Monday, April 4, 2011

Hillary Clinton 2012?


Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election

June 19, 2008 8:58 AM
In a web video to supporters -- "the people who built this movement from the bottom up" -- Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.
In a shift, Obama rejects public funding
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size + By Brian C. Mooney Globe Staff / June 20, 2008
Barack Obama rejected public funding for the fall presidential campaign yesterday, a dramatic blow to 1970s good-government reform that has been overwhelmed by an explosion of private money.
John McCain confirmed later yesterday that he will take $84.1 million in taxpayer funding for the general election, and accused Obama of reneging on a pledge to do the same. "He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people," McCain told reporters.
Obama's decision to become the first major-party candidate to opt out of public financing for the general election frees him to continue his record-shattering, Internet-driven fund-raising until November - and probably to outspend McCain by a vast amount. But it opens the Democrat to accusations of an about-face on past statements that he would take the public grant and limit spending to that amount if the Republican nominee agreed to do likewise.
In a video message to his supporters, Obama explained his reversal by asserting that the public-financing system is irreparably broken and he is instead involving the public through his "grassroots movement" of 1.5 million donors, many of whom give small amounts.

President Obama launches reelection campaign with video

President Barack Obama launched his 2012 reelection campaign on Monday morning with a video testimonial from voters posted on his website and an email to supporters, echoing his innovative and oft-copied 2008 kickoff.

Read more:

Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

John Phillips: Why Hillary Clinton must run in 2012

Hillary Clinton Told You So Button 2012If Hillary Clinton's primary voters and President Obama had their relationship status listed on their Facebook pages, it would change from “Married” to “It's complicated.”

To be fair, Hillary voters never fell in love with Obama, they just fell in line. Their relationship is less like a Julia Roberts chick flick and more like a Bengali arranged marriage.  

Because of their arrangement, Hillary-loving Obama voters are quick to jump ship whenever Mr. Hope-and-Change looks like he's getting played again by his political opponents, is in over his head or is dissing their girl.

Despite Obama's anti-climactic campaign announcement just now, according to all the recent polls, Hillary voters aren't only jumping ship –- they're taking their fins, snorkels and pina coladas with them.

A new Quinnipiac University poll shows President Obama's approval rating at....
...a pathetic 42% –- down four points from early March. The American public isn't impressed with his handling of the crisis in Libya either -– with 47% of the public against the war and 58% of registered voters saying the president has not clearly stated U.S. goals for the mission. 

Hillary Clinton 2012 button These numbers are bad –- really bad –- CNN prime time ratings bad.

To put them into context, according to Gallup, 76% of Americans supported military action against Iraq in 2003, 90% gave the A-OK for strikes against Afghanistan in 2001, and 65% approved of putting boots on the ground in Somalia in 1993. 

It's also important to state that this isn't part of a "throw all the bums out" mood directed at Washington.
The approval numbers for Hillary are nearing an all-time high –- with Gallup showing 66% of Americans giving "Hill the Thrill" a big thumbs up –- up from 61% in July.

This leads to the questions: Why are one out of three Hillary lovers giving Obama bad marks? Will they stick with him in November 2012?
And, most importantly, if she senses enough blood in the water, will Hillary quit the administration and launch a primary bid against Obama?

Hill-rage at Obama

Hillary Clinton's big selling point during the 2008 Democratic primaries was that she was an experienced hand who's been around the block a few times...not like how her husband has been around the block...but, you get the point.

Then-Sen. Clinton's "3 AM Phone Call" ad drove that point home. The 30-second TV spot raised the possibility of a future world crisis and asked voters who they would want in the White House making the big decisions if all hell broke loose. 

Hillary Clinton Get It RIGHT in 2012 button Hillary voters ate it up with a spoon –- deciding that an awakened and enraged Clinton with cold cream on her face and curlers in her hair is far scarier to third-world despots than an ex-Illinois state senator.

The military action in Libya is Team Hillary's 'I told you so' moment...with Hillary serving as the realistic, aggressive war hawk and Obama being a not-ready-for-prime-time waffler.

This frustration was expressed by a Clinton insider in the British newspaper The Daily, who said, "Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

This may not be a vote of no confidence...but at a minimum, it's voting 'present.'

Hill today, gone tomorrow

Hillary voters weren't swooned by Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries and many are abandoning him in public opinion surveys today. But are they mad enough to ride the elephant in 2012? 

Get out the saddle, because that's exactly what they did in 2010.

Obama Button She Wouldnt Dare In the midterm elections, while it's true the Democrats were routed everywhere, they got especially creamed in states where Hillary did well. In House races, the Democrats lost four seats in Florida, six in New York, five in Ohio, four in Pennsylvania and three in Texas –- all states Hillary carried in the 2008 Democratic primaries. 

Meanwhile, the Democrats strengthened their hand in places that went heavily for Obama in 2008 –- with pickups in Hawaii, Delaware and the MSNBC prime-time lineup.

The lesson: Hillary voters aren't only willing to pull the plug on their fellow Democrats -– they're willing to yank it like they're starting a lawn mower.

What the Hill? Hillary in 2012?

While it's true the Clintons are ambitious people, they've never been known to go on suicide missions -– those are for terrorists and hotel chains willing to rent rooms to Charlie Sheen. 

Despite her contemporary denials, Hillary would only throw her hat in the ring if she thought she had a better than even chance at moving back into the White House. Obama is looking weak, but not weak enough to justify a primary challenge...yet.

If Libya turns into a full blown disaster...resulting in billions of dollars wasted, boots on the ground and abysmal public opinion numbers, my money is on Hillary resigning her post as secretary of State and jumping in the 2012 primary.

She can even rerun the "3 AM Phone Call" ad...with the tagline 'See, I told you so.'

Holder Blames Congress for Forcing Hand on Military Commissions for 9/11 Detainees

Published April 04, 2011
Congress tied the Obama administration's hands in trying the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and his accomplices, Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday, announcing that he was left without a choice and has referred the cases to the Defense Department for trial. 
In stark language, Holder lambasted Congress for imposing restrictions blocking any detainees from being tried in the U.S., saying that the "unwise and unwarranted restrictions" undermine the U.S. in counter-intelligence and counter-terror efforts.

Read more:

Gitmo commission move the latest in a long line of Obama shifts
Washington (CNN) - Those who have followed President Obama's stance on which court is appropriate to try accused terrorists can be forgiven for getting a severe case of whiplash.
After all, it was candidate Obama in 2008 who made clear he intended to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year of his presidency and put an end to military commissions there – the proceedings that extend only limited trial rights to accused terrorists. Then, it was President Obama who quickly signed an order calling for Guanatanomo's close while his Justice Department soon vowed that, in the interest of justice, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other alleged 9/11 terrorists will be tried in civilian courts.

But three years later – the same day Obama formally announced his reelection bid – Attorney General Eric Holder announced the alleged 9/11 terrorists will in fact not be tried in a civilian court but instead in a military trial at Guantanamo – the same court in the same facility Obama long ago promised would be shuttered.
The seeming about-face might, more than anything else, be a dramatic affirmation of the old axiom, "You campaign in poetry, but govern in prose."
It was a prediction none other than former Vice President Dick Cheney – an ardent defender of the use of military commissions – made shortly into Obama's presidency:
"I think the president will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come," he said during a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in 2009.
So what exactly did candidate Obama say in 2008 when it came to trying accused terrorists?
First, he was going to close Guantanamo, calling it an ineffective "legal black hole:"
"By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been a failure. Over the course of nearly seven years, there has not been a single conviction for a terrorist act at Guantanamo. There has just been one conviction for material support of terrorism," he said in June of 2008. "Meanwhile, this legal black hole has substantially set back America's ability to lead the world against the threat of terrorism, and undermined our most basic values. But make no mistake: we are less safe because of the way George Bush has handled this issue."
Then, he was going to restore habeas corpus rights to alleged terrorists:
"Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach," he also said in June of 2008.
Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, Obama issued a high profile executive order in his first official day as president that required the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year.
But last month, the president signed a very different executive order - one that resumed military trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees. Still, White House officials insisted nonetheless the president "remains committed to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay."
Despite that order, civil liberty advocates took solace in the fact the president and his justice department at least appeared to stand behind their vow to try accused terrorists in civilian courts.
That was, until Holder's expected announcement Monday.
The president's primary concern is that the accused perpetrators "be brought to justice as swiftly as possible," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Monday in response to questions of the apparent about-face. 

No comments: