Interesting, considering Hillary has announced she will not serve in any capacity after 2012.
By Michael Catalini, National Journal
President Obama should abandon his run for a second term and turn over the reins of the Democratic Party to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two one-time Democratic pollsters wrote in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, which appeared online Sunday.
Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen argued that just as Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson decided not to pursue additional runs though they could have, Obama should do the same.
From a strictly partisan point of view, I think Obama should stay in the race as he can only pull the rest of the Democrats down at this point. From a less partisan perspective, I certainly cannot recommend a nominee by acclamation; the primaries serve a purpose.
From the horses mouths at the WSJ:
President Obama can’t win by running a constructive campaign, and he won’t be able to govern if he does win a second term.
By Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, The Wall Street Journal
When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.
He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
One really must wonder at this point if the Democratic Party is capable of adhering to any rules, laws, or conventions when it comes to elections. If President Obama is as badly damaged as Caddell and Schoen claim, why has he no Democratic opponents for the Democratic Nomination?
Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president’s political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.
I’ve seen scant evidence that Barrack Hussein Obama has at any point governed effectively, and far less so since the 112th Congress was sworn in. Again, if he’s a liability to the Democratic Party, why has he no primary opponents?
Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.
While I’d prefer to see Obama run (and lose), I have no real issue with him deciding not to run.
I have a lot of problems with the Democrats skipping the whole primary process and nominating a replacement by acclamation or via back room deals.
Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit via Google +