In part because President's tend to come from outside of Washington, so they don't necessarily have a lot of deep relationships with Senators, but moreso out of simple political calculation. If the governor of their state is of the other party, you don't want them appointing a replacement, nor do you want to remove too many "safe" members of the chamber and take a chance on losing those seats.

meaning Clinton did call on any sitting senators to fill cabinet vacancies after his first year in office

Or didn't. Whatever.

The Constitution says this:
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

That restricts Senators from moving into the cabinet when the "Emoluments" of that position have been increased during their same elected term in the Senate. In practice, this would prohibit sitting Senators from voting to increase the pay of a certain civil office, and then resigning to take that very position.

I suspect that, as Senators vote to increase the pay of such offices from time to time, they may just be restricted entirely from taking those positions.

Well, they have to be from a place where the governor will appoint someone of your party to fill the seat. Upsetting the balance of the Senate is not part of the game plan.

What, LBJ doesn't count? He was Senate Majority Leader when he became VP and subsequently President.

I suspect, is that being a U.S. Senator is a great gig...

Yeah verily.
The only thing that compares is starting in the NBA. Of course, regarding the latter, you actually have to have some native talent super-refined by 1000s of hours of actual practice...

Remind me again what makes 98% of sitting Senators special?

Most cabinet slots are technocratic--you want a professional manager with some policy expertise (in housing, labor, transportation, etc) running a department rather than a policy generalist with little management experience, which is what a senator normally is.

But more importantly, it's not just how sweet a gig senator is to get in there you have to consider. You also got to think about how hard it is to get into the Senate (and harder it is to get back into the Senate once you leave). That's what gives the job its cachet.

Besides Bentsen, there's also the example of Howard Baker who left the Senate to become a White House Chief of Staff, a job with a lower rank, but tons more power than any cabinet officer. Baker, like Bentsen, only left the Senate when he was ready to close off his career anyway.

I assume Sen. Clinton is moving on because the Senate doesn't hold the glamour for her that it once promised. This could easily be a career-capper for her. In that way, she's seems a lot more like Howard Baker.

William Cohen was a sitting Senator when Clinton made him Secretary of Defence, in 1997, although he was retiring at the time. Same with Spencer Abraham (defeated) and John Ashcroft. Bentson was the last senator still serving out a six-year-term to be picked.

Why? Well, there's the fact that most senators, once elected, can serve for decades if need be; you don't want to give up a safe seat for your party. There's also the fact that governors of the opposite complexion will appoint replacements, which dramatically limits your choices. Finally, I guess a lot of senators really don't stand out: could you pick Mike Enzi, John Barrasso and Mike Crapo out of a police lineup?

BlackMage — Granted, the three men you mentioned do not stand out, even in the mediocre Senate we currently have.

Still, there are quite a few Capitol Hill Republicans these days whom one might see in a police lineup.

> Along with getting emoluments out of
> the way

If by "out of the way" we mean ignore the parts of the Constitution we don't like, in the manner of Dick Cheney, sure.

Cranky

WOW koreyel that was superb.

I believe the new Congress will take office on or around January 5. If they have the interests of their states at heart, Hillary Clinton will resign before then and Governor Paterson should appoint her replacement before then; Joe Biden should resign before then so that Ted Kaufman can take his place; and Governor Blogosphere of Illinois should appoint Barack Obama's replacement before then. As has recently been noted in light of Clinton's frustration at her limited opportunities in her present job, seniority counts for a lot in the Senate. Even if Clinton's, Obama's, and Biden's replacements take office only one day before the new senators are sworn in, they will be higher in terms of seniority.

That works for Paterson and Blogosphere, since both Clinton's and Obama's current terms continue into the next Congress. Biden, though, has to wait till January 5 because he was just re-elected to his seat, so he has to take it up in the next Congress before he can resign it.

I'd guess that the fact that Bill Clinton and Bush were both Governors has a lot to do with the fact that they didn't put Senators into their cabinets.

Well,

Heavens to Betsy, if one looks over the definition of the Secretary of State, perhaps America would get a snap shot of what Dr. Rice has been doing since she has been in that position. It has turned into one hell hole. If I was Clinton, looks like this job is loaded with bombs and political bobby traps.

But it is interesting that Clinton would have a say so in the money part of International, and domestic affairs of banking. Here, it will definitely take Bill and Hillary time to untangle a chaos that represents no end in sight. For me, a second time around with complete focus at this job is what likely is needed. What the Republican’s don’t want and their complimentary profiteers through out the world are undoubtedly sacking our tax dollars for everything they could get in that famous “Cut and Run “ politics of the Neo-Con’s. You can bet Dr. Rice is an economic space head leading America Neo-Con “Greed of Growth� economy.

“Wicked-Pedia� suggests

Secretary performs such duties as the President requires. These include negotiating with foreign representatives and instructing U.S. embassies or consulates abroad. The Secretary also serves as a principal adviser to the President in the determination of U.S. foreign policy and, in recent decades, has become responsible for overall direction, coordination, and supervision of interdepartmental activities of the U.S. Government overseas, excepting certain military activities. You know that military part could change at the president discretion.

Then sort of look through the department set up, that our Mainstream Media does not talk about, and we see literally hundreds perhaps thousands of undersecretaries likely with huge staffs loaded with Loyal Liberty University, and Texas bible thumping Mavericks. Heck an adjustment of any size here would likely save trillions.

What really is laughable are some of the goals we know Dr. Rice totally failed at for fun I added a few of my own;

• Promoting peace and stability in regions of vital interest, through assassinations;
• Creating jobs at home by opening markets abroad, ;
• Helping developing nations establish stable economic environments that provide investment and export opportunities;
• Bringing nations together to address global problems such as cross-border aliens, yuk-ity Yuk, yuk, pollution, the spread of communicable diseases, terrorism, the spread of Black-water all over the world nuclear smuggling secret prisoner swapping, and torture techniques in humanitarian crises.

Then if one looks at article II section 1
Bush violated so many elements with arrogance and abuse they can be classified as crimes. It is all pitiful.

Check it out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Good Luck Hillary…you will need it…

There's a huge difference between legislation and administration. Crafting legislation requires careful parsing of language (even if staffers do most of the work)and, at least in theory, shepherding it through the process takes a bunch of skills top administrators don't use in the same ways. Decision making and then living with the results of those decisions, the burden of administration, requires a very different stomach than talking and legislating. We'll see what happens with all those legislators in adminsitrative posts, right to the top. - Ted

It's really too bad that Lieberman is so gung-ho on provoking war with Iran.

Because I'd bet that he'd jump at a chance to be ambassador to Israel.

But, oh, the shenanigans he'd get up to...

Hypothesis: junior Senators have too little track record and clout to be attractive to the POTUS. Mid-level seniority Senators are too close to becoming committee chairmen and senior Senators are too big a fish.

Clinton is a special case b/c she's too junior to have a good chairmanship in her immediate future, but seasoned enough to get one of the top spots in the cabinet.

Bentsen, I suspect, had done everything he wanted to do in the Senate and he really wanted to have his signature on the money for his grandkids.

But I'm still surprised we've seen zero senators move to the cabinet over the last 15 years.

Why? The balance of power in the Senate has pretty much made this a political non-starter.

For the remainder of Clinton's presidency, from 1994-2000, Democrats were in the minority in the Senate, with 45 or so seats. It would make no sense to reduce that number even more, especially when it would mean giving a Republican Senate a filibuster-proof majority to go along with Gingrich's House control.

And then under Bush, the Senate balance was razor-thin. 50-50 after the 2000 election, and then Jeffords' defection made it 51-49 Democrats in 2001. The GOP had a bare edge of 51-48 after 2002, and it was only after 2004 that they got 55 -- but that put them within reach of a filibuster-proof majority again.

Last paragraph fron Steve's post:
There are some pretty talented officials in the chamber; why overlook them?

Um, I don't men to be overly snarkey, but the Bush administration's "talent" was to reward cronies & loot the American people's birthright. Unless you had a talent for perverting the area you were in (Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzales, & let's not forget Brownie), and if you didn't take a loyalty oath to W, you were not even considered for the job.

Sure there is lots of cabinet worthy talent in the Senate.

What concern was that of George W Bush when he made his appointments?

Re sitting senators' becoming president, the only reason it happened this year was that *both* candidates were sitting senators.

Especially given rumors that former gov Jeb Bush is thinking of running for senate, it would be greatly to our advantage to see more of our senators run for governor, and vice versa.

Dem candidates who've held both positions would be much better placed to run for the presidency. The voters (and the press) demand candidates who have both executive experience (governor) and show command of national and international issues (senator).

The governor/senator combination is the winner, and in the past our people have shown little interest in the combination. Let's do it, people!