Obama crashes; Hillary Waits – UPDATE

Don’t know if this is making the rounds, but it should be – Obi’s Sister cracked me up with this opening:

While the honeymoon has been over for a while, inside sources whisper that Obama is now sleeping on America’s couch. It won’t be long before he’s kicked out of the house and asks his secretary find him a place to live.

Obi’s Sister wonders why Hillary Clinton did not speak up about strong-arm tactics from Obamites during the 2008 campaign? Hillary, like Ronald Reagan, would never expose another Democrat. She has been biding her time, waiting and watching as a spectacularly unprepared president does a crash-and-burn in the polls. Now, with Obama on the couch, Hillary is letting others handle the lobbing of questions at the Obama team’s tactics.

Hillary Clinton has waited her whole adult life to become the First Female President of the United States. She graduated from Wellesley with people whispering it about her, and Life Magazine covering her. She guested on the Johnny Carson show, when no one knew who she was, for reasons no one understood, and that was the buzz. She married Bill Clinton and waited while he ran Arkansas, tossing her a bone by allowing her to “improve” the state’s education policies. When the Clintons left for the White House, there was nothing stellar to report about education in Arkansas, so we don’t hear much about that.

When Bill hit Washington, Hillary took on healthcare and displayed only a little less tact, transparency and bipartisanship than did Nancy Pelosi, who is the true architect of Obamacare. (Obama doen’t care about policy; he cares about campaigns and crowds. Increasingly, Obama reminds me of Lt. Scheisskopf from Catch-22; with war, incompetence and chaos all around him, his focus is on winning the parade competition).

Hillary waited while policy-wonking and politicizing war tactics in the senate. Now she is waiting while flying about being the president’s least favorite foreign envoy, the Secretary of State who does not get to finesse for him. She is entirely capable of waiting through Obama’s presidency, saying nary a word against him, and then trouncing him soundly in the 2012 primaries. That is what The Rodham does: she waits, she watches, and she learns, and then she wins.

Once upon a time Hillary’s ideal ticket back to the White House might have read Clinton/Obama, but that got screwed up by over-anxious people who saw charisma and popularity and decided they could win on nothing more. Well, they could. Then they discovered they couldn’t govern on a wink and a smile, and a middle-finger-face scratch.

Hillary has waited and will wait. She’s taken plenty for the party, and remained loyal; that has been noted. In the interim, she has actually made independents, centrists and even some conservatives who had previously declared that they would cut off their hands before casting a vote in her direction, look at her with something like longing. They’ve decided they would have preferred her, 1000 times, over the relentless reformer in the White House and his whip-cracking wife.

Bill Clinton may be the First Gentleman who tells us all to eat our green beans, and that dessert is “not a right,” but he’ll at least manage to do it after telling us all about his past, fried-banana-eating life, and cracking a smile or two.

And Bill Clinton would never be so tone deaf as to tell people, in the midst of a major recession/depression, to take their vacations at the tar-balled beaches of the Gulf States, while the First Family heads in the other direction. He would never, intentionally or not, deliver a message that says, essentially, that tarball-beaches, are just fine for the little people.

Then again, under a President Hillary, it is entirely likely that there would be no tar-balled beaches in the Gulf; had the BP blast happened on Hillary Clinton’s watch, there would have been no need for silly talk of “boots on necks” and “ass-kicking,” because the federal government’s response to the crisis would have been swift, competent, energetic and focused on containment, containment, containment of that spill.

Because Hillary Clinton knows what apparently the “sort of god” fellow who the “mediating intelligences” in the gatekeeping press told us was “taking a step down, to be president” does not understand: it’s the economy, stupid. You get ahead of a crisis, you don’t allow circumstances to overtake you; you don’t allow environmental and economic catastrophe to take hold in people’s minds or imaginations. You raise the flag, you accept the help, you send the supertankers and you never give up. You keep the people working, because as long as they’re working and manufacturing and spending, and dreaming, they believe that everything is alright, and that the future holds something for their children.

Barack Obama’s miserable, pessimistic, put-your-dreams-away presidency has been Hillary Clinton’s best rehabilitation; it has–O irony!–provided a crisis-filled opportunity.

Coming off the good publicity her daughter’s wedding will engender, we’ll see more and more stories about elite Democrat gatherings where Obama’s destructive policies will be exposed, even as he is never named.

And the whispered buzz will build: Hillary! She should have won in ’08; she was robbed and we were fooled. It was always Hillary! Barbra Streisand will come out of retirement to announce that while she voted loyally in ’08, she will vote lovingly in ’10 and political theater in America will get back to being recognizable.

I can’t wait to see The Rodham back on the campaign trail. 2012 will be interesting.

UPDATE: A day later, Pete DuPont seems to be thinking similarly while Neo-neocon says Hillary Schmillary!

RCP: It’s not just the economy
NRO: It’s the Lying, Too
Ed Morrissey: Accomplishments?
Politico: Time for Obama to make sacrifices
Bill Press (via Hot Air): Americans are just spoiled!
Clift: Blame Bush More!
Obama’s Drilling Ban: NOLA’s Third Calamity
Radio Equalizer: Stupid, Spoiled Americans!
NASA: Feelgoodism goes international
Miserable Failures

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Jeff

    I have to admit that it’s true: I am a Reagan Republican who never wanted to Hillary to win. But 2 years of this guy makes me miss Bill and even her.

  • http://www.noodlingonit.com Kris, in New England

    I’ve been wondering about this – has anyone from the same political party ever challenged a sitting president – and won?

  • Jeff

    “Sleeping on America’s couch.” Boy does that ever sum it up.

  • http://stubbornfacts.us Simon

    Kris in New England: yes. In 1856, the sitting Democratic President was Franklin Pierce, but the Democrats nominated James Buchanan, who won.

  • Doc

    Wow, this Hillary love-fest is unexpected and disturbing. Do you really think her policies would differ much from Obama’s? She’s as much an Alinkyite as Obama is, perhaps more so. Read Barbara Olsen’s books on her.

    [Wow. Do you really think I wrote a love-fest? Read it again. -admin]

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Anchoress | A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com

  • archangel

    I have two words for you… TED KENNEDY.

    HE couldn’t even beat Carter in 1980. BHO is out “Cartering” Carter and may very well out “Buchanan” James Buchanan… the dandy that was our catastrophe in 1856-1860.

    During that time a nascent political movement made up of abolitionists and dieaffected Whigs came to the fore. They elected the next president… Abraham Lincoln.

    In our time we have a nascent political movement who are saying they are taxed enough already and are sick of being enslaved by THEIR government. Hillary is PART of that government.

    The only question now is whether 2012 produces a hitherto unforseen “Abraham Lincoln” for our time. They didn’t see him coming in 1860.

  • nohype1

    I have spent way too much time watching the political news for the past 20 months because I was astounded that this country could elect a person as unprepared and unqualified to be president as we did in 2008. I knew that a disaster was in the making, and I just had to watch it unfold. In the past month there has been a clear shift in perception not by the ordinary people but by the elites who were so completely conned by this charlatan and his enablers. They are starting to distance themselves from the calamity that they helped create. I do not expect that Obama will be running in 2012. By then the full extent of what a disaster he is will be apparent to all but that 25% of the population that is always in the state of total cluelessness.

  • Sarah Kuvasz

    I’m not sure there are ANY circumstances under which I would vote for Hillary; but, I sure am sorry more of the rest of you didn’t. I agree with Miss A, we would be much better off were she President now. Beautifully written, btw.

    Thank you.

  • DWiss

    Yes. This is what I think will happen. Even more interesting to contemplate, though, is how Republicans will repond. Will they nominate Sarah Palin so that the gender issue is moot, or will they go with Mitt, or maybe even a newcomer? Grab you popcorn and get a comfortable seat. 2012 will not be boring!

  • EJHill

    Reagan’s 11th Commandment was, indeed, never speak ill of another Republican. But neither was he shy when he felt that he was being railroaded. Remember The Gipper’s “Nashua Moment?”

  • http://www.justgrits.wordpress.com Obi’s Sister

    Thanks for the link and kind words.

    It is a curious thing, indeed. Almost reminds me of a scene out of GWTW, where Mammy is giving Scarlett a tongue-lashing for wanting to go to Atlanta to “be close to her dear Melanie.” To paraphrase, “Mr. Ashley will be coming home, and you’ll be there waitin’ for him, just like a spider. Heh.

  • Pingback: The Tangled Web of Obama’s Politics « Obi’s Sister

  • Roz Smith

    She’s McCain in ’06. Her time has passed but she doesn’t quite know it.

    Hillary’s main appeal has always been that she is a woman but she is strictly the passe 1980 Dress for Success model in the ugly suit designed to hide any trace of the femine form. Fresher and more attractive women are now on the political scene with lots more to come this November.

    These newcomers often took a vastly different route to political office. They married the guy next store they fell in love with, not the guy they met in Con Law they calculated would go places. Their guy didn’t continually humilated them with not very well concealed affairs with trashy women because these women simply would not tolerate it. These women often concentratred first on having a family, perhaps while working in a family business or from home so they could look after the children better. Hillary had one child largely raised by state employed nannies because that’s what the voters expected if Bill wanted to get reelected. In short, Hillary’s a woman’s libber and these new female politicians are liberated to be real women. Next to them, Hillary’s suppression of her femininity in the name of ambition is a bad dream younger women want to forget.

  • tim maguire

    I think a Clinton redux would be the best possible outcome–Republicans run the House and Senate, with a pragmatic Democrat in the White House (I’m a fan of divided government).

    Clinton is one of only two Democrats I trust on foreign policy and she’s smart enough not to make the same mistake twice–and she has already made enough domestic mistakes that she’s much less dangerous than most other prominent Democrats.

  • Kirstin

    In October 2009 Sec. Clinton said she would not run again for the presidency. We’ll see in good time whether she will go back on that resolution or not.

    And whether she would be an improvement over the current incumbent? Perhaps she would be a better administrator and somewhat more fiscally responsible. But in many ways she is as radical as Mr. Obama.

    Republicans need to search diligently for a candidate who can convincingly challenge and beat either of these two.

  • Roz Smith

    Obi’s Sister,

    Funny you mentioned Mammy. I always think of another line of hers from GWTW whenever I see Barack and Michelle on a ‘date night’. Mammy was scolding Scarlett on her displays of conspicious consumption in war ravaged Atlanta after her engagement to Rhett Butler’s ill gotten fortune. To paraphrase “you can dress up in them fancy clothes and give yourself airs but you ain’t nuthin but a pair of mules in horse harness.”

    [Hmmmm...not sure about this comment, Roz. Are you calling the president and his wife mules in harness? Are you making a racial slur? Please clarify your meaning. Thanks -admin]

  • Janis

    “That is what The Rodham does: she waits, she watches, and she learns, and then she wins.”

    Sounds like EXACTLY WHAT I WANT in a president. :-) Someone who gets ahead of things and never gives up. That’s why I voted for her — before my state stole my vote and handed it to that trendy, unqualified poseur.

  • dry valleys

    What if it never happens?

    What if Obama wins in 2012? What will conservatives do then?

    [Hey, it's possible. But honestly, I don't even get the impression that Obama much likes being president. He may be content to be a one-termer...go on to write his books, etc...-admin]

  • Lola LB

    What planet are you on? Do you really think anyone will be in a mood to vote another Democrat into the White House so soon after Obama?

    [Hmmmmm...I don't think I ever said that. I simply said Hillary will challenge Obama in '12. -admin]

  • AMDG

    Funny, I was having this conversation the other day with friends… I will stake everything I own that the Clintonistas (Carville, Begala, Grunwald, etc.) have polling data on all of this and that Hillary! is at least toying with the idea of thinking about running. If she is going to do so, expect her to leave the Cabinet in late summer, citing a desire to spend more time with her family. (And aside from that meaning Chelsea, we all know what a crock that is.) If she jumps from State, Obama should be very, very nervous. This may be why Obama floated the idea of moving her to Defense when Gates steps down as it locks her into the Administration. Alternatively, Obama could agree to dump the gaffetastic Joe Biden (he will step down “for health reasons”) and put Hillary on the ticket in ’12. A little desperate but better than a primary challenge from Hillary!. Not the best option but Hillary is fighting the clock right now.

    Also gone after the midterms: Gibbs, Napalitano, and Holder. One may go before November but it has to be soon or it becomes a process story. If November is a disaster for the Dems, there is going to be a lot of anger and fingerpointing. Also, Pelosi gets cut loose and Hoyer becomes Minority Leader.

    I worked on the Hill in 1994 and this is starting to feel a lot like that now…

  • http://www.noodlingonit.com Kris, in New England

    Simon – thank you.

    2012 will be interesting on so many levels because I really don’t see Hilary sitting it out until 2016. I do believe she will challenge P.BO – and by then I also believe that this country will elect anyone except him. And the Democrats may well do in 2012 what was done in 1856.

    Interesting times indeed.

  • http://westernchauvinist.blogspot.com Western Chauvinist

    My husband has also speculated that Obama won’t run for a second term. He’s the optimist in the family. I’m not convinced we’ll have free and fair elections THIS year, let alone in 2012. And I’m only half-kidding.

    Given this perspective – Hillary schmillary. Who cares? Like Tim Maguire, I thought I was a fan of divided government. That was until the Democrats became the Social Democrats with overt admiration for the now collapsing European social democrat model. Like the rest of the world experimenting with socialism, America can’t be a little bit totalitarian (like being a little pregnant). We will be all of one thing or all of the other. 2010 will decide.

    Vote Republican and then hold your candidate’s feet to the fire on founding conservative principles. The first of which is Liberty!

  • Jeff

    Is it because I haven’t been watching TV, or has B.O. disappeared lately? I haven’t seen him bloviating from a teleprompter much recently and life seems much better.

  • AMDG

    Western, I think that Obama is such a narcissist there is no way he isn’t running again. I am sure he thinks he’s doing a fantastic job. Also, he would have to give the Dems a head’s up on his one term decision (to avoid an LBJ bombshell) and thus instantly make himself a lame duck.

  • Steve Colby

    I hear the voice of Orson Welles saying,
    “Could we but raise Richard from the dead we should have a Mighty Champion and Slayer of Democrats”

    ….showing my age a bit here

  • dry valleys

    I have long admired Hillary’s massive intellect, & fierce efforts to totally master her brief. This is exactly what you’d want in a foreign secretary, & I wouldn’t be surprised if she was actually quite liking it, because certainly she does it well. Most people wouldn’t care about the names of obscure foreign leaders or who is allied to what.

    Oddly enough our own William Hague once aspired to be prime minister, but lost interest in that long ago. They tell me they are quite impressed by them, & that he is so pragmatic & efficent that they wonder whether he has any guiding principles at all.

    Although the Economist is right-wing, I appreciate the research & analysis. I try to ignore their “tone of voice” but I suppose you don’t even need to do that because you agree with it.

    I have read several positive analyses of Hillary’s work at the foreign office. I can’t find any now this minute, there hasn’t been one for a few weeks. But I’ve not seen much fault-finding over her efforts.

  • http://www.justgrits.wordpress.com Obi’s Sister

    Roz Smith – Perfect analogy!

  • Doc

    Anchoress, I just read it again and I definitely got an “I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar” vibe, especially the parts where you think Hillary’s crisis response would be so superior to Obama’s. I think she would have used the crisis as an opportunity to advance long-cherished environMental dreams, like killing American oil drilling forever. It’s what Democrats do these days. Hillary is just another Democrat, no different than Obama, Pelosi, Durbin, Reid, Kerry, Waxman, Frank, or Biden. They all have to be put down for a while, until that Party is forced to make some changes.

    [Since I don't particularly identify as a feminist or pay much attention to "I am Womaning" I can only imagine you heard what you wanted to hear. I DO think Hillary's crisis management would have been superior to Obama's but not because she is a woman: because she is a pragmatist. Stumbling on the Gulf is going to cost livelihoods: you don't let that happen because it gets in the way of governance. Period. -admin]

  • Jeff

    Drudge is reporting that President Clinton has met with Obama on the economy. Obama and this economy are the equivalent of a 19-alarm fire for the Democrat party. They are bringing the one adult (mostly) back into the room to save Obama from himself.

  • Pingback: The Wild Patience | Little Miss Attila

  • http://Radiopatriot.wordpress.com Andrea Shea King

    Great piece, terrific insight. Personally? I don’t think Hillary has a snowball’s chance of winning the presidency. Too late. Especially if a Meg Whitman decides to jump in (now THAT would be a popcorn moment…)

    Also, it would depend on who we nominate as the Republican candidate. Another John McCain and Hillary’s got a chance.

    As for Hillary’s foreign policy savvy and confidence in her ability? May I remind you of the Clinton’s cozy tech trade secret swap with the Chicoms? Who would trust her? She is as lusting of power as any of them, including Obama, et al. And willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it.

    Finally, you mentioned that Nancy Pelosi wrote the Health Care bill… my understanding is that it was written by the Center for American Progress socialists, according to Glenn Beck. Pelosi was the ramrod who twisted arms and pushed it thru on Christmas Eve.

    Thanks for a thoughtful piece, Anchoress. You’re on top of your game!

  • Bruce Meyer

    It took Obama to make Hilary look moderate.

  • Bruce Meyer

    I think Obama doesn’t have his eye on a second term, I think he wants a bigger world platform.

  • RandyB

    I have said for a while now that the pre-Convention deal between the Chicago Machine (of which Obama is far from the head; he is the manufactured product and puppet) and the Clinton Machine (of which Bill and Hillary are clearly still in charge) that was brokered to prevent a floor fight for the nomination in the 2008 campaign may well have included a deal that Hillary would step aside in 2008 in return for (among other concessions; see the number of Clinton people in the executive branch) an “unopposed” nomination run in 2012.

    The only wild card in the mix is the Puppet, Obama, whose narcissism may well be enough to cause him to run *without* the support of the Chicago Machine, on the belief that he has enough of a popular following to succeed.

  • Gino

    All those waiting for Hillary are sick. You need to understand there is not much difference between Obama and Hillary. They are both champions of wealth redistribution socialism.
    If there is a difference it may be the degree to which they believe in the same political philosophy.

  • Bender

    Then again, under a President Hillary, it is entirely likely that –

    It would have been JUST AS BAD, with merely a few minor details changed.

    We don’t need to wonder what she would be like. We can already see.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a DISASTER. No boot on the neck?? What do you think the State Department did to Honduras? and what they are doing to countries in Africa? And what about her Reset Button?

    The entire world holds us in lower regard today. A lot of that is because of the unmerited hubris of Hillary Clinton, who is just as much of a know-it-all-done-nothing as Barack Obama.

  • newton

    “… inside sources whisper that Obama is now sleeping on America’s couch.”

    Forget the couch! How about “America’s doghouse”?

  • http://westernchauvinist.blogspot.com Western Chauvinist

    I’m with you AMDG. But, it isn’t just Obama’s narcissism at play. The Left has NEVER been this close to the absolute power it needs to achieve Utopia. Thus, the caricature of the almost entirely powerless Republicans as THE major obstacle to “progress.”

    And, while the Left is fond of characterizing its opposition as stupid, you and I know the Left is NOT stupid! They know this is their last opportunity for at a least a generation to wield this much power, if that stubborn, stupid, center-right electorate has its say. That’s why I’m waiting… waiting… waiting for the crisis the administration will use to justify “postponing” the fall elections. I pray to God I’m wrong. I hope to happily join all of you in a big laugh at WC on election day!

  • Bender

    If I knew then what I know now, I would do it all again and still cross over in the Dem primary to vote against Hillary Clinton.

    Say what you will about Barack Obama — he has done America at least one invaluable service in plunging a knife in Clintonism. Even if for nothing else, he deserves our thanks for that. (And even in his unmitigated awfulness, he deserves our thanks because America can finally see what undiluted Dem-leftism looks like and how we can never ever ever allow them to have power again.)

  • Don Rodrigo

    Sorry, Hillary would not be a competent President, except by comparison with Obama, and then only if she is handed crisis opportunities by events that resemble what Obama has had to deal with. But when confronted with something unexpected and new, she will stumble, badly. Her husband would only be useful in advising how to do things the old, failed ways, and how to fool the public.

    She has been an awful and ineffective Secretary of State, and not just because the President has preempted her repeatedly, but because she’s no good at it. She’s also the architect of Hillarycare that had most of the same odious elements as Obamacare, including rationing provisions, dark talk of really old people being superfluous and inconvenient, fining peiople for not being insured, and sabotaging small businesses by saddling them with unsustainable health insurance mandates.

    All any competent Republican opponent would have to do to destroy her is remind the public that 1) she’s like Obama by citing the litany of sins I just listed, and 2) when the press goes to bat for her, to remind the voting public what happened the last time the press did that.

  • CJ

    Regarding Roz’s comment:

    It is not a racial slur; when Mammy found out that Scarlett was marrying Rhett, whom she did not approve of, she compared them both to “mules in horse harness”, meaning that they could “polish a mule’s feet and shine his hide and put brass all over his harness and hitch him to a fine carriage–but he is a mule just the same.”

    “Mules in horse harness” can be used to describe a person who looks pretty, modern, and even elegant, but is actually selfish, snobbish, or lacking in elegance of the mind.”

    [Thank you for the clarification. I'd still like to hear what Roz had in mind, though. -admin]

  • http://www.bloggernews.net Nancy Reyes

    Ironically, Hillary probably would have won the nomination if the Obama supporters hadn’t intimidated her supporters in the caucuses. Indeed, despite the news media propaganda, the popular vote in the primaries was equal.

    I analyzed the problem HERE.

  • “Long Lance”

    CONDI RICE IN ’12!!!!!!!

  • Jennifer

    “I can’t wait to see The Rodham back on the campaign trail.”

    Anchoress, are you saying you want her to run? She is no friend to Christianity or the dignity of human life… you want her to run again? She may in fact be a better “leader” than Obama (that’s not hard to achieve) but she would be disastrous as a President for moral reasons. Just like Obama.

    [Jennifer, I didn't say I wanted her to win. But as far as our concerns about human life...what Democrat WOULD meet them? Any Democrat would be the same, sadly. -admin]

  • JuliB

    Anchoress, I read the mules in harness paraphrase and saw nothing racial in it at all! And I don’t think I’ve ever even seen GWTW.

    While I think Hillary would have been more competent than Obama, I think we’d be ‘boiling more slowly’ with Hillary. Obama has ‘gotten into our faces’ so much that the average Dem voter realizes that their party is toxic.

  • Jennifer

    Anchoress, indeed any Democrat would be much the same as Obama and Hillary. Which is why I have my heart set on someone who has proven his unwavering, unshakable commitment to life and the Lord. He’s out there. Let’s just hope the powers-that-be are smart enough to nominate him. Pray…

  • http://www.justgrits.wordpress.com Obi’s Sister

    Elizabeth – I didn’t read anything racist in Roz’s comment either. It’s all about pretending to be something you’re not. Another one would be a favorite of mine from my grandmother, “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”

  • CV

    Count me as another one who didn’t see any racial overtones to the mule harness quote (Mammy notwithstanding). FWIW.

    I’m mystified that so many readers see your post as an endorsement of Hillary. You don’t have to be a supporter of HRC to see some fascinating dynamics at play here.

    I for one would be very happy to learn that the Clinton machine is working behind the scenes to expose the “real Obama,” although I won’t hold my breath. She didn’t seem to be very successful at doing that when they were battling it out for the nomination (although now that the bloom is off the rose more people may be willing to listen).

    Although I’m not a fan and wouldn’t vote for her (mainly because of her stand on critical life issues), if my only choice were between Hillary and Obama I’d choose her in a heartbeat.

    Bottom line, I think she truly loves this country. Obama doesn’t.

  • Jennifer

    By the way, that picture of Hillary is one of the best I’ve seen of her. It really captures her and reveals her.

    [I happen to think she looks very pretty in that picture! :-) admin]