Not working with Obama is how they keep their jobs.
I’d gladly take the other side of that bet, if you were interested in a modest wager.
Assuming she runs, Clinton has three advantages over her last run at the Oval Office this time around:
- She’s unlikely to make the same dumb mistakes that sank her campaign last time (remember the “under fire” gaffe?);
- she’s unlikely to have an Obama-esque opponent (and in fact will have Obama and his political machine as a resource); and
- her stint as SoS has shown that she can actually be hard-nosed and capable of holding her own in the international arena, which has both made her more popular and removes some of the chip she used to have on her shoulder.
Really the biggest concern is her age: given the GOP descent into Extreme Cray-Cray the post-primary campaign is likely to be more arduous than before and unless the Dems get solid control of both houses of Congress she’ll likely have the same problems Obama has had with obstructionism. If she does run she may pull a one-termer and groom a successor - I wouldn’t be surprised to see Warren in a cabinet position, although there’s no way the Democrats would put her in at VP for a two-woman ticket - but that’s just wild speculation on my part.
The Democrats don’t seem to have any rising stars that are well-placed for the Presidency in 2016, apart maybe for Schweitzer. Uncle Joe is unlikely to run - he’s also up there in age and doesn’t remotely have the popularity of Clinton. But then it’s still early, with over 2.5 years to go until the election. Let’s get past the mid-terms and see how things shake down.
I don’t wager money (at least, not enough to make it worth bothering with), as a matter of policy. I’d be willing to do a loser-changes-his-signature sort of thing, though, if you’d like to hammer something out.
Joe Biden would be the oldest significant Presidential candidate ever if he ran – older even than Reagan was when he ran for his second term. Perhaps I’m projecting from my own aging aches and acuity loss, but I think Hillary is also old enough to prefer retirement, but will run out of a sense of duty – the Demos may have no other viable candidate.
The lack of promising candidates seems striking to me; is it unusual? One might hope for a dark horse (like Obama in 2008) to appear out of nowhere, but Obama was already being touted for President by 2004. (I realize Elizabeth Warren is being touted but, however good a President she might make, pushing for her seems like desperation.)
The Republican contenders also have drawbacks. I’m afraid that Huckabee, who disbelieves in evolution, might be the most stomachable of the lot. :smack:
In case you hadn’t noticed, the Democrats have plenty of well qualified governors. There was a time when a candidate didn’t need pizazz. I don’t recall Bill Clinton being exciting before his 1992 run.
Bill Richardson is still the most qualified man to be President in America today. Brian Schweitzer is actually running and has been an excellent governor. Jerry Brown still has the bug, although he’s long in the tooth. Andrew Cuomo would also make an excellent President. Howard Dean has also expressed an interest in running. All well qualified governors and former governors.
No shortage of great candidates on the Democratic side, and big names do not come up in every election. Actually, most of the time, they don’t.
As someone who would like the Democrats to lose, I see no real issues for them if they don’t have Clinton. Unless they get all starry-eyed with a far left liberal like Warren who has no qualifications for office other than an agreeable ideology. The Republicans may be crazy these days, but the Democrats have one big issue where they are off their rockers: their insoucience about candidates having actual qualifications to be President. They just don’t care anymore. They want celebrities.
I like this point. Obama gets out of the way and gets behind the leader. I think this could be worth quite a lot if Obama successfully completes his 2nd term (Fox’s opinion doesn’t count).
Thing is, Obama’s team might choose to throw their weight behind someone else.
Well, Obama has always displayed a reluctance to go to war. That might not be a formal qualification, but it ought to be.
This is really a ridiculous concern, IMO. Historically, a president’s ‘qualifications’ and resume have had pretty much nothing to do with their performance as president.
Given some of the folk the GOP elect, to claim that the Democrats are the ones putting forward unqualified candidates is to laugh.
I thought I’d heard that Richardson had skeletons in his closet, although that may just be scurrilous rumor. Jerry Brown is too old (he’s 75) and perceived as too flaky (although he’s not as flaky as portrayed). We’d need to see if the stupid Dean scream thing still has any legs, and I haven’t been paying attention to Cuomo. Still, a decent field.
There’s being smart about it, and wasting time, as he did in Libya. Clinton has an instinct for acting quickly and in a timely manner. Books about the Osama raid also say that she had to be his balls for that one too.
Well sure, if you view success as having certain views and fighting for those views.
But if you view success as actually getting things done, and being an effective manager of the federal government, then qualifications are quite important.
Cite?
First we have to figure out what you judge as success. Then we can determine what qualifications Presidents had that met your definition of successful.
Second, there’s a distinction between having a job and being good at it. When I bring up the example of governors, posters like to bring up GWB. Except he wasn’t a very good governor either. However, he did do one thing well, and that’s work with Democrats. That continued into the Presidency. Almost all of his domestic accomplishments passed in bipartisan fashion.
Then there’s Reagan and Clinton, ultrapopular, at least one ultraeffective, both governors.
Then you have Barack Obama, with no qualifications for office whatsoever, who barely got anything done when his party had control of both chambers of Congress. And who complained a lot about his management style. But I guess those are just bitter right-wingers who keep on trying to portray the President as incompetent. IT’s all a conspiracy to make him look bad, you see.
Gobbledygook, as to Libya. And what does this have to do with Obama’s reluctance to go to war? It’s like you look at every single issue with Fox News glasses.
As to the Osama raid, that’s a pathetic characterization. He had advisors for it and advisors against it, and ultimately he made the call to do it. He also, apparently, made the very intelligent call to have an extra helo standing by, which probably saved lives.
He was all set to delay the raid for not the first time, and Clinton said, “Do it”. Without Clinton in his ear, I doubt he ever would have moved. Biden thought this obvious decision was courageous because he lacked the balls too.
Clinton is willing to act. If you hate that, then I suggest you vote for an isolationist Tea Partier.
But you won’t vote for Rand Paul, because we all know that when push comes to shove, liberals will accept bombing foreigners if they get to keep Social Security from being privatized.
So basically, your ass is your cite. Most of these sentences are Fox Newsesque blather with little resemblance to reality. Seriously – how does one work with a party whose dominant faction doesn’t acknowledge your legitimacy? How does one work with a faction whose “reasonable” side/leadership (McConnell and Boehner, among others) openly stated that their number one goal was to defeat the President, and who made the decision from day 1 to deny him any legislative successes at all?
It’s a good thing, for America and Americans, that Obama is not working closely with the Republican party in its current incarnation. That makes him a better president, not a worse one.
You are wrong on everything. I like Clinton fine, and your analysis of the decision-making in the lead up to the Bin Laden raid is crap (Biden opposed the raid).
And I won’t vote for Rand Paul because his domestic policy is a nightmare – not because of his foreign policy, which I probably agree with at least partly.
Please please please think before you post, especially when you’re trying to imagine how other posters think. You’re just always wrong when you try and analyze how liberals make decisions.
He also chooses not to work with the federal government itself. I’ve never seen anyone less aware of what’s going on in the government he’s been entrusted to oversee.
But what would you expect from someone who has never managed so much as a burger joint? What would he know about how the federal government works?
Your reading comprehension is crap. I know Biden opposed the raid, that’s why I referred to his contention that it was courageous as stupid.
So you prove my point. Democratic politicians are quick to go to war for internationalist reasons. Most liberals will accept that as the price of protecting domestic accomplishments.
The liberals that believe war is the preeminent issue, well, they are already in the Paul camp.
You like Clinton just fine because even though she would have gone to war in Iraq, she’ll do the right thing domestically.
Obama made the decision to go with a helicopter raid, when he had several options on the table (including bombing the compound to rubble). adaher, it was not an “obvious decision”. You are just really, insanely wrong here.