FWIW: Rumor of plan for HRC to succeed Harry Reid IF she doesn't run in 08

[AlGore-08.com]

Definitely FWIW, since Reid has denied the story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/harry-reid-...

Some high level Democratic Party political insiders have shared with The Washington Note details of a potential shift in vectors for several of the major political stars in that party.

First of all, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, whom most give high marks for the manner in which he has stewarded the Dems in the Senate despite the absence of a clear Democratic Party chief, has sent private signals to Senator Hillary Clinton and other stalwarts of the party that he "would like to" step down from his post in early 2009. Reid has not stated definitively that he will -- but he apparently prefers "whipping" the Party from behind and the side rather than serving as commander-in-chief on the Senate floor.

What Reid is offering Senator Hillary Clinton is his total, robust support to succeed him as Senate Majority Leader if she elects not to pursue the Democratic nomination for President.

(more... )

[davidinalameda]

1. Senate leader or presidential candidate

interesting choice

I think that she won't run in 2008 if Reid steps down as leader

she could use the senate leader position as a platform to run down the line

if we win in 2008, she would have 8 years to build a solid platform to run in 2016

[bottomofthehill]

5. In 2016 she will be about 70 years old

If she were to go for this, she would pretty much give up ever running for President

[AlGore-08.com]

6. Not necessarily, with modern medicine 70 isn't "too old" to be President

It would be a gamble that she wouldn't develop some major illness, or that being majority leader wouldn't turn out to be a net loss for her politically. Additionally, if the next President is a Dem, being Senate Majority/Minority Leader will be a position of great power, but much less media interest.

But as the article points out, her winning the nomination is not a slam dunk, and her winning the general is far from a sure thing.

There's no term limits for Senate leadership. She could be Majority/Minority Leader as long as she was a Senator, if she could hold the job. And since the Clintons have a major funding network, it's more likely than not that she would hold the position as long as she wanted it.

So (again, keeping in mind this is just a rumor) the question for HRC would be is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush?

[davidinalameda]

12. she was born in 1947

she is 59

no idea she was that old; I had assumed she was a younger

how old was Reagan when he ran?

McCain is pushing 70 as well

[AlGore-08.com]

13. Reagan was 69 when he first ran

EOM

[rep the dems]

24. And he turned out fine!

[madame defarge]

2. I would much rather see her as Senate Leader now...

I run hot & cold on Hillary, but I've always thought she could do so much more right now as Senate Leader before she runs for President. I truly think 2008 is just too early for the US to elect a woman, much as I would like a woman president. 2012 might be better and would give HRC time to truly prove her power.

That said, who else has as much visibility/prominence as HRC for 08 right now... Man, I sure hope Gore changes his mind...

[Totally Committed]

3. Great... The top DLC bigwig in charge of the Democrats in the Senate...

Just peachy.

Makes me want to vomit.

TC

[Warpy]

4. Maybe a position as leader in the Senate will keep her from running

for president. Let's certainly hope so. She may be too conservative for me, but she is still a great improvement over the very conservative and antichoice Mr. Reid.

[Mabus]

7. Having Hillary would bring more media attention to what Dems are doing

She wouldn't be my first choice.

I wonder if this means Schumer would have to step down from the DSCC?

[zann725]

8. That would be a nightmare, non-progress for Dem party to put DLC in charge

as Minority Leader. Would only expand the Repug base, subliminally and in reality.

[BlueManDude]

19. she'd tack back toward the left as dem leader

testing the waters for prez has moved her to the right.

[SaveElmer]

9. She would do an excellent job...

And it would be nice to have a progressive from a Blue State, one that does not have to look over their shoulder constantly, in charge...

However, I do hope she runs for Prez.

[TheVirginian]

10. Reid is nervous about being re-elected in 2010.

[SaveElmer]

11. Which is why...

The Dem leader should be in a secure seat in a blue state...it is hard when the leader has to look over their shoulder constantly...

Although I think Reid is doing a good job!

[Hippo_Tron]

14. He didn't have much trouble in '04

Nevada is a purple state so I don't see why they wouldn't re-elect a senator with so much seniority. Daschle only lost because Bush won South Dakota by close to 20 points.

[AlGore-08.com]

16. And the GOP targeted him big time. Remember them calling him a traitor?

And trying to make his name synonymous with "obstructionist"?

If this reported deal is true, it might also be about Reid worrying that he's too prominent a target for a GOP smear campaign. And being from a purple state, he would be vulnerable to a coordinated campaign to make him look "too liberal" for Nevada...

[TheVirginian]

17. Richard Ziser was a neo-phyte, and '96 proved Reid was vulnerable.

Harry Reid barely eeked out a win over Ensign in 1996, before Ensign would get elected in 2000. In 2004, anti-gay activist Richard Ziser was the Republican candidate, but he had little support and fundraising, and it was his first campaign, and it was largely a one-issue campaign. That Reid was re-elected by a large margin reflects Ziser's bad candidacy, not Reid's lack of vulnerability.

In 2010, his opponent is likely to be Representative Jon Porter, of Nevada's 3rd District, who previously served as a mayor and state Senator, and Reid will have to compete with Porter for moderate votes, while at the same time defending a liberal agenda that might turn away some moderates and independents.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Senator Durbin should get the job, IMO

Senator Clinton is a great asset to the party but Senator Durbin has, in my opinion, shown more dedication to the Senate than Senator Clinton has.

[nealmhughes]

21. Yes, Durbin would. We have to look at seniority and duty to the party

and the ability to cross the aisle daily to set up how the debate will go...if the Republican leader allows debate.
What we need is a Democratic Senate with Byrd as president pro temp, instead of that old fart disgusting Ted Stevens. Even more importantly, can one imagine Dennis Hastert as president if both Bush and Cheney died simultaneously?

The real question is "Who is going to be the SOH come 2007?" Now, my friends, that will be a horse race...as will the primaries in two years. One never knows the outcome, a lot can happen in two years...

[WildEyedLiberal]

23. Agree 100%

Durbin would make a terrific Majority Leader, far superior to Daschle or Reid.

[BlueManDude]

18. anything to keep her out of 2008. n/t

[sendero]

20. I think she'd be a losing presidential candidate..

... but she might make a decent senate leader. I think she could do better than Reid anyway.

[davidinalameda]

22. she'd be a losing candidate

I wouldn't vote for her and I know plenty of others who wouldn't either

[rep the dems]

25. Would you rather vote republican?

Or would you just not vote at all?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rep the dems]

27. So in other words don't vote vote for the republican,

but do vote for the guy with no chance of winning, who's only in it to give the republican a better chance. Sounds like a plan.

[davidinalameda]

28. and Hillary has a chance to win?

uh no

[rep the dems]

29. She would have a better chance than any 3rd party candidate.

And John Kerry certainly had a chance of winning in '04, since he probably actually did. I understand not wanting to vote for someone like Hillary; I too am not a fan of her, but I still think we should be supporting the democrats, and not the 3rd party candidates.

[davidinalameda]

32. probably actually did?

is that like sorta kinda pregnant?

you either won or you didn't and the last time I looked, it was Bushie flying around on Air Force One

If I like the candidate that's nominated, I'll vote for him or her

BUT not for Hillary

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rep the dems]

34. You're right.

Because we all know that Al Gore lost the popular vote in 2000 and Florida as well, so Bush won that election fair and square. Same goes for '04 with Kerry.

Look, I realize that neither Gore or Kerry is President right now, but history shows that the guy who wins isn't always the one who ends up in the White House.

[davidinalameda]

35. maybe if Kerry would have challenged the vote in Ohio

he's be sitting in the White House

he ran a horrible campaign; he refused to take the offensive on the Swift Boat vets; he was rightly tagged with the "flip-flop" label; he was probably one of the most uninspiring politicians that I've ever seen

he failed to take advantage of Bush's weaknesses-he could have and should have won but he didn't

[rep the dems]

36. I agree with you to an extent, but despite all that

he was obviously better than Bush, and despite what so many misguided voters think, MUCH better than that scumfucking asshole Ralph Nader.

[davidinalameda]

37. Nader was never a Green

he only ran under their banner; even in 2004, he refused to join the party

[rep the dems]

39. I don't care what bullshit party he considers himself,

it doesn't change the fact that he runs because the GOP wants him to, not because he thinks he can win, not because he thinks he can do good things for the country, FOR MONEY. He manages to steal thousands of votes away from people like yourself who otherwise would vote democratic. Nader ain't worth shit.

[davidinalameda]

40. first of all, I never voted for Nader

second, does everyone who runs think they can win?

third, candidates like Nader and Perot and even some of the tinfoil candidates bring participants into the process who might not vote otherwise; they bring ideas regarding issues to the debate that might not otherwise be addressed as well

if the Democratic candidate wants to win these voters, then he or she needs to give strong opinions on issues, not half-assed ones, that really set themselves apart from the others in the race

candidates can't win on a platform that basically says "vote for me because I'm not the other guy"

[rep the dems]

41. If you're going to run for President of the United States

YOU SHOULD THINK YOU CAN FUCKING WIN! Most people who vote 3rd party don't even know what the fuck that candidate stands for. I'm not necessarily saying you're one of those people, but honestly, what fucking issues did Nader bring up in the last 2 elections that actually influenced what Bush, Kerry, or Gore had to say. Also, most people I've heard from (again, I'm not saying you fall under this category) just call Gore and Kerry douchebags for stupid reasons like the fact that they're not great public speakers, and in Kerry's case is kind of weird looking. Then they start giving you the classic bullshit like "They're really no different from one another, Nader's the only one who stands out."



All right, I've gotta stop soon since I'm getting really pissed off but the fact is Nader and other 3rd party candidates don't bring shit to the table. Please don't give me the whole "He really cares about the environment" bullshit; everyone cares about the fucking environment (except maybe Bush), and one man that Nader ran against has been dedicated to improving the environment since the 70's and is now continuing that fight despite not being directly involved in politics: Al Fucking Gore.

I have no idea where Ralph Nader stands on abortion, the war in Iraq, same sex marriage, minimum wage, stem cell research or pretty much any campaign issue for that matter. And neither to the majority of people who vote for him. I guess in a way he is the only candidate who sets himself apart, in a sense that he stands for nothing!

Fuck 3rd party candidates.

[blm]

38. You just contradicted yourself.

He won but there was no way AFTER the election to claim the votes that were stolen from him - the DNC screwed that bigtime by not securing the machines before the vote for ALL the Dem candidates. So, to beat a president during wartime with most of broadcast media working overtime to protect him, you probably ran a more than decent campaign. Kerry WON all his matchups. Did the DNC win its matchup against the RNC? Did the left media win its matchup against the RW message machine?

Kerry did take the offensive on the swifts - the data is in the Research Forum. Media lied - consistently and complicitly as Boehlert's research has proven.

He was WRONGLY tagged as a flip-flopper. That label was based on a LIE - every senator and congressperson votes for or against one version of a bill before they vote against or for the other.

He had inspired millions of us in the 70s against the war. He helped inspire millions more during the first Earth Days in the 70s.

He inspired millions of us with his dogged pursuit of government corruption in the 80s and 90s. How much would we know today about the BFEE without kerry's work on IranContra, tllegal wars in Central America, BCCI and CIA drugrunning?

He inspired thousands of us who read his book warning of growing global terrorism and the international finaial networks abetting them in 1997. (Too bad there weren't millions of us - too many were occupied with Clinton and his sex life, I guess)

He inspired many of us who believe in REAL campaign reform whe he submitted the Clean Money, Clean Elections bill with Paul Wellstone.

What is sad, is that there are people who DON'T feel inspiration from a man who investigated and exposed more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history.

[LincolnMcGrath]

30. Well, at least she would get her chance to ban flag burning maybe?

Problem is, what if another BK bill come to the floor, who will be co-leader as Hillary hides under her chair?

[Vidar]

31. I'd rather have her in that position.