Hillary’s Game
According to CBS News, Hillary Clinton has ruled out running for the Presidency in 2012 – and in 2016. “I'm very pleased,” she says, “to be doing what I'm doing as secretary of state."
In a separate interview with TV New Zealand, Clinton said the United States "should be" ready for a female president, but that it would not be her. "But it will be someone, and it is nice coming to countries that have already proven that they can elect women to the highest governing positions that they have in their systems," she added. New Zealand has had two female prime ministers.
Clinton has said repeatedly she has no intention of running for president again, but that has not stopped speculation or interest in the idea. A Gallup poll in September showed that more than a third of Democrats would support Clinton were she to challenge President Obama in the primaries for the 2012 election. The first 2012 presidential ad was even in support of Clinton.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Her husband was not out ostentatiously campaigning for her former supporters out of the goodness of his heart. In any case, the appropriate thing to do at this stage is to play hard to get. Later -- if President Obama decides to get tough with Israel, if Howard Dean throws his hat in the ring, if Governor Moonbeam announces his candidacy, if a draft Hillary movement somehow springs up -- well, what's a girl to do?
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Hillary’s Game
As MacBubba assaults his friends and enemies with soft swords, his Lady stands in the shadows of the kitchen watching the food burn. If her statesmanship is like her cooking, the world and his stomach are in big danger.
Sep '10
Re: Hillary’s Game
It depends on what your definition of "very pleased" is.
May '10
Re: Hillary’s Game
It's mathematically impossible to win the Dem primaries while losing the AfAm vote 100-0. Hillary is not in the business of losing--not anymore anyway--so it won't happen.
That said, I sincerely hope it does, since as I've said before, no single development would do more to liberate the AfAms from their lockstep support of Dem pathologies than the resentment caused by the Dem establishment's rejecting them.
Re: Hillary’s Game
Scott Reusser: It's mathematically impossible to win the Dem primaries while losing the AfAm vote 100-0. Hillary is not in the business of losing--not anymore anyway--so it won't happen.
That said, I sincerely hope it does, since as I've said before, no single development would do more to liberate the AfAms from their lockstep support of Dem pathologies than the resentment caused by the Dem establishment's rejecting them. · Nov 6 at 7:31am
Actually, Hillary won most of those primaries last time -- without getting much of the African-American vote.
Oct '10
Re: Hillary’s Game
Does anyone here seriously believe that she would not run for the Presidency if she felt she had a reasonable chance of success?
May '10
Re: Hillary’s Game
Paul A. Rahe
Actually, Hillary won most of those primaries last time -- without getting much of the African-American vote. · Nov 6 at 8:08am
But Mr. Rahe, my recollection was that it took quite some time before AfAms got fully on board with Obama, that it took a while for them to become emotionally invested. Not so in some future confrontation. Add to this the fact that the incumbency advantage--which is strong even for unpopular sitting presidents in primaries (e.g., Carter, Ford)--will garner him plenty of white votes, and a winning scenario seems impossible to imagine (for me anyway).
And with any such disadvantages, debatable or not, would Hillary risk the humiliation of losing twice to this man? Can't see it, but I hope you're right because such division would be wonderful.
Re: Hillary’s Game
Three points. First, Hillary has reason to be desperate. She is no Spring chicken, and the clock is ticking. If she is not willing to try in 2012, she can probably write off 2016 as well. Second, she won primaries well after Barack Obama consolidated support among African Americans. Third, the losses sustained by the Democratic Party in this election are exceeded only by their losses in 1938 -- when they did not lose control of the House.Moreover, what did not happen in the Senate this year is very likely to happen in 2012 when twenty-three of the thirty-three Senators up for re-election will be drawn from the Democratic caucus. Sober reflection is apt to have an impact. Do they double-down with Obama? Or try something else?
May '10
Re: Hillary’s Game
Thanks, and good points. I'm still not convinced, but I bet we can agree on this:
If in 2012 Dems are in such a position that they're actually wrestling with these issues, they're in deep trouble regardless of what they choose. They'll be running with either an unpopular president or a challenger who heads into the general election having alienated a large portion of the traditional Dem base. Republicans would be content with either scenario.
Sep '10
Re: Hillary’s Game
That's what her decision to run comes down to. Can she win?
Right now there is too much uncertainty. Why would she consider it if the current Tea Party mood continues any Dem is bound to get trounced? Or what if Obama decides to run again?
By staying out of the mid-term elections (and literally staying out of the country), she showed that she is concerned with her political future. No one can say that she supported a candidate that failed or she was at the concession speech of so-and-so.
In fact, no one can say anything about her at all. Obama didn't give her anything to do at State and she is probably happy to ride out the storm. She adds a nice position to her resume, even if it means nothing.
No,she hasn't given up on the dream, just biding her time and watching. Lots of watching.
May '10
Re: Hillary’s Game
Whats else could see say? She can't say "I'm thinking of running" and still be SoS.
Sep '10
Re: Hillary’s Game
But it will be someone, and it is nice coming to countries that have already proven that they can elect women to the highest governing positions that they have in their systems,"
You mean like the UK, Mrs. Rodham-Clinton?