Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Hillary for Pres 2012????

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Hillary for Pres 2012????
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ran across this on a conservative blog and thought it sounded plausible. What do you think?

quote:
It seems odd that a failed foreign policy might be the basis for a president's secretary of state to replace him on the presidential ticket - but it is beginning to set up that way.


Of course, as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton cannot plausibly be assigned any responsibility for a bad economy and high unemployment. Nor, perhaps ironically, would her fingerprints be on a stunningly unpopular health care plan that: (1) increases the national debt by trillions, (2) increases the cost of health care premiums for the middle class, (3) increases taxes on the middle class, while also (4) reducing the benefits to the middle class.


Nor, curiously, is she likely to be seen as responsible for the Obama administration's foreign policy. It has repeatedly been reported in major newspapers that she is one of the most marginalized secretaries of state in modern times. The White House has made little effort to disabuse the press and the public of that view. She was not even included in the president's Moscow Summit. She is seen as the good soldier and team player with little voice in policy.

What better position could Hillary have been given that would keep her in the lime light yet keep her distant from this administrations decisions. Obama takes the fall for instituting liberal policies that will be the downfall of the nation, and Hillary stands ready to take the seat as the "less liberal than Obama but not Bush" candidate.
Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would be very rare for a serious primary fight to develop over a sitting president. The major parties always rubber stamp the incumbent except in very rare cases.

This seems like wishful thinking.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It would be very rare for a serious primary fight to develop over a sitting president. The major parties always rubber stamp the incumbent except in very rare cases.

This seems like wishful thinking.

It seems like delusional thinking to me.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the economy is still in the tank 2 years from now then she might give it a shot. I mean unemployment still above 10% and growth at a minus or small positive number. People out of work for 2 or more years at that time will want change.

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama would have to admit to being a child molester in order for the scenario above to happen.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What scenario? The economy still being bad? This is about what Hillary thinks, not what Obama is doing. He may be doing all he can, or at least thinks he can, but if the economy is still in trouble 2 years from now, I can see Hillary thinking about giving it a shot. I am not saying it is a good idea on her part, from a Democratic point of view, but I think she has the balls to do it.

We will have to agree to disagree and see what happens in 2 years. I HOPE the economy is doing better by then.

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think Hillary will have a shot.

She'd need to have a credible case that she'd do better than Obama in the next four years. She could get some credibility if she starts going on the record now in opposition to Obama policies and can later make a plausible case that if Obama had followed her advice things would be better.

But that would put her in opposition to the party leadership - because it'd be hard to do the above without helping the GOP - and that'd forestall any career advancement within the party.

Like jasonr said, Obama would have to fall extremely hard for this to even be a remote possibility, IMO - because without a chance in hell, she's smart enough to wait.

[ November 11, 2009, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Obama takes the fall for instituting liberal policies that will be the downfall of the nation, and Hillary stands ready to take the seat as the "less liberal than Obama but not Bush" candidate.
Except that, if the situation is half as bad as you describe, there is little chance that the Democrats would take the White House in that year. So why would Hillary throw away her chance of winning by running in a losing year?

From the last election I remember that conservatives tend to demonize Hillary and expect her to do whatever she believes is best for herself, regardless of the damage it does to anyone around her. But she did graciously cede the nomination to Obama when the time came, and was pretty much a team player for the rest of the campaign. So I don't see her sticking it to her own party, especially with only a small chance of winning.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What scenario? The economy still being bad? This is about what Hillary thinks, not what Obama is doing. He may be doing all he can, or at least thinks he can, but if the economy is still in trouble 2 years from now, I can see Hillary thinking about giving it a shot. I am not saying it is a good idea on her part, from a Democratic point of view, but I think she has the balls to do it.

We will have to agree to disagree and see what happens in 2 years. I HOPE the economy is doing better by then.

msquared

Are you joking? A bad economy in 3 years might give the whitehouse to a Republican but something apocalyptically horrendous would have to happen on his watch for Obama to get supplanted by Hillary. Has that even happened before?
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Given that they're 0 for 4 on the basic facts about the healthcare bill, the rest of their evidence is pretty suspect out of the gate.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clark
Member
Member # 2727

 - posted      Profile for Clark   Email Clark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Has that [sitting president losing his party's primary] even happened before?
Perhaps a long, long time ago. We haven't had too many 1 term presidents recently. Bush lost to Clinton, Carter lost to Reagan and Ford lost to Carter. Evidently the republican primary in 1976 was pretty close (54%/46%) but that was certainly somewhat of an anomaly with Ford never having been elected either president or vice president.

I'm not even sure who would be the next president before that to look at. Hoover? I lose track of the ones that replaced a president that died, and if they were eligible to run for another term or not.

Posts: 420 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I don't think Hillary will have a shot.

She'd need to have a credible case that she'd do better than Obama in the next four years. She could get some credibility if she starts going on the record now in opposition to Obama policies and can later make a plausible case that if Obama had followed her advice things would be better.

But that would put her in opposition to the party leadership - because it'd be hard to do the above without helping the GOP - and that'd forestall any career advancement within the party.

Like jasonr said, Obama would have to fall extremely hard for this to even be a remote possibility, IMO - because without a chance in hell, she's smart enough to wait.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Obama takes the fall for instituting liberal policies that will be the downfall of the nation, and Hillary stands ready to take the seat as the "less liberal than Obama but not Bush" candidate.
Except that, if the situation is half as bad as you describe, there is little chance that the Democrats would take the White House in that year. So why would Hillary throw away her chance of winning by running in a losing year?

From the last election I remember that conservatives tend to demonize Hillary and expect her to do whatever she believes is best for herself, regardless of the damage it does to anyone around her. But she did graciously cede the nomination to Obama when the time came, and was pretty much a team player for the rest of the campaign. So I don't see her sticking it to her own party, especially with only a small chance of winning.

The original post was presented as part of a worst case scenario for Obama. You’re right of course, it would be political suicide for Hillary to run against a sitting president if his personal approval numbers remain decent. If the unemployment numbers do not just stay at 10+%, but increase (as seems likely) and if the looming inflation and a dramatic drop in the dollar’s value create a run on the banks, then Obama takes the fall (though liberals will still issue Bush's name as an invective).

That is when, for the sake of the party, Hillary steps in. Having been kept clean (that is all she'll need, just to keep clean) from the whole fall-out of bad administrative decision (she is already considered the most out-of-inside-circle Secretary of State ever) then she would be the most recognizable and most popular (her approval rating are in the mid 60% range now, higher than any other cabinet member) democratic candidate.

So Obama moves this country radically left, takes the fall-out for it and becomes ANOTHER Democratic one term president, and the Democratic party still has a very electable Hillary. End game: Dems keep the White House. It seems like a strategic and logical game plan.


quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
What scenario? The economy still being bad? This is about what Hillary thinks, not what Obama is doing. He may be doing all he can, or at least thinks he can, but if the economy is still in trouble 2 years from now, I can see Hillary thinking about giving it a shot. I am not saying it is a good idea on her part, from a Democratic point of view, but I think she has the balls to do it.

We will have to agree to disagree and see what happens in 2 years. I HOPE the economy is doing better by then.

msquared

Are you joking? A bad economy in 3 years might give the whitehouse to a Republican but something apocalyptically horrendous would have to happen on his watch for Obama to get supplanted by Hillary. Has that even happened before?
It wouldn’t take anything more than what is on the horizon as we speak; the devaluation of the dollar, skyrocket inflation, a complete unraveling of our economy (http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/macroessays/does-devaluation-cause-inflation.html). How’s that for apocalyptic?
Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
'Like jasonr said, Obama would have to fall extremely hard for this to even be a remote possibility, IMO - because without a chance in hell, she's smart enough to wait.'

There are rational circumstances where this could happen. I remember Jimmy Carter's '80 primary run.

I also remember that two years ago all the 'smart money' bet Hillary uber alles, and certainly not some upstart mulatto.

Fortunes change dramatically sometimes. Fate's like that. Obama needn't do anything too terrible other than be president while fate rains misfortune on the land.

whatever he does, though, I don't think he should offer Afghanistan's Harmid Karzai political asylum if things turn against the guy over there.

I also remember the shah of Iran.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
It wouldn’t take anything more than what is on the horizon as we speak; the devaluation of the dollar, skyrocket inflation, a complete unraveling of our economy (http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/macroessays/does-devaluation-cause-inflation.html). How’s that for apocalyptic?

Given current conditions, it's right about on par with the likelihood of any other sci-fi apocalypse happening.

Heck from near the top of your link:

quote:
However, increased AD may not cause inflation, it depends on various factors:

a) If the economy is in recession and there is spare capacity a rise in AD will not cause inflation

We're in a recession at record low capacity utilization right now, barely fighting off deflation. By what's suggested there we _need_ currency devaluation to help get us back into healthy operating territory.

If we get the the point where inflation is a danger here, Obama will be looking like an economic god because unemployment will be at record lows, the trade deficit will have narrowed considerably, and companies will be fighting for room to expand. (The exception would be if the reason we get there is because we printed enough cash to buy out all of China's treasury bills and shipped it over sea, since that wouldn't fund any growth at home. Of course they'd probably send it right back, because accepting it would cause their economy to implode as well.)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If Hillary ran against Obama, there would go the Team Player credential.

If Hillary runs against Obama, she'll have to do so as the Republican candidate. She'd win. But that won't happen.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
She was not even included in the president's Moscow Summit.
Maybe because she publicly insulted Vladimir Putin to score a few points off Bush when she was campaigning?

It remains to be seen whether the "liberal" policies of Obama will be the downfall of the country, but if they are running another "liberal" against him won't last long.

His foriegn policy hasn't failed either. Actually, it does matter if the world likes us more than it fears us.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's quite simple. If she will make a play for it, she'll have to resign her current position within the next year. If that happens, speculate away. If not, it's a dead issue.
Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with Colin. She would not do it while still Sec. State. There would have to be some large disagreement over foriegn (sp?) policy and she would have to resign/get fired.

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This, if not brought to a decent closure ere long, will make both Obama's and Hillary's shot at 2012 much harder than if it were.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by msquared:
What scenario? The economy still being bad? This is about what Hillary thinks, not what Obama is doing.

No, this is about a conservative blogger's fantasy, not what Hillary thinks. Hillary is every conservative's least favourite Democrat, and the idea of her selfishly destroying the Democrat presidential race in '12 is a conservative's wet dream.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This seems like a really good thread to add onto with recent events:
quote:
Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after 2012 — even if he wins again.

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretaries of State — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.

Indeed, it's been 3 AM for quite some time and Barry refuses to even answer the phone. How will that 3 AM commercial play next year? Pretty damn well I'm guessing when you have "a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday".

quote:
When French president Nicolas Sarkozy urged her to press the White House to take more aggressive action in Libya, Clinton repeatedly replied only, “There are difficulties,” according to Foreign Policy magazine.

“Frankly we are just completely puzzled,” one of the diplomats told Foreign Policy magazine. “We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”

Or as the insider described Obama’s foreign policy shop: “It’s amateur night.”

Hmm, who else has been referring to the Obama administration as amateurs ... oh yeah, me! And now it might become voters in 2012.

quote:
Clinton revealed her desire to leave yesterday in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, responding four times to his questions about whether she would accept a post during a potential second Obama administration with a single word: “No.”

Philippe Reines, an adviser and spokesman for Clinton, downplayed the significance of the interview, saying, “He asked, she answered. Really that simple. [It] wasn’t a declaration.”

But her blunt string of four “no’s” followed a period of intense frustration for the secretary, according to the insider, who told The Daily that Clinton has grown weary of fighting an uphill battle in the administration.

This whole thing plays into that 3 AM call and the growing frustration with the "invisible president" (google it kids). Is the play lined out in the OP from 2009 actually the blue print for a Clinton to return to the presidency? It seems like such a crazy, impossible gambit but when you have a leader that's failed in every attempt to lead and generally farmed out the job to the House Speaker and Senate, maybe it has a chance to work and it looks like an opening shot was just taken.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Linkie. (Since there are so many copies of the article to choose from, I thought I'd link to the original.)
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm watching live the feed of the UN, who just approved the no-fly zone in Libya. The outcome of having the international community behind a military action is going to greatly improve the credibility of the operation - and was worth the wait.

I would say this is the green light for military engagement, and tells me that Obama's strategy has brokered a much stronger case for doing something. I'm not sure how Hillary could possibly be unhappy with this outcome, which is no doubt vindicating for a lot of people.

Except people who either think we should do things unilaterally, or people who want the administration to fail.

[ March 17, 2011, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Would be nice if the Turks could take the lead on this. There's going to be collateral damage from this, it would be nice if it wasn't blamed on us.

On the sort of up side the Islamists hate Gadaffi too, but they hated Saddam too, that didn't stop them from portraying all of our actions in Iraq as an assault on Islam.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At this point in time, it's doubtful if a No-fly zone is going to do much. It's too late. A week ago it might have meant something.

Ghaddafi has the momentum and with the forces under his disposal and the time given to consolidate his forces, he won't have much problem crushing the remaining rebellious areas using mercenary battalions, artillery and naval forces.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheRallanator
Member
Member # 6624

 - posted      Profile for TheRallanator   Email TheRallanator       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
What better position could Hillary have been given that would keep her in the lime light yet keep her distant from this administrations decisions. Obama takes the fall for instituting liberal policies that will be the downfall of the nation, and Hillary stands ready to take the seat as the "less liberal than Obama but not Bush" candidate.

Yeah but... NO.

Changing horses in midstream is election poison, as anyone who lives in a parliamentary democracy (where it's a hell of a lot easier for the governing party to replace its head honcho) could tell you. And it would probably be particularly bad for your election chances in the US since it's so exceedingly rare for a sitting president to be ganked and replaced by his own party. It basically makes it impossible for the governing party to use any of its previous leader's successes in their campaign (if was such a great guy then why'd you replace him?), and leaves them wide open to accusations that their new leader is a manipulative opportunist and that the party as a whole is admitting the old leader was an abject failure.

If I was being cynical I'd be more likely to think that she's expecting the Democrats to get slaughtered thanks to a tidal wave of Tea Party vitriol, and she wants to distance herself from the administration because she's got her eyes on a 2016 run and she doesn't want the coming avalanche of stupidity to damage her political future.

Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1