Or, to expand upon that headline, if ANYONE supplants Barack Obama as the Democrat nominee for president in 2012, it might be nearly impossible for the Democrat to win, even if the economy were to miraculously recover in the next 14 months, which is highly doubtful.
I'll get to my thesis later on, but first let's consider the circumstances "setting the table."
Those who are at least mildly interested in following the spectator sport of politics have probably heard the rumblings in recent days: Some Democrats think Barack Obama should step aside for the good of the party and let a less polarizing and less tainted candidate be the Democratic standard-bearer in 2012. Check out this column by liberal Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman.
It is clear Obama's act has grown old and tired, and whatever magic and hypnosis he held in 2008 is long gone. A second term, especially if the GOP regains control over the Senate, would likely be a lesson in futility.
Others speculate that Obama himself might decide to step aside. Their reasoning is plausible: All his life, Obama has regarded himself as the smartest guy in the room, and he's become accustomed to obsequious admiration and gushing praise. I suspect he gets a "high" off of it as his collosal ego is gently massaged day in, day out. Praise and adoration for Barack are like a syringe full of heroin for the addict. He needs his daily fix!
But cut out the love-fest, and dare to criticize him, and he's like a heroin addict gone cold turkey. He is thin-skinned and displays petulance and petty, angry behavior when he doesn't get his way and people have the cajones to oppose him. This kind of behavior is not at all shocking, but it does lend credence to the notion that he might not run for re-election and risk the crushing ego-blow of being fired by the American people.
Put yourself in the O-man's shoes: If you were an egotistical, narcissistic president used to getting your way and having people fawn all over you, and realized the gig was almost up, that you stood a very real chance of getting ousted in your re-election bid, wouldn't you seriously consider quitting and trying to frame the situation with your own spin?
You could dump on the do-nothing Republicans in Congress and "reactionaries" in the Tea Party; you could inveigh against the broken system of government and failed American institutions... spin ad nauseam to CYA.
Granted, not everyone would buy it, and the mocking, ridicule and downright hatred would be palpable. (No whining now; it comes with the territory. As Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!")
But the "afterlife" ain't exactly chopped liver. Obama would still have his admirers on the left, in the New York Times editorial offices, and in the salons of Europe, and could spend his time traveling the world with Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, hauling in $250K per speaking gig, writing books, and being feted by Third World dictators.
One of the raps against Obama is he doesn't enjoy the tedious and mundane grunt-work of being president. In many high-paying, high-profile executive jobs, including the presidency, you sometimes have to endure interminable meetings, negotiations, failed plans, clashing egos, frustrations, mindless bureaucracy, and a boatload of other unpleasantries. That is, you have to persevere and prevail if you truly want to be successful.
But Obama seems to enjoy the pomp and circumstance, the speeches before Congress or admiring crowds, the travel on Air Force One, the state dinners, the vacations, but not the down-n-dirty hard work. He could escape the grind as an ex-president, but resume with the starry-eyed groupies and sycophant reporters. Can't say that I wouldn't make that choice if I were in his shoes.
Now, back to Hillary. Polls of late have shown her to be immensely popular. Tens of millions of Americans believe she would make an excellent president, and it's a safe bet that many Obama voters from 2008 wish she had won the Democrat nomination instead.
What would sink her chances in 2012? Not her healthcare debacle of 1994. And not "Clinton Fatigue," the sense that we don't want another taste of that dynasty; we're done; it's over; let's move on. (The same sentiment, it's worth noting, that would render Jeb Bush a nonstarter in 2012 or 2016.)
No. What would sink Hillary would be the same thing that would render any other non-black Democrat nominee hopeless: A sense of bitternenss, abandonment, betrayal and anger among African-Americans. Even if Obama spun it as his decision and downplayed pressure from party bigwigs, they would be angry and suspicious. They would feel they'd been used and were being discarded.
For decades now, blacks who voted in presidential elections have gone at least 90 percent for Democrats. In November 2012, a few of them might cast their ballots for the Republican nominee based on issues such as school choice, opposition to abortion, and refusal to kowtow to gays, but the vast majority of them might just refuse to vote on election day. There's a great chance that if Obama is not the Democrat nominee a year from now, black turnout at the polls will plummet in November 2012.
As I've stated numerous times before, the Democrat Party is a house of cards, a vulnerable compilation of special interest groups that don't always see eye-to-eye, and whose gung-ho support is necessary for the party to triumph in presidential elections. Remove one small sliver of this constituency, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
The Democrat Party is really between a rock and a hard place. They can throw Obama under the bus and try for a fresh start, but in doing so, will throw millions of blacks under the bus, too. Or, they can stick with The One, and attempt to defend the indefensible.
Houdini, anyone?
Recent Comments