Comments on: Endangered Species

By: felicity

felicity — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:35:24 +0000

I said this elsewhere but so what, it’s pertinent. Obama wants Hillary (and thus in a sense Bill) ‘close’ where he can control her. (SoS is about as ‘close’ as one can get.) Loose, she and Bill intend to launch her presidential campaign for 2012 next year by referring covertly and/or overtly to the Obama presidency as a failed presidency – and Hill is ready to take the reins that she should have held in the first place. It’s highly likely that Obama’s presidency, given the messes facing him, will barely be off the ground as early as next year so the Clinton scheme may well work.

(Anyone who thinks the Clintons will take her defeat lying down has been drinking the kool-aid.)

Thinking about Obama, he seems to subscribe to the advice to keep one’s friends close and one’s enemies even closer as he puts together his advisors etc. The Clintons and their toadies are dangerous on the loose, which I believe is the reason Obama seems to be bringing them into the fold. The guy is beyond shrewd.

By: s

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:57:16 +0000

I think Obama wants her, but wants to make sure there isn’t anything that will allow the repugs to turn her appointment into a three ring circus.

By: btchakir

btchakir — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:35:12 +0000

Vetting Hillary.

So what’s happening here? Does Obama really want Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State? He wouldn’t be so obviously vetting her… and Bill… if he didn’t.

Or is this a ply to put a public cover on something else. He has met with Bill Richardson, who really wants the State post, so we are told. Maybe putting this focus on what Bill Clinton would bring to Hillary’s appointment is a way to keep the focus off looking at Richardson… while finding a reason to keep Hillary out of the Administration (while looking like you really want her to please her supporter.)

Or maybe this is just to keep Bush from dominating the airwaves. Who knows?

Under The LobsterScope

By: Tito

Tito — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:36:03 +0000

I’d hesitate before making any grand pronouncement of the death of the GOP. I mean it was 4 years ago that they “had a mandate” and 8 years ago that Rove was discussing his “permanent majority”.

Things will swing back and forth. The GOP will undoubtedly change, as will the Democratic party. This election has much potential to undo some of the damage… but most of the crowing or lamenting is self-important noise, just like it was in 2004.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:13:22 +0000

I thought the McCain message was clear as glass: “Vote for me because the other guy is a poopy-head.” With all due respect to Haley Barbour, the argument that they did not choose to try to make was “why McCain.” It’s hard to make that argument when you are 100% negative.

By: MNPundit

MNPundit — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:07:34 +0000

The institutions of Big Business and American Government encourage extreme short sightedness. There’s a structural bias against long-term planning since it won’t win you the next election 2 years or 4, down the road.