Poll: if Palin runs in 2012, will that entice Hillary to run again?
Sarah Palin is a gifted politician. She may be crazy and wrong about a lot of stuff, but she’s still a charismatic leader. Read, for example, this thoughtful comment by Ciccina — who, I assure you from secret personal knowledge, is as much a radical feminist as myself. As Ciccina says, “she’s their Hillary.”
Sarah Palin is running for president. Whether she’ll still be running for president in 2012 is anybody’s guess, but I’m betting she will. And there’s a very good chance she will become the Republican nominee.
That will make her the first woman candidate for president on a major party ticket. Bite that.
So I’m wondering: what will Hillary do? I’m wondering it so much that I decided to make a little poll here and ask you all what you think.
Loading ...
59 Responses to “Poll: if Palin runs in 2012, will that entice Hillary to run again?”
-
Lori says:
Hillary has reserved the domain names. She’s definitely not opposed to running again. People I’ve talked to who know her agree that she’s not opposed to running again.
it all comes down to Obama. She won’t primary him. IF he doesn’t run, she will.
But right now, I’m thinking President Palin is becoming a possibility. She’s smarter than Obama and Bush. And she’ll have a natural constituency. Other than Clinton, I don’t think there is another Dem who can beat her.
But be very clear, the Republican men aren’t going to be any happier about her winning the nomination that Democratic men were Clinton. If Obama is the Dem nominee, her toughest battle is the primary.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:51 am EST -
Sameol says:
I’m going with Obama will run again and she won’t buck the party.
If the party elders had any sense, they’d try to force him out, but I am not sure that they do. Or that they could.
Palin will lose, too, with the help of proud Brown boosters who will feel “gravely insulted” to have to endure the first female major party nominee.
-
Annetoo says:
As Ciccina says, “she’s their Hillary.”
and we saw what happened to Hillary. The GOP will allow Palin to make the way smooth and then shove her out of the way.imo
-
myiq2xu says:
Palin is not running for President right now. She is running for the GOP nomination, and she is following Nixon’s advice and running to the right towards her base. The harder she is attacked by the media and the left, the more popular she becomes with her base.
Most people outside the political blogosphere are not paying close attention to what she says in her speeches and interviews or to who she endorses. By the time most people are paying attention she will either be the nominee or will be out of the race.
If she is the nominee she will not sound like a crazy radical and she will have lots more practice at doing interviews and debates.
Pat Brown didn’t take Ronald Reagan seriously. Jimmy Carter thought Reagan was too radical to win. They both lost. Al Gore was much smarter than George Bush and John Kerry was a bona fide war hero while Bush was AWOL in the Texas ANG.
If the left wants to defeat Palin they need to take her seriously and treat her seriously. (They should have ignored her but it’s way too late for that.)
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Odds are that Obama will run and Hillary won’t. If the Democratic Party thought Palin was a real threat, they could always arrange for Biden to retire, for Hillary to be named V.P., and after some respectable interval make up an excuse for Obama to step down too. Then she’d be a sitting President, with perhaps a year under her belt, running for re-election against Palin or whomever. That’s my fantasy, anyway, and what I choose to believe she means when she says she won’t run. Of course it would depend on the Dem Party being able to 1) admit, even privately, that they blew it, and 2) have the guts and unity to pull off such an “audacious” arrangement. Granted, that’s unlikely.
*****A
-
Lori says:
What with Bush having ultimately been unpopular within his own party, and Obama endorsing and continuing some of Bush’s worst policies, there is a chance that Palin could run to Obama’s left and still be rightwing enough to own her base.
Wouldn’t that be a conundrum if she wound up the more liberal of the two candidates?
-
Violet Socks says:
there is a chance that Palin could run to Obama’s left and still be rightwing enough to own her base.
How? Are you thinking of a specific policy area?
-
Sameol says:
I know the Internet isn’t the cosmos, but she might have a hard time picking up votes running to his left. It wouldn’t attract the cultural liberal warriors like Amanda Marcotte and Chris Bowers. It wouldn’t attract the Clinton supporters turned insulted Palin bashers. It wouldn’t attract the ones who took their anger at Obama out on Coakley and will be back in his corner after getting rid of Gillibrand, too. If anything, they’ll all be more apoplectic than ever.
-
m Andrea says:
Has there ever been an eligable first term president who didn’t run again? Or has there ever been a first term president who ran and didn’t get re-elected? If so, anybody know some particulars?
No offense but it seems sort of pipe-dreamy to even fantasize that Obama won’t run again or that his own party thinks he’s such a wash that they try to force him out behind the scenes.
-
Violet Socks says:
Has there ever been an eligable first term president who didn’t run again?
I’m assuming you mean real one/first-termers, not people like LBJ who had one full term of their own on top of a partial filling in for somebody else.
I think Polk, Buchanan, and Hayes were one-termers who did not seek reelection.
Or has there ever been a first term president who ran and didn’t get re-elected?
Of course. Lots. Just recently Bush I and Carter.
-
SweetSue says:
Has there ever been an eligable first term president who didn’t run again
Lyndon Johnson.
Or has there ever been a first term president who ran and didn’t get re-elected? If so, anybody know some particulars?
Off the top of my head, Jimmy Carter, GHW Bush, Herbert Hoover. Did I understand your question correctly? -
Violet Socks says:
Also, I think there were several who wanted a second term but were denied the nomination by their party (as opposed to the three I mentioned, who I think did not seek re-election). I think Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, and Millard Fillmore all wanted to run again but the party denied them the nomination.
-
votermom says:
If Obama runs in 2012, I think I would vote for Palin even if her policies were to the right of Attila the Hun. It’s a clear-cut choice for me — someone who used misogyny to steal the 2008 primary vs someone who is a target of misogyny.
If Hillary runs in 2012, I’ll vote for her. Period.
I don’t think I’m the only ex-Dem who think sthat way. So the Dems ought to take that into consideration and get on their knees and beg Hillary to run. She’s the only Dem I can consider voting for. All the rest of them had their chance and blew it. -
gxm17 says:
As I’ve mentioned before, I doubt Hillary will run again. She knows that her own party sabotaged her. The Dems simply don’t want her on a national ticket. She already won a primary once, why should she think that winning it twice will do any good? Of course, I’d love to be wrong. I don’t think there’s anyone, male or female, that compares to her. America could have had a exceptionally brilliant and gifted leader (just what we need in these difficult times) but the misogynists ruined it for everyone.
-
Lori says:
gxm - As I said, Hillary has reserved the domain names for 12 and 16. She’s clearly interested or she wouldn’t have done that. That’s not a guarantee she will run but it’s proof she’s not opposed to the idea.
Violet - First and foremost, the bank bail outs. The right hates those and Bush got Obama to own them. Palin could run on a platform of cleaning that stuff up and the right would love it and it would put her to Obama’s left. Remember, Reagan’s admin put the Resolution Trust together to deal with the S&L insolvencies. It wasn’t perfect, but it’s further left than Obama.
And to be clear, I’m not suggesting lefties would support her. But Obama is so far to the right on so many policies that we could have some real interesting muddling of the lines if Palin’s the candidate. She’s the first Republican I’ve seen since Reagan’s ascendance that has the ability to move the party more to the center, should she choose to. Which is one of the reasons that I wish the left would handle her more respectfully. But they aren’t going to. They’re having too much fun calling her a slut to take her seriously.
-
sherry says:
I don’t think there’s any way the GOP will allow Palin to be on their ticket again. Palin may find a way to run as Pres on an independent ticket. This will ensure a weak Obama will get a second term.
-
willyjsimmons says:
Eh…not too sure about the domain name evidence.
You reserve the names early, otherwise they won’t be available when you want them. Cheaper to just sit on the domains.
hillary2012 was reserved in 2002.
hillary2016 was reserved in 2004. (by a guy named Ian from Pensacola)hillaryclinton.com was reserved in 2001. (the actual campaign site)
-
Joanelle says:
Sameol said:It wouldn’t attract the Clinton supporters turned insulted Palin bashers.
That’s a huge assumption. Many Clinton supporters found Palin refreshing - and were not “insulted” at all. Where did that come from. And Chris Bowers??? Puleeeze
-
Swannie says:
The feeling I have … is that BO won’t run in 2012 … I don’t think he wants it ..just a feeling …
and that would certainly leave it open for Hillary , and wouldn’t a race of two women candidates be amazing?? -
Joanelle says:
Considering that he’s never really stayed in any one job for very long, he’s about due for a change of venue this summer.
I’m sure he’s bored at this point and just wants out. After all, he got the office, the big house, the plane, the helicopter, the Pulitzer and the dog - what else could he want but more golf?
-
Peg says:
Before 1974 had any President resigned?
Before 2000 had the Supreme Court ever decided a presidential election?
Before 2001 had terrorists ever flown planes into iconic American buildings?I don’t think the answer lies in historical precedent.
Let’s revisit the DNC attitude toward Obama after the November elections.
-
OldCoastie says:
if Palin does not mortally wound herself running for the nomination, Hillary will be the only possible nominee to oppose her - she’s the only one who can beat her… (but I don’t know that she will run)
I’m thinking Obama will step down for health reasons.
-
Sandra S. says:
I’d love for Obama to step down, but it won’t be His health reasons. Either the wife or kids will have something come up, if that’s how they play it. The ideal thing from a PR perspective would be for Michelle to get knocked up again (is that another historical first? Baby conceived in the Executive Residence?), and for Obama to step down to universal cooing and applause for being SUCH a good husband and father.
-
gxm17 says:
I’d love to see a Palin/Clinton match up but that’s just not going to happen. Obama will run again because his ego is too big for him to step aside. And he’ll be beaten by Jeb Bush.
-
lalala says:
Palin as POTUS wouldn’t be much different from Bush or Obama. Yes, that would mean another 4-8 years of disaster for the US but another 4 years of Obama would also be disastrous so it comes down, once again, to personality and personal preference. I know Clinton will not under any circumstances run against Obama and the establishment. She will be labeled a traitor and a racist for ousting the first black president. Hillary’s best shot at winning the presidency is for Obama to lose in ‘12, watch the Republicans further run the country into the ground, then announce her candidacy in ‘16 to save the nation. I really hope she’s up for it again.
-
monchichipox says:
For those of you who thinks the establishment in the Republican party won’t let Sarah be on the ticket need to pay attention to who she visits on the side when she’s traveling and doing speeches. Quietly, without announcing anything, and without an press present she is visiting and wooing the big wigs. Including the big money guys. Apparently they’ve already got a crush on her.
“Before she headed to Opryland to address a crowd of 1,100 ticketholders and some 200 national and international journalists, the former vice presidential candidate made a quiet detour to the Nashville home of B.C. “Scooter” Clippard, to meet some of the Tennesseans she’d want by her side if she does make a run for the White House in 2012.”
The men not wanting her on the ticket? She polls higher with Republican men than women. She’s a beautiful woman who knows how to fire nearly every gun under the sun and can strip a moose. That sews up 90% of the male vote. Men have a thing for women who can shoot. I can’t explain it either.
So how many on the left will vote for a woman just because she is a woman? You know as a Palin supporter that question doesn’t apply to me in this instance but I’m still curious. If she gets the nomination and only 5% of the women who would normally vote Democrat vote for her just because she’s a woman the electoral map is immediately thrown into chaos. The woman running on a national level is a big deal. My 71 year old mother who never voted in her life registered to vote for Hillary in the primaries.
-
gxm17 says:
I would vote for Palin over Obama in a heartbeat, whereas if Obama runs against a male Republican I’ll vote third party (Green).
-
willyjsimmons says:
Oh, to the question at hand.
I picked F.
Personally, I think Hillary would be nuts to get involved with this crap at all.
If I were her, I’d take my marbles and go the fck home. Get a script for some medical herbage and enjoy life. Maybe get a column opposite Maureen Dowd, just to annoy her.
Oh, I just had a thought!
I’d buy out the Times, then fire her azz. THEN sell it again with a “No Maureen” clause.
-
Unree says:
Obama, as we know, has a short attention span and gets bored easily. The job he held longest was the Senate, gig, right–four years? (The state senate 1997-2004 was part-time.) From his point of view, he has one thing left to accomplish before he dies: make a boatload of money. Hanging with Wall Street bankers must have increased his desire for cash.
Michelle Obama had rotten things to say about Hillary Clinton but one positive thing she said was that if HRC had been elected president, that too would have been a historic victory. (She attributed the remark to Malia I think.) So, I can imagine the Obamas deciding that loyalty and team-playing by the Secretary of State should be rewarded, only because the reward (i.e. they’re free to scoop up the bucks) is something they want anyway.
-
Branjor says:
I would vote for palin over Obama.
-
Seth Warren says:
I have to say that Hillary won’t run again. Obama is too much of an egomaniac to step aside for people who are actually qualified for the job. Furthermore, as far as he’s concerned, he’s already beaten Palin once and he’ll assume that it’ll be a snap to do it again. Just examine the rhetoric of the general election in 2008: Obama was not running against McCain.
-
Sandra S. says:
Whether or not Hillary runs is (as everyone else seems to be saying) up to Obama. Whether or not Obama runs again is up to the puppeteers. Whether or not they decide to back Obama again is anyone’s guess. If he looks like a bad investment they’ll probably look into buying Palin. If she can’t be bought, they’ll have her Hillaried.
-
lambert strether says:
I would vote for any third party candidate over either Palin or Obama.
-
octogalore says:
I went with (D), she won’t buck the party.
In the first para, does “crazy” modify “about a lot of stuff” or is it freestanding? I feel a bit uncomfortable with the latter. I think she’s wrong about some stuff too, but crazy? No more than anyone else who’s wrong about that same stuff.
I get concerned that there is more of a tendency to call “woman I disagree with ” crazy than similarly situated man. I disagree with Obama on a lot but I don’t think he’s crazy. Misguided and opportunistic, yes.
-
Ciccina says:
I can’t imagine Obama not running again.
He is arrogance personified. Even if his first term tanks, he won’t blame himself or stop believing he’s the One. He’ll just chalk up his policy defeats to the jackals in the press and Congress, and his electoral defeats to the bitter, ignorant voters. I think he’d sooner see the Congressional leadership “step down” (so to speak) than own up to failure.
My prediction for him is this: he can’t handle losing. The more the Democrats lose (in Congress and at the ballot box) the more he’ll gravitate to the ‘winners’ - the GOP.
Mark my words: unless the Dems enjoy a major reversal of fortunes, President Obama will slowly morph into President Lieberman.
I don’t think Hillary would oppose him in a primary. Its not like her.
-
Sameol says:
“That’s a huge assumption. Many Clinton supporters found Palin refreshing - and were not “insulted” at all. Where did that come from”
Huh? As far as I know, exit polling data indicates that the vast majority of Clinton supporters probably voted for Obama, and an awful lot of them were vocal about their distaste for Palin. In fact, an awful lot of them claimed they were flirting with the Greens until Palin pushed them into the Obama camp. Where it came from is all over the Internet. Try Robin Morgan and go on through the list of the outraged and the insulted.
-
lorac says:
Lori says:
gxm - As I said, Hillary has reserved the domain names for 12 and 16. She’s clearly interested or she wouldn’t have done that. That’s not a guarantee she will run but it’s proof she’s not opposed to the idea.
I really hope you’re right. But an alternative explanation might be that she didn’t want anyone else buying them and tricking people with a spoof site, or even a hate-Hillary site under her own name….
-
lorac says:
I think whether Obama runs again really depends on his polling at the time, and how strong the republican contender is expected to be. I strongly agree he is a narcissist, but he knows he’s been “helped” (with cheating) in every race (have there been 3?) that he “won”. If he is is polling really poorly, cheating won’t work.
Plus, although he is trying by procrastinating or diverting decisions to Congress, he can’t “vote present” like he used to - so he is more “well known” now. If there isn’t much chance he will win, I don’t agree his ego will force him to run, I think instead his ego will lead him to find some excuse and NOT run again.
Here’s hoping.
-
Mec says:
(A view from a tea partier)
HCR was 2009 and it’s over. Obama won’t go back there, it’s voter poison for him and for many Democrats in Congress.
After Obama leaves HCR, he will turn to the economy — particularly unemployment. He will wake up and notice what most people have already noticed: a lot of people are out of work and going broke.
Now look at the election of 1936. Roosevelt’s policies didn’t end the depression, unemployment was huge, but voters believed Roosevelt was helping out-of-work people, not destroying a free economy. He won re-election in a landslide and the Democrats picked up huge majorities in Congress.
Also look at 1980 election, where inflation was high, unemployment was high, and Reagan convinced voters that government was part of the problem, not part of the solution. “Are you better off today then you were four years ago?”
And in the 1992 election, someone hung up a famous sign: “It’s the economy, stupid.” Clinton tagged Bush with this line: “if you won’t use the power of the government to help the American people, get out of the way. We will.”
If the economy recovers by 2012, Obama will claim credit. If the economy continues to suck, or gets even worse, Obama will run on whatever new “New Deal” programs he creates between now and then, versus a tea-party-driven Republican running on “you’re the problem, not the solution”.
I think Obama’s planning to run like that. Which doesn’t leave much room for an insurgent Clinton to run a primary campaign against him.
But, a wild card: Clinton could pull out a budget from 1998, say “this is what a Clinton budget looks like: no deficit spending”, and appeal across party lines.
-
caseyOR says:
In answer to the question asking whether a baby had ever been conceived by a sitting president and first lady, the answer is “yes.” The most recent pregnant first lady was Jackie Kennedy. Patrick Bouvier Kennedy was born in August 1963. Sadly, he died just a few days later.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
The ideal thing from a PR perspective would be for Michelle to get knocked up again
Nice! Because that’s what bitchezzz do … we get ourselves pregnant! We get “knocked up,” with all its undertones of violence and passivity.
Wow, we’ve come a long way, baby!
-
Violet Socks says:
In the first para, does “crazy” modify “about a lot of stuff” or is it freestanding?
It modifies “about a lot of stuff.”
“Crazy” tends to be my word of choice when I’m talking about the politics of conservative Christians, particularly the pro-lifers. Actually I think I am far more likely to use that word of men. I tend to assume (perhaps mistakenly) that even the craziest godbag women are somehow more rational and reachable than men, at least on the abortion stuff.
-
gxm17 says:
Violet said:
I tend to assume (perhaps mistakenly) that even the craziest godbag women are somehow more rational and reachable than men, at least on the abortion stuff.
I tend to do that too. And I figure if I could vote for pro-lifer Tim Kaine just because he had a “D” by his name, then I can vote for pro-lifer Sarah Palin.
I now see that for Democratic men abortion isn’t a right; it’s a just another patriarchal tool that they use to keep women in line. It is infuriating that women are still in a such a disadvantaged position that so a basic right can be used as political extortion. To hell with them all. My oppressors will not get my vote. The Roe stick isn’t going to work on me anymore.
-
Sandra S. says:
Tinfoil Hattie,
You’re right about the terminology, it was chosen to express a kind of elevation of the PR ideal while demonstrating a cavalier attitude toward the actual personal circumstances, which I think has characterized the whole Obama era.
But I stand by my statement that it’s the kind of thing that would be a PR win for Obama. He’s used misogynist tropes to elevate himself before, why would he stop now?
In short, I was trying to be cynical, not sexist.
-
BDBlue says:
Here is the most “realistic” chance that I see of Hillary running in 2012 and I don’t consider it all that realistic (although it gets more realistic with every day Obama sells out to Wall Street). Basically, it’s a semi-repeat of 1968. Things go to shit for Obama (a real possibility given his pro-Wall Street, pro-war policies) and the party is in danger of losing control over the nominating process because there’s a credible candidate running an anti-corporate, left-populist campaign (please god, let there be a credible left challenge to Obama in 2012). The party turns to Clinton, who is the only big name with a base among the working class to defeat the populist. Just as the party turned to Humphrey in 1968 to stop McCarthy.
Now, in that scenario, I’ll probably be pulling for the lefy populist over the center-left Clinton, but the only way I see her running is basically because Obama is damaged goods.
Having said all of that, I think Obama will run again in 2012 and the party will back him even if that means going down in flames. Obama and the Democratic leadership are essentially in it for better or worse from what I can tell. Although I guess with the bloodbath that we’re likely to see in 2010, that could stress the relationship.
If the GOP takes over the House and gets subpoena authority, Obama is dead meat in 2012, IMO. First, they have a real scandal - AIG. Second, they won’t need a real scandal, they’ll travelgate him to death and he has no idea how to handle that. He would never have gotten through Rezko without the media. If they turn on him, he’s electoral toast.
-
Tomecat says:
I think that both Obama and Palin will run in 2012–and I can’t bring myself to vote for either of them. I don’t agree with Palin’s ideology, or Obama’s (outside of his speeches tailored to speak to me; which I don’t believe he will ever actually act on).
As a liberal, I have been betrayed by the Democrats so many times that I can only describe the feeling as fatigued.
Next election, I am voting strictly 3rd party candidates that at least claim to address my concerns, and will write in a candidate, or abstain from voting for any position that only has either an R or a D next to their name. -
sharonevolving says:
Palin is the next Reagan. She’s a true populist, imo, and the fact she’s being ignored / derided / slammed is only helping her. It’s really interesting, actually. She’s already proven she will take down Republicans who don’t tow the line, and that’s pretty ballsy, imo. I’d rather see Clinton than Palin as prez, but I am one of the Clinton voters that left the party, and the left, to follow a candidate. I would go for Palin over Obama any day, and here’s why. The Dems have sold out their own, and I mean women here. The Repubs have never connected with us as a force, and they might not now. But having a kick-butt woman as your front person couldn’t hurt at all, especially not one with equal star wattage to The One. She’s the best hope they’ve got.
-
AliceP. says:
I will not vote for Palin or Obama. I’ll just go Green as I did in 08. I cringe at the idea of someone who is a fundie being the first woman president. I really don’t have anything else against her but, it would be a tremendous let down to me. Hillary ran as a centrist but, her voting record shows she voted liberal 77.9 percent of the time and Obama was at 80 percent. That’s practically even steven. I laugh a little when people see her as so completely “centrist” She has a centrist appeal but, her voting record says she is liberal. That matters to me. I hope to god she runs again. If the dems were smart they would push her to do it and not back another Obama run in 2012. If they were smart that is.
-
Violet Socks says:
Basically, it’s a semi-repeat of 1968.
BDBlue, don’t you realize that even by mentioning the year 1968, you’re calling for Obama’s assassination?
-
Violet Socks says:
I cringe at the idea of someone who is a fundie being the first woman president.
A factoid that’s bandied about is that the first woman leader in most countries is usually a conservative. Somehow that eases the path, since it means that she’s not threatening the patriarchal status quo completely.
Hillary was our nation’s best chance to avoid that fate. She was and is a feminist Democrat. She’s to the left of Obama.
Which of course is why it was such bullshit for the faux-feminists to pretend that they couldn’t support Hillary because she was so “right-wing” or “not feminist enough.” As opposed to Barack Lieberman Obama.
Ironically, Palin really is the right-wing woman that the faux-feminists claimed Hillary to be.
-
AliceP. says:
“A factoid that’s bandied about is that the first woman leader in most countries is usually a conservative. Somehow that eases the path, since it means that she’s not threatening the patriarchal status quo completely.”
Yes, I’d even heard that Bill Clinton stated this and said that Hillary would have to run more as a centrist because of this fact. Perhaps that is why she has been so well branded as a centrist but, to my mind the woman is a liberal. She has worked across that divide but, when push came to shove on voting she went liberal.
The main reason I was so devastated at the outcome when I was in D.C. for the “rulz” meeting was I knew then and there we were going to end up with a far right winger as the first woman POTUS. Jebus fooking christ. What an opportunity missed.To top that all off, woman or man she was the most skilled person in the race. It’s not like the country was in deep trouble or anything. Let’s all jump off a bridge to feel good anyway! I’ll never, ever understand the logic that went into choosing him and letting him get away with the antics his campaign used. The DNC is dead to me now.
Given that Obama was so young, I could never understand the pro Obama feminists. It was the chance of a life time shot to hell for someone with no real working knowledge or solutions. Someone actually jumping up and down with glee using misogyny on a scale I have not seen in my lifetime to “win” That was supposed to be all okay because he was such a dreamboat? Is that what it has come to?
I wish Hillary would run again. If she does not I’ll be a third party voter from here on out. Like I said, if the DNC was smart *laughs uproariously* they would push her to do it. I won’t hold my breath.
-
Toonces says:
I have no idea what I’ll do in 2012 because I have no idea what the political landscape will look like at that time, but my biggest problem with Palin is that she hates government. The way that worked out with Reagan and Bush I & II is just… well it’s a huge problem for me. I could overlook some conservative positions I disagree with to support her against Obama, but that’s such a core difference in political ideology that it’s extremely difficult to get past for me. Of course I think Obama mostly believes the same thing, plus he’s a misogynist. So, not that anyone asked (or cares) but if it’s Obama and Palin in 2012, I’ll hopefully be in another country. I just don’t think it’s a sustainable way to govern and it will have to come to a crashing halt at some point, and I’d rather be somewhere else if possible when it does.
-
Toonces says:
As for Hillary in ‘12, I watched her hour w/ Tavis Smiley recently and she seemed extremely believable when she said she didn’t want to run again. I think she’d do it out of a sense of duty but I think it’s extremely unlikely that the people who totally screwed her over could humble themselves enough to ask. They’d probably rather go down in flames. You know, Hillary would come out looking good and their tiny brains would simply implode at the thought.
-
Palin really is the right-wing woman that the faux-feminists claimed Hillary to be | Reclusive Leftist says:
[...] time for another edition of “comments that should have been posts.” I’m elevating this one to post status because a) it’s true, and b) it’s the kind of thing that gets our [...]
-
alwaysfiredup says:
I’m convinced that Palin is not an ideological governor (small-g). Her track record suggests her interests really lie in rooting out corruption and cleaning up other people’s messes. If she makes it to the presidency, I see her focusing on more of that, which we could use. (there would also be more drilling for oil, natch.)
She has personal opinions and stances, sure, but they didn’t appear to impede her past governing. So even though she’s anti-tax, she still allowed a sales tax to go on the ballot when she was Mayor because her constituents wanted it and then voted for it. She’s anti-abortion, but didn’t make a constitutional case out of the fact that she had to choose between two pro-choice AK court candidates. I think there are many more ideological candidates the GOP could put forward than Palin.
-
sharonevolving says:
Just checked back in on this thread, and I am realizing a couple of things. Not that this is hugely revelatory, but on this blog, you guys are discussing Palin’s positions, stance, ideology, et al. This is the dream of feminism, is it not? That a woman gets to run and have her positions discussed the same way any man running does. Agree with the positions or not, but you’re focusing on those, and NOT on how cool she is, hot she looks, whether she’s had too many babies and should be home with them or not, or her charisma levels. *sigh* Why can’t this be the mainstream press I am reading, instead of Violet’s blog? When I read the news on Palin, it reads just like some leftwing or rightwing nutjob’s personal hit piece blog on the woman. Isn’t that ironic?
-
Aspen says:
I believe Obama will run in 2012. HRC will not run. I hope Kucinich runs against Obama for the Dem primary. He’s run for the past several presidential elections, although I don’t know if he’s done it challenging a Dem incumbant. I’d love to see and support him run on a medicare-for-all platform against Obama. I think he’d get increased support than in the past, quite possibly double digit %.
-
apishapa says:
I don’t believe Hillary will run in 2012 because she is too devoted to the Democratic Party, no matter how they treat her, to cause any disruption. I believe Obama will run no matter how awful he is for this country, because he is an eogmaniac. He is a lot like Bush. I don’t know if Obama really thinks he deserves an “A” for his performance so far, but the fact that he says he does after failing at everything he’s tried, says a lot about his level of self love.
I also do not believe Palin and Clinton are the only women in this country who deserve a chance to run. I think it is time to move on and look for someone else to carry us forward. Someone who is willing to go against the Democratic Party and who also reflects our ideals as feminists and liberals. There are a lot of strong, educated and dedicated women in this country. We should be finding and grooming one to carry us forward.
I’m thinking Elizabeth Warren, because she has made such a huge impression on me over the last several months, but there are others already in state and national spotlight.
-
ErikZ says:
I could understand if Hilary wouldn’t want to run for President again. It would mean that she’s honest.
As was pointed out earlier, her voting record is Liberal. She would have to, again, go out and campaign as a Centrist. Lying about positions she doesn’t support.
