Hillary Clinton to Accept Secretary of State Job

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Darius871


*cough*

From your first response to Boris:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=5473400#post5473400

It's less likely now than then, but she would certainly have better odds running from within the incumbent administration than as an outsider

Running within an administration means you don't step down.

And in response to Boris's Secretary of States never stick around for 8 years:

Which SoS in recent memory has had presidential ambitions as strong (and nearly realized) as hers? Certainly not... well, any in the past few decades. Maybe Seward?

So, you are changing your tune?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by 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.

That being the case, I'm sure you can give me no less than two examples. Note that I didn't say someone who "wants" to be President or even was likely to be, but four specific factors. If you can apply each of those factors to two examples, hell, even one, I'll eat my hat. In fact, I'll even adopt Ben's avatar for a month.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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).

You're giving the voters too much credit. McCain's looking like a decrepid corpse, carrying himself like one, and often even talking like one all had a hell of a lot more to do with the typical voter's impression of his age than how many times the Earth happened to have gone around the Sun since his birth. Reagan seemed 60-ish in both looks and attitude, and Hillary just might in 2016 also, though maybe to a lesser extent on the latter. I don't know what makeup experts she'll be using and neither do you.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Which SoS in recent memory has had presidential ambitions as strong (and nearly realized) as hers? Certainly not... well, any in the past few decades. Maybe Seward?

Actually, as I've already indicated, the answer is Alexander Haig -- only 20 years ago and over a century after Seward.

Prior to him, Charles Evans Hughes.

You do remember presidents Haig and Hughes, don't you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I throw Muskie in there as well, but like I said, at the end of his career. He was after all the frontrunner in the '72 Democratic Primary before McGovern came out of no where.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


From your first response to Boris:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=5473400#post5473400

It's less likely now than then, but she would certainly have better odds running from within the incumbent administration than as an outsider

Running within an administration means you don't step down.

Ok, to split hairs I'm mostly talking about the public perception of her being a key element of an adminstration they like, not necessarily her formal status at the time that she runs. Mea culpa.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Which SoS in recent memory has had presidential ambitions as strong (and nearly realized) as hers? Certainly not... well, any in the past few decades. Maybe Seward?

So, you are changing your tune?

I'm not sure what that has to do with whether she serves for a full 8 years or not, but maybe the context was confusing. I haven't backed down from that point once, particularly the "as...nearly realized" part. Again, give me an example of a recent SoS similar to Hillary in terms of "character/ambition, name recognition, domestic constituency, and (not or) already-established electoral history" at the time he/she took office, and I'll adopt BK's avy for a month. You can even have my sig line for the same period.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Please. You'll just quibble over the specifics.

Edmund Muskie for one... there was even a "Draft Muskie" call during the 1980 Dem primaries as Carter and Kennedy were going for each others' throats.

And how recent? Because Charles Evans Hughes fits too, but he was in the 20s.

[Darius871]

I hate to "quibble over the specifics," but I made it a point to stress things like "as nearly realized," "domestic constituency and already-established electoral history," "note that I didn't say someone who 'wants' to be President or even was likely to be," etc. etc. etc. for a reason.

I missed where Muskie began a primary with such prominence as to be viewed as the presumptive nominee at the outset, raked in 46% of party delegates, and raked in almost 50% of the popular vote, and then went to SoS. Nope, he lost in Iowa, just barely scraped by in New Hampshire, and ultimately got buried with 11.51%. Plus he never ran for President after being SoS, which we're supposing wrt Hillary. Similarly even Hughes never ran after being SoS, let alone after being the SoS of an incumbent (he lost to Wilson and was then SoS for Harding), which we're supposing wrt Hillary. I missed where Haig ran for President and demonstrated his electoral potential before being SoS like Hillary, as opposed to afterward. He might have been (scratch that, likely was) a turkey all along, regardless of having been SoS. We'll certainly never know since his situation wasn't remotely analogous to the case at hand. I mean come on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You'll just quibble over the specifics

Don't want to say I called it, but...

[Darius871]

The scenario being supposed is very, very simple, and I thought it was understood from the beginning:

1) X demonstrates a huge domestic constituency and electoral potential through the objective test of electoral results (either in a primary or even a general like Hughes).
2) X becomes SoS shortly thereafter.
3) X runs for President as the SoS* of the incumbent administration.

Sorry, but this chain of events is unique. If I'm wrong, and it's not unique, then tell me who other than Hillary fits it. If you have no examples, and it therefore is unique, then our conclusion would be better based on criteria relevant to political situations that are unique, like character/ambition, name recognition, domestic constituency, and already-established electoral history than on categorical analogies overgeneralizing from dissimilar scenarios. That's all there is to it.



* - Setting aside the fact that somebody else would technically be "the" SoS during the time she campaigns - if that really matters to you, how is it that I'm the one quibbling over specifics?

[Imran Siddiqui]

As I believe Rufus and I made clear, there are good reasons that #3 doesn't happen or doesn't work.

And secondly, #3 hasn't even happened in this scenario... and of course, you admitted yourself that it won't because if she does decide to run, she'll step down prior to the 2016 election.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As I believe Rufus and I made clear, there are good reasons that #3 doesn't happen or doesn't work.

The only reasons you've given are basically that "SoS'es haven't become Presidents in a long time," which is based solely on inapplicable analogies.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And secondly, #3 hasn't even happened in this scenario...

Of course not, who said we have a time machine? I thought the debate from the start was whether being SoS would make her chances of being nominated worse than if she ran as a junior Senator. This obviously would hypothetically suppose she'd choose run in the first place, which even I'm not arguing one way or the other.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
of course, you admitted yourself that it won't because if she does decide to run, she'll step down prior to the 2016 election.

I was editing while you were posting:

3) X runs for President as the SoS* of the incumbent administration.

* - Setting aside the fact that somebody else would technically be "the" SoS during the time she campaigns - if that really matters to you, how is it that I'm the one quibbling over specifics?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thought the debate from the start was [i]whether being SoS would make her chances of being nominated worse than if she ran as a junior Senator.

It was whether SoS would make her chances better. If her goal is the Presidency, Senator may be a better launching pad, especially since Reid was expected to create a leadership position ESPECIALLY for her.

if that really matters to you

Cause she may be running as former SoS, but the current Senator from NY (for the 2nd time) or Governor of NY. So padding for the resume, but more foreign policy experience really didn't seem to work against Obama.

[Impaler[WrG]]

My fathers theory is that Obama has promised to nominate Hillary to the supreme court at some point in his second term (their are going to be plenty of openings considering how old the court is). This satisfies her ambition without the risk of an election while Obama gets the use of the valuable Clinton two-for-one diplomatic juggernaut and the co-opting of a potential critic of his administration.

He believes the differences between Obama's and Hillary's foreign policy positions were over hyped in the primary as both scrambled to create differentiation and traction on minutia. With trivial actual differences in position Obama would largely delegate foreign policy to a Biden-Clinton team while he focuses on domestic policies like energy, jobs and health care.

That said I don't think SoS hurts her for a future 2016 run. The name Clinton will always mean economic prosperity in America and if she is seen as a success in foreign affairs it fills the only remaining gap in her portfolio. Issues like raising money will not be a factor, remember Hillary set records in fund raising this cycle but Obama set even higher records by any reasonable analysis Hillary was still hugely successful and here vast support base has not forgotten about her nor soured on her.

When its all said and done one thing can be said for sure. If Hillary runs in 2016 she will come into that primary the same way she came into the last one. As the defacto front runner, the one everyone else knows they must knockout to win. Once again the pool of also-rans will be thinned to one 'un-Hillary' and the race will become a head too head be between them. It's no guarantee that she wins as theirs always potential for an implosion or for that un-Hillary to be a rising star like Obama was but it is sill fundamentally an upset when that front runner doesn't win. If Hillary wants to try again her chances at the beginning of that 2016 primary will be as good as they were last time.

As for the general it all comes down to maintaining the Obama coalition. If Democrats achieve popular reforms then the coalition is maintained regardless of the charisma or competency of either sides candidate. If the reforms aren't popular then a charismatic Republican running against a lack-lust Democrat could break up the coalition and win.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If Hillary wants to try again her chances at the beginning of that 2016 primary will be as good as they were last time.

On the other hand, she has a loser tag around her neck... and as pointed out, Dems don't like their losers, while the Republicans too.

[Zkribbler]

I don't see Hillary as a loser. She got farther than any other woman in history, racking up millions of votes as she did so.

Then she pitched in and helped Obama win when she could have just gone and either sulked or tried to subvert Obama's run. As SoS, it's a given that she'll be able to improve our international standing, given the scambles in been left by the Bush administration.

Has she made any sounds like she wants onto the Supreme Court? I dunno why, but she doesn't seem like the kind of person who'd have that as a goal.