Hillary Clinton to Accept Secretary of State Job

[RGBVideo]

also, this is a really funny choice for somebody who repeatedly proudly proclaimed to bring bipartisanship to Washington and echoed the mantra of "change!" against the DC establishment.

but i'm not terribly surprised, personally

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Originally posted by Darius871
Again, when was the last time we had a Secretary of State with such amply demonstrated presidential ambitions?

As pointed out by Rufus, there have been a number in the past. They tend to find out that it isn't all it is cracked up to be to further a Presidential run.

I didn't say "presidential ambitions," I said "such amply demonstrated presidential ambitions. When was the last time Tommy Thompson started a primary as the "presumptive" nominee, and ultimately pulled in 40-50% of the primary vote for months on end? Oh I forgot, he dropped out as soon as the Iowa straw poll showed single-digits, before the caucus was even held. Also, it should be obvious that H&HS isn't anywhere as near as SoS, particularly a SoS in a period of history with more international crises than usual. Oh, and of course there's the fact that Clinton reached such heights in the primary before taking on the SoS position, not afterward like Thompson, and the fact that the Bush Administration was and is a wildly unpopular albatross, which the Obama Administration won't necessarily be in 2016, among myriad other glaring differences. Frankly I'm flabbergasted that either of you would make such an absurd comparison.

There are so many apples & oranges being thrown around here that I won't kick this dead horse any longer. There is simply no analogue to Hillary Clinton in the last few decades of that office. Not one. At least Ramo gets it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, and what Rufus and I are saying is that there is a REASON there haven't been any analogue's to Clinton's current situation, which is why it isn't such a good place to jump to the Presidency.

[Darius871]

I meant A) no analogues in terms of the type of individual who takes on the SoS position, not B) no analogues in terms of past SoS' post-office electoral accomplishments. Two very different things. A affects whether the rule implied by B even applies, and yet you keep repeating B as if it refutes A. The logic isn't even connecting here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And there is a reason that there have been no A's... or do you think there haven't been any people who could have been potential A's?

Or do you think that Jerry Brown or Mo Udall would have liked to have been potential Cabinet members in a Carter Administration or John McCain being a potential Secretary of Defense in a Bush Administration?

Politicians all realize that by accepting a Cabinet position, you tie yourself to your President.

In addition, you fail to realize the 2 year campaign for President. You really think a President Obama would be happy with his Secretary of State not going overseas and instead hitting the campaign trail?

If Hillary WANTS the 2016 President, she'll have to retire from State with at least 2 years to go in order to be able to campaign.

[Ramo]

There's no particular reason why she can't resign from State in time to run. In fact, it'd be very unusual if Clinton serves for 8 full years.

[OzzyKP]

That seems obvious that she'd step down to run. I don't think anyone is questioning that fact, nor do I see it as a factor hampering her ability to run.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

And if Hillary retires in 2014 to hit the campaign trail, she'll be subject to the completely reasonable charge that she put her own ambition ahead of service to her country. Beyond that, let's remember that in 2006 she had a huge warchest, mostly made up of leftover funds from her re-election cakewalk; being Secretary of State, OTOH, doesn't really afford her any fundraising opportunities, which means she'd be starting her campaign broke.

Secretary of State is simply not a good launching pad for a campaign. And while I have no doubt Hillary would get farther than Tommy Thompson or Alexander Haig, the fact remains that she would be in a much, much weaker position -- structurally and financially -- in 2016 than she was in 2008. But maybe she could still be President Schweitzer's Attorney General...

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And there is a reason that there have been no A's... or do you think there haven't been any people who could have been potential A's?

Did you even read my post? Aren't you a lawyer? Try to read like one. I didn't say Hillary was "an" A and others were "not" A's; rather A is the argument that the myriad differences between Clinton and recent SoS' mean any rule established by their outcomes (B) doesn't necessarily apply to her case.

What I'm saying is that nobody like Hillary Clinton in terms of character/ambition, name recognition, domestic constituency, and already-established electoral history, has been SoS for over a century, so it's patently absurd to compare SoS' from recent decades to her situation. They're not in any way relevant. In fact, given that there hasn't been someone with similar character/ambition, name recognition, domestic constituency, and already-established electoral history in the SoS position since the 1800's, the archaic trend of their becoming President during that period is arguably slightly more relevant than the trend amongst totally dissimilar recent SoS's.

I really don't know any way to simplify the logical disconnect any further, but I'll try for fun:

Me: H becoming Y will make it easier to become Z than otherwise.
You & Rufus: No X's go from Y to Z. (Premise B)
Me: But H =/= X, for several blatantly obvious reasons. They're not analogous, not by a long shot. (Premise A)
You & Rufus: No X's go from Y to Z. (B)
Me: You're still not getting my point. B doesn't apply to the facts at hand onaccounta H ain't no X. (A)
You: No X's in job Y become Z. (B)
Me: A
You: B
Me: A
You: B
...ad infinitum, no conclusion possible.

To get out of this cycle you'd have to give me some reasons why H=X. Until then the analogy doesn't work.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
In addition, you fail to realize the 2 year campaign for President. You really think a President Obama would be happy with his Secretary of State not going overseas and instead hitting the campaign trail?

If Hillary WANTS the 2016 President, she'll have to retire from State with at least 2 years to go in order to be able to campaign.

As Ozzy pointed out, I never denied that she would have to step down to campaign. What of it? What could she do for her image in 8 years that she couldn't do in 6?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Politicians all realize that by accepting a Cabinet position, you tie yourself to your President.

So what? If you tie yourself to an immensely popular, messianic, "phenom" President, whose VP is not expected to succeed him after two terms, how is that connection necessarily a problem? It's only career suicide if you tie yourself to a President who ranges from unpopular to mediocre (e.g. Ford, Carter, Bush I, Bush II, Nixon), or a phenom whose VP will succeed him regardless (i.e. JFK, Reagan), or both (Clinton).

Ok, update:

You: No X's go from the Y of a T to Z.
Me: But H =/= X, plus O =/= T, so the analogy doesn't really connect...
You: No X's go from the Y of a T to Z.
Me: But H ain't no X, and O ain't no T!
You: No X's go from the Y of a T to Z.
Me: Sigh... forget it. If it's impossible for you to imagine that a set of circumstances might be virtually unique in modern history, then there's really no hope kicking this dead horse any further.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
And if Hillary retires in 2014 to hit the campaign trail, she'll be subject to the completely reasonable charge that she put her own ambition ahead of service to her country.

Don't you realize that that same charge would be applicable to every single Presidential candidate in modern history, including Hillary running as a "sitting" (in name only) Senator rather than as former SoS? Sure a running Senator or Governor might not retire his/her position formally,, but obviously in practice they aren't doing jack****.

How many times did McCain or Obama or even their surrogates (minus blog nuts) use 2008 absent-vote records to accuse the other of "putting his own ambition ahead of service to his country," or vice versa? Few if any, for good reason - nobody is innocent of it.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Darius871


Don't you realize that that same charge would be applicable to every single Presidential candidate in modern history, including Hillary running as a "sitting" (in name only) Senator rather than as former SoS? Sure a running Senator or Governor might not retire his/her position formally,, but obviously in practice they aren't doing jack****.

How many times did McCain or Obama or even their surrogates (minus blog nuts) use 2008 absent-vote records to accuse the other of "putting his own ambition ahead of service to his country," or vice versa? Few if any, for good reason - nobody is innocent of it.

But appearances matter. Deliberately quitting SecState to mount a 2-year run for office looks way worse that primarily running for office while paying scant attention to your job a Senator. Hillary already has huge negatives rooted in no small part in the fact that she's perceived as self-centered and insanely ambitious. Effectively saying, "I can't keep working in the national interest; I have to run for president before it's too late" would play especially badly for her.

Again, it comes down to this: Hillary had every advantage in the world going for her headed into this race, and she couldn't beat a black guy with a funny name and no experience. Imagining that, after spending 6-to-8 years NOT fundraising and NOT nurturing a domestic political operation, a nearly 70-year-old, broke Hillary is going to be viable in 2016 just seems silly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
There's no particular reason why she can't resign from State in time to run. In fact, it'd be very unusual if Clinton serves for 8 full years.

That's exactly what I'm saying (and Rufus too, IIRC). It would be HIGHLY unlikely that she tries to jump straight from SecState to President. She'd step down and then mount her run.

I don't think it'd be all that shocking for her to step down after the (potential) re-election.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


But appearances matter. Deliberately quitting SecState to mount a 2-year run for office looks way worse that primarily running for office while paying scant attention to your job a Senator. Hillary already has huge negatives rooted in no small part in the fact that she's perceived as self-centered and insanely ambitious. Effectively saying, "I can't keep working in the national interest; I have to run for president before it's too late" would play especially badly for her.

Again, it comes down to this: Hillary had every advantage in the world going for her headed into this race, and she couldn't beat a black guy with a funny name and no experience. Imagining that, after spending 6-to-8 years NOT fundraising and NOT nurturing a domestic political operation, a nearly 70-year-old, broke Hillary is going to be viable in 2016 just seems silly.

What if she says 4 years is enough? She can then spend 2 years quietly going about her business.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


That's exactly what I'm saying (and Rufus too, IIRC). It would be HIGHLY unlikely that she tries to jump straight from SecState to President. She'd step down and then mount her run.

I don't think it'd be all that shocking for her to step down after the (potential) re-election.

*cough*

Originally posted by Darius871
As Ozzy pointed out, I never denied that she would have to step down to campaign. What of it? What could she do for her image in 8 years that she couldn't do in 6?

[Imran Siddiqui]

nobody like Hillary Clinton in terms of character/ambition, name recognition, domestic constituency, and already-established electoral history, has been SoS for over a century

They have, it's just been at the end of their careers. Which is kind of what I'm saying here. Hillary is basically taking the SecState to finish her career. How many ~70 year olds win their party nominations for President? McCain's age was a HUGE issue and exit polls bear that out. Reagan's age was an issue and especially after the revelation of Alzheimers came out (and there are people out there who believe he was suffering from it during his second term), but he was able to deflect it with his youthful demeanor (something Hillary, although I love her, doesn't have).


Listen, I'm probably the biggest Hillary supporter on these forums and I'd love for her to be President in 2016, but I just don't see it happening. A combination of her age and lack of the advantages she had in this go around, she has lost "her moment".