Jonathan Alter: Biden-Clinton Switch Still Possible

[WI_DEM]

(I'm not going to hold my breath--I think Obama will keep Biden as VP--no matter what):

Jonathan Alter says the idea of Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton switching jobs is not out of the question.

"Obama, Biden and Clinton are on good terms with each other, and they view the stakes -- a possible conservative takeover of all three branches of government -- as extremely high. If it's clear that Democrats need to do something dramatic to avoid losing the White House, the Switcheroo will happen."

"Neither the Obama campaign nor anyone else I know of has done any polling on this, and even strong public support for the idea right now wouldn't matter much to the White House. This is a decision for next summer, when the picture will be a lot clearer. In the meantime, don't let anyone tell you it's out of the question."

http://politicalwire.com/

[Cali_Democrat]

1. That would give the impression of weakness

Obama already emanates weakness and this would just add fuel to the fire. Unless Biden is sick an unable to perform his duties, he should remain VP.

Hillary coming on would be disastrous for Obama's reelection campaign.

[TheWraith]

3. Some "emanation of weakness," polling above every Republican candidate.

Even at his lowest point.

[MjolnirTime]

33. This post emanates bitterness.

[TheWraith]

2. No, it's not, given that they've already said this isn't happening.

Seriously, this is just crazy-ass obsession with this crap in the press.

[ProSense]

4. Obama team tires of Biden-Clinton ticket talk

Obama team tires of Biden-Clinton ticket talk

What is the media's obssession?

[AtomicKitten]

17. Conan had some fun with it.

http://teamcoco.com/video/hillary-clinton-obama-vp

[CakeGrrl]

5. Placating bitter PUMAs will swing the election? Don't think so.

As Joe Biden said, "I haven't figured out a way how NOT to run."

The MSM really doesn't seem to have anything better to do than stir up shit, or they just don't want to do real work.

[Beacool]

29. Bitter PUMAs then must be 69% of the nation...........

:eyes:

Hillary is the most popular politician in the country, and has been so for quite a while now. Although you can relax, she's not interested in the job.

:D

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CakeGrrl]

40. "Neither the Obama campaign nor anyone else I know of has done any polling on this"

Yet somehow you've concluded that 69% of the nation wants Hillary to be VP?

:rofl:

[polmaven]

44. To be fair...

that is not what Beacool said.

Hillary is the most popular politician in the country is not 69% of the nation wants Hillary to be VP. Her statement was, I believe, in reaction to your PUMA comment. It has really become more and more evident that those of us here at DU who supported Hillary's nomination are not PUMAs.....Never were. The fact is that Hillary is, indeed, the most popular politician in the country.

[NYC Liberal]

42. She doesn't want to be VP and I don't blame her.

Personally, I'd love for her to return to her NY Senate seat, even though I know it won't happen.

[Beacool]

50. Well, I wish that she was president.

But she keeps saying that she's not interested in running again. Folks in her closest circle think that she's tired and needs to rest up, that she will change her mind in the future. We'll have to wait and see.

As for the eternal PUMA nonsense, it's just too laughable to take it seriously. That's the standard excuse for some whenever Obama tanks in the polls.

:7

[Arkana]

64. A 69% approval rating is easy when you're no longer an elected official.

And it doesn't mean those people would like it if she took Biden's job from him.

[JTFrog]

6. Alter can froth all he wants. Clinton said it's not in the realm of possibilities.

:shrug:

[tularetom]

7. It may not be "out of the question" but why?

I agree that it may be a good idea to marginalize Clinton but there are easier ways to do it than putting her a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

She can do a lot less damage as VP than Sec of State but there is always the possibility.

If Obama wants to get rid of her, he should just fire her. I'm not sure she wants to stick around for a second Obama term anyway.

[polmaven]

45. Where in the WORLD

did all of that come from????

Secretary of State Clinton is doing an excellent job. The large majority of the public agrees with that. What gives you the idea that the president wants to "get rid of her"?

She has already stated she does not want to remain as SoS for a second term, and that there is no possibility that she will replace VP Biden on the 2012 ticket. That is HER choice...no one else's.

Oh, good grief...get over it already!

[Renew Deal]

8. I could support it.

I know Hillary wants out of the SOS job, and VP is less travel.

[LiberalFighter]

20. I would prefer someone that would be likely to run as President.

I don't see Hillary doing that in 2016. I would support her as VP but not sure that Biden would be good as the SoS. It would probably require more travel than he would want.

[dkf]

9. Oh for goodness sakes can't we get over this?

Lame.

Joe Biden totally rocks. Let him be.

[Whisp]

10. Puma poop story. unrec.

[UrbScotty]

11. The only thing that's certain right now is that the media will keep tossing this rumor around

until after the current President and Vice President have been re-elected. :eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Dumb Dumb Dumb

Dumb

[totodeinhere]

13. I don't think that Alter knows what he's talking about. He must have had trouble thinking

up a storyline for his next column so he seized on this. They are not about to have Joe Biden go down in history as the first vice president to be dumped off his party's ticket since Henry A. Wallace. Joe deserves better than that.

[Rageneau]

14. How about a Clinton-Obama swap?

I don't care which Clinton.

[Tiggeroshii]

15. Oh man, I don't know about this but I do know that Biden will likely be a very good SOS

...and Clinton has the potential of being an effective VP. I wouldn't mind it. =)

[treestar]

16. The weekly thread on this comes around again

What would be "dramatic" about that? :rofl:

[Enrique]

18. what difference would it make?

:shrug:

[emilyg]

22. Clinton would pull in lots of votes.

[karynnj]

27. I doubt it - and I would say the same for any other Democrat

The people who most want Clinton are core Democrats - and they are already going to vote for Obama - whether they have to hold their noses or not. Dropping the VP, without reason is likely to be a sign of desperation and signs of desperation lead to negative stories which tend to do harm in and of themselves.

In 2008, one thing in Obama's favor was that he was much higher with independents than Clinton - as she was more polarizing. That is no longer the case, but Hillary is unlikely to pull in Republicans or Independents, who won't vote for Obama/Biden.

Now, I admit this is conjecture, because as was said there has been no polling of Obama/Biden vs Obama/Clinton. However, very few votes are made FOR the VP - it would seem a VP can hurt a President - as Palin and Quayle likely did, but I don't think a VP has ever helped all that much - and I don't think Biden is in that category.

[AtomicKitten]

19. Two quotes:

"Some of Hillary Clinton's advisers see it as a real possibility in 2012," Woodward said on CNN.

White House senior adviser David Axelrod was more blunt: "It's complete bulls**t."

Obama-Biden 2012

[Phx_Dem]

21. It makes no sense. Why in the world would Obama switch VPs???

Biden has been stellar.

Ain't happening. This is another made-up story.

[CakeGrrl]

41. You're absolutely right - it makes no sense.

The implication is that there is a sizable demographic out there who is saying "I'll ONLY vote Dem if Hillary is on the ticket. If she's not, I'll sit it out and/or let the GOP take it."

Paging Lynn Forrester De Racistchild...

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

23. I'm no fan of either Clinton. But is this guarantees the WH, control of the Senate and Biden

has no problem with it. Neither do I.

[Jennicut]

24. Can this rumor just die already? Obama feels comfortable with Biden, they

have a very, very good relationship. I don't see him wanting to lose that.

[CakeGrrl]

26. Just goes to show that the MSM can't let go of the '08 Primary

if for nothing else than its divisive value.

:eyes:

[TeamJordan23]

32. I agree. I think they are bored with the GOP field already.

And who can blame them.

[DRoseDARs]

25. I'm confused. How is rearranging the deck chairs going to stop the ship from sinking?

"If it's clear that Democrats need to do something dramatic to avoid losing the White House, the Switcheroo will happen."

O_o

Jon, y u no make sense? How would moving Sec. Clinton from a position of power to a position of no power (save a tie-breaking vote in the Senate and being the second in line of succession) have any *good* effect on winning back support of the base this White House c o n s t a n t l y shits on?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beacool]

30. That would work if Biden were the problem, but he isn't.

Besides, why should Hillary run to rescue the Democratic party. They made their bed, let them lay in it.

:shrug:

[Arkana]

35. I hate to tell you this but Hillary couldn't rescue the Democratic Party

even if she overthrew Obama and declared herself Dictator-For-Life.

Your defense of all things Clinton borders on the astonishing.

[Beacool]

36. Astonishing is the blinders that some here have.

Both Clintons are immensely popular. The worse the economy, the more people yearn for the years when anyone could find a job and we were not spending billions of dollars on various wars.

:)

[Ikonoklast]

38. Bill Clinton is ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS we are in this mess.

Clinton screwed the middle class over in a huge way, it just took ten years to do it.

I'd cut off my hand before I'd ever vote for another Clinton.

[blue_onyx]

46. Clinton screwed the middle class?

Well, so did Obama with those bs "free" trade agreements. In 2008, you may not have voted for someone with the Clinton name but you got the same policies.

[ClarkUSA]

47. The agreements were renegotiated. Pres. Obama is the first president to enforce U.S. trade law.

Proof of my claim: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=796243&mesg_id=797000

"same policies"? Your statement is false, as the UAW will tell you, since they cheered on the recently signed trade acts.

Trade Deals FACT: The WH made "changes demanded by industry groups and unions" (The New York Times)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x795798

President Obama also re-regulated via Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act what Bubba deregulated via Glass-Steagall repeal (this FUBAR act eventually led to what Ikonoclast was referring to). He also succeeded in HCR where the Clinton co-presidents miserably failed. Unlike Bill, Pres. Obama didn't create NAFTA, didn't deregulate mass media (to Rupert Murdoch's delight) and he hasn't reformed welfare.

[blue_onyx]

48. Nope

You can keep bringing up the UAW support all you want to. And you can keep ignoring the AFL-CIO opposition all you want. Posting a bunch of links isn't going to stop the loss of jobs from these trade agreements.


"Unlike Bill, Pres. Obama didn't create NAFTA"

LOL. Seriously? The same things being said about Obama's trade agreements were said about NAFTA. NAFTA was agreed to by Bush but passed by Clinton. These were also Bush trade deals but signed by Obama. If you want to keep cheering on Bush polices, feel free.

[ClarkUSA]

49. You can deny it all you want, but I'll trust The New York Times over you any day of the week.

Empty negative rhetoric is all you've got, while I've got the facts on my side.

If you want to keep cheering on DINO DLC Bill "Glass-Steagall repeal | Secret Deal w/Newt Gingrich to Cut Social Security and Medicare Benefits" Clinton, feel free:
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich

[blue_onyx]

51. The facts are not on your side

We've already seen the effects of these types of free trade agreements. Why you think doing the same thing will have different results is beyond me.

Conveniently ignored the AFL-CIO opposition again, huh?

Where was I cheering on Bill? All I said is Clinton = Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

53. They are, as my linked proof demonstrates. However, all the empty negative rhetoric is on your side.

You can ignore the facts I've given you: the endorsement of the UAW, the fact President Obama is the first president to enforce U.S. trade laws, the fact that jobs in the farming sector will rise due to "the increased demand for dairy products and beef, pork and poultry":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x795798

Your false equivalency is just that, false. It's amazing how you can deny proven facts. But then again, I probably was wrong to expect more from you.

Like I've said, I've got the facts on my side:

Trade Deals FACT: The WH made "changes demanded by industry groups and unions" (The New York Times)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x795798

President Obama is the first president to enforce U.S. trade law:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=796243&mesg_id=797000

Your rancid opinions are irrelevant in the face of factual data. :nopity:

[blue_onyx]

54. I expect nothing from you...

other than blind loyalty to Obama. I've seen enough of your posts to know that much. If Hillary were president and passing these deals, I have no doubt your opinion of these deals would be quite different. You're loyal to the man, not the ideals.

I would love to see a poll of actual UAW members rather than what the leadership thinks.

I can post links too.

"The AFL-CIO and United Steelworkers said Thursday they oppose a proposed U.S-South Korea trade pact, despite new provisions negotiated by the Obama administration to protect U.S. auto workers."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009941016685046.html

"Economists generally predict that free trade agreements benefit all participating countries by creating a larger market for goods and services. But that benefit derives in part from the movement of some activities to the lower-cost countries. In other words, even if the deal is good for the United States as a whole, it is likely to create clear losers.

The government estimated in a series of 2007 studies that the deals would increase annual economic output by up to $14.4 billion, or about one-tenth of 1 percent. Most of that demand would come from South Korea, which would join a short list of developed nations that have free trade pacts with the United States, including Australia, Canada, Israel and Singapore.

But the studies by the United States International Trade Commission found that the deals would cost jobs in some industries, especially the textile industry. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/business/global/foes-of-south-korea-free-trade-deal-struggle-to-be-heard.html?pagewanted=1


Feel free to keep ignoring facts that aren't convenient to your opinion.

[ClarkUSA]

57. ...but facts. And I have delivered.

Nothing you've posted (one quote is from my own linked OP, which gave an honest portrayal) negates the facts I've proven.

I have the backs of the United Auto Workers, American farmers and my U.S. trade law compliant President (an historical first compared to NAFTA giveaway Bill Clinton) on this issue.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

61. More empty negative rhetoric AND an insult. How precious.

Your complaints are amusingly ironic, given your cherrypicking the AFL-CIO griping while you keep ignoring the facts: the UAW endorsement and the fact that the renegotiated trade deals will increase farming sector jobs and exports as well as the fact that President Obama is the first president to follow U.S. trade law is why your opinion is irrelevant.

It's sad whenever alleged Democrats ignore the facts in order to trash this President. Motives then become as suspect. There's the same phenomena with President Obama's critics on both sides of the aisle. Fortunately, repeating falsehoods don't make them true. And the AFL-CIO is full square behind President Obama's very liberal jobs bill.

[blue_onyx]

62. Again LOL

You may want to reread your past "rancid" comments before you start talking about negativity and insults. Not shocking though. I've seen plenty of your posts and noticed that they often involve a lot of back and forth with anyone who dares to not support everything Obama does or says. As far as credibility...I sure most people on DU knows they will never get an objective view on anything related to Obama from you.

There's nothing "empty" about what I've said. They're just facts that contradict your support of these Republican trade polices. You have no rebuttal so you call it "empty rhetoric."


"It's sad when alleged Democrats ignore the facts in order to trash this President."

You're the one ignoring facts. Or do lost jobs in the textiles industry not matter. I support Democratic/liberal ideas. You support a person. Like I said before, you're loyal to the man, not Democratic ideals.

FYI, I'm not "trashing" him. I'm holding him accountable. Not everyone puts on blinders.



"Fortunately, no one gives a shit what they say except a small minority"

Umm...you may want to check out Obama's approval ratings and rethink that "small minority" thing.

[ClarkUSA]

65. Your constant negative rhetoric puts you in a small minority amongst the Democratic base.

:redbox: Your false narratives about and rancid opinion of President Obama are predictable in light of this fact. Enjoy life in the 19%!
CNN poll: renominate Obama jumps 9 points, now 81 percent:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=799534&mesg_id=799534

:bluebox: FACTS:

Obama Campaign Hits 1 Million Donors:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x799842

Gallup: "U.S. Unemployment Down Sharply in Early October":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x799391

:redbox: President Obama standing up for liberal Democratic values, unlike Bill "Glass-Steagall Repeal" Clinton:

Obama to GOP: Rolling back Wall Street reform is not a 'jobs plan’:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x799557

:bluebox: Liberal activists know what kind of man President Obama is:

Martin Sheen: Obama "a very special man... the only adult in the room, frankly" (slams greed):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x799766

Martin Sheen is in the 81%, just like me. :)

[Hart2008]

31. But how would MBNA Joe look in Hillary's pant suits?

And does he have he legs to wear those skirts?

:hide:

[Arkana]

34. Jesus fucking Christ, no it isn't.

Hillary would have less influence and less ability as VP than as SecState.

Also, there is that little matter of her RETIRING at the end of Obama's first term, regardless of whether he gets reelected.

[Politicalboi]

37. I would think it would be a good thing

So many abortion issues, and dissolving of women's rights, I think Hillary would bring a new light into this crisis. We are ready for a woman President, even though she does lie about sniper fire. LOL! I mean for the first female President, don't we want a smart woman rather than a ditsy one?

[Mass]

43. Alter stating the obvious. It is possible, Will it happen. probably not.

Useful: only if you believe that VPs make the difference. While it may have, with Palin vs Biden, it is unlikely that it would here.

But Alter has to sell copies, and it does not matter if what he writes has any interest.

[Phx_Dem]

52. It's also possible I will run for president. Absolutely not happening . . . but possible.

[Hawkowl]

55. Change has to begin at the top

Unless Obama is swapped for somebody else, the ticket is doomed! :rofl:

[stevenleser]

56. I'm not sure this helps anybody if true, which I doubt.

- As has been said, does this really give Obama any additional votes? I guess you would have to poll women voters to see if this adds energy to them. Hillary is already in the #3 spot in the government in terms of power (I would argue that SOS is actually more powerful than the VP, but that argument is for another day), does moving her from #3 to #2 energize women voters more?

- If Hillary decides on running for President in 2016, does being Obama's veep help more than being SecState? I dont think it does. If anything, I think it hurts her.

[CakeGrrl]

58. OCT 17: Hillary says "NO" (again):

Hillary Clinton again says she won't run for president in 2016

This appears to be in response to the dead horse that Alter was beating.

[secondwind]

59. I call it passing the mantle... whoever he chooses, I'm voting for him!

[Marnie]

63. If Obama switches from Biden he should choose a younger

VP.

Biden is Ok, I have no problem. I still would rather have Clinton than Obama, but for VP he needs to choose the next generation and let them learn how the POTUS works day to day.

There have to be lots to choose from in the late forties to early 60's and "home" school them.