Kind of interesting — for Hillary fans
27 October 2009 9:27 pm by whitepaw
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/27/hillary_2016_98885.html
Guess I posted this because I still have so much respect for Hillary — Interesting read I thought..
snip
If she still wants it, her chance is likely 2016. Obama has good odds in 2012, as incumbents do. But Obama’s presidency could sink into unusually bad times. If so, don’t bet on a rerun of Jimmy Carter versus Edward Kennedy.
Kennedy never served under Carter. If she left early, with no excuse but her own ambitions, charges of betrayal would dog Clinton. Clinton’s investment in Democratic détente would be squandered. “Being on the presidents’ team gives you the chance to end the speculation that you are not on the presidents team,” as one Clinton White House veteran said.
Clinton has a term obstacle in this scenario as well. Secretaries of state generally serve four years. To leave early would inflame Obama’s base all over again.
There is another provocative and opposing scenario. Might Obama place Clinton on the 2012 ticket? It’s possible but unlikely.
The relationship between Joe Biden and Obama is strong. Biden certainly likes the job. And ditching veeps is unusual. Only two vice presidents have resigned. Not since FDR has an incumbent switched his veep during a campaign (excluding the debatable circumstances under which Nelson Rockefeller left Gerald Ford’s ticket in 1976). George H.W. Bush, after all, stuck with Dan Quayle.
Biden could conceivably seek the nomination himself. But even 71-year-old John McCain constantly faced down the age issue. By 2016, Biden will be 74.
Clinton would have her own age issues. Her 62nd birthday was Monday. Clinton will be 69 by 2016. That’s the age of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the oldest president-elect ever.
unsnip
This post was submitted by whitepaw.
No tags for this post.
Thanks whitepaw. I hope, for her sake, Hillary doesn’t choose to run at either time. There is more to life. She has given her due. And, clearly, this country is not mature enough for a female president. We saw that quite clearly in 2008 – much to my surprise and dismay. National maturity must wait.
djjl…I tend to agree with you on this but a little voice inside wishes she would.
If Chelsea marries and has children in the next few years Hillary might just decide to retire and enjoy her family. If she does she will have earned a very important place in american history.
Hey whitepaw.
The writer of the article lost me on the first paragraph:
Hillary Clinton did not need another man stealing her thunder. Last week, John Kerry earned headlines for convincing Afghan President Hamid Karzai to agree to a run-off election. The Senate’s top man on foreign affairs looked more like the secretary of state. And naturally, political observers wondered where was the secretary of state?
This is SO uninformed it’s stunning that it was even printed. I’ve written about Clinton’s part in having Kerry go to Afghanistan. I’ll leave it at that.
“Don’t bet on it”, talking about 2012 is not near strong enough. Almost sounds puma-ish.
Hillary is invested in doing her job – not in “thunder.”
I’m glad whitepaw posted this, because the drivel out there about Clinton is so massively uninformed and more to stir the waters than anything else, which is so obvious once you get into it. It’s stunning how long that piece is as well, while not saying one thing new.
Thnaks whitepaw.
It would be a shame if Hillary Clinton never served as our President. A shame if she was not the one to finally break that highest of glass ceilings – especially since she is the one who put so many cracks in it.
But time is not on her side. In the meantime, we are all fortunate to have someone with her skills and abilities serving our country in any capacity.
Djjl – I think you are right regarding this country not being able to handle a female presidential candidate. Or at least not one named Hillary Clinton. I watched in horror during the primaries last year as Hillary and her supporters were continuously disrespected and attacked.
And as much as we all loathe FOX for the right wing propaganda it serves up on a continuous basis, let’s not forget it was the good old liberal boys of MSNBC (with plenty of help from Rachel Maddow) who made it their daily mission to destroy Hillary’s campaign.
I profoundly dislike Hillary Clinton and it has not one wit to do with her being a woman. The lady is as phoney as any three dollar bill you might come across. On top of that she’s a dangerous neocon warmonger. Every time she takes a trip abroad I check to see if I still have all ten fingers. Only George W. bush is a worse living human being. Well, maybe Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limberger are worse. But only slightly. Peace
Worse living human being?????
You might want to check Taylor’s new thread before you throw that at either Bush or the SOS.
There is nothing phony about Hillary Clinton. Your comments show how much you don’t know.
On top of that she’s a dangerous neocon warmonger. That she’s a dangerous neocon warmonger. Every time she takes a trip abroad I check to see if I still have all ten fingers.
Do you even know what a neoconservative is; it is those who follow the philosophy of Leo Strauss. If anything, Obama’s ‘behavioral economics’ policy is closer to Straussian philosophy then anything I heard or read about Hillary. In case you don’t know, she now speaks for Obama, Hillary is Obama’s surrogate.
Barack Obama 26 October 2002: “I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity”. He”s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.”
If Barack Obama had his way, he was willing to do nothing and let an un-restricted Saddam in Iraq, with no U.N. weapon inspectors on ground for 4 years, to continued weapons of mass destruction development at his will. “Iraq War Vote” was key for the U.N. inspectors re-entry into Iraq..
JimK
It’s amazing how that vote has been twisted as something it was not.
I’m also amused that we aren’t hearing cries of “selling the Lincoln bedroom” – but then this is Obama:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/10/obama_donors_white_house_visit.html
Taylor Marsh says:
28 October 2009 at 7:36 am
I agree with you. I guess time will tell what Hillary does. She seems pretty happy where she is. But I can’t help wanting to see her be President one day. She’d be terrific IMO, not that I would agree with her on everything, but I really like her spirit and work ethic. She is NOT phoney, although all pols have to do a bit of acting or they probably wouldn’t get elected, truth be known.
Hillary is an ill-tempered, ill-informed and short-sighted politician. Her irrational bursts of anger were on display during the presidential campaign when she mused that she might be forced to “obliterate” Iran. Then again in Africa a few months ago and just today in Pakistan. Has she ever apologized for her strong support and “Yes” vote to illegally and preemptively invade Iraq? Today’s neo-conservative movement had its roots with Senator Henry’Scoop’ Jackson. Guys like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz were Jackson aides. Saddam was supported and funded by the likes of Reagan and Bush the Elder out of convenience and the hatred of Iran. Rumsfeld delivered weapons of mass destruction in the form of nerve gas to Saddam to help him to defeat Iran during the Iraq/Iran War. Clinton is a very poor excuse for a Secretary of State, but Obama would rather have her close to him and not carping at him from the Senate. “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” Peace
Imhotep says:
28 October 2009 at 7:22 pm Her irrational bursts of anger ….not carping at him
Sounds like good ‘ole misogyny to me.
Men have irrational bursts of anger and do a good deal of carping as well. Do they not? Take, for example, any Republican T-bagger. And how, lynnette, do you know that I’m not a woman? Or perhaps you think that I might be a self-hating woman? Get real. Peace
Imhotep says:
28 October 2009 at 7:39 pm
I am being real – with you. It doesn’t matter if you are a man or a woman and frankly, I don’t care. But your words are loaded and that gives you away. I notice you didn’t attach those words to any man. Hillary is certainly not irrational and she is not a nag that carps to Obama – or did you forget she campaigned vigorously for Obama. Time for you to deal with the facts. Peace.
This certainly became more heated than I predicted.
Imhotep I do not see what you see at all, but of course, you are entitled to your opinion.
Taylor — I’m confused about your puma-ish comment above. Was that directed at me or the writer? Either way it’s Ok — but want to go on record that I’m certainly not a PUMA. Hillary fan.. yes… puma… no! (although I confess to liking the shoes!)…
Also — Taylor… the quote above…
“Hillary Clinton did not need another man stealing her thunder. Last week, John Kerry earned headlines for convincing Afghan President Hamid Karzai to agree to a run-off election. The Senate’s top man on foreign affairs looked more like the secretary of state. And naturally, political observers wondered where was the secretary of state?”
I was taken aback by that as well..
But some points were good I thought .. the analysis of whether she could or should run again. She’s already said she won’t — and that’s fine… If I were in her shoes I wouldn’t run again either. just something that’s on a lot of minds…
whitepaw says:
28 October 2009 at 10:33 pm
Was directed @ the author of the piece, not you. Just very twilight zone-ish, as far as I was concerned. And nothing wrong with “heated.” Fires up the debate.
Just a reminder to people, not everyone likes Clinton. Imhotep happens to be one of them. That’s allowed around here. Call it what you will, but I get enough emails that I know Imhotep isn’t the only one who thinks this way.
NO. SACRED. COWS. Or politicians. NONE. That’s the rule around here.
Taylor Marsh says:
28 October 2009 at 11:23 pm
That’s good for me — I welcome the heat –! And although Imhotep and I don’t see eye-to-eye… I welcome that he/or she makes cogent arguments.. I read other posts on other diaries that led me to this conclusion.
NO. SACRED. COWS. Or politicians. NONE. That’s the rule around here.
Good rule!
Taylor Marsh says:
28 October 2009 at 11:23 pm
I also have the right to defend against comments like “irrational” and “carping” when used to describe Hillary Clinton. These are the type of words that are used against strong women and were last year in the primaries by the MSM. We defended against that kind of talk here. Those words are rarely used to describe men. Men get “angry” and women get “irrational”. It feeds into the dialogue the MSM and right wing spin machine has portrayed about her for years. I don’t think Imhotep’s comments were cogent. Let’s deal in facts, and not loaded words. Do you honestly think the woman is irrational and a nag???
lynette, how about: complain, find fault, “nag”, cavil, criticize, disapprove, deride, belittle, knock, condemn, deprecate, disparage, chide, decry, reproach, impugn or jibe? Which of those words should I never use when referring to Queen Hillary? Now how about irrational? Are: incapable of logic thought, unthinking, unreasoning, unsound, illogical, baseless, nonsensical, absurd, foolish and ill-advised never to be used when speaking of the Queen? Yes, I do believe that the women is an unreasoning and cavil fraud. Hell, she once was a “Goldwater Girl.” That’s all you should need to know about her thought process. Peace
Hi Lynnette — On this string I completely agree with you — 100%. I don’t think Imhotep’s comments werecogent on this string (was referring to posts on other diaries).
Imhoptep — post your opinions as you wish — But I’ll never understand this hatred some have for Hillary. Goldwater girl? As a child….. Every time you end with peace after dishing out your harsh critiques… well, it’s a bit much…
whitepaw, “harsh critiques” to some. Music to the ears of others. I DO NOT hate anyone. So please try and refrain from making that leap in logic. At some point, if everybody is very nice, I may explain exactly why I begin with IMHOtep and end with Peace. Now a question for you whitepaw, do you know who the historical Imhotep was? Peace
Imhotep says:
28 October 2009 at 11:41 am
I profoundly dislike Hillary Clinton
and
Imhotep says:
29 October 2009 at 10:35 am
whitepaw, “harsh critiques” to some. Music to the ears of others. I DO NOT hate anyone.
—
Pardon me for making the giant leap. One Merriam-Webster def. of hate is extreme dislike. Is having profound, deep-seated dislike so different? Perhaps it is just so much more “profound”. Apologies for not being able to recognize your “nuance”.
So is this nice enough to warrant an explanation? And re: Imhotep — history’s not my best subject but I can google… and did.. so now I know.
1. “Hillary is an ill-tempered, ill-informed and short-sighted politician. Her irrational bursts of anger were on display during the presidential campaign when she mused that she might be forced to “obliterate” Iran.”
Of course not everyone has to like Hillary Clinton. But the line of “obliterating” Iran was a direct question to a posed hypothetical. She didn’t just randomly spout it from nowhere, so let’s not twist words.
2. “Then again in Africa a few months ago and just today in Pakistan.” I must have missed this recent “outburst”. Please do tell. And in regards to the Africa comment, after seeing scores of women who have been raped, mutilated, left homeless, maybe I too, would be a little testy about a man asking my HUSBANDS opinion of something, although I’m the SOS. Just a tad testy.
3. “Clinton is a very poor excuse for a Secretary of State, but Obama would rather have her close to him and not carping at him from the Senate.”
Uh, she wasn’t forced by gunpoint to take the job. She is obviously enjoying it, and from most articles I’ve read people are giving her positive marks (just look at her approval numbers…) And by all accounts she and the President are friendly, share a mutual respect for eachother, and have a positive working relationship.
When I hear things like “Queen Hillary” I think Rush Limbaugh. Which is a pity, because I would like the dialogue here to be above right-wing radio. I have found most people who do not like Clinton never give me concrete reasons and that they are usually grossly misinformed; she’s a bitch, castrating, irrational, a queen, a nazi, a commie, ambitious, cold.
No politician is perfect, and no I don’t agree with her on 100%. (Nor should anyone) But none of them have to do with her being any of the above.
As for the article, I’m taking every day at a time, and the current administration has my support on most fronts (with some criticisms here and there) Would I like to see her run again? Yes, but these 2016 write-ups are purely fantasy, esp. since its 2009!
Excellent daubry!!!!! Thanks for putting into words what I cannot.
Heh, whitepaw
I get it, Imhotep does not like Hillary, to put it kindly. I can respect that.
But throwing things like “Goldwater Girl!” around, since she has proven to be a LOYAL Democrat, (perfect no) is just silly.
I’m with whitepaw – EXCELLENT. Obviously, IMHOtep, isn’t very knowledgeable about Hillary Clinton. Probably steeped in years of msm caricature.
Some people actually grow as they move from childhood into adulthood. It’s not surprising that as a young person Hillary would follow the Republican path of her parents. Heck, her dad always hoped to convert Bill to the Republican Party.
djjl –
“Heck, her dad always hoped to convert Bill to the Republican Party.”
Really! Didn’t know that:)
Imhotep’s misguided thoughts and opinions are too ridiculous to even consider.
daubry says:
29 October 2009 at 11:27 am
You nailed it, daubry. Thanks for the support. That’s all I was pointing out. It’s hard to take Imhotep seriously when there is little objectivity in his/her loaded words. Imhotep, IMO, isn’t being credible with facts – just spewing right wing talking points.
Imhotep says:
29 October 2009 at 9:57 am
Now you’re being silly. If you were really serious, you’d debate the issue on the facts, not the right wing talking point words we’ve heard for years, although you are entitled to your opinion. I’m not debating you on your opinion but I object to your language in your description of the SOS. That’s been used on many a woman before who was challenging the status quo. That is not fair, IMO. Peace.
Hi Lynnette…
From my end, cogent was a poor word choice. I have to admit to being the laughing stock in our family… for my poor choice of words…
I take after my mom who once said… while angry with me… that I was “walking on thin eggs”!
whitepaw says:
29 October 2009 at 4:19 pm
How are ya, Whitepaw? Not to worry. I appreciated your post. My radar just goes up when I hear “irrational” and “carping” used to describe a strong woman aspiring to reach the same heights men have aspired to. Then the merits of the argument go out the window for me. But that’s just me. P.S. We can walk on thin eggs together.
lynnette says:
29 October 2009 at 6:53 am
Hey lynnette. If that last question in this entry is for me, I don’t think it’s necessary to answer as I long ago proved what I believe about Clinton.
Hey, but as has been proven in this thread, some people will never like her.
Hi Taylor —
I doubt if Lynnette’s “egg” comment was directed at you… She was likely having fun with me…
And it is true that some will never like HRC. That’s OK.. As you stated above… “NO. SACRED. COWS. Or politicians”.. Makes for a much more active site with this rule.
whitepaw says:
29 October 2009 at 5:45 pm
I AM having fun with you! I think Taylor meant the last question in my 6:53 a.m. entry – and the answer is it’s just a rhetorical response to Imhotep. I don’t mind getting into the fray – at times I say what I think if I feel strongly about something, just like others do.
Doh!!! I can be so CLUELESS at times (but that’s part of my charm…
)………
“do you know who the historical Imhotep was?”
Anybody watch the Mummy much?
Irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton is equally as absurd as irrational hatred of President Obama.
Now anyone who hates the repugnatklan…THIER being rational.