Clinton 2012

Clinton's 2012 campaign slogan:

Experience Matters.

Three questions for Thursday night.

3 polls tonight about 2012. The choices appear very stark to me this far out. Please vote in all three. I am both curious and torn when I game the next general election out in my mind.

a poll for fun and a quote "o" the day.

Quote O the Day:

The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.

George Orwell

Web Bots for breakfast

If you are in a certain type of gloomy, doomy morning mood you will get off on what is linked here. (pdf), the "web bot" predictions for 2009. The web bot computer program predicts future events based on the use of language on the internet. The 2 men behind this say they have correctly predicted major events including 9/11, the '04 tsunami, and the 2008 financial meltdown. I have not found any proof otherwise, but I have not looked hard for any. They did predict a pandemic in 2009 - though they stated it would be in the Fall. The concept itself is fascinating. I believe in Jung's collective unconscious. Therefore I assume one could make reasonably accurate guesses of future human caused events based on what a goodly chunk of us have on our minds consistently. Predicting earthquakes and such...not so sure...but, again, why not? Intuition is powerful stuff - probably hardwired after millions of years of evolution.

And, as we all know, the world does not end until December 21, 2012, (around 3pm Pacific Standard Time - ruining the last episodes of both Oprah and Judge Judy.) So we still have some time for distractions such as the Web Bots.

The most intriguing predictions for 09? The "summer of hell", "global coastal events" in May - that would be tomorrow, the decline of the markets through Feb 09 - they were correct here, the destruction of the U.S. dollar. There are even worse tidings in the report. (I make few predictions myself, as my ego is too tender. I called the election for Obama in early October but that was not exactly psychic.)

The web bots are certainly more reality based than Nostradamus, and probably have a better record of correct prediction than nearly all mainstream economists.

Oh well, I don't like malls anyway.

So I think I'll start the weekend with some miserable predictions from Gerald Celente. Nice, eh? Listen to the string of horrors he has on tap for us. 25% unemployment, civil unrest, food riots. And Ghost Malls. A phrase I find vaguely enticing - entire malls floating around the ether...with obnoxious ghost teens, and ghost early morning jog/walkers - and, of course, ghost Hot Dog on a Stick girls....Plus, as a bonus, Celente calls for the total collapse to occur in 2012. Which, as we know, the Mayans already have dibs on. It dovetails nicely with many a History channel apocalypse special. In a few grimmer moments last year I referred to Chicago Slim as not only the next American President - but the last American President. I'm in a much better mood now...but hey...I accept that the internets are forever - so I am stuck with my doom...

Celente is purported to have called previous crisis correctly. I don't know. I do know that his predictions makes more sense than the massive printing of dollars...at least from out here.

Conversely, things seem a wee bit better now then they were even a few weeks ago. (I judge the economy based on the availability of parking on Larchmont, a little, pricey, ma and pa boutique street in LA good for a bagel and a flirt. If I can park easily things are bad. I had a little trouble Tuesday...)

Also, I keep seeing "Most economics predict that we will come out of recession in late 2009." Based on recent experience "most economists" should not be trusted.

Thinking about 2012.

Is it too early to speculate about what Clinton's plans might be for 2012? In a brutal (and occasionally incorrect) assessment of Obama's first few months in the U.K.'s Prospect called No, He Can't this is written:

Thus the big question in Democratic circles today: "What does Hillary do about this?" Her supporters still feel that the election was stolen from her. With capital on strike, states rebelling against the president's dependency agenda, the treasury secretary probably soon to be replaced, many top jobs still unfilled, the liberal press anxious and poll numbers plummeting, Hillary Clinton's departure could sink an administration that already feels like a listing ship, leaving her a clear path to the Democratic nomination for 2012.

Her relationship with the president, inherently unstable personally, erodes every day that he takes his swinging axe to the remarkable bipartisan achievements of the Clinton presidency, especially welfare reform and fiscal discipline. While the biggest shocks of this presidency to date have been at home, in the foreign sphere Hillary's job as secretary of state is made more difficult by a distracted and inexperienced president.

Please note that the treasury secretary is not about to be replaced. And while Obama's poll numbers have "plummeted" since inauguration day (Low eighties to high fifties or low sixties) they have been stable for weeks. Nevertheless, the statements about Obama's domestic attack on (Bill) Clintonism - moderation that produced a stable budget and a needed and popular reform of welfare - are worth pondering.

Hillary, wisely I still believe, took on the State Department. Her alternative was to stay in the Senate. Which would have left her either going along with the increasingly questionable Obama agenda or joining with Democratic dissenters and suffering more nonsense from the Obamamedia and blogs. She would have been a target every time she questioned even a minor Obama plan.

The assumption is that Obama smartly removed her from the domestic scene - shipping her to State. The opposite may be true. Clinton played Obama. Her performance so far as SOS, while imperfect, is certainly more skilled and smooth than Obama's as President. Again experience matters. (Not to mention a strong work ethic. Hillary may have some character defects - laziness is not one of them.) Clinton has taken command of 1/5 of the the executive branch, all of it to do with foreign concerns, at the moment when domestic troubles reign supreme - leaving the home front to the "learning on the job" President. My gut tells me Clinton knew State was the perfect fit for her - and she never much wanted the V.P. slot. She has no responsibility to sell Obama's domestic agenda. Her face is not on it.

The interesting thing about foreign affairs in this Admin. is that the victories will go to everyone. Obama can not outshine Clinton or dismiss her when things go well on the foreign front. The failures, however, will land in the oval office. Obama has put his face on the most controversial and dangerous initiatives. The video he sent to Iran was all Obama. He is sending more troops to Afghanistan. Not her.

Of course, if the Obama years prove to be disastrous on the foreign front, Clinton will be tainted.
But never discount this woman's tenacity. She did, no doubt, assume the nomination was her's until the week before Iowa. After that she became a warrior, recreating herself in the process. She became a political leader with a national constituency - no longer just a smart former First Lady - that "can't win."

Should Obama's overreach begin to give off an even stronger whiff of "incompetent" - Clinton will look increasingly attractive to Big Dems. She lost the AA vote - a natural Clinton group - however she strengthened the Clinton grip on the "Reagan", working class, white Democrats.

Also - it must be stated that the GOP contenders this far out do not appear strong. Palin is the best. Jinal is a nonstarter. The conservative delusions about him are fascinating. Newt is strong but has many downsides. Mark Sanford is a good bet. But does he want it?

Obama survived AIG - for now. What that eruption did do was galvanize a revulsion against excessive spending. The rip down the middle of the Obama Administration has been exposed. On the one hand are the liberals who want programs that cost - a lot. On the other are his Wall street handlers, exemplified by Goldman Sacks Golden Boy Tim G, who are working O.T. to save banks - not a group beloved by liberals of any stripe. Obama's response to this tension so far is to "legacy legislate" very early in his first term. His budget is larded with programs no one knew they were voting for. He got a mandate in November. It was not a mandate to move the country abruptly to the Left. He has fundamentally misread his own election. The ease with which Democrats in congress are stripping the budget of Obama's signature plans is telling. Last month we learned that Republicans had no fear of the "popular" President. In March we are learning his sway over his own party is weak.

It is way to early to call the Obama years anything - success or failure. In June of 2001 W had all the hallmarks of a one term President. Still, so far Obama looks more like Carter than FDR. Though he gave himself wiggle room Tuesday night - he has staked his Presidency on far reaching change. Change that more and more people do not want. Obots have already set up a group to attack the fledgling "blue dog" senate group lead by Evan Bayh. This is a sign of weakness, not strength.

In 1980 a huge percentage of Democrats revolted against their President who came in a few years earlier as a "bipartisan agent of change". A powerful, competent, fiscally moderate Democrat may see an opening in 2012.

What about Iraq?

Republicans have been surprisingly fierce in opposition to Obama thus far. Barring an unforeseen event that brings the country together, I can't imagine this will taper off much. The GOP can't stand being out of power - which they truly believe is their God given right.

Though I have taken some joy in Obama's screw ups, I certainly don't count the guy out yet. Still, his support among his "non base" is in no way personally connected to him. It is all about results. His fervent base (25-30%? maybe) will follow him anywhere. But the middle that is still giving him the benefit of the doubt will peal away if things don't turn around. And do so quickly. Despite all his P.R. he does not connect on a personal level, like Clinton or FDR. With out the noise of the media at his back he is testy and effete. Again, the kool aid drinkers don't feel this way. But they are hypnotized.

We'll see how things go after the stimulus bill passes.

I do wonder about the other constituency that all Presidents must nurture: the military. No Quarter featured a piece on Iraq yesterday. It reminded me of what I have been saying for over a year: Obama mislead by omission and commission on Iraq - deluding his followers into believing the war would be over quickly. This was, and remains, nonsense. Regardless, even with his shifting stances, the pods willy nilly proclaimed him the "peace" candidate. We'd be out of Iraq quickly if BHO won and the great wrong would be corrected - so the Pod tale went. Tom Ricks author of the compelling Fiasco and the new book The Gamble - thinks otherwise. He says we have 5-10 years left in Iraq and from this corner, I see no other logical - or sane - conclusion.

I still believe the fundamental reason for the invasion was oil - and its macro-implications. We needed a secure base (or bases) in the Middle East to ensure the steady flow of oil to the West. Saudi Arabia is not secure enough. Besides, if we didn't get Iraq's oil - then China just might have. Of course, other reasons for invading were plentiful - but remove oil and the investment required makes an invasion much less appealing. Of course, W and his crew botched the war for years. But the essential reason remains - and we may well come out of it okay in the very long run. "Okay" being relative. We may be bankrupt - check that - WE ARE BANKRUPT - but barring a quick departure - the oil in Iraq will travel west.

I don't think Obama has the cojones to get us out of Iraq quickly. Nor do I think he has the final say. (Yes - there are institutions more powerful in the U.S. than the White House.) General David Petraeus is, almost alone, the brain trust behind Iraq now. From the NQ post: For Petraeus, prevailing in Iraq means extending the war. Thomas E. Ricks concludes that the war is likely to last another five to ten years-and that that outcome is a best case scenario.

For the Code Pink crew who mindlessly drove gasoline powered vehicles to mindless "peace" rallies for Obama - and saw no disconnect - a cold,cold, shower awaits. It is probable that the Lightbringer will stand for re-election in 2012 with the U.S. still fully engaged in Iraq.

It certainly makes Obama's dash to the middle politically explainable. It may be all he has in 2012.

But by then the GOP will be at more than full speed.