Sooner or later, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is going to lose the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. This, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, is a "known known." So the question arises: what should whoever loses do next?

Now, while many are holding out hope for a "Dream Ticket" with both their names on it, I personally don't think it's going to happen. Choosing a running mate is just about the only fun thing the candidate gets to do during their entire campaign. And they rarely choose the person everyone expects them to. They also rarely choose former contenders for the nomination, although it does sometimes happen. They usually either choose someone who they are personally comfortable with (think: Dick Cheney), or someone who their campaign managers assure them will "bring them votes" either geographically or otherwise (think: L.B.J.).

So I'm writing this on the assumption, flawed though it may turn out to be, that one of the two contenders for the Democratic prize is going to go home empty-handed. This is going to be a crushing blow for their supporters, and for themselves personally as well.

So what I would like to suggest is something they can do to immediately regain their relevance. Since both candidates are sitting senators, whoever loses the nomination should immediately challenge Harry Reid for the Senate Majority Leadership.

Harry Reid has been, shall we say, a disappointment. While he occasionally manages to say the right thing and make strong verbal points, when it comes to backing this tough talk up with action, he falls woefully short of expectations.

This could be disastrous for either President Obama or President Clinton (if Hillary wins, will we have to start numbering them the way the Bush folks do: "President Clinton 42" and "President Clinton 44"?). Because picking up nine or ten Senate seats in this election cycle is most likely an impossibility. But that is exactly what Senate Democrats need in order to stop the Republicans from obstructing everything -- a 60-vote majority. If they can't manage that, the Senate Republicans are going to remain relevant. And they're going to try to stop everything they can.

This means that even with a Democrat in the White House, and even with control of both houses of Congress, the Senate Majority Leader is only going to be able to move legislation by peeling off a few Republicans to gain that magic 60 votes. Which also means that the Majority Leader is going to be the key to getting anything done in Washington.

Since Harry Reid is so obviously unable to perform this job with any sort of success rate, his leadership role should be called into question, and challenged by either Senator Clinton or by Senator Obama.

Both Hillary and Barack are probably going to run for president again at some point in the future. Whoever loses this time around will likely be back in four years (if McCain wins) or eight (if the Democrat wins). They're both young enough and have enough drive to go through the campaign process again. And what could be better for them than taking the second-most important position in Washington in the meantime?

Hillary's big strong point in her campaign has been "experience." But although she claims "35 years" of such experience, she's really only been in elected office for seven years. Her other campaign strong point has been "getting things done," to counter Obama's sunny optimism. Hillary argues that she is a nuts-and-bolts type who knows how to get laws passed. Well, if she loses this year, there is no better position to actually do that than Majority Leader of the Senate.

Barack has been running on "change" and uniting the country to get beyond the old partisan games. He has also been criticized for lack of experience, since he's been in national politics for a shorter period than Hillary. Or, if you look at it another way, he's been in public office longer than she has (if you count his Illinois experience). Either way, he's been painted as somewhat of a lightweight when it comes to achievements. This isn't entirely fair, but that's the perception that exists among many Democratic voters. Well, what would gain Barack more experience than leading the Senate while Hillary is in the Oval Office? It would be the supreme test of his abilities to get beyond partisanship to have to deal with Republicans as Majority Leader. Could he get enough of them to go along with Democratic ideas? Like I said, it would be the perfect test of his rhetoric on the campaign trail.

I actually think either one of them would be successful as Senate Majority Leader. Either one of them could do a better job than Harry Reid has been doing. It would give either of them a lot of power, and a lot of responsibility. And it would be the perfect place for either to gain experience for their next run at the White House. Hillary would enrage some Republicans and perhaps strengthen their resolve not to let Democrats get anything done, but Hillary is a masterful politician and fights back hard, so she would be a formidable opponent for the Republicans in the Senate. Barack would be looking to show he can appeal across the aisle without acrimony and get some Republicans on board. And it would forever lay to rest talk of either one of them not having enough experience to be president.

So whoever leaves the Democratic Convention this year as a graceful loser should immediately begin garnering support in the Senate in order to challenge Harry Reid for the Majority Leadership. It would benefit them, it would benefit the party, and it would benefit America by letting Congress get some things done for a change.

-- Chris Weigant