If you have "no place to go," come here!

Sally Quinn endorses Hillary Clinton for VP in 2012

No, really. Quinn concludes:

Take it seriously.

For me...

It's a little late. I don't think the legacy parties can salvaged, much as I came to admire Hillary's grit during the 2008 primaries (modulo her support for the empire, which is a wash, since all of Versailles supports the empire). As always, I can be persuaded with policy detail, but I don't think Versailles, in its current configuration, can produce the kind of policy that would prevent collapse, as Jared Diamond understood the term.

Such policies would be, at a minimum level of sanity: (1) Jobs Guarantee, (2) Single Payer, (3) breakup of TBTF banks and criminal charges for accounting control fraud, (4) end our several wars, (5) shrink the military drastically, and (6) restore Constitutional Government.* Those policies would prevent collapse, but nobody serious in Versailles believes that, because it is not in their interest to do so. That means the Ds won't save us, so it's foolish to invest time with them. We have to save ourselves.

NOTE * Plus appropriate solutions on climate change. I'm not clued in enough to that discourse to make a recommendation, although I think the starting point is Socolow.

NOTE Via Violet. Oddly, or not, none of the access bloggers seemed to have picked this one up.

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

I tinkered with my twitter settings, please let me know if that worked.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

I'd take it a lot more seriously if it were Hillary running for President as an Independent in 2012. That would be her running as an indictment to Versailles, not part of it.

Of course no one "serious" could imagine that happening, and Sally would be mortified beyond belief.

By the way, Peggy Noonan is on board the "Hillary 2012" Express as well, but she thinks Hillary will be pressured to primary Obama by the Party. I think she's nuts. The Dems will double down on their loser, as they always do.

I'll grab the link in a second.

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

Seriously. I'm seeing some oddball stuff that I can't make heads or tails out of. My impression, at the moment, is that Obama is not running but is maneuvering to prevent Clinton from taking the nomination. He clearly doesn't like the job and probably just wants to get on to the part where he sits on boards collecting gazillions in do-nothing dollars and runs around giving vapid speeches that make women faint. If I'm right about this (and I have no way of knowing if I am), he's going to want to beat her one more time and install one of his very good friends as the nominee.

Something very odd is afoot - I can tell you that much.

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

there are the random comments from Obama himself about not serving in a second term. Second of all, there is the amount of chatter coming out of DC about what Hillary is going to do next. One of the things I've experienced (and it played out nationally during the Scooter Libby trial) is that there are times when everyone in DC knows something significant and no one bothers to tell the rest of us. There is tremendous anxiety coming out of DC about Clinton and her next move when everyone, fan and foe alike, knows perfectly well that she would never challenge Obama for the nomination. Even though that is certainly the case, they seem very intent on mollifying her and keeping her boxed in. She's perfectly happy as SOS, and she's getting high marks across the board. Even so, we've gotten subjected to a double dose of anxiety from both Quinn and Noonan. Four weeks ago, the topic was Clinton becoming SOD. When have you ever heard multiple rumors trying to find another position for the SOS? Clinton says she only wants to serve one term, so we have two more years before she interested in leaving. She has been a loyal team player from the get go. But despite her loyalty, despite her evident satisfaction and mastery of the job, people can't stop talking about her transitioning out. Albright was also very good at the job but you didn't see people pitching her for SOD.

Next, there are people that I expected to be one place who seem to be someplace else - that is, geographically speaking. And there are people showing up asking if stuff can be done that I wouldn't expect to hear from if Clinton wasn't running. But no one is saying anything about that. I want to be clear about that.

And there is the issue of the amount of corruption in the last primary and how that seems to have been swept under the rug. But there are hundreds of affidavits alleging both law breaking and party rule breaking, that reveal patterns that played out in state after state. There is also the physical evidence of fraudulent voting. And this evidence of corruption is massive, significant and could, if a prosecutor went after, land Obama in prison. Something that large doesn't just go away. It's being used but I don't know how. And I don't believe for a second that it's a-ok with the Clintons that they got cheated out of a nomination and smeared as racists by a guy whom they knew from the get-go was going to be completely corrupt.

There's some other things as well. There's just an odd stew pot bubbling away. I could be wrong about all of this.

Submitted by lambert on

And I can well believe about not being bothered to be told. One question:

[T]here are people that I expected to be one place who seem to be someplace else - that is, geographically speaking.


Submitted by cg.eye on

That borders on truthiness, and we need more information, not more of what Versailles does best -- unmoor us through vagueness.

Submitted by lambert on

This isn't truthy.

There's a history here, and I can live with a distinction between "worth listening to" and "reporting." I'd rather have the data point, even, or perhaps especially, because it's qualified, then not.

Submitted by cg.eye on

It's just that with the Clintons, as with the Kennedys, conjectures tend to pull toward conspiracies, and I'd rather keep my eye on the real plans and plots seeable with the nekkid eye. I'm good with your explanation, b.a.

Submitted by lambert on

Thanks for the link, madamab. Nooners:

But it's also true that among Democrats—and others—when the talk turns to the presidency it turns more and more to Hillary Clinton. "We may have made a mistake. She would have been better." Sooner or later the secretary of state is going to come under fairly consistent pressure to begin to consider 2012. A hunch: She won't really want to. Because she has enjoyed being loyal. She didn't only prove to others she could be loyal, a team player. She proved it to herself. And it has only added to her luster.


That said, it's interesting that two very powerful women in Versailles, both part of the permanent government, are saying this. Who knows what levels of deviousness and chicanery are involved from these courtiers -- but it's still interesting!

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

they are encouraging her to play Ted Kennedy to Obama's Carter. But it won't work. She won't fall for it.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

She would not pull votes away from Obama and allow Romney to win.

She would just win.

The Democratic Party doesn't want her to. Thus, they won't be pressuring her to run.


Submitted by cg.eye on

Clinton can't go through that fire again without losing even more -- and that makes me wonder why they'd try to dislodge her at State. What's going on there that they'd need someone even more loyal or more silent?

And no way in Hell would I trust the party monster who trashed Clinton and her husband throughout most of their residency in Washington to wish one decent thing for them, no way, no how. This only tells me that they're getting ahead of a wave of "We told you so" that must be cresting, but they won't let us hear about it. This year's elections are going to be far worse for either legacy party than they're letting on.

And as for the primary irregularities, they can't revisit that without making both parties fall. Too many people in power depended on the illusion of propriety, so no matter what we wish for now, they'll destroy the economy before they'll change any voting machine or board of elections.

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

Goddamn effing Veep? Talk about having to be ten times as good to get half as far.

I'm gonna be sick.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

This talk will allow them to poo-poo it because of her ambition.

I'm with lambert on being generally ambivalent toward a Hillary run down the road. She's part of the legacy party BS, though about as marginal as possible. Being on the margin is a plus, but the stank of the Dems is hard for me to get over. Like the stank in "The Smelly Car" episode of Seinfeld, what is corrupting the Dems seems to be an entity. I don't want to be caught with that stench.

That said, if she came out and championed liberalism and spoke out explicilty against Obama's continuation of Bush's policies I might be able to vote for her as a Dem. Especially if she came out with some sort of "new slate" coalition that aimed to get rid of a lot of those in Congress who backstabbed us.

All that is speculation and while fun, doesn't interest me all that much. But when Versailles is pushing someone, they are doing it for what turns out to be nerfarious reasons. Either they want her to fail at something or they want her as the next puppet.

dblhelix's picture
Submitted by dblhelix on

I think she's fronting for those who are worrying that BO isn't going to be re-elected in '12, i.e., the admin.

1. $50 million effort to invigorate minorities/youth = Groundwork for BO's re-election project.

2. After neglecting the 'bubba' vote, need a gimmick (Clintons) to get 'em back

3. Fear of losing women in light of GOP's promoting numerous women candidates.

Submitted by cg.eye on

-- the materialized outcome of throwing women under the bus -- wolves putting on skirts and saying they champion women's issues without all that icky failed feminist stuff.

Dems giving up the moral high ground, by throwing women's health and rights issues under too, only gave the GOP more power to carpetbag with the shadiest assortment of women with cash in American political history. Even if these women are shadow feminists, do you think they'll be given any slack to make just one feminist-based vote, for anything? Nope.

sisterkenney's picture
Submitted by sisterkenney on

I'm getting a lot of feedback, from random citizens that I'm acquainting myself and my candidacy with, and the 2 major responses, most always together, are essentially, "you go, girl!", and "I wanna vote everybody out!". Even tho we are a third party, and don't even get to be in the primaries, I'm getting a good feeling about pushing the conversation to the left, and mayhap gooseing the "legacy' candidates with a little better turnout than the last election.

sisterkenney's picture
Submitted by sisterkenney on

but, after acquainting myself with the Green party platform (really, very and truly progressive, (notice, no I had to do this...I'm driven and committed, and I have a lot of stuff to do..FEC, anyone?, (have you researched those rules? I want to thank you, Lambert, and the denizens of Corrente (you know who you are), for supporting me, and my work!

Submitted by lambert on

Honestly. Does he really imagine that if the Obama administration were enacting their agenda, they'd be sleeping on the street in sleeping bags?

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

The wingnut pundits are just as disingenuous as the "access" bloggers are. They have the same function, as well.