Hamilton Fish is probably most famous for his family. His grandson, also named Hamilton Fish, was a major Republican leader in Congress and important isolationist before World War II. He was so prominent, in fact, that he got singled out by name during Roosevelt’s reelection speech in 1940 on the need for rearmament, “Martin, Barton, and Fish”, and British intelligence covertly gave money to his opponent and campaigned against him.
His great grandson, Hamilton Fish IV, was also a Congressman from New York, and his great grandnephew, Thomas Kean, was governor of New Jersey and the chairman of the 9/11 Commission. Another nephew was the infamous sadist, rapist, and cannibal Albert Fish.
Biden accepting a demotion to SoS? Are you kidding? He’ll retire first.
Clinton as VP? Doubtful. More likely she is thinking “Fuck! I gave up security in the Senate for 4 years of this shit?!” The real question is what does she have to lose? Neither Obama nor a Republican will ever appoint her to SCOTUS. Can she successfully carpetbag again for the Senate? Even if Obama wins in 2012, will he keep her as SoS? With that in mind, does she challenge in 2012 or wait for 2016. My prediction is if Reps win big in 2010 (maybe knock Reid out too) and it looks like the Dems jump ship (IIRC, there are over 20 Dem Senators up in 2012) then she runs for Prez in 2012.
It’s extremely difficult to unseat a sitting president if he wants to run again. Look at Carter, very unpopular and they couldn’t get rid of him. There’s no way Hillary or any Democrat could stop Mr Obama from running again in 2012, if he wants to.
Hillary will be too old to run in 2016 and the Supreme Court has three woman already so it’s unlikely Mr Obama would appoint another woman so that’s out for Hillary as well.
She should go back to the Senate, at least she’d have had some influnence there.
Somethings gotta be done about this recession, though supposedly it’s been over since the summer of 2009, I’ve yet to see any signs it’s gonna get better.
Then we will have to look at the reapportionment of the US Congress in the next elections. California may lose a seat in the House for the first time, and NY will lose one, maybe two as will PA and IL, while Texas will likely gain 4 seats.
H. Clinton has no desire to be on that list of those who have served as Sec of State more than 4 years.
Biden has little likelihood of running for President from a second term as VP. VP is otherwise a pretty thankless job and his advice, while listened to, has often been ignored (for example he would have gone with “counter-terrorism plus” in Afghanistan and not this “counter-insurgency lite” that Obama decided upon). His role was to give some “experience” gravitas to an adminstration without doing so looking “weak” and that job is no longer pertinent.
From 2 it follows that Biden may not be asked to leave but may, like many others who initially came on board, decide that, after four years of a meaningless job, doing something else is more attractive and, frankly, more important than being a VP.
There is a long shot chance that H. Clinton could be on board for a major break through in Israel-Palestine status and see through a successful start of winding down out of Afghanistan before she leaves.
Energizing the opposition by having H. Clinton on board is trivial as they are already fired up. OTOH she would be a catalyst to help fire up the base, shore up some flanks, and be very attractive to many of the key swing voter blocks.
IF Biden leaves of his own accord (as I think he will), and IF H. Clinton finishes her stint as Sec of State on a note of major accomplishment (less probable but possible), THEN she would be able to have her arm twisted to serve as VP and to likely become the banner bearer in 2016. Some big IFs but still I have been expecting that as the outcome from the end of the last primaries so we will see.
I can agree with much of what you say, particularly this:
And this:
Historically, mid term elections tend to favor the opposition party. We saw Republicans crash the Clinton party and the Democrats crash the Bush party. I find it pretty telling that, with a general approval rating in the twenties, the Republicans are now poised to crash the Obama party.
If things do not improve by '12, I think the Democrats are going to have to resort to some creative alternative. I just hope they don’t pull a McCain stunt and whip a Palin out of the closet.
Hillary wouldn’t want to be VP under Obama. She’s effective, somewhat independant with her own empire and scoring points as secretary of state while Biden appears to be simply an assistant to the president.
McCain lost against an empty suit because of the line “Four more years of Bush.”
Maybe she won’t win the nomination in 2012 (probably won’t) BUT she would be a leader of the breakaway Dems and no one could say “Eight more years of Obama.” in 2016.
Is it a huge risk? Yes. But like I said, what does she have to lose?
Those predicting Obama not running, or another Dem challenging him, are dramatically over-stating his weakness (particular in his own party). His approval ratings are right in line with where Reagan was at this point, for a recent example. I don’t recall him having any difficulty getting re-elected.
You mean besides her standing in the party, her personal credibility, the respect (even adoration) of a huge number of Americans, and reducing the likelihood of her party holding the presidency? Not much, I guess.
Conversely, what does she gain from a challenge to Obama? She’ll be out of politics for the following 4 years. She’ll have pissed off a large group of Dems.
Or let’s put it this way - can we find someone that challenged an incumbent president, lost the nomination, and then won a presidential election later?
Well, if she retires as SecState in 2012, takes a professorship somewhere, and appears a lot on TV, she can easily establish whatever level of distance between herself and Obama as she thinks appropriate (assuming Obama wins re-election).
If she runs an insurgent campaign against him, she will piss off (1) the Democratic party insiders/elite, by severely damaging the sitting president’s chances at re-election and (2) Black Democrats. Good luck putting together a winning coalition without those two groups.
Reagan was re-elected because the economy recovered (to say the least). Whether or not that will be the case with BHO remains to be seen.
As far as swapping Hilary with Biden, I don’t see it. It would be a political calculation to do this, and Obama, to give him credit, does not seem to be as motivated by pure political considerations as the average President. Biden, on the other hand, has essentially no chance whatever at the Oval Office unless he completes his term as VP and tries to get elected the way Bush Sr. did. So to the extent that he is a political animal, he has everything to lose and nothing to gain from such a swap.
It appears at this point that the GOP will regain control of at least one, possibly both, houses of Congress. It will be interesting to see how Obama reacts in this kind of situation. It didn’t bother Clinton, but that is different - political considerations were all Clinton ever cared about, and so his main focus could switch from achieving an agenda to grabbing credit when he couldn’t stop one. I doubt that Obama will be able to do that, given his approval ratings nowadays.
Maybe the economy will recover, and voters will decide that divided government works better than unilateral control by either party (which is a defensible position).
Depending on what happens in 2010 and public polling in 2011. 21 Dems are up for reelection in 2012 and their first priority is to get themselves elected and not Obama.
I’m not sure how this is responsive. Are you implying that Senate Democrats are going to make it harder for Obama to get re-nominated? What major piece of legislation is he relying on? Health Care: Done. Fin Reg: Done. Stimulus: Done. The only large piece that didn’t get passed was Cap & Trade, which is pretty clearly dead, given the likely losses in the House.
Obviously 2012 will be a very difficult cycle for Senate Dems - this was clear way back in 2006 when basically every contested seat went their way (including very marginal states like VA and MO). I don’t see how that makes Obama less likely to be re-nominated for POTUS.
One might even be tempted to point out that in 1984, when Reagan won every state but MN and DC, the GOP actually lost 2 seats in the Senate.
Look, the Republicans do not have a clear front runner to begin to rally behind. I know it’s way early and depending on the size of the GOP '10 wave things can change dramatically, but still I think Obamam will win reelection. I’m just not sure he will be able to pull a lot of Democrats across the finish line with him though. And even with clear majorities in both houses, Democrats have have had difficullties dealing with obstructionist Republicans. With Republican gains (that could be sizable, maybe even costing the Dems the House), I can’t imagine that Obama will have much to sell in '12.
The other thing to keep in mind with respect to Obama’s approval ratings is that everyone’s approval ratings are in the cellar right now. When you compare Obama’s approval ratings to those of Congress in general, or the Republicans in congress, or the Democrats in congress, or people’s approval of their own representatives/senators/governors, or whatever, Obama’s numbers are actually pretty darned good. I believe it’s still the case that he’s the most nationally-popular politician in the country right now.