Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Take Biden-Clinton Veep swap off the table -- for now

Thanks to Bob Woodward's musings on MSNBC and CNN yesterday, the Washington bubbletocracy is chattering away about the rumor that President Obama might make Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton swap jobs. And since I'm firmly nestled in and a part of said bubbletocracy, I feel perfectly comfortable saying, "C'mon, people!"

This Biden-Clinton job-switch thing has become the Punxatawney Phil of political intrigue. Instead of popping up every Feb. 2 it's seemingly every couple of months. This is understandable when the fire started by The Post's Sally Quinn back in June is fanned by former Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (D), Eleanor Clift, and The Post's David Ignatius. And now comes Woodward, who said yesterday the longed-for swap is "on the table" and could happen "if the president's a little weak going into 2012...."

Look, I get it. Clinton would bring with her to the ticket the millions of blue-collar Democrats and others who didn't connect with Obama during the protracted 2008 campaign. She has shone as the nation's chief diplomat, which has only helped to buff her post-campaign luster. On top of all that, Clinton is smart, disciplined and, as I said after she lost the presidential nomination, a team player. But, folks, we're getting way ahead of ourselves here.

First, this chatter happens with every president. Remember when President H.W. Bush was going to dump Vice President Quayle? President George W. Bush was going to dump Vice President Cheney. Remember? Neither happened. Obama is barely two years into his Oval Office gig, the midterm elections haven't even happened, and people are already trying to rearrange the cabinet. I think Democrats should worry more about 2010 than an election two years from now. Besides, there's a job that will open up long before the 2012 sweepstakes kick off that Clinton would be superb in: secretary of defense. The question is, would she want it?

By Jonathan Capehart  | October 6, 2010; 12:38 PM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Levi Johnston is 'After love' in all the wrong places
Next: Meghan McCain's Palin problem

Comments

Thanks for calling out the foolishness. But if you really think about it, the pundits have been talking about the 2012 election since 12:01 pm Jan 20, 2009.

Jonathan, you're guilty too!

Posted by: zzishate@yahoo.com | October 6, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Why would Hillary 'fall' for this charade?

Obummer would simply be using her for his own re-election purposes.

Besides, if Hillary were to be the VP it would cause the Obummer man a real 'headache'. He would be one of three presidents: Himself - Hillary (who knows she should be president) and Bill (who wants Hillary to be president even moreso than Hillary does).

Obummer's ego couldn't cope with that scenario.

Hillary is far too intelligent and, if she could speak freely, would love to see the Obummer Messiah get defeated at the nominating convention for 2012.

In fact, when the Dems hold their convention for the 2012 election it will be Hillary who will carry the nomination into that fall's election. She is intelligent enough to know that and she then could be become what she has always wished to be become, the first female president of the nation.

That is the legacy both she and Bill covet.

Obumma is 'toast' no matter how he may restructure his administration. He had the mandate to 'change' Washington in a positive manner and he simply wasted it.

The 'great uniter' has divided this nation to a level which no preceeding president has ever attained.

I have lived 80 years and can factually attest to that statement.

Posted by: dharper2 | October 6, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

The 2008 campaign wasn't that long ago. Most of us still cringe when we recall how
certain Democrats accused both Bill and Hillary of being "RACISTS", among other things.
This simply is not the same democratic party.
Most Americans do not agree with Progressives or "redistribute the wealth"
philosophy.

Posted by: ohioan | October 6, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

That would be the coolest thing done within politics field and if Obama do it, it should become regular and mandatory for every vice president and secretary of the state every two years. If you just think about it, Dick Cheney would not screw up this country so much if had to leave and take a spot for Condolisa Rice. And, another reason Obama should swap Biden and Clinton; for a two years in a row we have female secretary of the state, and that seems not to work so well with middle east or any other countries that we have problems with. Biden would solve and get rid off a lot of problems that Hillary could just dream of.

Posted by: BOBSTERII | October 6, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Mr Capehart; all,

quit engaging in SILLY fantasy! = BHO will (IF he chooses to run again.- i think that's a 50-50 chance.)be SLAUGHTERED by HRC in the DIMocRATS primary in 2012.

then, Hillery will be HUMILIATED in the general election by whomsoever the TEA PARTY chooses to endorse. = the FACTS are that the DIMocRATS have STUPIDLY destroyed themselves over the last few months & they have little to NO chance to control anything after this DEC. the DIMs have a "core" of about 40% of voters now & 40% runs second every time.

the TRUTH is that the average voter (outside the beltway) just does NOT trust the DIMs anymore on any subject & therefore they will NOT ever vote for the donkeys again (at least NOT until the current angry BOOMER generation is dead/gone). - when former UNION FAMILIES desert the DIMs, as mine has, the DIMs are toast.

just my opinion. - i do NOT & CANNOT speak for our county TEA PARTY group, absent a vote of the members.

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | October 6, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Capehart wrote: ...Clinton would bring with her to the ticket the millions of blue-collar Democrats and others who didn't connect with Obama during the protracted 2008 campaign...

That's a very big, dubious assumption. Those voters would still have to vote for Obama at the top of the ticket. Would they hold their noses and do it? Isn't it just as likely that these voters look at the GOP candidate?

Posted by: Illini | October 6, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

ATTN: ROBERT GIBBS
.
If the Whitehouse would ESCORT OUT of the Press Room reporters, who continue to come there everyday with this BS, as opposed to gathering REAL information to report back to the American people, THEN Gibbs might be able to stop having to respond to this EVERYDAY NONSENSE!!

Posted by: texas5 | October 6, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

ATTN: ROBERT GIBBS
.
If the Whitehouse would ESCORT OUT of the Press Room reporters, who continue to come there everyday with this BS, as opposed to gathering REAL information to report back to the American people, THEN Gibbs might be able to stop having to respond to this EVERYDAY NONSENSE!!

Posted by: texas5 | October 6, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama hates conflicting advice. Biden gave it to him on Afghanistan--and, worst of all, was right. Hence he surely wants to dump Biden. But the election will probably not be that close in 2012. Obama easily could be a sure loser, and Hillary wouldn't want to be on the ticket. Or conditions will be improving rapidly and the Republicans nominate a loser in which case he will not want her to have the credit for his re-election.

Posted by: jhough1 | October 6, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

IN OTHER WORDS, Mr. Gibbs, if you guys continue to (go along) with the media making a MOCKERY of this Presidency, then that is what they're going to continue doing. Why encourage them?
.
Gibbs, I've listened to you try to embarrass some of those reporters with their silly questions before, I almost threw-up just listening. They can't be embarrassed, they have an agenda, and they're sticking to it.

Posted by: texas5 | October 6, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Liberals are blind or stupid regarding changing the VP. Get a clue, the problem isn't with the VP. It has to do with the teleprompter-reading monkey that you worship.

Posted by: mgrantham2 | October 6, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse


"The fish rots from the head."

Posted by: screwjob21 | October 6, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Is the rumor to swap right now or for the nesxt presidential term? I think that would make a big dfference.

Posted by: HooshangKharabaf | October 6, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Clinton knows Obama is a sinking ship. He will lose big and she will run in 2016 for president.

Bill Clinton wants to be known as the only two term Dem presidentd since FDR. He does not want Obama to win in 12. He can wait and by co president with Hil in 16.

Posted by: cpameetingbook | October 6, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Clinton knows Obama is a sinking ship. He will lose big and she will run in 2016 for president.

Bill Clinton wants to be known as the only two term Dem presidentd since FDR. He does not want Obama to win in 12. He can wait and be co president with Hil in 16.

Posted by: cpameetingbook | October 6, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I'd just be happy if he got rid of the Secretary of Education!

Posted by: lacy41 | October 6, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Right now, the buck toothed witch can beat the illegal alien muslim for his office.

Posted by: carlbatey | October 6, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

"The Washington bubbletocracy is chattering away about the rumor that President Obama might make Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton swap jobs."

This being the second post by Capehart on the topic of the VP swap, who might the "bubbletocracy" be?

More importantly, if the swap takes place, can we make sure before hand that Hillary has a copy of the long form of her birth certificate? I don't think I could bear to listen to the birthers ranting in stereo until 2016.

Posted by: exco | October 6, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

They need to do something to take everyone's minds off the crumbling economy!

Voice your opinion to Washington at
http://TrueObjective.info/economy

Posted by: ercl01 | October 6, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

This video says it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZnKSfv5lYw

Posted by: raf365247 | October 6, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Swap Hillary for Obumbles and you might be able to make a case to the American people. Nothing short of getting rid of Obama is going to help the Democrats now.

Posted by: JUNGLEJIM123 | October 7, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

This would definitely be an interesting scenario. First of all, the dumping of Cheyne and Quayle would have been done at the convention, so each would have served during the President's first term, but not the second. Changing the positions half way through the first term would be an obviously political maneuver, aimed at ensuring Ms. Clinton did not run during the Primary. She might do it, she is committed to the Democrat Party, and if she thought it would improve electoral chances for the Party, she would do it in a heartbeat. On the other hand, this would diminish President Obama's power within the White House, and I don't think he is willing to do that.

Posted by: Isaldur43 | October 7, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company