The Meme That Just Won’t Die: Hillary as VP

Here we go again. Today Michael Tomasky discusses the possibility that Hillary could switch jobs with Joe Biden. Tomasky was reacting to a snarky piece in the Washington Times, so take it with a large grain of salt. Tomasky writes:

Clinton’s positive numbers are off the charts. Biden’s are so-so—both approval and disapproval sit in the 40s. Biden’s putative asset, that he helps a bit with white working-class and Catholic voters, is even truer of Clinton, the famous drinker of shots in those proletarian Pennsylvania bars. And women—forget about it. An Obama-Clinton ticket would pulverize any Romney ticket on the distaff side (is that insulting? I’m just trying to avoid repeating the word “women” too much). It wouldn’t matter if he put Carrie Underwood on his ticket.

I know, I know. It’s silly. I can right now picture the friends reading this who will write me to say, “Mike, that’s silly.” It probably is. But here are a few points for your consideration that aren’t silly at all.

Actually, I don’t see anything silly about the idea, but then I’m “on the distaff side.” Tomasky notes that in the recent NYT-CBS poll, Romney is actually leading among women. Is it really possible that Romney has narrowed the gender gap. If so, Obama would be in big trouble.

In other words, it may well be that Romney could close the gender gap. And if he could close it to 5 points, it will be an extremely close election.

Now bring in Hillary. Forget about it. The most consistently admired woman in America over the last 20 years? The gender gap would be 20 points. And the Obama and Clinton machines fused like that—it’s like Secretariat and Zenyatta breeding. And the signal sent to Democrats and women across the country that the whole thing is being teed up for her in 2016. This would be a blowout.

And Biden, you ask? Well, the gay-marriage thing might finally have been the straw that made Obama think it’s not so great having Joe around. But don’t feel bad for him. He benefits from the fact that the White House would have to do this smoothly, which means Biden can’t possibly just be hung out to dry. So he’s going to be landing on a $300 goose-down pillow. He gets to be secretary of state—the job he’s dreamed of for years anyway!

It makes a lot of sense, but it probably won’t happen–not because it’s a “silly” idea, but because Obama doesn’t have the guts to do it. If he did, it would be a real “game changer.” Suddenly this deadly dull election season would become very exciting. And Hillary would be teed up to run in 2016.

What do you think?


Open Thread: Hillary in India

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L) watches a girl do karate during an anti-human trafficking event in Kolkata May 6, 2012.

[Click on the photo to see more pictures of Hillary Clinton in India.]

This is just going to be a link and photo dump, because I know absolutely nothing about Indian politics.

From the NY Daily News:

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, hoped to narrow a gap with India over Iran on Monday as she tried to throw a spotlight on issues dear to her heart such as the fight against sex trafficking.

Mrs Clinton was paying the first visit by a top US official to the eastern metropolis Kolkata and will then meet in New Delhi with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, amid concern that the growing US-India partnership has been drifting….

On Sunday, Mrs Clinton sought to draw attention to sex trafficking in India, where forced prostitution of women and girls is one of the largest illicit businesses.

Mrs Clinton appeared visibly moved as she watched a dance by former victims of sex trafficking, who recounted their plight in a synchronised performance designed as a form of therapy by the local group Kolkata Sanved.

Mrs Clinton called the recital “mesmerising” and thanked each of the six dancers, telling them she was proud of them. She was shown quilts which former trafficking victims sew as a way to give them new livelihoods.

“What you’re doing is so important to try to not only help yourselves but to help other young girls,” Mrs Clinton said.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (2nd L) holds a sari during an anti-human trafficking event in Kolkata May 6, 2012.

Here’s another article on the anti-trafficking event: Hillary’s date with history
She’s cheerleader in trafficking crusade

To them, she was “US ka bahut bara neta….Bill Clinton ki biwi (a top leader of the US….Bill Clinton’s wife)”. To her, they were the faces of a movement close to her heart.

When Poonam Khatoon, 16, and Uma Das, 19, finally found themselves face to face with Hillary Clinton at the Rabindranath Tagore Centre of the ICCR on Sunday afternoon, all it needed was a smile to break down the barriers.

“Aami bhabtei parini onar shamne darate parbo. Uni amader lorai-tey shamil hoyechhen, sheta ekta boro byapar (I couldn’t imagine I would be standing in front of her. She has joined our crusade, that’s a big thing),” Uma told Metro of her meeting with the US secretary of state.

Community worker Uma and Poonam, a student of Class IX, are daughters of women in prostitution involved with Apne Aap Women Worldwide, a grassroots movement to end sex trafficking. The duo took turns escorting Hillary through a pictorial journey of a trafficked girl.

At the end of the event, Hillary told the women she was their “cheerleader” and that she would “stand by” them. They asked her to talk publicly about human trafficking as much as she could.

The secretary of state’s keepsake from the Sunday afternoon rendezvous was a green wristband with the words: “Cool Men Don’t Buy Sex”.

Hillary not only wore the band immediately, she insisted that members of her entourage sport one each as well. “She was also gifted a T-shirt that read: ‘Together we can end sex trafficking’.

Another photo from the trafficking event

From the Washington Post:

NEW DELHI — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in India’s capital Monday with a clear message for the country’s leaders: Cooperate with us on with Iran.

Yet less than a mile from her meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, there was another group meeting with Indian leaders. An Iranian trade delegation is in New Delhi, overlapping with Clinton’s trip and potentially undermining one of its main purposes.

The Obama administration is turning up the pressure on India to join international sanctions against Iran that would choke off funds for the country’s nuclear program. India, which relies on Iran for about 12 percent of its oil imports, has so far been unwilling to go along.

“This is a regime that has a history of aggressive behavior,” Clinton warned of Iran during a town hall-style meeting Monday morning in Kolkata, her first stop in a three-day swing through India. “And I don’t think you deal with aggressors by giving in to them. … Our goal is resolve this peacefully and diplomatically, and that’s why we need India to be part of the international effort.”

Finally, a report from India on Hillary’s meeting with the prime minister:

New Delhi: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

Hillary and the Prime Minister discussed several issues related to Indo-US relations. She also urged India to speed up the civil nuclear deal and cut oil imports from Iran….

Before her meeting with the Prime Minister, Hillary met Mamata Banerjee earlier on Monday and promised more US investment in West Bengal….

According to a US consulate statement, the top US diplomat, who had an hour-long meeting with Banerjee, discussed a range of issues including stepping up US investments in the state, according to a US consulate statement.

“Touching on issues, ranging from increasing US investment in West Bengal, including in the retail sector, US-India relations, regional affairs and strong people-to-people connections, the Secretary reaffirmed to the chief minister the US desire to work with India and West Bengal to deepen and broaden our partnership,” it said.


Hey, Senator Nelson! Where’d ya get that Toupee!?!!

It just never ends, does it?

 

From Huffpo (h/t Amy at the New Agenda):

Hillary Clinton On What Designers She Wears: ‘Would You Ever Ask A Man That Question?’

You’ll notice this was from an interview in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, but still, you’d think they could ask another question of the main diplomat of a the U.S.

MODERATOR 1: People always touch some personality of Hillary Clinton. We have some – not just silly questions, but (inaudible) –

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, I’ve never been asked a silly question in my entire life. (Laughter.)

[…]

MODERATOR 1: Okay. Which designers do you prefer?

SECRETARY CLINTON: What designers of clothes?

MODERATOR 1: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Would you ever ask a man that question? (Laughter.) (Applause.)

MODERATOR 1: Probably not. Probably not. (Applause.)

What actually really gets to me is the HuffPo Quick poll at the end of the article.
where you get to evaluate Hillary’s answer. Your choices are:

Totally appropriate…she doesn’t need to answer!

Eh. She could have thrown a name or two out there!

Right, that’s exactly what I’d expect of an up and coming media source in the U.S. run by a woman.


Where in the World is Hillary Clinton?

There’s a great answer to that question and the main question of David Rothkopf’s article at WaPo entitled It’s 3 a.m. Do UT0038718You Know Where Hillary Clinton Is? His answer is: She’s not answering those crisis calls at the White House. But she’s quietly revolutionizing American foreign policy. It’s nice to know at least some of our policy approaches are on the mend since the devastating Bush/Cheney Years. It’s also even nicer to see the article couched in terms of the blatant sexism that has dogged SOS Clinton since she first started her public service career.

…during her first seven months in office, the former first lady, erstwhile presidential candidate and eternal lightning rod has drawn more attention for her moods, looks, outtakes and (of course) relationship with her husband than for, well, her work revamping the nation’s foreign policy.

Even venerable publications — such as one to which I regularly contribute, Foreign Policy — have woven into their all-Hillary-all-the-time coverage odd discussions of Clinton’s handbag and scarf choices. Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, while depicting herself as a Clinton supporter, has been scathing and small-minded in discussing such things as Clinton’s weight and hair, while her “defense” of Hillary in her essay “Obama’s Other Wife” was as sexist as the title suggests.

Indeed, sexism has followed Clinton from the campaign trail to Foggy Bottom, as seen most recently in the posturing outrage surrounding the exchange in Congo when Clinton reacted with understandable frustration to the now-infamous question regarding her husband’s views. Major media outlets have joined the gossipfest, whether the New York Times, which covered Clinton’s first big policy speech by discussing whether she was in or out with the White House, or The Washington Post, where a couple of reporters mused about whether a brew called Mad Bitch would be the beer of choice for the secretary of state.

Wow, did some one at WaPo finally look up from their cappuccino and finally understand that Clinton’s uphill battle with their peers has been an over-the-top distraction from her service and her accomplishments? Could this be the start of something big? As you read through the article, you will note that much of its contents are carefully couched to refrain from pulling any thunder from the domestically preoccupied and addled POTUS. The narrative is framed in context of an Obama administration even though the headline and examples seem to play up the Clinton contribution.

… Clinton is leaving behind old doctrines and labels. She outlined her new thinking in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, where she revealed stark differences between the new administration’s worldview and those of its predecessors: The recurring themes include “partnership” and “engagement” and “common interests.” Clearly, Madeleine Albright’s “indispensable nation” has recognized the indispensability of collaborating with others.

Who those “others” are is the area in which change has been greatest and most rapid. “We will put,” Clinton said, “special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers — China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia and South Africa — to be full partners in tackling the global agenda.” This is the death knell for the G-8 as the head table of the global community; the administration has an effort underway to determine whether the successor to the G-8 will be the G-20, or perhaps some other grouping. Though the move away from the G-8 began in the waning days of the Bush era, that administration viewed the world through a different lens, a perception that evolved from a traditional great-power view to a pre-Galilean notion that everything revolved around the world’s sole superpower.

Perhaps the most interesting narrative is the new approach to the emerging power of countries earning places at the power table by something more modern than their positions during last century’s world wars. Her emphasis on China, India, and Russia cannot be missed. Also, there is mention of her emphasis on the rights of women in African and Middle East countries; places where religion frequently places women as chattel and violent abuse is common place.

Additionally, the article comes up with names and ways that SOS Clinton is shaping not only diplomacy but the State department, itself. Her appointments and budget priorities are demonstrably in step with her goals.

Even just a few months in, it’s clear that these appointments are far from window dressing. Lew, Slaughter and the acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development are leading an effort to rethink foreign aid with the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, an initiative modeled on the Pentagon’s strategic assessments and designed to review State’s priorities. Stern has conducted high-level discussions on climate change around the world, notably with China. Clinton made women’s issues a centerpiece of her recent 11-day trip to Africa, where she stressed that “the social, political and economic marginalization of women across Africa has left a void in this continent that undermines progress and prosperity.”

Again, there’s a lot of emphasis in the article about Clinton’s relationship to Obama and ‘his agenda’ . There is also so much made of the prevailing air of harmony and compatibility that I personally wondered that if it wasn’t more about Clinton operating so independently and efficiently that Obama could basically leave well enough alone and focus on all the domestic squabbles and state dinners. My belief is that he’d rather by more of a constitutional monarch and marketeer-in-chief and leave the actual work to the underlings. It appears he has the luxury given the efficient and effective state of the State Department under Hillary Clinton. Thank goodness some one noticed that instead of the color of her pantsuit choice today.

Please Digg!!! Tweet!!! Share!!!!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine


You’ve just taken then Oath of Office and …

You take off across country on a ‘barnstorm tour’ to support your economic stimulus plan.

What?  Wasn’t that what the election was all about?

According to Fox news this morning,  Obama will meet with congressional leaders this week to get them started on an economic stimulus plan.

The first order of business for Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress is to enact the still-emerging economic recovery plan as soon as possible.

The plan, which some Obama aides think could swell to about $850 billion after negotiations with lawmakers, would be the largest investment in public infrastructure since the federal highway system was established in the 1950s. It also would provide tens of billions of dollars in aid to financially strapped states

Biden, Reid and Pelosi will be forming and enacting economic policy after a few kumbhaya, come to jesus moments with Republicans.  Then President Obama will begin a ‘barnstorming’ tour of the country to drum up support for the plan while every one else back in Washington does all the work.

gall_clinton_giMeanwhile, at the CNN Political ticker: Clinton Likely in for Bumpy Ride.  Evidently the news media thinks that the Secretary of State is in charge of foreign policy.

Has anybody read the constitution recently or are we about to see the birth of the European-style presidency here in the U.S.?  Will Obama become a constitutional monarch like Queen Elizabeth waving his pretty hands to his subjects while His Majesty’s minister’s do all the hard work.  This was something that I’d never really given thought to during the election, but as of late I’m speculating about it continually.

Instead of one Cheney, will we get two?

I have to admit that I’m going to be pretty happy if Secretary of State Clinton and Vice President of the Middle Class Biden can effectively use their joint knowledge and experience to improve the country and the world situation.  Both of them are without a doubt two of the most qualified people on the planet.  Maybe I’m wishful thinking on one level because the degree of inexperience and lack of depth and breadth of knowledge by president teleprompter jesus just continually flabbergasts me.  He’s hopeless off script.  HOWEVER, and this is a HUGE HOWEVER, is this in keeping with the spirit of democratically elected officials as well as our form of government?

Are we moving from an imperial presidency to a historical symbol presidency ?  And by whose authority have we morphed the role of the president?

Pinch me if I’m wrong here.  Tell me on one level to relax and be glad the grown ups are in charge.  Still, there’s that little bit of Colonial Dame/DAR member (my mom registered me, really) that worries about the role of the presidency in terms of our Constitution.  (Silly me.)  If we’re going to amend the constitution, shouldn’t we at least get to vote first?