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.
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?
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...
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...
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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"
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!
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.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.