My political prediction for 2012 (based on absolutely no inside information): Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden swap places. Biden becomes Secretary of State -- a position he's apparently coveted for years. And Hillary Clinton, Vice President.
So the Democratic ticket for 2012 is Obama-Clinton.
Why do I say this? Because Obama needs to stir the passions and enthusiasms of a Democratic base that's been disillusioned with his cave-ins to regressive Republicans. Hillary Clinton on the ticket can do that.
Moreover, the economy won't be in superb shape in the months leading up to Election Day. Indeed, if the European debt crisis grows worse and if China's economy continues to slow, there's a better than even chance we'll be back in a recession. Clinton would help deflect attention from the bad economy and put it on foreign policy, where she and Obama have shined.
The deal would also make Clinton the obvious Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 -- offering the Democrats a shot at twelve (or more) years in the White House, something the Republicans had with Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush but which the Democrats haven't had since FDR. Twelve years gives the party in power a chance to reshape the Supreme Court as well as put an indelible stamp on America.
According to the latest Gallup poll, the duo are this year's most admired man and woman This marks the fourth consecutive win for Obama, while Clinton has been the most admired woman in each of the last 10 years. She'a topped the list 16 times since 1993, exceeding the record held by former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who topped the list 13 times.
Obama-Clinton in 2012. It's a natural.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich
Brent Budowsky: Hillary for Vice President
'Most admired' list: Gingrich up, Palin down; Obama, Clinton still No. 1
President Obama and Hillary Clinton were, again, named the most-admired man ...
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Clinton is retiring---didn't anyone hear her????
It is difficult to believe, however, that essential young voters would nominate and elect any Septuagenarian Baby Boomer as president, particularly one named “Clinton” given the enduring economic effects of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, and of the needless, costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It will also be important to recognize that Hillary Clinton in 2008, arguably, had more advantages than any presidential candidate in history but was not able to lead her campaign to victory
-- virtual universal name recognition,
-- a media drumming her as “inevitable”
-- a PR machine casting the spotlight on her “dream team” of staff and advisors, led by women.
-- the well establishe¬d Clinton political machine in place in virtually every state and community in the nation,
-- leadership experience with two successful presidential campaigns,
-- a huge campaign war chest and a mega million dollar personal fortune
-- the UNPRECENTED advantage of a popular, former PRESIDENT campaignin¬g for her FULL TIME in a Democratic primary.”
Even so, Mrs. Clinton ended up short on votes, with a staff and advisors in disarray and conflict and in deep debt, even with an infusion of $13 million from her own private fortune.
The nation and Democrats might do better in 2012 by thanking Mrs. Clinton for her service and investing in the development of the next
"The nation and Democrats might do bette in 2012 by thanking Mrs. Clinton for her service and investing in the development of the next generation of national leaders."
Rather, the Clinton years seem to be remembered as a time of general prosperity, budget surpluses, and relative security.
Hillary of course unfairly or not, inherited Clinton's baggage. As you point out, deregulation got rolling under Clinton's administration. Both Clinton's were disparaged for being "Republican light".
Many liberals believed the prosperity was illusory and that Pres. Clinton's policies would lead to trouble. Hence the first defection to Nader over Gore. Hillary got the second one.
It is highly ironic that this intelligent and assertive woman probably lost because she allowed herself to be subservient to her husband's campaign staff and to strategies that befitted Bill Clinton and not herself. Her nervous discomfort with methods that didn't suit her made people suspicious of her. Much too late she finally fit her campaign to herself and started to do better.
Politically, I don't think she's different from her husband. I have nothing good to say about Obama. Right now, this is a world run by Goldman-Sachs no matter who is elected. Right now, no nominee from either party will buck that dynamic.
As a new generation inherits the huge national debt and bleaker employment picture, I think the illusion of Clinton prosperity and Bill's role in the eventual economic collapse will become very clear.
You may be correct that Mrs. Clinton "lost because she allowed herself to be subservient to her husband's campaign staff and to strategies that befitted Bill Clinton and not herself." If so, isn't this evidence of a lack of leadership? If she could not lead her own campaign, how could she ever lead the nation and the world?
I would note that there were significant poltiical advantages for Hillary in being the spouse of Bill Clinton. She had the finanical means and to hire a dream team" including many strong and highly experienced political women: Patti Doyle, campaign manager; Evelyn Lieberman, chief operating officer; Cheryl Mills, general counsel; Ann Lewis, senior advisor; Mandy Grunwald, lead media consultant, Neera Tanden, policy director; Leecia Eve,policy advisor; Kim Molstre, director of long-term planning; Madeleine Albright, advsior, Geraldine Ferraro, advisor.
In fact, “an October 2007 study of ongoing presidential campaign staffs showed that 8 of Hillary Clinton’s 14 senior staff were women, as were 12 of her 20 top paid staff and 85 of her 161 nominally paid staff.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zephyr-teachout-and-kelly-nuxoll/presidential-campaign-sta_b_69698.html
them. Her time has been long overdue. It's pure ignorance to suggest that a woman doesn't have
the competence and confidence necessary to stand up to the pressures of leading this country. I
believe that's she's highly capable and can stand up to any man. I'm sure this will elicit some rantings from the Rush followers but so be it.
Who are the other women we should be discussing and supporting as potential presidential contenders for 2016?
I think Biden has been good but not great and will play a good elder politician role, and take well deserved rest and concentrate on winning Delaware. PA and NJ for Democrats.
And I firmly believe, Hillary in 2016 will be a great candidate and prove to the world, we can also live with a female lead.She will continue a truly democratic for the people( ALL THE PEOPLE) policy and will be unbeatable, the next time.We will have a truly concerned congress with many old timers collecting their pensions at their home states( not as lobbyists in DC)
Bill Clinton can continue to play a vital role and stay away for a while from self promoting speeches and fund raising for his " Library"