Harry Reid May Ask Senator Clinton to Preempt Presidential Ambitions to Succeed Him as Senate Majority/Minority Leader

-

reid and clinton.jpg
Some high level Democratic Party political insiders have shared with TWN details of a potential shift in vectors for several of the major political stars in that party.
First of all, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, whom most give high marks for the manner in which he has stewarded the Dems in the Senate despite the absence of a clear Democratic Party chief, has sent private signals to Senator Hillary Clinton and other stalwarts of the party that he “would like to” step down from his post in early 2009. Reid has not stated definitively that he will — but he apparently prefers “whipping” the Party from behind and the side rather than serving as commander-in-chief on the Senate floor.
What Reid is offering Senator Hillary Clinton is his total, robust support to succeed him as Senate Majority Leader if she elects not to pursue the Democratic nomination for President.
Many are realizing that the electoral map is not something one can wave a magic wand over and reverse the views of 42% of Americans who believe that they know Hillary Clinton well and have strongly formed views of her and will not vote for her under any conditions — according to recent polls. Reports are that Senator Clinton herself knows this and that her own enthusiasm for running actually trails that of her husband, her advisors, and her staff — whose enthusiasm for the race is ranked in that order with Hillary the least enthusiastic.
Some Republican Senators have been privately queried — not by Reid but by high level Republican Party funders (Northeast Republicans) who are frustrated with Bush, unsure of McCain, and considering supporting alternative candidates like Mark Warner — what they think of Hillary Clinton serving as either Senate Democratic Leader, either in the Majority or Minority. Senators such as Senator Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, and Lindsay Graham have reportedly said that they would welcome Senator Clinton in such a role, albeit from the other side of the aisle.
The other bit of change in the Democratic Party game has been the emergence of Nevada and South Carolina as important gambits for the Democratic presidential bid contenders.
The Iowa Caucus now leads as the first Democratic Party contest followed by Nevada with the second caucus. New Hampshire will still lead with the first primary but following these earlier caucuses, and South Carolina will immediately follow New Hampshire.
This line-up of races puts enormous pressure on Hillary Clinton and any Northeastern Democrat. It’s the anti-Kerry plan, and might also be a resist-Hillary plan, if not a strategy to completely deter the campaign juggernaut she is building.
The clear winners from the new allignment of caucuses and primaries are candidates like Mark Warner and John Edwards. Edwards is out harnessing labor. He’s everywhere Labor is, and many fear that Mark Warner while appealing on paper has a lot of hurdles to overcome to get ready for prime time.
So, the Reid-Clinton dance around the Majority Leader position (if the Dems do take back the Senate) could be an attractive one for the New York Senator.
— Steve Clemons
UPDATE: Senator Reid’s blog envoy — who is part of the Reid press office — has called me this morning and asked that I post on this note that Senator Reid denies this case — and denies it in the strongest possible sense.
I respect Senator Reid greatly, but TWN will stand by the comments above for the time being as the sources involved are impeccable from my point of view. There are nuances in conversations and political intentions that often permit some to make offers while at the same time maintaining an option not to move. I can’t tell whether that is what is happening in this case with Senator Reid. But I want to respect his right to deny.
— Steve Clemons
UPDATE 2: Raw Story has secured a 100% denial from Senator Reid’s office regarding the story that Reid offered Hillary Clinton a “deal” regarding the Senate Democratic Caucus’s leadership. Washington — and powerful political players — are specialists in deniability.
Based on the conversations in which I have participated, I am standing my ground on the story; though i want to echo Raw Story‘s report that Senator Reid’s staff have denied the TWN report. Denials do matter, even when one expects denial more than affirmation on something like this. In any case, still sticking to it.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

111 comments on “Harry Reid May Ask Senator Clinton to Preempt Presidential Ambitions to Succeed Him as Senate Majority/Minority Leader

  1. Sven Hader says:

    Of course George McGovern endorsed Humphrey. He handed it him. And by the way, unlike Hubert Humphrey and George Mcgovern, Gene mcCarthy was the only candidate in Chicago who didn’t walk around the convention wearing pancake makeup at all times, in case they were on film. They needed the make up because they were pretend leaders playing a role. McCarthy was the genuine article.

    Reply

  2. jeff says:

    the Democrats are actually starting to act like a
    party that wants to win!

    Reply

  3. Tina says:

    I am still a Clinton Lover

    Reply

  4. webcam sex live says:

    the Democrats are actually starting to act like a
    party that wants to win!

    Reply

  5. studentsexmovies says:

    Hi from student Anastasia! Hallo von Studentin Anastasia!
    Nice website here, take a look at mine please!
    Schoene Webseite ist das hier, schaut doch auch auf meiner vorbei!
    Gruesse von Anastasia. Best Regards Anastasia.

    Reply

  6. sexcam says:

    This is a really good read for me, Must admit that
    you are one of the best bloggers I ever saw.Thanks
    for posting this informative article.

    Reply

  7. Privatcam says:

    verny nice blog! greetings from austria

    Reply

  8. Webcam Girls says:

    Great in depth analysis!

    Reply

  9. Lollie says:

    thank you for this article

    Reply

  10. Kostenlose Pornoseite says:

    Thanx for this interesting read!

    Reply

  11. sex cam says:

    awesome article. thx

    Reply

  12. sex cam says:

    awesome article. thx

    Reply

  13. tweety says:

    Dems need to nominate someone in 2008 who can lead
    the US out of the colossal mess that the SOB (Son of
    a Bush) got into. That means someone with foriegn
    policy experience. I still think John Kerry is a
    great candidate & will benefit by not having to run
    against an incumbent in the middle of a war. The
    Swiftboating episode came about because he agreed to
    the same campaign spending limits that the SOB did,
    but had to stretch the funds over an extra month
    since the Repugs convention was so late. In 08 the
    conventions will be back to back to avoid this
    disparity. Other candidates that would be great
    because of their experience on world affairs are:
    Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark.

    Reply

  14. Porno says:

    Kathleen, let me correct your revisonist history: JFK campaigned as a hawk, complaining about a missle gap with the USSR. Gene McCarthy was for Gene McCarthy. Instead of indorsing Hubert Humphrey, who was his mentor in Minnesota, he became directly responsible for Richard Nixon. Humphrey, with everything going against him, came within less than 1% of winning in 1968. It was the most heartbreaking loss I can remember until 2000. Humphrey won according to the rules at the time & McCarthy acted like a spoiled brat. In later years McCarthy turned his back on the Dems & ran as a third party candidate. Then to prove his idiocy when he supported Reagan in the 80’s.

    Reply

  15. vimax says:

    yup..I agree with you don’t waste your money too for the wrong product

    Reply

  16. David King says:

    Very nice article. Thanks a lot for sharing!

    Reply

  17. livejasmin says:

    That’s really interesting!

    Reply

  18. ultimate surrender says:

    Intresting, thanks for the article

    Reply

  19. Male enhancement product says:

    Natural Male Enhancement through Doctor Approved Male Enhancement Pills, Devices and Products, Exercises! Try it to see real results.

    Reply

  20. live Cam says:

    live webcam live chat

    Reply

  21. sex cam says:

    Awesome live sex cam live sex chat

    Reply

  22. live jasmine sex show says:

    Thank you, I am grateful and I appreciate.:)

    Reply

  23. hoodia weight loss says:

    Hoodia Gordonii Plus is a cutting-edge, advanced appetite suppressant, metabolism booster, fat burner and energy enhancer all in one. This is a supplement if you are looking for more than just an appetite suppresent.
    http://hoodia.weightloss.lt/hoodia-review.php

    Reply

  24. best natural male enhancement pills says:

    best natural male enhancement pills

    Reply

  25. buzz says:

    Yeah, right.

    Reply

  26. Kathleen says:

    George McGovern was not a candidate in 1968, except for a day in Chicago. He never declared that he was running, he never campaigned in any of the 6 primaries. He was only nominated after Bobby Kennedy was shot to prevent the peace vote from coming together behind McCarthy, who did delcare his candidacy and did campaign and win delegates to the Chicago convention.
    As soon as the vote was taken, nominating Humphrey, McGovern was out. It was easy for him to endorse Humphrey. He had done nothing and had nothing to lose.
    There were no third party candidates that year, so no one was technically a spoiler, except for McGovern at the convention. I was there, as one of 44 delegates from CT. along with John Bailey, National and State Chairman of the party and Senator Abe Ribicoff, who nominated McGovern. Believe me, I know what went on in Chicago.
    As for Lieberman and Nader being spoilers, our election laws allow for unaffiliated candidacies. It is a very different thing when someone actually runs for office than when they allow their name to be used simply to spoil, like McGovern actually did.

    Reply

  27. Beyond Thunderdome says:

    Yeah, just like Joe Lieberman & Ralph Nader, he was the genuine primadonna spoiler.

    Reply

  28. Kathleen says:

    Beyond Thunderdome;
    In contrast to an unselfish George McGovern? Give me a break. I was there at the Chicago convention. George McGovern did NOTHING to deserve being nominated at the last minute, because Bobby Kennedy was shot.
    By allowing himself to be used by Ted Kennedy, he kept the peace vote at the convention divided and handed the nomination to Humphrey, while pretending to be antiWar.
    Of course George McGovern endorsed Humphrey. He handed it him. And by the way, unlike Hubert Humphrey and George Mcgovern, Gene mcCarthy was the only candidate in Chicago who didn’t walk around the convention wearing pancake makeup at all times, in case they were on film. They needed the make up because they were pretend leaders playing a role. McCarthy was the genuine article.

    Reply

  29. Beyond Thunderdome says:

    In contrast to an unselfish George McGovern, McCarthy wouldn’t support Humphrey until it was to late in 1968 & that was enough to elect Nixon. Nader did a similar take his ball & go home stunt & that was enough for the SOB to take claim a win in 2000. Both of them have blood on there hands.

    Reply

  30. Kathleen says:

    Beyond Thunderdome:
    JFK ran before the term “hawk” was used and he was considered an elite Eastern Liberal, compared to Southern Democrats.
    Gene McCarthy was not for himself, as you claim. He challenged an incumbent President, Lyndon Johnson to give voters a voice in opposing the war. Hubert Humphrey was only the candidate because Gene McCarthy did so well in the New Hampshire primary and forced Johnson to withdraw his name.
    I was one of nine delegates from CT. pledged to Gene McCarthy at the 1968 convention in Chicago and know from first hand experience what went on at that convention and why honorable men like Gene McCarthy and Ralph Nader left the Democratic party. Hubert Humphrey ran against Richard Nixon, not Gene McCarthy.
    I’m not revising history, I was making it. I did the election law research which got us elected to the conventions in the State and then in Chicago. The work of CT. McCarthy Democrats brought about a national commission to change the delegate selection process.
    In 1968 there were only 6 primaries and the conventions were virtually closed to public input on who got to be a delegate. Our work in CT. was presented to the Rules Committee and was adopted by the whole convention. Hence the national commisssion was appointed and held public hearings all around the country and by 1972, primaries everywhere. That was Gene McCarthy’s legacy.

    Reply

  31. Beyond Thunderdome says:

    Kathleen, let me correct your revisonist history: JFK campaigned as a hawk, complaining about a missle gap with the USSR. Gene McCarthy was for Gene McCarthy. Instead of indorsing Hubert Humphrey, who was his mentor in Minnesota, he became directly responsible for Richard Nixon. Humphrey, with everything going against him, came within less than 1% of winning in 1968. It was the most heartbreaking loss I can remember until 2000. Humphrey won according to the rules at the time & McCarthy acted like a spoiled brat. In later years McCarthy turned his back on the Dems & ran as a third party candidate. Then to prove his idiocy when he supported Reagan in the 80’s.

    Reply

  32. Kathleen says:

    Terry Ott:
    Actually, I’m older than you because I remember John Kennedy who had no executive experience either. He was a liberal Senator.
    I also remember Gene McCarthy who risked his career to give anti war voters an avenue to express their views on the Vietnam War.
    At that time there were only 6 primaries in the country, and the nominating process was virtually closed to public input.
    The anti war vote was split when Bobby Kennedy entered the race, after New Hamsshire showed Dems which way the wind was blowing. Gene McCarthy was neck and neck with Bobby in the primaries and when he was tragically killed in California in June, instead of letting the peace vote come back together in support of McCarthy, Teddy nominated George McGovern, and underhandedly gave the nomination to Hubert Humphrey.
    Because of the party machinations, McCarthy left the Senate rather than particpate in the farce and most of his supporters, led by Ralph Nader, left the Dem party.
    George McGovern lost because he was never a leader and therefore had no followers. He was simply who Teddy wanted. By the time he was nominated, the Democratic party was in shreds.
    Since then, we’ve learned the folly of not opposing senseless wars sooner. Besdies, Feingold’s dedication to campaign finance reform is his strongest point and he stands for what Americans want more than anything, clean elections. He walks his talk.
    I don’t want a candidate chosen because he has executive experience. I want someone with a strong sense of ethics and a sensible foreign policy, not predicated on empire building and blustering bravado.
    Feingold 08

    Reply

  33. Robert Morrow says:

    Check out this web page and see how the Clintons, in typical fashion, screwed over a bigtime Hollywood fundraiser. When Peter Paul’s criminal past was run by the Wash Post, Hillary was publicly disavowing him, but privately hitting him up for even MORE money. Hillary and Bill are black widow spiders:
    http://www.newmediajournal.us/daily_columns/the_fraudulent_senator.htm

    Reply

  34. Beyond Thunderdome says:

    Interesting article: Hatin’ on Hillary: N.H. Dems lambaste Clinton
    By Brett Arends
    Boston Herald Business Columnist
    Monday, August 7, 2006 – Updated: 09:36 AM EST
    MANCHESTER, N.H. – Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years. And he’s never seen anything like it.
    “Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician.”
    No prizes for guessing which presidential front-runner drew these remarks in focus groups.
    But these weren’t Republicans talking about Hillary Clinton. They weren’t even independents.
    These were ordinary, grass-roots Democrats. People who identified themselves as “likely” voters in the pivotal state’s Democratic primary. And, behind closed doors, this is what nearly half of them are saying.
    “I was amazed,” says Bennett. “I thought there might be some negatives, but I didn’t know it would be as strong as this. It’s stunning, the similarities between the Republicans and the Democrats, the comments they have about her.”
    Bennett runs American Research Group Inc., a highly regarded, independent polling company based in Manchester, N.H. He’s been conducting voter surveys there since 1976. The polls are financed by subscribers and corporate sponsors.
    He has so far recruited 410 likely voters in the 2008 Democratic primary, and sat down with them privately in small groups to find out what they really think about the candidates and the issues.
    His conclusion? “Forty-five percent of the Democrats are just as negative about her as Republicans are. More Republicans dislike her, but the Democrats dislike her in the same way.”
    Hillary’s growing brain trust in the party’s upper reaches already knows she has high “negatives” among ordinary Democrats. They think she can win those voters over with the right strategy and message.
    But they should get out of D.C., New York and L.A. more often, and visit grassroots members.
    Because we’re not talking about “soft” negatives like, say, “out of touch” or “arrogant.”
    We’re talking: “Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak.”
    Satanic.
    And: “Political wh***.”
    (Note: I don’t usually like reporting such personal remarks, but in this case you can hardly understand the situation without them. I have no strong personal feelings about the senator.)
    There are caveats. Any survey can be inaccurate or misleading. And 55 percent of ARG’s sample was either neutral or positive about Sen. Clinton. Thirty-two percent currently say they plan to vote for her in the primary.
    But Bennett says he’s never before seen so many N.H. voters show so much hatred toward a member of their own party. He’s never even seen anything close.
    He believes top national Democrats are missing this grassroots intensity. Instead, he suspects, they are blinded by poll numbers, which give Hillary a big early lead based on her name recognition.
    Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, agrees.
    “There is far more anti-Hillary sentiment in the Democratic Party than the pollsters understand,” he says. In the race for the nomination, “she is ripe for plucking,” he says.
    Sen. Clinton’s team could not be reached for comment.
    New Hampshire is small, but it’s a bellwether state with clout.
    Its primary probably holds the key to the Democratic nomination. And New Hampshire, alone, swung from Bush to Kerry in ’04.
    It’s hard to see any Democrat winning the White House without carrying the state in the presidential election. And it’s hard, right now, to see Hillary carrying the state.

    Reply

  35. Beyond Thunderdome says:

    Kerry showed his true colors in “04. When the swift boaters alleged he was a glory hound, unliked by most officers with whom he served to the point that they were happy to be rid of him when he arranged to get back the states in record time, the convincing evidence he really WAS the genuine article never came. His decision to run as a war hero was flawed big time. Repeating Fox News & other right wing media’s spin on John Kerry military service doesn’t make it true. I was there when all, but 1 of his swift boat crew was there on stage with him at the DNC in Boston. They were the ones that were there in Nam with him. They were the only ones that could tell the real story. The fact he could have done what the SOB did, still makes his story compelling.
    Bullshit. He rolled over for Blackwell, conceded early, and slunk out of country when Conyers was leading the fight to expose an election that was TOTALLY CORRUPTED. He DESERTED his supporters. Whatever balls he had in Nam were LONG GONE during the election process. He oughta just slime his ass out of the public spotlight and go enjoy Teresa’s money
    If you remember when Kerry testified before Congress after coming home from Nam he doesn’t believe in belaboring lost causes. Had he dragged it out to long, he would have been branded as a sore loser. He did what he had to do.

    Reply

  36. bitdog says:

    For additional comments please visit “The Smirking Chimp” at:
    http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=66950&forum=12

    Reply

  37. Beyond Thunderdome says:

    Check out this Kos Diary on the swift vets being thrown out of court.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/4/14488/23455
    Kerry Helps to Sink Swiftboat Liars
    In a victory for the truth and democratic principles the defamation
    lawsuit http://www.vvlf.org/… brought against Sen. John Kerry by
    the smear merchant Carlton Sherwood and his dirt bag pals at Swift
    Boat Veterans for Truth was laughed out of court on Thursday.
    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2274295
    The Swift Liar’s complaint alleged that the Democratic National
    Committee and others sought to prevent Sherwood during the 2004
    Presidential Campaign from distributing a movie entitled “Stolen
    Honor,” which dealt with Sherwood’s views of the Senator’s conduct
    after his military service during the Vietnam War. The judge found
    the case entirly without merit, calling the claims made by Sherwood,
    among other things, “far-fetched”. According to Judge Fullam,
    “This action for alleged defamation and related torts concerns
    events which occurred during the last stages of the 2004
    presidential election, but most of the first 102 paragraphs of
    plaintiffs’ complaint rehearse the alleged misdeeds of persons and
    organizations protesting the Vietnam War, in the 1970s”.
    (102 paragraphs? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me)
    “To summarize, I conclude that plaintiffs cannot prevail on their
    defamation claims against either of the defendants.”
    The American legal system proved to be inhospitable to the Lies and
    Scum of this GOP controlled front group. Just as John O’Neil’s
    patron Richard (Tricky Dick) Nixon wilted before the power of the
    judicial branch so did his little minions. Justifying his good name
    John Kerry did a service to himself and all those Fighting Dems
    running in 06 by proving before a court that these groups are proven
    to be the lowest for of humanity: Liars. Sen. Kerry should be
    praised for his continuous twilight struggle against the Rovian
    smear machine
    Let us Democrats remember August 3rd as the day the battle shifted.
    Yesterday in Pennsylvania fighting democrats took to the streets in
    Johnstown led by Sen. Max Cleland and Eric Massa to stand up with
    John Murtha. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/… . John Kerry carried
    the same fight to a Pennsylvania court room. In both places the
    truth defeated slime. Sen. Kerry promised the fighting Dems that he
    wouldn’t allow the smear tactics of 04 to be repeated in 06. He has
    kept the faith and is finally bringing the fight to them.

    Reply

  38. Terry Ott says:

    Kathleen:
    I overstated, to make my point, but I will not retract the essence. Feingold is MY Senator, along with Kohl (if he is still alive — any reports lately?), and I voted for him and will continue to do so as long as he runs for the Senate. He is a fine Senator: smart, sincere, informed, hard working, slightly loopy and a little “off center” (anti-establishment) which is good. He wears the (“his own man”) mantle of Senator Proxmire very well. He is one of the very best Senators; sorry to say, but that counts almost zero in terms of his becoming, or being qualified to be, President
    My best friend absolutely worships Russ because he personally intervened in an immigration matter that was critical to his family, with a successful outcome. But…..
    I fear you are admixing the characteristics of an excellent senator with those of a capable POTUS, a chief executive. It is not just what a person “thinks” but how he can “pull it off”. That boils down to whether he can evaluate and select key people, keep them focused and out of each others’ sandboxes, insist on excellent performance from all, know when to listen and when to act, and when to chop heads off, be compelling in terms of his “stature”, stay informed but not immersed, command loyalty AND candor (the toughest balancing skill of all), and keep looking at the bottom line trends instead of wandering off into minutia-land (key downfall of most legislators who try to lead). We KNOW he can absorb information and issues and form opinions and advocate and vote. What else?
    I don’t know if Feingold HAS those characteristics I lised or not. My point is this: unless you have shown these abilities, it is a crap shoot and a longshot, because most of us don’t have what it takes in these key intangibles. I cannot know if Feingold has these attributes because he has been (1) a student, par excellence, (2) a Madison-based attorney in an “established and establishment” law firm headquarted in Milwaukee, (3) a legislator in state government, and (4) a US Senator. He is UNTESTED as an executive, with no qualifications to become chief exec of the largest and most influential organization in the free world. If an “executive search” for the job “Presidential Candidate”were conducted by those selection experts (headhunters) who make a living finding execs, Feingold wouldn’t make the first cut.
    Forget everything I just said. It is immaterial. Because even you have to admit there is just NO WAY Feingold will be elected. If it makes you feel better to see him nominated and then crushed in the general election, have a ball with the balloons and the confetti and the music. Don’t worry about sabotaging the hopes of the rest of us who would rather see outcomes and results, the kind that happen when someone gets elected and has a chance to actually make good on his/her rhetoric.
    I have a hunch you are younger than I, Kathleen, perhaps by as much as 3 decades. I don’t have time to wait around hoping for a miraculous upset in a Presidential election. McGovern taught me a lesson. Remember him?

    Reply

  39. Kathleen says:

    Terry Ott: You are off base on Feingold. He is not just a Don Quixote, small town lawyer with a soap box.
    Contrary to everyone else who “grandstands” about campaign finance reform, he actually drafted the law and campaigns scrupulously, accroding to it’s standards.
    Feingold doesn’t need a soapbox. He stands tall enough on his own two feet. Unlike everyone else with one eye on the WH, wearing their little flag lapel pins, he risked being called a traitor and voted against the Gestapo Patriot Act.
    Most recentlhy of note to me, was Feingold getting up and walking the f**k out, rather than particpate in Arlen Sphincter’s procedural charades.
    I want a presidential candidate who doesn’t dooooo farce and Feingold is the one for me.

    Reply

  40. Human says:

    Evidently tags are not allowed.
    Take it back –
    huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/how-to-hack-a-diebold-vot_b_26301.html

    Reply

  41. Terry Ott says:

    I really would like to feel enthusiastic about the Democrats who are lining up to take over from W, but I just cannot.
    It is a source of constant puzzlement that someone can get nominated by either party based on some superficial language they adopt for purposes of impressing voters. I’d like to see a record of executive leadership, somewhere, and a record of achievement in their chosen fields. That should be the “price of entry:” to the race; instead it is virtually ignored. We don’t hire corporate CEOs who have been staff people just because they talk a good game about what they intend to do; we like to see a track record.
    Kerry showed his true colors in “04. When the swift boaters alleged he was a glory hound, unliked by most officers with whom he served to the point that they were happy to be rid of him when he arranged to get back the states in record time, the convincing evidence he really WAS the genuine article never came. His decision to run as a war hero was flawed big time.
    One fit to run the country would have the moxy and resolve to outmaneuver and ultimately marginalize if not crush whomever is in the way of the image he deserves to have Deliver the damn knockout blow if you have it in you. We need that in a leader, among many other qualities. I’m not sure Kerry even demonstated his worthiness of heading a large corporation, to say nothing of holding the most significant executive job on the planet.
    Biden is a windbag. Feingold is Don Quixote, a small town lawyer with a soapbox. I could go on, but it is depressing and takes me to the same place Pissed Off American is. Is there a potential statesman out there, anywhere, who is a seasoned executive with a world view? Warner? I need to pay more attention to him, but right now he is the only one on the list without a blue line through his/her name.

    Reply

  42. Human says:

    That would pass up more Senior Senators. Sen. Durbin comes to mind. And that makes sense. He does not seem to be part of the Republican Lite Dem Machine like Hillary and Reid are.
    Hillary – Another reason I’m not a Dem. any more.
    Speaking of elections, for those in Red areas this is how we fight back – Take it Back
    It’s time to take the gloves off.
    Pissed off American – So right about Kerry.
    Peace. It’s possible. Just not with the crazy bastards who are in power now. That includes many a Dem.

    Reply

  43. Matthew says:

    I love this post. The Democrats are actually starting to act like a party that wants to win! Hillary might just be the only Democrat who can’t win in ’08. Bravo.

    Reply

  44. Pissed Off American says:

    “With a Silver Star, Bronze Star, & 3 Purple Hearts Kerry doesn’t worry about people questioning his manhood………”
    Bullshit. He rolled over for Blackwell, conceded early, and slunk out of country when Conyers was leading the fight to expose an election that was TOTALLY CORRUPTED. He DESERTED his supporters. Whatever balls he had in Nam were LONG GONE during the election process. He oughta just slime his ass out of the public spotlight and go enjoy Teresa’s money.

    Reply

  45. MP says:

    “The best blend of charisma & experience in a candidate for 08 is Joe Biden.”
    As long as he can censor his thinking on Indian accents and convenience stores.
    What’s interesting here is that no one is coming up with anyone who’s too far outside the mainstream. It’s the same old names. Warner I think has the best shot at bridging the red-blue divide.
    I say Obama. Carter Redux? Murtha–that’s an idea. Pretty darn red, but with the courage to change. Plain-spoken and Trumanesque. Anyone harkening back to Harkin? Let’s have a little Hart. This could be Clark’s moment, now that foreign policy is the flashpoint.

    Reply

  46. Beyond Tunderdome says:

    With a Silver Star, Bronze Star, & 3 Purple Hearts Kerry doesn’t worry about people questioning his manhood, which may have been his undueing in 04, but he was right on the issues then & an overwhelming number of people are finally coming to that realization, which will be to his benefit in 08. If your talking charisma, Feingold is a bigger snoozer than Kerry. The best blend of charisma & experience in a candidate for 08 is Joe Biden.

    Reply

  47. Kathleen says:

    Feingold 08!!!!

    Reply

  48. Pissed Off American says:

    “I still think John Kerry is a great candidate & will benefit by not having to run against an incumbent in the middle of a war.”
    Interesting. You think Blackwell might give Kerry’s balls back to him for the campaign, or is Kerry going to run without them???

    Reply

  49. Beyond Thunderdome says:

    Dems need to nominate someone in 2008 who can lead the US out of the colossal mess that the SOB (Son of a Bush) got into. That means someone with foriegn policy experience. I still think John Kerry is a great candidate & will benefit by not having to run against an incumbent in the middle of a war. The Swiftboating episode came about because he agreed to the same campaign spending limits that the SOB did, but had to stretch the funds over an extra month since the Repugs convention was so late. In 08 the conventions will be back to back to avoid this disparity. Other candidates that would be great because of their experience on world affairs are: Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark.

    Reply

  50. Pissed Off American says:

    So, POA, who would back in the race for prez?
    Posted by MP
    I see no lights on the horizon. Conyers has fought like mad, but he has been effectively neutralized by the media’s refusal to give him any exposure. Kucinich is a truly altruistic human being, and would make an honorable and honest President. But, unfortunately, he looks like a mouse, and our perversely twisted societal values preclude any possibility of someone so photogenically deprived becoming President. His values, and John Edward’s looks, would be a perfect combination.
    So, who knows? Fiengold, maybe.
    But, like I say, I see no one that tweaks my gimble. A sad state of affairs, isn’t it?
    Wouldn’t it be nice to see a unified United States, becoming more secure, less corrupt, wealthier, cleaner, healthier….
    Not in my lifetime. Not with THIS batch of criminals, in BOTH parties, running the show.

    Reply

  51. MP says:

    So, POA, who would back in the race for prez?

    Reply

  52. Pissed Off American says:

    Yaddadyaddayadda…..
    Posted by American Liberal
    Horseshit. You just gave us a long boring litany designed to advocate the maintainance of the status quo. Doublespeak and innuendo. Many of us are sick of this crap, and our numbers are increasing daiily. Hillary has done virtually NOTHING to put a stop to the CRIMINAL ACTIONS of an Executive Administration that holds itself above the law and has embarked this nation on a course that has wrought one disaster after another, from 9/11 to Iraq to New Orleans to Lebanon. And how does Hllary react to this latest abominational act of Israeli agression, and Bush’s ludicrous act of arming the aggressor while lamenting the losses of the Lebanese??? She jumps right on ship with Bush and Ohlmert. So what is going to change with this two faced opportunistic hack at the helm??? Obviously, she serves the same masters the current batch of criminals do. Our two party system has become little more than a charade, designed to give the American people the ILLUSION of choice, and meanwhile keep them distracted by division, while the true powers pursue a universally sought after global prize. I see no appreiciable difference between some lying bitch like Hillary, or some smirking monkey like Bush. Neither one of them intend to do anything other than advance agendas that have far more to do with a lust for power and wealth than they do with any sort of patriotism or altruistic designs for their fellow human beings. And your rambling dissertation about accepting just more of the same political hogwash sounds like it is straight out of a DNC guide book. Change a few names, a few sentences, and it could just as easily be from the desk of some Republican mouthpiece. Just more of the same old stale political horseshit that is used to placate the masses while these criminal goons in Washington drive this nation straight down the crapper.

    Reply

  53. MP says:

    AL: “Take a step back for a second, and ask yourself if that sort of rhetoric is going to effect any change in the system. Language and politics are every bit as important as the message – without them it has no hope of winning, right as it may be.”
    Of course it won’t. All it means is we–liberals, progressives–are going to lose…lose…and lose. Bush has managed to polarize the country so badly, we’re simply going to lurch from one extreme to another, trying to “right” the boat.
    The only real alternative to the Dems and Repubs that has a prayer of a chance is a centrist third way. Clinton showed the way. Think about it: Who was the last Dem president to win two full terms? FDR.

    Reply

  54. Maude says:

    The last thing Hillary Clinton was in charge of was that health care plan, complete with lawsuits.
    This is a woman who has grabbed onto her husband’s coat tails and has had a very good ride.
    She has not done anything of merit.
    She is self-involved and it always about her.
    She has never said anything intelligent.
    This isn’t Elizabeth the First we’re talking about.
    The one thing she is good at is getting attention.
    As a Senate party leader, she would lose interest after the press party died down.
    She never stayed interested in anything for very long when she was First lady.
    Remember the # of times she was sworn in?
    Is that still going on?
    Maude

    Reply

  55. kylie says:

    Steve,
    Can Wes Clark also profit Hillary potentially not running if he choses to do so? People who back Hillary could switch to Clark? With his military and foreign policy background as well as negotiating skills amongst world leaders – show cased when he led Nato during the war in Kosovo, I can see a real difference being made in the the world with Clark as president of the USA.
    From an Australian reader always interested in your insights.
    Kylie

    Reply

  56. Bob Aubin says:

    Bill Richardson is the best option for Democrats in 2008. He is a former congressman, renowned diplomat, and popular Governor. He has the charisma, the resume, and the intellegence to be a great President. He is from a South-Western state, and brings the excitement factor of Hillary (by being hispanic) without the Hillary baggage. He is progressive enough draw netroots support, while being moderate enough to avoid the far left label.
    “Every American wants safety and security. We can continue to wait for Republicans in Washington to lead. Or we can make a change.”
    “We are Democrats and we stand for diplomacy NOT threats; bridges NOT walls; alliances NOT isolation.”
    – from Democratic Radio Address by Gov. Richardson

    Reply

  57. American Liberal says:

    Take a step back for a second, and ask yourself if that sort of rhetoric is going to effect any change in the system. Language and politics are every bit as important as the message – without them it has no hope of winning, right as it may be.
    I consider myself a liberal, and of all the Democratic party has to offer, I personally believe that Senator Clinton should get the nomination. She, like her husband, is the candidate of measured centrism. Obviously we all have our gripes about both, and about the other nominees on the left and right. But when it comes down to it, President Clinton had a fairly good record domestically as a pragmatic candidate that oversaw a period of fiscal responsibility in government and some measure of reform in areas such as welfare. Senator Clinton and her DLC compatriots have that legacy in mind as they work on intelligent solutions to serious problems that we as Americans need to work with an eye to “common security” to face, such as education and healthcare. I think you’ll see those numbers trend favorably towards her as the candidates talk more about the race and their agendas – pragmatism generally sells. John Edwards, on the other hand, fires up populist rhetoric in his campaign for a vast state-run campaign against poverty. He obviously is in favor of something socialist in flavor. A far cry from the pragmatic welfare reform designed to maximize human liberty and opportunity during the Clinton era while doing away with some of the less-than-wonderful illiberal legacies of the welfare state. Additionally, I question his resolve (and that of Senator Kerry) to effectively combat radical Islam/Islamism/Islamofascism, the greatest challenge to liberal democracy since nationalist fascism and communism.
    Americans want a responsible and representative government that both upholds our fundamental liberties and the mandate to use a measured application of common security to preserve them from very real threats of all shapes and sizes. We know that we need liberal and constitutional government, common security by the citizens, to combat the malicious intentions of some against our “life, liberty, and property”. Some very serious gripes against the current Republican government are its tendencies towards corruption and waste, the very real question of “too much security” raised as we consider everything from domestic counterterrorist operations to proposed amendments against certain questions of morality to a tremendous growth in overall government volume, at the expense of the citizens, and of course the question “are we effectively combating Islamofascism worldwide?” I personally am very concerned about each of these areas, and look both to potential candidates on the Republican and Democratic sides to soundly resolve them. Hillary Clinton, in my eyes, shows more potential for broad appeal and a successful presidency than do the other Democrats, especially Edwards, Kerry, and Gore. We should be looking with an eye to 1992, not 1972.
    By ineffectively combating the illiberal excesses of the current government in the democratic arena, you are enabling them.

    Reply

  58. Pissed Off American says:

    Gads, you people act as though I am the only pissed off American out here.
    Look, I live in Kern County, California. Here, in THIS county, you can throw away any preconcieved notions you may have about “liberal Californians”. This is redneck heaven, and the Bush bumper stickers were damned near as common as the horse trailers and the vegetable fields. But I got news for you, there are ALOT of pissed off rednecks out here, and the number increases exponentially as the months roll on. The few people that are still rabidly supporting the Bush criminals cannot intelligently engage you with reasoning, but those in opposition are fully armed with reasons that are forcefully expressed.
    It is the same lying corporate media that sold you on the Iraq war that is know hawking the scripted fantasies about public sentiment and who will or won’t succeed in an electoral campaign. People WANT a pissed off, vocal and animated candidate. (Dean wasn’t defeated by true public sentiment, he was defeated by the media’s FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION of public sentiment.) People WANT change. People are FED UP with the lies and the posturing, the inflated insurance costs, the shipping of American jobs offshore, the expensive gas, the ludricrous tolerance of thousands of illegals entering daily, the failing schools, the empty campaign promises…..
    You put a candidate up there that calls a spade a spade, a liar a liar, a criminal a criminal, and you will put up a winner. You give America someone with HONEST BALLS, and you will win, hands down. American’s are awakening, and they DO NOT like what they see. Mark my words, the time has come for us to stop allowing the media to tell us who we support. We are being led around like a bunch of fucking idiots, nationwide.Red State. Blue State. Its a crock of shit. It doesn’t take a genius to see that things ARE NOT getting “better”. It doesn’t take a genius to see that our government is not getting “less corrupt”. It doesn’t take a genius to see that what these fuckers PROMISE to do and what they ACTUALLY do have NOTHING in common.
    Nope. I’m not the only pissed off American out here. I think MOST of us are pissed, but MOST of us aren’t advertizing it. We have been conditioned not to. But I see more and more people becoming vocal, and it is contagious and self perpetuating.
    There is a REASON this administration has sought to institute draconian measures to quell dissent. They KNOW the gig is almost up, and have used the spectre of the terrorist boogey man to scare us into submission. Things are going to get TOUGHER on us, not easier. Hungry stomachs do not protest in the streets. Gasless automobiles do not ferry dissent from point A to point B.
    We need to stop muttering under our breath that “it can’t happen here”, and we need to start screaming “IT IS HAPPENING HERE”. then, and only then, will we be able to gather the unity that is required to reclaim our democracy. Business as usual is THE PROBLEM, not THE SOLUTION. Get angry, get vocal, and get busy.

    Reply

  59. Robert Morrow says:

    Blaine, that was a very fascinating analysis and I enjoyed it as I slogged through it. Couple of huge mistakes in it. 1) you are relying on very faulty polls 2 years out just based on name ID. These polls are push polls and they mean nothing.
    2) The Demo schedule in ’08 is Iowa, THEN Nevada caucues, New Hampshire, THEN South Carolina. If Hillary slips up just once anywhere she is in BIG trouble. I think Warner and Edwards will be all over her. Edwards may draw first blood, but Warner could finish her off quickly after that.
    3) all the Hillary money and all the over-priced, vested interest, blood sucking consultants in the world won’t mean a thing once Hillary starts losing. Hillary is a paper tiger, but here 15% chance of becoming the next POTUS is 15% too much for me. Hillary and Bill have abused so many people, they have built up a deep, poisonous well of enemies.
    4) this is a 2 person race between Hillary and Mark Warner, an absolute jewel by comparision. Edwards might peek his head in for a little bit, but it looks like Warner is the ’08 Demo nominee, barring a major screw up.
    5)the bottom line: Hillary is such an incredibly flawed candidate she can’t even make it out of the Demo primary. So forget the general because she won’t be there. And Warner will be extremely tough to beat in the general.

    Reply

  60. Carroll says:

    I Ditto elementary teacher…
    except I am on the southeast coast….and people here, red and blue, are BOTH disgusted beyond words….with ALL of it…
    No one except the forever with us 20% loonies believe anything ANY of them have to say…the comments on both parties varies from “pond scum” to “idiots”..
    Muthur is the only one I have heard spoken of respectfully lately….maybe that is because I live in the middle of 10,000 Marines and retired military though.

    Reply

  61. elementary teacher says:

    Yeah, I hear you all, but seriously, though I’m no analyst, I still wonder about this: Do you think Howard Dean’s intensity blew it for him in the last presidential election? Maybe he wasn’t mad enough. Would the next candidate — complete with passion — and some sort of intact bathrobe, POA — be too Deanish for the people? I truly wonder if people are now aware enough to back up the *last angry man* with whatever they’ve got? Are the two parties too gridlocked to even process the level of political sewage that everyday Americans have to wade through to even bother getting to the polls? I’m a Californian and in local words:
    9-11 is huge, Iraq is huge,the Constitution is huge, Lebanon is huge, Palestine is huge, Portgate is huge, the borders are huge, Israel is huge, Oil is huge, immigration is huge, Korea is huge — no thanks to the chimp on a Cheney. The lies are scary and they strangulate some, and numb others. Maybe anger is the ticket. The people know they’re being lied to, conspiracy theories abound. Whose behind it? The Corporate Colonialists, the Hidden Hand, the CFR, the Skull and Bones, the Jesuits, the Jews, Satan, the Masons, Mossad, the CIA, all of the above? As I see it, for starters, facts and plain talk have got to clear up 9-11 and the attendant issues and ground this nation in reality.

    Reply

  62. Kathleen says:

    Harry Reid’s leadership is about as exciting and inspiring as a cold bowl of oatmeal, a huge disappointment.
    Hillary Clinton’s positions are too central and contrived for me, especially on Iraq. I’m not aware of any bright ideas she’s had about any of our current dilemnas and her position on Israel is unimiginative and convenient. She doesn’t have her husband’s ability to talk to people, she drones. I think she’s very competant, but not courageous enough for my taste as President or Senate leader.
    I’d prefer to have Senator Russ Feingold heading up the ticket. His dedication to campaign finance reform is bound to have broad appeal because nothing can ever get cleaned up until the cnadidates elected are dedicated to cleaning it up. I’d give anything to see a McCain-
    Feingold contest because I think it would be the best way to delineate the differences between Dems and Repugs. I’m with Feingold on every other issue important to me, as well, the war, the Patriot Act, Alito, Censure.
    For Senate leader, I’d rather have someone with fire, who is not afraid to fight and critize Busholini, like Chris Dodd who was the only one who questioned the lack of intel on 9/12. He was branded a traitor for daring. I think it was his duty to question it and am glad he did. He’s not an asskisser, but can rally people to a cause, like a necessary filibuster on Bolton. I’m done with limp noodle strategies.
    All in all, it’s a lack-luster season, but I am grateful for Russ Feingold’s strong sense of ethics and will be glad to have him as a candidate.

    Reply

  63. Blaine says:

    This is how I feel on the Dem nomination, Rep nomination, and the general election. To everyone who says Hillary CAN’T win you know NOTHING about politics.
    The Democrat Nomination
    Regardless of how anyone feels about the national election, I feel Hillary can & will win the primary. All of the pundits have basically said “it’s her if she wants it.” Their really is no one who can stop her in the primary. Her biggest opposition will be Feingold and Warner. Most think that Hillary will have at around $300 million in the bank. No one can match that NO ONE! In every poll except for one which I will get to in a minute, Hillary is beating everyone by around 20%. This is the case both nationally and state by state. Let’s look at the ONE poll Hillary is loosing in. This is what the poll shows “The Des Moines Register shows that Edwards, the runner-up in the Iowa Democratic caucuses two years ago and a frequent visitor to the state since then, is the choice of 30 percent of Iowans who say they are likely to take part in the January 2008 caucuses.” Hillary comes in a close second with 26% while number three Kerry comes in at 12%. This has caused me to worry a lot. That maybe Hillary won’t win the nomination. But like I said earlier in EVERY poll Hillary is on top. Regardless of whether it’s nationally or in both liberal and conservative states like Massachusetts, South Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, or even New Hampshire Hillary is on top big time! Due to this I strongly feel that the Iowa poll is an outlier. Now lets look at her opponents. I’ll look at six of them Gore, Edwards, Kerry, Warner, Clark, and Feingold. First there’s Gore. Fact is Gore’s not running. He said he’s not running and he’s even went as far as calling fundraiser, staffers, and etc and telling them to feal free to jump on ship with other candidates. I extremely doubt Gore will run, but if he does I do think he poses a threat to Hillary and could possibly beat her. Second I’ll group both Edwards and Kerry together. Once a loser always a loser at lest in the case of presidential elections. Only a handful of times has a party ever re-nominated someone. In 08 I strongly feel that most people will say if they couldn’t win in 04 how can they win now. Third let’s look at Clark and Feingold. I think they both could pose a threat to Hillary, IF they had the resources. Neither of them have the money, staff, organization, and etc to do it. Regardless of that they both will run, and to the left of Hillary. They will both excite the blogosphere and their type. But since they both can’t have the support of the blogosphere it will have to go to someone. I feal it will go to Feingold. Before I talk more about Feingold let’s look at Warner. Warner will run to the right of Hillary. He will accuse Hillary of being to liberal and that she can’t win nationaly. Now let’s put Feingold back into the mix. I feel that it will come down to these three. Feingold will accuse Hillary of not being liberal enough especially on the war in Iraq. They all three will campaign hard. But what wins a primary? Money and the political team you build. Feingold has neither of those so he will fall a few weeks before Iowa. Then it will be left to Warner to beat Hillary. Everyone will rally behind him as the anti-Hillary candidate. In the end I don’t think Warner will gain enough support and money to beat Hillary. I’m not saying it wont be close but Hillary will win Iowa but by less than 4%. On to New Hampshire, where I feel it will be a Hillary blowout. Hillary is from New York real close to New Hampshire. New England loves her more than any other part of the country. For that reason alone Hillary will win New Hampshire by more than 8%. Then she will go on to win the nomination. In terms of support Hillary already has around 40% of the Democratic party already locked up. That support is solid and wont fade away. Yes there is 60% that is up for grabs and some of that is dead set against her. If it was a two person race Hillary vs. ?, I would expect it to be a pure toss up. Due to so many people in the race I say it’s going to be almost impossible to beat Hillary in the primary.
    The Republican Nomination
    Now lets take a look at the Republican nomination. While it’s still uncertain most pundits think McCain is definitely going to run in 08. He’s building up the staffers, fundraisers, and etc to do so. With Giuliani it’s a different story. Most thought he was going to run. He’s been traveling the country and making speeches like crazy. Fact is though he isn’t trying to put a team together. He’s not making any moves to do so either. I would say that the political pundits are now split right down the middle on whether he will run or not. Assuming both do run this is how I view the primary. McCain and Giuliani will both go into Iowa with a ton of steam. With everyone else polling around or under 10%. It’s going to be a very, very ugly race. With Giuliani accusing McCain of stabbing the Republican party in the back. He will remind everyone of how McCain ran in the 00 primary and what he has done since then to prove that he is truly an Independent at heart. While McCain will accuse Giuliani of being way too liberal, a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro – affirmative action, and anti-gun Republican. That he is the only person who can beat Hillary and that everyone knows it. This will go on for months, with the rest of the Republican field uniting together (much like the Democrats did against Dean) to take them both down. I believe they will succeed in doing this. Also they (the remaining Republican field) will realize that they all can’t win and need to choose someone amongst themselves to go forward and win the nomination. I believe they will choose a person by the name of George Allen to do this. Why him? For months Republican insiders have thought he will win the nomination and could be the next Regan. For that reason I choose Allen. I believe Allen will take Iowa but by the narrowest of margins. Probably come in a close second in New Hampshire (maybe first) and go on to win the nomination.
    The General Election
    All of the polls show that Hillary’s move to the center is working. Regardless of which polling company you look at you can see that more people view her now as a moderate than ever before. You can see that along with the rest of her numbers favorable, electability, and etc, not to mention her numbers against her opponents both in the primaries and the general election are moving upwards. But we will talk more about her opponents later. Hillary’s move to the center however is a double edged sword. Very, VERY surprisingly Democrats aren’t happy with her move. Well at least the liberal/progressive blogosphere and their kind, are not happy with it at all. With the moderate Democrats, they are welcoming the move. While the party as a whole is undecided on her electability. With half of the party thinking she can win and the other thinking she can’t. Now lets look at how the Republicans look at this situation. On her move to the center along with her electability Republicans around the country are scared to death of this. Most not all are very, very afraid she can and will win. They all realize that since she’s become a senator her numbers over the past six years have been gradually increasing to where they are today, and are still going up. As soon as the 04 election was over they jumped on her possibly running in 08 like crazy. You have all of these Republicans writing books and talking about how she’s going to win and she’s pretty much unstoppable. While they know she can win some are taking a different route. Instead of telling everyone how they really feel about Hillary their lying and trying to scare people. Trying to scare Democrats and others that she can’t win and that they want her to be the nominee because it will be an easy win. People like the RNC chairman Ken Mehlman are saying “we welcome the challenge of Hillary Clinton” and that “”Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger. … When you think of the level of anger, I’m not sure it’s what Americans want.” He along with other Republicans are trying to scare people into not voting for her. Well it’s working. Like I said earlier half the Democratic party thinks she can’t win. While most probably around 70% of Republicans know she can. If the Republican parties strategy keeps working then maybe, just MAYBE Hillary wont win the Democrat nomination.
    The turnout she generates is as follows. She generates black turnout about twenty-points higher than [John] Kerry got. So that’s two extra point for the Democratic Party. She is almost certainly going to restore the Hispanic margin to 30-points, as opposed to the ten-point margin Kerry had, that’s two-points extra for the Democrats. And she’ll no doubt carry single women by four-to-one. Kerry carried them by two-to-one, so that’s another two-points [for the Dems]. That’s six-points worth of support the Democrats didn’t get in this year’s vote – enough to trump President Bush’s 51 to 49 percent margin of victory. The questions is, can the GOP squeeze out more support from their base? I don’t see how that happens, Bush won 97% of his party and it’s IMPOSSIBLE to pull out another 3% from his own party.
    Then there is the WOMAN problem. So few women between 18-59 stay home anymore and most of the women that do and would have a problem with Hillary likely already vote Republican anyways. However it is the 80+% of working women that Hillary could appeal to. Democrats increased their grip on the urban areas in America, however still doing poorly in the exurbs. Hillary the candidate could potentially reverse this, most women in the exurbs work, and the vast majority of those working women are professionals. They can identify with Hillary as a women who has held high-profile jobs while juggling a husband with a high-profile job and scandals and family. It would be dangerous to underestimate the potential strength that Hillary might have among women in general. It is probably true that Hillary might lose some male support in general, but it would likely be made up in kind and them some with added support from women. Even women who usually do not vote might be compelled to come out and vote for ‘one of their own.’ Want to turnup the vote among young people, Hillary could do it with legions of women 18-29 coming out to support someone they one day hope to aspire. Also with divorce rates into he US today over 50% she can legitimately say to many people “I am one of you.” It was Bill’s scandal with Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones, not Hillary’s. Then there is the so called “moderate Republican women” that would “never” vote for her. The fact is that is simply not true. I know so many moderate and even some far right wing Republican women who have never voted for a Democrat in their life and said they never would. I went threw every about every Democrat I could name and they all said they would never vote for that person, except when I came to Hillary. When I asked why they said because she’s a woman and “I want to see a woman become president in my life”. Many of these women refuse to admit it to anyone including their boss, coworkers, and even their friends in order to keep their Republican status. But one on one they admit that they would vote for her behind the closed curtain.
    Now on to the General as promised. For the longest time I’ve thought Hillary only loses to one person McCain. That he will never win the Republican nomination. Well as of right now I think that I was wrong. I now think Hillary can beat McCain and only loses to Giuliani. That McCain can win the nomination. Let me explain my reasoning for this. Over the past few months McCain has been very, VERY cozy with the right wing evangelical base. He’s has been moving to the right very, very fast. His poll numbers show that it’s working but not everywhere. McCain now is leading Giuliani in the primary and has been increasing his lead. While in the general his numbers have been going the opposite way. McCain has gone from leading Hillary from around 15 down to anywhere from 4-9. He is turning off moderate Democrats and Independents who once thought of him as a moderate. Due to this I think Hillary can beat McCain and that McCain can win his parties nomination. I almost forgot why I now think that Giuliani can beat Hillary. Until recently Giuliani has been tied or slightly ahead of Hillary. For some reason over the past few months Giuliani is now leading her by 5-10 points. This is something I honestly can not explain. Do I think Hillary can beat Giuliani? No. Do I think Hillary can beat McCain? Yes. But since I don’t think either of them will be the Republican nominee, I won’t include them in my analysis of how I feel the general election will go. I strongly believe that Hillary will carry every Kerry state plus Ohio, Iowa, and Missouri (only MO because since 1900 with one exception no one wins without MO). Then depending on her VP she can possibly win any of the following Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. I feel Allen is just to conservative to strongly compete with Hillary, and after 8 years of conservatism that will work against him in all of the previous states. So if you do the math Hillary beats Allen and is our next President. To all of you who say “it’ll never happen” the same thing was said about Reagan and look what happened to him. Not one Republican or anyone thought he could win and he won two terms. How many people doubted Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel(the new chancellor of Germany), but they both won and they were WOMEN. If it was any other year but 08 I don’t think she would win. But with President Bush’s grievous mistakes and mishaps as president. Along with those of his party. I think that after eight years of failure the American public will be looking for leadership and bringing back the “good times” of the 90’s under her husband Bill. Last if that’s not enough history shows us that, since 1952 only ONCE has the party in control of the White House for eight years has ever added another four. That one exception was with George H. Bush winning in 1988. I can almost assure you all that that WILL not happen this time around. All of this leads to a Hillary victory in 08.

    Reply

  64. Carroll says:

    Dear Terry….
    I am more on POA’s wave length.
    All of you who rely on the “dems’ are just as misguided as those who rely on the “repubs”
    They are both the same system. Neither party has any reason or desire to change the system…which has to changed if you want “good goverment”.
    You won’t get anything “done” by being “reasonable”….goverment should fear the poeple not visa versa…and being reasonable doesn’t instill any fear..it’s just saying you’ll settle for the lesser of two evils or whichever will hurt you less.
    I don’t know how anyone who understands the depth of corruption in our political parties and thruout our entire goverment can possibility remain reasonable.

    Reply

  65. Terry Ott says:

    “Your assumption that our votes are being accurately and honestly counted is naive and ignores indisputable FACTS.”
    POA, I assume nothing of the sort. In fact, as I have grown older, into my 60s now, I have learned not to assume much of anything …. except one thing, and that is that most people all over the world are good and decent and have values that center mostly on family, friends, safety and security, and community, and for better or worse, religion … before politics. I think they mostly want public policy matters o be run professionally and wisely by politicians, but that seems too much to ask.
    I have learned (not assumed) that many elections are tainted, by both sides in varied and different ways (I DID live in the Chicago area for many years). But I figure that pretty much balances out over time and place, so while I’d like to see it all cleaned up of course, I am not going to obsess over it.
    A winning party has to field candidates and values and ideas that are appealing enough to render the shenanigans irrelevant; in other words, win a substantial majority of votes.
    And, yes, I’d like the Democrats to take the lead in proposing new (I mean radically new, as in formulaic) ways of setting electoral district boundaries, in counting ballots, in prohibiting “day of election registration” (we do this in Wisconsin now), in funding elections, etc. As I said, I believe the Democrats can prevail if they stand up for the right things in this and many other areas. “We” (the people) are all waiting to see who is willing to clean out the political cesspool. That’s part of what I meant early on by the term “enlightened governance”.
    We need firebrands like yourself to keep stirring the pot, but just as much we need reasonable people who can get into positions of responsibility where they can PROVE they are working for the good of most of the people all of the time.
    I’m sorry to be so preachy, but that’s the mood I’m in right now given the sorry state of affairs we have concocted for ourselves. Will someone please remove the soapbox I’m standing on?

    Reply

  66. Pissed Off American says:

    “Personally, I’d appreciate them much more if they work doggedly to fix what’s broken, and get as many “moderates” on their side as possible.”
    Like the effort they have undertaken to “fix” our broken and corrupted electoral process??? Your assumption that our votes are being accurately and honestly counted is naive and ignores indisputable FACTS. If you ignore THAT particularly disturbing reality you could run Jesus against these criminals and he would lose.

    Reply

  67. Robert Morrow says:

    As I often say, Mark Warner would be a MUCH better candidate for the Demos, the Repubs and the USA than Hillary. Hillary has proven over the past 30 years that she can not responsibly handle power. Hillary and Bill are people abusers; they have personally violated hundreds of people. Hillary is an profane and physically abusive (to Bill), disrepectful, dishonest, back-stabbing crook to everyone but George Soros and her staff at Hillaryland, who have sworn to support her no matter what crime she might do.
    The front-loaded Demo primary of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina is actually a huge threat to Hillary’s candidacy. Just one slip up there- and it WILL happen – and her campaign goes down in flames and the media hype and internet donations will go pouring into Mark Warner, John Edwards or Al Gore’s pockets. Warner and Gore are especially well-positioned because both are probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars and can self finance for now as they build donor credibility in Warner’s case.
    Hillary’s and Bill’s Demo power is based on fear, not love and respect from their party. The Demos need to get off the Clinton campaign cash crack if they ever want to win a national election again. Bush and Rove are praying for Hillary to be nominated, as she only has a 20% chance of winning a general election.
    Not me. Hillary’s 20% chance of winning a general and we (Repubs, Demos, the USA) can’t afford to let that dog out of the kennel running wild in a general election.
    If Hillary loses just one early Demo primary in Jan 2008, her campaign will be vaporized like the time they threw water on the Wicked Witch of the West.
    And that’s what is gonna happen, because the Demos may be dumb, but they are NOT going to blow their brains out for Hillary like Vince Foster did.

    Reply

  68. Terry Ott says:

    Speaking of pissing, I’m certain to be pissing into the wind here, POA, because your style and my style are very different. In my view, Presidential administrations (and their congressional allies) are held accountable by virtue of not being reelected. The Democrats, and the American people pissed that opportunity away in ’04, thanks to an unwise choice of candidate(s) at the top of the ticket (really, I think it is more thanks to a broken system of selecting a candidate, but that’s another rant).
    Historians and journalists will “try” the administration in their own way as books are written, investigative specials are made, movies are filmed, and so on. The one best chance that Democrats have right now, in my opinion, is to run on a platform of “enlightened governance” (my words; there are probably better ones), that mainstream Americans will gravitate to because they’re already sick to their stomachs about what goes on in Washington. Maybe it is not within current Democrat leaders’ DNA to stand united behind their OWN version of a “Contract with Americans” (the change from “America”, an abstract, to “Americans” intentional to bring this to a more personal, and less issue-oriented level).
    If Democrats are not able or willing to put those kinds of stakes in the ground, then we are all worse off. And if they “piss away” their opportunity to rise above the status quo of name calling and divisiveness, then their turn at the helm will be one term at most, until more visionary candidate(s) emerge to take the higher road in 2012 and beyond.
    On a very practical level, a scenario I think I could almost script, are we ready to have the “usual suspects” (Democratic Congressional leaders) square off in front of the TV cameras in a “get Bush” free-for-all for a couple of years after the 2008 election? Personally, I’d appreciate them much more if they work doggedly to fix what’s broken, and get as many “moderates” on their side as possible. That’s not to say they shouldn’t speak out at appropriate times about the record of the current administration, but I’d rather see more “positives” after 2006 and go low profile with the recriminations.
    We no doubt will have to agree to differ on this.

    Reply

  69. Jonathan says:

    To comment on the original post, I don’t think it’s really accurate to call the new primary/caucus calendar anti-Kerry. Lets not forget that Kerry won Iowa in 2004, and it was only the momentum from that that put him over the top in New Hampshire.
    Voters in Primary states are smart enough to look at real issues and real positions, not just geography.

    Reply

  70. Pissed Off American says:

    I know you cherish your right to be angry, but that anger might be focused on getting something done. That’s what “winners” in all fields and walks of life do.
    Posted by Terry Ott
    Yeah. “Getting something done”. Thats a novel idea. When do you suppose the Dems are gonna pursue that end??? And if this Administration IS NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE for its deeds, what is to stop the next Administration from abusing its powers? We need to get TWO things done, in my opinion….First, we need to INDICT this administration for its crimes. And that FIRST THING will take care of the SECOND THING, which is to MAKE CLEAR, in no uncertain terms, that we have a government that represents the rule of law and respects the checks and balances our constitution was designed to install, and WE THE PEOPLE will accept NOTHING LESS.
    Sorry, your option of shrugging and saying “Oh well, they got away with it” is counterproductive and is tantamount to pissing all over everything we are supposed to stand for. Do you REALLY think we should hold our Executive Branch, or ANY branch, above the law??? If so, you have lost touch with the most basic of our historically established tenets.

    Reply

  71. Terry Ott says:

    POA:
    Sorry. I was thinking the goal was to get an honest and progressive man/woman elected. Forgot that the principle objective is for you to stand over the corpse of what’s left of the Bush administration and scream “gotcha”. Sorry.
    I DO think it’s time for a Democrat to actually LEAD something, besides his/her campaign staff; it’s hard to lead anything anywhere when your eyes are steadily focused on the rear view mirror and your energies are being spent kicking a dead dog.
    I know you cherish your right to be angry, but that anger might be focused on getting something done. That’s what “winners” in all fields and walks of life do.

    Reply

  72. Carroll says:

    I can’t believe Hillary is considering running for president in 2008 anyway, mainly because she isn’t stupid…but maybe her advisors are, who knows…and I say this as someone who was very willing to vote for her for president previously.
    She is bound to know that every step she has taken toward the right has cost her the support of the hard left…and that the hard right wouldn’t vote for her under any circumstances.
    So basically that leaves her nothing but her support from the NY and other jewish communities for her Israel support, her general favorable rating in NY and a few who just want to see a female president anyway.
    Just like 99% of the others, she has pandered to this and that until she is no longer here or there, which probably makes her the perfect person for Reid’s spot, a go-between for our two ruling mafia familes.
    Maybe the dems made her an offer because they know she would be a loser…or she made them an offer not to be a spoiler in exchange for another spot.

    Reply

  73. Pissed Off American says:

    “The emerging legitimate Democratic candidate cannot be someone loved by the far left, nor a person whose main claim to fame is having been a Senator. It cannot be a person from some of the Northeastern states or California, and it cannot be someone whose primary strategy appears to be little more than catering to labor, minorities, or trial lawyers.
    It MUST be a person who can say they are for “all Americans” and show that, and someone who is at least moderately acceptable to corporate America, small business (especially), and the military establishment.
    Ideally it will be someone with roots in “Middle America”, who is a legitimate “uniter”, and comes without significant scandal.”
    In other words, another coward that will refuse to address the very real CRIMES that have been committed by the Bush Administration, and will feed us the same postured LIES that put us where we now find ourselves. Oh goody, now THATS gonna fix things…..
    Give me an honest bulldog, someone that will seek INDICTMENTS against these monsters, and someone that will run on a platform of EXPOSING these bastards for what they really are. Give me someone that will look his opponent straight in the face and ask “What the hell was your party doing giving a gay whore access to classified info and the West Wing? “…..
    or “Where the hell is Phase Two”???……or “Why did you son of a bitches LIE us into this disaster in Iraq?”…..or “Do you ignorant buffoons REALLY think God created the world in seven days and the fossils of dinoaurs are just figments of our imagination???”……or “Would you trust Tom Delay with YOUR teen aged daughter???” ? “……… the list goes on and on.
    If we get anymore of these posturing frauds, such as the sacharin personage you describe, our goose is cooked. Sooner or later these rich fat cat lying treasonous opportunists are going to be needed to be held to a standard of accountability, or we the people have become little more than, servants serving the needs of a corrupt and corrosive class of elite criminals.

    Reply

  74. Adjoran says:

    Seniority is not a factor in selecting a party’s Senate Leader; it is an open contest between those who wish to run, unlike Committee Chairmanships, which do depend upon seniority.
    It is also not correct, as asserted above, that the Leader is usually from a “safe” seat. Both Daschle and Reid had had some close elections. Mitchell was “safe” because of his own popularity, but his state was very competitive at the time.
    Others have been from “safe seats” – Byrd, Dole, Lott, Frist, LBJ, Mansfield – but remember that incumbent Senators in their second or later term are all relatively “safe,” with a 95% reelection rate.

    Reply

  75. Pissed Off American says:

    let’s debate the issues folks — not the personal stuff.
    best, Steve
    Oh darn, Steve, I was about to disclose what color my bathrobe is…..

    Reply

  76. Terry Ott says:

    “I think that at this point most Americans would rather see, even Ted Kennedy than Hillary Clinton.”
    Well, I don’t know. The fact is that both of them are enormously disrepected/disliked at the national level by people of many political stripes. Let’s just say that the nomination of either would be another in the long and well-rehearsed act of political suicide by the Party, and leave it at that.
    And GQ maintains that any Democrat can prevail in the next election, given Bush’s unpopularity. That is terribly optimistic; I thought that way myself for a while before the LAST election, when Bush was actually a candidate, and not a historical figure. No, I think the Republicans have enormous potential to come forward with someone who gives the voting public a choice of “not like Bush”, but moderately conservative and very strong on national security. If that happens, and if the Democrats go back to running people like Kerry (for example) or Bill Clinton’s wife, or a Feingold type liberal, the Democrats will lose again, and frankly would deserve to.
    Maybe Wes Clark is someone to consider, but that would be like putting an aspiring rookie pitcher on the mound for Game 7 of the World Series. They (rookie pitchers) tend to make mistakes, and then pretty soon “that’s all she wrote” and things unravel in the blink of an eye.
    The emerging legitimate Democratic candidate cannot be someone loved by the far left, nor a person whose main claim to fame is having been a Senator. It cannot be a person from some of the Northeastern states or California, and it cannot be someone whose primary strategy appears to be little more than catering to labor, minorities, or trial lawyers.
    It MUST be a person who can say they are for “all Americans” and show that, and someone who is at least moderately acceptable to corporate America, small business (especially), and the military establishment.
    Ideally it will be someone with roots in “Middle America”, who is a legitimate “uniter”, and comes without significant scandal.
    Who is that? I don’t know, but that is the profile of the next Democratic President. Senator Clinton would not be my leading pick for much of anything, but I’d much prefer her being Reid’s successor than being at the head of the ticket for POTUS.

    Reply

  77. Steve Clemons says:

    let’s debate the issues folks — not the personal stuff.
    best, Steve

    Reply

  78. Pissed Off American says:

    BTW, POA, you should take a look at how the Senate/House are currently being run. There is nothing Dems can really do. They can’t even get a room in the capitol to have hearings. Their legislation is never brought to the floor unless there is a GOP co-sponsor. All they can do is try to add amendments. Any criticism of them not trying is ignorant or dishonest.
    Posted by GQ
    Bullshit. I can easily dispute that by pointing to their handling of the Alito affair, and their failure to filibuster. And if the halls and arenas of our capital are not a place to raise their voices, than our airwaves and our newspapers certainly are. Their silence and subservience in regards to the Bush Administration goes far deeper than their current minority status. Actually, if there are to be accusations of “dishonesty” or “ignorance” cast here, I would opine that they would be more appropriately cast towards those that attribute any sincere efforts of opposition to the Democratic leadership. Did Reid SUPPORT Conyers when Conyers was consigned to some laundry room cubbyhole for his “hearings” on voter fraud or impeachable offenses??? Has Hillary addressed the issue of Diebold, and the stolen Ohio ballots in ANY manner???
    No, the “dishonesty” and “ignorance” is displayed by those that rise to the DEFENSE of these mewling cowards and opportunists. Their subservience to the Bush Administration, and their total inability to speak in ONE VOICE OF OPPOSITION to the multitude of sins that this administration has engaged in speaks for itself. Are their balls cut off by their current status in the “senate/house”??? You bet. But only because they have willingly dropped their drawers, and in many instance actually PROVIDED the scalpel to the opposition.

    Reply

  79. Pissed Off American says:

    POA is the raving lunatic sitting in his bathrobe screaming at his computer that the average American envisions when they hear the word “blog.”
    Posted by SevenOneEight
    Damn, thats what I forgot this morning….
    TO PUT ON MY BATHROBE!!!!
    Thanks for your enlightening input, never before seen but just happened by poster.

    Reply

  80. SevenOneEight says:

    POA is the raving lunatic sitting in his bathrobe screaming at his computer that the average American envisions when they hear the word “blog.”

    Reply

  81. NH Dem says:

    I have long thought that Hillary would be a terrible Presidential candidate, and have been perplexed that a woman with such a brilliant analytical mind was unable to recognize that, and was by all evidence gung-ho for the race. This makes a great deal more sense to me.
    Senate Majority Leader is a post far better suited to her talents, and I can certainly see how she would prefer that opportunity, especially under a Democratic President, to the prospect of losing badly to a repugnant Republican who will screw up the country for at least four years, returning defeated to the Senate, seeing John Kerry approach from across the chamber and thinking, “Shit, now *that* pompous friendless blowhard’s gonna try to comfort *me*!”
    And if Hillary is as good at getting working cross-aisle relationships going as it seems, we might just get a working Senate, wherein the few moderate and decent conservative Republicans and the Democratic majority form a bipartisan sanity bloc. Even if the Democrats don’t gain the majority, such a bloc would be very possible under a Democratic President.
    But an anti-Kerry primary setup is unnecessary. Kerry’s shot at a second chance exists solely within his own deluded mind.
    And Steve —
    Your enthusiasm ranking was:
    husband
    advisors
    staff
    Please clarify: is her staff the most or the least enthusiastic? Any further clarification or additional insight would be most welcome.

    Reply

  82. GQ says:

    I think any Democratic candidate can win the Presidency. Look at Bush. He was unqualified with a shoddy record, couldn’t put a sentence together, uses “words” like NUKE-yah-lar and was not very inspiring. Yet he won. Or, to be more accurate–made the race close.
    I happen to think that Clark would make the best president because he is less polarizing than others–possibly Warner, but he has no international experience, nor does Edwards.
    BTW, POA, you should take a look at how the Senate/House are currently being run. There is nothing Dems can really do. They can’t even get a room in the capitol to have hearings. Their legislation is never brought to the floor unless there is a GOP co-sponsor. All they can do is try to add amendments. Any criticism of them not trying is ignorant or dishonest. Things could be much worse than they are. Hard to believe, but it’s true.

    Reply

  83. Pissed Off American says:

    And, by the way, Jeff Carroll, I hope you will second my motion that Steve outline exactly what it is that Reid has done in the last six years that has earned Steve’s “great respect”. To be honest, I am so pissed off about the Phase Two charade he pulled, and his cowardly failure to push the issue, that I see no possibility of Steve’s ability to defend the squirming little rat. Just as Blackwell neutered Kerry, Roberts neutered Reid. I have absolutely NO respect for either one of these political hacks for bending over for such treatment. Such political cowardice is epic in its proportions. When our politicians show us such an inability to stand up for THEIR OWN stated convictions and demands, what hope can we foster that they will stand up for OUR convictions and demands?
    And Reid’s cozy relationship with AIPAC certainly calls into question the issue of whether or not he TRULY stands for a different agenda than that of the staunchest neo-cons. After all, aren’t they both drinking out of the same fountain?
    Factor in Hillary’s recent comments about her unbridled support for Israel, and how are we supposed to separate Hillary from Bolton, or any of the other rabid zionist fanatics that Bush has surrounded himself with? This country is in deep shit, and it is more than obvious that the current “opposition party” has more than a little in common with that those that they are supposed to be “opposing”. Bush has pretty much, with rare exception, trudged this country into the extreme mess it is in today with little or no opposition on a myriad of issues. If the Democratic party was one tenth the oppositional force it claims to be we would undoubtedly not be in the position we are today, and terms like “the Downing Street Memo” would be implanted in EVERY American’s head, rather than pushed under the covers and quickly hidden from the light of day. There not only has been plenty to FAULT the Bush Administration for, there has been plenty to IMPEACH these bastards for. Hillary, Reid, Pelosi,Leiberman, and the whole damned slew of them, with very few exceptions, (Conyers for one, Kucinich for another) have FAILED the citizens of the United States MISERABLY.
    And if you want a dose of reality about Steve Clemons, I dare you to find me ONE SINGLE REFERENCE to John Conyers’ efforts to face a myriad of issues HEAD ON, not the least being his efforts to expose the voter FRAUD that occurred in Ohio. OR the very real and impeachable CRIMES this Administration has embarked upon since STEALING the Oval Office.
    Now we read about Reid’s “high marks”, or him being deserving of “great respect”???
    Allow me one more “over the top” bit of “bluster”………
    HORSESHIT!!!!

    Reply

  84. Rob Thompson says:

    The latest CNN poll finds that 47%, not 42%, will DEFINITELY not vote for Hillary Clinton. An equal percentage will not vote for John Kerry, and 48% will not vote for Al Gore.
    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/19/poll.presidential/
    John Edwards easily has the most crossover appeal of any potential Democratic candidate for 2008.

    Reply

  85. Pissed Off American says:

    “Despite the profanity and over-the-top blustering…….”
    Shoving light sticks in Muslim assholes is “over the top”. Lying us into a war is “over the top”. Confirming a Bushwhore as Attorney General is “over the top”. Sending Israel munitions on a rush order so they can MURDER innoccent Lebanese civilians while posturing some bullshit about the “unfortunate civilian casualties” is “over the top. Throwing science out the window so that we have to deny Bush’s direct lineage to the early stages of monkeydom is “over the top”. Abandoning the residents of New Orleans in an obvious display of rascist favoritism is “over the top”. Letting gay whores and pornographers have unfettered access to the West Wing and classified material is “over the top”. Illegally tapping the phones of American citizens is “over the top”. Stealing presidential elections is “over the top”……..ad infinitum.
    Do I make myself clear? I have a reason for my bluster and my posting style.
    I also have a reason for my anger, and it is justified. If you live in the United States, you have FAR MORE to worry about than my posting style. You better get pissed, and you better do it NOW. Because these bastards such as Bush and Cheney ARE NOT going to give our country back to us. And these posturing cowards and liars such as Hillary or Reid are damned sure not going to TAKE IT BACK for us. You and I are the ONLY hope this Democracy has. Get mad, get vocal, and get busy.

    Reply

  86. Jeff Carroll says:

    Hillary is a lightning rod, wherever she goes. If New York wants her in the Senate, that’s none of my business; but there are a lot of fencesitters who will have nothing to do with the Democratic Party while she is its public face.
    There are several Democrats with 20+ years seniority in the Senate who for some reason are loath to maintain any sort of public profile. It’s a scandal that we have to be talking about a freshman senator as minority leader.
    Personally, I’d like to see Durbin, or Feingold, or Levin. But I’d rather see, and I think that at this point most Americans would rather see, even Ted Kennedy than Hillary Clinton.

    Reply

  87. chophouse says:

    Despite the profanity and over-the-top blustering, I think I agree with POA that the current crop of Dems, including both Reid and Clinton, have failed us when it was their turn to stand in the breach. It is wholly depressing to contemplate any of this crowd as the Dem candidate for Pres. in 08. The DEms have been complicit in alllowing this mess to happen, and in allowing it to continue. I believe, more and more everyday, that the sad fact is that our country (the one enshrined in the Constitution) has been wrested from our (the people’s) hands. I have very little confidence we can ever get it back.
    I think Spazy also makes an excellent point about true accountability being the necessary precursor for a turnaround. And how that lack of accountability has contributed to the worsening situation we find ourselves in today.

    Reply

  88. Jack B. Nimble says:

    I’m not convinced she’d be anything other than an average majority leader. I don’t see any evidence that she has Reid’s savvy or strategic mind, nor his message talent.
    The beltway insider mentality venerates Hillary Clinton out of all proportion to her true merit as a Senator and political talent. News flash: she is one of tens of millions of very smart women in the U.S….but she happened to marry a guy who became President. Hello out there, has anyone thought of this? Can anyone imagine her not being named Clinton and coming out of nowhere to win a US Senate seat?
    Let’s not make the same mistake the Republican party made by worshipping the Bush family name, even though I’m sure the results would be far better in the Clinton’s case.
    We’ve got half a dozen other better majority leaders.

    Reply

  89. Spazy says:

    Olive branches? The current crop of Republicans will eat your hand if you offer them anything. And the current crop of Dems would thank them for doing it.
    There is no legitimate way forward that does not involve Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Rove behind bars in a Texas jail. Because this will continue to happen if there are no consequences for criminal behavior. Nixon wasn’t punished, so Cheney and Rumsfeld didn’t learn a lesson. Reagan and Bush I weren’t punished for Iran-Contra, so Cheney and Rumsfeld still didn’t learn a lesson. Now it is finally their turn: will the next generation of theocon wingnuts learn a lesson, or will we once again allow them to take sharp knives to the Consitution without consequences?
    Think about it: what could have happened if an administration both completely malevolent and utterly competent had been elected instead of the Cheney Administration? Think about the fact that it happened in Germany in 1933.

    Reply

  90. Pissed Off American says:

    *Idiot: Since before GW ran for governor in Texas, I’ve asked every guy I know. [Referring to GW’s poor National Guard service] If you could fly a jet fighter, and get paid for it, and not have to worry about getting shot at, would you walk away from that?
    Posted by Mike Conwell
    Well, “idiot” fits.
    But you gotta remember, “addict” fits too.
    His dad could have superceded the “idiot” part, and got the priveleged Little Lord Fauntreloy to stay in the TNG. But his dad would have no control over the “addict” part, so I tend to believe it was the latter that drove Bush’s criminal irresponsibility in regards to his service obligations.

    Reply

  91. Mike Conwell says:

    I respect Sen. Clinton and see no reason why a woman can’t be President, and frankly, look forward to electing one. But not Sen. Clinton.
    Many fellow Democrats feel like her candidacy would be a great idea, filling me with dread about what the next four years would hold for our nation. Too much time and energy would be wasted on speculation about her motives, comparisons and further discussion of her husband, as well as more GOP crap investigating her past and defaming her in the present.
    America needs a fresh start, with a woman or man who can help us heal as a nation.
    The four years following the idiot*, needs to be a time for things to be fixed, olive branches extended, and undoing the damage wrought upon us by the incompetent Republican adminstration, and the subservient Republican led Congress.
    I hope that serious attention is paid by Sen Clinton to the prospect of leading the Senate Democrats, or even better, leading the Senate following the election of a Democratic Majority.
    Thanks y’all.
    Mike Conwell, Austin, TX
    *Idiot: Since before GW ran for governor in Texas, I’ve asked every guy I know. [Referring to GW’s poor National Guard service] If you could fly a jet fighter, and get paid for it, and not have to worry about getting shot at, would you walk away from that? GW did.

    Reply

  92. Pissed Off American says:

    “I respect Senator Reid greatly…..”
    Why in God’s name do you respect this mewling pissant Steve? Please tell me one single effective act of opposition he has lodged. Where is Phase Two? Why didn’t he follow through? What is his position on the Downing Street Memo? Where was he when Blackwell was hanging Kerry’s balls on the wall in Ohio? Why didn’t he support a filibuaster of Alito when it could have made a difference. Why was he lauding, on his website, Bush’s “honesty” in regards to the Iraq war? How can we expect someone that recieves more money from AIPAC than almost any other member of the senate to separate Israel’s best interests from our own?
    Please Steve, tell us what this posturing fraud has done in the last six years to EARN our respect.

    Reply

  93. Pissed Off American says:

    It is truly discouraging to see the quality of candidates that are posturing for positions of power within the Democratic party. These mewling cowards have been 100% ineffective in their opposition to the traitorous murderous evil slime that comprises the current Executive Administration. When one views the infighting, the insincere and opportunistic photo ops over pressing issues, the charades and shenanigans such as Reid’s stunt in the Senate, their unabashed support for the inhumane and illegal policies practiced by Israel, their complete umwillingness to address the issue of a completely corrupted electoral process, their total failure to run with issues like the Downing Street Memo or Gonzales’apparent perjury during his confirmation hearings……one can only assume that they serve the same masters that the Bush criminals do.
    At times here I get the feeling that Clemons is just another one of the play actors, selling us a plot that he realizes is pure fantasy. I am SOOOO sick of this bullshit. We need to clean house in Washington. The Hillarys and the Reids, just like the Cheneys and the Bushes, are the God damned PROBLEM…….NOT the solution. Does anyone TRULY believe these posturing pissants such as Hillary or Reid are going to effect change??? Horseshit! Just look at the last six years. This country is currently engaged in the largest clusterfucks that it has ever suffered through in its entire history, both internationally and domestically. And the checks and balances that were designed to help us AVOID such a mess have been systematically DISMANTLED and IGNORED by these bastards on BOTH sides of the fence. If you think that Hillary or Reid is going to ride to the rescue, I have one of Saddam’s mushroom clouds to sell you.

    Reply

  94. MNPundit says:

    This would be interesting. I like Reid’s approach and his personal opinions on certain issues dont’ bother me much because he has worked hard not to enable the Bushies as at least 1/3 of the Senate Dems instinctually do. I’d rather see Clinton in the role of Majority Leader than candidate as well.
    She’s stuck her shiv in my back in regards to progressive issues too many times for me to want to put in the effort it would take to beat back the false right-wing narrative around her. In other words, she has not proved herself worthy of the kind of effort it would take to give her victory.
    Of course how much is that worth? 😉

    Reply

  95. sky says:

    This could actually provide a great opportunity for Hillary to cement her identity as a consensus-builder and also as effective in a real leadership role (nationally and also in leading a big-tent party).
    Assuming she hangs in there, in Washington, it could help bolster a future prez-run for her.
    Also she could have a big/huge hand in crafting major reform packages that a Dem prez perceived as centrist and neutral could sign.
    Would also be a historical first as female leader of Senate, and assuming both houses go Dem at some point, another first with women leading both houses.

    Reply

  96. todd says:

    That’s silly. New York elects her for senate. The greater US elects president. The message is clear; americans may be unwilling to elect a woman to president. That’s all. As senate leader she would be fine. Try to follow direct corrolations. Not republican thought processes.

    Reply

  97. madamab says:

    I certainly hope this is true. She doesn’t have a prayer as a national candidate, but she has been an excellent Senator (I’m from New York) and her liberal voting record is better than most. Moreover, it seems she has been able to charm the Republicans with whom she has had to work – a very important quality in the Senate.

    Reply

  98. Linda says:

    As a life-long liberal Democrat and female, I have some problems with voting for Hillary in ’08 though probably would reluctantly given probable Republican alternatives. But I think she would make a great Senate Majority leader. LBJ was much better in that role than he was as President. I fear that the Democrats will lose if Hillary is the candidate in ’08. So whether this is rumor or not (and probably not as Steve knows his sources), this idea makes a lot of sense to me for the country, for the Democratic Party, and even for Hillary. Just ask Teddy Kennedy about having a long career in the Senate vs. running for President.

    Reply

  99. Pissed Off American says:

    “First of all, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, whom most give high marks for the manner in which he has stewarded the Dems in the Senate”
    Oh great, “high marks”. For what??? Being an AIPAC whore??? Or maybe for the charade the coward pulled with Roberts about Phase Two??? Or his pathetic posturing on the Alito fillibuster??? Screw this insipid piece of shit. High marks??? Bullshit, he’s a sell out.

    Reply

  100. David G. Stahl says:

    As a small time political activist [Dean supporter, tried to help Kerry] who lives in the PA state capital I know that I am looking for someone other than Hillary to win the Democratic Presidential nomination.
    I have been pleasantly surprised with how effective the Honorable Senator Clinton has been – and she certainly can raise money with the best of them. Having Bill as an advisor is a great political assest and fundraising draw.
    But I think Hillary’s candidacy faces several real hurdles past the nomination – even while I am doubting anyone’s ability to stop her from winning the nomination if she wants it:
    1. USA is not ready for a female President – it does not fit with the political geshtalt of our country – this is sad but the President is really seen as a Paternal figure who will keep us safe – Bush used this successfully to win in 00 and 04.
    2. USA is not ready for an intellectual President – Clinton is very bright – very capable politician – but she does not carry off chummy – USA wants a President who we think could be our best friend – this went against Kerry and Gore and would impact Hillary too.
    3. As much as the Democratic Party loves Bill Clinton – their is a strong opposition/hatred for the Clinton’s in the political right – this is the group of people that have made up their mind – and they can’t do much against Hillary in NY – but could cause her all sorts of grief politically in the Midwest and South.
    Currently my dream team would be Edwards/Obama; but I’m also open to Al Gore trying again. I do hope the DCCC and the DNC can learn to play nice together and share technology. Personally I’m considering joining the Foreign Service and getting stationed somewhere very far away.
    Yours,
    David G. Stahl

    Reply

  101. Keith Greene says:

    Wouldn’t the other Senator from New York be in line for the job of Majority Leader before Clinton?
    Chuck Schumer is out raising more money from Republicans in is DSCC post, and deserves most of the credit if the post is that of a Majority Leader and not Minority Leader.
    Besides this is a post for a politically safe partisan, not a Presidential aspirant, and who loves being the face of the Democratic Party more than the popular and influential Senior Senator from New York, Senator Schumer!!

    Reply

  102. just john says:

    I haven’t liked Hillary Clinton’s positions as my senator (I’m posting from Dutchess County in NY) and I’ve dreaded the notion of her running for President, especially in ’08. I plan to vote Green for US Senate this November (tho I’ll vote Democrat for most other positions.)
    But her as Majority or Minority Leader? I think that would be a PERFECT job for her considerable talents, and if it happens, I wish her the best of luck!

    Reply

  103. Steve Clemons says:

    To Axle — no, i don’t believe so. the 42% is a nation-wide figure. New Yorkers and other members of both the Republican and Democratic caucuses like her performance on many levels — they just don’t want to see the presidential bid.
    I should add two things. First, I’m not necessarily an advocate of this move.
    Secondly, Senator Reid’s office has called me to firmly deny the report.
    I am going to stand by what I wrote for the time being — as my source is impeccable — and I’m not convinced that Reid’s offer to Clinton isn’t designed to be nuanced and deniable. But the source involved is too close to Reid and Clinton and other top party stalwarts to be dismissed.
    And he’s never been inaccurate in the past in my exchanges with him.
    — Steve Clemons

    Reply

  104. AXle says:

    Wouldn’t the same 42% negativity follow Clinton into the Minority (soon to be Majority) Leader job?
    Would the same people who are afraid to vote for her as president be afraid to vote for a Democrat because she is the leader in the Senate?
    I don’t know. This is just a question.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *