WSJ: Hillary Clinton for President

[futurebeachbum]

Article by Pete Du Pont in yesterday's WSJ "Hillary Clinton for President".

It posits that the Democrats can't win with Obama in 2012, but that they can with Hillary.

The secretary of state could mount a formidable challenge to Obama.
...
America's economy is failing to produce jobs, increase growth or raise confidence, and it will likely get even worse next year. Our federal government's spending has increased to $3.7 trillion this year from $2.98 trillion in 2008. Publicly held national debt is up by $2.4 trillion in less than two years, to about 63% percent of GDP from 40%, and is expected to reach 70% by 2012. Add in the unemployment rate, which has remained above 9.4% for over a year, and America is clearly failing economically.
....
So what can be done to change America's policies and make our economy stronger? For one thing, we could elect a president with different thinking. Almost any Republican candidate would have that, and, as we will see in a moment, there is one obvious Democrat who would change our course too.

And why would the Democratic Party want to do that? Because the re-election of President Obama is becoming more problematic. The latest Rasmussen Reports polls show the dramatic decline of the presidential approval index, the difference between those who "strongly approve" of Mr. Obama's performance and those who "strongly disapprove." It began at plus 25% when the new president was sworn in, and has steadily declined to minus 13%.

It isn't just the president whose poll numbers are falling fast. According to recent Harris polling, Vice President Biden viewed favorably by 26% of the public and unfavorably by 45%. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does even worse, 20% positive to 49% negative. A June Nevada poll gave Sen. Harry Reid, the majority leader, 33% approval and 52% disapproval.

But the greatest contrast and most interesting statistic is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's ratings: 45% favorable and only 35% unfavorable.

I am extremely skeptical. No Democratic candidate was able to successfully challenge Carter in 1980 and he didn't really have the press behind him the way Obama does. I can't see it happening with Obama in 2012.

(I will say that Biden's 26% positive rating proves that you can fool some of the people all of the time.)

 

[sarawind]

Hillary Clinton for President. Just when you thought it was safe to give the nutcracker to Goodwill

Hat tip to Mrs. Goldberg

 

[Lynnie]

She would be better than the current Administration...probably anyone would be better at this point. I like Hillary and have always thought she'd be a good President. I have concerns of Bill back in The White House, though.

. Has a party ever not nominated the President for his second term? This could be very huge news if Obama doesn't receive the nomination.

 

[sarawind]

Has a party ever not nominated the President for his second term? This could be very huge news if Obama doesn't receive the nomination.


Yes, Democrat President Franklin Pierce.

 

[ASH]

Vice President Joe who......???

Never heard of the guy.

:funn:

 

[scooterbug44]

I'd vote for Obama again, don't think I would vote for Hilary (unless the Republican candidate is just insane - like Palin).

 

[futurebeachbum]

I still think there ought to be "None of the above" choice in all elections.

The winner should also have to get a simple majority with any runoffs held 2 weeks after the election.

 

[Yzarctoo]

I'd vote for Obama again, don't think I would vote for Hilary (unless the Republican candidate is just insane - like Palin).

I'm personally surprised that you would say that" I'd vote for Obama again." Why doom our country to four more years of the same old same old...unless, for some reason you don't want the new President to be able to say "I inherited this mess." With Obama...you can put that off for four more years. (Writing this with a smile:roll

 

[scooterbug44]

Why not?

Since I actually researched the candidates instead of listening to soundbites, I knew what I was voting for, where he stood on the issues, and what policy changes he wanted to enact.

He's kept/fulfilled over 50% of his campaign promises so far. I voted for him for 2 reasons - I didn't think McCain was capable of running the country (though I had a great deal of respect for him, the vote was a foregone conclusion once Palin came along) and I agreed with the vast majority of Obama's proposals.

I was really hoping that McCain would step up and become the voice of reason for the Republican party post-election and help clean up Washington's lobby/crony issues, but I didn't get that.

You don't want me to vote for Obama again, find a good candidate w/ a good platform to oppose him - instead of posting lies, half-truths, out of context comments and innuendo that I can easily dismiss.

 

[ugabuga]

Obama is a Moderate

I stand w/ scooterbug: I would vote for Obama again.

In spite of all the conspiracy theories, I don't believe he's a secret Muslim socialist Nazi Communist. I don't think he's the Anti-Christ.

I think he's ...get ready...wait for it...a Hard-Core Moderate.

I honestly believe Obama's primary political instinct is to compromise & give all parties part of a loaf. That's the way he learned "to do politics" in Chicago: exchanging favors, tit for tat, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, logrolling, etc.?

He continued his predecessor's policies in bailing out banks & autos; he kept his predecessor's SecDef; on the Stimulus Bill 1/3 of the total stimulus was Republican-proposed tax cuts; he accepted a boatload of the other party's ideas/amendments on Health Care, he's trying to continue his predecessor's policy on immigration reform; he continued his predecessor's policy on rendition/military tribunals/The Patriot Act; he's continued his predecessor's two wars.?

His modus operandi was on display when he invited two adversaries (the professor & the policeman) to the White House for a beer. Come, let us reason together.

I think candidate Obama really thought he could make all parties in Washington reasonably happy via compromise. However, he found an environment in D.C. opposed to compromise.?

His middle-of-the-road-ness has now gotten him in trouble w/ the liberals who thought he was theirs alone. They don't like his support of any of his predecessor's policies mentioned above. They say he hasn't done enough for blacks, for gays, for women, for the disadvantaged, for the environment, for peace...

The hard right has a constituency, the hard left has a constituency, the middle has almost no constituency.

How can folks be passionate about moderation?