Obama-Clinton 2012?

I missed this when it was posted, but here’s Robert Reich’s prediction for 2012:

My political prediction for 2012 (based on absolutely no inside information): Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden swap places. Biden becomes Secretary of State — a position he’s apparently coveted for years. And Hillary Clinton, Vice President.

So the Democratic ticket for 2012 is Obama-Clinton.

Why do I say this? Because Obama needs to stir the passions and enthusiasms of a Democratic base that’s been disillusioned with his cave-ins to regressive Republicans. Hillary Clinton on the ticket can do that.

I don’t dispute this prediction. Frankly, it makes sense. I don’t think the party will want Joe Biden running as the president’s successor in 2016 (that is if he’s re-elected). He’s just not that strong as a frontrunner. [Insert wide array of Biden weaknesses here.] Hillary Clinton is, in many ways, the presumptive nominee in 2016 anyway, and therefore the “Biden Campaign” would be hobbled out of the gate, thus weakening the Obama legacy and rekindling all that crapola from 2008. Hence, if they swap roles, Vice President Hillary Clinton will have the perfect springboard for 2016, with the White House backing her endeavors.

Wait a second. Holy hell, I just wrote “Obama legacy.” Way early, but oh how time flies.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Election 2012 and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • rgbyref

    I don’t have any problem with this either, but I don’t see Hillary as any different from Obama in sucking up to Big Business. I respect her, but ‘d love to see the Dems come up with a more progressive (I said “MORE progressive, not Dennis Kucinich, dammit) candidate in 2016.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      HUH? Obama is the most prog candidate in most current lifetimes. You are whistling in the wind, and you’re doing so based on false premises.

      • desertflower1

        Thank you!

      • rgbyref

        Obama occasionally talks progressive, and he has, of course, been pretty good on gay rights and making a start on health care. He has also wasted a lot of opportunities chasing after the myth of “bipartisanship” and been way, way too willing to talk about screwing up Social Security and medicare. If you’d read what I wrote without immediately leaping into “must defend Obama” mode, you’d understand I’m looking for a more progressive candidate and didn’t say Obama wasn’t. I plan to vote for him. I’d just like to see more commitment to traditional democratic principles.

    • Dirk2112

      Ok fine.

      Name someone acceptable to you who could win a national election?

      I’ll wait.

      No actually I won’t, sorry, because there isn’t anyone. There isn’t one democratic senator or governor, who could win nationally, who is substantively to President Obama’s left. Not one. The only person you could even make a non fantasy based (i.e. save the Nepalese Mountain Yeti) case for is Kristen Gillibrand; who’s been an impressively lefty Senator but was basically a blue dog before that. The remainder of the likely 2016 field (O’Mally, Patrick, Warner, Schweitzer maybe Cuomo) are all either where PBO is, slightly to is right or to his right on some issues and to his left on others. So again, who exactly did you have in mind again?

      • villemar

        Pfft clearly a write in for Baby Jesus Manning would win an overwhelming majority of votes and stop the horrible two-headed duoopoly of Demopublicans /Republicans because there’s no difference well actually Barack Hitler OHitlermba is 1000000x worse than Bush, Hitler, Pol Pot, Vlad the Impaler, Caligula and Cthulhu combined so he must be stopped!!! Drones Hates Base Indefinite Detention FEMA Hitler!!!111!!!!ONE!!!1!!

        • Dirk2112

          Ok Caligula-Cthulhu, that was funny.

          • villemar

            Back in 2008 at Salon, we had anti-Obama trolls galore (especially Pumas), and they had the usual hyperbolic hysterical predictions of how BHO would be the next (insert historical villain here). They were all riduculous, but one troll actually said BHO would be the 2nd coming of Caligula. I had to screenshot that one fo0r archival lulz purposes.

            Caligula! Heh.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          i like Vlad the Impaler.

      • http://twitter.com/bubblegenius Bubble Genius

        Well, 2016 is a long way away, and would you have pegged BHO for POTUS in 2003? I’d like to think Elizabeth Warren might be ready to run.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s why she decided to go for the senate.
          I know I would support her in 2016.

        • Dirk2112

          It’s not really, four years isn’t a long time. We might not have been able to peg BHO to win, but everyone knew he belonged on every may run list from the moment he walked off the stage in Boston. More importantly he was the only even almost kind of sort of surprise. Everyone knew every other name on the list well in advance (four years). So the exact composition of the field in 2016 is unknowable but we know who the suspects are. As for Warren I suspect she’ll win her senate race but generally speaking it’s difficult for two pols from the same state to run in the same cycle and Patrick is definitely prepping for a run.

          • http://twitter.com/bubblegenius Bubble Genius

            Yes, but before 2004 BHO wasn’t on anyone’s radar nationally. Who knows who might step up on the stage in Charlotte this September?

            Besides, your question was, who’s a potential 2016 candidate who is more to the left of President Obama? I gave you Warren, who may well become higher-profile than Patrick, depending on how visible she is in the Senate. Assuming she’s elected of course.

    • desertflower1

      I hope you realize that the false meme of Obama gets more $ from Wall St is wrong….

      http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/16/345118/romney-wall-street-five/

      Though you didn’t specifically SAY Wall St…that’s what I took your “sucking up to big business” to mean.

  • http://twitter.com/RemoteClancy Remote Clancy

    We seem to do this during every presidential election when a sitting president is running for reelection. And, every four years the guy who came in with the president stays on the ticket. Remember when Bush was going to dump Cheney so he could have a logical successor? No one has changed partners since FDR–and he did it twice.

    The only way Biden isn’t on the ticket is if Biden doesn’t want to be on the ticket, which is a highly doubtful proposition. (But, he’s been in gov’t a long time, so maybe he’s burned out. Right?) Biden once may have coveted the Sec’y of State job, but he also seems downright giddy about being Veep. Not that I wouldn’t mind setting Clinton up (better) for 2012, but if she chooses to run, she could easily defeat Biden in a primary. Also, I’m not so sure a by then 74 year old Biden would much want to be president.

    • GrafZeppelin127

      Actually, Nixon did, but not by choice…..

      • vgranucci

        Actually, he didn’t. Spiro Agnew was his running mate in both 1968 and 1972 and of course was elected both times. Upon his resignation in October 1973, Gerald Ford was nominated and confirmed as vice president.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

    Bob, Reich Bob Woodward spewed the same claptrap in 2010. Both the White House and Clinton shot it down.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/122907-white-house-throws-cold-water-on-obama-clinton-ticket
    Clinton has persistently, adamantly stated that she will never run for pres again.

    Maybe we should take her word for it.

    Adding……. Reich is a PUMA.

  • freakishlystrong

    I like Joe. That being said, this would be so fun on several fronts. Limbaugh’s bile filled goiter of a head would assplode and Doucheborough would have to walk back every nice thing he ever said about Hilz. Given he only said them to disparage Obama. Hilarity would ensue.

  • Dirk2112

    Ok one more time, Clinton will be 70 in 2016. She isn’t going to run. Biden isn’t going to run either and we need to focus on the people who might because the GOP has a better bench (purely in terms of political athletes) than we do.

  • desertflower1

    Seriously Bob! Why the hell are you giving any credence at all to the wet dreams of PUMA’s? Not going to happen…the most important reason being, Hillary said NO! Give this stupid fantasy a rest, will you?! This isn’t Hillary bashing, for those here that want to get their hackles up. She has been an outstanding SOS…one of the best in my lifetime. She should be extremely proud of her service to country, and her grand accomplishments . VP Biden has been equally great in his job. Quit promoting an idea that isn’t going to happen.

  • i_a_c

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz has said while on MSNBC that there’s a 0% chance of this happening. Reich is just trolling for attention. He should stick to economics.

    • villemar

      …and being a Debbie Downer sad sack.

      • i_a_c

        Yes, that too, but it always bugs me when economists like Reich and Krugman try to pontificate on politics. They’re good for economic analysis; not so much for political analysis.

        • villemar

          Aside from that, he was pretty good as the dwarf in the Safety Dance video back in the day.

  • Lorelei Mellon

    I was kind of hoping that Elizabeth Warren, after having a good run in the Senate, would run for President.

  • James Laing

    Sheesh, they’re all pro-Wall Street Dems. what would be the point? The GOP will still call them elitists

    • desertflower1

      Who cares what they say.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Late to the party here, haven’t read the comments yet. A few thoughts:

    – I love Biden. He was actually my 1st choice in the ’08 primary before it started; Obama was 2nd. I’d vote for Biden in 2016 if he ran against Romney, but I don’t think he will. He’ll be 73 when the primaries start.

    – I don’t think Hillary will run against Romney in 2016 either. She’ll be 68 when the primaries start. She’s also said repeatedly that she’s not running for president again, but it’s Hillary, so make of that what you will.

    – It does make some sense for the two of them to change positions, given how much Biden seems to want to be SoS even though it’s a demotion, and for the first African-American POTUS to have the first female VP would be a feather in Obama’s (and the nation’s) cap.

    – In the highly unlikely event that Obama is re-elected, we may see another election cycle like 2008 where there’s no heir-apparent to the incumbent like there was in 2000, 1988, and 1960, which might not be a bad thing since sitting VPs have not had much electoral success over the course of U.S. history. But if Biden’s not going to run, and he’s nevertheless going to be on the ticket in 2016, the Dems have to decide if they’re better off with a no-heir-apparent scenario, or if they want to have Biden step down in 2014 or 2015 and go through the confirmation process to replace him with an heir-apparent?

    – I confess I can’t think of a high-profile Democrat (governor, senator, cabinet official, etc.) who might be in line for 2016.

    – Just to stir the shit a little bit, Al Gore will be 67 in 2016. Just sayin’. :)

    • rgbyref

      You do know that Romney is older than Ms Clinton, don’t you? Old age didn’t stop McCain. It should have though.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Actually, I didn’t know that. But he’s only 7 months older. And he’ll be running for re-election at age 68, not for a first term.

    • ranger11

      Highly unlikely? Against Romney? Sheeeeeeit!

    • jjasonham

      It is highly unlikely Obama WON’T get re-elected.

  • mrbrink

    Hillary Clinton needs no national introduction. She doesn’t have to be the VP on the 2012 ticket to run for president in 2016. We’re not talking about Xavier Becerra, here, but maybe we should be?

    This is like fantasizing about a baseball lineup.

    I’ll put Biden at 1B, Clinton in RF…

    Democrats have a lot more options than this anyway, and Robert Reich’s anti-wonky wife-swap could be better utilized by highlighting some of the party’s AAA Birmingham stars and build them up a little bit.

  • eljefejeff

    fun conversation. I like Elizabeth Warren a lot. A LOT, a whole freakin lot! But let’s wait and see if she can even win an election first, let her gain a high profile before anointing her Obama’s successor.

    Hillary Clinton should and would win easily in 2016 no matter who she runs against. It’s hers if she wants it. Most of her supporters voted for Obama so I’m sure we’d all return the favor. She’d do a good job, maybe not a great job. I seriously doubt they switch the VP/Sec State but I wouldn’t see it as a demotion for Biden so much as a swan song. He would get to travel the world, meet with heads of state, and in 4 years, retire to a high paying consulting job. Not bad.

    If Obama makes Hillary VP, he’s basically cutting off the rest of the field for 2016. With 2 terms, she’d be done at the age of 76. That’s pushing it. Honestly she doesn’t look like she has the energy, even now at the age of 63/64.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Oscar-Jimison/100001431764474 Oscar Jimison

    This would be portrayed by the media as a desperation move. Reich is just another PUMA trying to inject Clinton into the 2012 election, seemingly against her will, since she hasn’t said or done anything to indicate that she’s interested in any of this.

  • MrDHalen

    I would love to see Hillary get the nod in 2016, but I think she’ll be done and enjoying life; grand kids probably by then.

    It’s too bad, because I think Hillary could have gotten us our first woman president, which would be awesome. I worry who else out there can make it happen right now. Elizabeth Warren is very promising, but also very liberal, and that’s fine for me, but will the nation’s electorate be ready?