In looking ahead, not to the general election (where I do believe the Democrats will prevail) the real battle to transform this country will be the Senate where I doubt the Democrats can gain the 60 seats needed to thwart any attempt by the Republican to stall legislation.
So my suggestion to Hillary is become the Senate majority leader. Her tenacity, fortitude, smarts and connectedness will be greatly needed on that stage. VP is not the path to go down. She needs to lead the Senate not be the ceremonial president of it. The power she could weld would be enormous and would put her in a position to be a far stronger partner in an Obama presidency than any role a VP would play. Harry Reid was a nice interim step but is largely ineffective compared to what Hillary could bring to the table.
It should no longer be about this long contentious race with “Yes” legitimate charges of a far from level playing field for women, but needs to focus on undoing the phenomenal damage done to this country and our place in the world by Bush et all. While I respect John McCain he is not the answer.
Pelosi, Clinton, Obama would be a powerful force for that change.
My 2 cents whats yours?
that’s the first most powerful thing. It would support the democratic process and bring us all together and end the fighting. It’s important to note that her “18million” are not army troops, they will peel off many of them. Her biggest sstrength would be to support immediately and help that process. Then she looks like a stateswoman. Then we can talk about what she can do. She certainly can’t be VP.
Especially after her speech last night.
what Hillary will do. She’s run a hell of a race, despite the obstacles. The most powerful thing she can do today is to catch her breath and decide to do that which benefits the country most.
As an Obama supporter, I think Hillary and everyone frankly deserves a little space.
you continue to work to build bridges. beats equating HRC with Dick Cheney
With what Obama said last night about her being at the forefront of ensuring all Americans were provided universal health care/insurance, she could have a huge impact in making this a reality. Much more so than as veep.
<
p>During presidential elections people tend to discount the fact that the President’s policies are still under the control of congress to vote on them. There needs to be strong collaboration between the two branches to achieve any of these goals. Hillary’s greatest contribution could very well be in bridging the gap between the President and the Senate, setting an example for the House.
<
p>In the coming days (or hours, we’ll see) I would suggest that Hillary and Barack work out a deal for his campaign to adopt or nuance her health care plan, and agree to work to put her in that role where she could have the best chance of making her plan a reality.
<
p>Her career in the senate would be solidified, her legacy ensured, and we the people will see the beginning of the next great Democratic Senate presence since Ted Kennedy.
that in the short-term it would make the most sense for her to run for Majority Leader in the Senate. She would have a huge influence on any potential Obama legislative agenda. She’d probably have considerably more power and influence in that position than as VP.
I have no idea how the Dem senators feel about the BHO – HRC dynamic right now. I wonder: could HRC get enough votes from senators if BHO backed someone else, either explicitly or by not backing HRC?
<
p>I’m in no way suggesting that BHO wouldn’t back HRC, but it does lead to an interesting dynamic — they could support each other tremendously, or go down the path of mutually assured destruction…
I would think that as a newly elected President, BHO would have the good sense to not get involved in the internal race for Sen. Majority Leader (or Speaker of the House).
<
p>First of all, his opinion would mean very little to Senators, since it is the majority leader who exerts more subtle power over individual Senators than the President (through earmark and legislation requests/denials, etc.). Second, BHO could not afford to make the incorrect pick in such a Senatorial race, because if he did, the new majority leader wouldn’t exactly take kindly to BHO’s agenda. Why in the world would the President ever take sides in this type of dispute?
You’re herding cats all the time and cutting small time deals with the GOP just to get bills to the floor all the time and if you fall into the minority you get blamed and become a voice screaming in the wilderness. You can’t do much to push your own agenda.
<
p>Its really not a great job for someone with Hillary’s profile and skills as an advocate. If she wants to stay in the Senate she should focus on the issues she cares most about and push them dynamically and independently of the burdens of leadership. The US Senate is built for that and not for leaders. Majority leader is a false chalice.
You hit the nail on the head. Everyone seems to have the assumption that Senate Majority Leader is this super-powerful post that is far more desirable than the VP slot. Not true, for the reasons you mention, especially that it is a back room dealing type of position. Given her talents, Clinton could do far more with a cabinet post or VP.
<
p>Besides, why does everyone think it would be so easy to push out Reid? This is what I don’t understand. Why in the world would fellow Dems push out Reid when:
<
p>(1) The Democrats have only GAINED seats during his tenure as Dem Senate leader, and are almost certain to do so again in 2008. It’s not like he’s been bumbling around.
<
p>(2) To my knowledge, he remains well-liked by his colleagues, which is particularly important in the collegial Senate.
<
p>(3) He represents an area of the country that Democrats would like to focus on further, and by having a high-profile leader from this area is likely a good thing.
<
p>(4) He also represents a swing seat, which could turn Republican if he retires. If he’s pushed out for Hillary, how could he remain in the Senate? He would retire.
<
p>In short, this talk of Clinton becoming Senate Majority Leader is pretty close to meaningless, because it is not going to happen.
that Harry Reid has no intention of stepping aside for Hillary. He put that rumor to rest about two weeks ago.
<
p>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Reid is seen as having done a good job. He picks battles carefully and understands the way the place works.
<
p>I am not sure tempermentally Hillary would be suited to the post. And my sense is many of her colleagues in the Senate would feel the same way. Senators don’t want a high-profile leader, a fire cracker with her own agenda. They just want someone who can grease the skids to get their stuff done.
<
p>LBJ was one of the few individuals who actually made much of the Majority Leader job. But he was the ultimate inside-man, who spent every hour of every day cultivating senior members and bringing them onside and intimidating others. Hillary is not that kind of pol. She shouldn’t be.
Perhaps I’m not watching closely — so correct me please! — but my impression is that Senator Clinton is not particularly endowed with the legislative skills necessary to keep the caucus together, to enforce discipline on key issues, and to wrangle successfully with the Republican leadership. She might be quite excellent chairing an important committee.
<
p>There was a widely shared view that Senator Frist was not so successful as a majority leader either, that Senator Lott was actually better at leading the GOP caucus. How does one characterize what makes a good legislative leader?
Knowing your members. Not asking them to take phyrric votes. Letting them wander off the reservation when needed, provided they seek out a ‘pair’ vote – that is, an offset vote in the other party, who may also have a reason for voting against party lines due to constituency or conscience.
<
p>It’s a consensus job more than a leadership job, despite the job description. You need to make it clear to members what the party wants, while also acknowledging that you can rarely deliver your entire caucus, no matter what the party would like. You need to have an instinct for fairness – not promote some over the heads of others for reasons of vengeance or reward, but because you want lieutenants who can do the best job.
<
p>Above all – you need to stay behind the curtain. It’s not a glamor/glory job at all. Sam Rayburn was most effective at the Board of Education, not the actual floor.
but it’s not. going. to. happen.
<
p>What makes people think Hillary could actually take over the Senate from Reid? That’s a battle that would be as nasty – and public – as her current mess. If she were to wait, what makes people think she’d win Majority Leader after Reid chooses to go on his own accord – which could be years from now? This is a fantasy. It’s not going to happen.
….and to respond to some of the other comments I believe Hillary asked for suggestions on what she should consider doing.
is it actually a suggestion, though – or at least a good one? People may as well be saying “well, you couldn’t win President of the United States – maybe you should try to become Prime Minister of Canada!”
….an African Amercian could be the Democratic nominee was a nice fantasy a year ago. Well guess what??
Hillary Clinton did not even have the grace to say that she lost last night when she has by all intensive purposes. There is no longer a question of improbable vs impossible. It is now mathematically impossible for her to become the nominee-period. So she should concede as soon as possible, endorse Obama, and tell her supporters that they should support the nominee. Then she can return to the Senate and actually get things accomplished there and build a Senate record to run on and perhaps become an elder stateswoman. At this point she can never run for President again, Obama will likely win, even if he does not I think most people are not ready to back her in 2012 and she would not be the clear frontrunner by a long shot.
<
p>So it is time to give up that dream and become a Senator we can all admire and remember. Majority Leader is bad since Harry Reid is doing a great job and should stick around. VP is bad for a number of reasons I’ve already established not the least of which is that she and Bill together would drive Obama nuts and it just wouldn’t work out-I also see them appealing to diametrically different pieces of the electoral pie and having them on the same ticket alienates her supporters who aren’t ready for a black president, who feel Obama is an argula eating elitist, and want factories to magically come back to America. It will alienate his supporters who feel that he is an independent minded Democrat that is above the petty politics of the past when he names as his VP one of the architects of the petty politics of the past. So bad call.
<
p>Supreme Court should be reserved for people with experience being appellate judges though admittedly I like it since it kills any chance she’ll ever run for elected office again and gives Bloomberg a senate seat.
<
p>Cabinet post could be interesting but the really powerful ones-AG, SoD, SoS could be filled by so many more qualified people and I feel that the other posts she would find beneath her.
couldn’t she run again? i probably wouldn’t vote for her, but i don’t see why she could ‘never’ be elected president… she’s ran the closest primary race ever, just barely finishing on the wrong side, whilst raising huge sums of money and supporters. If Obama loses and she runs again 4 years from now, she may be even harder to beat than she was this year (shattering my dreams of a progressive president).
If I were Reid, and I had started to lead a minority party and managed to make it through 2 years of a 51-49 majority (with one Senator in the hospital and Joe Lieberman voting the other way on Iraq), I’d relish the chance to run the Senate after 2008, when the D’s will have a solid majority of 53 to 60 Senators, to finally have the clout to accomplish my big goals.
<
p>Even if Reid wanted to give it up, Durbin is whip in the Senate and Dodd once made a play for Majority Leader (lost to Daschle). They’ve been building up support for themselves from other Senators for years.
<
p>The idea that a losing Presidential primary candidate can just jump into Majority Leader is silly… and I’ve seen it appear on numerous liberal blogs. It’s an idea that’s as naive as claiming Obama played “hardball” in 1996 when he used legal signature challenges to get his opponents off the ballot. (That by the way, is called a no-brainer standard practice.)
…and that would be fine. But calling it stupid is just rude and I for one am tired of rude. I hope the American electorate joins me in that sentiment.
but the idea of Hillary going from losing Presidential primary candidate to Senate Majority Leader can only have value for discussion if there is any plausible way from her to get from A to B. When ideas like this get discussed, the first question should be “How does someone become Majority Leader?” because in real life people don’t magically teleport from one job to another.
…just lowers the validity of your argument since you began it by insulting the person you wished to persuade.
a position within “our” government there is always the globalist organizations which would gladly snap her up.
<
p>And as bad as the Bush years were the swift and radical shift towards the most Satanic of the Kum-bah-ya set will surely end middle class “America”.
http://www.zimbio.com/Senator+…
good Health & Human Services Secretary.
<
p>She’s dead-ended in the Senate as Schumer and Dorgan are ahead of her in line for the majority leader position and she’s too junior for any committee chairmanships.
<
p>Nope, she should either go back to being a senator from New York or hope they’ll throw her a cabinet post.
…but it will never happen. She’s nowhere near the top in Senate seniority, and that body is not going to vote her their leader. Hell, most of them didn’t even endorse her run.
<
p>Only if Obama were to personally lobby the senate to make Hillary their leader is this even remotely possible, and I don’t think he’d want to spend his capital on that.
But I think she’s lost some friends in the Senate with her run…she’ll need Presidnet Obama’s support and I think she can get it.
The Senate is its own institution and picks its own leaders… Obama has not even finished a single term in the Senate and he’s going to tell people with decades’ experience in that body who their leader should be?
<
p>The President gets to pick his VP and his administration personnel (some with Senate approval), but however popular he may be with voters, he does not pick the Senate’s leaders.