A Health Care Role for Hillary

I don't want to conflate Majority Leader (something that really hasn't been pushed all that much) with a position to get something done in committee.
This all seems to be process over results.

Pointing to the Lieberman situation and screaming that it makes a mockery of direct democracy is to misunderstand the Senate's role as a buffer on direct democracy. I know that enrages some people, but as I said earlier I am in the long run alright with Senators working out some space for themselves to be a more statesmanlike, deliberative body. That is a 30,000 foot view hard to see at this moment, but worth considering.

I didn't think it was obvious that Hillary should become Majority Leader and I don't think she would be very good at it. I had heard that Reid had a lot of internal support. That doesn't help that I think he is terrible for the Democratic party in that position. He is exactly the wuss he looks like. McConnell also looks like a wuss, but he manages to make his party behave even if it isn't in their best interests.

"Pointing to the Lieberman situation and screaming that it makes a mockery of direct democracy is to misunderstand the Senate's role as a buffer on direct democracy."
.
A mockery of direct democracy? Where are you reading this arguement? That really is silly.
.
And are we confusing things? The Clinton and Lieberman issues are not issues of the Senate they are issues of the Democratic caucus.
Or am I confused?

"Process over results." Yes, agreed. I just believe a workable long-term process should trump short-term results for a deliberative body as large and complex as the Senate - particularly the upper house with long six-year terms and only 100 members making collaborative relationships a must.

"I'm just trying to make the point that, whatever her stature nationally, her options inside the Senate are pretty limited."
.
I get that, KT, and you are certainly right. My point is that the reasons stated for her limited options are pretty disappointing.

Where am I reading the argument? EVERYWHERE. Start at the top: read Kos today and follow his links if you want more.

pourme makes a good point about the Senate being a place where a group can apply the brakes on the WH or the House when runaway plans are on offer. But Bush put and end to that by encouraging a pretty divisive Senate aided and abbeted bt Lott and McConnell.There is also a good deal of backscratching. Otherwise how does one explain the shenanigans of Stevens (who managed the dollar highway to Alaska) and Byrd who did the same on his own highway to WV. I thought the Senate was a place of sober second thoughts then I heard Inhofe!!!!

whatever her stature nationally, her options inside the Senate are pretty limited.

Which of course helps explain the attraction of the State department.

I have to check out for meetings, but this is a conversation I always have with my kids about politeness - you say pleasantries not because you necessarily mean it, but because you get in the habit and the habit has value. In the Senate, I find value in not settling (valid) scores. Gotta wimp out of the fight now, though.

@ivb: "...Reid had a lot of internal support...I think he is terrible for the Democratic Party in that position." --I second that!
.
@coffee: I believe that most Swampers agree with you that the seniority system in and of itself is not a bad attribute around which to organize the Senate; it is a problem *at this time* because it appears to prevent the majority party from more effectively deploying and asserting its leadership role.
.
It may be the rules, but it also appears to be a failure of imagination and vision on the part of Reid. (Remember, the approval rating for congress are even lower than that of W's.) Reid has managed to hit the snooze bar again, as he's been doing throughout 2006-2008. He's worried about breaking eggs *right now*. A year from now, we'll all be wondering why he hasn't produced an omelet.

Obama frees Hillary from the Senate, where her lack of seniority would keep her on a path to nowhere fast, and ensures that Bill Clinton owes big time ( a chit that Bill can use with certain Senators when it comes to fundraising and campaigning).
.
Clearly McCain and Graham are on board, it can't be a coincidence that the meeting with McCain and Graham took place before the Lieberman vote. I'm pretty sure that McCain wanted to at least save his friend. after all its not like McCain picked Lieberman for vice-president, he can't let him lose his chairmanship too. I'm thinking that a deal to ensure bi-partisan support and a filibuster free zone on Obama's key legislation makes sense. If we lose Franken and Martin that's still 60 isn't it?

Many have said what I wanted to say about how HRC is being treated.

I really hope she is offered and accepts the SoS position.

And I agree, I like Reid but he is terrible at his job.

In the long run, I think the points Dems will score with the public outweighs any benefit to giving Lieberman what he deserves - a swift kick on the asterick.

After today, I am left with the impression that the Senate is run by children. The repugs are the schoolyard bullies. The Dems are the kids who play by the rules even when the rules make no sense. They seem incapable of thinking outside of their box/bubble.
.
The Dems had two imminently credible candidates for president. They ran a very close race, and one of them won (my preferred candidate, but whatever). Had Hillary been the Dem candidate, I have little doubt she would have won in the general, and in losing the nomination she worked very effectively for Obama and for down ticket senators. She was asked to help because she is, and is perceived as, a national leader by the voters. She was not shunted to the side as a "loser."
.
And what happens in the Senate? Instead of being propelled by her performance into a significant leadership position that she earned on the national stage and that would be a politically smart thing for the caucus to do, she has to "wait her turn." And they reward a disreputable turncoat who WILL turn on them.
.
I'm sorry. Rules and tradition are good, but sometimes you break with tradition, as Tevye did for the good of his children..

Two threads up memekiller said:
.
"Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Yet again, Dems demonstrate they can not perservere against the most possible of odds."
.
Worth repeating.

Yet again, Dems demonstrate they can not perservere against the most possible of odds.

Was this surprising? Since the Republicans are collapsing and there's no other real competition, they're all but obliged to self-servingly underperform. Welcome to the two-party system.

Hey KT, no one is listening. Tell us what you really think about the Lieberman situation.

They are leaving quite a bit of ambiguity in the responsibilities of those task forces. How much autonomy will the groups have? Does Senator Clinton have to start chasing cars at the behest of Kennedy or does she get a little freedom?
.
Also, you guys are trashing the seniority system without pausing to contemplate its benefits:
.
1) Provides a clear, no-nonsense right of ascension
2) Intrinsically ensures that ranking members will have enough experience to navigate complicated Senate rules
3) Eliminates the need to vote on every appointment to committee, task force, study group, investigative body, or whatever.
4) Ensures ORDER so that the Senate can actually get things done without spending an entire session challenging and re-challenging appointments of influence
.
There are obviously downsides of a seniority system, such as the exclusion of less senior but perhaps more capable members.
.
I'm not saying seniority is the right set of rules. I'm just saying don't overlook its benefits.

wvng -
.
You can't just break with tradition if the entire caucus will revolt. Clinton gets her leadership position but everyone resents her for it. What would that accomplish?
.
Alas, the seniority system is notoriously difficult to repeal. The ones with the power want to keep it and the ones next in line want to keep it so they can rise to power next. The only ones wanting an exception from the rules are those at the bottom, and they have no power because of the rules.
.
Just ask professional pilots. Airlines assign jobs (and pay) to pilots based almost purely on seniority. It sucks being at the bottom, but it's posh when you get the top.

The ones with the power want to keep it and the ones next in line want to keep it so they can rise to power next.

This rule is even more generally applicable. I had a coworker ask me why we still retained the electoral college. I found myself explaining how as long as the people who benefit from a system have sufficient power to protect it, it's not going to budge.

That's why even changovers like the current administration transition represent a shockingly minute amount of actual change and real revolutions are appallingly violent.

Also, on the Lieberman thing, it seems to me that losing a chairmanship is a rare thing in Congress in general, but even rarer in the Senate, absent an indictment or something.

How about keeping your seat when the netroots refuse to fund your campaigns?
.
Have they thought of that one? We have LONG memories. (no, I'm not bitter, why do you ask?)

KT-
.
She has State? I had the teevee on for a little bit yesterday to see what Wolf was shouting about, and it sounded like she did. I don't see how Bill can keep doing what he's doing if she has State. And I can't see him sitting on his hands either.

How about keeping your seat when the netroots refuse to fund your campaigns?
.
Have they thought of that one? We have LONG memories. (no, I'm not bitter, why do you ask?)
.
Tow words.
.
Steny Hoyer.
.
And then four more seats. We can fund four more better democrats.
.
Every cycle we can fund five. And then they will have to listen.
.
And I want Schumer. I'm sick of being represented by a pro-choice Al D'Amato. He does not vote his constituency.