AGAIN with the Biden/Clinton thing...?

BooMan, the masochistic froggie whom I've swatted in the past, has responded to Robert Reich's prediction that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden will switch gigs.

The last president to willingly switch vice-presidents was Franklin Roosevelt, who did it twice. But Joe Biden is no Henry Wallace, nor is he under indictment like Spiro Agnew. So, why does Reich think Obama will demote the vice-president?

To which lambert at Corrente responds:

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! Joe Biden's no Henry Wallace? Yeah, and Obama's no FDR, Booman. You "startlingly dumb" Fuck.

BO definitely is no FDR, but that doesn't invalidate BooMan's point. Henry Wallace said and did many admirable things -- for example, he denounced racial injustice at a time when very few others in the Democratic party were willing to do so. He came close to the presidency even though he took a stance well to the left of FDR. But Wallace also had a New Age nitwit side which made him a political liability. (The "Guru letters" did not become public until 1947, but they were known to insiders well before.)

So far, BooMan, not lambert, is the one who has it right. But then our addled amphibian gives us a nice, steaming pile of froggie poop...

Do any of you see any indicators that the president is about to lose his reelection bid? Have you seen any recent, reputable polls that show him losing to any of the clowns running for the Republican nomination? There appears to be no current 'need' for riling up the base. Maybe Reich believes such a need will arise. The future is uncertain, and it's better to have a motivated base than a "disillusioned" one. Of course, Robert Reich doesn't seem to know who constitutes the Democratic base. He seems to think its made up of Jane Hamsher, Matt Stoller, Arianna Huffington, Cornel West. and the people Reich dines with on weekends. Would those malcontents be excited by Hillary Clinton on the ticket? Do malcontents get excited?

Obama's real base is made up of the people who helped him beat Hillary Clinton, presumably (at least, in part) because there was something about Clintonism and DLC politics that they didn't like.

Oh jeez. This shit again? I thought Arianna and the gang were the crew who gave us Obama.

I see plenty of indicators that Obama is likely to lose his reelection bid. Have you seen the latest? 43% approval, 48% disapproval -- and the 43% is about as enthusiastic as a four-year-old facing a plate of badly-cooked brussel sprouts. The issue Americans care about right now is the economy, which sucks and will soon suck harder. (Don't let anyone tell you otherwise; the fundamentals are frightening.)

BO has been a terrible president, an embarrassment to the party, and he's infinitely more vulnerable than Clinton would have been at this point, had she won the office in 2008. BooMan neglects the polls which indicate that Hillary Clinton is about a zillion times more popular than Obama right now.

The seeming Republican disarray is temporary; the GOP leadership always knows how to unite the party when crunch time comes. Those guys know how to engineer a Yeltsin-on-a-tank moment for Romney, should the need arise.

(Sudden thought: Suppose a new terror incident were to hit. Would the country unite around Obama the way it united around Dubya? I don't think so. Quite the opposite: The propagandists would sound the "He didn't protect us" propaganda line incessantly.)

Take a long-term view and you'll see that today's Republican in-fighting works to the Democratic party's disadvantage. Instead of primarying Obama (as they damned well should be doing), the Dems have fallen prey to ruinous delusions about their chances.

No-one outside the masochistic frog community truly likes Obama these days. At best, Democrats consider him marginally preferable to the Republican opposition. I see no-one running toward Obama, although quite a few people are running away from Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich and Paul.

As for the DLC bogeyman: Come off it, froggie. It's hard to demonize the DLC (which is out of business, and which never had any real power) after Obama has spent the past three years espousing an agenda well to the right of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Get a clue:

“I am a New Democrat,” declared President Obama, firmly identifying himself with the brand and philosophy, though not necessarily with the organization of the Democratic Leadership Council.

The major criticism progressives launched against the DLC was the group's endorsement of NAFTA. Guess what? Not only did Obama lie about his NAFTA stance on the campaign trail, not only has he refused to renegotiate the treaty (despite his pledges), he has gone around the world seeking more free trade agreements with Asia. That's the great untold story of the Obama years.

BooMan may be the last frog in America still high on all that Axelrod-brand junk he injected into his little green veins back in 2008. May I offer this small reminder from 2009...?