If true, this could be HUGE

[whometense]

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001578.php

August 03, 2006
Harry Reid May Ask Senator Clinton to Preempt Presidential Ambitions to Succeed Him as Senate Majority/Minority Leader

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 Harry Reid, 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 Hillary Clinton is his total, robust support to succeed him as Senate Majority Leader if she elects not to pursue the Democratic nomination for President.

Many are realizing that the electoral map is not something one can wave a magic wand over and reverse the views of 42% of Americans who believe that they know Hillary Clinton well and have strongly formed views of her and will not vote for her under any conditions -- according to recent polls. Reports are that Senator Clinton herself knows this and that her own enthusiasm for running actually trails that of her husband, her advisors, and her staff -- whose enthusiasm for the race is ranked in that order with Hillary the least enthusiastic.

Some Republican Senators have been privately queried -- not by Reid but by high level Republican Party funders (Northeast Republicans) who are frustrated with Bush, unsure of McCain, and considering supporting alternative candidates like Mark Warner -- what they think of Hillary Clinton serving as either Senate Democratic Leader, either in the Majority or Minority. Senators such as Senator Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, and Lindsay Graham have reportedly said that they would welcome Senator Clinton in such a role, albeit from the other side of the aisle.

The other bit of change in the Democratic Party game has been the emergence of Nevada and South Carolina as important gambits for the Democratic presidential bid contenders.

The Iowa Caucus now leads as the first Democratic Party contest followed by Nevada with the second caucus. New Hampshire will still lead with the first primary but following these earlier caucuses, and South Carolina will immediately follow New Hampshire.

This line-up of races puts enormous pressure on Hillary Clinton and any Northeastern Democrat. It's the anti-Kerry plan, and might also be a resist-Hillary plan, if not a strategy to completely deter the campaign juggernaut she is building.

The clear winners from the new allignment of caucuses and primaries are candidates like Mark Warner and John Edwards. Edwards is out harnessing labor. He's everywhere Labor is, and many fear that Mark Warner while appealing on paper has a lot of hurdles to overcome to get ready for prime time.

So, the Reid-Clinton dance around the Majority Leader position (if the Dems do take back the Senate) could be an attractive one for the New York Senator.

-- Steve Clemons

UPDATE: Senator Reid's office has called me this morning and asked that I post on this note that Senator Reid denies this case -- and denies it in the strongest possible sense.

I respect Senator Reid greatly, but TWN will stand by the comments above for the time being as the sources involved are impeccable from my point of view. There are nuances in conversations and political intentions that often permit some to make offers while at the same time maintaining an option not to move. I can't tell whether that is what is happening in this case with Senator Reid. But I want to respect his right to deny.

-- Steve Clemons

[whometense]

1. Carpetbagger has more

here:http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8107.html

[Mass]

2. And very disturbing. There is a person who is uniquely qualified to be

Democratic leader in the Senate, has been there for years, and is not ready to triangulate: Durbin.

This seems to me to be the wet dreams of those who think that the nominee has to be somebody from the South (whoever that is, they dont care as long as he/she is from the South) and are trying to offer an alternative to the person who appears to be the front-runner.

In passing, note that Kerry won Nevada (I think at least) and did very well in SC, while Edwards was still in the race, so you may wonder.

[wisteria]

3. I like your observations and take on all of this. Durban should be

Reid's successor-not Clinton.
I will also add that the one person who comes out well in the TWN is Edwards... hummm.

Also, on Edwards, I received an e-mail from him yesterday, and I have never requested to be placed on his list. I am left to wonder how he got it. I know I can request to be removed, but since he is contacting me, I think I will keep track of what he is up to.

[Firespirit]

29. As a Southerner...

I agree that the notion that we must have a Southern Democrat is absurd. It seems to be based on the premise that because our last two Democratic Presidents were Southerners, and Gore won the popular vote in 2000, we can't win unless we run one.

It's ridiculous.

The only part of the country that the candidate's native region might really matter to, is the South itself. And it's time for the "let's dump gobs of money into deep red states" types to realize that we're not going to win the Bible Belt South. It's a difference in culture and a difference in ideology. The fundie segment of the population is still thriving there, and they still get worked up over the same old hate-based "issues." That is the base of the Southern Republican Party. They'll vote GOP as long as the GOP makes national issues of their various hatreds.

However, a few Southern states might be reachable. Florida is possible if we can get a big enough lead to counter the corrupt elections problem, Virginia might be possible in years to come, and I've heard that Arkansas might be in play again, but I don't see any other state as viable for us in the near future.

This is going to sound really elitist, and maybe it is, but the problem is that a majority of Southerners just don't think the way we do. Even in Southern states where Bush has a net disapproval, people haven't changed their political ideologies. They're just disgruntled with him and this Congress, not with right-wing ideology itself, and would vote for a new, "untarnished" Republican before they would vote for any Democrat.

[TayTay]

31. I think that's very astute.

I think people spend too much time on the ones that we can't get. There are people who simply are not open to your message or candidate and chasing them is futile. Chasing the region, long-term, ala the 50 State strategy is not futile, but we need to recognize that it is a long-term project. (30 years or so.)

In the great liberal Comm of Massachusetts, 40% of the people self-identify as conservative. They always vote against Kennedy and Kerry and are a usual vote against any other progressive Dem. That's just the way it is. I don't spend any time on converting them. They are not available to me and not mine to 'get.' (They exist in the outer darkness and can't be brought back into the fold. They are the lost.)

[wisteria]

4. The position of democrat leader is not appointed, it is voted on

by all the Democrat Senators. There is no guarantee she would get a majority of votes.

I think this sounds like a bit of a puff piece for Edwards and Southern Democrats.

[whometense]

5. What do I know?

But I think it's more than that. It sounds to me like it might be the beginnings of a political "out" for HRC, and it would not surprise me one bit if the inside politics aspects of it proved to be true.

I agree that Durbin would be a wonderful leader, but the qualities he would bring to the job are very different from Clinton's. There seems to be more of a political affinity betweed Reid and Clinton than between Reid and Durbin (see yesterday's post here for more on that subject.)

Sure, it's a voted position - but really - it's never a real open vote. All the wrangling and arm twisting takes place backstage and pretty much out of public view. The vote is just a coronation.

[ginnyinWI]

7. Durbin may be too progressive for the DLC crowd.

At least I think he's further to the left. I want him to be Vice President under a President John Kerry. I can dream...

[whometense]

8. I agree -

I think they find him too liberal. And probably too gentle as well, more's the pity.

He'd make a great pick for VP for President Kerry, though since he comes from a solid blue state that will probably never happen.

I seem to have reacted to this story in an entirely different way from the others here. I thought it was pretty good news, considering. I don't think HRC could get the nomination, but I think she'd be a total disaster as nominee.

[wisteria]

9. Don't take me wrong, anything that keeps Sen. Clinton from running

is fine with me,and if this turns out to be true, then I wouldn't object to her being the leader in the Senate.
I just was trying to point out discrepancies in the piece, because I think this was planted to benefit Edwards.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. I have no doubt that Reid is Kerry's biggest intra-party foe

I haven't for a long time. This PROVES it.

I read on Chris Cilizza's The Fix that the Nevada primary is a huge coup for Edwards because he has actively been courting the union vote there - and guess whose fingerprints are all over that one? I have nothing against Edwards and it's not even that I think Reid is directly collaborating with him, but I think Reid is just out to rig the primaries to favor the strongest anti-Kerry out there, which at the moment is Edwards.

Reid is nothing but bad news. I wish Daschle was still there.

[karynnj]

10. What I don't understand is who would have an interest in leaking this.

I would assume that Reid could privately and confidentially speak to Hillary, if this were true. It is against her interest to repeat it. It's possible that Reid spoke to other Senators - to get their concurrance.

To me it looks like Reid is again letting power go to his head. The Nevada caucus gives him power and this would be a power play to get Hillary to pull herself from the race. I really dislke the way he has let almost none of the Senators to the left of him be the spokesperson on anything. He clearly resents Kerry trying to lead on anything and was extremely rude on the Iraq legislation.

What I don't get is the comment on talking to NE Republicans on Warner. It seems that for the last year the DLC, media and the powers at certain netroots sites have pushed Warner continuously - with no noticable affect in the polls. (He already had a NYT mag article and cover - Kerry got his first one in fall, 2004) It's interesting as it may be saying that as in 2004, they party has no sway and this time the media has very little too.

I do agree that the new line up is the anti-Kerry plan. It is a pro-Edwards plan, which could turn things more like a normal year. There's a very good chance that no one will sweep the first 4.

Edwards won only SC and NC last time. In SC, he got 45% to Kerry's 30%. Clark was in the single digits. In 2008, he will likely not be the only Southern - and may split the Southern white vote with Warner and Bayh. (Indiana is a Southern state that somehow is in the wrong place.) I seriously doubt that Edwards will win it as clearly as last time.

I also doubt the poll in Iowa is accurate. Even if it is, it is way too early and things change. If it still appears to be true, it leads to a stop Edwards (ABE) campaign by those who think he is too inexperienced on foreign policy. If Hillary is out and Gore doesn't run, it's Bayh or Kerry. One of those two has more gravitas and charisma, the other is from Indiana. (Warner and Vilsack also lack that experience. Clark still has no political experience). If Kerry wins Iowa or even is a close second - he can claim a comeback that people said couldn't happen - which might again let NH people who like him believe he can win.

Nevada as an early caucus state might be interesting.

[whometense]

11. Good question.

A comment at the Carpetbagger addresses a part of this: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8107.html#comment-48038

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 don't know that I agree - but I do have a lot of respect for Steve Clemons. He's not the type to post idle rumors.

[wisteria]

12. If you consider Wel's comments about Nevada and Edward's

courting the unions and you consider his "lead" in Iowa and the fact that he is a South Carolinian, than it would appear that he is a just about a shoe-in if Clinton doesn't run. Personally, I hope this is not true, I don't think he is ready for the top spot, nor do I think he deserves it. You have to give him credit for being sneaky, he has made his visits to Iowa and Nevada without much notice until now. I will have to google and see what he has done in SC.
My new description of Edward's is sneaky. it makes me wonder if that pre-release of book excerpts from his wife's book, where it is mentioned that Edward's didn't want to concede was planted on purpose.

He is beginning to look like a sneaky version of Bush to me. I like him less and less.

[Blaukraut]

14. Bingo

My new description of Edward's is sneaky. it makes me wonder if that pre-release of book excerpts from his wife's book, where it is mentioned that Edward's didn't want to concede was planted on purpose.

He is beginning to look like a sneaky version of Bush to me. I like him less and less.

I had that impression of him from the start. I understood, but did not agree with JK's choosing him as running mate. John Kerry really needs to watch his back with Edwards now.

[wisteria]

17. I agree, I know I will be keeping a watch on him.

I wasn't thrilled with Edward's when JK chose him either.

[WildEyedLiberal]

16. I'm not sure what to make of Edwards himself

I will reserve judgment until the primaries start heating up to see how he will decide to wage his campaign. The person who comes off sleaziest to me in all this is Reid. I do NOT trust Reid at all - IMO, his logic on this latest move is that a) Hillary cannot win and she will b) dilute the anti-Kerry vote. With Hillary out of the picture I think he is hoping to convince Dems to throw their support behind Edwards or Warner, or whoever emerges in 08 as the most viable opposition to Kerry. I think he may be using Edwards' popularity among the working-class union voters in his own state as an advantage - not to mention that he can voiceferously campaign against Kerry in Nevada. Reid is pure political backroom sleaze and should not be trusted for one minute.

That said, as the daughter of a working-class union family, I think Kerry needs to bust his ass to reach out to these people. Edwards is clearly and openly courting the populist vote, and Kerry shouldn't let him corner the market. His health care plan is a great way to reach out to middle America - I know health care and bread and butter issues like that are always on the top of my families voting priorities.

[wisteria]

20. Agree on your observations about Reid and also think Kerry does

need to couter Edward's movements.

[politicasista]

22. Your last paragraph nails it

That said, as the daughter of a working-class union family, I think Kerry needs to bust his ass to reach out to these people. Edwards is clearly and openly courting the populist vote, and Kerry shouldn't let him corner the market. His health care plan is a great way to reach out to middle America - I know health care and bread and butter issues like that are always on the top of my families voting priorities.

I agree, he needs to run with this.

[karynnj]

18. I really think if it looks more like Edwards this far out,

there will be a ABE movement. In 2004, his actual performance in the primaries was less than the media he generated. He did do better than expected in Iowa - 32% to Kerry's 38%. (The nonsense that had there been more weeks he would have won is based on the idea that if you project the increase he ot in the last few weeks over the next month, his percent would increase over Kerry's. They neglect to mention that Kerry's numbers were an increasng series too. They ignore that Edwards was not gaining people who switched to Kerry, or the hard core for the various other candidates, but the dwindling pool of people undecided at the end.)

If Edwards becomes the favorite, he will face a more intense spot light than in 2004. He has shifted positions all over the place. The NYT article that he "channeled" the voice of a baby who developed brain damage at birth creeps me out - the question should have been whether the doctor followed best procedures not emotionally driving the jury. I think the Frank Luntz focus group result is real - he can seem too slick.

Per the Kerry Iowa article, Edwards is in Iowa for his 11th visit. The comment on 2004 was misinterpreted here - it sounded to me like he was asking that they wait till all the votes were counted, not to fight the results. Nothing in the quote mentions fraud, exit polls, suppression etc. Just counting the votes. (the fact is, other than 2000, candidates routinely concede before all the votes are counted. Edwards did in many premaries.)

[wisteria]

21. I hope you turn out to be correct. n/t

[karynnj]

27. There 's a fair amount of wishful thinking in my post

I'm going from my own perception and that of people around me. What has surprised me is that there are some people who are intensely negative - not necessarily on a personal level but on a can-he-be-President level.

I've seen the polls. The Iowa poll was the only one that really made him look far stronger - and it's a poll of likely caucus goers. Even a week ahead in 2004, Kerry was, I think third, yet he got 38% of the vote competing in at least a 5 person contest. The gallup poll was good news for him - that most people "approved" of him - but even with that approval, he was tied with Kerry in the report that showed preference. (The question is whether he is a second choice to many that might implode or whether the news accounts of him rebuilding N O with college students and speaking about poverty - make people feel he is a good person, but not necessarily presidential material.

[Blaukraut]

13. Whatever Reid's motives may be

He is correct in one aspect - Senator Clinton cannot win the election, if nominated. His denial of the report is interesting, but expected. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the coming months, but I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton officially announces (after November) that she is not going to seek the nomination.

[zann725]

15. If HRC does succeed Reid...we WILL be a one-party system. DLC = Repug

in sheep's clothing. Baaaaad for Dem progress. Let's NOT move further backward folks (IF that's possible).

[wisteria]

19. Good point, she would be very powerful and would be responsible

for setting the Dem agenda and positions on issues.

[TayTay]

23. None of these dumb manipulations usually wind up working

They usually have unforeseen consequences and, in some cases, wind up doing the opposite of what was intended.

Everything is fluid right now. A lot will change based on what happens next week in the CT primary. Then it will change again in Nov, depending on what happens then.

I think all potentials should concentrate on being their own best selves and being their own authentic selves. Everything else is just so much snake oil right now.

[whometense]

24. Taylor Marsh

has an interesting take: http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=24329

...Raw Story is saying Reid's "office" is denying the story, which Clemons calls a "100% denial." Stuff like this drives me nuts, frankly. What does Reid's "office" mean? A receptionist, secretary, who exactly is denying the story? Clemons comment of "100% denial" is nowhere in the Raw Story account, so he's obviously been told from Reid's office that what he's reporting today is rubbish. In other words, Clemons, I and many others are hearing the same thing out of Reid's office. My source isn't for attribution, but it's good. Doesn't help much, now does it? Clemons is making it clear that Reid's people aren't going anywhere near his report. That said, Steve Clemons, whom I trust completely, is sticking to his reporting.

Meanwhile, Senator Clinton isn't talking. No surprise and I don't blame her.

I'm one of the few people who was never convinced she was running for prez. In fact, I would have advised her to do exactly what the Clemons piece is reporting: take the majority leadership role in the Senate instead. But then I saw her at Take Back America, which altered my impression quite a bit. If she's not running in '08, that decision has not been made yet, as far as I'm concerned.

There's a lot of "ruinous" prediction emails coming in from many readers regarding a Hillary run, which I completely understand. I'm also hearing relief exhales over the Clemons piece, but it could very likely be premature.

Others are talking about the difficulty the new Nevada primary poses to any Eastern Democratic candidate, especially Hillary or Kerry. Some say the new primary schedule, if adopted, favors Edwards. I don't know, because during the 2004 election the people I interviewed and spoke with in Nevada couldn't stand him. Lawyers weren't very popular in 2004...

[ProSense]

25. That's a pretty good assessment.

Read this thread and one thing comes to mind: Hillary Clinton build up! A lot of spin in today's events.


Question: What the hell took so long to bring Rumsfeld before the Armed Forces Committee?

People have been calling for his resignation for years. We're not even talking about withdrawal just losing the lunatic who's screw ups had/have life and death consequences.

[politicasista]

26. That "new" primary schedule looks scary n/t

[Firespirit]

28. Edwards is being heavily pushed.

Hillary is starting to look less and less viable, Bayh really brings nothing unique to the table, and Warner, whom I used to have a lot of respect for even if I didn't agree with him, is borderline corrupt. (He paid Jerome Armstrong of MyDD $60,000, $50,000 of it through a front company that Armstrong apparently set up specifically for the purpose of not having his name appear in public records. The purpose of this expenditure was "computer consulting," i.e., paid-for good press on a major blog, plus the ear of Kos.)

I personally haven't trusted Reid for awhile now. I agree with those who say he is trying to rig it for Edwards or Warner, whoever looks most viable. Honestly, though, I would hate to see the knives come out for Edwards, because I think a nasty fight between Kerry and Edwards would make the victor look really bad. The media would smell the blood in the water if that happened. We do not need to start off 2008 with a hangover from an ugly, negative primary.

If the primary is a referendum on foreign policy, I think JK could clean Edwards's clock along with everyone else's. Nobody else has the experience that he does. If it's about domestic policy, that's a bit iffier.

[wisteria]

30. I know that Kerry offers the best package. He knows the foreign

policy ropes and he offers hope on the domestic fronts with his health care plan,his ideas and help for small business, his initiatives for making us less dependant on foreign oil through scientific research. And, he is on the correct side regarding Global warming and stem cell research. I could go on and on.

Edwards is not Senator Kerry's equal on anything as far as I can tell.
I think for the establishment in Washington, he is more of a player and they may think they can control him. I am beginning to think Senator Kerry is too much his own man for their liking. (definition- a true leader)

I really want to continue liking and trusting Edwards,but I am finding it harder to do.

[karynnj]

32. Even on domestic policy, Kerry beats Edwards

if 2004 is what you are going by. Edwards had almost nothing on the environment and had a mediocre voting record. Kerry's health plan was better. Edwards has a very slim resume - even on domestic issues.

Edwards has several poverty things out - some may be good ideas - a few seemed half baked, in the sense that they did not seem worked out. I guess I see Edwards as more talk than substance.

A fight between Edwards and Kerry might actually look like the fight in 2004. Kerry simply laid out his plan, listed his experience (or some of it), and gave intelligent answers to everything. Other than a comment that Edwards was in likely in diapers when he was in Vietnam - when some commented that Edwards didn't serve - so it was almost defending him, I can think of no nasty Kerry comments.

I was recently reading "The candidate" on the 2004 primaries and was surprised that even in late February, Edwards was attacking Kerry - saying he couldn't pay for his programs. As Kerry essentially had the nomination, this was dumb - it was not true - Kerry is a fiscal conservative and on the Finance committee. It is also the most classic RW slur on democrats. (I didn't follow Edwards in 2004 as I liked Kerry - Edwards was always polite to Kerry in the debates, often giving near the same answer if he was second - so I was surprised to see this.)

The only thing I had heard that was underhanded, was that it was the Edwards people who pushed the "Kerry has no charisma" line - even if true, it's opinion and it is open to debate - people saw Kerry and made up their own minds. If this was the worst on either side, neither of these guys were bad.

[TayTay]

33. In the book 'One-car Caravan'

http://www.bookcloseouts.com/default.asp?N=0&Nty=1&D=One+Car+Caravan&Ntk=Default&Ntx=mode%2Bmatchallpartial&Dx=mode%2Bmatchallpartial&Ntt=One+Car+Caravan

Walter Shapiro writes a sequence at the end that is pure speculation about what the future Dems in the 04 race would be ike as President of the US. His fanatsy sequence on Kerry has him constantly worrying if he can trust Edwards and worrying if Edwards is loyal to him or to hir own future career.

That chapter was written after the selection of the VP for 04 was done. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[wisteria]

34. I feel bad about it, but I have the same feelings about Edwards. n/t

[politicasista]

35. delete n/t

never mind

[WildEyedLiberal]

36. Why are you just point-blank repeating anti-Kerry spin?

You need to stop being so defeatist. It sounds like you're promoting all the reasons Edwards should have gotten the nomination instead of Kerry. Why do you always repeat, word for word, every single talking point that's being promoted against him instead of telling us what you're going to do to correct these wrong impressions?

I'm sorry to be short but several of us have nicely told you that you are coming across as defeatist and constantly repeating anti-Kerry talking points and you continue to do it. Why?

[politicasista]

38. I am not

I am just tired of the negativity.

It feels like no one but us gets that "It's the corporate media stupid" No one understand that they have been brainwashed, they just accept that fact that Kerry was a terrible candidate and move on. I want to talk to people, but no one is going listen to me. I don't even bother bringing up the election anymore, cause it will probably generate controversy.

[WildEyedLiberal]

39. Why do you bring the negativity here then?

It seems like at least half your posts consist of "People say Kerry sucks, is a crap candidate, and should never run again" or some variation thereof. The rest of us hear the spin, too, but we fight against it, or ignore it if it's a lost cause. It seems like you spend more time obsessing on the negative smears against Kerry than focusing on why you support him in the first place. It's just frustrating to see the defeatism when there are so many ways you can easily defend him against the stream of negativity. It seems like your energy would be better spent on talking UP Kerry instead of just constantly obsessing over other people talking him down.

[politicasista]

40. There are just bad memories from 04 that come to mind

and are hard to blackout. I am just angry cause if they had spent more time focuing on the candidate, rather than buying into the spin, things will be different.

I am on your side, I really am. It's been a rough day, I am sorry everyone.

[WildEyedLiberal]

42. That's our job... to cut through the spin and show people the truth

Everyone has rough days, and some days are worse than others. No one ever said convincing the brainwashed is going to be easy or fun, or that it won't be an uphill battle. But it takes time and most importantly, perseverence. In the words of Winston Churchill, "Never, never, never, never, never give up."

Take a few days off from the blogworld if you need to. Sometimes you just need to get out and clear your head. When you spend a couple of days away from the blogs, it makes you realize how stupid and irrelevant to the real world most of the chatter really is. It's rejuvenating and helps recharge you when you get worn down by all the ignorance.

[politicasista]

44. Thanks for listening

I understand you weren't trying to be harsh. My cousin passed away this morning, so I am just frustrated and angry at what Blinky has done at the same time.

I will try your advice and just take a break from news and the blogs for a while.

[WildEyedLiberal]

46. Oh God sista I'm so sorry

:hug:

The LAST place you need to be now is listening to stupid bullshit on blogs. Take a break from the online stupidity and just spend some time with your family. That's way more important than blogs.

[wisteria]

48. I am very sorry to hear about your cousin passing away.

:hug: :hug:

[ProSense]

50. My condolences Sista!

A break is definitely in order. The negativity level is high and will only get worse.

May your cousin RIP.

:hug:

[Democrafty]

52. So sorry to read that.

We'll be thinking about you.

:hug:

[politicasista]

53. Thanks n/t

[TayTay]

55. Oh sweetie, I'm so sorry.

WEL is right, take a break. Mourn, be with your family, don't talk politics, just live for a little while. Come back when it feels right. We will be here for you.

My deepest sympathies to you and to your family.

[politicasista]

57. Thanks

:hi:

[Democrafty]

43. Try reminding people they're voting for a diplomat,

and not a movie star.

There are minds that are never going to change, and that's that. But when people are focusing are the wrong stuff (looks, charisma) don't feel bad telling them.

The Middle East is imploding under GWB's charisma. Who benefits?

Does this make sense?

[politicasista]

45. Thanks I will n/t

[wisteria]

47. Why not try to be assertive-take the lead. When someone mentions

another candidate and puts Kerry down, Tell them point blank nicely, that you don't agree and give an example of something positive about Kerry. There are plenty of examples to choose from. People need to be convinced, but in order to do that you have to be positive and know your stuff.
Sometimes I get the impression from you that it is easier to go along and agree rather than take the lead- no offense, many people like to feel like they are one of the crowd. Remember, Kerry has admitted mistakes and moved on. I am sure you would agree that on all the issues he ran on and all the statements he made about the Iraq War, he has more than proven he was right.
It is so important that we elect a true leader in 2008, not just a name or celebrity. You are doing your friends and your country a great service by demonstrating and promoting your support for Senator Kerry.

[blm]

51. BY NOW it should be apparent that it's a JOB to keep the truth front and

center. People either ACCEPT that job as a thinking concerned citizen or they accept and further SPREAD the lies because the media makes it easier to do so.

That's the bottom line - bad day or no. There is no excuse for accepting or spreading lies even if done as a matter of repetition, especially without posting a refutation - - - ever.

[politicasista]

54. Thanks.

It won't happen again. Honest. :)

[TayTay]

56. Sweetie, the arguments for '08 are not yet on the table.

They are still being formulated. The media is a beast that must be constantly fed, and we all know they will go with confrontation first because it makes a better story.

We have to get through the '04 midterms. While some people have chosen up sides for '08, not everyone has and a lot of the people who have only have this on the back-burner right now. My own state of Massachusetts has a very important Governor's race to run. (It has implications for '08, after all.) A lot of 'Kerry people' are dispersed working for the various Dem Gov candidates. They have work to do now, getting people organized, getting the candidates and people ready, getting a statewide effort going and so forth. I'm dead sure that is going on in other states as well.

It is not yet time for a full-court press on '08. There are powerful arguments to be made, but they should not interfere with a possible take-over of the Congress by the Dems this fall. All 'possibles' should be making every effort to achieve that goal. (We do have an imperial presidency to stop, after all.)

The powerful arguments will be powerfully made. Those who have learned things and learned how to better present their ideas will get their shot. The ones who are not overly pressing 'themselves' as an issue will begin to come forward more. Things done to stop judicial nominees will be remembered. Actions taken to strengthen the Gulf area after Katrina will be remembered and for all the right reasons. The opposition to the war in Iraq will grow and it will become more and more obvious who never gave up that fight. These things simmer right now, as they should. They should not erupt and suck all the oxygen out of the '06 race, but believe me, they are simmering away. It is not yet time for that. It is time to build a strong hand, not play it. That time will come.

[politicasista]

58. You're right. The tide is slowly turning

Everything will happen in due time. In fact, it's probably better that those who don't have the hype are flying under the radar. :)

We have a governor to keep and hopefully a new senator to elect.

[Firespirit]

37. The problem is the media narrative and public perception

Neither of which do much to promote Kerry's domestic agenda, but do give very good press to Edwards. I'm glad that JK has been giving the domestic policy Faneuil Hall speeches, because they highlight this part of his agenda that is often neglected or mischaracterized.

All too often, the problem isn't that we have poor ideas, but that the media decides what will be the "truth" and what will be proclaimed across the airwaves. The media would definitely favor Edwards.

[karynnj]

41. The media clearly favored Edwards in 2004

They CREATED the whole idea that there was a 2 man race between Edwards and Kerry after Dean imploded in Wisconsin. Kerry had a solid win over Edwards in Wisconsin and a huge share of the delegates. (That was when Edwards made the comment that "Things seen in a rear view mirror can be closer than they seem.)

At this time there were polls from CA, NY, MA and the other upcoming primary day's states - Kerry was over 5o% ahead in some - the came was over. To win, Edwards had to get the vast majority of the remaining states - and he was clearly losing those states.

The chance Edwards had to win was to do well on the first multi-state day. The states, SC,OK,MO,ND,AZ,NM, and DE should have been ones he would do very well in if he was ultimately going to win. When he just won SC and Kerry won 5 states - CNN called it a big win for Kerry and a "smaller" one for Edwards. Realisticly, it was a sign Edwards was going nowhere.

(The Shapiro comment was interesting as he spent so much time with all of them - as the MA people think he did a reasonable job getting who Kerry was, i wouldn't dissmiss it.

[blm]

49. Media would favor Edwards to make Kerry look bad, and then if Edwards

became the nominee they would rejoice in and exaggerate every misstep he made discussing foreign policy or gay marriage until they made him look like a goodlooking but empty suit to fit the storyline that they will create for him against McCain or Allen.

[whometense]

59. Update:

Ezra Klein: http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=11914

...Before running through her qualifications for the job, it's worth explaining why she'd want it in the first place. After all, Clinton is the unquestioned front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. She commands an unmatched war chest, an unrivaled collection of political talent (headed by her legendarily adroit husband) and star power that most putative candidates can only dream of.

But if her candidacy gleams in theory, its reality looks a little dimmer each day. Clinton is a polarizing figure, commanding a strong base of support but little room for growth. A CBS News poll in late July found her favorables at 32 percent and her unfavorables at 39 percent -- a worrying ratio for a figure so well established in the public mind...

...Worse yet, the blogs -- the weathervane of the emergent left — can't stand Clinton. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, proprietor of the liberal megasite Daily Kos, even took to The Washington Post to write of his distaste. And her problems don't stop with the primaries -- surveys show she routinely loses to John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in head-to-head matchups.

So whatever the hype, Clinton's path to the presidency isn't an easy one. But the road to Senate leadership may be. Clinton possesses qualities that could turn the thankless, grueling realities of congressional preeminence into something glamorous and powerful. She's a human megaphone, for one, able to focus the press corps on whatever it is she wishes to say that morning. Such a skill would prove invaluable to a legislative leader, allowing her to set the agenda and advance her priorities even from the minority...

[wisteria]

60. He makes some valid points on her qualifications for the leader

position. My complaint would be she is still a Jr. Senator and others are more deserving than herself of this position. Also, I believe this is not an appointed position, but an elected one.

[ginnyinWI]

61. I'd like to see Dick Durbin in the job.

He has such a good speaking style. When he looks at the camera and talks, you have to believe he's sincere. And I do think he's also got the required resolve and spine to keep the caucus in line.

[whometense]

62. I agree with you, actually.

I just like the parts about how hard a road she'd have to the nomination.

Personal biases (and current polls) aside, I think she'd be a disastrous choice.

[TayTay]

63. I do too!

I can see her at the helm though. She might not be a bad Majority Head for the Senate for a Dem PRez to deal with and to have 'carry his water' in the Senate. (I would write his/her, but if the good Jr. Senator from NY doesn't run, then it's all hims.)

[ginnyinWI]

64. also the way it might help JK politically

if she were to step out of the picture.

Which brings up the question, just what is Sen. Clinton good at, anyway?
Is she good at politics or policy? Should she head the DNC, for example? I just don't see much of a record. She's got the name, and the presumed support of her husband.

And that reminds me of another thing: all this talk about how women will vote for her to advance the cause of women is so bogus, because she got where she got due to her husband's name and position. Sure she's smart and presumably helped Bill out on some things, but who would people actually be voting for if she ran for president? Her win would not be a vote for women's independence and credibility as much as it would be the same old thing: riding on a man's coattails.

[Democrafty]

65. Amen.

Her Senate remarks are always peppered with, "this isn't the way my husband used to do it!" It's actually kind of sad.

[ProSense]

66. Well said!

The blog article was an excellent assessment of the political realities versus the media hype. I can see Hillary Clinton in a lot of roles because she is smart, and to your last point: exactly!

[wisteria]

68. Thats what I call it too- riding his coat tails,but with a small record

of accomplishments.

[paulk]

67. some thoughts on this

As Klein also points out - the new primary line up is not going to make it hard for just HRC, but also for Kerry. There seems to be a plan afoot to take the liberals out of the race - both Kerry and HRC (and HRC is a liberal, despite the popular opinion in the lefty blogosphere) and supplant them with someone like Edwards, Warner, Bayh, or Vilsack. Southern/midwest/western centrists... I can easily see Reid, who is no liberal, being party to a plan like this. He clearly doesn't want another Kerry run, either.

----------------


Another thing - not related - I really think Klein is wrong about the influence of the lefty blogosphere. Having Kos against you could very likely be a plus for HRC... Yes, I know the Lamont/Lieberman race will be held up as proof of the "emergent left's" influence, but I'm not buying. The freeper left (and that's how I see the Kos/move on/DU crowd)is no more emergent than it's ever been - the internet has just given them a bigger soapbox to stand on.

[ProSense]

69. Kos is not the

freeper left, and is very much for Warner!

[paulk]

70. yeah, I know, Kos isn't personally

but, his website sure is, and Kos is seen by many to be more on the fringe than he is.

[whometense]

72. Sadly,

I believe you're right about this.

In fact, more and more lately I've been seeing things through a Kerry vs. Reid prism, and being aware of exactly how much the dem establishment is lining up against Kerry. It makes me angry and it makes me sad, but that's beside the point. The point is, what can be done to make it go away?

I'm getting almost as angry at the dem establishment (DLC?) as any rabid Kossack these days.

[politicasista]

73. You and paulk are right, what can we do?

I too am growing very disillusioned with Reid and the rest of the DC establishment.

It is clear they are pushing those mentioned above. It still makes me mad the support he didn't get in 04. If he runs, who are the dems he can really count on for 08?:shrug:

[TayTay]

74. The value of the sites like DU and DKos are not

in the discussion boards. The discussion boards are all that a lot of people see though. The power of these boards is as an organizing tool. There are a certain number of people who just post on boards like DU. That's fine, but it's not powerful.

There are a certain number of people who read about current events and then sign petitions and make phone calls. That indicates a little bit of power here and there.

There are people who contribute to candidates and causes through the web sites and internet appeals. That is something that needs paying attention to.

Then there are people who use the board to identify hard-core supporters, get them together and put them to work doing things. These are motivated people who 'show up' to get real work done. That is the most powerful use of these boards. It is something to be reckoned with and used properly.

The DU forums are the Starbucks of the poli-web. People come in, have a cup of coffee, a dsicussion or argument, and are free to leave at will. That is nice, but not ultimately worth that much to a real pol. (It does educate people and that is 'not nothing.') The real power of the poli-web is to put people in touch with those who need their help. The real power is getting people to get up off their chairs, shut the computers off and meet with others who feel the same way. Ahm, that is happening. That is poli-web 2.0 and it is what will be there in force in '08. (Choose up sides soon, because this has to be done before a lot of people already make candidate committments.)

[demdiva]

71. I've heard rumblings of this for quite awhile

I think it would be a good move for her and for the Party

[karynnj]

75. The media may be pushing Hillary too fast and too much

On Wednesday, I stopped at a local Barnes and Noble, where I have met some people who work there in the past. As I came in the door, a young college age woman was putting the Time magazines (with Hillary on the cover out). She commented to her boss that she would leave the country if Hillary won. Seeing a customer, she immediately then told me that she likely wouldn't as she hadn't left when Bush won and he was a thousand times worse.

Both she and her boss - likely moderate to liberal Democrats from other comments - were sick of Clintons. Neither were sure who they were for - I mentioned that Kerry had none of the characteristics they disliked in the Clintons. Both had liked him, but weren't sure for 2008.