The Next Senate Majority Leader

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 14:28


There is a rumor going around that Harry Reid will step down as majority leader either at the end of this year to focus on his re-election campaign, or in three years after he retires from the Senate. While I should emphasize that I have nothing to back up this rumor, it does raise the interesting possibility of a new campaign for majority leader in either one year or three years that is worth discussing.

The obvious candidates for majority leader would be Durbin, Schumer, Dodd, and the loser of the 2008 presidential nominating contest. Durbin is the second highest ranking Senate Dem, obviously giving him a path to become majority leader. Schumer has been head of the DSCC for a while, and after 2008 at least 15 members of the Senate will have been newly elected under his watch. Dodd narrowly lost a campaign for majority leader following the 1994 elections, with Daschle only edging him out by one vote. There has also been talk online of finding a way to make Dodd the majority leader. Finally, the loser of the nomination campaign will be the junior Senator from either Durbin's or Schumer's state, giving him or her a possibility of putting together a coalition of presidential endorsers plus Durbin and Schumer supporters. The latter seems to be an especially strong possibility if Obama becomes President, potentially giving Clinton the inside track to become majority leader. After all, would President Obama and Majority Leader Durbin be an overdose of Chicago politics (or President Clinton and Majority Leader Schumer be an overdose of New York City politics) dominating Washington D.C.?

This could just be idle speculation, but if Harry Reid steps down, who would you want to see replace him as Senate majority leader? Take the poll in the extended entry.  
Chris Bowers :: The Next Senate Majority Leader
Poll
If Harry Reid steps down as majority leader, who would you want to see replace him?
Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd
Dick Durbin
Barack Obama
Charles Schumer
Other

Results


Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Next Senate Majority Leader | 71 comments
I'd like to see an analysis of where Clinton will go (0.00 / 0)
Not to count her out yet, I know she still has a shot of winning. But there is a good chance and it's getting more and more likely that she will lose this nomination as soon as March 4th (by dropping out). Where will she go? What will she do?

I think everyone agrees that she went to the Senate with plans to become president. She was discussed as being on the track to the White House when she was still in the White House. For someone with that kind of ambition, I wonder if Senate majority leader does any good. If Obama wins the presidency, that means 8 more years till HRC would have a shot and that's unlikely to be on her mind. Will she even seek reelection to the Senate? Will she be satisfied with majority leader position, if she can get it? Will she stay in politics?

If she becomes majority leader (0.00 / 0)
and is extremely effective, I can't see how that wouldn't help a 2016 presidential run.

However, I voted Dodd.

[ Parent ]
I voted Dodd too but the real question is... (0.00 / 0)
Would she even be interested in becoming majority leader? Will she have the patience to wait another 8 years for her shot at the presidency? If she does, she will be 68 then; will she be looked at in very different light and would her gender be an even greater disadvantage if she seems old as well? Those things must be going through her mind.
[ Parent ]
who says she has to wait 8 (0.00 / 0)
If she wanted to, she could try to make a President Obama look bad then challenge him in four years on a "I told you so" platform.  I can't fathom what she could do to make that happen and how a Democrat could win in a year when a Democratic incumbent is sufficiently in trouble to be open to a primary challenge, but she doesn't have to wait eight years, in theory at least.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Wow, I don't know if even a Clinton is capable of that (0.00 / 0)
I think they've damaged their reputation enough in this campaign. Your scenario would be disastrous to their legacy and unlikely to succeed. I would think (hope) that if they lose the nomination, they will take some time to reflect and then try to restore their reputation / legacy.
[ Parent ]
unless it's a failed presidency ... (0.00 / 0)
... challenges of this sort don't happen.  The last serious one was Ted Kennedy's challenge against Jimmy Carter in 1980.
There was also Reagan's challenge against Gerald Ford in 1976.  In both cases, the challenge failed, but the incumbent wound up losing re-election to the other party.

Then their was 1968: Eugene McCarthy's challenge to LBJ was strong enough to get him to drop out, but Humphrey, not McCarthy, got the nomination; the party did not reward the challenger, but accepted LBJ's VP as a substitute for LBJ.  And then of course Humphrey lost.

So, challenging your own party's president only helps the other party re-take the White House.

[ Parent ]
Interesting point... (0.00 / 0)
"In both cases, the challenge failed, but the incumbent wound up losing re-election to the other party."

So, essentiually, too much of party infighting ruins the chances in the general election? Well, this coincides with my fears about this race...

[ Parent ]
Justice Hillary Rodham Clinton? (0.00 / 0)
I've wondered for quite a while what Hillary might do if she actually loses the nomination to Obama. I just can't see her rejoining the ranks like others (Kerry) did. So what are the alternatives for her?

First the ones I find highly unlikely: running for Governor, because Spitzer's in the way; joining an Obama cabinet, because I don't see that she'd be working under Obama.

That leaves two more likely options: the one already mentioned here: majority leader, of course that way a presumed President Obama would have to deal and fight with her and vice versa.

What I would find more interesting is this option: nominating Hillary Clinton for the Supreme Court. Seats will definitely open up once a Democrat is in the White House. Whenever I talk to people about what she'll do if she loses and mention the Supreme Court idea, they really like it, especially her strongest voting block, older white women, and they like it even more at the thought how it would drive Republicans up the wall. And why the hell not, I think she'd be a superb Justice, her colleagues are unlikely to vote against her in a confirmation hearing, we haven't had a qualified politician nominated to the court in a long time, there is only one woman on the court now. Plus: she would be out of the political day to day business, would never have to run for office again and it's unlikely in any event that she would run for President again.

It's the most gracious and most challenging exit from the political stage for her.

All a big hypothetical of course. Let's see how March 4th and November 4th go first.

More on the likelyhood of Reid retiring in a comment down-thread.

My Silver State - Nevada's Progressive Community Blog

[ Parent ]
too old! we need to put forty somethings on the High Court because it's (4.00 / 2)
too important to have one of our picks serve less than half the time as their younger picks like Roberts and Alito.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
i differ (0.00 / 0)
yeah, she may be 60 already but come on, women live longer! But seriously, her mom's still alive, so it's a fair bet that she's be able to serve 20plus years.

My Silver State - Nevada's Progressive Community Blog
[ Parent ]
would she WANT to be on the Court at 80? (4.00 / 1)
Seems to me that you pick a 45 or 50yo and then they can retire if they want to at 70 or so.  That only gives her ten years.  Rumor has it that even Souter has wanted to "retire" but can't because of Bush being on the Court.

Put 'em in there young and full of youth and vigor and longevity.  Oh, and liberalism!

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
I don't really see her as the jurist type (0.00 / 0)
I don't think she'd enjoy being a peer in a group of nine, pondering deep philosophical questions and writing hundreds of pages in judicial opinions. There is a classical divide between holders of graduate degrees, there are those who like to pursue academics and others who prefer the industry. I think SCOTUS is more like the former and HRC is of the latter kind.

What's more, I don't know why Obama would appoint her to the bench. Conservatives would be outraged and fight it tooth and nail. Though Republican Senators may like her personally, they will succumb to the right-wing narrative and filibuster her appointment if needed. I think a Stevens resignation will be likely in the first couple of years, when Democrats have a solid majority in the Senate and the president has a high approval rating. Appointing HRC will fuel unneeded conflict and would be an unwise political move.

I guess it's really two separate questions: What would HRC like to do if she loses? What will she end up doing? The answers are not necessarily the same.

I heard many speculate on HRC appointing Obama to the bench, when she seemed more likely to win the election. Someone (on TV, don't remember who) called it a typical Clinton Machiavellian move to permanently get rid of Obama. That would have worked since his confirmation would have been easier and less controversial and he leans more towards academia than she does.

[ Parent ]
Hillary more likely to appoint Bill (0.00 / 0)
How better to get him out of the WH so he couldn't upstage and bother her?

She might make a good majority leader.  I recall people talking about that as a way to dissuade her from running for Pres.  She was said to like the Senate.  Besides, where better to put her stamp on every single bit of legislation President Obama wants to see enacted, particularly health care?  Reid could offer it to her as a consolation prize.

Otherwise, what's left?  President of Wellesley?  Or Yale?

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
not Schumer (4.00 / 8)
Schummer keeps bad company It is very important he does not gain power.
Yeah... I vote a big Hell No on Schumer too (4.00 / 1)
Wow...  That place is a who's who of douchebaggery and piss poor foreign policy.
[ Parent ]
Calvalcade of Douche Bags (4.00 / 1)
Holy crap! That place is like the Douche Bag Hall of Fame! Newt, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Zell Miller, Frank Gaffney...  !??!!

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Dodd for now (0.00 / 0)
I'd vote Dodd today, but I'd need to spend some time taking a closer look at all the candidates.

How can we common folk influence such an election?

same way we elected Dean (0.00 / 0)
We just write to our Democratic Senators. Also, they will all be on the campaign trial this year, either on their own, or other's behalf. Some of us will have a chance to meet with them, that is the moment to talk about this.

Ultimately Senators will chose whoever they think will make the Senate run smoothly. They are the ones who have to live with this choice. But if we approach this in the right way they will have no choice but to consider our views.

[ Parent ]
Hm (0.00 / 0)
Feingold!

But seriously, I think that based on the last year or so, Dodd seems the most likely to recognize us as allies and actually allow the grassroots/netroots to increase their impact on Democratic politics.

Schumer is a liberal, but much too cautious politically for my taste, and his work preserving absurd tax loopholes for hedge fund managers sure doesn't inspire confidence.  Clinton might be alright, though I actually have basically the same concerns. Don't know much about Durbin, though I take it he's also a solid Liberal.

How often do Junior Senators who have hardly been there one term get the Majority leader position? Has that ever happened before?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

Here here! (0.00 / 0)
I'd agree whole-heartedly with that sentiment, but sadly I don't see him having enough institutional/establishment to make a decent bid. We'll just have to wait for his Presidential campaign in 2016.
[ Parent ]
I'd venture a guess... (4.00 / 1)

How often do Junior Senators who have hardly been there one term get the Majority leader position? Has that ever happened before?

Lyndon Baines Johnson.

[ Parent ]
Seriously? (4.00 / 1)
Because if there's a possibility of exhuming his corpse and giving him the top spot, I'd be all for it.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
not Feingold (0.00 / 0)
... even though he's my favorite senator, Feingold's a true maverick (unlike that phony from Arizona) and doesn't have the temperament to be majority leader.  He wouldn't want the job anyway.  He's more effective as a gadfly.  He's one of the few that's willing to get up and say that the other 99 are wrong (as he did on the original Patriot Act).  The Majority Leader doesn't get to do that, at least not without resigning first.

Dodd, I think, has the right combination of experience, institutional cred and commitment to principle that would make him an effective leader, as well as move the Senate in a more progressive direction.

[ Parent ]
The Next Senate Majority Leader (4.00 / 1)
HRC and this position were made for each other.  This position well suits her skills, abilities and ambitions. HRC for Majority Leader!!!  
Not so fast. (0.00 / 0)
While I suspect that a Hillary resigned to a long Senate career from a solidly blues state might make an excellent majority leader, that is just speculation. The Senator Clinton we have seen so far (voting for the Iraq invasion, the Kyle Lieberman resolution to condemn Iran as terrorists, and the bankruptcy bill) would not make my short list for majority leader. She will have time to show a new Senator Clinton (a Senator not trying to position herself as a hawk-a-licious candidate for Codpiece In Chief) before Reid steps aside. Otherwise, Dodd! Dodd! Dodd!

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Voted clinton (0.00 / 0)
I've always thought that neither Obama nor clinton want vp.  If they lose they will want to be the senate majority leader.

Not to say one if them is going to get it, but the media spotlight of this campaign should make it easier.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

Possible that Clinton would want to be majority leader, (4.00 / 1)
but if Obama were not to get the presidential nomination, I'll bet he runs for governor of Illinois in 2010.

One Million Strong --- Join up!
[ Parent ]
Ditto (0.00 / 0)


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Oi (0.00 / 0)
I don't know if I can take even more of Senator O in my home state for four years. He's nice and charismatic but he'll have quite the baggage. Please let him win so that Washington can have him. Pretty please...
[ Parent ]
Ted Kennedy for Majority Leader! (4.00 / 1)
I said it when Dacshle left.

I yelled it several times at the Obama rally in NJ when Kennedy was there (and hopefully being 3-4 rows away, he heard me).

He's one of the longest serving members of the Democratic caucus (behind what, Byrd and maybe Inouye?), a solid democrat, from a bright blue state. What more can you ask?

I was always surprised that while the GOP caucus had leaders from deep or solid red states (McConnell-KY, Frist-TN, Lott-MS, Dole-KS), Democratic leaders have been from purple or red states themselves (Reid-NV, Daschle-SD, Mitchell-ME, Byrd-WV). Why aren't our leaders from brighter blue states, like CA, NY, MA, IL, NJ, RI, VT, etc (unfortunately not all Senators from these states are as progressive as we'd like).

Now, these other possibilities, Durbin, Schumer, Dodd, (Clinton/Obama), would satisfy my geographic ideals, but what about ideological? Schumer has been described as a Reagan Democrat (on this site and/or MyDD), a characterization I'd agree with. Not a terrible Senator or Democrat, by any means, but could be better. Durbin I don't know as much about, but again, a change from red/purple state leaders would be nice.

Barring Teddy, I could definitely get behind Dodd, if for nothing else than his latest efforts on FISA. Of course, I am not a member of the Democratic Senate caucus, so my support is moot. But a man can dream.

I always saw clinton as a great majority leader (4.00 / 1)
And I'm someone who really dislikes the idea of her being president.  No one knows how to manipulate the current levers of institutional power in american politics today than the clintons.   I'm a big believer in the idea that we learn most from our failures and HRC failed big time with health care and I'm sure she knows how to be successful now.  HRC can fight and she nows how to play the game and pass legislation.  

When we retake power in 2009 we're going to need the best and the brightest of the democratic party and their institutional allies working together quickly and efficiently to undo as much as possible of the last 8 years.  The Clintons and Al Gore, as well as key congressional leaders like Kennedy and Kerry need to be part of that.  

I agree (0.00 / 0)
She'd make a much better majority leader than she would a president.
[ Parent ]
Not Schumer (0.00 / 0)
Whoever it is, not Schumer.  Dodd and Durbin would both be fine majority leaders, I think.  Clinton might be, I'm not really sure.  She's not really proved herself as a legislator, really.

Of course, Mitch McConnell might be the next majority leader...

Voted Dodd, but open to others. (0.00 / 0)
We really need a strong public advocate for liberal policies.
I don't believe a junior Senator like Obama would be accepted by senior Senators.

Durbin's a good choice but if Obama wins, then someone from another state gets the edge.

After watching her campaign in action, I'm not sure Clinton's got the political instincts to get the job done and when she makes mistakes, they're big ones.

Feingold (4.00 / 1)

I voted for Dodd. (0.00 / 0)
My next choice will be Durbin, my state senior senator.  I would not want Senator Clinton no were near the majority leader post under an Obama White House.  I might change my mind, but as of now, Senator Clinton is out for Clinton and not the Democratic Party.  You might say that I'm a bit over the top, but rhetoric coming out of the Clintons of winning the nomination on the backs of Superdelegates and all of Mark Penn nonsense shows that it's all about Clintons winning the White House.  

Obama needs the Senate Democrats at top of their game to fight back against a Republican minority that has no shame and will block anything and everything.  I want a Democratic leader that will have America interest at their goals rather than planning another Presidential run.  As seen with her Iraq vote, Presidential politics at the Senate level has done her or the Democratic Party no favors.  

Senator Dodd would be the best choice under a Democratic White House.  

Hillary or Dodd (4.00 / 1)
Each will have fully "found their voice" by then.

Dodd made great arguments during the debates that he was an awesome legislator (alas, neve that he would be a great chief executive). Hillary makes excellent experienced based arguments to the same effect now.

Each will be freed up from their presidential ambitions, freed to speak their conscience (being in very safe seats) while using their pragmatic lever pulling experience.

Hillary could well go down in history as one of our greatest senators once she frees herself from her presidential ambition. Can't wait to hear her telling the whippersnappers to grow a pair when, at age 82, she is the most respected and powerful long-serving member.

Visit DebateScoop for political candidate debate news and analysis.

I voted Durbin (4.00 / 1)
Durbin is #2 in the Senate and would have the inside track to the position. Furthermore, Durbin is a friend to progressives and had the foresight to vote against the war. Dodd, Clinton, and Schumer might be at a disadvantage, as they all voted for the war, and that seems to be a defining issue for many progressives online. It would be much easier for us to push the progressive community to support Durbin, IMHO.
Is this a rhetorical question, Chris? (4.00 / 1)
I suppose Durbin would not be a bad choice, but HRC or Schumer getting endorsed by the netroots? I doubt it.

dKos is already building energy for Dodd as Majority Leader, and I suspect a sustained effort will be afoot when the time comes.  If Obama can lock up the nomination in the next month, I think the netroots should begin a major effort here.  It's just one more area (in our post-Donna Edwards situation) that the netroots should be flexing our muscle within the Democratic Party.

To be honest, I'm assuming that you're already behind Dodd, you are aware of the dKos momentum in his favor, and that this is kind of a lazy, chilled-out Sunday afternoon post (nuthin wrong that that).

To me, the bigger and more difficult question is who will be the next Speaker of the House?  Pelosi has got to go, but unseating her would be far, far more difficult.

Kicking it in the NY-25.

Pelosi (4.00 / 3)
is actually a very good speaker, all things considered.  
[ Parent ]
Why? (4.00 / 5)
Why should Pelosi go?  The problem is the Blue Dog caucus, Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer. Pelosi is the most progressive person in the house with a shot at that position, and if you replaced her with someone more progressive, they'd still be kneecapped by Hoyer et. al.

Just because we're angry (and I am as much as anyone) doesn't mean we can't think critically about who's on our side.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Agreed. (4.00 / 3)
   Pelosi has been a disappointment as Speaker, but there's no reason to believe that Hoyer or Emanuel would be better.  I suppose they would be terrible.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
So why ... (4.00 / 3)
has Pelosi let herself get knee-capped by Emanuel and Hoyer? .. That's the question I wanted answered
[ Parent ]
Because... (4.00 / 1)
If Pelosi pushes an issue, and Hoyer signals to the Bush dogs that he is okay with them defecting, they will do so.

I'm not saying she couldn't do more, I'm just saying she's not the problem.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Wynn? (4.00 / 2)
Why did she raise money for Al Wynn against a true progressive like Donna Edwards? Why has she taken impeachment "off the table." To say that her progressive leadership has been underwhelming would be an understatement. She's a great leader if you like being constantly depressed at her leading one cave-in after another.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Another missed opportunity for a multi-vote approval voting poll! n/t (0.00 / 0)


Jeff Wegerson
What if we rule out (0.00 / 0)
Any Senator who voted for the 2002 authorization of force in Iraq?  Where would that leave us?  (Yes, I know where that would leave us.  I just want to see what other people think.  Roll call vote here if you need to refresh your memory.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
Wow, only 16 of those Senators who voted "no" are left (0.00 / 0)
in the Senate

Chafee lost,
Corzine ran for Governor,
Dayton retired,
Graham retired,
Jeffords retired,
Sarbanes retired,
and Wellstone died in the plane crash.

We have added a few that voted "no" in the House though

Brown,
Cardin,
Menendez,
and Sanders

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

[ Parent ]
Definitely Durbin. (4.00 / 2)
    Dodd's a good senator, but he's been a little late in supporting progressive values.  Durbin has always been on our side.  He voted the right way on the confirmation of Roberts and Alito - proving that he'll stand up for progressive values even when they are unpopular in the Senate.  I would like to see the Obama-Durbin duo, they would work well together.  Reid has to go, the sooner the better.
   

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
Byron Dorgan (4.00 / 3)
I'd like to see a major policy shift out of the hands of the corporate Dems to the real Progressives and Populists.  Dorgan is so well versed in economics, trade and seemingly is not so corrupt.  The rest of these guys well all of them have serious problems in terms of representing special interests.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
Just posted my thoughts (0.00 / 0)
But I like Dorgan a lot too.

He is chairman of the policy committee now so I think majority leader would be a bit far of a jump. He would make a great Whip though and I think it would be possible for him to get there.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Durbin (4.00 / 5)
And it saddens me that he is so far behind.

I blogged on a possible Dodd for Majority Leader campaign in the aftermath of the first FISA fight. However since then I have reconsidered.

Who do we want as our leader in the Senate? I want a progressive.

Dick Durbin is the second most progressive member of the Senate (via ProgressivePunch) and he is also the first in line for the post. He is anti-war and an effective advocate in public and deal maker in private. I cringe when I hear Harry Reid speak. When Dick Durbin speaks he makes me want to listen and hear what he has to say, he comes off well on TV.

He is also from a blue state so he does not have to worry about getting re-elected.

However my bet is that Hillary Clinton will be the next majority leader. Obama will end up winning but not by enough to finish the deal without the Clintons. She will have to make a choice between VP, Majority Leader and the Supreme Court. I think she would pick Majority Leader and she would get it.

Schumer would be a disaster for progressives. He is a better advocate then Reid but he allowed a pro-torture AG to get confirmed and broke the unified party. I don't care what he has done. He should not be majority leader. However he is popular within the caucus. I say there is a deal and he becomes chair of the Democratic Conference. Like what Rahm is now, keep the hacks in one place.

If Durbin is majority leader then possibly Dodd could be whip, he has very strong connections to the caucus and he's gotta get some kind of reward to not retire in 2010.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Anybody (0.00 / 0)
...will be a major improvement.  Harry had his moments, but something always seemed to hold him back.
When campaigning for Senate in '06 I pledged (0.00 / 0)
to vote Harkin. Feingold seemed too much of a homestate thing.



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.
Personally, I'd prefer Bernie Sanders as majority leader (0.00 / 0)
but obiously, by definition, and for other reasons, it's not going to happen.

My second choice would be Dodd, by far, with Hillary being my third. Durbin and Schumer just don't seem tough enough for me--and the latter too calculating.

For whip, I like Boxer, or maybe Murray (west coast/WA bias!).

One thing's for sure, that the present leadership sucks.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

women (0.00 / 0)
yeah, I was wondering about other female contenders besides Hillary Clinton. And of course Patty Murray is already in the leadership, so her moving up would be great.

My Silver State - Nevada's Progressive Community Blog
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't have a problem with Boxer as leader (0.00 / 0)
since she's both progressive and an outspoken fighter for issues that she believes in--unlike Clinton who's less progressive, or Murray who's more of a behind the scenes negotiator (thus the whip position). She's the best of both worlds.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Boxer is also (0.00 / 0)
Chief Deputy Whip currently. So I don't think she'll go much higher then whip. Plus she (might) have a re-election battle (If the guv jumps in)

How about this team:
Dick Durbin, Chris Dodd and Barbara Boxer as co-leaders and whips. Sounds good to me.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Really? (2.00 / 2)
 You want this person in charge in the Senate:

http://drinkingliberally.org/b...

Funny idea of what a 'progressive' is you got.

But then Boxer is a shifty one. Very few know just how much of a Liebercrat she really is. And she's a very, very good friend to the MIC. All politicians of her generation are of course but she really digs that military stuff.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Clinton or Dodd (0.00 / 0)
I voted Dodd. He has tremendous respect in the Senate, which shouldn't be discounted, but not because he caves on the issues.

That said, Clinton would be better on the condition that she loses gracefully. The best thing for a Majority Leader is to be able to win headlines at will. That's a great way to drive your agenda and make the issues you want to matter matter. Goodness knows Clinton can do that. She's also won a lot of fans for her work as a Senator and could handle the inside baseball very well.  

Will Harry Reid retire? (0.00 / 0)
That is the big if when discussing these hypotheticals. Now, I haven't heard anything on the ground in Nevada and whenever I would mention it, people were rather surprised at the thought.

That said, I too have a feeling that he will either make way for someone else to run the Senate or that he'll retire altogether. No matter what he does, his reelection fight would not be easy. That's one reason we have to try our best to beat both Republican Congressmen in Nevada this year (Jon Porter, CD3, and Dean Heller, CD2).

So, if he runs for reelection it will be a tough fight no matter what and of course the Republicans could use his leadership position against him and try to Daschle him.

Now, I also wouldn't be surprised if he retired altogether (though I still see that as highly unlikely). For whatever reason. Of course, people in Nevada speculate that if he would choose to do so that he'd make way for his son Rory, who is a Clark County commissioner and ran Hillary's campaign in Nevada. However, there's also talk of Rory running for Governor in 2010.

The good thing is that no matter what he chooses to do, we now have several people who could run for his seat, like Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, Treasurer Kate Marshall or Secretary of State Ross Miller.

And because of term limits in the State Legislature taking effect in 2010, competition for the top jobs is likely to become more fierce anyway which adds people like Speaker Barbara Buckley or Senate Minority Leader (and 2006 gov nominee) Dina Titus to the mix of likely candidates for Senate or Governor.

My Silver State - Nevada's Progressive Community Blog

Cool. (4.00 / 1)
I'd like to see Reid primaried if he doesn't voluntarily retire.  He sucks, big time.
[ Parent ]
Schumer is a good gladhander (4.00 / 2)
but he has proven himself to weak and you can't have someone who thinks Mukasey should be A.G.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


Majority Leader (0.00 / 0)
I think Barbara Boxer would make a GREAT majority leader. She is a great progressive voice in the senate and a leading advocate for global warming awarnence.  
Can you imagine? (0.00 / 0)
Barack Obama in the Executive Office with Hillary Clinton manning the senior Legislative Branch.
After all the emnity between the two that's been aroused this election cycle, can you imagine the juicy gossip that would come out of that arrangement? It would be like the Dean/Emanual spat taken to a whole other level.
Sounds like a rumour (0.00 / 0)
started by Harry's Reid's enemies for the purpose of undermining him.
Hillary would make a great Majority Leader (0.00 / 0)
She has more balls than Reid.

Short of that, Dodd might be good enough.

Interesting... (0.00 / 0)
I would have to say that I lead towards Dodd. I really like him.

Join the Kansas Democratic Party!
Not Schumer (4.00 / 1)
He's worse than a Bush dog, a traitor at every crossroads.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
Some sort of deal (0.00 / 0)
...that allows Clinton to gracefully bow out of the presidential race, while getting assurances of support for Majority Leader might be a good thing.  She has her Senate seat for as long as she wants it (and therefore would, hopefully be freed from the need to pander to the right), and Senate Majority Leader would be a pretty major accomplishment.  With a solid Democratic majority in both houses and a friendly president, the Senate Majority Leader could arguably have as much (if not more) real power to effect change as the President.  

That said, right now, I'd prefer Dodd.

Primary Reid (4.00 / 1)
If he is even thinking about wavering we should get some strong people in there to primary him. It might force him to step down sooner and perhaps we can get someone with some spine in there. DODD all the way!

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
The Next Senate Majority Leader | 71 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox