The bloom is off the rose.

Following up on Gilmore's comment, here's a photo that, in my opinion, pretty much captures the essence of Hillary Clinton.

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q207/MasterpeacePDX/hillary.jpg?t=1195352088

It's time she's kicked to the curb, and if she won't go quietly, she needs to be pushed out of the way. She's like a silver medal Olympian trying to push her way onto the top spot on the podium during the medal ceremony.

On the issue of what she will be doing in four years: I think she may do everything she can to see that Obama does not win the White House in November. Put another way, she may do nothing she can to help Obama win.

After a one-term presidency by McCain, she fires up the machine again and tries to take the office in 2012. With the endless campaigns we now must endure in America, she can start to campaign for 2012 sometime around mid-November of this year.

It depends on whether Obama is elected or not. If he wins the election, Mrs. Clinton will resign from the Senate soon thereafter and fade into obscurity until sometime around Nov. 7, 2012, at which time she will announce her candidacy for the 2016 election. Never mind that she'll be 69 years old in 2016 -- if John McCain could run at age 72, she'll be fine.

If McCain wins the election, she stays in the Senate to gear up for the 2012 election against the older-than-dirt incumbent.

President Obama? Says who?

As soon as Obama is sworn in, Justices Stevens and Ginsberg will retire from the Supreme Court. Hillary will--and should--get nominated to fill one of those positions. Like her or not, she'd be the perfect foil for Scalia.

Why would she want to leave the Senate unless it was for President.

She is very smart and I don't know if Obama wants someone that would show him up in the cabinet or even Supreme Court. In addition, its not like she got blown out in the primaries and looked like a lot better debater than Obama.

Wow.
Hadn't voted since a Clinton, and signed on this year again, to vote for another.
I'm sorry but the Messiah's parting of the Berlin masses, and long winded sermons from the One didn't sway me to vote for Him come Nov.
The bigger time question: Obama in four years.
After he loses, will he caucus his way into Bono's holy arena-rocking frontman spot for U2?
Likey not. I'll ask my daughters.
'bout this a year ago Miley Cyrus was filling arenas, too. But this year it's all Jonas Bros.

You are so clever. But are you are as crooked as Bill and Hillary? Hard to imagine.

As soon as Obama is sworn in, Justices Stevens and Ginsberg will retire from the Supreme Court. Hillary will--and should--get nominated to fill one of those positions. Like her or not, she'd be the perfect foil for Scalia.

Souter is probably going to be among the first to leave.

As one of a group of appointments, Hillary might be good, but Obama'd probably go with some younger person for a singleton. She's 61.

Supreme Court justice? Really, can someone explain her credentials *other* than being a one-term senator and the former First Lady? Not at all criticizing what was probably a decent legal career, but that hardly qualifies somebody to sit on that panel, especially when there are plenty of legitimate judges who could do a better job (regardless of your political slant) without the baggage. And being a foil to Scalia, Alito, and Thomas should NOT be the standard we aspire to.

Hell, if Taft could do it, Hillary can. And standing up to the radicals installed by the Bushes is absolutely essential. To offset Clarence Thomas's offbeat musings, we should have somebody like a Dennis Kucinich with a law degree. Drive them all nuts, see how they like it.

Yeah, but WH Taft was the President, not the President's wife. Standing up for radicals is one thing, inserting what a large segment of the population sees as an equally disturbing radical is another. You don't have to combat irrationality or extremism on the conservative / right with the same problem on the left unless you want to keep this tit-for-tat going forever. Pick a few more Kennedy or O'Connor types who ride the middle and leave one or two wackos on the fringes. Sorry, but Hillary = lefty fringe.

Sorry ... *against* radicals, that should read.

Pick a few more Kennedy or O'Connor types who ride the middle and leave
one or two wackos on the fringes.

I couldn't disagree with you more. A court with four right-wing activists and five "moderates" is absolutely not the answer.

We are stuck with the Hardcore Four, and we need four equally hardcore people on the other side to balance them off. This country can't take even 10 years of Scalito. Their nonsense has to stop now.

The idea that Hillary is a left-winger is totally whacked. She might as well be a Republican. Her best credentials are that, unlike a majority of the current court, she's not a Roman Catholic, and she has an established, reliable record on abortion rights.

When has she ever been in a position to make a judgment call on abortion rights, other than the occasional Senate vote (check the record on how many times that has really come up since she was elected)? Being a woman doesn't automatically make her immune to a change of attitude, especially when looking at the several dozen shades of gray between always pro-life and always pro-choice.

If you're suggesting that a person who believes in universal health care, the big shadowy hand of government permeating the economy, and punitive taxes on those who make "too much money" (Exxon, et al.) is something *other* than a left-winger, how do you describe a left-winger?