The Back Stabbers: Hillary vs. Barack in 2012?

The Pantsuit vs. the Pit Bull in Bitchslap 2012?

Here’s a sure sign it’s getting into the hottest days of the summer:   the professional pundits are going crazy from the heat and as their little brains fry like eggs, they begin making up stuff  to entertain each other and confuse everyone else.

Everyone knows the Democrats are going to get smoked like sausage in the fall Congressional elections with President Obama following in 2012.   The polls show it.  The experts believe it.  Fox News is cackling  about so it must be true, right?   Not so fast, says columnist Charles Krauthammer, hardly a charter member of the “Black for Barack” support group, but a believer in the theory Obama is willing to accept Democratic losses now for his own gain later.

“For Obama, 2010 matters little. If Democrats lose control of one or both houses, Obama will probably have an easier time in 2012, just as Bill Clinton used Newt Gingrich and the Republicans as the foil for his 1996 reelection campaign.   Obama is down, but it’s very early in the play. Like Reagan, he came here to do things. And he’s done much in his first 500 days. What he has left to do he knows must await his next 500 days — those that come after reelection.   The real prize is 2012. Obama sees far, farther than even his own partisans. Republicans underestimate him at their peril,” Krauthammer cautions cocky conservatives.

I’m a great believer that underestimating Obama is one reason he’s sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom instead of Hillary Clinton or John McCain, but he’s certainly looked better to both his friends and foes than he does now.  This too shall pass, but to hear it told if Sarah Palin doesn’t beat him in 2012, Obama will have to put down an insurrection on his Left flank led by no other than–wait for it–Hillary Clinton!

Remember what I said about pundits and talking heads making up stuff?    Bernard Goldberg is chillin’ with his homey Bill O’Reilly and they’re just kicking it on Fox News and Goldberg plugs his homepage while dropping a little nugget on Big Bill’s head.

What I said on the website is I’m going out on a limb. I think she will challenge in 2012, but I understand this is a long shot. All I’m saying is that it is no longer a crazy idea. Here is why. Independents one year ago – just one year ago – supported Barack Obama with 56% of their vote. Today, it’s down to 38%. African-American voters will not forsake Barack Obama, we know that. White Liberals normally would never abandon the first black president not if it means voting for some vanilla liberal democrat white guy. But, if they get a chance to vote for Hillary Clinton, they can make history twice. The first time they elected the first black president. The second time it will be the first woman president. and if this will go a long way in easing their white liberal guilt which normally knows no bounds. Now, if things change, if the economy takes off, if unemployment drops, if the tooth fairy leaves, you know, a couple of trillion dollars under Barack Obama’s pillow, type. But if miracles don’t happen all I’m saying is keep an eye on Hillary.

Not destined to be a collector's item.

This is technically known as “a wild guess.”   The non-technical term is “talking out of your ass.”

Incumbent presidents don’t traditionally face serious challenges from within their own party but the Wall Street Journal joined Goldberg in advancing the  Hillary in 2012 rumor.  They are figuring Obama is not only a possible one-term and done like Jimmy Carter,  but could be challenged by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party the way Ted Kennedy went after Carter in 1980.

Let’s ignore the fact that Hillary still is in debt from the 2008 campaign and has said she has no interest in running again for president.   Idle speculation beats digging for hard fact.

A drunk in a bar could make the same prediction that a dissatisfied Hillary would heed the call of disgruntled Democrats and backstab Barack in a last desperate bid for the  Oval Office.    There are about a million questions Hillary and Bill Clinton would have to ask themselves before  they would even dream of making  such an improbable  move, but the first one they should ask  is when exactly did Rupert Murdoch (owner of both Fox News and The Wall Street Journal) get so interested boosting the career of Hillary?

These are the same folks who hated the Clintons for eight years and wanted to beat the snot out of her in 2008.   Fast-forward two years and now they’re saying, “Oh, she’s not so bad” and she looks good because Obama looks bad?   Is it dumb in here or is it just me?    Don’t believe the hype or anything you hear or read from The Murdoch Fantasy Factories.

When pundits get bored they don’t exactly make up stories.  They make up scenarios and then shape the facts to fit their created narratives.

I have a scenario I think is just as possible as the ones the right-wingers dreamed up.

Looking for something to get the base excited in 2012, Obama pulls Clinton and Joe Biden into the Oval Office and suggests they swap jobs.  This would set up 2016 as the 68-year-old Clinton vs.Palin in a showdown between the Pantsuit and the Pit Bull.  Clinton in her late 60′s would not be young, but younger than John McCain was in 2008 or Ronald Reagan in 1981. Hillary seems to be in good health and since women live longer than men, why couldn’t she run in 2016?  As Obama chosen successor she would avoid a civil war between the Clintonistas and the Obamaniacs, unite the Democrats and still make history as the first woman elected to the presidency.

If the Republicans want to run a former mayor and ex-governor who quit through her only term against a former First Lady, U.S. Senator, Secretary of State and Vice-President, that’s a battle on “who’s got the most experience?”  they can’t win.

So, here’s the new rumor:  Obama dumps the gaffe-prone Biden for the smoother Clinton and sets her up as his successor in 2016.  Got it?  Good.  Now spread it around as irresponsibly as possible.  I can be just as bad as Fox News when it comes to unsupported supposition.

I don’t purport to have any special insights that make my fairy tale any more probable, but  I like my path to a Hillary Clinton presidency better than Goldberg’s.

"Oh Barack, I never dreamed it could be like this."

One thought on “The Back Stabbers: Hillary vs. Barack in 2012?

  1. I actually agree with your analysis here Jeff. It’s highly likely that Obama will dump Crazy Joe and replace him with Hillary. He’ll cynically think that this would lock in the woman vote and give his failed administration a jump start. It’s the smart political move and Obama’s people are always focused on politics. Biden will claim “health and family reasons” and move aside like Quayle did in 1992. And it might actually work. The republicans would f*ck up a cup of coffee (I love that line from Casino). 2010 and 2012 are there for the taking but if they nominate a crackpot like Gingrich or a flawed candidate like Palin, they’ll lose in spite of the fact that Obama has been the worst US president in my lifetime, bar none.


Don't Be Shy...Leave A Comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s