If the Vice-Presidency is the nadir, then why would Hillary accept it? Wouldn’t she be better off as Secy of State than VP, seeing as how VP is a worthless position?
I didn’t mean to suggest the Vice Presidency is worthless. As I mentioned earlier, it has been the launching pad for the Presidency since WWII.
With her approval ratings in the 60’s and Obama’s in the 40’s, I simply think there is some room for imagination here.
I can’t see Hillary accepting the VP post.
Somewhat more likely is that she’ll challenge Obama for the presidential nomination in '12, using the argument that he’s too unpopular and only she can save the country from Palinism and similar horrors. If there’s continued economic bad news and partisan deadlock, she might get away with it, at least as far as the nomination is concerned.
Can one thing that’s not going to happen be more likely than another thing that’s not going to happen? She’s his secretary of state. She can’t take credit for anything she’s done without giving a lot of the credit to him, and she can’t dissociate herself from the unpopular stuff because she’s part of his administration. That’s assume she was ever going to do this- which she won’t.
Wait … I thought Ralph was the nadir.
I’m also under the impression that Woodward’s comments and whatnot are a combination of market-oriented promotions and political speculation (akin to the countless what-ifs in GD/Politics), but that the driving force behind the chatter is the Right Wing whisperers. OBAMA WEAK! WARNING: INCOMING HILLARY! That kind of thing.
If something does happen to Biden medically, you can count on the RW Vince Foster contingent coming strongly out of the woodwork.
Not likely, although we have seen it a couple of times unsuccessfully (Ronald Reagan and Ted Kennedy). Even though Marley declares there’s no “the party,” it’s strongly discouraged by “the party.”
What I am actually saying is that there is no political organization who can make Biden do anything he doesn’t want to do. If Obama wants him to stay, the Democratic Party has no leverage to make him go because Obama is the most powerful Democrat. If Obama wants Biden to go and Biden doesn’t want to, it’ll be ugly no matter what “the party” says. This is the most prestigious job of his career and I don’t see him stepping aside to hand his job to, say, Tim Kaine. Why would Biden want to do that?
You are correct: you don’t pay dues, you don’t get a card, and there’s no secret handshake.
There is however: money. Lots of it. Tim Kaine’s job is fundraising and that’s the principle complaint about Michael Steele’s performance for the RNC.
I actually do not disagree with you. The likely scenario I see in '12 is Obama and Biden holding hands in the Rose Garden and Hillary leaving at the end of the term to run for four years toward 2016. I doubt Biden will be there, but you never know. Warm bucket of…whatever.
But if the ship is sinking in '12, there will be much gnashing of teeth and anything, however unlikely today, can happen. Hail Mary pass or something.
She’s actually said she’ll be retiring at the end of the term. She’ll be looking for a professorship, she says.
Why doesn’t she deserve another term as Secretary of State?
Really? I wasn’t aware. Thanks.
I doubt she’ll have a hard time finding a chair somewhere. Office hours may be problematic, though.
I didn’t hear about it until recently, but I think she mentioned it in interviews early this year. Secretaries of State usually serve for four years at most.
That was the first I’d heard of Hillary retiring too. Here’s all I could find in a cursory search:
Hillary Clinton raises prospect of resignation.
That’s a story from Jan '10, so you’d think it would have been pounced on and dissected by the press (though I could have missed it). It’s also from the Telegraph – Isn’t that one of the Drudge Darlings? I don’t want to impugn the source (particularly as I’m not all that familiar with UK news sources other than the BBC), but if so, and if it’s the main source of the notion, perhaps it should be taken with a grain of salt.
ETA: There’s video on the site which makes it source-independent. I just can’t listen to it at the moment.
That Telegraph based its article on an interview she did with Ann Curry on the Today Show on NBC. Although I note the Telegraph didn’t name the source and just said “an interview on broadcast television.” I think there are other sources for her plans, but that’s what I found in a quick search.
There’s no “usually” to it: I couldn’t find one that has served more than one term. Thank you for the education.
This may explain why there was no buzz about her indication to leave. Everyone naturally expects it.
There have been a few that lasted longer. I see Cordell Hull served three terms under FDR, and a few men (Rusk, Seward, John Q. Adams, and Fish) served two terms. But one term is more common, especially in recent years.
Here’s a total list of Secs. State who served for more than 4 years:
Timothy Pickering
James Monroe
J.Q. Adams
John Forsyth
Wm. Seward
Hamilton Fish
John Hay
Robert Lansing
Cordell Hull
John Foster Dulles
Dean Rusk
George Schultz
Hamilton Fish? Wasn’t that the prosecutor on Perry Mason?
Nah. Fer sure, detective on Barney Miller.
Ah, I looked it up. Perry Mason Had Hamilton Burger!
Different meat.