First I heard something about the republicans blocking the UN ambassors selection as Sec of State.
Then I hear a short blurb suggesting Hillary will “maybe get a cooking show” afterward she leaves.
BUT…I’m missing something. I have never seen ANY news at all about her leaving her post. All I’'ve heard was news stories, as if she was quitting and everyone already knows about it.
I Didn’t Know.
I watch the news pretty closely every day, but somehow missed this. When was it ever said she was leaving? Where was it published? Why didn’t I see it?
Was I unconsious for some length of time during the release of this information and not realize it?
She has said almost from the time she took office that she only intended to serve one term, and she’s repeated that position from time to time since then. Here’s one example. That’s standard for most Secretaries of State and many other cabinet positions, although it’s not an ironclad rule. These jobs are very demanding and the start of the president’s new term is the most logical point for cabinet officials to leave, so typically about half the cabinet will leave between the first and second term.
Throughout her term, Clinton had indicated she had no interest in running for president again[320] or in holding any other office. In March 2011, she expanded upon that by saying she was not interested in serving a second term as Secretary of State should Obama be re-elected in 2012.[313][321]
I believe the technical term is “cashing in”. Not for Hilary of course, she has enough fame on her own. But other cabinet members have tremendous responsibility for relatively low pay. Quitting during an election would cause disruption. Leaving after allows them to go on to high paying gigs in the private sector. Lots of resignations coming.
She’s made some (probably joking) comments about doing a home decorating show or some such thing. Whether she runs for president in 2016 remains to be seen, but she hasn’t ruled it out categorically. Even if she did, there’s nothing to say she couldn’t change her mind. If the Democratic Primary were held today (gasp!), she’d have it in a heartbeat if she wanted it.
Career-wise, there is no real benefit to serving a second term, and a fair amount of risk. Once you’ve been Secretary of State, you’ve been Secretary of State and will have all the opportunities that opens. But the longer you stick around, the greater the chances that some kind of crisis will happen that could tarnish your reputation.
these days to run for office you need to raise massive amounts of money to campaign. the biggest source of money are lobbyists, who funnel money from corporations to Congress etc. so people who are in government for a while leave, become lobbyists because of their contacts, and immediately make 10x what they used to make. lots of places will pay huge money to a former Secetary of State of the current government.
She’s not going to become a lobbyist to make money to run for president. That makes no sense whatsoever, and the Clintons are already quite rich.
If she runs, and I agree she probably won’t, she’s not going to use her own money. The general election campaigns cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Did I say she was going to run again? No, I said she can make heaps of money off her contacts in the government if she wants. This is what a large percentage of Congress does after stepping down. They become lobbyists to the people they worked with, make lots of money, and feed money into the entire political system from corporations.
Mostly because she’ll be 69 by the 2016 election. (Biden will be 73, BTW.) I think we’re in an era of young, fresh politicians in which the older faces will be slowly exiting the stage. This goes against the general wisdom of the Boomers dominating everything as they age, but I usually go against the general wisdom.
Clinton has been saying for a long time how tired she is. She was visibly worn down by the 2008 campaign and her relentless travel schedule at State hasn’t made that better. Campaigns are two years long these days. Does she want to face spending her years from 67 to 69 on an endless grind just so she can work longer and harder from 69 to 73, or worse, 69 to 77? That was Reagan’s ages in office. He notoriously didn’t work the hours that most presidents put in and the office still nearly leveled him by the end. Clinton’s a workaholic. It might literally kill her.
But I also think that the bigger social picture is even more important. If you thought that 2008 was the election of hope and change, 2016 will be hopier and changier. The U.S. is entering a major period of transformational change. The capital “F” Future is going to be the big national argument. No older person can win an argument over change. Even if they are true believers, they don’t deep down get it because they don’t swim in the water of change like youth do, and younger people will always see them as representing the past. I actually believe that the Boomers will not want to see someone that old in the office and I’m sure that the next generations will positively hate the idea.
It’s a mistake to assume that the candidate 4 years down the road will be a really big name to the general public today, or one of the major past primary candidates. Instead, look for up and comers within the party who either didn’t run before, or dropped out way early, obviously “just testing the waters”. Andrew Cuomo is a bigger name who is conceivable. There’s a very long list of possible candidates at this point who have some chance.
