March 13, 2011

Bill Clinton working for Hillary 2012?

Two stories late last week caught my attention that has me wondering if something is up in the Clinton camp regarding a 2012 presidential run by Hillary Clinton.  Both items came not from Hillary herself but her consort, Bill. The timing is a little odd.

Hot Air had the report on Bill's interventionist nature and indicating it was the reason that Hillary was not on Obama's 2008 ticket - he's a loud-mouth and potential problem; Obama doesn't want anyone outshining him.
Clinton differs from Obama in that he is more of a Wilsonian interventionist, as evidenced in the botched Somalia operation against the warlords in 1993 and the more successful interventions in the Balkans. Obama still hasn’t quite decided what he is — and it shows. This also shows why Obama was so reluctant to tie himself to the Clintons, as this puts Obama squarely in the shadow of Clinton, whose foreign policy at least had the virtue of coherence.
That's a valid point in isolation. But Clinton was also in the news last week for criticizing the delays in granting permits for offshore drilling. Politico touched on it;
But according to multiple people in the room, Clinton, surprisingly, agreed with Bush on many oil and gas issues, including criticism of delays in permitting offshore since last year’s Gulf of Mexico spill.

“Bush said all the things you’d expect him to say” on oil and gas issues, said Jim Noe, senior vice president at Hercules Offshore and executive director of the pro-drilling Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition. But Clinton added, “You’d be surprised to know that I agree with all that,” according to Noe and others in the room.

Clinton said there are “ridiculous delays in permitting when our economy doesn’t need it,” according to Noe and others.

“That was the most surprising thing they said,” Noe said.

The two former presidents both generally agreed on the need to get offshore drilling workers back on the job.

Clinton and Bush also agreed on the need for more domestic shale gas production, with Clinton noting that it has been done safely for years in his home state of Arkansas.
Again in isolation, Bill Clinton looks like he's simply making a political argument about what he would do. What I find curious is that both comments came in the same week, at the early stage of what would be primary season. Perhaps Bill is planting the seeds of a moderate Democrat alternative to Obama (Hillary) in case the prospects of an Obama win wane. Waiting for 2016 would seemingly be just too late for a Hillary run. Let's face it, the Clintons get politics. This could be a co-ordinated effort to with Bill being the loose cannon and Hillary being the diligent Democrat - a triangulation of shorts.

Another possibility is even scarier - what if the Obama administration is behind a third party bid by Hillary in order to siphon all of those independent voters back from Republicans? The idea being, split the disaffected Obama voters from the middle by having Hillary offer a faux third party alternative and then run up the middle and allow Obama to win with less than 50% of the vote. Clinton himself won less than 50% of the vote in 1992 and even in the substantial victory in 1996.  He knows the value of a third party siphon.

The double whammy criticisms, while not necessarily mentioning Obama directly, clearly undercut the President in terms of leadership on two very important issues.  What happens next will be very interesting.


  1. I disagree about the third party when considering the left in the U.S. (I live here)

    Third parties arise from the right, or more specifically the people interested in our Constitution in this country, at least in modern times which I deem the last 100 years.

    To split the left, if possible, would be the death nell for them and Obama.

    Americans, the majority of us, are sick and tired of families (institutionalized nepotism) of politicians be it Kennedy's, the Bush's' and of the Clinton's.

    Beyond that, if Hillary were to run against Obama for the nomination she would do it on the DNC ticket, period. She would not carry the socialist vote within the party which is owned by Obama and small but would wipe him out in the primary with the average democrats.

    Then comes the general election which is where all Americans pay attention and brings me back to my first point about institutionalized political nepotism.

  2. I'm not suggesting an actual party, I'm suggesting a Ross Perot type run. And I don't think the Clintons would make a run outside of the Democratic party. That is, UNLESS it's done as a mis-direction because they are trying to derail conservatives from winning the middle - this one time.

    I'm also in no way suggesting an endorsement of the Clintons. I'm simply wondering if she's considering it as a Democrat run or as a trick to derail the right with the center.

    It's merely speculation and the thought that they are sinister enough to try something like that.


Disagreement is always welcome. Please remain civil. Vulgar or disrespectful comments towards anyone will be removed.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Share This