Daschle Losing Leadership Question

Sibby doesn't think much of the Kranz piece about Daschle stepping down as Senate leader. First, I think it's a breakthrough that this piece was reported at all. But second, it's also clear that Kranz did not report on much of the other evidence of Daschle's leadership position being in jeopardy from other sources like National Journal, other articles in The Hill, the American Prospect, The Nation, The American Spectator etc. I think that's a problem, but at least some of the evidence was addressed. The larger question might be historical. What exactly is the shelf-life of a Democratic Senate leader? Daschle took over when George Mitchell decided not to run again, after serving as leader for about six years. Before that, Robert Byrd, who campaigned for Daschle in his 1980 race, served about 10 years. Before that was Mansfield, who served quite some time (but didn't have to worry about Republicans very much since the Democrats dominated the Senate), and then LBJ, who left to serve as VP. Before that, the two Democratic Senate leaders, McFarland and Lucas, were defeated running for re-election. Based on the above citations, it's clear that there is frustration among Democrats with Daschle. If Kerry loses this fall and the Senate stays Republican, let's face it, there will be tremendous pressure for a new face for the Democrats. As the above articles indicate, there's lots of jockeying going on already to be Daschle's replacement. It just seems to me, in the interest of complete disclosure and accurate reporting, that the Argus should report on all these goings-on. Obviously, Daschle hates this kind of speculation because his whole re-election effort is premised on the notion of "clout," but that is precisely why his ability to hold on to his leadership post should be the subject of much scrutiny--if clout is Daschle's only rationale for re-election, then let's have a serious debate with all the information on the table about his staying power. Just because Daschle doesn't like it and puts tremendous pressure on reporters not to talk about such things doesn't mean the voters shouldn't hear about it. Oh, and a note to reporters--calling up Senators Dorgan and Corzine and asking them what they think about such a question does not constitute journalism. It's puffery.