Or is knocking back shots a sign she can “play with the big boys”

I'll let Govtrack give the hard numbers:
Statistics: Hillary Clinton has sponsored 376 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 323 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 10 were successfully enacted (Very Good, relative to peers). Clinton has co-sponsored 1846 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). [On 4/2/08, the numbers were updated to consider companion bills in the other chamber identified as "identical" by the Congressional Research Service when determining if a bill was enacted or made it past the introduction stage.]

link to page:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=3...

so peer-wise, she's passable, average,not “potent”.
and as for Obama, about the same given his amount of time.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=4...

so really it's just pot calling kettle the same ( copper, cast iron, you name it) then isn't it.

and she did what, as First Lady? Stand by her man? Well she did sponsor a serial skirt-chaser Bill.

America needs a brand new bag, not more baggage.

Like I said before. Smart politicians who don't want a failed-run-as-Obama VP on their resume' will say “thanks but no thanks”. In Hillary's case, she would land Obama a win but from then on his political life would be a mere shadow of hers. She is too potent, too strong, too experienced. How would it look for Obama's image to be constantly in the shadow of his better?

Girls know this one: If you're going out to impress the guys, bring along a dowdy, frumpy plain girl to pal around with. Automatically you will be “the pretty one”…lol..

Obama will pick a plain, boring VP to shine in contrast to. He does depend on the shine to rope 'em in. What else does he have?

So again, look for a lot of “thanks but no thanks” from people he picks for his doomed-from-September-on campaign. And look for Hillary at the convention, but not standing as his VP running mate.