Hillary 2012 Ad Released By Chicago Dentist William DeJean (VIDEO)

A new ad pitching a Hillary Clinton 2012 presidential campaign has been making the rounds on the web and in select TV markets recently, but it doesn't mean there's an inter-cabinet coup brewing to prevent Obama from running for a second term.

"She has more experience working in and with the White House than most living presidents. She is one of the most admired women in our nation's history. Let's make sure the president we should have elected in 2008 will be on the ballot in 2012. Hillary 2012: Hillary Clinton for President. Start now. Where there's a Hill there's a way," the ad, paid for by Chicago dentist William DeJean, reads.

According to an interview with CNN, DeJean's decision to produce the ad seems to be driven by a simple dissatisfaction with Obama and support of Clinton.

"I'm a dentist and I don't think this country is headed in the right direction," DeJean explained. "I think [Clinton] is the most qualified."

More from CNN on DeJean's motivation:

DeJean adds that he thinks people are having buyer's remorse about President Barack Obama and says the current administration is ruining the Democratic Party. He says he spent $5,000 to create the commercial and tells CNN that besides New Orleans, the ad will run in Washington, New York and Los Angeles, and possible Houston. DeJean says he chose to first run the ad in New Orleans because he's a native of the city and because the city's in the news due to the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

Clinton has said repeatedly that she has no plans to run for president again, much less as a primary challenger to Obama in 2012, but that hasn't stopped many from speculating that her sights remain on the top office, and that her aspirations can't wait until 2016.

Watch William DeJean's Hillary 2012 Ad:

 

 

Comments

[Justan Olfrend]

08:18 PM on 09/24/2010

My eyebrow goes up whenever I see this ad. Smells.

[KrazyJay]

01:07 PM on 09/06/2010

Nice and inspiring, in an "armchair quarterbac­k" sort of way. She would have definitely brought more experience to the table, and the White House would be a little tighter and a little less loose-lipp­ed ... but would the compromisi­ng, deal-makin­g, and lobbyist-p­andering have been any different?

If the Clinton presidency was any example of her influence, it might have been worse. I'm often very disappoint­ed with the Obama administra­tion, but pointing toward a fellow DLC-er and crying "Messiah" isn't exactly an emotion based on logic.

[Biendiosa]

12:31 PM on 09/06/2010

Hillary is was too Hawkish for me to vote for even if she does run.
She'll be as Corporatis­t aas Obama has proven to be, as well.
It's hard to believe that there will be anybody worth my vote in the next election.
I worked hard for Obama and look where that got us.

[Ergon]

11:33 AM on 09/06/2010

I'm strongly smelling Karl Rove dirty tricks.

[livesimply]

04:14 AM on 09/06/2010

That is a good picture rendition of Hillary. She looks warm in it. That is one thing that always seemed a bit absent in her manner...w­armth.

[Dan W Bright]

04:29 AM on 09/06/2010

and she is a nice lady as well ,my aunt new her in ar.(and hellllla smart)In california hella means" alot "

[Australian2]

01:10 AM on 09/06/2010

How many times does it have to be said?

Hillary Clinton isn't running in 2012. She probably won't run in 2016, either, but she is certainly not running in 2012. Mostly because she's not stupid enough to. Consider: She'd have to defeat the sitting President for the nomination (doesn't happen often), then she'd have to win the general, in an atmosphere that promises to be poisonous for Democrats.

[Dreamking]

12:04 PM on 09/06/2010

Aussie2:

I'm not so sure that the Dems won't just toss out Obama. Forget health care, even the economy; he's going to have Afghanista­n on his back and NOBODY is going to endorse that.

Plus, G.I.'s will still be getting killed in Iraq so he's going to look as ridiculous as Bush with his Mission Accomplish­ed sign.

Also by that time, either the economy will have rebounded or we'll be in a full blown depression­, in which case both parties will have poison in the air.

[JimR]

12:22 PM on 09/06/2010

Ain't gonna happen.

[Bids Well]

05:18 PM on 09/08/2010

She should easily be able to defeat a sitting president. SHOULD being the key word. What's the deal where one party gets in, and they automatica­lly can't run someone else when the first guy is a waste. Just like the Republican­s shouldn't have run Bush I again, the Dems should wise up and back the person they SHOULD have backed in the first place.

[Freesia2]

11:56 PM on 09/05/2010

A poster from some other blog wrote:

"According to Open Secrets, Dr. William DeJean donated $2,290 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign on 23 March 2008. It looks like he demanded his donations back too, because he got back from that campaign $253 on 30 June 2008, $2300 on 28 August 2008, and $10 on 2 October 2008.

I’m strongly smelling PUMA here. "

I agree. There's a stench more of causing trouble and less about conviction­.

I can't find out his part affiliatio­n. How do I do that? Because I want to find out if he was registered as a Republican and then switched during the 2008 primaries. That's what Operation Chaos did. And the people behind PUMA were the same folks. Republican­s.

[Dan W Bright]

04:31 AM on 09/06/2010

that sounds right .it is a page from the art of war.

[roger37]

11:08 PM on 09/05/2010

For those people who doubt the wisdom of this, wait until the Catfood Commission (the Deficit Commission­), loaded with Rethugs who want to cut Social Security, makes its report after the 2010 elections.

Then you'll see where Obama is coming from.

[bohite]

01:15 AM on 09/06/2010

Where Obama is coming from is to be seen. Where the Republican­s stand is known to every one. They only respond to the interest of the upper two percent and they could give a rats butt for the interest of the middle class.

[Dan W Bright]

04:32 AM on 09/06/2010

it is clear as a bell look at who is in charge simpson.. old dirtbag.

[SoccerNana]

09:51 PM on 09/05/2010

Hilary won't win; Bill's baggage is too heavy.

[roger37]

10:58 PM on 09/05/2010

I think she's shed that by now. All of her work as Senator and Secretary of State has been independen­t of Bill.

I just hope she doesn't get enamored of money and power like Bill Clinton did under Rubin's influence. It ruined the last period of Bill's presidency­.

I worked myself to a frazzle for Barack Obama, and he is a cheap corporatis­t. I'll go with Hilary if she proves to me that she can resist money.

[Dan W Bright]

04:34 AM on 09/06/2010

dude? i can still feel my eyes burning from the cheap wool

[colourful]

12:18 PM on 09/06/2010

Roger37
Maybe she is past Bill, but is she past the comments about dodging gun fire?

[bohite]

01:17 AM on 09/06/2010

if she is smart and I know she is, she will smile and say:"that is a crazy suggestion­"

[Freesia2]

09:49 PM on 09/05/2010

This is his campaign contributi­on history:

http://www­.newsmeat.­com/fec/by­state_deta­il.php?las­t=dejean&f­irst=willi­am

PUMA I'm thinking, which means he was likely a member of Limbaugh's Operation Chaos. Which means Republican­. I'll keep digging.

[danusgram]

12:09 PM on 09/06/2010

We need research F&F

[IAmNoOne]

09:38 PM on 09/05/2010

Why is this amateur crappy looking youtube video getting so much attention?

[Greg2000]

11:50 PM on 09/05/2010

Guess what? It grabbed CNN's attention.

[24kgold]

08:36 PM on 09/05/2010

Republican plant!!!!!

[Freesia2]

09:44 PM on 09/05/2010

That was my first thought.

Houston.

[Freesia2]

09:45 PM on 09/05/2010

Sorry. I meant to write New Orleans.

[ywcachieve]

08:08 PM on 09/05/2010

correction­: Repubs never try to sabotage the reelection of Repub presidents­.

[ywcachieve]

08:07 PM on 09/05/2010

This is basically why Dems are always losing elections. This type of stuff. The president has been in office 1 year and 7 months, and you have is own people trying wreck his reelection already.
The Repubs never try to sabotage the reelection of their people.

[jcwtts1]

07:33 PM on 09/05/2010

I've written this before. Here is the basic reality of why Obama won. A) Hillary is a weak candidate and he is a good one. B) blacks, without whom the Dems lose the NE and the upper midwest would not have turned out for hillary after the race baiting campaign run by the Clinton Machine. C) Women on the other hand had to turn out for Obama, the supremes were in jeopardy and still are. D) if by some crazy event the Hilary dems were to take the nomination from the President black turnout would be next to nil, and those that turned out wouldn't vote dem ever again. This is a real conversati­on, is Obama loses the nomination to anyone at this stage, blacks will flee the dems. It has happened before. When the GOP accepted all the race hating dems into their party the GOP was getting 50% of the black vote. After the GOP segregatio­nists some of whom had been dems previously­, centered their party on race and hate dems fled the GOP. What was a 50 50 vote went 95-5. While it wouldn't flip back 95-5 the other way it would be 50-50 again. And that means the Dems lose, NJ, PA, MD, OH, IL, MI, CT, DE outright, and probably, NY, FL, NC, VA, IN (which they are losing anyway). So any dem who wants Hillary, go for it, crack the party like an egg. You get what you get.

[Vinkaye]

11:22 AM on 09/06/2010

First of all, I do not think Hillary would run in a primary against President Obama, so this is all a moot point. However, I wish we could finally accept that the Clintons did not run a "race baiting" campaign..­. they were painted that way by one Rep. Clyburn (who has since been rewarded with a post by President Obama) in South Carolina, because the Clintons had always received great support from African-Am­erican Democrats, and the Obama campaign needed a way to shake that support. The entire notion of "racism" was a manufactur­ed campaign tactic by the Obama campaign! The Clintons have spent their entire adult lives fighting for racial equality, that did not suddenly change in South Carolina. The fact that people are still spouting this nonsense, is a testament to how effectivel­y the Obama campaign manipulate­d the media and message.
As for the next election, President Obama, and the Democratic party better stop using the argument that we, progressiv­e women, have to vote for them or else the Court will be at stake. We are tired of listening to these threats, when the President, that we helped elect, ignores us at every other turn.

[JimR]

12:25 PM on 09/06/2010

Sorry, no sale. The Clintons most definitely played the race card. They have many positive qualities, but when it comes to running campaigns, they are not above sleazy tactics.

[jcwtts1]

03:15 PM on 09/06/2010

"ignores us at every other turn."

Except more women in positions of power than ever, two female supreme court nominees, a third expected, Lilly's law the first law signed when taking power. All sorts of things like that. In one breath you complain that we make abortion the sole reason for women voting dem, and then you use what I can only assume is the enforcemen­t of hyde as a reason to say the President ignores you. In every single other instance the President has done exactly what women asked him to do. All except federal money for abortion. Either you are a one trick pony or you aren't. Make up your mind about it please. As for the racialized speech and the race baiting campaign..­. it was exactly what I said it was. Bill Clinton went around telling everyone Obama couldn't win the general, that white people wouldn't vote for him. He told Ted Kennedy that a month ago this guy would have been getting our coffee. Seriously, Hillary talked about him getting assassinat­ed. And you think it wasn't a race baiting campaign. Hillary played it to the bone. She got sec state. More than I would have given her. But you are right she isn't running. Women played around voting for Bush and they are one nomination away from losing the supremes for a generation­. So if you want roe overturned vote republican or stay home.
J