I have been arguing the same thing to my friends and colleagues, who variously love and hate Hillary. I think there is also the bad politics of it – both Obama and the Clintons have their own cadres of supporters, who often don’t see eye to eye (the DLC comes to mind here).

But regarding Hillary and Clintons, they do have a useful role that they can play, no? The SCOTUS idea as it is, with her lacking interest, I would think AG would better play to her strengths and qualifications. On domestic issues, especially as related to the types of cases DOJ would pursue, Sen. Clinton and Pres-E. Obama do have serious levels of agreement. Moreover, she is independent enough that she won’t be seen as an Alberto Gonzales-type yes-man. What do you think? AG Clinton? Would it be good for her and for Obama?

As Sec. of State, in contrast, he gets all her negatives with none of the corresponding positives. And while it’s true that you can’t fire the VP, it’s also true that the VP has no independent base of support. As Biden will discover, the VP’s influence depends entirely on how willing the President is to expand your portfolio and allow meaningful input. At State, in contrast, you become the de facto face of the nation in most international forums, so your opinion matters and is courted by the media, who will always be looking for signs of differences between Obama and Clinton. And you have institutional leverage by virtue of running the State Department. And the resignation factor cuts both ways – VP’s can’t resign on principle, but Secretaries of State can (and have!) to make a political point. The biggest issue, of course, is that Clinton ran against Obama by touting her foreign policy credentials, and by taking pretty strong positions contrary to his regarding leaving Iraq. If he nominates her, after surrounding himself in the White House with former Clinton aides, he pretty much signals that he won the election, but she’s won the policy debate; his movement to the center is now complete.

It’s true that Hillary lacks seniority in the Senate, but the modern Senate is much less about seniority than it used to be; entrepreneurial junior Senators can always find a platform to heighten their visibility. And there’s always the Governor’s position in NY, if she wants it.

I very much doubt any deal was cut before the nomination. It is simply too risky to even hint at making promises of this type before the election is won. Talk about measuring the drapes! At best, he sounded her out about the VP job and she signaled that she wasn’t interested.

As for the Supreme Court – she has said she has no interest. Interestingly (and this gets to Jason’s point), there is a line of argument among political scientists suggesting that the reason court politics have become so polarized is that increasingly presidents have been nominating legal scholars, rather than politicians, to the bench. The problem is that legal scholars tend to get fixated on legal principles that lead to extreme positions, while politicians are better able to split differences and build working coalitions. To put it another way, we are better off with O’Connors than with Scalia’s (see their positions on Roe v. Wade, Lawrence vs. Texas, etc. ) From this perspective, Clinton would make the ideal supreme court justice. But she doesn’t seem interested.