Senate Majority Leader?

Furthering rumors of an attempted back-room negotiation for the nomination, Adam Nagourney writes in today's New York Times,

The delegates said they hoped to avoid being portrayed as party elites overturning the will of Democratic voters. They spoke of having some power broker -- the names mentioned included Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee; former Vice President Al Gore; and Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- step in to forge a deal.

Yet even as some of them pleaded for intervention, they said they were not sure what could be done in a race with two candidates who have so much support.

"I think it has got to be brokered before the convention," said Bill George, the head of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. in Pennsylvania. "I think there should be a couple of people -- maybe Howard Dean and Al Gore, they have some credibility -- to do it. Dean should call a meeting, and the two camps should be forced to do it.

Might I propose my own backroom deal? The Hillary Clinton supporters here may not like it, but here goes nothing: Clinton for Senate Majority Leader.

It's hard to argue with the suggestion that Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in recent American political history. This would make FDR-style consensus governing a tricky task for her as President, but would be irrelevant as Senate Majority Leader. Her record as a Senator certainly suggests she would excel in the position. She has done an excellent job of reaching across the aisle to get things done, wooed over thousands of hostile upstate voters (including members of my own family), and learned the ropes from former Majority Leader and anti-war Dem Robert Byrd. Way back in November 2006, Joshua Green wrote in the Atlantic Monthly,

There remains another option--one to which she is unquestionably well suited. As an admiring senator put it to me, "Hillary Clinton is everyone's secret choice for majority leader." It's a line you hear often on Capitol Hill, and it has two possible meanings. For some it's polite code for "Lord, I hope she doesn't run for president." But for others--I'd venture to say the majority--it is a compliment genuinely felt, an acknowledgment that she has satisfied the lions of the Senate and, should she wish to, might one day rank among them.

It's certainly not too early in Clinton's Senate career for the job - she's had just as much time in the chamber as one Lyndon Baines Johnson had when he took the position. But Reid, what has Reid done? Why, virtually nothing, unless you count caving to Bush on telecom immunity as an accomplishment. If I recall correctly, his approval rating in most unscientific Netroots polls is lower than Pelosi's. You may have noticed Nagourney didn't think to include him in the list of potential powerbrokers, perhaps for a lack of credibility. I've always like the boxer from Searchlight, but it would seem that Majority Leader is just not the right spot for him. My own choice for the job would be Chris Dodd or Byron Dorgan, but neither of them is central to party unity. If Reid would be gracious enough to voluntarily step aside for Clinton, he would restore his status as a party elder and perhaps virtually guarantee himself a spot in a Barack Obama administration.

Gore, Dean, and Reid, perhaps joined by Biden and Richardson, might be able to work out such a deal. The roommates Durbin and Schumer, as members of the leadership team and surrogates for opposite campaigns, could facilitate. Given her position, credibility, and even gender, I would add Pelosi to the list, but I accept the fact that she is clearly a closet Obama supporter, and as Jerome said this morning, that does color her role.

Of course, as a vocal Obama supporter, my own "role" is colored as well. I accept that. But please take me seriously when I say I am more interested in avoiding a convention fight than I am in pushing my own candidate, and that this honestly strikes me as the fairest deal I've yet seen for either candidate. Read through the diaries and comments I've made about Obama, Clinton, partisan infighting, and candidate diaries if you don't believe me - my feelings for both campaigns have always been somewhat tepid. Remember that Biden and Dodd were my first and second choices, and I didn't select Obama until the week I voted. I hope that this will dispel any notion of a hidden agenda.

Update 11:54 PM: I want to make it clear, I don't think this proposal should be implemented today. I don't foresee Pennsylvania and the other remaining states breaking the current bitter stalemate, but obviously we should give them a shot. Once all the voters have been given their say, and MI and FL have revoted, THEN the party leaders should step in, assuming the stalemate still exists.

Update 12:12 AM: I should also clear up, by consensus, I mean with the American people, not with Republicans in Congress. Bipartisanship is important, but it's not the same thing as leadership. Hence the phrase "FDR-style."

Tags: Adam Nagourney, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, president, presidential primary 2008, superdelegates (all tags)

Comments

405 Comments

Re: Senate Majority Leader?

If Clinton for Majority Leader means that Obama is the nominee -
I could not disagree more.

First, Obama will lose the general election badly.
Second, there may not even be a Democratic majority in the Senate for Clinton to be majority leader over.

If Clinton steps aside from the nomination, so too must Obama.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-16 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Is that supposed to be baseless speculation or did I miss the substance in it?

by marcotom 2008-03-16 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Uprating only to join BBCWatcher in balancing out Indus' TR abuse.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

If Clinton supporters proposed a bamboozle like this for your candidate, we would be called racists who were trying to relegate Obama to the back of the bus.

Obama has tried three times to knock Clinton out of the race. It hasn't happened. You still don't take this campaign seriously, do you? You still think it's some kind of nuisance female campaign that is getting in the way of your hero being coronated. The Clinton campaign is going all the way to the convention. If Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean decide to thwart the will of the voters they will fracture this party like you have never seen. Prepare for a very ugly time in Denver. Prepare for a bloody fight.

Posts like this are incredibly offensive to Clinton supporters and it boggles the mind that you do not realize that you are pouring gasoline on a fire. You really do not understand where we are coming from, and you are too arrogant to bother to find out.

by cc 2008-03-16 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

If you read through all the comments, you'll see several folks accusing me of sexism. Supporters on both sides are the same - some honorable, some not so much.

I'd be happy to turn this deal around, except for the fact that I don't think Obama's skill set is a perfect match for the SML spot like Clinton's. My proposal has nothing to do with Clinton supporters, or with Obama supporters. It has to do with settling a nasty fight at high levels before the convention, since the remaing states aren't likely to do it.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?


Transplanted Texan,
My answer will leave the issue of sexism out of it. I would say and have said the same regardless of the candidates sex. No worries.

No.

Regardless of the person I vote for in this election. There is no way. No way. That I would ask Sen. Clinton to step down from her bid for the presidency in order to take any other job. I just wouldn't do that to the good senator nor her MANY supporters. Just as folks are very supportive of Sen. Obama, there are other folks equally supportive of Sen. Clinton. Imagine working so hard for Sen. Obama only to have him quit for any job other than the run for the presidency. This isn't to slight the other candidates that have run in this election. It's just look at the numbers. No other candidate has come as close as these two.

And yes, I hear all about the math for Obama,but it looks as if the Clinton camp disagrees. It's strange that folks have jumped over the vice president offer right to SML. Can't be because they don't like each other. Heck from what I hear Kennedy didn't like Johnson and yet they ran successfully on the same ticket.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-16 04:53PM | 0 recs
Hillary is not polarizing, she is uncompromising

Has the Democrats promoting this idea ever considered that THEY are the polarizing ones by being so amenable to compromises that are unworkable for a great many people in America.. working people?

by architek 2008-03-16 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Could you clarify just a bit.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-16 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I haven't worked for Obama, but I did work hard for Biden, and had to watch him drop out for his Chairmanship. And Dean, for DNC. So I do know the feeling. I make this proposal not because of my vote for him, but because I don't think the remaining states are going to settle things before the Convention.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Thanks Transplanted Texan, thank you for your response.

I appreciate both responses.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-16 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Dean did not drop out for the DNC Chair. In fact, he faced some competition for the DNC Chair, if I recall. You are conflating two independent acts as connected in order to bolster your argument.

by hctb 2008-03-17 12:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I know he didn't drop out to BECOME Chair, but in the end the feel was the same. My candidate dropped out and wound up with a not-quite-as-good job in the end. And it's not like I expected him to stay unemployed when he dropped out.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-17 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I'm not really for this idea as part of a back-room deal to get Clinton out of the race, but Obama supporters probably don't feel like Clinton adds enough to a ticket: they likely want to get someone who can put a previously red state into play, and/or give military or broad international experience to the table.

Team Obama itself doesn't want to get into any VP picks or backroom discussions before he becomes the nominee... that's the politics that we're fighting against.

by Dracomicron 2008-03-17 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

"Team Obama itself doesn't want to get into any VP picks or backroom discussions before he becomes the nominee... that's the politics that we're fighting against."

by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:06:46 PM EST

You'll have to excuse me if I am-oh- abit blunt today.

But you know I am.

So honey, I respectfull disagree that statement.

That is the biggest bunch of BS I have heard in the last 48 hours.

Trust me.

In the last 48 hours?

I have heard some BS.

So to top it?

Congrats.

You really did something in the history of the creation of BS!

Team Obama has been out there slinging every bit as much mud as team Clinton.

And courting VP candidates too.

Say a governor and an ex-Senator. for the short list.

by the way Dracomicron, your  comment makes team Obama look like snobs. Arogant snobs.

IMHO

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-17 02:22PM | 0 recs
Thanks?

I feel effective.

I think I'll treat myself to a mocha latte.

by Dracomicron 2008-03-19 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

LatinoVoter, what exactly about my comment was trollish? Please explain yourself.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

CC,

Yes Obama has had 3 chances to knock Hillary out, but if you really think about it, Hillary has had just as many, if not more.

Had she won Iowa, it would have been over.

Had she won S.C., it would have been over.

Had she won a few more states on S.T., it would have been over.

And I think had she won WI, it would have been over.

I'd also add saying if Pelosi and Dean twart the will of the voters is a strange statement. At the  moment, Obama has more elected delegates, has won more states, and has won more of the popular vote. Sure that may change by June, but if it does not, how can you say the will of the voters isn't for Obama to be the nominee? Clearly this deal would not happen unless we get to the end of these contests and Obama still leads, and if that is the case, I would hope Clinton would have the grace she has shown in the past and do the right thing. Obviously if she is in the lead, this deal would not be an option and the nomination should be hers.

by duncin32 2008-03-16 11:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

How could HRC win when B.O. has hood-winked half the Democratic Party with his lies?

by excuseme 2008-03-17 12:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

LatinoVoter, care to consult the TR rules and tell me how this fits?

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 09:44PM | 0 recs
nope.....

you didn't miss the substance. that was just baseless speculation. and delusion: below s/he states that mccain will beat obama 56-41.

i thought the obama supporters were supposed to be the delusional ones.......?

by james c 2008-03-16 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Uprated your unfair hide -
It seems that MyDD has gotten nasty this afternoon.
Maybe some folks don't like their NCAA seeding.

Have you heard of parody?
Baseless speculation to match baseless speculation.

Of course 56-41 is in the realm of the possible.
Anything is possible.  Including HRC as Senate Majority Leader.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-16 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Yeah, because there are so many seats the Republicans can pick up in 2008. There's Louisiana...

...

...

by johnny longtorso 2008-03-16 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

If McCain beats Obama 56% to 41%
With Lieberman as his running mate -
Then Gov. Rell appoints a Republican - that's 50/50.

Then most of the potential Dem pick-ups are in red states - unlikely in a landslide loss.
So let's say the Dems gain Minnesota and Oregon, but lose Louisiana and South Dakota.
The Senate is 50/50 with Lieberman casting the deciding tiebreaker.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-16 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

we're unlikely to lose south Dakota, even in a repub landslide win.  Johnson currently has 30 point leads in the polls and token opposition.  aside from a maccaca moment, there will most likely be a lot of ticket splitting.

by Doug Tuttle 2008-03-16 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

That's unlikely in so many different ways (the margin, the VP choice, the SD loss, and even your two choices of possible Dem pickups) it makes my head spin. Are you for real?

by epenthesis 2008-03-16 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

He's not going to pick Lieberman, he needs someone to unite the conservative base. And with a 73% Johnson approval rating and no well-known GOP challenger, we're not going to lose South Dakota.

Remember also that Virginia is almost a lock, and why discount NH, CO, and ME, even in a McCain race? Especially CO.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I agree...  there is no way McCain will choose Lieberman.... the guy had a "D" after his name for quite awhile... They GOP would never, ever sign on...

by JenKinFLA 2008-03-16 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

You bring on a VP that brings in something you don't have. Joe Lieberman has exactly the same base as John McCain. Cabinet spot? DEFINITELY. VP? Doubt it. We'll see someone superconservative but that seems liberal enough to be palatable.

by vcalzone 2008-03-16 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?
Granted that McCain and Lieberman are about the same age -
But Lieberman could bring the "appearance" of bipartisanship -
Plus some people think he could help McCain carry Florida - essential to any GOP win.
by johnnygunn 2008-03-16 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

McCain already has the MSM hoodwinked into believing that he will bring bipartisanship..  He does not need Lieberman...

If Florida is a must win, then he will likely tap Gov. Christ...  

by JenKinFLA 2008-03-16 04:45PM | 0 recs
I don't think Obama's support is as strong as

many people are saying it is.

I only know a few people who were supporting Obama and now two of them have switched to Hillary.

Granted, its a small, unscientific sampling, but a lot of people are worried about Obama's inexperience. The risks with Obama seem to be great and the payoff - what? I can't see any advantages in his platform and I do see quite a few disadvantages.

The Obama supporters never have explained why their candidate is better than Hillary to me.

All we see here is WHINE WHINE WHINE...

by architek 2008-03-16 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think Obama's support is as strong as

I have no idea why you attached this to my post...

I know several people that were backing Hillary but are now firmly with Obama...  so, I guess like most things, that goes both ways too.

The whining does too believe me.

Oh, and the payoff vs. the risks for Obama...?  Well, if he gets the nomination, the payoff outweighs whatever risk...  The payoff of having a Democratic President vs. John 100 years war McCain.

by JenKinFLA 2008-03-16 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think Obama's support is as strong as

At this point, I don't care anymore. I hate Hillary's campaign style, I hate the fact that she won't try to win my vote here in GA, but I need one of them to break out in front and one of them to step back and admit it's over. If Hillary doesn't get it in PA, it needs to be her that steps back. If Obama loses in a landslide, it should be him. And he should take the VP slot.

by vcalzone 2008-03-16 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think Obama's support is as strong as

And let's be clear. Hillary "not getting it" in PA could mean nothing more than just winning by 5% or so. It's still a sign that she can't win without resorting to trickery.

Likewise, Obama has to keep an eye on his numbers and trends. I don't give a damn if he's ahead in pledged delegates or not, if he loses by 15% in PA and then loses a pretty fair number of the other states as well, he needs to seriously consider dropping out.

by vcalzone 2008-03-17 01:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Of course HRC can be the majority leader or even the governor of NY but say Goodbye of winning the presidency. There is no way BHO will be the president. Last week - Pastor-Gate changed the entire dialogue for the rest of the country including democrats. I am a HRC supporter and always said that I would vote for whoever got the nomination. But now it is any democrat but BHO - If it is BHO, I would writein HRC and vote for democrats for the rest of the ticket.

by indus 2008-03-16 02:15PM | 0 recs
Sorry, I'm a little slow...

  "Pastor-Gate", was it? In what way has this "changed the entire dialogue"? It sounds alot like the old dialogue to me, sorry. I've seen no major changes in policy position. I have seen alot of harsh words and threats flung back and forth, from both sides. I don't agree with Rev. Wright's opinions on alot of things, but I hafta tell you: I disagree MUCH more with Sen. McCain. All due respect to the man, but it's time for a Dem President....

by Kordo 2008-03-16 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, I'm a little slow...

It's easy to understand. He is running on JUDGEMENT. Wright has finally put that argument to rest. His judgement with Wright and letting Rezko buy his lawn means that he cannot ever say anything about his superior judgement again.

by georgiast 2008-03-16 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, I'm a little slow...

Wright = Bill Shaheen, Geraldine Ferraro, and a number of similar inappropriate remarks she disagrees with from her supporters.

Rezko = Hsu

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, I'm a little slow...

Hahahaha! Hsu didn't subsidize the purchase of HRC's home. And if you think you can compare Ferraro to Wright, then I want some of what you're smokin'!

You are not well-grounded sir.

by excuseme 2008-03-16 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, I'm a little slow...

I whole-heartedly agree that Ferraro's comments don't compare to Wright's, but it seems to me there's been more of an accumulation of such statements on Clinton's side, and they do add up. It's more a pattern than it is a one time damnation.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, I'm a little slow...

What accumulation of statements are you talking about? Can you back up your assertion with some facts?

by excuseme 2008-03-16 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, I'm a little slow...

Ferraro, Shaheen, Bill in SC, Rangel, etc. It's a slow drip drip, and I don't mean to suggest it's intentional or top-down, or that any one comment links to the Wright remarks, but the feel does add up. And those are just the recent Clinton controversies. I'm not suggesting the old Clinton family scandals are legit - they'

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, I'm a little slow...

Ferraro, Shaheen, Bill in SC, Rangel, etc. It's a slow drip drip, and I don't mean to suggest it's intentional or top-down, or that any one comment links to the Wright remarks, but the feel does add up. And those are just the recent Clinton controversies. I'm not suggesting the old Clinton family scandals are legit - they're not, but the Right will still use them against us in the General.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, I'm a little slow...

I think Shaheen made a remark about B.O.'s admitted drug abuse, right? That's not only not racist, it is a fair comment. Bill in SC? Do you think that observing that Blacks elected B.O. in SC is racist? Because it isn't and besides that, it is true.

As far as Ferraro is concerned, I read all of the interview. Did you? Because she is right on the money. Do you think a 47 year old white man with a year in the US Senate would have beaten HRC? Do you think ANY white man or woman for that matter would have taken the Black vote from HRC? It's impossible. If B.O. weren't Black, he would have had to drop out long ago.

It isn't racism to observe that B.O. got 90% of the Black vote in MS. It's a fact.

Last I looked Charlie Rangel is Black. Are you saying he is a racist?

I don't know what "old Clinton family scandals" you are talking about. I suggest you read a book by Gene Lyons and Joe Conason called The Hunting of the President. You will then understand that the Arkansas Project was run by a bunch of yahoos from Arkansas who were pissed off at Bill Clinton because during his 7 terms as Governor of Arkansas, he did more for people of color and women than any governor anywhere in the history of this country. He put people of color on commissions, on the benches, in his cabinet.

And that is why they hated him and why they tried to destroy him. Because Bill Clinton was and is the antithesis of a racist. That the GOP jumped on their bandwagon because they were sore they lost the WH is well known.

I'm not worried about non-legit scandals. I am worried about racism. Until I found out what B.O.'s so-called religious beliefs are, I might have voted for him in Nov. But I've fought racism since I was fifteen and I am not going to vote for a racist no matter what stripe of racism he embraces. And I don't think America is going to vote for a racist either. In  fact, I would bet on it.

by excuseme 2008-03-16 11:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, I'm a little slow...

you're not being asked to vote for Rev. Wright, and this, of course, is granting that he is racist. You're being asked to vote for Sen. Obama, who I isn't racist, and you'd be hard-pressed to say argue that he is.

by shef 2008-03-17 12:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, I'm a little slow...

I'm not saying any of those people are racist. I haven't used that word at all except to reply to charges of sexism, but I can see why I'd give that impression, comparing them to Wright. I just meant they're inappropriate.

And I do think Ferraro was wrong. If being black helps in a political context, then where the hell is Henry Ford? Why is there one black Senator and 15 or so women senators? I would never make Ferraro's remarks about women, and she's just as bogus to make them about black people.

I haven't read Lyons and Conason's book, but I've seen the doc based on it. That's part of why I say her divisive reputation is undeserved - but it doesn't matter. The Swift Boat stuff was crap too, but it still worked. I'm looking at what the GOP will use, not what they should use honorably.

But please forgive my miscommunication. I don't thiink Bill Clinton is racist. I was excited to shake his hand here in NH late last year. I don't think Ferraro, Shaheen, or Rangel are racist, either - but I think all ahve been inappropriate this campaign and it adds up.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-17 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, I'm a little slow...

A) Clinton had the black vote until Team Clinton started making veiled race remarks.  They had, to that point, significant good will from Bill Clinton's presidency.  Don't you remember when Obama wasn't "black enough?"  It's not that Obama HAD the black vote, it's that Clinton LOST the black vote.

B) I think Clinton only had 4 total terms as Governor, not 7.  He was elected in 1978, ousted in 1980 and came back in 1982.  He won again in 1984, at which point terms changed from two to four years.  Just clarifying.

C) Barack Obama's religious beliefs are based on tolerance, helping the poor, and showing compassion to the disadvantaged, not racism.  His pastor is understandably but somewhat embarassingly tied to the views of the Civil Rights Movement of thirty-plus years ago, but that says nothing of Obama's own views.  Let's not blow Crazy Uncle Jeremiah out of proportion, shall we?  

If you're not going to vote for Obama because of racism on this evidence, you'd better not vote for Clinton on the evidence that she embraces spousal cheating because she didn't sever all ties to Bill when evidence of his indescretions came out.

by Dracomicron 2008-03-17 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

LOL indus. Hyperbole much? Will your head explode January 19 2009 when Obama is sworn in as POTUS?

by pitahole 2008-03-16 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Maybe - :)

But because of his Holier than Hou attitude and Rev Wright stuff - BHO is not going to get my vote.

by indus 2008-03-16 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

BO will not win in the GE.  I think if all the Hillary supporters stay home in NOV, maybe we will see positive changes in our party for 2012.  Hopefully, the DNC will make a democratic and uniform primary process and will not allow the MSM to use sexism and misogyny when discussing our female candidates. The DNC has shown poor leadership and has thrown women under the bus.  They cannot win without the women vote so let's stay home and stick it to them.  They will never take us for granted ever again.

by tiffany 2008-03-16 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I'm sure you'll have that to console you when McCain nominates a judge that overrules Roe v Wade.

by vcalzone 2008-03-16 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I'm sure you'll have that to console you when McCain nominates a judge that overrules Roe v Wade.

Where's the evidence McCain would do that?  He was part of the Gang of 14 that insisted on moderate judicial appointments.  

And it's unlikely he would nominated judicial firebrands who would overturn his signature piece of legislation, McCain-Feingold.

by He Who Must Not Be Named 2008-03-16 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Where's the evidence McCain would do that?

It came out of Senator McCain's mouth on multiple occasions. He's promised repeatedly to nominate Roberts/Alito type justices.  

by obsessed 2008-03-16 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Delusional much?

by 1jpb 2008-03-16 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Yes, check his positions recently. He's ALWAYS been anti-abortion, always voted against it. And lately, he's switched from his "maverick" stance of leaving it be to saying he'd want to overturn it quickly.

Everyone who thinks McCain would be an acceptable choice needs to really look at his positions. With a few exceptions, you won't like what you see.

by vcalzone 2008-03-16 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I used to think that he'd be a decent Prez. Even when he started winning the nomination this year, I thought, "Now I can at least feel OKAY no matter who wins". Nope. I was duped. I suspect a lot of us were. I wish Huckabee had gotten the nomination. At least I knew what he stood for. I have no idea what McCain would do in office.

by vcalzone 2008-03-16 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

You'd be sticking it to the country, too. Better to have positive national change now instead of positive party change, as you view it, in four years. No more Republican rule!

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:00PM | 0 recs
that wll never happen

just give it to McCain, Obama hasn't been straight with the Democratic Party about his pastor or his mentor, but I'm not suggesting he step down. He needs to stay in until he realizes he's lost and then support the winner. Look, he predicted this, after his big streak of wins he signaled that something could happen that might turn the tables for him.  it's happened, both his pastor and his donor, he's toast.  

by anna shane 2008-03-16 05:06PM | 0 recs
I will be writing Hillary in

It is only when women stand up and say NO, you can not abuse and insult us an expect our support, that we will get any of what we need from the left or the right.

You can't scare me with Roe v. Wade. We will find other ways. If the democratic party cared about the Supreme Court THEY would be doing things to insure they have women's support.

This is what started the last phase of the women's movement. The sexism of men on the left. Women learned we had to say NO. No matter how positive some of your goals may be, you don't have our support until our rights become as important as other people's. And until you treat us with respect.

by foxx 2008-03-16 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

That's just crazy. If you feel that way about Barack, imagine how his supporters feel about Hillary as the kitchen sink campaign continues.

I know my perception is colored, as is yours, but if for no reason other than running a less negative campaign, Barack has a much greater chance of bringing some semblance of the party together in November. Without it, we will lose the POTUS GE regardless of our nominee, so give up the scorched earth campaign for a minute to consider the good of the party and the country.

by BeekerDynasty 2008-03-16 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

If you are so interested in giving up the "scorched earth" campaign - then how about cutting back on troll rating for disagreement.  Not to mention your lack of courtesy of an explanation.  If you are all about comity, it has to go both ways, monsieur.

PS - I suggest you look up the meaning of "outrageous" too.
In the context of a proposal, "outrageous" means beyond credulity or possibility.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-16 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Yeah McCaskill, Sebelius, Napolitano... they're all simply outraged by all of Obama's sexist comments.   Oprah and Shriver, too. But, um, remind me: what were those sexist comments again?

by mikeinsf 2008-03-16 04:15PM | 0 recs
NO to your proposal: Hillary should be a nominee
we see your childish stupid tricks.
After all I know about Obama, he better just resign from senate and try to run for IL governor.
If IL people stupid enough, they will let this guy learn on the job. But he better stop dividing democrats and helping McCain. Obama is not qualified and there is no reason for Hillary to stop doing what she is doing
by engels 2008-03-16 02:23PM | 0 recs
ROFL

   Glad to see all of you polite, generous, never-mean-to-opponents Clinton supporters have finally found a web-site free of invective and personal attacks. childish AND stupid? What do you bse your "not qualified" judgement on? plz be specific....

by Kordo 2008-03-16 02:47PM | 0 recs
i saw enough on dailykos of your politeness

are you suggesting to close mydd and let dailykos to overrun the universe?

by engels 2008-03-16 03:26PM | 0 recs
I'm

still waiting, Lucy...

by UrbanRedneck 2008-03-16 03:33PM | 0 recs
Well, now I'm offended

Poor grammar aside...

I live in IL which I now discover means that not only does my vote  (and, implication, me as a lifelong Democrat) not matter, but that I am stupid as well.  Somebody get on the phone to Chicago Kent School of Law let them know.  Should probably call Northwestern University and tell them to strip me of my Master's as well.  While your at it, notify Southern Illinois University and tell them I don't deserve my dual degrees.

But,  honestly, enough about me, after all I'm Stoopid...

One thing though: Was it Obama who said: "I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," Clinton said yesterday. "I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy."? (sourced at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/200803 07/cm_thenation/45295555)

So, esplain Lucy, Who is helping McCain & dividing democrats?"

by UrbanRedneck 2008-03-16 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Obviously I don't agree with you, but I'm mojoing to balance out the TR rate. Your comment clearly isn't trolling.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

My response was intentionally outrageous to match the outrageousness of the diary.  Call it parody, if you will.  However, I see it got me two drive-by troll-ratings from newbies.  Thanks for the uprate.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-16 03:28PM | 0 recs
What role for Reid in a BO admin?

He's been worthless - what possible job should he be given?

by Shazone 2008-03-16 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Uh, maybe Harry Reid and/or Dick Durbin would object?  Could this be considered unpalatable to them, maybe?  Call me crazy, but I think they might not want to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.  Just sayin.

by Carlo 2008-03-16 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

please stop with the ridiculous and blatantly false "obama will do worse in the general." its widely debunked

by ksquire 2008-03-17 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

HERES A WAY TO AVOID A CONVENTION FIGHT.

OBAMA WITHDRAW.

FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-16 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

yeah, have the guy who's leading in the popular votes, states won, pledged delegates, and only a little behind in superdelegates quit.  give the person who's losing the prize, she deserves it.  besides it'll help her self-esteem.

by Doug Tuttle 2008-03-16 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

new rule.

the guy who has NO chance to win in november...

QUITS!

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-16 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

sorry, I didn't realize you were clairvoyant, and already foresaw his defeat.  I concede your brilliant point.  also, could I have Wednesdays power ball numbers?  thanks a bunch.

by Doug Tuttle 2008-03-16 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?
OK, picture this. Forty-seven times a day there is an 527 ad showing Wright screaming gd America and that the US made the aids virus to kill blacks - and Michelle making comments and Obama not singing the national anthem.
All but the most fervent dems are going to either stay home or vote for McCain. Forget independents. Republicans voting dem? Forget it.
by georgiast 2008-03-16 04:38PM | 0 recs
Has it occurred to you or anyone else

that Hillary has had it easy in this campaign so far? Obama has not thrown the kitchen sink at her and she has not been vetted (her tax returns, contributors to the Clinton library, white house documents from the Clinton years have not been released!). Hypothetically, if Hillary gets the nomination, you don't think the GOP will get this all out and throw the sink at her? I would be shocked if we did not see some shocking revelations from those disclosures. Don't be so sure to pass judgement on Obama when your candidate has not been vetted since Bill left office (that's 8 years of history not being vetted!)

by galwar 2008-03-16 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Wait for polls. If he doesn't get affected by this in general election polls two weeks from now (and they keep this in the media, which they will if he drops in the polls), then he's golden.

by vcalzone 2008-03-16 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

You mean Clinton, who gets fewer electoral votes when the head-to-head matchups are tallied?

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 02:46PM | 0 recs
new rule

MAKE UP any rule that lets my candidate WIN!!!!

by kindthoughts 2008-03-16 02:49PM | 0 recs
I think you have a typo

by kindthoughts 2008-03-16 02:29PM | 0 recs
The good of the party?

  How is it good for the Party if the front-runner concedes to the person in 2nd place? Help me out here....

by Kordo 2008-03-16 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The good of the party?

And how is it good to ask either side to quit before its over?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-17 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Hell no.  He isnt getting out until he falls behind in PLEDGED delegates.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-16 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Don't be so sure. There is more to come from his church. The mining on this one has just begun. I'm guessing he will drop out over more developments there.

by excuseme 2008-03-16 09:38PM | 0 recs
Let me get this straight...

you want the leader to withdraw?  

by UrbanRedneck 2008-03-16 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?
It is clear that LandStander is violating the FAQ on troll-rating multiple times.  
I would like to  draw the attention of MyDD frontpagers to this.
by johnnygunn 2008-03-16 03:30PM | 0 recs
Why Is Obama Afraid of Michigan

and Florida voters?

by durendal 2008-03-16 05:07PM | 0 recs
Caps lock wins arguments

I'm convinced.

by Etchasketchist 2008-03-16 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Someone who is ahead in delegates is going to drop out?  Don't count on it.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-16 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

How can you expect the Senate Majority Leader himself to take part in the negotiation of him losing his position within the Senate?

Makes very little sense.

by falcon4e 2008-03-16 02:10PM | 0 recs
Reid gave up some power

to Jeffords when he was trying to get Jeffords to switch parties.

Reid promised Jeffords that if he helped Dems get a Senate majority, he could chair whatever committee that (in theory) Reid would have been in line to chair.

by desmoinesdem 2008-03-16 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

give reid a position in the obama administration.  something easy, something he can handle.  secretary of balloon doggies maybe.

by Doug Tuttle 2008-03-16 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Nobody is ever made secretary of balloon doggies. The balloon doggies demand it.

by vcalzone 2008-03-16 02:37PM | 0 recs
Thanks!

Thanks for the giggle. :)

by Bella 2008-03-16 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Regains his elder statesman status after a disastrous term and maybe a role in Obama's Cabinet. It's a longshot, but not out of the question.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

The problem is that if reid steps down then I'm pretty sure the Govenor gets to appoint his succesor and the current govenor of Nevada is a republican.

Also, Nevada is a hard state for dems to win top of the ticket state wide races.

The only people that have been able to do it have held the last name Reid and Miller. And to be honest, the netroots would errupt in complaints about the moderate democrat that would be required to take reid's place.

But still my point is that it would be hard to keep the seat in our column.

Maybe Rory Reid, reid's son could take over and keep the seat, but that'd be tough.

Jim Gibson, the former mayor of Henderson is a big possibility and he's popular statewide. Plus he's a well established mormon so that helps a lot. But I think he's going to run for, and probably beat, Jim Gibbons.

by world dictator 2008-03-16 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I'm not asking that Reid step down as a Senator, just as Senate Majority Leader. He certainly keeps his Senate seat, just like Robert Byrd.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Whoops, we're talking about in the event of taking an Obama job. Apologies for the confusion.

You have a point, but given the number of seats we're likely to pick up this year, I'm not worried about it. And quite frankly, whether or the Netroots are pleased is not a major question when the bigwigs formulate Democratic strategy - nor, IMHO, should it be. (/ducks)

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I would like my senator to represent me you know. So it does matter if we lose this seat to a Republican. But I'm sure you didn't mean to be callous. :-)

But regardless, until we get above 60 votes in the senate EVERY democrat vote counts.

by world dictator 2008-03-17 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Fair enough.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-20 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Reid has already said he's stepping down after this election to focus on his reelection campaign.

I don't think either of them should drop out. As long as its clean and substantive, I like it.

This is the greatest season of survivor ever (I think I stole that from Bill Maher)

by LiberalFL 2008-03-16 05:14PM | 0 recs
I prefer Chris Dodd for Senate majority leader

but if Clinton loses the nomination, I predict that she will become a real force to be reckoned with as a senator.

Probably every mistake she's made in the past 7 years has been related to a fear of appearing too liberal in a general election.

If she is forced to give up the dream of being president, she can become one of the great senators of all time.

by desmoinesdem 2008-03-16 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I prefer Chris Dodd for Senate majority leader

Hillary Clinton< not a closet liberal.

by hctb 2008-03-16 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I prefer Chris Dodd for Senate majority leader

If we get a change in that leadership post I'd rather have Dodd or Patrick Leahy.

by Christopher Walker 2008-03-16 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

First of all , why in the world do you have front page rights ?

Just curious lol

You should start pointing it out a little more explicitly right under the title.

The other front pagers Todd , Singer , Armstrong all have their biases but at least we know they run the blog.

But I have no idea why you have front page priviledges .

Lets leave that aside.

Read this paragraph in your diary and try to look for the contradiction.

" It's hard to argue with the suggestion that Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in recent American political history. This would make FDR-style consensus governing a tricky task for her as President, but would be irrelevant as Senate Majority Leader. Her record as a Senator certainly suggests she would excel in the position. She has done an excellent job of reaching across the aisle to get things done, wooed over thousands of hostile upstate voters (including members of my own family), and learned the ropes from former Majority Leader and anti-war Dem Robert Byrd. "

by lori 2008-03-16 02:12PM | 0 recs
Jerome invited the "candidate bloggers"

to continue posting on the front page on weekends.

by desmoinesdem 2008-03-16 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome invited the

He should make more clear his biases though. If you didn't know his history as a blogger you would take the post in a different way.  For instance, he I know he used to be a Biden supporter..now he's an Obama supporter. SO in postings like this the bias issue is of importance.

by apolitik 2008-03-16 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome invited the

I did make it clear, but as you admitted downthread, you just didn't read that far in the diary.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

You said she can't find consensus as president but in the same breadth she has found consensus in the senate and New York

 - That doesn't make much sense

by lori 2008-03-16 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Clinton does a masterful job when people get to know her, which happens on a one-on-one level (the Senate) and a state leve (AK and NY). The national level is a different ballgame entirely, and I don't think people will even be willing to give her a chance. They certainly won't get to know her intimately like you can through local news and town hall meetings on the state level.

As for front page access, desmoinesdem is right, all the campaign bloggers have been invited to stick around as weekend bloggers. I also did some non-weekend local reporting on the NH primary. Before I knew all that, though, I actually asked Jerome to remove my front page privliges after I accidentally posted a diary or two as entries. I feel very privliged to be given this platform.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Sorry to intrude Texas Transplant. I'm very new here on MyDD. What is a "candidate blogger"?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-16 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

No worries. Last summer, Jerome invited an independent supporter or two of each candidate to blog weekly on the frontpage for their candidate - Clinton on Monday, Obama on Tuesday, etc. As you can imagine, there weren't a lot of Biden supporters around, and based on a number of Katrina recovery diaries I had made and my verbal support for Biden, I guess I was kind of a natural choice. We were invited to stick around as weekend posters when our respective candidates dropped out. I'm very grateful for the unsolicited platform and privilege.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Thanks for the answer. TransplanterTexan.

I was wondering.

Have you guys written a blog together were you talk about the decision making process when changing from one candidate to another. From what I've heard it's not as easy as folks like to think. There are differences within the pool of Democratic candidates. For those folks who didn't at first support either Sen. Clinton or Obama, it is the question of the day.

I would love to read a diary where the comments are about how you all decided. Might be interesting. Especially since there are folks who are involved in the process at the moment.

Thanks again for answering my question.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-17 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Hey, 12 dogs, sorry to take so long to get back to you, I was camping and away from MyDD. Hope it's not too late for you to see this comment.

That is an interesting topic, I too would be interested in reading more about it. I myself haven't written anything about the process of switching, but I did write about my reasons for specifically choosing Obama once Biden and Dodd both dropped out. You can check it out here.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/5/16132 0/8512

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-20 08:08PM | 0 recs
I can see where your're going...

...but I think the point was how differently a President, and a Senate Majority Leader have to go about getting "consensus". The President has a 24/7 bully-pulpit. They can speechify, cajole, and generally make their point thru the Media, but at the end of the day, they can only say yes,or no. I see that as more "emotional consensus", than practical policy-making. The SML has to be good at old-school political horse-trading, behind closed doors, in a room full of prima-donna egomaniacs with their own agendas. It has less to do with sound-bites, than it does with hard-nosed examination of what, EXACTLY, everyone can live with in terms of political reality. Honestly, if you had to have someone negotiate for you on a matter you cared deeply about, who would you pick? If you had to find someone to stand up in front of  voters who disagree with you, and make the case for your ideas and beliefs on a gut-deep level, who would you pick? We have just the right people, in just the right spot, at just the right time, to really put a progressive stamp on policy for the next generation. Let's stop chewing on each other and get on with the real fight...I'm just sayin'....

by Kordo 2008-03-16 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

No. But I've got another suggestion:

Clinton as POTUS.
Obama goes back to the Senate.
Maybe in about 16 years HE can be Senate Majority Leader.
Yeah, that sounds about right.

by Soitgoes 2008-03-16 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Thank you.  Saved me from typing it.

by Tolstoy 2008-03-16 02:49PM | 0 recs
Yeah,

cause there is a line you have to stand in to be president. Assuming its based on experience, Hillary should let Dodd go ahead.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-16 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah,

And Biden, and Richardson...

by who threw da cat 2008-03-16 05:48PM | 0 recs
Amazing...

...how people still haven't grasped the fact that Hillary has lost, is losing, and will go on losing the primaries by any definition of "loss" that's meaningful.

"Compromise" to you means completely overturning the will of the voters and merely handing Empress Clinton her crown.

My own suggested compromise is that Obama becomes President, and Clinton just goes away to be remembered by history as a figure with the hugest sense of personal entitlement in the western hemisphere. She's lost, there's no need for a "compromise".

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-16 03:12PM | 0 recs
My point exactly

The Clinton supporters seem to think that Clinton deserves the nomination and Obama does not! Tell that to the millions of people that have voted in this primary so far and have preferred Obama over Hillary.  It's called democracy!

by galwar 2008-03-16 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I agree that Senator Clinton would be a remarkable and effective Senate Majority Leader and the role suits her finest abilities.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-03-16 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Exactly what abilities is that ?

It would be nice if you can give some examples.

by lori 2008-03-16 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Her attention to detail, especially on domestic policy, her tenacity, her tendency toward creating winning coalitions of elected Democrats based on common electoral or ideological causes, her strength of purpose in closed door negotiations and apparent ability to knock heads together when required, her long-standing insider knowledge of the political back-stories and ability to coerce, and negotiate, quid pro quo arrangements at critical junctures.  Her resume seems uniquely suited to a tough leadership role in a highly demanding position such as this.

Things that I perceive as liabilities in a chief executive would be aptly suited to a leadership role in an institutional body.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-03-16 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Agreed 100%.

by marcotom 2008-03-16 02:56PM | 0 recs
Fear Factor

   The Republicans are going to be the minority party, with all the freedom from responsibilty that entails. They could spend the next four years simply causing gridlock, and gumming up the works. How much crap do you think they'll get away with if they know they hafta face Hillary Clinton? If she's President, they can fling shit all day, and she'll have to appear to ignore it. If she's SML, with the future of their pet legistlation in her hands, we might hear a bit more courtesy from them...

by Kordo 2008-03-16 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Her attention to detail, especially on domestic policy, her tenacity, her tendency toward creating winning coalitions of elected Democrats based on common electoral or ideological causes, her strength of purpose in closed door negotiations and apparent ability to knock heads together when required, her long-standing insider knowledge of the political back-stories and ability to coerce, and negotiate, quid pro quo arrangements at critical junctures.

You view these as liabilities for the executive?  Put aside the Obama v. Clinton discussion-you clearly should be arguing to get rid of the Executive if you think that attention to detail, coalition building, negotiating and coercion are all things that the Executive does not/should not  engage in.

I mean, what the hell? Are we talking about electing Prince William? Sit pretty in the chair, dear. Leave all the governing to the big boys and girls.

by hctb 2008-03-16 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Attention to detail = LBJ. It's too easy for such legislative masters to start micromanaging and lose sight of the big picture, as he did when he personally selected bombing targets.

Similarly, a penchant for, as Shaun put it, knocking heads together is exactly what people are tired of in politics, so it's best if it comes from a party leader the nation doesn't pay so much attention to. The president defines the party, so they can play nice and let the lower profile SML do the nitty gritty.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

You made exactly the case I was implying, thanks.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-03-16 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Actually, she isn't so polarizing in the Senate.  She's shown ability to get along and work with Republicans.

And if she could get a good health care bill that McCain (yes, President McCain) could sign, it would be a great capstone of her career.

What's happened to her in this race is that she she was surrounded by bad advisors and she never really developed a message that would work.

Hillary would be a vast improvement over Harry Reid.

by mikelow1885 2008-03-16 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Well, Obama can't win the general election so if he's given the nomination then we should move on and look toward other races. Hopefully, he won't kill too many downticket races and the candidates are able to successfully distance themselves from him so they'll be able to win.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-16 02:16PM | 0 recs
&quot;given?&quot;

by omar little 2008-03-16 02:46PM | 0 recs
what do you expect

Clinton folks to say it. She is entitled to it, do not ya know :)

by kindthoughts 2008-03-16 02:57PM | 0 recs
Tired remark

I've NEVER thought Hillary was "entitled" to the Presidency.  It was the MSM that anointed her, not the populace and quite frankly, they did her no favor.  Why contribute, why vote, why hustle for the "shoe in"?

I don't see that she has presented herself as anyone entitled to the job.  To me, she has talked to the American public asking for the job, thinking that she has the best qualifications and abilities.  You ever applied for a job?  Did you walk in with your head up or your tail between your legs thinking, "I don't deserve this."  

Obama supporters want her to withdraw because she can't win without the superdelegates.  Well, neither can Obama.  Just because he's ahead coming out of the far turn doesn't mean she's not going to make a great stretch run.

P.S.  I'm not an avid Clinton supporter, but I'm leaning her direction instead of Obamas right now.

by Southern Mouth 2008-03-16 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Tired remark

I am an Obama supporter and I certainly believe that Clinton has the right to fight it to the end, if she believes she has a chance.

What irks me in the suggestions by Clinton supporters is the fact that in all their suggested compromises they have her with the Presidential nomination, even though she's currently in 2nd place.

That's just absurd.
Obama supporters often say "Well Clinton can't defeat Obama with pledged votes alone, so Clinton should just quit."
But Clinton supporters say "Well Clinton can't defeat Obama with pledged voted alone, so Obama should quit."

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-16 03:41PM | 0 recs
That's what fans do.

I think fan is short for fanatic.  It certainly to some people!

If Hillary had the lead right now, her supporters would likely be calling on Obama to bow out.  It always gets me when people fail to see that in the same situation, they would want the same.

All the accusations of foul play is what is so disgusting and tiresome.

Where's Rodney King?

by Southern Mouth 2008-03-16 03:56PM | 0 recs
more power to you

but believe me I had conversations with Clinton supporters where phrases like "cut in line", "wait his turn" were main arguing points.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-16 04:33PM | 0 recs
That's too bad - but of course

You can't attribute Clinton "supporters" to Clinton herself, just like I won't attribute Obama supporters to Obama.  If we did, we'd have to say that we have a couple of loons up for the nomination!

by Southern Mouth 2008-03-16 06:02PM | 0 recs
I agree with you completely.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-16 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;given?&quot;

We all have seen Obama and his surrogates talk about how if he isn't given the nomination they are going to riot. And he's depending on disenfranchising voters to have the lead.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-16 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;given?&quot;

You have seen Obama talk about if he isn't given the nomination he is going to riot?

Well I am not even going to bother with the niceties, stop lying.

by kasjogren 2008-03-16 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;given?&quot;

I said surrogates right?

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-16 03:56PM | 0 recs
No you said...

Obama AND surrogates

now where did I put that early onset Alzheimer's definition...

by brit 2008-03-16 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: No you said...

Are not Obama rules that surrogates speak for the candidate? I'm using your own rules here. These are the rules that Obama established.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-16 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: No you said...

You were called on a lie and now you're changing the subject.

Monty Python: Is this a ten minute argument or the full half hour

by brit 2008-03-16 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: No you said...

Nope, according to the Obama campaign, candidates are responsible and speak for the candidate and the campaign itself right? Those are your rules so you should abide by them. When one of Obama's surrogates says something it's the same as Obama saying it. If you don't like the rules you have made then you need to change the rules.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-16 04:16PM | 0 recs
The only rule I was aware of...

...was that if make a statement, and then someone calls you a liar, you should either back up what you said, or quit arguing.

So where did Obama AND HIS surrogates threaten riots on the convention floor?

You can easily post in a link using HTML code

by brit 2008-03-16 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The only rule I was aware of...

Sharpton who supports Obama has said it. It's the same as Obama saying it according to Obama under Obama rules right?

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-16 04:36PM | 0 recs
wrong

by brit 2008-03-16 04:42PM | 0 recs
Where?

   Where, exactly, did Al Sharpton say that? seriously, if your're going to make a claim like that, you need to back it up with facts. Talking about things like rioting is funny. If you'd ever actually seen a riot, you'd know that. Slow down the bluster, friend.

by Kordo 2008-03-16 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The only rule I was aware of...

You even made a distinction between the candidate himself and his supporters and then said BOTH threatened to riot.

So stop lying.

by kasjogren 2008-03-16 06:04PM | 0 recs
Riot !?

  Where did you all see that?? Do you mean this allegorically, or did you actually read an Obama supporter say that? I've been to a few local strategy sessions, and I can assure you, there was no talk of riot...

by Kordo 2008-03-16 05:55PM | 0 recs
Yes

Given by the millions of people who voted for him over Hillary in the primary. You and I know it's called Democracy but to some Clinton supporters, Democracy sucks!

by galwar 2008-03-16 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Red State governors disagree.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Really? I live in a red state and the only statewide elected Dems are supporting Hillary. Is Bayh from a red state? This is just spin from the Obama campaign. And he does poorly in GE matchups in the red states and even some blue states.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-16 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Katherine Sibelius is just spin? Claire McCaskill is just spin? Janet Napolitano is just spin? The Idaho state party leadership endorsements are just spin?

He does well enough in GE matchups that adding up all the state GE polls gives him more electoral votes than her. I wish I had the link, it was frontpaged on MyDD not long ago.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Yes, it's spin because the Obama campaign acts like they are the only ones who have support from red states right?  Obama lost the Dem primary in AZ so that endorsement didn't even help him in the primary.

It was SUSA that I was going by. And Obama had 4 more ec votes than clinton so they were basically tied but his path to winning is much more precarious because he loses NJ and PA right off the bat.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-16 03:59PM | 0 recs
Obama effect

I think there can be some efeective distancing from Obama, but two things I'm worried about.

1.  Disaffected voters--will they still turn out, and if they do, will they vote for other Democrats?  

2.  Florida has several important House races, but some Democrats are so angry at Howard Dean they may actually vote Republican.

I'm also wondering about turnout in these late primaries also.

by mikelow1885 2008-03-16 05:05PM | 0 recs
Downticket Killer??

  Are you for real? This guy is down-ticket GOLD! We've got a city council race heating up here in Tampa, and even these guys are running on Obama's coat-tails...

by Kordo 2008-03-16 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Downticket Killer??

Must be a deep blue district then. No one statewide here wants him. Especially after the relevations about his church.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-16 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

The Clinton campaign tried to solve this problem by having Obama run on a ticket with Hillary.  
Let's have Obama be Hillary's running mate and then he can get the experience he needs to be a President down the road, by watching Hillary straighten out the mess we are in.  He just needs more experience, and she will guide him.

Just like Dee Dee Myers says, women's brains are wired differently from men's, and they have distinct life experiences, so they approach leadership and resolve conflicts differently.  As primary caretakers, women develop the exact qualities possessed by good leaders.  They manage time well, they're more empathetic, and they're constantly gathering information and then making decisions.  A variety of leaderhsip styles creates more options for a government or a company.  The idea isn't to ditch our male leaders but rather to improve the mix - and for that we need women.  So, President Hillary Clinton, first woman President; and Vice-President Barack Obama, first black Vice-President, would be the way to solve this Democratic Party problem.

by PGraber 2008-03-16 02:19PM | 0 recs
if only we could have some sort

of contest where this could be decided.

Lets call it the nomination process.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-16 02:59PM | 0 recs
I kind of agree...

...Women do approach problems differently, and we desperately need more of them in leadership positions. I'm just not sure Hillary is the woman for that job. As nice of her as it was to offer Obama the Veep slot (when he's ahead of her in the race?), it has more than a whiff of Entitlement to me. And, please, spare me the "historic" aspect of either of them. I don't give a rat's ass if the next President is a purple hermaphrodite (did i spell that right?), as long as they can do the damn job.

by Kordo 2008-03-16 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I kind of agree...

Y'know, I'm pretty sure a purple hermaphrodite president would also be pretty historic...

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I kind of agree...

Did you ever see a man who could multi-task?

by georgiast 2008-03-16 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

  OBAMA CANT WIN DUMMY!  IT'S ALL SO CLEAR.  WAKE UP.  OPEN YOUR EYES.  OBAMANAUT.

by cilerder86 2008-03-16 02:20PM | 0 recs
yeah,

typing in caps and calling people obamanauts really drives your point across.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-16 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

And your basis for this well-reasoned and documented conclusion is...?

Or is this snark, making fun of the nuts who actually believe that? Sometimes it's hard to tell.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-16 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Good thought soitgoes-If Obama is such a united let's see him do it in the Senate first(he hasn't done it yet in his brief 2 years which have been mostly spent running for other office).  But then again once he's President he'll probably be bored with that  and will find something more exciting to run for(President of the World bank or dictator of  the world maybe)

by JP from HB 2008-03-16 02:20PM | 0 recs
cause you know

Hillary is entitled.

dictator of  the world???

Troll much?

by kindthoughts 2008-03-16 03:01PM | 0 recs
This is a good deal

Hillary would be wise to take it.  There is no viable path for her to the nomination.

by bigdcdem 2008-03-16 02:22PM | 0 recs
Sorry, this diary is absurd

The race is going hot and heavy, Clinton trails by not much more than a sliver and the remainder of the calendar is friendly to her, the media is just awakening to Obama's flaws--and that was all before the white-hot Wright videos surfaced.

You should at least wait til a day when the comment pages of most political blogs aren't filled with "Obama is finished" comments before posting something like this.

The plethora of "math" and "let's finish this thing" stories and postings from the Obama side of the aisle lately hardly bespeaks confidence in you guys' expectations for Obama's ability to "finish this thing" at the ballot box.  Really, if "finishing" is such a big deal, then you need to offer Clinton some kind of package a little more attractive than "you lose."  Otherwise, it ain't finished no matter how hard you wish it was.

by Trickster 2008-03-16 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, this diary is absurd

Clinton is behind by 160 pledged delegates.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-16 02:28PM | 0 recs
pssttt....

do not tell them. They do not want to hear about the math.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-16 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: pssttt....

That's right, kind thoughts. The woman candidate and her supporters cannot do maths.

You realize how offensive this is right? Because calling a candidate's supporters irrational, emotional, and poor at math... hmmm. Yeah.
They aren't funny either.
Maybe innately less capable in the sciences.

They really should go back to ironing.

by hctb 2008-03-16 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: pssttt....

Good job creating something where there was nothing then feigning indignation.

by kasjogren 2008-03-16 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: pssttt....

Y'know, sometimes it really is just about "the other candidate," not "the woman candidate." Anything that would be said about a Kerry, Gephardt, or Dukakis should be said about a Hillary Clinton. Don't take the comments personally, it's the nature of the game. That's why you don't see me snarking about "the black candidate and his supporters cannot..." every time Obama gets hit. You run, you get hit. It's not about your gender, it's about your candidacy.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: pssttt....

I am not offended by attacks on Clinton or her support, I am offended by the gendered nature of the attacks.

I think it is fair to be offended if the comments are all similar to the traditional commentary about how women are inferior or irrational.  This can easily be done with race as well. I will not repeat them--I am sure you can identify coded language when you see it.

by hctb 2008-03-16 04:08PM | 0 recs
who the hell cares

if she is a woman?

by kindthoughts 2008-03-16 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: pssttt....

Wow - that's awesome.  You're taking the phrase, "They do not want to hear about the math" as coded sexist language intended to mean something like "women have poor analytical skills"?

I invite you to attend any sporting event and sit in the stands.  When one team is down by a lot and time is running out you will invariably hear the chant "scoreboard!".  It's taunting, yes, but it is definitely not a claim that the losing team's fans are unaware or mentally incapable of comprehending what's happening.

There's a neat variant of Godwin's Law that goes on here.  ie "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."  Replace that with sexism/racism and you've pretty well described Obama/Clinton comment arguments.

by syrinx 2008-03-16 05:29PM | 0 recs
yeah...

cause you know whenever anyone says anything against hillary...they are sexists..

you seriously have issues.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-16 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, this diary is absurd

I agree that we should see the primary process to the end, but she's trailing by more than a sliver, and the calendar is more even than slanted towards Hillary.  the cnn delegate count is currently 1618 to 1479, Obama's favor.  in terms of elected delegates it's 1411 to 1242.  if it wasn't for the proportional delegate rules, then it would be a slight lead, but when a 10 point win in Ohio only nets 9 delegates, delegate wise it's going to be hard to catch up.  furthermore the states still to vote are South Dakota, Kentucky, Oregon, Indiana, Pennsylvania. west Virginia, north Carolina, puerto rico, Montana, and the possible Florida Michigan things.  south Dakota, Montana north Carolina and Oregon are Obama territory.  Pennsylvania is lean to likely Clinton.  Kentucky, without any polls to go by, I'd say lean Clinton, west Virginia would be likely Clinton.  this leaves us with Indiana.  it's similar to Ohio, and Hillary has Evan Bayh, but it also borders Illinois which might help Obama.  I'd say tossup to lean Clinton.  either way, because of proportion, it's unlikely that the math will change dramatically

by Doug Tuttle 2008-03-16 02:33PM | 0 recs
Kentucky is likely Clinton

n/t

by Shawn 2008-03-16 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky is likely Clinton

most likely yes,  but i would like to see a (preferably SUSA) poll first before putting it in that column.

by Doug Tuttle 2008-03-16 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, this diary is absurd

Remainder of the calender freindly?  Yes, she is likely to win PA, KY, WV, and Puerto Rico and little else.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-16 03:07PM | 0 recs
lol

There aren't many states besides those. And she has a good chance in Indiana.

by Shawn 2008-03-16 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, this diary is absurd

Don't need to offer anything.  She has lost.  She can try to gain the nomination now, at the expense of the democratic party, but it would be Mondale in 84 all over again.  Hart had more delegates,  strongarmed the SDs to become the nominee and lost in the general (badly).

It's not a question of confidence in the candidate.  Obama supporters are confident about their candidate, the problem is the way in which the campaign has been conducted.  The "Kitichen Sink" stragegy (or win at all costs as it is better known) is a recipie for losing in the general for any candidate, due to the divisions and infighting it creates.  So it becomes imperative for one side or the other to give up at some point before this thing gets too far out of hand (not that it isn't there already).

It is Clinton that should be offering a way (and by this I don't mean insult the front runner by offering him the VP spot) to step aside gracefully so that she may try this again if Obama fails.  If she is seen as the candidate to destroy this campaign, then her career is over.

If she can do this, swallow a little pride, admit defeat when she's lost, then maybe people will be able to find her a palitable choice in the future, other wise she will be remembered as a very destructive also ran.

Choice is hers.

by Why Not 2008-03-16 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, this diary is absurd


I do not disrespect Texas Transplant or her/his diary. This diary is recognizing that there is going to have to be a Democratic ticket chosen to run against McCain. It is an offered solution. If you've got a better idea then write it up in your diaries and I for one will go read it.

From what I have seen of the goings on here on MyDD?

She won't be offered the chance of running for president any more than Al Gore was in 2004. Or John Kerry  in 2008. If she is going to run for president she might just best do it now.

Besides, folks said she should walk out before SuperTuesday cause she was gonna loose and loose big. I'm really gonna have to find that post, but basically it said she'd quit the following Thursday. She's still here.

I'm personally tired of hearing folks basically say that the only way their candidate can win is if the other person quits. I'm sick of it. Speaks bad of your candidate if that's the only way you can win.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-16 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

It's so laughable that those limousine liberals are still believing it's about Hillary. It is NO LONGER about Hillary, it is about Obama.

Obama is simply NO longer acceptable to many demographic groups such as Jews,Asians, blue-collar whites, Hispanics.

Even if Hillary steps aside, we will NOT support Obama in general election.

This just shows you how clueless many limousine liberals are.

by prisonbreak 2008-03-16 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

On what evidence do you base this?

by politicsmatters 2008-03-16 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

  Yeah, those damned libruls!  Why don't they move to Canada?!

by cilerder86 2008-03-16 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

  That poster must be a 1/4 blue collar White, 1/4 Jewish, 1/4 Hispanic, 1/4 Asian limousine driver.  

by cilerder86 2008-03-16 02:31PM | 0 recs
What evidence?

  I keep hearing these End-Times declarations about Sen. Obama's political destruction, and yet he keeps racking up delegates, and states? The fence-sitting Super-Dels can't seem to make a decision for the most part, but they do seem to keep trickling his way. After seeing all of that, on what evidence do you base these assertions?

by Kordo 2008-03-16 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: What evidence?

Hehehe. You obviously don't know how powerful magic mushrooms are ;)

by pitahole 2008-03-16 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Where do you get your "facts?" I'm Asian & all the Asians I know are supporting Obama.

by mangonut 2008-03-17 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

heres my idea, Barack Obama for junior senator from illinois!

by zane 2008-03-16 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

How about Obama get out of politics and submit himself for Sainthood?  He's clearly convinced of his own divinity.  

You can make the case for seating the media on the selection committee just to lock the whole thing up.

by BRockNYC 2008-03-16 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Empty rhetoric much? Repeating memes and talking points does not really advance a serious argument.

by marcotom 2008-03-16 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?
Hey trickster-it's you Obamites who keep quoting the "Math" and the pledged delegate count and keep changing the rules of the game.  It's not who comes out with the most pledged delegates-it's who gets 2025.  If Obama doesn't get the 2025-all bets are off.  Pledged delegates(a misnomer since they can vote for whoever they want to vote for) and Super delegates will all decide who has the abiltity to WIN against MCcain.  We already had too many elections where we put in a "loser"  like Carter or Dukakis just because they knew how to succeed in this overthought Democratic Party set of undemocratic caucuses and primaries(this is the democratic party-not the democrat/indie/repub party)
More DEMOCRATS voted for Hillary than OBama.  Super Delegates can read and know that.  It's not the will of the people that counts-IT'S THE WILL OF DEMOCRATS-I repeat the WILL OF DEMOCRATS THAT COUNT-not Indies and Repubs trying to HIJACK OUR DEMOCRATIC PARTY
by JP from HB 2008-03-16 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

"It's not who comes out with the most pledged delegates-it's who gets 2025."

Agreed. And no matter how many times I've crunched the math, I've seen no realistic set of numbers that gives Clinton the 2025 including automatic delegates.

The automatic delegates won't vote en masse. They are individuals and will split as well. And anything less than a 65% split for Clinton of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates (along with performing to the highest end of reasonable expectations in all remaining contests) would leave her behind Obama.

by KyleJRM 2008-03-16 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

"It's not who comes out with the most pledged delegates-it's who gets 2025."

Agreed. And no matter how many times I've crunched the math, I've seen no realistic set of numbers that gives Clinton the 2025 including automatic delegates.

The automatic delegates won't vote en masse. They are individuals and will split as well. And anything less than a 65% split for Clinton of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates (along with performing to the highest end of reasonable expectations in all remaining contests) would leave her behind Obama.

by KyleJRM 2008-03-16 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

"It's hard to argue with the suggestion that Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in recent American political history."

I can argue with that suggestion. The only reason she's "polarizing" is because the far right decided to destroy her early on and otherwise sane people are now carrying their water for them, as you do with that comment.

So we're now into the "Hillary should sit down, shut up, and take this bone" phase of the campaign. That makes all of us Hillary supporters feel so warm and fuzzy. If this sort of thing comes about, Obama may have our votes in the fall because we hate McCain, but the party very likely won't have our boots on the ground. Too bad.

by bently2 2008-03-16 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

That's not really an argument with what I said, I completely agree with you. What you're saying isn't that she ISN'T polarizing, but that she SHOULDN'T BE polarizing. And I agree. She doesn't deserve her rep at all - but it is what it is. Sometimes life is unfair, and we have to face reality. Where the unfairness can be corrected, let's go all out and make it happen - but  I'm not sure that's possible here. It would be great to be wrong, though, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Actually, Obama is showing himself to be way more polarizing than Hillary ever was or will be.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-16 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

To Hillary supporters, perhaps. To Independent voters, notsomuch.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Have you looked at his support within the party? He's polarizing the party and those independents are not reliable. They'll all say in nov. "well, that was before I knew X about Obama."

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-16 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Exactly the point why people should be concerned about the current Wright video. The more air time it gets, the more independents will abandon Obama.

by bently2 2008-03-16 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

"Power brokers" ?  There is no power and there are no brokers; but I think I know the sort of people you have in mind.  The only manner in which they should address Senator Clinton is to order her to leave public life forthwith.

The damage is already irreparable and it no longer matters how this cycle plays out.

The card that should have been played, on the day of the "Brooks Brothers riot" and on each succeeding day, was the complete failure and absolute illegitimacy of all American political institutions, beyond any possibility of incremental repair and requiring a clean break of institutional continuity.  The (first) Republic is dead, long live the (second) Republic.  If that marker had been laid down brightly, regardless of how many or how few would have rallied to it at that moment, we might not now be facing the worst single aspect of our predicament, which is that the birth of the second Republic will probably take a human lifetime.

by wilhoit 2008-03-16 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Obama needs to withdraw from this race.  If nominated there is no chance he will win in the general because the GOP will have a field day with Rezko, Rev. Wright, the flag pin, Michele, NAFTA, you name it.   The southern white male voting block with do it in the South and he will be divisive across the board.  His experience is limited and I think if they other side plays up McCain's "heroism" it will be the decider.  I really cannot see it any other way.  Obama is a lightweight and what is happening now is a sure indication of why a lot of voters should not "fall in love" so easily.

by Pat J 2008-03-16 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

That's inappropiate for this blog.

by apolitik 2008-03-16 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

How so? I completely disagree with Pat, but I don't see anything wrong with electability arguments as long as they're not personal.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 03:00PM | 0 recs
Republican attacks

    What, exactly, do you think the Republicans can throw at him, that Hillary hasn't already? Alot of people here seem to think the the Reps have some massive store of dirt on this man. If they did, do you honestly think Hillary's people would have missed it? Sen. McCain's wholehearted embrace of BushCo has pretty much doomed him already. Yes, he'll get the racist/warmonger vote, no doubt. You're not seriously claiming that Sen. Clinton can take those groups away from Sen. McCain, are you? At least Sen. Obama has a shot at pulling some moderate Reps, and Indys our way....

by Kordo 2008-03-16 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I clearly disagree with you and would never give this comment mojo under normal conditions, but it's certainly not a trollish remark that deserves to be hidden, so my 2 balances out the 0.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

He aint withdrawing from this race until he falls behind in pledged delegates.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-16 03:15PM | 0 recs
Pfft

This sort of argument is beneath contempt: If the "GOP" will have such a supposed field-day with all these issues, why the hell didn't Clinton have a similar field-day?

If Obama is so damn "unelectable" how come Clinton couldn't defeat him? Was she even weaker than him, perhaps?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-16 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

My gut feeling from the very few super-delegates I know is that there is some silent resentment building against the Obama campaign for the misinformation they are spreading about automatic delegates and the delegate selection process.

First off a large number of supers are elected by the public. All of those in Congress and holding office statewide. Some state directly elect candidates to the DNC, others elect them to the State Committee where some are appointed to the DNC. Yes there are a few who are simply appointed by the DNC Chair who was elected to the DNC by a DNC body that consists of many members whose position was weighed in on by the voters.

Also there is a very dishonest whisper campaign that is trying to incite an insurrection should Obama lose. According to the actual rules no one wins till they receive 50% plus 1 of the total delegates. Once that candidate receives the plus one, the contest is over period. No one can cheat or change that result.

If Obama hasn't hit his plus one, he hasn't won yet. The delegate system gives every delegate the same vote whether they were elected in a state primary or elected in a Congressional election. No delegate can invalidate another delegate's vote.

This contest is about allowing all democrats to have a say on which candidate will be their nominee in November. The DNC apportions 80% of all of the delegates to rank and file Democrats who elect their own convention representatives in the state primaries and caucuses.

The rest of the 20% is allocated to people who have been elected to serve the Democratic Party as either members of Congress or the DNC. These public servants have more experience and institutional knowledge of presidential campaigns and election cycles than most private citizens do.

The average voters who control 80% of the delegates have most of the power. They can easily deliver the 50% plus 1 delegates needed to secure the nomination and make the supers...superfluous. In the rare event that the pledged delegate count is relatively split as it is this year. They are supposed to consider the state primaries along with their institutional knowledge to support the candidate that they think will do best in November.

These delegates have no more obligation to follow the lead of Iowa or New Hampshire than the voters in Puerto Rico do.

Also unlike participants in many state contests, Iowa allows Republicans who vote in the Republican Caucus to also participate in the Democratic Caucus, most supers have the parties best interest at heart. They don't want the contest to drag on in a bloody fashion AFTER IT IS OVER. If the supers who all do know the real rules, thought the contest was over they would have already rallied around Obama, given him the 50% plus 1 he needs and Hillary would have been forced to end her campaign. They haven't done that because they know the race is still on.

The misinformation being spread is dangerous and will divide the party EVEN IF ALL THE RULES ARE FOLLOWED TO THE LETTER! To al my Obama supporting friends. If you truly want to unite the country you need to start with the Democratic Party. Read the rules. They are on the DNC web site. Tone down inflamatory language such as stealing the election, overturning the primary or unelected insiders.

by Jon Winkleman 2008-03-16 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

This is a very weird spin from your side. Obama does not control the supers, they can chose whoever they want. They will most probably chose the leader in pledged delegates, because everything else will not go down well with the voters of the losing candidate. That is a very simple truth and I don't see what the Obama campaign is doing that deserves your misinformation charge.

by marcotom 2008-03-16 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I'm sorry...but the whole content of your post just can't be taken credibly. I mean, you're a well known  Obama supporter/Former Biden supporter.

Then you trot out this statement:

"It's hard to argue with the suggestion that Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in recent American political history. This would make FDR-style consensus governing a tricky task for her as President, but would be irrelevant as Senate Majority Leader."

And I had to stop reading. There's no guarantee of that. Just like there's no guarantee Obama won't be polarizing (or to me even worse a compromiser).

But your open support of Obama just ruins the post. Simply because of course you'd try and give the consolation prize to your candidate.

Why not Obama as Senate Majority leader...maybe then he'd learned  bit more about Washington before trying to take it over and maybe...I dunno...get some experience.

by apolitik 2008-03-16 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I admitted to my bias in the final paragraph of the diary, I certainly don't deny it. But while I've made my support for Obama clear, you'll also find it's always been tepid support and I've never joined in the virulent Clinton-bashing.

You're right, there's no guarantee of her divisiveness, but then again, there's no guarantee of anything about anything this far out. Every non-policy argument is pure speculation, no matter who the candidate in quesiton is.

As for a ML Obama, I think his vision is suited for national leadership, while her personal relationships and attention to detail are best suited for legislative leadership.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

  So many angry people.  

by cilerder86 2008-03-16 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

  Glad someone else is thinking this. Hillary would frakkin rock as SML. Obama would, I think, be a bit to polite for that job. Her mastery of policy & procedure wouldn't let anyone put anything over on her. She'd have a far more direct role in the shaping of policy than she would as President. I think she'd be perfect for this. President Obama will need a hard-nosed realist in the Senate if he wants to get anything done.

by Kordo 2008-03-16 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I don't want Hillary to do all the work and BO get all the credit.  

by PGraber 2008-03-16 02:47PM | 0 recs
All the credit???

   Is this about the future of our country, or is it about who "gets the credit"? I've never seen the Senate Majority Leader (of either party) exactly fade into the background. Sen. Clinton would be a welcome change from "Ol' Toothless" Harry Reid, and his gaggle of wilting violets...I'm an Obama supporter, but I realize he's going to need a hard-core policy warrior in Congress if we're going to see any real change.

by Kordo 2008-03-16 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: All the credit???

A hard-core warrior?

Great! Then let her fight.

For president.

I know this is really hard to believe but the woman wants to be president of the US. And that is what she is doing. I just don't think she's gonna give up.

It's kind of insulting to Sen. Obama to constantly be saying he can't win unless his opponent quits.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-16 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

In the end, she will have won all of the large states, most likely have won the popular vote and also have won the popular votes of registered democrats.

Nice try.

by njsketch 2008-03-16 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Most likely? It actually seems very unlikely right now that she will win the popular vote, as far as that can even be measured. The votes of registered Democrats cannot be measured at all, unless you take exit polls for gold. And it would be a meaningless measure anyways, we need more than 50% to win this thing and registered democrats only amount to about 35%.

by marcotom 2008-03-16 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Should would make a great majority leader...after shes done with her 8 years as president. Then she can become majority leader for Obama when he has proven that he has the ability to become the world leader.

will vote democratic in November...Top to Bottom

by liberal youth 2008-03-16 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?
I think this is a brillant tactical ploy by Team Obama. They have offloaded all the dirty laundry. Look this Wright issue was always out there. It didn't come as a surprise, i'm glad it did though. Obama as smart as he is will handle it. This is his big test.
At least we know he is not a Muslim. That smear is now buried.
We can move on. Look the same will be said when the Repugs find all the millions of money the Arabs have donated to the Clinton. That will be a BIG scandal.
by IsaacM 2008-03-16 02:49PM | 0 recs
Exactly what I said earlier

Clinton has not been vetted at all since Bill left office (that's 8 years of vetting left). Obama is getting vetted right now as we speak. If he emerges in good shape, he will be set. He has put the Rezko issue to rest. He has revealed all his earmarks. Clinton has not released her tax returns, her communications during Bill's white house days, contributors to the Clinton library. There could be major scandals in the waiting if Hillary ever gets the nomination.

by galwar 2008-03-16 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Fuck that - have a well-qualified woman with the most experience and the progressive platform so one more man - and completely unqualified one at that - can take the office. Screw that.

Clinton runs for president and stays in the fight till the end. If she loses, then we can talk about senate majority leader.

But don't ask her to step aside just because you can't stand idea of a man not being president. That's all this is.

by Little Otter 2008-03-16 02:49PM | 0 recs
yeah im sure thats it.

(some of us actually hold people accountable for illegal, immoral, imperialist occupations.)

by omar little 2008-03-16 02:58PM | 0 recs
Hillary is the reason there is a war in Iraq?

I didn't know that....

The final AUMF tally was: 77 aye, 23 nay so lets see. If we switch her vote that makes it 76 aye, 24 nay. That would have given Bush pause for sure!

Even if Hillary had managed to pull off some sort of Jedi mind trick and gotten 15 of her fellow Democrats to vote nay, it still would have passed by a comfortable margin (61/39)

In hindsight, she was stupid to believe that Bush would exhaust all possibilities before flipping the war switch, but Obama supporters need to stop pointing to this single vote as if the fate of the country rested on her shoulders.

Even a superhuman arm twisting effort on Hillary's part would not have flipped more than half a dozen of her fellow Senators and Bush would have done whatever the hell he wanted anyway.

Hillary didn't start the war or even contribute significantly to enabling it. If she had voted nay, it would have had exactly no effect on the outcome.

by ktoz 2008-03-16 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is the reason there is a war in Iraq?

Well, with the possible exception of removing the most stunning obstacle to her nomination for the presidency.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-03-16 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is the reason there is a war in Iraq?

It isn't an obstacle. It wasn't an obstacle to Kerry. Obama's support of the same bills she supports isn't a problem. All this is misogyny. Anything to get the well-qualified woman out of the way, so that the guy - and any guy will do - can take over.

The fact of the matter is that she opposed pre-emptive war and was willing to take the only chance we might conceivably have to stop Bush. Successfully completed inspection were the only possible opportunity to stop Bush. Blix wanted the authorization because he felt it was the only way he could get unfettered inspections.

Every adult knows that. She didn't apologize because unlike John Edwards, she didn't support the war. She supported giving the inspectors what they were asking for to finish inspections.

by Little Otter 2008-03-16 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is the reason there is a war in Iraq?

Well, it certainly seems to have been an obstacle and Kerry, you may have noticed, didn't win the general election.  The substance of your argument is merely an oft-repeated and well-rehearsed line of spin which is neither accurate nor persuasive and you may have noticed, in spite of your admirable loyalty, that your candidate has recanted recently somewhat from her position at least as far as her regret of that specific vote.

And your accusation of misogyny, while by no means unique, seems entirely inappropriate to this argument.  Face it, your candidate voted to enable the war in the interests of her domestic political calculations and is now saddled with it.  No amount of revisionism is convincing to me or, apparently, the rest of the electorate who aren't as dumb as you might suppose.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-03-16 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is the reason there is a war in Iraq?

Kerry got more votes than any candidate in history (with the possible exception of George Bush Jr. )and raised more money - so no, it wasn't an obstacle. Democrats turned out in record numbers and donated in record amounts.

I also don't think he lost. I think he won the popular vote, and I think he won Ohio. Why he didn't fight is beyond me, but he didn't. and that's the guy who endorsed Obama. It makes me wonder if obama will fight. I know Clinton will.

by Little Otter 2008-03-16 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is the reason there is a war in Iraq?

The 2004 election was pretty much an anti-Bush vote rather than a measure of enthusiasm for Kerry.

I was genuinely psyched at the prospect of a Howard Dean Presidency but after his meltdown, Kerry was just our last remaining hope dislodge Bush. I don't think anyone had much enthusiasm for the guy.

by ktoz 2008-03-16 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is the reason there is a war in Iraq?

For someone who won't 'fight' he's doing a credible job of beating your pugnacious candidate.  How do you explain that?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-03-16 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is the reason there is a war in Iraq?

I don't think there is any one answer and a full accounting would run to thesis length.

To really know why Obama is winning you would need to do a large survey asking people why they voted for him. When you cut through all the rationalization, choosing one candidate over another is, for the vast majority of voters, an emotional decision.

I don't exclude myself from that. I gave both Obama's and Hillary's web sites a thorough reading before deciding, but that's where it ended. I didn't follow up by reading books on Middle Eastern history, politics, religion and culture to see which candidate's plans for the region are really better. I didn't research alternative energy or bone up on the minutia of carbon sequestratin to see who has the better plan. I didn't study job creation or monetary policy to see which candidate's plans will lead to a stronger, more equitable economy. I just read what they had to say and followed my gut. My gut tells me Hillary's plans are more doable.

Except for the 5 or 6 voters who are informed enough in all areas of policy to make independent determinations as to the merit of each candidate's plans, I would say Obama is winning primarily because he is a fresher face and doesn't have Hillary's baggage.

That isn't in any way meant as a jab at his supporters but if you are honest with yourself, it really all comes down to your gut.

by ktoz 2008-03-16 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is the reason there is a war in Iraq?

Christ, you just can't let it go. Not all Obama supporters are sexist just as not all Hillary supporters are racist.

In fact most of them are neither, give the arguement up, it's insulting to both sides.

by BeekerDynasty 2008-03-16 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is the reason there is a war in Iraq?

True that.

It also would have denied Obama one of his most potent weapons, his claim to superior judgement.

I'm sure Obama supporters are excited about his candidacy for more reasons than just his opposition to the war but it would have been a much harder sell for him without Hillary's AUMF vote.

Every politician and their brother rails against Washington and promises "change" so I don't think he would have gotten much traction.

by ktoz 2008-03-16 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

You're accusing me of sexism?

Well in that case, I accuse you of racism. It's only fair, right? I mean, if the only possible reason for someone to not support Clinton is her gender, then the only possible reason for someone to not support Obama must be his race! The logic's all there!

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Unfortunately, Clinton is the one with the experience and the real resume. Obama's the guy with out it. You're suggesting a superior candidate step aside for an inferior candidate. Until you can point to Obama's full term of service in high office, you're up against the wall.

Yes, your post was sexist.

by Little Otter 2008-03-16 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Clinton's resume is tailored to SML. Obama's vision is tailored to the Presidency.

Yes, your comments were racist.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Uhm, I didn't suggest anyone step aside - you did. You owe me an apology.

Your suggestion she step aside is misogyny. Race is irrelevant to my point that she fight to the end.

by Little Otter 2008-03-16 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

My suggestion that the party leaders try to broker a deal (I never said she should step aside, it would be up to her whether or not to take the deal, which I imagine would be offered in June) is only misogyny if the motivation for the suggestion is because Hillary Clinton is a woman. That is not my motivation. I would make the same suggestion if a male in her position had all the same qualities. As such, to make a special exception in her case would be misogyny. I owe no one an apology, and as such no apology will be forthcoming.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Transplanted,

For the record, I do not think your diary was sexist, just wrongheaded. Still, under your argument, we can only identify misogyny based on the  (stated) motivations of the actor. That is a fairly stringent definition and puts your claims about the Clinton campaign's racist tone in serious jeopardy. I mean, unless you can get Shaheen, Ferraro, WJC, and Hillary to state their opposition to Obama is because of race, your claims about the "drip, drip, drip" upthread and elsewhere are meritless.
I doubt you are willing to cede that claim, so I think you should probably come up with a different way to repudiate claims that you are being sexist.

An intractable problem, to be sure. But you cannot throw your punch without taking several yourself.  

by hctb 2008-03-17 12:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I supported Merkel in Germany and Tymoshenko in Ukraine, so I have no problem with female leaders. But my personal view of Hillary Clinton is that she's the anti-feminist candidate who got her fame handed to her by being married to a former president.

But leaving that aside for the moment, above all things you need remember that Clinton's in second place. She's not leading, she's trailing.

Any supposed "compromise" must recognize that pesky little fact.

Or else you are merely repeating "I voted for her for such-and-such reasons, so she must be first", at which point the Obama supporters will merely reply "Well, we didn't vote for her for such-and-such reasons, and so she shouldn't."

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-16 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?


then obviously you know nothing about Hillary's actual history. You're just assuming that all of her actions were taken almost entirely because of Bill - clearly and unequivocally a sexist assumption.

The fact remains taht Hillary's political career took off before Bill's. Hillary was appointed to the panel considering charges against Richard Nixon - not Bill. Hillary was appointed to the Board of the Legal Services Corportation by Jimmy Carter - not Bill. Hillary was asked to join the board of the Children's Defense Fund on the basis of an internship she did just out of college - not Bill. The paper she wrote on children's rights while doing her internship is still one of the frequently cited papers on the subject - she wrote it, not Bill. Her work in Arkansas was an extension of the work she was doing before she married Bill. And she continues, as a US senator and as a presidential candidate to focus on the same priorities - healthcare for everyone and expanded educational opportunities.

You can marry someone and be a powerhouse in your own right. What you're doing is diminishing her actions (and not Bill's I might add) on the basis of her marital status. It's bullshit. She has her own mind and her own resume. You are engaging in sexist rhetoric.

by Little Otter 2008-03-16 04:25PM | 0 recs
one more time....

   ....I have no problem with a woman in a leadership position (in fact, I think we need far more of them). I still have my "Hillary in 2008" t-shirt ($14.95 to the Clinton campaign, tyvm). I'm not asking anyone to "step aside", I'm asking people to consider how we are going to go about making Senator Clinton's, and Senator Obama's ideas (they don't differ that much, and they are generally good) a reality. It's going to take a massive effort to turn this country around, from the President, and from Congress. Hillary hates glad-handing, she's so-so at speeches, and when she tries to explain her ideas to folks, she comes off as a bit of a school-marm. BUT, she's hell on wheels when it comes to getting people to toe the line.

by Kordo 2008-03-16 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: one more time....

After one of 'em loses, we figure that out. Proposing that the better qualified candidate step aside so that some inexperienced joker can have the job - just so guys don't have to deal with the fact of a woman president isn't going to fly.

If Obama doesn't have the balls to fight this to the end, then he should step aside. Can there be any other interpretation of a post like this than his supporters see his campaign circling and are hoping to offer something up that allows him to win unchallenged?

by Little Otter 2008-03-16 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: one more time....

My goal is not to advance his campaign at every turn. My support for him is tepid. My goal is to find a way to break the deadlock before the Convention since the remaing states aren't likely to do so. I'd be happy with this scenario being switched the other way around except I honestly feel his vision is better for the White House than his and her skill set better suited for the SML spot than his.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: one more time....

You can feel however you want. don't ask women who have been waiting for decades for this opportunity to put their dreams aside, and the better qualified candidate to step aside, because you want a guy in the White House.

you don't understand what you're asking here. You're asking women to walk away from a dream they've had for decades now so that there isn't a fight.

Fuck that. Fuck that. and fuck anyone who suggests that's reasonable. It isn't reasonable. It's sexist.

by Little Otter 2008-03-16 05:03PM | 0 recs
Better title: Barefoot &amp; Pregnant

This diary is really disgusting. No evidence is given, just right wing talking points.

by DaleA 2008-03-16 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: one more time....

Let me change the wording of your comment a little:

"You can feel however you want. don't ask black people who have been waiting for decades for this opportunity to put their dreams aside, and the more inspirational candidate to step aside, because you want a woman in the White House.

you don't understand what you're asking here. You're asking black people to walk away from a dream they've had for decades now so that there isn't a fight.

Fuck that. Fuck that. and fuck anyone who suggests that's reasonable. It isn't reasonable. It's racist."

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: one more time....

Yes. That is exactly right. Yes.

Asking either to step out is not fair to their supporters.

And the poster is not asking anyone to step out. You are.

by hctb 2008-03-17 12:59AM | 0 recs
Re: one more time....

No, I'm not asking anyone to step out, I'm asking the "party elders" to make an offer once the last states have voted. No one can force Hillary Clinton to take it, that part is up to her.

As far as the supporters go, I ask, was it fair to me when Biden and Dodd dropped out, or Dean and Edwards in '04? It happens. As far as this campaign goes, I'd be happy to turn this proposal around, except I honestly believe HRC has a much better skill set for SML than Obama, and Obama has a much better vision for the White House than she.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-17 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: one more time....

They had resoudingly lost.  There is no suggesting that such an instance will be true for either candidate come June. The evidence of Dean etc is neither relevant to the question you have posed about a brokered deal and is dodging the question by invoking some "fairness" concept.

Fair is where you eat cotton candy and visit the pig pavillion.  This is politics. I am not making any claims about fair. I am suggesting you are simply bending the facts to suit your argument. Your mythical party elders will be asking someone to step out. Explain why either would have any incentive to do that if the race is close? Your diary suggests that one of the candidates could be bought with the majority leader position. I think there is no basis for such a claim. You are simply trying to gain the higher ground.

by hctb 2008-03-17 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: one more time....

Prove to me my rationale is that I want a guy in the White House. Find one thing I've ever said that suggests my rationale for supporting Obama is his gender. Prove it.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 05:23PM | 0 recs
Most Clinton supporters don't get this

Experience is not all that matters for the Presidency. If that were the case, find the person who has been in office the longest and appoint them President (there are many ahead in line of Hillary).

The person that is going to win the Presidency is someone who can connect and motivate voters. Case in point: Reagan, Bush (yes W). They won even though their opponent had more experience (and they had little) because they connected and motivated voters - whether you agree with them or not. Please don't think Obama is winning because of sexism. That's BS. He has run a better campaign than Hillary and has connected and motivated more voters than she has (notably young and more educated voters). I would also argue that he has had a more difficult path to the nomination than Hillary and yet has done remarkably better than Hillary. I hope that there is some Democrat left in you to acknowledge that.

by galwar 2008-03-16 06:49PM | 0 recs
well Texan...

it looks like you got your answer.

by omar little 2008-03-16 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

How can someone be qualified for VP but not for POTUS?

Anyways, you are right about future states. If they do decide the race, that's the best of all possible scenarios - I just don't think they will. Clinton gets the big win in PA, Obama the medium win in NC, and Obama the smaller wins everywhere else, and we continue in this stalemate. I hope I'm wrong.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 02:53PM | 0 recs
Everywhere else?

Kentucky? West Virginia?

by Shawn 2008-03-16 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Obama and NC? Maybe. I'm wondering who Edwards will endorse. Hmmmmmmmm.

by Soitgoes 2008-03-16 03:18PM | 0 recs
THat's not a stalemate.

I've crunched this scenario. Obama only needs about 100 more superdelegates, pessimistically, if this happens. That's about 1/3. He'll also be ahead in popular vote.

2/3 of the superdelegates are not going to overturn the will of the voters. In this scenario, Obama wins.

by jaiwithani 2008-03-16 04:17PM | 0 recs
Is she qualified to be Maj Leader?

Usually it is people who have spent many years in the Senate who become Majority Leader. An exception was Sen. Bill Frist who was in his second term, as Senator Clinton would be. But he did not work ot too well for the Republicans, although he helped engineer Daschle's defeat.

Senator Clinton has fewer years than Sen Obama in ELECTED office. She will likely  have a good career as junior Senator from NY, and who knows, in a few years, might make it. Losing a Presidential nomination is not the end of the world. Ted Kennedy has had a good career in the Senate. As long as Clinton loses with grace.

by LibDem 2008-03-16 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Is she qualified to be Maj Leader?

Not just Trist - as I pointed out, there's LBJ, who was one of the most effective Majority Leaders in history. He helped redefine the position.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Is she qualified to be Maj Leader?

Still, what personal qualities does she possess that will make her a  good SML?

LBJ brought a lifetime of experience in elected office. Senator Reid brings a lifetime in the Senate. Senator Clinton brings a speech she made in China.

by LibDem 2008-03-16 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Is she qualified to be Maj Leader?

I think Shaun summed it up well above, I'll let him make my argument: http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/16/1 8411/2283/26#26

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?
most likely have won the popular vote

Please explain how you see this happening.  It's a pretty ridiculous assertion.
by EvilCornbread 2008-03-16 02:55PM | 0 recs
I say

we get Clinton skeletons and Obama skeletons and pit them against each other in some sort of contest.

And lets name the contest Democratic Primary.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-16 02:56PM | 0 recs
More Kos Krap--

This is straight from Daily Kos and don't think we haven't walked out of your sexist dump for no reason.  This is the reason.  Even when you're not vile, you are condescending.  She offered a running mate.  He can do the same now, if he cares for unity.

But I think Obama should be offered Attorney General, so he can pretend to be RFK a lot more convincingly than thus far.

You have another thing coming, this race isn't over and your guy is starting to show his true colors.

He's not a Uniter, he's not too Hope Inspiring, and he's not changing a Dern thing in Washington.

But maybe he could handle being a Senator.  Let's offer him that.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-16 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: More Kos Krap--

I frontpage on MyDD weekends and haven't posted on Kos in months. Suggesting I have anything to do with the tone over there anymore is silly.

And obviously, she only hinted at him being running mate to suggest to voters vote for him, get him, vote for her, get both. It was all about her. I don't blame her for that, it's good politics, but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand about it.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

  I've learned a lot from this thread.  Some Clinton supporters see Obama as a "young punk."  He didn't wait his turn.  Experience is just a code word for all that.

by cilerder86 2008-03-16 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

You are freaking out of your mind.  Hillary will never be majority leader. For one thing she doesn't want it and another she will fight to be president until the last dog dies.

by karajan72 2008-03-16 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

WTF? Are you kidding me? Clinton for majority leader.Being the majority leader is almost like working in a concentration camp.Its a thankless job with nothing to show for it. She doesnt want the job either. Oh and by the way you are a Obama supporter so this suggestion coming from you means nothing.

by bsavage 2008-03-16 03:07PM | 0 recs
Obama Supreme Court

Let's have Obama drop out in exchange for the next vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Seems like his post-partisan and bring people together hype would work well there.

by Judeling 2008-03-16 03:11PM | 0 recs
Let's go to the convention - vote

When neither Obama nor Clinton come up with 2025 votes, revote and I NOMINATE AL GORE!

by Southern Mouth 2008-03-16 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's go to the convention - vote

no can do.

I heard someone said he was needed to tell the Florida voters that their vote don't count

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-16 08:40PM | 0 recs
There's two major problems with this idea

1) There's no evidence that Hillary wants to be Senate majority leader;

2) There's no evidence that Harry Reid doesn't want to be Senate majority leader

The second one is really the most important. The Netroots may be unhappy with Reid's performance, but they/we don't get a vote. As long as the Democrats retain the Senate and increase their majority, his job is basically secure, even if the Democrats lose the presidency again. And he knows that. So the idea that he would "graciously" step aside from the second most important position in Congress so he can maybe be Obama's Ag Secretary or whatever is pretty silly.

I'm also not sure how Bill Richardson retains his clout as a "power-broker" after his performance in the last few months.

by Shawn 2008-03-16 03:12PM | 0 recs
Heck NO to that

President Hillary Clinton sounds much better thanks.

by diplomatic 2008-03-16 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, Here We Go Again

I have been troll rated twice -

By Ajax the Greater
And by LandStander

For the crime of suggesting that Obama will lose badly in the general election.
With the exodus of folks from DKos, I suspect that some extreme Obama supporters have arrived, as well.    Is that what is going to happen at MyDD, too?

Neither bothered to explain the troll rating - which is typical of those who use troll rating vindictively.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-16 03:14PM | 0 recs
sorry, i'm new

  What is a "troll rating"? noob question, but I've been seeing this alot....

by Kordo 2008-03-16 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: sorry, i'm new

It's all here, quick reads (much quicker than the DailyKos versions):

http://www.mydd.com/about
http://www.mydd.com/faq
http://www.mydd.com/special/trusted

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 06:10PM | 0 recs
Even Better ~ Supreme Court

How about she gets the next open seat on the Supreme Court?

by TangerineDreams 2008-03-16 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Even Better ~ Supreme Court

I like it, but unfortunately there's no guarantee of an open seat anytime soon. Maybe combine the two, SML until a seat opens up. I like it!

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Even Better ~ Supreme Court

No thanks buddy

by bsavage 2008-03-16 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Even Better ~ Supreme Court

I actually have always thought that Hillary, with her careful thoughtfulness and brilliance as a lawyer, would make a superb justice.  I think her failings lie in the area of leadership, certainly not of intellect, and I would love to see her on the Court.  

by mady 2008-03-16 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Even Better ~ Supreme Court

Because we frequently see "polarizing" figures get lifetime appointments.

by hctb 2008-03-17 01:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Even Better ~ Supreme Court
Bork?
Scalia?
Alito?
by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-17 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

So a whole bunch of men push Hillary (who is more qualified than Barry sorry) aside for one of the boys! Yea that will go over REAL well with career women who would so identify with it. Hillary can be Senate Majority Leader then when Obama loses she will be the undisputed leader of the Democratic Party. Sure Reid has been worthless but Pelosi (who actually had the power to do something about the war/Bush/Cheney is no better) and THIS is who we want brokering deals? GMAB!

by rossinatl 2008-03-16 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Pelosi. Sibelius. Caroline Kennedy.

And why is it always about sexism when she's hit? By that logic, wouldn't it mean her successes are about racism? I mean, let's face it - sure, aside from Pelosi, the bigwigs are all men, but there also mostly white. So it's a bit of a zero sum game.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

How big of you to suggest your own back-room deal...and even going on to say "Her record as a Senator certainly suggests she would excel in the position. She has done an excellent job of reaching across the aisle to get things done, wooed over thousands of hostile upstate voters (including members of my own family), and learned the ropes from former Majority Leader and anti-war Dem Robert Byrd."

How can you honestly say that, yet not believe she'd do the same excellent job as President?  And while you seem sincere in your own statements and intent with this diary, you offer no supporting evidence of why your own admitted "third-choice, last-minute" candidate should receive the presidency while recognizing the excellent service of Mrs. Clinton.  So, your diary might hold more weight if you gave reasons for him deserving the Presidency while relegating her to a lesser role even while extolling a few of her virtues while mentioning no credentials for him.      

by ChargedFan 2008-03-16 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

"How can you honestly say that, yet not believe she'd do the same excellent job as President?"

Well for starters, because to be a President she needs to win the nomination first, and she has failed at that.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-16 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Well by that definition, let me remind you that Obama has "failed at that" as well.  (And, it's Obama who's been widely viewed as having the chance to put her away three times, but "failed at that" as well.)  Hence the campaign goes on until we have a winner (just as someone so aptly said in another diary--you must play so many innings before a baseball game is considered complete, and so too must you win so many delegates before an election is complete).    

by ChargedFan 2008-03-16 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Did Obama reach 2025 delegates today?  I must have missed it.

by Denny Crane 2008-03-16 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

haha...nope we didn't miss anything, the game is still being played. (Which, of course, you know.)

But really I just wanted to comment because I was struck by your quote there.  How very true...thanks for sharing as I'd not heard that before!

by ChargedFan 2008-03-16 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

It's from her article in Foreign Policy Magazine last year.

by Denny Crane 2008-03-17 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Ah...thanks for that context.  Although I see that statement applying equally to domestic as well as foreign policy issues.  You know, she may not have quite the "exhilerating" approach to her speaking as Obama, but she still is quite inspiring, often in an insightful and heartfelt sort of way, imo!

by ChargedFan 2008-03-17 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Different positions require different skills. For one example, I think his inspirational vision is good for national leadership, and her attention to detail is perfect for legislative leadership.

Of course I offered no evidence about why Obama should be President. This wasn't the diary for that. I don't write everything about every subject in every diary. Neither do you. If you want to know why I support Obama over Clinton, go back through my old entries. But I'm not high on him, I just voted for him and like him a little better than Clinton, so I don't repeat my reasons over and over.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Thanks, Transplanted Texan, for somewhat addressing the skill sets that the original diarist did not give in support of the conclusion being stated.  And I'll actually agree with you on inspirational vision being good for national leadership, as well as attention to detail being perfect for legislative leadership. But I guess I also feel there can be a happy medium of those skill sets that would be even more impressive for the Presidency without having to settle for one or the other.  Obviously the individual candidate's skills and strengths are open to interpretation, but I appreciate your conciseness (something I admittedly sometimes fail miserably at).  

That being said, let me give just one example of why I feel we can have both in our next President, and why I feel that will be critical to reestablishing our credibility and reputation in the world as well as within our own country (but I'll try to keep it brief by not going into too much detail). I'll admit Hillary may not have the same type of exhilerating inspiration in her words (I'll even admit getting goosebumps listening to some of Barack's earlier speeches), but I find Hillary's words inspiring nonetheless.  Because with her I feel an earnestness to her words that comes from her having experienced first-hand the things she has, from truly grasping the situations she is discussing and the many varying and often conflicting angles at play in those situations, and from her involvement from working to resolve those matters from the inside out.  Now the situation that really pointed this out to me and the example I'll give was in hearing the account of a senior military officer who was talking about briefing her on the situation in Iraq during one of her visits there.  He talked about how so often when briefing other politicians he'd see the familiar empty stare and be forced to wait while some aide would interpret what he was saying for the politician.  But with her, he talked about how she really got it, and how she engaged in thoughtful questioning discussion about the matters at hand without the aid of an assistant or interpreter, and his confidence in leaving her that he had an ally who really understood what they were trying to deal with.  To me, that spoke volumes (perhaps I've been forced to have those types of conversations with senior management too many times myself...and I've seen all too many times where an ignorant superior tried to implement and enforce changes or rules that were just not realistic or doable in the real world, and that accomplish nothing by their ineffectiveness--and, yes, I feel such changes come out of government too many times)--and that's the kind of leader I would like to have meeting with other country's leaders, trying to reestablish our credibility in the world, meeting with our senior military officials, trying to tackle the problems we have here at home, etc. etc..  

Now I'm not saying Barack would be one of those ignorant politicians, but despite trying to give the benefit of the doubt and searching high and low, and even briefly thinking I would vote for him, I just have not been able to find evidence that he has that level of comprehension.  Although I have since found examples that give me serious doubt as to his effectiveness, despite his inspirational vision.

So I agree with your theory of the different skill sets, but I guess I see them embodied in the two candidates differently than you perhaps do.  Okay, that's it--I'm shutting up now.  But thanks for engaging!

by ChargedFan 2008-03-16 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Actually, I am the original diarist, lol. Sometimes it's tough to walk the line between being complete and being concise in the diary, or to anticipate the questions/comments that will come or recognize what you've left out. This is why we have the comment sections. :)

You make valid points, and I'm very grateful they were made respectfully. Mojo!

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Whoops...so you are.  I guess I lost track in replying to "aris katsaris" and thinking that was the original diariast.  My apologies, Transplanted Texan...I admit I must learn to navigate a bit better in here (having just recently figured out how to use my Comments tab to get back to posts of mine that have been replied to since the diaries seem to otherwise disappear too often).  

Having become completely disenchanted and disgusted with the main news media's comments setions, I do appreciate this format of diaries and comments to actually have "discussions" of sorts. I do believe at heart in the Democratic Party...and despite the tension of this campaign, I am very open to thoughtful discussions and debates that are conducted meaningfully for the benefit of the Democrat party.  Let's face it, we (meaning in the bigger sense, not just you and I) won't get anywhere if there's just shouting of useless information or expletives back and forth. I truly do fear that the DNC has set this Primary season up to be a "foul" regardless of the outcome, so I'm trying to be reasonable in getting to an outcome that will keep McCain from winning...which means us voters hopefully being able to overcome whatever the Primary results.

Anyway, rambling again...so despite some disagreement, cheers to your likewise respectful reply. (And again my apologies for the oversight! :-) )  

by ChargedFan 2008-03-16 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

My, my, my!!!   Emotions running a little high?  

I see a lot of innuendo, unsubstantiated allegations, and just some flat out hate-filled statements that probably belong on Rush Limbaugh blogs.

Honestly, why would Obama have NO CHANCE of winning in November?  Please provide some substantiation for these assertions.

I know the math isn't looking good for Hillary, but that doesn't justify a verbal onslaught of four letter words.    

And in response to the posted diary topic, I do think Hillary would make a MUCH better majority leader than Harry Reid.

I think that most people on a progessive blog would also not be asking Hillary to "step aside" because we can't tolerate the idea of a female president, I'm sorry, but that assertion is just laughable.  

I supported Kucinich for a spell, then Hillary.  I supported her right up until South Carolina.  Then I became reminded of the nasty side of politics, the Republicans don't have a lock on ugliness.  So I chose then to disassociate myself from the Clinton family and their campaign. For me, it came down to integrity and character and had absolutely nothing to do with her God given reproductive organs.  

I mean, what kind of person judges another based on gender or race for that matter?  That seems so, so Republican, so Zell Miller.  

by Rick in Eugene 2008-03-16 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

"I supported Kucinich for a spell, then Hillary.  I supported her right up until South Carolina.  Then I became reminded of the nasty side of politics, the Republicans don't have a lock on ugliness.  So I chose then to disassociate myself from the Clinton family and their campaign."

So leading into S. Carolina, you must have missed this little gem, or just gave it a free pass.

Jesse Jackson Jr.Obama's campaign  co-chair, on the tv with this all time race baiting moment:

"..there were tears that melted the Granite State. And those are tears that Mrs. Clinton cried on that day, clearly moved voters. She somehow connected with those voters.
But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama. We saw something very clever in the last week of this campaign coming out of Iowa, going into New Hampshire, we saw a sensitivity factor. Something that Mrs. Clinton has not been able to do with voters that she tried in New Hampshire.
Not in response to voters -- not in response to Katrina, not in response to other issues that have devastated the American people, the war in Iraq, we saw tears in response to her appearance. So her appearance brought her to tears, but not hurricane Katrina."

Nice. That's not race baiting of the highest order or anything.

by Zorkon 2008-03-16 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

According to the 2000 census, America is made up of:

75.1%  White
12.3%  Black or African American                    

How could you possibly think that race baiting helps Obama?? If anything, it works against him.

by mangonut 2008-03-17 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

"I supported Kucinich for a spell, then Hillary.  I supported her right up until South Carolina.  Then I became reminded of the nasty side of politics, the Republicans don't have a lock on ugliness.  So I chose then to disassociate myself from the Clinton family and their campaign."

So leading into S. Carolina, you must have missed this little gem, or just gave it a free pass.

Jesse Jackson Jr.Obama's campaign  co-chair, on the tv with this all time race baiting moment:

"..there were tears that melted the Granite State. And those are tears that Mrs. Clinton cried on that day, clearly moved voters. She somehow connected with those voters.
But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama. We saw something very clever in the last week of this campaign coming out of Iowa, going into New Hampshire, we saw a sensitivity factor. Something that Mrs. Clinton has not been able to do with voters that she tried in New Hampshire.
Not in response to voters -- not in response to Katrina, not in response to other issues that have devastated the American people, the war in Iraq, we saw tears in response to her appearance. So her appearance brought her to tears, but not hurricane Katrina."

Nice. That's not race baiting of the highest order or anything.

by Zorkon 2008-03-16 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

You should perhaps take another look at what happened leading up to SC and continues now.  Have you forgotten the Obama campaign memo outlining all the statements that came from the Clinton campaign which could be manipulated by the Obama camp into racism.

Just today, there was a beauty released by Obama's church of 20 years.  Supposedly now, the wole History of the African American church is being attacked because people are objecting to the negative language that is coming fron Wright.  What next in the way of accusations relating to race should we expect to come from those surrounding Senator Obama.  I have already had the realization of who is pushing racism in this election.  Soon it will reach critical mass in the rest of the country, and people will realize that the Clintons are the innocent ones.

by Scotch 2008-03-16 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I think calling the Clinton's innocent is a bit much :), but I think they will be absolved of racism.  Indeed of all the things that have happened this election, the claims that Bill Clinton is racist are the most disappointing.  I can only hope that people will look to his record and commitment to recial justice, but I am not optimistic that people are so thorough when evaluating someone's legacy.

by hctb 2008-03-17 01:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a) we already have a majority leader and b) doesn't the Senate caucus choose that leader? Who would be in a position to offer Clinton the post of majority leader?

How about the simplest solution -- a deal that gives the nomination to the one person everyone agrees best represents the Democratic party message, John Edwards.

by desmoulins 2008-03-16 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

We do have a majority leader, and he's terrible. Which is why I propose he step aside. And yes, the Senate caucus chooses their leader, which is why I suggested Reid, Durbin, and Schumer offer her the post - they're the current 1, 2, 3 leaders in the caucus, and their colleagues will work with them on such a deal.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I would be ok with this solution.  In any case, I should state for the record that despite the bitterness of the campaign so far, I will support and vote for the nominee of the party whether it's Clinton or Obama.  And I say that as an Obama supporter.  And I hope that regardless of the outcome we can come together.

I know these compromise solutions only end up angering one side or the other.  But I want to emphasize that we still are a united party, regardless of how bitter things seem.

by barath 2008-03-16 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I'd like you to explain your statement of Clinton's ability to polarize.  She is the first woman in history who has taken her campaign this far and who isn't going down no matter what people try to say or do about her. Any woman who goes up against the male power system in this country is going to be considered polarizing to those who don't want to give up their control or who are afraid to.   Amazing that being "one of the most polarizing in history" brings her this much support, isn't it?  Among actual democrats, she is more liked than Obama and has always been.  And frankly, you might want to comment on our real enemy McKain who seems to be extremely polarizing within his own party.

Instead of continuing with the rightwing mantra, why don't you try being supportive of all the democrats in the party. I for one, would support Obama for Senate majority leader.  I don't know why you want to not give him a fair chance at that.

 

by Scotch 2008-03-16 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

She's had roughly 50% negatives and 50% positives for 10 years, across pretty much every poll that's ever been taken of her approval rating. That's the definition of a polarizing figure; those who aren't for her are against her, and there's an almost even split between them. Very few people are neutral about Hillary Clinton.

You can't find approval ratings like that for any other female senator, representative, or governor. This is not about sexism. It's about one particular person who happens to be female. Don't make wild claims of sexism that have nothing to do with the discussion.

The only place Clinton does not have as high a negatives as positives is within the Senate. Senate collegiality and the clubby nature of it have served to blunt her negatives; she's well-received by a solid majority of Senators on both sides of the aisle.

As President, on day one, half the country will hate her and be telling their representatives to fight anything she says and does with every weapon at their disposal.

As Senate Majority Leader... not so much.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-16 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

No other women in the Senate are running for president.  Her negatives come from threatening the status quo, and from the fear of a society that has never had anything else but a male for president.  Right now, she is also about the only one they can really picture as president, so she is 1000 times scarier than any of the other women in the Senate to them. You have nothing to back up that half the country will hate her.  All through the campaign, her negatives have been better than any of the republican candidates, and among democrats they were better than Obamas within her own party of democrats.  I haven't looked lately at the polls to see any changes, but the idea that she is hated and will be hated is a Rovian accomplishment that the right wing and some democrats have gladly adopted for just the reasons I have stated in my comments.    

by Scotch 2008-03-16 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Read what I said again. Her negatives were just as high as First Lady and as "just a Senator from NY" as they are not. Running for President did not increase them. If anything it may have slightly decreased them.

Her negatives have always been much higher than McCain. His run in the 30% range; hers hover near 50%.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-16 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Typo: as they are now (not not).

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-16 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

You can't find approval ratings like that elsewhere because you can't find name recognition like that elsewhere. And remember, you can't find negative ratings like that elsewhere, either.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Her campaign has gone this far among Democrats. She doesn't enjoy the same support among Independents. You say it yourself - "among actual Democrats." And quite frankly, playing only to the base doesn't unite the country the way we need right now.

I don't think Obama has the skillset to be Majority Leader like Hillary does. Shaun A had a good comment about that.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

If Obama doesn't have the skillset to be the majority leader, then where oh where did he get the skill set to be president. He has been in a couple of Senatorial elected positions where he should have absorbed so skills.  He has been in no position where he has been able to obtain any skills needed to be president.  At least Clinton did what you could call an "internship" for 8 years where she observed and participated in presidential related activities. She was constantly exposed to the duties, environment, concerns and everyday life of a president for 8 years, plus she has been in the senate so she knows the view from both sides.  No Obama shouldn't be given a chance to take a stab at something he has absolutely no concept of.  Not even an extended observation of.  

As far as the independents, states where he won independents in any real percentage enough to mean anything,were mostly caucus and smaller state, for instance like Wyoming where 9000 freaking people voted in the democratic races if i am not mistaken, as compared to races in states where independants are going to really count.  The GE has no caucuses, by the way, the dynamics are entirely different.  Swing states are the states where independents count, and so far he is not doing well in a bunch of those.

by Scotch 2008-03-16 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

You don't get the skills to be president from the same place as skills to be SML. Different jobs require different skills. I do question his inexperience, yes, and I've never suggested otherwise or advanced the judgment argument so many Obama supporters do, but what's more important to me is FDR/JFK-esque leadership, direction, and inspiration over her (undeserved) divisiveness. Clearly a different skill set.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

The shine has worn off.  Have you noticed the absence of Hope, Change, and Turning the Page?  That is what got him any leadership reputation that he had at the beginning.  That was mesmorizing but false.  Now, people will start to wonder how he goes to the church he goes to and still can say he loves the country.  It's okay to not love the country, but people want the president to.  People are wondering what that NAFTA crap was all about.  A lot of people heard that he didn't have any meetings to talk about Afganistan, when he was one of their oversears, He blamed his dealings with Rezko on poor judgement, when judgement is what he is running on, and on and on and on.  Not all these people are hearing the same thing at the same time, but it is a slow drip, and the shine is gone.  Along with it, is the idea that he has some kind of leadership qualities.  The leadership all had to do with a way with words.  Even I at one time was impressed, now I'm back to nervous and bored.  I don't see the leadership, I really don't.  And I don't see anything he has really led to a great ending, either.

by Scotch 2008-03-16 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I mean NATO, not Afganistan.

by Scotch 2008-03-16 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

People are starting to wonder what NAFTAgate was all about, considering that everything Obama said about it was the truth.

People are wondering about those comments about Afghanistan, when the leaders of the full Foreign Relations Committee have made it clear that Obama's subcommittee does not have the slightest jurisdiction over Afghanistan, and any hearings on his part would have been viewed as frivolous showboating and exceeding his authority.

I agree that his involvement with Rezko showed poor judgment. Fortunately, that's all it showed; nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical occurred. I don't think you really want the standard for the Presidency to be someone who's never shown poor judgment? Because I don't see how Hillary Clinton could possibly meet that test, and I don't think she'd claim so otherwise. On the poor judgement scale, compared to many other things, Rezko is maybe a 2 out of 10.

The only reason you're not seeing the Hope, Change, and Turning the Page is that 1) you don't want to see it and 2) the campaign has gotten nasty and negative. Neither of those are Obama's fault; at worst, on the second, it takes two to tango, but in fact I think it's much worse than that. Certainly online it is.

Answer this one for me: why does virtually every Obama supporter I hear talk about how great their candidate is and what a good President he'd make, and about his positions and stands on issues (and sometimes what a terrible President Clinton would make, to be honest, though mostly it's Clinton good, Obama better), while virtually every Clinton supporter talks about what a terrible President Obama would make, or that he'd make a good one but he's not electable, but virtually none of them actually say anything particularly good and positive about Hillary Clinton? Yes, there are exceptions, but it's extremely skewed, from my point of view.

I think Hillary Clinton would probably be a good President. She'd be a better Majority Leader on a bad day than she'd be a President on a good day. And Obama would make a great President.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-16 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

This is what many have been saying for the past month and a half.  I used to put this in my sig (HRC for Senate Majority leader) until she started showing her true ugly colors, then I decided that she wasn't even good enough for that. She clearly cannot win the nomination legitimately and Senate Majority Leader WILL be the best offer that she'll get. Deal with it.

by VT COnQuest 2008-03-16 03:49PM | 0 recs
Useless Read

This was a useless read because it benefits your chosen candidate.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-03-16 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Useless Read

This was a useless comment because it benefits your chosen candidate.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:08PM | 0 recs
What Consensus Government Are You Deluding Of?

This would make FDR-style consensus governing a tricky task for her as President

and what kind of consensus governing are you and fellow Obamaites dreaming of? Something like the cooperation Reid and Pelosi received throughout 2007?

What utter crap - consensus government. There is NO chance of consensus government with what passes for the republican party today: they are radical, they are extremists, they are criminals more than willing to eviscerate the Constitution and serve party and cronies over country EVERY time.

There will NOT EVER be consensus government until the republican party cleans house and completely rebuilds itself with people that understand what the rule of law and the US Constitution mean.
.

by gak 2008-03-16 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: What Consensus Government Are You Deluding Of?

And this is why we get nothing done. Consensus government (without caving on ideals) is absolutely essential. Painting 1/3 of the country as absolutely evil and people we cannot work with would be an utter disaster for the nation.

There are radicals and extremists in the Republican party. There are also centrists who feel pressure to vote the party line. I'm sure that could never happen to the Democratic party... oh wait, it has. Often.

1/3 of the country votes Republican. 1/3 votes Democrat. 1/3 picks between the two. Those numbers may shift some; they're not shifting to 50%+1 Democrat anytime soon. Until then, if we're going to actually put into place health care reform, or fix the economy, or do anything except apply band-aids and quick fixes, we're going to have to engage in consensus-building.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-16 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: What Consensus Government Are You Deluding Of?

You can not have consensus with yourself. Name one republican that has once in the last 8 years (or 16 years or more) for that matter ever ran on or won any support in the republican party on consensus, compromise, or bipartisanship that wasn't in reality pure 'my way or the highway'.

Name one thing republicans have ever compromised on.

by gak 2008-03-16 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: What Consensus Government Are You Deluding Of?

Republicans have compromised in the past, but not since Gingrich. That's beside the point, though. I guess I wasn't clear, I meant consensus among the peole, not with the rest of the government.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: What Consensus Government Are You Deluding Of?

Ethics reform (at least McCain and Coburn). That's one thing. There are other examples, but you asked for one. Case closed.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-16 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: What Consensus Government Are You Deluding Of?

I'm sorry, but that's just a pipe dream.  We need to deal with the world as it is.  The Republicans in congress are not going to be part of a consensus with Obama just because  people think he's great at it.  They couldn't care less.

Obama isn't going to be any better at building a consensus in congress than Clinton or anyone else.  

by Denny Crane 2008-03-16 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: What Consensus Government Are You Deluding Of?

What kind of consensus governing am I dreaming of? I already answered that: FDR-style. No, not Reid/Pelosi capitulating to the President, but a President building consensus among the American people. This has nothing to do with the "Republican party today" and everything to do with the electorate. It's what the most effective presidents have always done. It's leadership.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: What Consensus Government Are You Deluding Of?

You can not have consensus with yourself. Name one republican that has once in the last 8 years (or 16 years or more) for that matter ever ran on or won any support in the republican party on consensus, compromise, or bipartisanship that wasn't in reality pure 'my way or the highway'.

Name one thing republicans have ever compromised on.

by gak 2008-03-16 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: What Consensus Government Are You Deluding Of?

ummm. Anyone claiming FDR as a consensus builder should consider that he was really only down with consensus in his first term (on whatever measure you identify consensus.) But things changed when the real transformation began and the consensus quickly broke down. FDR was not afraid of this divisiveness because he was driven by a commitment to his own judgment (sometimes to the nation's detriment). I think it is reasonable to wonder if Obama has that same commitment and whether his judgment is going to lead to meaningful transformation.  We cannot really know. Further, FDR was one of the governing class (if not above them). I can not help but think this made early consensus somewhat easier.

More broadly, I do think it is interesting that Obama and his adherents have attempted to claim the  Kennedy and FDR legacies (which are profoundly different, but no matter). Meanwhile, when Clinton claimed the LBJ legacy (which, if you think about it, is probably pretty similar on some style of governance projections), she was derided.  We know the most detail about how Johnson built legislative consensus and committed our country to such a radical path of change on civil rights.*  Further, we know that his commitment to these ideals was hardly strong--he was doing it because it was evident that this was an important issue among Americans. Simply--it was good government. I guess it is Johnson's ability to enact thee changes that makes me optimistic about Clinton as a president.  

I do not have to roll the dice on someone's judgment if they are able to attain a strong hand over policy. I can rely on the skills of governing.

(* No matter how much Ted Kennedy holds his breath in a tantrum because someone said something nice about LBJ.)

by hctb 2008-03-16 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: What Consensus Government Are You Deluding Of?

I meant consensus among the electorate, not consensus with fellow rulers.

If she wants to claim LBJ's Vietnam mantle, far be it from me to try and stop her.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Either that or VP is fine with me.

by mcgish 2008-03-16 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

She'll only be VP IF the Dems force her on the ticket. She's destroyed any chances of BHO willfully asking her to be on his Presidential ticket. I would prefer he pick a running mate that is ACTUALLY strong on National Security, not one like HRC that resorted to baseless, Rovian fear mongering tactics in a desperate attempt to stay in the race.

by VT COnQuest 2008-03-16 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I think we should call them refuges

by CardBoard 2008-03-16 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

That is refugees - your thread has been attacked by them.

by CardBoard 2008-03-16 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader? No way...

We Democrats need a Senate Majority Leader who has shown courage in the face of domestic threats to our Consititution.

We need Chris Dodd.

by Jimdotz 2008-03-16 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader? No way...

On the issues, I agree. But, he wouldn't unify the party the way she would, and if she's SML, he's still a powerful Committee chair.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Excellent diary.  I have been saying the same thing for a while now.

by Socks The Cat 2008-03-16 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Seems to me you have no standing to be offering Clinton anything.  For one thing, she has not lost this nomination, and Obama has not yet won.  The  magic number is 2025.  If you don't get to the number, there is no magic, math will not matter in the end, the SDs decide so all this ranting and raving on these blogs is just silly.  Obama can and probably will prove after Pennsylvania that he cannot unite the democratic party.   If he cannot do that, he will lose.  It is not complicated at all.  75% of Clinton voters say they will not vote for Obama.  That means that Obama would have to win with half the dems, indy/ and some repubs.  The indications are that Hispanics are not going to vote for Obama.  That clinches the Nov election for McCain if the dems are stupid enough to put Obama on the top of the ticket.  I hope they don't do that, I think many are going to rethink their situation before this thing is over.  If Obama cannot put better numbers on the board and loses Penn. by 10 points or more, he will stand little chance of winning this thing outright.  

Clinton voters are not falling for the Obama speechifying, it is pretty obvious that many will either not vote or vote for McCain./  they expect their president to have some knowledge of how this government works, and Obama is not ready to be president.  The reason he should take the VP slot is because together, they might win the WH, but separately probably neither can win.  So Obama is the Jr. senator, and the less knowledgeable, he should be the VP.  The reason that is true even if he has a few more delegates is because his delegates are from many states that dems will lose this fall and he cannot hope to win in those states.  If Obama is at the top of the ticket and his giant ego will not let him accept her as VP, he will lose.  He is damaged goods by his pastor and mentor and his wife, who many people feel is racist.  People look for a reason to not vote for Obama.  The voters who have already voted for him are the only voters that will vote for him this fall, and maybe 25% of Clinton voters who will vote the ticket.  Down scale democrats are a very hard nut for Obama to crack, they resist cult like movements and are not so far impressed with Obama.  

In my opinion, I doubt Obama could win enough states to win the WH.  I think older voters, who are the voters that actually elect presidents just will not vote for him.  If he were to get some more knowledge, say as VP then they might be more inclined to vote for him in 8 years.  It is not a slam against him, he is just not ready in their eyes.  I do think it would be hard for Clinton to win, but she can actually do it because she will have the experience thing going for her, she can get a majority of women voters, and if the base of the party supports her, she could win if the AA vote comes home to the dems.  That is why Obama should be offered the VP but if they chose him, we are done for this election cycle.  I know the American electorate.  Movements do not win, the far left never wins national election.  It is just a fact and no amount of screaming how wonderful your candidate is will get him elected.

by democrat voter 2008-03-16 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I've seen one survey -- one -- that claims that 25% of Hillary Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama. The rest are all considerably smaller numbers than that. Every bit of polling data, for Texas at least, says that Hispanics will vote for Obama just fine, they just prefer Clinton.

I love the assertion that a United States Senator, who taught Constitutional Law at U Chicago (a very fine school), magna cum laude at Harvard Law, president of the Harvard Law Review, and former state senator does not have any knowledge of how the government works. Seriously -- do you read this stuff?

By what standard did Bill Clinton have any more experience when he took office? By any standard I can think of, he had less. Should he have been disqualified?

In all polling data -- including that from after Wright -- Obama is running either even with or ahead of Clinton. He polls better in many more states than she does. She may win enough to squeak into office; he may win enough for a landslide with a mandate.

In an election against McCain Clinton is absolutely tromped on experience, and you know it. That doesn't mean she doesn't win -- but if experience in office and knowledge of how the government works is your metric, that's an open-and-shut case.

I don't tear down your candidate and claim she's an empty suit, or lacks any experience, or anything of the sort. Why do you feel the need to do that with mine, when even a very, very cursory look at the evidence would make it clear that he's anything but? Why can't you make a positive claim about why Clinton would be a better president than Obama, but instead have to trot out his mythical lack of qualifications and purported lack of electability, ignoring all the facts, all the polling data, and everything else pointing the other way. I'm sorry, I just don't get that. If you only believe your candidate should win because everyone else is worse, that's really a sad reflection on your faith in Clinton.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-16 06:55PM | 0 recs
Obama for Dog Catcher

Got it!  That's what I think of your idea.

by krj47 2008-03-16 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama for Dog Catcher

Thanks, it's good to know where you stand!

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

"This would make FDR-style consensus governing a tricky task for her as President, but would be irrelevant as Senate Majority Leader."

I should've stopped reading right there, but I didnt'.  Anyone who would think that FDR governed by consensus doesn't deserve a moment more of my time.

Has the Texan never heard of 'court packing'?  There are still Republicans alive who will not pronounce his name.

Have you been so beclouded by the Obama fog that you've forgotten every whit of history?  Or did you just never bother to learn any?

by Runstadrey 2008-03-16 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Agree and disagree. Remember that court packing failed. FDR tried to rule by decree and found out that he couldn't; he was then forced to engage in consensus-building.

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are both better examples of Presidents who were forced by circumstances to build coalitions.

Obviously in all three cases there were some periods of consensus-building and some periods of partisan gridlock. This was clearly worst in the Clinton presidency, and what scares me most about a second one. I am not blaming Bill or Hillary for it, mind you.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-16 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

He built consensus among the people, I didn't mean to suggest in Congress. As far as whether or not I ever learned history, I took a class from Robert Dallek well before Obama started running. That's where I'm getting my views on FDR and consensus.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 04:32PM | 0 recs
The Dream Team we've been waiting for

This is the Dream Team everyone was looking for before.

In one move, we:
1) End a very rancorous primary in a way that makes it very easy for both sides to come together with no loss of face,

2) Put each candidate into roles that best utilize their skills and talents. Obama is a much better motivator of large numbers of people; he would be a much better person in the bully pulpit of the Presidency; Clinton is a better classic politician and would be highly effective in the Majority Leader role, where she's respected by most Senators.

Flip the roles and it makes no sense. Clinton has extremely high negatives; she can't move a lot of people outside core Democrats to action. Obama doesn't have the skill set necessary to be an effective Majority Leader.

3) Put us in the best possible position should the (much more unlikely, given this agreement in the first place) unlikely event occur that McCain beats Obama. Clinton would be the perfect Majority Leader vs. McCain, should that occur.

4) Give us the best chance to gain in the House and Senate. For my state at least, an Obama nomination is the difference between a Democratic Senator in the fall, or a Republican Senator should Clinton get the nomination. The same situation exists in quite a number of races.

There's no downside. Harry Reid doesn't even lost face, stepping aside for a very strong Presidential Candidate and Democratic leader. The two sides get placed into a situation where they can jointly attack and beat McCain and win races for Democrats, instead of fighting. We get a strong President and a strong Majority Leader.

It's such a great idea... that if any group of people in the world could screw it up, it's the Democratic Party.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-16 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

by Runstadrey 2008-03-16 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

This is a workable solution, and I applaud the diarist for suggesting it. Floating ideas like this is the way we resolve the primary and move towards the general election. Even for those who don't like this particular solution, I'd like to hear more plausible ways to end this thing that are realistic and could appeal to both dies.

by animated 2008-03-16 04:34PM | 0 recs
No Way Jose

It's hard to argue with the suggestion that Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in recent American political history.

How about providing a little evidence to back up your claim rather than just reproduce Republican talking points?

Wait till this Wright thing evolves out. Obama will be the one seen as the divisive one. Between his racist preacher and his race baiting campaign manager I think the case is clear that he is the most polarizing figure.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-16 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: No Way Jose

He didn't say divisive. On that we clearly and vehemently disagree. I think that blaming the candidate whose pollster and (in large part) campaign architect explicitly plans for and encourages divisiveness as a strategy might be the one to blame. You disagree.

But he didn't say divisive. He said polarizing.

Hillary Clinton has had about 50% positives and 50% negatives for 10 years, long before she was a serious candidate for President, before she was a Senator, before anyone outside Illinois had heard of Barack Obama. That's the definition of a polarizing figures; people either like or dislike you, very few are in the middle, very few change their minds, and the numbers are roughly equal.

None of that may be her fault. It doesn't matter. She is a polarizing figure, whether it's her doing or whether she's blameless.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-16 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

How about this backroom deal: Obama does the right thing and drops out before he humiliates this party even more and guarantees a general election loss thanks to his "kill whitey!" father-figure/life coach?

by BlueDoggyDogg 2008-03-16 04:46PM | 0 recs
&quot;Kill Whitey&quot;?

This is how rumors get started. This is what "blowing things out of proportion" sounds like.

by Etchasketchist 2008-03-16 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I say no. Offer it to Obama.

by ineedalife 2008-03-16 04:47PM | 0 recs
Obama's in trouble

Look for the caterwauling from Obamaland to intensify if that's possible. Now the solution to avoid a backroom dela at the convention is to have a backroom deal that cuts out the remaining voters.

Obama will lose PA by 20 points. This is not what a supposed frontrunner should be doing at this point.

Offer him Sec. of Commerce.

by techfidel 2008-03-16 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I don't know what made your family members swing over to her side.  She's been invisible for the last two years.  Schumer is doing a fantastic job for upstate NY but Hillary has done nothing that hasn't furthered her own agenda.  The only reason she came to our state was to ultimately run for president and she lied about that when she first ran.

To be honest, she and our party would be better off if she would just be satisfied remaining as senator and actually accomplishing something for our state.

by NYLib 2008-03-16 05:14PM | 0 recs
Excellent Solution, only the wrong person

How about doing the same solution but having Sen. Obama as the Senate Majority Leader.

by ann0nymous 2008-03-16 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent Solution, only the wrong person

As I've said in other comments, I wouldn't be opposed to that except for that I believe his skill set isn't nearly as well-matched for SML as hers, and her vision isn't nearly as well-matched for SML has his.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

How do you propose to deal with the all the angry Hillary supporters? And the fact that Hillary keeps beating Obama about 2 to 1 among Latinos, Asians, Native Americans and lesbians and gays? What can you offer them since these demographics keep spurning his advances.

This has got to be one of the most disgusting presentations on the subject that I have witnessed. No concern for all the millions who whole heartedly support Hillary. No thought shown to how to heal the party. Just toss her some kind of a bone and get behind Obama.

Finally, thanks to this diary, I am coming to see that I will never vote for Obama. The lack of respect shown to Hillary and her supporters is astonishing. And the lack of interest in her demographics is breathtaking.

by DaleA 2008-03-16 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Majority rule has nothing to do with demographics, I'm afraid. Votes is votes. Are you suggesting whites and blacks don't matter?

You can call it a lack of respect for Hillary if you want, but you're wrong. I'd happily switch it around, except I don't think Obama has the skill set to be SML, and I don't think she can unite the country FDR-style the way he can. But my goal is not to elect any specific individual now that Biden and Dodd are out; my goal is to see a healed party and a healed nation. That's far more important to me than giving Hillary Clinton her fair due.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

You do realize that Obama won the most Asian state in the nation, don't you?

As far as I can tell, the entire idea here was to heal the party. Both Clinton and Obama wind up doing extremely important work for the good of the country. Both of them are in a position to give the other every good word and support.

I'm not sure how the position of Senate Majority Leader is lacking in respect. Perhaps I'm missing something and you consider it a meaningless sinecure? Is that it?

As for failing to appeal to different groups, I think you're making the same mistake that people make when they say that because Clinton won Ohio, it's impossible for Obama to win Ohio. Does that mean that because Obama won Illinois, that Clinton will not carry it? That she cannot carry Missouri? No chance in Vermont?

Despite the statements of some Clinton surrogates in Texas, who made the claim that "Latinos will never vote for a black man", polling data strongly suggests that most Texas Latinos liked Obama just fine. They just liked Clinton a bit more. Similar findings are available for whites, and they're available in many states. You're mistaking the venom of the blogosphere for something that exists in real life. In real life, most Democrats think both of them are pretty darn fine Presidential candidates and would be happy to vote for either one, but they have their favorites.

Yes, there's a minority for each who claim they will never vote for the other. In my opinion, those people are either 1) lying, in hopes that people will be scared and vote for their candidate too, 2) upset and angry, similar to the Edwards supporters who swore up and down they'd never vote for Clinton or Obama, and now are planning on it, or 3) not Democrats, in that they care more about personal loyalty to Hillary Clinton than they care about issues such as the war, the Supreme Court, the environment, the economy, or anything else, and think it'd be better to give up everything else, screw the nation, screw the party, elect McCain, but the person who beat my candidate had just better not win!

I have no respect for such people. The issues are simply too important. Anyone who says they will not vote for Obama, or Clinton, should the one they don't want become the nominee, is not someone who cares about this nation or the real problems we face, or they're someone who thinks McCain is just the same as or better than the other candidate and will be just as good for the country. Either way, I disagree in the strongest possible terms with them.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-16 06:43PM | 0 recs
See my post above

Obama is geting vetted seriously right now and so far he has responded well. Only time will tell if the Wright issue will matter or not. Hillary on the other hand has not been vetted since Bill left office (that's 8 years of vetting left). She has not released tax returns, contributors to the Clinton library and white house papers. Believe me, the GOP will have a hay day with this if she ever becomes the nominee. Do you seriously think that the Clintons have been clean for the last 8 years and don't have many skeletons in the closet???

by galwar 2008-03-16 06:27PM | 0 recs
My thoughts

First off, I want to say that, while I'm a HRC supporter, I don't dislike Obama.  I like him actually.  There seems to be this feeling that someone liking one dislikes the other.  That couldn't be further from the case for me.  I don't think either one was my preferred option back in 2006, but then again, I wasn't paying too much attention in 06 on 08.

My fear to Transplanted Texan's plan is this - can Obama maintain the blue collar workers, the rural voters?  I will say the offer is intriguing, although I wonder if such a move may alienate a heavy part of the HRC supporters.

There seems to be this implicit assumption taht the blue collar/rural voters that support HRC will fall in line with Obama.  I think that's a risky assumption to make.  I have no evidence or research to back me up on this, but I feel that the Democrats "wilderness" days have partly been influenced by the inability to sell our message to this group of voters.  I fear that Obama won't be able to do this, and subsequently, these voters, despite the horrid economy, will look to other factors in the GE, ranging from social to foreign policy.

I think John Edwards has been one of the best at selling the Democratic economic message to this group.  He's Al Gore back in 2000, but more charismatic.  That said, HRC is not far behind.  I think people often forget how effective she has been in being able to reach out and bring people in, people that might not typically support Democrats.  She's done a good job sellinig people on this economic vision.  Heck, she might be better than her husband iin that regard.

I fear such a move has the potential of alienating these voters.

I think this is such a critical election to our future, as liberals, as a party, and as Democrats.  With all the forces domestically and internationally at play, with all the changes that are happening around the country and around the world, this election has the chance to be a marker for the next century.  I'm not against Obama, as noted.  Sometimes, a person just needs an opportunity.

That said, I believe this country, and more importantly, liberals, need a fighter.  Someone that's going to say "screw it.  people may not like me, but i'm going to fight to bring change."  I yearn for a day when I can say, heck yeah, American liberalism is left of center.  This is as good an opening as we are going to get.  The climate is right, and this will be a fight.  I fear if we miss this opening, we'll be stuck much longer and our chances to push left will be effectively limited (even despite the fact that I think a McCain presidency would be more Bush I than Bush II).

But this push is going to take time.  It's going to be a lot of fighting ... and a lot of compromising.  But you have to fight first.  I feel like watching Braveheart right now (sorry ... this is a freeflowing comment).

Eh, I could keep going on and on.  Sorry about running off on a tangential.  

I'll conclude on this - barring some absolute stunner which I don't expect, if HRC loses, she only has herself to blame, and I will vote for Obama in the GE.  A democrat in the office is more important than the partisan actions that many people are partaking in, many people that are in critical leadership positions (such as certain members in Congress).

by toonsterwu 2008-03-16 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: My thoughts

Mojo'd for making your points so respectfully, we need more of that on this page these days.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: My thoughts

Just wanted to say thanks.  I get frustrated checking into dailykos, mydd and other sites at times (although this is the only site that i'm registered at).  I think a lot of people often forget what we're fighting for in this election.  As much as it is about the here and now, it is also about liberalism and it's marker in American society.  We can't forget that.  I feel like the time is ripe to afford us the opportunity to push liberalism forward, to push it to the left.  To a certain extent, and this will sound funny, but it is partly due to Bush that this opportunity exists.  One wonders whether or not this opportunity would exist if we didn't have 8 years of Bush.  Sometimes I feel like party leadership is forgetting that aspect.  I really do (even though I'm more of a moderate).  That said, I'm not a political junkie like many others, so there are probably intricate details and plans that I don't know about, or don't understand.

Only one thing matters to me at the end.  Much as I prefer a HRC presidency to that of Obama, at the end of the day, having a Democrat in office is far more significant than not.  I may have certain things I dislike about Obama.  I may have certain things I like about McCain.  But the fundamental differences are great enough in policy that there is, barring a complete stunner (it'd have to be macaca * 10 for me to even consider not voting), no way that I would vote for a Republican considering the critical nature of this Presidency.

by toonsterwu 2008-03-16 07:54PM | 0 recs
Can Obama compete in all 50 states?

Why are Obama supporters afraid of the rest of the election?  Why are they trying to hinder redo primaries in FL and MI?  I think they are afraid of Clinton making a comeback and winning the popular vote and all of the important swing states.

Obama is against a mail-in in FL because it will maximize turnout especially for elderly and working folks and they tend to vote for Clinton.  It also hurts those that change addresses frequently such as many African Americans and students. However caucuses (which are much less the will of the people than primaries) have favored his demographics and he has benefited immensely from them, so another way of doing it in one state is fair.

Let this election play out.  If Obama is the most electable Democrat, then he needs to show it in a true 50-state contests.  He should not disenfranchise voters in any state.  If he does and he wins, his nomination will be tainted.

by edonyoung 2008-03-16 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Can Obama compete in all 50 states?

The opposition from a mail-in FL revote has come primarily from party officials. No one has a plan for fraud prevention, and implementing one would be trickly.

Also, in order to hold any state-run revote in Florida (which would be mandatory for a mail-in; the Democratic Party can't do that) Department of Justice approval is required. The minimum timetable for that approval would make the chances of it happening vanishingly small.

And if you're claiming that it's ok to systematically disenfranchise the people most likely to vote for one candidate in an election meant to enfranchise people, I think that reflects very poorly on you.

I actually think Obama does better in a mail-in vote than Clinton. It's much easier to run a GOTV drive when all the voter needs to do is fill in a mail ballot and mail it. If ballots cannot reach the people who are entitled to vote, then that's a fatal flaw in the system; there must be a way that anyone can go to a relatively convenient office (county courthouse at the least) and get a valid ballot.

But I do care about voter fraud; it's a concern.

What Florida really needs to do is run another primary. That skirts the DOJ because it's already approved. It's the right thing to do. If money's the issue, pay for it 1/3 state of FL, 1/3 Obama, 1/3 Clinton.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-16 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Can Obama compete in all 50 states?

Technically, Obama is not against a mail-in re-vote in Florida; it's that it's illegal in Florida.

The quote circulating from Axelrod is that they have "concerns" about the fairness of said re-vote.

Team Obama is absolutely fine with a re-contest in any currently disenfranchised state as long as the terms are fair (i.e. everyone on the ballot, everyone gets to campaign).  It's Team Clinton that has pushed for changing the rules in the middle of the game because they need to grasp at any available straws that could counter Obama's exceptional planning and grassroots support.

In December, Clinton was okay with Michigan not counting.  She thought she'd wrap it up on Super Tuesday anyway.

by Dracomicron 2008-03-17 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

What I don't get is this deification of Dean, Gore, and Pelosi.  Dean represents one of the most spectacular flame-outs in Democratic history; Gore opened the door for Bush to wreck carnage on the country and the planet (I still haven't forgiven him for losing even when he won); and Pelosi has been letting the Republicans routinely eat her lunch since the last election.

by dwmorris 2008-03-16 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Who - and I ask this seriously, not critically - who do you view as legitimate non-candidate party leaders today?

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

If by non-candidate party leaders you mean neutral power brokers that can be trusted to negotiate an "arrangement" between Clinton and Obama ... the answer is nobody.  My bias is that there are two paths to mutual assured destruction: (1) tampering with the process by "party elders" to allegedly avoid a train wreck at the convention, and (2) failing to seat a full representational delegation from both MI and FL.  I'm content to let the super delegates decide if neither candidate succeeds in reaching the magic number.  If the super delegates can't put one of them past the threshold, then it should be decided at the convention according to the established policies and procedures of the party.  In my opinion, this notion that "winning" should be redefined from a simple majority of the delegates to some other metric(s) (like the one with the most pledged delegates after the last primary or the one that won the most big states or the one with the most total votes) which then serves as the basis for a negotiated end to the hostilities puts too much power in the hands of too few people; and is a prescription for fracturing the party beyond repair.  Too many hidden agendas.  Too many conflicts of interest.

by dwmorris 2008-03-16 10:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

That's fair. I think most folks are concerned about letting the Convention decide it because that could be a splitsville mess that fractures the party and gives McCain a huge boost, but you certainly make sense, thanks for the reply.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-17 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

The poster is disingenuous.  Of course he is being partisan in proposing this "compromise".   Perhaps we can give Senator Obama another subcommittee chairmanship since he is not yet qualified to serve as Majority Leader.  I'm being sarcastic, but the poster is not being honest.  The poster should buckle up and show some respect for the democratic process.

by bslev22 2008-03-16 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Well, first of all, the nomination of a private party is not a democratic process. But that aside, I do respect the process. I wouldn't want this kind of a proposal put into action until June, once all the states have voted - including MI and FL revotes.

I would happily flip around my proposal, except I think Clinton's skill set is far better suite for SML than President, and Obama's vision better for President than SML.

While I can't blame you given my bias, I'm certainly no fan of being called dishonest. I would ask that you look through my past work to find further evidence of such.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

If neither of them get 2025 delegates then neither of them should be the nominee. Then you can bring Gore in. Maybe a Gore/Dean ticket

by rossinatl 2008-03-16 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I've got a better idea. How about we make it clear that if one of them loses the general election after a period of negative campaigning, BOTH of them get banished to the lowest depths of hell the Democratic party can provide?

by vcalzone 2008-03-16 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

the lowest depths of hell the Democratic party can provide

Field organizing?

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I am supporting Hillary Clinton for PRESIDENT, not Senate Majority Leader. And the nominee will be whoever reaches 2025, until then it's still a campaign.

by NJDEM1 2008-03-16 09:12PM | 0 recs
Yarite.

Dream on.  It's been over since the Potomac Primary.

by NM Ward Chair 2008-03-17 12:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

"It's hard to argue with the suggestion that Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in recent American political history."

Boy, this is my first time here. Someone recommended  this site to me. I am disappointed to find your post on the front page. I hope this isn't the kind of garbage this site traffics in. I'll wait to make a judgment of the site but let me say that seeing yet another B.O. supporter proclaim that B.O. is entitled to the nomination and HRC should go away is not encouraging.

Before B.O. announced his candidacy, more than 60% of the Democrats were behind HRC. Then all of a sudden B.O. and his gang decided to portray HRC and Bill as racists. Never mind that when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, he did more for people of color than any governor anywhere in the history of this country and HRC was right there beside him giving him advice all the way.

Michelle Obama declared that one day Black people would wake up and get it. "It" being that B.O. is entitled to the votes of American Blacks because he is Black.

B.O. and his gang divided the Democratic Party along racial lines. To me that is unforgivable. Now we see the videos of his pastor and it is obvious B.O., along with his pastor and fellow church members, is a racist and an anti-American and that his much bally-hooed "Christianity" is a lie. Well, I'm not a Christian but I guess if I were, the last place I would want to be is B.O.'s church if and when JC ever comes back.

And this Rezco business, with a crook subsidizing the purchase of B.O.'s 1.65 million dollar home with an adjoining lot, -- a lot empty and ineligible for developement --a lot he didn't have to pay for because his crooked friend borrowed the money from another crooked friend, an Iraqi felon, to buy it for him.

B.O. says he didn't know! He doesn't remember how much money Rezco bundled for him. He didn't know his pastor is a racist anti-American blowhard. Sounds like Alberto Gonzalez to me.

B.O. is going down. That's why his supporters want HRC to go away before the truth is all out there. I'd be plenty upset if HRC were to yield the field to someone with as much ugly baggage as B.O. And lots of her supporters feel the same. She isn't going anywhere, so get used to it.

If you have a reason that B.O. is better qualified to be POTUS, then let's hear it. If all you have is some lame assertion that HRC should quit because B.O. is entitled to be POTUS, then put a sock in it.

And of course it is obvious you have an agenda. Please.

by excuseme 2008-03-16 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I can assure you that this has become a predominantly pro-Hillary site in recent months, and that I only post on the front page on the weekends. That should make you happy, eh?

As far as my reasons for supporting Obama over Clinton, I don't rearticulate them in every single post. That would be repetitive. Check my past diaries. Basically, it comes down to while I do worry about his inexperience, for me, in the end his JFK/FDR-like inspiration beats her (undeserved, I agree) divisiveness. He was, however, my third choice - Biden first, then Dodd. I didn't settle on him until a few days before I voted (NH).

I do have an agenda, sure, we all do. But, I hope I'm capable of setting it aside from time to time.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-16 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I have no problem with posters with agendas.  I have problems with a poster who is less than candid about admitting that a post with an obvious partisan objecive is an integral part of his or her agenda.  This post was yet another well-used fist couched in a glove of velvet.

by bslev22 2008-03-17 03:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

I put my history out there are the end of the post for the whole world to see. Remember also that my support for Obama has always been tepid - just look through my diaries, read my initial support switch. Hardly enthusiastic. I don't know why you think that's changed.

I'm not sure what else you would have me do, and I'm not sure I care.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-17 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

JFK and FDR were racists and serial liars? I don't think so.

I don't recall JFK sending his wife out to declare that one day Catholics and Whites "would get it" and vote for her husband because he is Catholic or white or any other thing.

FDR never sent Eleanor out to proclaim that white people shold vote for her husband because he is white.

I think that the good old white boys in Arkansas started up this hate campaign against the Clintons and the GOP jumped on the bandwagon and it still goes on. What I don't know is if they had any idea about how deep runs the misogyny in this country and how well they have tapped into that.

by excuseme 2008-03-17 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

You support the Clintons and have the temerity to want to squabble over ethical problems?

One thing your side never understands is that the Obama movement is uncontrollable.  By that I mean that even if he were to grovel and be picked as VP, and beg his supporters profusely to support the ticket, 60% of them would evaporate irretrievably.

The second fact that you ignore is that the pledged delegate lead cannot be lost barring 60% wins in every remaining contest, and maybe not even then.  Given the lack of organization that the Clinton campaign has showed thus far, we are in no way worried that this can happen.

Therefore, your battle is quite lost.  Yet you persist in grabbing onto straws of hope that your flawed candidate can somehow rebound.  You countenance racist tactics that only ensure further defeats.  You countenance rule changes and moving goalposts and try to argue that Michigan should count as is when Clinton failed to abide by the rules and withdraw.  The sheer mental energy that all of these exercises in twisting logic must be breathtakingly exhausting.

It all stinks to high heaven.  She is not our empress, she is a citizen like all of us and subject to the laws of logic and physics.  Maybe if she were truly an accomplished woman in her own right things would have been different.  

By April 22 Rezko and Wright will be extinguished fires.  Clinton's promised but sure to be revoked document dump will cause her to be swallowed in her own quicksand.

by Carlo 2008-03-16 09:45PM | 0 recs
Oh Puhleeze!

What a load of tripe.  Or chitlins.  Or menudo.  Whatever.  Learn to read the writing on the wall.  It's been over for some time, because Obama understood the rules of the delegate game and Hillary didn't.  Apparently she believed her own myth of inevitability.  That's called hubris.  It'll get you every time.  Hillary is now engaged in destroying the Clinton name beyond repair.

by NM Ward Chair 2008-03-17 12:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

BTW, the Chicken Little attitude of the Clinton supporters on this site completely justifies the skepticism over her candidacy.  Suddenly Obama is unelectable, the Senate is going to flip to the Repugs, and the liberal world as we know it will cease to exist, according to many posters.

This is only rivaled by the immensely odd manner of  constructing a compromise out of something that could not be given in the first place.  

To the other  regular dissenters here I salute you, and to the regular rank and file I ask:  Do you have any guts, sense of fairness, or logic to your beliefs at all?

by Carlo 2008-03-16 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Have you seen the videos of B.O.'s spiritual mentor? How could he be electable? Have some more kool-aid.

by excuseme 2008-03-16 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

No thank you.  As I have already stated, HRC is unelectable because most our supporters will be writing Obama's name in even when begged not to.  

Like I said before, this will pass.  By your logic the Repug's could simply run an ad of her in a witch's costume and win the election.

Also, let's face it, your candidate is slowly becoming a Repug and will be seen as such.

She is the new Huckabee in that she's hanging around  with no chance to win.

A story you may be hearing soon and that I have been picking up rumors of is pledged Clinton delegates becoming weary of her rhetoric.  I know of some potential ones who are only delegates by virtue of their positions in the party actually voting against her in the primaries but keeping their mouths shut about it so that they don't rankle the party bosses.  How you like them apples?

by Carlo 2008-03-16 10:03PM | 0 recs
Apples?

To be fair, if Huckabee and Hillary are alike (a laughable claim) I think Huckabee would be the new Hillary, not the other way around.

And while I find the hold-my-breath-until-I-get-who-I-want-no minee tactics pretty childish when Clinton supporters claim they will not vote for Obama in the GE, the claim from Obama supporters is not only childish but a little laughable. New and infrequent voters (who Obama delivers) will simply stay home.

And, if Obama wins by peeling off Clinton pledged delegate (I imagine you mean pledged, not Super delegates who are committed) then I imagine there will be a REALLY UGLY floor fight. Talk about thwarting the will of the voters--peeling pledged delegates would be a disaster.

by hctb 2008-03-17 01:35AM | 0 recs
My deal for Hillary if I were Obama:

You. Get. Squat.

by NM Ward Chair 2008-03-17 12:02AM | 0 recs
Re: My deal for Hillary if I were Obama:

You're. Not. Helping.

by vcalzone 2008-03-17 01:50AM | 0 recs
Not a good idea.

Although I like the idea of a deal to bring an earlier end to the primary season, I am not sure it would be wise (or seen desirable by many, including Dean) to extend the influence of what might be called "The Clinton caucus" for another ten or twenty years.  The influence of the DLC on Democratic politics has been disastrous.  It's not Hillary I am against, but her whole posse, including people like Harold Ford, Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emmanuel, Terry McAuliffe, Mark Penn, people that we would like to see quietly retired from the political scene to make room for people with a view of the Democratic Party that doesn't require it to surrender to Republicans on important issues.  

There are many Senators better qualified for the job, including Barbara Boxer, for instance, with more real experience, and a braver voting history, that shouldn't be passed over just to cut a deal.

My support for Obama has been premised on the need to shake up the party heirarchy.  As such, although Hillary might be acceptable as Senate Majority Leader, if it extends the lifespan of her and Bill's entourage of spineless Democratic politicians, I would have to say, better to just go to the convention and win it outright there.

by Dumbo 2008-03-17 01:21AM | 0 recs
Unsupported Premise Alert

"It's hard to argue with the suggestion that Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in recent American political history."

If she's so polarizing, why is the gap in their overall vote totals less than 3% now, and likely to become even smaller or zero.  Could it be that the "polarizing" label is just spin?

Obama people make me laugh.  If he's inevitable and can't possibly lose, what's the hurry to cut the game short?

***A

by adrienne4dean 2008-03-17 01:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Unsupported Premise Alert

She does well in those polls because of name recognition. My fear is that she's hit her ceiling. She can't get past 51%, no matter how hard she tries. It's not about competitiveness, it's about unity. I hope I'm wrong, though.

There's no hurry to cut the game short. Check the update on the end of the diary. I'd want this implemented after the final states have voted. If either of them wins the nomination that way, perfect, I just don't think it's likely.

by Nathan Empsall 2008-03-17 08:08AM | 0 recs
Something to worry about later.

While this compromise is something that my cohorts and I have tossed around as an excellent final result, it's pretty clear to me that it's not something that the smoke-filled room can produce at this stage in the game.

Obama is perfectly fine with running the primary all the way to the convention if necessary as long as he's the front-runner, and has been before the season even started.  He's had no illusions that going against the establishment would be easy.  He studied the failures of McGovern in 1968 and 1972 (the latter election involved the Clintons as McGovern supporters, so it was good homework anyway), when a populist upstart was destroyed first by his own party and then by the weakness of just having grass roots support in a pre-internet world.

Clinton is not going to bow out easily.  This isn't about sex or race or policies or even the Republicans, this is about legacy for her.  She is one of the most significant figures in politics today, and it's pointless to try to explain it away as "just" a family affair: Was Benazir Bhutto insignificant even though she inherited her role in Pakistan's politics from her father?  No, she was at once a continuation of his legacy and a force all her own.

If Clinton loses the primary (I am certain she will, but it's not outside of the range of possibility for her to win), her actions at that point are crucial to her political future.  If she just fades away and lets events take their course in hopes that Obama is defeated and she can take another crack at it in 2012 (or worse yet, drags out a negative challenge to the convention or beyond), then no, she won't deserve any higher title than "Junior Senator from New York."  

However, if she concedes gracefully and immediately and without coersion goes to work campaigning her strong demographics to support Obama for President (thus shoring up the votes that many here say that Obama can't get otherwise, though I disbelieve that notion), then, yes, definitely, she will have displayed exceptional devotion to the Democratic party and deserves a role of greater visibility and responsibility.  

Look at Howard Dean... he was character assassinated in 2004's primaries but got the DNC chairmanship as a consolation prize because he was still a strong and loyal Democrat.

I really doubt that Clinton will ever lose her New York Senate seat.  She would make a tenacious and effective Majority Leader.  But the way for her to get that spot is to earn it by being a remarkable and loyal member of the Democratic party, not being bribed into the role.  

by Dracomicron 2008-03-17 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Majority Leader?

Worthless clap trap.  Clinton will not quit, and if Obama gets the nomination, we can all watch him flame out because that is where this guy is headed.  Right now this race is even, Obama has 100 give or take more delegates than Clinton.  That is really pretty much tied especially when you figure in SDs who will make the call and you will have nothing to do with it.

by democrat voter 2008-03-17 01:38PM | 0 recs
Brialliant!

I've wanted Clinton as Senate majority leader for some time. I think she would be just as good in that role as I think Obama would be at leading the Democratic party from the Oval office.

by BrioHondo 2008-03-17 04:56PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads