Speculation: Clinton Returns to Private Sector – Replacement: NM's Bill Richardson – Clinton Presidential Run Still Not Out of the Question

Hillary Clinton 2003 - Life Magazine Profile


The Examinerled with the question: Will outgoing New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson replaces Hillary Clinton as Sectary of State? Richardson, who had been offered positions within the Obama White cabinet in 2008, was one of the key Super-Delegates in Obama’s win at the 2008 Democrat convention However, at the time he was asked to join the Obama cabinet Richardson represented one more “scandal” in Obama’s cabinet choices, and declined the offer until the Indictments were cleared (Google news: Moscow Pullman Democrat, January 1, 2009).

The speculation on Hillary’s “retirement from public life” began with a few quotes from Clinton herself when queried whether or not she would seek the Presidency in 2012 – both were asked and answered on foreign soil, in early December from Bahrain and again from New Zealand, neither the time nor the place to make an announcement of that sort. She then answered the question on Fox News Sunday – once again, a resounding no to the question of a run against Obama in 2012.

Clinton, who had served as a New York State Senator, and ran against Obama for the 2008 Democrat Presidential Nomination, according to recent reports, is stepping aside to spend more time with her family. Clinton has spent the last two years working the globe and holding her own in the Obama administration - considering the vitriol of the campaign trail and the subsequent “Super Delegate” coronation of Obama over Clinton (who had the popular vote) at the Democrat Convention in 2008, her tenure with the association is nothing short of diplomatic acumen on steroids. That said, it could very well be that Hillary Clinton is tired, and wants to spend time with family and friends.

Meanwhile, David Axelrod hints at Obama’s run in 2012, and a “shake-up” at the White House, and Administration Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, denies any major changes will be taking place. Obviously, something is afoot. Axelrod left for Chicago early in order to set up the campaign strategy for Obama’s 2012 bid, and has been the mastermind behind the Obama elections since he first rolled out Massachusetts Govenor Deval Patrick as test case for Obama in 2006. Axelrod used the same Massachusetts strategy for Obama’s 2008 bid, down to the slogan: “yes we can”. On the eve of the November mid-terms, Patrick was, this time, in a battle for the Governor’s office, however, what aided the most unpopular Govenor in Massachusetts in his reelection (by 2 points), was the former Democrat turn Independent Patrick staffer, Timothy Cahill, running as an independent. This move effectively pulled independent voters away from the Republican Challenger, to tip the scales towards Patrick. As of now, Michael Bloomberg, believed to be the national Tim Cahill, has denied he would run, however, watch for an unexpected change of heart from a semi-plausible Democrat turned independent in 2011-2012 with an announced intention to run against Obama and Brand X Republican. This scenario is not out of the question.

Back to Hillary Clinton: According to Republican Strategist, Carl Rove, via the Huffington Post, Hillary will run in 2016. Speculation perhaps that should Obama run again in 2012, regardless of the number of times he invokes the name of Ronald Reagan, he does not have the time to pick up enough of the independents that he lost over the past two years, therefore, a Republican would win the election in 2012. Thereby, the preceding scenario would open the doors to a Clinton run in 2016.

Of course, Hillary Clinton may be finished with politics, for now and she has repeatedly denied an interest in seeking the White House, hasn't she?: from CNN: 2003:

Former first lady Hillary Clinton says she has no plans to launch a bid to become the country's first woman president in the next two elections.
It has often been speculated the former first lady would make a bid for the White House, but in two interviews Sunday, she said she had "no intention" to run for president in 2008 -- and would turn down invitations to run in 2004.
Clinton said she is enjoying her current political role as a senator for New York.

The fact of the matter is that no-one, at the present time, knows who will run in 2012 on either ticket (or in the case of Axelrod’s campaign strategy, who the “straw man”may be). However, with Clinton free of the White House, and the potential candidacy of the likes of Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and, of course, Sarah Palin, with a Republican controlled Congress and the more than likely 2012 Republican controlled Senate, would the need to run, both for the Democrat Party and for her own vindication, be out of the question? It may be far too early to place any bets, however, one might be tempted to look at Clinton for 2012. She would be a formidable candidate, both during a campaign against Obama (who has the Progressives, but not the overwhelming numbers of Moderate Democrats), and a national campaign against a right of center conservative. This former Goldwater Girl would be able to run directly at the middle. In the aforementioned scenario, the Press would, after a brief period of mourning for their candidate of choice, get behind Clinton in droves, as she would be more representative, at least in part, of the ideologues who are the U.S. press.

Of course, at the present time, it is clearly speculation, but in the opinion of this writer, Clinton would have been the clear choice in 2008 (based on her record in the senate alone), should Hillary Clinton decide to run in 2012, it would be for the love her political Party and her County. What one has to ask, is there anyone else that can match Hillary Clinton on the horizon for 2012, and would one rather have four years of one party rule beginning in 2012? As a nation, we have seen what can happen when one political party is left to its own devices while holding the Executive and the Legislative Branch, (both the Republican and Democrats). It would, to be certain, a sacrifice on Clinton’s part, but will she have the ability to turn her back on her country and the Moderate Democrats? Only time will tell.

Sarah Palin Mainstreams in 2012 Potential run should it be against Obama

A Rasmussen Reports Survey released yesterdayindicated that more American’s feel Sarah Palin’s views are closer to their own than those of President Obama. This by a wide margin of 52% (Palin) to 40% (Obama), which indicates that in a potential 2012 presidential competition, Palin is being seen by most voters (specifically the Unenrolled) more self-identified than Barak Obama.

The liberal UK newspaper The Independent outlined the scenario where Palin would become Madam President, with the conclusion: “It could happen”.

One thing one reading the UK and other Euro newspapers quickly understands is that they appear to be a step ahead on reporting the obvious, while the U.S. papers decline to print similar stories (be it pro-Palin or anti-Obama). As Ms. Palin is often compared to former Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher, it is probable that the UK has more insight into hiring a strong woman (conservative) as Prime Minister.

It is a matter of confidence, and power, and currently, the former Governor of Alaska, wields power over the Republicans Party, one the one hand endorsing the candidates she chooses to endorse, while teh RNC is busy sending out fundraising mailers under Palin’s name. The aforementioned, is an achievement that few women have reached in American Politics (none in recent memory) – she is also a strong supporter of the Tea Party Movement, where the demographics are mainly women, who vote as independents.

Although speculation on 2012 is not advisable prior to a mid-term (although immediately following) – no one, at this point, knows if Palin will, indeed, decide to run. However, it would set up the potential match-up of historic proportions. Should Obama be bested in a primary by Hillary Clinton, the historical first would be a choice of two strong women for President. Of course, on the part of any woman, that may be considered wishful thinking, yet, certain events, set in motion, may make such a match up probable in 2012.

Obama and Clinton Differ On the Tea Party – Too Little, Too Late to Salvage 2010 Mid-Terms – Is Clinton Laying Groundwork for 2012?

Bill Cliton On the Stump for Democrats - Image Sun Sentinal

There’s been a dearth of talk show appearances for former President, Bill Clinton this past week, from the Sunday morning news shows to an appearance last night on Fox News with Greta Van Susteren – the main topic – The Tea Party movement. Clinton, according to Politico, is suggesting that politicians listen to the Tea Party, while at the same time, suggesting they are “funded” by right wing extremists. The same theme was reiterated last night in an appearance on Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, with the exception that in this particular interview, Clinton referred to the polls, and incidentally appeared exhausted (see video here). Clinton, who has been on the campaign trail with Democrat candidates (incumbents) as an alternative to President Obama (even in Massachusetts, where he’s been on the stump for for Stephen Lynch (D-MA), during a primary fight with a Progressive Democrat and will be appearing in Tuanton at the High School to support an endangered Barney Frank against Republican challenger, Sean Bielat at 2 pm on March 26th.)looks exhausted as it appears to be an uphill battle.

Bill Clinton, who is generally popular as a moderate Democrat, especially among the all important independent voter, has been looking at the polls – the Tea Party appears to have the support of a majority of voters, and some members are Democrats or independents, that would vote for a Democrat. It’s a fine line to walk, supporting candidates who are the nemesis of the Tea Party movement, such as Rep. Barney Frank, while trying to garner Tea Party support for the Democrats. He is potentially laying groundwork for a 2012 run at the White House by Hillary Clinton, who has been rumored to be considering mounting a challenge against sitting President Barack Obama. Clinton is no dummy; he’s survived impeachment with high approval ratings, and has generally followed polls in order to understand what it is that voters want from an elected official.

It must be taxing to attempt to stump for a Political Party one loves and believes in, while the Party “leader”, in this case President Obama, is doing just the opposite. Clinton is caught in the twilight zone of Progressive dogma and incompetence, with Obama challenging the “Tea Party” to come up with a plan, if they are not happy with the way he and his administration (Congress included) have run the government. (NY Daily News). Obama, either apparently understands that, contrary to many of the press who characterize the Tea Party as a “philosophical movement”, it is a fledgling Political party, one which may marginalize the Democrats, rather than the Republican’s should it continue to gain mainstream prominence - or he’s moronically hitting back at the core electorate he needs – independent voters and women, the majority of which, make up the movement.

At this point in the game however, Democrats are still desperately trying to either marginalize the Tea Party as “fringe” or tie them to the GOP (and considering Tea Party candidates have, in the same way as Progressives candidate to the Democrats, run as Republican’s and have been extremely successful) with both tactics being rather self-defeating.

In reviewing polls at Real Clear Politics.com, the numbers are not good particularly good for the Democrats. The methodology employed by Real Clear Politics in assessing a particular race, is to include all polls taken, regardless of accuracy, which may move the numbers into a “tie” where none exists. In addition, congressional districts across the nation which are competitive are not being polled – the prime example is the MA 4th District where Sean Bielat (R) is challenging Barney Frank (D-MA) who is, for perhaps the first time, actively campaigning in the district. Therefore, there may be more Republican gains than anticipated at Real Clear Politics.

There is a reason why Bill Clinton is going to Taunton to stump for Barney – where the former President will be greeted with respect from what is anticipated to be a well-attended rally the troop’s event, compete with an Anti-Barney Protest that may rival the attendance inside the school. (The rally, announced by the Bielat campaign on Facebook, is working to ensure that protesters are covered by all applicable laws and have the correct permits.) Given that one has to wonder just how many voters vested in the 4th district are planning on attending. That may have added an extra bit of “angst” to the already overburdened Clinton (unless of course, he plans on skipping out on Barney to hand out Hillary Clinton 2010 bumper stickers to those Independents and Democrats who will be at the counter-Barney rally.)

Of the two men, one a sitting President and the other a former two-term President, who managed to work with a Congress in total political opposition, the one to watch in the coming weeks will be Bill Clinton as he attempts to undo what Obama does naturally, offend potential mainstream voters. Should Clinton manage to at least salvage some shred of dignity on a road paved with Congressional misery, it will be a coup. One has to understand that Clinton coming to rally for Frank, instead of Obama is a huge signal that Obama has lost even Massachusetts, and sends clear signals to those who would have rather seen a Clinton in the White House, that it may still be a possibility.

From Weekend Update to SNL - Obama: The Gift that Keeps On Giving

On Thursday of last week, SNL's Weekend Update did a spoof on the Obama-Oprah Olympic pitch - adding in a jab about health care. The weekend brought it home - with what is the most honest assessment of the administration to date coming from a mainstream source.

h/t Politik Ditto



Although, one can add a few to the list of "Obama accomplishments" (i.e., Failure of Cash for Clunkers, a greater divide in American Political Think than thought possible, and a penchant for placing the country in greater peril by following the policies of the only state (commonwealth) that has implemented policies that have so far produced the result of bleeding population to the extent that congressional districts have been lost - see Massachusetts under Deval Patrick, the original "yes We Can", man(another Axelrod Student)and an actual how-to manual on "Destroying a State in One Term or Less".)

What is heartening is that, finally, the ridiculous (and one would suspect plummeting poll numbers for both the President and incumbents in 09 and 10), has allowed Saturday Night Live's writers to rise to the occasion - and one would hope, that those that continue to defend the indefensible (i.e.: journalists) will follow suit. That said, that the general fall-back to Obama's foibles is still in place: ("Chicago Politician's Blame Bush for Olympic Loss"(Hot Air)) therefore, it is but a matter of time before the blame for Obama's inability to produce (for the left - or for that matter the nation) while enjoying a super-majority and the aid of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, will fall squarely on the shoulders of the Bush Administration.

To date, the "blame Bush" strategy appeared to work on the campaign trail (08), without regard to the fact that McCain was to Obama, as Dole was to Clinton - unfortunately, those "masses" the elite are so sure would remain clueless (with the help of media and Community Organizations (dare we say ACORN), are more in tune with what this administration is (or isn't') doing, than at any time in American History (and with more fervor than the other exception of the late 1970's Carter debacle). This is Obama's greatest achievement - he has awoken the American spirit, and it is regardless of Party, it is misery to the right and misery to the left, which, having no crystal ball - however that may not be necessary, one can expect a change in leadership on the horizon (2010 and 2012).

The Republican Party - What went wrong in 2008 – The Brand and The Entertainment Factor

There is a lot of finger-pointing going on at the moment – from within the Republican Party and from a gleeful press - as to what caused the failure of the McCain campaign. From McCain’s “soft of Obama” demeanor to an “untested” Palin, a feeding frenzy is taking place – to what end? After eight years of an administration that was never accepted by the Democrats or a press who relentlessly attacked every policy move, foreign or domestic – it was inconceivable that any Republican would be successful in 2008. Additionally, “we the people”, are fickle. The Presidency has devolved into nothing more than a personality contest – from Ophrah to the View and Leno to Letterman, the candidates we’re treated as more “celebrity” than politician – Cable and Broadcast news followed suit, paying as much attention to what was said on the “View”, as to any policy positions. It’s about connecting with and pandering to an Entertainment medium in order to reach the “masses”. It is also degrading to the office these individuals seek.

President Bush was besieged by negative press and negative publicity the moment he set foot in the White House – bitterness over the 2000 elections was nothing compared to palpable hatred that followed in 2004. While it is a fact that the media leans, for the most part, left, it is also a fact that little was done to reach out to the American public through the media – when attacked by the New York Times or any cable or broadcast network, the administration remained silent. When the Democrat leadership used the medium to consistently attack the President, he did nothing to fight back, rather, refused to dignify the consistent attacks. Unfortunately, in today’s age, refusing to acknowledge the power of the media is short-sighted to say the least.

There were, of course, other factors: the biggest being the disconnect between Washington Republicans and their base – in the last 6 years it was difficult for many conservatives to tell the difference between a Republican or a Democrat when it came to spending, special interests and scandals. That said when the new “crop” of candidates emerged in 2006 – those that were most comfortable with the media appeared to fair better; whether it was a question of mutual admiration or not.

Former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee could be found on every network, news to talk shows – Huckabee had a instant connect with the media, until of course, he looked more like a front-runner, the gloves came off, and the attacks began; and they will continue because Huckabee, and those Republicans that can connect with the people on a more personal level through Entertainment, are a real threat to the Democrats and those “progressive journalists” who know how fast four years go by.

Sarah Palin is a stunning example of random and specific attacks by both her own party and the press. Palin, who’s support among the Republican base (which itself is derided by the press), is at 60% or better, connected more with those that were working class, than McCain, who represented Washington as usual, despite his long history of bi-partisanship. That history was what bothered most conservatives, it was Palin who brought them back to the fold and now she is paying the price. From the ridiculous squabble over a wardrobe to the anonymous tips emanating from staffers who want to hitch their wagon to Washington, there are, a week after the election, consistent negative articles as well as requests for interviews – Palin, a danger to the left because of her popularity, is also a hot commodity with the press for the same reason, and like Huckabee, she is not backing down, rather standing up and taking the time given to reach out to the base and beyond.

The charge that the Republican Brand is damaged is interesting in that it ties politics to personality - placing a political party in the same category as fast food restaurant or hybrid car – that is also true of the Democrat Brand, which faired this election – simply because they understood how to manipulate the media and the entertainment mediums. Enter the fickle “we the people”. One has to understand that President-Elect Obama is now under great scrutiny and in even greater demand, not only must he govern based on the campaign promises, he must also continue to play the part of “rock star politicians” in the press. Should he fail in either, he will begin to face the same criticism as his predecessor. Those that cannot conceive of this scenario need only look back at the love-hate relationship Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had with the press, the difference being that those Presidents did not have to deal with Leno, Letterman and the View. There stakes are greater today, and the pressure for “celebrities” to continue to please the American Public is unprecedented. Sarah Palin understands this better than most, so do other “off-beltway Republicans” like Michael Steele, and Mike Huckabee. Should the interviews and interest, be it love or hate, continue past 2009, then one can see a new “Brand of Republican” emerging, one which can compete with the other brand – Coke vs. Pepsi, so to speak. Is this new idea of politician as celebrity dignified and does it represent the Office of the Presidency? In simple terms - Yes.