Robert Reich suggested yesterday that Hillary and Joe Biden should switch places, to shore up the 2012 Democratic ticket. Prominent blogger Elizabeth Scalia — “The Anchoress” — calls and raises him, saying there’s an opening for an independent bid for Hillary:
Independents ran to Obama in ’08, and they’re running away from him as fast as they can in ’12, but not necessarily toward the GOP, whose current field of candidates seems like 8 tilting vials of nitro-glycerin, just waiting to fall. Offer them a candidate they can associate with a era of “peace and prosperity” — one who many of them happen to like and think got a raw deal in 2008 — and they will careen toward her like seagulls toward dropped bread.
That vials-of-nitroglycerin line is pretty nifty, I admit; and the prospect of an experienced (i.e., non-fringe) third option for November is something that in principle many Americans would indeed welcome. But could you imagine how thuggish the Obama attack machine would get if it had two targets in the general election instead of one? I frankly would not want to see that. (What, you ask, about the Republicans — wouldn’t they go viciously negative against Hillary too? I don’t think so: I suspect that Romney, or whoever the GOP nominee is, would not be nearly as ugly against Hillary — if for no other reason than that a high Hillary vote would come almost entirely from Obama and thus be helpful to the GOP. Within limits, of course! If she pulled 40 percent that could leave both Obama and Romney out in the cold, and out of the White House.)
That hadn't occurred to me. And I think that could really give a third party a chance to take the White House. But don't look for a run. What's worse than Biden as VP, Biden as Secretary of State....if he is out as VP, he's out across the board.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid Potemra and Scalia end up at a Christmas party together? And if so, what was in the eggnog?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If she pulled 40 percent that could leave both Obama and Romney out in the cold, and out of the White House."
Under current law there is a threshold that if a major party falls below, they lose most of the legal benefits that come with being a major party. I believe it is somewhere around 30-35%.
If a third party Hillary were to pull in 40%, either the Republicans or the Democrats would be in danger of losing their major party status.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor campaign finance purposes, 25% is the popular vote needed to secure major party status. (That entitles a party to the full amount of general election financing that a party can get under the Federal Election Campaign Act -- although after Obama declined public financing in 2008, it's unlikely that either the Democrats or Republicans will choose to run a publicly financed campaign again.) A minimum of a 5% popular vote entitles a party to minor party status and thus a proportional fraction of the funding available to major parties. (This explains why the Reform Party nomination was sought after in 2000 -- Perot's 8% of the 1996 vote entitled the 2000 Reform nominee to $12 million in public financing.)
But realistically, Hillary isn't going to leave the Democratic Party to challenge Obama. (If she wanted to challenge Obama, she would have done so within the Democratic Party.) A third-party Hillary candidacy in 2012 seems about as likely as Joe Lieberman running for Pope.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomeone gave me an Outback Steakhouse gift card for Christmas, but Hilary can totally have it if she runs as an independent. In fact, I'd even think about throwing in the Red Lobster gift card just for good measure.
Do you think that would be enough to put her over the edge? Does she even like seafood?
Plus, I know this guy who just died who has a walk-in closet full of pantsuits just like Hilary loves. I'm sure we could get those to her - you know, for the campaign and stuff. You can never look too good for the American people, especially when you're splitting the Democrat ticket.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt seems utterly non-credible that someone as establishment in Democratic politics as HRC would run as an independent. But having her join the ticket as VP would make the Dems' ticket incredibly strong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is such a good idea. After all, there's nothing wrong with our foreign policy that the unsurpassed genius of Joe Biden can't fix. Clinton already does nothing, and without any flair, but Biden could actually be an affirmative force for permanently damaging America's credibility in the world. The question is whether this is the goal or merely an unintended consequence (for which liberals are so famous) of Reich's proposal .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have an idea. Let's pair a northeastern moderate Republican businessman and former governor with a moderate Democrat legislator who has experience in international affairs. Since experience and past expressions of fealty to liberal dogma are really no big deal when it comes to Romney, I see a perfect opportunity to destroy the Democrat coalition (and the conservative one to boot) with what could only be described as the ultimate Establishment-Technocrat ticket.
Romney-Clinton '12!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat is as tired as it gets.
Completely misguided in every sense.
The "establishment" warfare nonsense is stunning.
Back in 2008, it was Romney who openly and soundly rebuked the Clinton Malfeasance, while John McCain told us all how much he respected Hillary.
Hillary Clinton embraces and advocated for every mess Obama has provided. Romney opposes all of it.
But guess who has embraced Hillary? The same Beltway Insider who once sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi at the request of Al Gore in 2008:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
If your really stunned by the establishment warfare nonsense you should get out more. And pay attention to who is backing Romney. But I think you know full well that the "establishment" is backing Romney. The Wall Street flunkies have that train in high gear....what cliff?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's your point, other than that my sarcasm had even more, and better, undertones than I realized when I wrote it?
I'll forgive you for not knowing that I voted for Romney in 2008 in the CO caucuses.
But, I have no illusions about who he is and what he believes. This is something you never dispute preferring instead to use the old "Oh yeah? Well, everyone else is even worse!" defense.
Props to Romney on his "Lucille Ball" barb. If he campaigns like that against Obama, he will win. But somehow I think he won't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is a measure of the sheer awfulness of Obama that I'd rather see Hilary in the Oval Office.
I think she'd exhibit a kind of possessiveness about the US, even if only the dog-in-the-manger sort, that would make our enemies fear her more than they fear Obama.
Either scenario is a nightmare, but there are the nightmares that wake you with your heart pounding and the nightmares that wake you screaming.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Anchoress is the finest, no doubt. It is a lot of fun - interesting, like telling a horror story around a campfire.
But no, Hillary Clinton is only somewhat safe in her existence, hidden by the deluded devotion of the Democratic Partisans and heavy MSM influence. She will tank dramatically again if she leaves the protection of the facade. Democrats will definitely turn on her quickly, and the various interest groups which support Obama, will grow ugly for 'Clintonia' yet again.
Besides, Hillary Clinton is on board of every disaster Mr. Obama has tried, even hugging Nancy Pelosi after they bribed Obamacare into passing. Hillary Clinton is in deep with this dreadful Presidency (that makes two major Presidential embarrassments). Even on her own, it is one disaster after another. A return to run for the Presidency will only highlight the enormous failure of Hillary Clinton in everything she has attempted. She failed to bring jobs to upstate NY, failed to bring the Olympics to NYC, failed to appease Russia, failed to intimidate Israel, etc.
We all know, the only thing Hillary Clinton could be counted upon, was to offer lies. The "sniper dodger" lied so many times about her vote to use force in Iraq, she made her husband seem a little more consistent in comparison (very hard to do).
Hillary has been one of the worst Secretary. of States in modern memory. Smart power has made a sincere mess around the Glboe. Hillary announced upon her first visit to China the Obama Team was not going to focus on Human Rights, she stood in front of one of the most famous religious Icons foolishly asking "who painted it?", she placated Russia for two years when her own State Department considered it an untrustworthy Mafia State abandoning Poland/the Czech Republic in the foolish wake. Hillary foolishly believed Muburak was stable, was quiet when Iran slaughtered it's own people, avoided the Dali Lama, etc. Hillary actually said a no fly zone in Lybia was not possible, then pushed for a massive bombing campaign, while changing the mission on a daily basis, uncertain whether this was an effort in regime change - or not. Hillary Clinton as the Secretary has been an enormous waste of taxpayer money.
Hillary's run as an independent would simply split a dwindling Democratic Partisan vote. The Democratic Partisan loyalists would be very upset with the attempt, even if the Clintons foolishly tried another Primary challenge within the Party. It could happen, the Clinton narcissism is vast, but even the Democrats could not return to the ugly malfeasance of the 90's again when faced with the option in 2008, instead selecting a young unknown in the guise of the misguided Obama.
Someday the Clinton story will not be so vastly distorted, and the American Public will see the ugly reality. The Clintons actually made it their policy once to lie about the Genocide in Rwanda. We all still wonder what Sandy Berger jammed down his pants. The Gorelick Wall, the peddling of influence to Enron, selling pardons to the likes of Marc Rich, the ugly impugning of General Petraeus, etc., the list of Clinton negligence and incompetence is vast. The Clinton legacy is as bad as Carter, Obama, etc. And Hillary Clinton is not going to be returning to the White House as she once dreamed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust when I thought The Anchoress couldn't get any more inane, she does. If HRC ran as an independent, she would have a 0.000000000000000000000000000% chance of winning. The only thing she would accomplish is the election of a Republican.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is so odd. I actually see quite a lot of this Clinton nostalgia on right-wing blogs... much more than on the left. As is my wont, I tend to muse on the reason for it... and have decided that Republicans miss the Clintons simply because they were so much fun to hate.
Even if you strongly disapprove of Obama's polices and governing style, on a personal level the guy is a disappointment to conservatives. There's just not a lot there to hate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually Bill could run in this cycle of primaries and be a top conservative, easily besting Romney and Newt. Bill in the White House and Republicans in congress worked rather well for a while. Now Hilary...that's another story, but bringing her up isn't nostalgia for hating, it's looking for ways to cripple Odumbo, and keep her off the ticket in Biden's stead.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDidn't read your last line....plenty to hate about the man, his arrogance and condescending attitude turn my stomach. The sense of entitlement, the lack of humility, the incompetence, the "Messiah" complex. His dirty politics, his cheap shots...I could go on and on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"There's just not a lot there to hate."
"The Cambridge Police acted stupidly."
"Hilary, you're likable enough."
"I won, you didn't."
"With all due respect to the Court...."
Should I go on? He's EASILY the most petty man who's held the office since Nixon. Oh, then there's the thin skin.
Some presidents grow into the office and actually end up enlarging it. Some others shrink the office. Obama, without question, is the latter and not the former.
BTW, I mean this sincerely: I think Obama is a bigger misogynist than Bill Clinton. Much bigger. Say what you want about Bush, but the man was comfortable enough with his own masculinity to surround himself with strong, opinionated women. His inner circle was full of them, and they were loyal as heck. Obama, not so much. Hilary might be SoS, but she's clearly no in his inner circle. Is there a single woman serving as an executive in the WH that was there on the day he was inaugurated? I don't think so.
On the June day he finally secured the nomination, what song does he play to walk out and address the audience? Jay-Z's "99 Problems". What a peach, that guy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've long held that Hillary knew the electorate's excitement over a black man in the White House would trump any excitement over a woman as President, and Hillary's resume was even thinner than Obama's in 2008.
So she cut a deal with Obama that she would not challenge him for the nomination as long as he promised her a reputation-burnishing position like ... Secretary of State, which looks way more better in future campaign ads than 'former First Lady and Rose law firm partner Hillary Rodham Clinton.'
NO WAY would she now take the VP slot -- she's ready for prime time, having done the Sec of State gig, regardless of how ineptly -- after all, she was just loyally following the orders of the incompetent Obama. Plus, Hillary can gesture vaguely toward her helpmate Bill as bolstering her abilities ... after the disastrous years of Obama, who does not vaguely remember Bill's years as better times than these?
And finally, Obama has no love for being president, and as a former president, he will have all he perks and none of the tiresome duties of office.
I'm not a gambler, but I'd put money on this scenario. Get ready for 8 more years of Clintons in the White House, and bear in mind that Hillary is as much of an ideologue as Obama -- she's just far more competent at getting things done as she sees fit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHilary will not be running for President in 2012, or any other year. That is all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse