Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Clinton unlikely to run again.
Sniff.
Sen. Clinton says 2nd White House run is unlikely
44 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton puts the chances of her running for president again at near zero ? slightly higher than the chances she gives for becoming Senate majority leader or a Supreme Court justice.
In an interview aired Tuesday on "Fox & Friends" on the Fox News Channel, Clinton, D-N.Y., was asked the chances, on a scale of 1 to 10, that she would be the next majority leader in the Senate.
"Oh, probably zero," she said. "I'm not seeking any other position than to be the best senator from New York that I can be."
Being nominated to the Supreme Court?
"Zero," Clinton said. "I have no interest in doing that."
Running for president again?
"Probably close to zero," she said. "There's an old saying: Bloom where you're planted."
The former first lady, who was elected to the Senate in 2000 and re-elected in 2006, said she looked forward to working as a senator with a Barack Obama administration.
Re: Clinton unlikely to run again.
I never thought I'd be saying this, but I'm sad for her and I wish she were the Dem nominee. With all McCain has said about the economy and healthcare I would have been perfectly resolved to a Clinton presidency and probably would have voted 3rd party.
Why would she not be the Senate Majority Leader? She's perfectly qualified. Is she just being modest?
I don't know that I buy this...
I'd be shocked if she could ever get elected. Hatred of her runs incredibly deep.
For one thing, I would think she wouldn't want to piss off the leadership by openly saying she'd like to be majority leader. I have no doubt she wants to be ML, and I think she'd be good at it. But she's got to make her move at the right time.
Why would you be resolved to a Clinton presidency but not an Obama presidency? On all major policy issues, they are pretty similar. And I'm sure that Obama will be surrounded by many of the same people Clinton would have been. I don't see a big difference.
Obviously this is anecdotal, but I used to hate Clinton. Well not hate, that's too strong. Let's say she generated in me a passion for disagreement. But after watching Obama's campaign evolve from far left to radically far left I have completely changed my mind about Clinton and think she was unfairly criticized like a caricature of a left-wing radical, rather than what she really stood for. I have conservative friends that feel the same. We regret what we've said about her. It's too late to do anything about it now, but that's why I feel sorry for her.
my read shelf:
I guess I'm not clear on what makes Obama a left-wing radical and what makes Clinton so much more moderate. I'll grant you that Clinton is probably a bit more hawkish than Obama. But hell, Clinton is more left-wing than Obama on healthcare. Are there some major policy disagreements between the two that I'm missing? I just can't imagine that the policy initiatives coming out of an Obama White House would be drastically different than those coming out of a Clinton White House.
I'm not a Clinton fan but I have said this about her for ages. If people examined her record in the Senate, rather than listening to the hype, they would find that she is far more moderate and conciliatory than her enemies portray her.
A genuine
I think she would have been a great president.
Adam & Shoshie 10-21-07: "My family is big and loud and everybody's in each other's lives and business. ... but wherever I go, they will always be there." * My Blog: Tales of a Hopeful Jewish Mom to Be *
::anything can happen in 4 years dust::
She's left wing, for sure. I just don't think she would go as far as Obama if she were in office. She is less radical than Obama on abortion (unlike him she voted for the born alive act), in the past she supported lowering taxes as a solution to stimulating private sector demand, and I think she is more pro-free trade than Obama (her record is mixed but still better than Obama's). Clinton's health care policy is bad, but it's still better than Obama's. Hers combined a universal mandate with individual tax credits, which is better than a partial mandate and a bankrupted private industry thanks to some bureaucratic watch dog group forcing price controls on the market.
Also, the breadth of her experience garners a certain level of public trust that Obama can't attain. For example, I trust Clinton to do the right thing with Israel vs Iran. I can't say the same for Obama. After Obama's comments on invading Pakistan I label him a hawk too. Clinton just seems more responsible about military use, the use of diplomacy and comments on foreign policy. She never said she'd meet with her enemies without preconditions and I agree with her that Obama's comments on the topic are naive. I also think it's easier for republicans to oppose her b/c of what happened in the 90s with HillaryCare.
Maybe she gets the benefit of my doubt b/c Bill Clinton was flexible and not a radical, I don't know.
I have to say, thanks in part to mamapajama and BlackMamba*, I started to come around on Clinton. Too little, too late, though, sadly.
I really do trust her more than Obama. And I'm really nervous about the emerging dominance of moveon and daily kos. You know it's bad when the Huffington Post seems like a moderate publication...
I guess I just don't think that the two would really behave that differently in the White House. I think this really comes down to a gut-level reaction.
I do the experience argument is a red herring. I've always thought so. It always pissed me off during the primaries that everybody seemed to buy into Clinton having so much more experience than Obama. She's got four more years than him in the Senate, but he's got 7 years before that in a large state legislature. Her time as first lady is relevant, but it's certainly not the level of experience that I think it gets touted as. Her only policy involvement as FL was a spectacular failure. When Clinton was really hammering the experience argument, my husband kept saying, "Well, I'm qualified to practice law because I'm married to a lawyer." Before Brett Favre un-retired, my husband said that the Packers should just give the QB job to Deanna because after all, she's qualified to be an NFL QB.
I have a few thoughts here so bear with me.
(1) No serious politician would lay her cards out for a 2012 (or beyond) run this early in the game. Whether HRC runs again or doesn't run again has little bearing on what she is quoted as saying above. I believe that she also said she wasn't running in 2008 at one point in time. So did Obama. They all do this. It's just the nature of the game. It's just a diversionary tactic.
(2) I think it is somewhat amusing that the conservatives on here who were so vocal in their hate of HRC, even to the point of displaying "Billary" sigs or "HRC nut cracker sigs" now pity her. Conservatives in America are the ones that created decades old irrational hate for HRC. So look in the mirror if you are upset that she didn't win.
(3) You trust HRC more now b/c she is not the Dem nominee, not b/c there is something more to trust in her than in Obama. HRC is no longer a threat to you so of course it's easy to like her now. Hell, I like Bush more right now than I like McCain, but I realize these feelings are not really rationale. It's just McCain is the biggest threat to my liberal way of thinking at the moment. If HRC were the nominee, poised to take the White House, my guess is that the conciliatory feelings would not be the same.
As one of the handful of original HRC supporters, I'm
with the sentiments expressed here.
It is, like a PP said, too late now, sadly. But I hope those of you who feel this way now remember that for the future (in case it comes up).
Adam & Shoshie 10-21-07: "My family is big and loud and everybody's in each other's lives and business. ... but wherever I go, they will always be there." * My Blog: Tales of a Hopeful Jewish Mom to Be *
LMW- Maybe you missed it but I actually said I regret the Hillary-hate. However, it wasn't Republicans that made Obama the nominee. If anything Republicans were the one that extended the primaries by keeping her campaign afloat.
Your point about trusting her more now b/c she isn't the nominee is would be more believable if Republicans didn't move to support her during the primaries.
No I saw your point about feeling bad. I said I found these sentiments to be amusing. Part of the reason many people voted for BO over HRC in the primary (maybe more so in early primaries) is b/c we were scared of what the Cons would do to a HRC nomination. We know the reps have been gearing up for a HRC nomination for many years and that there are piles of dirt that could have been unleashed during the general. So we were pro-active, for once, as a party, and picked someone else.
And exactly how many reps supported her during the primaries? And was this out of sheer pleasure at the thought of her being the Prez. or b/c Rushy told them to in order to screw with the primaries? In any case, the answer does not negate my point about psychology and elections.
I dislike her personally because she is so moderate, and too close to Bush IMO when it comes to foreign policy matters. She is basically a republican who wants to give everyone health care.
"As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
I agreed that I part of my preference for her - in office - is b/c she'd be easier to oppose, as was made clear in the 90s. But that's not the reason Reps now like her more than they used to. Remember Ann Coulter saying she'd support Clinton over McCain? It wasn't b/c of wanting to screw up the primaries or sheer pleasure at the thought of her presidency. It was b/c Hillary is much less scary to conservatives than Obama, and even McCain to some people. As evidenced in this thread and elsewhere, Hillary now has the luxury of being thought of as less radical and extreme than Obama. Whether or not that's deserved is subjective.
If more left-wing people realized their hatred of Bush had something to do with opposing a caricature instead of the man I would be pleased, not "amused." I find your comment about him heartening.
Please tell me you don't take anything Ann Coulter says seriously. Please?
Ditto Ditto Ditto!
What I wouldn't give for a Clinton presidency over an Obama one! It took some time to really open my eyes to just how far left Obama is. I always thought I could live with him as president more than Clinton. But sometime in spring I realized oh heck no!
If you think about Clinton's comeback late in the primary season I think a lot of people started to realize that as well.
First, quoting Ann Coulter won't get you very far with me. But even so, even if AC sincerely wanted HRC, so what? She's an anecdote. She doesn't change the fact that the Reps would have eviscerated an HRC candidacy. Or that Rush was actively trying to get HRC on the ticket b/c it would "screw" things up.
Second, I am confused by your comment about my Bush comment being "heartening." I said I like him more right now b/c McCain is a bigger threat at the moment, but that these feelings were NOT rational. To clarify, there is no reason to like Bush now more than McCain. They both are equally scary. But the nature of the election has me focused on McCain. Hence, my comment about election psychology.
I feel confident that there are bigger and better things ahead for HRC, but as pps noted, it's not politically expedient to say she wants Reid's job until it's available! I'm sure we'll hear much more from her on the national stage.
And ditto LMW regarding conservatives preferring HRC to Obama now because she is not the Democratic nominee. I certainly believe she is more center than Obama, which was a large factor in my support of her in the primaries, but I have no doubt that had she been the nominee she would have been labeled the most liberal senator in the nation... just like every other Democratic presidential nominee.
We're all anecdotes! I don't know what you're looking for anymore. I posted my own personal thoughts as a conservative and was asked for an explanation, which I gave. As evidenced in this thread there are other conservatives who feel the same. No one is suggesting Reps would have flocked to support her in a G/E if she were the actual nominee. We're just posting about why we now like her more than Obama. My only point in bringing up Coulter was there were other conservatives who backed Hillary over Obama long ago b/c they realized how much less scary she is than he. I can't speculate on anyone else's motives than my own, but I do know and understand conservatives better than liberals.