Betting Against the House
12:08 AM
by Nick Stone of Drawnlines Politics
Ok, I'll come out and say it. Hillary is up to something, and I'm not sure what. When I read about it on a site called Gawker.com, the gravity really struck hard.
On one hand, she couldn't possibly be holding out for the 2012 election to challenge President Obama in the primaries. She used a lot of personal and political capital in the 2008 fight and was accused of dividing the party. The conventional wisdom is that he hired her into his cabinet to neutralize her, and to make her own the Obama brand. In truth, she's part of the administration now - pass or fail.
On the other hand, her recent moves seem screamingly clear that she wants to highlight the Clinton achievements wherever possible. On This Week, Clinton couldn't help but mention how close the world came to an Israel-Palestine agreement in 2000 under President Clinton. She also couldn't help but mention that she was reluctant to join the Obama team, but that he persistently courted her. On Greta VanSusteren's show, I just couldn't shake the feeling that something was up. She had her best botox on, and though she couldn't show much emotion physically, you could just tell that under those deadened smile lines was a devilish grin for whatever is up her sleeve. In other words, she's playing up her own importance in the same Clinton style that I both love and awe, but which had been somewhat absent since joining the administration.
Well, the days of Clinton self-promotion appear to be back. In subtle ways too, recently the Clinton machine has won some serious battles posthumously. Obama has backtracked on his opposition to an individual mandate to healthcare coverage, a major Clinton sticking point during the primaries. Clinton has recently declared that it is a lost cause to stop Iran from going nuclear, and conceded that the six party talks with North Korea are highly unlikely to even take place, let alone bare fruit. Obama has hedged his bets on closing Guantanamo and exiting Iraq, two issues where Clinton was careful not to use - as she put it - naive rhetoric, on the campaign trail. She has also been careful to send special envoys to do most of the heavy lifting on the Pakistan situation, distancing herself in case the situation worsens under Obamaplomacy.
Even in the same interview segment where she claims Obama passed the so-called "3 a.m. test", Clinton slyly takes Obama's Egypt speech out of context and claims a much more pro-Israel reassuring stance than the president actually took. Then she slides in a one-liner about the Palestinian's legitimacy of claim (which is exactly what the president honed in on, while he was harshly critical of Israel). That's where she just so happens to mention the near-peace deal under President Clinton. Is this supposed to be helpful to the current president?!
Folks, something is up. Does anyone else see major bet-hedging on the wall? Don't be surprised if Hillary ends up quitting the Obama administration and giving him a primary challenge in 2012. I'm thinking something on the order of Kennedy vs Carter in 1980. Then again, that fight ended up being just as embarrassing for Kennedy as it was for Carter.
We'll just have to see...
Ok, I'll come out and say it. Hillary is up to something, and I'm not sure what. When I read about it on a site called Gawker.com, the gravity really struck hard.
On one hand, she couldn't possibly be holding out for the 2012 election to challenge President Obama in the primaries. She used a lot of personal and political capital in the 2008 fight and was accused of dividing the party. The conventional wisdom is that he hired her into his cabinet to neutralize her, and to make her own the Obama brand. In truth, she's part of the administration now - pass or fail.
On the other hand, her recent moves seem screamingly clear that she wants to highlight the Clinton achievements wherever possible. On This Week, Clinton couldn't help but mention how close the world came to an Israel-Palestine agreement in 2000 under President Clinton. She also couldn't help but mention that she was reluctant to join the Obama team, but that he persistently courted her. On Greta VanSusteren's show, I just couldn't shake the feeling that something was up. She had her best botox on, and though she couldn't show much emotion physically, you could just tell that under those deadened smile lines was a devilish grin for whatever is up her sleeve. In other words, she's playing up her own importance in the same Clinton style that I both love and awe, but which had been somewhat absent since joining the administration.
Well, the days of Clinton self-promotion appear to be back. In subtle ways too, recently the Clinton machine has won some serious battles posthumously. Obama has backtracked on his opposition to an individual mandate to healthcare coverage, a major Clinton sticking point during the primaries. Clinton has recently declared that it is a lost cause to stop Iran from going nuclear, and conceded that the six party talks with North Korea are highly unlikely to even take place, let alone bare fruit. Obama has hedged his bets on closing Guantanamo and exiting Iraq, two issues where Clinton was careful not to use - as she put it - naive rhetoric, on the campaign trail. She has also been careful to send special envoys to do most of the heavy lifting on the Pakistan situation, distancing herself in case the situation worsens under Obamaplomacy.
Even in the same interview segment where she claims Obama passed the so-called "3 a.m. test", Clinton slyly takes Obama's Egypt speech out of context and claims a much more pro-Israel reassuring stance than the president actually took. Then she slides in a one-liner about the Palestinian's legitimacy of claim (which is exactly what the president honed in on, while he was harshly critical of Israel). That's where she just so happens to mention the near-peace deal under President Clinton. Is this supposed to be helpful to the current president?!
"We were very close [to a peace deal] in 2000," she said. "And it's heartbreaking to see where we are today. And we can't just stand by and expect time to work its magic. So that means, as the president said in his speech, and as he has said on several other occasions prior to it, that we have to do our very best to reassure Israel, to demonstrate our commitment to Israel's security, that the bonds we have are unshakeable and durable. But we do have a view about Israel's security. We see historical, demographic, political, technological trends that are very troubling as to Israel's future. At the same time, there is a legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people that needs to be addressed."
Folks, something is up. Does anyone else see major bet-hedging on the wall? Don't be surprised if Hillary ends up quitting the Obama administration and giving him a primary challenge in 2012. I'm thinking something on the order of Kennedy vs Carter in 1980. Then again, that fight ended up being just as embarrassing for Kennedy as it was for Carter.
We'll just have to see...
Posted by Nick Stone
on 12:08 AM.
Filed under
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0
Posts
No way is she going to challenge him in the primary. By all accounts, she's a great Secretary of State and she was doing nothing more than echoing the President's thoughts. Obama was exceptionally clear in his speech about Isreal, "America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable." He was pretty clear.
Definitely think it's possible that the President might drop Biden from the ticket and add her into the VP slot. But no way is she going to challenge him.
Oh Em Gee. I honestly don't know how I could campaign against her if she was on the ticket. That would be a major blow to my resolve, no joke.