Thursday, October 13, 2011

Talk of Joe Biden - Hillary Clinton Swap Annoying W.H.

They should be happy that the buzz isn't about a Barack Obama - Hillary Clinton swap. Here is the quote to support the headline.

The White House is getting irked about persistent speculation in the media that President Obama might dump Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as his running mate in 2012 in favor of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

After hosts of NBC's "Today" show questioned both Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton on consecutive days about a possible switch, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer posted this on his Twitter account Thursday morning:

"I have noticed a weird @todayshow obsession with faux story of Sec. Clinton replacing @VP...Have asked both about it last 2 days on the show."

But I wonder if the odds aren't developing for a nightmare scenario for the incumbent and by extension his party. I'm old enough to remember Lyndon Johnson declining to run after a poor showing in New Hampshire in 1968. I know that no one is challenging Obama in the Democrat party, but I wonder how bad it would have to be for him to announce he wouldn't be seeking a second term.

Official unemployment remains stubbornly stuck above 9% despite loads of stimulus. This chart is illustrative.

It is only a matter of time before there is default on euro zone debt, which will have a global chain reaction. Even though that is a necessary corrective, there will be short term negative consequences. I know that Franklin Roosevelt was re-elected with miserable economic numbers, but he was credited with making things better, regardless of whether he actually did so or not. Obama is not so widely perceived as handling the jobs problem well, given that he devoted the first half of his term to health care insurance reform. The percentage of people who "strongly disapprove" of his job performance is at a dangerously high 40%+.

While the topline numbers are troubling enough, dig deeper into them and the news gets no better for Obama. Forty-three percent of independents — a group the president spent the better part of the last year courting — strongly disapprove of the job he is doing. Forty-seven percent of people 65 years of age and older — reliable voters in any election — strongly disapprove of how he is doing his job.

Strong opposition to Obama has grown markedly since the start of the year.

Further, there is the steady drip of scandal from Solyndra and Fast and Furious, eroding his core strength of being perceived as a clean and different kind of politician. The OWS movement doesn't seem all that enamored of him either, check this video from, which seemed pretty balanced. Even though there are Obama supporters and detractors in this crowd, his supporters don't seem all that, well, ardent.

Interestingly, despite the potential for epic disaster, today's intrade odds put Obama at almost even money, 48.5% to re-elect.

But it still begs the question, how bad would it have to be for Obama to abdicate the nomination in favor of Hillary? Certainly not Biden. Or am I missing something?


I'm sure its just coincidence, but I got this email while I was putting this post together. Here is Chelsea Clinton, reminding us of how fabulous her father was.

B --

I knew that when my father left the White House 10 years ago, he was not going to stop working to give people the opportunities, health, and tools necessary to live a better life.

His vision of a more equal and prosperous world motivated his decision to run for his first public office (and all thereafter). It is that same force that motivates his work with the Clinton Foundation today.

As we celebrate 10 years of my father's foundation this year, we're looking to the future, and asking friends and allies to be part of creating that future.

Please share your thoughts on what challenges you think the Clinton Foundation should tackle in the next 10 years -- and please let my father know that you will stand with him in this work.

I recently had the honor of attending the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) -- an annual meeting he organizes to inspire, connect, and empower a community of global leaders to forge solutions to the world's most pressing challenges.

The experience was invigorating, but it is the action that comes out of these meetings that is truly inspiring. Since the first meeting in 2005, members have made more than 2,000 commitments, which have already improved the lives of 300 million people in more than 180 countries.

That same commitment to meaningful and sustainable results can be seen in the remarkable work of the Clinton Foundation over the past decade -- transforming lives by giving people across the globe the tools they need to create better lives for themselves and their communities:

-- 4 million people in 70 countries are benefiting from lifesaving HIV/AIDS treatments at reduced prices;
-- 26,000 entrepreneurs, small business owners, and smallholder farmers are improving their families' livelihoods and their communities;
-- 30 million kids in the United States and Latin America are receiving more nutritious meals in schools; and
-- 4.5 million trees have been planted in Malawi and Rwanda, benefiting over 8,000 farmers.

I am very proud of the incredible work my father's foundation does -- every day, all year long, in every corner of the globe -- to change the course of people's lives for the better.

He inspires so many of us; he inspires me every day. So, let's give a little inspiration back as he embarks on his next 10 years of service to our global community.

Please send your thoughts about where the Clinton Foundation should go in the future -- and please let my father know that we'll stand with him as he continues his work around the world:

Thank you,

Chelsea Clinton

Quite interesting timing to be promoting the Clinton brand name.


  1. Thats a nice chart you've got there.
    However, the stimulus-and-tax-cut act was designed by economists who thought that the economy was shrinking 5 percentage points slower than it actually was. The claim that 'the stimulus promised lower unemployment then we got and is therefore always wrong' is based on faulty data

  2. OK, but how are we to know whether it was effective or not? It was sold with a certain promise, but all it did was shovel money to prop up unionized state employee salaries, not a particular productive part of the economy.