I'd love to see her there, but it could start the open politicization of the Court - next up would be Justice Santorum or whatever.

It's really just a pleasant fiction that this doesn't happen anyway, but still. There isn't even plausible deniability putting HRC on the Court, given her explicit and stridently stated personal and political opinions on a range of issues that would come up.

What happens to Obama when he loses? What jobs do you have lined up for him?

A "reputable liberal blog" is your new tagline?

A reputable liberal blogger wouldn't be willing to continually lie about process issues to advance the candidate who bashes universal healthcare.

But Ezra Klein is a cowardly careerist, not a reputable liberal blogger.

What process issues has Ezra lied on, Petey?

Wow, Ezra, it looks like you're now a cowardly, careerist, Stalinist thug. Great going, pal!

How about he makes that promise, and then breaks it? You can bet she'd do it to him. Loyalty only goes one way with the Clintons.

"by all accounts" she's a brilliant lawyer? Fact of the day: lawyers, especially those who are regarded as brilliant "by all accounts" don't flunk the DC Bar.

HRC appointed to SCOTUS is a bit too obviously a pro-quid-quo, IMO.

And I agree with 'g' that there's danger in a too-overtly political appointment to the court. But frankly, I don't see how any appointment the Dems make won't be mau-maued by the GOP. But, with a 60 vote Dem. majority, maybe the right thing is just to say (in Cheney style) 'go fuck yourself' to the GOP whiners.

The most obvious objection to HRC on SCOTUS is that she's too old. The GOP has preped the court for multi-decade appointments, and so someone in their 40's seems like a better choice, and maybe someone black would be a good idea to balance the insanity of Thomas. hummmm: in 40's, constitutional scholar, black, no-too-liberal, appeals to lots of people.... sounds like Obama's the man (lol).

Meanwhile Petey's still off his trolley. Will his raging last forever? (psst! Edwards is not running for Pres. anymore)

I think this is a great idea; the Court desperately needs a voice on the issues you mention, and this would be an excellent use of her talents. One caveat: the Senate will have to have at least 60 Dems, possibly 61-62 to counteract the Lieberman/Baucus types. The GOP will go all out to keep HRC off the court, and I think we can safely assume that not one GOP senator will vote for her confirmation; anyone who did would be promptly banished to the wilderness, never to be heard from again.

time was, many former politicians were supreme court justices (even a former President - Taft)

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

One of the problems with this court is that it lacks anyone with insight and experience into the political process, after the last former legislator, O'Connor, left.

HRC for SCOTUS sounds great to me.

"What process issues has Ezra lied on, Petey?"

Line 'em up, Neil. Line 'em up.

Start with the MI & FL revotes. Move on to the endless parroting of Plouffe's count. Contrast the reaction between the seeming anti-Clinton debates and the anti-Obama debates. Hire me a research assistant, and I'll document 'em all. There's at least one a day.

Unwillingness to be intellectually honest on process issues in intra-party contests is a sure sign you're dealing with someone who isn't a reputable liberal blogger.

They're not happy to make a reasonable case for their candidate. They need to squeeze the process to gild the lily.

If a "lefty" blogger thinks that he can treat the candidate who's received the most Democratic votes in 2008 as if she were a Republican, we're not dealing with a reputable liberal blogger.

-----

I've tried to (justifiably) defend you against Armando in the past, Neil, but at the moment, he's one of the only folks even trying to cover the race honestly.

Strange bedfellows. But it sure as hell beats the dishonest alternative.

Anonymous posts shouldn't happen by accident. Bad posting system. Bad.

5:39pm was I.

"One caveat: the Senate will have to have at least 60 Dems, possibly 61-62 to counteract the Lieberman/Baucus types."

Not necessarily - Thomas was approved 51-49.

I also want to know what jobs you have picked out for Obama.

Also, Clinton's energy to me shows no sign of flagging, and why would she quit just because BO could be the next Pres, when a) she's got a reputation for effectively working across the aisle - and in the context of the Bush Admin, in hostile conditions (given you imply BO leading will be a hostile environment for her), b) she's also seen to be so skilled as to be rumored to be next Sen. Maj. Leader, and c) she's promised - repeatedly - to campaign vigorously for Obama and the Party should he get the nom? Suddenly if she doesn't get the nom she's giving up on her entire career?

She doesn't strike me as that petulant, but as the blogosphere amply demonstrates, that's strictly a matter of opinion.

I'd love to see Hillary on the Supreme Court.

I think she'd have less problem getting through the Senate than one might think - she really HAS done a great job in building bridges across the aisle.

And it would so make the wingnuts' heads explode.

If THE problem with a particular politician is their integrity, you don't kick them upstairs to SCOTUS, do you? As SCOTUS proved last summer with Concerned Parents v. Seattle Schools, it's Orwellian enough up there already; to cynically consider adding in her brand of lies, spin and entitlement on the basis that she is uniquely unfit to lose the nomination without being thus promoted is to mock the Court.
Why is it inappropriate that she do what other politicians have always done -- get beaten, and find a new direction? If she is "a brilliant lawyer," she'll know how to make her way -- although she would probably rather be owed.

I don't think SCOTUS really matches Hillary Clinton's real brilliance, which is all about obsessive mastery of policy detail. Court decisions are too abstract and suppositional.

I actually think Obama is the more SCOTUSey of the two (the odds of her being in a position to make the reverse deal are obviously very small).

Petey, surely you realize there's some irony in you claiming that Ezra has treated Hillary like a republican, while your rhetoric towards Obama -- who is winning the popular vote despite your disingenuous attempts to insinuate the contrary -- is infinitely more harsh. I'm sure Ezra has made mistakes as all commentators have, but he has put out many posts criticizing both campaigns.

Redstar, Obama doesn't need another job b/c he can try again in 4 or 8 years if he loses. Speculating on what Hillary might do if she loses is simply more pertinent. Yeah I know, that's not as fun an explanation as Hillary-hatred.

I've seen this floated elsewhere, and I also think it's a great idea. To my mind Ms. Clinton is tailor made for the Supreme Court. And as far as Obama, vice versa.

It's so annoying how the Hopium addicts frame things in this election. Ezra, you seem to forget, that more Democrats have now pulled the lever for Hillary than for BO?

A better question is why Obama can't just agree to be her VP, and set ourselves up for 16 years of Democrats in the Whitehouse? Or a better question yet would be, what are all of the Obama crazies smoking to make them so hateful and uncivilized? When did democrats (Hopium addicts) become the new Karl Rove acolytes? Half the Democrats clearly want Hillary, get over it, and let the people vote!

I realize that the Supreme Court doesn't exactly lack for partisanship, but I don't see that as a good thing. Should we be trying to increase it by nominating openly partisan, even polarizing, figures?

And whence this idea that she's a brilliant lawyer? Sen. Clinton failed the D.C. Bar Exam and hasn't practiced or written about law in at least fifteen years; before that, except for when she was just out of law school and advised the Watergate committee and worked for the CDF - a distinguished record, but only a couple of years - she was an undistinguished corporate lawyer for what, fifteen years? Has she ever argued a major case before an important bench? Did she clerk for a judge of any sort?

The case that Sen. Clinton is qualified to be president is entirely credible, even if her campaign routinely exaggerates it and lies about it, and even if I don't support her candidacy; but I don't see a similar case for her qualifications to the Supreme court.

I just want to say that I proposed this idea to my friends and co-workers back in early March. It's too bad I don't have a blog myself where I can post all my fabulous ideas and get people to talk about them.

The advantage for progressives of putting Hillary on the Supreme Court is that it removes her from the arena of electoral politics. This has always been Hillary's weak ideological weak spot. At her core, Hillary is an unabashed liberal, but she thinks she has to triangulate and move to the right in order to win elections. Once you take away the elections, Hillary no longer has any incentive to move to the right--in other words, she can return to her liberal ideological core. Her first couple of years on the court, she would probably vote somewhat in the political center. But once she realized that she doesn't have to be accountable to the people, her decisions would veer sharply to the left.

As far as the confirmation process is concerned, it would be her former colleagues confirming her. I am confident that Hillary can sweet talk 4 or 5 GOP Senators, and that's all we would need to block a filibuster. What's more, she'd be freeing up her New York Senate seat who is comfortable being much more progressive than she is.

You know, the GOP can whine all they want about politicizing the court. But they've given us Alito, Roberts, and Scalia. I think in many ways, the pissing-off-the-Republicans factor in this is the most compelling reason of all to put her on the court. It would be a lovely way of giving the finger to the wingnuts.

Putting Hillary on the Supreme Court is an all around win-win-win situation for Democrats.

I'm worried, Petey, that you may be underestimating the scope of reasonable disagreement. (That's a feeling I've often had when looking at your recent posts here and elsewhere.)

Just on the debate question, I think the '53 minutes without a policy question' point is a pretty striking one about the PA debate that didn't have close parallels in the past cases. I only watched a couple of the debates, but looking at transcripts, I don't think anything has sunk to that depth of vapidity before.

And please understand that I have no future career in anything Obama-related. I've just accepted a nice tenure-track job in Singapore, and my career will be a strictly academic one from now on.

One should also bear in mind that Ezra did more than anyone else to convince our corner of the world that Obama's mandateless health care plan was a bad thing. And he's kept on going, even in these times. When I thought I had a clever way for Obama to turn his plan into single-payer, I posted it, and Ezra showed that it wouldn't work, in part because the insurance companies would still live on because of the employer mandates.

So I'd suggest that you go back to presenting substantive arguments against positions of Ezra's (and Matt's, for that matter) that you disagree with, as you used to do very well. You certainly won't convince people on everything. But I'm sure that you'll change more minds that way than you will with these ad hominem arguments.

It's way too late for that.
If she'd stepped aside before the six-week hate-fest of PA, yeah, OK, some sort of compensation might have been in order.

Now, she's going to be in it until she's mathematically eliminated. If and when she loses in Indiana, the SDs will plunk. The damage she could do to the party, for the most part, has already been done. There's nothing to reward her FOR.

Why don't we worry about winning the 2008 election first before worrying about the personal fortunes of Clinton/Obama. Worst-case scenario Clinton/Obama is still one of the most powerful politicians in America. It's not clear to me why she/he needs a consolation prize.

That said, for Redstar: Obama for Governor of Illinois in 2010!

P.S. Armando is not in way covering the election honestly, nor is he trying to do so. He's way on board the Clinton train. Laughable to suggest otherwise.

P.P.S. Disagreeing about the MI/FL issue is not "lying" about process (and I happen to agree they should be seated now). Just a disagreement.

Neil the Ethical Werewolf: "I'm worried, Petey, that you may be underestimating the scope of reasonable disagreement. (That's a feeling I've often had when looking at your recent posts here and elsewhere.)"

Here's the thing about our dear friend Petey. When he commits to a certain candidate, he goes all the way. No talking point is above him. This is how he morphed from an Edwards shill to a Clinton shill overnight, any semblance of intellectual honesty or introspection be damned.

You might not have noticed because you were both Edwards guys for a long time. But Petey hasn't changed one bit, he's exactly the same douchebag he was before.

"Ezra, you seem to forget, that more Democrats have now pulled the lever for Hillary than for BO?"

That's not true. It's only true if you count all the votes for Hillary in Michigan and none for Obama, which isn't fair.

Obama is going to win the nomination. The key point is what are Obama supporters so afraid of in the meantime?

If Obama loses in November, what are the odds that the Obamasphere will blame Clinton? I'd say about 80% myself.

KK: Well, naturally. It's a lot easier to do that than to admit your candidate isn't infallible.

I don't know, Korha. Just look at the substantive content of Petey's posts back in the day, and you'll see that there used to be a lot more there. Sure, sometimes he'd go ad hominem, but not at the rate he does now.

"Ezra, you seem to forget, that more Democrats have now pulled the lever for Hillary than for BO?"

KK, this is also only true if you don't count any votes from 4 caucus states where no vote totals have been released. But don't question the Clinton campaign's commitment to making sure everybody counts!

The other thing is, I'm not sure why Obama wouldn't just offer the VP spot. It would allow him to do his hope/inspiration thing and leave Clinton to act as an attack dog against McCain, which I doubt Obama would do effectively without an aggressive VP candidate.

Sure, there's been a lot of ruffling of feathers on both sides, but it seems like an effective and politically expedient way to get past convention-related problems.

That's true, but I consider caucuses to be the opposite of the "popular vote." That's a personal opinion, of course.

Clinton on the Supreme Court strikes me as a terrible idea. Her career as a lawyer was quite mediocre. From failing the bar to trying no important cases for the Rose law firm, nothing in her background as a lawyer qualifies her to be a judge at any level, much less the Supreme Court. She has no experience on the relevant Senate committees, and has not been a leader on any of the monumentally important constitutional issues that have gone before the Senate in her time there.

Clinton for the Supreme Court differs from Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court only in name recognition.

I think I'm opposed to this on pure age grounds. John Roberts was born in 1955, Samuel Alito in 1950, Clarence Thomas in 1948 and he's been on the court for seventeen years. This is no coincidence -- Republicans chose young justices so they could be on the court for a long long time. Democrats shouldn't choose someone who's older than three of the radical right-wing justices and would likely wind up retiring before they did. (As with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who may not last on the court as long as Scalia and almost certainly won't last as long as Thomas.)

Pick someone young who will be there for decades. I'm sorry that it's a consideration, but as long as Supreme Court appointments are lifelong it will be.

WTS,

Uh maybe Obama doesn't accept the VP slot because he's like you know winning?

Using your logic the Celtics are up 3 games to 1 vs the Lakers and the Lakers say "you know flying all the way to LA to play game 5 is kinda silly, if you just concede know we'll let you finish 2nd"

"Ezra, you seem to forget, that more Democrats have now pulled the lever for Hillary than for BO?"

I'd love to have a system where we simply counted up all the votes and the person with the majority wins. But we don't have that. Worse yet, we have lots of states with caucuses, some states that allow anyone to vote, others that allow only registered Democrats to vote. These all bias the "popular vote" total. Add to that the ~40% of Michigan voters who pulled the lever for Obama by voting for Uncommitted and I'm not sure how you're supposed to untangle the whole mess.

Next round lets agree, no superdelegates, no pledged delegates, just a simple count for the nomination.

This year, we're stuck with the system we've got.

"Uh maybe Obama doesn't accept the VP slot because he's like you know winning?"

was like you know
fixed

Personally, I would prefer someone like Lawrence Lessig, or Senator Feingold on the court, principally because the Supreme Court demands a liberal voice in the mold of Justices Brennan and Marshall. Could Hillary be that voice? She could be, but I don't know for sure. While Hillary presumably would be a a reliable vote on social issues like abortion, I don't know where she stands on the expansion of executive power, federalism, or the predominance of corporate favored opinions (even among Justices Breyer and Souter) on business issues. Her views on many topics the court would address are just unknown.

That being said, it's possible that she could a brilliant judge. After all, Earl Warren, the liberal lion of the Court in the 1960's, was appointed by Eisenhower.

anonymous, how sad. You're still making fun of other peoples grammar because you're too fucking pathetic to actually challenge what they have to say.

This is over. You and Ezra can pretend all you want, nobody is going to blow 8 seats in the senate and 20 seats in the house by pissing off the black vote. Be honest, if Obama wasn't a black man, there wouldn't be any talk of him needing to win doubleplusgood. He would be assumed to be the winner the same way Mondale was in 84. He didn't get any 'magic number' either.

White privilege is the only thing carrying Clinton forward at this point. If it weren't for that, she wouldn't be allowed by the media and the party to constantly shift goalposts. She wouldn't be allowed to declare that white blue collar voters could twice as much as black voters. She wouldn't be allowed to make shadowy claims about 'electability' because Obama can't win a demographic no Democrat has won for over 50 years, including the 4 elections we won outright and the 1 where we won the popular vote.

For all the talk of sexism, nobody is really talking about the systemic racism in our society that has had by far the greater effect. If Clinton weren't white, or if Obama weren't black, this would be over and Clinton would be a joke.

The short answer is that a presidential candidate can't offer someone a job during a campaign -- it is technically vote-buying, and illegal. That's why candidates can't say who would be in their Cabinet during the campaign.

(If you think this is stupid, I agree, but it is the law.)

Sorry, Trolllite, I wasn't clear.

Obama WAS winning. The original poster said IS. Not a grammar question so much as a question of truth.

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT!

Barack for Supreme Court!

Ezra, what you propose is a patently innane suggestion, not to mention a highly unethical act of quid pro quo, were the offer ever to be made.

Obama does have the philosophical temperment and unique life experience perfect for the Court...if only he'd signal a stronger pro-choice position.

By most accounts she's an absolutely horrendous liar. If she can't win a nomination with all of the support she has in the general public, how could she ever hope to get confirmed by republicans in Senate?

Korha - Thank you!

Clinton is a published legal scholar regarding the rights of children (articles in Yale Law Journal & Harvard Edu Review, and also Children's Rights: Contemporary Perspectives)

She's also only 60, making her one year younger than GWB. In all the criticism I've ever heard about him, I've never heard he's too old for the job. Also, the average age of members of both houses of Congress is 57, and in the Senate it's 62. She'd only be 64/65 in 2012, if she ran again (which I don't think she would). I'm not sure why we're putting Clinton out to pasture already.

Meanwhile, both Obama and B. Clinton have been criticized for being too green during their first run...age handicaps go both ways.

I realize it's silly season, and all of us in the 'sphere love "hearing" ourselves "speak," but this is really a puerile conversation we're having, especially considering she's got 15M votes to her credit, and according to the Jay Cost article that Ezra recommended so highly a few days ago:

"...no candidate who has won as many votes and delegates as Clinton hasn't taken the fight to the convention."

Redstar: I'm somewhat with you on age, but the Cost article quote is just silly. It's like asserting that John Kerry won more votes than any previous Democrat. Sure he did--and Thomas Jefferson won the 1800 election with 41,000 votes. And the Ron Paul of 2048 could get 20 million votes and still come in 5th.

> Many of the issues she's
> demonstrated real passion for,
> from women's rights to health
> care to labor standards,
> frequently come before the
> Court.

That would be the Hillary Clinton who attempted to stifle political speech with the flag burning amendment? The Clintons have never shown much concern over civil liberties writ large, and I really can't say I would trust Hillary were any prosecutions of Cheney Administration figures to come before her on appeal.

Cranky

Personally, I think Edwards would make a much more interesting pick for SCOTUS. Let Hillary go back to the board of Wal Mart.

As outlandish a concept as Hillary for NY Governor, moving and shaking up in Albany. Sorry, being a Supreme just seems way too staid and low-key for someone like Hillary.

Question: can he make her Chief Justice?

I know, I know, we already have Roberts. But does the post have to be vacant for someone to be appointed to it? What if President Obama just out and nominated Clinton for CJ?

(wow, your captcha is hard!)

Redstar–
The age thing isn't that it makes her unqualified. It's because she'll have less years on the court. Appoint a younger SCJ and you get more years on the court out of them.

Jacob says exactly what I meant -- I think that a 60-year-old (or 70- or 80-year-old) could do a fine job on the Supreme Court for the moment, but will end up retiring sooner (look at Ginsburg, who may retire soon even though she was appointed by the last Democratic president). So the side that appoints younger judges controls the court longer.

This isn't a factor for Congress or President, because they aren't lifetime appointments. Clinton is by no means too old for the Senate or for whatever else she wants to do right now.

Jacob - I didn't mean her age re: SCOTUS appt. I meant this entire silly exercise of trying to find something for the lady to do, i.e., retire her already, given she has a FT job, a high approval rating in it from her constituents and colleagues, and is currently running for POTUS on top of that, and faring well, if lagging Obama.

Someone pointed out to me upthread that we don't have to do this for Obama because he can run again, and that left me wondering why we'd resigned Clinton to the dustbin of history already. My bringing up her age was to remind the crowd here that she's in the prime of her career right now.

I'm sure she'll let us know when she's ready for career advice from the chattering class.

Seriously, why does/should Obama care how happy Hillary is after the primary is over? His interest electorally shouldn't be satisfying her; it should be satisfying her supporters who are alienated by her loss and reluctant to vote for Obama.

Obama can't promise in advance that he'd make her a SCOTUS judge- it's politically insane, dubiously ethical, and quite possibly not even legal. So what does offering to make her a judge do for him? Getting her to bow out? He's doing that anyway.

Promising Hillary something to stop her from whining after the election does nothing to make Clinton supporters pull the lever for Obama; what he needs is for her to endorse him once he wins the primary. And Hillary doesn't really have a choice once Obama secures the nomination. She's smart enough to know that if he loses and she doesn't push for him, she's going to be blamed, and THAT will truly kill her future prospects.

HOW HAS NO ONE MENTIONED THAT HILLARY HAS NEVER BEEN A JUDGE???? ARE YOU TAKING CRAZY PILLS?

There may not be explicit requirements for the supreme court, but everyone else has been a judge. SCOTUS without ever having been a judge seems to run against the general experience argument.

supreme court justice with integrity and protecting the interests of others:

perhaps others already know this, but i just read that according to politico.com, the clinton campaign was more than a quarter of a million dollars behind in payments for her campaign staff's health care premiums.

An excellent idea.
It would be an appropriately respectful offer to Hillary Clinton and a good role for her.

Is it true she failed the DC bar exam? If so, brilliant might be a stretch. It's hard but not that damn hard.

In response to a couple of different folks:

August, I think the idea is to promise her something in advance to get her to bow out without wrecking more stuff. Unless different laws apply to SCships than to ambassadorships, that all works out fine. But I agree with the people who say it's kind of weird to do with a hugely important job.

In the past, lots of people went from the Senate to the SC. I don't think we have any now, but there's no reason why we couldn't do that again. Awesome Chief Justice Earl Warren, I think, went from California governor and losing VP candidate to SC without ever being a judge.

What Neil said. It probably won't happen, (HRC as distinguished Ted Kennedy-style Senator is more likely), but it's not the worst idea either, even if it is true that Obama is better suited tempermentally for the Court and HRC for the Presidency. Given the amount of time she'd have to wait before becoming a Senate Committee Chair (maybe forever), she'd have to consider this.

And the qualifications issue is bogus. The Constitution doesn't even require that you be a lawyer. The very narrow range of experience of the current Justices is a recent phenomenon. Neil notes the example of Earl Warren. In 1964 Earl Warren's colleagues included Hugo Black (former Senator) and Arthur Goldberg (former Labor Secretary.) Neither had served on ANY bench or even at the Justice Dept. And going back there were many others with a background in elected office.

And HRC WOULD be confirmed. Even John Ashcroft got confirmed with 8 Democratic votes (and the 42 no voters did not filibuster.) Senators don't like to vote against a colleague (unlike Ashcroft, HRC would be around if they voted against her!) Also, HRC gets along with Republican Senators, some of whom signed on to the filibuster deal. The age issue? Her mother is still around and active!

Correction: Black had served -very briefly- as a "Police Court" judge in Birmingham. But he was appointed from the Senate, as were several others.

One article in the Yale Law Review does not make you a legal scholar. Philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, etc. all get published in law journals from time to time, simply because their topic is a topic of interest. It doesn't make them scholars of the law. As for the other journals, those aren't law journals.

She's be great! It would be like appointing two or three justices, 'cause even when she lost a close vote she'd persuade her colleagues that 4 counted for more than 5.

Yes, we need Senator Clinton on the Supreme Court. Perhaps she will help stem the awful tide of flag burning abounding in our society.

That's one stupid fucking idea.

I think even many of her supporters would agree that Clinton is terrible on issues like civil rights and executive power. She might be a fine senator, but why would you want her on the Supreme Court?

Her chief strengths as a presidential candidate are her health care plan, her familiarity with the executive branch, and her knife-fighting tenacity. None of them would do her much good on the Supreme Court, and putting her on the Court would deprive us of her real strengths.

Law is the superstring that binds society. The law -- justice -- must be perceived as blind or things fly apart.
Justices of the Supreme Court, like laws of physics, act as faceless constants of the immutable and inalienable, right and wrong.

Yeah, justices are appointed when biases are consistent with political convenience. There is, however, a galaxy of difference when the justice isn't faceless, the appointee is a failed party candidate for president, and for good measure, a bipolar ego-brand like Hillary Clinton.

Imagine... Roe vs Wade with Hillary Clinton in the majority decision. Imagine the amplification of unrest who's name and face is a rorschach for immediate, unconditional demonization.

Biased legislation is OK because it, and the politicians how pass it, can get voted out. Supreme Court decisions are beyond repeal. Not directly, by the people.

This topic is part of an ongoing conversation afoot in which losing candidates should be rewarded with positions in government (John Edwards for AG) as failed candidacy purple hearts.

It's nice in a everybody-gets-a-ribbon for trying, nice. But all presidential candidates are defined by the singular conceit: I know better.

To overcome even the perception of such monotheistic ambition to subjugate and serve as anything except VP, each would need to recant that: I know better. Re-make themselves from a prancing, bucking thoroughbred into a sedate, compliant plough horse.

And believably, too.

Bill Richardson: probably
John Edwards: maybe
Hillary Clinton: glue factory

It's sexist to say what else she should be doing. If Obama were losing, and he is, it would be dismissive to say shouldn't Barack do this instead?

The idea that it is sexist to try and come up with alternative futures for a candidate who is losing an election is filled with such idiocy that it has made me crap my pants. Perhaps we should discontinue job training services for women who are unemployed, for that would be sexist. Or psychiatrists should stop counseling women, for fear of sexism.

The idea that women are so weak that even suggesting future careers for them constitutes sexism paints such an appalling and patently false view of women that it makes me want to vomit on you. Perhaps if you learned to respect other (?) women you would learn that they're not all so weak as to need men to stay away from fear of hurting their feelings.

"The idea that it is sexist to try and come up with alternative futures for a candidate who is losing an election is filled with such idiocy that it has made me crap my pants."

and wipe it all over here

"The idea that women are so weak that even suggesting future careers for them constitutes sexism paints such an appalling and patently false view of women that it makes me want to vomit on you."

really not in control of your bodily functions, are you?

Dearheart, like RedStar and Darko have said, it's sexist to "try to find the lady something to do" just because she's not fitting in with your preferred narrative.

I think Obama would make a great crossing guard.

"If Obama was losing, and he is..."

This is twice now that someone has suggested this in this thread.

You're lying. Stop it.

Neil:

August, I think the idea is to promise her something in advance to get her to bow out without wrecking more stuff.

I think we're way beyond that at this point, as Ezra's earlier post already mentioned. The only thing she would have left to offer is releasing her delegates prior to the convention, and I think her own self-preservation is going to require doing that instead of a floor fight anyway.

Unless different laws apply to SCships than to ambassadorships, that all works out fine.

I think you're vastly underestimating the desire for the media to make a story out of anything. A President Obama making Hillary Clinton a SCOTUS justice will be like the Mark Rich pardon; the cable nets will spend weeks, if not months, asking about "back room deals" and suggesting ethical lapses, or saying "the fix is in" and nonsense like that. Appointing Clinton to the Court will be nothing but an albatross around Obama's neck, and again, why is any of that worth it to him?

But I agree with the people who say it's kind of weird to do with a hugely important job.

This part I agree with. Hillary Clinton is qualified to be a SCOTUS judge. I think there's a much harder case to be made that she's the MOST qualified, and the idea that people will simply believe that she is if she was nominated by of all people, Barack Obama, is laugahable. And then we're back to point #2.

"Dearheart, like RedStar and Darko have said, it's sexist to 'try to find the lady something to do' just because she's not fitting in with your preferred narrative.

I think Obama would make a great crossing guard."

This is patently ridiculous. Being dismissive of someone doesn't mean you're dismissing them on class-based grounds. Imagining someone occupying the most important government position in the US is not being dismissive.

"Hillary should be on SCOTUS": politically motivated wishful thinking (also a terrible idea).

"Barack should be a crossing guard": dismissive.

"Hillary should become a daycare provider": sexist.

"Barack should become a drug dealer": racist.

See? It's easy.

I have to go now: my feminism hurts.

So, why can't Hillary offer a Supreme Court seat to Obama to get him to drop out of the race?

He obviously doesn't like campaign among working people.

I'm not sure who does their side a greater disservice: Hillary supporters who claim their candidate is winning, or Soullite all by himself.

Wow, Ezra. Do you really want a Supreme Court Justice with the complete lack of integrity and character Clinton has demonstrated this campaign?

Petey:
Are you going to call Ezra a trust fund scumbag too?

Start with the MI & FL revotes. Move on to the endless parroting of Plouffe's count. Contrast the reaction between the seeming anti-Clinton debates and the anti-Obama debates. Hire me a research assistant, and I'll document 'em all. There's at least one a day.

OK, start with the MI and FL revotes. What did Ezra say about them that was untrue?

Wouldn't Barack be a great cult leader?

(Yes.)

(Most definitely.)

What did Ezra say? You don't have cognitive faculties of your own?

Barack removed himself from the ballot in MI to diminish Clinton's win. He also campaigned in FL which by the rules should take away his delegates. He is his own worst enemy. Why can't he accept the VP and learn from Clinton who is more experienced on the national stage?

Do you really want a Supreme Court Justice with the complete lack of integrity and character Clinton has demonstrated this campaign?

Good question.

Even the far left Democrats are finally waking up to the fact that the Clintons are out for the Clintons and will do anything for power.

I think August and I are pretty much in agreement.

Wow, Vito, I didn't know that there were that many non-judges on the Warren Court!

Even the far left Democrats are finally waking up to the fact that the Clintons are out for the Clintons and will do anything for power

First, the "far left" Democrats never liked the Clintons. Second, this fact that they will "do anything" was the precise reason that I initially favored Clinton over Obama (though favoring Edwards over Clinton). You describe their mindset as though it were a bad thing.

Elections are like an abbreviated version of the contest in Glengarry Glen Ross: First prize is a Cadillac. Second prize is you're fired.

When Sen. Obama gets a little more experience, maybe President Clinton will appoint HIM to the Supreme Court.

Maybe when John gets some more sense, he'll realize Clitnon has no shot at the nomination.