by Mike Memoli
It was just two years ago this month that Hillary Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination for president to Barack Obama. Theirs was an epic battle that was very good for the business of political reporting, and especially good for cable news.
It is with that caveat that we note an uptick in speculation about what the ticket might look like for Democrats in 2012. Yes, it seems we in the media just can't quit the Hillary-Obama intrigue.
Specifically, two notions have bubbled up among the Beltway chattering class - much of it attributed to unnamed sources, if at all. The first was floated by the Washington Post's Sally Quinn, who started a recent column by bluntly suggesting: "Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden should switch jobs." Her reasoning begins with the idea that Clinton has established herself as a loyal cog in her former rival's administration and that Biden, while "rehabilitated," would not be quite as potent a political force in the Obama re-election effort.
An early version of the story posted online said that this scheme "is being discussed in administration circles" -- a line that is now omitted (a Post spokeswoman says editors removed the line "because we were not going to name Sally's sources"). Regardless, Quinn still implores us to: "Take it seriously," and at least one reporter who attended a recent availability at the State Department apparently did. CNN's Jill Dougherty asked Clinton about the idea at the end of a longer question about the situation in Kyrgyzstan.
"Let's stick to Kyrgyzstan," Clinton replied with a laugh.
Quinn isn't alone -- the Wall Street Journal's Les Gelb talked of the merits of Clinton as veep in a column that led with the idea of her moving to the Pentagon after a term in Foggy Bottom.
Of course, Biden himself mused during the '08 campaign that Hillary might have been a better pick, telling a New Hampshire crowd that she "is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America." These new columns have now given cable news segment producers new license to discuss the Clinton-Obama dynamic -- it's scheduled on Sean Hannity's primetime Fox News show tonight, for instance.
Photo credit: Pete Souza / White House
Another storyline that has bubbled up again is the idea of Clinton actually challenging Obama in his run for re-election. Speculation of this sort has never really gone away, but rarely was floated as seriously as it was in a column this weekend from the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan. Writing about reaction to Obama's Oval Office address, she says: "Sooner or later the secretary of state is going to come under fairly consistent pressure to begin to consider 2012."
Reacting to that column and other such talk, Peter Beinart calls it "wishful thinking" on the GOP's part, and notes that "there's no groundswell within the [Democratic] party for a primary challenge."
Maybe not within the party. But amongst the political reporting class -- that's another question entirely.
Comments
Sally Quinn is a know-nothing idiot whose only concern is which DC cocktail parties she's going to be attending every week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uC67CqvXME
Posted by: Planet Wingnuttia | June 21, 2010 3:39 PM
Nothing could be worse than Barry
Posted by: Libtard | June 21, 2010 3:57 PM
Posted by: Planet Wingnuttia | June 21, 2010 3:39 PM
.
Hey HHH-Trollboy-John E, speaking of DC cocktail parties, maybe Biden could get a job parking cars at the White House.
Posted by: How many post names will you use today? | June 21, 2010 6:40 PM
There are 2 things I could never forgive Teddy Kennedy for.
1. "Challenging" Carter in 1980, thereby making Reagan/Bush possible (as if someone involved in a fatal accident who left the scene and claimed amnesia could ever be elected President), and
2. (See 1, above).
Right now the President is the most popular political figure on the planet.
Of course, if the Dems want to give up the White House, then by all means have a contested primary in 2012.
Posted by: ornery | June 21, 2010 6:48 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: ornery | June 21, 2010 6:48 PM
.
You can’t be serious about #1. Reagan blew Carter’s doors off in the general election, and would have done so with or without Teddy’s exertions. I’d venture to guess that most people who voted for Reagan didn’t even notice of the infighting among Democrats.
.
Carter was a walking, talking disaster. He insisted on endless negotiations with the enemy, even past the point it became useless. The imagery of Carter and Fritz Mondale stressing out over the hostage crisis and taking turns sleeping in front of the TV was enough to shake anyone’s confidence in Carter’s (hitherto unknown) ability to lead in a crisis. Carter was a nice man. He was no leader. We needed one. That’s why he lost.
.
It doesn’t matter that the President is the most popular political figure on the planet. Our enemies hold him up to contempt and ridicule; the thronging crowds who love him (in other countries) have no political say; and our so-called allies give us no concessions because of him. In which case, his status as the “beloved one” (to go along with “anointed one”) gives him no working capital. So what good is he? I’ll take a President that’s effective any day, and that isn’t Obama.
Posted by: John W. | June 22, 2010 12:05 AM
Right now the President is the most popular political figure on the planet.Posted by: ornery | June 21, 2010 6:48 PM
OK, this is a delusional check. If you are serious, you need some help. Obama is toast, not only here but around the world.
Hillary will of course challenge Obama in 2012. Hillary is the driving force behind Bill. She's put up with years of BS, and she's not going to wait her turn. Expect a fight, and she will win the democrat domination, but she will lose the election. By then, even democrats will realize that Obama is unelectable, and worse than Carter, your hero Mister Zero.
Posted by: Free To Watch Liberals Bankrupt Europe | June 22, 2010 3:08 AM
If we only had known two years ago that we would have had to elect a woman to have a person in the White House that had a pair. I do believe Obama will be challenged by people in his own party. And beginning next year we will probably find out who they are. If there is not a strong conservative and Hillary is running she has my vote.
Posted by: Crooks_In_ DC | June 22, 2010 7:26 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Crooks_In_ DC | June 22, 2010 7:26 PM
.
I'm sorry you think that way. Voting for Hillary is a vote for someone with Obama's political views but with more drive and arrogance. That ought to be totally unacceptable.
.
Fundamental issues of individual freedom are already at great risk with the advancement of the progressive agendum. They would be placed at an even greater risk if entrusted to a collectivist like Hillary. The progressives’ goal of transforming this country from the greatness of what was America into a pseudo-liberal collective - along with the creep of ever larger government - would be vastly accelerated under Hillary’s administration.
.
The genius of America has always been its struggle toward greater individual freedom. As Patrick Henry said during Virginia’s convention to ratify the Constitution, “The end of government is freedom.” If this means nothing else, it means that government exists to ensure the safety and freedom of individuals, while leaving it up to the individual to decide what actions and behavior fill up his or her life.
.
But the progressives, among whom Hillary counts herself, have it the other way around. They seek to shape the lives and views of individual citizens to fit the homogenous ideals of the collective. In Hillary’s “shared responsibility” shtick during the ’08 campaign, she made it clear that she did not embraced the idea of allowing an individual to go as far as his or her talent, industry and smarts can take him (or her), and that she would have to work for the collective good. To say the least, her ideas do not bode well for the kind of individual freedom that is every citizen’s birthright. In light of her views so explicitly spelled out, I do not understand how you could possibly view her as a viable candidate as an alternative to a strong conservative. The two aren’t even on the same planet.
Posted by: John W. | June 23, 2010 8:33 PM
There is absolutely no comparison between Obama and Hillary. Hillary is competent and Obama is not and until she runs again, there are at least 18 million moderates who won't be satisfied. I am telling you that if she runs she will win. She was robbed in the last election and we all know it and there isn't anybody on the inside that isn't thinking this right now. She has two shots. One in 2012 and then again in 2016 when she is 69. My bet is she will take the early shot. Remember, Hillary is a hard worker and the stint as Sec State was all part of the plan to devise a way to elevate her experience with Obama when she runs against him. Go girl.
Posted by: swoosie | July 13, 2010 3:08 AM
I see how this could happen. We're looking at a long-term bad economy. It could last like 2 years. Not many people could do the job of president well, but Hillary definitely could. She should have won. If Hillary does run, I am ready to support her.
Posted by: observer | July 15, 2010 12:01 AM
Hillary was robbed by the DNC in 2008, she won the popular vote anyway. She 's the most competent choice we've had for years, now even the most die hard sexist can't deny how amazing she is after her SOS stint. I knew Obama was an empty suit and he's proven even worse than I thought. Hillary 2012 AND 2016!!! I don't think she'll run in 2012 though, she's too loyal a team player.
Posted by: Denise Comstock | August 21, 2010 2:40 PM