On Tuesday, Jan. 10, the New York Times printed what has only been whispered in the New York-Washington corridor: Obama should take Hillary Clinton as a running mate to ensure his re-election. It was Bill Keller, a former executive editor of the Times, who brought the issue to the public.
Bill Clinton may well have said on ABC that Hillary is "tired," but he has since begun a movement to support her candidacy for VP, replacing Joe Biden. Furthermore, two Democratic strategists have suggested that she is launching an assault for the White House against the 44th president. This assumption is not very credible. Hillary has probably reached the end of her political career after eight years in the White House as first lady, eight years in the Senate and four years at the State Department, not to mention her years as first lady of Arkansas when Bill was the state governor.
Keller said that Hillary has been the most admired woman in the United States for the last 10 years, according to Gallup. With an approval rating of 64 percent, she leads all competitors in politics.
Keller argues, with reason, that having Hillary on the Democratic ticket in November would not only ensure the re-election of Obama, but also revitalize the White House and significantly change the dynamics in Congress. In addition, it is likely that the presence of Hillary as VP would help the Democrats regain some lost seats in the mid-term elections.
Relations are notoriously fluid between the Clintons and Obamas: The Obamas consider the Clintons overly politicized and the Clintons consider Obama naïve — someone who prefers being right over winning political battles. But ahead of the Democratic Convention, the idea might not seem preposterous to the 44th, who knows, at times, when to be pragmatic.
If this electoral gridlock [in domestic policy] does occur, it may well result in Trump — like several other reelected presidents of recent decades — increasingly turning to foreign policy.
The message is unmistakable: there are no absolute guarantees and state sovereignty is conditional when it clashes with the interests of powerful states.
If this electoral gridlock [in domestic policy] does occur, it may well result in Trump — like several other reelected presidents of recent decades — increasingly turning to foreign policy.
What happened to this performing arts center is paradigmatic of how Trump’s second presidency ... [is] another front in a war ... to impose an autocratic regime led by a 21st century feudal lord outside of international law.