The Obama administration is fast losing its grip. So many broken promises, so little accomplished. Recent ABC/Washington Post poll numbers show a 15% decline in the approval rating for the President AMONGST DEMOCRATIC VOTERS in just one month.
It’s fairly clear that when you break promises routinely, when you diss your own party (especially progressives and liberals) as Rahm and Obama have done, when your own press secretary Gibbs gives the Republicans a talking point (“yes, I can see the Republicans taking the House in November”), when you make policy errors like lifting a 27 year ban on offshore drilling, when you have incompetents in every level of your administration (Rahm, Gibbs, Salazar, Geithner, Summers), when you continue a senseless and costly series of overseas wars, when you want to undercut New Deal programs like Social Security, you are not going to get reelected in 2012. It’s not automatic, Mr. Obama. Lots of people from your own party are thinking, this guy’s gotta go.
Here’s a list of potential candidates to primary Obama in 2012:
1) RUSS FEINGOLD
There’s no secret that one of our most progressive, ethical and thoughtful senators, a true progressive, is on the outs with Obama. Over the escalations of wars. Over the constitutional transgressions like the forced renditions. And now, over the financial “reform” bill that is not really a financial reform bill. Read an attack article on Feingold over at Politico (with anonymous sources in the administration–read Rahm and Obama himself) which single out Feingold for actually standing up and opposing the weak-kneed “reform” bill that Paul Volcker has also criticized.
Feingold has the experience in Washington (3 time Senator going for his 4th term in November) that Obama never had. He has the smarts, he is far more articulate than Obama (doesn’t need that teleprompter) and has law degrees from Harvard (Honors, Obama doesn’t talk about his grades, ever) AND Oxford.
Feingold also has the kind of appeal, especially being hard nosed on fiscal matters and on the constitution, that Obama lacks. He has the true ability to reach out to Republicans that Obama pretends he has: think McCain-Feingold. Plus Feingold is a fighter (he stood alone against the Patriot Bill and looks like the only Democratic Senator who will oppose the watered down financial “reform” bill. Obama, on the other hand, is NOT a fighter for average Americans.
2) NANCY PELOSI
Pelosi too is at loggerheads with an increasingly unpopular president. See a recent article where Pelosi ripps White House press secretary Gibbs for his foolish statements about the likelihood of the Democrats losing the House in November. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39703_Page2.html
Pelosi is also miffed at Obama for repeatedly favoring the Senate. Pelosi and her gang have had to sacrifice their ideals and positions (think on health insurance reform) for those of the Senate.
Pelsoi has some powerful advantages: she comes from vote rich California and she’s a woman who is the House speaker (read excellent political connections). She could be the first woman president.
If the Democrats do poorly in November and the economic crisis continues, she would be a powerful contender to an already weak president.
3) HILLARY
Readers may have noticed that some trial balloon articles have been floated in the past month or so for this idea: Joe Biden resigns, Hillary takes his place and Joe goes to State. That notion has been endorsed by some pretty powerful people, including high voices at Foreign Affairs.
If any facet of the Obama administration has worked, its been the State Department where Hillary is in charge. She has the toughness and fighting abilities that are so sorely lacking in Obama.
So why should be satisfied with the Veep position when she could have the top job? Hillary (and Bill) are astute enough to recognize that Obama is weak, that his appeal is fading as he continues to break promises, and that the mantra that got him elected (change) will no longer work for him in 2012. He’s going to have to run on his accomplishments and those are few and far between.
Hillary has the talent, the connections, and the ambition to make a primary challenge work in 2012.
Democrats and Obama would do well to remember 1968 when LBJ, who was far more powerful and successful than Obama is, was challenged by a seemingly mousy candidate in Gene McCarthy. McCarthy ousted LBJ just before the polls from the Wisconsin primary showed McCarthy as a big winner.
2012 could be again a year in which an unpopular incumbent president, who has lost touch with much of his Democratic base as did LBJ, loses in a primary.
What is also evident is that the forces and ideas that brought Obama to power in 2008 will be against him in 2012. He will be the Washington insider. He will no longer be an agent of change and the change mantra will be used against him. His full record (war escalations, policy mistakes, weak record on the economy) will be the focus of debate. He will be the George W. Bush of 2012. Think Feingold, think Pelosi, and think Hillary.
Not Feingold. Not enough fire in the belly.
Not Pelosi. She enjoys her lace of power too much to risk it.
And that leaves…???
TAH DAH!!!
Hillary Clinton.
Watch.
If Obama’s numbers continue to fall and the Rats win the House this year, watch.
What’s she gonna say?
Watch.
AG
I’m not so sure, Arthur G., that Feingold lacks “fire in the belly”. I know what you mean but Feingold DID actually set up an exploratory committee to run for the presidency in 2007 or 2008. He has some personal issues: I think he’s had two divorces, maybe three, and one of them was occurring at about that time. Divorces are no longer considered as an excluding factor much by the electorate anymore since most voters have been divorced themselves. Getting sufficient money together to make a serious run might also be a problem for Feingold who is not personally rich and takes the campaign finance laws seriously. Pelosi, in contrast, is very well heeled personally and has California to draw upon. Whether she would actually take the risk is another question. I think she really does think that Gibbs (and Obama) really don’t know what they’re doing.
A thrice divorced Jew? Not happening. He would need the chutzpah of John the Baptist to run and the political/media/oratorical talents of…well, of Barack Obama…to actually win in Tea Party America. I don’t think he has the tools or the desire, and I think that he knows it.
AG
I’d prefer Nancy, but I agree she’s not going to run. For an interesting scenario that has her becoming President, see http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/05/great-depression-and-revolution-of-2017.html. This article was very amusing until I realized that all the events described happened someplace in the world, sometime in the 20th Century.
In the 2008 primary season, I was ABH, but now I am willing to take a chance on her. I still think that she is too far right. You won’t see that much difference in policy from Obama to her, but you can bet that see won’t take Republican crap laying down. She’s a Chicago politician at heart, much more than Obama.
I just have to wonder, especially after reading items like this: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fears-grow-as-millions-lose-rb-1408637055.html?x=0&sec=topStories&
amp;pos=5&asset=&ccode=, when did “Yes We Can!”, become, “Sorry, the Republicans won’t let us.”
If Hillary becomes Obama’s VP, I predict he would not finish out his term. I hope that NEVER happens!!!
I too do not ever for a moment think that Hillary WOULD run as Obama’s Veep. She’s too smart and she knows (and so does Bill) that Obama is in deep, deep trouble. So why be the Veep when you can be at the top of the ticket? Recall that Hillary lost to Obama only by a few votes at the Democratic convention and that she actually got more votes from elections (primary states) than Obama did.
If the Democrats lose big in November (and that appears likely) and if the economic problems continue (and all long term economic forecasts are dire), Obama & company are dead ducks. A Republican House will investigate every present action by Obama and his team and lots of past ones (the Blago trial might yet provide some ammunition too and it already appears that Obama lied about not directly contacting Blago. Rahm and Obama were pushing Valerie Jarrett for the Senate as testimony has shown). Look too for “pay to play” investigations over Goldman Sachs and BP, amongst others. There will be gridlock in Washington.
Given that background and the fact that Obama is no longer a blank slate and can no longer run on the mantra of change (which he simply used for public relations purposes and had no intention of carrying through) and given that Obama will be in good old George W. Bush’s position as the incumbent, he’s a goner in 2012.
I’m sure that Feingold (my favorite), Pelosi, and especially Hillary are savvy enough to smell Obama’s blood in the water.
I too do not ever for a moment think that Hillary WOULD run as Obama’s Veep. She’s too smart and she knows (and so does Bill) that Obama is in deep, deep trouble. So why be the Veep when you can be at the top of the ticket? Recall that Hillary lost to Obama only by a few votes at the Democratic convention and that she actually got more votes from elections (primary states) than Obama did.
If the Democrats lose big in November (and that appears likely) and if the economic problems continue (and all long term economic forecasts are dire), Obama & company are dead ducks. A Republican House will investigate every present action by Obama and his team and lots of past ones (the Blago trial might yet provide some ammunition too and it already appears that Obama lied about not directly contacting Blago. Rahm and Obama were pushing Valerie Jarrett for the Senate as testimony has shown). Look too for “pay to play” investigations over Goldman Sachs and BP, amongst others. There will be gridlock in Washington.
Given that background and the fact that Obama is no longer a blank slate and can no longer run on the mantra of change (which he simply used for public relations purposes and had no intention of carrying through) and given that Obama will be in good old George W. Bush’s position as the incumbent, he’s a goner in 2012.
I’m sure that Feingold (my favorite), Pelosi, and especially Hillary are savvy enough to smell Obama’s blood in the water.
You mean…you think that Hillary Clinton would willingly be part of an assassination plot? Tacit or otherwise? Like LBJ?
Hmmmmm…
Man that Hillary hate runs strong!!!
AG
No. But I think there are those who would move to put Hillary in power over Obama. She wouldn’t know about it or condone it. But she wouldn’t have to.
As was the case with Johnson, I believe. I think there were those who were sure Johnson would bow to their will in a way that Kennedy wasn’t. I don’t believe at all that Johnson was in on the plot, from all my research.
as George Bush’s was to “statesmanship”.
Why do you say that, Ed?
Really.
Inquiring minds want to know.
AG
do not ignore all the facts which get in the way of one’s conspiratorial fantasies.
The secret government is quite real. It does things. Bet on it. Underneath the superficial “news” of the day-to-day so-called workings of this government lie untold depths and layers of power. The news is just a quick survey of the waves on top of this ocean. Underneath is where the really powerful currents do their job.
This is not “conspiracy theory”, it is simply the truth of the matter. It applies to every level of human action, from individual families to small town PTAs and right on up to the largest empires. In point of fact the same idea is true of every human being with a functioning brain.
“Facts!!!???”
We cannot adequately establish the “facts” about a fender bender or the common cold.
“Facts!!!???”
Give me a break.
Your naivete is sadly amazing. And sadly common as well.
Is Lisa right about everything?
No, of course not.
But at least she’s looking under the surface instead of settling for “the news.”
Under the surface.
Where the real action happens.
Bet on that as well.
AG
Please try to keep the topic on subject, Real History Lisa. If you want to air your views on assassination theories, please start your own thread.
Assassination. Simply another political tool to many factions of government, fflambeau.
Like primaries.
Character assassination is cleaner, but when push comes to shove…
Sorry.
That is the truth of the matter. Throughout history.
Assassination is simply a very finely focused act of war.
So it goes.
AG
Oh.
You mean that she is so stupid and so badly connected to the inner workings of the secret government…the PermaGov…that she is simply some kind of a pawn in a bigger game?
She is more heavily connected than was LBJ, and I have serious doubts about hiss innocence regarding the JFK assassination.
Do not undersestimate Ms. Clinton or her husband.
Of course…do not overestimate them either. They know where a lot of bodies are buried…some of them directly connected to their ongoing success. There is no other way to succeed in an empire the size of the United States. Bet on it. It’s a hard, hard game that they are playing.
AG
Do you really think hat Hillary Cinton and the people who back her…among whom are many in the so-called “liberal” wing of the CIA (Please see the Valerie Plame affair and Hillary’s role in it for more on that subject.)…are so stupid and/or innocent that they do not know which way the winds blow in the PermaGov?
Please.
AG
Far too early at this point in mid-2010 to be seriously considering an intraparty challenge to Obama. He’s been disappointing in some key areas, and there’s no question he’s lost some of the magic and mojo with which he entered office in Jan 2009 and proceeded to largely squander with some uninspiring and unambitious small-ball and naive post-partisan play with Congress. The unncessarily long process by which the half-loaf HCR happened was particularly damaging to him.
As for flambeau’s 3 possible candidates, only the mavericky Russ Feingold would appear the type to want to run to unseat Obama, under certain conditions. While I agree that things like divorce and multiple marriages aren’t quite the same solid barrier to the WH, given the number of divorces for RF, this issue is likely to be brought up, particularly given his reserved and understated public persona. Questions there about why such a soft-spoken type seems not to be able to find a stable long-term partner. The religious angle would be less of a factor.
The major problem for Feingold is that, at this point, there is not right now the one single galvanizing issue around which he could rally the troops of the base against Obama, except for some general grumbling in the base about tepid and too-conservative governance. McCarthy, whom he resembles a good deal in public persona, maverickness and intellectuality, had the insanity of Lyndon’s War to run against. And that was plenty to form the basis of a plausible candidacy.
Feingold cannot run successfully just with some mid-sized discontent and disappointment about the incumbent as his raison d’etre. Politically, he would have to see the economy fail to rebound well into 2011 or worse, a clear double-dip, with Obama and all his Goldman Sachs advisors being seen increasingly by the base as just not up to or right for the job. Or Obama could go LBJ in Afghanistan, delay or cancel the scheduled withdrawal and/or even again increase the number of troops. Doubtful the latter would occur, but who could have predicted in Nov 2008 that O would in his first year triple the number of troops over there and stupidly make it his war.
Pelosi: Too much of a party loyalist, unlike Feingold, to challenge an incumbent prez from her party. It won’t happen.
Hillary: A loyal SoS defeated by the man who appointed her is not likely to want to bolt and repeat that bitter defeat with an even more difficult run in 2012 — Teddy v Carter redux. Like Feingold, only even more so, the political conditions would have to have changed for the worse for O to the point where Hill would be publicly hearing from even former well-known O supporters to run against him. Again, that would take LBJ-VN 1968 type major quagmire conditions in Afghan or a double-dip major recession which Obama appears to handle like Hoover.
I don’t see her becoming the 2012 VP pick, but again certain conditions might compel it and O’s team might feel they need some added excitement going into the fall beyond just another round of O/Joe.
As for some unfortunate and well off-base suggestions that O should never be comfortable with Hillary being only a heartbeat away, I’d suggest that she hardly has anything resembling the true Dark Side that Lyndon (and some of his long-time cronies) had, demonstrably, and that’s true also of her loyal allies, all of them of the good-gov’t establishment Dem type. If it were otherwise, they would have found a way to snatch away (i.e. steal) the nom from Obama after the IA setback. Didn’t happen because Hillary is no Lyndon in the Dark Arts of Politics dept, not by a longshot. O would be safe with Hill as VP, in the unlikely event that happens.
Brody, no one who knows Russ Feingold would call him “soft spoken” like you do. Outspoken is much more like it. In my scenario, I do indicate as well that the economy is likely to stay bad through 2012 (almost all economic pundits say so) and the wars will continue to be endless. Try reading the diary.
As far as Hillary is concerned you might have noticed that 3 major Clinton advisers have been blasting Obama for months: Peter Dhaou, James Carville and Donna Brazille. There’s likely a reason. Also, there has been lots of talk of Hillary shifting over to the Veep position and Biden taking State (he would be awful there). But why should she take the VP position when she can likely have it all? I’m not sure I would call her “loyal” either as you do: ambitious is far more fitting.
Magical white Democrats will save us from our black Obama nightmare? PUMA please!
Hate to gore your ox, but no need to introduce racism into this discussion.
Why not?
Racism is everywhere in America.
Everywhere.
Do you not think that it will enter into a primary campaign? In a tacit manner at the very least?
Please.
“Racism” was one factor in Obama’s success.
The combination of the black vote and the white guilt vote provided a good part of his majority. Deal with it.
He did. Bet on it.
If his administration is not successful enough to fend off the possibility of a primary challenge, is this in and of itself “racist” ?
No.
Of course not.
Once elected, it was up to him to take care of business. His possible failure to have done so in time to run unopposed has nothing to do with racism, it simply means that his talents were not up to that particular job.
He is a very talented man. A great compromiser, a fine speaker and a good executive-type delegator of responsibilities. But maybe what was (and still remains) needed is more of a pit bull-style fighter.
Like Hillary.
We shall see.
Soon enough.
Maybe he can learn on the job.
If he takes his kid gloves off and goes bare-knuckled into the fray…something that on the evidence he has never, ever done…maybe he’ll survive for another term.
Like I said…we shall see.
If he doesn’t manage to get down and dirty either Hillary or a Republican will take him down in 2012.
Will “racism” be the reason he goes down?
No.
But it will be in the mix.
Bet on that as well.
Racism is as American as apple pie baked by a minority cook and served by an illegal alien to a white family. YOU know…like in alla them restaurants you go to?
Later…
AG