mrsuper.org

Thank You

Thanks to everyone for reading and contributing to the blog over the past three months.  Today marks the 90th day of this project.  Seems that in this time we've managed to make an impression which sheds light on and debunks myth regarding the process.

Almost as soon as I started this blog, I also started writing guest posts for Democratic Convention Watch, and on Monday I'll join that page as a regular contributor.  So you can still read insights, you'll just have to venture over to that page in order to do so.  It's a great site and the style of writing and delivery by the guys over there is very similar to what you've all grown used to over here.

There are a few posts that I wanted to write here which I'll take over to DCW, such as an insight as to what it's like to be a campaign staffer and live on the road, filling out a presidential cabinet, and of course the Friday veepstakes column.

But as of today, Friday the 13th serves as a  bookend to the Superdelegate phase of the site.

This site will remain running, but I will only post intermittently.  From time to time I'll pop in and post a unique thought or two, and I'll post Open Threads for people to continue the conversation on this site.  And after the election, when I have more time on my hands again, maybe the site will evolve into something new at that time.

 

A Tribute to Tim Russert, RIP

Tim Russert, the longest running host in the history of Meet the Press on NBC, has died at the age of 58.  I had the chance to meet him twice over the years, once during the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, and again during the Nevada Presidential Debates last January.  Both times he was genuine, very engaging and just one of the nicest, most professional people you'd ever met.  A solid news man.  He will be missed.

Here is a link to Tom Brokaw breaking the news on NBC.

Things That I Will and Will Not Miss

T-minus one day and counting before the blog transitions into another form...

This has been an exciting primary season.  Full of twists and turns, surprises and suspense.  Everything a good story should have.  During the writer's strike, a buddy of mine said that the best reality show on television was "The Amazing Presidential Race."

So now that the primary season is winding down, and looking back at the past five months, I've been thinking about things that I will and will not miss from the process.  I may add to this over time...

Things I will miss:

1. Hearing from people all over America, those involved in politics, voters and readers of this blog. It's been refreshing.  Even the mass e-mails and hand-written letters have been great.
2. Having a front-row seat to an historic round of presidential primaries.
3. Working with the media, I admit, has been exciting.

Things I will NOT miss:

1. Certain media blaming Superdelegates for holding up the process by not declaring while other certain media blame Superdelegates for interfering in the process by declaring.
2. The accusation that the "big bad Superdelegates" are a bunch of backroom deal makers inserted into the process only for personal gain
3. Reporters STILL talking about Supers as elites and solely member of Congress and dismissing the notion that most of us are in fact grassroots activists.

Like I said, will probably add more as the thoughts occur...

Lobbying of Supers - Part 4 of 4

Pre-endorsement: I made the decision to endorse shortly after Perdue's primary election on May 6th.  A day after the election, I flew up to New York for some media work with CNN, and while I was crossing one of the bridges from La Guardia I got a call from Governor Richardson by phone from Mexico (old Mexico, not New Mexico).  We chatted about the race, and I decided I would endorse Senator Obama in the near future.  On the morning of Friday, May 9th, I called my contact at the Obama campaign to let them know that that I would be endorsing on Monday.  The response was something along the lines of "we need you now, man."  So I was set to endorse on that day.  But I told them I had some work to do first.

Being from Southern California, the LA Times had asked to break the story first.  So I had to call them and give them the go-ahead (this was common for all Supers around the country - their local papers wanted to break the news first, and in most cases they did).  The next three calls I made were to the Clinton campaign, two of them were people I had worked with the most and the other was a man whom I had just spoke to the night before.  It would be about an hour before the news broke, but it had already leaked to some folks I know.  I received a few text messages right away.

Announcement: The announcement came on a day when 8 other Supers endorsed, which I believe was the biggest swell of endorsements with the exception of June 4th.

But the lobbying continued on the Clinton side.  Not long after I endorsed Senator Obama, I started getting hand-written letters and emails from people all around the country.  Some were very nice, some were angry - a few contained threats.  About 700 pieces of mail in all.  To be honest, the most off-putting part of all of this was that the campaign had distributed my personal email address, not my public address, to these masses.  So much for spam control.

I'm sure there are some things that I am forgetting, but that's pretty much the major sum of the story of the lobbying and how this particular endorsement came along.

Even through this morning, June 11th, I am still getting email from activists encouraging me to switch my vote.  Clearly these are folks who are either on the fringe or who are so truly endeared to their candidate that they feel a need to continue to push, but even Clinton is supporting Obama now.  So, that's that.

Last in a series of four.

Lobbying of Supers - Part 3 of 4

Post Pennsylvania: The line went quite for a while, but really picked up again after the Pennsylvania primary and leading up to the North Carolina/Indiana primaries.  Both campaigns started calling and emailing on a regular basis, asking what issues I cared about, if I wanted to meet anyone, etc.

As I mentioned, I was working for Bev Perdue in North Carolina at the time.  On one occasion, we learned that Bill Clinton was going to be in the city of New Bern on the same day as Bev Perdue.  We knew that if the candidates were in New Bern at the same time, there was no way that the media was going to cover Perdue - they would flock to Clinton.  But the Clinton campaign was not letting people know what time the President would be in town.

So I figured that, as an undeclared Super, they'd surely tell me! So I got a hold of one of my contacts on the Clinton campaign, told them that I heard Clinton would be in New Bern and I wondered if they could tell me what time.  About a day later I get a call back and not only do I find out when he'll be there, but I'm set up to meet with him on the airplane when he arrives!  More than I had bargained for, and New Bern is a hike from Raleigh which made it impossible for me to get there during the work day.  But the important thing was the the President was arriving at 2:30, Bev was to be out there at 11:00 - so we were all clear on the media end of things.

Post North Carolina: May 6th was not a good day for the Clinton campaign.  A big loss in North Carolina and a razor-thin victory in Indiana did not make a good case for the campaign.  I received several calls from both campaigns.  The Clinton campaign in particular had several folks from the Latino outreach desk call me and make pitches, ask if I was ready to endorse, and asked if I would be comfortable waiting to watch future primaries unfold - they were obviously banking on West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico returns.

I told both campaigns that when I was ready to announce a decision, they would hear it from me before they would hear it from anyone else.

Long time United Farm Worker leader Dolores Huerta called to try and persuade me to vote for Clinton.  She made her case, it was a good one.  I told her I'd be making a decision in the next few days.

Third in a series of four.

Lobbying of Supers - Part 2 of 4

February - March, 2008: After Super Tuesday and as the race heated up, so did the lobbying.  The added emphasis on Supers at this time had some campaigns employing more creative techniques to reach Superdelegates.  This was the first sign of hysteria around Supers. Cable news was running amok with the issue and painting a picture that was just not accurate.  Around this time I wrote an Op-Ed for Politico which attempted to calm the hysteria around the issue of Superdelegates.

Some Supers got calls from the candidates themselves (I never spoke to either of them on the phone, though Senator Clinton did sit down the California DNC delegation twice in 2007).  Some got calls from Chelsea Clinton and Michelle Obama.

This also was, pardon my French, the starfucking phase of the lobbying.  Calls from celebrities, and Senators who had endorsed each candidate started rolling in.  Some Supers really enjoyed this, though it wasn't for me.  I told each campaign that these calls wouldn't sway me - I'd rather speak to the staff.  Though I have to be honest, had a call from Terry McAuliffe or Harold Ickes come my way, it probably would have been persuasive.  I worked under Ickes at America Coming Together in 2004, and have an immense amount of respect for Terry McAuliffe.  Everyone needs to read his book, What a Party!

After my work on the last debate, I remained uncommitted.  I was gearing up to go to work for Bev Perdue who was running for Governor of North Carolina.  I told the campaigns that I wasn't going to endorse while I had that job - I didn't want my politics to get in the way of my candidate's politics.

The Clinton campaign always worked the phones on election night. First on the night of Feb. 5th (Super Tuesday), then again on March 4th (Texas and Ohio), then again on April 22nd (Pennsylvania).  I probably got about four calls on each of those nights from the Clinton camp. Not surprisingly, those were also nights when Clinton experienced big wins.  I heard more from the Obama people during the month of February when there was a string of victories (I think it was 11 in a row).

I got a call from one of my contacts at the Obama campaign on the night of the Potomac primary (VA-DC-MD). I was in DC that night heading out to meet Sean Sinclair, one of the guys I work with quite a bit on campaigns, to talk dinner and politics while watching returns. There was an ice storm taking place and I had already slipped on the ice once, but I figured that the hiking boots I was wearing would hold firm the rest of the night.

While walking to the metro, I got a call from the Obama campaign and we were talking about the race, my upcoming job with the Perdue campaign in North Carolina, and then *WHAM* I slipped on the ice.  Fell back 90 degrees and landed flat on my ass, hit my head.  My phone slid about 10 feet away on the ice.  I sat there for a good two minutes trying to regain my composure, but also trying to get up from the ice (t'was very slippery).  I called the Obama campaign back, they answered "WTF you ok?"  For the next few weeks after that, whenever I got a call from the Obama campaign, I had an immediate  neuro-association with that smack in the head. 

During this time I also spoke to other Supers, one conversation in March with an elderly DNC member and Clinton supporter from California which turned especially sour.  I was stunned.  The only way I can describe it is that my DNC colleague verbally skinned me for not endorsing Clinton, or for at least not calling this person to let her know that I would not be endorsing during a given period.  She threw the kitchen sink at me, said that everything I had done in my 12 years of activism and professional work was being undermined by not endorsing, and for not running the decision through her first.  I was speechless.  I kept my cool, told her I would be in touch.

Arm-twisting through surrogates was actually common.  It happened quite a bit. It wasn't always as egregious as the example outlined above, but it could get rough.  After all we are dealing with the most powerful office in the world here.

Second in a series of four.

Lobbying of Supers - Part 1 of 4

A few weeks back someone asked if I could shed a little light on the lobbying of Supers.  This isn't really timely anymore, but still may be of interest.

This is a long entry, so I've broken it up into four posts.  There are some stories in here I haven't talked about, both good and bad, funny and sad.  Take a look.  I've broken up the lobbying into different parts of the campaign.

A few things right off the bat: Supers were not given gifts, no promises of employment were made, and no trades for campaign contributions were explored.  These are all myths that circulated in the media and all of which are part-and-parcel untrue.

2007: All presidential campaigns sent mail to Supers, but only Clinton and Obama had staff assigned for outreach.  Most of it was not based on persuasion, but on relationship building.  The Obama camp had the strongest efforts of outreach in 2007.

January, 2008: The heat started to turn up on Supers right after Iowa and especially right after New Hampshire.  My perception on this is probably skewed, though, because I was on staff with Bill Richardson and once he dropped out of the race (after New Hampshire) my Super vote was up for grabs and I started getting more calls.

After BR dropped out on Jan. 10th, I went to work on the MSNBC debate in Las Vegas which was to take place a few days prior to the Nevada caucus.  I'm on stage at the auditorium sitting in for John Edwards at the debate table, so that they can adjust the lighting on his desk position.  So I'm sitting there, with a spotlight on me, and I get a call from a (212) area code number.  I answer and the voice at the other end says "please hold for President Clinton."

I chat with him for about 10 minutes, which, when you have a President on the line, feels like an hour.  It was impressive (and maybe a little concerning) that he had the book on me.  I mean they really did their research.  First, the President thanked me for my work as a Democratic Party staffer on his re-election campaign in 1996.  Very nice.  Then he went on talk about how well he knows Bill Richardson and all of the good work they did together in his administration, and that he and Hillary have always worked hard to reach out to the Hispanic community.  Also very nice.

Then he thanked me for my work as an Intern in the House and the Senate.  WTF the guy had my intern profile?!  From like the early 90's?!  That's impressive.  And oh it gets better.  Not only did he know I interned for Tom Daschle in DC and Rep. Jane Harman in Southern California, but he said, in classic Clintonian graciousness (paraphrasing), "I really want to thank you for working with Jane to push that budget through in 1993.  I know you were probably just answering phones for her, but that was really important."  Holy shit this guy is smooth.

It was extremely flattering and as I've stated before it is very hard to tell the former leader of the free world "I'll have to get back to you."

Around this time the Obama calls started coming in as well, mostly from my counterparts on the Nevada campaign.  But I was scheduled to finish out the MSNBC debate in Las Vegas and then I was volunteering to work the following Politico.com debate in Los Angeles, so felt that in order to maintain fairness in the process that I would have to remain neutral.\

First in a series of four.

Why Early Primaries Matter

Traditionally, the Democratic Party has reserved certain states for early primaries in order to create a more level playing field for presidential candidates.  The benefit in having a small state vote early is that it gives candidates who have less money and less name recognition but big ideas a chance to take their message and test it in states which have affordable media markets and small towns which are amenable to retail politicking. 

Over the years, most of the country accepted the notion that Iowa and New Hampshire had a place at the front of the line.  Candidates would visit these two states, make their case, and then take the message on to Super Tuesday or to some other point in the election cycle when they just couldn't press on anymore.

What changed is that more and more, candidates started banking their entire campaign on these early states.  So, voters in later states never had a chance to vote on candidates.  And in the late 1980's and into the 1990's, the early states essentially ended up deciding the nominee.  The early states had gained too much influence by way of the type of campaigns that were being run by the candidates.

Thus the jockeying for a process called "front loading" began.  In 1996, California moved it's primary up from June to March, prompting a host of other states do the same so as to not be over shadowed.  It happened again in 2000 and in 2004, and of course this year we saw Florida and Michigan test the limits by breaking Party rules and entering the early window.  More states would have done this if they could have (an added benefit of front loading was that it gave the presumptive nominee more time to build a financial war chest for the general election).

Yet, with all of the unfairness there is in early states going first, there is still an inherent benefit in candidates only having to play in a limited number of states from the get-go.  Candidates such as Howard Dean, John Edwards - even Barack Obama, were able to make national names for themselves because of the benefit of focusing on smaller, early state primaries.  Better known candidates such as John McCain and Hillary Clinton didn't fare as well.  McCain decided not to compete in Iowa, and Clinton was encouraged to do the same.

But how to break the unfair influence that these early states now have?  It's harder than one might think.

A national primary is a bad idea, because it favors the candidate who has the most money and name recognition from day one.  There is also no weeding out process, and it could produce a nominee who emerges with 30% of the vote.  The "American Plan" is another proposal which, as it happens, seems to be a formal model for how things worked out this year.  The National Association of Secretaries of State have previously offered the rotating regional primary plan which is something I've been a fan of ( I wrote a bit more on these plans in a post on April 1).

Personally, I like the idea of leaving the early states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina in - and having them all vote on the same day.  If candidates don't have enough money to compete in all four, they can focus on one state and live to fight another day in the next round.  I'd also like to see a delegate allocation window which starts in February instead of January.

. . .

The problem with all of this, is that the DNC (and the RNC for that matter) can set primary rules, but it's the states that set their own elections.  So really all it takes is one state senator, one secretary of state, on person to propose a law moving a state's primary and there isn't much that the DNC can do about it.  So we on the DNC can design a calendar, but we can't actually set the elections in each state.  It's a delicate balance.  Case in point: the DNC spent two years working on a proposed plan in 2005 and 2006, only to see it thwarted by two states in 2007.

The bottom line is that, obviously, our system of nominating presidential candidates is in need of reform.  But as much as we complain about the current system, it does work astonishingly well considering the barriers that exist. 

The biggest thing that was debunked this year is that Iowa and New Hampshire voters have a higher level of understanding and participation in the process and thus must go first each year. That's clearly out now and it's time that the monopoly that these two states have had on the early process ends (though it probably won't - there is a lot of institutional protection around these two states).

For now, early states serve a purpose that is still relevant today. But as we've seen in this year's 50-state primary, if you give any state enough time and attention - the voters will tune-in and they will turnout.

Remaining Posts

When I'm taking note of things to write about, it's usually about things not addressed in the MSM.  I'll make a draft post of the idea and write on it at length as I have time or as the subject becomes more relevant.  During the primaries, Sundays were a day when I would log most of my thoughts and I'd let them trickle out during the week.

My daily news sources revolve around the LA Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Politico, as well as a few blogs.  I also check the BBC from time to time, just to see what the Brits are saying.  A lot of the posts have been based on insight, but also based on conversations with other Superdelegates, people I know who work for the Democratic alphabet groups, people who work in campaigns, Capitol Hill staffers and even a few reporters who I got to know fairly well.

Looking into these drafts, there are a number that may not be timely anymore but that I'd like to write and expand upon in the remaining days of the blog.  The posts include insight on what life is like for campaign staffers living on the road, the lobbying process of Supers, why early primary states matter, filling a presidential cabinet, and a section called "things I will and will not miss about the Superdelegate campaign." 

Should be interesting stuff (well, to me anyway)! :P

I'll see if I can write the first of these remaining posts later today.

Supers Who Are Still Undeclared

A while back, I suggested that there are roughly 100 Supers (or 40% of the available Supers at that time) which will never endorse.  Interestingly enough, even with the nomination wrapped-up, we see that about 100 Supers remain undeclared even today, June 9th.

This reinforces the notion that many Supers had more to lose than gain by making an endorsement.  Because now, when there is seemingly little liability in making a declaration, we still see a significant number of Supers staying out of it.  The breakdown of undeclared Supers is about evenly divided between elected official vs. party official.

Some might think that these Supers are "not performing their duties."  The bottom line is that Supers didn't ask to be so super, and in fact are all elected to other positions which are, frankly, more important than being a Superdelegate. 

And for those conspiracy theorists out there: don't worry, there aren't enough undeclareds out there to make a difference in the delegate math should they all go against FPBO.  Just as there weren't enough from Florida and Michigan to make a difference even if those delegations were seated 100%.  Besides, Clinton is now officially a Superdelegate for Obama.

And finally...a gem from Fox News

I like to try to end the week on a light note, and today I found a gem over at the jedreport.com.  It's a clip of Fox & Friends attempting to catch FPBO (Future President Barack Obama) plagiarizing Mario Cuomo.

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up - hilarious.  See the clip here.

And a good weekend to you all!

The Future of MrSuper.org

I put this blog up as a project in March, something to give the public insight into the process of the Democratic nomination for President and especially to debunk myths about Superdelegates.  But we're at the end of that process now.

Dare I say "Mission Accomplished."

The blog started off with a strict adherence to the issue of Superdelegates, though the subject matter has begun to stray of late only because that issue is pretty much moot at this point.  I don't write breaking news stories (I've had several news tips that I've sent to other sites) as much as I try to stay true to providing insight on things that are being talked about.  The page has evolved into one which provides "inside perspective for an outside readership" which appears to fill a void out there, and in fact I've taken some criticism for it.

I hate the domain name, but I knew that if the messages on this page were going to get out, that there would need to be a retail element to the branding.  If things do move forward, the name will definitely change!

As to what happens next, who knows?  I had planned on taking the blog down next Friday - which marks three months of writing.  Though the readership and traffic are still good - nearly a quarter million over three months - and I do appreciate everyone's feedback.  As of this writing, there have been 174 posts with 2,439 comments made.  But I have to be honest - putting up a quality blog is more work than I had bargained for!

So we'll see where it goes.  There are plenty of things to cover still, the VP race, the conventions, the general elections, the polls, etc.  If you have thoughts or ideas of where the blog should go next, please drop me a note at MrSuper2008 -at- yahoo dot com.

But as for now, the 7-day countdown clock is still ticking...

(Three in a series of three "The Future Of..." posts this week).

Friday Veepstakes - the MIND READING edition!

Future President Barack Obama (FPBO) has formed a Vice Presidential search committee, headed by Jim Johnson, who also preformed the same task for John Kerry in 2004.

Because there is so much of the unknown involved here, the pundits and blogs are going to have plenty to speculate over during the next two months.  Voters thirst for change, Obama as the first mixed-race candidate, McCain as the oldest...who knows where this will go.  And it's the first time since 1988 that BOTH parties are selecting running mates at the same time!  Merry Christmas you pundits!

Because John Edwards was no more able to save John Kerry's ticket in 2004 than Dan Quayle was to potentially sinking the first George Bush ticket in 1988, the addition of a running mate should be seen as less of a reflection of electoral advantage and more so a reflection of the presidential candidate.

Historically, successful presidential candidates usually pick runningmates who suit the way they will govern.  George W. Bush selected Cheney, indicating that the President would heavily rely on the counsel of others.  Bill Clinton selected Al Gore indicating he was looking for a fully invested partner.

Politico has an excellent piece on the politics of picking a mate which espouses similar sentiments.

Both selections went against conventional wisdom: Clinton and Gore paired a young Southerner with...another young Southerner.  Bush and Cheney saw two men from Texas, one who had to re-establish his Wyoming residency in order to be eligible to run. (Dick Cheney was living in Texas and the constitution bars a President and Vice President serving from the same state - this should have been the first clue of the "flexible terms" in which they would view the constitution for the next eight years).

* * *

Having that primer, let's put all of the math aside and see if we can get into the mind of FPBO and figure out where his leanings might be.  Chances are, it may be a choice out of nowhere!

FPBO probably prefers someone likely want someone whom offers reliable counsel, has Washington credibility is easy to work with on the campaign trail and most of all...who can be President.  And though he represents a brand of change, FPBO might perfer a mate who is less likely to lead an Obama-esque revolution and more likely to follow marching orders.  Add to that, Obama's strongest Washington ties are in the US Senate.  Hmm...

And awaaaaaay we go...

Chris Dodd, Connecticut.  Sitting senator who also a primary opponent this season, he was the first to endorse FPBO.  Has an expertise in financial markets and is former Chair of the Democratic National Committee.  And he offers two things that help in Western states: Dodd is fluent in Spanish and his wife is Mormon - two things that come in handy in Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico.

Tom Harkin, Iowa. Once a presidential contender himself, he's been around Washington as a Congressman and Senator from more than 30 years.  Has an expertise in rural issues, was an early supporter of FPBO prior to the Iowa caucuses and he is a grandfatherly type figure who people can probably easily envision assuming the office of President.  He is rural, and he is Catholic - both which are two important constituencies this year.

George Mitchell, Maine.  Former Federal Judge, Ambassador and Senate Majority Leader.  Is respected around Washington and is known as a bi-partisan bridge-builder.

Harry Reid, Nevada.  Current Senate Majority Leader from the swing state of Nevada, and has experience at the state level.  Also a Mormon.

Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia.  Current Senator, former Governor, and endorser of FPBO.  Offers a lifetime of political experience and has served in Washington for more than 20 years.  Currently age 70, he has never voiced ambitions to run for President.

 

 

Why Did Senator Clinton Lose?

Where have you gone, Joe Inevitable?

Lots of theories swirling around the Internets as to how and why Senator Clinton lost the Democratic nomination.  CBS has a good list, as does Chris Cillizza in the Post.

Here's a collection of theories from various news sources, listed in the descending order of probability:

Superdelegates lost the election for Senator Clinton, according to the New York Times.  And while this statement is ultimately true, I don't put that much into this idea because there had to be a trigger that put the campaign in a position to even need Superdelegates in the first place.  Thus, we arrive at...

Chasing battleground states and not delegates, as cited by the Washington Post.  In defense of the Clinton campaign, this approach has been one which traditionally pays off.  It worked for John Kerry, it even worked for Bill Clinton.  But this is an unconventional year, which means Hillary Clinton needed an unconventional strategy.  Which bring us to...

Skipping Iowa, as proposed by Deputy Campaign Manager Mike Henry in May of 2007.  Because Iowa was rendered irrelevant in the 1992 primaries, most candidates skipped the state.  As such, there was no Clinton history or organization there to rely on.  (Incidentally, I made a similar recommendation to Bill Richardson: pull out of Iowa, focus on Nevada).  Skipping Iowa would have also absolved Clinton from signing the early states pledge, which in turn might have compelled the other candidates to leave their name on the Michigan ballot.  That doesn't change the outcome of the Michigan election, but a Michigan and Florida win with all other candidates on the ballot helps give Clinton momentum heading into Super Tuesday.  Leading us to...

Super Tuesday, which proved that the strategy to win the nomination was not inevitable as written by ABC News.  The lack of a contingency plan to recover after an essential tie on Feb. 5th knocked the campaign off of its footing - and the rest of February turned out to be a bad month as Senator Clinton went on to lose in the neighborhood of 11 consecutive contests.  Not only did this give Senator Obama an edge heading into this stretch of contests, but it gave him a platform to further his message of...

Change.  The Associate Press writes that a "thirst for change trumped Clinton's experience," which is probably the single factor that is harder to alter in the course of a campaign than anything else.  Not matter how many staffers you have, or how many negative (er, comparative) ads all of the candidates put out - it's difficult to turn back tides.  Ironically, it's a similar tide that Bill Clinton rode into office in 1992.

The Future of Senator Clinton

What now?  Does she go on to be a Vice President?  A Cabinet Secretary?  To take on either of the aforementioned positions, would be to confine her to the term limits of the executive branch and the will of a President.

Naturally, people are stuck on the issue of this current election and her role in it.  Though I think that there is a bigger picture to look at here.

Senator Clinton may find that her legacy is best paved in the US Senate.  There she can serve for decades and author meaningful reform to healthcare and all of the other issues she championed in her campaign.  And she can continue the legacy of her predecessor, New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Clinton, who is already a giant among giants in the US Senate, doesn't need the Presidency to accomplish many of the things she is fighting for.  She has the ability to craft legislation which impacts education, housing, the elderly and the poor.  And without term limits, the Senate offers the benefit of longevity - which means she'll be around to see all of these things through. 

(Two in a series of three "The Future Of..." posts this week).