This is a high-risk, high-reward opportunity for Hillary Clinton. If she accepts, and serves out six or eight years in a popular Obama administration, then she is practically guaranteed the Presidency in 2016 ... However, there is always a chance she will be replaced, or that Obama will not be a popular President. In either of these scenarios, taking the job might make it the last job Hillary Clinton has in politics.That commentary is from Chris Bowers at Open Left. I tend to agree with the gist of what Chris has to say -- were Clinton to accept Obama's offer to become Secretary of State, her political fate would be tied fairly strongly to the success or failure of his administration.
The fundamental question I am concerned with, however, is slightly different. If Hillary Clinton's goal is to become President of the United States in 2016, would she improve her odds by accepting the Secretary of State position? The answer to this question is less clear.
It was once very common for Secretaries of State to ascend to the Presidency. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, James Buchanan and Martin Van Buren had at one point served as Secretary of State before they served as President; three of the six (Madison, Monroe, Adams) held the Secretary of State position at the time of their election.
However, following Buchanan's election in 1856, we have now gone more than 150 years since a Secretary of State became President. There are a couple of good reasons for the change. The first is the increase in the stature of the Vice Presidency dating from the mid-20th century onward. No sitting Vice President ran for President between 1860 and 1960, but since then four have (Nixon, Humphrey, Bush 41, Gore). Whereas Secretaries of States were once seen as the natural successors to the Presidency, now that honor falls to Vice Presidents.
Barack Obama's situation is somewhat unusual in that he selected a Vice President in Joe Biden who, because of his age, probably will not have Presidential aspirations in 2016. Thus, Secretary of State might again serve the role of housing the President's designated successor. Of course, it is also possible that Joe Biden will not be Obama's VP selection when he runs for re-election in 2012, which could make things very awkward for Clinton.
The other reason why Secretaries of States rarely run for President is because of the increasing demands of the campaign cycle, which can now occupy as many as two years of a candidate's time. Voters might find it off-putting for a Secretary of State to be barnstorming in Iowa when it is supposed to be her duty to serve her president and her country. It is more likely that Clinton would serve as Secretary of State for somewhere between four and six years, but would have vacated the position by the time she ran for President. (Frankly, this is likely to be the case whether or not she'd want to run for President, as nobody since George Schultz in 1982-1989 has served more than four consecutive years as Secretary of State).
Still, we haven't really addressed our question: If Hillary Clinton's goal is to become President of the United States in 2016, would she improve her odds by accepting the Secretary of State position?
My answer to this is a qualified 'no'. If the Obama administration is perceived as successful, that will likely make Clinton's road to the White House easier. But this is probably true whether or not she serves in Obama's Cabinet. If the Democratic brand is strong in 2016, Clinton will have little trouble riding that wave and presenting herself as a safe, trusted, capital-D Democrat (which is essentially her brand to begin with), almost no matter what she had spent her time doing.
On the other hand, it would probably be easier for Clinton to extricate herself from an unpopular Obama had she avoided serving in his Cabinet. This is particularly the case if Obama loses in 2012, in which case Democrats would inevitably want to go in a "new" direction in 2016. Clinton would find it easier to present herself as that alternative if, say, she served as Governor of New York, rather than as a member of Obama's cabinet.
210 comments
She'll be 69 on January 20, 2017.
In a recent interview Clinton described her likelyhood of running for President again as "close to zero". True or not, I think if she does the SoS job it will be because she's interested in it and doesn't want to wait for her Senate seniority to build up enough for her to get prominence there.
Don't you think Hillary would be a little old to run in 2016? She's only four years younger than Biden, who you seem to pretty much dismiss as a candidate. In 2016 she would be only three years younger than McCain was this year.
My own personal view is that Obama being elected President has effectively ended the hopes of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She will be 69 by election day 2016, and I have a feeling it will be harder for a woman to run at that age even than it would be for a man. Also in the next 8 years, new Democrats are going to emerge as potential candidates. I think by 2016 she is going to seem even more like yesterdays candidate.
I think she would make a good choice as Secretary of State in a lot of ways (though personally I would still favour Bill Richardson), but she has to recognise for herself that her chance of becoming President may have gone and that she needs to concentrate on her next job, not the one she didn't get.
In 2016, Clinton will be 69. While Reagan was older, most presidents are quite a bit younger when they first take office. This, coupled with the fact that age was a factor in McCain's loss, I find it highly unlikely that she would be the nominee in 2016 regardless of whether she gets the SOS position or not.
While choosing Clinton as SOS is different from choosing her to be “Vice-President” (I use quotes because the campaign to force Obama to choose her is a Vice-President was really seeking a co-Presidency), many of the reasons why it would be a bad decision are the same.
First, how is it different? Well, for one, the SOS serves more or less “at the pleasure” of the President, meaning it is easier to get rid of the person serving as Secretary of State and it has been done countless times while there is no record of any Vice-President being cashiered, except during the next election. The last instance of a VP change within the same President’s Administration was 1944, when FDR’s lack of enthusiasm for Vice-President Henry Wallace opened the door for the Democratic convention to choose Harry Truman (arguably Spiro Agnew is a more recent example but he was forced to resign for legal reasons). So, Hillary would be on a shorter lease as SOS.
Second, being SOS would limit Hillary’s ability to co-opt Obama on domestic policy, but this is only somewhat reassuring since too many people minimize the importance of foreign policy, which gets us to some of the problems with Hillary as SOS.
The reasons Hillary is a bad choice are still the same. She and her husband have no record of playing second fiddle to anyone else. If her campaign demonstrated anything else, it was the sense that the Clintons feel entitled to power. Yes, she played the good soldier on the campaign trail in the fall after Obama was nominated, but so has almost every other losing candidate for a Presidential nomination. The tendency of the Clintons to want to set “their own” foreign policy is going to be strong and by choosing Hillary, Barack is going to open himself up to the question of who is running the show. One article in the Politico came close to making it explicit: “Clinton would be most attractive if Obama concludes that he will have to focus his early days in office on the domestic economy, and will have to essentially outsource heavy-duty foreign travel to his secretary of state.” This is a VERY bad impression to leave in public. Foreign policy is really the President’s number one responsibility. Yes, “the economy” is high in the voters’ minds right now and it is always fun and easy to bash the rich and talk about helping the middle class and poor, but truth be told, the President has a limited ability to affect maroeconomic trends and even then, he needs agreement from Congress. His hand is much freer and his direct impact much greater on foreign affairs. The President could order withdrawal from Iraq or bombing of Iran in minutes (Congress would weigh in at some point but he could initiate this on his own). Second, if terrorists were to set off a nuke in an American city, the composition of the economic stimulus package is pretty well moot. This is not to suggest the former is any more likely with Hillary as SOS, but rather, foreign policy is not something to be “outsourced” to Hillary or anyone else.
Certainly many who resisted Hillary as VP, especially given the obnoxious demands of her most bitter supporters, might be open to her as SOS. Since this idea appears to have originated with Obama, obviously his supporters don’t feel he is being pressured. However, the downsides aren’t escaping notice. Hillary’s foreign policy experience is really rather thin as the New York Times notes “Greg Craig, one of Mr. Obama’s top foreign policy aides, detailed in a memorandum in March what the campaign called evidence of Mrs. Clinton’s lack of foreign policy experience. Another Obama adviser, Susan Rice, said in a conference call during that period that the ability to handle a 3 a.m. crisis phone call was not something that could be acquired “merely by being married to a commander in chief.” An article in the Washington Post also pointed out that she and, more importantly, Bill would have to undergo a vetting process. The same article reported that Bill Richardson and John Kerry, whose foreign policy credentials are far more impressive than Hillary’s, are also in the running.
All of this may be nearly a done deal, according to some press reports and certainly the fact this has made it into the news and the Obama people are really slapping it down, it doesn’t augur well. All I can say I hope Barack knows what he is getting himself into.
http://nohillaryvp.blogspot.com/
Yeah, I also think Clinton's presidential aspirations are finished. She doesn't appear to want a seat on the SCOTUS, so I expect that she's aiming for the Ted Kennedy career path -- becoming an institution in the Senate for the next couple decades.
I literally cannot believe some of what I am reading here.
Reagan was nearly 70 when first inagurated. he was RE-ELECTED in a landslide 4 years later.
5 other men were inaugurated in their mid 60s.
And women TEND TO OUTLIVE MEN BY A SIGNIFICANT MARGIN - having a life expectancy now of nearly 83 years.
The 'age' argument is inane. McCain would likely have WON had he not followed Bush and chosen Palin.
Hillary's age of 69 in NO WAY makes her election any less likely or beneficial or tenable.
I think the only chance Clinton has of running for president again would be in the case of an Obama presidency meltdown to the point where he can be successfully challenged in the Democratic primary in 2012. Not. Very. Likely.
Democrats need to spend the next eight years grooming the next generation of progressive leaders for this county. I just don't see how electing Hillary Clinton in 2016 (no matter how capable she may be) is a forward-looking step. She's had a great career and many rewards amongst the high profile failures, so it's time for everyone--including the Clintons-- to move on.
Some excellent points have been made already, but let me add this to the growing number of concerns about Clinton as Sos:
The Clinton Global Initiative.
Basically, the CGI is a shadow state department, negotiating policy with foreign officials, but as an NGO, it is legally allowed to accept foreign donations. Meaning, if Hillary Clinton were Secretary of State, Bill Clinton could, as head of the CGI, effectively negotiate American foreign policy without oversight from the Obama administration and with plenty of foreign cash to grease the wheels.
Having Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State would create a dangerous conflict of interests that could potentially undermine President Obama's authority on foreign policy issues, and for that reason alone I don't want Obama to give her the job.
Bill Richardson, on the other hand, has been trusted by both Democratic and Republican presidents to negotiate with leaders of rogue states. Obama can sit *him* down with Ahmadinejad, for example, and trust him to hammer out an agreement that is fair and in the interests of the United States. I like him for the job.
A few points:
A) 69 is not too old for a woman. McCain, in fact, came relatively close to being elected, & it's common knowledge by this point that women live longer. Add a Veep that seems competent, and there shouldn't be an issue.
B) Given a successful Obama presidency, Hilary's largest opposition in becoming president is other democrats. SoS and Senator makes a much more impressive resume than Senator alone.
C) As SoS, she's only 3 mysterious deaths away from the top seat. I don't see anyone making her President pro tempore of the Senate anytime soon.
And, I think she'd be good at it. Make no mistake, I very much didn't want her to be president now. But I think her talents could be very good for the country in an SoS role.
Perhaps the question shouldn't be whether Secretary of State would lead to the Presidency but rather whether being Secretary of State would lead to the Vice Presidency (in 2012) and then the Presidency. If Hillary and Obama can manage to co-exist for four years without any incidents involving Bill, this would largely remove from the equation the reservations Obama had about making her Vice-President this time around. And to the extent one might counter with "what about Biden?" if Biden were to remain VP, this too would favor Hillary because it would mean the person holding the VP position would not be positioned ahead of her to be the Presidential nominee (owing to Biden's age).
So, Secretary of State (for now) might well make sense for Hillary if her goal continues to be the Presidency.
She will run in 2012 or 2016, she will be better positioned to run from Secretary of State. The real wildcard Nate misses is that OBama will pick a new VP in 2012 to run with him, if Clinton comes on board and is succesful she will be the natural choice for that role and set her up for 2016 - as the SITTING VP!
Obama political instincts are too good to keep Biden as VP to 2016 if he does not run, even Biden becoming Sec of State and switching chairs with Hillary seems possible to me.
Hillary would be nuts not to take this if offered.
I think you're missing something vital here. A lot of your assumptions about Clinton's likelihood of winning in 2016 with a successful Obama administration are centered on winning a general election. While Obama's popularity will be crucial to the Dems' hopes of winning in 2016 (assuming Obama is President), I think the real question would be more centered on the primaries.
If Obama's administration is a popular one, and Clinton is one of the more prominent faces within that administration, she'll be a heavy favorite to win the Democratic Primaries in much the same way Al Gore was in 2000. Were Hillary to decline the SoS job, and remain a Senator, I doubt she'd have such an easy time winning in Iowa, New Hampshire, or the rest of the Dem Primaries.
My point is this: if the Obama presidency is a successful one, and the American public wants more, then the real struggle may be in winning the Democratic Party banner in the winter and spring of 2016, not the general election. If Clinton is a prominent figure within Obama's (successful) administration, her path to being the nominee will be substantially easier than if she remained a Senator, in my opinion.
I can see both sides of this and it's making my brain hurt. Yes, she's a huge 'brand' in politics, and possibly better at the job than the alternatives (Kerry sucks at everything, we know this, and Richardson hasn't so much been offered the SoS as been petulantly demanding it...and do we really need another zipper problem in the Whitehouse?) and it would prevent her from causing trouble in the Senate every time the Obama administration mis-steps.
On the other hand, she could be a reincarnation of Albright, and if so she could be impossible to rein in. Her campaign was almost as appalling as McCain's, both in terms of mismanagement and poor leadership and unethical, bordering-on-racist behaviour. (Not that the USA has never had mismanaging, racist SoSs before).
I hope she takes it, toes the line, and then gets moved on in a few years, but that's wildly optimistic, right?
Evan
I think you meant four (POTUS, VPOTUS, SotH, PptotS), but regardless, I don't think it's appropriate to openly consider untimely death or assassination as a viable path to the presidency.
Ain't pointless, unfounded and ungrounded speculation like this fun? Sounds like it is still "silly season."
And, of course, the plan that n one has mentioned yet:
1) Biden chose to accept the VP nod for ONE TERM ONLY. He will NOT run again in 2012.
2) Clinton agreed to back off her delegate fight on condition that Obama PROMISED TO REPLACE BIDEN in 2012 with HER.
3) She wins the VP slot in 2012 - and steps into the Presidency in 2016.
Likely> No, Possible> Certainly.
what about the mess the sec of state has inherited?
there are few options that will look like the U.S. has won or even accomplished anything in either Iraq of Afghanistan.
Whomever gets the job will automatically look like a loser and will not be able to run for any office ever again.
should i even mention Iran, the Gaza Strip, North Korea, Russia?
I like Richardson for the job.
Gathlycan,
I was going to suggest she might have that in mind.
WV: agrant, what Obama would be giving Clinton to redeem herself if he agreed to this.
Reading the comments suggests more reasons to believe this would be a good move than not. Whether she will accept the move is unknown now, but it is reasonably clear she has the offer in hand. I think being SoS would count positively toward a potential eligibility in the future. Offices are, after all, what people make them. Better a great SoS than a seniority-bereft Senator being frustrated at every turn.
Alan Keyes - the man Obama crushed like a proverbial grape in OBama's Senate run in IL now sues him to say he is not "natural born."
Insane, yes, but that is Alan KEyes - a complete freakin' nutjob.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/11/dr-alan-keyes-sues-barack-obama.html
robby - you're right, I'd forgotten the CGI. *shudders*
No one's mentioned vetting yet - according to the Newsweek campaign obits, one reason Clinton was never in the running for veep was that she was wary of being vetted; Newsweek dropped a hint that this may have been to do with 'marital indiscretions', but what do they know? The CGI could have been another factor. SoS vetting should be at least as rigorous; will this perhaps cause her to decline the position?
wv: unpupp; the assassination of a Whitehouse dog.
I think she's more likely to be the nominee in 2016 if she is SOS. The idea that she is the natural successor to Obama even if she's not SOS seems to have no basis. Why would she? Right now, she's renowned for having fought a brutal primary against him. Surely, in eight years, some candidates will emerge who are seen as closely allied with Obama. If Clinton becomes SOS, then she occupies that space. If not, someone, somewhere along the way will fill that vacuum.
It is very possible that Biden may be bored being vice president and may possibly want out in 2012.
As bad as things are now Obama will probably look good in 2012, things can`t get much worse and Hillary would never challenge a sitting president knowing she would probably never get Obama supporters votes.
I`m not so sure she even wants to run again, she may just be happy to stay in the senate or be SOS for 8 years.
Based on history it may be tough for the democrats to win 8 more years after Obama`s term, we seem to like to change parties every 8 years.
Personally, I think Clinton would be happier as Ambassador to the U.N.
It's a safer position for her, keeps her in the international limelight, strengthens her foreign credentials, and would be a good jumping-off point to run starting in 2015 or so.
William
Regarding age, 69 is not a deal breaker. But, it is a liability. Just look at presidential candidates over the last 200 years, and you'll find that 69 is very much on the old side. Polls showed that McCain's age was a liability. It will be the same for Clinton in 2016, but not so much that it can never be overcome.
wv: siestro, a famous Hispanic magician
Nate,
It seems to me one variable missing from these equations is what effect Hillary will have in determining a successful Obama Administration, and thereby a positive "brand" in '12 or '16. As Secretary of State, if she were successful in patching up our international standing and bringing about some positive change in other, as yet unforseen ways, she would aid the president and the party and her own chances, too.
But as a Senator she might also help push through the legislation that could come to define a "successful" Obama reign. I read a pundit yesterday who said there could be no substantive health care reform without Hillary on the Hill to push it through (particularly given Ted Kennedy's condition, sadly). I don't know if this is true. But could her absence from the Senate chamber make the difference between Obama getting his way or coming up just short, as Bill Clinton often did? Who knows?
Those are questions both have to consider. My main point, then, is that their fates are anything but mutually exclusive. The success or failure of one is in many ways dependent on the other.
Here is alink to the State of Hawaii on the authenticity of OBama's birth record:
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
@ fred, Biden has great favorability ratings, gets along well with Obama, and seems likely to be extremely competent in the position. Provided these things remain the same in 2012, I cannot imagine Obama dropping Biden. As noted in the main peice, it's extremely rare for a VP to be dropped from one term to another.
Totally agree with your analysis. Also, we saw just how far the experience argument can get you. It sure helps but it is far from a safe ticket to the Presidency.
On the other hand, it could improve her management skills, which would not hurt given her abysmally run campaign. Still, not worth it.
Without considering the merits of a Clinton run in 2016, one way to deal with the question as raised is for Biden to drop off the 2012 ticket and be replaced by her. Four years as Secretary of State, four years as Veep, assuming a successful Obama presidency, she'd be shoo-in.
You're overlooking another long shot possibility here: The Secretary of State is 4th in the Line of Succession. A disaster at the top could happen, after all. Who better would there be on the Obama team to come in in such a crisis?
For those who argue that Hillary wouldn't be too old because McCain was older (barely) when he ran, NO WAY!
A LOT of McCain's grumpy, grandpa persona, his twitches, tics, uncontrollable rage, wandering around the stage, and other nervous habits that were off-putting, was due to simple lack of sleep. It's an unbelievable GRIND of 16, 18 hour days, week after week.
He's an old man. The fact that Republicans were willing to vote for him is more scary than anything else. He was obviously NOT up to the physical stress and strains of the job. He could barely hold it together during the campaign.
No matter what anybody says 69 years old is WAY TOO OLD to be running the government. Period.
The mind starts to go, the body is long-gone. It's time to start to unwind, relax, visit the grand-kids, gain some perspective on life NOT be given life or death power over the nation!
I'm over 50 and in good shape but I wouldn't want and couldn't handle the immense physical and psychological burden of the Presidency. To imagine that someone can do it in their 70's is just idiotic!
And NO Reagan is NOT a good example! He was practically senile while in office and WAS suffering from Alzheimers shortly thereafter. He was a HORRIBLE President no matter what nonsensical cult of personality the Republicans have erected around his memory! And PART at least of his problems, especially during his second administration were due to his deteriorating mental condition.
People that old shouldn't be running anything let alone the country!
I think she should take it if offered. If she just plays it safe and stays in the Senate, she probably still does not have much of a chance to be President. Go with the better job.
Come see my new probably awful blog:
http://youngerpolitics.blogspot.com/
It seems that a couple previous commenters expressed the idea I had: that Clinton and Biden could switch positions in 2012. It's unusual but not entirely unprecedented: Reagan swapped Cabinet officials in mid-term (James Baker went from Chief of Staff to Treasury IIRC, with Don Regan going in the other direction). Add in that both were rumored, fairly strongly, for the "other" job at one point or another, and I don't think it's a huge stretch.
By 2012, the already-underway process of winning over once-committed Clinton-opposing Democrats (like, um, me) to Inevitability II should be just about finished. If she runs in 2016 after two Obama terms and wins, God bless...
1) Biden chose to accept the VP nod for ONE TERM ONLY. He will NOT run again in 2012.
2) Clinton agreed to back off her delegate fight on condition that Obama PROMISED TO REPLACE BIDEN in 2012 with HER.
Neither one of those sounds remotely plausible. Why would Biden only want to be VP for one term? Why would Obama make Clinton a totally unrealistic promise about something he would do 4 years in the future? Why would she take that promise at face value? What delegate fight - the possibility of any fight Clinton could have staged was gone long before the VP decision was made.
And if Obama were willing to make such a promise, why not just make Clinton the VP now?
WV: tumpt - The idea of Clinton as VP in 2012 has tumpted me.
Joe Biden is 66, and will be 70 in 2012. It is possible, considering his past health problems, he will step down in 2012, and Hillary will move from SOS to VP, and in 2016, from VP to President.
If this is what Obama offered her, she would still make history as the first female VP, and would also have every inclination to make the Democratic label as strong as possible in both 2012 and 2016. As a VP, she would have plenty of time to campaign as well. She would only be 68, and if in good health, this is not too old to run as President.
I think this is the strongest path forward for Hillary to be President, experience as SOS and VP would be irreplaceable, and if we Democrats don't blow this thing and Republicans continue their path to increasing fringe status, this is a route that almost guarantees Hillary breaks that final glass ceiling.
Think about who her primary opponents would be; and add in the fact that Obama (the President, leader of the party and a still vigorous 56) would be endorsing her and campaigning for her. She would be unbeatable.
Nate -- look at this! Look at the hits on the Wikipedia article on Presidential Line of Succession. Obviously, as the cabinet is taking shape a lot of people are curious about this matter. (Haven't looked at what Google would show.)
I don't think Hillary's age is the problem for 2016, its that she represents the past. Democrats need to look to the future (hopefully Obama will pick a candidate of this mold to be his VP in 2012).
I think Hillary's choice is what role she wants to have in the party. She can either be a senate elder a la Ted Kennedy, a beloved leader in her state (by running for governor, for example), or a "behind the scenes" leader by taking cabinet posts, grooming future leaders, etc.
Seems to me she'd enjoy/be best at the senate elder role, but we shall see.
One gets the feeling that Obama offered her a post in his administration back in June when they talked and she said she'd consider it.
He then carries through on his promise and she'll decide if she wants it.
But, I get the feeling that Hillary wouldn't be very happy as Sec. of State.
Obama is going to be a VERY hands-on President and keep things under a tight leash, ESPECIALLY foreign policy.
Despite all the endless speculation that "of course he's very inexperienced in foreign policy" that's the area where he feels the most comfortable and has very strong ideas (he's told reporters).
Unless Hillary wants to be taking orders from Obama all the time she'd better stay in the Senate where she can have her own power-base.
This is more of a way to neuter Hillary than to utilize her skills in the best possible way.
She should decline the job and I think she will unless her ego gets the better of her. She deserves it, but I doubt she'll be happy constantly spouting the company line and BILL will be less than thrilled to have to stay on the reservation for the next 4 years.
He already said that he wants to give an interview next January telling "his views of the campaign" and nobody doubts that it's going to be a bitter vitriol fueled diatribe against Obama and everything connected to the campaign and especially the media, with various shots taken at Bill's personal enemies.
He certainly can't do that if his wife is part of the Administration. That might be at least part of what's fueling Obama's offer.
I think one possibility here is that if Obama has indeed offered her the spot, that he maybe setting it up for her to take over the VP splot on the ticket in 2012.
By having her at State she will be right there in the know and can make a seamless transition to VP and Biden can move over to State in the second term.
This then sets up a solid replacement in 2016.
Anybody But Hillary will win in 2016. If her own party preferred her, she might be the President-elect right now, but maybe not. They don't. She isn't.
My personal take is that Obama offered her the SoS position precisely because he knew that she wouldn't take it:
a) it would limit Bill's ability to raise money for the CGI;
b) as Nate and others said, it ties her political future to the Obama administration.
Obama is getting a lot of heat right now from NOW and other women's groups about not considering enough women. The speculation about Clinton (which will last about a week) sets that to the side, as Hillary Clinton is the most well-known female politician in the country. It also helps win back the support of whatever Democrats still feel he treated Clinton unfairly during the primaries or should have offered her VP. In the end, it's a lot of good press with very little risk, if his calculation was that she wouldn't want the job.
My predictions on Cabinet appointments? Richardson is going to be the nominee for SoS with Sheila Bair getting the nod at Treasury. Granholm is a good bet for Labor. Obama either keeps Gates at Defense or offers it to Hagel. Gorelick is his pick for next Attorney General. He's not going to offer EPA to Kennedy, because it would be too controversial a nomination process.
I think she'd be smart to take the job and it will be an asset to her in 2016 if she decides to run for president. As Sec. of State she won't be involved in the economy or have to make any difficult economic decisions. If the economy doesn't turn around in 8 years she could plausibly argue that she wasn't responsible. On the other hand, with Bush out of office, we could be reasonably certain our foreign policy will improve as will our image abroad. Taking the Sec of State job will be a net plus for HRC.
At 69 a man is "old"; but at 69 a woman is prehistoric. I don't mean to be sexist, and I think its an unfair double standard, but Hillary in 2016 isn't going to happen. Sorry.
The biggest concern I have about this selection is whether Hillary will co-opt our foreign policy. Because of the sheer magnanimousness of his character, personality, and abilities, Obama has a once in a century opportunity to heal a lot of our greatest foreign policy wounds. He could conceivably solve the Palestine problem; he could conceivably normalize relations with North Korea; and he could even conceivably bring down the iron curtain with Cuba. This is a big deal!
I hope he doesn't send Hillary instead, because the doors that are open to him will likely not be open to her.
I'd put Biden on the Supreme Court as soon as there's an opening.
@H Jay said...
...rather whether being Secretary of State would lead to the Vice Presidency (in 2012) and then the Presidency...
Interesting point. And, she would not be too old in 2016. She does represent the past, though.
However, we are assuming that POTUS is her only aspiration. Certainly, VPOTUS would be a beakthrough.
Perhaps more interesting to contemplate is how SOS could catipult her to some other position. Gov. Of NY? UN Secretary?
I think she may have given up POTUS aspirations, but that does not mean we have seen the last of her and I do not think she will be satisified as the Jr. Senator from NY. So, the quesion is where else might she want to go? And, how can she get there?
Note that none of this reflects my thoughts about whether she should be SOS.
I agree with the points made by Gavin and others above. The 2016 Democratic primary will likely be very competitive. Hillary Clinton already lost the primary once as a Senator and I think there is a good chance she could lose it again as a Senate. Being a successful Secretary of State for 4-6 years could really strengthen her resume for a presidential. Plus, as others have suggested, it could also be a path the Vice-Presidency if for some reason Biden doesn't complete 2 terms there.
All in all, if Hillary wants to keep her options open for a successful run for the White House, this would be a good career move.
Simple Answer ...
IF Clinton thinks there is even a remote option where she runs for POTUS in the future, Trust Me, she will NOT accept SOS even for Obama ...
IF and WHEN she is actually the next SOS in an Obama administration, we can definitely count her out as a future candidate for POTUS because even though that administration will be the best thing to happen to the US in the next 8 years, she will be too old to consider a run ...
I also think that Bill's business and money relationships would like present a problem for HRC to be SOS. I am also not convinced that is the, or the only position, she is being considered for. I think the Obama group is still good at message control and leaks, and all of this may be a smokescreen to offer her a different cabinet position.
She should take a position she finds most satisfying at this point in her life. At some point you have to stop thinking of life as a series of stepping stones to somewhere else and enjoy where you are. Or not. In which case you should find a place you do enjoy.
I personally think ANYONE who is 69 is too old to be president, period. This is not a slam against HRC, but rather my opinion about what it takes physically and mentally to be POTUS. I know politicians are ego-maniacs and believe, like many teenagers, that they are invincible and that they "still got it" as they progress into their later years; but being POTUS is an EXTREMELY taxing job. Just look how it has aged Bush, and he takes pride in getting his 8 hours of sleep every night! And look how the campaign season alone has aged Barack.
Its not like being in the Senate, where you get several weeks off ever few months or so. The POTUS never gets time off, even when on vacation.
I think talk about HRC being president in 2016 is ridiculous. She lost this year and like many qualified candidates before her who didn't make it, she will be pushed aside for newer, fresher people the next go 'round (just look at John Edwards). Let's get over it already and move on. I also think it is incredible insulting to many other women in politics to imply that the woman best qualified all the way around (and this includes age, sorry) to be POTUS eight years from now will be HRC. There are many other women who are ready right now, and there will certainly be even more who will be ready in eight years.
If we want to talk about the merits of making HRC the SoS, then that's great. I think she'd be great at it. But why must we remain so obsessed with her becoming POTUS EIGHT years from now and evaluate every move she makes in a way that is in some way relevant to such a future run?
I think there are a lot of people who remain in denial about the fact that HRC lost her chance to ever be POTUS. Hopefully for her sake, she isn't.
nice analysis as always nate.
just a thought - but have you looked into a daily kos like format for the blog? i know there a lot of sports blogs in the same format, and I think the site would really benefit from it.
i'd also like to get members opinions on the chance that this is the last year we have the electoral college. Has this been mentioned before? See this site for more info:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Jesus, if it's been offered, of course she will take it. Anyone could see that in the expression on her face when she "declined to speculate" on the matter. SoS is a far more potent, sexy, and globally visible position -- far better suited to her -- than junior sen from NY. And there is not going to be any "failed Obama presidency." It will be such a national and global love-fest that the populace will want a senior and steady hand representing more of the same -- not change -- in 2016. And why not break a few more barriers while we're at it? She will step down in 2014 and start running. Bill who?
"And if Obama were willing to make such a promise, why not just make Clinton the VP now?"
Easy:
1. No 'splitting the party' in 2012. Hillary runs as an ALLY - and there is no need to alienate the AA vote.
2. Hillary gains more experience and international cred - while mending all remaining fences within Democratic Party.
3. No need to have ANY Democratic 'infighting' dur the primaries for the next 12 years.
In short - a WIN-WIN situation for all concerned. And Biden gets to concentrate on family for the next 4 years - and even return to the Senate if he wishes in 2012.
How ridiculous is it to think that Barack may let Hillary run in 2012 and then have Barack run for his second term in 2016 if everything goes well in both of their terms?
I don't want our president decided by popular vote; every close election would shut down the country, and give remote regions of the country dominated by a single party huge incentive to falsify election results.
I'd prefer it if every state went to the Maine/Nebraska system, preferably through "trigger" laws (i.e., it goes into effect once every state with 4 or more electoral votes has a law like this on the books).
Oh, and add to my post above that in 8 years, the Dem party will (hopefully) be light years ahead of where we are now. HRC would be a relic of the past. When you elect a leader, you elect someone who represents the future, someone who represents a step forward. Unfortunately, HRC (or anyone else who also ran for pres in 2008) would not be such a person. This is part of the problem the Repubs have. Instead of nominating a symbol of the future (Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, etc), the party nominates a symbol of the past (McCain).
It's much better for Hillary to not stay in the Senate, no matter what she does. Sitting senators very rarely become presidents, and especially those who have stayed in too long. Too many votes to scrutinize.
Secretary of State, or a run for Governor, either of them would improve her presidential chances.
dan-
a few days ago i bought up the idea that in 2016 there would be no electoral college and was pretty much laughed at here.
Instead of nominating Joe Biden to SCOTUS, let's nominate Bo Biden. That would really piss the neo-cons off, especially if the Dems have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Biden absolutely should not be nominated to the SC.
Obama needs to make sure his nominees are younger (under 55, maybe under 50, like Roberts and Alito) so they serve for decades.
This is crucial.
Dean said...
"I'd put Biden on the Supreme Court as soon as there's an opening."
Waaaaay too old. He's already 65 now. That gives him maybe 20 years on the court, give or take.
Compare Alito (55 when appointed) and Roberts (50 when appointed).
In this day and age where the Supreme Court has become politicized on issues like abortion/gay rights/partisan politics generally (see Bush v Gore), its that much more important for a president to consider not just the character and abilities of a potential appointee, but how many years that appointee will serve. There are many talented jurists would make just as much wisdom and intelligence to the court as Biden, but could serve far longer terms.
Or consider it this way: one appointee who serves 40 years is equivalent to appointing two appointees who serve 20 years.
livemild-
why would it be laughed at? 4 states have all ready joined the compact, if they get california and a few others - it would be a reality.
it seems like a lot of states will be voting on this soon as well - what am i missing here? what isn't it talked about more?
Hillary will be less inevitable in 2016 than she was in 2008, regardless of what she does in the interim. My own guess is that Biden is a one-termer. That the next VP will be someone like Brian Schweitzer or someone younger who is currently just emerging on the scene. Obama needed Biden's age and experience for this election. He will not for the next election. A VP should be chosen for 2012 who is expected to be a formidable candidate in 2016.
Blogger andrew said...
Dean said...
"I'd put Biden on the Supreme Court as soon as there's an opening."
Waaaaay too old. He's already 65 now. That gives him maybe 20 years on the court, give or take.
Compare Alito (55 when appointed) and Roberts (50 when appointed).
In this day and age where the Supreme Court has become politicized on issues like abortion/gay rights/partisan politics generally (see Bush v Gore), its that much more important for a president to consider not just the character and abilities of a potential appointee, but how many years that appointee will serve. There are many talented jurists would make just as much wisdom and intelligence to the court as Biden, but could serve far longer terms.
Or consider it this way: one appointee who serves 40 years is equivalent to appointing two appointees who serve 20 years.
This is why I say nominate Bo Biden. I don't know if he has any skeletons or not, but he'd be on the Court for a good long time.
i'd also like to get members opinions on the chance that this is the last year we have the electoral college. Has this been mentioned before? See this site for more info:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Slim to none chance that it happens. There's no support for it in red states.
During the run up to the election, I read either in the Washington Post or the NYT that legislation to eliminate the electoral college is the single most introduced topic, historically, and well, we see how well it's done.
I'm not sure I get why it should be done away with. It represents the concentrations of population in the country, just as the House of Representatives does. We've had far more close popular votes than electoral college votes. A virtual popular vote tie would be a nightmare.
So, what's the big benefit to electoral college elimination?
"How ridiculous is it to think that Barack may let Hillary run in 2012 and then have Barack run for his second term in 2016 if everything goes well in both of their terms?"
What on Earth are you talking about?
Who said anything about Hillary running for PRESIDENT in 2012??
She runs with Obama for VP. There is no Democratic opposition to either of them.
She then runs for PResident in 2016 - FROM THE VICE-PRESIDENCY.
No one opposes her.
Easy. Simple. Full support of ALL Democratic Party factions. 4 years experience as S of S. 4 years experience as VP.
A shoe-in for PResident 9assuming the economy is good and no wars are actice).
What is so difficult to fathom about that plan? EVERYBODY wins.
I'd put Biden on the Supreme Court as soon as there's an opening.
Biden's too old. Basically, you want the nominee to be under 60, so as to ensure that he/she is on the bench for at least 20 years.
Clarence Thomas was wholly unqualified, but the big appeal other than his race was his age (43). Right now he's only 60 years-old, despite having served on the Court for 17 years! Very few 43 year-olds are accomplished enough as jurists to warrant consideration (and Thomas was obviously no exception), so the target age is probably 50-55.
Recent nominees other than Thomas:
- O'Connor (51 when sworn in)
- Kennedy (52 when sworn in)
- Scalia (50 when sworn in)
- Alito (55 when sworn in)
- Roberts (50 when sworn in)
- Ginsburg (60 when sworn in)
- Breyer (56 when sworn in)
And of those, Ginsburg will likely have the shortest tenure as she is likely to retire at some point in the next four years. Appointed 1993, retired in ~2010, so 17 years on the bench (give or take). Compare to Thomas, who has already served 17 years and is today the same age as Ginsburg was when she became an associate justice!
Biden is already 65. There's no chance that he'll be nominated for the Supreme Court.
Here is a way to get rid of Lieberman, put him on the supreme court! Sure he in his mid 60`s but at least he would be out of the senate and any republican who is appointed would probably be no worse than him.
He is pretty liberal on things like Roe so he probably wouldn`t do any harm there.
"So, what's the big benefit to electoral college elimination?"
1.Focus on large swing states
2.Discourages turnout and participation (how am i supposed to get my apthetic maryland friends to vote, when vote is probably 1/1000th as important as one in virgina).
3.Allows states to disenfranchise citizens without penalty
4.Favors less populous states
5.Disadvantage for third parties
You brought a good point - a virtual tie would be a nightmare..but are you saying that 2000 was fair and balanced anyway? I think when it's that close it's pretty much a crap shoot.
If the Democratic brand is strong in 2016, Clinton will have little trouble riding that wave and presenting herself as a safe, trusted, capital-D Democrat (which is essentially her brand to begin with), almost no matter what she had spent her time doing.
This is based on an unsupported assumption that she will win the Democratic primary in that scenario. Also, it is quite possible that Obama will try to pick his own crown princess (Emmanuel?) either by promoting him/her to SoS or to VP for his (potential) second term.
Not to mention that the first reason why Obama should pick Clinton as SoS is that she is competent and well-respected abroad, and the first reason for Clinton is that she can increase her political role in that position.
*sorry those were obviously the flaws of the electoral college, not the benefits of getting rid of it.
crown princess (Emmanuel?)
s.b. crown prince/ss.
"Slim to none chance that it happens. There's no support for it in red states."
There seems to be less of those these days...
My biggest problem with Hillary as SoS is that I'm not sure she can force herself to take a subordinate/messenger role. As Sec. of State she has to represent Obama's policies, not her own. That could be a difficult thing for someone who thought they were going to become the next President 12 months ago.
joel said...
Here is a way to get rid of Lieberman, put him on the supreme court! Sure he in his mid 60`s but at least he would be out of the senate and any republican who is appointed would probably be no worse than him.
He is pretty liberal on things like Roe so he probably wouldn`t do any harm there.
HELL NO! That turncoat scumbag doesn't deserve a promotion. We can work around him in the Senate and then let the great citizens of CT put him into retirement in 2012. Not only that, but the Repub gov. of CT would see his exit to the SCOTUS as a chance to get a true Repub who would likely be more conservative than ol' Joe.
""Slim to none chance that it happens. There's no support for it in red states.""
There is no NEED to eliminate the Electoral College through Constitutional amendment.
If the current nationwide drive wins over enough states with 270 EVs, then NO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WILL BE NEEDED:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
As soon as states with 270 enact this legislation, the EC will be rendered meaningless - and without a Constitutional amendment.
Isn't it fun spending Saturday afternoon speculating on the "what if" game going forward 4 or 8 years?
Well, I have a possible new twist to all of this.
First, I hope and pray that Obama didn't commit the same sin that McCain did when he chose Palin as his running mate. That is of course, NOT completely vetting her completely as he should have. I'm really worried that Buba has so many serious "conflicts" that it would be imposible to have Hillary as our next SOS. Although I happen to think that she could be an asset in that role, her presumed entitlment to power would always be a continuing concern. IF she insists on appointing all ambassadors, all Asst. SOSs, all Under SOSs, a hands off Biden, input into CIA Dir., Head of NSC, Bubba's involvement in SOS matters, etc, then Obama needs to walk away...fast.
Bill Richardson?? Yes, it is true that he has been a trooper of and for Obama and he deserves a "spot" in some area of an Obama administration. But, NOT the critically important SOS position. My mind often seems to slip back to the constant question raised daily when talking about the possible next President. And that age old question: "Is he/she "Presidential???" In my humble opinion, Bill Richardson is just NOT "Presidential" in his style or his substance. Enough said here.
Now, to the issue at hand. What is the speculation regarding Hillary's future? Forget all that stuff about age. Hillary and Bill could be 85 and they will still believe that they are destined and entitled to reside at 1600 once again. We all know that.
Here is my "FOOD FOR THOUGHT"... Let's assume (and I might add, pray) that Obama is successful beyond anyone's wildest imagination going into 2012, Sarah, Mitt, Hillary not withstanding, Obama would win re-election probably without even the need to go out on the stump. Ok, now let's also assume his remarkable success continues throughout his second term (Hooray for America). Here we are in 2016 and that's when things start getting "interesting" you say? Maybe NOT.
If, and that would be a big IF, the Obamas (Barack-55 and Michele-53)REALLY, REALLY liked being in the business of saving America and the World, there would be absolutely NOTHING in the world to prevent our First Lady, Michelle Obama, from running to become our country's 45th President of the United States. Think about it: successful, female, Harvard Grad., Mother of 2 beautiful daughters who would be 18 and 15, Well versed on all domestic and international issues, By then she would have met all of our world's leaders, Smart as a whip, and hopefully loved and admired by all America. Did I mention that her husband may also serve as an asset to her Presidential resume?
As I said....... "Food For Thought"
By the way, IF the above ever bacame reality, REMEMBER, you heard it here first.
I wouldn't trust Lieberman to the Supreme Court. Besides, he's not really qualified. A law degree does not a constitutional scholar make. In general, the best Supreme Court justices (in terms of the quality of opinions authored) have been constitutional scholars with appellate experience. There are probably less than 1000 such individuals in the US, approximately half of which are "conservative" and half of which are "liberal." So each party only really has 500 or so qualified individuals from which to choose--the majority of which will be older than 60. So in the end, there is a pool of only a few dozen that each side would seriously consider for the Supreme Court.
Federal Distric and Courts of Appeal have a lower standard. Right now, we have several current Supreme Court justices that I think you could consider "underqualified": Stevens, Souter, and Thomas. Despite all being appointed by a Republican president, these three span the ideological spectrum of the current court. But all of them have authored some of the least persuasive opinions. Those are the types of the justices you get when you lower the standard (Stevens and Souter were appointed by weak presidents who wished to avoid a protracted nomination process; Thomas was appointed because he the best/only very young, black strict constructionist at the time).
secretary of state is a stepping stone to governor of new york in 2010 and then president in 2016.
Hillary would realistically be too old to run in 8 years. McCain was too old this year, you could see how tired he was. i think she knows this.
Oh she has to take the job! It's her next best chance at becoming president. I mean, if Biden and Obama get knocked off simultaneously, and later the Speaker of the HoR and the pro tempore that leaves her to become president.
How could she refuse? har har
She has it in the bag!
I really like the idea of Hillary as SOS and I think the idea of Hillary and Joe doing a switcheroo for VP/SOS for 2012 makes great sense IF she does a good job and is loyal to Barack. If not he fires her. If she does well she is the heir to Obama in 2016.
She and Joe are very close and Joe wants to be SOS as well.
I was no Hillary fan for POTUS (and hate her husband) but her support since she came to grips with the loss has been rock solid and I think she and Barack have a much better relationship than people realize. He is certainly not afraid of having a strong woman around him...
The Bubba problem is still the elephant in the room and how that can be dealt with is puzzling to me.
She could also become HHS and be the owner of healthcare reform though her baggage there is hard to overcome in DC.
This too could become her final job and could be a crowning achievement for her career in handling the tough tasks ahead. She is clearly qualified, well known and well liked around the world and in DC...we shall see.
You forget the critical point: Obama won the primary largely because many Democrats were not looking forward to another Clinton after Bush-Clinton-Bush since 1988.
Her best hope of removing that stigma is to become Obama's foreign policy master. If she can help him solve Iraq, Iran, North Korea and make progress on Palestine, then she will be a hero and get a lot of respect from Obama voters who did not want her in the White House.
Many of my friends were horrified at the thought of her as president, but think that she might be good as SoS. If she can win us over, and Obama leaves office with a hugely successful foreign policy, then she can waltz into the White House.
I am fairly certain David Paterson has already signalled an intention to run for Governor in 2010, so NY governor is not really an option for Hillary, at least without running against an incumbent and splitting the party in an important state.
My own view is the best thing for her is to be the new Ted Kennedy, as others have suggested. But SoS is a possibility. Though I don't ever see her now as a viable Presidential nominee, I think the Democratic Party has moved on from the Clintons now. I think IF [and to my mind its a huge if] Biden steps off the ticket in 2012 (a Veep has never done that purely for medical reasons, and actually I think Biden is going to have a ball as veep!) then I think Obama would be looking for a younger person to move up to the VP spot (if he wants a woman maybe a McCaskill or a Klobuchar?) but the truth is that a cabinet spot is a bad launch pad for the Presidency in the modern world, 1 area of expertise over a prolonged time period, can be removed by the sitting President at will, so certain career risks in building up an alternate power base, whilst building a campaign, and very limited opportunity to build a ground game, which is a long term project (2 year minimum).
Hillary might have been viable in 2012, but there is no hope for 2016. Her one real shot is if Obama were assasinated and Biden didn't want to run in 2012. Beyond that she really has to move on and create a different political legacy.
The World-Love for Obama by the youth of the world and the non-traditional power bases is only matched by the World-Love for the Clintons by older more traditional people and leaders.
This would be a major symbolic choice that would likely yield concrete benefits, given the good will and respect and HRC's obvious talents.
CGI is the only issue that cuts against the choice.
Who cares what Clinton may or not do in 2016? The question for Obama and America is would HRC make a strong SoS?
I believe for the reasons stated above the answer is a resounding yes and the Obama team know this too... they have proved they are very smart. They did not make this offer from a political posture but from a governing one.
True to a point. But one of the upsides of her chances is that she would have to leave the senate and thus can avoid taking controversial issue positions that she could otherwise be ambiguous on.
Hillary's only real chance at being the President would be in 2012, and I don't want to talk about what would need to happen for that...
Also, Schweitzer would wipe the floor with HRC in Iowa in 2016 if it comes to that- the man was born to rock states like that.
No sitting Vice President ran for President between 1860 and 1960, but since then four have (Nixon, Humphrey, Bush 41, Gore)
What about Walter Mondale?
agt said...
No sitting Vice President ran for President between 1860 and 1960, but since then four have (Nixon, Humphrey, Bush 41, Gore)
What about Walter Mondale?
-----------
Mondale wasn't "sitting" when he ran in '84.
For me, Hillary quickly emerged as the favorite for this position after Biden was selected as VP. I even said it would be a masterstroke for the Obama camapaign to float her name after the convention.
I think picking Hillary as Secretary of State was a complete no-brainer for Obama. Obviously she ticked all the boxes in terms of what he was looking for. Richardson and Kerry are solid, but they don't bring as much as much to the table as she does. Plus with Bill working closely with Hillary and backing her up on the world stage, Obama's ability to get things done increases significantly. Somehow the likes of a Bill Richardson or Dick Luger doesn't create a sense of urgency and purpose.
As for presidential politics. If, by some miracle, Mooseburger gains some gravitas in the next couple of years and becomes popular outside the fringe wackos, Obama could switch Biden for Hillary and lock up the womens vote. Seeing as minorities will also be locked up, that'll leave the Republicans once again playing to their conservative nutbase.
My only problems with Hillary as Secretary State is why didn't the Obama camp float this idea during the camapaign, when it could have proved beneficial? It would have at least dominated a few news cycles, and halted whatever traction Mccain was getting from Joe the Douchebag/"Spread the Wealth" and the Bill Ayers smears. More importantly, who is gonna fill her vacated senate seat? Eliot Spitzer would have been the obvious choice, but now I don't have a clue. The last thing the Dems need is for a Rudy 9i11iani or Bloomberg challenging a safe seat.
BTW, it amuses me to hear MSM reporters and pundits say this will help to heal the wounds within the party. Whaaaaa??? I think the convention and McCain picking Mooseburger pretty much achieved that. That's why when you saw Barack abd Bill campaigning together in Florida, that you'd think the primaries never happened.
Biden was once being touted as the favorite for the position, whether it was in an Obama or Hillary administration. Clearly Biden was Obama's first choice for VP all along, and was likely Hillary's first choice, along with Wesley Clark. Once elected president, there was absolutely no pressure on him to pick her for any position. The fact that Obama has floated her name AFTER winning the election shows how genuine he is, and that he actually does like and admire Hillary.
I'd have to say, Nate, that you're a lot stronger when you stick to the electoral math. This post really verges into punditry.
Being a sitting VP is a great way to become a nominee, but look at history:
Nixon (60), Humphrey (68), Gore (00) lost as incumbent veeps, only Bush (88) won
For those saying democrats dont want Hillary and pointing to this years primaries as proof....
She got more votes then Obama, like it or not she did, he got more delegates by a little over 100.
She lost the nomination, not because democrats didnt want her, but because she had the misfortune of running against someone who was a once in a generation candidate.
There will be no Barack Obama in 2016 and if she runs, she would be the odds on favorite to win the nomination.
HRC sees herself an executive branch person.
She would rather be the #1 cabinet officer than the 61st most senior Senator.
porridgegun said:
As for presidential politics. If, by some miracle, Mooseburger gains some gravitas in the next couple of years and becomes popular outside the fringe wackos, Obama could switch Biden for Hillary and lock up the womens vote. Seeing as minorities will also be locked up, that'll leave the Republicans once again playing to their conservative nutbase.
Obama won the women's vote in 2008 against Palin (albeit with her as VP). What makes you think that he wouldn't be able to do so again in 2012?
I think HRC would make an excellent SoC, but I don't see why any discussion of her in any position has to be in some way related to how it would impact her delusions that Obama would put her on his ticket as VP in 2012. People are writing off Biden like he is on his death bed.
HRC lost her bid to be POTUS people. Lets accept that and move on, please. Any conjecture about her ability/desire to run for the office 8 years from now is silly.
Think about it, who would've thought 8 years ago that a black male 1st term U.S. Senator from Illinois with the name Barack Hussein Obama would be elected President this year?
@ Travis
Do we need to go through this again? Obama won. Period. You can rationalize it all you want, but the bottom line is that the people wanted Barack more than they wanted HRC to be the nominee of the Dem Party.
Who's kidding whom? Of course, 69 would be absolutely too old for a woman to win under our cultural double standard. Exactly one of the reasons Hillary fought so hard during the the primary. As a woman she knew instinctively that it was then or never.
And realistically, age was an enormous factor in McCain's defeat. For a senior woman it would be categorically disqualifying.
For those saying democrats dont want Hillary and pointing to this years primaries as proof....
She got more votes then Obama, like it or not she did, he got more delegates by a little over 100.
She lost the nomination, not because democrats didnt want her, but because she had the misfortune of running against someone who was a once in a generation candidate.
There will be no Barack Obama in 2016 and if she runs, she would be the odds on favorite to win the nomination.
------------------------------
Stop the BS. Hillary did not get more votes than Obama. Counting Michigan and Florida when Obama was not on the ballot is looked upon as desperate now as it was then. It is like me claiming victory in a football game because the other team was in the locker room and I keep running plays.
Obama's strategy with cabinet appointments seems to be to take potential enemies in Congress and turn them into close advisors -- he knows that even a Presidency and Congress of the same party will fight bloodily. In the long run, I hope this doesn't deprive Congress of too many of its best people, but I think it's a reasonable strategy.
Why do people think being an older female candidate is any more of a handicap than being an older male candidate? I do think being upper sixties and older is a handicap for anyone seeking the presidency, but don't get why some consider it particularly bad for a woman. Can anyone point to some objective evidence or is it just personal opinion?
OT speculation but some have been commenting on Supreme Court nominations. Obama would be a spectacular choice for Supreme Court after the presidency. He'll still be relatively young if an opening arises soon after he leaves office and he really is qualified unlike every other name thrown out on this thread so far. And there is precedent in a former president serving on the Court. Just a thought.
Noone thinks being an older female candidate matters more, atleast i don't. Being a loser and a old candidate wont help, this is why she needs the SoS position.
Yes, if the dems stay in power I bet Obama is on THE court.
If the Obama presidency fails, for domestic reasons anyway, Clinton as SOS should be able to distance herself.
The more important issue is how to attach herself to what is likely to be the successful Obama brand. Continue with the loyal supporter plan, as she did with her strong campaigning. Successful, supportive SOS work sets her up well in '16 to get support from the largest current political group in America: Obama fans.
I think it was win-win for Obama to offer the job to Clinton, and I think it is in her best interests to decline it and say that she feels she can do more as a Senator.
Becoming SoS would also burnish her already impressive ability to establish herself as separate from Bill.
And ironically, if Bill is some sort of special envoy overseas - he'd be reporting to her.
He's not choosing Hill for Sec of State
probably Kerry
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2008/11/who-will-be-next-secretary-of-state.html
Actually, five vice presidents have run, you left out Mondale.
I listed only sitting VPs, hence neither Nixon (68) nor Mondale (84) was included. On purpose.
It's way too early to speculate on candidates for 2016. By that point Clinton will be old at 68 and it's quite possible that the nation will be hoping to have some fresher more youthful options available to it.
I basically agree with Nate's arguments here. As someone who supported Obama early in the primary race at least in part as an alternative to Clinton and who has absolutely no desire to see another Clinton Presidency, I'm sincerely hoping she is not a candidate in 2016.
Nate was referring to sitting VP's which is how Mondale was omitted. He was a former VP at time he sought the Presidency in 1984. Nixon was elected in 1968 as a former VP, but had been the sitting VP when defeated in 1960.
geez, sometimes I really wonder about Nate...The question is inane as OF COURSE being SOS won't help Clinton become prez. Hasn't helped anyone in over 150 years (oh, and what a wonderful president THAT one turned out to be).....The reason Hillary campaigned like a rabid dog this time is bc SHE realized this would likely be her last chance at the presidency.
The real choice for her is simple: is she more willing to serve her country for little personal gain or go back to a safe forever seat in the Senate? She'll have little power but lots of press in the Senate while the reverse will be true if she becomes SOS. Politically, it's a win-win for Obama, as she's toast as a competitor whether she's a good SOS or a bad one. As for the country, I prefer Bill Richardson as he's actually, uh, BEEN a diplomat. Hillary perhaps has a bigger upside as SOS (assuming she can be confirmed or wants to be put thru that process) but also a much bigger downside. If she takes the job, she's actually put her country first, for a change, as it will signify that she really means it when she says she's unlikely to ever run for the presidency again.
david mayo makes a good point. If Hillary Hussein Clinton is going to be 69 soon, she needs to become a porn star while time is on her side.
If Clinton becomes SoS and serves for six years, then resigns to run for president, she will be seen as being as qualified to be president as anyone in history.
That no SoS has become president in 150 years has more to do with oddities and that not many previously elected politicians have held the position than anything else.
If she wants to become president still, taking the job likely could help, not hurt, her chances.
Amazing how many other smart people can't grasp the obvious appeal of this to her.
UHH, aren't a lot of things tied to the success of the Obama presidency? You know, like the global financial system, international relations, healthcare, and the environment? I mean, idk, i just think that this analysis is failing to see the forest for the trees.
But if the Obama presidency is a failure, it could taint all Dems for a couple elections.
If he loses in 2012, then the Repub elected would be favored in 2016.
If he serves two terms, past precedent - 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2008 (but not 1988) would suggest a party has a difficult time getting a 3rd straight term. That's 5 out of 6 times.
She might have a better chance being in the inside and helping the Obama presidency be a success than be a Dem on the outside hoping things work out OK.
ClinTon is out of luck. I agree that Biden will be placed in 2012. Mainly for one reason - Obama will want to appoint a success who could run in 2016. Biden will be replaced wtih Warner or Webb or Bayh or McCaskill and ClinTon will be out of luck
NO possibility that Obama will have a failed presidency. Get real, ninnies, he's the real deal. Hillary knows that and wants to be part of it. Zero risk to her. Bubba? Have you heard of divorce? HRC in 2016. Didn't you know 69 is the new 57?
The other reason why Secretaries of States rarely run for President is because of the increasing demands of the campaign cycle, which can now occupy as many as two years of a candidate's time.
The main reason Secretaries of State rarely run for president is because they tend to be diplomats or bureaucrats, not politicians.
Sixteen Secretaries of State that have been confirmed by the Senate since 1948. Of those, two of them (Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright) are constitutionally ineligible to be president as they were not born as citizens. (Christian Herter may also fall into this group as he was born in Paris, but his parents were citizens, so his eligibility is murky).
Of the remaining fourteen, nine of them never ran for any office at all.
That leaves:
James Baker, who as far as I've been able to determine, once ran for Texas state attorney general and lost, and never ran again for anything.
John Foster Dulles, who was appointed as a senator and lost a special election to continue to server in that position, and who died of cancer less than a month after resigning from the cabinet.
Christian Herter, who served in the House and as Governor of Massachussetts, and who may or may not have been eligible to run for president, but there's no sign he aspired for the office.
Edmund Muskie, former Governor of Maine, longtime Senator, failed VP candidate in 1968, unsuccessful Presidential aspirant (and victim of Nixonian dirty tricks) in 1972, before he was Secretary of State. After his brief stint as Secretary, he retired from public service.
And finally, Alexander Haig, who is the only Secretary of State I looked at who actually ran for President after being Secretary. Did being secretary help or hinder him? I think being a failed Secretary of State hindered him. However, since he is the only former Secretary of State of the last sixty years to run for president, it's foolish to read too much into it.
all this punditry about hillary in 2016 is ridiculous. she will be almost as old as john mcsimpson is now. she's done. the only chance she has is if, god forbid, something happens to obama before 2012, and even then it'll be biden running for re-election like LBJ did. Hillary fought so hard in the primaries because she knew she was done if she didn't. She will take the SOS post and that'll be that... unless Bill screws it up for her... again.
Now there's a question...if Hillary has given up on POTUS, will she finally divorce Bill? I guess it depends on whether the relationship continues to be worth anything to her politically and personally - but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. (And I'd guess it'd make her more popular, not less).
Why do I think that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for SOS? Because she's the only one that can bring real respect to the USA in the world. Nobody would take John Kerry seriously and Richardson is viewed as a second rate lap-dog. If Obama wants a successful foreign policy and if Clinton agrees to take the job, he needs to give her a free hand. She is probably more capable than him, but I think she would work to make him look better and his chances for reelection would increase tremendously with her in the SOS position as she would take flack for any failure herself while the other candidates would just transfer the failure directly to Obama.
Amazing the nonsense that gets spouted here.
Richardson is a second-rate lapdog? Uh, no. He is one of the most successful diplomats in recent history. He has expertise in energy issues. He has huge credibility in Latin America and at the UN. The Bush administration - who never called on outsiders to help - brought him, while Gov of NM, to help out with North Korea.
He would be a very credible choice, and the logical one if Clinton demurs.
And finally, Alexander Haig, who is the only Secretary of State I looked at who actually ran for President after being Secretary. Did being secretary help or hinder him? I think being a failed Secretary of State hindered him. However, since he is the only former Secretary of State of the last sixty years to run for president, it's foolish to read too much into it.
Haig's chances of becoming president was destroyed by a terrible press briefing that was broadcast nationally that he gave shortly after Reagan was shot. George Bush was overseas at the time, so in an effort to reassure people, Haig claimed that he was "in control" and that as SoS he was third-in-line to the presidency after the vice president (that ceased to be the case when the 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967, which named the Speaker of the House next-in-line after the VP). Worse, he had just run up several flights of stairs from the Situation Room to the Press Briefing Room, so he appeared sweaty and out-of-breath, which many perceived to be overly anxious and then delusional when he seemed to declaring himself as in charge. In truth, he just misspoke in an effort to reassure people that the assassination attempt of Reagan would not cripple the US government.*
He then mishandled the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which pretty much ended his tenure as SoS (Nancy Reagan disliked him personally as well, which didn't help).
*A couple of years ago there was a made-for-TV movie "The Day Reagan Was Shot" which starred Richard Dreyfus as Alexander Haig. In my opinion, the film did a horrible job in overplaying Haig's misstatement as well as his intent to assume presidential powers.
I very much doubt Clinton wants to run again, whether in 2012 or 2016, so this all debate is really moot.
As for age, it shouldn't be a big issue. McCain wasn't hurt by his age as much as his lack of eloquence, bad jokes and other behavior (not related with old age in this case). You see lots of people saying they're worried by McCain's age more than Obama's race, but that's because it doesn't take guts to admit it. You rarely see anyone make issue of it in real life. On the other hand, Clinton might even be helped by the softening of age, as too many people see her as cold and calculating. By the way, the mean age of women is higher than the mean age of men.
I wonder when we'll know. My guess is sometime this week, probably
Monday.
Come see my new probably awful blog:
http://youngerpolitics.blogspot.com/
hillary is sec of state then in 2012 vp then 2016 runs for president
I'd like to make a point that I'm not sure has been mentioned. Obama's ideas on health care are close but not quite the same as Hillary's. And health care is central to the solutions of many of our ills, especially many economic problems. Is this (offering her SoS) a move to remove a potential roadblock?
If she wants to remain active in politics, she'll remain in the Senate. If she feels like putting that final feather in her cap, she'll take the SoS job. Either way, she'll do an excellent job for America. But I doubt after this campaign anyone would want to go through that again. Especially since the track record of politicians that have run for President, lost, then gained the Presidency is not good.
SoS is the most high profile cabinet position in the administration. It will not go to a Republican. You get to put a lot of air miles in your dedicated jet on government business and become the face of America overseas. It's a great opportunity for Hillary after 8 years in the senate and it gives her direct access to the President in a way she can never get as a Senator.
Obama will have to select a National Security Adviser who keeps her under control.
Why do people think Biden will get kicked off the ticket in 2012? I just don't see it happening. There is so little precedent for it.
I agree with Another Mike. Obama-Biden will be the ticket in 2012. And I'm not even convinced there wouldn't be some talk of Bloomberging it if they're popular in 5 years. Hillary would be 68 for the primaries in 2016, wouldn't be such a big issue. She'd be a strong candidate but with competition whether she's a senator or former Secretary of State. She should just do whatever she thinks she'd be better at.
It just occurs to me that having presidential ambitions seems like a conflict of interest waiting to happen for a Secretary of State. If you have to be negotiating with allies or enemies and at the same time worrying how will this go over in Iowa... yeesh.
Biden in his VP interview with Obama volunteered that Obama wouldn't have to worry about Biden's presidential aspirations.
Hillary for President?? Never.
She could do a good job as SoS, and wants to have a high profile job. She keeps away from the CGI, no conflict of Interest.
Now, how about eliminating term limits for POTUS? I've always wondered why we have that. We should be able to reelect great presidents more than once. If Obama is one, we should be ready.
Another Mike said...
"Why do people think Biden will get kicked off the ticket in 2012? I just don't see it happening."
Lets hope he's not. 2012 is the time to groom the successor.
dknick said...
"Come see my new probably awful blog:"
If your blog sucks, why are we going to visit it? Jesus. This is marketing 101.
Herunar said...
"As for age, it shouldn't be a big issue."
Like I said earlier, there is a double standard for women. And its not just the fact that physically men age better than women (see George Clooney). No one is voting for a cast member of the Golden Girls for President.
PeixeGato said...
"Instead of nominating Joe Biden to SCOTUS, let's nominate Bo Biden."
I'm just not sure that politician necessarily translates into supreme court justice. I know we'd like to see it, because we read about politicians and think it'd be cool to see them on the bench. But people who choose a career in politics may not enjoy the more solitary and apolitical life of a justice. Plus, there's hundreds of (more) qualified jurists ready to fill this role, so why waste a rising political star on such a position. I expect to see Beau Biden represent Delaware in teh Senate for the next 20 or so years until he decides to make his own run for the White House.
I have to agree that Biden is currently the most-likely VP candidate in 2012. But a lot could happen between now and then. One risk would be how many symptoms of foot-in-mouth disease he shows during the first four years. There could also be some kind of a deal in place between the three of them (Obama/Biden/Clinton), or Biden may have personal reasons for dropping off the ticket in four years.
Without getting involved in figuring out "What does Biden want?" one advantage of Hillary as VP in 2012 vs. 2008 is that she and Bill will no longer be capable of overshadowing Obama the way they could have if she had been on the ticket in the past election. He will then have 4 years under his belt as president, and either Clinton or Biden would make a logical running mate, assuming they were both in the administration.
The only way I can see Clinton benefitting from NOT being part of the Obama administration is if the administration is so bad that democrats run against him in 2012. Not very likely.
If she participates in the administration, there are 3 possibilities: 1) Obama loses in 2012, 2) Obama wins in 2012, but his approvals crash during his second term (Son of Bush Jr.) or 3) the democratic brand is still strong in 2016.
If she comes out of a popular Obama administration in 2016, serving as SoS or VP or whatever will enhance her career options regardless of what she wants to try at that time. If she drops out of the administration in 2012, or if Obama loses in 2012, she has four years to sharpen/rebuild her image for 2016.
Off topic, but when did Nate change the subtitle of the site to "Politics Done Right"? It makes sense given that the election is basically over but Nate still has much to contribute with political analysis and intelligent use of data. I hadn't noticed the new name until tonight, however. The FAQ page hasn't changed yet.
Excuxe me, but I am someone who gets a tad riled at comments like "Kerry was a failure at everything" etc.
I don't think Hillary has anywhere near the credentials as Kerry or Richardson for SoS. Of those two, I would rather Kerry. Aside from the fact that he has decades of relationships with many countries, knows their histories and cultures (and is well respected overseas), he has an even more compelling understanding of the world's crises. Kerry wrote "The New War" which was published in '97. He identified and addressed the 5 biggest crises America and the world faced.
Environmental, billions of displaced people from wars + ecological disasters, pandemics, terrorism, and organized crime .
The last one was unexpectedly the most important. He discussed why and what made it so difficult to control.(They have money the terrorists and many countries can't even fantasize about, they have absolutely no loyalty to anything, they work covertly having no interest in being credited for their murders - which are more targeted than terrorists, etc.).
Kerry took charge of investigating the BCCI scandal (when no one else in the Senate wanted anything to do with it), and went after Dems as well as GOP. He also was alerted, and followed the trail to the Iran/Contra scheme and investigated that. So he has a very good grasp of the powers that work in the world, including covert renegades from our own militarty - security - corporate - political shadow government.
The book was not just highly praised. It became a foundation for whole new lines of thinking and research in all areas it affected; political science, law, crime, etc. at university, government and think tank levels. Thanks to that, we probably have a lot more viable options developed for dealing with these problems than we would have otherwise. I suspect that some of the successful stuff that is already going on here and globally, started with that book. For example, the way Avian flu is being monitored and controlled. I have been really relieved at how competently the Chinese seem to have handled it - so far. Have you heard the commercials recently warning people that some importers are bringing in potentially infected animals and to report anything that may not have gone through the customs screenings? Even BushCo is actually doing something appropriate.
One of the huge issues this administration will address is Afghanistan. Kerry probably has forgotten more about narco trafficking than Hillary or even Richardson ever knew. He also has a really broad legislative base to work from. The specific problems that any country needs help with, he has the kind of knowledge and vision to come up with offers that would help them with the most critical.
I'm afraid that Obama is talking to Hillary and Richardson openly because when the trial balloon of Kerry went out, it met with a lot of resistence. It is typical of him to rethink his decision and reconsider the other options carefully.
Hillary is a very bright woman. IMO, she has never shown more than a B+ ability to use that intelligence. Her acquistion speed, processing and synthesis of information is great. Her willingness to seek out and pay attention to a wide variety of viewpoints is one of her ongoing, major weaknesses. It prevents her from being a visionary thinker. The SoS has to be able to listen to others, seek a broad and deep understanding of the issues, and be creative in how problems could be handled.
Ultimately, the Clinton's connections and IOU's to the DLC types, and not enough clarity that she would let them go, is a much bigger problem for me. I don't want her trying to get trade agreements with countries so certain businesses can go there. We've had enough of that from both GOP and Dem administrations. I don't want to get on a much better path to the future with Obama and then elect anyone from the last half of the 20th century mindset. Someone above made an excellent point of the potential conflict of interest with CGI.
One of Kerry's other strong fields: small business, crucial to developing countries.
Come to think of it, SoS also plays to something very deep in his heart. Preventing us from using the military to do what diplomacy should accomplish. No matter what Americans think of Kerry as a diplomat, his father was in the foreign service and other diplomats respect things like that.
Hillary is not qualified for Scotus, she is too new to even think of challenging Reid. I would rather she stay in the Senate.
Logically, she has said she will accept Secretary of State if Obama will make her the vice-presidential candidate in 2012. At that time Obama will not have the "experience" liability that Biden helped to fill. Running as the incumbent VP is her best bet in 2016. Biden will be given a cabinet position.
Hillary could run in 2016 at 69 but I would suggest she get a face lift first, just enough to take a couple of years off, nothing to dramatic.
Anyway this whole conversation is silly, lets see how Obama does as president before we worry about 8 years out.
If he is another Carter, we may not see another democratic president for a generation but I`m pretty sure he will be another Roosevelt.
I think Jody Rell is a pretty moderate governor so if Lieberman gets replaced we probably get a moderate since a right winger would never have a chance of getting elected on their own.
Re the term limit on the presidency. Went into effect due to FDR.
Hey Nate,
I don't know what kind of revenue you get from the banners at the top of the home page but would you,
PLEASE REMOVE THE DISGUSTING BANNER THAT HAS OBAMA WITH CASTRO, KIM, AND THE IRANIAN PRES (who the fuck could pronounce much less spell his name!).
The banner with the smoking Obama which the right facists love to defame him with...
Please get it off the site!
And please anyone who agrees, register your feelings.
Green
Let them waste their money here.
And we all indeed should clip on the ad so Nate makes money.
Green
Let them waste their money here.
And we all indeed should clip on the ad so Nate makes money.
Just because Clinton might be viewed as being "qualified" to be President doesn't mean that a majority of Democrats voting in the primaries and caucuses will want her as President. I can tell you right now as someone who is an intensely liberal/progressive Democrat, I will be looking for whatever alternatives on the Democratic side exist to a Clinton candidacy. I think you underestimate how many Democrats share my sincere aversion to another Clinton Presidency.
I really don't like the idea of Clinton in the Cabinet and while I think both Richardson and Kerry are far better fits as Secretary of State, though the positive here is that by making her Sec of State, you remove her from the domestic politics stage so you don't have to worry about her trying to amend many of your domestic politics initiatives as with Health care and Education in the Senate.
I think its funny how everyone here is thinking about whats best for Hillary! I dont think HILLARY is best for SoS! And I agree that might not be what she is being considered for. I am betting Health or Ed or soemthing less high profile. I think Obama knows the Clinton name is more of a liability these days than a help. Even abroad. Plus as someone else said, Obama will be our best rep overseas, and wont want someone like Hil and Bill whose enormous egos always seem to try to upstage everyone around them. Then again, she's my senator and I DONT LIKE HER. LOL
Already Russia is moving into saying that Obama's foreign policy is going to be weak. I believe that this is one of the main reasons why Obama needs Hillary Clinton as SOS.
Here's a quote from stratfor:
"2. Russia’s moves in Europe: The Russians are wasting no time in attempting to shape global perceptions of the incoming Obama administration, portraying the new U.S. leader as weak and more prone to compromise on issues like ballistic missile defense (BMD). At the same time, Russia is using a variety of political and economic methods to split the European bloc. We must keep an eye on the reactions of the Central European and Baltic states — particularly Poland and the Czech Republic, which are getting twitchier by the day about BMD plans."
She's the only one that is viewed as hawkish, and the only one that commands respect and has the gravitas to bring Sarkozy and Merkel more in line with the US and not let Russia to further weaken US foreign policy. US and EU need to act as one, and HC can manage that. The others cannot.
I dont view her as hawkish. I view her as an opportunist. Iraq war, label Iran Rev Guard terrorists, annihilate Iran are not the positions of a responsible person.
Nate,
It's interesting to consider whether Secretary of State has been a stepping stone to the presidency in the past. But if you are going to bring this up, you have to also note that the Senate is no great stepping stone either (one of the smaller ways this year was exceptional). Taking that into account, SoS probably makes sense even if the presidency is her only consideration, since it burnishes her foreign policy bona fides and gets her OUT of the senate.
My guess, however, is that a possible 2016 bid is not be the deciding factor. My take on Clinton is that she absolutely LONGS to take the spot. Did you see her press conference yesterday? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DoIiBWpS1U&eurl=http://www.sayfienews.com/?gclid=CPKol8-ko44CFQGnPAodkFeraA) where she flirted with reporters about rumors that she'd been to Chicago? I have never seen her so happy. I think one of her biggest sources of pride is her knowledge of the world -- her familiarity with foreign leaders and her belief that she understands the world's crises and threats. SoS would finally affirm that belief and establish her as an international figure in her own right.
I imagine that the only thing giving Clinton pause right now is whether or not she really wants to tie herself to Obama and whether should stay in Congress to work on Health Care.
She'll think about that for another day or so, then say YES. Politically, she has no choice. Saying yes would instantly grant her a piece of the (worldwide) Obama magic. Saying no would mean dealing the Obama transition its first big setback. She would look like a sore loser and a prima donna -- no matter what her reasoning. It would also suggest that she actually doesn't think her understanding of the world is really so special.
So saying no is at least as politically risky as saying yes -- probably much more so. And While saying yes does tie her fate to Obama -- it also connects her to history in a profoundly signficant way -- in the Obama / Lincoln analogy, she becomes William Seward, the much beloved, much more experienced New York Senator who was the frontrunner in 1860 before Lincoln wiggled in. Of course, Seward became Lincoln's Secretary of State and, eventually, one of Lincoln's closest friends and eloquent admirers.
As for her hesitation about leaving domestic affairs behind -- my guess is that she would have absolute confidence -- warranted or not, that should could play Obi-Wan Kenobe behind the scenes when necessary. Also -- and this is no small consideration -- she could play kingmaker for the next NY senator.
Anyway -- the upshot is Hillary will accept. And IF McCain is offered a post, (I privately think Obama's considering him for Defense), he'll take it too.
No way Obama offers McCain Defense.
McCain is not a team player.
He has a fundamentally different world view than Obama.
He is a terrible manager (see under: 2008/election), and the DoD is the world's biggest bureaucratic organization
I am someone who guess after not offering Clinton VP that he would pursue her for SoS, so for me the one has nothing to do with the other.
Perhaps Hillary Clinton's efforts would be best used in reforming domestic healthcare.
http://carlroeder.blogspot.com/
Just FYI.
Carl J. Roeder, Esq.
I want to speculate about Bill Clinton's Global Initiative again. CGI brokers weird favors between wealthy, influential and not always ethical global players, extracting money and favors along the way, for mostly good ultimate purposes. Since CGI is a NGO, if HRC was SOS (LOL), and married to him, he could really supercharge her efforts. That could be a super advantage for us, the people. Bill doesn't seem to respect Obama as his leader so far, so the ego struggles would be weird. Still, CGI could be a great semi-secret weapon. If the conflicts of interest were too weird, HRC could be asked to step down overnight.
Again, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an awful idea. If we used the popular vote to determine the president, every single backwater electoral precinct would be stuffing the ballots for their preferred candidate, because there'd be no way to catch them doing it everywhere. We'd have elections decided by which party cheated better.
Furthermore, every close election (a la 2000) would be a disaster. Remember the Florida recount fiasco? Now imagine that in front of every city hall in America. The stock market would crash every time RCP (or 538) showed the race within 2 points.
As I said upthread, the best solution is the Maine/Nebraska compromise in all 50 states (or at least every stayed with 4+ EVs). That way, we increase the number of voters who can "swing" the election while minimizing the risk of a nationwide recount debacle.
Back on topic, Clinton as SoS is a bad idea because she's not the person we need at State. Richardson or maybe Dodd (but not Kerry).
Robbie
The CD EV vote racket is a system that would give every presidential election that the Dem candidate didn't win by more than 4 points in the popular vote to the Repubs.
Nixon would have won in 1960, Ford in 1976. 2000 would not have been close - Bush would have won easily. 2004 would have been a Bush landslide.
It also would mean that the pressures on those state legislatures which creates CDs (most of them) would be extremely intense to help national parties. It would be madness.
And it would mean that at the end of the day only 40 or so CDs would be competitive - less than 10%. Fewer CDs would be involved in the election with this system than are now.
It is a horrible system that only a diehard Repub would embrace.
In discussing SoS as a stepping stone to the Presidency, some historical perspective is useful. Between 1800 and 1824 (when you had three straight SoS succeed the President):
1) The Presidential nominee did not pick the VP nominee so the SoS was the real #2 slot in the Administration;
2) There were only five cabinet positions (SoS, AG, SoWar, SoTreasurer, Postmaster Genereal). At that time, while having responsibility for foreign relations, the SoS also had many of the responsibilities that now rest with Commerce and Interior;
3) During that era (the elections of 1808, 1816, and 1824), you essentially had one major political party so the choice of the Congressional Caucus as to the Presidential candidate basically determined the next President.
With the change to being almost solely foreign-relations, SoS is no longer the cabinet position most up to speed on domestic policy with the result that it is not as good a road to the White House.
Tmess
But since Clinton already has major domestic policy credibility, being SoS would basically make her the most-rounded policy expert ever to run for president. That would trump all precedents over the last 150 years.
I honestly don't think HIllary is all that interested in being President.
After reading the recent newsweek article and looking at how she ran her campaign.
It just doesn't look like her heart is in that fight. She is a great senator, might make a good governor or NY. Could even be a good Sec. of state.
At this point in her life. I think she can not be pres. and still be very happy with the impact she has had on the world
Nine of the first ten comments here reflect my thoughts since it began to appeared likely Obama would be the nominee. This was Hillarys year and she knew it, because challenging her partys incumbent President in 2012 would be
1) Suicidal if he's popular and
2) Pointless if he (and the Party) are not.
That's part of why she fought so hard for the nomination and, IMHO, fought so weakly for Obama once the nomination was secure: With Obama the nominee her only remaining hope was a failed McCain Presidency to run against in 2012.
I've long seen Hillarys role as Jeff does: Elder statesman in a large liberal state where she'll be permanently untouchable--but Ted Kennedys last Presidential run was 1980, and Hillarys was 2008.
I also agree with Robby that Richardson is a better choice for Secy. of State on the basis of his experience and the absence of a negative relationship with Obama. I know it's all smiles and light now that the elections finished, but I still remember a CQPolitics blurb from just a few weeks ago claiming Hillary called McCain the night she finally conceded the victory Obama won by right and the two of them evidently bonded over the mutual disdain for what they considered Obamas aloofness. Essentially two long time pols resenting the young upstart, and don't think that magically disappeared two weeks ago.
This was a change election, remember? McCain wasn't change, Bush wasn't change and the Clintons aren't change. I'm not really sure who I'd want to be Secy. of State, though I've been thinking about it a while; all I can really say is the only person I prefer less than Hillary is John Kerry (who doesn't exactly exude the implacability necessary for a Secy. of State. ) If his health is up to it and he's available I'd prefer George Mitchell.
A lot of great points on here!
My take on this is she definitely should take it if she’s offered the job. Whether or not she has any aspirations at the Presidency again, I believe it would be a job she could handle well. She could get way more done there than as 1/100th of the senate. And she is well respected by heads of state around the world.
If she does have plans of running for President again, this could be a great stepping stone. Remember that before Obama, the last senator to be elected President was Kennedy, and since Obama’s opponent was also a senator, it was a given it would happen this time as well. Senators just don’t get elected President very often. She could remove herself from that liability by taking Secretary of State. Another way to distance herself from the Senate would be to run for governor of New York, but why not do both? Why not take SoS now, and then run for governor in 2010? Obviously she wouldn’t state that as her intention when she is asked to take the SoS job, but two years as a cabinet head and four years governor would look great on anyone’s resume. And if she does that, her term will be up January of 2015, which is exactly when she would need to be getting her Presidential campaign under way.
The age factor may turn a lot of people off given that she would be 69 on inauguration day, but as a couple people pointed out, women do tend to live longer and as far as we know, Clinton is in excellent health for her age.
Then again, if Biden were to decline the VP position in 2012 (I think it’s his, of course, if he wants it, but he may not), then Clinton would certainly be an attractive alternative. If Biden doesn’t think he’s likely to get elected President in 2016, he may not desire to be VP again in 2012, and as others have pointed out, he could instead find himself with a plum cabinet position instead.
We could make the same argument about Bill Richardson for SoS as a stepping stone to the Presidency as well, and I think he would be great at both. Richardson and Clinton are only a couple weeks apart age wise (BTW happy birthday Bill Richardson) , so who knows. I know 69 is only 3 years younger than McCain would have been inauguration day, but the perception that he’d be in his 60’s might not seem as bad than a candidate in his 70’s. And we have elected a 69 year old before. But a lot can and will happen in the next few years, and some no name may come out of thin air and be the next best thing for the Democratic party. Wouldn’t be the first time:)
And as far as the vetting question that someone brought up; when you talk about vetting a possible VP candidate, it is because you have to win over millions of Americans, but for a cabinet position, you only need to win over a majority of the 100 Senators, 57 of which will definitely approve of Clinton.
I also should have pointed out in my last post that our second President, John Adams, was elected at 61, in a time when the average life expectancy was less than 40, and he lived to be 90, so maybe 69 isn’t too old to be president, especially if one chooses an excellent VP choice. As a side note, ever notice that older presidential candidates tend to choose much younger VP’s and younger ones pick much older VPs?
In what alternative universe did Clinton campaign weakly for Obama?
No defeated candidate has ever campaigned harder for the person who defeated him/her. The comment a couple posts above is totally ridiculous - and I am not a big Hillary supporter.
And while we are discussing ridiculous comments -
above it is suggested that she'd accept SoS, have that position for a year, then resign to campaign against incumbent Dem NY Governor David Paterson?
Wow, some crazy weed is being smoked tonight.
I cannot believe that we have had 168 comments on this thread and nobody has yet pointed out that:
THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!! FOR HILARY CLINTON!!!11!!!
sfergus483 said...
And while we are discussing ridiculous comments -
above it is suggested that she'd accept SoS, have that position for a year, then resign to campaign against incumbent Dem NY Governor David Paterson?
Wow, some crazy weed is being smoked tonight.
Who’s smoking weed? First of all, I said TWO years. Go look up the average time people spend in a cabinet position. It’s about 2 years. Second, even a Hillary hater like you should have no problem agreeing she would trounce Patterson in the primary. I’ve been an Obama supporter since day one, but I realize there is plenty of value to Hillary Clinton. And if you don’t think that her serving in the Senate, The State Department, and Governor of New York would be great qualifications for President, you’re not very bright. My suggestion, lay off the weed
She would become SoS the earliest on Jan 20 2009.
If she were to run for governor of NY (again, opposing the incumbent Democratic governor of NY), she'd have to announce early in 2010 - just over a year in office.
The average time a cabinet member is in office for a two term presidency in not 2 years - now you are just making things up.
Clinton had 2 SoSs over 8 years.
Bush has had 2 over 8 years.
The idea that she'd take the job of SoS, serve just over a year, run against a popular blind Dem Gov of her own party - again, hallucinatory.
Oh, and I am not a Clinton hater. Where did I say that?
I stand by my point. This is silly beyond description. She'd look like a fool, and might even lose the race to Paterson.
sfergus483:
Making stuff up? Ok maybe I was exaggerating, but not making stuff up.
Bill Clinton had THREE Secretaries of Energy, Defense, Treasury and VA and FOUR Secretaries of Commerce. Most of Reagan’s cabinet departments had 3 different Secretaries in his eight years. The same is true of our current President. Most of Nixon’s cabinet departments had THREE or FOUR heads, and he only served six years. Now I know that doesn’t average 2 years, that was only a slight exaggeration on my part to prove a point. Cabinet heads don’t always serve out the whole term of the President. There would be nothing unprecedented about her serving only 2 years. And running for Governor isn’t like running for president. It isn’t unconceivable that she could run an election and conduct her duties as Secretary of State simultaneously. After all, McCain and Obama were still senators during the campaign. Any secretary of state in the past that ran for president was still secretary of state while they were campaigning.
This is all hypothetical of course, but talk about great credentials to be president if she did pull it off. You have to at least give me that. I don’t think there’s anything silly about it. You’re just not thinking outside the box. Yes it’s very unlikely, but certainly not hallucinatory.
Hi,
I asked about HRC being offered the SoS position a couple of days ago and here you are:
It took a lot of time to me but I read every single commentary.
So thanks 538’ staff for this post, and most of all, thank to all the bloggers here who wrote their thoughtful and insightful opinion.
By my side,if I may say,being Obama the commander in chief (thanks You ,yet again ,sweet baby Jesus)HRC would be a good opportunity not just for herself but for the entire America.
Enjoy your sunday,I'll do for sure with mine.
:)
I think HRC would make an excellent SoC, but I don't see why any discussion of her in any position has to be in some way related to how it would impact her delusions that Obama would put her on his ticket as VP in 2012. People are writing off Biden like he is on his death bed.
I'm not. I'm just floating the idea that if, by some fantastical occurence, the Republican ticket is a genuine threat in 2012, Obama can effectively lock up the base of the Democratic party, and concentrate on independents and GOTV with relative ease.
Biden was my first choice for president BEFORE Obama announced his candidacy, and he was my first choice for VP all along. Nobody is writing him off, they're just speculating. He'll likely remain VP for the entire 8 years. Hillary may or may not run in 2016. Again, it's just speculation at this point. Obama hasn't ven been sworn in yet.
The way I look at it, Obama's picking the best person for the job, likewise Biden as VP, and still has an insurance policy for 2012, in the unliklihood that he'll even need it. And Secretary of State is better stepping stone.
NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo seems the likeliest, and safest, replacement for Hillary in the senate. If they wanted to roll the dice, they could still go for Eliot Spitzer.
Have we found the racist states?
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/white_vote_for_obama_in_the_st_1.php
Romney for President! We need more right wing crazy nutballs!
OK, this is scary - schoolkids chant "Assasinate Obama" in reddest county in U.S.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Idaho_students_chant_assassinate_Obama_on_1112.html
I am really impressed ewith how Obama seems to be creating a cabinet. He genuinely seems to want the best people around him, he isn't running away from people with big reputations and in the end thats how this [potential] appointment needs to be seen.
I am not surprised at the deliberate way Obama is building his cabinet, and the great choices he will make. He is serious about governing, not about weilding power.
S U N D A Y
The War In Afghanistan Is A No-Win Situation
http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/11/war-in-afghanistan-is-no-win-situation.html
Updates Summers may be out as a Treasury prospect + A penitential Obama cover from the New Yorker.
To receive this daily one-page "magazine" the next morning in your inbox, with all updates, go here http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com and subscribe.
Huffington Post Page -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-c-rose
One other point:
The next generation of voters who overwhelmingly supported Obama vs Hillary in the primaries may not be ready to accept HRC as the nominee in 2016. I know I will never vote for her in a primary contest.
She needs to figure out how to win their hearts in the next 8 years. Being seen as for him rather than against him may help, provided his approval ratings within the party are as high as they are now.
kathyflake-
Great point, I also think Rahm is positioning himself for 2016.
I agree with the consensus that Hillary will be too old to run in 2016. But I see no reason that being Secretary of State should make a person a long shot for President just because it hasn't happened in awhile. A benefit of spending time at State rather than in the Senate is that you're conducting the President's business, so you're not racking up the inevitable "questionable" voting record to pick at- you can keep your ideological purity with the President as cover.
Wonder what Chelsea's aspirations are? Or Michelle Obama? I'm sure that lady would make a killer President, if she wanted the job.
Michelle needs to follow the Hillary route to the Presidency if she wants it. She needs to be a Senator or Representative.
I wish the question were "will she be a good choice for sec. of state" rather than what it means for a presidential bid.
Charlie-
She is a great choice for SoS as long as Bill's taking money from everyone and their mother overseas does not create a conflict of interest.
Nate, Nate, Nate...As much as I have appreciated your statistical skills in the election (especially the Senate recount projections), I must say the basis for your Hillary projection is a bit on the flaky side.
What Hillary knows now is the specific knowledge that she has the potential to be a fine SoS. But it's only a potential. What she doesn't know about the domestic/international situation four or eight years in the future is, well, so close to zero as to be negligible. To base her current decision on such future unknowns would be tantamount to her belief in a psychic ability far beyond the pale of human insight.
I like to think that I'm a member of the reality-based community, one who wants little more than to do the right thing now that allows for a better future. The right thing now for the country is for Hillary to accept the SoS position, do what she can to make the world a better place, and let the future unfold and take care of itself.
So, how's about a projection as to when two-thirds of Republicans will finally answer "yes" to the following question: "Was Sarah Palin qualified to become vice-president?" Four years? Eight years? Next century? That would tell us all a great deal more about Hillary's chances for the Oval Office than anything.
Love your work, keep it up.
Hillary should be Secretary of Health and Human Services, and lead the charge for Health Care Reform. It's what she says she wants. Check this out.
http://www.pragmaticpundit.com/2008/11/cabinet-of-choice-if-i-were-obama.html
O/T (but I've been waiting for a new topic to start...)
Fascinating map here http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/
showing how voting in the South reflected some old demographic patterns. Perhaps something Nate could expand on for us?
It seems clear that HC is not a viable candidate for President in 2016. Her age will disqualify her with many voters, and she's bound to have additional baggage as she did this time -- imagine all the mischief that Bill can yet get into over 8 years. And, yes, there have been persistent and credible rumors that Bill was not the only one who strayed from his marriage vows.
My hunch is that SofS is not viable either. I'm not sure Obama could live with her, and I don't see her as being particularly well qualified for that position. My guess is that floating her for the position is a bit of a smokescreen. Although not recently mentioned Sen. Lugar would be an interesting appointment -- he and Obama are friendly and he certainly has the foreign policy experience. This would be a great way to "reach across the aisle" and to get a well qualified person to boot. Lugar has said he doesn't want the job, but we'll see.
As for HC. I voted for her in the primaries and still think she would have been an excellent President despite an incompetent and somewhat angry campaign. She cares deeply about health care and could help Obama immensely with that by remaining in the Senate.
I wouldn't be surprised to see her nominated for the Supreme Court. Of course being SofS does not rule that out There will almost certainly be 3 vacancies in the next 4 years. Ginsburg is in poor health (although saying she has no plans to retire), Stevens is 88 and showing his age, and Souter is reportedly unhappy on the Court. Of course, Obama does need to factor in age, but one appointment could go to an older person. Given the morale problems with the GOP and the increased Democratic majority in the Senate, Obama may get a pass or two from the Senate on a Court appointment or two.
We can all agree that the next few weeks will be interesting.
Have we found the racist states?
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/white_vote_for_obama_in_the_st_1.php
Did whites in those states not vote for Obama because he's black or because he's a Democrat? I'd want to compare their vote for Kerry to their vote for Obama before drawing any conclusions.
First I'd have to say I think Hilary would be a poor choice for SOS. I like the idea of Richardson though.
I really think it would be a bad choice for her as well if in fact she has presidential aspirations. People tend to vote more on domestic policy than foreign. If she got HSS or something like that, I think both she and Obama would be better served.
However, I think as a senator, even without chairmanships, she could do more to enhance her chances as a candidate by introducing and working for diverse legislation on which she could build her campaign. Same thing if she were to run for Governor (actually, I think that could be an even stronger launching pad for a second shot since it would give her real executive experience).
I didn't care for her campaign, and I voted for Obama in the primaries, but I don't discard her out of hand (even though I was pretty angry at the type of campaign she ran for a while). I think Bill is kind of an albatross around her neck politically, but I also think that she could again diminish this significantly with a solid term as governor (gives her a real shot at showing her independence from Bill, which I think many people have concerns with, rightly or wrongly).
I think age can make a difference also. McCain seemed awful fragile to me, though ultimately my decision to vote for Obama didn't turn on that. On the other hand, I think Hilary is holding up pretty well so far, and as long as she shows vibrancy at age 69, it wouldn't factor into my decision.
Just some thoughts....
Another Mike, and whoever posted this originally,why are we talking about racist states on this post?
As for Biden being replaced in 2012, I certainly hope he won't and believe he won't, but it wouldn't be the first time that happened. Prior to Nixon's two terms as VP, it was far more common for a president to pick a different VP the second time around (or thirt and fourth in Roosevelt's case).
And as for former presidents serving on the Supreme Court, his name was William Howard Taft.
while i don't think HRC lost due to gender, i do think society has less acceptance of older women in positions of power.
no way she runs in 2016.
Whether it would help her or not (if she is thinking of running in 2016) I think it would be very hard for Hillary to turn down SoS. Personally I think she'd be great as either Supreme Court Justic or Majority leader (in many ways she's a more natural fit for those positions), but I can't see her just sitting around hoping things fall in place just right so those things happen. SoS is something now. She's ambitious and while it's not President, it's a step up from junior senator from New York, and essentially the most prominant position in any administration outside Pres and Vice Pres.
I think if she goes to SoS, should Obama serve two terms, she'd be in that position for most if not all of those eight years. After that she can go elder stateswoman, or run for Pres if things are aligned just right to. I really doubt she runs for President again.
My own perspective on this:
Well...Hillary may be 69 by 2017, but I don't think that her ambitions will allow her to let that little fact get in the way of her pursuit for the Presidency. She'll still have to deal with the younger rivals (Schweiter, Bayh, Edwards, and quite possibly Powell or Jessie Jackson, Jr.), so even if she is successful as a Secretary of State, she would still have a modest road to climb; her succession is not by any means assured.
Personally, I'd have no problem whatsoever with her as SecState, not only because she is totally qualified and would enhance the position quite well; but it would do a lot to heal the deep wounds of Hillary supporters still not quite on the same team with Obama. The only problem I would see would be if Bill the Hubby decided to exploit her position as SoS to launch back bench criticisms of Obama from the sidelines. Hopefully, Bubba the Clenis would be smart enough to keep his mouth shut and at least give BHO some credit and support for governing his own way.
As for the possibility of Hillary getting the SoS slot and then pulling a double switch with Biden in '12: I'd tend against it, unless Biden's hiding something about his present health. It would sound kinda foolish if Obama really is as successful as it seems he will be (especially if the Dems do well enough in the 2010 midterms and lock up their filibuster-proof majorities in the Senate and an ironclad supermajority in the House) to go out and switch Veeps in mid stream just to suit Hillary's ambitions. Plus, the whole nepotism issue would come into play: I don't quite think that even the Democratic base could stand a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Clinton succession...and I know for darn sure the Repubs and the right-wing populist base would absolutely revolt.
Actually, I'd say that the real threat to the emerging permanent Dem majority will come as much from the Left as from the Right, especially if Obama does decide to follow all the conventional wisdom press clippings and govern like Jimmy Carter did from the center-right. Maybe there won't be Ralph Nader to kick around as a "spoiler" anymore, but there will be someone who will attempt to revive the "populist Left" label....maybe a Kucinich or a Marcy Kaptur or even a rehabilitated Cynthia McKinney, perhaps???
sfergus483
The reason the congressionial district allocation system wouldn't work now is that CDs are gerrymandered for one party rule. We would have to (and I think this is a good idea anyway) find an objective, nonpartisan rubric for drawing district lines for it to work, but I think that's in our best interest regardless of whether or not we change the electoral college.
As it stands, however, the current winner-take-all system is the worst possible outcome, except for all of the others currently being suggested (to paraphrase Winston Churchill).
If her/Clinton legacy is of prime importance, I think being the champion of the people at SCOTUS would be my choice. There will be an opening within months, and she'd breeze through hearings.
I'd like the ability to bitch-slap the smug federalist swine unto death do us part, were I HRC.
I am beginning to think that possibly this Clinton to State idea is at least partially designed to get certain groups to pipe down about Obama's Cabinet choices. I think Obama is committed to excellence above diversity in his Cabinet. He would like diversity, but I don't think he will sacrifice excellence for it.
I bring this up with regard to the firestorm generated among various feminist groups regarding the prospective appointment of the individual who is the consensus best choice for Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers.
There has been much discussion prompted by Republicans, including the McCain campaign, and by the media, that Obama has never really stood up against any prominent interest groups within the Democratic Party. By opposing Summers, these feminist groups are presenting Obama with the ideal opportunity to demonstrate that he will not be cowed by interest groups. It's the right thing to do. Obama should appoint Summers and if that means getting the feminist groups riled up, so be it. Let them whine all the want. It will only serve to enhance Obama's bona fides as someone who puts the national interest ahead of parochial interests within his own party.
However, I am thinking he might be thinking that a Clinton to State appointment might be a way to checkmate the feminist groups when it comes to their complaints about Summers or any other Cabinet appointments, and if Clinton accepts the post at Foggy Bottom, she'll be on Obama's team and will be unable to complain about appointments outside the State Department.
I am sure that if Clinton is appointed Secretary of State, Obama will be sure to install one of his foreign policy advisors as Deputy Secretary, the number two slot at State. Maybe Susan Rice, who is a former Assistant Secretary for African Affairs? It'd be awfully tough for Clinton to complain about an African-American female Deputy Secretary.
Don't discount the possibility that this is essentially a very Machiavellian move on Obama's part. It would take Clinton out of domestic political discussions, and it could mean he placates the feminist groups who oppose Summers by appointing Clinton. And if those groups on the left still want to whine about Summers after Obama appoints him to Treasury, it only enhances Obama's stature.
Post a Comment