The Dream Ticket

Just for sh*ts and giggles:

Some called a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton pairing the "Dream Ticket" in 2008. [That was me, BTD.] It didn't happen. But what about 2012?

"It's on the table," veteran Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward told CNN's John King in an interview Tuesday on John King, USA. "Some of Hillary Clinton's advisers see it as a real possibility in 2012."

That would stink for Hillary imo. She has the 2016 nomination if she wants it no matter what. Not being Obama's VP gives her some distance in case things go way south with his Administration. For Obama, I think it is a marginal plus, but what about Biden? Anyway, it will never happen.

Speaking for me only

< Disagreeing With The Beltway Bloggers Means You're Nuts | DWTS: Wrong Outcome >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    agree with you BTD (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by athyrio on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 08:57:56 PM EST
    Hillary should never agree to this IMO...why should she try to save him now? She should just distance herself from his administration from now on in case she wishes to run later...

    If she's asked (none / 0) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 11:05:01 PM EST
    she'll do it.  She's a good soldier.

    I'm getting to be a little bit over the (4.67 / 3) (#26)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 07:22:56 AM EST
    whole "good soldier" thing; I mean, loyalty is really swell, but not when it keeps your party from moving in a better direction.

    Because the health bill is on my mind, I'm thinking, specifically, of Bill Clinton, who has done more harm than good in cheerleading for Obama and some really bad policy decisions, instead of being a force for policy to move to a better place.  Even knowing, as I'm sure he did, that the Obama Plan was the Dole '93 plan - and he hated that plan, wouldn't even consider it then - he dutifully talked it up for Obama.  And I'm sorry, but politics and majority rule do not transform that plan into something great.

    And is there anyone who thinks Hillary finds the Obama plan the greatest achievement in a generation?  Well, who would know - has she even said anything about it?  I guess good little soldiers don't if they want to keep their jobs - or feel their value is better realized in one arena than another.  Her choice, but how does it not eat at her when health care was and always has been a signature issue for her?

    Loyalty has its place, but there comes a time when it gets in the way of progress - and so I'm not sure that Hillary's "good soldier" persona is what we need for where we are now or likely to be in two years or six.


    Nor am I, but (none / 0) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 07:49:39 AM EST
    that's who she is and people need to realize that and stop the fantasizing.

    But do consider this.  If there are any political figures in this country with reason to know how devastating a return to Republican rule will be, it's the Clintons.

    They fought it out in the primaries with Obama and lost.  I'm quite certain a large part of Hillary's deliberations about taking the SoS job was exactly the fact that they really would have to shut up and be part of the team if she took it.

    SoS is absolutely not a position from which you can agitate against the president's domestic policies, obviously. (And I still think that's the reason asking her to take it on was a stroke of political genius.)  But I'm not sure how effective she/they could have been if she'd stayed outside the administration.  As the defeated and demonized primary opponent and That Woman, she wouldn't have had much credibility.

    So rock, meet hard place.

    They are party people, always have been, always will be, and not given to destructive Teddy Kennedy-style flailing at windmills.

    I don't know whether HRC is, as you say, what we need in 2012 or 2016 either.  Have to wait and see how things play out.  But I don't see anybody else on the horizon, either.


    I think it's time liberal and (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:35:07 AM EST
    left of center Democrats did some serious thinking about what their party has begun to look like and the agenda it has begun to represent, whether they are willing to go along with it, and if not, whether they want to try from within to effect a change away from the direction the Obama Dems have started moving things, or consider an alternative.

    As much as I would have been happy to vote for Hillary in 2008, it's now 2010, and soon enough it will be 2012; I don't see the VP spot for Hillary as a position from which she would have the kind of influence I would want her to have - I still think shed be that GLS (good little soldier), deferring to Obama and the rest of the conservative Dems more often than not, in the interest of party unity - and the biggest question I have is, if she were to run in 2016, would she be able to shift into a more liberal gear, or does she just go with what I believe will still be a more conservative Democratic environment?

    Who the hell knows?

    What I think I know is that had the Dems put together the kind of health care plan they should have, the positive results from doing so would not just be helping people who need it, but would have carried over to other issues that have cried out for a more liberal approach and enabled more positive movement.  

    Honestly, I have no idea who or what is the answer to where we are and where we want to go, but I'm not convinced that Hillary is it.


    I think you're much too harsh (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by brodie on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    about the Clintons over HCR since neither was in a position to shape policy in the crucial early stages -- Bill, afaik, wasn't asked to advise, and Hillary of course had signed on to foreign policy duties.  If you can show me where either person was in the room when Obama et al cut the deal with the insurance cos and hospital orgs to present a half-loaf proposal that wouldn't include a public option, then we'd have more reason to gripe.

    Bill's being asked (presumably) to weigh in towards the final passage stage and help sell the final dubious product to the base, well that wasn't ideal but it also wasn't an outrageous obliterating of principle in service of party.   And, assuming again Bill wasn't in the loop in the policy-formation stage, he might well have reasonably concluded as others did that Obama either got what he could, or, more likely, recognized the early blunder in negotiating by O but decided he could still support a starter bill that does some good things and can be improved upon later.

    As for Hillary, there's just been nothing Obama has done of a jaw-dropping, beyond-the-pale nature to suggest she should have done other than keep her head down and concentrate on what she signed on to do in FP.  If Obama decides somehow to pull an LBJ and launch an unnecessary massive war somewhere, perhaps for political reasons, then that's the time to let him have it and resign if changes aren't made.*  

    Short of that though, cabinet members and the VP are supposed to back the prez once a decision is made lest his gov't come apart at the seams from constant cabinet carping in public.

    * VP Hubert Humphrey probably should have at the very least not agreed to go out and help sell LBJ's war and sell it so vigorously, one which he passionately disagreed with starting in early '65 (as per his unsolicited memo to Johnson revealed only yrs later), that being one of the most egregious examples of a pol putting loyalty to the president over principle in order to preserve his political viability


    Couple of things. (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 10:51:48 AM EST
    First, I do think Hillary was given State not just because she would acquit herself well in that position, but because it would take her totally out of the domestic arena - and there was then and is now a lot going on domestically.  Had her own vision for reform of the health care system been in line with Obama's, she'd have been the natural choice for what was handed to Sebelius - but Obama knew that it wasn't, so that was never an option, sadly.  

    As for Bill Clinton; there is no way on God's green earth that even if he wasn't part of the planning, he didn't recognize the Obama plan for what it was: crap.  And so, knowing that, should his party allegiance and his desire to see the Dems hold power take precedence over what he knows is best for the American people?  That's a decision he has to make, but I have, from time to time, felt that he championed policies that will hurt more than they will help - and if, in the end, these bad policies turn people off from the Democratic Party, and they end up hurting more than helping, everyone loses - well, except for the people who will make money off of it, of course.

    The larger issue I am struggling with is this matter of loyalty, and when it hinders more than it helps.  I guess what one thinks of that depends on what it is one wants from the party; some, I guess, like the fact that the party has become more conservative, but I don't, not at all.

    It's not so much that I'm ragging on the Clintons as it is that I'm tired of the good little soldiers who end up sacrificing the ability to bring about better policy in the name of party unity.


    Bill Clinton is certainly (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by brodie on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 11:27:49 AM EST
    enough of a close student of politics to recognize there are situations, perhaps not of a president's choosing, perhaps caused by his own blunder as with this fairly weak ACA, where you are stuck holding a mere half-loaf when more could have been gotten at one point.  And that the only thing to do then is to accept the less than ideal reality and sell it as a down payment on a whole loaf to come later.  FDR did that on the limited but landmark SS and wrt the FLSA bill which covered only a small portion of the working population.

    Presidents, and those who speak on behalf of their policies, have had to do far worse than promote legislation that's a little disappointing in its scope.  

    I would save my harsh critiques of those who help sell half-loaves for situations that are a lot more clear-cut.  Such as war policy, or a clear cowardly cave or failure to act on some major domestic matter.  VP Humphrey sold his liberal antiwar soul to protect his shaky standing with boss Lyndon.  That was clearly wrong and called for less loyalty and more principle (by at least shutting the eff up as he sold the wonderful war in public).  

    Neither Clinton has crossed the line into Humphrey territory, not even close.


    It would be one thing if the bill (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    they passed had been half of a really outstanding loaf, but it wasn't even close; and even the good things - like Medicaid expansion - are dependent on the funding being there, and a lot of other things - child-only policies, for one - are being gamed by the insurance companies.  The long wait for full implementation has given the insurance industry a dangerous head start on raising premiums, increasing co-pays and deductibles and reducing coverage.

    So, how great is the half-a-loaf when built into it are things that actually make a current bad situation even worse?

    And how bad is it when someone who is certainly smart enough to know this, ignores it for the most part, and contributes support to the effort?  I'm not sure that's a harsh judgment at all considering the physical and financial lives that are being affected by terrible health whatever legislation.  

    It's clear we disagree on the level of criticism that should be directed at Bill Clinton, but my larger point - which seems to have gotten lost - is that there comes a time when loyalty to a political party works at cross-purposes both in the development of good policy and a growing membership, and in the lives of the people affected by the resultant bad policy.


    I think it's a lot more likely (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 09:11:59 PM EST
    that she runs as VP in 2012 than it is that she runs, let alone is nominated, in 2016.

    Assuming there is an Obama 2nd term, no Dem is going to be able to run away from it in 2016. Though if anyone is skillful/gutsy enough to try it, it would be Hillary, whether or not she is running as an incumbent VP. Can you imagine the shape-shifter charges then?

    Probably neither will happen, we agree there.

    Anyway, Biden is not the problem ... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 09:36:19 PM EST
    in the Obama Administration. I can't imagine the Prez is seriously contemplating dropping him.

    If a popular GOP (none / 0) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 11:09:45 PM EST
    prospect emerges, the economy still sucks and the health care thing gets worse and worse and it looks like he's in trouble, he'll do whatever is necessary.  Far as i can tell, pretty much the only iron he could pull out of the fire that might do him any good at all would be Hillary.  But that's assuming he'll run in 2012, which I personally don't take as a given.

    I agree it's not likely, but I do not rule it out.


    I agree and doubt she'll run on his ticket (none / 0) (#23)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 01:31:00 AM EST
    Why would she risk that?  He's not popular now, his numbers could really tank in a second term.  OR, worse, he could lose in 2012.  I don't think she'll want to be tied to him.  

    It's just silly right now (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 09:48:38 PM EST
    to speculate about 2016, especially to announce who the nominee is going to be.  Iirc, Hillary was also supposed to be the runaway favortie for the nom in 2008, according to many in the pundit-blogocracy.  Six yrs from now is I don't know how many political lifetimes, and a lot can change in just 6 weeks let alone 6 years.

    2012, just around the corner from the midterms, is not quite as much a timewaster to speculate about, and some of us have posited a scenario for a dynamic change in the #2 slot -- Obama needing an electoral boost having a still-sluggish economy to run on, with perhaps a slower than hoped for disengagement from Afghanistan, the Dem base still grumbling and uneasy and dispirited.

    Short of another serious downturn in the economy which would make for an obvious disincentive for Hillary to accept a spot on the ticket, an Obama-HRC pair-up is entirely plausible if she's needed and if it isn't suicidal.

    Agree entirely (none / 0) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 11:10:41 PM EST
    with your analysis, as usual.

    Honestly, it's difficult to care much anymore. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 09:28:52 AM EST
    Given that our two choices in this country are an extreme-right party and a center-right party.


    My dream ticket (1.00 / 2) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 09:52:40 AM EST
    at this point in time would have Bernie Sanders in the top spot.

    Boy that is strange (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 02:59:15 PM EST
    Ratings show (1.00/2) Actual ratings (5.00/3)

    Guess system poltergeist doesn't like Bernie. ;o)


    Yeah (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 09:05:12 PM EST
    never happen. This whole Hillary on the ticket reminds me of back in 2003 when the GOP was trolling DKos and telling everybody that Bush was going to drop Dick Cheney for Condi Rice. We all saw how that turned out don't we?

    My 2012 dream ticket: (none / 0) (#4)
    by the capstan on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 09:20:31 PM EST
    Hillary and anyone else at all.  (Obama does not run again.)

    HRC is too smart to accept the VP spot (none / 0) (#5)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 09:21:25 PM EST
    There is nothing in it for her. And I don't see her sticking around for 2016, when she will be 68 years old.

    Ambition exceeds age (none / 0) (#7)
    by diogenes on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 09:36:57 PM EST
    However, as in 2004, MUCH better for Hillary if Obama loses in 2012, the GOP mucks things up, and Hillary is the natural leader of the party for 2016 (can you say Richard Nixon 1968?).  In 2016 she'll know enough not to blow it as in 2008.  I thus don't think that Hillary would be VP if it would save Obama from losing in 2012.  In fact, if I were
    Obama I'd worry a little about Clintonista sabotage as 2012 approached.  Hillary is certainly doing VERY little to lend her political capital to helping Obama domestically in the first two years and basically has been "above it all" with various foreign missions.  

    Yeah, kinda crazy, huh? What with her ... (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 09:47:44 PM EST
    Hillary is certainly doing VERY little to lend her political capital to helping Obama domestically in the first two years and basically has been "above it all" with various foreign missions.

    ... being Secretary of State, and all ...


    Really (none / 0) (#15)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 11:07:19 PM EST
    Geez.  Politics and Government -- not to mention Clinton -- 101.

    domestic political capital (none / 0) (#56)
    by diogenes on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 07:00:54 PM EST
    Hillary didn't exactly push for Obama's domestic agenda, thus not being linked with it.  And the achievements as Secretary of State are mighty slim, to date, though there have been no bungles either.

    Did you miss ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 09:09:41 PM EST
    ... the Secretary of State, part?

    Care to name the last Secretary of State who played a prominent role pushing their administration's domestic agenda?



    Hillary didn't "blow it" in 2008. (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Angel on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 10:21:36 PM EST
    The nomination was stolen from her in a backroom deal.  

    Nothing new to say. (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 09:54:51 PM EST

    Oh I almost guarantee it'll be Obama and Hillary (none / 0) (#12)
    by beefeater on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 11:00:29 PM EST
    in 2012, except it's Hillary primarying Obama much like Teddy boy went after a weakened Carter in '80.

    And as long as she stays away from driving campaign workers off of bridges she has a pretty good chance.

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 11:11:57 PM EST
    Not gonna happen, no way, nohow.  That's not how she operates or would consider operating. She will not challenge a sitting Dem. president, for crying out loud.  You read it here first if you haven't read it elsewhere.

    If Obama choses to run in 2012, (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 11:57:33 PM EST

    no Dem will mount a primary challenge against him even if he is doing poorly in the polls.

    I think Evan Bayh (none / 0) (#45)
    by Madeline on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 10:08:57 AM EST
    will run against Obama is 2012.

    Really? (none / 0) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 10:26:26 AM EST
    With the demographics of the current Democratic Party, I can't see how any Dem (even a faux one) could win the general if they defeated Obama in the primaries.

    BTW, why do you believe that Bayh is going to run in 2012?


    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#22)
    by shoephone on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 12:51:03 AM EST
    Sure, that's what we said about Teddy in '80 and (none / 0) (#24)
    by beefeater on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 01:48:47 AM EST
    Gene in '68. Oh, nobody will challenge an incumbent democrat.

    Result? Dick Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

    You don't think that Hill, backed by Bill, really really want to return to their rightful place in American history?

    I won't call you a fool because it's against board rules, but...


    And how'd that work out for them? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ed on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 09:04:25 AM EST
    So you think Hillary wants to go down in history with Gene and Ted as helping to elect a Republican president?  Talk about foolishness...

    I'm pretty sure Bill (none / 0) (#42)
    by brodie on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 09:54:37 AM EST
    was against Ted's 1980 run (I don't think he got Gov Clinton's endorsement, which presumably he sought), and certainly in retrospect it doesn't seem like the sort of political move Bill would advise his wife to emulate.

    As for 1968, that was different, but that's because it was VN and Lyndon -- hated Lyin' Lyndon who refused to listen to his war critics and just kept continuing the awful war year after year.  Bill Clinton probably was for a Dem primary challenge in '68, or at least later agreed it was actually a necessary thing to do under the dire circumstances.

    Not quite 1968 at the moment, nor is it likely to turn out that way.  


    Wingers do love their ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 07:54:59 AM EST
    ... Chappaquiddick stories.

    Your primary "theory" is equally ridiculous.


    Hickenlooper in 2016 (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdm251 on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 11:01:31 PM EST
    The political gods seem to always smile on Hickenlooper, his opponents seem to keep self destructing

    Doubt it. (none / 0) (#19)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 11:29:02 PM EST
    Helen is much too protective of her and Teddy's privacy and I can't see her subjecting themselves to the circus that is a run for POTUS.  

    Now, after two terms as Governor, a run for Senate wouldn't be out of the question...


    Good point (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdm251 on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 11:57:53 PM EST
    I was being somewhat facetious about Hickenlooper as president, but he would definitely be a good senate candidate.

    How is Hillary perceived as SOS? (none / 0) (#25)
    by observed on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 06:48:46 AM EST
    I believe here popularity ratings are good in general, but I think she absolutely stinks at State. She has no signal success to her name, and lots of belligerent posturing.

    I think she does very well (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:00:32 AM EST
    at it.  What does a "win" at the State Department look like right now other than getting Holbrooke fired :)

    Tell me one success she's had. (none / 0) (#31)
    by observed on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:03:16 AM EST
    Mideast peace talks (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:12:03 AM EST
    People back to the table talking to each other again.

    It may be the modus operandi of (none / 0) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 09:36:00 AM EST
    this administration wherein all cabinet officers seem to take a lower profile than we have seen in the past.  We tend to be introduced to the cabinet secretaries when they serve as a shield (e.g., Napolitano and the underwear bomber, Salazar and the  Deep Horizon BP blow) and then disappear quickly after they prove less than helpful.  Even policy wonks probably have to think a bit to name the cabinet officers (Sec of Transporation anyone?) or wonder whatever happened to them (e.g, Kathleen Sebelius).  

    Won't she be pushing 70 by 2016? (none / 0) (#30)
    by coast on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:02:45 AM EST
    That is rarefied air for presidental nominees isn't it.

    John McCain (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 08:25:05 AM EST
    Bob Dole, Ronald Reagan.

    Seem to recall that the age issue was (none / 0) (#50)
    by coast on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 11:25:05 AM EST
    brought up when all ran.  No need to point out that neither Dole or McCain were elected.  As I said its rare for a nominee approaching 70 to be elected.

    Hillary really seems 'young' for her age. So I (none / 0) (#37)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 09:18:52 AM EST
    could see her at president at 70.

    Dream Ticket (none / 0) (#36)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 09:18:07 AM EST

    My dream ticket: Clinton/Clinton (none / 0) (#43)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 09:57:58 AM EST
    HIllary on top!

    What is Obama's dream? (none / 0) (#44)
    by EL seattle on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 10:00:26 AM EST
    If Obama really wants to bring change to the American political process, one thing that he could do would be to bring a woman to the position of vice-president.  That could be Hillary Clinton, or maybe someone else.  But for Obama's historic legacy, the fact that he was the one who actually made it possible for a woman to that hold that position would be something that would be a notable addition to his list of 'first-ever' achievements.

    Of course, that assumes that Obama could win a second term with a female running mate.  But I think that the odds are far, far better than they were with similar past attempts (Ferraro, Palin).  

    She would lose (none / 0) (#46)
    by Madeline on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 10:18:43 AM EST
    a lot of her base if she went for VP.  I really think she is a good politician and an effective policy wonk.  However, I would have to ask why she would even consider second place. She is now admired for her skills as SOS but running for President would be political death for her, I think anyway.  She would be demonized again too.

    America is not ready for a female president. Just notice that every time her name is mentioned, so is her age. I guess the belief is that females get senile faster than men.  

    presidents love controlling (none / 0) (#48)
    by pitachips on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 10:38:06 AM EST
    their legacies - and that includes who runs after they are gone. from the very beginning i believed biden was a one termer - someone who was picked to address a very discrete electoral weakness obama had in 08. the experience issue will be moot by 2012 and obama will want to choose who might be his successor.

    with respect to hillary, i agree with the other poster above who mentioned that it would be much easier for her running as a VP. looking at her popularity today it might be tempting to think that the nomination would be "hers" anytime she decides to run, but by the time 2016 rolls around there will be plenty of other ambitious pols that will develop some national name recognition and may not necessarily fall back just because hillary has thrown her hat in the ring. but if she were running as vp that would obviously limit severely the chance that she would be challenged.

    Hillary as VP going into (none / 0) (#52)
    by brodie on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 11:33:09 AM EST
    2016 -- yes it would probably limit the number of challengers, but not entirely eliminate all of the viable ones.  See Bradley, Bill, 2000 vs VP Al Gore.  

    Just takes one -- and had BB won in NH (which he nearly did) it would have caused a huge headache for Gore and the Dems and possibly put Gore's nom in jeopardy.

    I think her age, and the fact that she's Hillary and a Clinton, all tend to suggest that she would get at least one major challenger, but not the large field of contenders we saw in 2004 and 2008.


    That assumes (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Obama wins in 2012 and she is VP going into 2016.

    If obama really wanted what was good for (none / 0) (#58)
    by Bornagaindem on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 08:10:23 AM EST
    dems /country he would drop out as a candidate for 2012. Might even happen because he doesn't really like running the country. He likes the hoop la but not the work. That has been apparent his entire career. Too bad being president is really hard  and he found out too late that he would really be expected to some work and leave behind thee role of figurehead or we might have been spared his horrible failures.