When Newt Gets Cranky, Really Cranky

One of the most startling events I witnessed during the Iowa caucus coverage was Newt Gingrich [who I lovingly refer to as Eye of Newt] revealing the true depth of his vindictive nature.  Gingrich rode the bubble of ‘The Man Who Would King’ for the briefest of moments.  Even Herman Cain and his absurd 999 mantra lasted longer than Newt’s claim to fame, his self-anointing as the Republican Nominee.

This is what a wolf looks like

But after a reported blitzkrieg of negative advertising, financed by Mitt Romney’s Super-PAC buddies, Gingrich’s numbers plummeted.  He ultimately finished a limping 4th in the Iowa ugly contest, 13% of the vote.

Oh, how the self-elevated fall!

When I was a kid we were taught the lesson of losing with grace, regardless of what the contest was.  It’s one thing to be disappointed, we were told.  That’s normal, human.  But there was something called being a ‘good loser,’ a certain nobility inferred by shaking the winner’s hand, walking off the field with head held high and chalking it up to . . . life.  You win some, you lose some.  You go on.  [Note to Newt: Hillary Clinton certainly knows how this works.]

Gingrich obviously never learned this valuable lesson.  And yes, politics has been called a ‘blood sport.’  But if a candidate is not ready to suffer the slings and arrows that political combat inflicts, then what the hell is he/she doing running for the highest office in the land?  Did Gingrich think he was immune to this sort of criticism, these pointed [and I’m sure painful] barbs?  Gingrich’s reaction has a certain irony, considering that he helped usher in this generation of ugly political tactics–the nasty personal attacks, the language one uses to inflict the most damage. Politics in America has never been polite but the nasty, personal, take-no-prisoner attacks has been taken to a new level in recent years.

How shall I slice thee?  Let me count the ways.

Anger and disappointment are surely typical reactions to a humiliating loss.  But hate?  What I saw on Gingrich’s face was the sort of rage you’d expect to see on the face of a psychopath.  And then the vow.  That he would work with his ‘ole buddy Rick Santorum to block Mitt Romney’s nomination.

If he can’t have the prize, he’ll make sure Mitt Romney doesn’t have it either.  This is reminiscent of Middle School battles, not Presidential politics.

Which leaves the Republicans where exactly?  Santorum?  Ron Paul?  Huntsman? [Who is a credible candidate but can’t get off the launch pad.]  Well, there’s always Rick Perry who has effectively tripped over his tongue in every debate.  Rick hasn’t given up, even though he should.

I read Gingrich described elsewhere as a GOP suicide bomber.  A startling analogy but not terribly off the mark. Because what I saw in Gingrich’s face the other night, heard in his voice and words was nothing short of a blood feud, a very personal and bitter vendetta, the sort that destroys not only the object of the hate but the hater as well.  And anyone standing on the periphery.

The idea that someone so emotionally volatile and hostile is running for President is a scary thought.  This is someone who should never be taking those 3 am calls or considered capable of making rational decisions in a stressful moment.

Think of JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Transpose Gingrich’s face.

Now think crispy critters.

The Republican field is in such disarray that a group of fundie conservatives in Texas has scheduled an emergency meeting to find a ‘consensus’ candidate to save the GOP’s 2012 election cycle.  It should be noted that this meeting will be hosted by the likes of James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and Don Wildmon, onetime chairman of the American Family Association.  Oh yes, I’m sure they’ll come up with a reasonable candidate.  It’s been suggested that Rick Perry’s candidacy was, in fact, their brainchild.

This is what a cranky wolf looks like

After three years of missteps, President Obama should be nervous as hell about his reelection chances.  He’s highly vulnerable in the areas of performance, competence and results, particularly in domestic issues [though Obama has continued the Bush/Cheney militaristic postures around the world, even added a flourish with indefinite detention that includes American citizens]. Thank you, Mr. President!  Obama has considerable weaknesses with poll numbers to underscore the point.  But now?  The Administration must be stomping out the Happy Dance in the West Wing.

How this all turns out is up for grabs. We have nine months before Election Day. But assuredly, there will be blood.


Eyes on 2012 And Political Acts

After last night’s Ugly Contest in Iowa and all the post-op analysis today, one might easily believe that the 2012 election season is simply a Republican Mummer’s strut [costuming optional] to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Au Contraire!  But for Democrats Wandering the Wilderness like myself, the on-going contest is an exercise in few choices to no choice at all.  At least at the presidential level. There are, however, alternate choices out there.  Rocky Anderson, a former Democrat and mayor of Salt Lake City, is running under the Justice Party.  And Buddy Roemer, a Republican [though you’d be hard pressed to find him on the official roster of candidates] is also running.

Both these men offer fresh voices and counter the establishment view, whether you be liberal or conservative.  They could, in fact, change the monotonous conversation of the legacy parties.

But unlike Michelle Bachmann, I’m not waiting for miracles.

Which is why I’d suggest we turn our attention to the 2012 House and Senate candidates, individuals who deserve a look, who have a track record to examine and who ultimately, if elected could work to change the frustrating, even dangerous defense of the status quo.

Earlier, I’ve written [and will no doubt continue to write] about the Massachusetts Senate race between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown.  This is a contest that should be interesting to watch and has to date given Warren a 14 pt. jump in the polls, a result that produced Brown’s public whine–the press is giving Warren the ‘kid glove’ treatment.  Poor baby!  Tea Party love appears to be on the wane.

But as the GOP primary has clearly shown, polls are fickle.  A favored candidate can go from flavor of the week to yesterday’s news in an eye blink.  Which is why–once we find a candidate we respect, someone we believe will serve the public’s needs over the plutocracy—keeping abreast of these candidates and offering support, in any way we can, is important.  Some voters may be able to throw a few dollars to a candidate.  Others may write and hope their words are read. We can inform [or at least try to inform] our family and friends. Still others may lend campaign support—make calls, knock on doors, distribute campaign material–in their respective states and districts.

Political action comes in many forms.  For the polar bears with hearts aflame the choice might be throwing on sweaters and warm socks and joining the up-coming Occupy Congress action in DC on January 17.

Whatever we do, regardless of how small, can make a difference because small things add up.  Think of the Wisconsin pushback, the fight for worker’s rights, the amazing recall effort now underway against Scott Walker. Or the pushback against legislation [HR 326 Stop Online Piracy] that could easily curtail the Internet as we know it, giving business and government the ability to automatically shutdown websites without appeal or due process [although under the guise of copyright infringement].  This legislation was halted.  Or the fight to remove the immunity sought by TBTFs and supported by the Administration from proper investigation and possible prosecution. Or even the most recent decision handed down by the Montana Supreme Court, rejecting the Citizen United debacle. This is an ongoing fight.  But with public support and public servants willing to pickup the ball and run the distance, we have the opportunity to change the game on the ground.

So, to start the New Year off, here are some names to consider or reconsider:

Two women I suggested earlier are Tammy Baldwin [D. WI] and Winona Baldenegro [D. AZ].

Tammy Baldwin, presently a member of the House, is running for the US Senate.  She has a strong record in women’s issues and has recently backed a resolution to remove any and all immunity from the banks and mortgage institutions involved the 2007-2008 meltdown.  Frankly, the public deserves its Pecora moment if we’re ever to reclaim faith in our financial system.  Baldwin’s official site is here.

Winona Benally Baldenegro is a new but promising face running for the first Congressional district in Arizona.  Her voice is fresh and decidedly progressive.  I’d suggest checking in with updated materials here.

She has an impressive list of credentials and an interesting story.  Someone to watch.

Alan Grayson will never be confused with a diplomat but has on a myriad of occasions spoken truth to power.  Grayson lost his House seat in the 2010 Tea Party blowout but will be running again for Florida’s 8th District in 2012.  Without overstating the evident, the GOP hates Grayson for his less than polite critiques of Republican policy stands.  For example, his infamous statement–“If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly.”

No, the man will not receive the Nobel Peace Prize.  But he will fight for the public’s interest, and he has not given President Obama’s failures a free ride either.  From my point of view, that makes him a worthy candidate.  You can find background info, videos, policy statements here.

But you can easily Google Grayson and find a wealth of detail on what the man stood for his first time out and what we can expect in the future.  He’s no shrinking violet.

An interesting if not problematic development of redistricting, is in Ohio’s primary where Democratic candidates Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur will face off to represent the state’s 9th District.  In my mind, this is a crazy wealth of riches and sadly, one of these long-time Congressional Reps will end up defeated, stepping out of the public arena in which both have served with distinction.  Only last week, Kucinich made a short but pointed statement about the NDAA and America’s war without end.

On the other hand Marcy Kaptur introduced legislation to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act and was the first voice I recall standing on the House floor, defending the rights of and railing against the abuses inflicted on foreclosed homeowners. I’d be hard pressed if I were a resident of Ohio.

The good news?  Both candidates are solid and worthy.

Mazie Hirono [D HI] represents the Hawaii’s 2nd district but is now running for her state’s open US Senate seat due to Daniel Akaka’s scheduled retirement.  Her primary challenger will be Ed Case, a former Democratic Congressman who would run to Congresswoman Hirono’s political right .  Hirono has a strong record in supporting legislation to advance and protect women’s rights, has been a vocal advocate for funding pre-K education, opposed the Iraq War as well as the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  She would come to the Senate as an experienced legislator, not only with her current House position but as a state representative for 14 years and service as Hawaii’s Lieutenant Governor from 1994-2002.  Early December polls indicated Hirono with an 18 pt lead for the primary run off.

Additional information on Hirono’s background can be found here.

As we move through the primary and GE season, I’ll be updating these candidates and mentioning others.  If we want to make a difference, produce real change–tangible, visible change people are so hungry for–then staying plugged into the cast of candidates, their message, credentials and track record is important.As is working at our local levels.

I listened to a several-hour interview with Chris Hedges this past weekend on Book TV.  One call-in viewer, a disabled grandmother, asked Hedges what she could do to change the political and social landscape with her physical and financial limitations.  Hedges answer was simple but eloquent.  He reminded the woman that we each give and do what we can.  We all have limitations, he reminded her, but that reaching out to a neighbor, a friend, even a stranger in need and/or crisis in these trouble times is, in fact, a political act.

I approve of that message.  Keep your eyes on 2012; we’re living in extraordinary times.


Let’s Hear It for the Little Guy . . . Oh Hell, Let’s Hear It for Montana

While awaiting the results of the Iowa Ugly Contest, we can rejoice in an example of American common sense and respect for the electoral process.

From the land of the Ponderosa Pine, from the state where the official flower is bitterroot [oh, how appropriate], we have the first challenge to SCOTUS’s reprehensible 2010 decision in Citizens United.  From the Daily Agenda:

The Montana Court vigorously upheld the state’s right to regulate how corporations can raise and spend money after a secretive Colorado corporation, Western Tradition Partnership, and a Montana sportsman’s group and local businessman sued to overturn a 1912 state law banning direct corporate spending on electoral campaigns.

What does this mean?  A first shot across the bow to one of the most contentious Supreme Court decisions in the last decade, a decision that has flooded elections with corporate money and influence and threatens to undermine the very nature and foundation of our democratic electoral processes.

There are national movements afoot, calls for Constitutional Amendments to remove the corrosive effects of corporate money and influence through Dylan Ratigan’s political action group. Bernie Sanders and his pragmatic Yankee constituents in Vermont are working to the same end. I reported before the holiday that Tammy Baldwin, House Rep from WI, introduced a resolution calling for aggressive investigation and prosecution of TBTF banks involved in the housing debacle.  At last look, Baldwin had attracted 70 cosponsors to the proposed legislation.  There’s a ‘fight ‘em on the beaches’ spirit rising on the wind. It’s a good sign.

And now Montana has entered the fray, where the State Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s decision to allow direct spending in state electoral campaigns.

This case wended its way through the judicial process and the decision to uphold the 100-year old state ban was ultimately supported in a 5-4 decision last Friday. John Bonifaz spokesman for Free Speech For People, a group pushing to overturn the Citizens United decision, said in a statement:

With this ruling, the Montana Supreme Court now sets up the first test case for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its Citizens United decision, a decision which poses a direct and serious threat to our democracy.

Not to get too heady about this decision [we are talking about bucking a ruling by SCOTUS, always considered The Rule of the Land], the dissenting opinion by Montana Judge Nelson, the main points picked up by Alternet, made my heart soar for its principled stand.  Yes, it sounds like a contradiction because I think Citizens is an odious and destructive ruling.  But so does Nelson, which he explains below.  Btw, I would suggest reading the full post over at Alternet because it gives a good summary of the historical background in Montana, the reason the state ban on direct corporate funds was originally imposed and the smarmy games the lawyers [representing Western Tradition Partnership] have been playing in Montana.

But here are few of Judge Nelson’s statements pertaining to his dissent:

Nelson closed by slamming the legal theory of corporate personhood—that corporations, because they are run and owned by people, should have the same constitutional freedoms as individuals under the Bill of Rights. Corporatist judges, such as the Roberts Court, believe that corporations and people are indistinguishable under the law. In contrast, constitutional conservatives know very well that the framers of the U.S. Constitution distrusted large economic enterprises and drafted a document to protect individual businessmen, farmers and tradespeople from economic exploitation.

“While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in law,” Nelson began, “I find the concept entirely offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers—not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers—that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business. Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”

As Nelson said, ending his dissent, “the [U.S.] Supreme Court has spoken. It has interpreted the protections of the First Amendment vis-a-vis corporate political speech. Agree with its decision or not, Montana’s judiciary and elected officers are bound to accept and enforce the [U.S.] Supreme Court’s ruling…”

This is what it means to stand on principle, even when you vehemently disagree.  It’s not a matter of stretching out and letting the 18-wheeler have its way.  This is an honorable dissent, one to be proud of because it’s firmly entrenched in the American tradition.

So while Michelle Bachmann awaits a miracle and we’re inundated with the results of today’s Ugly Contest think about Judge Nelson’s stand and words.

I don’t know about you but I’m ready to kiss a cowboy!


Frank Rizzo and a Militarized Police Force

While I grew into my young adulthood, Frank Rizzo was the Police Commissioner and then later served as mayor of Philadelphia, Pa. Rizzo died in 1991 but I suspect somewhere in the Great Unknown, the man wails with disappointment, bemoaning the fact he lived before his time.  Rizzo once said that if necessary he would roll tanks down Market Street to preserve the peace.

My parents loved Rizzo’s blustery, make-my-day style.  I thought he was nuts.  As it turns out?  The man was a visionary.

One of the overlooked or rarely mentioned contributions of the Occupy Wall Street Movement has been the public eyeballing of today’s military style, domestic police force.  Many were surprised, even appalled by the military-style uniforms, the aggressive force, the ‘shock and awe’ approach of smoke and sound cannons caught on video.

Let me start off by saying I enjoy safe environments, appreciate the fact that children walk our streets without the fear of immediate abduction, that little old ladies are not routinely bashed over the head for their social security checks or that drug cartels have yet to murder mayors and judges in turf wars [eg., Mexico].

Crime is down in America.  That’s a good thing.

But the push for overkill security measures from our national police forces, fueled by the residual shock of 9/11, defense contractors recognizing small but reliable profit centers and Federal grants under the Homeland Security Department has shot into hyper-drive.  This transformation has occurred not simply in urban settings, where drug-related crime is often a legitimate concern, the source of violence against innocent citizens and police alike. No, the rise of military-style SWAT teams has come to small town America. And numerous Federal Agencies.

Why should we, ordinary citizens, be concerned?  Surely, there is a parallel between the military and police—the hierarchal structure, the use of weaponry and force.  However, the main difference is a soldier is expected to kill the enemy, break the place up in times of war.  In contrast, police departments are expected to protect the peace and citizenry, as well as respect our Constitutional rights.  Situations quickly grow hairy when these roles [soldier/policeman] begin to morph into one another.

A case in point, actually several cases were laid bare by Radley Balko, who as early as 2007 testified before Congress, warning of the growing number of SWAT Teams in America and/or the militarization of our police departments.  This did not happen overnight.  In fact the swing to military-style policing has been growing steadily since the 1980’s when Congressional legislation made military surplus available to police departments.

Here are a few examples that Balko has described:

Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a “war,” and the consequences are predictable. These policies have taken a toll. Among the victims of increasingly aggressive and militaristic police tactics: Cheye Calvo, the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Md., whose dogs were killed when Prince George’s County police mistakenly raided his home; 92-year-old Katherine Johnston, who was gunned down by narcotics cops in Atlanta in 2006; 11-year-old Alberto Sepulveda, who was killed by Modesto, Calif. police, during a drug raid 2000; 80-year-old Isaac Singletary, who was shot by undercover narcotics police in 2007 who were attempting to sell drugs from his yard; Jonathan Ayers, a Georgia pastor shot as he tried to flee a gang of narcotics cops who jumped him at a gas station in 2009; Clayton Helriggle, a 23-year-old college student killed during a marijuana raid in Ohio in 2002; and Alberta Spruill, who died of a heart attack after police deployed a flash grenade during a mistaken raid on her Harlem apartment in 2003.

As well as:

. . . paramilitary creep has also spread well beyond the drug war. In recent years, SWAT teams have been used to break up neighborhood poker games, including one at an American Legion Hall in Dallas. In 2006, Virginia optometrist Sal Culosi was killed when the Fairfax County Police Department sent a SWAT team to arrest him for gambling on football games. SWAT teams are also now used to arrest people suspected of downloading child pornography. Last year, an Austin, Texas, SWAT team broke down a man’s door because he was suspected of stealing koi fish from a botanical garden.

Btw, the case of child pornography?  Turned out the man raided had a password-free wifi connection.  It was his next-door neighbor who was into kiddie porn.

On SWAT teams employed specifically by Federal Agencies:

In 2007, a federal SWAT team raided the studio of an Atlanta DJ suspected of violating copyright law. And in June, the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General sent its SWAT team into the home of Kenneth Wright in Stockton, Calif., rousing him and his three young daughters from their beds at gunpoint. Initial reports indicated the raid was because Wright’s estranged wife had defaulted on her student loans. The Department of Education issued a press release stating that the investigation was related to embezzlement and fraud — though why embezzlement and fraud necessitate a SWAT team isn’t clear, not to mention that the woman hadn’t lived at the house that was raided for more than a year. Ignoring these details, however, still leaves the question of why the Department of Education needs a SWAT team in the first place.

The Department of the Interior also has one [SWAT team], as does the Consumer Products Safety Commission. Last August, gun-toting federal marshals raided the Gibson Guitar factory in Nashville, Tenn. The reason? The company is under investigation for importing wood that wasn’t properly treated.

In 2006, a group of Tibetan monks inadvertently overstayed their visas while touring the U.S. on a peace mission. Naturally, immigration officials sent a SWAT Team to apprehend them.

Concerned yet?

According to Andrew Becker and GW Schulz from the Center for Investigative Reporting, Federal funds deluged America after 9/11 with little oversight.  And so, a place like Fargo, ND though an unlikely target for jihadist terrorism, has received 34 billion dollars over the last decade, resulting in a wild spending spree.

In recent years, they [Fargo’s PD] have bought bomb-detection robots, digital communications equipment and Kevlar helmets, like those used by soldiers in foreign wars. For local siege situations requiring real firepower, police there can use a new $256,643 armored truck, complete with a rotating turret. Until that day, however, the menacing truck is mostly used for training runs and appearances at the annual Fargo picnic, where it’s been displayed near a children’s bounce house.

And,

No one can say exactly what has been purchased in total across the country or how it’s being used, because the Federal government doesn’t keep close track. State and local governments don’t maintain uniform records. But a review of records from 41 states obtained through open-government requests, and interviews with more than two-dozen current and former police officials and terrorism experts, shows police departments around the U.S. have transformed into small army-like forces.

Last month, I wrote a post for Sky Dancing on the growing popularity of drones for domestic applications, Eyes in the Sky.  Yes, it is true police departments have routinely employed helicopters for apprehension purposes but a drone can be kept in the air for 20+ hours, employ cameras to spy on citizens in their own homes.  There’s been no public discussion or debate on using drones in American airspace.  For good reason, I would argue.  The public identifies the drone to our recent wars in the Middle East, an effective killing machine.  On its face, remote aircraft application takes the issue of surveillance to another level, one that many citizens would reject.

Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that with all the money spent on military weaponry and hardware over the last decade+, it’s reported that local municipalities have pinched costs when it comes to basic training, the how to’s, the when and wherefores for their personnel.  Basic safety and procedural training protects not only the innocent citizen bystander but police officers as well.

The tragedy we witnessed in Oakland during the Occupy protests where Scott Olsen, an Iraqi vet, was nearly killed was a preventable action.  The pepper-spraying and crackdown of peaceful protestors in NYC and elsewhere by overzealous police is a chilling development, as is the routine use of stun guns on the elderly, on children, even pregnant women, and/or the multiple shooting of family pets in warrantless house raids [an alarming number of which have been mistakes].  These are steps too far, steps we will surely regret as a society.  This is particularly true at a moment when authoritative incursions are being made on our basic civil rights, eg., the recent sign off on indefinite detention; the kill order on and ultimate assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, a bad guy but an American citizen nonetheless; a continuing war against whistleblowers; the veil of secrecy in an ever-expanding state of war and surveillance; the deliberate fear-mongering and scapegoating used by our politicians; the disturbing rise and spread of corporatism, etc.

The slide into tyranny is an easy hop, skip and jump from where we find ourselves right now.  We’re deluding ourselves by pretending our democratic principles cannot be/have not been eroded.  This should not be a partisan issue because all parties have been responsible and all parties will be injured if the trend continues.

Frank Rizzo may be smiling in the afterlife.  But Benjamin Franklin leans over his shoulder, reminding us all:

‘Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. ‘

Sorry, Frank.  Ben was the far wiser man.


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!