Hillary in 2012
Too soon?
Yeah, it is. But it’s not too early to notice that, according to the polls, Secretary of State Clinton is way more popular than her boss and former adversary, President Barack Obama.
In a poll conducted by the nonpartisan Clarus Research Group involving 800 registered voters who are self-identified “news watchers,” Clinton had a 75 percent approval rating and a 21 percent disapproval rating overall. Obama, in contrast, had a 51 percent approval and a 45 percent disapproval rating.
Via Politico
Clinton scored extremely well, finding approval with 96% of the Democrats, 57% among the Republicans and 65% of the Independents polled. While President Obama did well among his fellow Democrats with 93% approval, the president is getting his clock cleaned by Republicans and Independents whose approval runs at 19% and 33%, respectively. No big shock on the GOP numbers, but the president certainly has some reason to be concerned by such low numbers with the independents who tend to be the deciders in presidential elections.
What is really interesting in these numbers is the high marks Clinton gets from GOPers who have, traditionally, cursed the ground Hillary walks on. It seems that Hillary has finally convinced the Republicans that she is the hawk that progressives have always known her to be.
Obviously, it is far too soon to think about 2012. Just as Obama’s popularity has taken a dive in his first year, his fortunes can rise just as dramatically as the economy improves and the health care fight fades into the mist. Obama would not be the first American president to mess up the first year only to make important course corrections and come out a winner. We should also not forget that while many fans of the president, such as myself, have experienced disappointment with some of his important decisions this past year, most still very much like the man and appreciate his intellect and talents.
However, if Obama continues to be perceived as being too soft in his dealings with everyone from Congress to special interest groups, he might not be able to recover. Hillary’s pitch in 2008 was the Obama lacked the experience and toughness to handle the job. While the president’s supporters argued that there is no such thing as experience for the most difficult job in the world, toughness is something else altogether. If this president cannot convince us that he can stand up to all comers, and make them to do his bidding, this may be a problem he cannot overcome. It’s awfully hard to be impressed with a White House that can’t even bring its own party along with its policies. If the central issue becomes toughness and effectiveness, nobody ‘out-toughs’ Hillary.
And then there are those pesky 2010 mid-terms to come. While everyone expects some GOP gains in 2010 -possibly dramatic gains- we recall how Bill Clinton bounced back from a nasty mid-term defeat to win his second term.
So, here’s the deal. Come January of 2011, if Hillary is still being photographed walking on the tarmac at an airport located in some far away land, it’s all good for Barack Obama. But if Hillary should wake up next Christmas and decide the time has come to ’step back’ from her globe trotting to spend more time with her family, (especially if Chelsea has accommodated her with a grandchild on the way), get ready…
2012 will be another rumble in the political jungle.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by rickungar, Tweets Tube. Tweets Tube said: Hillary in 2012 http://bit.ly/8jwHXi [...]
When was the last time a sitting president lost in his party’s primary? Wasn’t it Franklin Pierce (whom Robert Wuhl taught me is Bush 43’s Great-Great Grandfather on his mother’s side)?
I don’t know. I’ll try to look it up. By the way, I saw the Robert Wuhl specials on HBO also. They were great!
In response to another comment. See in context »Robert Wahl taught you well. Actually, there have been five presidents who lost their party’s nomination for a second term – Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur, and Calvin Coolidge. But only Pierce was elected president – the rest of the were vice-presidents who became president due to a death or assassination of the president.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hillary again? Arghhh. The whole system is overweight and lethargic, mostly if not totally because of the “political class.” No, the call for change is still the one I hear …
Rick,
You’re carrying water for the ideologues. Negotiating is not weakness. It’s not weakness in business, it’s not weakness in foreign policy and it’s not weakness in Barack Obama. It’s the punditocracy who insist on treating politics as a football game who have been spreading this meme, and as reasonable as you seem to be, you seem to be falling for it.
As Business 101 teaches us, good negotiators frame every transaction as a win-win. Tell me how “he can stand up to all comers, and make them to do his bidding” is win-win for those who must do his bidding. I think Barack was honest when he said he wanted to change how politics is done in the US, and the change he wants is for us to negotiate with rather than dictate to each other.
The paid consultants are fighting him tooth and nail, and they have morons a-plenty hoodwinked. We’re in trouble when the smart people start falling for this BS.