Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Hillarysworld -> Hillary 2012 -> Why Hillary Clinton should run for President in 2012 (Helium 11/08/10)
Post Info
TOPIC: Why Hillary Clinton should run for President in 2012 (Helium 11/08/10)
Jen the Michigander


SuperModerator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1788
Date:
Why Hillary Clinton should run for President in 2012 (Helium 11/08/10)
Permalink  
 

http://www.helium.com/items/2005571-hillary-clinton-for-president-2012

With the House in aggressively conservative hands, and Senate Democrats virtually leaderless, President Obama should be asserting strong leadership to rally his troops. Instead, he appears to be in full retreat – abandoning his agenda in favor of maintaining his “no drama” style. Most observers expect the President to turn his attention from governing to running for re-election in 2012 – abandoning any hope of progressive achievements during the next two years.

Events since the mid-terms strongly reinforce the image many liberals and progressives have long held of President Obama. In simple terms, he is seen as a weak leader – a man with almost no Washington experience who has seriously underplayed his hand, achieving far less than a tougher, more savvy president might have, given the size of his 2008 mandate. Moreover, his apparent willingness to negotiate away portions of his past legislative achievements causes many erstwhile supporters to ask whether anything will remain of the modest accomplishments of his first two years.

Moreover, Mr. Obama's performance has raised serious questions about his re-election prospects in 2012. A gifted speaker with the presidential “bully pulpit” at his disposal, Mr. Obama has somehow managed lose the communications war to tongue-tied extremists like Sarah Palin and a handful of angry AM radio talk-show hosts.

Under these circumstances, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should seriously consider her options. Mrs. Clinton, who ran neck-and-neck with Mr. Obama for the 2008 Democratic nomination, has greatly enhanced her own presidential credentials with two years of extremely effective work as Secretary of State. At the same time, she has avoided any share of the blame for recent electoral set-backs.

In 2008, Mrs. Clinton made much of Mr. Obama's lack of experience – a message which need not be repeated today, when the President's conduct in office has made his weakness obvious the entire Democratic Party. Congressional Democrats and incumbent governors up for re-election in 2012 – as well as those considering seeking office in that year – are already calculating the risks of running with Mr. Obama at the top of the ticket.

In this atmosphere of Democratic “buyer's remorse”, Mrs. Clinton would clearly present a formidable alternative. Instead of going into an election led by a stricken candidate without momentum, Democrats could offer a fierce and formidable alternative – a tested campaigner who has added to her former credentials those of a respected international diplomat. Going into the election under the leadership of Hillary Clinton would by no means guarantee Democratic victory, but it would surely be preferable to the certainty of further losses under a candidate who has lost his mojo and his message.

Some will suggest that challenging an incumbent president is politically suicidal, but this is not necessarily true. To be sure, no challenger in modern times has succeeded in defeating a sitting president for a major-party nomination. But some have come close – and one, in failing, set the stage for a memorable future victory.

In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt challenged his one-time friend William Howard Taft for the Republican nomination. Taft won, but only by ruthless arm-twisting  which destroyed his own credibility. Roosevelt eventually ran as a third party candidate, coming in ahead of Taft in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. While Woodrow Wilson won the White House, Roosevelt remained a viable presidential candidate until his death in 1919.

In 1968, Senator Eugene McCarthy – an opponent of America's war in Vietnam – challenged President Lyndon B. Johnson in the New Hampshire primary. Though Johnson pulled out a Pyrrhic victory, McCarthy's surprising showing – and the appearance of Robert F. Kennedy as a second anti-war challenger – forced the President to withdraw from the race.

In 1976, California Governor Ronald Reagan challenged President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination – a struggle which continued throughout the primaries and ended with a narrow convention victory for the incumbent. But Reagan's defeat was hardly the end for the conservative icon, who went on to win the nomination – and the White House – in 1980.

Given this history, a Clinton candidacy would not necessarily be either futile or suicidal. Many Democrats – especially those contemplating their own electoral prospects in 2012 – are eager for leadership which the incumbent president has failed to provide. Moreover, by his condign failure to wield the powers of his office, President Obama has opened the door to doubts about his ability to enforce loyalty within his own party.

Moreover, from a personal perspective, Mrs. Clinton – who will be 65 by November 6, 2012 (Election Day) – is running out of time to realize her personal ambitions. Should Mr. Obama be re-nominated, it will be 2016 before she can again seek the presidency – and in all probability, she would then be running against an incumbent Republican.

The odds of defeating a sitting president for the Democratic nomination will be long, but 2012 might be Mrs. Clinton's best remaining chance at the Oval Office.

Should Hillary Clinton resign her office and begin an uphill challenge to President Barack Obama?

That is for her to decide. But a Clinton candidacy would certainly electrify a Democratic Party demoralized by recent reverses and looking forward with trepidation to the election of 2012. Win or lose, a nomination challenge would secure Mrs. Clinton's place in history.

It might just save the Democratic Party – and put Mrs. Clinton back in the White House.

Can't argue with that.

__________________

4145952823_2e0edce16f.jpg

Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!
freespirit


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 

I still hope BO will find a reason not to seek a second term, saving face in the process, and clearing the way for Hillary to run.

Hillary could save the party, but at this point, is it worth saving? Given a couple of more years, with no Blue Dogs left, and the progs in charge, there may be nothing left of the Dem Party.

The damn progs have screwed up the party and the country. But, just like the Far Right, they're unable to see the bigger picture.

__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony
Jen the Michigander


SuperModerator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1788
Date:
Permalink  
 

I don't think the Party as it exists today is worth saving. The Clintons should tear it down and build anew, like a house that has been ravaged by termites beyond repair. It only took the GOP two years to rebuild after Bush. The Tea Party speeded up the process, to be sure, but if we can get enough people on the PUMA train, the same thing can happen to the Dems.

__________________

4145952823_2e0edce16f.jpg

Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Hillarysworld -> Hillary 2012 -> Why Hillary Clinton should run for President in 2012 (Helium 11/08/10)
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard