Follow by Email

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Hillary Clinton as Obama's Vice Presidential Candidate in 2012?

Only a year and a half away from first primaries in 2012, and Obama is already facing a nightmare. He has demonstrated that he can campaign, but can't govern:

- Oil continues to spill into the gulf with no end in sight.
- There is no meaningful improvement in the economy.
- U.S. casualties continue to mount in Afghanistan.
- There have been no foreign relations achievements; his "landmark" overtures to the world's most tyrannical regimes have all been snubbed.
- ObamaCare was pushed through Congress despite the opposition of a majority of Americans.
- His Gallup Job Approval ratings continue to decline (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

What to do?

In a June 18 Washington Post column entitled "Hillary Clinton should be Obama's vice president", Sally Quinn attempts to make the case for Clinton:

"It makes sense for the Democrats, actually. Clinton has done an incredible job as secretary of state. First of all, she has worked harder than anyone should ever be expected to. She has managed to do the impossible: She is the ambassador of the United States to the world, maintaining her credibility while playing the bad guy to President Obama's good guy, such as with North Korea, Iran and Israel, and still looking good. She has been a true team player. If Clinton is dissatisfied with her role, you would never know it. She has been loyal and supportive to the president and has maintained a good relationship with him and with others in the White House. If she is being left out of the policymaking, or being sent on trips to keep her out of town, she has not shown it. She is cheerful, thoughtful, serious and diligent. There are no horror stories about her coming out of the State Department. Most notable, though, is that Bill Clinton has not been the problem that so many anticipated. He has been supportive of her and of Obama, and he has stayed out of the limelight and been discreet about his own life."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/17/AR2010061703463.html

Bovine stercus? Much akin to Obama, Hillary has achieved absolutely nothing over the past year and a half, and Ms. Quinn's plaudits ring empty. On the other hand, unlike Obama, she has not been given the opportunity to achieve anything.

Will Hillary continue to grin icily and bear it, in the hope of running for president at age 69? Or will she call it quits as Secretary of State within the next six months and make a move against a floundering Obama?

My opinion: Obama is headed to be a one-term president, and it will better suit her interests to detach herself from someone destined for something other than greatness, so as to weigh a bid in 2012 and be positioned to run for president in 2016 at the age of 65.

Of greater interest to me is the Quinn column: Who floated this silly balloon? Is Axelrod hitting the panic button?

3 comments:

  1. Clintons have plenty of support among Democratic establishment(" She has been a true team player"). The elite will be very comfortable with her. No wonder, they keep promoting her. Yet, it is very interesting article. What they praise Clintons for? "She is cheerful, thoughtful, serious and diligent. There are no horror stories about her coming out of the State Department. Most notable, though, is that Bill Clinton has not been the problem that so many anticipated". She is "cheerful" and he is "not a problem"! Let us make her vice president!

    ReplyDelete
  2. JG: you need to understand that Sally Quinn thinks she is the last of the ladies who used to exert influence in Washington through their 'elite salons' entertainment, and uses her column to advance that position. Would she even have a column if she had not married Bradlee when Sally was still a young fashionista? (ok, she had a column back then, but it was lifesyle fluff) Sally is NOT in the same league as Pamela Harriman.

    The point that Sally omits is that SecDef Gates may retire by 2011. While Biden does covet SecState, so do John Kerry and Chuck Hagel. The idea of moving Hillary to Defense to open up SecState is the real question buzzing around Washington, though the bigger buzz is about whether the Democratic Party actually has any leader.

    We all just have to wait until November and reboot after the mid-terms, assuming the world is not in flames before then :)
    K2K

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sally insists this is real: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/06/should_hillary_clinton_and_joe.html

    ReplyDelete