Update: Hang on to your wigs, there’s a storm a’blowing. Tighten your girdles so you don’t bust a gut laughing. Reuters poll: Obama approval at 38/55, two-thirds worry about “dangerous” detainee swap precedent. Anyone who ties herself to this loser is making the wrong choice.
Hillary’s hard choice? Two articles from today’s Politico make clear what that is.
The norm since World War II is for presidents to score their highest job approval ratings in their first term, then slump dramatically in their second. [snip]
Who knows—the economy could take off again, boosting Obama along with it. The Republicans could overreach on some matter of major import. Or a sudden “rally around the president” event, such as (God forbid) a major terrorist attack, could propel the president’s approval rating dramatically upward.
Get millions of monkeys typing for millions of years and one of them might type out the text to the Gettysburg Address. But is it likely to happen? No. Is it at all likely that Barack Obama might become popular again. No.
Why is it not likely that Barack Obama will become popular again? Didn’t he get elected twice?
Barack Obama got elected twice after Republicans spent millions of dollars beating themselves up followed up with Obama spending hundreds of millions of dollars to beat them up some more. The effect of all this is comparable to bad tasting, nutrient deficient dog food sold utilizing an advertising campaign of hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes, you can sell the dog food but the problem is the dogs won’t eat it:
He has been elected twice to the White House, with 53 and 51 percent, respectively. But his presidential approval rating has often been below 50 percent, since the end of his brief honeymoon in 2009. Obama has been saddled throughout his presidency with a sluggish economy, which featured an unusually high unemployment rate of at least 9 percent for more than two years, from April 2009 to September 2011. [snip]
Obama’s approval score rose above 50 percent for a time around the 2012 election, after his campaign spent hundreds of millions of dollars to promote his reelection. It was not long afterward, though, that his approval mark drifted back below 50 percent, burdened by a series of woes that included the lingering unpopularity and botched rollout of his signature achievement, Obamacare.
The first quarter of 2014 featured an economy that contracted. Claims that the economy is recovering and might rescue Barack Obama are without substance.
What about, as the author muses, a terrorist attack that brings about a “rally around the president” effect? Is that likely? No. Why? Bergdahl.
Big Media has thus far protected Barack Obama from the consequences of his failure to protect Americans from terrorist attacks such as the Fort Hood shootings and failed attempts such as the Christmas bomber and the Times Square bomber. But the next terrorist attack in America will be sponsored by Barack Obama and his release of terrorist Taliban masterminds.
Any terrorist attack on America will cause a Pavlovian response – the American people equating Barack Obama with the terrorists he released to freedom to cause carnage. Even Big Media will be forced to ask whether Obama’s Terrorists of L’Áffaire Bergdahl had anything at all to do with the terror.
Obama’s Terrorist Squad. Keep that phrase in mind headline writers – you will need it.
What about Republican overreach? Will Republican “overreach” help Obama in the same way Republican panty-sniffing overreach hardened Bill Clinton’s polls? Doubtful.
Have you noticed how Trey Gowdy has disappeared from the news? It’s not because he is at rest. It’s because Gowdy, like most Republicans who have resisted attempting to impeach Obama even though there are plenty of good reasons to do so, understands that overreach will kill Republicans while evidence and reason will help them.
And is there really anything like “Republican overreach” now? The days with only us accurately describing Barack Obama as a treacherous boob and only some few Republicans critiquing Barack Obama are long gone:
From one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, a close adviser to the White House, the missive amounted to an electronic eye roll. “Even I have had enough.”
Another Democrat had quit on President Obama.
The tipping point for this person was the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl case—not the soldier-for-Taliban swap itself as much as how the White House mishandled its obligation to communicate effectively and honestly to Congress and the public. More than that, Obama’s team had failed once again to acknowledge its mistakes, preferring to cast blame and seek cover behind talking points. [snip]
To this senior Democrat, the Politico story showed the White House to be both tone-deaf and arrogant, two vices that are undermining what could have been a great presidency.
I share this email to make the broader point and to offer a disclosure: In the 18 months since I began writing columns focused on the presidency, virtually every post critical of Obama has originated from conversations with Democrats. Members of Congress, consultants, pollsters, lobbyists, and executives at think tanks, these Democrats are my Obama-whispers. They respect and admire Obama but believe that his presidency has been damaged by his shortcomings as a leader; his inattention to details of governing; his disengagement from the political process and from the public; his unwillingness to learn on the job; and his failure to surround himself with top-shelf advisers who are willing to challenge their boss as well as their own preconceived notions.
“Dem Party is F****d,” wrote a Democratic consultant with strong ties to the White House and Capitol Hill during the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act website.
A Democratic House member whose endorsement in 2008 helped lift the Obama candidacy told me in January, “He’s bored and tired of being president, and our party is paying the price.”
“Talented guy but no leader,” said a Democratic lobbyist and former member of Congress in March. “If he could govern half as well as he campaigns, he’d be a good-to-great president.”
Is Dianne Feinstein part of a “Republican overreach”?
Is Barack Obama MSNBC bootlicker Andrea Mitchell part of a “Republican overreach”?
Hillary Clinton’s challenge: Her relationship with President Obama
In private meetings and public statements ahead of her book’s publication, Hillary Clinton and her allies have presented a united front with President Barack Obama, highlighting their transition from campaign rivals to Cabinet confidants.
Yet in the weeks before her memoir, “Hard Choices,” hits the shelves, news accounts have detailed instances of substantive foreign policy disagreements between the two while she was secretary of state – from the Russian reset to Syria to the U.S. embargo against Cuba.
Clinton’s relationship with Obama presents a delicate challenge for the former secretary of state as she rolls out her book this week and potentially a presidential campaign months from now. She does not want to appear disloyal to her former boss but could use some separation given his anemic poll numbers. She’d have to have Obama supporters enthusiastically on board a presidential campaign, while fending off Republican attempts to depict her as representing a third Obama term.
We welcome all the belated discussions on what we termed long ago as a “muddled message mess” from Hillary Clinton 2016. The past few days have been a series of confusing data points to add to the record.
First, there was the release of Obama’s Terrorist Squad in exchange for Bergdahl. Hillary’s initial response was a mushy statement which was proffered by noxious Maggie Haberman and other Big Media Obama Praetorian Guard as evidence of Hillary Clinton support for the “prisoner swap”.
The next day came a blistering insider history leak of Hillary Clinton in opposition to the release of Obama’s Terrorist Squad. Immediately Hillary pal Leon Panetta made strong statements which confirmed that Hillary (and Panetta) opposed the release of Obama’s Terrorist Squad. Hillary’s new book was further confirmation of her opposition to the release of Obama’s Terrorist Squad.
In short, Hillary had Obama by the short hairs along with a bright path to 2016 victory, and then came an interview which threw it all away:
Republicans rejoiced. In one interview they saw Hillary Clinton 2016 tied to an unpopular Obama decision that might have dire consequences if at any time Obama’s Terrorist Squad in any way violates the terms of their release or is involved in any kind of terrorist activity or terrorist assistance activity. And we all know that will happen. It’s not like a million monkeys typing Shakespeare. It’s as sure as knowing that a million diarrhetic monkeys inside the White House will soon make a mess.
Muddled message mess? Is it time for a change or time to stay the course? It’s bizarre:
Clinton allies insist they aren’t trying to have it both ways by creating competing narratives. [snip]
A prime example was a recent Wall Street Journal article that revealed that Clinton, as she was getting ready to depart Foggy Bottom, wrote Obama a memo that the attempted “reset” in the relationship with Russia had crumbled and should be abandoned. Obama stayed with it for many months, only fully abandoning the effort when Russia invaded Crimea.
The memo is significant because Clinton became the face of the “reset” policy, and took the most heat after a botched effort at handing a Russian official an actual button that was supposed to say “reset” but had been translated to a different word.
On all the issue that matter – Russia, the Middle East, terrorism, the world is learning that our reporting and analysis has been correctly documenting the war between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. On all these issues, the issues that matter, Hillary Clinton has been correct and Barack Obama has been, at best, wrong.
As the long war waged by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton comes into sharper focus; as the proof emerges with rapidity that Hillary knew what she was doing and Obama is a treacherous boob; as Obama is revealed to the American people (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) as the problem; as the Obama Terrorist Squad will likely strike before election day 2016 thereby hurt anyone who in any way supports the release of the Obama Terrorist Squad – why would anyone do anything to be seen as an ally of Barack Obama in 2014 but especially 2016?
Tie yourself to Barack Obama or cut him to pieces and hurl him to hungry dogs for electoral victory? That does not seem like a hard choice.