I ran across this website today, which I thought might interest people. Many who have questioned her being our nominee for either position on our ticket have indicated being open to this. I’m personally not impressed with Senator Reid and I think she will fight harder than he does. If you agree, follow the instructions on the site for adding your name to the petition. I think this would be a good fit for her, though I wouldn’t mind seeing her in the Cabinet either.
Please share widely!
I seriously hope that she will not make another run for President unless it is in 2016, because we need Obama to win and to be successful as President. The later would make a primary challenge unlikely and unsuccessful.
<
p>I don’t think she should be majority leader because, if Reid steps down, either Dodd or Durbin have more seniority and would likely be better working to bring Democrats together. Durbin is currently the whip. I think that HRC might be better chairing a subcommittee on something that she really has a passion for.
<
p>As to the supreme court, even though you do not even need to be a lawyer, which she was, it is much better to pick a judge so there is a judicial record to examine. Clinton’s work as a lawyer was nearly all corporate law. There are also some problems on ethics in her past that would make for a nasty confirmation.
<
p>The other two positions are possibilities – I didn’t take either because I think there are reasons she might prefer her current job:
<
p>I would assume that unless Patterson does a spectacular job and wants to run again, HRC would be able to easily win. The next race is in 2010, with the term starting in 2011. That is not far enough before 2012 for it to be a good stepping stop to running if McCain wins. I assume that she wants to be in on the national level working on health care.
<
p>I don’t know if a cabinet position is the best for her – unless she and Obama were completely in agreement on the issues overseen by that department. She would not be her own person in a cabinet position. She would have to represent Obama.
This thought crossed my mind, too. It might be the right one, but being majority leader requires a special kind of talent. I don’t understand whether Hillary Clinton possesses or lacks that talent. Fellow Senators would know best.
<
p>I’m just reading Toobin’s book The Nine. One of the surprising things I read was how much better Rehnquist was at “chief justicing” than Burger. One never heard that Burger was an ineffective chief justice or that Rehnquist was a good one because it’s all inside politics. There’s something similar about leading a legislative caucus.
<
p>Reid and Pelosi deserve a lot of credit for protecting Social Security. That required them to keep all their members in line because Republicans were on the hunt for some Democrat somewhere that they could get to co-author their toxic legislation. Preventing that was a major accomplishment.
<
p>The more conservative Democrats are very much a special problem, but they constitute a problem it is very important to solve. We need a majority leader who can solve it.
<
p>I just don’t know who the best Senator for that is.
The best majority leaders work the cloakroom, not the crowd. Much as I admire Clinton, I don’t think the whole counting noses and pressing flesh game is her best — or the best use of her talents. Frankly, I’m pressed to come up with a position in the government concomitant with her abilities.
Why not pick somebody who has actually consistently taken progressive stances on issues? Somebody like Feingold, or Boxer.