Provided she can hire some cracker-jack assistants who can figure out the primary rules this time: i.e., that some states award delegates proportionately, not a full slate. :rolleyes:
Why? I could understand a 5 year committment but why necessarily 9? They aren’t running for two terms. Just one.
And then, if the hypothetical second term needs tobe considered at the outset too, then wouldn’t the campaign year for that second term need to taken into consideration as well? That would make it 10 years, not 9. But I digress.
Rereading yesterdays post. I went a bit overboard with the sentimentality. Arkansas hasn’t produced very many exceptional people. There’s a lot of pride here for what Bill’s accomplished. Flaws and all he’s our guy.
I’ve never felt so connected to any politician before. Usually Presidential candidates are some flash in the pan that I never heard of. Typically from a state I’ve never visited and know little about. A campaign isn’t the best way to learn about a candidate. They’re so carefully packaged and managed these days.
Watching the Clintons for 40 years gives me a different perspective. They were constantly discussed in my local paper’s editorial columns when he was Governor. They have plenty of detractors and supporters. Very few are lukewarm when it comes to the Clintons. They’ve always been lightning rods.
CNN seems to think Hillary has to make a decision soon. She’s taking up too much attention and other candidates need time to emerge if she doesn’t run. Should be interesting.
Yes she should run because there’s no bench for the Democrats this cycle. Elizabeth Warren is not a credible candidate, except to the die hard core of the party and nobody else has been floated who’s remotely exciting. I don’t care if she wants to spend time with her kids or is tired. Part of the faustian bargain when you enter politics is that you occasionally have to put the greater good above your own personal desires. If she didn’t know it when she entered politics, she sure as hell would have realized it by now and if she didn’t want this life, she should have exited politics a long time ago.
Well I, as a man, welcome any opportunity to talk about whether or not a delicate woman might be better off retiring and spending time with her family than continuing in her career.
Well, CNN is just yammering. Which is what they get paid to do.
I wouldn’t have thought it necessary to point out, in a thread that starts in IMHO and moves to Elections, and where the OP title asks specifically about “a personal level”, that I am stating my opinion.
Regards,
Shodan
Am I spacing out? Aren’t you one of the boards vocal conservatives? Am I thinking of someone else?
I don’t think even the most vocal conservative would not think it’s a pretty big deal to be the first female POTUS. If I was in her shoes, I’d do it. It’s a chance at a place in the history books. Personally, I think there’s something rather elegant about the idea that we could have our first female president immediately after our first (racial) minority POTUS.
People who aspire to high office, who have spent years in the White House and gone on to be Secretary of State don’t care about going fishing and spending time with their grandkids. They aren’t built that way. Reagan was sick and GW Bush isn’t liked around the world, so they went quietly, but Carter and GHW Bush (before he got sick) and Clinton stayed active after their terms.
Not everyone likes the idea of retirement. I know I don’t. I’d prefer to work until I die.
QFT. And the idea that after having spent a quarter-century as a national public figure, having spent eight years in the Senate and five as Secretary of State, and having raised her popularity to the point where she’s a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination and (at least in the early polling, FWIW) the favorite to win the general election - having done all this, the likelihood that she’d choose this moment to retire is approximately zero.
The only thing that would or should hold her back is her health. Personally, I find getting up and going to work in the late 50s is a whole lot harder that it was in the 40s. I can’t imagine taking on such a demanding job in the 60s and working into the 70s. If she thinks she can handle the rigor, and she has a better idea than any other candidate what is involved, then she runs.
On the other hand, being able to spend more quality time with a grandchild is not without its appeal. As is being able to just take off and chill whenever you feel like it.
The 2016 Presidential election will be very close; the GOP may even have the edge. Hillary may be, by far, the most electable of any Democratic candidate. Her running or not may very well be the difference between the Democrats winning or not. I’m afraid that, at an age where she should relax with her grandkid, she may feel a tremendous obligation to the Democratic Party to run.
However I believe magellan01 is following the spirit of the OP and trying to look at it from standing in Hillary’s sensible shoes. Someone in such a position in life, how would s/he decide whether to run?
FWIW, the former FL/Sen/SecState already did subject herself to the gauntlet and to going down in an upset, but that was seven years ago. The question is has she got it in her to do it again. Other candidates have come back succesfully to gain the nomination and the White House years after falling short (Nixon, Reagan, HW Bush41). And already she had established herself as the first electorally viable female candidate for President in that run.
FairyChatMom brings up a good point in that the person making that decision has to think to him/herself “Can I do what needs to be done? Can I bring what the country needs?”. OTOH there is the factor of how will it be taken by followers and sympathizers if the candidate doesn’t even try? Especially a candidate who could fire up a large segment of the voting public. Trying to become the first woman President *for its own sake *may not seem enough; but if you know you CAN be that AND are convinced to your core you can deliver on necessary policies, and the history-making factor can even be an asset in the race (by mobilizing important segments of the vote; hello, see 2008), it’s much harder to pass on it.
Since I don’t know her personally, I can’t make that judgment. Unless you’re asking me on a personal level if I think she should run, in which case, no I don’t. I appreciate both Clintons and their service but I’m not going to vote for any immediate family member of a recent president unless it’s the only tolerable option left.
The assumption for all modern presidents is that they will serve two terms. Otherwise they are a lame duck from day one, and every move everybody makes will be in the context of maneuvering for the next election.
The reality is that exceptional circumstances is needed for a sitting president not to be re-elected. Whoever is elected in 2016 will almost certainly be re-elected in 2020.
The campaign year for the second term overlaps with the elected term, so no year is added. On the other hand, we’re nearing a two-year period before the term starts for a full campaign. That alone is what must be giving Hillary pause; the longer she holds off from announcing, the longer she holds on to some semblance of a life.
Can’t see how this matters, except for an increased chance of smoking dope. I was part of the 60’s so were, er, 200+ million of us?, but no one heard of me OR Bill during the 60’s.
I can’t believe that anybody still believes that there are unimaginable levels of stress in that job.
“Public service” is not noble. Hillary Clinton is a political hack. She has seen great financial reward for playing the role of hack, and if she runs, it will be Hackfest 2016 when all the cronies that have bestowed on her millions of dollars line up with their hand out. She is one of the last people in the world deserving of anyone’s worry on a “personal level”.
It can be, unless I suppose like Ayn Rand one thinks the only nobility is in selfishness. If one goes into government or politics with the desire to help people and make the country a better place, then it can be very noble.
Most politicians probably don’t fit, but some do.