if these numbers hold that Obama will be brilliant enough to step aside and let Hillary do the job? Her polls numbers are great with all demographics and SURPRISE the "polarizing" Hillary isn't polarizing at all.....
is Hillary Clinton. Lefties will assume she will want to stay in Afghanistan forever, but that's not what this is about. It's about leadership, and Obama is failing on this front in many cases that go beyond Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton has shown tremendous leadership as SOS - yes, it's easier than President; but according to the last Rassmussen poll she is the ONLY politican to garner a high approval rating (and this includes republicans) and the only politican to garner a 57% rating when asked if she is qualified to be President.Obama has allowed the right wing to win on most of the arguments. Hillary is a fighter this would not have happened. Afghanistan is only ONE of a multitude of crappy problems we've been left with. There at least has to be the PERCEPTION of leadership which there currently is not.
Hillary will run if Obama steps aside and he may actually be smart enough to do this.
Otherwise, Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, etc. - ANY challenge from within the Party if Obama wants to fight guarantees a loss of both the whitehouse and congress. NOT a good move.
of course not. But does anyone really believe O is directing it? I don't. I think she is and she's saying "here's what I want to do, OK?" He has too many other problems and she is clearly not one of them.
There is no need for the Hillary vs Obama fight (again). The likelihood of Hillary actually quitting her job and then running against a sitting President who for all his lack of leadership qualities still has about a 50% approval rating - it just isn't gonna happen. She's already proven that she's a loyal democrat and she quit the Senate to work for Obama. Her quitting and then running against him would simply cause the Repugs to win and she knows that. So unless Obama wants to leave office and asks her to run, it simply isn't gonna happen.
IMO, Hillary would have been a much better President because she is a Leader and by that I mean is not afraid to fight (with passion) and take a stand even if it's unpopular on issues. I think her time in the Senate and on the committees she was on taught her to negotiate and her loss on HCR round 1 also taught her this. Furthermore, I think she knew enough (based on primary interviews and her statements about the mortgage crisis) to start off on the economy (mortgage crisis/jobs/"it's the ECONOMY STUPID") and she spoke about an energy policy that would create jobs ~ so my guess is that is how her 1st year would have gone. It's unlikely she would have even tackled HCR until further along, but we will never really know.
Unlike many in these comments I do not believe her political career is over ~ she happens to be younger than a whole gaggle of politicans from Biden, Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, etc. But if the way America is now that we seem to go from flavor of the month to flavor of the month (I include Obama as a "flavor" to Palin to now Brown) then there will be another "flavor" that America goes "gaga" over, just like O. But at some point, when nothing gets done, we'll wake up and realize that experience and knowledge of how Washington works may actually be an advantage - not a detriment and that rather than "Change" brought on by an "outsider" that doesn't have the wherewithall to bring it about may be better by a progressive insider who's been around the block a few times, taken a few knocks here and there and has proven HERself as a leader. HER purposely capitalized because there reaches a point where Women will want to have their voices heard and have their turn at history (herstory).
in 2012, I'd vote for her. I think Obama (and the Dems) have made several big mistakes biggest being they are not concentrating on new jobs and that the stimulus plan helped banks rather than people and small businesses. The transperency that O spoke of doesn't exist (that I can see) and there is a lack of leadership on the HC issue. I am NOT for either HC bill (house or senate) in it's current form - mainly because BOTH bills further restrict a woman's access to abortion and are anti-choice. How in hell can a Barbara Boxer who has stood solidly for (ever) years for a woman's right to choose support either of these bills?
Those of us that supported Hillary saw in O a lack of experience and therefore leadership. Talking the talk is not walking the walk. While we will never know what would have been had Hillary be Prez; we do know that the opporutnity to keep dems in power could be seriously jeapordized if O's poll numbers continue to slide.
Meanwhile the latest polls clearly show that Hillary has a very high job approval rating (77%) which includes Dems, Ind and Rep (so who's polarizing?). This is actually good news for the Dems if they choose to wake up in time for 2012 should O's poll numbers continue to slide in the wrong direction.
At this point - the best option would be for O to do as Arianna Huffington advises and make a "course correction" - but imo, this would be to make the base happier, not the right. Afterall - 22% of Dems voted for Brown in MA and there are only 12% Rep registered to vote in the state!! This would indicate that Dems are equally angry with O's leadership and the Dem congress.
I thought they "banned" you awhile back? Anyway, I have always enjoyed your thoughtful diaries. For me, I will not "blindly" accept a democrat because of his or her name anymore (I did prior to 2008 primary).
But I will hold off on my criticism of Obama and the dems until I see what the final HCR bill looks like. If a woman's right to choose is further restricted and was done so by the democratic party in order to get HCR passed, then yes, I am with you. I have spent too many decades fighting for a woman's right to choose and believing that the Democratic party platform fully supported this. If these rights are restricted BY DEMOCRATS then I will leave the party, become an independent and vote for who best represents me from here on out, which, in CA may still be a DEM. Afterall, Francine Busby is better than Brian Bilbray. And, Barbara Boxer is better than Carly Fiorni. But I am open to 3rd parties as never before.
The party I would like to start is the WOMAN'S PARTY. It seems to me that the group that consistently gets screwed is women. And it's women that go "blindly" into the abyss in their support of DEM candidates.
But, again, I have always had my doubts about Obama - but I will still give him the benefit of these doubts until I see the FINAL FINAL of everything. He inherited the biggest mess ever and while I don't like his wall street before main street politics - I'm not sure there are or were other answers for him at the time of such a mess. I actually support the decision made to increase the troops in Afghanistan as the alternative would be disastrous (in my opinion), I'm pissed he hasn't done more for the Gay community - but he did sign a HR bill - so I will hold off forming another party until I see what the final results are.
The one thing I know I don't like or want are more Repuglicants. Moving the country and planet forward into a positive and more proactive stance will never come, imo, from this fear-mongering, hateful group of people.
those of us who are/were ardent Hill supporters probably will always believe she would have done it better. But we really don't know. My personal belief (based on nothing) is that she would have taken a different approach with the stimulus money - putting it towards a comprehensive energy plan to create jobs and that HCR would have probably been tabled until AFTER the results of that started to improve. In doing this, there would have been some momentum from the stimulus-job creating plan. But again, who really knows?
She is doing an excellent job as SoS, no surprise here and I am (and have been) okay with the Afghanistan decision because both HRC and BO have said all along that the real fight was there (not Iraq). Having been to this backward, tribal country, I understand that if we left the taliban would simply take over. But what I'm most proud of that Hillary has accomplished during her tenure is her stance on gay rights. From ensuring State dept benefits for same sex couples to denouncing hate crimes world wide.
Still - I give Obama a solid B for his accomplishments and the tough job he has had. He has done a good job attempting to turn the economy around, tho' we still don't have jobs - the mess he inherited is insurmountable. I hate the current HCR bill, but I applaud him/dems for getting this far and something is better than nothing because with something - you have something to work on to expand. With nothing - you get voted out and sent home. Obama and Hillary have done an outstanding A+ job of bringing back international diplomacy. Obama is a gentle man. He is not a "fighter" - but I thought that was the appeal he had and what his supporters liked? right?
My issue with him is that because he is a quiet, composed, eloquent, peace-seeming man - he appears to lack fight and passion on the issues that matter most to progressive dems. Hillary does not have these problems and most of us that support/supported her know she has no trouble getting her hands dirty and wading into a fight.
In the end, the poll is good news for Hillary and for democrats in general. It opens the door for her to continue as a separate entity from Obama even though she is part of his administration and advises him. Overall, Dems should rejoice in this news because it means Independents and Republicans are not throwing out the baby with the bathwater and see her as separate than Obama.
IF the economy comes back, and by that I mean jobs start coming back - then I think Obama will do fine and be reelected handily.
is the Republican PRAISE for Obama's speech: Palin, Gringrich have praised the speech from a "liberal" President. Obama took this opportunity to lay out the need, in some cases for war and he did so as eloquently as only he can. His speech, now coined "the Obama doctrine" given to the PEACE PRIZE community lays out the reasons why there are times when non-violence doesn't work. Critics say if Bush had given the speech, he would have been criticized - but Bush would never have given THIS speech. Because Bush, in his arrogance and righteousness, chose war as the only option to conflict.
and THIS is how Bush got in. Stupid, Stupid people electing a stupid, stupid man. These idiots are voters!!! All Palin has to do is a few effective sound bites, like "drill baby drill" or "death panels" and these people love her and THAT is how she MIGHT become President.