Could Hillary successfully challenge Obama in 2012?

[FloridaRepublican]

Doesn't matter because she's not running anyway, so..

[anvi]

I put this up and then took it back down, because I didn't think it would do any good.  Well, it probably doesn't do any good, but screw it--I'll put it back up and leave it anyway.

semocrat08,

Only a small part of the beginning of this post is a reply to what you wrote above.  Most of what follows is just a summery of my general feelings regarding the very loud and increasingly less satisfied complaints about Obama that are coming from the left.  It's not a problem unique to liberals, since conservatives suffer from the same thing, though, in my view, to a somewhat lesser degree.  It's very easy for all of us to be really hard on politicians, and it's certainly the case that they often deserve it.  But I also feel like, just as often, we don't appreciate how hard governing actually is and consequently expect far too much from the people we elect, and not because of what they "promised" us, but because of how we are.

I'm sure what I'm about to write is going to piss every liberal on the forum off, but I can't help it; I'm going to write it anyway.

Giving speeches is one part of governing for presidents.  It is one way of drumming up public support for a legislative agenda.  If the public supports something on the president's agenda, legislators feel more pressure to reach a deal.  The better speechmaker a president is, the more pressure the legislators feel.

That doesn't mean, of course, that legislators just give up and the let the president have whatever he wants.  They have their own party support which helps them run counter-ads, they have local constituencies, moneyed supporters and lobbies which might push them the other way, in the case of opposition, or might motivate them to get more from the president than he is willing to give.  And here is where negotiations start, and it's at the negotiations end of it where I think liberals unsatisfied with Obama are getting both the legislative process and him wrong.

When the president faces opposition to his legislative agenda, he can't just have the Secret Service slam the opposition up against the wall, and he can rarely ask his own party to threaten to pull rank on an ally who wants more and mobilize a primary challenge, because if you do it more than once or twice, your own party will, for good reason, turn on you.  So, you try to assuage, you try to do some horse-trading, and you sometimes have to compromise so that you get some of what you want and let the party you're trying to convince have something too.  But D.C. has for a long time been a zero-sum place, and whether one is negotiating with the opposition or with allies, each one of 538 Congresspeople and Senators is trying just as hard as you are to get everything they want, so sometimes you'll get 0% of what you wanted, sometimes 20%, sometimes 60%, but never everything.  And "drawing a line in the sand" on really important legislation is often very perilous for politicians, because if they blow their political capital in one shot on one bill, well, there are three years left in a term, there will be other important bills and issues facing the country in that time, and permanently alienating the people one has to work with in these circumstances only makes governing harder, not easier, because you're endangering possible goodwill that you may easily and even desperately need down the road.

So, sometimes, when I read these constant complaints from the left that Obama is "spineless," "has no balls," "won't take a stand" and so on, I get really impatient.  These are very easy things to say for people like us who are in the cheap seats and just want sh*t our own way, according to our own vision, and done the day before yesterday.  When we don't get it, we just become the professional bitching brigade and stomp our feet, not realizing that one of the very things that weakens the president is our own incurable deciduousness.  I mean, obviously, Obama's presidency has been far from perfect and the provisions of the legislation that have been produced have not hit all the marks from a liberal perspective.  But, taking stock, Obama has gotten the Lilly Ledbetter Act, a food safety bill, health care legislation (which Clinton and every other Democrat in history failed to get done), a 9/11 first responders bill, an NLRB bill and the repeal of DADT passed, in addition to which he passed the single largest stimulus package in the history of the country and bowed to a lot of liberal Christmas-card list requests on the Financial Regulation bill (despite the fact that a lot of it really wasn't a good idea). Now, I'm certainly not going to argue that a lot in this legislation wasn't flawed, because I believe a lot of it was, and maybe even more than most liberals would even say was flawed.   But still, after all of this and more, liberals bitch: "oh, Obama didn't do this, Obama didn't do that, Obama never delivers, Obama always caves" blah blah blah blah.  I mean, it's perfectly ok to continually and loudly advocate for things one wants, that's everyone's right.  But being perpetual crybaby ingrates, not appreciating any damned thing about how difficult the legislative process and governing are, even among party allies, or thinking that any of the above legislation will even survive under a one or two-term Republican president who has a Republican Congress, really reveals why the liberal movement in the United States has grown so ineffective and unpersuasive, and hasn't convinced the whole country to elect a president since 1964, when the political landscape in Washington was very, very different than it is today.  With friends like the American liberal movement, Democratic presidents don't need opposition, their "friends" can undermine them just fine all by themselves.  At least one of the reasons that Republicans are politically stronger in this country, even though they too have different internal agendas, is they are a hell of a lot more loyal to their leaders than Democrats tend to be.  Judge that loyalty however you like, but it's politically effective; it gives their leaders more juice.

Now, lest anyone think that I'm just bashing liberals, all I can say is that a lot of my political and social ideals make me much more comfortable in the environments of other countries with mixed economies and universal, non-profit health care than I am in the U.S.  The fact that I've accepted that such ideals are not possible in the U.S. only reflects my acknowledgment that this is the U.S. and not some other place, not some uncertainty about what my ideals are.  And, what's more, lest  any of this be taken as shilling for Obama, I happen to think that his leadership style does indeed leave much to be desired, though  I have different reasons for believing this than are articulated in the liberal media.  And I would even go further; if the labor market is still in the tank and he doesn't get anything significant accomplished in the next year and a half, he may very well deserve to lose next year.  But the fickle political loyalties of the left nonetheless sometimes really irritate me.  Like I said, it's ok to want more, but, at least from my point of view, it's not ok to just discount things one has gotten and write off the guy who helped get them.

Ok, I'm done with my rant.  Carry one wishing Hillary runs.      

[Yelnoc]

Anvi wins the best though-out post of 2011 award.  Though in my darker moods I wouldn't mind Secret Serviceman slamming congressmen up against the wall...

[anvi]

Anvi wins the best though-out post of 2011 award.  Though in my darker moods I wouldn't mind Secret Serviceman slamming congressmen up against the wall...

Thank you, Darth.  I wouldn't mind the slamming Congressmen up against the wall either, by the way, and preferably on live tv.  But I get to make very few important decisions, which is probably a very good thing.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No.

This reminds me of Ted Kennedy vs. Jimmy Carter in 1980, where the former did get some votes for running against an unpopular president, but still failed. Likewise, if Clinton were to run (which I still think is very unlikely), Obama would still win the nomination.

I'm curious, if Hillary somehow did decide to primary Obama and beat him, would this give the Republicans a chance to get upwards of 20-30% of the black vote?

No to this as well. Blacks like the Clintons (both of them).

[The Mikado]

It's way too late in the game.  If Hillary Clinton wanted it, she should've gotten out of Obama's cabinet half a year ago.  As is, she'd have to make a Palinesque resignation that would not look good followed by setting up a campaign nearly from scratch less than half a year from Iowa.

[m4567]

I put this up and then took it back down, because I didn't think it would do any good.  Well, it probably doesn't do any good, but screw it--I'll put it back up and leave it anyway.

semocrat08,

Only a small part of the beginning of this post is a reply to what you wrote above.  Most of what follows is just a summery of my general feelings regarding the very loud and increasingly less satisfied complaints about Obama that are coming from the left.  It's not a problem unique to liberals, since conservatives suffer from the same thing, though, in my view, to a somewhat lesser degree.  It's very easy for all of us to be really hard on politicians, and it's certainly the case that they often deserve it.  But I also feel like, just as often, we don't appreciate how hard governing actually is and consequently expect far too much from the people we elect, and not because of what they "promised" us, but because of how we are.

I'm sure what I'm about to write is going to piss every liberal on the forum off, but I can't help it; I'm going to write it anyway.

Giving speeches is one part of governing for presidents.  It is one way of drumming up public support for a legislative agenda.  If the public supports something on the president's agenda, legislators feel more pressure to reach a deal.  The better speechmaker a president is, the more pressure the legislators feel.

That doesn't mean, of course, that legislators just give up and the let the president have whatever he wants.  They have their own party support which helps them run counter-ads, they have local constituencies, moneyed supporters and lobbies which might push them the other way, in the case of opposition, or might motivate them to get more from the president than he is willing to give.  And here is where negotiations start, and it's at the negotiations end of it where I think liberals unsatisfied with Obama are getting both the legislative process and him wrong.

When the president faces opposition to his legislative agenda, he can't just have the Secret Service slam the opposition up against the wall, and he can rarely ask his own party to threaten to pull rank on an ally who wants more and mobilize a primary challenge, because if you do it more than once or twice, your own party will, for good reason, turn on you.  So, you try to assuage, you try to do some horse-trading, and you sometimes have to compromise so that you get some of what you want and let the party you're trying to convince have something too.  But D.C. has for a long time been a zero-sum place, and whether one is negotiating with the opposition or with allies, each one of 538 Congresspeople and Senators is trying just as hard as you are to get everything they want, so sometimes you'll get 0% of what you wanted, sometimes 20%, sometimes 60%, but never everything.  And "drawing a line in the sand" on really important legislation is often very perilous for politicians, because if they blow their political capital in one shot on one bill, well, there are three years left in a term, there will be other important bills and issues facing the country in that time, and permanently alienating the people one has to work with in these circumstances only makes governing harder, not easier, because you're endangering possible goodwill that you may easily and even desperately need down the road.

So, sometimes, when I read these constant complaints from the left that Obama is "spineless," "has no balls," "won't take a stand" and so on, I get really impatient.  These are very easy things to say for people like us who are in the cheap seats and just want sh*t our own way, according to our own vision, and done the day before yesterday.  When we don't get it, we just become the professional bitching brigade and stomp our feet, not realizing that one of the very things that weakens the president is our own incurable deciduousness.  I mean, obviously, Obama's presidency has been far from perfect and the provisions of the legislation that have been produced have not hit all the marks from a liberal perspective.  But, taking stock, Obama has gotten the Lilly Ledbetter Act, a food safety bill, health care legislation (which Clinton and every other Democrat in history failed to get done), a 9/11 first responders bill, an NLRB bill and the repeal of DADT passed, in addition to which he passed the single largest stimulus package in the history of the country and bowed to a lot of liberal Christmas-card list requests on the Financial Regulation bill (despite the fact that a lot of it really wasn't a good idea). Now, I'm certainly not going to argue that a lot in this legislation wasn't flawed, because I believe a lot of it was, and maybe even more than most liberals would even say was flawed.   But still, after all of this and more, liberals bitch: "oh, Obama didn't do this, Obama didn't do that, Obama never delivers, Obama always caves" blah blah blah blah.  I mean, it's perfectly ok to continually and loudly advocate for things one wants, that's everyone's right.  But being perpetual crybaby ingrates, not appreciating any damned thing about how difficult the legislative process and governing are, even among party allies, or thinking that any of the above legislation will even survive under a one or two-term Republican president who has a Republican Congress, really reveals why the liberal movement in the United States has grown so ineffective and unpersuasive, and hasn't convinced the whole country to elect a president since 1964, when the political landscape in Washington was very, very different than it is today.  With friends like the American liberal movement, Democratic presidents don't need opposition, their "friends" can undermine them just fine all by themselves.  At least one of the reasons that Republicans are politically stronger in this country, even though they too have different internal agendas, is they are a hell of a lot more loyal to their leaders than Democrats tend to be.  Judge that loyalty however you like, but it's politically effective; it gives their leaders more juice.

Now, lest anyone think that I'm just bashing liberals, all I can say is that a lot of my political and social ideals make me much more comfortable in the environments of other countries with mixed economies and universal, non-profit health care than I am in the U.S.  The fact that I've accepted that such ideals are not possible in the U.S. only reflects my acknowledgment that this is the U.S. and not some other place, not some uncertainty about what my ideals are.  And, what's more, lest  any of this be taken as shilling for Obama, I happen to think that his leadership style does indeed leave much to be desired, though  I have different reasons for believing this than are articulated in the liberal media.  And I would even go further; if the labor market is still in the tank and he doesn't get anything significant accomplished in the next year and a half, he may very well deserve to lose next year.  But the fickle political loyalties of the left nonetheless sometimes really irritate me.  Like I said, it's ok to want more, but, at least from my point of view, it's not ok to just discount things one has gotten and write off the guy who helped get them.

Ok, I'm done with my rant.  Carry one wishing Hillary runs.      

I agree with this. Some  people talk about how great Bill Clinton was compared to Obama, but Clinton didn't do much of anything.

[milhouse24]

I could see someone like Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, and other blue dogs primarying Obama.

[J. J.]

I'd love for her to run, just so I'll have a decent option to vote for should the GOP nominate someone insane.

How is she different than Obama in that regard?  The only difference I can see is she might fight the Republicans harder.

Economically, she was much different than Obama. 

I could see someone like Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, and other blue dogs primarying Obama.

Possible, but don't think they'd win.

[J. J.]

I doubt if she could successfully challenge Obama, but I wouldn't be too surprised if he was challenged.

I'm of pretty much the exact opposite opinion here. Obama's a sitting President with an insane fundraising ability; nobody will attempt to primary him unless they're crazy or somehow strong enough to compete. Hillary is probably the only person that could successfully challenge Obama; but she'd only do it if the writing on the wall was obvious and she was certain of victory.

I doubt if Hillary!, or any Democrat, could successfully challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination.  I do think that there is a reasonable chance that he will be challenged (though probably not by Hillary), and not successfully.

[TheGlobalizer]

Things will have to get worse politically for Obama to be primaried.  I think the debt ceiling deal introduces some wobble for the first time.

I'm surprised there's not a real primary challenger already.  I mean, seriously, the dude screws the pooch on the debt ceiling, the US credit rating is downgraded, and he comes out with new emissions standards for heavy vehicles?  What planet is this guy on?

He's a garbage president and low-hanging fruit for the GOP.  The only reason Democrats won't put up a primary opponent is because no alternative that can win will satisfy the most aggrieved Dems (progressives).  It would be either a push, or the Masturbating Witch of the Left and a GOP blowout.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I fail to understand why would anyone take the whole "primarying Obama" stuff seriously.

I could see someone like Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, and other blue dogs primarying Obama.

Right, and I could see moderate or liberal Republican winning GOP presidential nomination nowdays