Our friend Wess is convinced HRC will resign as Secretary of State sometime in late November, using something in the news at the time as an excuse. Dr. Utopia will be severely weakened by the midterm election losses in 2010, and if she wants to run for the Democrats’ nomination herself in 2012, she’ll need to start building her ground team by January 2011, at the latest.
So, Wess thinks HRC skipping the SOTU this year will be followed up by her not having to be there in 2011 either, so that she doesn’t have to sit there and be seen clapping and agreeing with the insanity on display during a speech like that.
We’re looking forward to seeing Speaker Bachmann standing behind Dr. Utopia, not clapping at all for anything, while Joe Biden sits there, wondering when he gets his next serving of ice cream, trying to stay awake.
Sometimes Wess is in his own little world with some of this stuff, but you know what, in our gut we think he’s right this time.
We just don’t see her being at the State of the Union next year, either. We’re thrilled she won’t be out helping any Liberals win re-election this year, because being at State means she’s out of politics for the moment and does not have to do this.
Also, since Chelsea is getting married this summer, the Clintons have a wonderful excuse not to do much of anything for anyone, as they will all be busy planning Chelsea’s big day.
Perfect timing on that.
Then, there’s always the rebuilding in Haiti to keep President Clinton too busy to campaign for people like Chuck Schumer, whom we bet the Clintons want to lose in a big, big way. As do we.
Do you think she leaves the State Department in November or December of 2010? The more we think about it, December seems like the month she’d resign in. That way, she has Christmas as an excuse to want to spend more time with the family and relax with the holidays coming.
Then, in January, before Sarah Palin announces her own candidacy (which we suspect will be on February 6th, 2011 — which is Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday), HRC could announce her decision to run in 2012. Maybe by then Utopia will be so low in the polls he’s just come out and say he won’t seek a second term. It’s pretty close to that already.
What think you?
January 29, 2010 at 10:52 pm
I figure she’ll leave before the wedding – great excuse for her as the mother of the bride. This is her only child, and most moms have lots of fun helping their daughters with their wedding plans!
January 29, 2010 at 10:59 pm
I’ve had a hard time dealing with how the Dem party stiffed Hillary. And I’m a registered Republican (but really a Libertarian, registered for Primary reasons).
The thought of Hillary abandoning ship excites me. Donna Brazile, et al, made a mistake. One they need to pay for. Go Hillary! This could get very interesting.
January 29, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Go Hillary is right!
January 30, 2010 at 3:43 pm
That’s great to hear Stacy. The problem is Hillary Clinton supporters are too nice, and don’t even use the computer that much either, they’re too busy doing real stuff in the real world.
I have an acquaintance that is a big Hillary Clinton supporter, we’ve hung out at a Hillary Clinton meet up group a few times, have talked about Hillary Clinton, and even though I’ve mentioned Daily PUMA to this person on a few occasions, has never once visited the site since it first went up in November of 08.
I’ve encouraged this person to sign up on facebook and join the Hillary Clinton groups as well. Hasn’t done that either.
So, unfortunately, a Birmingham based underoo waddling blogger can have the clout of a million Hillary Clinton voters who just don’t do anything.
January 29, 2010 at 11:05 pm
I don’t know how I would feel about Palin and Hillary running against each other. I have never been a Hillary fan until I came to this website. I have to admit her comment during the primaries about being a “modern progressive” makes me nervous a bit. I want someone who will bring us closer to what the founding fathers envisioned, not farther from it.
But again, I REALLY believe that you all are sincere and know her A LOT better than I do. If you believe in your heart of hearts that she loves this country and will follow the lead of the people instead of using the liberal sledgehammer the way this Dr. U admin does, then I’m good.
If Hillary runs, I don’t think Palin will win the Repub nomination…I really don’t. I don’t know why, it’s just a hunch.
January 29, 2010 at 11:18 pm
I like and respect Hillary, but the “modern progressive” makes me nervous too…
January 30, 2010 at 2:09 am
I agree. I would go for Palin over Hillary. I expect Hillary to be gone 90% chance by this time next year one way or the other. And she said as much that she will not be an 8 yearer.
January 30, 2010 at 4:36 am
I would love to see that campaign though. I can’t see either one of them engaging in the kind of tactics we have seen from the Utopia camp. We could finally have a serious discussion about serious issues.
January 30, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Boy, ain’t that the truth? I think they would keep it all above board. Can’t say so much for the lefties tho…
January 29, 2010 at 11:19 pm
I wish Hillary and Sarah ran together in 2012!
January 29, 2010 at 11:56 pm
I agree, that would be so much fun. Hillary as pres-more mature and experienced than Sarah. Sarah as v/p she could be the feisty one, she is smart-on the job training. The ladies could clean up all the messes in about a year.
January 30, 2010 at 1:44 pm
I would soooo love that! I’d love watching the loony left and wretched right blow a gasket over the thought of a Hillary/Sarah or Sarah/Hillary Union. ROFLOL it would be soooo GRAND! just THINK of all the work we’d get done and at an economical cost. Neither woman being at ALL petty – or at ALL competitive against the other as neither has passion for the same thing but I see it could work cohesively along side……. THAT would be utopia!
January 29, 2010 at 11:23 pm
I am an independent, and hopeful for this country that we all love, and anyBODY, or anyTHING that will give emperor ogabe a run for his money (oh, I’m sorry,OUR money) is OK in my book. Dang, though, Palin vs. Hillary or the other way around is a tough choice….
January 29, 2010 at 11:23 pm
I always thought it was a political mistake for Hillary to take the cabinet spot, though I deeply respect and admire her and supported her run in 2008, and even support her as Sec. of State. However, I was hoping she wouldn’t put herself in what I knew would be such a screwy administration, but since she did, I say she needs to get out quickly, and I think she knows that too.
June 7th, 2008 — the very day she dropped out — while watching her speech and crying, I promised myself that no matter what, on Election Day 2012, I would write in a Clinton/Bayh ticket. I’m going to do it unless she runs, in which case I’ll just vote for her!
January 30, 2010 at 2:10 am
I think it was the better move. She would be part of the problem as one of the then 60 Senate votes for Obamacare. She isnt now. And her hands arent even on it since she is in State.
January 30, 2010 at 10:29 am
That is my thoughts too. At first I was sad she would do anything with this administrations, but then realized it really was a good move. She is building up her foreign policy experience and at the same time isn’t involved at all the awful things, she would be tied to in the Senate, like the stimulous bill, healthcare the massive deficit ect. AND no one can say (well they probably still will, because that is how they roll)that she wasn’t a team player or didn’t do all she could to help the County.
January 29, 2010 at 11:25 pm
I think she’ll resign right after the next terrorist attack in the U. S., and I think we’ll see one that makes 9/11/2001 seem a walk in the park. That bozo on Christmas day was just a diversion and a test to see how blatantly you could be a terrorist and get through. I think it will be before the November 2010 mid-term election. Obozo will think the people will rally behind him like we did for GWB but will find that many of those behind have pitchforks and torches. If he thinks his first year was fun he’ll really enjoy the last two. I hope I’m wrong but I doubt it.
January 30, 2010 at 7:42 am
. . .oh, and don’t dismiss Ft. Hood “workplace violence” as a terrorist probe / distraction
January 30, 2010 at 11:06 am
What is really much more upsetting is that the Christmas Day panty-bomber was stopped by passengers on the plane. If that guy would not have been so observant his plan would have worked. You would think that Homeland Security would have been more vigilant after the guy’s father warned them.
January 30, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Well, Janet Naponthejob-o was right. The system works. As long as the “system” consists of depending on sharp eyed and quick responding passengers to police the flight. The system also worked on 9/11 over Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, as we all know, that flight ended tragically.
I truly hope we don’t see another big terrorist attack because I don’t want my country going through that horror again. But the way the current administration looks at terror, I’m not holding my breath.
January 29, 2010 at 11:32 pm
As arrogant as BO was in his SOTU speech and his going to and giving it to the Rep. today at their meeting, it is hard to see BO giving up and not running again unless he tanks so badly in the next couple of years that he has no choice. If the media finally tells the truth about him…that might help.
Hillary will not challenge BO in a primary. The only way she would run is IF BO does not.
We know that Hillary actually is 44. If it were not for all the cheating, President Hillary Clinton would be leading us right now with clear vision and policies.
Don’t let Glen Beck scare you with all his “modern progressive” stuff. He’s gotta to go after someone and be dramatic or else he wouldn’t be the most popular guy on TV and we don’t necessarily disagree with him on some of his “stuff”.
January 29, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Hillary will not run for president.
You folks cannot break the ceiling in the understanding that they have tried to reduce Gays, Blacks, Hispanics and Women to protected species, so that they may loft you from the filth of the Christian, White male.
The fault of logic is that; most Christians, most whites and most males are not concerned with your species.
Who would relugate you to a species, under law? You, as gay men, have more rights than hterosexual men. Are you Black? You have more rights than white men.
Do Gay blacks have a greater “species” protection than gay whites. In the hierarchy of hate crimes, probably, yes!
How have we arrived at the improbable notion that; equality requires a preference be given to certain “species” of people at the expense of others.
The Democtat party seeks to divide the differences in American thinking. They seek to start a civil war amongst all facets of society and thus reconstitute the American landscape and handing the federal government power to willy nilly enact laws on a day to day basis.
See, Great Britain.
You are heading for an America that is preferential to Gay, Muslims, hispanics, women, blacks, cimmubistsm socialists, anarchists pedodophiles, amd even rapists..
See, Great Britan
Dump Hilary. She attempted the same legislation you oppose now. She still does.
Look for the conundrums in your thinking and fix them, or we will be fighting this for the rest of our lives.
WE WANT A FREE AMERICA
January 29, 2010 at 11:52 pm
I firmly believe that Hillary would not be this partisan and liberal on the healthcare legislation. I also believe that she is sincere and genuine, while Obama is not.
January 29, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Okay, so you hate Hillary. Who would you pick to lead us to a “free America”?
January 30, 2010 at 4:24 am
Nah. Hillary is the bestest! case closed.
January 30, 2010 at 12:01 am
If Hillary declares then Palin will not run and vice versa. I believe that they respect each other too much and Palin is young enough to wait 8 years to run. Besides, Palin is at the top of her form right now with her book and her contract with Fox, why blow a good thing?
January 30, 2010 at 12:07 am
Palin right now, with her FB posts, Fox appearances, speaking gigs has probably more power to motivate and mobilize than anyone out there. It’s genius really.
Everyone else has a political job and needs to be careful what they say, but Sarah….heck….try and stop her.
January 30, 2010 at 8:07 am
Sarah should wait til 2016, she has the luxury of youth to wait it out.
Has anyone realized that Scott Brown will be qualified for the Presidency in only 143 days? :D
January 30, 2010 at 12:06 am
Off Topic:
Did you see this thing about Pelosi spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on booze, etc, while continuing to waste the Air Force’s time?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123472
January 30, 2010 at 1:10 am
Gee…she just shoulda packed up a couple of cases of Pelosi Vineyards products…their prices are good I have heard…has to do with using NON-UNION labor…
I’m jus sayin’
It’s good to be Queen.
January 30, 2010 at 12:16 am
I’m from the Right side of the aisle, but I agree with you – I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Hillary runs in 2012, and I think it is very possible that she could beat Obama for the Dem nomination. I also think it’s very possible she could face Palin in an all-female, historic Presidential face-off. Obama has become so toxic to the Dems at large that I think Hillary could easily come in to ‘save’ the party, and find some very welcoming arms. Some in the media are already calling for her return. Plus, Byron York reported today at the Washington Examiner on Obama’s history – it appears that he gets bored every couple of years because he finds that he can’t enact the CHANGE he wants because he lacks sufficient power. Well, guess what else is cycling in 2012? The U.N. Secretary General. Hmmm…
January 30, 2010 at 1:07 am
I agree with all you say…EXCEPT I have a different ‘take’ on Dear Leader.
I don’t think he gets bored because he cannot enact his mantra ‘Change.’ No. I think he is basically very lazy…and can’t put forth the effort to ‘produce’ anything…be it legislation, a Harvard Law Journal posting or a coherent statement made WITHOUT benefit of writers and TOTUS.
No…being _Resident is like being King…all parties; golf on sweet courses (and he doesn’t have to wait for a good tee time!); and ‘me’ time on camera. That part about actually working, doing ‘something’ constructive (in just about every Oval Office photo he has his feet up!!! Grrrr…) is beyond his ‘salary range.’
Be it Hillary, Sarah or even Scott Brown in 2012…whoevefr wins will have quite the literal and metaphorical mess left for them to ‘clean up.’ And…I don’t think any of those three will ever start a speech ‘…after the last four years…’
January 30, 2010 at 1:42 am
I agree. bho the fraud is lazy, I wrote on one of my firts posts and stop-obama.org. He’s a weak, lazy, indulged, narcissistic sociopath whose lack of character combined with his puppetmasters’ lack of character in stealing an election and turning America into a fascist state.
January 30, 2010 at 1:40 pm
one of my first posts and stop-obama.org, I mean. Late-night blogging obviously ain’t natural for me.
January 30, 2010 at 9:12 am
I agree with the assessment of Utopia as Lazy Man in Chief. My partner, my redneck cardealing friend, and I have thought this for quite some time. Utopia has been phoning it in from day one. What piece of legislation has the White House offered to Congress for consideration? The health-rationing bills originated in the houses of Congress. Dat man is one lazy-ass Mo-Fo.
January 30, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Yes!!! Phoning it in…from his beloved Black(RAAACIST!!!)Berry (or Barry as the case may be).
Remember…he told us ‘we won!.’ That summons it all up, The Won ‘won’ living large at the White (RAAACIST) House; free use of Air Force One (and the sweet limo fleet and heli); great tee times on primo courses; and unlimited fawning press coverage. Throw in Wagyu beef; his historical ‘firsts’ and the narcissistic ‘delite’ in knowing that jagillions of public schools; Federal buildings; highways; airports and constantly being able to ‘get away’ from Me!Chelle and Mrs. R., he really did ‘win.’
Its just this damn ‘work’ crap that they keep messing with him about.
January 30, 2010 at 7:54 am
I agree with your assessment about the U.N.
I’ve long felt Obama actually viewed the White House as a stepping stone to something “greater”. What’s greater than President of the United States?
President of the World!
This is why he traveled the world building support before he was really even the nominee, let alone the President.
This is why he ran at such a young age, despite having virtually zero experience at doing anything even remotely related to executive experience.
I would not be surprised to see Obama try and get treaties pushed through in the U.S., consigning us to stipulations and control from the United Nations. Then, when the time comes, Obama will become President of the U.N. and push for global redistribution of wealth and a New World Order.
A little out there, but what the hey, it’s Friday (actually Saturday early AM)
January 30, 2010 at 9:14 am
I think Utopia will go on to be Secretary General of the UN. Were Hillary to become president, he’d be a royal pain in the keester to deal with, I am sure.
January 30, 2010 at 11:25 am
I think that he’d actually take pride in being hard on the U.S. To him and the ultra-hardcore Leftists like him, we are the cause of pretty much all bad things in the world, so he would see it as his ‘duty’ to stick it to us. I believe that’s the intent behind his reflexive urge to redistribute wealth wherever he can. Well, that and the fact that he wants government to control everything (especially if he’s in control of government). It’s not a pretty thought; I definitely hope I’m wrong on this one! Time will tell.
January 30, 2010 at 1:45 pm
That would be feasible if he hadn’t spit all over so many countries. Do you think Poland, Israel, France, England (and the list goes on) would actually vote to allow him as Secretary General. I think I have my doubts on that one. They’d all cast nay votes just to humiliate them. I don’t think he could even count on his boys, Hugo and Fidel. Even Indonesia, his adopted homeland, is threatening to tear down the statue that was erected for him because as they have said, “Obama has done nothing for us, the only thing we can say he did in Indonesia is eat and sh%t.” So much for king of the world.
January 30, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Let’s deport the UN and all its agencies and minions from the USA. Then we lodge a permanent veto in the security council on any issue it considers. AND THEN cut off all funding for this bogus do-nothing and all-appointed body.
January 30, 2010 at 12:19 am
We also need to focus on the agenda driven press. They were in collusion last time to get BO elected, and they are not just going to stand by without doing everything in their power to make sure that he is reelected.
No matter what they have to do, no matter how they have to lie, the national media will once again cover-up anything negative about BO. Instead, they will focus on anything negative about Hillary, while once again, burying any story critical of The One.
We need to let the mainstream press know that we aren’t going to tolerate the savaging of either Hillary or Sarah. Never again.
January 30, 2010 at 7:51 am
MSM? Their ratings indicate that they’ve lost their stranglehold of spin and distraction. Gotta tell you, I’m lovin’ this site.
January 30, 2010 at 12:17 pm
The main-scream-media is just as lazy and incompetent and corrupt as BHO and I send back every subscription envelope with a blank piece of paper in it.
January 30, 2010 at 12:23 am
My guess is that Hillary has a Plan A, a Plan B, a Plan C, and Plans D through at least F or G. Despite what she told Tavis Smiley, I really can’t see her retiring– that would last about six weeks and then she would be back out there in public life because she won’t know what else to do with herself.
January 30, 2010 at 12:25 am
I’ve actually came up with a very convoluted theory of how Hillary has planned the next several years, but I don’t feel like typing out right now. (I don’t think she’s planning to run again, I think she planning to retire – I would at 66 and by then there could be little Clintons on the way)
What I will say though is that Obama won’t back down. It would require him to admit he has faults. His approval could be at 5%, with an army of people with pitchforks breaking down the gates of the Whitehouse and he would still not be able to comprehend that people disagree with him and his policies. Remember, the one person his illusions worked the best on was himself.
January 30, 2010 at 7:50 am
“I…. take my share of the blame…. for… not explaining to the people clearly enough that they should…. just sit down and shut up…. while I fundamentally change this country!”
January 30, 2010 at 1:19 am
Hillary Clinton is a smart cookie. She’s planning something spectacular. Don’t ever count her out. I just can’t wait to see what she has planned.
And kudos to her for not being at the SOTU debacle. She knew just whst she was doing. Damn, I can’t wait for her to deliver a slap-down to the Narcissist-in-Chief.
January 30, 2010 at 1:50 pm
The Yemen/Afghanistan terrorism connection inspired a meeting among SOS Clinton and others in London, already scheduled when bho the fraud or his puppetmasters set the date for the State of the Un-American boob’s address. Hillary’s aides and the WH lackeys discussed this and Hillary asked the fraud directly, “What do you want me to do?”
The fraud said go to the London meeting, Madame Secretary. One, the meeting was critically important, as all of Hillary’s meetings are, and two, bho the fraud and thugs didn’t want Hillary to outshine the fraud by her presence, IMO.
Please excuse me for not having the link.
January 30, 2010 at 2:31 am
Unless Dr. Utopia is downed soon there will be no elections in 2010 or 2012. He Won!! And he believes like the mad narcissist heis reinforced by his fainting kool-aid drinker OFAistas that he should rule for life.
Getting rid of the tyrant B+ Odumber is going to get ugly! Very ugly and even bloody. Dr. Utopia believes he should rule not just the US but the world., Dr.Utopia is deranged and showing it more daily!
Let’s us hope Palin and Hillary can bring the bastard down.
January 30, 2010 at 7:54 am
Old One, Do you have any thoughts about amnesty re-defining The One’s base, the nation and the Constitution?
January 30, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Old One, I sadly concur. Had a conversation just today with a lifelong liberal democrat who parroted your assessment almost to the letter. Blew me away, because it’s a 180-degree turn from how she’s felt the last 35 years. Something’s in the wind, that’s for sure.
January 30, 2010 at 4:25 am
Hey barry. AMF.
January 30, 2010 at 7:48 am
Here are my thoughts.
The Clinton’s are extremely shrewd. They are also populists. They thought the people wanted more government — they were wrong. 1994 gave Bill a Republican Congress. He adapted, recognized the trend, and became a centrist.
It stands to reason that Hillary would be just as shrewd today, if not more so.
If Obama is able to be challenged in 2012, it will be due to his quasi-socialist progressive agenda. Hillary knows she can’t campaign on being MORE progressive than Obama, or even JUST as progressive as Obama. She’ll HAVE to run on a platform that resonates with the people, which would be one of fiscal conservatism and general governmental sanity.
Yes, Hillary said she was a “modern progressive”, but remember she was running for the Democrat party nomination. She knew that the party was moving left and so she knew she’d need to hedge left to have a chance at securing the nomination.
Just remember… the last time this country was doing great, there was a Clinton in office and Republicans in control of Congress. Now I used to be a pretty hard core Republican, but Bush had Republican control of Congress and I was far from impressed with how little they did to curb outrageous spending.
Now… as for Hillary stepping down, I don’t think it will be for the holidays and I think it will not be in December. I could be wrong, but I’m just thinking about how I would do it if I were her.
Hillary has a really high approval rating. People generally trust and like her, on both sides of the aisle, and she’s definitely a friendlier figure to many than Obama. That means she has tremendous credibility.
How damaging would it be for her and Obama to end up squaring off over some issue, like how to handle Iran, and she resigns as a result?
Just the fact that she would resign in protest over a particular policy would damage Obama severely. But then her team would no doubt begin spreading information about what went on inside the Obama White House, which would further damage him.
Now, I’m not saying Hillary has planned this all along, but I DO think she had two reasons for taking the Sec. of State job.
One, she knew she was pretty much the only responsible person in Obama’s cabinet, and the country would NEED her to be that voice of reason in the war rooms.
Two, it saved her from having to openly support or reject Obama’s legislation by voting for or against it as a Senator.
As for her resignation, it seems likely to me that planned or not, she is headed for a contentious showdown with Obama over Iran. She was very hawkish on Iran during the primaries, and Obama is obviously a limp wristed hanky stomper when it comes to foreign policy. Iran is going to continue rattling its saber, and WILL be close to having a nuke by year’s end. Hillary will want to act, and Obama will not.
If I were a betting man, I’d bet on that issue to be the one Hillary resigns over.
And she probably won’t do it during/near the holidays because the news cycle doesn’t get watched as much (which is the same reason the Democrats were trying to push Obamacare through on Christmas Eve).
January 30, 2010 at 9:31 am
I think you are on to something. I see the point others have made about resigning for personal reasons. That would be a graceful way out. And maybe that’s all Mrs. Clinton needs to remove herself from the sinking ship of Obama.
However, resigning over something substantive like the administration’s approach to Iran would show that she’s principled, that she’s a leader, etc. It would give her a concrete reason to leave Obamaville, creating a springboard for oposing Utopia on a whole host of issues.
January 30, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Exactly right. Just think back to the beating Colin Powell took as he stayed in his role while outwardly supporting policies that he didn’t believe were correct. The SoS job is replete with scenarios like that.
January 30, 2010 at 11:45 am
Huh…Very interesting. Compelling theories. And I agree – she would campaign from the center, and she is savvy enough to then govern from there too.
To you point – Thank God we have Hillary, someone who actually knows it’s terrorism we’re dealing with, not man-caused disasters (I’m sorry – spilling an entire coffee on myself in my dry clean only work clothes at the start of the day is a man-caused disaster) handling our foreign relations (now if only Hillary could take Napolitano’s job too). Obama et al have done their damdnest to humiliate and belittle her. She has handled this brilliantly and with such dignity. But I do agree – a showdown will be coming, and she will crush Obama, all with the support of the American people. Go Hillary go!
As far as your Obama limp wristed comment…I have to include this hilarious Youtube video of Obama waxing genius, as always, about the Middle East, followed up by one of the greatest and most revealing Obama pics.
January 30, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Bush had a democratic controlled Congress, not a Republican one. That is one of the reasons he was able to spend like a drunken sailor. The last three Congresses have been Democratic. The Democratic congress is the reason for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiascos.
January 30, 2010 at 4:52 pm
lulu: Unfortunately, your facts on the last 3 Congresses are incorrect.
The 107th congress was a Republican house and a tied Senate.
The 108th Congress was a Republican House and a 1 vote Republican Senate majority.
The 109th Congress was a Republican House and began as a 55 vote majority for Republicans in the Senate.
It wasn’t until the last 2 years of Bush’s presidency that the Democrats took control of Congress back from the Republicans.
That’s 6 full years of Republican control. Now obviously they didn’t have a supermajority, but the case cannot be made that the Republicans were unable to STOP reckless spending initiatives by the Democrats.
This realization is what drove me to become an “Independent” instead of a Republican. Both parties are now pervaded with this mentality of buying votes.
January 30, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Also, on the Fannie/Freddie fiascos, you are right that Democrats opposed reforms to those institutions at least twice while Bush was in Office (I think in ’03 and also in ’05). But there were also a number of Republicans who joined in opposing those reforms.
January 30, 2010 at 8:26 am
I just had a wicked thought. What if she resigns and she too also becomes a pundit on TV (like Fox?) AND starts posting FB blurbs. AND teams up with Sarah Palin during this.
Obama couldn’t survive both of them zinging him.
January 30, 2010 at 9:33 am
I have had that same thought. Great minds think alike! (Or is it fools never differ?! Just kidding.) It would give her a platform on the most-watched cable news channel in America to put her centrist views on display. I think she’d win over some Republicans and many independents.
January 30, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Hillary is unlikely to become a pundit on any TV channel, IMO, and also very unlikely to start using Facebook to attack Obama like Sarah does.
First of all, she MUST win the primary. That won’t be an easy battle, even if Obama is sucking. She must appeal to her base first. Her attacks on Obama will be very careful, very calculated, and very limited in scope.
January 30, 2010 at 8:57 am
I don’t care for Mrs. Clinton, and I really don’t want Sarah Palin to run: I think Palin is much more valuable as a campaigner, at least for another four to eight years. All I care about is electing fiscal conservatives. I don’t want to hear word one about social conservatism because that should be left to the states or to the people. Besides, it’s impossible to solve some social issues – abortion springs to mind – in elections.
All I care about is electing a bunch of tightwads.
January 30, 2010 at 9:18 am
“…electing a bunch of tightwads.”
It surely didn’t work with the Republicans and George Bush. It is not happening with the Democrats and Barack Obama.
Who would you suggest?
January 30, 2010 at 9:23 am
You sound like my brother— what do YOU suggest?
January 30, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Of course, I would give Hillary Clinton, as president, a chance to solve the problem but with a Republican controlled Congress. It does not work when one party controls the executive and legislative branches of government as in Bush’s term and Obama’s presidency.
January 30, 2010 at 9:25 am
ICAM!
January 30, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Agree on kicking social issues to the curb generally and leaving it to states. I sympathize mostly with the conservative point of view, but what matters is strong national defense/anti-terrorism, low taxes, and limited federal government above all.
January 30, 2010 at 9:07 am
I’ve been looking at rumors, (or possible facts, depending on how one interprets innuendo and the mainstream news as well as blogs – She will not be looking for a second term as SOS, this could be becuase Obama has already made it clear he wants to be a “really good one-term president” (of course that’s his interpretation). I’d say that Clinton should announce sometime in the timeframe you’ve given. The website (domain) http://www.hillaryclinton2012.com/
has been purchased and is under contruction – now as to by whom – good question. My personal perfect storm ticket would be a Clinton/Palin one-two punch. Glass Ceiling Broken – Partisanship Smashed, and although they are two extremely strong women, I think they’d be able to work things out to the general satisfaction of the nation. Just a conservative feminists dream, but….
January 30, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Tina, interesting proposal! Now that would be a bizarre ticket, but oddly enough, I think it could work. That would be the end of Dr. Utopia for sure.
January 30, 2010 at 1:54 pm
With all due respect, that will never ever happen except in a movie script somewhere. Anyone want to collaborate on that one?
January 30, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Only in a soap opera script.
January 30, 2010 at 9:20 am
Here is a new approach to foreign policy which many people could agree upon:
Conservative Internationalism
By Henry R. Nau
Jefferson to Polk to Truman to Reagan
Since world war ii international relations specialists have debated two main traditions or schools of American foreign policy, realism and liberal internationalism. Realism identifies with Richard Nixon and looks to the balance of power to defend stability among ideologically diverse nations. Liberal internationalism identifies with Franklin Roosevelt and looks to international institutions to reduce the role of the balance of power and gradually spread democracy by talk and tolerance. Generally speaking, conservatives or Republicans were considered realists — Eisenhower and Ford — while liberals or Democrats were seen as liberal internationalists — Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter.
This debate broke down with Ronald Reagan. He opposed both the realist containment strategy of Richard Nixon and the liberal internationalist human rights campaign of Jimmy Carter. He adopted a strategy that used force or the threat of force assertively, as realists recommended, but aimed at the demise of communism and the spread of democracy, as liberal internationalists advocated. Reagan improvised and succeeded brilliantly.1 The Cold War ended, the Soviet Union disappeared, and the United States emerged as the first preeminent “global” power in the history of the world. Even former critics now concede that Reagan was on to something.2
But what tradition did Reagan represent? The debate between realists and liberal internationalists leaves no explanation for Ronald Reagan ’s eclectic foreign policy choices and the extraordinary outcomes he achieved. The conventional foreign policy traditions don ’t fit. Realists and liberal internationalists try to claim Reagan but they distort and miss the novelty of his contributions.3 Others conclude he is unique and “has become a transcendent historical figure,” not terribly relevant to contemporary debates.4 Still others argue Reagan’s foreign policy had nothing to do with ending the Cold War and subsequently wound up in the hands of Reagan impostors, the neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration, who ran it into the ground in Iraq.5
This essay rejects all of these conclusions. It argues instead that Ronald Reagan tapped into a new and different American foreign policy tradition that has been overlooked by scholars and pundits. That tradition is “conservative internationalism.” Like realism and liberal internationalism, it has deep historical roots. Just as realism takes inspiration from Alexander Hamilton and Teddy Roosevelt and liberal internationalism identifies with Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, conservative internationalism draws historical validation from Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan. These four American presidents did more to expand freedom abroad through the assertive use of military force than any others (Lincoln doing as much or more to expand freedom domestically by force). But they expanded freedom on behalf of self-government, local or national, not on behalf of central or international government, as liberal internationalists advocate, and they used force to seize related opportunities to spread freedom, not to maintain the status quo, as realists recommend. All of these presidents remain enigmas for the standard traditions. The reason? They represent the different and overlooked tradition of conservative internationalism.6
Jefferson is claimed by isolationists and liberal internationalists, but he was neither. He doubled the size of American territory, and although this expansion took place on the North American continent when America was militarily weak, Jefferson ’s policies can hardly be called isolationist or pacifist. In fact, he used all the military, especially naval, power that the United States had at the time and combined threats and diplomacy deftly to seize the opportunity to grab Louisiana. The Louisiana Purchase may have fallen into his lap, as some historians later argued, but he had to place his lap in the right position to catch it.
The Louisiana Purchase may have fallen into Jefferson’s lap, but he’d placed his lap in the position to catch it.
James Polk expanded American territory by another 60 percent. And, yes, he expanded American freedom — which, although tarnished by black slavery (which Mexico had abolished in 1829), gave at the time the vote to more white male citizens than any other country and launched a trajectory of future emancipation that, with all its blemishes, made America the leading light of liberty in the twentieth century. He was one of the most ambitious and successful American presidents, and while his star, like that of Jefferson, has been diminished by rear-view mirror charges of racism and imperialism, he was, again like Jefferson, a pioneer of his day not only in expanding liberty and but also understanding the close and reciprocal interaction between force and diplomacy — a particular emphasis, as I will show, of conservative internationalist thinking.
Harry Truman expanded for the first time the cause of freedom beyond the confines of the western hemisphere and inspired the Cold War policy of militarized containment that incubated democracy in Japan, Germany, and throughout Western Europe. Had Truman not inserted American forces on European soil to stop a potential Soviet advance from Berlin to the English Channel, liberty might well have been lost in the very countries where it originated.
Ronald Reagan then transformed Truman’s containment policy into a competitive strategy to defeat, not just co-exist with, the Soviet Union. He saw the opportunity to end Soviet oppression in Eastern Europe that none of his predecessors saw and ultimately opened the doors of freedom for communist Europe and a good part of the rest of the world as well.
Before we consider the conservative internationalist foreign policies of these four presidents, let ’s look in more detail at the principal tenets of the conservative internationalist tradition and explore how this tradition differs from realism and liberal internationalism.
Read on…
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/26105009.html
January 30, 2010 at 10:18 am
Just a sidenote. I was reading an article on Tavis Smiley’s interview with Hillary. He was soooo surprised to board her jet and notice that all her TV’s were tuned to Fox News!!! I just thought that was a cool observation by Smiley, even if he didn’t quite approve. (Of maybe he did)?
January 30, 2010 at 11:50 am
Amazing! Well…Fox & Hillary recognize Obama is a nitwit. It’s a recipe for love!
But really – once you realize Obama is dangerous, incompetent and trying to destroy our economy to replace it with some marxist utopian wet dream…Watching even CNN can make you want to cry and vomit all at once. Watching MSNBC?! Well it makes me want to throw my TV out the window.
January 30, 2010 at 11:18 am
If you listen closely to Obama’s words in campaign speeches. He said (quote)”I don’t want to be only the President of the US but President of the World.”
I can not stand this jerk but I listen to his talk with my third ear to get the real meaning of his speech.
On CNN after his SOU speech this week- Wolf Blitizer said,” The President will travel starting tomorrow to florida. He (BO) likes to keep moving around for Washington is so stifling.”
What a ego – for he thinks flying on Air Force One is so jazzy…
January 30, 2010 at 12:25 pm
I have long felt that BHO has a speech impediment. He just can’t determine when to stop speaking on any topic.
January 30, 2010 at 12:07 pm
I hope you are right that Hillary challenges Utopia. Not because I like Hillary much, but because Dr. Utopia is truly a scary person.
And your line about Biden wondering when he gets his next bowl of ice cream…..OMFG!!!!! That is perfect!
January 30, 2010 at 12:20 pm
The only way Hilliary will run is if Obama’s poll numbers are in the 30′s.
She will also be linked to healthcare… after this year, any politician to appears to want national healthcare will have BIG problems. Since she tried it in the 90′s….she may have some problems.
When she gave up her senate seat I wondered why on earth she would do that.. and have ever since but now… it was probably a really smart move. She isnt linked to the spending sprees.
I think she will resign this fall or early next year.
January 30, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Speaker Bachmann?!? Come on, boys. I’m with you on a lot of stuff and appreciate the charge you led on behalf of Scott Brown. However, Michelle Bachmann is an IDIOT!
January 30, 2010 at 1:48 pm
How is she an idiot?
January 30, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Because she speaks with a Minnesota twang and is a woman. Misogyny at work. No commentary on her policies, just a blanket insult based on your superficial first impressions. Get lost, LL.
January 30, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Lincoln Lounger – if only you’d been a day earlier…You could have gotten your very own dedicated “How to Spot a Troll” post! Too bad. Maybe next time.
If you’d like to throw in some facts to support your claim, as opposed to mere empty name calling, then we can talk.
Until then – Speaker Bachmann 2010!
January 30, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Has anyone mentioned the physically and mentally draining job SOS is? Could any of us much less a 60 something year old woman hold up to the constant traveling and jet lag for eight years?
Could anyone constantly be “the fixer” who cleans up Barack Obama’s gaffe’s around the world without becoming very weary?
How about the strain of having to be the adult in this adolesant administration?
Just because Hillary only wants to be SOS for no more than four years does not mean that she is resigning to run for president.
I’m sure she is exhausted and not ready to jump into the stress, strain, and bitter attacks of another presidential run.
January 30, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Guys,
If Hillary challenges the Messiah, the Democratic Party will be Humphrey-Nixon debacle part 2, or the Carter/Kennedy mess part 2.
Sarah Palin has the angry Americans and the powerful Tea Party on her side. She will pick Marco Rubio, Gen Petreaus or any big popular Republican as her VP.
Blacks will be so mad at Hillary that the “racial” campaign will come back to hunt the former First Lady.
There is no way Hillary could survive a Dems devide. Sarah Palin is young, attractive, articulate and a populist. She would defeat Hillary.
January 30, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Do you think the media would give Sarah Palin a pass and endorse her after the vile and nasty things they said about her in the last campaign?
And after Barack Obama and George Bush that “somebody you’d like to have a beer with” and the rock star thing might not be successful in the next election plus that experienced, qualified, ready on day one deal will surely come up again. The voters may be wanting an experienced, policy wonk president next time after the disaster of the past nine years.
January 31, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Southern
past nine years? are you includding Obama’s first messy year?
I was talking about Hillary chances if she challenges Obama in 2012. Obama machine is still POWERFUL. Blacks will still vote for Obama no matter what.
There goes North Carolina again!
But if Hillary manages to win the nomination, blacks are going to stay home.. Believe me, Blacks think Obama is their god.. They think if Obama destroys the country he at least is the first black president to do it.!! These people are NUTSS!
January 30, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Disaster 8 years under Bush?
Here is what gets me…
What did Bush spend money on? Why is he mocked by Dems?
1.there was the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit — the biggest single expansion in the program’s history — whose 10-year costs are estimated at more than $700 billion. Since Dems are all for healthcare.. why are they mad at this?
2. education spending. Adjusted for inflation, it’s up 18 percent annually since 2001, thanks largely to Bush’s No Child Left Behind act. He did this with TED KENNEDY. Why are dems mad at this spending?
3.The 2002 farm bill, he said, caused agriculture spending to double its 1990s levels. I thought Dems LOVED farmers and they are a big supporter? So they are mad at spending for agriculture?
4. 2005 highway bill, which included thousands of “earmarks,” or special local projects stuck into the legislation by individual lawmakers without review, cost $295 billion. I am sure NONE of the earmarks were for Dems.. uh.. yeah right.
5. 31 BILLION for homeland security after 9/11.
6. Katrina… ya know that hurricane where he hated black people. 81.2 billion
Bush vowed to cut the deficit in half by 2009, and he was well on his way to achieving that goal. The fiscal 2004 deficit was a record $412.7 billion; the 2007 figure plunged to $163 billion. Had the meltdown not happened.. he would have accomplished it.
Unemployment rates
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0%
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
January 30, 2010 at 6:26 pm
I was no fan of Bush, as a matter of fact in the 2004 Presidential debates, I laughed at him! That said, in the last couple years of his administration, I stared to believe history would show Bush to be one of our more successful Presidents. I can honestly say that I did very well during the Bush admin, my stocks went up and up most of the time. I never had to worry about having a job and I always felt that no matter what, there would not be another terror attack in the US on his watch! Things started going south when the delusions took back power in 2006! Partly why the switch over to McCain from Hillary was easy for me to do was because I kept trying to figure out what benefit we had with the Delusionals in control and there was no benefit whatsoever!
January 30, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Thanks Kristi…facts are facts.
January 30, 2010 at 8:17 pm
If I hear.. ‘failed policies of the last 8 years’ one more time.. I will scream!
I made more money under Bush than EVER in my life. My parents retired EARLY because of how well their retirement did under Bush.
Did he spend too much.. sure. But considering he spent it on Democrat issues, a hurricane and 9-11..
I can not for the life of me figure out why Dems talk about him as irresponsible.
Barry.. VOTED FOR ALL OF BUSH’s spending btw.
January 30, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Because Dems are mantra minded vs facts, it’s a gene thing..the law. I grew up in a huge Irish Catholic family, so it is a pleasure to see the newer generations actually doing research before taking that Dem pen in hand to the polls. It really just boils down to separating fact from fiction and having confidence in your intuition.
January 30, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Personally, I would like to see a candidate, male or female, who has successfully governed a city, county and state. Not interested in what college they attended, but are capable of balancing a budget, improving education, healthcare and security. That experience is priceless as is choosing/overseeing a like administration. JMHO
January 30, 2010 at 10:30 pm
agreed!
January 30, 2010 at 10:31 pm
We’re looking forward to seeing Speaker Bachmann standing behind Dr. Utopia, not clapping at all for anything, while Joe Biden sits there, wondering when he gets his next serving of ice cream, trying to stay awake.
That is absolutely priceless. I`m getting a tingle up my leg picturing Obamabots all over the country passing out from fits of apoplexy at the mere thought of Michelle Bachmann as speaker of the house.
I don`t think the talking pinheads at MSNBC would survive it…too bad.