Obama looks like a shoe in.....
I don't think so. Even a few decent democrats are asking the incompetent fool to step aside.
Recent polls have Obama's disapproval around 50% and his approval 6-10 points lower, worse for his handling of the economy. That's the reverse of what it should be now for a good reelection shot. Nearly three-quarters of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track under his leadership.
But who thought the real emerging danger for the incumbent Democrat would be friendly fire from within his own party?
This morning's Wall Street Journal carries an overtly ominous op-ed for the president. It's by two Democrat heavyweight pollsters, Douglas SCHOEN and Patrick Caddell. Their first'>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577041950781477944.html]fir... paragraph says it all:
"When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion."
And you'll never guess which former Obama rival and current Secretary of State the pair thinks should replace the Chicagoan atop the 2012 Democratic ticket.
Despite a call for a primary challenge by Sen. Bernie Sanders, no one seriously expected one to emerge. Although such intra-party struggles allow unhappy ideological factions to vent frustrations, of which the left has many with Obama, they also virtually foreclose victory in the ensuing general elections.
However, there's still ample time for simmering party unhappiness with Obama and the growing fear of losing the White House and the Senate to reach a boiling point. So, the big money folks on both coasts quietly go to Obama next spring, urge him to be a realist and pull the plug on his reelection plans.
As SCHOEN and Caddell point out, "It seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance." And even if he wins, the resulting divisions and bitterness, they maintain, would leave Obama incapable of governing.
The parallels among Truman, Johnson and Obama are striking. All were or are Democrats, former senators, involved in unpopular wars and preferred passing the buck and blame for their difficulties to others, namely Congress.
Hillary Clinton has been nothing but a loyal Obama team member these 1,035 days of his term. She's even said she's through with elective politics, which is loyal and also enhances any future leverage. Clinton's generally successful time atop the State Department has enhanced her resume with executive experience, as Obama took the spotlight and the heat.
If their party, remembering her husband's two prosperous terms featuring bipartisan budget-balancing, came to ask Clinton to become history's first female U.S. president, does anyone seriously think this Clinton would turn down nomination by acclamation? Especially after that stinging 2008 defeat?
If the Supreme Court tosses out Obamacare next summer, a Clinton candidacy also frees the party of that unpopular, costly political liability heading into the fall against a Republican who also hasn't been president.
Nothing in Obama's history indicates he'd accept such a party offer. An ultimatum, however, might be something else. Obama's never really been tested politically, except by Clinton, who -- don't forget -- carried the crucial states of Pennsylvania and Ohio in the 2008 primaries, and even Texas.
Obama's a state senate product of the guaranteed victory system of the Chicago Democratic machine. In his only U.S. Senate campaign in 2004, he faced Alan Keyes, whose face is in the dictionary next to the term "political featherweight." And then in 2008 the young, unvetted Obama faced the scarred, old warrior John McCain amid virulent Bush fatigue and the Wall Street turmoil.
If Obama refused to step aside, he could always offer Clinton the vice presidential slot as the kind of surprise, Hail Hillary game-changer that McCain attempted with the inexperienced Sarah Palin. An incumbent changing VP's for a reelection hasn't happened since 1944.
But Obama doesn't need Joe Biden's foreign policy creds anymore. Joe, who'll be 70 next year, doesn't realize it himself yet, but after being in Washington since Obama was a sixth grader, he's been wanting to spend more time with his family, if you know what we mean.
And, remember, it was gaffey Joe himself back in that September 2008 townhall who said the younger Hillary Clinton would have been a better Obama VP choice than he was |
