Posted on 01/03/2012 2:50:27 PM PST by presidio9
“We need Hillary in the White House in 2016 or on the ticket in 2012,” an elderly man told Bill Clinton at a recent book signing here. The former president smiled, signed a copy of “Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy,’’ and assured the man he’d let his wife know: “I’ll pass that along to Hillary.”
Arkansas Democrats have been whispering for months that President Barack Obama would be smart to put Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the ticket as vice-president.
After all, it’s no secret Hillary is tired of logging miles as the 67th Secretary of State. She racked up 237,597 miles – as of Dec. 8, the latest date for totals – while visiting 45 countries and logging 506 hours of travel time in 2011. She has already said she doesn’t want a second term as Secretary of State.
When asked about her plans, the former president said, “She’s tired and she wants to come home” and “do the kind of work that I’m doing now.” But, he added, “It’s up to her to come and know what she intends to do.”
So, does that mean anything in particular about the former senator’s future plans? Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration, predicted in “Business Insider” last week that Obama will pick Hillary as vice president in a switcheroo that makes Biden secretary of state – “a position he’s apparently coveted for years,” Reich said. He said his prediction was not, however, based on any insider information.
This was manna for those Hillary supporters who have never abandoned hope that the former first lady
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Here are what the polls said about Wright.
FOX News Poll: More Than Half Believe Obama Doesn't Share Views of Pastor Wright
FOX News Poll: Wright Ties Hurt Obama Campaign
Poll: Flap over pastor hurts Obama
Poll: Wright and Obama
Poll shows Rev. Jeremiah Wright hurting Barack Obama
Obama resigns from controversial church (not a poll, but shows the MSM reported it)
On Ayers, it's possible most didn't know, but it's naive to think that the DU and Daily KOS "trolls" who lurk here didn't know. They just didn't care.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans do not believe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama shares the controversial views of his former spiritual mentor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, while about one in four (24 percent) believes he does share Wright’s views. And a sizable minority has doubts about Obama because of his pastor’s comments, according to a new FOX News poll.
Republicans (36 percent) are more likely than independents (20 percent) and Democrats (17 percent) to think Obama shares Wright’s controversial and unpatriotic views. Whites (25 percent) are more likely than blacks (15 percent) to think so.
This does not work out mathematically. FOX is leaving something out here. You can't have 57% of the entire sample disagreeing with something, and then having subsets of 64%, 80% and 83%. Believe it or not, there are journalists with liberal agendas even at FOX News. This one left something out to fit his or her own narrative.
Over a third of voters (35 percent) and a quarter of Democrats (26 percent) and independents (27 percent) say Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright has caused them to have doubts about him. Here the racial breakdown is stark: 40 percent of whites and 2 percent of blacks have doubts.
This is the more relevant point. Not that ALL voters will change their opinion of Obama, but that a significant portion will when they hear the whole story. Most of them never did. As a matter of fact, the extent of most of the respondents' knowledge here was very likely what they heard from the pollster.
I don't have time go through each of the stories you supplied. I picked the first one, and it smelled pretty bad. The second and third and fourth ones specifically say that the info Obama. He resigned from the church for damage control, and to get the story out of the media.
And, again, the vast majority of voters don't spend any time on websites like FR or DU. It would be a huge mistake to let Obama skate on these issues again. Gingrich and Santorum have already assured us that he won't if they are the nominee.
Sure it does, if you take into account what the responders are saying. 57% of Americans did not believe Obama shared the controversial views of Wright, while 24% believed he does share Wright’s views. That means that at least 81% KNEW about Wright. It then went on to explain the breakdown of those who did, but the bottom line, according to this poll, is the the majority knew.
This is the more relevant point. Not that ALL voters will change their opinion of Obama, but that a significant portion will when they hear the whole story. Most of them never did.
According to the previous poll you commented on, 81% did know. Most didn't care, or maybe just accepted that Obama didn't share Wright's views.
As a matter of fact, the extent of most of the respondents' knowledge here was very likely what they heard from the pollster.
What do you base that on?
And, again, the vast majority of voters don't spend any time on websites like FR or DU. It would be a huge mistake to let Obama skate on these issues again.
Obama may have been able to skate on Ayers, but Wright nearly derailed his campaign. Remember that "wonderful" speech he gave on race relations in response? Do you honestly believe the majority didn't know about it?
Gingrich and Santorum have already assured us that he won't if they are the nominee.
Santorum may be squeaky clean, but Newt has too much baggage to try digging up other people's skeletons, especially with an MSM that is sympathetic to Obama. Besides, I doubt either thinks that the majority isn't aware of Wright.
Wrong. Three of the four polls the YOU provided specifically said that the Wright story hurt voters' opinions of Obama.
What do you base that on?
Um, the fact that the MSM pretty much ignored the story.
Remember that "wonderful" speech he gave on race relations in response? Do you honestly believe the majority didn't know about it?
Again, people knew that he gave a speech on race relations. Most people did not know or care why. About 10% of the electorate pays attention to politics. Most find it boring. More people get their political news from John Stewart or SNL than Bill O'Reilley.
As an example, people from Alaska do not actually say "you betcha," but its one of the first things that comes to most voters minds when they think of Sarah Palin. That and "I can see Russia from my house."
Santorum may be squeaky clean, but Newt has too much baggage to try digging up other people's skeletons, especially with an MSM that is sympathetic to Obama.
That is EXACTLY the point my friend. Obama HAS to come after Newt's character, and Newt HAS to fire back. And if the candidate himself names names, and makes specific points, the media can't ignore him. McCain refused to do so.
Granted, only the first poll indicated that most Americans didn't believe Obama shared Wright's views, but I was answering in the context of "According to the previous poll you commented on". What they all show is that most Americans knew of Wright.
Um, the fact that the MSM pretty much ignored the story.
You and I have a different recollection of that situation.
Again, people knew that he gave a speech on race relations. Most people did not know or care why.
According to the polls I posted, most Americans knew about Wright.
That is EXACTLY the point my friend. Obama HAS to come after Newt's character, and Newt HAS to fire back.
There's only one problem with that. If we start screaming HUSSEIN-WRIGHT-AYERS-MUSLIM-TRAITOR as we did in 2008, Obama can easily respond by pointing out that he gave the order to kill Bin Laden and other terrorists. Yes, I know that he did it using intelligence gathered from policies that Bush implemented, and which he campaigned against. But he continued those policies, taking much criticism from his own side in the process, until OBL was dead. Do you honestly believe that screaming HUSSEIN-WRIGHT-AYERS-MUSLIM-TRAITOR will counter that, because I don't?
Americans are concerned about the economy. Many of us knew that in 2008, and we should all know it now. All we have to decide is, do we want a replay of 1980, or 2008?
I don’t know anybody but the kooks who are saying that our candidate needs to make an issue of Obama’s (irrelevant) Muslim background. So unless you point is that our guy should ignore Bill Ayres and Jeremiah Wirght (that seemed to be what you were saying originally), I’m not sure that we are in disagreement here.
What I think you are missing is the fact that of course 1/3 of voters aren’t going to care if Obama gets photographed in a hot tub with Ahmedinijad. So if half of all voters say they care about Jeremiah Wright (and were’re going to have to agree to disagree about how well the average voter knows that story), that means that at least half of all independants DO care to some extent. More importantly, MOST don’t know much or anything about Bill Ayres. And, no, the point of that information is not that Obama supports terrorism. The point is “How well do you really know this guy?” Even after four years, do you really want to put him in a position where he can do whatever he wants because he doesn’t have to worry about re-election. All of this would have been more effective the first time around, but it still has value.
Presidents usually defeat challengers because they have patronage and all the powers of incumbency. With the challenger party chiefs have to wait and hope to get their goodies. Sitting presidents can make the promises and carry them out now.
When a sitting president is challenged it's usually a bad sign for his party. Even if he beats back the challenge it's an indication the party is weak -- Bush 1992, Carter 1980, Ford 1976. If a challenger from the president's own party beats him, they'll be bad blood in the party and the coup could be taken as a sign that party's days in power are numbered.
The Hillary for VP thing sounds far-fetched, like the sort of thing people who don't know politics dream up, but that never actually happens. But pollsters have said that Hillary on the ticket could make the difference for Obama. It's just possible Oama might be tempted.
I think our candidate SHOULD ignore Ayers and Wright, because any attempts to question Obama's patriotism with that will be answered with the killing of OBL and other terrorists. The MSM will repeat soundbites of the AYERS/Wright mention and the OBL answer, and our candidate will be made to look bad.
What I think you are missing is the fact that of course 1/3 of voters aren’t going to care if Obama gets photographed in a hot tub with Ahmedinijad. So if half of all voters say they care about Jeremiah Wright (and were’re going to have to agree to disagree about how well the average voter knows that story), that means that at least half of all independants DO care to some extent.
Obama won in 2008 with convincing margins anyway.
More importantly, MOST don’t know much or anything about Bill Ayres.
Even if that is true, those on the left that did know didn't care. Take DU for an example. Do you honestly believe they weren't lurking at FR and seeing our posts about Ayers. Google "Ayers Democratic Underground" to find out how wrong that is. Here is an example. They knew. They didn't care.
And, no, the point of that information is not that Obama supports terrorism. The point is “How well do you really know this guy?” Even after four years, do you really want to put him in a position where he can do whatever he wants because he doesn’t have to worry about re-election.
They put him in position of President with a veto proof Dem majority in Congress, even knowing his ties to Wright.
All of this would have been more effective the first time around, but it still has value.
The only value it will have is to Obama if our candidate decides to join us in screaming HUSSEIN-WRIGHT-AYERS, especially if the economy actually improves. If FR wants to repeat this tactic hoping for a different result, do it. But our candidate needs to stick with the issues that most Americans care about.Ayers Democratic Underground
That “Ayers Democratic Underground” at the end was a copy paste goof. Sorry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.