She was my first choice for the last 8 years. I'm gravitate towards competent people and she is as competent as they come.
As a trained lawyer with diplomatic experience, she'll have way too many amazing NGO, local fundraising and corporate board opportunities to pass up; all in the same town with her daughter and grand kids. After all the crap she was put through in the '90s she's definitely earned that break. And honestly, we gotta move on and start looking at younger candidates, even if there aren't any popular female pols there might be a younger, prominent businesswoman or lawyer worth supporting.
it will probably be clinton vs jeb bush. its a damn shame people in this country can not delve out of these two names. i agree with you about one point batmanjones she has ample experience. i just wish she was from somewhere else. four out of the last five presidents do not need to come from two families.
A Clinton vs. a Bush in 2016? Sounds about right. Such a glaring example of a democracy where everyone can grow up to be President.
The United States is not a democracy; and what you've described is a lottery: where popular opinion based on collective interests and wisdom are set aside for the sake of randomness.
She better be. If there's one thing that is a fact, Bill can attract the women voters just as good as Hillary. And the African American voters. And the Independents. He might be flawed, but the guy has charisma. Just ask Obama.
I posted the above on page 234 of the Election thread (somewhere around there) and then Major freaked me out by posting that Bill looked a bit shaky giving the speech at the convention, which I hadn't noticed. If Bill's health is up to the task, I stand by the post above. I think she runs and I think she wins. I feel a bit bad about Joe Biden, but Hillary can win, and I'm not positive about Joe. Besides, I think she would make a better president, although Biden would be good, as well. Just not as good as Hillary, IMO.
Clinton has two years to rest and begin planning her run -by 2014 I expect she'll start kicking it in high gear for another run. Run.
I think her time has past; she will be almost 70 and the rigors of the office are a bit much. Reagan did it, but he really faded down the stretch. I think we need younger candidates not older ones. It is also a reach to assume as many do that somehow she will be another Bill Clinton. He was a very effective President. If elected, I don't think she would even come close to what he accomplished. She is no Bill Clinton, and at his age and health condition, neither is he.
She's about to leave the State role and will have over a year to get rested and refreshed before getting things started sometime in 2014. I don't think rest and desire will be an issue for her.
Absolutely. Plus people like to see a loving family. Who knows how their marriage really is, but either way, she needs Bill to be there. I do think the idea of a husband and spouse spending 16 years in the White House as really strange, but Bill was a good President, and Hillary is more qualified than she was 4 years ago.
Reagan had Alzheimer's which was beginning to present while he was still in office. There's no reason to believe Hillary would share that very bad luck.
Expected good health from sombody who would be 77 after 8 years is questionable. Even though we can change our minds 4 years later, I know Dems would want to present a candidate that they feel comfortable with for 8 years.
The election process is pretty much - familiar family names - "overdue" for a ___[insert historically marginalized type]___ Hilary has BOTH the name and a possible "first of" distinction, that pretty much makes her a front runner ( Women do live longer than men. She'd be 65 in "man" years. Look at Nancy Reagan still perservering ) Though there is that irresistible appeal of just getting things out the WAY ALREADY, no I don't think "first of" is a good reason to elect someone
