Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 23, 2014, 02:24:39 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81857 Posts in 2244 Topics by 1047 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Clinton prepares to jump from the SS Obamatanic
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Clinton prepares to jump from the SS Obamatanic  (Read 3995 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« on: July 27, 2009, 02:48:48 PM »


Clinton says Iran's nuclear pursuit is "futile"
Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:43pm EDT
By Sue Pleming

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that Iran would not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and reiterated Washington's commitment to protect close ally Israel from any threat posed by Tehran.

"We are going to do everything we can to prevent you (Iran) from getting a nuclear weapon. Your pursuit is futile," she told NBC's "Meet the Press" program, adding that Iran did not have the right to develop a nuclear weapon.

Clinton annoyed ally Israel last week by saying the United States would cope with a nuclear Iran by arming its allies in the Gulf and extending a "defense umbrella" over the region.

A senior Israeli official said the United States should focus on preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon rather than talking as if this may be a fait accompli.

Asked whether she had been referring to a nuclear umbrella, Clinton told NBC: "We are not talking in specifics, because that would come later if at all. My view is you hope for the best, but plan for the worst," said Clinton.

"Clearly, we have a long, durable relationship with Israel. We believe strongly that Israel's security must be protected," she added.

Major powers suspect Iran is seeking to build a nuclear bomb. Tehran maintains its nuclear work is a civilian program to generate much-needed electrical power.

Several senior U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and national security advisor James Jones, will be in Israel this week, seeking to reassure the Jewish state amid concerns it could strike first against Iran if it believes there is no global resolve to curb Tehran's nuclear plans.

"Our message (to Israel) is as it has been. The United States stands with you and the United States believes that Israel has a right to security. We believe, however, that this (diplomatic) approach we are taking, holds out the promise of realizing our common objective," said Clinton.

The Obama administration fears an Israeli strike against Iran would further destabilize the region and have dramatic consequences.

DIPLOMATIC PUSH

Asked for her views on a preemptive Israeli strike against Iran, Clinton reiterated Israel's right to defend itself and said it would not listen to other nations if it believed its survival were threatened.

But she stressed that pursuing intensive diplomacy with Iran was the best approach, a shift from the Bush administration which avoided engagement with Tehran and insisted that Tehran give up sensitive nuclear work first.

"We will continue to work with all of our allies, and most particularly Israel, to determine the best way forward to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state," she said.

The Obama administration and several European allies such as France have threatened a new round of financial sanctions against Iran by the end of the year if it does not agree to give up uranium enrichment.

Clinton said major powers would make very clear to Iran what the costs of pursuing their nuclear ambitions would be.

So far, U.S. diplomatic outreach with Tehran has failed to produce any results and Clinton said this month that confusion following Iran's disputed election made the country's intentions even less clear.

Clinton said she had been "moved" by Iranian protesters' actions following the June election.

"Clearly, we would hope better for the Iranian people, we would hope that there is more openness and that peaceful demonstrations are respected," she said, criticizing the Iranian government's quelling of dissent.

(Additional reporting by Alister Bull; editing by Anthony Boadle)
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2009, 02:50:54 PM »

Hillary will push a hawkish, pro-Israel stance until it blows up with Obama firing her or her resigning in protest, setting up her 2012 campaign.
Logged
sgtmac_46
Power User
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2009, 04:13:47 PM »

Hillary will push a hawkish, pro-Israel stance until it blows up with Obama firing her or her resigning in protest, setting up her 2012 campaign.

I never expected Lady Macbeth to stop scheming just because Obama threw her a bone......OUT DAMN SPOT!
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4028


« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2009, 06:18:05 PM »

"We are going to do everything we can to prevent you (Iran) from getting a nuclear weapon. Your pursuit is futile"
Perhaps the guy from N Korea is right.  Not only does she look like a clown she sounds like one.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2010, 04:57:35 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/02/oh-yes-first-hillary-2012-ad-hits-the-airwaves/

**Sounds of knives being sharpened....
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2010, 06:16:48 PM »

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2015629,00.html

How Barack Obama Became Mr. Unpopular

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30891


« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2010, 06:49:12 PM »

I hear Monica has lost a lot of weight , , ,
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2010, 06:53:10 PM »


Tanned, rested and ready?  grin
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2010, 10:12:42 PM »

If we are talking about Dem challengers in 2012, Evan Bayh separated himself from Obama way sooner and with some substance.  Credit GM for this observation:  on May 30, 2010, "Agreed. I see Evan Bayh setting up a primary challenge for 2012."

Mentioned today in Time magazine under "How Barack Obama Became Mr. Unpopular"
(already linked) http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2015629-3,00.html
Bayh:  "A lot of this was really inevitable, or at least pretty predictable," says Indiana Senator and former governor Evan Bayh, a Democratic expert at getting elected in the Rust Belt. "We have a lot of government activism at a time when skepticism of government efficiency is at an all-time high."

There has never been any policy difference between Obama and Hillary and people hate Obama's policies while they like him personally.  Bayh put his finger exactly on the pulse in that brief comment.  Doesn't sound like he is biting his tongue now.  How he would ever get support from Dem activists, I have no idea, but easily a third of Obama voters are ready to move rightward or to the center and other Dems might start thinking about winning again after experiencing what is about to happen to them in '010.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2010, 10:35:54 PM »

CCP:  She looks more dignified there (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/netanyahu-abbas-begin-dir_n_703419.html) than when she was kissing Mrs. Arafat as they celebrated her anti-Israel tirade.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suha_Arafat
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2010, 10:37:52 PM »

Bayh is the blue dog alternative to O-barry. Hillary is the NPR listener and further leftwards alternative. Hillary was born in '47. 2012 means her last best chance to be the first woman to be elected president.

Speaking of Bayh: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/02/video-a-huge-republican-wave-comparable-to-1994-is-coming-says-evan-bayh/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4028


« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2010, 09:34:37 AM »

Oh my God!   Give compazine STAT!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313592/Oh-Hillary-hairstyle-just-doesnt-cut-Mrs-Clinton-prepares-huge-UN-meeting-lank-locks.html
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2787


« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2010, 10:02:12 AM »

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4028


« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2010, 11:18:31 AM »

eom
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4028


« Reply #14 on: October 06, 2010, 10:50:52 AM »

After being drenched by the MSM with higher recognition of Billary recently a poll came out and noted that she would lose in a primary of Dems to Dah-bamster 52 to 37%.  So while her MSM fans and her promoters are now trying another tact.

I would guess than it is no coincidence her army of hacks are now throwing the Bamster_Billary ticket idea for 2012 into the trial balloon arena.

I wonder if, in my lifetime, we will ever be rid of the Clintons?? sad angry cry
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2010, 05:47:11 PM »



I would guess than it is no coincidence her army of hacks are now throwing the Bamster_Billary ticket idea for 2012 into the trial balloon arena.


My thoughts exactly.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2010, 11:32:17 AM »

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101012/D9IQ3S900.html

Hillary Rodham Clinton never met a political battle she didn't like. Until now.

Amid frenzied inside-Washington speculation about her political ambitions, the secretary of state is staying firmly on the sidelines. As Democrats and Republicans fight for control of Congress in next month's midterms, the former first lady and senator will be sitting it out, literally half a world away.

Clinton ran staff and reporters ragged during her 2008 Democratic presidential campaign. Now, barred by convention and tradition from partisan political activity as America's top diplomat, she is spending the weeks ahead of the Nov. 2 balloting doing administration business in Europe and Asia.

"I am not in any way involved in any of the political campaigns that are going on up to this midterm election," Clinton said last week.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2010, 09:13:54 AM »

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1131ap_us_ap_poll_obama.html

WASHINGTON -- Democratic voters are closely divided over whether President Barack Obama should be challenged within the party for a second term in 2012, an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks Poll finds.

That glum assessment carries over into the nation at large, which is equally divided over whether Obama should be a one-term president.

A real Democratic challenge to Obama seems unlikely at this stage and his re-election bid is a long way off. But the findings underscore how disenchanted his party has grown heading into the congressional elections Tuesday.

The AP-KN poll has tracked a group of people and their views since the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign. Among all 2008 voters, 51 percent say he deserves to be defeated in November 2012 while 47 percent support his re-election - essentially a tie.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4028


« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2010, 03:31:46 PM »

"I am not in any way involved in any of the political campaigns that are going on up to this midterm election," Clinton said last week

No, only your "husband" is.
Gee he is out there helping people who were for his "wife" in 08.  I suppose he is doing it because he is a nice guy just returning favors. rolleyes
What  a joke.  I can't take ANYTHING either of these people say seriously.
That IS the problem with serial liars.  Even when they are telling the truth we can't be sure.

As for looking at someone and not taking them seriously think Spitzer.  He conducts his self decribed "conversations" as on his show as thus:

1)  agree with the liberals guests
2)  prosecute the conservatives guests

If you are a conservative and go on his show expect to be cross examined and set up with 'hit" questions.

The jazzy music is too cute by half.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2010, 03:52:12 PM »

Look for glowing puff pieces in the MSM on how wonderful Hillary is and what great leadership she has demonstrated while Sec. of State.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2010, 04:14:25 PM »

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/dick-morris-midterm-elections/2010/10/29/id/375353

Dick Morris: GOP Midterm Rout Will Spark Obama Challengers
Friday, 29 Oct 2010 07:06 PM
 

By: Jim Meyers

Veteran political analyst and best-selling author Dick Morris tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama will be vulnerable to a primary challenge from the left in 2012 — and that challenge could come from Hillary Clinton.

Morris also says he remains confident that Republicans can capture the 10 Senate seats they need to take control — and believes his “fantasy” of the GOP winning 100 House seats could come true.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Morris says a resounding Republican victory in the midterm elections appears “more and more likely each day. I don’t know a single Republican candidate whose poll I have looked at in the last day or two who is not three or four points better than they were two or three days ago.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2010, 03:51:46 PM »



Let's see if he starts raising his visibility and honing his creds as the "true centrist dem".
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2011, 01:48:00 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/17/too-good-to-check-hillary-angrily-looking-for-exits-after-libya-vacillation/

Too good to check: Hillary angrily “looking for exits” after Libya vacillation?

posted at 2:15 pm on March 17, 2011 by Ed Morrissey


This would tend to put Hillary Clinton’s demurral on serving in another Barack Obama term as Secretary of State in a new light, wouldn’t it?  It also fits more closely with her husband’s track record — and recent public statements — as an interventionist, assuming this story from The Daily is on the level:

    Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.

    At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after 2012 — even if he wins again.

    “Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

    He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

Getting snubbed by democracy activists in Egypt probably didn’t help, either, a product of the White House’s attempt to spin the mixed messages on Mubarak as the fault of the Secretary of State.  After that, no one would doubt that Hillary is “not happy” about the vacillation and the mixed messages coming from the US in the first real significant test of Obama’s supposed commitment to reform in the Middle East.  The source quoted by The Daily called the foreign policy efforts at the White House “amateur night.”

None of this is a big surprise, of course, but how badly would a Hillary exit damage Obama?  It depends on when she leaves, if she leaves at all in the current term.  If Hillary is really looking for an exit and angry over the botched foreign policy of Obama, she’ll want to get out before she has to take full ownership of the bungling.  That would free her and Bill Clinton to speak more candidly about the incoherence of American foreign policy, something Bill seems so keen on doing that he started while his wife is still nominally in charge of it.  The Clintons still have a substantial amount of influence in the Democratic Party, and the last thing Obama needs is to have Hillary and Bill on the outside of his tent, making Obama appear both weak and radical just as the effort to win re-election begins.

At the very least, Obama needs her and Bill to stay on the sidelines, which would work best by keeping her at State.  If his political team has any competence at all, they may want to suggest an end to blaming Hillary for Obama’s back and forth on Egypt.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #23 on: March 17, 2011, 09:01:43 PM »

Hillary parting company with Obama as his ship begins to sink has one of two meanings. One is like she said, an end to all public life.  The other... (is there an emoticon for screaming in horror?)
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2011, 12:31:15 PM »

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2011/04/09/presidential-dream-long-walk-in-the-park.html?sid=101

Perhaps a long walk away from 2012.....
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2011, 01:44:10 PM »

**The "Primary Obama" meme is really starting to take off!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/07/hillary-clinton-2012-calls-grow-with-anger-at-obama-debt-capitulation.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

As Democratic disgust with Obama’s debt fumbling spreads, Clinton supporters recall her '3 a.m. phone call' warnings—and angry, frustrated liberals are muttering that she should mount a 2012 challenge.
Aug 7, 2011 8:58 PM EDT

At a New York political event last week, Republican and Democratic office-holders were all bemoaning President Obama’s handling of the debt-ceiling crisis when someone said, “Hillary would have been a better president.”
 

“Every single person nodded, including the Republicans,” reported one observer.

 


At a luncheon in the members’ dining room at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on Saturday, a 64-year-old African-American from the Bronx was complaining about Obama’s ineffectiveness in dealing with the implacable hostility of congressional Republicans when an 80-year-old lawyer chimed in about the president’s unwillingness to stand up to his opponents. “I want to see blood on the floor,” she said grimly.
 

A 61-year-old white woman at the table nodded. “He never understood about the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy,’” she said.
 

Looking as if she were about to cry, an 83-year-old Obama supporter shook her head. “I’m so disappointed in him,” she said. “It’s true: Hillary is tougher.”
 

During the last few days, the whispers have swelled to an angry chorus of frustration about Obama’s perceived weaknesses. Many Democrats are furious and heartbroken at how ineffectual he seemed in dealing with Republican opponents over the debt ceiling, and liberals are particularly incensed by what they see as his capitulation to conservatives on fundamental liberal principles.
 

In Connecticut, a businessman who raised money for Obama in 2008 said, “I’m beyond disgusted.” In New Jersey, a teacher reported that even her friends in the Obama administration are grievously disillusioned with his lack of leadership—and many have begun to whisper about a Democratic challenge for the 2012 presidential nomination. “I think people are furtively hoping that Hillary runs,” she said.
 
, AP Photo
 

The son of a longtime Democratic congressman from Texas, a 73-year-old lawyer, is so enraged with Obama that he’s threatening not to vote for the 2012 Democratic ticket—the first time in his entire life that he’s contemplated such apostasy.
 

Among many of the 18 million Americans who supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, the reaction is simple and bitter: “We told you so.”
 

On Real Time With Bill Maher, the host said that as far as he was concerned, Obama might as well be a Republican, and added that he thought last week represented the tipping point in Obama’s presidency. Wondering if liberals have “buyer’s remorse” about Obama, Maher asked his panel whether Clinton would have been a better president.
 

“Yes,” replied astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium, adding that Clinton would have been “a more effective negotiator in the halls of Congress.”
 

“She knows how to deal with difficult men,” Maher agreed.
 

Among Clinton fans, particularly older women, the language was frequently far more caustic. “Obama has no spine and no balls,” said a 67-year-old New Yorker.
 

In recent days, political conversations from inside the Beltway to office water coolers all over America have abounded with unflattering comparisons between Obama and President Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Capitol Hill veteran who was a master of knocking heads to get things done. A Texas Democrat, Johnson served as a representative, a senator, the Senate minority leader, the Senate majority leader, and vice president before becoming president when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. “Unlike Obama, he knew how to work the system,” said one political reporter.
 

In his New York Times Sunday Review essay “What Happened to Obama?” Emory University psychology professor Drew Westen summed up the president’s lack of experience with devastating succinctness.
 

“Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he occasionally, as a state senator in Illinois, voted ‘present’ on difficult issues,” wrote Westen, author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.
 

The presidential scholar Matthew Dickinson went even further with a post under the headline “Run, Hillary, Run!” on the blog Presidential Power. “She did warn you,” Dickinson reminded his readers.
 

“Remember that 3 a.m. phone call? Remember the warning about the rose-colored petals falling from the sky? Remember about learning on the job? Sure you do. Doesn’t a part of you, deep down, realize she was right?” wrote Dickinson, a political-science professor at Middlebury College. “If I heard it once this last week, I heard it a thousand times: You were duped by Obama’s rhetoric—the whole ‘hopey-changey’ thing. And you wanted to be part of history, too—to help break down the ultimate racial barrier. That’s OK. We were all young once. But now it’s time to elect someone who can play hardball, who understands how to be ruthless, who will be a real ... uh ... tough negotiator in office. There won’t be any debate about Hillary’s, er, ‘man-package.’”
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #26 on: September 16, 2011, 07:32:39 AM »

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-16/clinton-popularity-prompts-some-remorse-poll.html

Clinton Popularity Prompts Buyer’s Remorse


 By John McCormick - Sep 15, 2011 10:00 PM MT .



.
The most popular national political figure in America today is one who was rejected by her own party three years ago: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans hold a favorable view of her and one-third are suffering a form of buyer’s remorse, saying the U.S. would be better off now if she had become president in 2008 instead of Barack Obama.

The finding in the latest Bloomberg National Poll shows a higher level of wishful thinking about a Hillary Clinton presidency than when a similar question was asked in July 2010. Then, a quarter of Americans held such a view.

“Looking back, I wonder if she would have been a stronger leader, knowing the games and the politics and all that goes on,” said Susan Dunlop, 50, a homemaker in New Port Richey, Florida. “I don’t think she would have bent as much.”

Clinton, 63, a former first lady and U.S. senator from New York, fought with Obama for the Democratic nomination until June 2008, in what was often a combative primary that included her questioning his presidential readiness.

While 34 percent say things would be better under a Clinton administration, almost half -- 47 percent -- say things would be about the same and 13 percent say worse.

“Some of her appeal is that she is not Barack Obama,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of Des Moines, Iowa-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the Sept. 9-12 poll.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4028


« Reply #27 on: September 16, 2011, 10:14:53 AM »

So far she continues to say she is not interested in a run.  We all know her word means nothing.

Like Crafty has pointed out over the years - what has she ever accomplished?  To date that question still rings true.

I can only pray we will never have another Clinton run again.  8 yrs of them was more than enough for me.

Other Dems are also jumping ship.  Every man for himself I guess.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #28 on: September 16, 2011, 11:27:03 AM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/15/john-fund-what-if-a-committee-of-prominent-dems-approached-obama-and-asked-him-not-to-run/

John Fund: What if a committee of prominent Dems approached Obama and asked him not to run?
 
posted at 8:48 pm on September 15, 2011 by Allahpundit

 
Via Breitbart TV, skip ahead to 3:05 for the tasty part. Three months ago this would have been a zero-probability event. Today, with the economy comatose and the world on the precipice of a new European-driven financial crisis? One-percent chance, minimum. Note that Fund’s not talking about a primary challenge here; that would alienate black Democrats and the party would fracture before the general election, so it’s not an option. The only way to dump him and hold the base together would be if he agreed to step down after Democratic chieftains privately appealed to him to do so. And if you believe this Gawker item from a few days ago, there’s reason to think he might consider it. Supposedly The One is so demoralized by his political fortunes that people around him suspect he might be clinically depressed. If things are as bad as that, he might relish the chance to hand his re-election campaign off to someone else (and we all know who “someone else” is) and be rid of the frustration. You can imagine the announcement speech: “I’ve said many times that I’d rather be a good one-term president than a mediocre two-termer. I think I’ve achieved that in the passage of our landmark new health-care law and our many successes against Al Qaeda. But I promised you after I was sworn in that this economy would recover within three years and, for various reasons, that hasn’t happened. Therefore, I’m announcing tonight…” etc. He goes out on a high note, he sets Hillary up for another historic presidency, and suddenly Democrats are on strong (or stronger) footing for the election — especially given the Clinton legacy of economic boom times. In return, he gets basically whatever he wants from the party leadership. A guarantee, maybe, that he’ll be appointed to the Supreme Court at the first available vacancy? Not the first time that idea’s been floated.
 
Exit question: Would this “voluntary” refusal to run again really prevent a Democratic schism? Some black Democrats would surely conclude that it wasn’t as voluntary as it seemed. And they’d be right.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30891


« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2011, 11:59:54 AM »

Sorry, not buying it at all.

IMHO psychologically Hillary is done and BO is essentially even or ahead against Perry (who is underwhelming me at the moment e.g. his response of Afpakia in the most recent debate)  or Romney. 

What would her campaign's thrust be?  That she would be more progressive than Baraq on the economy?  That she would do something different on foreign affairs?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2011, 12:43:00 PM »

You think the economy and the various scandals aren't enough to render Barry a one-termer?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30891


« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2011, 01:10:51 PM »

As I see it GM, that's not the point.

What would she offer that was different?  The same, but more of it done more efficiently?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2011, 01:14:58 PM »

Believe me, I'm no advocate for her. The situation is that Barry has proven himself "unsafe at any speed" and the dems are faced with serious damage to the brand, not just the loss of the white house. This is Shrillary's last shot. Anyone doubt that strings are being pulled behind the scenes?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4028


« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2011, 01:19:44 PM »

I am wondering if Bloomberg will run at least eventually.  He is technically a Republican but in reality he is a big liberal Dem; perhaps more pro business than most Dems but nonetheless a big lib Dem.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30891


« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2011, 01:24:47 PM »

Forgive me, but I think you guys are delusional on this.  Challenging Baraq would rip the Democratic Party in half.  Much of the opposition to him is because they think he did not go far enough.  The big money is not going to sign up for such a campaign, nor is Hillary, nor is Bloomberg, nor is anyone else.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2011, 01:29:24 PM »

I don't see Bloomie getting in. He hasn't gotten the salt jihad in NYC to total victory as of yet.

Crafty,

I think the gun owning blue collar types have already torn away from the dems. Don't the 2010 and special elections mean something?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #36 on: September 18, 2011, 01:56:00 PM »


http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/18/chitrib-editor-say-maybe-its-time-for-obama-to-withdraw-from-2012/

ChiTrib editor: Say, maybe it’s time for Obama to withdraw from 2012
 

 

posted at 2:00 pm on September 18, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

 
It’s one thing for John Fund, Allahpundit, or me to speculate on whether Barack Obama will bother running for a second term.  It’s another when one of the editors of a home-town newspaper tells a President to pull out.  Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board writes in today’s paper that it’s time for the battered champ to hang ‘em up:
 

I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he’s willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.
 
That might be the sensible thing to do. It’s hard for a president to win a second term when unemployment is painfully high. If the economy were in full rebound mode, Obama might win anyway. But it isn’t, and it may fall into a second recession — in which case voters will decide his middle name is Hoover, not Hussein. Why not leave of his own volition instead of waiting to get the ax?
 
It’s not as though there is much enticement to stick around. Presidents who win re-election have generally found, wrote John Fortier and Norman Ornstein in their 2007 book, “Second-Term Blues,” that “their second terms did not measure up to their first.”
 
Well, there’s a scary thought.
 
So what would happen if Obama voluntarily stepped aside?  Chapman has the same thought that occurred to me last month:
 

The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can’t be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president’s.
 
It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama’s reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.
 
As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she’s been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she’s never been accused of being a pushover.
 
This presumes that Obama would go gently into that single-term good night, the first President who declined to run for another term since LBJ.  If he did, it still wouldn’t solve all of the Democrats’ problems.  The “deposing dictators” is a cute line, but she was part of the decision process that ended up refusing to submit the Libyan adventure for Congressional approval.  And the dictator hasn’t entirely disappeared yet, either, and we’re still not sure what will end up taking his place.
 
Even if Obama appeared to retire on his own a la LBJ, there would be a significant number of Democrats who would believe he’d been pushed — and pushed out by the Clintons and their clique.  It’s no secret that Obama wanted to keep the Clintons at as much arms-length as he possibly could.  He has not included Bill Clinton very often in official efforts even though Obama could clearly benefit from Clinton’s skills, and on the one memorable occasion where Obama called on the former President, Clinton ended up taking over the stage.  Hillary would appeal to the voters Obama is losing — suburban families in the Rust Belt and Midwest — but a palace coup in the Democratic Party could split the hard-Left progressives and would certainly poison the relationship between the Democratic Party and black voters.
 
And if Obama won’t go on his own, then there is no play for Hillary.  If she tried running a last-minute primary challenge now, all of the above comes into play — and she doesn’t have the time to build an organization that can compete with Obama’s in the field now.  (Neither does anyone else, either.)  After all, Hillary had the Clinton machine ready to deliver her to her 2008 coronation when Obama out-organized and out-boxed her, usurping her spot at the top of the ticket, and as an incumbent only has more resources on which to call this time around.
 
I’ve said repeatedly that I think a withdrawal by Obama is a low-probability event at best, and I still believe it to be a long shot.  However, when the home-town papers are starting to make the call for retirement, it’s maybe not quite as much of a long shot as before.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5861


« Reply #37 on: September 18, 2011, 04:17:22 PM »

Halfway through I was feeling rather proud of my prediction that Pres. Obama will not be the Dem nominee in 2012.  Then the story twisted; it turned out to be a fluff piece for Hillary - in her hometown newspaper.  Give me a break.  It is Barack's policies that are unpopular; people like him personally.

Hillary and Barack were identical in the campaign on all issues, except that Obama opposed the individual mandate.  Go figure.  Hillary was going to be the one ready to take the 3am phone call, so Obama put her in charge of taking that call, at least on foreign policy.  What time do they call and tell you your economic plan is leading us backwards?

I wouldn't hardly call this switching candidates.

They keep thinking they just aren't getting their message across.  But it's the POLICIES, stupid.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #38 on: September 18, 2011, 05:40:13 PM »

Halfway through I was feeling rather proud of my prediction that Pres. Obama will not be the Dem nominee in 2012.  Then the story twisted; it turned out to be a fluff piece for Hillary - in her hometown newspaper.  Give me a break.  It is Barack's policies that are unpopular; people like him personally.

Hillary and Barack were identical in the campaign on all issues, except that Obama opposed the individual mandate.  Go figure.  Hillary was going to be the one ready to take the 3am phone call, so Obama put her in charge of taking that call, at least on foreign policy.  What time do they call and tell you your economic plan is leading us backwards?

I wouldn't hardly call this switching candidates.

They keep thinking they just aren't getting their message across.  But it's the POLICIES, stupid.

The left will bend in every direction to avoid having to admit to that.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11940


« Reply #39 on: September 19, 2011, 01:37:14 PM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/19/liberals-vow-challenge-obama-democratic-primaries/

Liberals vow to challenge Obama in Democratic primaries

 By Seth McLaughlin

-

The Washington Times

 Monday, September 19, 2011


President Obama’s smooth path to the Democratic nomination may have gotten rockier Monday, after a group of liberal leaders, including former presidential candidate Ralph Nader, announced plans to challenge the incumbent in primaries next year.

The group said the goal is to offer up a handful of candidates from various fields and areas where the president either has failed to stake out a “progressive” position or where he has “drifted toward the corporatist right.”

“Without debates by challengers inside the Democratic Party’s presidential primaries, the liberal/majoritarian agenda will be muted and ignored,” Mr. Nader said in a news release. “The one-man Democratic primaries will be dull, repetitive, and draining of both voter enthusiasm and real bright lines between the two parties that excite voters.”

In search of candidates, Mr. Nader and the others sent out a letter, endorsed by 45 “distinguished leaders,”to elected officials, civic leaders, academics and members of the progressive community who specialize among other things in labor, poverty, military and foreign policy. The list, they said, also includes progressive Democrats who have held national and state office and have fought for progressive reforms.

“We need to put strong Democratic pressure on President Obama in the name of poor and working people” said Cornel West, author and professor at Princeton University who has been highly critical of Mr. Obama’s tenure since helping him get elected in 2008. “His administration has tilted too much toward Wall Street, we need policies that empower Main Street.”

Mr. Nader and Mr. West are joined by Christ Townsend, of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, and Brent Blackwelder, president emeritus of Friends of the Earth.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4028


« Reply #40 on: September 19, 2011, 04:47:09 PM »

"We need to put strong Democratic pressure on President Obama in the name of poor and working people” said Cornel West, author and professor at Princeton University who has been highly critical of Mr. Obama’s tenure since helping him get elected in 2008. “His administration has tilted too much toward Wall Street, we need policies that empower Main Street.”

I wonder what exactly libs have in mind.  Let's see. Leave Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Okinowa, throw Israel to Iran, forget defense, steal the "wealth" from every person who makes over 200K, force everyone into unions, throw more money to "urban" blight, pay for all abortions, three school meals a day, triple the number government jobs, or just enslave all white heterosexual males.

Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!