« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary Clinton for Senate Majority Leader
The people have spoken. Counting Michigan and Florida, Hillary Clinton
has received more votes than any primary contender in history. From
that, many Clinton and Obama supporters (out of fear of a divided
party) have supported the idea of Clinton joining the Obama ticket as a
Vice Presidential contender. But that largely ceremonial positions
would be a waste of her talents and resources. Besides, making a
Vice-Presidential choice solely based on a political, regional, or
factional consideration has never really worked that well in history.
Look at Kerry/Edwards, Mondale, Ferraro, Dole/Kemp the list goes on and
on.
Don't get me wrong. Harry Reid has served the party well. He
has steadily increased the number of Democrats in Congress. But the
time for his extreme cautious political calculative impulses has come
to an end. Despite the fact that Democrats are in the majority,
legislation has stalled, our economy is in shambles, and we are still
in the midst of a never ending war in Iraq. We need someone who will
take risks. The American people and the Demoratic party need a fighter,
someone who has roots and popular appeal with white rural Americans,
someone who will take advantage of every political opportunity in the
world to shame the opposition into abandoning their ties to special
interests and doing what's right for America.
Maybe she can have a bowl-a-bond-a-thon to raise money for our broken transportation system..or take shots to boost morale.
Furthermore,
if Mrs. Clinton really wants to utilize her claimed experiential
advantage over Obama, then this, short of a highly political Supreme
Court appointment, is the only position where she could truly leverage
her umm..seniority.
Comments (35)
First order of business for Mrs. Clinton as Senate Majority Leader= strip Joseph Lieberman of his committee assignments. Running against your own party is one thing, but actively supporting the other party even before your party's nominee has been chosen, just because Democrats have voted you down time and time again, is quite another. If nothing else, this would give Clinton a substantial opportunity to lay her previous disastrous pro-Irag War stance to rest by crucifying one of its architects. The Democrats are likely to pick up more Senate seats (Mark Warner is almost a sure-in for instance) and so if Lieberman goes Republican, that's ok. They don't need him.
Support Hillary, dump Lieberman, prevent chaos in the White House. Call your Senator and tell them you support Hillary not as Vice President, but as the Senate Majority leader.
June 23, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with her becoming Senate Majority lead is her seniority. Then there is Harry Reid, granted not much of a loss, but he would have to step down ( don't see him doing it or being asked to) and she would have to step over (step-on?) Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, now the majority whip, and fellow New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who is on Durbin’s heels in the No. 3 position. So all in all I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Next, not sure why moving Clinton up to leader equates with dumping Lieberman. I think Lieberman is dumped come '09 no matter who is in the leadership position. Next avoid chaos in the White House?
June 23, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, there's the seniority problem but I think that her broad national support from within the party should trump that.
June 23, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you might be underestimating the importance of tradition in the Senate.
June 23, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I think you may be underestimating her support in the Senate, which obviously isn't all that great.
June 23, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Won't happen. Sorry. As several democrats in the Senate have said... there is no 'special job' for the losers in Presidential elections. She will still remain the junior Senator from New York.
June 23, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for injecting some sound sense in this delusional discussion.
June 23, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why is John Kerry no the majority leader now? Based on your rational for Hillary, then John Kerry could make even a stronger case. He actually won the nomination. Hillary did not.
Her fellow Senators, especially those with more Seniority, owe her nothing. Why should Senator Durbin let Hillary vault past him. Enough with all this molly-coddling of Senator Clinton, just because of her gender. She did not win the nomination, and John Kerry did, but there was no such push to grant the guy with the bigger achievement the Majority Leader spot, or even one of the top spots.
Senator Clinton deserves equal treatment, not exceptional treatment based on her gender.
June 23, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a silly analogy as Kerry lost the general election, not the primary. A mroe accurate more accurate analogy is to look at what happened to the runner-up candidate for the dems in 2004. The answer is John Kerry made John Edwards his VP on the ticket to broaden his appeal and woo the Edwards voters (middle/lower income voters; economic progressives; southern voters) in an election that was nowhere near as close as Obama-Clinton. That's exactly what many people are encouraging Obama to do to woo the Hillary base.
Howard Dean got the DNC role because he spoke for so many on the progressive side. Your position that the question of what to do with Hillary is based on gender or mollycoddling is bullshit. This happens every election season and the reason this offends you so much is because you dislike Hillary.
June 23, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is of course why the Kerry/Edwards ticket won in 2004, and are now running for reelection. Had Kerry not picked the primary runner up, and in turn lost the general election, then Senator Clinton would be able to seek the nomination in 2008. Of course she would never dream of going up against President Kerry while he is running for his second term.
Oh, wait a moment; the Kerry/Edwards ticket actually lost. Well there goes your argument as to why the primary runner up should be rewarded by putting them on the ticket.
Regardless, if Senator Obama does opt to pick Senator Clinton, I will support the ticket. If he does not, I am fine with that also, and I still say she is not entitled to anymore special treatment in the Senate than John Kerry received, and, again, he actually won the nomination, as opposed to Senator Clinton who did not.
June 23, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
edit; not the majority leader now?
June 23, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any distraction that keeps her away from the vice presidential position, the better to promote her with.
If Obama caves and chooses Hillary, he will go down in history as history would rather see him not: a black John Kerry.
June 23, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can name a dozen senators who will ne majority leader before Hillary. Why does she get to jump ahead? She doesn't.
June 23, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect to Senator Clinton, and I think she is due lots, I don't think the fact that she ran for the nomination makes her any more qualified, or more entitled, to lead the senate than before she ran.
It just makes no sense. The senators will select their majority leader without regard to the completed campaign.
June 23, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This makes no sense. She's the junior Senator from NY and there's are several other Senators who not only have the seniority, but the leadership skills. You don't just give positions of powers to also-rans (unless you're John Kerry and choose--dumbly--John Edwards as a running mate). I'm sick of people who have no idea how things work or who haven't paid attention until a few months ago, suggesting this insanely stupid "reward".
June 23, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm John Kerry's problem was at the top of the tcket, not the bottom. I'm not arguing Hillary should be senate majority leader, but the question of what to do with the runners up who have shown such strong support happens every election season. The difference is this year the party was basically split 51-49 so she's much more than an also-ran. Hillary's got a lot of support behind her. You'd think the democratic party would want to make the most of her influence and status.
June 23, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary has so much support, why is she having such a problem paying her campaign debt? Eighteen million in the hole, eighteen million supporters...a dollar apiece should do it! Or is her support as illusory as her experience?
June 23, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because I'm tapped out dangit! It's harder to get people to contribute after the campaign is essentially over. That doesn't mean her supporters support her less.
And FYI in terms of experience and her supporters, that was real. What was illusory was the storyline that Obama's not just another politician and he won't say one thing to win a primary and turn his back on those same principles int he general election. I'm trying to act in the spirit of unity and encourage the disillusioned Obama supporters who are shocked by this turn of events, but attacks on Hillary for no reason tend to make me respond in kind with valid criticisms against Obama.
June 23, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Hillary supporter, you should be concerned that she ran the latter stages of her campaign by kissing the dice, taking a roll, and betting the mortgage... or her supporters' mortgages if I am to be accurate.
She was incredibly irresponsible.
However, given that she still has "loaned" her campaign money -- and not given her campaign money, that is another sign of her real feelings. I believe you have a stronger genuine tie to her stated ideals than she does.
Lastly, if she were for the working person, she would take that her own money out of pocket and pay for at least the individual contractors, etc, immediately. She could do it. She isn't.
June 23, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
She loaned herself money to remain as competitive as possible in states where she was being outspent 3 to 1 and still winning - reference PA, WV, etc. I am entirely amazed that the progressive community has been reduced to substituting money for substance. I'm sure there's quite a few people who invested in Obama as an advocate for change that right about now want their money back. I have no regrets about my donations to Hillary because I know if she was in the general election she would have been the same candidate that I supported in the primary. Authenticity is important to me.
Obviously it didn't turn out my way and I have contributed to Hillary since her campaign ended, but every dollar I spend retiring Hillary's campaign debt is a dollar less I have to contribute in my congressional race (Vito Fossella's old seat) and eventually, maybe to Obama. Competing priorities. I'm sure in the end Hillary will not recoup her entire loan & her and Bill can afford that. I think technically calling it a loan is more advantageous for them in terms of tax purposes rather than a gift.
June 23, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo:
1) Mitt Romney had no problem believing in himself enough to simply put his own money into his campaign. Hillary should do the same. This is not a tax issue.
2) People were originally scared to run against Hillary because of her controls on the Dem money machine. She lost fair and square to someone who outflanked her on one of her best advantages.
2) I appreciate your wisdom in putting your money into something which can be of more value. Many people on the left have a problem with the concept of finite funds and priorities (not saying you do). But this is great example to cite.
June 23, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this was the most crowded and talented democratic campaign field ever so people must not have been too scared to go up against Hillary. But yes Barack was able to generate excitement and enthusiasm and grassroots financial support - much like Howard Dean did. I give Obama credit for a well run campaign.
Most candidates who contribute to their campaign call it a "loan" so they can write it off as a loss on their tax returns. Even Romney's contributions were loans. Here's a nice overview from NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18793382
But hey we agree on something - putting your money where it matters. Watch out for the flying pigs.
June 24, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
As mandy pointed out, we are talking $1/person to retire her debt. If her "supporters" -- and each vote for Hillary wasn't a "supporter", it was a vote, the number of true "supporters" is much less than 18M -- can't pony up $1, or $5, then they do support her less.
June 23, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've arrived at the conclusion that I want HRC in a cabinet position - primarily charged with bringing a positive Healthcare package to completion that will benefit all of us. I can't think of another that will/can bring the same degree of passion, fervor and knowledge into getting this done.
June 23, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or flat incompetence, given what she did with health care the first time, or her primary campaign this time.
June 23, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
As most know, I was not a Clinton supporter in the primary - but I do believe she is more than competent to achieve a beneficial healthcare program.
You are referring to early 90's and as they say, she's come a long way baby.
This constant harping on HRC is not conducive to building unity and it's not Obama's message or the process he wants/needs us to adopt. We need to practice what Obama preaches - in word and deed.
June 23, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The lack of general civics understanding on TPM is impressive.
Seniority may or may not be an issue (although as Ben points out tradition is everything in the Senate). LBJ shot to the top of heap while a very young man (he just looked old) because of 3 reasons:
a) He had the backing of several of the most powerful people in the Senate, in particular, Richard Russell, who viewed LBJ as a son
b) He had an incredible knowledge of not only the Senate but also the other 99 Senators
c) He knew how to pass legislation
Hillary Clinton is simply not a skilled politician. As has been pointed out many times, her 7 years thus far have been relatively undistinguished. More importantly, she may have burned bridges by her campaign style and her candidate-centric (rather than party-centric) style.
Anyone who thinks that the general electorate influences the behavior of the most exclusive club in America reveals a real ignorance of how government works.
I suggest anyone who wants a real understanding of the Senate, it's traditions, and especially LBJ's role in it, read MASTER OF THE SENATE by Robert Caro.
June 23, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, Hillary is NO politician. She issues dictats, surrounds herself with sycophants, and until this year never faced a given real opponent.
June 23, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) we don't count michigan because that primary result was invalidated by the RBC. So you start off your piece with a fabrication or flat-out lie, perhaps in order to strengthen what is otherwise a very weak argument.
2)So what? Popular vote doesn't get you the democratic nomination and it certainly doesn't get you elected to a position of power in the senate.
this could be one of the most ridiculous things i've read today.
June 23, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe if you would have read past the first two sentences, you would have realized that I said that out of irony.
June 23, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm missing something. How, exactly, does winning the most votes for the Democratic nominee for President in a state primary that didn't count and in which you are the only major candidate on the ballot entitle someone to be considered for Senate Majority Leader?
June 23, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, indeed! Let us make the body politic healthier and flush the Clinton toxin.
June 23, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, Hillary doesn't take risks, did you see her Iraq vote? Or her Iran vote? Or her flag burning amendment vote? Give me a break, she is a follower, she doesn't take risks just like Bill didn't take risks.
Secondly, you seem to have forgotten that there are more than 30 Democratic Senators with more seniority than Hillary. She is still years away from having enough seniority to even be a committee chair, let alone Senate Majority Leader, are you kidding me?? Why do you seem to think she has some sort of entitlement to a consolation prize? I wrote a lot more about this very subject, I encourage you to read it because it is too much to fit in here (the Senate Majority Leader part is near the end, right next to Supreme Court Justice):
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/06/why-no-nightmare-ticket-lets-count.html
Oh, and she didn't win the popular vote, no one even seriously argues that point anymore, give me a break. If you start a blog post with that idiotic assertion you pretty much signal to everyone that they don't need to take any of your analysis seriously.
June 23, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I more or less brought up the popular vote part out of irony. The overall point of my blog post was not to advocate on Hillary's behalf but to lure people away from the idea of a joint ticket. I think such an idea is preposterous, and I'd much rather have Hillary supporters and superficially conciliatory Obama supporters trying to get Hillary the Senate Majority position than the Vice Presidential position, which is far more likely to happen.
And the seniority argument alone is fallacious. As someone has already mentioned in this point, Lyndon Johnson rose to power when he was still young. If seniority were the sole issue of Senate Majority/Minority positions, then Robert Byrd may have managed to lead a filibuster and prevent the Iraq War from occurring.
Besides having lost the Democratic nomination for president, Hillary's at a point where she can take risks politically. If she truly had a conscience, she would make up for her politically driven mistakes.
June 24, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't mind HRC being majority leader. She might be a lot tougher than Reid.
So far, Reid tyotally sucks. I'm not sure it's because he doesn't have enough votes or what. But he's a pretty weak voice.
But then there's seniority. Althoguh I wonder if the party could engineer this due to the huge support this year, which is unprecedented?
As an Obamaite, and one opposed to her as VP because it is a terrible idea, it still is kind of sad to see her have gone so far and come up with nothing.
June 24, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment