Pumas - evolution or disolution?

The downside of the PUMA's becoming a one trick pony (what appears to be a mixed metaphor isn't. PUMA is an acronym not a metaphor) is potential ongoing irrelevance - the precursor being "in fighting". That is to say the anger of the Obama machine's sexism last year has yet to evolve into anything much except the recurring joy of being able to say "told ya so" every 3 to 4 days...a treat I indulge and will continue to enjoy for the duration. Opposing Obama, while a easy, fun and usually correct - and a growth sector- is hardly enough.

PUMA blogs are perfectly placed to either:

A. Forcefully commit to banking reform - where both the libertarian Right and the progressive Left actually have quite a bit in common.

B. Respond forcefully to the Obama Pod/Move On ninny's attack on the Bayh "blue dog" Senators by coordinating a campaign of visible support for budget sanity.

Why haven't they? Have I missed it?

Either a 3rd way will come from "PUMA" types or it will come from the far Right. (maybe far Left, but very doubtful. The Left has been subsumed by Obama...) PUMAs could be in the lead. As I said above: I see two places PUMAs have an opening.

Someone must organize.

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.