Hillary 2012? The Specter Lives On

John Phillips writes in the LA Times today "Why Hillary Clinton must run in 2012". He makes his case by pointing out the lack of loyalty Hillary supporters have for Obama, Hillary's much higher approval ratings and Obama possibly screwing up royally with Libya.

He concludes by saying:

While it's true the Clintons are ambitious people, they've never been known to go on suicide missions -– those are for terrorists and hotel chains willing to rent rooms to Charlie Sheen.

Despite her contemporary denials, Hillary would only throw her hat in the ring if she thought she had a better than even chance at moving back into the White House. Obama is looking weak, but not weak enough to justify a primary challenge...yet.

If Libya turns into a full blown disaster...resulting in billions of dollars wasted, boots on the ground and abysmal public opinion numbers, my money is on Hillary resigning her post as secretary of State and jumping in the 2012 primary.

She can even rerun the "3 AM Phone Call" ad...with the tagline 'See, I told you so.'

I always thought Hillary would run against Obama if he gets weak enough. I know the left would throw Obama overboard if his reelection becomes a big question. However, I do feel that Hillary's window closed in 2008.

If Hillary was to beat Obama in a primary, she would face a blizzard of Republican ads showing how there was almost zero difference between her and Obama in 2008. It would be all to easy to make the case that Hillary 2012 would not look much different from Obama's second term. Added to the difficulty, the black community would not take to kind to the first black president getting primaried out. Hillary could find herself with minimal support from the black community and that is a losing formula for any Democrat.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: LA Times

Things that make you go humm: The Clintons sound like unhappy campers

Have you all noticed the Clintons lately? It looks like they have started reading a different script from Obama. First there were grumblings from Bill about how ridiculous delays in drilling for our own oil is. Then Bill came out strongly for a No Fly Zone in Libya. Neither of these positions match the party line of dithering on both.

Hillary was next to sing a discordant note when she firmly shut the door on a second term in the Obama administration.

Now today we hear about Hillary being "[f]ed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up”".

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.” [MORE]

I could easily see the Clintons being upset for more reasons. Hillary lost her best chance at POTUS to a man who may very well end up keeping Democrats out of the White House for decades. Worse yet, Hillary is now forever tied to one of the most ineffective foreign policies in American history.

Since it is pretty obvious that Hill and Bill are heading for the door, the question is just how loudly are they going to slam it on the way out? Hummm?

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Politico
Via: The Daily Beast
Via: CNN
Via: The Daily

Great balls of fire! James Carville: Obama needs some of Hillary’s testicular fortitude

Oops, there is more grumbling in Lefty Land.  Yesterday, it was spooky dude George Soros’ ambiguous comment about Obama and today we have James Skeletor Carville with this ballsy comment.

Politico:  Speaking to reporters Thursday, Democratic strategist James Carville dropped this one-liner: "If Hillary gave up one of her balls and gave it to Obama, he’d have two."

Ouch! Well at least now we know why Obama throws like a girl.

Ever since the election all we have heard from the mainstream media has been how Republicans and Tea Party would be at each other’s throats.  Yet, day after day since the election it has been the Democrats taking swipes at each other.

If the Democrats keep this up we won’t have much to do to defeat Obama in 2012 because they would have done half the work themselves. 

Pass the popcorn, please!

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Politico

Would President Hillary have done better in 2010?

Dana Milbank opines in the Washington Post today the question that must be on the minds of every Democrat; “Would we be better off under a President Hillary Clinton?” 

The Washington Post: As I sat in the East Room last week watching a forlorn President Obama account for his shellacking, I listened with concern as he described the presidency as a "growth process" and suggested that the midterm setback was somehow inevitable. "You know, this is something that I think every president needs to go through," he said.

It brought to mind Hillary Clinton's 3 a.m. phone-call ad from the 2008 campaign, and her withering criticism of Obama: "When there is a crisis . . . there's no time for speeches or on-the-job training." I wondered whether Democrats would be in the fix they're in if they had chosen a different standard-bearer. [MORE]

Milbank seems to think that Hillary would have been better for the Democrats and I tend to agree but for different reasons. 


If you recall the primaries of 2008, there was microscopic difference between Obama and Hillary on the issues.  So, in term of policy, I don’t think Hillary would have followed that different of a track.  I think the big difference would have been how she handled health care.


Hillary still would have had to pass health care reform.  Socialized medicine has been the left’s wet dream for decades and with full control of the government, not passing it would have been the sin of sins.  Where Hillary would have done better was dealing with the reaction.  The Clintons would never have completely ignored the resistance the way Obama did.  Hillary and Bill would have found some way to sugar coat the process so that anger was kept to a minimum.  Much of the fuel behind the Tea Party was Obama and the Democrats' complete lack of respect for the will of the people.


In the end, a President Hillary would have lost seats too because these left wing policies are the wrong prescription for the times. However, I don’t think the losses would have been of the same magnitude.  Hillary and Bill are political animals of the first order.  They would not have allowed opposition to them to build so strongly. 


Hillary would also have a better chance at smoothing things over after the loss. Just like Bill, she would have quickly become Republican Lite to set herself up for 2012, because the Clintons put their own political survival over ideology and party. 


Via: Memeorandum
Via: The Washington Post

Thinking 2012: Obama, Hillary, Romney, Palin

I know that polls about 2012 at this point in time are worth less than zero, but fun of thinking forward is simply irresistible. With that caveat out of the way, Gallup has two polls out with some interesting numbers on 2012 match ups.

First poll is about the Democratic nomination. Here we find that a redo of the Obama v. Hillary match up, doesn’t play well for Hillary the second time around.

Gallup:  PRINCETON, NJ -- If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were to challenge President Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012, she would currently have the support of 37% of Democrats nationally, while 52% would support Obama.

Obama's strengths among Democrats in the hypothetical matchup with Clinton lie with college graduates and liberals, the latter of whom make up about 36% of this sample of 859 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Clinton does better among less well-educated Democrats and bests Obama among conservatives, who make up 22% of Democrats. Clinton does slightly better among women than among men.

[…]These data show that conservative Democrats are the least likely to support Obama when Clinton is his hypothetical opponent, suggesting that Obama may be most vulnerable to a possible challenge from that wing of his party.

I certainly hope Gallup revisits this question well after the midterm elections. Once the Democratic circular firing squad kicks into full gear, I don’t think Hillary’s numbers will be so low.   Hillary herself must feel a certain amount of confidence in knowing she can best Obama among women who are a major component of the Democrat Party.

Gallup’s other poll takes a peek at the Republican nomination for 2012 and finds Romney and Palin grabbing the top two spots.

Gallup: PRINCETON, NJ -- Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin lead other potential candidates in Republicans' preferences for the party's 2012 presidential nomination. Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul also receive more than 5% support from Republicans nationwide.

Romney and Palin are the top choices of both conservative and moderate or liberal Republicans, and in fact their support is similar among both groups. Of the top five candidates, Huckabee receives support that is most divided along ideological lines; he gets significantly more support among conservative Republicans.

Typically, support for presidential nomination candidates varies geographically, with candidates generally faring best in their home regions. This appears to be the case with most of the current group of GOP contenders, as Palin's support is highest in the West, and Huckabee gets somewhat higher support in the South. Romney shows particular strength in both the East, where he was governor of Massachusetts, and the West, where he served as chief executive of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic games.

For the Republicans I believe Obama will the biggest determining factor. Depending on how Obama chooses to act with a  (hopefully) Republican controlled Congress, the frontrunner in this poll will change. Should Obama remain the way he is, any conservative candidate will stand in stark contrast.  Should Obama choose to do a Bill Clinton, then a more conservative candidate will be needed to draw sharp contrast.  Either way, I cannot imagine Republicans following typical fashion of nominating the next guy in line for 2012. This is because the Tea Party has gained strength and influence within the Republican Party.

My best guess at this point is that Romney will fade from the top stop once fellow Republicans begin bashing him about RomneyCare. For Palin her greatest threat is a fresh new Tea Party upstart, someone who shares her conservatism but who the left has not had time to malign.

I’ll close this post by cautioning once again, that speculation about 2012 at this point isn’t worth a damn.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Gallup

Via: Gallup 

Video: The first Hillary 2012 Ad

CNN: The commercial was paid for by a Chicago dentist named William DeJean.

When asked why he put the ad up, DeJean told CNN Thursday that "I'm a dentist and I don't think this country is headed in the right direction."

Regarding Clinton, DeJean says "I think she is the most qualified."

DeJean adds that he thinks people are having buyer's remorse about President Barack Obama and says the current administration is ruining the Democratic Party. He says he spent $5,000 to create the commercial and tells CNN that besides New Orleans, the ad will run in Washington, New York and Los Angeles, and possible Houston. DeJean says he chose to first run the ad in New Orleans because he's a native of the city and because the city's in the news due to the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

"I didn't expect to see any ads about 2012 before the midterms in 2010, although this will likely not be a big TV buy, Mr. DeJean clearly is motivated to see change," says Evan Tracey, Campaign Media Analysis Group and CNN's consultant on political TV ad spending.

According to data from CMAG, DeJean paid to run ads supporting Clinton during the 2008 presidential campaign. Clinton, senator from New York at the time, battled then Sen. Obama of Illinois in a marathon and historic Democratic primary season, nearly becoming the woman to win a major party presidential nomination, before ending her bid and endorsing Obama in June 2008. [MORE]

I think this is just the first of many more to come.  If the Democrats receive the full beat down they so richly deserve in November, I expect full war between Democrats to break out shortly after.  As the blame game gets into full swing, expect the “we should have gone with Hillary” meme to get louder and louder.

While some on the left may feel a Hillary 2012 campaign would save the party, they should think again.  Think back to the 2008 debates, how many times was it noted that there were no difference between Obama and Hillary on the issues.  Any Republican can use that to make the point that the only difference between Hillary and Obama is packaging. Either way, you still get the same lousy liberal policies!

Via: Memeorandum

Via: CNN

Hillary Spills The Beans: Obama Administration Filing Lawsuit Against Arizona Law

Well how is that for some straight talk? The administration has made it perfectly clear it does not like Arizona’s immigration law, even though no one in the administration seems to have read it. To date, the administration has only said they would look into the law but nothing about filing a lawsuit. 

I wonder if Hillary simply let this fly because she thought it would be safe to disclose abroad or is this another one of the administration’s lame trial balloons? Hard to tell, since the Justice Department won’t confirm or deny Hillary’s remark.

Governor Brewer is livid and rightfully so.

Brewer's statement said she was "stunned and angered" by Clinton's statement that a lawsuit would be filed.

"To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the Secretary of State is just outrageous," Brewer said in the statement. "If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation."

Governor Brewer should not be the least bit surprised. Duplicity is a cornerstone in this administration. They are firm believers in saying one thing and doing another.

It will be interesting to see if Obama and crew actually follow through with this lawsuit. The most recent polls clearly indicate that the majority of Americans favor Arizona’s approach to immigration. To bring an lawsuit and not have an equally popular plan of action on the Federal level, will mean more hardship for Democrats come November.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Right Scoop

Via: CNN

Via: Hot Air 

Let the retreat begin: Hillary on WMD attack, “all bets are off”

Obama’s Nuke Plan came under fierce attack from the right, most noticeably from Sarah Palin. Well it appears that some retreat on the plan has begun.

Today on “Face The Nation” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates started walking back the idea that the US would not retaliate with nukes after a WMD attack. 

The Obama administration's nuclear posture review may have removed some of the intentional ambiguity from U.S. nuclear policy, but it does not leave the country any less safe, President Obama's top national security advisers said on CBS' "Face the Nation." 

In fact, they said, it gives a clear warning to other state actors that the U.S. will not ignore any growing threats. 

"This is putting everybody on notice," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer in an interview conducted Friday at the Pentagon. "We don't want more countries to go down the path that North Korea and Iran are." 

The revised nuclear policy says that the United States will not use nuclear weapons to respond to a chemical or biological attack from a non-nuclear country. The policy, however, leaves significant contingencies, said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. 

Countries which are non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (such as North Korea) or have been found to be non-compliant (such as Iran) are not exempt from nuclear retaliation under the Obama policy. 

"We were concerned about the biological weapons," Gates said, "and that's why the president was very clear ... if we see states developing biological weapons that we begin to think endanger us or create serious concerns, that he reserves the right to revise this policy." 

Clinton added, "If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off."  

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Even with such retreats, I still do not see what is benefit to explicitly spelling out our nuke policy.  As I mentioned before all it seems to do is take some of the sting out of our deterrence. The idea that others will follow our lead, particularly North Korea and Iran, is a pure pipedream.

Something tells me if Palin delivers another stem-winder, the Obama administration will retreat further on this plan.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: CBS News 

Yippee! We will see a lot less of Hillary if Palin becomes President

While visiting Saudi Arabia Hillary Clinton was asked by a Saudi student if she would move to Canada if Palin becomes president:

Early this morning during a town hall meeting with students at Dar Al Hekma College, a student asked Clinton if she thinks Sarah Palin will be president and whether Hillary would move to Canada if Palin were elected.

The audience laughed -- so did Clinton -- before she said, "Well, the short answer is no. I will not be immigrating. I will be visiting as often as I can."

Promises. Promises. How many lefties have said they would leave the country if [insert Republican name here] becomes president?  These lefties talk a good game but when push comes to shove, they stay right where they are.

What Hillary should have asked that student was, what would they do if Palin becomes president? Palin has made it quite clear that she is all about domestic sources of energy. The days of America wasting hundreds of billions on Saudi oil would be coming to an end. Maybe that student already realizes this and that why they suffers from PDS.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: MSNBC

Hillary pledges untold billions to fight climate change at Copenhagen

From The New York Daily News:

Just as the Copenhagen climate summit appeared to be on the verge of unraveling, the United StatesThursday announced its support of an annual $100 billion climate protection fund, the Associated Pressreports.

“The US is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

[SNIP]

While she would not disclose how much the U.S. would be contribution to the climate fund, Clinton said there would be a fair amount contributed to the pot that would be made available in 2020. The finances will reportedly be raised partially by taxing aviation and shipping, as proposed by the European Union

This is the kind of irresponsible actions that boils my blood. Here it is, the United States is borrowing trillions from China to pay for all kinds of crazy foolishness and now we have damn fools like Obama and Clinton pledging untold billions to other countries based on "snake oil science".  If Democrats are puzzled as to why the public is souring on their brand, they need look no further than these actions.


Did it ever occur to Obama and the Democrats to pause on climate change at least to make 1,000% sure the climate change scientist are not FOS? Did it ever occur to the Democrats that these untold billions they are pledging must be paid with interest by future generations that are too young to vote for or against their actions?


As I sit here like most Americans tightening my belt and curtailing my holiday spending, I sincerely hope that the Democrats damage their brand beyond repair, for they have really and truly earned that fate.


Via: The Drudge Report
Via: The New York Daily News

UPDATED: Hillary Clinton “going rogue” on Obama’s Iran policy?

Oh my, Hillary admits what we have all seen and expected; talking your head off to Iran is an exercise in futility. She was kind enough to say their efforts have "produced little" rather than admitting that it has "produced the big goose egg".

I still believe that if Obama starts to permanently stink, Hillary will jump ship and run against him in 2012.  Just like Palin, Hillary could run on a campaign of “I told ya so”.

UPDATE: Hillary's approval rating soars


If this keeps up, you had better believe that Hillary is jumping ship.
From Politico:

A new poll of avid news watchers shows that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a much higher approval rating than the man she once campaigned against and now works for, President Barack Obama.

In the poll of 800 registered voters who are self-identified “news watchers,” Clinton had a 75 percent approval rating and a 21 percent disapproval rating overall. Obama, in contrast, had a 51 percent approval and a 45 percent disapproval rating.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Gateway Pundit
Via: Politico

Gallup: Hillary more popular than Obama

I bet someone is having a nice hardy cackle over this bit of news. 

PRINCETON, NJ -- Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama, but in one respect she now ranks ahead of Obama. The president's current favorable rating of 56% is down 22 percentage points since January. Over the same time span, Clinton's favorable rating has changed little, and now, at 62%, it exceeds Obama's. MORE

Keeping a low profile has certainly helped Hillary.  I still believe that if the U.S.S. Obama starts to sink, old Hillary is going to jump ship and run against him in 2012.  Another Hillary presidential run in 2012 could carry the slogan; "I told ya so" (Palin could have the same one)!

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Gallup

Hillary Clinton election ready?

Via The New York Daily News:

WASHINGTON-Hillary Clinton says running for office isn't on her "radar," but she still has an eight-person political team and sports two overflowing campaign war chests.

Her team transformed the former Democratic White House contender's massive campaign debts into a $3 million mountain of political cash, according to federal fund-raising records through the end of June.

Clinton's failed presidential bid is now $1 million in the black, and her old Senate campaign committee has $2.1 million in the bank, much of it transferred in from the presidential account. The former First Lady paid eight staffers nearly $100,000 in the second quarter of the year to tend to the remains of her political empire.

I said it before and I will say it again, Hillary will jump ship the moment Obama looks like a complete looser. She will not screw up her political future by getting pulled down with a sinking ship.

What I find interesting about this is that there are Democrats out there who are still giving to her campaign. I wonder if they represent Democrats who are not happy with the way Obama has turned out so far? Time will tell.

Hillary Clinton: She’s Baaaaack!

You remember Hillary Clinton, don’t you? She is supposed to be Obama’s Secretary of State. It seems like a gazillion years ago since Hillary had her faux pas with that Russian reset button. Since then, she has kind of faded into the woodwork of the Obama administration.

I cannot remember when a Secretary of State that was so out of the picture. Think of all the big foreign policy events recently and Hillary has been nowhere to be seen. North Korea acting like NASA on steroids … no Hillary, the Iranian people literally fighting for their lives … no Hillary and Honduras kicking a would be tyrant to the curb… again no Hillary.

I know some of you are thinking Hillary has that broken elbow thing going on, but come on, even Sotomayor hobbled around on Capital Hill to get her work done and Palin would have been carrying Trig in her bad arm and working two Blackberries with the other.

So what is up with Hillary? It seems to me that Obama has deliberately sidelined her. He has Biden in the Middle East and he handled the other fires himself. Meanwhile what was Hillary up to? It seems she has only two roles, window dressing and non-existent.

Well it appears that Hillary is set to roar. She has issues some not too subtitle statements about the administration’s vetting process and is now set to make a major policy speech.

So why has Hillary decided to reassert herself now? I think it may have something to do with Palin moving into a bigger national role. A year ago when anyone mentioned female president, Hillary’s name was the first on everyone’s mind, today it's Palin.

I don’t think Hillary ever quite gave up her desire for the big chair. Even when she was sworn in as Secretary of State, I thought to myself, the second the SS Obama starts to take on water, Hillary is jumping ship and may even plug a few extra holes in the hull for good measure. So if Hillary still wants to be president some day, she must remain relevant today and that isn’t going to happen if she is stuck playing the role of the administration’s bastard child.

I never thought I would say this, but I hope Hillary is successful in getting control of the administration’s foreign policy. I say this because, during the primaries, there was little next to no difference between Obama and Hillary on the issues. The one thing that did stick out was her vote on the Iraq war. She caught hell from her party for it, but did not back down. If she could take the heat from the far left crazies, she surely could stand up stronger than Obama does against America’s foes. Plus, you have to admit it; don’t you miss the fireworks between Obama and Hillary? I know I do!