The idea of Clinton being selected for Senate majority leader is

being floated. What do you think the reaction in the Senate would be? Has she burned her bridges? Is Reid that disliked that this would be an option? Would she be effective in your opinion?

He's so cool. Just my opinion, of course.

Fuck, why not just ask Denny Hastert to come back!

Hillary Cilnton is way down on the list of options there for me.

personally, i'd like to see what feingold could do.

Court appointment?

He's just a hell of a good man.

Durbin is senior out of all of those in leadership now isn't he?

Durbin's post outranks the others, as it is a crucial leadership post, although Dodd has served in the Senate longer than anyone in that group.

Durbin was first elected in 96 to the Senate, Boxer in 93. Dodd is a 5-term Senator.

Dodd would be good too.

She has proven to be someone who only considers herself, is the opposite of a team player, has no problem saying and doing anything to get her way, and is a little delusional. That doesn't sound like leadership material to me.

I would bet we're seeing a lot of negotiating over her taking one of these two jobs.

She'd be very effective, IMO. Repukes would cry and say she's mean.

I remember when Frist almost cried. :rofl:

:shrug:

Either one of them would be a great choice! :thumbsup:

because I know her better, I'd be ecstatic about Feingold too!

A month from now if she is still fighting I'd say hell no, she loses influence and clout with each passing day.

Hillary supporters aren't likely to be appeased.

Others may argue that all you have to do to be Senate Majority Leader is allow personal ambition to risk the party's chances in November, then they'll buy you off.

In the end, I don't know that it would please anyone.

127%, campaigns for him and for other Democrats, she'll be able to build power in a way that could be very effective for the party. We DO need someone tough and tenacious in that position in the Senate, and I could see her being a formidable Majority Leader.

She has no chance to be Senate Majority Leader.

Once Obama is elected, John Paul Stevens at the very least will retire. Hillary Clinton would be a perfectly reasonable choice for the Supreme Court.

positions...and you would never get her through congress..repugs would never let it happen..

maybe because when she's really looking forward, and knows there are no more political races in her future, she might do the right thing?

Harry you're a nice guy. I don't want a nice guy. I don't want a conciliator. I want someone who will stand up to power and let them know how WE are going to do it now. You've shown that you aren't that person.

I'm tired of making nice-nice. I want a real scrapper in there, too.

She has written her ending and it ain't the first woman president she has imagined all her life.

My offer is this... nothing.
Not even the fee for the gaming license,
which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.

if barack is potus, would the other illinois senator even be considered for majority leader?

or would people see it as giving to much say to one state?- like when the cheney misadministration took their first media-approved shit on the constitution by both being from texas.

If 47% of DEMOCRATS don't think she is trustworthy, and she uses divisive labels like how she appeals to "white voters", why in the name of all that's Holy would Democrats want her in any leadership position?

She's just into her second term...someone with more seniority deserves it like Biden or Dodd. Leahy would be a good pick too.

I think Hillary Clinton is a very intelligent and effective politician. She could be a very powerful Senate majority leader. However, some of her positions on international matters including her opposition to limit cluster bombs, her opposition to limit the international use of land mines, her vote with Lieberman to brand the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist organization, her open criticism of the UN, her vote on the IWR have really made me shake my head. I think all politicians base many of their decisions depending on which way the wind blows. If she loses the Democratic nomination and another Democrat (i.e. Obama) is elected President, it may inspire Hillary Clinton to become a bit less hawkish, but that's an unknown to me. I'd be willing to give her a chance to prove her liberal leanings on international affairs. She is pretty liberal regarding domestic affairs and I think her leadership could be important in pushing through the types of Supreme Court appointments that we will need.

She's totally *capable* of doing it, but after IWR and Kyle-Lieberman, I don't trust her.

I raised three boys. I never gave them treats to stop a temper tantrum. As a result, no temper tantrums. Any mom would tell you that Hillary should not be rewarded for her childish behavior. She's done nothing to deserve special treatment.

After the primaries she burned a lot of bridges now.

Give me Dodd, I'd go for that.

there's simply no reason to believe they would trust her to be their leader

'nuf said.

position for her. Maybe I'm refusing to see the bigger picture. :shrug:

she will be lucky to hold on to her senate seat, she has no clout, folks will distance themselves from her.

Feingold would be great but I'd like to rub it in a little to the NeoCon's and see Barbara Boxer as the Majority Leader. She's the Senator I wish I had. Tough, strong Progressive principles and the Repugs hate her.

How can ya beat that?

I like both Obama and Clinton, but I doubt that Clinton will be chosen by her peers as their leader at this point. Maybe in the future after the bruises she is getting in this primary season have healed.

She might also be effective at sticking it to Obama in retaliation for her loss.

I would think the Senator Byrd would make an excellent Majority leader.