will bring forth so many that want to avenge what happened in 2000, keep a whiff of the Clinton legacy going, and bring a competent and directly experienced candidate into the offering. Obama must at least ask.

Finally, if Obama picks another woman for VP will that attract some women voters or look like pathetic second best pandering?

By "50.1 percent of the party", Juliet, you of course mean 50.1 percent of the party excluding all non-Clinton votes in Michigan and, of course, all the caucus states.

The most venomous thing The Clinton campaign did was push that popular vote hogwash. Not because popular vote is of itself hogwash (although, again, let us please note she does. not. have. the. popular. vote. majority) but by poisoning the well with the bogus "disenfranchisement" argument, Senator Clinton's campaign turned Senator Obama into an enemy of empowerment and democracy, rather than just "the other person running for Democratic nomination." People like Juliet now feel that Senator Clinton's nomination was "stolen" (after 54 primaries and caucuses, in a system designed by her own advisors) rather than just, well, she was the designated frontrunnner who ran a poor campaign. And that drove a hell of a wedge into the party, summoned emotions that did not need to be summoned, were irresponsible to summon, and are not so easily put back in the bottle.

It is amazing how well the ReichWing's taking down of the Clintons over the years has even seeped into the minds of many on the left.Few could offer anything other than vague rantings to justify their views.I joke when I say "SHES A WITCH! BURN HER! BURN HER!" trying to shake some people's minds a little.I wanted Gore or Edwards,but I will proudly vote for Obama as I would have for Hillary.

STOP HILLARY FOR VP BY SIGNING THIS PETITION

DON'T LET CLINTON HIJACK THE VP SLOT
http://renymonk.com/2008/06/05/my-pettiion-dont-let-clinton-hijack-the-vp-slot.aspx

All this talk that HRC and BHO don't like each other is speculation. As senators thay got along fine, and since then they have been locked in combat. You never like your opponent.

With Clinton's great concession speech out of the way they can get to know each other better, and if the chemistry is right he can ask HRC to be Veep. Likewise she can decide if she wants to have the job, which she should only take if she has confidence Obama can be a good President.

All of this talk that BHO has to ask HRC is BS. He should only ask and she should only accept if they work well together.

Obama chooses. There are good reasons to choose Clinton. Good ones not to, as well. Whether she wants it or not is irrelevant. If he asks, she's supposed to say yes, and will.

Yeah, I disagree. Hillary Clinton is a powerful choice, and if there is a good argument against her it is bound to be more subtle than the ones you suggest. Running for VP is a chance for her to do a great deal of yeoman's work of attracting votes to our presidential ticket this year. Obama and Hillary together would be electric and that's of course why people call it the dream team.

Kevin wrote:

On a social level, it's hard to picture someone of Hillary's age, experience, and temperament being willing to play second fiddle to a young guy like Obama.

I think that's silly. Obama is a capable guy, and people have to acknowledge that. Especially in this day and age, people play second fiddle to a younger person with more know-how all the time. It would be refusing to acknowledge Barack as being on some level an equal of hers that would be arrogant and unrealistic of Hillary. Sure she has more experience than him, but he has been able to get mostly all the same things done that she has done in her life, plus, he won the Democratic nomination, which he didn't. She has no reason to resent being a second fiddle, and people sho talk that angle up are being silly. It's not like a supreme court justice taking orders from a first-year law clerk.

and people sho talk that angle up are being silly.

Whoops, "sho" should be "who."

weenie: Can we all just stop hyperventilating for a while?

What, is this a rhetorical question?
What do you think of Hillary for SCOTUS?

Hillary wants the VP slot more than anything else at this point. We've all seen how Cheney was able to turn the position into one of power, and Clinton would do the same. What are her alternatives? She's a junior Senator, and a long way from any committee leadership role.

I think people may want closure after all the Hillary-Obama animosity. And they may prefer to see a man-man team instead of the more difficult social dynamic of an elder woman playing understudy to a younger man (even if people of opposite sexes can get along well, I think everyone knows that people of the same sex are a little more likely to get along well together and that an opposite-sex pair being forced to work together on something more spells a formula for static-- so that's what people may kind of unconcsciously think of when they see Hillary and Obama working together, an uneasy alliance). But those are the only demerits are really think are there. I don't know if they amount to enough to be disqualifiers, and even if his people were to conclude that dynamics like that were big problems, there is no guarantee that rejecting Hillary and fishing for someone else wouldn't steer him into a worse choice than Hillary.

Hillary is a huge celebrity with great appeal, and an experienced battler who knows the ropes and all the characters. If I were in his place, it would be hard for me to balk from an obvious choice like that in favor of something that involved more experimentation and risk.

... she has EARNED the offer as the choice of a full HALF of the party. I think it's clearly an insult and a slap in the face if it is not at least offered to her (...) She EARNED the spot...the ticket can't really be representative of the party without her....and, most importantly, she's at least as well qualified to actually BE president as any of the others in the discussion.

Leaving aside your curious math for the moment, you seem to be confusing American-style democracy with Scouting. There is no *earning* the vice presidential spot -- not by vote count or delegate count or merit badges. While any combination of those & other issues may factor in a presidential candidate's decision, you're sorely mistaken if you think this position goes to anyone other than the individual the winner thinks will be most helpful to him or her -- and not just in terms of winning the general. Maybe Obama believes that's Clinton. I have no idea. But you're betraying a pretty poor grasp of the process if you think it's her decision to make.

A big issue with regard to HRC as VP is the role of the VP in general.

Under Clinton, Gore had a role, but it was "reinventing government" - Gore did a great job, but the VP was still a minor player.

With Bush now we have the Imperial Vice Presidency - where Cheney doesn't want to be part of Congress nor part of the Executive - he is his own secret branch of government.

I think the VP role needs to be dialed back to what is was and eliminate any traces of this secret, behind the scenes player.

Unfortunately, if Obama selects Clinton as VP, he can't dial back the VP role without enduring a whole lot of noise from Clinton supporters - in fact, he probably has to continue the recent "tradition" of expanding the role of the VP, which I don't believe to be healthy for the country.

Speaking For Me Only ...

there's been a terrible accident

"I'd counter that most *Democrats* believe the party will unite just fine."

Yes. But most Democrats ALSO want a united ticket. There was a poll last week showing that (from memory) 59% of ALL democrats - and even 47% of Obama voters - wanted Hillary on the ticket.

I'm in both camps. Yes, I think the party will most likely unite just fine...but I also think she should be on the ticket.

I'll toss in my hopes for SCOTUS also.

Thanks for the wake-up Junebug. Whenever I find myself softening toward Obama, I like to come here and get a bracing slap of pure unadulterated Obama supporter foolishness, to make me look forward to four years of McCain.
You're all as crazy as the Republicans talking about Florida in 2000. You want to talk about caucuses? Hillary won the Texas primary and lost the Texas caucus. That tells you all you need to know about the will of the people being reflected in caucuses.
Thank you, thank you all for reminding me how ugly you all can be EVEN IN VICTORY. Victory has done nothing for your characters or demeanors. This is worthwhile information. Four years of people like you in power would be as disgusting as four more years of Bush and slightly more revolting than four years of McCain. You want to lose? Happy to oblige. Heck, I may go ahead and vote for McCain if you keep it up.
Now let's wash our hands of this nightmare and it's on to 2012.

Whether Sen. Clinton even wants the VP slot is debatable since the calls for her to be VP come from Clinton "advisers" and "representatives"; just how much of that is the position of the person speaking and how much is Sen. Clinton's position?
If Sen. Obama thinks Sen. Clinton would help the ticket in November, certainly he should ask her. On the whole, her advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. If he definitely doesn't want her as VP, then his job getting elected, even with Sen. Clinton's all-out support, is going to be a bit harder since he will have to find some other way to attract a sizable group of Sen. Clinton's supporters. Many in that group are Democrats first who will come around to supporting the ticket in November anyway; some are HRC supporters first (both Dem's and independents) and those are the ones that may make the difference in putting us over the top in the general election.
Personally, I don't think she wants VP; with a capable president in office and larger majorities in Congress it becomes a ceremonial position of little power. If Sen. Clinton was ten years younger, she could use the VP as a stepping-stone to another run for president, but she isn't and can't.

Juliet - is either a GOP or an idiot -- to help McBush be elected because she has her panties in a twist is to abandon social security, Roe v Wade and health care reform -- for what? for vanity? for poutyness? for poor sportsmanship?

I was an early supporter of Hillary -- although her campaigning didn't increase my regard for her -- I still think that even after February if she chad come out hard against McCain and showed us her national campaign clout she might have won -- but instead she took the low road against Obama actually praising (and Bill praised) McCain's credentials and experience. I still think she would have been a good president and would be a great SCOTUS and has a future in the Senate. VP doesn't do much for her and certainly doesn't do much to win over independents for the fall.

She lost fair and square. So now her supporters should pout and sit it out, Juliet? Because Roe doesn't matter but our delicate feminine feelings are more important that success on the policy issues that affect us?

As a life long feminist who is pretty angry at the way the media treats women candidates and particularly treated Hillary Clinton -- I am still thrilled to be able to support an African American who has a chance of helping reduce the shameful position Bush has placed us in the world.

And my daughters feel the same way -- in fact they were on board with Obama when my husband and I were still supporting Hillary Clinton.

What exactly do you mean by "reasonable" in "The party will unite just fine around any reasonable VP choice"?

A candidate like Jim Webb, for example, would not be reasonable to great numbers of women who know full well that Webb's never apologized for some of his terrible past statements. (Though Webb might seem reasonable to those who recognize he'd give Obama some much-needed testosterone.)

A candidate like Sebelius or McGaskill would not be reasonable to those who don't think women are fungible commodities. (Though more than a few men would say getting a broad on the ticket might placate those Hillary-loving bitches.)

A candidate like Sam Nunn would not seem reasonable to any gay Americans who remember his venom when Bill Clinton proposed ending the ban on gays in the military. (Though many who want a white Southerner with national security creds on the ticket would regard Nunn as highly reasonable. And others who think Nunn's recent statement that perhaps we could revisit "DA/DT" think that's proof he's no longer an unreasonable homophone.)

So, please, recognize that the definition of who is a "reasonable" VP pick very much depends on who's doing the defining.

Kevin, since you continually base your "analysis" on others' sometimes earnest but mostly sophmoric punditry, rather than conduct a bona fide in-depth study on your own, your online prose serves only as a warning to readers regarding what happens to your cojones when you straddle the fence one too many times.

As long as we're prognosticating mindlessly here, I believe that it'll be a long eleven weeks between now and the convention, and a bored mainstream media will inevitably poke its nose into Barack Obama's own political background in search of far greater detail now that he's the presumptive nominee.

And I think you'd all best be concerned that no more shoes drop, a la Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, rather than worry yourself silly about who Obama might consider as his VP pick.

One final "blessing" offered from Trinity UCC and the 'hood, or one more inconvenient truth delivered from the continued federal dredging of that rancid sewer known as Illinois politics, and our fickle MSM -- which has always had a soft spot for John McCain -- could well render the Obama candidacy problematic by the time we convene in Denver.

I think she would want VP. I don't think she'd enjoy being second fiddle, but it seems like she'd deal with it, because that's her only realistic chance of becoming president...ever.

In 2012, Obama will be running for his second term (I'm a Clinton supporter, but will totally vote for him, of course...and my vote determines the election! :-P), so she wouldn't be able to run then. In 2016--which, let's face it, would be her last chance to run given the whole age thing--she'd have to challenge someone who will most likely be (wishful thinking here) a sitting VP from a very popular administration. That wouldn't go down well with the party. So VP's her last shot.

I feel like SCOTUS is a possibility, but the Clintons love the spotlight. Justices are NEVER (or, like, rarely) in the news. So I don't think that would work for her...unless she was chief justice. That won't happen (can presidents demote CJs?).

Majority leader is a more likely scenario, but since party leaders and superdelegates were mostly (or increasingly) in Obama's camp, the Senate's not going to be a very fun place for her to return to...not sure how easy it would be for her to get that. Plus, Hillary has to campaign for Obama to further her career anyway...lest she be blamed for his defeat, so he's certainly not going to feel like he has to twist arms to get her maj leader to get her support. He'll have other things to twist people's arms about.

No I feel like VP is her last shot at the presidency, which has been and continues to be her goal.

I also feel like Clinton is a logical choice for VP. Obama is his own person. He's won the nomination with one of the best campaigns in presidential primary history. He has tons of supporters that are dedicated solely to him...not someone like Kerry, who usually only got support because he was not Bush. He's not going to be overshadowed by Hillary. As Hillary knows, it's easy to put a VP in a box and limit his or her influence over an administration. Obama will not be dictated to, and one of the preconditions of a VP offer would probably be to banish Bill from the West Wing most of the time.

Also, Hillary would solidify the Dem coalition. She would bring back many of those voters who are now swaying to McCain (admittedly, there aren't many, but there are some). She would solidify states like Pennsylvania, which are in danger of flipping. She would also put at least Arkansas in play. She would be a great attacker. Plus, the sheer novelty of having an African American AND a woman on the same ticket would dominate even more media attention, depriving an increasingly broke McCain of that benefit.

You can make the argument that many of the other possible VP picks either haven't been successful in national primaries/elections before (Richardson, Edwards), or are much more valuable holding Senate seats or governor-ships in red-states (Sebelius (is she still governor?), Webb, Warner).

The media might still harp on her, but as Obama's number two, you can bet that the party would actually come to her defense this time, which didn't really happen during the primary. And last but not least, I know that Obama supporters are vehemently opposed to the idea, but would they really not vote for Obama if Hillary was on the ticket? Now *that* would provide the perfect opportunity to take a closer look at all the irrational Hillary hatred that's flying around...

If Obama supporters really want to bother getting into the head of the OTHER 50.1 percent of the party[...]

1/2 of primary voters != 1/2 of the party

Roughly 35 million people voted in the primaries. If that's all the Dems there are, we're in pretty deep shit. No doubt roughly half the Dems, just like half the Dem voters, supported Hillary. But the ones who didn't vote in the primary probably aren't taking her loss nearly as personally as the ones who did.

I think Hillary may disagree. In the final few months of her campaign, it seemed she would do anything to be President (cozy up to Scaife, prove her 'reg'lar guy' bona fides with whiskey shots, me-too McCain's idiotic gas tax holiday idea, etc.). Now perhaps these items and others are merely proof that she fights hard and fights to win. But if these instances indicate that she wants to be President so badly that she'll do whatever it takes to get there, then serving as Obama's VP for 8 years is her best move at this point.

While I agree with Kevin that Hillary as VP doesn't really make much sense either for Obama or, in my mind, for Hillary, there is reason to believe Hillary takes a different view.

BTD has been wrong about just about everything about this election. He's wrong about this too.

Aside from whether Hillary should be Veep, let's talk about whether Obama can make it to the Presidency in the first place if he doesn't have the full support of Hillary's backers. Sure,both sides were bloodied a little by each other (but not all that damn much.) But now it's time to get over the rancor, such as it was, of the primaries and work together. Hillary said she would support Obama and has lately been very gracious. To those who liked her, and need to hear this advice: Wouldn't it be a final insult to Hillary to keep on being bitter, vote for McSame, etc., instead of following in her new path? Please, get on board. Thanks.

Is it any surprise [Armando] backs Clinton?

FWIW, until just a few weeks ago, he was backing Obama because he thought Obama was more electable.

Re: R. L.'s comment - see also Dave Neiwert on "How right-wing crap polluted Democrats' political waters".

Juliet - thanks for explaining further. I felt all three of the initial frontrunners were exciting and promising (if all imperfect) candidates, and indeed, after Edwards dropped out, went pretty much down to the (relatively late PA primary) wire trying to decide whether to go for Clinton or Obama. In the end, I voted for the latter; while I'm certainly happy he won (and will be glad to vote for him in the GE), I'm also sad & regretful that Clinton didn't. (I would love to have her as VP, though I understand many of the reasons why that's probably not a great idea). In a slightly alternate world, I'm sure there's an alt-Dan S. who's happy that Hillary won (etc.) but sad Obama didn't. (In fact, I'm sad Edwards lost, too - I kinda wish they all could have won. I also want a pony. With fangs). Plus, I steered pretty clear, both by reading habits and design, of most of the increasingly bitter & abusive internecine warfare, so this whole 'I can't vote for Obama unless (or - at all, or worse, will be voting for McCain!) is really bewildering and upsetting to me. (Didn't we already see that movie, back in '00?)

Juliet, I certainly can't tell you how to feel, and it's clear even to me that lots of people are really upset, often for good reasons. But imagine about that alternate world where Clinton got the nomination, and some Obama supporters are threatening to stay home - or vote McCain - unless Obama gets the VP slot, especially if she picks some other African American. Or indeed, in some cases, no matter what she does. One could understand esp. depending how things went down - but what would you say to them, as they talk about possibly helping keep the White House in GOP hands, with little hope of undoing many of the institutional landmines and clusterbombs BushFuckCo has scattered throughout the executive and judicial branches - at best only minimizing further damage?

"Remember how you (we all) felt when Gore was robbed in FL? "

All too well - my initial, not entirely civil society-ish instinct was that we should show 'em all what a real riot looked like - as often and in as many places as possible - and what sort of situations actually require tanks in the streets or whatever the MSM was wanking on about. But that wasn't - well, mostly - because I was upset that Gore had the Presidency stolen away from him. Rather, I was upset that the election had been stolen by a dimwitted rightwing man-child, undermining democracy itself, to say nothing of many other things I hold dear.* Although if I had known exactly how badly he was going to spray diarrhea all over us, and much of the world besides . . .

Now, if you feel this is an equivalent situation - well, could you explain to me why?

* Ie, not that I would have been ok with Gore stealing the election from Bush, but that would have 'only' involved undermining democracy . . .

I really do hope that you'll stand alongside us this fall and help put a Democrat in the White House, as the most likely presidential-election-involving way to support those values we all share.

Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State.
Russ Feingold for SCOTUS.

After reading through most of the comment thread, I'd like to make one other comment.

We can all discuss who we would or wouldn't like to see as VP. But in the end, Hillary will be Obama's running mate only if both of the following conditions hold:

1) Obama invites her to be on the ticket.
2) Hillary accepts.

Whether or not these things happen is to be decided by exactly two people. It is the job of the rest of us to support the ticket and make sure there is a Democrat in the White House in January, regardless whether our preferred VP choice is on the ticket.

Also, Juliet: Stealing votes, really stealing them, by keeping African-Americans off the roles, stopping a recount with a riot, etc. is not at all comparable to a Party having rules about what happens if States hold early primaries. Obama was just trying to play by those rules, Hillary originally accepted them, and the penalty was supposed to be not counting the votes formally. That perhaps isn't fair to the voters in those States, but it isn't the fault of either candidate either the way the Bush 2000 fiasco was clearly organized by the Republican Party as such. Finally, the Democratic establishment relented and let FL and MI count for half anyway? IOW, they actually gave them more than the rules originally said, to mollify those voters. Can you really complain honestly and maturely about that?

PS: Kevin, WTF with those ads from "McCain for President" asking if OK to "unconditionally meet with anti-American foreign leaders" etc. Maybe you want to look cosmopolitan and open minded or whatever, but this is supposed to be a liberal blog. It should reflect those interests, period.

BTD has been particularly nasty and condescending to the Obama camp throughout the primary, so he is hardly in any position to suggest that Hillary be forced on the nominee.

He fails top mention that depending on the nature of the counting Barack got 18 million votes as well and a majority of the delgates which is how the race is judged.

The "Big Tent" that BTD represents want to throw out the caucus states and all of their votes. I would say his tent has only room for 18 Millon of the 36 Million cast.

Steve is right. Hillary would do well to stay away from the VP slot and Barack would do well to look somewhere else. She has gained much more prestige and can push through universal health care in the Senate and bring Barack's plan closer to hers, which I prefer anyway.

The "person" who gets the VP nod is less important than the "people" who come along with the choice.

Johnson was Kennedy's choice -- and without some of the south Kennedy would not have won the election.

But even dismissing the effect such a choice might make in an individual state, the selection still has significance.

Bill Clinton was lucky. As a white guy from a southern state he could afford to reinforce his positioning by picking Al Gore from a neighboring state - and someone who was a conservative Democratic like himself. He knew he would win the election as long as he didn't screw up or "frighten" the voting public. His touchy-feely approach was perfect for the times.

But Obama can not make such a choice. He needs to unify the party and tell white women and union men that he is with them through his actions, including his VP choice.

With Edwards out of the picture, that narrows the choices. IMO, Clinton makes a good choice from this prospective.

I've been as mad at Clinton as anyone -- but this is politics, and if you let your emotions get in the way you lose. Because of this, it would be wise to either pick Clinton, or someone who says "Clinton" to her supporters -- that doesn't even mean it has to be a woman (for instance, a staunch Clinton supporter like Ed Rendell would work).

The V.P. spot is one of the least important positions in government as long as the President is alive. Cheney may be an exception, but he is an exception, nonetheless. I'm not worried about a Veep who seems the opposite of Obama -- once in office, Obama and his staff will dictate policy, not the veep's office.

Well, Cheney seems to have changed the office of the VP and is nearly as powerful as that of the President. It has been Cheney that has hunkered down in the White House while Bush has doing the photo-ops and traveling around, not to mention taking a record amount of vacation time. Hillary would still be the first woman VP. Something for the history books.

Chaboard: and that same poll said 75% of Dems thought that if Obama didn't want Hillary, he shouldn't choose her. That is to say, the vast majority of Dems don't think he should be forced to take her. There were some undecideds in there, too.

So we're talking about, at best, 1 in 5 Dems who think Obama should be forced to take on Hillary. And that's right now. What will those numbers look like in a month? In 2 months, at the convention? What will those numbers look like after he chooses a VP, and those 1 in 5 get a chance to see them campaign together, against McCain and his VP?

This is a total non-issue. Party unity should not be a worry. Obama is already hitting new highs w/ the Dem base in Rasmussen polls, a little over 80%. That number is gonna rise, too, probably closer to 90, as the general gets in full gear.

Thanks for setting me straight, Juliet. I'd forgotten about the famous Clinton-Brown ticket in '92. And the Gore-Bradley ticket in 2000. It's all coming back to me now. The vice presidency *does* go to the runner-up.

Anyway, while I'm delighted to be the source of your aggravation, you might catch your breath and, you know, point out the prObama sentence I had written back there. If it's a little too early for you to be around folks who are openly acknowledging the fact that it's the presidential candidate's decision as to who'll be his or her vice-president, then you probably shouldn't be reading -- oh, just to throw out an example -- political blogs where vice-presidential selection is the topic under discussion.

(And caucuses? WTF??? Check the dosage on your prescriptions.)

Bargaining stage of grief...nothing more or nothing less...

we understand...

I really have to say -- I despise you Obama people more than any McCain supporters. Thank you for making this easy for me.

Dicksknee: Why do you say, "With Edwards out of the picture,..."? Did he already refuse? If not, why write him out - did I miss something? I hope there isn't, since I think he'd make a good pick.

I think the most critical practical obstacle to Obama choosing Hillary is the reported refusal of Bill Clinton to submit to the same vetting process as other candidates as regards personal financial information. If this refusal is in fact real and not something invented, then the Obama campaign has no alternative but to look elsewhere.

Personally, I think Clinton would be far more valuable as Majority Leader; it'd be nice to have someone in that position who isn't pathetically flaccid and impotent.

Ultimately, if Obama decides that Clinton is who he wants, that's fine by me. If he chooses somebody else, that's his decision. My wife and daughter agree, and we're all voting for Obama regardless. And we all would have happily voted for Clinton had she won the nomination.

Frankly, the notion that Obama will somehow be worse than McCain for women (aside from the rest of the country) is every bit as asinine and intentionally disingenuous as was the idea that there wasn't a substantial difference between Bush and Gore in 2000.

I don't get why people are always suggesting favorite senators (and, frequently, presidential also-rans) for SCOTUS as if legislative experience automatically translates into judicial qualifications.

Technically, one does not have to have had a moment on the bench, made a single ruling or written a single opinion (or even have a law degree) to serve on the Supreme Court. But when was the last time a non-judge who hasn't practiced law for 10 or 20 or 30 years was even seriously considered?

As a comics guy, I keep thinking of the movie Crimson Tide, where the sailors on the submarine are getting into a fight over whether the Stan Lee/Jack Kirby Silver Surfer is better than the Stan Lee/Möbius Silver Surfer.

Time to decompress.
Time to remember who the enemy is.
Time to remember that America might very well survive 4 more years of Republican depredation.

And time to get with Denzel Washington.

BTD's nasty tone has kept me off Talkleft for some time now. That being said, I think he's truly clueless and evidently he's never heard of ,a href="http://www.usatrivia.com/vpbigarn.html">John Nance Garner.

I have many points to make, not necessarily related or leading to a cogent message, so I'll just kind of spray 'em out:

(1) Hillary wants to be President, not something else. Weigh everything else under this.

(2) That rules out SCOTUS. No way she is interested in that.

(3) I know age and health are a concern, with Republicans showing they're all too willing to nominate law students so long as their Federalist Society credentials are in order, but I'd love to see BILL Clinton on the Court. If you want to put in one liberal who can make a change on a radical conservative Court, he is the man. He could conceivably dominate the Court with the force of his personality. Plus his analytical ability to handle the job can't be questioned.

(4) Veep is not John Nance Garner's bucket of warm piss any more. Every recent veep, even Quayle, got a significant and visible portfolio. The position is more visible than the position of an individual Senator.

(5) 8 years in the Senate is probably long enough. She got her national security bona fides from 8 years on the Armed Services Committee, and now she wants to avoid getting stuck with too much of a record, which is the reason few Senators actually win the Presidency.

(6) Surely there must be some dynamic Democratic possibilities out there, but the names I hear floated the most, e.g., Bayh, Webb, Sebelius, etc., are profoundly uninspiring. Bill Richardson, in particular, would be a horrible choice. And Edwards has said he's not interested, for understandable reasons. Don't wanta get typecast, after all.

(7) It's the best choice to unite the Party. That can't be questioned.

(8) A lot of people focus on the negatives of having Bill Clinton around tanning in the spotlight, but to tell the truth with Obama's obvious biggest weakness--and not just a political weakness, but a governance weakness--being inexperience, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to have the most successful President since at least JFK around to bounce questions off of. This is a no-brainer which nevertheless seems to be roundly ignored, probably because Bill sucked up such an undeserved beating during the campaign.

He made more campaign appearances than Hillary and Barack put together, and it's not even close. Of course he stumbled a time or two.

(10) Of course, Hillary would have a lot of campaign criticisms to explain away, but that stuff is going to have to be explained away anyway, so why not put the biggest spotlight on her when she does it? Handled deftly, it could even be an opportunity to score points.

Juliet, you're more stupid than any McCain supporter if you're willing to vote for someone who's the polar opposite just because you're such a bitter loser. You clearly don't give a damn about this country and you never did. We don't want you and we'll win anyway.

Good riddance.

I really have to say -- I despise you Obama people more than any McCain supporters. Thank you for making this easy for me.

Hmmmm. One suspects that if we made it really, really hard for you, you still wouldn't vote for the Democrat this fall. You're just that committed.

Why would anyone bother linking to a post by Big Tent Democrat.

He is worse then Fox News for lying and slander.

Every word he says is BS.

That said, she will not be VP. So please talk about something someone cares about.

Shortstop: Clarence Thomas.

Out in Castro: Kevin doesn't have cojones. His cats took care of that long ago.

Thersites, et al: Geez, how dumb can you be with the SCOTUS talk?

Thanks for giving me a blog post on a slow Sunday, all the people with weird ideas for Clinton’s future. (Not to mention the continued stupidity of the Jim Webb as VP idea.)

BTD's nasty tone has kept me off Talkleft for some time now. That being said, I think he's truly clueless

Good to see that I'm not the only one. BTD posts long winded pieces that are warmed over and shallow analysis of events and trends.

"I really have to say -- I despise you Obama people more than any McCain supporters."

Ok. I'm in Philly - feel free to stop by and yell insults at me/slug me/etc. Just please, please don't help the GOP continue its utter crapification of our country and our world.*

* So, for example, if you live in a completely unquestionable solid state, and feel you need to stay home because Chris Matthews is a misogynist fuck and/or some folks on the intertubes are arrogant assholes - well, that's your choice (although I've always felt that making the nation's choice obvious via popular vote - even if the antiquated electoral college nonsense dumps some less popular person onto our laps - is important in some sense). If you live in a swing state, though - well, I still don't understand the rationale for such a decision. You're not voting for us, and the inevitable and abundant punishment that will come with 4 (or worse!) more years of GOP maladministration will not only come down on our heads, but on everyone's.

BTD is bitter, and wants to extract the VP slot for his candidate as payback.

I don't think Obama's pick of some of the other strong candidates -- Kaine, Warner, Sebelius, Clark, Strickland -- would "divide the party," but rest assured that BTD would do his best so produce that result. His tent is small, just big enough for Hillary.

Juliet: By the way, I didn't watch the speech...

It was a very eloquent speech, undoubtedly one of the hardest she has made, and the consideration, care and effort she put into it showed.

You owe it to her, and yourself, the 30 minutes it takes to watch it--especially before throwing your support behind McCain, or sitting out the general election.

Which of the following statements is really dumb?

a. "What makes anyone think that Hillary wants to be Obama's VP? I just don't see it."

b. "On a social level, it's hard to picture someone of Hillary's age, experience, and temperament being willing to play second fiddle to a young guy like Obama."

c. "On a political level, she has more clout in the Senate than she would as vice president."

d. "On a personal level, Obama and Clinton (and their respective teams) just don't seem to like each other much."

e. all of the above

Answer: e

Personally I don't want Hillary to take the VP slot in the upcoming Obama administration. Barak will will win the election, but due to his inexperience he will make many, many mistakes. I don't want Hillary tainted with any of it.

"Dicksknee: Why do you say, "With Edwards out of the picture,..."? Did he already refuse?"

Yes. He gave an interview in Madrid in which he said: "I already had the privilege of running for vice president in 2004, and I won't do it again."

Shortstop: Clarence Thomas.

...was a federal appellate judge before he was nominated to the Supreme Court. Not for very long, mind you--maybe a year or two. And he'd been practicing law, probably as poorly as he now interprets it, up until a decade or so before that.

Personally, I don't think Juliet is a real Democrat. Every Hillary supporter that I know is more than ready to back Obama, especially after Hillary's speech the other day.

But to answer your question, I think Obama should be allowed to pick whoever he wants. The idea that you have to pick the second-place guy is disproved by history. Dukakis didn't pick Jackson, Clinton didn't pick Jerry Brown, Gore didn't pick Bill Bradley. And I don't recall any of their backers demanding VP before they'd OK voting for their own party.

I think BTD is being a bit of a concern troll here. I just don't see the anger that he claims is everywhere. And I don't know ANY Democrats who have Hillary for VP as a prerequisite to voting Bushism out of office.

socratic gadfly: Thanks for giving me a blog post on a slow Sunday, all the people with weird ideas for Clinton�s future. (Not to mention the continued stupidity of the Jim Webb as VP idea.)

Oh, no, thank you for giving us all yet another opportunity to not visit your blog.

I would have thought it was a reasonable argument - Hillary on the ticket might help win in Nov.

where all the venom comes from for just putting forward a position is a worrry.

start acting like liberals. a lot of you are sounding like the opposition.