It took me a long time to realize it because I like him and because he gives every appearance of being extremely intelligent, but I now know that Robert Reich just isn’t that smart. He is predicting that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden will switch places. He’s not merely advocating this.
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.
The last president to willingly switch vice-presidents was Franklin Roosevelt, who did it twice. But Joe Biden is no Henry Wallace, nor is he under indictment like Spiro Agnew. So, why does Reich think Obama will demote the vice-president?
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 think we need to define the word “needs” a little more precisely. Do any of you see any indicators that the president is about to lose his reelection bid? Have you seen any recent, reputable polls that show him losing to any of the clowns running for the Republican nomination? There appears to be no current ‘need’ for riling up the base. Maybe Reich believes such a need will arise. The future is uncertain, and it’s better to have a motivated base than a “disillusioned” one. Of course, Robert Reich doesn’t seem to know who constitutes the Democratic base. He seems to think its made up of Jane Hamsher, Matt Stoller, Arianna Huffington, Cornel West. and the people Reich dines with on weekends. Would those malcontents be excited by Hillary Clinton on the ticket? Do malcontents get excited?
Obama’s real base is made up of the people who helped him beat Hillary Clinton, presumably (at least, in part) because there was something about Clintonism and DLC politics that they didn’t like. It was made up of students, people of color, and progressives of all stripes who believed we could win a different way. Most of them are disillusioned about some elements of Obama’s presidency, and who can’t be disillusioned about the state of Congress? But they still support the president and still oppose everything coming from the other side. The real and lasting disillusionment would be if Obama set up Clinton to be his heir-apparent. That would mean that eight years of Obama couldn’t shift the party (or the country) to the left one iota.
That would demoralize Obama’s base. Of course, putting Clinton on the ticket would create excitement in other quarters of the Democratic Party, and it could wind up a wash. Changing tickets would be a sign of weakness and a bit of a panic move, but it might work out in the end. I’m not arguing that an Obama-Clinton ticket could not do better than an Obama-Biden one. I think it’s possible.
But, it won’t happen, it wouldn’t excite Obama’s base, it isn’t needed, and it’s far from certain that it wouldn’t backfire. So, on any level you might want to judge it, Robert Reich’s essay is the product of a startlingly dumb man.
Reich errs often enough but I think this is less about being dumb and more about political favors.
Like TV weathermen, there are no “reputable polls,” Booman. Not reputable enough, for sure. They are all skewed, even during less tumultuous political times. Now? Fuggedaboudit. As little as 3 months ago, how many polls gave Ron Paul a snowball’s chance in a pizza oven of winning the Iowa thing? They were all about Romney, Perry, Cain and Bachmann. All full of shit.
I’m not saying that Reich is correct, although a move like that wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the Dem establishment’s internal polling suggested that someone was actually threatening to beat Obama ’round about convention time. Could happen…
And this stuff about Obama’s “base?” Obama’s base is made of clay, and it could shift suddenly with almost no warning at all. He has betrayed almost every position he ran on over the last three years, all the while keeping up a good front about how we’re winding down our war footing and how it’s all the Republicans’ fault. Well, the National Defense Authorization Act and his refusal to truly and effectively oppose it should be enough for even the basest of the base to understand where he really stands, and a politician who runs against that and his continuing support of an economic imperialist mindset could make some really big waves that would work wonders on the feet of clay upon which he is presently standing.
Watch.
AG
Polls are a snapshot in time, not a crystal ball.
Yeah.
With all the resolution of a leaky Brownie from the ’50s. They are also a ‘snapshot” that is almost always skewed in a certain direction. Polls as propaganda. “Exactly who got polled” should be everyone’s first question, followed by “Who funds this pollster?” and “Who buys and publicizes this information?” No one ever went broke by underestimating the American public. It walks around in a media-created trance and has done so at least since the mid-’50s. The reliability of “polls” is just another false meme created by the constant repetition of references to their accuracy in the media. They are not “accurate” except insofar as their published results influence the minds of the sleeple. They are more like self-fulfilling prophecies, and I see hints of their efficacy as a mind-control weapon beginning to die.
“The polls” have been saying that Ron Paul was not an issue, that he had no base. They’ve been sayng that for months and months, and sleepy sheeple have been “Baa-baa-baaing” along with what they are told. But apprently there is a large…and to my mind, rapidly growing…portion of the American public that is just about through with believing media lies, and that is his base. Is it large enough now to get him elected? No, it isn’t. But when someone you know and like…not just someone on the internet but Joe Blow from down the street or a relative…starts talking about how he looked into what is happening with Ron Paul and found that Paul is not at all what the media have been saying that he is, people begin listening. And then they begin talking to others, and a geometric progression begins. You know what that is, right? If you had a penny and kept on doubling it ever minute, how long would it take you to have billions of dollars?
In 10 minutes you would have $10.23
In 20 minutes you would have $10485.75
in 30 minutes you would have $10,737,418.23
In 40 minutes you would have $10,995,116,277.75
That’s how this Paul thing is working right now. One tells, two tell four, four tell eight…UH oh!!! That snowball is beginning to grow!!!
A perfect example of what I consider to be “media” style, quite conscious and purposeful bias happened right here just a few days ago. Booman wrote a post called Casual Observation where he stated:
He linked the word “dirtbag” to this website-Statement from fmr. Ron Paul staffer on Newsletters, Anti-Semitism.
In it this former personal aide to Ron Paul in no way said that Ron Paul was some kind of “dirtbag.” Instead he said:
When called on it Booman said some truly ridiculous shit about how he wanted people to see what one dirtbag says about another, but I believe that he himself had simply swallowed one too many media “twistings and usings” regarding what this guy did and did not say about Ron Paul and posted something that was absolutely contrary to what he was claiming it said. But…no matter. A denial followed by more unfounded poison and the sheeple jes’ keep on ‘asleepin’.
In one of Booman’s earliest attempts at a rebuttal regarding my support for Ron Paul, a one sentence post (“Wake the Fuck Up.”), he linked to an obvious hit piece in the pro-Israel, AIPAC propaganda rag The New Republic that opened with a photoshopped picture of Ron Paul in Confederate drag. (Angry White Man-The bigoted past of Ron Paul.) His purpose was plain then and it is plain now. To denigrate Ron Paul any which way that he can no matter how much evidence to the contrary exists out there. This is a perfect picture of the propagation of a PermaGov talking point (the Democratic Party subdivision thereof) from the top of the media pundit heap right on down into the blogging depths, and that is now apparently part of Booman’s job description. Is he being paid for it somehow? Damned if I know. I hope not. But that is precisely what he is doing, and he is doing it in exactly the same way as do the big boys. Repeat repeat repeat repeat, no matter what anyone else has to say on the matter.
Everybody and his brother seems to have some kind of agenda, both in the media and on the web. So do I. Mine? To get the fucking truth out there and let people make up their own goddamned minds.
The hustle is on, peacearena. Obama and his handlers/supporters are damned good hustlers and so are the people behind the mainstream Republican establishment, but…don’t be fooled. They are all on the same take, all funded by the same corporate-owned Permanent Government that has been running the U.S. downhill for about 60 years.
Wake up, before it’s too late.
AG
you support ron paul?
man i have been gone a long time.
Where have you been?
Paul is the only anti-war, anti-surveillance state and anti-corporate-owned-and-operated Permanent Government candidate out there, on either side of the false Democrat/Republican Good Cop/Bad Cop make-believe political pillowfight.
Who else would I be for?
AG
Ron Paul’s vision of America is basically Somalia. Good luck with that.
Oh, wow!!!
Y’mean…he’s not a racist?
Thank God!!!
AG
P.S. Somalia? Bullshit. But a description of his real vision? It’s a vision of the coming together of America in an effort very similar to the post-Great Depression/WW II efforts, only not using “big government” as the way to do it. That approach is plainly not working well now. Coming together for a very difficult goal, the rejuvenation and reprospering of America.
Sometimes you have to take a different road to get to the same place. A road untraveled for a long time.
Roads not previously taken often make all the difference.
If of course you have the courage to try them.
Bet on it.
Yup.
I’m pretty sure it was taken…prior to 1860.
Not the road that now presents itself. Time changes everything. It is said that one cannot step into the same river twice. Why? Because the water keeps on flowing. So do human pathways. Bet on it.
AG
Don’t conflate intelligence with the desire to create a buzz and/or engage in wishful thinking. This is all about wanting to set Hillary up for 2016. Whether Reich is “correct” or not, there’s no down side to his putting out this prediction in terms of how people view her going forward. (Honestly, when was the last time a Villager in good standing paid any price at all, no matter how minor, for being spectacularly wrong about any prediction?)
Something about HRC inspires the people who really, really like her to assume that everyone else sees the same starbursts they do. But you’re right. Hillary was the heir apparent in the party in 2007, and a lot of people made a conscious decision to reject that choice. There’s a reason.
Do you think Hillary really wants to run for prez at the age of 68? I realize that’s not the oldest candidate to ever run and win, but it doesn’t happen often and it’s a hell of a stressor on younger candidates. Not to mention what the job does to prematurely age its holders once they win.
Do you think Hillary really wants to run for prez at the age of 68?
I think she would push red-hot needles into her eyes if it would allow her to become President at age 68.
I wonder. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything, but iirc she’s on the record repeatedly stating that she doesn’t want to run for elected office again.
Hillary was the heir apparent in the party in 2007, and a lot of people made a conscious decision to reject that choice. There’s a reason.
I was one of those people – really, I was more or less and “anybody but Hillary” voter – but I have to say, her performance as Secretary of State has really converted me into a fan. She is a remarkably capable administrator and leader.
I have not always been a fan of Biden for among other things his unreconstructed white guy-isms. That said, he is relatively without guile and like more than one person has commented, in his campaigns he might have made comments that were racially unsophisticated, to put it euphemistically, but that he never engaged in the kind of racialized politicking that we saw in Clinton’s 2008 campaign. He appears to be very honest and very willing to open his mouth, if sometimes at awkward moments.
Biden strikes me as someone on the left as a person I can work with. I can talk with him and have some sense that he is being straight with me. I can vote for that because I know what I’m voting for. Clinton, particularly with that 2008 campaign, could get me to withhold my vote in 2012. In CA, admittedly, that’s not a bold move, but it would be a pointed one.
I’m not saying Clinton would do it (or Biden for that matter) but I agree the Dems would consider it if polling was close or negative in the spring.
Also consider: your definition of “Clintonism” is wildly outdated. First off, Hillary is her own person, not her husband. And remember she ran to the left of Barack Obama on domestic policy in 2008 and that his foreign policy in the first term is pretty much in lockstep with her views – accident, she’s his SecState and co-architect. Call the whole thing “Obamaism” – it’s far more accurate.
This whole “DLC” and Reich as Wanker of the Day theme seems very 2008 to me. Things have changed quite a bit, including how Obama’s original base – since widened greatly – views Clinton, and vice versa. Sure there are tiny pockets of miserable, resentful holdouts on both sides of that ancient, moldy 2008 divide. But let’s not hang out in those caves!
Obama never set out to push the country very far to the left – that much is pretty clear by now.
Great, so we don’t have enough to contend with in ’12 to build our numbers in Congress and keep Obama in the WH?
What does one do with a highly succesful and certainly high favorabed Sec of State who has publicly stated she’s ready to move aside from the job? Reich will forever be in love with her and Bill and can’t think of a better place for her to occupy in her pre presidential bid in 2016 than a seat next to Obama.
Sometimes love is blind. And sometimes it is 2020.
.
Booman, how can you be a supporter of Obama and a fan of Robert Reich at the same time? Reich is for a balance of wealth, taxation of the rich, reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act and for bail-out of homeowners, not banks.
Same puzzle in the person of Reich, where is the policy advantage of Hillary Clinton running legislation through Congress and Joe Biden running matters of State and Foreign Affairs, e.g. Israel, Netanyahu and the Arab Revolt.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."That’s a ridiculous question. Is Reich running for president? Its not like he’s a liberal that supports Ron Paula and rejects Obama.
I don’t know if this qualifies Reich as a wanker, or that replacing Biden with Hillary is any kind of movement that will solve problems for working class Americans.
At best it would be a continuation of the DLC control of the Democratic Party, at worst it would be the placement of a malleable VP in place in anticipation of the removal of a sitting President.
Obama could possibly lose to Romney in a head to head race. So who the third party (& maybe fourth party) candidates are and whom they take more votes from may make a big difference this year.
I always laugh at the Great White Hope-ism from white liberals.
Do any of you see any indicators that the president is about to lose his reelection bid?
As it happens, yes. Rosenfeld/AlterNet: GOP Voter Suppression Plan is a good place to start.
Reich ‘startlingly dumb’? No, but he does tend towards the ‘see if it sticks’ method of getting people to stretch out of their comfort zones.
That is the most stupid thing I have heard Reich say. He should stick to policy analysis and advocacy and leave the political handicapping and advocacy to someone else. So now the world will be abuzz with “Hillary wants to be VP as a stepping-stone to 2016”.
And it ignores the fact that one of the reasons that Biden was chosen as vice president was his understanding of foreign affairs. Do not think that Barack Obama hasn’t been listening to Biden as much or more as to Clinton.
Hillary will either continue as Secretary of State (although she has announced that she is done), become a lobbyist, return to being an attorney, or retire. VP ain’t gonna happen, and contrary to PUMA hopes bumping Barack Obama from the presidential candidacy isn’t going to happen either.
Joe Biden based upon his advocacy for MBNA/Bank One/Chase and the bankruptcy “reform” bill. Just google the eToys saga for some interesting stuff about Joe and the various US attorneys in delaware and the corrupt stuff happening in wilmington.
Hillary and the DLC is just as bad.
No good choices here. Both are shills for the 1% and use foreign policy to mask it.
The choice is Joe Biden. What exactly has he done policy wise as VP to offend you?
“Do malcontents get excited?” Not really, unless they are getting paid to pretend for a few moments.
wow, someone got under your skin today.
You wrote,
“The real and lasting disillusionment would be if Obama set up Clinton to be his heir-apparent.
“That would mean that eight years of Obama couldn’t shift the party (or the country) to the left one iota.”
But that’s pretty much in the bag, anyway, isn’t it?
If we have 8 years of Obama we will have 8 years of the Democrats and the country drifing to the right, not the left.
It would have been about the same, as far as that goes, if Hillary had been in the White House, though her die-hard partisans still insist she would have been FDR at home and Kucinich abroad.
As for Reich, he is a globalist and as much a neoliberal as any Democrat.
His doesn’t mind that free trade means American jobs and capital go overseas to the alleged benefit of foreign workers and the certain benefit of the global capialists.
A fair trader, he only wants to take care to soften the blow to those foreign workers and economies that get our jobs, our factories, and our investment capital.
How DLC can you get, at heart, anyway?
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."As for Reich, he is a globalist and as much a neoliberal as any Democrat.
At one time, Krugman was as well. I think both have changed their views since Bill Clinton was President.
No, Krugman stands by free trade, just like most economists (including Stiglitz and Dean Baker).
Sure, but I believe they now acknowledge that “free trade” isn’t all it was once cracked up to be and that we need a better, and stronger welfare state(or similar) to mitigate the effects.
Well, they’re like me: support free trade, usually uncaring/opposing free trade agreements.
Even if the premise is supposed to be that Obama needs a way to reanimate his disillusioned base — highly debatable in the first place — it does not follow that a great way to do that would involve Hillary Clinton. At all. Reich is being both too clever and not clever enough. It would make a lot more sense, just in accordance with his premise, to say that Obama should pick, say, Russ Feingold or Raul Grijalva. Of course those won’t happen either.
“Wanker of the Day”… what a weak load.
This is totally typical of many “progressives”, here and elsewhere in fantasy Bloggo world.
I noted Reich, Joe Stiglitz, etc., were vigorously heralded by progressives as financial geniuses when they criticized President Bush’s financial policies and his absurd two wars of choice. But when Obama’s policies, the obviously too small first stimulus package, etc., failed to make a real dent in the Great Recession, bringing criticism from Reich, Stiglitz and other economists– progressives labeled the critics “nuts”, “crazy” and now Reich is a wanker.
Everyone has of course conveniently forgotten just how far off the political prognostications of “progressives” can be. Back in 1999-2000, prior to the invention of “blogging”, I was a regular participant in the public Forum at Salon.
99 percent of the people there were predicting a landslide victory for Al Gore; they were all guffawing and chortling loudly over “that hick, nobody governor from redneck Texas”, he had “zero chance” of being elected, etc. I and a handful of other people predicted Gore’s loss– and suffered numerous flames of indignation by those that allegedly knew better.
We know what happened with that particular election. Booman and other “experts” should not assume the democratic party, the DNC, etc., have forgotten that massive screw up. In addition, I doubt they have forgotten repuglican governors were just elected in at least two “blue” states; WI and MI– but then, the people running the democratic party aren’t all that bright. If they were, they wouldn’t have screwed up in 2000, and they wouldn’t have lost Ted Kennedy’s senate seat.
You bet things are different now– we have millions of people UNemployed, underemployed. In the real world, many end up voting their pocketbooks and incumbents in bad economic times don’t do as well as in better times.
Why did Bush I lose to Bill Clinton? Partly because we were in a recession- one not near as serious as what we’re in the middle of now.
Let’s get real about what motivates the voters; it’s not political ideology or lame partisanship which occurs constantly in Bloggo world.
The stimulus debate? Al Gore’s campaign?
This was a post about Reich’s comments yesterday, and your response is to talk about grudges you’ve been nursing for years.
A Load followed by a Load…
“grudges nursed for years”..
No, it’s called precedent and history. If you’re implying you don’t give a crap about either, you’re in “good” company, particularly here in fantasy Bloggo world.
As for me, I’ll take with a rather large grain of salt any predictions regarding Obama having a lock on the next election.
Reich’s post is hot stove league stuff. Nothing much is happening right now, so he entertains himself with speculation of what might happen if so-and-so did this or that. Then the “season” will start and none of it will happen, because reality is more boring than speculation. I expect Obama will win re-election in the least dramatic way he can manage, and that’s fine with me.
Wanker might be a little strong.
Wanting to get a little air time? Sure.
Slow news week and not a lot of quotes to fill the news cycle? Sure.
Unapologetic loyalty to the Clintons? Sure.
It has always been clear that Obama hasn’t had a lot of trust for the Clintons — even while keeping them close.
But…
What happens in 2016? Obama has to be thinking about that. I doubt he thinks Biden could or should replace him. I even think Biden might think that’s a bad idea.
Would Hilary have a better chance at beating back the Republicans in 2016 than… who?
Who on the Democrats horizon is likely to be able to capably carry the torch?
In that sense, and that sense alone, might it make sense.
In my case too, as a very much fatigued by the Clinton mafia as I was/am, I have to say that Hilary has been a very good SoS and has redeemed herself a lot in my eyes.
Sorry, she doesn’t have national appeal.
The only way Gillibrand will be viable in ’16 is if Mittens is elected next November. Remember, sitting Senators aren’t elected President very often. For ’16, I say O’Malley of Maryland or Schweitzer of Montana. Unless Feingold makes a comeback by then. Because the Democratic bench is very weak.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Isn’t it interesting that the first three names we can come up with are all women?
So you want to move the party to the right? Great!!
First and foremost, I want to stop the Republicans from controlling the White House, since that tends not to work out so well when they do.
But I find it highly unlikely that Pelosi’s close ally in the leadership would move the party to the right.
Do you pay attention to anything she’s done as head of the DCCC and DNC?
You mean the jobs where she spends most of her time trying to beat Republicans in Republican-friendly districts?
Yes, I pay a great deal of attention to what she does to beat Republicans in political races. Once again, that’s actually my first-and-foremost thing.
i think this is less prediction and more leak.
but not the hillary in 2016. america doesnt like its women old. 69 years old plus 8? america likes older men with gravitas but older women are fucking invisible in our society.
happy holly days to the boo crew!
You mean like Nancy Pelosi?
It’s not HRC’s age.
Her last remark during the Russian protest was awful and embarrassing for the US.
Biden worked on the SOFA with Iraq and it went smoothly. He has done very well with Obama.