I have believed for some time that after two more years of Obama it will be impossible for ANY Democrat to be elected president in 2016. All of Obama’s recent actions…basically ignoring the 2014 election results, challenging the new Congress at every opportunity, and defying the will of the American people seems calculated to diminish Hillary’s chances.
The conventional wisdom is that Obama is now concerned about his “legacy.” The man who promised to “fundamentally change” America is doing his best to accomplish that, but he has succeeded beyond the wildest expectations in “fundamentally transforming” the Democrat party to near permanent minority status.
The GOP dominates the state legislatures. Republicans have their largest majority in the House in decades, and should easily keep control until 2022. When Obama was elected in 2008, the Democrats had 60 seats in the Senate; now, they are in the minority. Perhaps the most telling statistic is that half of the Senate Democrats who voted for Obamacare are now out of office.
Hillary Clinton has to date offered no rationale for electing her to the White House, other than that “the 90’s were a pretty good time in America, and it’d sure be nice to try and go back there.”
Contemporary history…the MSM version… depicts Obama has having sprung from nowhere ( if an Illinois state senate seat can be considered “nowhere”) to delivering a magical speech at the 2004 Democrat convention, to capturing the imagination of the MSM and much of the American people, and to winning the nomination that was long expected to go to Hillary.
Truth be told, it was Hillary who, more than anyone and anything, snatched “defeat from the jaws of victory.” She had every possible advantage, yet ran one of the most inept campaigns in history.
And there is no love lost between Obama and the Clintons. Obama denied the Clintonian “restoration.” In 2008,Bubba did everything possible to demean and diminish Obama among Democrats. It’s safe to say that Obama has no affection for either Clinton.
After his election in 2008, Obama used them to his advantage, knowing full well they had no choice but to suck it up, smile, and acquiesce. Choosing Hillary as SecState was the classic example of “keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer.” And Bill had no choice but to work hard for Obama in 2012. Given the overwhelming propensity of the American electorate to give presidents two terms, a Mitt win in 2012 would have effectively quashed any hope Hillary had of ever being president.
After Clinton won in 1992, he attempted his own “quasi-transformation” of America. Remember Hillary’s brainchild, the first attempt to restructure healthcare? It resulted in the GOP landslides of 1994. But unlike Obama, the Clintons learned their lesson, regrouped, and refocused, and worked with the Congress. Budgets were balanced, and “welfare as we knew it” was changed for the better. Of course, the Clintons spent most of both terms dealing with scandal after scandal after scandal. This weakened their ability to move any substantial agenda, as most of their time and energy was devoted to self-preservation.
But a Hillary White House, coupled with a GOP controlled Congress, would inevitably result in significant deal making and accommodation, and a willingness to examine and even undo, much of Obama’s “accomplishments.”
The mere fact that Chuck Schumer, who may well soon be the Senate minority leader, was recently able, let alone comfortable doing so, to utter publicly that “doing Obamacare was a mistake,” is in itself a staggering admission.
It would not be too far removed from that for him to say that he is more than willing to work with Republicans to examine all facets of Obamacare….which would be overt code/political speak for “let’s scrap it and start over.”
So if we pose the question as, what would better serve, and preserve, the Obama “legacy”……a Hillary presidency willing to cut deals with a GOP Congress, or with a Republican, possibly a real conservative, in the White House, who would unite the remnants of the Democrat party in opposition, and most importantly… SHIFT IT IRREVOCABLY TO THE HARD LEFT, the answer is easy.
To fundamentally transform America, to Obama’s vision, you first must secure the party, and the party apparatus. But it must be a party committed to the vision of a quasi-socialist America, with most of the people dependent to some extent on Big government, and with a weak status, and military in the world.
Recall Obama’s recent crack, right after the election, that he suspects that “Americans will want a new car smell” in 2016, and that “Hillary Clinton would make a great president.” Taken together, they make absolutely no sense. It’s as if Obama had announced that “1 + 1 = 3.”
The MSM paid about as much attention to those comments as it did to Benghazi, but the are telling. The second is “de rigeur”..no Democrat today, not even Liz Warren, can say “Hillary” without adding the obligatory “wouldn’t it be great if she was in the White House!!!!”
The first “joke” is the one to watch. Why even say it, unless you’re trying to make a point. And what might that point be? You can’t warn off Hillary against deviating from the Obama worldview, because if/when she is elected, she can, and will, do whatever the hell she wants.
So, realistically, it’s best then for Obama to keep her out of the Oval Office. Some cynics might suggest that the best way to guarantee that Clinton loses is for Obama to unabashedly endorse her.
Something along the lines of “if you’ve enjoyed the last 8 years, and want 8 more of the same,” then vote for Hillary. Not even Jen Psaki or Marie Harf could spin that one.
Watch what happens with OfA..Organizing for America. It began as “Obama for America,” reverted/morphed into its present form after the 2012 election, where it is focused on supporting Obama’s agenda and electing candidates committed to that agenda.
I suspect that right now, 90%+ of its members want Liz Warren as the nominee. They’re keeping mum so far, waiting for a signal from the Chosen One, but they won’t/can’t stay on the sidelines much longer.
During the 2008 campaign, Bill Clinton had a lot of things to say back then about Obama. Most weren’t nice. A few were prophetic.
“In theory, we could find someone who is a gifted television commentator and let them run. They’d have only one year less experience in national politics.” — Dec. 15, 2007,
“Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.” — Jan. 26, 2008, to reporters in Columbia, S.C.
“I think that they played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign, that they planned to do it all along.” — April 21, 2008, WHYY News Radio
“I mean, when’s the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running? I mean, he will have been a senator longer by the time he’s inaugurated, but essentially once you start running for president full time you don’t have time to do much else.” — Dec. 15, 2007, PBS’s “Charlie Rose”
“Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” — Jan. 7, 2008, addressing Obama’s record on Iraq during a New Hampshire stop
If Obama subscribes to the adage that “revenge is a dish best served cold,” then 8 years may be enough time before dishing it out.