Run, Hillary, Run?

Posted by: Phineas on July 17, 2010 at 9:02 pm

Since the day after Election Day, 2008, I’ve felt strongly that Hillary Clinton would run for President again in 2012, in a primary challenge to Barack Obama. I believed that even after she agreed to be his Secretary of State, and, since then, the bumblings of his administration, his tanking popularity, and the specter of an electoral disaster the Democrats face in 2010 have made me almost certain: she’s going to run. Back in 2008, I took to referring to her as “Lady Macbeth” because of her impressive will and near-naked lust for the presidency. She only stayed with Bill after the Gennifer Flowers revelations because (my guess) he promised her control of health-care policy and she saw him as her road to her own term in the Oval Office. She even put up with further humiliation in the Lewinsky scandal to keep that path open.

It’s not just that she wants to run; she can’t do anything but run. She could no more resist the urge than Gollum could his Precious.

Pete du Pont agrees with me that she could mount a formidable challenge; she did it in 2008, after all, especially in the late stages. But, unlike me, Pete thinks she’s qualified:

Second, she is physically and intellectually strong enough to take on a difficult campaign. She showed that running against Obama two years ago.

Third, she is one of the most experienced prospective candidates the Democratic Party has had in a long while: wife of a governor, U.S. first lady, senator and now secretary of state. This is a good record to run on as someone who knows how the government works.

Fourth, she is an experienced foreign-policy adviser who understands the threats to our national security: unresolved conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, rising threats of nuclear capability in Iran and North Korea, and uncertainties in Pakistan.

Fifth, experience will be even more important to voters in the 2012 presidential election, whose 2008 gamble on someone with little experience is proving costly.

Sorry, Pete. She was qualified for the presidency in 2008 only by comparison to Barack Obama. Let’s take foreign affairs first, since she’s now our top diplomat. Remember the reset button? How about her repeated betrayals of Britain over the Falkland Islands? How about one fatuous statement after another in pursuit of utterly impotent sanctions against the religious fascists in Tehran? The values we share with Venezuela? Or needlessly and arrogantly insulting Canada?

Hillary was the one who coined the term “smart power;” how’s that looking now, Pete? Still think she’s qualified?

In domestic affairs, Pete engages in some wishful thinking:

Finally, Washington’s deadly left-liberal policies that have propelled the American economy in a very bad direction can be turned around. If Mrs. Clinton made the case that America must get rid of the huge debt the current administration has created, must create much better economic growth with lower tax rates, and must strongly assist employer job creation, she would appeal to a broad voter coalition.

Are we talking about the same Hillary? The Hillary Clinton of 1993’s “HillaryCare” debacle? The Hillary whose 2008 health care proposal was little different from then-Senator Obama’s? The same woman who advocated a windfall profits tax on oil companies? The progressive-statist of It Takes a Village and about whom Jonah Goldberg wrote a whole chapter in his brilliant Liberal Fascism? She’s going to lead the way back to business-friendly, low-tax, free-market policies?

Really, Pete?

Don’t get me wrong, I generally like Pete DuPont and he has a lot of good ideas, but he’s way off-base here. Hillary Clinton is no centrist or classical liberal. She’s a dyed-in-the-wool progressive statist and, if in practice she wouldn’t go as far as Obama, it’s only because she bears the scars of prior battles. Her instincts are still those of the Left.

Oh, and let’s not forget character issues: Hillary Clinton has deep-seated problems with the truth. Is she qualified to be president, in spite of that?

So, yes, she’ll run again, and the Democrats may well throw Obama under his own bus and turn to her out of buyer’s remorse and desperation, but let’s not pretend she’s qualified in either philosophy, experience, or character.

AFTERTHOUGHT: But wouldn’t a Palin-Clinton battle in 2012 be fascinating?

PS: I want to thank our hostess for her warm welcome and the honor she did me by asking me to become her co-blogger, and thanks to those who welcomed me in the comments; I hope you’ll enjoy what you read.  Not everything I post at Public Secrets will be crossposted here, so feel free to come over for a visit. (We have cookies.) And yes, ST, I know we said I’d start Monday, but, like Hillary running for president, I just couldn’t resist. ;)

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

20 Responses to “Run, Hillary, Run?”

Comments

  1. I’m still glad that Hillary lost the primary. I know it’s irrational, especially since my worse fears being realized about the Comrade Obama. I just can’t help myself. It would have shaken my faith that there is justice in the world if that smug unrepentent misogynist creep was turned loose in the West Wing again.

  2. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    I think du Pont is wrong for three reasons:

    1. du Pont believes Obama is vulnerable to a campaign stressing deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility. That would be true – in the general election. But in the Democrat Party those are heretical ideas. Any successful challenge to Obama will have to come from the Left, which means more taxes, more spending, more government intrusion into our lives. And given the Democrat Party’s taste for race war and identity politics Hilly the Hun would have to somehow become a lesbian Hispanic illegal alien kiddie pornographer welfare cheat in a wheelchair with a dozen children by a dozen different men merely to gain a hearing from the Kos-kids who now call the shots in the Democrat Party.

    2. The Cook County-ification of America has been going on for two years now, thanks to Obama and the Holder Justice Department. The Democrat primary elections of 2008, which were not exactly squeaky clean, will be considered the model of honesty when 2012 rolls around. In Texas, Hilly the Hun clearly won the Democrat popular vote; yet because of the work of left-wing groups in twisting the delegate selection process into a bizarre labyrinth Obama won most of the delegates. I think it is very possible that in 2012 the Hun could win the popular vote in the Democrat primaries yet still wind up on the short end in the delegate count.

    3. If the past two years have shown us anything, it is that Obama and his followers react very badly to opposition. Sealed court records suddenly get released, confidential FBI files mysteriously end up in the public domain, political opposition gets beat up by SEIU purpleshirts. Obama proved in 2008 that he was more skilled in running a filthy campaign than the House of Clinton – and that is quite an accomplishment. The House of Clinton has so much dirty laundry they would need to rent a small state just to house it all.

    To be honest – I would be astonished if the Hun tries to dethrone the Messiah.

  3. Carlos says:

    “Sealed court records suddenly get released, confidential FBI files mysteriously end up in the public domain…”

    Gosh, but it’s funny, MD, that it’s always his opposition’s stuff that makes it into the public domain? Funny how that works.

    The obvious answer is that Duh-1 has taken Alinsky to a new level. The not-so-obvious answer is that not even the kool-aid drinking, unicorn-loving leftist idiots running against him can believe he has the moxy to do those things, and once done, don’t dare say anything against him for fear of being perceived as a “racist.”

    But that’s what we get for electing an incompetent affirmative action thug to what used to be the most honored office in the land…

  4. SpideyTerry says:

    I still say it’ll come down to the mid-terms. If Democrats lose the House, Obama’s in serious trouble. It’ll only get worse if Republicans pull off the longshot and win the Senate. Remember, a lot of these guys and gals expected Obama to lead them to a permanent, unstoppable majority. Hasn’t exactly worked out, has it? The surviving Democrats and the ones facing 2012 re-election bids are going to be questioning Obama’s usefulness.

    No matter what, Obama has dug himself a very deep hole and clearly doesn’t know what to do about it. Hillary has gotta be enjoying it. McCain and Palin too for that matter.

  5. Phineas says:

    @Mwalimu D:

    If the past two years have shown us anything, it is that Obama and his followers react very badly to opposition. Sealed court records suddenly get released, confidential FBI files mysteriously end up in the public domain…

    You’re right with this; the only rejoinder I have is that the 2008 Clinton campaign was caught flat-footed by the aggressiveness, willingness to cheat, and early success of the Obama campaign. It wasn’t until after Super Tuesday that Lady Macbeth learned to fight back effectively (doing shots in a bar?), but it was too late by then. She and Bill are political barons, however, and have loyalists of their own (not to mention formerly pro-Obama Democrat bigwigs who are now looking for the exits). They won’t be caught by surprise in 2011-2012 and will be ready with their own dirt to reveal. (Only a fool underestimates Lanny Davis or, especially, Carville, who will want revenge for the oil slick fiasco)

    That said, I’ll admit I’m hoping for a bloody Democratic nomination battle, just because it should make the path easier for the Republican nominee. I honestly don’t care if it’s the Lightworker or Lady Macbeth.

    @SpideyTerry:

    I still say it’ll come down to the mid-terms. If Democrats lose the House, Obama’s in serious trouble.

    I have a sneaking suspicion Obama is willing to write off the House (and maybe even the Senate) to be the president who remakes America into an EU-style social democracy. Then he can run against an “obstructionist Republican congress” in 2012. It’s worked before, but I think people are on to this game and The One will be so unpopular that it will be hard for him to pull it off.

    And I agree that many Democrats who survive 2010 will be looking out for themselves and to cut deals with the Republicans to present themselves as “independent moderates.” The real question is if, in the House, a Republican majority plus defecting Democrats will be enough to make a veto-proof coalition.

  6. Paul says:

    Never ever underestimate the mettle of Hilary Clinton ! After Obama she would be attractive to a lot of Americans…:d

  7. Jo says:

    I agree completely with the Lady Macbeth comparison and I said it myself during the giggling buffoon’s long eight-year reign. But at least he wasn’t quite the arrogant Socialist we have got there now. And that is what terrifies me–is there any stopping him? Regardless of Hill the Hun or any other contenders, right or left? By the time ACORN, the old dinosaurs of the NAACP, the unions, the blacks who will pull the lever for a ‘black man’ even if he were to come into the ghettos with a machete and slay some of them, the ‘I’ll vote Democrat until the day I die’ bunch, the indoctrinated, utopianistic little young white liberals and the dead all vote for him, how do the rest of us who actually get it receive a fair shake or a chance in hell to end this relentless march toward the end of America as we know it????????

  8. Bill Fabrizio says:

    I agree, the best thing for our country would be if Hillary ran in 2012. It would fracture the democratic party (the only black vote she would get is from the first black president, Bill Clinton) and guarantee the republicans would win the presidency and control both chambers of congress. Go ahead Hillary, throw a tea party the likes of which patriots can only dream of.

  9. Old Goat says:

    Bill, regardless of who would win the primary between Hillary and DuhOne, the regular election wouldn’t be split as neither would run independent from the Democrats.

    I think Hillary took the role of Sec State to increase the illusion that she is qualified.

    Unless the Republicans put up a good candidate we will probably be looking at another term of Obama. Far too many people in this country are brain dead, otherwise he wouldn’t have been elected in the first place.

  10. Tango says:

    Yeah, she’ll run – just as sure as the sunrise she’ll run. The thing is, Hillary is old news. She has a lengthy resume, but cannot point to any real success. Not as First Lady (disgraced by her husband, failed at HillaryCare). Did nothing meaningful as a U.S. Senator except block efforts by Dubya to somehow reform the bankrupt Ponzi scheme (uh, that would be Social Security). Has achieved NOTHING as U.S. Secretary of State – other than to burn vast amounts of jet fuel and occasionally embarrass the people of the United States. Her cries of “mo’ sanctions! Mo’ sanctions!” on Ahmadinejhad’s Iran have made her and Barry the butt of many jokes throughout the middle east. The North Koreans won’t even talk to her.

    In the end, Hillary is the ideological soul mate of BarryO. Politically, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two of ‘em.

    But yeah, she’ll run…. b-)

  11. Bill Fabrizio says:

    Old Goat, I don’t think you are giving enough credit to the role that race played in the 2008 vote and plays today in the approval ratings for Obama. In the 2008 vote Obama received about the same amount of white votes as Kerry received in 2004. At the end of the day what really swung it for Obama was the black and hispanic vote. An historically high number of blacks voted in 2008 and supported Obama at close to 100%. Today with Obama’s popularity plummeting to just over 40% the blacks still support him almost unanimously. One of the major factors predicted for a republican victory in 2010 is that since Obama is not on the ballot the blacks won’t show up. This lack of black support would be further exacerbated if Hillary had the nerve to knock the “black man” off the ballot in 2012.

  12. AFTERTHOUGHT: But wouldn’t a Palin-Clinton battle in 2012 be fascinating?

    Absolutely!!

  13. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    You know who would be the Democrat’s dream candidate? Roman Polanski! Think about it:

    (1) Filthy sleazebag – check!
    (2) Felon – check!
    (3) Rapist, and a child rapist at that – double check!
    (4) Hollywood adores him – check!
    (5) No knowledge of the major issues – check!
    (6) Not a US citizen – check again!
    (7) Hardcore leftist – check-a-rooni!

    In fact, a Roman Polanski/Rev. Jeremiah Wright ticket would get Democrats hearts a thumpin’ with delirious joy.

  14. Valerie says:

    I think Hillary has been running the whole time she’s been Secretary of State – But I don’t think even those who voted for Obama and now realize their error will consider voting for Hillary – it’s not far enough away from Tricky Willy’s time in office.

  15. Sefton says:

    Maybe this is just the cynic/conspiracy side of me, but I tend to think (or at least suspect) that sometime late in the game of the presidential race in ’08 the Clinton and Obama teams made a pact to hand over the nomination to Barry. If you recall the stink over Hillary’s delegates prior to and up to the convention, there was some talk of a Dem party revolt until the two Dem nominees had a one-on-one. Even the press was wondering if the main Hillary voting contingent (primarily liberal and moderate women) was going to be a vengeful force against Obama should he capture the nomination, and Obama’s team had to be wondering the same. Obviously, they couldn’t let the division cause the party to lose the presidency to the McCain/Palin camp. So how did they come to a resolution?
    Enter Bubba. He meets with the Obama camp and works out a negotiation that would give Obama the nomination; in exchange, Hillary (though later publicly she pretends like she’s not interested {it would look too obvious}) is given Secretary of State, and certain former Clinton staffers are given other high level cabinet positions. The alternative is a delegate cluster f*** at the convention and even if Obama ends up being nominated, you have a divided and angry Democratic voting base which didn’t exactly hate the RINO McCain who, as a bonus, has added a female running mate. With a split vote, not too hard to see that Obama would have a rough if not impassible road to the presidency.
    And just to take it a little further (for entertainment value, if nothing else); Bubba also extracts a long range concession. That if, with his and Hillary’s support, Obama wins the presidency – he agrees to serve only one term to allow Hillary to set up for the 2012 run.
    And to make sure Obama is only good for one term, the former-Clinton-now-Obama staff is directed to follow Obama’s lead and help (and encourage) him to push a hard left, progressive agenda as quickly as possible; ramming legislation through with his socialist cohorts in Congress, signing dictatorial executive orders, keeping the narrative on tap through a plethora of speeches and his now obvious perpetual campaign stops – distorting truths and lying extensively through his teleprompted speeches, etc. Plenty to provide the Clinton machine with a win-win situation; ie. passing their progressive agenda bills like health care and so forth, while at the same time damaging his re-electability with the center-right country.
    Fast forward a year and a half; the Clintons see that Obama is in danger of losing the House and perhaps even the Senate at the midterms. This lines up even better for them. It practically gaurantees a deadlocked and weakened Obama presidency that won’t stand a chance for another run if the Republicans find a decent candidate.

    Like I said, I’m pretty cynical about how the “machine” works these days. ;)

  16. Carlos says:

    Sefton, the key phrase in you entire comment was “…if the Republicans can find a decent candidate.”

    IF Michael and the gang, or even reasonable facsimiles of them, are still in power in 2012, the Republicans don’t stand a chance of coming up with anything resembling a potential winner. They’ll shoot the entire lower half of their body off with some spineless jackass wannabee, then blame the conservative base for not wanting a jackass lite.

    They just can’t seem to get beyond the fleeting feelings of needing to be loved by the MSM. Heck, they could probably nominate Lenin and he’d be portrayed as too conservative by the MSM!

    It’s up to us, the base, to make sure we have a viable conservative candidate that can overcome both the Democrats and the Republicrats running the RNC.

  17. Jo says:

    As a mother, I am afraid for the future.

  18. Kate says:

    Shakespeare could not have thought of a more interesting plot line…as I have read from everyone’s input, there is more room to be skeptical and cynical about the eventual outcomes of the democratic primary for the 2010 White House candidate than seats at Yankee Stadium! How does that bode for the people of the country in general. I feel that there were will be a lot of people who will be completely befuddled if Obama loses this chance to run again (read Socialist/Commie intellectual vote). Then there will be those who are hostile (i.e. the New Black Panther (Panderer) Party folks, NAACP) and will feel that the black community once again has been dissed and they will be pissed. Do you think they would vote for Hillary? Hard to say….perhaps if there is a minority running mate. But in the long run this whole thing would be very problematic for the democratic side of the ticket.

    Then again, the RNC is not doing a bang up job of anything these days….ENTER THE TEA PARTY…..maybe there is hope if the message is not distorted by those who begrudge the idea that we can reclaim and reeducate the general public about what government is really charged to do under the constitution and restore fiscal responsibility and reasonable taxation.