Ask 'Arry

For me, and this is purely personal, Harry Reed's tenure as Leader of the Senate has been, for the most part, perturbing. His actual ascent to his current position has always mystified me, although liberal on many issues close to progressive hearts his pro-life leanings and limp wristed management of the Senate has not endeared him to many on the left and even to a plurality in the center. The 110th Congress came to DC with a true mandate and Harry squandered the opportunity by trying to placate rather than finish off a realing minority. To a great extent his hands were tied by the oppositions unconstitutional insistence upon a sixty vote majority for all important - read Democratic - policy initiatives, the mere threat of filibuster supplanting the very need to actually sustain one, but, Harry could always have threatened the 'nuclear option' as did Frist, this reluctance, on his part, to do so or even threaten such will doom him to a lesser role in the 111th Congress.

I am perfectly OK with that if it plays out. My prefered choice to lead the senate is Hillary Clinton and I'm sure this scenario has been gamed by both Obama's team and Hillary's. She is the logical choice and perhaps the most qualified to fill that role, plus, the thought of wingnut heads exploding at the very mention of such an outcome is nothing short of delicious.