Hillary Clinton for VP?
I’ll be honest, I’d love it and it would be a winning ticket in 2012 at a time when Obama will need all the help he can get. I agree with those that just don’t see Joe Biden as a strong Democratic heir apparent. I really respect Biden, but I think his time has come and gone and of course he’s run for POTUS several times and never gotten very far. Hillary Clinton, were she to be VP if Biden stepped down prior to 2012, would be a logical candidate for the Democrats. Of course, as I have said many times, I would totally respect any decision she made, whether it was to continue on as SOS, be on the ticket as VP, teach or do philanthropic work or retire and play with her [eventual] grandkids.
My problem with this article from the CNN blog is that it is based on something Ben Smith wrote. Yeah, that Ben Smith. The Ben Smith who originally (well, after Dick Morris that is) started the “Secretary Clinton in the Shadows” meme which resulted in months-worth of silly articles (for example, Tina Brown’s burqa article) which claimed Secretary Clinton had no power in this administration. And how did that work out? False. Then the other day Ben Smith co-wrote an article which had Secretary Clinton as a possible replacement for Defense Secretary Gates. Now he’s floating VP. Again, as much as I’d love it to be true, I long ago concluded that when it comes to Secretary Clinton, Ben Smith just likes to make waves and generate buzz- for himself:
eading tea leaves is not science. And what I’m about to discuss is an epic tea-leaf read. But it could make for an interesting strategy for 2012. Suspend a little disbelief and read on.
Here’s the background. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hasn’t spoken much on domestic policy since she took the foreign affairs gig. For someone so vocal during the campaign, it’s been clear she’s purposely sticking to her charter and staying out of domestic affairs.
Yesterday, according to Ben Smith at Politico.com, Hillary spoke to the Brookings Institution on national security strategy. That’s exactly what you’d expect from SecState.
But then she took an interesting foray into domestic affairs by saying, “The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues…”
The comment itself is what got Politico’s attention, but her rare move into domestic policy is what caught mine. Although Mrs. Clinton prefaced her statement by saying it was her personal opinion, that made it even more interesting.
Why would she say such a thing when she’s been so disciplined about her messaging? Especially with China and Korea heating up, the Middle East still simmering, and all sorts of other threats and risks across the world – why would she move to the topic of wealth disparity?
Well, here’s one idea. What if she’s getting ready to go back on the domestic stage? How could it possibly make sense for her or for President Obama?
The rest of the article is available at the link above.