To an increasing extent, Barack Obama is not a viable Democratic candidate in 2012. The right loathes him, as expected. The left now understands what folks like moi understood early on: That Obama was and is a corporate sell-out, a pseudo-progressive. This piece by Robert Reich does an excellent job of explaining Obama's epic miscalculation.Gitmo is still holding people without charge. Iraq remains a mess. A losing effort in Afghanistan has been escalated. There was no HOLC-style rescue for homeowners. The "too big to fail" banks were not nationalized. The bankers were given tons of cash instead of jail sentences. The miscreants of Wall Street continue to go unregulated. The Bush tax cuts were extended. Unemployment remains high, and the only new jobs are crappy. There has been no appreciable investment in alternative energy. Obama lied about single-payer, about NAFTA, about everything.
Yes, Hillary would have been better. Yes, McCain would have been preferable -- if only because a McCain failure would not have tarnished the Democratic brand.
Has Hillary's alliance with this failed administration damaged her chances of gaining the nomination in 2012? Perhaps. Probably. But if she is to have any chance at all, she must quit her job as Secretary of State now.
Not only that: She must quit not "to spend more time with her family." She must stomp away from this administration over a matter of principle. I'm talking about a loud and angry parting of the ways -- the kind that would force lazy journalists to write about those proverbial "shockwaves through Washington."
The administration's treatment of Bradley Manning may provide the proximate cause.
Manning, as you know, is the private undergoing extraordinarily harsh treatment in order to force him to provide false testimony against Julian Assange. No-one in the major media would dare to state the matter in those exact words, but everyone with any sense knows full well what is going on.
A recent pronouncement by a Hillary spokesperson is construable as a shot across the bow (forgive the cliche) against the administration:
Hillary Clinton's spokesman has launched a public attack on the Pentagon for the way it is treating military prisoner Bradley Manning, the US soldier suspected of handing the US embassy cables to WikiLeaks. PJ Crowley, the assistant secretary of state for public affairs at the US state department, has said Manning is being "mistreated" in the military brig at Quantico, Virginia. "What is being done to Bradley Manning is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid on the part of the department of defence."When was the last time a Secretary of State (who serves at the pleasure of the President) said similarly harsh words against the administration? I can't think of a precedent, at least not a recent one.
The spokesperson's damning commentary forced Obama to offer a rejoinder. He flimmed his usual flam. No-one bought it.
In my view, Hillary's underlying message to Obama came to this: "Go ahead, Barack -- fire me. Old Secretaries of State don't just fade away -- they mount challenges in 2012."
If he fires her the way Truman fired MacArthur, then Obama would undo his gambit of hiring Clinton to forestall an intra-party challenge.
She stands zero chance of retaining her job in a second Obama administration, should one come to pass, which it probably won't. Thus, the question comes down to whether she will leave her current gig in mid-2011 or (at the latest) early 2013. Does her unemployment start now or (roughly) a year later? If it starts now, she gains certain advantages.
So far, her service has been admirable -- for the most part. She can blame the non-admirable bits on Obama. This places her in a good position to become the Democratic candidate in 2012 -- and even if she doesn't win, she will let the public know what a compromised tool Obama really is.
Have you noticed that right-wing propagandists no longer go into hate-gasm at the mention of Hillary's name? With a nearly audible click of the dial, they've turned off the attacks against her. They assail Obama on every possible front, but they don't (usually) go after him by way of Hillary.
Why? It's obvious. For strategic reasons, they want Democrats to fight amongst themselves.
For different reasons, so do I. I want Hillary Clinton to rejoin the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
14 comments:
"For strategic reasons, [the Republicans] want Democrats to fight amongst themselves."
This is so true. The Republicans must be so damned pleased with the Obamacrats, who spent the primaries calling their fellow Democrats racists. I can think of no better way to destroy a party.
I dont think Hilary has a chance. I am not American so its not really my fight, but I would suggest Kathy Giffords. Plus I dont really know that much about her. But if Obama can win out of nowhere then so can she.
Harry
democrats, which I am life long but unsure now, but never a republican nor wish to, Destroyed! the democratic party themselves, the fraudulent cacuses, also when the delegates{FLA.& MI} were stolen by members of our own party and presented to obama because they just knew who they would have gone to IF he left his name on the ballots. They finished the presentation to ob at the convention when chaos ruled and delegates were threatened and confusion about where they were to vote. the really destuctive use of calling those opposing him the r word finished any discusions of his bad decisions.If this happens in other countriea we call it fraudulent!
I agree. It's time for Hillary to go, pull out, let this wretched Administration commit hari kari on its own. However, I wince at who might replace her.
The Manning case is a disaster and outrage. We can argue about whether Manning is a hero or villian, but the treatment [if the details are accurate] of this young man is inhumane and absolutely unAmerican.
But then, we had 8 years of the Bush/Cheney gulag era, where inhumane treatment was given a pass. And this Administration's nod on justifying the extermination of an American citizen for jihadist activities [yes, Awlaki is a bad guy, but we're suppose to be living by rule of law] is equally outrageous.
Lawless behavior tends to encourage more lawless action.
Obama is either the most clueless of Presidents or simply a vile human being to term Manning's treatment as "appropriate." Maybe, he's both.
Hillary Clinton needs to walk away before she's permanently tainted. She's been doing good works in many areas. I'd hate to see her damaged by these goons.
I believe some people discounted HRC in the campaign because they were concerned her presidency would be so much red meat for the right, with pre-cooked attacks reprised from the '90s. O's experience shows that if that were the worry, it was misplaced because any Democratic president will now always be attacked this way. With HRC, there'd be heaping helping of ugly misogyny to replace the now extant race baiting.
But I'm not so sure how HRC would differ from O except in style or atmospherics, as to policy matters. I think she and Bill work for the same people O does.
I guess she'd be more combative and not try to be post-partisan, so at least we could applaud better rhetorical flourishes.
XI
Yeah, Perry, because Hillary's supporters weren't throwing around false accusations of sexism at every opportunity...
Anon 1:53 -- are you out of your gourd? I documented a nearly infinite number of sexist remarks by Obama supporters. These weren't the sort of comments where you had read between the lines or willfully misinterpret innocent remarks. No, we are talking about things like "Yo, cunt!" Repeated over and over and over and over. Daily. Hourly.
And we now know that this psyop campaign was orchestrated by Axelrod, as noted in previous posts.
I supported Clinton's move to State. It was the wise choice - the other choice was her remaining in the Dem caucus in the Senate and being tarnished as they all were by Barry's foolishness. She increased her portfolio and her stature by ditching domestic drama for the past 2 years. Obama's home front screw ups are all his. His foreign screw ups are mostly his - as Clinton has gone her own way more than a few times.
That said it is clearly time for her to exit. Or will be by summer. Her chances in 2012 are not good, but they are not as bad as many assume either. Obama's poll numbers remain in the high 40s mostly because the alternatives are god awful. Clinton in the mix gives many an out they simply do not have now. Esp. those in the middle. Obama polling in the high 30s or worse makes Clinton more attractive than ever.
Hillary's political career is over.
Should she challenge Obama the Dems lose the black and the youth vote and the cable talking heads pick up where they left off attacking her. It goes without saying that the Right's attacks begin anew using ammo provided by the posters at Kos and other O-bot sites.
This and the perfect storm of Pelosi, Obama, and Reid ensures a republican in the White House come 2013.
I have to believe most true Democrats now know of the MISTAKEIN'08.
If she's willing, we have her back. I pray every day she will be willing to forgive alot of the crap she took that year. But I also wouldn't blame her for telling Americans that they made their bed......
P.J. Crowley has been forced out.Guess that answers all questions about where Hillary stands, doesn't it.
I can understand the last "anonymous" post regarding Hillary's stance, but I offer another line of reasoning.
Hillary, whether anyone likes it or not, may be clinging on as best as she can for another agenda.
I could barely get thru this article without excerpting most of it as must-read.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-06/hillary-clintons-mission-to-help-women-and-girls-worldwide/
Hillary? The same person who was on the board of Wal-Mart? Whose husband, as governor, suppressed State Police efforts to stop trafficking at Mena airport (guns going south, coke flying back north)? Hillary also has had tight relationships with the hazardous waste incineration industry. Sure glad she's not a Republican ... as if that would make any difference.
www.oilempire.us/hillary.html
www.oilempire.us/wti.html
The Democrats and Republicans are a divide and conquer, two headed monster. There is nothing that has happened in the past five decades the D's did not acquiesce to. It's nice that Kucinich and McKinney and a few other souls have had a conscience in that party, but the Democratic Party died in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Now the Presidential "election" is like watching televised wrestling, rigged in advance. Obama was a more sellable front man for Wall Street, Hillary is a talented tool of empire but not so cuddly.
www.oilempire.us/jfk-unspeakble.html
Always, it's the Anonymous commenters.
I let this one go through just so I could expose an unkillable myth. In 1991, I spoke to Charles Black, who headed up the state investigation of Mena. He didn't have one complaint about Clinton. He complained about President Bush. It was the FEDERAL trial of Barry Seal that refused to hear evidence. Clinton funded the investigation.
Yeah, I KNOW what you've read. That crappy book "Compromised," right? I also talked to Cummings, and came away mistrustful of him and of Terry Reed. Books like that are a Republican plot, designed to make guys like you say that there is no difference between the parties, so don't bother voting.
Prithee tell me what YOUR credentials, Mr. Anonymous, that I should accept your version of events over that of State prosecutor Charles Black? (I think he's still alive and should confirm what I've said here.)
Hillary experienced one of the most vicious and unfair campaigns of villification I've ever seen. That kind of propaganda campaign does not occur if the Powers That Be consider you a "safe" member of the club.
Post a Comment