I would say that her record as SecState alone wouldn’t be good enough to run on, but she was also a Senator and a co-President(depending on what accounts of the Clinton administration you read).
While I can’t think of many real accomplishments, she was skilled at building respect among colleagues and saw her approval rating increase over time, substantially, which means she managed to earn the respect of the public too.
Finally, speaking as a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, our Clinton-hatred hasn’t just diminished, it’s turned into something almost positive. We’ve seen that things can be a lot worse, and there are a lot worse candidates out there than Hillary Clinton. She would definitely be able to compete for my vote unless the Republican candidate is someone I really like, like Chris Christie or Bobby Jindal.
:mad: For Og’s sake, don’t any of you dare even discuss 2016 presidential prospects until after the 2014 midterms! And even that would be a year too soon!
The handling of the Benghazi crises is the elephant in the room in discussing Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State. Now that it’s out of the way. We can move forward with the discussion.
On the plus side, she certainly added to her foreign policy credentials. IIRC She was one of the more widely traveled Secretary of State. She met nearly all the major world leaders. The map will change slightly in the next three years, but she can easily stay current through news sources. I’ve heard the major candidates get briefings after the primaries.
I am concerned about her age. She was clearly exhausted at the end of her tenure. She’ll be 3 years older or 4 years?? If elected. Hope she has the stamina to hold office.
How many embassies were attacked during the previous, Republican administration? How many personnel were killed in those attacks? (Hint: 12 and 57, respectively).
Why are the same questions not being asked about them? Oh yeah – the president was a Republican and a white guy.
This is why nobody on the left cares about the Benghazi noise: it’s entirely manufactured from the “everything Obama does is wrong” camp. Embassies in much of the world are dangerous postings. Obama’s record has been strikingly better than Bush’s on this point, but you’re not going to see Fox talk about that, I’m sure.
Also note that the facility in Benghazi was a consulate, not an embassy; consulates tend to be much less fortified structures to the point of often being just a house with a few security features bolted on. It was never intended to withstand a full-on attack.
And I remain unconvinced that Hillary will run anyway. It depends whether her desire to finally sit in the big chair overrides her age issues, and whether she can convince the rest of us that fitness is not a concern.
SecState is an exhausting job for anybody, regardless of age. It’s why many of them only last four years. The endless traveling, jet lag, bad food, and stress of dealing with foreign dignitaries who take offense at pretty much anything you can think of takes a huge toll both mentally and physically. Yeah, she looked worn out, but has bounced back in short order. The job of POTUS, while stressful and busy, really does not compare with SecState in terms of sheer physical demands.
I don’t think she needs to run solely on her record as Secretary of State, although most people agree she did a solid job. She was also by all accounts a concientious hard working Senator and prior to that, policy wonk for her husband. Sure, it’s good enough to run on.
The only people who think Benghazi was a big scandal are those who wouldn’t vote for Hillary in a million years anyway. The accusations are bizarre- that she watched the attacks live in real time, that a fighter jet could have broken up the riot, that two marines could have gone in and kicked ass and chewed bubblegum. Why people are focused on the talking points that Susan Rice repeated a day after the attacks is unfathomable. The truth is, embassies and consulates are often located in unfriendly countries and are undefendable without help from the host country.
If she runs, she wins. I’d love to see a Clinton-Cruz election, giving her a 60+ Democratic Senate and the gavel back to Nancy Pelosi.
Two serious questions:
Who else have the Dems got to compete with her? Kerry?
And who in the Republican Party is both known AND not outright offensive to the left besides Christie?
How her presidency would work is really an interesting proposition. She wanted universal healthcare, and now the door is open on that. Barring a Republican bullseye, Obamacare will have been running for a couple years giving her an opportunity to make some tweaks or overhauls. Of all possible candidates, she’s the one who’s had this on her mind to some extent for close to 20 years–I think she might have some ideas. And is she really to the right of Obama? I thought she was a bit more progressive. She’s certainly more terrifying than he is when riled. And besides, let’s be honest–any presidency would benefit from close, informal, association with Bill.
The fun thing is that in 10 or 15 years, some conservatives will be saying the same thing about Obama to disparage a newer Democrat. The rest of us will have to choose between pretending that’s a reasonable concession instead of a naked admission of ideological bankruptcy or pouring ourselves a very stiff drink.
I think you’re projecting there. That’s what Democrats do, portraying all past Republican Presidents as reasonable while the new Republicans are crazy.
I don’t see any way that Hillary Clinton will not be well to the right of President Obama on nearly every issue. Haters are still gonna hate, and of course Republicans will try to elect their candidate. But Clinton will win a lot more conservative voters than Obama has. The real question is if she can beat candidates to her left in the primary.
On the Democratic side, Andrew Coumo, Martin O’Malley, Howard Dean, and maybe Brian Schweitzer. There will of course be others with ambitions bigger than their abilities.
On the Republican side, Christie, as you mentioned, but also Jindal, Walker, and Kasich. It’s possible Cruz or Paul could win, but that would just make Clinton a shoo-in.
I think she’s quite to the right of Obama, actually, but yes, she’s probably a lot tougher. I think she’s also capable of being a more unifying figure. Sure, Republicans hated the Clintons, but Bill Clinton enjoyed high approval ratings. Doesn’t matter what Republicans think if independents and Democrats support you. Obama’s problem is that he’s only got Democrats on his side, Republicans really hate him, and independents are ambivalent or somewhat hostile.
This is not Obama’s problem. You should already know he was elected twice with 53% and 51% of the vote. More generally the notion of any president as a unifying figure is kind of sad and ridiculous at this point. At best it’s a myth intended to enable lazy criticisms about failure to reach out to the other side.
That’s a very interesting way to characterize a president whose approval rating in the “poll of polls” methodology has never dropped below 43%. How awfully lonely and isolating it must be to win two not-very-close elections and average a 47% approval rating over the last five years.
That’s not where Obama’s problems come from. They come from Congress, and the question is this: will Tea Party Republicans cooperate more with Hillary Clinton than they have with Obama? It’s hard to think of a reason they would.
I think Hillary’s advantage will be that she’s seen as being tougher than Obama. In 2008, the country wanted a uniter. But the Republican obstructionism has diminished that viewpoint. I think in 2016 Democrats will be looking for somebody who they think will fight back.