Could Hillary successfully challenge Obama in 2012?

[Devils30]

    Just six months ago I thought this sounded ludicrous but the left has finally become disillusioned with Obama. A lot of Obama's problems stem not from his policy positions but his lack of leadership skills and desire to lead during an economic crisis. He comes from the law professor crowd, which scares me b/c most of them can't communicate s**t with anyone.  Obama led Hillary in a poll late last year by 15 but I would have to believe a poll today would show single digits.
    I supported Obama in 2008 but I really believe he will have a tough re-election. Probably lose to Romney, Huntsman but beat a fringe candidate like Perry or Bachmann. I think Hillary could rather easily beat the Republican field because she is untainted by the past few years and people really do not embrace the tea party agenda. A lot of her voters in 2008 will be excited to support her over some tea party Republican whereas they remain lukewarm about Obama.
   

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

She wont, but I think she could play the Kennedy '80 card, however, she needs to actually mantain momentum, and not collapse in the polls once the primaries come.

[tmthforu94]

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

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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

She certainly is better then some in the GOP field, a good sec of state, likeable mother/aunt/grandmother figure, yet Presidential. A Liberal Thatcher, in other terms.

[J. J.]

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

[specific_name]

She's probably one of the only people who could, but I don't see anyone challenging him.

[The Ex-Factor]

Liberal discontent with Obama has always been more pronounced in the blogosphere than in the polling. Unfortunately.

[exopolitician]

No.

[Devils30]

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

It's so damn obvious people are searching for something that doesn't yet exist. Obama is perceived as having no balls and the Bachmann/Perry crowd will have many issues due to being perceived as tea party whackos. Everyone is angry about Obama's pathetic economic performance but no one is going to support a candidate who wants to let states opt out of social security and calls it a ponzi scheme.

[specific_name]

It's so damn obvious people are searching for something that doesn't yet exist.

That's for sure and I think it's the most important thing in American politics, at least coming down the pike.

We don't a have a real left in this country for one thing, by that I mean a large faction of people like Bernie Sanders in the actual government. Even if they get none of what they want politically they serve as a check on the worst abuses of this crony capitalism we have. When both parties have contributed so clearly to this mess.

On the other hand most people have cooled on the TP. Congress is at a 14% approval rating, yet no one appears to be able to capitalize upon the general hatred of the two parties which is clearly mounting. Someone like Ron Paul with more charisma could conceivably do so. Probably far before the left can get it's own charismatic figure (wasn't that supposed to be Obama? hahaha).

[Tender Branson]

No.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Could she? YES.

Will she? Probably not.

The left, and the media, will instantly throw the racist card at her just like they did in 2008. Anyone who challenges Obama will be labeled a racist.

The main problem I have with Obama isn't his policy positions; it's his lack of leadership skills. He has no backbone and is more concerned about getting everyone to like him than he is about standing up for his principles. One need only look to how he didn't push for a public option in the health care bill, extending the Bush tax cuts and the current debt ceiling debacle to see this. He was even willing to put the Big Three on the table. Sure, he's done a few good things to appease his base, like repealing "Don't ask, don't tell," but looking back to the primaries, I think the only thing that really separated Hillary and Obama in terms of policy positions was the war. Up until he entered the picture, Hillary was viewed by the righties at this extreme left-wing radical communist/socialist, and then he came along and because he wasn't in the U.S. Senate at the time to vote for the war like she did, she was instantly branded as this conservative Democrat. What has Obama done when it comes to foreign policy? He hasn't closed Guantanomo Bay, as promised, and he hasn't ended the wars, as promised, but has rather started another one.

Don't get me wrong, the Republicans/Tea Party are obstructionists, and I do feel sorry for him that he has to deal with them all the time. He could say the sky is blue and they'd still disagree with him. But why can't he see that they do not like him and they do not want to work with him? He seemed to be living in this fantasy world where one day they're just all going to wake up and be like, "Okay, let's give this guy a chance." It's not going to happen. They are only going to like him when he's out of the White House.

Hillary, on the other hand, would lead. She knows how Washington works, and she knew that the Republicans were going to be hard-headed and try to stand in her way of obstructing everything she would have tried to do. She knows that the Republicans hate her and she wouldn't be distracted by it. She wouldn't be trying so desperately to get them to like her. She wouldn't kiss their @$$ every chance she got. Instead, she would lead. She would have delivered so much more with a Democratic Congress.

I think that's the main reason why so many people are starting to draft the idea that she should challenge him. They are starting to realize that experience DOES matter, and that they maybe should have voted substance over style. Remember James Carville said that Hillary gave Obama one of hers, she'd still have two. It's true. Obama is weak; Hillary is tough. Obama offers speeches; Hillary offers solutions. Obama delivers rhetoric; Hillary delivers results.

"It's not too late, America. Get on board: BITCH is the new black."

[Eraserhead]

Of course not and...

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

oh boy, JJ is in the house!

[Bacon King]

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.

[anvi]

This thing about Obama having no balls and caving all the time has become conventional wisdom among the left who have problems with him.  But I'm not convinced that this way of seeing the way he works quite hits the mark.  Kevin Drum, whose writing I don't normally like, put up a piece the other day that is, however, quite interesting in one analytical respect.  He examines the major legislation that Bush got through the Congress, and notes that, despite Bush's reputation as a "strong-arming" president, reveals that Bush too was quite the compromiser.  He also notes how much Obama has gotten in trade for the compromises he has made which would, in any other circumstances, normally be pleasing to liberals.

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/presidential-power

I therefore don't think Obama's leadership problem is that he has no backbone.  I think his problem is that he doesn't have a very well-defined legislative vision or agenda of his own, and so he lets his Congressional allies write pretty much all of the legislation, and he then acts as a broker between factions on the left and between the left and the right on the Hill to get it passed, and he ends up getting knocked around a lot by everyone in the process.  I think that this "broker-only" model is what makes him look so week and yielding.  But it's not because he has no backbone, it's because he doesn't have much of his own platform.

Would Hillary govern with a different style?  I'm sure she probably would, but given the circumstances, I'm skeptical she would have gotten more done by this time, or that the left would be that much happier with her had she been elected than they are with Obama, since, as you rightly note, their policy outlays are almost completely identical.

[HAnnA MArin County]

This thing about Obama having no balls and caving all the time has become conventional wisdom among the left who have problems with him.  But I'm not convinced that this way of seeing the way he works quite hits the mark.  Kevin Drum, whose writing I don't normally like, put up a piece the other day that is, however, quite interesting in one analytical respect.  He examines the major legislation that Bush got through the Congress, and notes that, despite Bush's reputation as a "strong-arming" president, reveals that Bush too was quite the compromiser.  He also notes how much Obama has gotten in trade for the compromises he has made which would, in any other circumstances, normally be pleasing to liberals.

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/presidential-power

I therefore don't think Obama's leadership problem is that he has no backbone.  I think his problem is that he doesn't have a very well-defined legislative vision or agenda of his own, and so he lets his Congressional allies write pretty much all of the legislation, and he then acts as a broker between factions on the left and between the left and the right on the Hill to get it passed, and he ends up getting knocked around a lot by everyone in the process.  I think that this "broker-only" model is what makes him look so week and yielding.  But it's not because he has no backbone, it's because he doesn't have much of his own platform.

Would Hillary govern with a different style?  I'm sure she probably would, but given the circumstances, I'm skeptical she would have gotten more done by this time, or that the left would be that much happier with her had she been elected than they are with Obama, since, as you rightly note, their policy outlays are almost completely identical.

Again, this all goes back to the fact that he's all talk and no walk. I think he's given more speeches and addresses to Congress/State of the Unions than any President before. That seems to be his governing style: giving speeches, in which he lays out his vision/legislative agenda very eloquently, but then when it comes to actually delivering on it, he doesn't. I don't know. I don't understand him. All I know is that he is not an effective leader, and despite the fact that the 2012 GOP field is full of crazy disgraceful teabaggers who really don't stand a chance of beating him, he needs to "man up" and do more to appease his base and stop caring about if the Republicans like him.

[TJ in Oregon]

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?

[Bull Moose Base]

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.

[California8429]

She's the only one who could win in a primary for 2012 against Obama. However that window is VERY narrow

[Yelnoc]

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?

Blacks tend to vote heavily Democratic regardless of the race of the nominee.  I suppose if Cain won the GOP nomination he could pick up 30% of the black vote against Hillary, but there is more than identity politics at play.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Just no.

[TJ in Oregon]

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?

Blacks tend to vote heavily Democratic regardless of the race of the nominee.  I suppose if Cain won the GOP nomination he could pick up 30% of the black vote against Hillary, but there is more than identity politics at play.

I knew that. I was more wondering if some blacks might think that Obama was removed because he is black and take offense to the primary challenge. A successful primary challenge of a sitting US president isn't really a common occurance and I was asking if this may be enough to alter the identity politics some. Clearly, most blacks would still favor a Democrat, but would they do so only to the extent their other characteristics would suggest?

[TheGlobalizer]

She's probably one of the only people who could, but I don't see anyone challenging him.

[Torie]

Obama's invulnerable in this context because he's black.  Think about it. If somebody defies the odds and denies Obama the nomination, how will that person do with the black voters in the general? 

There seems no way for the Dem to get into the White House this time except Obama.

[TheGlobalizer]

Obama's invulnerable in this context because he's black.  Think about it. If somebody defies the odds and denies Obama the nomination, how will that person do with the black voters in the general? 

There seems no way for the Dem to get into the White House this time except Obama.

Obama wouldn't get 2008 black turnout anyway, so I'm not sure it's a huge loss.  The Jacksons and Sharptons and AMC pastors will get the regulars out as long as the Dem nominee doesn't wear bedsheets on the weekends.