I take the opposite view -- why WOULDN'T she want the job? Being the first female VP would put her in the history books in a way that simply being a losing presidential candidate would not. And I never bought this whole "VP is a step down" talk. She's one of a hundred Senators, and even if she were to become Majority Leader one day (doubtful, I think), that's really not the high profile job some make it out to be. The VP spot is what you make of it -- Dick Cheney, anyone? And finally, Obama's not going to lose the election -- the Clintons may have made that argument in private but they're not morons. Languishing in the Senate under an Obama presidency is probably the worst of all worlds for Hillary.

i have found it very disheartening that more attention is being paid on the tv news shows to rampant speculation about hillary as vice president, and completely eclipsing the historic aspects of the nomination of barack obama.
i dont understand it.
george stephanopoulos and dianne feinstein spent so much interview time, as have countless others, on the enthusiastic endorsement of hillary clinton for vice president and little time talking about the obama nomination and what its implications mean for the country. what a shining moment it was for all of us.
why are they doing this?

this is a decision that will be made in the future and i dont think it is appropriate to build expectations and try to force obama's hand on this.
feinstein and rendel and others speculate on what a wonderful ticket this would be. i dont understand how anyone can unequivocally say that, for a whole host of reasons, (knowing full well that politics make strange bedfellows.)
at this point, it shows much"chutzpah" and i think is disrespectful to the personal aspects of the decision making process.
it seems to be a way of still not giving over the reins of command to barack obama
it also is not unifying conversation at this point to build up hopes that they be taken away in the future.

history, beautiful, meaningful, amazing history was made this week....and it is all but lost in this endless speculation, that we know nothing about at this point.
why cant there be some focus on the inspirational and remarkable nomination that all of us, as americans should be celebrating and less concentration on speculative gossip that is all heat and no light?

I don't think she wants it -- but I think she will take it if Obama's poll numbers don't improve over the next few weeks and polling continues to show that the ticket has a stronger chance if she is on it.

I think she was more than totally sincere yesterday in stating that her commitment is, first and foremost, to the issues she ran on, and that she believes we MUST have a Democratic administration to make progress on those issues.

For her personally and for her political future, the VP slot would not be beneficial. If the ticket loses, the Obama forces will blame her. (But, it looks like they are ready to blame her even if she is not on the ticket.) Win or lose, she probably ends any chance she might have to again run for the presidency.

Nonetheless, it may be the best thing for the party -- not simply to in some way appease her hard core supporters (many of whom actually don't want her to accept the VP slot and do want her to run again in 2012) but, more important, to reassure people in the broader electorate who are worried about the economy and associate the Clinton name with better economic governance (than we've enjoyed under Bush).

I have read that the Obama campaign is waiting to see how, and if, his numbers improve over the next few weeks before making a decision about whether they need her on the ticket.

I don't think she wants it. But if it is presented to her that she is needed, I think she will have no choice but to accept.

One of the major hallmarks of the Obama campaign is the nearly complete absence of stories of insider confict within his team (contrast the backbiting, contrary leaks, and misdirection spun between various big egos in the Hillary team).

A Hillary VP greatly risks bringing that whole apparatus of leaks and egos inside the Obama administration. Imagine if Hillary is overruled by Obama on some issue and her team goes ballistic in the press with anonymous stories. Even worse, imagine if Hillary's team starts saying that Obama and Co are putting a glass ceiling on her activities and disrespecting women. What a mess that would be.

About the only sentient thing Reagan ever said is his comment about the Soviets (trust, but verify). Choosing Hillary would require a stupendous amount of trust up front, and no way after the fact to reign in the consequences.

Mondale, Gore and Cheney have had enlarged portfolios as VP, and Hillary will surely demand as much or more. I've often thought that Cheney has his 'fourth branch' because Bush really can't control Cheney. Hillary could be far worse, since Obama would have to control the agenda or not get anything done or be re-elected, whereas Bush never seemed to care (publicly) because he's a incurious, lazy, muddleheaded, non-policy wanker.

So, yeah, Hillary just might be willing to be VP if she thought Obama would win and she could have her own policy corrals - enforced by no-to-subtle threatening of Obama from within.

No more 4th branches!

Primary voters aren't very likely to be willing to roll the die on a woman nominee after the black nominee just lost. Despite how nice some are being to Clinton now, I'd wager that most of us won't be so forgiving if Obama loses and polls indicate some of her supporters defected to him.

If she wanted to be President, she should have run in 2004.

So soullite,

If the Obama campaign decides it needs Clinton on the ticket and makes the offer, how will you respond?

jacqueline,

You do know Obama is married, right?

Obama lose, ha! If it's true that Clinton believe that, it's yet another example of her bad judgment. Obama is going to crush McCain no matter what happens between now and election day. Terrorist attack twice as bad as 9/11? Obama still wins, and wins handily. This election will not be close. Sure the map isn't what it once was and many states are solid blue and solid red, so no one can win a 1984-style landslide. But I believe that on November 1st intrade.com will show Obama with a 90%+ chance of victory, and that's not close.

Prognostications regarding 2012 are absurd jokes. The world economy then will look nothing like it does now because the energy situation will have deteriorated tremendously.

Your second point fails to consider that she's probably certain that with her on the ticket, Obama will win for sure.

Primary voters aren't very likely to be willing to roll the die on a woman….Rovellite
Considering the thinness of Obama resumé and how slight his accomplishments, it really isn't a matter or whether or not he wins or loses. The voters rolled the dice for a blank onto which they could project their beliefs.

The most important concern in this election is how much he craps on Democratic issues and values. For all the chest-thumping proclamations of 'progressiveness' and 'liberalism,' Obama was in fact the least progressive and least liberal of the primary candidates. The alacrity with which his supporters abandoned their oh-so important base issues of universal health care and ending the Iraq war in order to support The One candidate who sneers at the first issue and equivocates on the second is amusing.

It is not just the party that has lost credibility; the entire BoyzClub blogworld shows that when the issues they supposedly care the most about are brought out as political issues, they really are not serious.

Klein, Drum, and others have revealed themselves to be phucking phonies, worthless as advocates of any progressive policy to any American citizen who actually thinks those things are important.

Oh, yes, and not to slight the underlying misogyny of the BoyzClub expressed by Rovelite who generally echoes media and RNC anti-Clinton talking points.

Considering the thinness of Obama resumé and how slight his accomplishments, it really isn't a matter or whether or not he wins or loses. The voters rolled the dice for a blank onto which they could project their beliefs.

If the election was about 'accomplishments', we would've wound up with Biden versus Giuliani. Funny how that didn't happen.

The alacrity with which his supporters abandoned their oh-so important base issues of universal health care and ending the Iraq war in order to support The One candidate who sneers at the first issue and equivocates on the second is amusing.

Do you have your McCain '08: My Feelings Trump Your Reproductive Rights sign up yet?

(P.S. What about the WhiteFolkzClub, or are we only deeply deeply hurt that the white woman was unfairly attacked?)

What a lazy weekend post! Of course she wants it. Totally a separate issue of whether it would be good for the ticket, the putative administration, him or her.

1. The "Obama can't win" idea was a way to rationalize campaigning hard against Obama to the end. It's not clear they ever really believed it as opposed to thinking that HRC had better chances than Obama against McCain, which is a much more reasonable belief.

2. If Obama wins and she isn't VP she in all probability forfeits any chance at the Presidency forever. His VP will be the frontrunner and could succeed him early if something happens to him.

3. As a junior Senator with no commitee chair and little chance of gaining one in the next ten years her power will be limited. Yes, she will get more attention than another Senator of equivalent seniority, but that only goes so far. When Ted Kennedy returned to the Senate he was a committee chair because he got there at age 30.

The Senate Majority Leadership is not vacant and it is far from clear she would get it when Reid retired. Senators like a low-key person in this role: Reid, Daschle, Mitchell, even Byrd before he became old and cranky. THEY want to be the prima donnas!

4. As the first female VP, she would still be making history.

1. I don't think she ever took the suggestion that Obama couldn't win seriously except, perhaps, during the Wright scandal, before the speech. The reason why she was willing to be so aggressive with Obama is precisely because he had a significant margin of error. She figured that the Democrat was going to win, so she tried her damnedest to be the nominee.

2. The next Democratic President was always going to do really, really big things. By being Veep, she gets to become a part of that. She could be a part of that as Majority Leader, but she pissed away her bargaining ability to get that between March and June.

3. Because the next Dem President is going to do really big things, having a prominent (say, second most prominent) role in the Administration sets her up in 8 years.

I don't think that her behavior is so inexplicable. But whether or not she's the best choice is an entirely different question.

"By all accounts"? C'mon, that's a cheap MSM trick when there is nothing solid.

If Clinton wants to be VP it will be to pass universal healthcare, advocate for children/family issues and "empower" low income women.
If Obama loses she will catch some of the blame and if he wins she will be pretty old to undertake a 18 month campaign in 2015. Clinton knows this was her one and only shot and that is why she stuck it out.

As a junior Senator with no commitee chair and little chance of gaining one in the next ten years her power will be limited.

If/When Obama wins, there will be an opening in a fairly powerful committee. The one that he, as a MORE junior senator, was handed and which he used to pad his resume but never sat, not once. That argument is off because she is seated on more powerful committees where just being on them is the equivalent of a lesser chairmanship because they sit regularly and in the media eye.

The big things that the next president is going to do is going to be stalled by the need to fix the wreckage of the last 8 years. Taxes and reinstalling regulations is going to put holes in the shiny coat of the new President long before UHC or ending the occupation of Iraq can even start.

I think that Clinton is one savvy politician (who doesn't eat puppies for breakfast) and she is probably ambivalent to the VP spot. There are pluses and minuses for her either way. What is sure is that if asked she will answer, there is no doubt that she will do what is best for her constituents even if others don't understand it.

Despite what Sharpton/Axelrod say, it's not about the popular vote (funny how that meme came flying out of nowhere) - now it's about the electoral college and that map looks a lot closer than is comfortable. Plenty of stuff can happen between now and November. Clinton bumps him up a few points in some very tight races. A factor his campaign would be wise to weigh, though they might decide against it for reasons others have outlined.

But I have never heard HRC say she wants the VP spot - have any of you? We assume she wants it because...hmmm...

I have no idea who Obama will choose, but the one absolute guarantee that I can made is his running mate WILL BE WHITE.

she's certain Obama will lose the election

Oh please. You really think she actually believed that crap she was spewing on the campaign trail?

Ezra, interesting point. But you forget that she is not Mrs. Popularity in the Senate right now.

You assume she hasn't already burned the bridges necessary to be come the "de facto" leader in the Senate.

You can talk about her supporters and how people will get over it all you want, but unlike the American public in general, the Senate never forgets.

(unless you are a criminal or corrupt, then the Senate forgets very quickly).

She's not convinced he will lose the election. I don't think for one second that what she said on the campaign trail is actually true.

Why so easily fooled?