Hillary Says No to Second Term as Secretary of State

Not only did Hillary Clinton rule out a presidential and vice-presidential bid today, she also said she wouldn't accept a position as Secretary of Defense. More significantly, she said she's not staying in her current position as Secretary of State in 2012.

Clinton, visiting Cairo, was asked whether she would stay on in a second Obama term. She also was asked if she would like the jobs of president, vice president or defense secretary. She offered single word responses to each: "No."

I wonder if she already has an offer so good she can't refuse it in the private sector.

< R.I.P. "Acid King" Owsley Stanley | New York Times To Charge for Online Access >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Isn't this... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Thanin on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 09:23:25 PM EST
    the course of action that's been speculated for leading up to a 2016 run?  Leaving SoS in 2012?

    Or she could be setting the ground work (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 09:35:46 PM EST
    to continue on helping women/children after she leaves SOS. She seems quite energized on that front . . . (even more so)

    What private sector offer could beat first woman president?

    That's what I think too (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 09:51:57 PM EST
    Could there have been a worse time to be SOS and working to the extent and reaching the capacity that she has been?  And it has been pretty thankless service too even if it has been some of the most demanding in history.  If I were her, and having to deal with the Bradley Manning case and being up against that rock and that hard place after serving the two years that she has to the extent that she has I'd be retiring too!

    Here's what I think. She read BTD's (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:30:37 AM EST
    post re her/Manning and decided:  I'm out of here.

    Get out while the gettins good :) (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 08:50:18 AM EST
    I wonder what it is like to be a child of the 60's and be  politically involved back then and then in adulthood find yourself in Tahrir Square square celebrating Tahrir Square while condoning specific sorts of torture being applied to citizens of your country :)  It can't be easy living the contradictions with the cameras and the world fixed on you at times.

    She denies that the government paid to get our (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 08:54:33 AM EST
    agent/not our agent back from Pakistan.  So who paid for his get out of jail free card?  There's a story there, and probably a book.  What the hell's going on?  Is it that freaky old dude again with his private CIA still with a finger in the punchbowl?

    Latest that I have read says Pakistan paid (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:36:24 AM EST
    the families and we will be reimbursing Pakistan for doing so.

    From The Cable:

    ...Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said repeatedly on Wednesday that the United States had not paid any "blood money" to win his release.

    But that's not the whole story. The truth is that the Pakistani government paid the victims' families the $2.3 million and the U.S. promised to reimburse them in the future, according to a senior Pakistani official.


    "The understanding is the Pakistani government settled with the family and the U.S. will compensate the Pakistanis one way or the other," the senior Pakistani official told The Cable.

    The U.S. government didn't want to set a precedent of paying blood money to victims' families in exchange for the release of U.S. government personnel, the source said, adding that the deal also successfully avoided a ruling on Davis's claim of diplomatic immunity -- an issue that had become a political firestorm in Pakistan.


    Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) played a key role in getting the deal done. He traveled to Pakistan in February to lobby for the deal with a host of Pakistani interlocutors.

    "This deal had four principal architects," Ignatius wrote. "Hussein Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, who shared the `blood money' idea with Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry then traveled to Pakistan, where he met with President Asif Ali Zardari, with the leaders of the Punjab government that was holding Davis, and with top officials of the ISI. Haqqani also visited CIA Director Leon Panetta the evening of Feb. 28 to share the `blood money' idea with him, according to a U.S. official. The final details were worked out by Panetta and ISI Director-General Ahmed Shuja Pasha."

    Make of that what you will - there's a lot about it that makes me uncomfortable, perhaps not the least of which is being indebted to Pakistan in non-monetary ways.

    Seems like a concerted effort to keep the State Department's fingerprints off the deal, for sure.


    I haven't had any time to read lately (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:48:53 AM EST
    I read a little bit about it this morning...one article.  Said that the ISI is embarassed that they were unaware of his presence in country.  I don't know anything that I speculate to be fact at all.  But I have been surprised at how many "known" CIA factors we have involved in Afghanistan working alongside the military, and I'm fine with that too.  It has led me to believe that unknown Afghanistan/Pakistan "factors" or "agents" are very large though now.  I would say we have an unprecedented fielding of covert agents right now, perhaps the cold war could compete.  And I would say that the ISI has been infilitrated to such a degree that if they even began to know they'd faint :)  It's the only way ground troops are going to leave is if we leave this mess in the lap of the CIA and it is clear now.....we are leaving.  This is now a new spy war IMO.

    This is the best decision (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:15:06 AM EST
    I heard her on NPR today, flatly denying that a payment was made to secure the release of the CIA agent in Pakistan. She clearly didn't want to answer the question, and she didn't sound very comfortable lying. In fact, her voice sounded very controlled-monotone and exhausted. Maybe the stress of having to defend our half-a$$ed foreign policy actions is wearing her down. And maybe -- just maybe -- she is starting to have second thoughts about Bradley Manning's indefinite detention and treatment. I hope so, anyway.

    As the days since the Crowley episode (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 07:02:01 AM EST
    grow - it's been almost a week, now - with not even a whisper of an anonymous source/leak that there's any dissension at State or DOD on Bradley Manning, I'm at that stage where as much as I would hope for a change in direction, and as pleased as I would be if it happened, my gut tells me that it isn't going to.

    That's really disappointing, on a number of levels, but the one I have the hardest time with is how our treatment of Manning can be reconciled with the message Clinton, through the State Department, is responsible for delivering to the rest of the world - the importance of human rights, and open government, and all those other ideals - that we don't seem to be living up to as much as we should be.

    The job itself has to be just punishingly brutal, especially given what's been happening on the world stage; she does look exhausted, something that is not helped by the way she's wearing her hair - the longer length is dragging down her face, and adding to her drawn appearance (I know that sounds so shallow, but she'd look so much better with shorter hair).

    Maybe she just wants a life again - one where she has time for family, or a project of her own choosing, that isn't driven by crisis.  Maybe she sees a place for herself in the Clinton Global Initiative, with an emphasis on empowering women and paving the way for children to have a better chance for success.

    One thing no one should have any doubt about: when she takes something on, she does so at 150%, and expects those around her to do the same; in many ways, the State Department is probably better for her tenure there.


    Clinton says the same thing every couple (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:25:28 AM EST
    of months and people everywhere report on it each time like it's new. She's been saying she wouldn't run again for President since just about Nove 08 and has been open about only planning to serve 4 years as SOS (which is pretty common).

    Logic says... (none / 0) (#130)
    by diogenes on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 08:14:51 PM EST
    If she works for the administration, then she will have to keep her mouth shut or defend it and run against Chris Christie as the "insider" candidate in 2016.  If she leaves in 2013, she can spent four years in a think tank taking no controversial positions (and accruing no blame) and campaigning for candidates a la Dick Nixon from 1964-1968.  

    Am I The Only One Who Isn't a Hillary Fan ? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 11:12:14 AM EST
    I can't seem to let go of the non-sense coined 'everything but the kitchen sink' that she pulled in the 2008 primaries.

    I don't doubt she is capable of any job, whether public or private.  But she did some things that were just beyond decency as the primary started slipping away.

    Then Manning, I have no idea where she stands, but now we know she isn't holding her tongue for job security.  Maybe it respect of the party, maybe she has an axe to grind, maybe it's simply out of her hands, but someone needs to address the issue and in my mind, if Obama can't do it, then the she should.  Especially if she is leaving.

    I do find the timing of the announcement odd, but as mentioned above, seems like she has said this before, so the timing is probably because of Manning and the press asking the question.

    I will say this, if my Choice is Obama or HRC in the primaries, she will get my vote.  Not a fan of Hillary, but becoming a real anti-fan of Obama.  And knowing what I know today, she would have gotten my primary vote in 2008.

    One last note.  Call me crazy, but when someone starts talking about how tired she is or that the 2008 campaign really took it out of her, I think it's misogynistic.  I never hear those terms used regularly to describe a man, yet with her, they are used routinely.

    Wow, Scott -- that (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 11:41:50 AM EST
    post is all over the place about Hillary,-- you're not a fan of hers, she did some things in the primary that were "beyond decency," she's apparently in the moral wrong in her silence on Manning, etc, yet you'd vote for her in 2012 against Obama and upon further sober reflection would have voted for her in 2008.  Hmm, okay, I guess that makes sense ... perhaps ...

    On your last note, call me crazy but when I see a candidate who worked as hard and for as long as she did in that 2008 cycle -- all the things I mentioned above plus the daily hammering by the MSM and the O backers, part of it clearly of a misogynist bent -- and to go from a long-standing front-runner position to a closely-fought second place finish 18 months later, well, gee it just seems to occur to me that that entire process might have taken something out of her --or any pol in her position.  

    And in fact, there haven't been many pols, at least on the Dem side, who went through what she did -- one of the longest campaigns in history, certainly the most closely scrutinized politician the MSM has ever covered, arguably even more negatively covered than her husband in 1992 (because over a longer period) and possibly the most negatively reported first-tier candidate in primary politics history.  So, really she's almost in a class by herself -- maybe only Al Gore is with her on the negativity matters, and he of course decided not to run again.  Wanna bet that 2000 race didn't also take something out of Al?  Recall the growing the beard, going away for a long time from the public spotlight, the stories that he didn't want to have to endure another tough primary season in 2004 (as with Bradley in 2000), etc.  

    What any of this has to do with misogyny is a puzzle, at least as I analyze things.  Especially from someone who just a while ago proposed considering one Kirsten Gillibrand as our future party standard bearer.


    I Agree (none / 0) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:33:41 PM EST
    High politics takes a lot out nearly all of them.  But there are certain phrases, to me, that seem to be associated with Hillary and not the boys who for the most part are older.

    People rarely use the phrase 'not getting any younger' to describe a man.  Yet every post about here future contains some version, and usually in multiple posts.  'Emotionally draining' is another, just not vernacular used to describe male politicians with regularity.  Yet both are common when HRC is discussed.

    Sure, people said McCain wasn't getting any younger, but he's 75.  Never hear anyone using that either phrase to describe Romney, Giuliani, Gore, Kerry, or any other male politician who is older than HRC and has or may have parallel aspirations.  Gore might not count because he was younger when he was running.

    Anyways, the comment was directed at you, I had only scanned your post, but it made me think.


    Hopefully you'll agree with (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:52:26 PM EST
    this too:  that our society has long had a double standard not only in judging the sexes and their worthiness for a given job but in judging them as they age.  Much higher hurdle for older women to overcome than men -- what they call in the legal world "heightened scrutiny" -- and so when some of us make comments re "not getting any younger" it is with this context in mind.

    Wish it were otherwise, but for the moment we are still in a country that treats women differently and not always for the better.  Men are allowed to age and mostly look their age without having to spend enormous amounts at the dermatologist a/o plastic surgeon, and provided they are not demonstrably and consistently senile, they're still viable candidates for higher office.

    All the more true if the aging pol is a Republican.  E.g., Reagan 1980, and 1984 particularly.  Given a complete pass by the MSM, except for one or two bad post-first debate days, on issues about his age.

    Democratic women generally have to be twice as able, and twice as capable of avoiding errors as their male GOP counterparts.

    And triply able and capable if your last name is Clinton.


    I Agree (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:14:15 PM EST
    But it doesn't mean it's right or that it's OK to use that terminology.

    And I am not even touching the plastic surgery comment, because that one is offensive.  Your premise is that it's a necessity because.... women have to look good to compete at a mans level ?

    Using 'society' to defend your words/views is an excuse.  You don't get to write or say whatever and then deflect the blame on others, aka society.


    Sorry if my use (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:54:24 PM EST
    of certain words isn't quite up to your rather lofty PC standards, but I'm not here to please everyone, least of all to daintily dance around to avoid offending, and try mainly to express my views against the backdrop of the real world, and will continue to do so.

    Be offended all you want, but the reality is women who get to a certain age in politics (not to mention other areas that involve judgment of one's physical attributes, such as the entertainment world) certainly have to go out of their way to stay in the game in terms of the various aspects of "presentation".  Particularly, as I said, if the pol is a Dem and named Clinton.  

    And, btw, I wasn't the poster in this thread who earlier noted Hillary's current physical appearance and who had some negative notes to sound on that score -- longish hairstyle pulling down her face, and a look of fatigue or some such.  Did you respond to that post and go after that poster for promoting misogynist views?  Perhaps I missed it ...


    Hey, that was me, and I have no problem (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:17:33 PM EST
    owning what I said; she does look tired and the way she's wearing her hair is contributing to that.

    But - I also said that the job was punishingly brutal - which I think we all acknowledge it is.  And I said that it might seem shallow to mention her hair - if it's anything, it's shallow, not sexist.

    I'm a woman - I know how strong we are, how much it takes to get us to stop going and doing and working; I'd be willing to be that if Obama had named a man for that job, that man would have left after two years, not been talking about sticking around for the full term.

    And he'd probably look worse than she does.

    Listen, no one goes into that level of public service - man or woman - because the stress level is low and it improves one's appearance.  Hell, I'm a few years younger than Hillary, leading a life that's light-years less action-packed, I don't have or feel like I have the fate of the world in my hands, and some mornings I look at myself and think I look like I've been dragged backwards through the brambles - but it doesn't mean I can't do my job, or don't do it well.

    And no one's saying - I didn't say - she must not be able to conduct her duties because of how she looks; we know better, but it doesn't mean we can't notice the toll it's taking and understand why she might not want to sign on for more.


    I like it (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:20:07 PM EST
    it says, 'Im 60, I look 60 and I dont give a damn'

    And notice I didn't (none / 0) (#107)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:57:24 PM EST
    object in any way to your saying it -- in fact, I might even agree with your assessment of her recent physical appearance.

    I was just pointing out to the other complaining poster here, who seems to be on some PC crusade against me (ironically, I was a fervent HRC backer in the 08 primaries on a couple of major Dem boards back then), that I thought there was another remark made today that went directly to the matter of woman pols looks that should have brought him out of his chair in protest yet didn't.

    Entirely your right to express your views, and I hope we aren't at the beginning of some stupid PC purity test here where we all have to tiptoe around and only express highly positive and idealistic thoughts lest some of us get wished into the cornfield ...


    Hyperbole Much ? (none / 0) (#131)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 10:01:09 AM EST
    What I wrote, "Anyways, the comment was directed at you, I had only scanned your post, but it made me think. "

    What I meant to Write "Anyways, the comment was not directed at you, I had only scanned your post, but it made me think. "

    I am not on a crusade against you, I made a off-hand comment about terms that I keep seeing and your post just reminded me.

    And like the fiend crusade, there is no PC purity test, and you are free to express your views, as am I.

    And if you were at all honest, you would have included that part where I mentioned I was just wondering if anyone else thought it was offensive.  But no, you have to go into some tirade about crusades, purity tests, and something about a cornfield.

    I stick by my original comments, phrases like "not getting any younger" and "emotionally drained" are used, almost entirely, to describe women.  I was actually fishing for a female perspective, and none were giving, so I think I have my answer.

    And just because you have a black friend (Hillary supporter) it doesn't automatically exclude you from racism (misogynist).  I don't think you are, just saying that supporting her isn't exactly proof you aren't.  Plenty of misogynistic Palin fans/supporters.


    Obama did some things during (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:47:05 PM EST
    primary beyond decency too :)  It was a primary :)

    Refresh Me (none / 0) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:16:20 PM EST
    I totally forgot about the FL/MI primary non-sense last week when posting.  So I am not being sarcastic, I don't remember anything of significance.

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:28:43 PM EST
    Should we start in the caucusing states :)?

    Probably be best if we had selective (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:48:24 PM EST
    memory also!

    I do wish there was some desire in the party (none / 0) (#108)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:57:50 PM EST
    to revise the primary system. I had no idea how ridiculous it was until 08. The Iowa caucus is a pretty abhorrent affair.

    Remember how revising primary/caucus (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:00:14 PM EST
    system plus elimination of electoral college were top priorities?

    Ancient history, ancient. For the last 2 or (none / 0) (#113)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:10:59 PM EST
    3 years I've been going to my small town Caucus. About 30 people show up (about 2,000 Dems vote in the general election) to "choose" the candidates (so far it's always been predetermined). It works out for us because our candidates so far are pretty good and running a primary
    in a small town doesn't make much sense, but it is no way to pick a President.

    Plus John Edwards (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:59:55 PM EST
    One tour in Iraq or Afghanistan really (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:45:34 PM EST
    takes it out of my husband.  He comes home thin, tired, and goofy.  She hasn't sat still for two minutes in over two years.  It has been one State Department crisis after another.  Sometimes she does look tired, sometimes Obama looks tired too.  She's been on the road a whole lot more than he has though and in and out of war zones too.  Who doesn't understand that?

    I don't think (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 11:20:28 AM EST
    "fans" so much as realists. Even in the primaries, people here discussed Hillary's short comings and she certainly does have them but people seem to admire her fighting spirit.

    Can you imagine how Bill or Hillary would have managed to ride the wave coming out of WI? Obama hasn't got a clue except to run from it.


    I (none / 0) (#120)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:20:11 PM EST
    found that I could not vote for her based on her, in my view, unconscionable vote to enable the Iraq war during her tenure as a Senator.

    Obviously, most senators went along the same path.
    But she was my senator, and as a New Yorker, I had hoped for more from her.

    I felt then, and still feel, that everyone who went along with Bush at the time did so out of either laziness or cowardess or cynicism.

    As much as I cannot help but identify with her intelligence, I do think that her action helped to place many lives in danger.
    As S.O.S., she still exhibits these same qualities: a sense of intelligence mixed with the dullness that goes with saying and doing things which are unintelligent.


    Semi Retirement? (none / 0) (#3)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 09:43:49 PM EST
    Maybe her and Bill want to slow it down and enjoy the quality of life they've spent a lifetime building.

    I hope they do.

    She's reached the top of her political career. She'd be too old to make a run in 2016 and Obama isn't going away in 2012. (At least not by choice!)

    She said she would only serve 4 years (none / 0) (#5)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 10:29:36 PM EST
    in an interview not long after she became SoS. This is no surprise to Obama and it seems the position has already been promised to Rice for the second term. She was reluctant to take the position to begin with because of her age, the punishing schedule involved and her happiness with representing the people of NY as a Senator. I doubt there's any offer involved-what could be offered that she doesn't already have/hasn't already done?  

    What is the source for Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:33:16 AM EST
    being reluctant to become Secretary of State because of her age?

    Her interview in Vogue (none / 0) (#13)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:37:05 AM EST
    is what I read. Not sure that she said age exactly but she alluded to it. She felt the job required a lot of stamina and she thought she had enough for one term but not for two. There is an awful lot of travel involved in being SoS and that can be exhausting so maybe that was her concern. It's been a while since I read it so I'm not sure of the specifics but I think that was the gist of it.

    I believe that she took the SOS job because (none / 0) (#6)
    by hairspray on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 11:29:09 PM EST
    she was pretty down after losing the presidential bid(It was reported as much). It gave her an opportunity to do more than go home and cry.  I don't think her heart was in it, but she found her voice by adding the third leg to diplomacy, that being the role of women and children in  affairs of state. She is a real trooper after all.  I also believe that she is truly disheartened by her marginalization in this administration even tho it gives the appearance of being one happy family.  The people that wanted Hillary out of the way found a good place for her, working her tail off carrying out the wishes of the Obama no-nothings.

    Well, she said she was happy (none / 0) (#9)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:30:38 AM EST
    to go back to the Senate. I take her at her word.  We know the media loves to create overly-dramatic story lines. So, all things considered, I take their reporting with a grain of salt. She did lose and it had to be painful but she was never going home to cry about it.

    I think her feeling down about (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:09:39 PM EST
    her loss had more to do with the way the caucuses ran over her and the way some of her support left her in the waning days of the primaries.  Obama  racked up points in caucus states that were deep red. He was never going to win those states and he didn't.  The points he won in states like Texas, Washington, Nebraska and others had no relationship to reality.  Caucuses by definition are insider games.  Google Primaries and caucuses of the 2008 Democratic campaign and see how distorted they are and why she won in states were the voters pulled the lever, but not the horsetrading caucuses. I had two friends, one in Texas and one in Nevada who gave me an earful.

    unless that private sector offer (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:49:22 AM EST
    comes with "fountain of youth" as one of its benefits, i would guess not. not, i'm sure, that she's not had lots of offers, just that maybe it's time to relax and maybe play some golf (or whatever it is she does to relax).

    both the clintons have dedicated a fair chunk of their lives to (actual) public service (directly & indirectly), i don't think it unreasonable that perhaps they'd want to focus on issues that appeal to them, without the constant drumbeat of the voters and idiotic media surrounding them.

    Saying No can be deceiving (none / 0) (#14)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:07:37 AM EST
    In politics many say NO to not running but it only shows up later as a YES

    Don't count her out yet for running for president.

    I'm sure she's (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:57:20 AM EST
    not going to be Obama's VP and going to leave the SoS position like she says but I think after 2012 is when I'll really believe that she's not going to run for President in 2016

    Hillary Love (none / 0) (#18)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 08:41:42 AM EST
    is in the air!  

    Anyway, she's said the same thing about running for POTUS or being VP consistently for years now.  Every time she is asked the question, people see it as some fundamental shift in her philosophy or try to read a lot into it.  Next week someone will ask her the same question, she'll give a similar response and it will be tied into the we hate Obama" story of that week.  There is no indication in anything she's done or said that 2016 is a possibility or even a legitimate thought.

    My prediction, which is as completely pulled out of thin air as all of these predictions are, is that she will take a similar path to Bill and focus her power and prestige on women's issues domestically and globally, which will be fantastic.

    But she's not running for any office again.  Sorry but that dream is dead IMHO. She's said she won't do it too directly to easily reverse.  It's possible but highly unlikely.


    a lot can (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:48:14 AM EST
    change in politics over the next few years. Yes, she has always given this response but it's the response all politicians give. Obama said he wouldn't run for President in 2008 because he said he wasn't ready for the job. Right?

    There's no "dream" there silly but the thought that she might apparently really scares Obama Fan Boyz like you. I think you guys have it in your heads that you have to quash that so called "dream" simply because you think people will not vote for Obama if they think they him losing in 2012 will open it up for Hillary in 2016.


    I tend to agree (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:17:14 AM EST
    but I go back and forth.  for some reason I still think there is a possibility she will run.  I think it might depend on who else runs.

    but whatever she does you have to give credit for taking the SOS job and taking away the biggest cudgel they had by joining the administration.


    I think that it is safe to say (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:25:06 AM EST
    that it is never truly off the table in the Clinton household.  Because life is often unpredictable, if events unfolded that would leave the Democrats needing a new President...she'd go for it in an instant I think.

    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:37:11 AM EST
    who would want the job at this point besides some crazed megalomaniac?  it has to be the worst job in the world.

    Heh...we seem to have (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:41:06 AM EST
    tons of those though.  Take a look at the Republican field...that's turning into a running flabby pasty boy trainwreck from hell :)

    THere was a time when (none / 0) (#36)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 10:07:33 AM EST
    there'd be people like the Clintons and the Kennedys who would want job to serve their country.

    Right, it's still the best (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    job in the world if you have strong principles and want to move the country forward in positive ways.  

    Problem is, it's also a job that attracts the merely power-hungry, the self-absorbed and corrupt types and moral/legal corner-cutters, and we haven't been perfect in keeping all of those marginal-crazy people out of the WH (I count at least two certifiables, both in modern times ...)


    until we address (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 10:40:55 AM EST
    the financing of campaigns, which seem unlikely in anything like the near future, its a problem that will only get worse.

    :Public financing (none / 0) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 11:55:44 AM EST
    is the magic button that would, if not eliminate, at least greatly reduce the sell-out of our government to the highest bidder.

    The problem is, everybody knows that, and my guess is that the "Masters" would kill their parents, and children, before allowing that to happen.

    We need a Hero, and a teacher, ala FDR, or Obama-in-the Primaries.

    I don't think it can happen from within the system, but a White-Night from the private sector is always a possiblity.

    I can hope anyway.


    very true (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:33:26 PM EST
    trouble is (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    it is more like to be a Black Knight.

    I simply cant imagine that happening (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:11:27 PM EST
    even in amurka

    Oh, I can see them (none / 0) (#98)
    by sj on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:23:59 PM EST
    (or someone like them) going for it.  Ross Perot's already done it, right?  Winning?  Who knows.  But I suppose I'm really just saying that's it's highly unlikely we will have White Knight with "Here I come to save the day!" playing in the background.

    oh (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:27:40 PM EST
    I can totally see him running.  but if we have a white knight please god dont let him have a comb over.

    those were the days (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 10:15:17 AM EST

    Agree (none / 0) (#24)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:28:01 AM EST
    That if Obama weren't running for POTUS or if there was some insane scenario in 2016 that she'd step up in a pinch, but I can't imagine any situation in which that would happen.

    Obama will be the 2012 nominee and by the time 2016 hits, I think we'll have a crop of impressive dem men and women ready to take their turn, many of whom's names we don't even know right now. 5 years is a looong time politically.


    When it comes to imagining (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:37:27 AM EST
    I try to practice my Buddhism.  Two months ago I would not have imagined that Japan would suffer the biggest earthquake of my lifetime, and then a horrific tsunami, and now a dry holding pool and exposed spent fuel rods.  I also would have never imagined Katrina or 9/11 or that there would be absolutely NO WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION - none- zip-zero-nada.  I don't begrudge that we may have more than one person that I would consider worthy of my vote who would be President if they could at any one time.  Could someone please listen to Wes Clark though today, just once please :)

    Oof (none / 0) (#41)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 10:41:16 AM EST
    I think we'll have a crop of impressive dem men and women ready to take their turn,

    I'm glad you have faith, I'm not sure.  Gillibrand is a good suggestion though.  I like Hickenlooper, but he'd never make it on the national scene.  I really cannot think of anyone else who I would want to run.  (I mean, I could come up with a dream list, but they would probably be unelectable).  It's not like the GOP is full of leaders either so I guess that's something.  

    My guess is Scott Brown will run for President...but I wonder when.


    check this out (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:57:53 PM EST
    from PPP:

    We've found a lot of brutal poll numbers for Sarah Palin so far in 2011: down in South Dakota, down in South Carolina, down in Arizona, only up by 1 point in Texas, only up by 1 point in Nebraska to name a few. But this has to be the worst- independent voters say they would support Charlie Sheen over Palin for President by a 41/36 margin. Seriously.

    I would totally vote for him over her.


    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:00:11 PM EST
    If it was Sarah Palin or Charlie Sheen....I'm going with Tiger Blood :)

    A quick insert @Hickenlooper (none / 0) (#128)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 06:04:40 PM EST
    Something to consider: He is likeable (does great commercials), committed to some impressive programs to help the homeless during his mayoralty, and really understands the significant role of truly small businessmen/women.  Here is the BUT: Depending upon the issue, I regard myself as center-left...in relation to me, the few months in, Governor Hickenlooper is much more centrist (particularly on fiscal/taxation issues)than I am. In the area of labor relations, I'm troubled.  There is lots of time, and things may well look better later.

    I respect the (none / 0) (#22)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:24:51 AM EST
    heck out of Hillary.  Always have and always will. She'd have been an incredible POTUS and her job at the SOS has been nearly flawless.

    I just don't like the way everything good that has come from the state department over this term is her doing while everything bad is Obama's fault.

    I am sure that there are internal battles between Hillary and Obama that we'll hear about when she leaves, but we have no idea how the lines are really drawn.  When Rice and Powell were SOS, we didn't draw a line in the sand between their views and the administration, but those that like Hillary the most tend to hate Obama the most and that's what happens as a result.


    Whatever internal battles or (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 10:02:42 AM EST
    disagreements have gone on between Clinton and Obama, I very much doubt you will hear anything about them from her; you may hear it from others, but I don't think you will hear it from her - whether she is no longer serving in the administration or not, as long as he's president, as long as she sees telling those kinds of tales as undermining Democrats in general, she isn't going to let any cats out of the bag.

    As for who's getting credit and who's getting blame, and whether it's fair or unfair, I think people understand that Clinton is acting to carry out Obama's policies and agenda, so to the extent that that goes well, he certainly gets points for having the right policy, but she gets extra credit, I think, for her ability to execute it.  Why?  Certainly not because this is a love-her-hate-him construct, but because executing a plan requires a different skill set, one that can determine whether policy goals sink or swim.

    And, speaking only for me, blanket statements like "those who like Hillary the most tend to hate Obama the most" serve little purpose other that to put people on the defensive, and derail the conversation; we all just need to pull up our big-boy and big-girl pants and get over ourselves.  Myself included.


    Anne (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 10:28:56 AM EST
    It is always the aids and assistants that give a window into the inner workings of these things. Hillary, like most, would remain silent out of respect.

    I can admit that I could use to put on the big-boy pants at times as well.


    I think Obama genuinely likes her (none / 0) (#121)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:20:47 PM EST
    and respects her.  I'll bet he has been deferential to her knowledge base as well.  But there are a number of people in his cabinet who loathe her and I think that is where most of this vibe comes from. I can see where they would worry on a daily basis that she might upstage him or look too good by comparison. Keeping her in her place would be their number one job in my opinion.

    Actually (none / 0) (#122)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    I don't think there are many people in the cabinet who loathe her.  I would say the opposite - she has a history of winning people over through her hard work and intelligence and grasp of the issues.  

    I don't think Obama loathes her either, but respects her, although I can't see how these two are personally close.  It IS possible (and required) in DC to work with people, even if there is a strained relationship, to achieve a common goal. Which is why the whole theme of "She had a strained relationship with Crowley, so that's why she fired him!" was just utterly ridiculous.


    I said cabinet and what I really meant was (none / 0) (#123)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:34:17 PM EST
    his staff.I do agree that the cabinet does see her hard work and immense capabilities.    

    "...everything bad is Obama's fault." (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 10:47:30 AM EST
    I don't know anyone who believes that, nor have I see any reporting ANYwhere that supports this as some kind of paradigm.  Obama, by any measure, has been as tepid as anyone who gave their time to elect him could have expected.  Tepid.  

    There isn't a single issue that you can point to on which he is uncompromising, and there are plenty where this country needs to be uncompromising: civil liberties, prosecuting economic crime, creating jobs, ending these wretched wars, to name only a few.  Instead, we've gotten a lot of "I just can't do anything, I just don't have votes, I can't, I can't, I can't..."

    Obama, IMO, is addled psychologically.  The Republicans are the father who abandoned him, the Democrats are the mother who was into her career but nonetheless was the one who cared for him.  So he spends his time trying to get dad to come back, while yelling "Shut up, mom!" every time she reminds him how it's a lost cause.

    "Sure, dad, I'll give you that, just come back a little.  Shut up, mom!  No no, dad, don't listen to her, don't leave, come back, I'll give you that, too...SHUT UP, MOM!  Dad, please, shut up MOM!!!"

    That said, I hope he wake up, goes through an enlightenment, and starts leading.  I want him to succeed because I want the country to succeed because I want my child to have a future.  


    Psychological (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 11:03:38 AM EST
    "analyses" of the President really don't do anything for me.  Are we only supposed to elect Presidents from happy heterosexually married couples?  You can make up pop psychology about anything.

    I am in total agreement on the (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 11:39:35 AM EST
    abandonment issues driving a lot of this, but just out of curiosity, do you think that if Obama were a Republican, Dadler, that the dynamic would be the same?  That he would be conceding and catering to Democrats and telling his own party to shut up?

    Or do you seem him at all as someone who does lean conservative/authoritarian, whose not-so-thinly-disguised disdain for us liberals - and by extension, for what we believe in and support - is really more who he is than his actual party affiliation should suggest?  

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm just weary to the bone of people who want that job to fill some gaping hole in their psyche.

    And I'm not looking for Obama to have any epiphanies of the sort that are likely to reverse the steady conservatization of America that he has contributed mightily to.  And while I will certainly keep my eye out for a viable left-of-[what I consider to be the]-center candidate, there's a part of me that pretty much knows that as long as the candidates are coming out of these money parties, we're probably screwed.


    Anne, (none / 0) (#50)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:02:25 PM EST
    I'm sure you recall that Obama campaigned on the pledge that he'd accept only public financing for his Presidential run. Untill, that is, he had that famous meeting with the "Twelve Bankers."

    Overnight he was promised triple the amount that public financing provided, and like so many of his "pledges," it was always just a matter of price.


    Obama campaigned on a lot of (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:29:54 PM EST
    pledges, and it was the breaking of the financing pledge, that came with that big corporate hook, that set up the breaking of so many of those other pledges.  It didn't matter anymore what the people wanted, it was all about pleasing the big check-writers.

    They get away with this because the pool of candidates we have to choose from is just so bad, on both sides, that it comes down to "marginally less evil," a metric that is guaranteed to keep the downward spiral going.

    [I'm going to have lunch now, and will try to get the fork in my mouth, instead of sticking it in my eye.]


    Apparently the people (none / 0) (#73)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:27:59 PM EST
    didn't seem to think it was a major issue, Anne, or didn't think it was such a clear-cut case of breaking a campaign promise, or perhaps they knew or sensed that most of our campaign finance system is so riddled with loopholes and exceptions for outside groups to muck it up, that it's all a bunch of empty political posturing anyway.

    I agree with the need to clean up our system, vastly simplify it and make it 100% public financed -- somehow.  Until then, we have to play with the rules as they are, and the rules in 2008, as before, were going to favor the GOP unless our guy opted out.  

    Glad he did.  And wish Kerry in 2004 had opted out -- huge mistake, and probably could have easily countered the SwiftBoatInc group that so badly smeared him when he couldn't afford to hit back due to needing to conserve funds.

    I wouldn't mind a better crop of Dems, too.

    But I sometimes wonder how many of them -- if any -- could pass muster with a number of rather very demanding and tough-grading posters here.


    I'm not sure I understand your (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:59:56 PM EST
    "the people didn't seem to think it was a major issue" comment; if you mean that they voted for him anyway, I think all that says is that perhaps people believed that he would still work like a dog to fulfill all those promises.  And now, perhaps, some of them can see the linkage between all that private money and those promises he broke.

    It's kind of disheartening to realize we've gotten to the point where, in just wanting what I think of as "the basics" that would improve so many lives and strengthen this democracy, people like me are being told that we want too much.  That our expectations are too high.  Our standards would be impossible for anyone to meet.  

    Why the resistance to struggling out of this downward spiral to get to somewhere and someone better?  It's too hard, it can't be done, what?  Do we really have so little to lose that we can just get to where we wistfully say we wouldn't mind a better crop of Democrats?  That's close to saying it doesn't matter if we ever get them - or if we don't.

    I'm not some fresh-faced, just-out-of-college, naïve-to-the-ways-of-the-world youngster; I'm a 57 year old woman who looks at her 62 year old husband and her twenty-something kids, and worries about the future.  A future that's going to be hard to retire in.  A future where, for the average young couple, it's going to be harder to have kids, to educate them well, to pay for food, shelter, health care - all the things they will be working harder and harder for, with less to show for it.

    I don't see the people who currently occupy the most powerful offices in the land doing much to secure anyone's futures but their own, and that of their wealthy enablers.  If I can't have representation that wants to speak for me, I have to speak for myself; I will be damned if I'm just going to shut up and go away so they don't have to be reminded what poor excuses for leaders they are.


    Anne my point was (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:38:27 PM EST
    that of all the things to go after Obama for in the 2008 race, his shifting (or flip-flopping, depending on how harshly you see it) on taking public financing for the general election is one of the least important matters the public cares about.  It's primarily a process, inside baseball matter that the Beltway pundits might make into a big deal for a day or so.  

    Process and political strategy -- the stuff the talking heads talk about endlessly, but not the people.  They don't seem to give it much weight in evaluating the character of a pol or whom to vote for, and for good reason.

    A pol favoring public funding but deciding, for strategic reasons, not to accept it (even to appear to backtrack on a previous campaign promise or near-promise), is what I call being less than consistent and ideal as a good example setter for our youth, but hardly the stuff which should cause highly principled campaign staffers to resign in protest.  

    And if Obama hadn't done so, we'd probably have President McCain and VP Palin right now -- probably with as many FP problems including possibly Iran, maybe far less along in solving our economic problems, but definitely with the Far Right being 2 more Justices ahead of the game on the Sup Court and a secure majority for decades to come.

    I wasn't an Obama backer in the primaries, and didn't always agree with him on some policy in the general campaign, but his decision to opt out of public funding I thought was one of his best strategic moves, even as a flip or shift.  Showed me that we had a nominee who wanted to win, always within the rules of course, rather than yet another Dem who just wanted to maintain his principled purity.


    To be fair (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    You can't really make the argument about "2 far right SC justices" had McCain been president.  Chances are, we wouldn't have had any retirements, so he wouldn't have had the opportunity to appoint any.

    Well I think one more (none / 0) (#114)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:21:46 PM EST
    for sure -- I mean, Stevens was 90 yo when he stepped down last year.  Would he have tried to hang on?  Who knows, but he might have also thought, Hey, McCain is probably looking at two terms and I won't be able to last that long.

    Souter might have stayed, though he was long rumored to be tired of the Sup Ct lifestyle and to want out.

    I think one of the two was almost guaranteed to step down.  And by my math, I think a liberal leaving for another conservative would have meant a solid 5 conservatives, plus the center-right corporatist Kennedy, to make for a clear, consistent right-wing majority for a long time.

    As opposed to now, where with 4 on our side at the start and not 3 or 2, there's at least still the occasional chance to get Kennedy to cobble together a majority.


    I think I disagree (none / 0) (#109)
    by sj on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:58:15 PM EST
    taking public financing for the general election is one of the least important matters the public cares about.  

    I don't know if the public cares about it or not, and I don't think it will happen.  Having said that, I think it's hugely important.  It provides an important level of abstraction between the candidate and the donor.


    Yes, exactly (none / 0) (#124)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:35:58 PM EST
    the question isn't whether it was a smart strategic decision, or not. The question is, did we have the same candidate before, and after?

    The unspeakable devastation caused by his fialty to the banking industry has yet to be played out.

    I don't know if we'll ever know if Obama, having remained true to his promise of public (and "little people") financing, would have provided some human counterforce to the forces of the corrupt gang of Geithner, Summers, Rubin, et al?


    Wow, some of you (none / 0) (#127)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:26:01 PM EST
    are really reading this one in almost the worst possible light -- not quite warranted, imo.

    Although I can't recall the "famous" meeting Obama had with the Twelve Bankers (though I can imagine a long table, with the Prince of the Party at the head; dark bread and red wine being consumed), it's very likely Obama had actually met with and accepted the financial blessings of the big money and powerful people in campaigns past in Illinois including, to put a topical note on it, the local nuclear industry titans, along with the "clean" coal industry execs.  

    Just guessing, but I suspect no major shift in outlook occurred when he met with the same type of people for his presidential run.  He wasn't unfriendly to big business and bankers before opting out, and remained on cordial-to-warm terms after.


    So, brodie, it's likely that those who (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 07:46:21 PM EST
    thought taking public money would make a difference - that it would somehow keep Obama's focus on the people - were just kidding themselves.  Probably exactly the case.

    But there's still something to be said for the independence that publicly-financed elections would confer; beholden to no one, the president - or members of Congress who, I believe, should also be funding their campaigns the same way - can use the time they used to spend on fundraising to actually do what they were elected to do: govern, legislate, lead.

    And when I think of how it would open up the competition to those who don't have their own money and don't have or want the corporate money, people with talent and skills and a drive for and love of public service, I could just cry from the frustration of knowing that we are dependent for changing the system on people who will fiercely guard their turf to protect the nice little racket they have going.


    I agree on the importance (none / 0) (#132)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 10:33:17 AM EST
    of getting our campaigns 100% public financed, as I understand your position.  We should advocate for that, and support those pols who similarly believe that our current system is broken.

    But come campaign time, I'm interested in winning, playing by the rules, and not allowing the other side to take advantage of all the loopholes in the system (see, e.g., the 2004 campaign) to gain a major edge against our guy because he's opted to take public funding.  And if our side decides they can't afford to be vulnerable to the other side's built-in advantage in independent sourcing for campaigns, I am not going to hold it against them.  On the contrary, it's a good sign that they are going to be aggressive campaigners, which I strongly applaud given our party's checkered history of lackluster campaigners and principled-to-a-fault losers.

    Many things to object to about Obama, but his decision in the 2008 race to forego public funding isn't one of them, imo.  We agree on the rest it seems.


    Tepid (none / 0) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:07:45 PM EST
    I don't care about your demeanor. I care about your results. I had enogh of the swaggering, table pounding stuff in the last administration.  Now i want egg heads and nerds to get stuff done.

    I've gotten what I voted for.


    ABG (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:52:40 PM EST
    I strangely agree 100%.

    I will point out that there is a huge disconnect between wanting and getting.  

    I wanted a game changing Heath Care Bill, what I got is a republican Health Care bill, circa 1996.  And by the time it runs through the courts, it will literally be as close to nothing as one can get.

    I wanted all Bush tax cuts to expire, but would have settle for only the top rates expiring.  What I got is Bush's tax rates.

    I wanted Gitmo closed.
    I wanted a reduced military.
    I wanted real Wall Street Reform.
    I wanted admitted criminals in prison or at least tried, even if it isn't politically convenient.
    I wanted a progressive drug policy.
    I wanted a progressive tax policy.
    I wanted humanity and the Constitution brought back into the criminal justice system for all.
    I wanted the Patriot act to expire.

    I definitely, without a doubt, didn't want republicans slashing every progressive idea out of the budget w/o a fight.

    And on and on, but most importantly I wanted a leader who would speak up and do what he said he would..

    What I got was endless press conferences rationalizing bad policy and a leader that thinks compromise is letting the opposing party set the tone and dictate policy.


    That's one perspective (none / 0) (#70)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:20:05 PM EST
    Another is to ask yourself whether:

    You wanted DADT repealed.
    You wanted an elimination of pre-existing condition terminations.
    You wanted tax cuts to remain in place for the middle class.
    You wanted an extension of unemployment benefits.
    You wanted college graduates who couldn't find jobs to be able to remain on their parents healthcare
    you wanted 30+ million additional people covered with healthcare.
    You want someone who wouldn't go to war in Libya if the country fell into civil war.
    Someone to declare DOMa unconstitutional and refuse to defend it in court.
    You wanted the Liliy Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
    You wanted the Childrens Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
    You wanted defense budget cuts.
    You wanted an easing of restrictions on travel to Cuba.
    You wanted greater protections from the credit card companies
    You wanted to end the black out on war casualties.
    You wanted troops to begin coming home from Iraq.

    And on and on.

    It's easy to list the stuff that he hasn't been able to do in less than three years and ignore all of the things that he did.

    Good things are being done. Not perfect. Not everything we want done in the way that we want it to be done. But it is getting done.

    Based on the list of things that you wanted done, you were never going to be satisfied anyway because of the opposition party.

    In addition, many of these criticisms say nothing about the opposition.  Obama can only be judged in light of the relative strength of the opposing party and the tactics they are using.

    I discredit complaints that don't do that.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:05:25 PM EST
    As much as I appreciate you telling me what I wanted, you list is non-sense.  I am going to go through point by point, but a lot of that stuff you are claiming as victory isn't law, and in all likelihood will change when the next President takes office.

    Cuba, blackouts, credit card protections, good stuff, but it's chicken S.  Routine small bills that every President gets.

    And taxes, please, please, please raise mine a percent or two if it means helping people who need it.

    There is one thing you are unquestionably the master of, grasping at straws.  Here a couple more for you collection, cash for clunkers, energy saving deductions, and home ownership credits.  Again, good stuff, but chicken S.

    But most importantly, nearly everything I listed was taken from the man himself, not some pipe dream as you are indicating.


    Scott (none / 0) (#106)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:55:37 PM EST
    1. Newsflash: Everything every president does can be reversed.  There are no permanent laws. That assertion can be used against every president there ever was and every president we will ever have.  In fact, that point argues in favoir of making concessions so he can stay in power and veto attempts to reverse policies for as long as possible.

    2. "Cuba, blackouts, credit card protectionsbut it's chicken S.  Routine small bills that every President gets."

    Response: Well they didn't exist until Obama got to office so he gets credit for it.

    1. Taxes: Glad you feel that way. I do too. But it is a recession, there are a lot of poor and middle class families hanging on by a thread, and my first priority is seeing them through these tough times. I would rather tax cuts for everyone than tax cuts for no one.  That is my biggest philosophical difference with BTD.

    2. The tactic of calling the stuff that hurts your argument chicken s. while calling everything you don't like materially important is a good one.  Completely unfair way to discuss the issue, but I can see why you use it.  It works.

    3. There is a decent scoreboard:


    I am betting that you are going to disregard it, so i don't know what else to do.  Obama promised to repeal DADT, not raise taxes on the middle class, etc.  He said he'd do that stuff and he did it.  I can't help that you pretend that it wasn't promised and then delivered.


    Booman (none / 0) (#88)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:04:39 PM EST
    posted a list similar to that a while back.  There are many fine accomplishments on that list and the ACA isn't perfect but I hope it works.  Still when unemployment looks like this its just hard to cheer.  And I do not think that is the result of "structural unemployment."  

    Interesting analysis, Dadler, (none / 0) (#53)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:07:54 PM EST
    but didn't the mother also "abandon" Barack when she sent him to live with her parents in Hawaii?  Very complicated family dynamics here, but I'm not sure there weren't more positives than negatives in the upbringing.  In any case, Obama doesn't seem so much confused to me as someone who's fundamentally conflict averse -- he'll always prefer safer methods than having to directly confront a tough adversary.

    My further armchair take on him is that at various stages in his growing up and young adulthood, he learned he could go far by seeking friendly accommodation with the "establishment" forces -- perhaps sensing these more conservative types both held the keys to the kingdom and also were the most inclined to instinctively distrust him because of skin color.

    But basically I am a firm believer in nature being a half or possibly more of who a person is.  Call it "dna" -- though I think that really doesn't explain it adequately.  But essentially most people don't change much in terms of personality from the time of birth.  And Obama was likely born with the bipartisan, conflict-avoidance instincts built in.  


    Wow (none / 0) (#57)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:38:26 PM EST
    We are tracing this back to his DNA?

    What's crazy about all of this is that all of the stories we hear about Obama internally is that he's a fighter and rules with an iron fist.

    I think his demeanor and presentation has you fooled. The fact that the battles aren't public doesn't mean that they aren't happening. I think there is a war waging in the WH right now on the proper response to Libya for example.


    I was suggesting (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:11:28 PM EST
    more of a nature over nurture argument, with "dna" only a shorthand way to express it.  Actually it gets into a little more, something related, but since this thread is supposed to be about Hillary and her political future, let's leave it for another time.

    As for the internal O being a fighter, with iron fist:  hmm, I don't think so.  He's not even an Ali "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" type, which he was often sold as by his backers during the primaries.  

    And he's turned out to be more like "float like a bee, sting like a butterfly" as president.

    Now, if he can do something about Gaddafi, putting together for instance a solid and successful UN res for use of force, then if that int'l force w/the US gets the job done, I'll give him major credit.  I'm skeptical, but we'll see.


    Boy (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    you hit the nail on the head with float like a bee and sting like a butterfly. It's funny and sad at the same time.

    On this Libya thing (none / 0) (#72)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:22:10 PM EST
    are you arguing that the progressive position is that we roll into Libya and intervene?

    I am going to have to disagree with you on that. I wish the Libyans the best but I want no part of a third ME war until we end at least 1 of the first two.  Let someone else lead the charge and we should back them.


    probably (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:28:30 PM EST
    but I would like to see him or Hillary of anyone speak out about the kind of execution style killing we saw from the Bahrain police yesterday.

    5th fleet or not.


    As usual, I speak only (none / 0) (#76)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:33:48 PM EST
    for myself and don't purport to represent "progressives" or any other group, though I'm a lifelong Dem of a librul, hippie, socialist bent.

    On Libya, I've seen a somewhat bipartisan split as to taking action -- perhaps more conservatives in recent days speaking up in favor, but on the Dem side I note John Kerry.

    My position has been that, emotionally, I'm inclined to want to help the rebels and take out Gaddafi.  But I also agree we can't go it alone, nor with a meager "coalition of the willing" consisting only of the US and, secondarily, the UK and France for instance.  

    A good UN resolution for using force, or something approximating it with a "quorum" of Euro and local ME/African nations, and I would be behind it.


    Brodie and Howdy (none / 0) (#80)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:45:24 PM EST
    You guys are about where I am except that I don't think Obama needs to be out front on this one.  The Arab league is upset, our EU allies are upset, etc.

    Let them take the lead on both Libya and Bahrain and lets support a unified position.

    We can't fix everything.


    Clinton & Nixon were Fatherless Too (none / 0) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:42:52 PM EST
    Speculating abandonment issues is non-sense, then tying it to his governing style is like E TV speculating as to why Lindsey like drugs or why Sheen is having a meltdown.

    I don't know if it's (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:38:05 PM EST
    necessary to get into that kind of baroque psychological analysis to understand a careerist like Obama..

    Imo, the "masters of the universe", who hold the keys to the door and the purse strings, will Swift Boat yer as* in five minutes (with full corporate media complicity, ala T Boone Pickens , "the Arkansas Prject" and the people who went after Eliot Spitzer) if a pol doesn't knuckle under to the increasingly-rightward-drifting subtext in D.C. And 99% of the Dems are sh*tting themselves with fear..

    Pols who don't have the kind of fibre easily adaptable to this state of affairs never get near the door in the first place. It's not like some psychologically integrated person could conceivably get where Obama is and make progressive change. Never gonna happen in the present context.  


    Lucky us (none / 0) (#77)
    by Madeline on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    The Republicans will have the first woman president and won't that be grand? Who ever imagined that the Democrats would beat up their women politicians and the Republicans would support theirs? I wonder if Kirsten Killibrand will run for President.

    Nah (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:44:03 PM EST
    Not in the near future.  Palin and Bachmann don't stand a chance.

    Although I do think it WILL be the Republicans who elect the first female president - just not in 2012.


    Less than 5 years ago (none / 0) (#82)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:49:15 PM EST
    A republican, Colin Powell, was the most likely person to be the first black President.

    The GOP talks a big game but I don't think they will nominate a woman or a minority in the near future.  


    Why on earth do you think (none / 0) (#81)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:47:13 PM EST
    the republicans will have the first woman President.  Durely you aren't talking about Palin or Bachmann.

    They are both jokes.

    And so what if the first woman president is a republican.  I'd love to see it be a democrat, but if we are in a cycle in which republicans have the upper hand, I'd love to see it be a woman who beats us.


    Well..... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Madeline on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:12:36 PM EST
    I am not saying Palin or Bachmann in particular but there is always that possibility. Who thought the Democrats would be steamrolled in 2010? Maybe lost seats but not almost annihilated. With the Tea'ers, wacky Independents and mad as hell Democrats, I think even Sharon Angle would have a chance.

    Alot of people thought the Dems would be (none / 0) (#92)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:15:55 PM EST
    steam rolled in 2010. It looked even worse for the Democrats in the Screaming About Healthcare Summer then it turned out to be. The general consensus on some blogs might have been "Things are going Great! GREAT I tell you!" but it was pretty clear what was coming.

    no sorry (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:18:06 PM EST
    IMO she would not.  if she couldnt win a senate seat she aint gonna win the white house.  and Palin is now trailing Charlie Sheen with independents.  nuff said bout that.

    and try as she might when Bachman tries to come off with the "Dubya just like us schick"  (which I totally believe she is doing.  for example the other day when she placed revolutionary war sites in NH instead of MASS - two days in a row AFTER being corrected - its not a flub, its a plan)  she just sounds like an idiot.  
    the good think about having an ivy league education in Dubya case I guess as opposed to  Oral Roberts U for Bachman.


    Sharron Angle (none / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:27:50 PM EST
    and she may win (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:30:51 PM EST
    that aint the white house.  and thank god for that.

    not sure why this would be a surprise (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    conservative women have always gotten more respect than liberal women.  think Maggie Thatcher.  
    for most of my voting life I sort of always assumed the first woman president would be republican.  

    having said that (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:54:11 PM EST
    I cant think of anyone I think would be serious candidate on the republican side right now.

    Coulter / Malkin? (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:59:56 PM EST

    heh (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    not many Jeane Kirkpatricks around these days

    #1 Poster Child for DINO n/t (none / 0) (#126)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:53:13 PM EST
    Nikki Haley (if she can clear up the (none / 0) (#93)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    infidelity allegations) and Kelly Ayotte.

    Naw (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:42:56 PM EST
    no Republican from SC is ever gonna win the WH. Her record is atrocious. She's Mark Sanford in a skirt with one of the highest unemployment numbers in the nation. The infidelity accusations are the least of her problems in a national election.

    Her current approval rating is fine, (none / 0) (#112)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:05:00 PM EST
    the high unemployment can't be held against her yet (and Bill Clinton did just fine even though Arkansas wasn't exactly booming).

    She's a better bet then and Democrat other then Gillibrand but I'm pretty sure it will be Rubio anyway.


    You have (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:44:23 PM EST
    to realize that SC is so far off the grid that it's pretty impossible to NOT be seen as a radical.

    I think like you (none / 0) (#115)
    by Madeline on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:37:24 PM EST
    Impossible! But......I didn't think DeMint had a prayer. Did not think Joe Miller would beat Lisa Murkowski. Didn't think Snowe would have a challenger..... Never thought Feingold would lose. Shocked that Angle almost beat Reid. Who in the world would have thought Rick Scott would be a governor of ANY state? I mean, just look at these characters. There is always the possibility.

    I always (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:46:01 PM EST
    thought DeMint would win. He's the perfect match for SC.

    And I'm not surprised about Joe MIller and Snowe because that is the GOP primary.

    I know there's always the possibility but she has a record and not even a good one. I mean SC is DEAD LAST in everything.


    a conservative woman ain't (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:58:47 PM EST
    gonna ever mess with Lloyd Blankfein and John Paulson (look over there: a bunch of welfare queens who want mortgages they can't afford..)

    Hard enough to find a liberal one who will these days..


    Probably realizes (none / 0) (#17)
    by SOS on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 07:58:27 AM EST
    time is rapidly running out for everyone and it's better to get out before the sh*t hit's the fan.

    I think the grueling (none / 0) (#28)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:40:27 AM EST
    2008 campaign took a lot out of her, physically and emotionally.  An eighteen month or so slog, following months of campaigning for re-elect to her senate seat, made it nearly two solid years of stumping and fundraising and rubber chicken eating and all the rest that goes with our endless campaigns.  

    And she's not going to be any younger come 2016.  So I've never been among those former Hillary backers fully expecting her to be quietly lining things up for another go at the next opportunity.

    At best, she might make herself available should the 2016 primary process not produce a clear favorite.  Coming in late like that, avoiding a year's worth of hard campaigning, debating, fundraising and relentlessly scrutinizing media coverage might be deemed acceptable, especially if the party needs a proven political pro to go up against someone like, say, the Jebster.

    Meantime, I think she might see that the best hope for the first woman prez from the Dem side might lie with her senate replacement, Kirsten Gillibrand, who's been making some smart political moves and almost no mistakes so far in her early senate career.

    Gillenbrand (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:47:08 AM EST
    does seem like she's coming into her own, huh?

    She's definitely doing the things now that it takes to make a run.


    A lot there to like and (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 10:03:13 AM EST
    very little not to like.  Plus she's been luckier in the political timing than Hillary who had all the 9-11 related legislation, including the awful AUMF, to have to vote on.  Really ended up badly hurting her chances for 2008.  

    So, so far, Gillibrand in avoiding all those political shoals while beginning to carve out a posture against further US military quagmire in that one long war, is looking a little like the 2002 Obama (as he came to be perceived by the primary voters), only she's got a bigger platform being in the US and not state senate and will have a little harder time since she will need to cast votes and not merely deliver speeches about what she might do.


    Well, she was against the bailouts which is (none / 0) (#96)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:19:59 PM EST
    a far stupider position then the support of the Iraq war. But it's a popular position so it won't be held against her.

    She needs to do something about her voice. She sounds like Kelly from the Office.


    HC: Too conservative for my taste (none / 0) (#35)
    by Yes2Truth on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 10:07:25 AM EST

    After O leaves, the country will be in desperate need of a liberal in the WH.  

    My sense is that after (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 12:03:55 PM EST
    governance from the  right (Bush) and center-right (Obama), the country will really be ready for liberal government to deal with the past and current-day problems of 2016.  Or, the country will be ready for the next step, seeking an eligible candidate from the Mussolini-view of government, since center-right, labeled liberal by the right, will be advocating a true conservative, not  another "liberal" or even, the ersatz conservative Bush., hence, il Duce types will be on the Republican horizon.

    As pointed out, Secretary Clinton (none / 0) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    has indicated her desire to leave the State Department after President Obama's first term on previous occasions, and, in this interview she seems even more definitive than in the past.

    In what may be just a coincidence or a dot to be connected,  the Clinton Foundation is leaving its Harlem location (the office of the former president will remain, in keeping with it renewed ten-year lease) for "cheaper"space in the financial district, in Lower Manhattan.  The new and larger space for the Foundation will be at a rental rate less than the $40 a square foot it pays in Harlem, but the exact rate was not announced.  

    From my perspective, it may be well be best for the Democratic party's fortunes after President Obama completes his second term  to look for new faces and liberal outlooks.

    She will set up a foundation (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 01:03:59 PM EST
    Much like the Clinton Global Initiative.  My guess is that it will focus on women's and children's issues - her real passion.

    She will also command hugh speaking fees.