Hillary Clinton can say "no" to the pesky pleas for her to run for president in 2012 until she's blue in the face. It won't make any difference. There will be yet another poll that shows she's far more popular than President Obama as the Democratic presidential standard bearer. And that in a head to head race she'd shellac any one of the pack of GOP presidential contenders, and that includes the presumptive frontrunner, Mitt Romney. A Time magazine poll is the latest to feed the Hillary clamor. A Clinton presidential run won't happen. But the persistent romantic pining away for it is and never has been about putting another Clinton in the White House. It's about the supposed shortcomings, risk, dislike, and betrayal of Obama. The alleged shortcomings have been stated so often that they've become a mantra. He's too weak, vacillating, and conciliatory to the GOP. He broke his campaign pledges for a swift Iraq war withdrawal, caved in to Wall Street, the banks, and major corporations, bungled the economy, and dithered on shutting down Guantanamo, and put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block. The risk is that he could lose with his approval rating continuing to slip into the danger zone for presidents in their reelection bid.
This is all based on gross negative exaggerations, distortions, and the deliberate downplay of Obama's record and positive accomplishments. It also ignores the recent history of presidential politics. In 1982 polls showed that a majority of voters said that Reagan should not run for re-election because of his supposed political failures. That included high unemployment, double digit inflation, and inexperience in dealing with these problems. His approval numbers at that point were even lower than Obama's. The sentiment against a Reagan rerun was off base. He won a smash reelection victory in 1984. Reagan was hardly the first to hear talk that they were damaged political goods and could not possibly win reelection, Truman and Clinton heard that said about them after popularity plunges, legislative reversals, or midterm party losses. They won reelection.
The dislike of Obama is even easier to pinpoint. It comes to down to a mix of race, unrealistic expectations and fear. The seed of that was planted not by the relentless subtle and not so subtle race tinged assault on Obama by some GOP and Tea Party leaders and followers, but in the Democratic primaries in 2008. Polls showed that a significant percentage of conservative, rural, and blue collar Democrats in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky flatly said that they would not vote for Obama, based on color. Clinton subsequently won primary victories in each of these states. The great fear was that the racial divide was not between the GOP and Democrats, but among Democrats and that would derail Obama's drive for the White House. It was a false fear. Obama won Pennsylvania and Ohio in the general election. And he won it with considerable white voter support.
The question for 2012 is whether the racial fears that could have imperiled Obama in 2008, but didn't could imperil his presidential reelection bid this go round. There's no hard and fast answer to that. Race is always a tricky commodity in any election contest between a black and white candidate. But the evidence is clear on one point, the economy trumps all. If voters perceive that the economy is improving, will continue to improve, and that the incumbent has a firm grasp on how to insure that that will be the case, then the odds are always good for his reelection. This will be the case in 2012 as in all other presidential elections.
The shout from some for Hillary to muscle out Obama ignores another hard political reality. The GOP's goal has never been solely to drive Obama from office. The war would have been waged against Hillary or any other Democrat that won the presidency, but especially Hillary with the same down and dirty vehemence that they have waged it against Obama. The GOP war is about regaining power, control, political dominance, protecting its corporate and financial interests, its strict construction definition and enforcement of the laws, and more broadly imposing its philosophical view of how government should be run. The presidency is the grand prize that pulls the political, economic and philosophical threads on how government and power will be exercised together for the GOP.
Hillary experienced that relentless down and dirty lust for power and dominance first hand during her years in the Clinton White House. She was just as much the prime target for the campaign of GOP slander, vilification and lies as Bill. The notion sprang from this that she is more savvy and tougher than Obama and would make much more formidable foe for the GOP as a candidate and as president. That's wishful thinking, and easy to indulge in since she holds no elected office, and has not had to battle with GOP legislators across the negotiating table on any of the major issues that Obama has.
None of this talk about Hillary as the Democratic candidate will go anywhere. Not just because she won't allow it to go anywhere, but because it's just another nasty way to slam Obama.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the author of How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is host of the weekly Hutchinson Report Newsmaker Hour on KTYM Radio Los Angeles streamed on ktym.com podcast on blogtalkradio.com and on thehutchinsonreportnews.com
Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/earlhutchinson
Hillary Clinton 2012? Voters Say Yes, Please
Hillary Clinton Is Winning Time's Hypothetical 2012 Election
Enviros put heat on Obama over pipeline
Hillary Clinton Mocks Herman Cain
Lady Antebellum Brings 'Own The Night Tour' To Marcus Amphitheater
Third Party Group Mulls Hillary as Presidential Candidate
Hillary Clinton Over Joe Biden in 2012? Possible: Jonathan Alter
Feminist Friday: "Time" thinks Hillary could beat Republicans better than ...
The Bush tax cuts.
The PATRIOT ACT
The Iraq war (he tried to extend it).
Those were not designed to continue. Yet Obama extended them to gain political leverage to do things with the GOP. What did he get in return ? Not much....unless you count the debt ceiling fiasco.
Obama has now changed his tune regarding the GOP in Congress. It's about time. He should have done so two years ago. Is he doing it now only because he's back on the campaign trail ? Is it only a campaigning Obama that can do it, not a President Obama ?
That being said, nothing in those arguments could make me vote Republican. Disappointment with Obama should not make vote for something against your principles. Then again, I'm Canadian, so I can't vote in US elections !
Experience DOES matter in life and in 2008 Obama had a razor thin resume at the national level. He was only in his 2nd year as senator when he decided to run for president. His arrogance ("I won") and inexperience are a big part of the reason why he is tanking in the polls. He seems to think that he knows more than anybody in the room at any given time, but in reality his lack of knowledge of how to get things accomplished in DC cost his party to lose the House in 2010.
By contrast, people here and abroad got to see Hillary run State with a steady hand. She is an extremely hard worker who routinely works 18 hr. days (no weekly golfing outings for her). She would have brought that kind of work ethic to the presidency. Many people who initially didn't vote for her have come to admit that they made a mistake. Hillary would have probably been a more effective president.
Alas, she will not divide the party by pulling a Ted Kennedy.
More's the pity.........
Do you deny it or do you defend it based on tribal allegiance?
Is it just about race for you?
WOW.
He didn't get us out of Afghanistan.
He didn't get us a public option, much less national health care or even a single payer system.
He didn't close Guantanamo.
He didn't stop the PATRIOT act from being extended, and its coverage from being expanded.
He didn't so anything significant to create jobs.
He helped Wall Street and bailed out the banks without helping Main Street.
In light of what Obama didn't do, Hutchinson owes his readers a list of what he thinks Obama has accomplished for which we should be grateful.
Here ya go:
http://obamaachievements.org/list
Don't have the space to get into them all, but regarding the first 3 items on your list:
He never promised to get us out of Afghanistan—quite the opposite
A public option had zero chance of passing Congress.
Congress cut off funding for prisoner transfers from Guantanamo.
Why do you think it doesn't get posted on a regular basis?
Barack Obama, evidenced in his appointments of every Wall St hack with a pulse, has proven that he had very little to do with CHANGE. He has in fact invested in keeping the SAME.
He is a corporate brand creation and many now know that and naturally regret giving him their vote.
Hillary does present more Presidential and professional than Obama does/has. He wasted precious time trying to impress the country and world as to what a great husband and father he is flying to NYC to go out on a date with his wife. His basket ball playing with NBA players was another impressive stunt.
He sd have been presenting jobs bill two years ago instead of worrying about dates and basketball.
Before the election in 2008, he stated that "I can fix the economy." He lied.
The latest unemployment rate forecasts from the white house
1) Unemployment rate will end the year at 9.1% (Where we are right now).
2) Unemployment rate will average 9.0% in 2012 (Well, heck, a 0.1% drop should get BO re-elected).
3) Unemployment rate will average 8.5% in 2013
4) Unemployment rate will not return to normal rates of just over 5% until 2018. Can you wait that long? Two years after a 2nd potential BO term ends?
Clinton used the phrase "It's the economy, stupid." Does that not apply to BO now?
But these unemployment rate forecasts come from the White House - you know, BO's own administration (and they have usually under-estimated reality).
So if BO's own admin states that unemployment rates won't return to normal range of just over 5% until 2018, I figure that means that if BO gets re-elected to a 2nd term, that he is not going to do anything about unemployment, so it will stay in the 8% to 9% range for most of his 2nd term, and then in 2016 we get a new president, and he does something to lower the unemployment rates in his first 2 years in office, so that by 2018, it is back down in the 5% range.
Face it - BO has over promised and under-delivered.
But , what would she have done as prez? Lined the Republican senators up and machine-gunned them all?
See , we have this thing called the Constitution. And it says that the House and Senate must vote on bills before they become law. The prez is not a king.
You unhappy with Obama? Republicans want you to be. They want you to stay at home on election day. You gonna help them out?
It's called leadership and party discipline.
The Democrats with Obama at the helm have been a huge disappointment.
Democrats have rarely marched in unison. I like it that way.
She has done a great job as secretary. She is competent, strong and a true leader.
So the real "slam" is running Obama unopposed and not giving us a choice with the exception of leaving the party and voting third party candidate. The party cannot continue to ignore the base without losing votes.
As for the race issue, only 13% of America is black...70% is white...and Obama won through the overwhelming support of white votors...his color wasn;t an issue. If color were an issue, Cain wouldn;t be doing so well among Republicans and independants where Black votors are even scarcer...
Its about Obama...
As for Reagan, by the end of his third year positive progress in the economy was very clear, unemployment was dropping, inflation was falling as were interest rates and he had to deal with Tip O'Neil...who called him "The stupidest mad ever to occupy the White House"...can you imagine if someon on the right said that about Obama?