Would you rather be a State Governor or a US Senator?

[Beet]

One way this question could be phrased is, which one is more prestigious, Governor or Senator?

The argument for Governor goes as follows: Each state has two Senators but only one Governor, so the Governor monopolizes the top executive position for the state whereas the Senator must share the top legislative position. The Governor also tends to have more power within the state, as she controls a number of patronage jobs tied to state government. Governor is an executive position, which arguably means the Governor has more responsibility. She can either do or not do things solely by her own decision. In contrast, the Senator cannot do anything in the final estimation without the consent of at least 50 other Senators and/or the Vice President. The Senator is also associated with being a "Washington insider", whereas the Governor is not, and this is usually an advantage for the Governor. While Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush were all known primarily as Governors before being elected to the presidency, until 2008 no one known primarily as a Senator had been elected to the presidency since John F. Kennedy in 1960.

The argument for Senator goes as follows: All of the above arguments for Governor are true, but they are irrelevant. They are overridden by the fact that a Senator deals with national issues, and in particular foreign policy, while the Governor does not. Foreign policy is arguably the most important function of government, for within foreign policy is included matters of war, peace, and security, and without security from threats abroad, government would have no domestic realm for Governors to govern. Hence, Senators deal in realms that are intrinsically more important than Governors deal in, and this more than makes up for their lack of absolute say in determining policy in those realms. Governors are, with all due respect, country bumpkins in comparison. Bush is a good example - he bungled foreign policy arguably because he had no experience with it and fell into the hands of a group of advisors incompatible with his anti-nation building instincts. Carter and Clinton also both bungled relations with Congress out of inexperience. A Senator can stand in the same line as such distinguished men as Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Henry Cabot Lodge, Robert Taft, Hubert Humphrey, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. What Governors' names can ring out in American history like the illustrious list above?

In conclusion, both have their advantages and disadvantages, but I would say slight advantage to Senator if the criteria is strictly a matter of prestige.

[JerryArkansas]

Both. Governor, then Senator. Like Bob Graham.

This right here.  My dream would be to serve two to three terms in the House, run for Governor of Virginia, and then run for one of the senate seats when the incumbant retires, or appoint myself if one of them dies.

[Miles]

Governor, because the elections are less nationalized.

I'd have some positions different than most in my party. That could be a strength in a local race. In a Senate race, though, the Republicans would just try endlessly to tie me to the more liberal Democrats no matter what.

[Kushahontas]

Governor of a fairly liberal state with a relatively small population. Oregon or Vermont would be cool.