pageok
pageok
pageok
Attorney General Hillary Clinton? Secretary of State? Justice?

What would Hillary Clinton Want from Obama? Is it the Vice Presidency? Jim might well be right that Obama might have good reason to offer Clinton this, and it might even make for a strong ticket (though I'm not sure that would be so). But I wonder whether Hillary would want this. The Vice Presidency is a notoriously low-power job. A President who genuinely trusts the Vice President may bring the Vice President informally into lots of important decisions (consider Bush and Cheney), but I doubt that Obama would be willing to do this with Clinton, or that Clinton would much like this sort of role.

The Vice Presidency is often a stepping-stone to the Presidency, but I doubt that it would be for Hillary, who'll be 69 in November 2016 — quite old for a first-term President, notwithstanding Reagan and McCain. Query how the higher life expectancy for women plays out here; query also how the conventional wisdom that men are seen as aging more gracefully than women (I stress "seen" here, because that's the relevant matter) might come into play. But I do suspect that she won't see herself as a viable 2016 candidate, and a 2012 insurgent run against a President Obama would likely be impossible if she's part of the Administration.

Nor would running as Vice-President and losing increase her chances of being the Presidential nominee in 2012; if anything, it would likely decrease them. Maybe she might just like the historic element of being the first female Vice President, but I doubt it.

What then might Clinton want more than her job as Senator? How about Attorney General or Secretary of State? Would it look bad for Obama to make this sort of offer before the election? (My sense is that primary rivals do sometimes get Cabinet positions, consider Bush Sr. and Jack Kemp, but that no deal is generally made beforehand.) How about Supreme Court Justice, for which there is something of a precedent in the Eisenhower-Warren situation, though I understand that it's not clear whether there had been an explicit deal?

Would she want those sorts of positions? Would she be an asset to the campaign if such a deal were announced beforehand? What if no such official deal were announced, but a quiet offer and acceptance led her to withdraw, publicly endorse Obama, and enthusiastically campaign for him?

This is way outside my area of expertise, so it may well be that all these options are nonstarters, and that I'm mistaken about her likely lack of enthusiasm for the Vice Presidency. Still, I thought these might be interesting alternatives to discuss.

UPDATE: Commenter GV, writes "What reason would Obama have to offer Clinton anything? Since Indiana, she has stopped attacking him, so the primary no longer hurts him. She has already said she'll campaign for him if she loses. It's clear to everyone now, even Hillary, that this race is over." I take it that one reason would be to win over some of the Hillary partisans who might otherwise be miffed at how he and his voters have treated their candidate, and who might therefore stay home come election day.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Clinton says she's open to being Obama's VP.--
  2. Attorney General Hillary Clinton? Secretary of State? Justice?
  3. Obama probably has the power to get Clinton to drop out.--
Nunzio:
How about Secretary of Labor now that she is such a fighter for hard-working blue-collar folks?

Perhaps head of the ATF, with her love of firearms and boilermakers?
5.14.2008 7:12pm
badger (mail):
I don't see how Obama could offer her a position with more power than she already has. (Being VP is an opportunity for 8 years of nothing, followed by another chance to lose to some dark horse democratic primary candidate or a republican). Any cabinet position is guaranteed to lead to conflict with Obama down the road. Meanwhile as a senator with access to a formidable fundraising network, she can take real control of the body, although she will be in tight competition with Durbin.

If she really is demanding anything of Obama, it's probably that she wants her people to be in the positions you're talking about. She wants a say in who fills out the cabinet and other important appointments. Why sacrifice an important position like Senator from New York when you can just control other offices by proxy?
5.14.2008 7:14pm
AGBates:
Even setting aside the possible advantages of ending the primary contest, a cabinet post for Clinton (and maybe Edwards too) might be a good move. At the very least, it would allow the Obama to draw parallels between himself and Lincoln: relatively inexperienced but charismatic leader surrounded by a "team of rivals," etc.
5.14.2008 7:15pm
Arkady:

How about Supreme Court Justice, for which there is something of a precedent in the Eisenhower-Warren situation, though I understand that it's not clear whether there had been an explicit deal?


Bingo! (Some help David Bernstein off the floor. And those other guys, too.)
5.14.2008 7:20pm
Gaius Marius:
Even setting aside the possible advantages of ending the primary contest, a cabinet post for Clinton (and maybe Edwards too) might be a good move. At the very least, it would allow the Obama to draw parallels between himself and Lincoln: relatively inexperienced but charismatic leader surrounded by a "team of rivals," etc.

Barack Hussein Mohamad Obama would confirm that he truly is the naive idiot that I believe he is if he offers Hillary Clinton a cabinet position. The analogy between an Obama cabinet and President Lincoln's cabinet is meritless because none of Lincoln's cabinet members was married to a former POTUS. If Her Imperial Majesty was wise (a tall request), she would demand a lifetime appointment SCOTUS and if for some reason the position of Chief Justice becomes available during Caliph Obama's presidency, that she be elevated to Chief Justice of SCOTUS.
5.14.2008 7:42pm
Chris_t (mail):

How about Secretary of Labor now that she is such a fighter for hard-working blue-collar folks?

Perhaps head of the ATF, with her love of firearms and boilermakers?



LMAO. Classic.
5.14.2008 7:46pm
GV:
What reason would Obama have to offer Clinton anything? Since Indiana, she has stopped attacking him, so the primary no longer hurts him. She has already said she'll campaign for him if she loses. It's clear to everyone now, even Hillary, that this race is over.
5.14.2008 7:46pm
DG:
It must be Associate Justice Clinton. AG is a dog of a job, from all appearances, always getting thrown in front of the bus. Maybe he'll name her VP for the election, then to SCOTUS for the first opening, as a way of getting rid of her? Stranger things have happened.
5.14.2008 7:56pm
Smokey:
If there is any deal, I think DG is on the right track.
5.14.2008 8:14pm
Smokey:
Hillary's nuclear option is a 3rd party. Obama would have to sit up straight and pay attention if she ran that up the flagpole. Heck, she might even win. With McCain in the picture, it's possible.
5.14.2008 8:16pm
SlimAndSlam:

Would she want those sorts of positions? Would she be an asset to the campaign if such a deal were announced beforehand?



History question: has any (non-incumbent) presidential candidate ever publicly named someone to a (potential) cabinet post prior to the election?
5.14.2008 8:18pm
Jeff R.:
Do you all really think that, even with expected gains from the 2008 elections, Hillary is even remotely confirmable?

Honestly, a three-way deal with Reid that lands her as Majority Leader seems more likely than that, to me. But what would Reid want? Probably too moderate for a VP pick or the Court, although he does help with the experience problem...
5.14.2008 8:23pm
MarkField (mail):

I take it that one reason would be to win over some of the Hillary partisans who might otherwise be miffed at how he and his voters have treated their candidate, and who might therefore stay home come election day.


I doubt Obama would use this particular logic, since I doubt he believes that he or his campaign have treated her badly. If he were to use this approach, I'm sure he'd justify it to himself and to the world as recompense for the way the press or the Republicans treated her.
5.14.2008 8:33pm
Gordo:
Hillary won't deal. Hillary doesn't want Obama to win in November. If he does, her ability to become President is toast. If he doesn't she's around to pick up the pieces in 2012 (or so she thinks).

That's why she's still running. To try and make sure Obama doesn't win in November.
5.14.2008 8:42pm
skyywise (mail):
If not President, Hilary should relish the hand fate has dealt her and eventually take up Ted Kennedy's mantle of most loved / hated Senior Democrat power-broker.
5.14.2008 9:03pm
Uthaw:
Do you all really think that, even with expected gains from the 2008 elections, Hillary is even remotely confirmable?

Especially not if President Obama doesn't really and truly hope she will be confirmed and twist Congressional arms to make it happen (as he won't).

always getting thrown in front of the bus.

The phrase "thrown under the bus" must be thrown under the bus...
5.14.2008 9:08pm
BobVDV2 (mail):
Senate Majority Leader Clinton.
5.14.2008 9:11pm
SenatorX (mail):
Czar of Socialized Medicine
5.14.2008 9:41pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
As BobVDV2 says, the correct answer is Senate Majority Leader, and she doesn't need Obama to "give" it to her. As my co-blogger Tully has pointed out at Stubborn Facts, Hillary has a great deal of political power at the moment. She's very unlikely to be able to transform that power into the nomination, but she is a skilled and deeply experienced political operative when it comes to party in-fighting. She can choose to either force a divisive floor fight, with a not 100% certain outcome, or she can cooperate, work out a deal where Florida and Michigan delegates are seated and Obama gets overwhelming support from the superdelegates in order to reach the nomination. The Senator super-delegates will be more than willing to support her for majority leader in return for not being held to their previous commitments to vote for her as the nominee.

By most accounts I've seen, Sen. Clinton has actually earned a fair amount of respect from her colleagues in the Senate, even from the Republicans who were naturally very skeptical of her going in. In addition to rewarding her for discretion, they may actually think she'll do a pretty good job as majority leader. Plus, should Obama lose, that position would enable her to be the de facto leader of the Democratic party for McCain's first term. And should Obama win, she will have sufficient national clout to help the Senate protect its institutional prerogatives from being overrun by the President.
5.14.2008 9:47pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
Maybe Hilary is hoping to run as McCain's VP. Old as he is, she might inherit the Presidency. :)
5.14.2008 10:19pm
LM (mail):

Maybe Hilary is hoping to run as McCain's VP. Old as he is, she might inherit the Presidency. :)

Actually, the perfect ticket is McCain-Obama [Obama-McCain]. Each is the other's ideal running mate.
5.14.2008 10:59pm
Joel Wickham (mail):
Obama (or anyone) would be a fool to name Hillary as vice president. Think about it - how would you like to have your last heartbeat be the only thing between Hillary and her lifetime destiny goal?
5.14.2008 11:03pm
kiniyakki (mail):
LM - great post.

Regarding the question of what Hillary would do next, why not the VP? If you are nearing the end of your career, and you have the chance to make history (first female VP and w/ the first black president - definitly compelling stuff) in a job that lets you ride off into the sunset, why the heck not? Maybe it is b/c it is the end of the day and I'm worn out and looking for a good job w/ low work, but here is my take: In the suggested jobs she is looking at lower profile positions for the long term, with much more work. Why not take a high profile position w/ low work?
5.14.2008 11:05pm
kiniyakki (mail):
Plus, for Obama, what a gracious and noble gesture! Take the viper that has been at your heel as your running mate - unifying the democratic party, scooping up the Hillary supporters, and making history. I guess his liability is that a lot of people still just don't like Hillary, but wouldn't that be outweighed by the excitement of an Obama-Clinton ticket.
5.14.2008 11:07pm
LM (mail):

It must be Associate Justice Clinton.

I hope not. I realize it's unpardonably elitist, but one thing I appreciate about the Clinton-Bush appointments is the consistently high standard of intellectual gravitas. Hillary's no dolt, but she'd be at least a full step backwards.
5.14.2008 11:08pm
LM (mail):

I guess his liability is that a lot of people still just don't like Hillary, but wouldn't that be outweighed by the excitement of an Obama-Clinton ticket.

The only reason I think it's plausible despite many drawbacks is how certain all the pundits seem to be that it will never happen.
5.14.2008 11:13pm
JB:
The buzz I've heard from the Left is that she's been asked to stay in 'til the 22nd, so Obama's first primaries after she drops out aren't 30-point losses like WV and KY. Whatever the deal may be, we won't find out 'til then.
5.14.2008 11:26pm
MarkField (mail):

Obama (or anyone) would be a fool to name Hillary as vice president. Think about it - how would you like to have your last heartbeat be the only thing between Hillary and her lifetime destiny goal?


Maybe he'd think of it as assassination insurance. She's the only person in the country the nut cases fear more than him.
5.14.2008 11:46pm
Oren:
God, that would really be hell for anyone trying to change the direction of the country by assassination. Kill Obama, get Clinton; kill Clinton, get Pelosi; kill Pelosi, get Reid.

At that rate, assassins might as well just stay home.
5.15.2008 12:20am
...Wouldn't Be Prudent (mail):
Maybe he'd think of [Hillary as VP] as assassination insurance. She's the only person in the country the nut cases fear more than him.
And what a GREAT argument this would give Obama for getting the country behind stronger gun control -- for a reason even the NRA can wholeheartedly support! Gotta make those laws strict enough that Bill can't ever near any guns, or look what happens to the U-S-of-A, eh?
5.15.2008 12:26am
Lev:
Gallows humor.

We are so screwed.
5.15.2008 12:39am
Oren:
Oh come on Lev, ever since Booth managed to effectively change the course of US history by fragging the president, there's been precedent for thinking about how the veep choice affects the president's chance of, uh, falling down the stairs.
5.15.2008 12:56am
Duffy Pratt (mail):
If he does pick her for Veep, he better get Chelsea a job as his food taster.
5.15.2008 1:30am
David Sucher (mail) (www):
How much Senate seniority does Clinton have? She'd be a very good Majority Leader, which is no small position of power.
5.15.2008 1:55am
Asher (mail):
I take it that one reason would be to win over some of the Hillary partisans who might otherwise be miffed at how he and his voters have treated their candidate, and who might therefore stay home come election day.

This assumes that the offer would be made public or at least leaked, doesn't it? And these kinds of offers never are. No presidential candidate is going to announce what his Cabinet would look like if he won.
5.15.2008 1:58am
Brian G (mail) (www):
There is nothing more Hillary wants than for Obama to lose she can run again in 2012 and say, "See, if you nominated me...."
5.15.2008 2:17am
Cornellian (mail):
I really, really don't want to see Hillary in the VP slot. She'd be a horrible choice.

I'm leaning towards Richard Lugar, the Republican Senator from Indiana. Decent guy, very strong foreign policy credentials, would probably carry his (very red) state in November. If Obama wants to think outside the box on this issue, he could do a lot worse than Lugar.
5.15.2008 2:28am
LM (mail):
That assumes Lugar would go for it. Nunn or Webb seem more likely.
5.15.2008 2:35am
A. Zarkov (mail):
A third-party run for Hillary is an interesting idea. She's now persona non grata with much of the hierarchy of the party. She still has a formidable machine and a lot of name recognition. A three-way race would likely cause an approximate three-way split among the electorate, so the outcome is anyone's guess. I think the risks of waiting to run in 2012 or 2016 are too great for her to pass up the chance. A lot of conservatives hate McCain so much they would vote for her, they're afraid of BHO. Of course the party will really hate then, but so what?
5.15.2008 2:39am
Malvolio:
Hillary is 'way too smart for a third-party run. Not only has no-one ever won that way, no-one has ever come close. Hillary, as a moderate half-way between the two other candidates, might do a little better than most, but she wouldn't win and she knows it.

Her best hope is to go around looking presidential and hope that Obama either tanks in November, makes himself so unpopular as President(a la Ford and Carter) that she can justify a primary fight in 2012, or just outright dies.

A long shot, but the only shot she's got left.
5.15.2008 5:18am
Uthaw:
Hillary is 'way too smart for a third-party run. Not only has no-one ever won that way, no-one has ever come close.

The goal would not be to win but to stop Obama from winning.
5.15.2008 8:20am
Apodaca:
EV:
What then might Clinton want more than her job as Senator? How about Attorney General or Secretary of State? Would it look bad for Obama to make this sort of offer before the election?
I guess it depends on what one means by "look bad":
Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
18 USC 599
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
18 USC 600
5.15.2008 9:24am
JRL:
"Obama (or anyone) would be a fool to name Hillary as vice president. Think about it - how would you like to have your last heartbeat be the only thing between Hillary and her lifetime destiny goal?"

Exactly. The Clintons are capable of anything. Just as Vince Foster.
5.15.2008 9:50am
rarango (mail):
My suspicion is that Mr. Obama wants the Clintons to go far far away. Putting Ms. Clinton into the administration also brings along Ex-President Clinton--who needs that kind of distraction. My take? No deals, and Ms. Clinton returns to the senate.
5.15.2008 10:15am
Just Dropping By (mail):
A lot of conservatives hate McCain so much they would vote for her, they're afraid of BHO.

I've never heard of a "conservative" who would vote for Clinton over McCain. I personally know several who will, however, vote for Obama this fall barring the proverbial "dead girl, live boy" problem.
5.15.2008 10:23am
Pon Raul (mail):
No real conservative would vote for either Clinton or Obama. They might not vote for McCain, but they aren't going to vote for either of the socialists. I think that Barr has a real opportunity to pick up about 8 percent of the vote.
5.15.2008 11:46am
Uh_Clem (mail):
Senate Majority Leader. More powerful than any cabinet position or the VP (Cheney's an exception here, no past or future VP comes close).

Supreme Court justice is more powerful, but I doubt she'd be confirmed. Plus I'd expect Obama to appoint justices who are at least plausibly non-political, i.e. the left's version of John Roberts whoever that may be.

What else is there?
5.15.2008 11:50am
Tully (mail) (www):
David Sucher: Senate Majority Leader is elective, not determined by seniority. And it's a very strong position of power indeed.

Clinton is not going to throw away all the leverage and support she has gained in this race without getting some very substantial reward for so doing. Period. She will not drop out unless she cuts a lucrative deal that pays her a political profit. Period. She will drag the fight to the convention if need be. She will campaign to the bitter end, to keep that leverage as strong as possible, and her "buyout" price at max. Despite all the "dead candidate" talk she is still in fighting range, she has the power to cripple Obama's run even before the nomination while also hurting the party downticket, and she is going to collect, one way or another.

She wants to move up, not fall down, and she will insist on advancing in political power. She has millions in campaign debt, much of it her own money, and she'll want that back. She wants to make history in a position of national power, preferably with a "first woman to" in front of it, and she's not getting any younger. There has never been a female SML, and VP looks unlikely.

I'm not saying that's the reward she would demand, but given the player it has to be on the list. The party can either cut a deal, or suffer for not doing so, in which case she is vindicated and has another shot in four years with enhanced credibility.
5.15.2008 11:53am
Uh_Clem (mail):
No real conservative would vote for either Clinton or Obama.

Well, yes, for some values of
"real conservative".
5.15.2008 11:53am
Thales (mail) (www):
Gaius Marius, I have a position that you may be interested in at a 527 organization to produce ads against Senator Obama during the fall campaign. Please email your resume to tool@swiftvets.com. If you are invited for an interview, please remember to leave any penchant you have for honesty, intellectual credibility or the ability to distinguish between fact and innuendo at home; those things are for sissies and Democrats.
5.15.2008 11:53am
Hi Standards:
VP isn't much of a job, unless the President wants it to be. Obama will only offer it if he deems his election to be dependent on it, and Hillary will only take it she's willing to reprise the role of 1st Lady without having to sleep with the President. A cabinet post isn't better than being a Senator from NY. Cabinet members take marching orders from White House aides these day. Senate Majority Leader allows obscure Senators to become widely known, but the job has been described as "herding cats". It doesn't have much power, and there's always the risk that you end up in the even worse job of Senate Minority Leader because of something you have no control over.

I don't see any reason Hillary would want to leave her Senate seat, but if she does, the one job that might make sense is Governor of New York in 2010. Shouldn't be that hard to ease aside accidental Governor Patterson, and then she'd have an executive position that wouldn't be beholden to Obama.
5.15.2008 1:07pm
Steve P. (mail):
A third-party run for Hillary is an interesting idea. She's now persona non grata with much of the hierarchy of the party.

Umm, really? It was my understanding that she's still got the support of almost half of the committed superdelegates. That's pretty impressive for someone unwelcome in the Democratic party.
5.15.2008 1:12pm
Iolo:
I've never heard of a "conservative" who would vote for Clinton over McCain.

Maybe, but a lot of them would stay home in a Clinton / McCain race, and would not stay home in an Obama / McCain race.
5.15.2008 1:24pm
Tully (mail) (www):
Hi Standards: In the discussion in my post over at Stubborn Facts, I noted both Mayor of New York City and Governor of New York as jobs that have never been filled by women. My opinion is that she'd consider those as lateral moves rather than upward ones, but it's just MHO and can't be ruled out.

For this cycle anyway there's very little chance that the Dem senate leader will be the minority leader. Certainly it would be tough to be much less effective than Reid. And SML really does have a large amount of power and control over the Senate.
5.15.2008 1:49pm
Oren:
Tully - those are downwards move from high-ranking US Senator.

Also, rangaro, "Ms Clinton"? Is there some animus towards her marriage now?
5.15.2008 2:21pm
Dave N (mail):
I agree with Hi Standard. I can't imagine why HRC would want a cabinet position, Harry Reid might have a thing or two to say about being dumped as Senate Majority Leader (remember Robert Byrd went into the leadership years ago as Majority Whip when Ted Kennedy's national stardom cut into doing the day-to-day gruntwork of leadership), and for some reason HRC being nominated for the Supremes doesn't seem in the cards.

As for Cornellian's suggestion of Dick Lugar--I have heard not even a squeak about Lugar being anything other than an orthodox Republican. He's not even maverick enough like John McCain was in 2004 to sound even plausible.
5.15.2008 2:29pm
R. Ford Mashburn (mail):
Hillary is doing what the Clintons have always done: maintain the "favor bank" ; she will endorse Obama, she will seed his administration with her underlings, not as cabinet officers, but as their deputies, and groom them for further advancement. This way she maintains her status in the party, and keeps her henchmen on the public payroll.

Others in her circle will get the usual lobbying jobs, and maintain the usual stranglehold on the bureaucracy for another generation. If Obama declines nominate her people for the 2nd tier jobs, she can undermine him from the Senate safely, get herself set up as DSCC chair, and pick and choose which Senate candidates the DNC will bankroll and which ones they will freeze out.

Control of the money is everything to the Clintons. She will bow out and find a way to keep control of the Party's money.
5.15.2008 2:55pm
Skyler (mail) (www):
If Hillary is VP, Obama's life would not be worth a plug nickel.
5.15.2008 3:48pm
The Mojo Bison (mail) (www):
I disagree with the premise that VP is a stepping stone to the White House, unless the stone itself is made of a grave marker. Of the VPs who later went on to become President, only a handful did not take the job from the cold dead hands of their predecessor. They would be: Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren, and GW 41. Nixon was not VP when he won in '68, and was figuratively dead himself when he handed the job over to Ford in the wake of Watergate.

I think Her Nibs has more sense than to even ask. Curse of the Golden Flower was on TV last night, and the analogy that serves here is that of Prince Jen's reaction to his mother-in-law's plot : How can you do this?!? Of course they'll blame me first! Innocent or not, she'd be a marked woman. Heck, they might even amend the Constitution to eliminate Article III Sec. III (Corruption of Blood)...
5.15.2008 3:55pm
Jeff R.:
To get to Majority Leader Clinton, I think you have to get Reid into another position. I initially thought that he was too moderate for a VP pick, but the Democrats are a lot more accepting of last-minute conversions on the Abortion Issue than Republicans, so if he suddenly discovers a new deep pro-choice conviction, he'd probably make a pretty good balancing addition to Obama's slate. Nevada has a Republican Governor, but the expected Democratic majority in the Senate is big enough that one seat is probably loseable.

Dick Durbin might also need inducement to step out of Hillary's way (but there are any number of Cabinet positions he'd be as good as any pick Obama could make for)...
5.15.2008 3:56pm
rarango (mail):
Oren: none whatsoever. As a matter of personal style, I try to rotate the various titles and will refer to her as Senator, Mrs,Ms or HRC; when I posted that it was Ms Clinton--like to keep all the bases covered. Would hate to offend the sensitive.
5.15.2008 4:18pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"I've never heard of a "conservative" who would vote for Clinton over McCain."

How about Ann Coulter, who said she would campaigh for HRC rather than vote for McCain?
5.15.2008 4:22pm
Tully (mail) (www):
Tully - those are downwards move from high-ranking US Senator.

Yes, but they're not dog kibble either and they'd still be "first woman to" landmarks. But lateral at best instead of upwards. Reid might (would) object to losing SML, but the key factor there is having the votes among the Dem Senators. And hey, it's just a guess. There are other potentials. The one thing I consider certain is that she's not going go without a lucrative (to her) deal. Without that she'll fight it to the convention floor.

Control of the money is everything to the Clintons.

I think control of the power is more apt--but then, money IS power.
5.15.2008 5:23pm
LM (mail):
Pon Raul,

No real conservative would vote for either Clinton or Obama. They might not vote for McCain, but they aren't going to vote for either of the socialists.

You're either confused about what socialism means or who Clinton and Obama are.

I think that Barr has a real opportunity to pick up about 8 percent of the vote.

From your mouth to God's ears.
5.15.2008 5:40pm
LM (mail):
Uh_Clem,

Supreme Court justice is more powerful, but I doubt she'd be confirmed.

I've seen a couple of people say this. Why would anyone doubt she'd be confirmed without a Republican filibuster? Which Democrat would vote against? And I'd expect her to get a fair number of Republican votes. Senators tend to rubber stamp nominations of other Senators generally, and Hillary is well-regarded by many of her Republican peers.
5.15.2008 5:40pm
Fat Man (mail):
People. Really. Think.

Who wants a job? Nobody. What folks really want is money.

Hillary doesn't want a job, other than President. What for?

Here is the deal:

Hillary and Bill know that Hillary will not be the 2008 Dem nominee. I also assume that Hillary does not want to be the VP, nor does Obama want her and her baggage and Bill and his baggage weighing down his train.
But, the Clintons have run up a lot of bills, including a very important one of $21 million owed to them. They also drained Hillary's senate campaign fund.

Further, there is the Clinton endorsement. Obama must have it. He has accused Hillary of favoring McCain over himself. We wouldn't want a little thing like money to cause a problem would we?

On June 4, after the last primary, Obama and Hillary hold a joint victory rally. Hill and Bill endorse Obama. The Obama campaign assumes, and promptly pays Hillary's campaign debt, including that $21 million. Obama agrees that he will use the public financing in the general election, and that any surplus funds remaining after the Convention will be split between Obama and Clinton's senatorial campaign funds.

O.K., there is a reason for Hillary to stay in the race.
5.15.2008 9:04pm
J Richardson:
How about Secretary of Labor now that she is such a fighter for hard-working blue-collar folks?

Perhaps head of the ATF, with her love of firearms and boilermakers?



I believe you forgot to add Bill's love of cigars. That covers all the bases for the ATF.
5.15.2008 9:26pm
AnAverageAmerican (mail) (www):
Hillary Clinton as a Justice of SCOTUS is a ludicrous concept. She has distinguished herself as the First Lady with the least respect for the law in the history of the United States of America. I (hope I) can only imagine the miscarriages of justice, and judicial activism, that would devolve from a Justice Clinton (either one).
5.16.2008 1:40am