Senate Majority Leader Hillary Clinton?

August 3, 2006

In the world of inside-pool and back-room rumors, this is interesting.

Some high level Democratic Party political insiders have shared with TWN details of a potential shift in vectors for several of the major political stars in that party.

First of all, Senate Minority Leader [tag]Harry Reid[/tag], whom most give high marks for the manner in which he has stewarded the Dems in the Senate despite the absence of a clear Democratic Party chief, has sent private signals to Senator Hillary Clinton and other stalwarts of the party that he “would like to” step down from his post in early 2009. Reid has not stated definitively that he will — but he apparently prefers “whipping” the Party from behind and the side rather than serving as commander-in-chief on the Senate floor.

What Reid is offering Senator [tag]Hillary Clinton[/tag] is his total, robust support to succeed him as Senate Majority Leader if she elects not to pursue the Democratic nomination for President.

I have no idea if these rumors are true. It’s possible the story is just flat wrong. It’s also possible that this is an idea that some Senate staffers have mulled over, but it’s never moved beyond the what-if level. That said, the rumor comes by way of [tag]Steve Clemons[/tag], whose insider access is quite solid.

Let’s game this one out for a minute.

Harry Reid, from my perspective, has been a terrific Senate Dem leader under very difficult circumstances. With a 45-person caucus, Reid has successfully blocked several key GOP initiatives, executed a strategy that keeps most of his members together on most issues, and has consistently made Bill Frist look foolish. He is not, however, comfortable in front of the cameras. Reid strikes me as an old-school Senate leader, who’d rather work behind the scenes than be the public face of the party.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, again from my perspective, has proven to be a very talented senator. Putting aside individual votes and/or issues with which I may disagree, Clinton has delivered for her constituents, she’s earned the respect of her colleagues, and she’s well-suited for a leadership role.

If Clemons is right, it’s an interesting offer — Clinton forgoes a challenging presidential campaign, which may or may not go well, and in exchange, she’s promoted to the top of the Dem Senate leadership. If Dems get to 51 seats, that means she’s Senate Majority Leader, which, before Frist, was one of the best, most powerful jobs in Washington.

There’s been literally no confirmation on this rumor from anyone, and it’s likely there’s nothing to it. But as speculation goes, it should generate some interesting buzz.

I like it. I think Hillary would be a good person in the Majority Leader position. I also think keeping her out of the Prez run in 2008 is a good idea. She is just too devisive. I am not sure we want this out at this point, however. I can hear the ads for November now “Elect [insert dem name here] and Hillary Clinton will become the new Senate Majority Leader.” If she id poison in the Presidential race she is poison in the Congressional races as well.

Even more Kudos to Reid for doing something good for the party and country (again and again).

  • From the minute she was elected to the Senate, I’ve thought that Majority Leader was a natural position for her. She does her homework, knows the issues, and is a fierce fighter. The partisan rancor that would greet her as President (assuming she could get elected) serves her better as marshall for her side.

    And in the Senate, she has shown an ability to charm personally and work with “the other side.” She reminds me a lot of Bob Dole, who in public was incredibly partisan, but had a lot of personal respect from both sides of the aisle. Dole would argue in public, but then go into a back room and make the deal — everyone got something.

    HRClinton would probably operate the same way. I’d be all for it. And I’d be very unhappy if she were the candidate for President.

    (Not that I’d vote for a Republican over her, unless it were maybe Hagel……)

  • This would be great. Any power-hunger on her part would be satisfied, since Senate Majority Leader is a Very Big Deal, and she could likely make it Even Bigger. Plus she can have the position for life, if she wanted, since I am certain she would perform.

    I always thought she should follow Ted Kennedy’s example. He would have been a terrible President (the Republicans would have done all they could to derail him, likely worse than they did to Bill Clinton and right up there with what they would try to do to Hillary), but as a Senator he became a national institution and has been one of the best. She could do the same here.

    Her partisanship and “political lightning rod” status works perfectly in this role, which it wouldn’t as President.

    Much as I hope she won’t be the Democratic candidate for President in 2008, I’d vote for her – certainly she’s better than “all show and no go” Hagel. And he’s the best of the scumballs.

  • I agree with Tom (#3). Ever since she entered the Senate I’ve wondered if she’d tease the electorate with a bid for presidential nomination as a way of increasing her presence in the Senate and the Democratic Party, a la Ted Kennedy. There are many worse fates in politics than a lifetime stint in the Senate. And it doesn’t get any better than Majority Leader there (ask LBJ).

  • This development would very quickly turn me from a big Hillary opponent to a big Hillary backer. I just don’t think she’d be a good president for the country, to a large extent through no fault of her own; she’s just too hated, and after the eight-year vacation from reality and responsibility that Bush took we need someone who can command broad support for the tough measures to come.

    But for the reasons others mention, I think she’d probably be a very strong Majority Leader.

  • She’ll do good wherever she goes, because she’s a strong self-realizer or self-actualizer- a natural leader.

    There’s an old Japanese saying, “knife sharpens on stone, man sharpens on man.” If Hillary becoming (and running) for president pisses of the republicans, it’ll energize and revitalize the democratic party just as the adversity of the Clinton years were a catalyst for conservative republicans to dig in their heels.

  • This sounds like an excellent situation for everyone. I really hope Hillary doesn’t run for president, both because I don’t think she could be elected and because I don’t think she’d do a particularly good job. She would, however, be an excellent Majority Leader, and keeping her out of the 2008 race might help the Democrats run a better candidate (Obama?). I’d be quite happy if this proved to be true.

  • I wonder if this is Reid’s clever way of encouraging HIllary not to run for President – offering her a Senate job that starts when the next president takes the oath. I agree she would be a good leader there, but a divisive candidate for president.

  • I don’t think she’d do it unless she is positive that she wouldn’t be able to secure the Democratic presidential candidate nomination. She would possibly have to wait until 2016 to run for President again, which could be a time when public opinion shifts back to the Republican side. While a nice honor, Senate Majority Leader isn’t the grab for power that the presidency is.

  • I doubt we have the entire story, but it is intriguing.

    I also admit, from a purely visceral perspective, the idea of Majority Leader Clinton giving the right wing a collective coronary is enjoyable.

  • Putting all ideas of whether or not it’s true aside, I like this plan a great deal.

    The problem, however, is I don’t see Hillary doing it. She’s got her eyes on a bigger prize.

  • It IS interesting but note that Clemons now has something up about Reid “strongly” denying any such conversations. Of course, I’d deny it too!

    But that still doesn’t mean Reid actually said that; maybe he just “implied” it in a roundabout way. Or maybe he had one of his staffers say it to plant the seeds. Or maybe he really didn’t say it. At this point, I think it is irrelevant.

  • I am torn. I like the idea and think Clinton would make an outstanding majority leader. This would also keep Hillary away from running for president, hopefully for 8 years. BUT, if the Dems DO win back the House and Senate it will likely be due to the fracturing of the various groups that had brought about, by voting together, the GOP rule of the past 12 years. I do think that making Clinton Majority Leader might then help re-galvanize such groups, when I would rather see them flounder about separately.

  • OK, I know we are in the land of left. But if we do take back the Senate, does anyone think a Clinton is going to help matters. I like Hillary, but come on folks, the other side would rather drink Jim Jones Kool-Aid then compromise with a Clinton.

    They hate her with a passion, and that is not the kind of leadership, Presidential or Senate, we need or want. It’s time to start mending this country and not Roving it even more. We need someone the right might compromise with.

    Can you just see a Clinton promoting impeachment, ha, I may… scratch what I just said about Hillary. “Go Hillary, it’s your birthday….”

  • I totally agree with the majority here that Hilary would be a lousy candidate for president but a great and possibly outstanding Senate Majority Leader.

    The vagueness of the rumor is probably calculated to give Reid some cover in case the response is negative, but I’d be pretty sure he means it if she agrees to the deal.

    And the timing is excellent. The sooner the issue is settled the more time can be spent figuring out who the real candidate will be, and that’s all good. Two years out is not too soon to start putting some serious thought into the strategy for 2008.

    Nice one, Harry.

  • I think she would be as bad of a majority leader as she would a Presidential candidate. She is weak on strategic thinking and charisma.

    She still makes off-key, off-message remarks, and her notoriety means the smallest gaffe gets covered. That takes the party off message.

    When will people wake up to her essential mediocrity? Her last name has gotten her here. On the merits she is an average Senator in every aspect. She’s been able to buy a good staff, though.

  • Interesting post, but let’s stay focused on actually regaining the Senate and House majorities

    Now, if that happens, the one major item on the agenda would be to permanently de-fang the Republican’t MSM (indefinite incarceration for Richard Mellon Scaife, anyone?).

    Next, If that can be accomplished (the MSM part), most of the people duped into hating Hillary could be educated to not hate the Clintons. And that would open the door to Hillary’s eventual Presidency.

    That is a lots of ifs, but this post has the same nature.

  • This works for several reasons.

    If we game this out from the POV of a naval exercise, Clinton (who works best up in the front) is like a Seawolf; a fast-attack submarine that churns into its opposition on pretty much a toe-to-toe confrontation. Reid, however, is a behind-the-scenes type, more likened to a “boomer” that can park over the horizon from its target, and hurl a couple hundred megatons of heavy ICBM weaponry.

    A third issue is that Hillary, as SML, would probably be in a position to wield more power than if she were the C-in-C. A veto can be overridden, but it only takes 51 votes in the Senate to kill a bill “deader than a Quayle presidential bid….”

    A Clinton/Reid duo in the ’09 Senate? We’re talking “juggernaut” here….

  • I think she would be as bad of a majority leader as she would a Presidential candidate. She is weak on strategic thinking and charisma. […]
    She’s been able to buy a good staff, though.

    Comment by crab nebula — 8/3/2006 @ 12:43 pm

    Being able to assemble a team of good staff/helpers and listening to them is a skill that not everyone possesses (vide the current admin). Mediocre leaders can be remembered as great ones on the combined brain strength of their support team; all it takes is a touch of ego-moderation. Whether she has it or not I do not know but I do know that, to me, having her as a Senate Majority Leader instead of running for President (or even for a presidential nomination) would be the best possible solution.

  • Yes, why doesn’t the little woman just put her political ambition aside (and desire to fix her rather broken country) and let a man do a man’s job.

    Let’s be honest boys, that’s what you think.

    She the most electable dem, but you’re afraid to have woman run for President. Forty-three men and America is “still not ready”.

    Really.

    So much for democracy when you’ve decided that women who make up over 50% of the population (women are usually about 51-52% in most countries – longer lives and as babies they tend to succumb to fewer illnesses….I think? am not a Doctor, I’ve seen the census figures that’s all) can’t be elected President.

    It’s all in your minds. Who are you to say your neighbour is a chauvinist. Do you really think people can’t vote on other than gender lines.

  • Hillary pass up a chance to be President of the United States of America??? I don’t think so. HRClinton has way too much ego to make a deal like that. Regardless if it’s in the parties best interest or not. HRClinton will do what HRClinton wants to do. So between the choices of Majority leader or Pres, I’m sure she will choose Pres. Madam President. Hmmmmmm. I like the sound of that. However, if she did become Pres, wouldn’t that make Bill the first “Gentleman”?

    • Comments are closed.