Skip to comments.Pro: Clinton’s the only Democrat who can win in 2012
Posted on 10/23/2010 5:36:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
EDITORS NOTE: The writer is addressing the question, Should Hillary Clinton challenge President Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012?
The latest buzz flitting among the Georgetown salons is that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will switch jobs with Vice President Joe Biden and take his place on the Democratic ticket in 2012.
Thats one of the tidbits being peddled by Bob Woodward to promote his new book Obamas Wars and it has Democratic loyalists desperate to salvage a rapidly failing Obama presidency atwitter with unbridled joy.
As a rumor, its intriguing. As common sense, it doesnt pass Logic 101.
Why, after all, would the worlds top diplomat want to chug from John Nance Garners warm bucket when she could be sipping a Pimms Cup in the Oval Office on Jan. 20, 2013? With the economy unlikely to have recovered the Clinton-era glow of the 1990s, its far more likely that Hillary will challenge Obama at the start of 2012. If she does, that smart money in the Democratic Party will flow into her coffers like water rushing over the Hoover Dam.
Ah, but what about Woodwards prediction that Hillary will be a good team player and wait until she is 71 to make a 2016 quest for the Oval Office? Throughout the years since he chronicled the Watergate scandal with Washington Post colleague Carl Bernstein, Woodward has been a font of delicious speculationsnot all of them based in reality.
Be that as it may, theres good reason to view Woodwards forecast of Hillary as veep as a mere throwaway linedesigned to create a momentary sensation.
Anyone who knows the Clintons well knows they have no love lost for either Barack or Michelle Obama. Both believe they were outmaneuvered by the Illinois upstart in the Democratic primaries because they received terrible advice from top campaign aides, including several they now believe were moles for Obama.
In truth, only Hillarys belief in her grand destiny allowed her to accept the secretary of state offer from Obamaa stripped-down post considering the president had already named four special envoys to the Middle East, Americas key area of foreign policy concern. Her acceptance also relegated Bill Clinton to a quiet corner of the public stagerendered all but mute in voicing any criticism of the Obama White House.
There is every reason to believe that the Clintons will deliver a comeuppance to the Obamas in 2012. By that time, both will look like eminence grises after the amateurish performance of Obama and his buffoonish advisers during his first term.
The dozens of Democratic senators and House members now fleeing any association with the administrations disastrous health-care and stimulus bills are unlikely to return to the fold. Many, indeed, already are urging the Clintons to reclaim their party before it is destroyed by Obamas rigid ultra-left ideology.
A longtime Clinton insider says the couple are prepared to move their governing philosophy even more to the moderate center than they did after the sweeping Republican gains in the 1994 congressional mid-term elections.
The Clintons may have started out as ideologues, she said, but they quickly realized that pragmatism is the true art of successful politics, and they have been constantly fine-tuning their political philosophies.
The woman, a close friend of the Clintons for more than four decades, also pointed out another reason Hillary cant wait until 2016.
The constant travel and the never-ending demands of the secretary of states office are taking a devastating toll on her, she said. She turns 63 this month, but shes starting to look more like 70 although shes in excellent physical health.
Heres betting Hillary will look years younger and be all smiles when she delivers her inaugural address from the west steps of the Capitol in early 2013.
Bogdan Kipling is a Canadian columnist based in Washington. Readers may write to him in care of the National Press Club, 13th Floor, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20045, or e-mail him at email@example.com.
“Oh, there’ll be a female delivering the inaugural adress in early 2013, but it won’t be Hillary!”
Amen to that!
Their debate would be a visually distinct disadvantage for Hillary.
And so it begins....
First, His worshipfullness is going nowhere. If they managed to pry him off the 2012 ticket 90% of the blacks would go nuts and vote GOP out of spite or stay home. The ‘rats categorically can’t win the white house without the African American vote.
Second, Hillary! is not what this country wants. They chose Obama because even the ‘rats are sick of the Clintons. She is also damaged by being so closely tied to Obama.
He'll spend the rest of his life making millions for reading 5 minute speeches off teleprompters at liberal universities slamming the racist, stupid, public that just didn't appreciate him.
Theres is much more that can be said about being a "progressive".. Many tacts to take and tactics to air concerning the progressives..
IF THEY RUN Hillary.. it might be easier than if they run Zero...
The democrat and republican female ditz's can be reached..
I know she plans on running because she’s letting her hair grow. As many times as she denies it now and in the future, she will run again. The NWO puppet masters have decided it is her turn to “govern” this too-independent-for-its-own-good nation.
The Imam is guaranteeing the destruction of the RAT party.
Oh man! I’d love to see Bammies ego crushed by being passed over for Hillary at the convention.
Note: If Hillary Clinton challenges Obama for the nomination, historically it means doom for the party, the opposing party wins
Whenever there is an insurgent challenge against an incumbent President, the party is in so disarray, the President is so weaken further and the party cannot heal deep the wounds in time to organize for a victory
1. 1968 - LBJ knew what was going to happen, he was going to be challenged heavily so he quit before it happen, despite that the party was still in turmoil with doves vs LBJ’s hawks, he was weak and the Dems fell apart
2. 1980 - Carter was further weaken even though he held off Ted Kennedy’s challenge in the primaries. Despite this, Kennedy refused to drop out, and the 1980 Democratic National Convention was one of the nastiest on record. Of course the economy was the main factor for Carters defeat to Reagan, but the disarray in the party didn’t help
3.1992 - Although Pat Buchanan didn’t seriously challenge Bush, it was none the less weakening for Bush
Anybody have a link to the video where the Hildabeast is speaking terrible Ebonics at that black church?
Yeah sure. The Clinton's are really, really "moderates." That's a laugh. Hillary Clinton is finished in elective politics. Chances of being elected in 2012, 2016 --- Zero! Hillary will be 70 years of age in 2016. No one will want to see an old shrew like her as President. And Palin will oust Obama and his marxist crazies from White House in 2012.
2012 ticket 90% of the blacks would go nuts and vote GOP out of spite or stay home.
Go ahead, Dems....run her. Then we will be rid of you bastards for good.
I'll never forget that HillaryCare was first outed by a female reporter from New Republic magazine, of all places. She read the whole bill, and discovered that doctors and patients who tried to go outside her system were subject to bribery charges, fines and imprisonment.
Don't be fooled. She's a mega-control freak of the worst order, just like Obama.
What are you smoking?
The longer Hillary stays in the 0bama administration the worse her chances are in becoming president in 2012 or any year for that matter. Personally I think it is too late for her anyway no matter what she does.
A certain small percentage would still vote, but the numbers would be way down from 2008. A great many would stay home or even vote for the Republican. Which would effectively kill any chance of Hillary getting elected.
I could go no further when I read “Georgetown salons”. What are they bordellos? :)