Since Since Hillary Clinton dropped out on Saturday a bunch of people have started saying that there's no reason for her to want to be vice president. The basic argument (made ably by Steve Benen for example) is that being vice president is a crappy job if the president doesn't like or trust you and so Clinton would have more power and influence if she stayed in the Senate.
That much is true, but everything we know about Clinton suggests that her main goal is to become president. Becoming Barack Obama's vice president is almost certainly the best way to achieve that. In 2016 she'll be 68 -- not too old to run for president. As a senator she'd need to defeat Obama's vice president for the nomination, while as vice president she'd be the prohibitive favorite for the nomination.
Ah but wait, you say. She doesn't think Obama has any chance of winning. To which I say, what has she got to lose? I don't see any evidence that being a losing vice presidential candidate hurts you in a future run for president. I see no evidence it hurt John Edwards in 2008. Joe Lieberman did poorly in 2004, but I can't imagine he would have done better had he not been on the ticket in 2000. Even if she's skeptical about Obama's chances, she must at least have advisers who can convince her he's got a reasonable chance of winning. Similarly, if he loses in 2012 she's still better off having been his vice president than having to defeat that person in a 2016 primary.
Sure it'd be a crummy eight years, but Clinton has endured far worse. If she really wants to be president, she wants to be VP.
--Sam Boyd
