Not Shermanesque

Susie Madrak echoes Ben Smith and call this from Hillary Clinton "Shermanesque:"

NBC’s ANN CURRY[:]“Will you ever run for president again? Yes or no.”

CLINTON, laughing merrily: “No.” [. . .] “No. No. I mean, this is a great job. It is a 24-7 job. And I’m looking forward to retirement at some point."

Strictly speaking, Sherman said "If nominated, I will not run, if elected I will not serve." But more practically, do you want me to find all the politicians who said they would not run for President and then did? Starting with our current President, Barack Obama? In 2009, it is silly to ask Hillary Clinton if she will run for President in 2016. Can you imagine if she had hedged on it? all the CDS it would inspire? She's Secretary of State. That's what is on her mind. Running for President is not even something to think about right now. For the record, come 2012, I think the answer will start to be "maybe." And in 2014, it will be "yes." You can call me out in 5 years if I am wrong.

Speaking for me only

< What We Don't Know About The Federalist Or Any Public Option | How Not To Refute A Claim >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Does your crystal ball (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    say that Hillary will be Secretary of State in Obama's hypothetical second term?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    I do not expect that she will be.

    I expect a resignation in 2013 with Susan Rice becoming Secretary of State.

    Pretty standard operating procedure BTW.

    SOS is a very demanding job.


    Other than Kissigner (none / 0) (#51)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:17:40 PM EST
    has any Sec of State served more than 5-6 years?

    Well actually (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:25:01 PM EST
    Kissinger only had 4 years.  Before he was SoS he was National Security Advisor, like Condi.

    Dean Rusk was SoS under Kennedy/Johnson for the full 8 years, I believe.  FDR had a SoS that served for three of his terms, or something close to that.


    Yes (none / 0) (#59)
    by aeguy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:44:35 AM EST
    George Shultz (July 1982 - January 1989)

    Dean Rusk (Jan. 1961 - Jan. 1969


    Forgot (none / 0) (#60)
    by aeguy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:47:50 AM EST
    Cordell Hull (1933 - 1944) under FDR
    John Dulles ('53-'59) under Eisenhower

    Probably others, but those are the recent ones.


    .60 in football. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:59:52 PM EST
    As fate would have it (none / 0) (#39)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:23:14 PM EST
    anyone who can pick 60% against the spread will make mountains of money!

    But will this hold considering the (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:30:41 PM EST
    willful distain of Michigan?  Probably.

    I believe her (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:46:58 PM EST
    Who would ever want to put themselves through a re-run of what she experienced last year? I think she works hard and deserves to retire from politics. Always have thought that next time she finds herself at a crossroads, she'll join Bill in philanthropic endeavors.

    Hope so (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    The international stage deserves the Clintons more than this sorry country does.

    Yes, they're 'character challenged' at times.  (Name me one politician who isn't) But yes, they do great things for the world.  


    No one can ignore progressives (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:55:05 PM EST
     like a merrily laughing, glass ceiling breaking, ME sabre rattling pol can ignore progressives.

    Its almost sexy. Almost.


    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:58:58 PM EST
    You've been rolled under the bus and spit on by your hero and you're still screeching about Hillary. Whatever.

    I expected to be (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:04:45 PM EST
    Like I said, all I wanted was the neocon slime away from the switch and the faith healers away from the science advisory panals.

    Hero. lol


    Hm, (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:56:14 PM EST
    funny you didnt even get that.

    I think I disagree (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:26:31 PM EST
    I think she wants it.  and I say that with love and admiration.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:57:19 PM EST
    after this last election I dont think she'll ever be president nor will any woman any time soon.

    Per Huff Po, Cheney's non-lesbian (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:02:51 PM EST
    daughter may be the new darling of the GOP and run for office.  Which I predicted.

    Nobody with the last name Cheney is going (none / 0) (#46)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 08:00:31 PM EST
    to be winning any nationwide elections any time soon. It would be like getting President Anthony Stalin.

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 08:19:58 PM EST
    Or a President named Hussein.  Never gonna happen.

    Really. (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:46:01 PM EST
    Liz Cheney is actually the scariest Republican (in terms of genuine appeal) I've seen since George W. Bush.  I don't think for independents she carries the slime of her name, and of course, the Republicans will swoon over her.  She's very, very impressive as a political candidate.  If she gets into the Senate or a governorship, watch out.

    I think my niece in her 20's (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:59:02 PM EST
    might see a female pres. Me, not so much.

    I'm Still Not Convinced about 2012 (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by BDB on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:09:07 PM EST
    Unless he rights his ship, Obama is going to have real problems in 2012.  That poorly focused, too small stimulus and huge bank bailout look like bigger and bigger mistakes every day.  Add to that a healthcare reform package that, to the extent it offers anyone anything other than a mandate to buy expensive junk insurance, doesn't kick in until 2013 and he could have real problems.   I'm not even going to get into the mess that is Afghanistan.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting Clinton would challenge Obama in 2012.  No way in hell would she do that.  But I can see the party turning to her to try to bail them out of what is shaping up to be a real mess.  Because we could easily still have double digit unemployment in four years if the Administration doesn't start acting on behalf of people and not corporations and so far, I've seen no desire to do that.  And if we have double digit unemployment I don't see how Obama gets re-elected.  Whether the Dems would dump him is another matter.

    Hopefully, Obama will pull it together because we cannot afford another failed presidency and to wait four more years for help on the economy and the environment, but a lot of energy and momentum have already been wasted on small things.  And the Dems will probably lose seats next year.

    I keep telling myself Bill Clinton looked like he was in trouble in 1993, too.  But then I remember what 1994 looked like and, while Clinton survived, it wasn't particularly good for the country.  

    I think the mid-terms will be a (4.71 / 14) (#27)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:42:17 PM EST
    reasonably good barometer of the challenges Obama is going to face, but I will find it very sad, indeed, if the party pushes Hillary out there to shill for him; it was hard enough to take when she did it in 2008.

    While it is almost certainly true that "a Republican would be worse," I cannot tell you how tired I am of being asked to choose between two unacceptable candidates, always being made to believe that the lesser of two evils is the best we can do.  I didn't vote the top of the ticket in 2008, because I decided the integrity of my vote was too important to squander on either Obama or McCain: neither deserved it, the Democratic Party had made a mockery of the entire process and shown that it cared more about money than quality.

    Nothing has changed.  Obama has proven himself to be everything I thought he would be - which is a whole lot of nothing - I still do not see quality leadership in the party or much of a desire to advance the goals of much of its base, and I don't know that there has been any progress on avoiding the kind of crass manipulation of the primary process - so why should I have any confidence that things will be any different a year from now?

    With a Democratic president, and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, I am still waiting for help on the economy, on health care, on the environment.  I am still waiting for repudiation of the egregious and overreaching Bush policies that Obama has simply decided to rubber-stamp.

    Can he turn it around?  I am not hopeful, and I think by the time the mid-terms rudely awaken him to how deep the doo-doo is, it will be too late.  Could he be challenged?  Anything is possible, I guess; I think the sudden interest in Hillary's plans might have something to do with the coming feeding frenzy over how badly the Democrats have handled their lock on all three branches of government.  The media love nothing better than internecine warfare, and the conditions are ripening for it, the benefit accruing to the GOP, of course.

    I guess time will tell.


    Well, the unstated assumption you make (none / 0) (#21)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    is that HRC would do anything differently than BHO.  

    I don't think that's a safe one to make.  BHO came into office with the Bush Depression being the worst economic situation since the last Depression, and the Democratic party largely behind him, and the Democratic base, and strong majorities in both houses of Congress.  BHO came into office with both a campaign based upon change and a mandate for it.  BHO came into office and promptly implemented Village ideas - the same Village ideas which came into full flower during Bush's administration and which ruled in large part during Clinton's, too.  And BHO did so by wielding power against his own base - and only his own base.  

    I have no reason to believe HRC would do any differently, nor any better.  The prior Clinton administration did much the same.  I do believe any Republican would do worse, but that's largely irrelevant to this comment.  


    On the economy.... (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by trillian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 06:01:53 PM EST
    ..I think she would have been waaaay different. She had really gone populist by the end of the primaries. Was pushing for HOLC etc.

    On Afghanistan...maybe not so much


    She was pushing HOLC after the (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 06:22:31 PM EST
    primaries iirc. She didn't stop when the primaries were over.

    Not Assuming Anything of the Sort (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by BDB on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 06:35:17 PM EST
    This isn't about what might have been, it's about what might be if Obama continues to fiddle while Rome burns (and let me go on record again as saying I hope he gets his act together because we can't really afford to wait another three years for some sort of do over).  But if we have double digit unemployment and a war going badly in Afghanistan, both of which are entirely possible, then Obama has real problems, IMO, in 2012.  

    So what happens if he goes into the election season way behind the GOP?  Do the Dems stick with him and go down in flames.  Probably.  But if not, they have to come up with a candidate that has the ability to connect with working voters AND has a strong enough fundraising base to compete with the GOP.  The simple fact is that there aren't very many Democrats that that describes.  

    That analysis has nothing to do with what Clinton would do if she were president right now.  It has to do with who could wage a fight against the Republicans following a failed Democratic President.  That's a very small pool.

    And  as I said, I don't think it's likely the Dems would dump him no matter how unpopular he gets.  And I hope, deeply, truly, that he finds a way to get back on track because we desperately need help right now and we're not, IMO, getting it.  


    No way, nohow (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:48:44 PM EST
    does Obama get pushed out of reelection by the Dems.  Not going to happen under any circumstances. Forget it.  Waste of mental energy to even consider it.

    Heck you don't even have to use (none / 0) (#52)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:24:10 PM EST
    Clinton as an example- check Reagan in 1982- he was way lower than Obama is now.

    Can we ban reporters from asking that question? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:45:33 PM EST
    Just a thought. I am for that one abrogation of free speech.

    I think you mean (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:34:13 PM EST
    The made up actions of the Clintons last year, don't you?  Pushed by the Obama campaign, even though there was no veracity to any of it?

    Hold up (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:40:23 PM EST
    Can the personal attacks.

    Make your points with the accusations.

    Without I mean (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:40:53 PM EST
    Any chance you could (4.55 / 9) (#34)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:53:45 PM EST
    delete that personal attack comment, BTD? No one who hasn't absolutely given reason to be called such a name should have to have that kind of accusation sitting in print against them.

    We all know that isn't even close to being true about Anne, and the commenter made no effort to contribute anything to the conversation.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:56:42 PM EST
    I prefer to leave my rebuke up for a but then delete later.

    Oh cotton candy (4.00 / 4) (#36)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:56:48 PM EST
    got into with Anne earlier this year sometime - still spewing the same "she's a racist" crap.

    Must be a paid commenter.


    There's still no good excuse (4.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:36:13 PM EST
    for anyone to call anyone else such vile names.

    Gosh, we've so missed her (4.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 06:01:52 PM EST
    insightful comments, haven't we?

    Or maybe absence hasn't made the heart grow fonder...


    I just deleted (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:34:39 AM EST
    Candy Cotton's comment calling someone a racist. That is not allowed here. S/he did it in another thread and I deleted it too. One more and Candy Cotton is banned from the site.

    And Favre and Randy Johnson (none / 0) (#1)
    by domer5000 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:40:35 PM EST
    may still be playing too

    If Favre is still zinging TDs like he has been (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:45:19 PM EST
    this season, he'll find a job somewhere in the NFL.

    Randy Johnson - not so much.  But Jamie Moyer - there's a guy who will still be around.  And Rick Wakefield and his knuckleball.


    My-oh-my! Randy...Jamie... (none / 0) (#22)
    by oldpro on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:25:21 PM EST
    those were the days in Marinerland...sigh...

    I think Hillary resigns as (none / 0) (#2)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:40:54 PM EST
    Secretary of State in 2014....and then runs....

    Or, is leaving that door open.  Bill will have made enough money for them both.

    cringe-inducing (none / 0) (#4)
    by Illiope on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:43:52 PM EST
    "Clinton, laughing merrily"

    oof... worst. fake. laugh. ever.

    If it doesn't beat (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:48:52 PM EST
    this laugh, it isn't the worst one ever.

    But, seriously, it's quite obvious that the seasons have changed, or a new month has arrived or something, because we are getting the obligatory stir-up-the-CDS-and-Clinton-candidacy story.

    What would the media use for filler if she had actually run, and won?


    it would not have been a problem (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:32:19 PM EST
    if she had run and won they would all have simultaneously had white hot lava spew out their eyes and noses and would then have spontaneously combusted and completely evaporated.

    oh, what a lovely sight that would be (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by sallywally on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:55:38 PM EST
    no matter whose success produced it!

    They need to dredge this up (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:27:07 PM EST
    It's been a weird news week for O.

    I take it you saw it? (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:49:13 PM EST
    Saw what? (none / 0) (#10)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:53:22 PM EST
    I have no idea what HRC's laugh was like, but I kinda doubt whatever she did would have beat Glenn Close's as Cruella deVille.

    Not kinda - I'm quite sure HRC didn't.  HRC is disciplined enough to not let fly with one like that, especially to a reporter.


    I was responding to the original (none / 0) (#13)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:57:25 PM EST

    Oh, and you should know better than to post a 101 Dal clip with no puppies in it!!  ;)


    A Reporter? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:58:21 PM EST
    Ann Curry is one that I think could easily induce odd noises from anyone she's interviewing. Her fake concern face, and lowering her voice to entice people to tell all makes it impossible for me to watch any interview she does from beginning to end.

    so true (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:33:15 PM EST
    about Curry

    mm, no... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Illiope on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    i didn't see any video of the interview in question.... kind of jerk-ish of me, really. it was probably a very sincere laugh...

    Actually, it was (none / 0) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:41:52 PM EST
    Mebbe she'll change her mind, but the sense I got from it is that she's thought it through and has decided quite firmly.

    In 2014 (none / 0) (#48)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:36:56 PM EST
    there will be whole slate of new faces, men and women.

    It won't matter much though if the Democrats don't start delivering for their progressive base.

    No there will not be (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:51:45 PM EST
    the last time we had a Dem President, the new faces were . . . Al Gore and Bill Bradley.

    The time before that was Hubert Humphrey and Bobby Kennedy.

    If you want to count 1984 as new we had Walter Mondale and Gary Hart.

    Look around, this is what you got.


    It is odd (none / 0) (#54)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:27:45 PM EST
    I mean out of Power elections do appear to be the times we bring new blood in- Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Obama- all came out of periods on at least 8 years of GOP control of the presidency.

    Not so odd (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:03:29 PM EST
    Presidents take up a lot of space.

    Is it possible? (none / 0) (#61)
    by aeguy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:52:02 AM EST
    For Hillary to just move on to a high role in the UN after resignation? That's where I see her going. Staying in world affairs and not American politics. I'm sure she's sick of it.