Hillary in ’12 as an Independent?

The Anchoress is raising the possibility:

HillaryI know the conventional wisdom holds that no Democrat would dare to run against Obama and risk a deep fracturing of the party. Conventional wisdom, however, is hogwash in the face of voter discontent and distrust of both parties and the D.C. establishment. If ever the time was right for a strong candidate — from the left, not the right — to strike out as an Independent with a good chance of winning, it’s this election year, and Hillary Clinton is precisely the candidate to do it.

Independents ran to Obama in ’08, and they’re running away from him as fast as they can in ’12, but not necessarily toward the GOP, whose current field of candidates seems like 8 tilting vials of nitro-glycerin, just waiting to fall. Offer them a candidate they can associate with a era of “peace and prosperity” — one who many of them happen to like and think got a raw deal in 2008 — and they will careen toward her like seagulls toward dropped bread.

Hillary will pull all the disgruntled PUMA (Party Unity My A$$) voters who in ’08 were told “you don’t have to fall in love, just fall in line” and are still rinsing the bad taste out of their mouth from that primary; she’ll pull all of the Democrats who are currently, quietly, wishing Obama would just go away. And while Obama supposedly enjoys an approval rating of about 85% within the African American community, it’s a decent bet that those who liked her before they ever thought of Obama could be persuaded to like her again. Hillary, after all, feels no ways tired.

A candidate from the right could never do it. Between GOP/Conservative in-fighting, the purge-and-purity brigade and the need of some to “teach a lesson” with their vote — and the predictable broadsides that will be launched against such a candidate by the Democrat-favoring press — the best a conservative third-party candidate could hope to do is “make a point.” The Democrats and far left will all still vote for Obama, and the independents will either run scattershot or sit out the election altogether. Hello, Mr. Perot.

But Hillary Clinton — boldly proclaiming that
 “the two-party system is broken” to a nation that pretty much agrees with that assessment, and offering the tantalizing suggestion that the best way to work with a congress so immobilized by partisan concerns is to bring in a No-Party President — could seize the moment and make it her own.

Intriguing assessment and she’s got more, all the result of Robert Reich suggesting Biden and Hillary should trade places

I, of course, would much rather see a Republican in the office but they’re floundering like a freshly netted fish and should they continue to flop around I could see Hillary drawing a wider appeal.

All of it interesting.  All of it to unveil itself in the coming days and weeks.

Hang on to your hats.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Is Newt Gingrich a bigot?
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • Anonymous

    I have to disagree about a 3rd Party run from the Right.  There is one candidate that could pull it off,  considering the weakness of the Republican field, and that would be Palin.  Hillary as a 3rd Party Candidate, could pull it off also.  It could be and interesting race.  Much better than Obama-Whoever.

  • herddog505

    It speaks volumes of how bad our current president and prospective challengers are that people on both sides are crying / begging / hoping / desperate for somebody else.  For the libs, it’s the Hilldabeast, a woman almost as unaccomplished as Barry.  For the right, it’s Palin, who has almost as thin a resume.

    Jebus, how did we get in this fix???

    • Anonymous

      “Almost as thin a resume?” 

      Whatever their merits as people and their politics, I think being a U.S. senator for eight years, then the U.S. foreign minister for another three, trump being Mayor of Wasilla (population 7831) for seven years and Governor of Alaska (pop 722,718) for two. 

       And I’m not even counting the experience of being the spouse of the U.S. president for 8 years, or the legal practice.

      • herddog505

        You forgot her biggest accomplishment and the key to her success:

        Her husband f*cked around on her.

        Oh, and she voted for the war in Iraq.  How could I forget that one?

        • Anonymous

          So now voting for the war in Iraq is a black mark in your book?  Good, you’re making progress. 

          Remember, I said apart from their merits as people or politics, simply as a matter of CVs.  Hillary just has a much better CV.

          If being a senator for eight years and SecState for three does not qualify one for being president, hard to see how any of the current candidates except for Gingrich could be qualified.  Romney was just a one-term governor of a small state.

          • herddog505

            Yes, you’re right.  On paper, she’s very qualified on the basis of having:

            — Married a hustling shyster;

            — Stuck with said shyster when he cheated on her;

            — Suffered advanced Alzheimers-type memory lapses when asked about Whitewater;

            — Carpetbagged into a Senate seat in one of the most reliably democrat states in the country;

            — Held the seat for eight years (i.e. two years more than one term);

            — Been SecState, which so far has involved not much more than the “Reset Button” gaffe and bombing Libya for reasons that STILL have not been explained.

            But I’ll say this: she can’t be any worse than Barry, who has done what I thought impossible:

            He’s made me miss Slick Willie.

          • Anonymous

            “she can’t be any worse than Barry’

            The only difference between Hillary and Barry is their sex/color. Both rabid partisans, both think they’re super smart, both want more and more govt.,  both for National Health care……both incompetent.

          • Anonymous

            We all miss Slick Willie.  Eight years of relative peace, and absolute prosperity, wound up with budget surpluses. Plus he got welfare reform done.

          • retired.military

            Oh Jeez.  Carter would have had financial propserity during the dotcom boom much less Clinton. Not to mention republicans shoved welfare reform down his throat. Of course he had a republican house and senate. Something that the next president iwll have as well.   GET OFF OF IT.

          • PBunyan

            “Eight years of relative peace”

            You mean “perceived peace”, meaning when the media dosen’t benefit from reporting on military casulties, they ignore them– after all, our armed forces are just idiots and pawns to leftists.  More 7,518* American military members were killed during Clinton’s eight years than compared to 12,390* during Bush’s eight, but the Democrat campain staff (a.k.a. the MSM) couldn’t use them as tools for anti-American propaganda so they just never reported any of that. 39% less is “relative peace”?*

            “wound up with budget surpluses.”

            The national debt grew every year under Clinton.  The best year they only added $38 billion to the debt, which I guess is pretty good compared to the trillions Obama and crew are adding every year now.  Still, to call a $38 billion loss a “surplus” takes a special kind of mendacity– well that or ignorance.  Which do you claim?

            And then there’s the massive recession that started before Clinton left office and the terrorist threat he ignored which lead to 9/11.

            Yup those sure were the good old days!

            *Edited. I originally got my figures wrong.

          • Anonymous

            That has to be the most bullshit comment I’ve ever read here.

            Who “killed” servicemembers during Clinton’s terms?  What war was that?  I know that 18 were killed in Mogadishu and one soldier was killed by a mine in Bosnia, what enemy “killed” the rest of the 7518 servicemembers you say died during Clinton’s terms?

            So, dying in motorcycle accidents (which has always been a major cause of accidental death in the military), of heart disease, breast cancer, leukemia, pilot error in training, etc., can all be blamed on Clinton?

          • PBunyan

            You must never read your own comments if that was the “most bullshit comment I’ve ever read here.”

            There have been 1,797 killed in Afghanistan in Obama’s 3 year’s vs. 1,049 in Bush’s 8 years.  Where’s Code Pinko?
            Why don’t the Obama propagandists (CBS, NBC, ABC, ect.) run profiles of every dead soldier every day on their “news” broadcasts like they did when Bush was President?  Why didn’t they celebrate the milestone of Obama passing Bush the way they rejoiced and celebrated the 4000th death under Bush?

            If you think that the media doesn’t taylor their coverage with the intent of deception, you are truly more of a fool than I ever thought you were.

            There was plent of US millitary action during the Clinton years– from the Balkan’s to the middle east to Africa and Asia– it’s just that it’s fine to the press when one of the their own is President so they don’t report anything bad.

            And dufuses like you equate that to “relative peace”.

          • Anonymous

            She has a train to carry around her baggage and its bigger than Newt’s.

            3 years of fuvking up every ‘foreign policy’ she’s touched is an accomplishment? In her 3 years as SoS she’s promoted the Islamic Caliphate even faster than Jiimy Carter. Russia is back to saber rattling and Iran, well lets just say they are pushing as many buttons as fast as they can. Strait of Hormuz ring any bells?

            Two terms as a ‘parachute’ Senator from NY?
            Please, it was the only state that would elect her and her signature accomplishment was what? Resigning to become SoS.

            Ya, she’s got less of a chance of being POTUS than her hubby who’s term limited by the Constitution.

          • Anonymous

            Doesn’t anyone remember her stupid answer about why she voted for the Iraq invasion? It was so bad that by itself it should be a disqualifier for any public office.

          • herddog505

            Remember who her prospective base is.  These people are not the brightest bulbs in the box.  Look who they elected last time.

          • Anonymous

            There were a million reasons to attack Iraq, all of them turned out to be stupid.

          • Anonymous

            Sure arm chair qb hind sight is almost always nearly perfect. Thanks for letting us know you opposed the Iraq war for the 1,000.000.000 time. What about the idiotic response Hillary gave about why she voted to support the Iraq invasion?

          • Anonymous

            She’s got a lot of supporters.  I’m not a fan of hers, but she would boost Obama’s chances if she were the VP pick next year.

          • retired.military

            Yet you voted for Obama and will do so again if HIllary doesnt run.

  • Evil Otto

    Not. Going. To. Happen.

  • Anonymous

    I advise patience at this point. We are in primary season so Obama has not been focused on. I believe Romney will be the eventual nominee and then the real focus on Obama begins. Until then, we have to watch the in state squabbles. In the end, it is ABO. I know Paul’s team are emotional but I believe most would not want to see Obama serve another term. ww

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      He’s already been focused on Obama the entire time.  He just now took pot shots at Paul and Newt made a horrific faux pas in not having people in Iowa to collect signatures.

    • retired.military

      Real focus by who?  The media will downplay any focus on Obama just like they did the last election.

  • Anonymous

    I seriously doubt that Hillary will run for anything other than the exit.
    This administration has been a smashing success at pissing off just about every group of constituents and her association with it will be the proverbial albatross around her neck.

    Her running as an independent will virtually guarantee the only voters she might get will be the moderately liberal Democrat PUMA’s.

    She also comes with more baggage than Newt…

    • herddog505

      But the baggage only matters to Republicans.  Her “baggage” (Whitewater, Monicagate, etc.) is a badge of honor for democrats.

      “Vote for me!  My husband cheated on me and I laid down like a doormat and took it!”

  • Joe Yangtree

    This is simply idle speculation, with no backing in reality whatsoever. At this point, it’s much preferable to consider fantasy third-party scenarios than the actual Republican field, one of whom will actually be the person that all the hopes of defeating Obama will be pinned on. 

    • Anonymous

      This not just idle speculation, this is crack smoking speculation.

      I still think Hillary will be on the ticket replacing Biden.

      • Anonymous

        So you’re arguing that her foreign policy experience is better than Biden’s?
         
        “Step away from the keyboard and nobody will get hurt.”
         
        I do not want any of whatever it is you are consuming, it makes LSD look like 2nd hand smoke

        • Anonymous

          When Hillary is on stage at the Democratic convention as the VP nominee, with Joe Biden retired, remember Chico told you so.

          • retired.military

            Get offit Chico.  I predicted this 3 years ago.  Give us a break of “Chico told you so”

          • Anonymous

            And remember, Chico also told you pedestrians always have the right-of-way.

            Chico has yet to report on his experiences of playing in traffic, though.

      • herddog505

        This seems reasonable.  Biden was necessary for Barry back in ’08 when he needed a wise old man with serious foreign policy chops to round out his ticket.  Biden is very good at pretending to be that, and MiniTru is very happy not to spoil his act.

        Now, however, the stituation is different.  Barry doesn’t need a wise old man anymore, but he DOES need something to energize his campaign.  Putting the Hilldabeast on the ticket would do just that.

        O’ course, she may not want to be in the #2 spot, and Barry may really, really not want Slick Willie roaming the White House as a constant reminder to everybody of what a successful democrat president* looks like.  I suspect that reminders of Slick’s brush with the law might make Barry (and most of his administration, for that matter) a little uncomfortable, too.

        So, keeping a doddering, pompous, gaffe-prone imbecile around for (God save us) another term might not be such a bad idea in Barry’s mind.

        —-

        (*) I know, I know, but remember how low the bar is for democrat presidents for the last fifty years.

        • Oysteria

          I have nothing in the way of proof when I say Obama can’t stand Hillary. He asked her to be SoS simply to keep an eye on her and Bill so they didn’t make life too difficult for him in 2012. It would be a monumental feat for him to ask her to be Veep. And if he did, he might as well tour the country shouting through a bull horn that he knows his chances at winning are slowly swirling down the drain. I could be wrong but I simply don’t see him shoving his over-inflated ego aside for that.

          • herddog505

            I agree.  I also think that the dislike is mutual and has a political basis as both the Clintons and the Obamas want to be the bosses of the democrat party and see each other as rivals.  Putting the Hilldabeast in as SecState was Barry’s half-a**ed way of trying to conciliate her base and the Clinton wing of the party, but (natch) he gave her VERY little to actually do so as to keep her resume thin in case she wanted to try to challenge in ’12.

        • Anonymous

          It does depend on what she wants, but the prospect of gaining the presidency in 2017 as the first woman president might be too much to resist.  I personally think it would be a political nightmare, with Jeb Bush or even George Prescott Bush and Chelsea waiting in the wings    It might  be Jeb Bush vs. Hillary in 2016.

          I suppose the decision point will be in April – June.

    • Stephen

      No backing in reality? Welcome to Wizbang – home of the reality-free conservative viewpoint.

      • Anonymous

        “Stepehen” , eh?
        Is that something like the ‘Chicken Dance’?

        • Stephen

          lol… close.

  • Anonymous

    Hillary has about as  much chance as Barry..Which is to say ()%

  • http://2012.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    Hillary is out of campaign politics. Just look at her.

    Any woman in politics who had any plans to run for anything would be keeping her hair styled and her cankles toned. She isn’t.

  • Stephen

    Democrats learned from past experience to not run a 3rd party candidate. See “History”… Clinton is smart enough to know she can’t win as a 3rd party candidate and all she’d be doing is splitting the left vote.

    Consevvatives – not so smart. Trump will definitely run and Palin may as well

    • http://2012.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

      Trump’s not a conservative, you nincompoop.

      • Stephen

        He claims he is and you claim he isn’t.

        You’re saying he’s a liar then? Well, I believe you when you say that.

        But he’s still going to run as a third party nutcake and I suspect he’ll pull more votes from the right than the left. I’m sure of that.

        And that’s gonna help Obama.

        Fortunately, conservatives and faux conservatives such as Mr. Trump aren’t smart enough to see that 3rd party run is going to hurt Romney’s chances at winning.

        Or maybe they know and they just don’t care. That’s plausible too.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

          Trump is only involved for the free publicity.  Qualifying for ballots is grunt work and he – and Hillary, for that matter – have no national organization in place to do it.

          • herddog505

            National organizations are for little people: I suggest that Trump is such an egoist that he expects to be nominated and elected by acclaim.

        • http://2012.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

          He claims he is and you claim he isn’t.

          Does he? Link, please?

          The media that went along with his preening attempt at a phony campaign a few months ago probably portrayed him as a conservative because he’s supposedly rich, but I don’t remember seeing any quotes from him saying so.

  • retired.military

    Hillary will not run until 2016.   Obama will lose unless she is on the ticket.   That is running against anyone. 

    • Stephen

      Just reminding you of our $100 bet on this subject.

      You’re not going to wuss out on that, are you?

      • Anonymous

        Have some more cherry kook aid simpleton..

      • retired.military

        I never wuss out of anything.  I have the link to the bet saved on my system and will gladly remind you of it come Nov 5th.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

          Wanna bet we never see him again when he loses?

          • Stephen

            So you’re going to take the same bet with me, right Adjoran?

            $100 to the charity of my choice when the Republicans fail to gain control of both the white house and the Senate — that’s the bet that RM took.

            Are you a wuss like rm or can you man up and put $100 where you’re your mouth is…?

          • Stephen

            ***crickets….

          • Anonymous

            Stephenie-   “Are you a wuss like rm or can you man up and put $100 where you’re your mouth is…?”

            I bet you 100 bucks your grandma kicks you oughta Her basement when Obama looses and you blow your cover just like you blow the One…

            Bet You little punk?

          • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

            Funny thing about the internet – nobody (unless they’ve got your IP address) knows who or where you are – or even if you’re human.  (I’m a Labrador retriever with a custom keyboard, myself – the profile pic is just misdirection.)  

            So – if you ‘win’ (which would be a disaster for the country in my furry opinion, imagine an Obama unfettered by having to worry about re-election, based on what he’s already demonstrated he’s incompetent at) you’ll be crowing.

            If you don’t – like the Baker, you’ll softly and suddenly vanish away, never to be seen or found.  Because Disqus internet IDs are eminently disposable, after all – and cost nothing (except time) to establish, you’ll pop up later as some other name, having ducked that difficult need to actually pay off a wager.

            Had a bet a few years back with a guy over the results of an election – a case of beer.  He actually won – but his email address never responded, and he never posted again.  For what it’s worth.  Hard to pay off a bet when you can’t find the guy.

            Woof.

  • John H

    Run Hillary Run. 
    As long as Obama stayed in the race, it would guarantee a GOP president. On the other hand, if the left dumped Obama and ran Hillary, that would make for a much tighter race. Hopefully Obama’s ego won’t allow him to read the writing on the wall.
    The most likely scenario is Hillary running against the GOP candidate in 2016. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    Hillary is too smart for such a stupid move.

    I love The Anchoress, but she needs to stick to writing about what she knows, and the political process, the nuts and bolts of it, isn’t it.

    Not only is it a major logistical challenge to qualify as an independent for enough state ballots to be relevant, it is one which requires first building a strong, cohesive, and well-led national organization to achieve.  Perot, for example, had cleverly financed “the volunteers” as United We Stand fighting for issues, mainly fiscal sanity, before he turned them loose with the ballot qualification challenge.

    The only source for Hillary would be proselytizing current Democratic apparatchiks, an attempt doomed to fail as Obama would unleash the full fury of his power to intimidate anyone who tried.

    Plus, such a move would alienate black voters, the Democrats’ last large loyal bloc, who support them at 90% and Obama a bit more.  They would likely rebel against anyone connected with the effort, dooming the Democratic Party’s state efforts for several cycles.

    Like the “brokered convention,” it’s a fabulously fascinating topic for conversation which has ZERO chance of ever happening.

  • Anonymous

    Missus Billy-Bubbah Blythe to replace her haplessly inept and incompetent street-agitating Alinskyist fellow fascist?

    Now there’s an idea … um …. feeling … um … verbalized bowel burbling, whose time has come! 

    The recidivist, treasonous, lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering, effectively unindicted co-conspiratorial co-serial-rapist most stupid woman in all of recorded history to have ever taken a dump between two shoes; who has never so much as managed a night-shift in a Seven-11 or a day-shift in a Hot-Springs Arkansas cab — and who flies endlessly and pointlessly around the globe like the headless dumb cluck she is, making Saudi donkeys seem smart by comparison — for “presidente?”

    Whoopee.

    • Oysteria

      Brian, your comments are often difficult to read and get through to the actual point at the end of a sentence, but the plethora of adjectives and comparisons I run across along the way are sometimes fun.

  • Anonymous

    I’m on record for saying Hillary was part of the plan – Obama destroys and Hillary saves , saying I ‘m not him.

    I’m scared at how right my frivilous guess may have been right.She could reappoint very czar without a whisper of protest by the GOP co-rulers. Cristie and Coulter might even shift parties along with Will, Rove and Krauthammer- and worse case, they still win with Oromney.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE