I hope it becomes a little clearer why Barack Obama could not, and should not, have offered her the VP position -- and why, I believe, she and her legacy are far better off that he didn't. 

Watching yesterday's We Are One concert (okay, I'll admit it , a couple of times... they are making a DVD arent't they?)  I thought about watching the two first couples being introduced and the frequent shots of them sitting on the side with their families.  And at one point, I realized how very different -- and awkward and confusing -- it would have been if she had been selected for that position. 

Think about it -- "President-Elect Clinton and Former President Clinton" coming down the steps, with as many eyes on Bill as on her.  And then followed by the supposed-to-be focus of everyone's attention .. while half of them are still watching Bill.   Between Bill and Barack, would Hillary even be "seen" as she would deserve?  And would it have been so clear - as it was and should be - that of that small group on the side, Obama wasthe one who was the chief recipient of the performers' attention and the crowd's enthusiasm?  American's, and the world, have had 16 years of 'conditioning' to look first at Bill Clinton in any group where he is present -- like him or not, he is the focus of attention in the room.   (And if he isn't for an instant he will instinctively do something, even if it's to compliment a rug, to become the focus.)

The position of Vice President has two chief components: symbolic and invisibility/deference.   The symbolism is so often, as it was yesterday, as a couple or the two first couples together.  And Bill Clinton cannot help himself ... even when he takes attention away from his wife, even if it would be taking it away from the current president. 

The invisibility - what Joe Biden has resquested, being the last one in the room with the President before a big decision is made - means never, or rarely, having that contribution, which may often be critical, publicly acknowledged.  So people would see of Hillary the public, symbolic presence where she would often be overshadowed by her husband or awkwardly without her spouse present -- and they would never know of the undoubtedly important and insightful advice she would be giving in private.  (Face it - if Sarah Palin had become VP - ugh!! - does anyone really think John McCain would have consulted her - or listened if he did?)  So, those who don't believe women are "up to it" would simply assume she was contributing little or nothing and never be challenged in their beliefs.

I truly believe that Hillary will put more additional cracks in the glass ceiling and be in the deserved spotlight all on her own in the Secretary of State position.  I hope that those of you who felt that she was slighted when he selected Joe Biden as his VP can share that belief.   And understand that Obama could not without dampening the strength and uniqueness of his own presidency offer the VP slot to Bill Clinton's wife, no matter how strong and able she is all on her own.

In addition ...... if anyone saw Biden on Ophra's show today, he said that somewhere on the train trip he finally 'got it' and felt sincerely that, despite his own efforts to attain the office, it worked out the way it should be: with Obama on the top of the ticket (soon, administration) and him below.   I've felt during the campaign and thereafter (especially watching the train wreck of Palin!) that this IS the way it should work out, both for blacks and for women.  I think we all believed that the first of either group on the national ticket would be in the VP slot, sort of getting the nation 'accustomed' to the idea.  ------  But VP is, by definition, a subservient, supportive position ..... and hasn't that been the problem in public perception of both blacks and women?   As a woman, I have come to hope fervently that the first woman in national elective office IS, as Obama is being, at the top of the ticket.   

And it may yet be Hillary -- in 2016, she will be 69 years old, the same age as Reagan ..... and she's a woman, remember (statistically longer life-span).   But even if she isn't the one, she is the one who changed the national perception for good:  FAR more and far more substantively than Geraldine Ferraro or - shudder! - Sarah Palin did (or could have done).   By the end of her campaign, no one by the most hardened mysoginist could doubt - ever again - that a woman can be tough enough, and bright enough, to very, very credibly be President.   

Anyway, I hope that some of you who supported her so strongly have been able to feel some peace and are sharing in this heady, encouraging time along with the rest of us.