Rumor of the day: Are you ready for Clinton/Petraeus 2016?

posted at 7:21 pm on April 21, 2014 by Allahpundit

I endorse Bill Kristol’s approach here. On a day when news is slow, why not make your own news by trolling the left?

As we went through Kemp’s political career, I was reminded again of his boldness, especially of course in economic policy, of his willingness he to take on the conventional wisdom and the establishments of both parties. And of his populism. Which I’m convinced more than ever has to be a big part of the GOP message in 2016. I know populism has a problematic history and remains something of a mixed bag, and a few friends and allies have expressed surprise to me in recent months at the kinds words I’ve had for populism, at least populism rightly understood. But then you read an article like this in the New York Times, and you think about how to frame a 2016 race against Hillary Clinton (by the way, a savvy friend is absolutely convinced her running mate in 2016 will be David Petraeus—something worth thinking about, perhaps). And I think you’ve got to conclude that the way to defeat “the first woman president” (but also an elitist and dynastic one) is with a candidate from Middle America who speaks for Middle America in ways understandable to Middle America.

Petraeus did say she’d make a “tremendous president.” So why won’t this happen? Let us count the ways.

1. She doesn’t need him. Petraeus’s chief value to Hillary would be to signal to voters that she’s a hawk, which is supposedly crucial for the first woman presidential nominee. But it’s already well known that she’s hawkish by Democratic standards. She voted to invade Iraq, served on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, and, as noted, has already kinda sorta been endorsed by Petraeus. Stan McChrystal is, allegedly, left-leaning; he might be willing to endorse her too, and if he isn’t, rest assured that some other prominent Democratic military officer will be recruited. You don’t need to put Petraeus on the ticket to make the point that she’s tough enough.

2. If anything, picking him as VP would damage Hillary’s already frayed relationship with the left. They lined up against her in 2008 in part because of her Iraq vote and now, eight years later and with the Clintons eager to heal the rift, she’s going to name as her running mate … the guy who commanded U.S. operations in Iraq? C’mon. That’d be especially silly if she ends up facing Jeb Bush, who will himself be desperate to shed any Iraq connection due to his last name. Democrats are desperate to paint Jeb as Dubya II; the last thing they need in that effort is their own nominee deciding to run with Dubya’s handpicked Iraq deputy.

3. Petraeus is an especially bad choice because he aggravates two of her sore spots. One is the adultery mess that led to him leaving the CIA. As much as voters like Bill, no one’s eager for another round of scandals in the White House. Inviting Petraeus increases the odds and leaves Hillary open to GOP attacks that, for all her feminist rhetoric, she’s awfully forgiving of men who behave badly. The other, more significantly, is Benghazi. “The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation,” the Journal reported back in 2012, citing intel officials as its sources. It was Petraeus who was in charge of the CIA the night things went south at the consulate. Hillary will run from Benghazi at every opportunity on the trail in 2016; that becomes harder if the guy on the bottom of the ticket was the other cabinet official responsible for the fiasco that night.

4. Nominating Petraeus as VP would be a pitch to centrists and independents given his association with a president from the other party. But with a Clinton as nominee and Bill Clinton campaigning all-out for her, Democrats don’t need to worry about centrists. What they need to worry about is turning out Obama’s coalition in the same numbers that O did — young voters, single women, minorities, and well-educated liberals of all demographics. Petraeus doesn’t help with that. Someone like Cory Booker might.

5. Last but not least, she voted against a Senate resolution in 2007 that condemned MoveOn’s infamous “General Betray Us” ad before distancing herself from it later. Not a huge deal, but awkward fodder for plenty of attack ads.

Exit question: Clinton/McChrystal 2016?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Bishop. And, no.

Ed Morrissey on April 21, 2014 at 7:24 PM

You mean the same Petraeus that the NYT took out a full page ad on about be tray us

jaywemm on April 21, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Second look at moving to another country? Or another planet?

rbj on April 21, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Ed Morrissey on April 21, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Heh…

OmahaConservative on April 21, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Oh yeah? Well I raise you a Condi Rice/Colin Powell ticket!!!

Vomiting.

portlandon on April 21, 2014 at 7:29 PM

It must be A VERY SLOW NEWS DAY. By the way it would not have matter who Hillary picks as VP if John Boenher and Mitch were not dumb and very horrible Republican leaders. 2016 should go the Republican way, if we have leaders who are not dumb. For the next 2 years Republicans should point out their is a culture of corruption in the Democrat Party. They should give out examples like Fast and Furious, IRS, HHS Shakedown of Insurance companies, Obamacare, ect.

Republicans should use the same playbook Democrats use in 2006 to get into power. If they are not dumb that is.

BroncosRock on April 21, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Killary/Bubba 2016 (promising to appoint Chelsea as AG to replace Holder)!

ShainS on April 21, 2014 at 7:32 PM

Bishop. And, no.

Ed Morrissey on April 21, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Hey! No fair with an insider Bishop! It’s like the secret menu at In-and-Out Burger!!!! ;0

It’s an interesting trolling. Woman that runs on being a victim of her husband’s adultery running with a guy who is allegedly and adulterer.

How do you adapt the war on women to this ticket?

Happy Nomad on April 21, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Great, we could ask them both about Benghazi at every campaign event.

myrenovations on April 21, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Chelsea’s baby: Why the political pundits are thrilled for Hillary

OmahaConservative on April 21, 2014 at 7:33 PM

No secret there. It softens the edges of the bitter dried up shrew that is Hillary Rodham Clinton. An allegedly independent smart woman who didn’t dump her serial rapist husband.

Like a television program losing viewers- Look! A baby! And calved by Chelsea at just the right time for political gain in the 2016 elections!!!!

Happy Nomad on April 21, 2014 at 7:39 PM

So, what they’re saying, is that they think they’ve beaten a successful US general into total submission.

trigon on April 21, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Wow. It really is a slow news day.

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 21, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Petraeus = Softy-Softy = Smoke and Mirror Show

Was never much a fan of Petraeus, although he was simply an instrument of an incompetent Bush strategy so it really would not have mattered who Bush picked to run the war. I will admit I am glad to see his fall from the top…

I hope Hillary would pick Petraeus as VP…won’t happen…but I would not fear his intelligence.

William Eaton on April 21, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Bishop. And, no.

Ed Morrissey on April 21, 2014 at 7:24 PM

You damned straight ‘no’, wiseguy!

Lanceman on April 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Talk about requiring a “willing suspension of disbelief.”

notropis on April 21, 2014 at 7:46 PM

What General could get elected these days?

I like Ike was long ago.

wolly4321 on April 21, 2014 at 7:46 PM

They both have to answer for Benghazi

jake49 on April 21, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Rapist’s Spouse/Biden (again) 2016!

Murphy9 on April 21, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Counter with Palin/West.. doh!

wolly4321 on April 21, 2014 at 7:49 PM

Never gonna happen

Philly on April 21, 2014 at 7:49 PM

So the side that brought us “Betrayus” would put him on their ticket? Sure./

CW on April 21, 2014 at 7:52 PM

Bishop. And, no.

Ed Morrissey on April 21, 2014 at 7:24 PM

LOL! Well played Ed well played.

gophergirl on April 21, 2014 at 7:52 PM

Clinton/Petraeus 2016?

LOL…

Electrongod on April 21, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Clintoon/Betrayus 2016.

Lanceman on April 21, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Counter with Palin/West.. doh!

wolly4321 on April 21, 2014 at 7:49 PM

You could put a West-Petraeus VP debate on pay-per-view.

CJ on April 21, 2014 at 7:57 PM

Bishop. And, no.

Ed Morrissey on April 21, 2014 at 7:24 PM

You know the drill :)

Hell, we should be so lucky, on topic.

SNL writes itself.

Schadenfreude on April 21, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Great, we could ask them both about Benghazi at every campaign event.

myrenovations on April 21, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Correct.

Maybe that is why this story has legs…to keep Patraeus quite.

:)

William Eaton on April 21, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Bishop. And, no.

Ed Morrissey on April 21, 2014 at 7:24 PM

ED M: Outrageous,…..

…now you did it,..and your going to have to write a displinary letter to yourself, haha,ahems..(snark)

canopfor on April 21, 2014 at 7:59 PM

Ed Morrissey on April 21, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Wow, I’m so chuckling over here LOL.

CoffeeLover on April 21, 2014 at 7:59 PM

I’m going with:

SarahCuda/West/2016!

canopfor on April 21, 2014 at 7:59 PM

Hill likes the military men, eh? Wasn’t she flirting with Wesley Clark last time?

I’m still laughing. Nice Bishop, Ed.

Fallon on April 21, 2014 at 8:00 PM

What General could get elected these days?

I like Ike was long ago.

wolly4321 on April 21, 2014 at 7:46 PM

You’re right. Ike was long ago.

Any General or Admiral could get elected these days because they are all political appointees in uniform.

Clinton wanted to introduce gays in the military. He backed down when his entire Joint Chiefs of Staff was willing to resign as a result.

Mike Mullen, the rat-eared bastard’s CJCS, was the biggest cheerleader of introducing gays into the ranks of the warriors.

Flag officers in today’s military are politicians not warriors. The one notable exception being the Marine Corps. And, of course, the Air Force went limp decades ago.

Happy Nomad on April 21, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Ed Morrissey on April 21, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Wow, I’m so chuckling over here LOL.

CoffeeLover on April 21, 2014 at 7:59 PM

CoffeeLover:Evening CL,.. talk about nerve,..oh wait,..ED has a BanHammer,
*slinks away,..nevermind*,…..:)

canopfor on April 21, 2014 at 8:01 PM

…What they need to worry about is turning out Obama’s coalition in the same numbers that O did — young voters, single women, minorities, and well-educated liberals of all demographics. Petraeus doesn’t help with that. Someone like Cory Booker might.

The reason for Herself to tie down Cory Booker is mostly so someone else doesn’t. Hillary has to ask herself if the black Democratic base can get excited over a fat old white woman that’s led a life of privilege, after The Precious.

Would a more desperate candidate like John F’n Kerry or Joke Biden pick up Cory Booker to make for a more credible package?

slickwillie2001 on April 21, 2014 at 8:02 PM

Hillary is very ill and will not run.

“I’ll spend more time with my grandchild” will be the meme.

Schadenfreude on April 21, 2014 at 8:02 PM

Killary/Chelsea Baby 2016

ToddPA on April 21, 2014 at 8:03 PM

canopfor on April 21, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Hello my friend in the Great North! LOL still laughing :)

Has Spring sprung up there?

CoffeeLover on April 21, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Killary/Chelsea Baby 2016

ToddPA on April 21, 2014 at 8:03 PM

AKA, Dead Bodies, sh*tty Diapers 2016

ToddPA on April 21, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Hillary is very ill and will not run.

“I’ll spend more time with my grandchild” will be the meme.

Schadenfreude on April 21, 2014 at 8:02 PM

If so, only after maximum time raising cash for her campaign coffers and/or the Clinton Foundation.

Happy Nomad on April 21, 2014 at 8:07 PM

hillary was quick to invade other countries when she was potus before, many people don’t remember how bloodthirsty she was then.

dmacleo on April 21, 2014 at 8:08 PM

They would fit very well together. Both are psychopathic liars, who seemed to be in a friendly competition to see which one could lie the most about Benghazi and blame that obscure video the most.

VorDaj on April 21, 2014 at 8:09 PM

What position will Mike Morell get..?

d1carter on April 21, 2014 at 8:12 PM

BTW, Petraeus has kept his mouth shut…

d1carter on April 21, 2014 at 8:13 PM

The Three Dirty Rats: Clinton, Petraeus and Boehner.

CIA [Petraeus] was Involved in Benghazi Attack

It has been learned that one week prior to the Benghazi attacks that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, CIA Director David Petraeus met with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan. This finding, reported by Hurrieyt at the time, further bolsters brand new claims by Seymour M. Hersh, the man who broke the Abu Ghraib prison scandal story in 2004.

In early 2012, the Obama administration, along with the administration of Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, reached an agreement that would have Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia provide funding for an operation run by then CIA Director David Petraeus (the Petraeus Operation), according to Hersh’s report. The purpose of the operation, carried out by the CIA and Great Britain’s MI6, was to move weapons from Libya into Syria, using back channel ‘rat lines’.

In January of this year, a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) made news when it released an 85-page bipartisan report on the Benghazi attacks. According to Hersh, there was an addendum or “highly classified annex” to the report which detailed the Petraeus operation. As to who was issued this highly sensitive document, House Speaker John Boehner and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers were reportedly among them.

According to a ‘former intelligence official’ cited heavily by Hersh, the classified annex revealed that the Special Mission Compound where Ambassador Christoper Stevens was murdered was nothing more than a front for negotiating the weapons transfers from Libya to Syria through Turkey.

Last year, after outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified in front of a Senate Committee about Benghazi, Boehner appeared on a radio show one day later and admitted to having knowledge about weapons being shipped to Turkey:

VorDaj on April 21, 2014 at 8:14 PM

David “Holy Qur’an” Petraeus the prevaricating YouTube and Israel blamer, should be in Leavenworth serving a life sentence.

Petraeus flat out lied to the House Intelligence Committee three days after Benghazi when he testified to them that it was a “spontaneous” protest over a YouTube video that was responsible for Benghazi. When committed knowingly, as former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy and PJM columnist pointed out some time ago, such deception is a felony. Blaming the YouTube video for the violence was also, in effect, blaming free speech, which is a Petraeus hallmark when Muslims “act out”.

Of course, anyone who had been paying attention already knew that Petraeus is a VERY Clintonesque man, in fact maybe even more Clintonesque than Clinton.

Andrew C. McCarthy: “Boot’s attack on West is an effort to defend a surpassingly foolish statement in which Gen. David Petraeus cast Israel as the source of all America’s woes in the Middle East. To his great discredit, the general — in a Clintonesque fashion which, as we shall see, is probably not a coincidence — simultaneously denied making the statement, grudgingly admitted making it while minimizing its significance, and accused West and others of misrepresenting his views. In fact, the general’s critics quoted his words at length, placed them in unmistakable context, and drew from them the same commonsense conclusion drawn by Israel’s gleeful critics — for whom Petraeus is the hero of the moment.”

VorDaj on April 21, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Eww… I don’t need to see any tapes with Petraeus with another women especially Hillary.

ETA: maybe that is not what the question asked.

F15Mech on April 21, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Hillary is very ill and will not run.

“I’ll spend more time with my grandchild” will be the meme.

Schadenfreude on April 21, 2014 at 8:02 PM

May she and her liver live in interesting times.

VorDaj on April 21, 2014 at 8:20 PM

Why not? She’s used to managing an adulterer.

Akzed on April 21, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Bishop. And, no. Ed Morrissey on April 21, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Ed buys in!

This is like dad playing Nintendo with the kids!!!

Akzed on April 21, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Bumper stickers will literally be writing themselves.

Horny’s Wife / Horny ’16
Betrayed / Betray-us ’16
Bullet Dodger / Bullet Sender ’16

C’mon guys, I know you can come up with more!

Rix on April 21, 2014 at 8:35 PM

Ben Carson and Allen West. Game, set, and match.. Anyone who opposes this ticket is raaaaaacccccissst… sarc/

tstar44 on April 21, 2014 at 8:35 PM

canopfor on April 21, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Hello my friend in the Great North! LOL still laughing :)

Has Spring sprung up there?

CoffeeLover on April 21, 2014 at 8:04 PM

CoffeeLover: No,..still cold,…..probably in June!!:)

canopfor on April 21, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Hillary and Ambassador Stevens… FTW!

Oh, wait…

ajacksonian on April 21, 2014 at 8:45 PM

I think the “Hillary is sick” talk is just so much “there’s a tape of (Obama or Michelle) that’s going to blow this whole thing up”. Well we got him for 8 years.

Marcus on April 21, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Wait….what? Wasn’t it shrillary that called him General Betrayus? Or am I thinking of another worn out shoe leather looking hag?

Diluculo on April 21, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Rix on April 21, 2014 at 8:35 PM

Totally celibate/Totally not celibate ’16

msupertas on April 21, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Heh! Just what Hilary needs…another womanizing man in her life.

lineholder on April 21, 2014 at 9:15 PM

I think McCain is going to be her running mate. Or, if he chooses to retire instead, then Graham. Unity ticket, which the indies and the establishment in both parties would absolutely love, after the divisiveness of the Obama disaster. She would (conveniently) have the bigger brassier set on that latter team too so that would work well.

MTF on April 21, 2014 at 9:20 PM

We can pray this is true, but I doubt it. I know first hand that one of the major news channels on cable has the story on Petraeus and allegations of “snuff” films on his computer at CIA HQs back in the day. True or not, that kind of dynamite would shred General Davey.

NQJohnson on April 21, 2014 at 9:37 PM

I would love to know what the Clintons have on him.

Rusty Nail on April 21, 2014 at 9:41 PM

Many thanks to Bill Kristol for reinforcing the decision I made to stop taking his Weekly Standard several years ago.

NixTyranny on April 21, 2014 at 9:45 PM

MTF- it is a given Shrillary has the brassy set. McCain’s are wooden given the date they were made…

Damn.. I will be scorned (audited) for ageism…..

tstar44 on April 21, 2014 at 9:47 PM

I don’t see why Clinton would be interested in Petraeus…but I see why Petraeus would love to be on a ticket…

After the way Obama conspired against him to leak his affair and destroy him politically I’m imagining the General’s level of hate towards Barky is pretty deep.

18-1 on April 22, 2014 at 12:35 AM

Like a television program losing viewers- Look! A baby! And calved by Chelsea at just the right time for political gain in the 2016 elections!!!!

Happy Nomad on April 21, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Now that’s Planned Parenthood.

either orr on April 22, 2014 at 1:17 AM

Seems reasonable. Hillary is very skilled in dealing with cheating husbands that can’t keep their pants zipped up.

rplat on April 22, 2014 at 7:23 AM

I am still a slight bit unclear what Hillary’s qualifications to be president are.

Has she really demonstrated the command necessary to run our country? Certainly, we’ve had enough experience with an unqualified person since 2008 to realize that demographics do not trump skill, leadership, wisdom and the experience necessary to make sage policy choices for America.

Ms. Clinton’s entire career reads more like a list of reasons not to elect her. Let’s start with the shenanigans involving Whitewater, trails of disappearing documents, a failed health care effort that, if it had succeeded, would have been worse than Obamacare and that’s before we get to her tenure as SoS. Is the situation with Russia, a Middle East in turmoil, our dead countrymen in Benghazi (which still is not resolved) and the more dangerous situation for Americans in the world somehow and argument…for her?

Give me a break. “This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

Marcus Traianus on April 22, 2014 at 7:40 AM

Hopefully, we can enough intelligent Americans who do NOT want a homebreaker and a liar of unspeakable proportions to even run let alone vote for either or both of these creatures. Obama has been more than enough misery and to even think of electing Hillary for anything, including dog catcher, is disgusting. She is pure evil and he is a weak general. No leadership here, just control, control, control!

Roselle on April 22, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Rodham needs southern gun votes. Joe Manchin?

Colony14 on April 22, 2014 at 10:38 PM