Why would Hillary want to be the VP?? She should be Senate Majority leader

There have been tons of talk about should she or shouldn't she, but looking at it from her perspective I don't see why should would want that job. She will be 61 by the GE. That means if she were to be the VP and Obama has a successful 8 year run she would be 69 before she could run again. Then there is the issue that VPs don't have any power. For the next 8 years she would pretty much be marginalized. If I were to put myself in her position and mindset, I would angle for a major leadership position in the Senate. That would be a position of power and would give her say in policy as well as have a higher profile. It wouldn't surprise me, if behind the scenes she is pressuring the party to give her Reid's position. That would make far more sense and would be a much better consolation prize, from her perspective. Plus it's not like Reid has done a bang up job.

On top of all that, her political skills and abilities would match very nicely with the Senate Majority leader job.

NT

Beyond that, I don't think Obama fits the same weak minded fool's role that Bush does. So there would be less opportunity.

I think Hillary is telling us, over and over and over, that SHE believes she is the best candidate. It really doesn't matter what anyone else believes, including the electorate. If the VP is the consolation prize which could be used to elevate herself (by hook or by crook) to the top, she'd be interested.

And yes, she SHOULD concentrate on getting more power in the Senate. That would give her a better chance to PROVE how much she cares about the working people in this country.

and, at this time, being in this position (VP) gives her the most realistic chance of ever getting her way into the presidency. I don't think Obama should pick her as running mate.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

or as David Gergen said on CNN the other night, if Obama chooses her for his VP choice, he'd better hire a food taster.

if he knew that he would be replaced by Hillary. It's the Cheney factor

Guess who gets to swoop in to the #1 spot? VP is the next logical choice for someone who desperately wants to become president some day.

... she could do more as Senate Majority leader.

Specifically, by bringing a universal healthcare bill to the President.

She very well could get that passed, from that position.

I don't want a Senate Majority leader with her own agenda.

important Democrats. Also, if Obama is the president no way would he allow that because as you say, she has her own agenda.

oh wait....hard working....nevermind, you're right, she'll never be majority leader.

Ted Kennedy - who is far more qualified to actually write legislation on it that would pass - just as he did in the past.

We've seen what people like Reid and Pelosi can do to prevent a progressive agenda from going forward. The last thing we need is to replace one DLC majority leader with another one.

On the other hand, if we had Dennis Kucinich as speaker of the House and Russ Feingold, or Barbara Boxer as Senate Majority Leader, we could have HR 676 on President Obama's desk within the first 100 days.

Naturally, this is going to take some more votes in both houses, but that looks likely anyway, especially with the new voters brought in by Obama already helping elect real Democrats to congressional seats.

Since we're jumping both feet into the "who would win; Mighty Mouse or Superman" debate.

I'm sure that preventing a universal healthcare bill is precisely why she made a universal healthcare bill the centerpiece of her campaign.

Imagine if we had the right leadership in the House, and got HR 676 passed, and had the votes to pass it in the Senate. We also knew that President Obama would sign the bill. And then it was killed by Senate Majority Leader Hillary Clinton, because she wanted her corporate mandated RomneyCare II bill instead.

If Gore had had a successful presidency, he would have been next in line.

If Gored had had an unsuccessful presidency he could trumpet that Gore didn't heed his advice.

"Smart" (which has no connection to ethical) politics.

Traitor Joe never had that. So VP was the best he could ever hope to achieve.

slimed many of her peers. Do you think that many in the Senate thought that her surrogates attacked on Kennedy - who is popular commend her? Do you think that the fact that they actually harassed Kerry's family, friends and aides was not seen as wrong? Also, for any who had their arms twisted - will they give her more power. Her power - since she arrived there - was that she was Bill's wife and had a high likelihood to be President.

Her current political capital is likely lower than it's been since 1992.

yet durbin and obama is are closer..either one would be fine..

The Senate runs on senority and she is not that senior. Also, look at the people she would need to leapfrog to get those positions of power. Assume that Reid steps down as minority leader. The current whip, his deputy - so to speak - is Senator Durbin, then President Obama's first and for over a year only official Senate superdelegate. In 2005, the person said to have fought Reid for it was Dodd - who is a fifth term Senator and Obama supporter. They would be the two most likely people - again IF Reid stepped down.

If you wanted to reward someone for a Presidential run, a better candidate would be John Kerry. He lead in getting to a Democratic position on Iraq and who was the entire Congressional delegation to Bali. He also, with Snowe, brokered the deal that led to the first increase in CAFE standards for decades. He is respected among Democrats for his integrity, honesty and classiness. He also has more accomplishments on all the main issues compared to HRC - including healthcare, where Kerry and Kennedy wrote the precursor bill to S-CHIP.

He also has the ability to include the netroots and in a respectful way pull in their support and ability to spread the Democratic message - he is far more successful in doing that on Dkos and elsewhere than HRC, Durbin or Dodd. He also did a great job post 2004, working with his email to keep people who got involved in 2004 active and in many cases more involved than before and he raised a hug amount of money for 2006 candidates. Throw in that he was the second Senator to back Obama - he could be a very deserving candidate for this.

In HRC's case there is far more that the party did for her, than she has done to date for the party.

I think she would do a pretty good job of getting things passed.

You need to win others over by persuading them of the wisdom of the plan - not by the fact that you will get everyone to sit shiva if someone goes the wrong way - someone you still need to vote your way and want you to succeed.

I gave a few examles where Kerry's tenacity and his continuing to fight after a very narrow loss - on a very unfair playing field. His another example. In 2004, he had a very comprehensive plan for veterans. Since then, he has broken it into small pieces and in nearly every defense bill and in some Small Business bills- gotten pieces added. These may be small compared to the whole he had in 2004, but each one affected people and each one was important. In 2005, there was no way that ANY Democrat could have gotten a big piece of legislation passed - but he though many small pieces - some added in committee, some in voice votes got things done.

HRC did not as First Lady do well motivating the Senate to do anything and even with most of teh Democratic party in exile behind her, she is not associated with any of the major efforts in the Senate I can think of. Dodd, Kerry and Durbin all beat her on that.

I thought the majority of the Senate is stumping for Obama. Add that to the fact that she is a junior senator, and one of the more junior amongst the juniors, I don't see Senate Majority Leader happening for her. She'll be lucky if she can pull off a re-election.

she would have a hard time actually getting enough votes for majority leader due to some ill will amoungst other senate dems regarding the way she ran this campaign. I will look for a link, I think it was CNN or politico.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/10/bernstein.clinton/index.html?iref=newssearch

Written by Carl Bernstein

-snip-

Almost no one I have spoken to who knows her well doubts that, as she reconciles to the likelihood that her presidential campaign will fall short, she will probably seek the vice presidential spot. One reason: Contrary to common belief, she doesn't look forward to going back to the Senate, they say. Many Democratic senators believe that she would not have an easy time winning an election for majority leader; the tenor and tactics of her presidential campaign have alienated some of her Democratic colleagues in the Senate.

-snip-

:donut:

unless something major happens to improve both her and Bill's reputations. Even if Obama loses, this campaign will not be written without looking at the impact of the Clintons. (In fact, other than Obama, they may be the people who most need Obama to win and for them to be ssen as having been key supporters in teh general election. People are watching and the risk is that any negative action - even if just passive crumbling about the campaign - could be added to WJC doing the same in 2000 and 2004 - and they could become major scapegoats.

Now think what would their roles be in a McCain Presidency. they already praised him. On global warming, McCain is trying to take that as his issue - he won't be Bush. HRC and WJC are not key people here - Boxer or Kerry on our side are more likely. On Iraq, Iran etc she is already too cloudy - who would the opponent be - maybe Obama, Kerry, or someone new.

but I wouldn't bet on it.

If the voters will still vote for her there.

would that be allowed.

take a look at the number of endorsements that Obama has racked up by Senators. They don't like Hillary and don't want to have to "follow" her anywhere, nor do I blame them. That alone should speak volumes to the Hillary supporters-her own co-workers don't respect her and don't like her.

If Obama becomes President he might use her as a token for some legislation but other than that the party will be working with his people in the Senate to get legislation passed. They will doll out who gets to write the important stuff to Senators who are having possible re-election issues or to Senators who are rising stars in the party to build their resumes.

She has been rejected by her fellow colleagues as the choice for President. Those same people won't vote for her for Senate Majority leader.

If McCain wins she might be used as a GOP tool to get bipartisan legislation passed. However, that will win her no points in the party as far as leadership positions going.

She sealed her chance at the VP spot this week. Not going to happen.

and Dodd Senate Majority Leader. But I dream too much.

Last time, didn't you ...people...try to bribe her onto the Supreme Court?

What's so cute is how you all were pushing Obama for Veep as soon as Hillary had a few wins.

What's the matter? Afraid not everyone will worship your televangelist?

Sign me, Disgusted by Obama Supporters

hillary does`t have the seniority nor the votes in the senate.

even the ones who give lip service to the supposition that she has every right to remain in the campaign.

Pay backs are hell.

That doesn't preclude their working with Hillary Clinton, but her instinct for alliances in that chamber appears to be secondary to her interest in the top job.

Which she has realistically lost her chance to obtain.

I don't think she should be on the ticket. I don't think she should be Majority Leader.