FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's time for President Obama to step aside and hand the reins of the Democratic Party to Hillary Clinton.
This rather radical idea is coming from two Democratic pollsters in a Wall Street Journal piece called "The Hillary Moment."
Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen argue that Obama should follow in the footsteps of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. Both presidents "took the moral high road" and abandoned a run for a second term when they realized they could not effectively govern.
Caddell and Schoen say that never before has there been such an "obvious potential successor" as Hillary Clinton. They say she would save the Democratic Party and be able to get things done in Washington. They think Clinton is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.
They point to Clinton's experience as first lady, senator and now secretary of state - suggesting she is more qualified than any presidential candidate in recent memory, including her husband.
Although Clinton says she's not interested in running, polls suggest she might do pretty well:
In September, her approval rating was at an all-time high of 69%. Another poll shows Clinton leading Mitt Romney by 17 points in a hypothetical matchup.
Caddell and Schoen say Obama could still win re-election in 2012, but only by waging a negative campaign, which would ultimately make the gridlock in Washington even worse.
If Obama isn't willing to step aside, they think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should urge him to do so.
The pollsters say they're writing as "patriots and Democrats," have had no contact with Clinton's people, and don't expect to play a direct role in any potential campaign.
Here’s my question to you: Should President Obama step aside and hand the reins of the Democratic Party to Hillary Clinton?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Keep your eyes on Ron Paul...
Because the Texas Congressman could have a major effect on the 2012 presidential race - whether or not he's the nominee.
Paul - who probably has the most passionate supporters of all the Republican candidates - is not ruling out a third party run.
He says he has no intention of mounting a third party bid for the White House, but - and it's a big but - he's not ruling it out.
A recent poll shows Paul getting 18% of the vote in a three-way contest against President Obama and Mitt Romney. And most of Paul's support would come at the expense of Mitt Romney.
That's why some Republicans call it a "nightmare scenario." They worry that a Ron Paul run would benefit President Obama - maybe even securing him a second term.
We've seen it before: When Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate in 1992 - the conventional wisdom was he handed Bill Clinton the election. Without Perot in the race, President Bush would have likely won re-election. Ralph Nader has also made several third party runs.
Plus, it's worth pointing out that our electoral system is stacked against a third party ever winning the White House.
Meanwhile - don't count Ron Paul out of the race for the Republican nomination quite yet.
Some say he could be a real threat in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.
One poll shows Paul in a virtual four-way tie for first place in Iowa... and he's polling in the top three in New Hampshire.
Some experts say they wouldn't be surprised if Paul wins the Iowa caucuses and then shakes up the race even further in New Hampshire.
Ron Paul has been talking sense for a long time.... with the country now circling the drain, maybe more people are ready to listen.
Here’s my question to you: Should Ron Paul launch a third party run if he doesn't win the Republican nomination?
Jack Cafferty sounds off hourly on the Situation Room on the stories crossing his radar. Now, you can check in with Jack online to see what he's thinking and weigh in with your own comments online and on TV.
About Jack Cafferty
Subscribe | Send Feedback