Speaking of Predictions, Speculation and Resolutions . . .

I confess the rolling rumor that Hillary Clinton is a perfect match as the Democratic VP candidate in 2012 fills me with absolute dread.  It’s not because I don’t think she’s qualified or could do the ribbon-cutting ceremonies with her eyes closed.  It’s because she’s over-qualified and could do the ribbon-cutting ceremonies with her eyes closed.

Hillary Clinton riding shotgun does not appeal to any of my senses or sensibilities.  In fact, it makes me damn angry.  Outraged, if you will.  In 2008, the electorate was beguiled, bewitched and hoodwinked by a presidential campaign that sold Barack Obama as the American Idol President, the man who would hold back the seas, bring world peace and a variety of other nonsense.  The man took the Nobel Peace prize without a single accomplishment then promptly continued George Bush’s wars and policies with great gusto.

In contrast, Hillary Rodham Clinton was portrayed as tiresome, inexperienced former First Lady who’d held white-glove receptions, serving tea like a Geisha girl.  Any accomplishment—her amazing speech in Beijing, her influence in Ireland, her tireless efforts to raise the profile of women and girls throughout the world, her staunch stand on civil rights and her genuine outreach to working class Americans were pooh-poohed and discounted. It was all an act, her critics said.  She was a clone of her husband, Bill Clinton, who was demonized by the so-called regressive/progressives though he was the most popular President since FDR.  Was the man perfect? Hardly.  But he was an effective leader. The Right-Wing noise machine could not bring the Clinton mystique down, even after the Monica Lewinsky debacle.

That would be left to the Democratic leadership.  They turned their back on B. Clinton’s enormous popularity in 2000 [at the expense of Al Gore], and then called Clinton a racist in 2008 for remarks made on the campaign trail.

Barack Obama was the Party’s man and Wall Street’s gift.  A gift from God, Nancy Pelosi said.  The One we’ve been waiting for, Oprah gushed.  He’s almost like a god, Evan Thomas, then editor of Newsweek, exclaimed on the Charlie Rose show.

However, the old maxim of ‘what goes up, must come down’ was still in play.  And the ‘gift from God,’ the President hailed as the world’s savior, landed with a resounding thud once in office.

In Karma-like fashion, Hillary Clinton has flown to amazing heights in her role as Secretary of State—the most admired woman in the world.  She has garnered praise from old enemies, even the Republican hate machine.  Regardless of where you stand on American foreign policy, you’d be hard pressed to ignore her non-stop travel, her enthusiastic reception abroad and her unrelenting support for women’s issues around the globe.  She’s the Energizer Bunny.  Unflappable, seemingly indefatigable.

I feel exhausted just reading her daily schedule.

But now as the 2012 election season gears up, we’re inundated with stories that Obama will switch out Joe Biden for Hillary Clinton—Biden will take State and Hillary will slip right into the number 2 position in DC.

The question is why?  Why would Hillary Clinton step down from the very public and important position as the country’s SOS to accept the very useless position of Vice President?  Hillary is aiming to cut Joe Biden’s throat?  No, don’t think so.  Everything I’ve read has Clinton and Biden on very friendly, mutually respectful terms.  Obama is hankering to throw Joe Biden under the bus?  Again, everything I’ve read indicates that despite his gaffes, Joe Biden has been a loyal Obama helpmate not a hindrance [although throwing people under the bus seems a favorite White House sport].

Hummm.  How about lousy poll numbers?

Robert Reich, whose columns I read and generally agree with wrote an Op-Ed for Nation of Change where he made a personal prediction for 2012:

It’s Obama-Clinton.

Reich went on to state:

Because Obama needs to stir the passions and enthusiasms of a Democratic base that’s been disillusioned with his cave-ins to regressive Republicans. Hillary Clinton on the ticket can do that.

Yes, he does and yes, she could stir things up for many disillusioned [dare I say appalled] Democrats.  But why should she?  Why should Hillary Clinton come running in to clean house and save Obama’s ass?

Reich goes onto say:

Clinton would help deflect attention from the bad economy and put it on foreign policy, where she and Obama have shined.

Oh, please pass the upchuck bag.  Yes, Hillary could cheer the troops and deflect the bad news and . . .

In addition, Reich concludes:

The deal would also make Clinton the obvious Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 — offering the Democrats a shot at twelve (or more) years in the White House . . .

Do you feel manipulated yet?

This is on the heels of Hillary Clinton’s own statement that she has no intention of seeking public office after 2012.  But as we all know women have that cra-a-zy habit of changing their minds.

As do all politicians.

But Reich is not alone in floating this balloon.  His article was quickly followed by former Virginia Governor Doug Wilder saying what a fine idea this was on Neil Cavuto’s show [that would be Fox News] and how Biden’s many public gaffes had made him a liability.

Say it ain’t so, Joe.

In fact, Wilder went so far as to suggest that if something happened to President Obama, Joe Biden stepping in would be too awful to contemplate.

He’s kidding, right?  And again, he picked up the thread that this could be Hillary’s path to the White House in 2016.

On Friday night, I heard the same statement coming from a guest on Al Sharpton’s MSNBC show.  I must say the Reverend seemed somewhat miffed, responding with a variation of: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. In other words, Barack Obama don’t need no stinking woman to prop him up.

But these swirling stories/rumors have been in circulation for months on end.  The most recent version was whipped up shortly before Christmas by Pat Caddell and Doug Shoen.  Caddell, former pollster for Jimmy Carter and Shoen, former pollster for Bill Clinton, have called for a grassroots write-in campaign for Hillary in New Hampshire.  That would be for President.  The reason?

The crisis of national leadership.

That’s a hard line to argue against. However, the days when I got any satisfaction in saying–We told you so—are long gone.

I’m absolutely cynical about this sudden burst of love and admiration for Hillary Clinton.  I don’t like the VP idea one bit. Sorry.  It’s either the catbird seat or no seat at all.  Hillary Clinton earned the nomination in 2008.  She was undisputedly the best the candidate then and now.

For President, not Den Mother.

Clinton has said she has no desire to run again in any capacity.  Until I hear words to the contrary from her lips, I respect that decision and have resigned myself that Hillary Rodham Clinton will leave the political stage in 2012.

I’d like to be wrong; 2016 is not an Eternity.  I resent being manipulated by a power structure that seemingly has few principles beyond winning at all costs, at everyone’s expense: you, me and a woman who has given far more to public service than the smarmy pundits—her passion, time, competence, knowledge and I suspect, even her health.

Color me suspicious and skeptical. If this is some tacky way to win the ‘female vote’ in a razor-thin election, you can count me out.  If Clinton is offered the VP spot, I hope she refuses.  It would break my heart to vote against her.  But I will not vote for a continuation of Barack Obama’s miserable administration.  Not for the good of the Party [what’s left of it] or the specter of monstrous SCOTUS appointments.

Not even for Hillary.

The New Year is looking to bring a host of challenges and a myriad of predictions.  I hope the recent VP chatter is just that–chatter.  In the weeks and months ahead, I’m planning to focus on impressive legislative candidates for 2012, strong progressives fighting to keep seats or claim new wins for Democratic principles in the House and Senate.  These are individuals who could really make a difference in the lives of average Americans.  It’s a fight worth having.

As for the Presidential race?  I’ve pretty much thrown my hands up.  Unless, of course, you’re willing to speculate on a Democratic primary challenge.

Now that’s something even I could believe in!

19 Comments on “Speaking of Predictions, Speculation and Resolutions . . .”

  1. dakinikat says:

    He just signed the NDA today; indefinite detention without trials and all.

    I hope she runs as far away as possible from him.

    Coward signed it on New Year’s Eve day and a saturday when all the journalists are more out to lunch then usual.

  2. Woman Voter says:

    Before, I must admit there was a hint of OK, I can vote for the ticket with her on it, but since Obama’s request for the indefinite detention of US citizens under NDAA….NOOOOOOOOO, Hillary don’t do it. I also suspect he will continue his support for SOPA and PIPA. 😦

    Many people are upset about these bills and I for one am very concerned about the American ideals of Freedom and Free Speech going down the toilet for corporate greed…I guess congress/Obama didn’t get what Occupy Wall Street is about. 😦

  3. bostonboomer says:

    The one good thing about Hillary being VP is that she would be the frontrunner in 2016. I sort of wish it would happen, just because it would make things more interesting. But she has been pretty definite about getting out of politics.

    • peggysue22 says:

      That’s why I thought this speculation was good for discussion, BB. I suspect many Hillary Clinton supporters will feel conflicted by this. Up until recently, I said it would require a lot of soul searching. But the detention bill was ‘it’ for me. I cannot and will not support Obama on any ballot.

      If it comes to pass and Hillary is actually on the ticket it’s going to provoke angst for a whole lot of people.

      I’ll be one of them.

      • Woman Voter says:

        People forget that Obama is tied to Biden for what ever arrangement they made before his election. Do you all remember it was Biden’s son that arrested a certain man?

  4. peggysue22 says:

    The indefinite detention without benefit of trial or appeal was the final straw for me. I was talking to one of my sons earlier today and he mentioned that the only reason Obama threatened to veto the ghastly bill was because he believed it pinched his own executive powers.

    Btw, I read last night that a grassroots action has started in Montana to dump any legislator [Republican or Democrat] who gave a yea to this disgrace. I don’t think the majority of Americans realize how our civil liberties are being swept away at lightening speed.

    The man will never get my vote. I hope Hillary Clinton avoids any VP offer like the plague.

    • Woman Voter says:

      Yes, there is a move a foot to rid the system of these ‘secret trials’, these ‘secret bills’ and the ‘secret government’. Transparency my foot!

      Biden and Obama are tied at the hip, they will trample on anyone that gets on their way. That has been the Obama way since his early start in politics. We The People are of no concern to Obama, that is why he blocked the Public Option, that is why he offered up Social Security as a bargaining chip to the GOP and the press offers him cover because he is historic? WTF! Our press has been the biggest let down as they haven’t covered this, and people outside the country are more informed than us here.

      We are so screwed!

      Bill Of Rights RIP ( I just heard that some Occupy Wall Street people have gotten subpoenas from three gov agencies… Hope & Change = No Trial, No Lawyer and Indefinite Detentions)

  5. ralphb says:

    One thing about NDAA is that Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who wouldn’t have signed it into law. In order to make a decisive conclusion on voting against Obama, it’s gonna take something he disagrees with his opponent about, and this ain’t it.

    A good 3rd party candidate would sure make it easier. As it stands now, it’s either Obama or write in Hillary for me. And I hate the idea of voting for Obama.

    • dakinikat says:

      BuddyRoemer Gov. Buddy Roemer
      Yes, Patriot Act unconstitutional too. “@CyHawk_: Let’s not forget Bush who did this for 7 yrs as well as torture in our name when illegal.”

    • dakinikat says:

      BuddyRoemer Gov. Buddy Roemer
      Not enough for Obama to say, “I will not authorize indefinite detention w/out trial.” It’s law. What happens if he’s no longer prez? #NDAA

      Our friend Buddy doesn’t like it.

    • ralphb says:

      Now, if he only runs on the Americans Elect ticket or whatever. He’ got my vote if he can get on the ballot!

  6. Roofingbird says:

    Any prediction Robert Reich has to make regarding 2012 can only be regarded with the same skepticism as that afforded Rove.


    His timed criticism of Clinton’s alleged old time rough politics during the election approached Talleyrand ‘s skills.

    And let’s not forget this April, 18th, 2008 tidbit, reported by Glen Beck of the APP :

    “Former Clinton cabinet member, 2 ex-senators endorse Obama….

    Reich, who served as Labor secretary under Bill Clinton, said in a blog post that
    “although Hillary Clinton has offered solid and sensible policy proposals, Obama’s
    strike me as even more so.”
    Reich also said Obama’s plans for reforming Social Security and health care have a
    better chance of succeeding, and his approach to the nation’s housing crisis and
    financial market failures are sounder than the New York senator’s.
    Reich is a longtime friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton. He ran for governor in
    Massachusetts in 2002 and now is a professor at the University of California-Berkeley.”

  7. northwestrain says:

    Most people don’t even see that the US is slowly moving toward a massive police state.

    All the see is a whole lot of “security theatre” which make them feel “safer”.

    It really doesn’t matter who is VP — that individual is a neutered beast.

    The future looks grim — we’ve had versions of the police state — religious versions, Hitler’s version. The difference this time is the massive intrusion into individual privacy. Anyone who disagrees — protests or perhaps acts slightly different from the defined “norm” will suffer the consequences.

    No matter what I won’t vote 0bama. He is a follower – he never has been nor will he be a leader. It is not in his DNA