Frum: Obama's Entire State Of The Union Address Was Aimed At Hillary Clinton
Interesting analysis by David Frum at The Atlantic that the President's State of the Union address was aimed at forcing Hillary to campaign and govern on his terms:
There's a subtext to President Obama's slew of domestic policy proposals since the November elections: President Obama does not trust Hillary Clinton very much.None of the president's domestic-policy brainwaves has much chance of becoming law in the next two years: not free community college, not cash grants to selected middle-income households, and certainly not heavy tax increases on upper-income earners. The president knows these odds better than anybody. So why keep propounding such no-hopers? The intent, pretty obviously, is to box in his presumptive successor as head of the Democratic Party.
Every time the president advances a concept that thrills his party's liberal base, he creates a dilemma for Hillary Clinton. Does she agree or not? Any time she is obliged to answer, her scope to define herself is constricted.
Hillary Clinton emerges from the Democratic Party's business wing. Whatever her own personal views--still an elusive quantum after all these years in public life--she is identified in the public mind with her husband's record, her husband's appointees, and her husband's donors. Not just in the public mind, but seemingly in the president's mind, too. So as the clock runs down on his administration, he seems determined to set the post-Obama Democratic Party on a more leftward course than he himself had the strength to steer.
via @kayhymowitz
Not sure I buy Frum's analysis. Hilary is every bit as much of a doctrinaire leftist as Obama is. I can't imagine that she would disagree with any of his proposals. Remember, it was Hilary who led the first attempt to create an Obamacare-like system. (And she employed similar political methods.)
Cousin Dave at January 21, 2015 7:32 AM
Hmmm, I'm not too sure either if I agree with this assessment.
For one, as Cousin Dave said, Hillary is just as much a leftist as Obama.
For a second, I'm not so sure his going so far left helps to define Hillary - she could now pass herself off as a moderate. So, I don't see how that hurts her; instead it could actually help her with swing voters. The leftist base will always vote Democrat; but, Hillary appearing moderate (even though still far left to most Americans) will help her.
Third, yes, these leftist ideas will "fire up the base" and get Republicans to join together to fight them. But, it is two years to go before the next election - way too early for most issues to have any impact.
As far as the idea that Obama wants to hurt Hillary - of course, I totally see that. I'm just not sure this speech does that.
I do agree that this speech is his way of trying to re-define the US. He has been very clear on that he wants to transform the US. So, I think this speech is really about that. He doesn't really care if these ideas become reality or not - he wants them to become a part of the national debate. He wants us to forget Benghazi; Bergdahl; thugs killing cops; guns sold to drugs dealers; snubbing the Canadians, the British, the Israelis, and most recently the French; bowing to Foreign leaders who aren't the best of allies; etc. Instead he wants the US to debate "free" college, "free" healthcare; and, of course, all paid for by those nasty rich folks who earn way too much money.
Lastly, I hope he builds his presidential library in Hawaii. Then we can give Hawaii independence and this Haole will have a very good reason to never visit there. I'll just go elsewhere as I bitterly cling to my religion and guns.
charles at January 21, 2015 8:55 AM
Hillary is a left-wing ideologue, Bill was not.
His "third way" tried to synthesize a coherent policy out of right-wing economic policies and left-wing social policies.
Obama is afraid Hillary will compromise with the Republicans, the way Bill did on welfare reform, social policy, and defense. Defense especially, since Hillary is an interventionist - never letting pass an opportunity to drop bombs on wild-eyed Third World zealots, but drawing the line at actually fighting them.
Bill was practical and not enough of a left-wing ideologue for the hard-core lefties. He preferred to get something rather than nothing, and compromised with those evil Republicans to do so.
They're afraid of the level of influence Bill might have on a Hillary presidency. They don't trust his, and by extension her, commitment to leftist policies.
Obama, Soros, Pelosi, and Reid have steered the Democratic party farther left than even Humphrey or Stevenson could have dreamed. And they want to keep their victory (and with it, their new Democratic party as a hardcore left-wing party).
Publicly, they're touting Hillary. Privately, they want to box her in - or push her out and get Warren to run.
This speech was the first shot at making sure the 2016 election is a driven by pet left-wing issues - minimum wage, gender gaps, sick time, the 1%, maternity leave, etc.
Conan the Grammarian at January 21, 2015 9:56 AM
Pete Suderman makes a similar point at reason.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/21/obamas-state-of-the-union-address-was-a
Conan the Grammarian at January 21, 2015 10:10 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/01/21/frum_obamas_ent.html#comment-5790385">comment from Conan the GrammarianFrom Stossel at reason, a reality check and the State of the Union Address Libertarians Would Like to Hear:
http://reason.com/archives/2015/01/21/restate-of-the-union
Amy Alkon at January 21, 2015 10:25 AM
Why analyze when you can over-analyze?
It's all moot to me. I give up on the corporate parties.
Time to find a Libertarian candidate who doesn't dress like a refugee or wear a bee beard on the weekends.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 21, 2015 12:11 PM
Ah yes, the "if only a good Libertarian were running" meme rises from the grave ... again.
Libertarians are dreaming if they think a Libertarian president will fix things.
First, the Libertarian Party has never captured more than 1.06% of the popular vote in presidential elections. Even Gary Johnson, their most experienced, intelligent, and capable candidate so far, could only capture 0.99%. They've only won one electoral vote in eleven elections; and that was in 1972 and was cast as a protest against Nixon.
So, the hope that a white knight libertarian candidate will come out of nowhere and sweep into office on the basis of a sensible campaign platform is about as realistic as the hope that a fat man who lives at the North Pole will be giving someone a new car this winter.
Second, with no Libertarian members of Congress, the new Libertarian president will have no built-in support network, no one to "stand with him" and get legislation passed in his early days (important for building momentum). He won't have a good support network left over from the campaign either, as Republicans will have stumped for Republicans and Democrats will have stumped for Democrats. As a result, he'll have to build that network from scratch in a Congress sharply divided by partisan politics.
Third, with no Libertarian governors in office, the new Libertarian president will not have a state to which he can point and show that his ideas will work.
Fourth, the Libertarian party has a history of running crazy people for president. As as result, the new Libertarian president will not have a history of prior office holders or even strong prior candidates to reassure the public (and Congress) that the party is serious about governing when he starts proposing legislation that challenges the status quo. That means most of his initial proposals will have to be pretty mainstream and he won't have the political capital to spend on major proposals until late in his first term (if at all).
If Libertarians are serious about winning the presidency (and they're not), they would start by building a party at the local level. Win some state legislature seats and run the best of those legislators for governor or Congress in a few years. After winning some Congressional seats and governorships, then run the best of those for president.
==============================
Why do I say they're not serious? They've not shown they are.
With all that electoral baggage, the Libertarian candidate is not going to win in 2016. And protests votes cast for him will only benefit Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren.
Conan the Grammarian at January 21, 2015 2:48 PM
Or the hope that "free" community college will put everyone back to work.
Conan the Grammarian at January 21, 2015 2:54 PM
"My only agenda for the next two years is the same as the one I've had since the day I swore an oath on the steps of this Capitol to do what I believe is best for America."
Discuss
Stinky the Clown at January 21, 2015 3:50 PM
I gotta side with Conan on the libertarian president. If they are serious they will work on state legislatures and possibly the house. Without a support structure there is little point in gunning for the presidency. Also congress, while less flashy, is where you really influence America.
And on the SOTU, it may just be Obama being Obama. He no longer has another election. So this is his chance to be as crass as he wants with minimal consequences.
Ben at January 21, 2015 6:45 PM
Thanks Conan, thanks Ben.
Looks like I have no choice but to vote Dempublican or Repocrat.
Let the glorious republic march forward with no changes to our inevitable destiny!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 21, 2015 8:35 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/01/21/frum_obamas_ent.html#comment-5792090">comment from Conan the GrammarianGary Johnson had less personality than grout.
Amy Alkon at January 21, 2015 8:42 PM
I don't understand why my reasonably intelligent friends fall for this BS. I know some of it is New Age, make the world a better place BS. But some of them should know better.
Katrina at January 21, 2015 8:48 PM
At this point....
A good third party candidate would be wonderful, but the Libertarians aren't it.
John Anderson and Ross Perot have proven that a modern third candidate can get publicity, funding, and votes (although neither got any electoral votes).
Other third-party candidates have succeeded in getting electoral votes: Robert La Follette got 13 in 1924, Strom Thurmond got 39 in 1948, George Wallace got 46 in 1968 and John Hospers got one in 1972.
Good first and second party candidates would be better.
Hillary is not the best the Democrats can do. Her "experience" is illusory, she's a brittle and strident personality, and she has never demonstrated an ability to get others to go along with her plans.
Nor is Elizabeth Warren a good candidate. She enjoys strong support among hardcore liberals and would have a place in a Democratic administration, but she has no experience running things and would not appeal to the electorate as a whole (unless the Republicans hand the election to her).
For the Republicans, Jeb is a better candidate and potentially a decent president. However, he represents the third installment of a family dynasty in only two generations ... so, no.
The Republicans have a strong bench of fiscal conservatives, but will probably choose a "moderate" (meaning a fiscal and social liberal to avoid charges of racism, sexism or homophobia) or a social conservative (who will make abortion and gay marriage the main campaign issues instead of jobs, taxes, and the worsening world situation). With that, they will hand the election to the Democrats.
To be successful at this point, a third party candidate needs to have immediate name recognition, ready funding, and an army of supporters that aren't regarded as kooks by the rest of the electorate (sorry, Rand Paul, that lets you out).
Conan the Grammarian at January 22, 2015 8:45 AM
Leave a comment