Hillary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader?

That or Supreme Court Justice...

Something worthy of her experience and resume'. How about Bill? Finance minister? Personally, in a heartbeat I would nominate Bill Clinton as Secretary Of State. We need someone intimately familiar with foreign dignitaries and the way that shuffle is handled..

When you think about it, finances and foreign relations go hand in hand.

I like the idea of Hillary Clinton as Majority Leader. As for Bill, I think that the only thing that would work for him would be either U.N. Ambassador or used as a special envoy to those places where he could do the most good.

Reid and Pelosi are already well-known by honest people for their hubris and overreach. We fear much worse from them now.

Clinton on the Supreme Court only appeals to those who want Good Feelings and leftist goals to replace actual law and rule of law.

"Hillary Clinton as Majority Leader"

She deserves something for having gotten as far as she has.

There's no reason to stay with the status quo. Waxman will be challenging Dingell, for example, in the House. It's time to see more Change [tm].

If the Dems have any real smarts for a change (no pun intended), and want to best show they're better than the dysfunctional GOP, they should make all their Congressional reassignments before Christmas time, fully ready on or before Obama's inauguration to Get Going.

Hillary Clinton as Senate Majority Leader... what an interesting concept. I don't know about how these things work, but it seems that her lack of seniority might be a problem. On the other hand, if recent history is any judge, a Senate Majority Leader -- especially from a swing state -- is not conducive to continued employment.

And thank you DLS for your continued, self-described mature and wizened commentary. I don't know what we'd all do without your ad-hominem appeals to your own authority. I may be only 50 years or so out of diapers, but if you can expand your mind just a little, allow me to suggest a somewhat different perspective by way of asking the following questions...

If you wanted to co-opt the best and most dangerous (in terms of impediments to what you want to do), from the Democratic side of the House and Senate and place them on your team, who would they be? Likewise, if you wanted to "rule from the middle" (albeit with exceptions close to your heart -- or head), how would you do it? I'm curious.

DLS: Waxman will be challenging Dingell, for example, in the House. It's time to see more Change [tm].

Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing? Please explain your answer. If it were a question of wisdom before age, I'd volunteer to go first. But since you apparently beat me on both counts, it seems incumbent upon you to go first.

???

"continued, self-described mature and wizened commentary"

It's far more mature than the leftist waste we see routinely sprayed and splattered on here, along with the dishonest misappropriation of "moderate" to mean "non-1930s-to-1960s-questioning Democrat, just not flirting too much with the more radical _stuff." I get irritated by that.

That is not egotistical and it is a lie to say it is. [scowl]

"ad-hominem appeals to your own authority"

Phfft. Just a stronger-than-swallowing-lefty-mantra style that is not PC coming from a non-mushy "moderate." I could just ignore more than what I do, but why? No good reason other than perhaps ulcer prevention.

Rather than spend any more time on that, I'll just answer your question:

First, the _real_ issue here is that the challenge has been made, and it's unlikely to be the only or last of such challenges. (Meanwhile, the GOP is so screwed up it can't even muster any more perversely-entertaining finger-pointing other than handily "blaming" Palin for McCain's loss.)

Second, it may be a better thing, given that California is more modern, which although I've left California long ago, I'm moved to say because Dingell's initial defensive-reaction comment that made the news was that Waxman doesn't have Dingell's appreciation of the importance of the industrial Midwest, or something to that effect. (This is old dinosaur Blue Nation thinking that is bubbling in large part to the surface, so to speak, as Detroit's Big Three exhibits what amounts to threats of "end stage" of its diseased nature. I believe in Dingell's case it's preoccupation with his industrial Midwest, a relic-y view I see here in Detroit, more than envy or resentment of California and by extension the other Sunbelt areas, which to me is not only over-simplified but somewhat outdated.) I'm no fan of Waxman; nobody who follows the goings-on in Washington is. But I don't see why the GOP in Congress should be ossified, and I'm also particularly wary of someone whose world view is based in large part on association with and likely defense of the long-obsolete Detroit Big Three model. (The US auto industry has thrived for many years -- but its capital is roughly in Nashville, while the center of automobile culture for decades has been in California. I currently drive a Detroit vehicle and don't want to see a bankruptcy, which even before it would happen will spook us all, due to lack of parts available now and later. But Detroit is not _the_ auto industry. Why should it be simply given money to keep going as is? I associate Dingell with that. And more broadly, why should things not change at all now that Obama has been elected? Why not dispense with seniority completely in Congress? Etc.)

"If you wanted to co-opt the best and most dangerous (in terms of impediments to what you want to do), from the Democratic side of the House and Senate and place them on your team, who would they be?

Likewise, if you wanted to "rule from the middle" (albeit with exceptions close to your heart -- or head), how would you do it?"

In the real world, the "strategy" lies in compromise, much as it hurts. Co-opting would largely be economic; perhaps they can be given health care in order to fill their hands (more than ours are filled in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan, so to speak), while addressing the desires not so much of isolated things like Detroit's Big Three, but the states, which have been starting to make rumblings of wanting bailouts themselves. It is also "congruent" with Obama's health care eventual agenda (the Dems', for that matter): seize the moment and fold Medicaid into Medicare, taking it off the states' budgets, while at the same time achieving an incrementalist dream for the Dems; they can then mess with the margins of S-CHIP and continue their progressive encompassing of all the electorate, perhaps by then taking VA and Indian Health into Medicare, to where they quickly approach the ideal, providing benefits to all but the average-aged, taxpaying public. The latter will then demand more than ever to benefit as well and the Dems get a major victory, while being co-opted in other areas due to the subsequent federal budget effects. Where that may be seen as tactical rather than strategic, I'm unsure, but it's a big way to constrain the Dems while getting their cooperation given it's a goal they want to achieve in this case.

It hurts because it's a compromise that in actuality is a concession to enlargement of the federal government in an area that is properly state and local.

DLS, how about giving all the gratuitous attention seeking a wee rest. We get it. You are the final arbiter of what is or isn't "childish", "mature", and "reasonable". It must be difficult having to exist among so many people who can't meet your exacting standards. Please accept my sympathy.

OK, moving right along, I'm also one who would like to see Senator Clinton in a position of that would make better use of her considerable talents and abilities. I fear the right would go ballistic if she was put forth as a Supreme Ct. appointment. but I'm all for the Majority Leader post.

DLS- Are you the only adult on here? ;-)

I think HC would be much better at working with the opposition party than the weak and wily Harry Reid. I don't think she should get the position as a reward for supporting Obama or for getting so far in the nomination process, however.

Her peers in the Senate would have to vote her in-- I think she would present a challenge to Reid and then they vote on it. Usually, this happens when the party loses power under the maj leader's leadership not when they gain seats.

Ricorun,

Majority leader is determined by a vote of the majority party and seniority has nothing to do with it. Could we get a replacement for Pelosi while we're at it? Surely there has to be someone better in the House. If Emanuel hadn't taken the Chief of Staff job he'd be perfect.

Steny Hoyer is doing a good job as majority leader- maybe he could move up. He doesn't create the partisan waves that Pelosi and Emanuel do, but still manages to get things done.

I was just thinking that IF HC took over for Reid we'd have 2 women and a minority in 3 of the 4 most powerful positions in Washington!

Hillary wont get house speaker. Obama would be nuts if he did. Cause we all know how crazy those Hillary supporters are and how far they would go to get her in power. Just look at this person writing this article. And the fact that most of them were going to vote for a republican just cause she lost. She ran a dirty campaign, and used the politics of old. Her time has come and gone.

Now that the 2008 election and its historic high turnout is history, there is much greater appreciation for the privilege of voting.

But most people don't realize that out of 44 American presidents, only the last 15 were elected in a truly democratic fashion by all of our citizens -- men AND women.

Until 1920 women were denied the vote, and few people have any idea of the struggle our suffragettes had to go through to right this wrong. It's an amazing, awe-inspiring story!

Now you can subscribe FREE to my exciting historical e-mail series that reveals HOW the suffragettes won votes for women. Believe me, it wasn't easy!

"The Privilege of Voting" is drawing rave reviews from readers all over the world. Dramatic, sequential short-story episodes follow the lives of eight of the world's most famous women to tell the true stories of the courage of the suffragettes. Read this FREE e-mail series on your coffeebreaks and be inspired by these amazing women!

Subscribe free at

www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html

great blog and article