Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is it so bad for Hillary to accept Senate Majority Leader?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Araxen Donating Member (826 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:18 PM
Original message
Is it so bad for Hillary to accept Senate Majority Leader?
Edited on Sun Mar-23-08 11:18 PM by Araxen
That she has to kill the democratic party's chances for the Presidency this year? You would think she would be happy with that and just admit defeat in a graceful way instead of the sore loser way like she's doing now. McCain better than Obama? ::puke::

I hope she does the right thing and tries to save the Clinton name from the gutter trash her and bill have turned it into so far this election year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. slime away nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm afraid she would sabotage anything that Obama would want to pass
I don't trust her, and I don't want her in a position to dictate what legislation will be considered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. oh, now that is really low
crawl back under your rock
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Araxen Donating Member (826 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Well I honestly do not believe she would do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fadedrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. I totally agree that she would not be my choice to advance Obama's agenda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Olney Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. Flamebait

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlyingSquirrel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. No, just opposing viewpoint from your own.
She has even been mentioned for SCOTUS. Either one would be nothing to sneeze at.

On the other hand, I have to say I disagree that she's had such a negative effect on the Obama campaign. So far the negative things she's said and done have mostly just reflected badly upon herself. Some of the things that have come up have not even likely come from her campaign.

I'd be happy to see her stay in till June 3 to give Obama lots of free press, a real campaign in the remaining states that will raise interest in his campaign for the GE... lots of good reasons to see her stay in and IMO they outweigh the few bad things that could come of it.

Just so long as it doesn't go to the Convention with a battle for the nom there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Olney Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. The term "gutter trash" bothers me, FS.
I wish both sides would refrain from such terms.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
16. Not only flamebait, but really STUPID flamebait. The OP doesn't know how a Majority Leader is
chosen, apparently, thinking it's a PRIZE that Saint Obama will hand out, like candy at Halloween.

Harry Reid got the job because his PEERS voted him in--same way Nancy Pelosi got her gig in the OTHER chamber.

I can't believe how politically UNAWARE some of the most ardent "supporters" are here. They don't know history, they don't know the roles, the process, NADA. It's ..... tiresome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnny__Motown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. I don't see how she can be effective in that position anymore, she fucked up to much lately
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chascarrillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. I think it would be so bad to offer that position to her.
After all this crap, do you trust her in that role?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BenDavid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
11. The only ones that have placed the clintons name in the gutter
is the obama campaign with the help of the whoremedia that played the race card real good against the clintons. They will always remain a positive influence whereas i cannot say that about the way obama and his campaign has had to try and win this nomination.

There is enough chit on obama that it should have already disqualified him from seeking the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Precisely. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
12. Hillary doesn't deserve, and is not owed, any special post. She should be thankful to remain NY Sen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
13. Would you like a job as a janitor? We'll give you a new mop and broom!!!
Would that make YOU happy? If we gave you that swell job, sweeping up after folk and arranging the chairs for them to sit in, would you gracefully admit defeat and stop starting idiotic threads?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Araxen Donating Member (826 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #13
25. it's only idiotic if you disagree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Sure, keep telling yourself that. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
15. Senate Majority Leader has to do with seniority.
She's not there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. No it doesn't. A FRESHMAN could be majority leader if his peers wanted him to have the gig.
Christ!!!

LBJ wasn't "senior" when he got the job.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Well excuse the fuck out of me for being wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Never mind.
I just get...frustrated...when the basics are muddied. I do think they're important.

We're actually of the same mind in many regards. I agree with your sig line, certainly.

If seniority were the issue, poor old Robert Byrd would be trying to deal with that gig. And Strom Thurmond would have had it before him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. I really thought it was based on seniority combined with voting from their peers.
Robert Byrd as majority leader? lol - can you imagine?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 04:25 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Years ago, it was. The most senior guys would decide who would be "allowed" to take the job.
The senior guys would strut around and tell the caucus who to vote for, and they all fell in line. And then, that person would be the puppet of the most senior guys. LBJ shook up that paradigm. He got the job, and he seized the power that went with it. He shook up the whole "waiting in line" process for getting on the plum committees, too.

Robert Byrd, as President Pro Tempore of the Senate, is actually third in line to the Presidency, right after Big Dick and Madame Speeeekah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate

He'd do a better job than GWB, I'd wager--at least he respects the Constitution...!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 02:32 AM
Response to Original message
18. Russ Feingold has shown leadership in the Senate
over these long hard dangerous years
and he has the seniority to get the votes.

She had her leadership chance in the Senate
on her Vote for the Iraqi War.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Feingold likely voted for Reid. And "she" didn't RUN for the job.
You have to put your name forward for the job, you know. It's not an "assigned" duty. You have to want it, and run for it--it's an internal election.

Seniority isn't a prerequisite either--hasn't been since the fifties.

Or maybe you don't know.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. I do know ....... however Harry was voted on his
ability to align the neo-liberals.

The last choices of the Democrats hasn't been too hot, has it?

I thought Tom Dashle sucked
the last one I admired was Lyndon Johnson,

I didn't care,too much, for Mansfield, Byrd or Dashle( who didn't have seniority or tenure)
But Mansfield at least pushed for impeachment
of Nixon.

Hillary is not a Progressive although she has a genuine
claim to be a liberal in many people's mind ignoring
her Neo-liberal viewpoint.

The Populist Progressives are the new answer to the party
and not the revisionists of the past failures to help lead us
to the future.

But that's my opinion, which I know doesn't convalesce with yours.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC