Does Obama Face a 2012 Challenge In His Own Party?

[Xenophon]

Hillary is tanned and rested, just waiting for her shot.

 

[foggedinn]

Modicum?

You would do well to learn your own history.

Clinton veered back to the middle big time - his approval by voters happened in spite of anger within the liberal wing of his own party who thought him conceding to the demands of the Republican Congress.

Go back and study up on the transformative welfare reform battle. Clinton sounded like a small government republican -and his approval numbers went up because of it. In effect, he told the liberals to stuff it, as well as outmatched Newt in the PR battle during the budget face off.

Clinton was a far superior elected politician than anything Obama has shown to date. Perhaps Obama will figure this out and veer to the middle just as Clinton did, and not be taken down by the liberals - who most of America disagrees with.

Clinton also had a rocky start, as you'll recall. Clinton, elected by a mere plurality, took his early lumps and rebounded - as you point out, by tacking to the center. That is not to say Obama will take Clinton's path, but I'm sure he's well aware of it. Only time will tell.

Correct- Clinton had a rocky start to be sure, but he was also more intelligent and capable than Obama - far quicker on his feet and able to alter course - much to the chagrin of Republicans who wanted him defeated.

Yes - I said Clinton was more intelligent and capable than Obama. Obama, minus teleprompter, has yet to prove himself intelligent, and certainly during his first 8 months, has proven a terribly incapable leader.

We shall see if he can remedy these shortcomings...

Clinton has an IQ in the mid 170's, Obama'a is mid 120's. He may want to govern like Clinton, but he just doesn't have the brains for it. Mid 120's isn't stupid by any means, but Clinton is at the extreme end of the bell curve.

 

[oreo]

Does Obama Face a 2012 Challenge In His Own Party?

Hillary.

It could have been Hillary--if she didn't decide to become one of the sheeple sqwad. She joined his administration as Secretary of State--she would look really stupid to try to oust him.

If she would have stayed in the senate she would have wheeled a lot more power than she has now--& could have easily--stepped in 2012. But NOT NOW!

Her only shot is to leave this administration immediately--write a nasty book about Obama & then come back in 2012 to run against him.

If only Rev. Wright would have jumped out of Obama's closet two weeks before Super Tuesday--Hillary would be the POTUS today--& all of us could sleep much better. Because one thing she isn't is an America hating--socialist.

 

[oreo]

Hillary is tanned and rested, just waiting for her shot.

Hillary Clinton cannot do this--as she is part of Obama's administration--Period.

She stays in this administration & then tries to run against the RNC nominee she would get torn to shreds in the primary season.

She will be labeled part of the disaster that Obama created--or "one in the same."--Just like McCain--it's always about association--association--association.

 

[MaggieMae]

Y'all just loved that general election between Rudy and Hillary, didn't you?
2012 is practically an eternity away in political terms. The only prediction I'd make at this point is people making predictions will most likely end up eating their hats.

True. Clinton's health care program went down in flames, and he returned to actually have an over 60% approval rating by the time he left office, in spite of the sex scandal. Obama really does want to lead more like Clinton, with at least a modicum of bipartisanship. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that will be possible until the Republican Party gets its act together. It's counterproductive for him to continue to try to reach out to Republicans when they are currently being run by radicals, their leadership kowtowing to the loudest voices.

Modicum?

You would do well to learn your own history.

Clinton veered back to the middle big time - his approval by voters happened in spite of anger within the liberal wing of his own party who thought him conceding to the demands of the Republican Congress.

Go back and study up on the transformative welfare reform battle. Clinton sounded like a small government republican -and his approval numbers went up because of it. In effect, he told the liberals to stuff it, as well as outmatched Newt in the PR battle during the budget face off.

Clinton was a far superior elected politician than anything Obama has shown to date. Perhaps Obama will figure this out and veer to the middle just as Clinton did, and not be taken down by the liberals - who most of America disagrees with.

Clinton had been a governor, so he had that experience behind him--a working knowledge of just how difficult it is to work with lobbyists and the opposition. Obama had to learn the hard way. But that still doesn't mean that Obama doesn't have the same type of goal of leading by triangulation (as it was called). It is, after all, the only one that works. Otherwise, as we've seen since 2000, we'll continue to have single-party rule which leads eventually to gridlock. I don't like it with Democrats any more than I liked it when Republicans were in charge.

 

[HUGGY]

Watching obama crumble before our eyes is definitely becoming fun to watch. I'm less concerned about him now than I was before. Soon he will be relegated to the "complete joke of a President" category, and his remaining time in his one and only term will be nothing more than a token presence in the White House.

I saw it coming...

You are a joke and an embarrassment as a citizen.

 

[MaggieMae]

As a Democrat, Hillary Clinton does have the potential to challenge Obama in 2012

Thankfully, no republican has that potential

There are rumblings that Joe Scarborough might even throw his hat in the ring due to lack of centrist Republicans. Frankly, I like him as one of the saner, no-nonsense conservatives, but the poor guy has had his face on television far too long, and the opposition (whomever that might be) would rip him apart in no time by putting up on the Internet every controversial word Scarborough has ever uttered. (See my post under MEDIA re Internet Perils. The next two cycles are gonna be a bitch for any candidate.)

 

[Polk]

Clinton has an IQ in the mid 170's, Obama'a is mid 120's. He may want to govern like Clinton, but he just doesn't have the brains for it. Mid 120's isn't stupid by any means, but Clinton is at the extreme end of the bell curve.

You base this on, what, exactly?

 

[Polk]

Hillary would be the POTUS today--& all of us could sleep much better. Because one thing she isn't is an America hating--socialist.[/B][/COLOR]

Which is funny, because 18 months ago, your side was saying exactly that thing you now claim she isn't. "Stop Hillary Express" anyone?

 

[Polk]

As a Democrat, Hillary Clinton does have the potential to challenge Obama in 2012

Thankfully, no republican has that potential

There are rumblings that Joe Scarborough might even throw his hat in the ring due to lack of centrist Republicans. Frankly, I like him as one of the saner, no-nonsense conservatives, but the poor guy has had his face on television far too long, and the opposition (whomever that might be) would rip him apart in no time by putting up on the Internet every controversial word Scarborough has ever uttered. (See my post under MEDIA re Internet Perils. The next two cycles are gonna be a bitch for any candidate.)

Scarborough won't run. Being in television is too fun and easy.

 

[MaggieMae]

Clinton also had a rocky start, as you'll recall. Clinton, elected by a mere plurality, took his early lumps and rebounded - as you point out, by tacking to the center. That is not to say Obama will take Clinton's path, but I'm sure he's well aware of it. Only time will tell.

Correct- Clinton had a rocky start to be sure, but he was also more intelligent and capable than Obama - far quicker on his feet and able to alter course - much to the chagrin of Republicans who wanted him defeated.

Yes - I said Clinton was more intelligent and capable than Obama. Obama, minus teleprompter, has yet to prove himself intelligent, and certainly during his first 8 months, has proven a terribly incapable leader.

We shall see if he can remedy these shortcomings...

I'm not sure about the intelligence factor, but without knowing Obama personally the indicators are that they are probably about even. The question is whether Obama is more of a damn the torpedoes risk taker than Clinton, or whether his early losses will make him more willing to work on incremental change as Clinton did. IMO it's a question of temperament, not intellect. Not much in his record to draw from, so how he will react to a few major defeats is the mystery. Stay tuned, it's going to be an interesting 3 1/2 years.

This is a long article, one for printing and bedside reading, but it clearly points out the similarities between the Clinton and Obama styles, with Obama even going further on such things as teacher tenuring (he wants to abolish it as means testing), and affirmative action (to include ALL disadvantaged students, not just blacks).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/magazine/23clintonism-t.html

 

[Polk]

Correct- Clinton had a rocky start to be sure, but he was also more intelligent and capable than Obama - far quicker on his feet and able to alter course - much to the chagrin of Republicans who wanted him defeated.

Yes - I said Clinton was more intelligent and capable than Obama. Obama, minus teleprompter, has yet to prove himself intelligent, and certainly during his first 8 months, has proven a terribly incapable leader.

We shall see if he can remedy these shortcomings...

I'm not sure about the intelligence factor, but without knowing Obama personally the indicators are that they are probably about even. The question is whether Obama is more of a damn the torpedoes risk taker than Clinton, or whether his early losses will make him more willing to work on incremental change as Clinton did. IMO it's a question of temperament, not intellect. Not much in his record to draw from, so how he will react to a few major defeats is the mystery. Stay tuned, it's going to be an interesting 3 1/2 years.

This is a long article, one for printing and bedside reading, but it clearly points out the similarities between the Clinton and Obama styles, with Obama even going further on such things as teacher tenuring (he wants to abolish it as means testing), and affirmative action (to include ALL disadvantaged students, not just blacks).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/magazine/23clintonism-t.html

Moving affirmative action to an economic basis instead of racial? That would make a ton of sense.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm not sure about the intelligence factor, but without knowing Obama personally the indicators are that they are probably about even. The question is whether Obama is more of a damn the torpedoes risk taker than Clinton, or whether his early losses will make him more willing to work on incremental change as Clinton did. IMO it's a question of temperament, not intellect. Not much in his record to draw from, so how he will react to a few major defeats is the mystery. Stay tuned, it's going to be an interesting 3 1/2 years.

This is a long article, one for printing and bedside reading, but it clearly points out the similarities between the Clinton and Obama styles, with Obama even going further on such things as teacher tenuring (he wants to abolish it as means testing), and affirmative action (to include ALL disadvantaged students, not just blacks).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/magazine/23clintonism-t.html

Moving affirmative action to an economic basis instead of racial? That would make a ton of sense.

To an extent, it's already been done by incorporating certain educational opportunities into the "National Service" volunteer program already in progress.

 

[pal_of_poor]

Y'all just loved that general election between Rudy and Hillary, didn't you?
2012 is practically an eternity away in political terms. The only prediction I'd make at this point is people making predictions will most likely end up eating their hats.

True. Clinton's health care program went down in flames, and he returned to actually have an over 60% approval rating by the time he left office, in spite of the sex scandal. Obama really does want to lead more like Clinton, with at least a modicum of bipartisanship. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that will be possible until the Republican Party gets its act together. It's counterproductive for him to continue to try to reach out to Republicans when they are currently being run by radicals, their leadership kowtowing to the loudest voices.

Modicum?

You would do well to learn your own history.

Clinton veered back to the middle big time - his approval by voters happened in spite of anger within the liberal wing of his own party who thought him conceding to the demands of the Republican Congress.

Go back and study up on the transformative welfare reform battle. Clinton sounded like a small government republican -and his approval numbers went up because of it. In effect, he told the liberals to stuff it, as well as outmatched Newt in the PR battle during the budget face off.

Clinton was a far superior elected politician than anything Obama has shown to date. Perhaps Obama will figure this out and veer to the middle just as Clinton did, and not be taken down by the liberals - who most of America disagrees with.

Wow, you're not clueing me in about Clinton. I used to laugh when he was described as a liberal, not just by FUXU newscorp network either, but by all of the corporate media right-wingers. I had such hopes, especially in the second term that he might try to turn around some of the idiocy, the drug war, and get rid of the death penalty. But he went along with republicans, when he could have, like Reagan did with Democrats in Congress, vetoed the hell out of everything. He could have massively stopped the slide, prevented much of the wholesale giveaway of the American standard of living.

Clinton's right-wingedness, was a primary reason that I didn't care for Hillary, and voted for Obama.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silly comments. Everybody president has enemies, and Obama is no different. The difference is that BHO is simply the most popular guy in the Dems by far and wields the power of the Presidency. He is as safe as CrusadeFrank sniping here.

 

[Political Junky]

Watching obama crumble before our eyes is definitely becoming fun to watch. I'm less concerned about him now than I was before. Soon he will be relegated to the "complete joke of a President" category, and his remaining time in his one and only term will be nothing more than a token presence in the White House.

I saw it coming...

You are a joke and an embarrassment as a citizen.

Sounds UnAmerican to me.

 

[pal_of_poor]

Clinton also had a rocky start, as you'll recall. Clinton, elected by a mere plurality, took his early lumps and rebounded - as you point out, by tacking to the center. That is not to say Obama will take Clinton's path, but I'm sure he's well aware of it. Only time will tell.

Correct- Clinton had a rocky start to be sure, but he was also more intelligent and capable than Obama - far quicker on his feet and able to alter course - much to the chagrin of Republicans who wanted him defeated.

Yes - I said Clinton was more intelligent and capable than Obama. Obama, minus teleprompter, has yet to prove himself intelligent, and certainly during his first 8 months, has proven a terribly incapable leader.

We shall see if he can remedy these shortcomings...

Clinton has an IQ in the mid 170's, Obama'a is mid 120's. He may want to govern like Clinton, but he just doesn't have the brains for it. Mid 120's isn't stupid by any means, but Clinton is at the extreme end of the bell curve.

I do not believe Clinton's IQ is that high, nor Obama's that average.

But there are really a lot more important things Obama needs to focus on that just smarts, and a lot more factors that will make him a better president.

Not giving in and changing course, but fighting for, and selling good priniciples would be a winning formula. Any president that begins to sell the idea of protecting American jobs, wil lhave a lot of support from Americans, though I'm sure every ounce of media in the country will attack him with all the force they can.

The real trouble with Democrats that Republicans don't have to deal with is that they are paid bribes with the same corporate money as the republicans. With republicans, well, they pretty much go along with everything corporations want. More pollution, fine, cut salaries and power of underlings, fine, make you more wage slaves, destroy unions, fine. But democrats, well, they may support some of the same things, because that money's comin' from the same rich people and corporations, but they have to "pretend" to be for middle class people. I rarely hear the poor even mentioned anymore. I guess that "liberal media" line about the poor being worthless, and deserving their terrible plights, has taken hold in the minds of the brainwashed.

God I wish those advantaged folks, who have never been poor, and never try to understand or empathize with them, would get a little taste of where abject poverty puts you. In a just world...

 

[MaggieMae]

True. Clinton's health care program went down in flames, and he returned to actually have an over 60% approval rating by the time he left office, in spite of the sex scandal. Obama really does want to lead more like Clinton, with at least a modicum of bipartisanship. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that will be possible until the Republican Party gets its act together. It's counterproductive for him to continue to try to reach out to Republicans when they are currently being run by radicals, their leadership kowtowing to the loudest voices.

Modicum?

You would do well to learn your own history.

Clinton veered back to the middle big time - his approval by voters happened in spite of anger within the liberal wing of his own party who thought him conceding to the demands of the Republican Congress.

Go back and study up on the transformative welfare reform battle. Clinton sounded like a small government republican -and his approval numbers went up because of it. In effect, he told the liberals to stuff it, as well as outmatched Newt in the PR battle during the budget face off.

Clinton was a far superior elected politician than anything Obama has shown to date. Perhaps Obama will figure this out and veer to the middle just as Clinton did, and not be taken down by the liberals - who most of America disagrees with.

Wow, you're not clueing me in about Clinton. I used to laugh when he was described as a liberal, not just by FUXU newscorp network either, but by all of the corporate media right-wingers. I had such hopes, especially in the second term that he might try to turn around some of the idiocy, the drug war, and get rid of the death penalty. But he went along with republicans, when he could have, like Reagan did with Democrats in Congress, vetoed the hell out of everything. He could have massively stopped the slide, prevented much of the wholesale giveaway of the American standard of living.

Clinton's right-wingedness, was a primary reason that I didn't care for Hillary, and voted for Obama.

That comment covers a wide range of policies. NAFTA? Who knew that the blatant imbalances would be ignored? The Welfare to Work program has been the most successful social program to date, with an average of 70% of people on the dole out working within the two year limitation. And they are HAPPY to have jobs. Huge corporate subsidies didn't start occurring until the Bush administration. Other than those, you'll need to be specific.