Clinton Continues to Deny A Run for 2012 – Claims A Woman is Likely to Run.

A recent CBSNews article on Clinton's continued denial of a bid for the presidency in 2012, has more than a few of those leaving comments on the article a bit disappointed. The Secretary of State was asked the questions on foreign soil, while still in the position of Secretary of State, which would, in any sane scenario, be the wrong time and place to announce a bit for the White House. The most interesting remark that Clinton made in the article however, was in response to a New Zealand television interview, during a Q and A on the likelihood of the United States being open to electing a woman as president, after emphasizing it she, herself, would not run, Clinton stated:

"But it will be someone, and it is nice coming to countries that have already proven that they can elect women to the highest governing positions that they have in their systems,"

There is more speculation of a run by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and CBS has driven home a point that pushes those on the left of American politics around the bend. The article: “Palin Emerges with Even More Clout” in reference to the high percentage of candidates that won election in 2010 with Palin’s backing, goes on to speculate if, with the increased clout, Palin might run in 2012.

So what does the fascination by CBS have to do with anything other than, perhaps, ratings? CBS is driving by ratings, first, because these two woman are perhaps the most (by media standards) divisive in the nation. Secondly, according to some pundits, the networks have become cheerleaders, so to speak, for the Obama administration. However, one must look to these women, and other women in government, and the private sector, to understand that Clinton saying, “it will be someone”(CBS), means that there will, indeed be women candidates (including Clinton herself, more likely to make an announcement on American soil in mid 2011) in the 2012 field. As to how well a woman would fare against the pack of men that will assuredly be in the field, along with a media that is blatantly sexist, it is difficult to tell. Of course, should there be two women, from opposing political parties running for the White House, and gaining strength in primaries, the obvious would occur.


A recent election night interview on Fox News with Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin is worth watching. The video below highlights the fact that women are indeed, ready to stand up and not wait another 20 years before taking up the challenge. One must also note that speculation and the field of candidates will not take shape until mid-2011, when musings and reports of visits to Iowa and New Hampshire by a myriad group of possible, turns into actual announcements.

Field of GOP Presidential Candidates May Include Donald Trump – Seriously Considers Run against Obama in 2012

Donald Trump 2012? Image askmen.com

Donald Trump has announced that he is ”seriously considering” a run for President in the upcoming 2012 general election. The first mention of Trump considering a run as the Nation’s top CEO, came from a CBS News article on October 5th, after a poll conducted in New Hampshire pushed Trump to the top of a field of GOP possible candidates. The poll, which as of October, news sources could not locate a source, was conducted in September. Those polled were questioned if Trump’s donations to Democrats in the past and his television appearance would help or hurt him in a run at the White House. (Granite State)

Trump, who is an American businessman and Reality Television “Star”, made the announcement national on Fox News' “On The Record” last night. Trump’s focus is creating jobs, and the trade deficit between the U.S. and primarily China. He noted in the interview on Fox that politicians are talking about creating jobs, but not offering solutions. His solution would be a 25% tax on imported goods, which would even the playing field for U.S. production of items such as Toys. Additionally, Trump stated that the international business community finds elected officials in the U.S. to be “stupid”, and that lobbyist for foreign interests in Washington may be swaying the way certain elected officials cast their votes.

Trump would certainly add more than a bit of drama and business acumen to the “hypothetical” field of GOP nominees, which includes Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, among others. Santorum was in New Hampshire yesterday, “testing the water”. Others, who have made the trip, according to WMUR, New Hampshire are: “Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former New York Gov. George Pataki and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.”

“The Donald” also made mention of his potential run on his Facebook page where he received some positive feedback from his fans. There are multiple “Donald Trump 2012” pages on Facebook, none, as of yet, official. His political ideology of Protectionism just may resonate with voters who are frustrated with the lack of manufacturing jobs, the return of which would certainly be a boon to those millions of unemployed, especially the 99’ers (or those who will have their unemployment checks cut as 99 weeks expire this week).

Historically, President Theodore Roosevelt led the nation with a policy of tariffs on foreign goods, which he used to push the United States to the heights of prosperity.

Richard Neal (MA2), Get’s Rave Reviews from MA DNC Vice Chair – “He Still Cares...about the Little People.” Richard Neal Up For Re-Election in 2012

From the Springfield Republican’s article “U.S. Rep. Richard Neal improves election record to 18-0 with 2nd District win over Tom Wesley”comes this little gem:

Debra Kozikowski, vice chairman of the state Democratic party, said they were not surprised that Neal withstood the challenge of Wesley, a business executive who positioned himself to ride the anti-incumbent wave.
Of the two candidates, Neal had a stronger claim as a populist, Kozikowski contended. “He still cares about the little things, about the little people,” she said.

Neal, who had not faced a challenge in 16 of those 18 elections has little to crow about, neither does Ms. Kozikowksi, considering that 41% of those “little people” she speaks of voted for Neal’s opponent, Tom Wesley (If those are the "little people" she is referring to.) Wesley, a veteran and businessman who had never run for office and had little cash on hand garned 41% of the vote. Wesley fell short in the Western part of the district, with three cities showing high returns of votes: Chicopee, Springfield and Northampton. Additionally, Progressive Community Organizers, driving low-income and “immigrant” voters to the polls, produced votes for Neal that were not there for Coakley in the January 19th election.

In reviewing vote returns from these two of the three cities mentioned in the Mass Live article as having given Neal the edge From: The Boston Globe website, Boston.com:
Deval Patrick won Chicopee with 6,850 votes to Charlie Baker (R) 6,270 votes. Tim Cahill took 2,643 votes, and Jill Stein 364.
Springfield returns: 8,019 votes for Baker, 3,058 votes for Cahill and 20,221 for Patrick, with Green Party candidate Jill Stein taking 563 votes.

In town by town results for the MA2 district
Chicopee: 10,670 Neal, 5,375 for Wesley, Springfield: 24,423 Neal, 6,972 for Wesley
In Chicopee, 16,127 voted for the Governor’s Office, with 16,045 voting in the Congressional Race, in Springfield: 31,861 voted in the Governor’s race, with 31,395 voting in the Congressional race. In precincts such as Agawam: Baker won over Patrick: 4975 to 3614, with 1703 voting for the two other candidates (10,292). However, on the Congressional Side, Agawam went for Neal: 6192 to Wesley’s 4402 (10,594). This pattern is prevalent with all districts and recording of votes.

These anomalies in extra votes for Neal may be due to the Globe’s accounting, once the final results are posted on the MA Secretary of State’s website, results may differ slightly.

The explanation as to how the votes varied, can be twofold, either votes were manufactured in the District in Neal’s favor (as in get out there and vote for Neal, while neglecting to get out the Vote for Deval Patrick), or overall, and more likely, the problem in the past and continued in this last election: name recognition. Those who may have voted for Wesley, voted for Neal as Wesley was for the most part unknown (compared to say Scott Brown). Wesley did run an astounding ground game; however, Neal was running advertising in both the east and west of the districts.

Additionally, Neal targeted voter groups: Holding meet and greets with free food for seniors at local eateries (The Annual Senior Appreciation Dinner at the Hu Ke Lau, held a week before the election is highlighted on Neal’s Facebook page. (Unfortunately, prior to Neal’s Facebook, it is difficult to find a 2009 Annual Senior Appreciation Dinner). Regardless, Neal had to work hard for this campaign, and should not, as suggested by the State Party Chair, who expressed that Republicans would lose control of the House 2012, rest easily on his “laurels”.

Should Neal exclusively caucus with the Democrats, and follow the next Minority Whip as he did Ms. Pelosi as Speaker, during the next year, he fill find that those emails sent and unanswered (see comments under Masslive article link posted above), will indeed set the stage for the next candidate to oppose Congressman Neal. (Who, incidentally no longer holds the power in Congress that he did on the morning of Nov. 2nd). Neal should make returns to the district between votes and hold town hall meeting where he can listen to those “little people” for some feedback. As to the next candidate, that man or woman has paid attention to what took place in this race, (and other races statewide) and will, perhaps having more cash on hand, use it in conjunction with effective advertising in both sides of the district (matching Neal) allowing those “little people” to get to know him or her.

Should Neal change his 18 term habits and suddenly get close to those aforementioned, and begin to pay attention, then he would win the hearts and minds of his district. As of now, his job is to listen to the 41% of the voters who decided his job performances was lacking. If not, then 2012 might find him in another expensive and prolonged fight for term #19.


Comparing voter statistics from the two previous elections: in 2010 Democrats in Hampden County accounted for 39.66% of the electorate with Republicans at 13.8% and Independents at 47.67%, in Worcester County, Democrats 29.86%, Republicans at 12.86 and Independents at 56.62% The 2008 Statistics show the movement of the parties by country Hampden County: 39.81% Democrat, 13.42% Republican and 46.02 Independent, Worcester County: 30.65 Democrat, 13.02 Republican and 55.54 Unenrolled (Independent) between the two elections offered slight variances.