The 2012 Election Strategy?

(photo credit)




Recently, journalist Sally Quinn made a serious proposal as to how Obama can finesse getting elected again in 2012. Excerpt from the Washington Post article:

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden should switch jobs.

Really.

It makes sense for the Democrats, actually....

[...]

It would not be out of the question for Clinton and Biden to switch jobs sometime after the midterm elections. After the president announced the switch, majorities in both houses of Congress would have to confirm Clinton to her new position, following the rules laid out in the 25th Amendment. She could then immediately begin campaigning for Obama for 2012, and she would also have at least two years in the White House as vice president to give her unassailable experience, clout and credibility. For his part, Biden would simply need Senate confirmation to get to work in Foggy Bottom.

[...]

Take it seriously.

Of course, the following aspect plays an important part in Ms. Quinn's proposal, although the idea gets only a brief mention in an essay which mostly lauds Hillary Clinton:

...[C]onsider Hillary the Democratic campaigner. She is tireless and relentless. Given the combination of votes that she and Obama got in the 2008 primary campaign, they would be a near-unbeatable team. Clinton also appeals to independents...

Read the entire article HERE.

Now, we all know that, back in January 2010, Obama, in the face of falling poll numbers, which have continued to fall, has said the following:

“I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president,” he told Diane Sawyer of ABC News. He added: “I don’t want to look back on my time here and say to myself all I was interested in was nurturing my own popularity.”

However, politicians as the power-hungry creatures they are rarely choose to relinquish their offices without a battle.

Furthermore, in the words of Donald Boudreaux:

People who seek political power are, with exceptions too rare to matter, never to be trusted...[W]inning elections requires a measure of deceitfulness and Machiavellian immorality that no decent person comes close to possessing.

In my view, Obama is going to have an uphill battle to win in 2012. But is victory for him out of the question? No. And, although it grieves me to say so, with Hillary on the Democratic Party's ticket, he could maximize his chances for victory. In my view, American voters are among the most gullible people walking the planet and show little discernment when they step into the voting booth.

Additional reading: If you have time, find more wit and wisdom about politicians and politics HERE.

Turn the page ....

Does Obama Have A Plan?

In his commentary "A Team in Need of a Plan," which appeared in the December 2, 2008, edition of the Washington Post, columnist Eugene Robinson, a columnist with whom conservatives certainly do not always agree, addressed the problem of combating terrorism and, in my view, makes points worth noting. Excerpts from Mr. Robinson's commentary are below the fold.

A concept that excludes nothing defines nothing. That's why one of the most urgent tasks for President-elect Barack Obama's "Team of Rivals" foreign policy brain trust is coming up with a coherent intellectual framework -- and a winning battle plan -- for the globe-spanning asymmetrical conflict that George W. Bush calls the "war on terror."

Terrorism (for the umpteenth time) is a tactic, not an enemy; Bush might as well declare war against flanking maneuvers or amphibious landings. Everyone knows what Bush is trying to say, and no one can deny the potential of terrorist attacks to destroy lives and change the world. Few would doubt that a line can be drawn between the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and last week's bloody rampage in Mumbai. But is it a straight line or a zigzag? Is it bold or faint? Continuous or dotted?

The Bush administration correctly takes the position that all terrorism is evil. But that black-and-white view doesn't take you very far toward useful policy choices. Being firmly opposed to rainy days won't keep you dry in a storm.

The fact that all terrorism is evil doesn't mean that all terrorism is alike...

[...]

...Soon...it will be Obama's responsibility -- and that of Clinton, as the new architect of U.S. diplomacy -- to find a way out of this kind of logical cul-de-sac.

In his opening statement, Obama vowed to continue the fight against "those who kill innocent individuals to advance hateful extremism." Is that his definition of terrorism?...

[...]

There might be other issues that Obama and his team would like to tackle first. But as the carnage in Mumbai reminds us, terrorists don't wait their turn.

Mr. Robinson has, or wants to have, confidence in Obama's discernment. Agree with that confidence or not, the monstrous attacks in Mumbai bring to the fore once again the importance of the war declared by jihadomaniacs, who are poised as best they can to strike whenever and wherever they can.

My father used to say about the office of President of the United States, "Who would want such a job?" Obama apparently does, and one of his first tasks should be naming the enemy in something other than nebulous, politically correct catch-phrases. Perhaps he will take that step early in his term as President. But can he convince Americans in general that the threat of Islamic terrorism is real? Various surveys show that national security is not now high on the list of concerns of the average American. After all, it's much more comfortable to be an ostrich.

Additional reading:

1. "We Have Been Warned" (Front Page Magazine)

2. "Looking for the Ideal Spot to Make a [Foreign Policy] Speech" (New York Times)

The video below shows one Egyptian cleric's plans for Obama:



(Crossposted to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS)

Turn the page ....