Where things stand
“Poll: Americans optimistic about Hillary Clinton presidency,” reads the the headline from CNN. The temporal confusion in that statement fascinates me. Is it possible to be optimistic about an alternate history, about a past possibility that has no future potential? Never mind; we all understand what the hapless headline writer was trying to convey. Americans are severely disillusioned with Barack Obama.
Even at the Great Cheeto, entire threads are devoted to discussing just what a disappointment Obama really is. (Not that this leads the Cheeto people to wax nostalgic for Hillary; I’m sure Clinton Derangement Syndrome remains strong in the Land of Orange.)
James Carville surveys the election landscape and urges Democrats to panic. I enjoy Carville, even though he can be a real asshole. Yes, he was raised by eels and he does scare babies, but the dude makes me laugh. The first part of his message to Obama:
1. Fire somebody. No — fire a lot of people. This may be news to you but this is not going well. For precedent, see Russian Army 64th division at Stalingrad.
Obama’s not going to do that, of course. Instead he’s going to do things like this: Book Details Dissension in Obama Economic Team. In this exquisitely calibrated exposé, we learn that Larry’s an asshole, that Timmy wouldn’t do what Barry wanted, that Barry is a wonk but weak, and that they’re all sexist jerks. But everything’s fine now.
Somehow I don’t think this will reverse the Stalingrad situation.
Speaking of war, Axelrod is sounding like Baghdad Bob. “The base is mobilized behind the President,” he writes, in between bong hits. “Despite what you hear in elite commentary, the President’s support among base voters and in key demographic groups has stayed strong.”
I think that depends on how you define “support” and “strong.” The base doesn’t support Obama so much as they fear the alternative.
And god knows, the alternative is appalling. You would think the country had had enough of idiot cowboys from Texas, but apparently our appetite for that kind of thing is limitless.
15 Responses to “Where things stand”
-
votermom says:
raised by eels and he does scare babies
:DI love how Carville backslaps Obama in that article. First he links him symbolically to Stalin (very apt considering (attackwatch!), secondly he brings up the need for Indictments, which basically raises the point of how complicit they are in corruption.
Third he points out that Obama is acting like a Republican instead of a Dem. Fourth is about how wishy washy and fact-free Obama’s words are.September 16th, 2011 at 4:55 pm EST -
Violet Socks says:
First he links him symbolically to Stalin (very apt considering (attackwatch!)
No, that’s not the significance of Stalingrad. Stalingrad was a bloodbath.
-
votermom says:
Yes, I know, decimation. But he could easily have used an example not tied to the USSR, or Germany, both of which are already GOPer shorthand for Obama’s executive policies.
-
Violet Socks says:
Except that Stalingrad was the bloodiest battle in human history.
Really, when people mention Stalingrad I don’t think it’s a coded reference to Soviet censorship or personality cults or even Stalin. I especially don’t think Carville would go there, since he’s a Democrat. The reference there is that it was the greatest bloodbath in history.
-
votermom says:
ack, now you’re going to say it wasn’t the USSR yet! :D My point is that I think Carville is deliberately tweaking Big Ears and the rest of the Dems.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Is everyone settled on the impossibility of Hillary running in 2016? Because I think she still could and may, present pronouncements aside. In her favor, the senior population is increasing more rapidly than any other age group. Even the geniuses who passed on her the first time will be eight years older.
-
Violet Socks says:
Adrienne, her statements seem to me to leave no margin. Every time she’s asked, she is definite that she will never run for anything again.
Are you seeing something else?
-
quixote says:
You know, about this “the alternative is appalling” thing.
What’s the worst we could get? Huckabee? Perry? The west end of an east-facing horse? Whatever it is, Democrats in Congress will fight The Thing like it’s Godzilla. (Godbagzilla?) The damage It can do is, let’s say, “x.”
On the other hand, Obama in a second term will be just as Republican, if not more so, than he is now. The Democrats will enable all the crap he serves up. So the damage Obama can do is millions of times more, even if he himself, by himself, is only, say, one-thousandth as bad as “x” (which is debatable).
What I’m trying to say is that in practice how bad the alternative will be has at least as much to do with what The Thing can accomplish, not just what it says.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Only that driven, ambitious people often remain so, and that in politics, a no today may be a yes in future. Saying so now, or even hinting at it, would be premature. Continuing to allow one’s reputation as sought-after-but-unattainable-leader to transform public perception is the sort of mature, patient strategy I would expect of Hillary. It seems to be working. I’ve had a number of people from former Obama voter to Republican say to me out of the blue that she would have been the better choice.
-
myiq2xu says:
-
Monchichipox says:
they had their chance. The best 19 seconds of the election. They didn’t listen.
-
Violet Socks says:
You know, about this “the alternative is appalling” thing.
Right, that’s the question. Let’s talk about that.
There are a number of scenarios to envision. It’s not as simple as the fact that Obama is destroying the Democratic Party (and of course you know that).
I expect the Republican nominee to be either Perry or Romney.
A) A worst-case scenario, I think, would be President Perry with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. The damage of that particular “x” is much, much greater than even Obama can inflict. The Democrats in the House can fuss and fight all they want; they will be 100% impotent. There will be no stopping the GOP agenda.
And then what if President Perry wins a second term? Incumbents have an inherent advantage; this is why you generally never want to let the guy get in there in the first place. And a two-term Republican would then bequeath a vice-president primed to run…
Of course, Perry wouldn’t have to have complete control of Congress to do damage. Both Reagan and Dubya managed to do incalculable harm to the country and to the world while still facing Democratic majorities.
Which then brings up the issue of how effective Democrats have been as an opposition party. Not so much.
B) At the opposite end of the scale, a best-case scenario would be a one-term Mitt Romney with strong Democratic majorities in both houses. That could be a good thing. Give the Democrats a chance to find their spines again and actually fight for the New Deal; keep the seat warm with a relatively non-insane Republican while we build the party for a takeover in 2016. That’s thinking optimistically of course.
-
quixote says:
President Perry with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.
Goddess help us. The mind reels.
keep the seat warm with a relatively non-insane Republican while we build the party for a takeover in 2016. That’s thinking optimistically of course.
Isn’t there something in the Constitution about not wearing special underwear while President? (I’m joking, I’m joking.) You’re right that that’s the best we can hope for, I think.
Back in the Good Old Days, I thought Dan Quayle was the bottom of the barrel. You never know when you have it good.
-
Sameol says:
I don’t understand why so many people think Obama’s in so much trouble. Obviously, he’s not doing great (in terms of politics, as President he’s a disaster, sure) but Bush’s approval rating was high 40′s when he won in 2004. Obama’s above water in 16 mostly fair-sized states, and right on the cusp in several others, including Pennsylvania. Granted, as long as Perry remains male he probably won’t push turnout as much as his wacky views should indicate, but Obama is still popular in the Black community and he’ll probably get significant turnout.
-
lambert strether says:
I think the more important point from Carville is not staff shakeups, but criminal indictments of banksters (for accounting control fraud).
Obama doesn’t want to do that. Neither, I might add, does Warren. Unfortunately.
