Hillary Clinton says she won't run for president again

[oberliner]

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday she would not run for president again, and brushed off suggestions that she is being marginalized in the Obama White House.

Clinton, who lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama, said "No" three different times when asked by NBC's Ann Curry "Will you ever run for president again? Yes or No?"

"This is a great job," Clinton said in the interview broadcast Monday. "It is a 24-7 job. And I am looking forward to retirement at some point."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/12/hillary...

[Captain Hilts]

1. Again. She's always said that. She'll be too old. Biden will be too old. nt

[Drunken Irishman]

2. I mean...it's unlikely Obama loses reelection...

So by 2016, both her and Biden will be up there in age. Surely we saw what happened with McCain (though both her and Biden would look like 20-year olds next to today's McCain at that age).

[LaydeeBug]

109. Ummm...Obama said he wasn't running for president either RE the 2008 election so...whatevs nt

[Uzybone]

3. Uh oh....let the suicide watch begin

SOS Clinton has been doing a great job.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gateley]

4. Politicians (including Hillary and Obama) have always said they

have/had no plans to run for ______ office, that they LOVE the job they're doing.

Although, I tend to believe her on this. Why put yourself through that again?

Biden, though, has always been up front. When Maher asked him on his show about running Biden said, yeah, I decided I'm gonna run. Real low key. That was his announcement! And even know he was asked about Prez after O's two terms and Biden said "maybe -- it's too early to even think about it".

But I hope Hillary and Biden just rest from their labors after 8 years in the Obama administration. They're really working HARD! They deserve a break.

[blue_onyx]

19. I agree....I believe her too

I think she has come to terms with her loss. She'll go down in the history books even though she didn't quite make it to the presidency. Hillary has achieved a lot and should be proud of her role in advancing women.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

58. Well said. Hillary has nothing left to prove.

[IndianaGreen]

5. But she might be on the ticket in 2012... as VP

Biden is getting up in years, and Obama will need someone more vigorous to bring fresh new voters. So, why not Hillary?

FDR was known for changing running mates!

[blue_onyx]

22. I doubt it

Unless Biden decided he didn't want to run, he'll probably be the VP.

[mkultra]

41. good luck. wanna put some money on it?

[Obamacare]

67. I hope this is true!!

I've heard rumors about Hillary supossedly taking Biden's vp spot in 2012 so that she can segway into the WH in 2016. I think thats a good idea.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. FDR changed running mates because Garner tried to beat him for the nomination

And the second time because Henry Wallace was forced off the ticket. Changing running mates if you don't have to is generally a bad idea. If you want to campaign on proven leadership you keep your Vice President rather than running with someone else.

[Duke Newcombe]

6. Thanks for the continued attempts to "shit stir", M$M...

...and brushed off suggestions that she is being marginalized in the Obama White House.

Nice.

[IndianaGreen]

8. I didn't know we had to submit news articles to Big Brother's Censor Board

[FrenchieCat]

9. They just stay in our face with their media bullshit, don't they?

Everything is a swipe at this President! Everyfuckingthing!

CNN was just discussing how Obama hasn't played basketball with any of the women in his cabinet,
and how that is really disparaging women; and kept him from "bonding" with them, ....etc., etc.

They don't mention that Obama, with his height, would have an unfair advantage playing against the smaller women......that's why olympic competitions do not have men and women competing....but don't tell CNN that.

They are so full of shit, until I literally can't take their shit anymore.

[firedupdem]

10. I tuned in for 2 seconds while chris matthews asked if Obama

won the Nobel in exchange for not sending more troops to Afghanistan. They just make up bullshit to discuss day in and day out.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Now, they are on ED disparaging Harry Reid.....

no mention of Obama's rising polls numbers.
Nothing about the Republicans "historically" low poll numbers.

And this is "ED"....our supposed to be Liberal media at work?

[Duke Newcombe]

50. "Our Liberal Media"...

...if it's "ours" I think we should get our money back--they suck at being "owned" by us...

[AspenRose]

18. Please tell me you are joking.

I've been on the road and away from the TV and DU.

Please tell me you're joking.

[FrenchieCat]

25. I am serious as a heart attack! Candy Crowley was there....

as was a 4 people panel, including Donna Brazile who had to defend the President from the wacky bullshit. The message? Obama is not doing much for women, and in fact is a nearly a
chauvinist.....(they said it in so many words).

They even showed Gibb responding from a question from Ed Henry on the very subject during the daily press conference......where Gibb reminded Henry that the first bill ever signed into law by this President was one giving women equal pay.....but I guess as far as they, CNN was concerned, that's small potatoes....

while on the other hand,

fratenizing with the women in his cabinet away from the workplace should be done
the way he does that with his guy crew....cause he plays basketball with them!
Then they showed pics of him fly fishing to point out that it was a guy standing next to him,
and also showed him playing golf (by himself...but hey, that's just a small detail)....
and then went back to the basketball footage, where he's sweating with the guys.

So yes......it was quite unreal, but there it was.

[firedupdem]

27. They are really some ignorant assholes....

They've' already accused him of staring at a little girls ass, like he was some dog in heat.

Wouldn't they love a game of basketball with women? It's going to be a long 7 years folks. They've thrown so much shit, they are starting to truly scrape the bottom of the barrel.

[Jennicut]

70. I love to play basketball and played it in highschool but Obama would kick my ass.

Too tall and too fast, even if I am 15 years younger!

[CakeGrrl]

17. Yep, right on the heels of that near-smear by John Harwood

which had people going ballistic yesterday over the "President Obama hates the LGBT community" misinformation.

[Cha]

7. And, I love her in that job. "Marginalized"?

Sounds like corporatewhore wedgie point to me.

[Thothmes]

12. Of course, everyone in a TV interview tells the truth

100% of the time.

[Orsino]

13. Not that I doubt Secretary Clinton at all...

...but her saying so is polite, professional and inevitable. It's the sort of question designed to trap her and conjure up divisions in Team Obama.

Three times? Journalism fail. Agenda showing.

[Ramsey]

14. I'm sorry, but I do not see why Obama did not let Hillary win in 2008 and run in 2016.

By then he would have had the experience he needs to be a truly great president. Now he is simply over his head.

[CakeGrrl]

16. Hah, that's one opinion - unless, of course, you

happened to be a fly on the wall when Michelle said this to her husband or something and have that on expert authority.



This is going to be a long 3 (or 7) years for you.

[ecstatic]

20. Before the primaries got ugly, I felt that way too... But Obama won fair and square

and I think he has a better approach to solving the nation's problems. With Clinton, it would have been more business as usual.

[Blasphemer]

21. 2008 was his year...

Sometimes when you wait, you lose out completely. Maybe 2004 would have been Hillary's year.

[karynnj]

39. She would have lost badly then if she won the nomination

Kerry did as well as he did because he really does have excellent foreign policy and national security credentials, far surpassing what Hillary Clinton had then or now. Those were the biggest issues then.

[liquid diamond]

52. I have always wondered why she did not challenge Bush in 2004.

Any respectable candidate could have beaten him.

[karynnj]

73. Kerry was very likely the strongest candidate we had

The prime issues were national security and foreign policy, and Kerry was far better than most alternatives on these issues. Hillary Clinton would not have been able to turn the first debate into a tour de force performance as Kerry did.

In addition, you forget why the SBVT were there. The fact is that Kerry had more support among vets that Democrats typically did - and many of them who really knew him were incredibly committed. Many left Massachusetts, on their own dime, and spent months in Iowa. Kerry has an incredible record on veteran issues, stretching back to his return from Vietnam. Before he could legally protest the war, he was already involved with veteran's health and re-entry problems. Not to mention that Kerry was a real war hero in the best sense of the word - he used his intelligence and focus to keep his men alive and he risked his own life to safe another. They could not let that stand because of what it says of him as a person.

Though you may say it would be unfair, had Clinton run, they likely would would have made the issue that she was anti-military and we would have seen Bill Clinton's letter from 1969 again. Her anti-war efforts, less important than Kerry's, would also have been spotlighted and they would have been as unfairly twisted as Kerry's.

The other thing is that the Clintons thought 2004 unwinnable - and that is why she didn't run. As to other candidates, Bush was polled ahead of Dean by double digits in December 2003 - two months later, Kerry was polling roughly equal to Bush. In the very short time when both were polled (late January and early February), Kerry always did far better against Bush. Edwards did not have the experience to have used the debates as Kerry did and he was never tested or attached at the level a front runner is.

The fact is that 59% answered a Gallup poll saying the country was going very well or fairly well the week before the election. Kerry's platform (much of which was only slightly tweaked to be Obama's) was for change - and the country was not ready yet. ( Poll referred to - Question 7 - http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/p...
A Kerry win in spite of this would have been an incredible upset - and had there been adequate voting machines in Ohio, it would have happened.

[liquid diamond]

86. Thank you for the detailed analysis karynnj.

I appreciate your time and effort.

[firedupdem]

23. Yeah....okay...

[AspenRose]

24. How do you "let someone win" an election?

Ignore the will of the voters?

[vaberella]

26. John King is that you?! Christ what a stupid post. n/t

[Cha]

32. You really do need to start

paying attention to what is really going on ..not what's in your head.

[firedupdem]

33. That was funny!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

35. Because We The People wanted to move the country in a new direction and

change the political climate in Washington. Thankfully, Obama didn't let Hillary, or anyone else, win the presidency.

[Nedsdag]

36. What makes you think Hillary wouldn't be over her head?

Listen, let's not refight the 2008 battles again. What's done is done.

Stop being a PUMA for once.

[Skittles]

61. yup what's done is done

[Arugula Latte]

37. Stupid Post of the Day Award to you.

[saltpoint]

40. Ramsey, you must be a fool. I don't think there's an explanation

for your making such a clueless, off-the-wall comment.

They had a big election last year. They had, like, primaries and stuff from state to state, and finally a convention over in Denver. Swear to god. All the delegates showed up. One or two reporters were there, too.

Obama won.

[mkultra]

42. but but but..we missed a historic oppourtunity.

never mind the one we grabbed when we elected the first black man.

[joshcryer]

43. Ramsey is joking people.

Too many of you fell for it.

[Beacool]

51. I feel your pain.

I usually get that kind of reaction. The troops came out in full force to squash dissent. LOL!!!

[mkultra]

59. seems odd for that to happen on a democratic board

im sure you would be better received on other sites.

[Beacool]

65. Democrats don't come in only one flavor.

And they are not monolithic in thought.

[mkultra]

75. and not everyone here is a democrat

and we actually are monolithic in thought from a certain perspective. That is the divide created by partisanship.

[Flying Dream Blues]

79. Bingo. nt

[Whisp]

108. bullfuckingshit. go sell that somewhere else.

[Generator]

28. Our long national nightmare is over

Whew.

[FlyingSquirrel]

29. Pretty divisive statement.

I think this thread should be locked.

[bigwillq]

30. Maybe that poster doesn't like the Clintons

Nothing wrong with it.

[Beacool]

31. No, we are living it right now.

Right back at ya'........

[mkultra]

well, you are. The rest of us are popping bubbly.

[yourguide]

47. Yeah...

Nobel peace prize, health care bill in progress, foreclosure prevention fund, credit card bill of rights, expansion of SCHIP, UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, special adviser to the president on violence against women, directing military leaders to end war in Iraq, supporting increased funding for the NEA, establishing special crime programs for the New Orleans area, rebuilding schools in New Orleans, funding a major expansion of AmeriCorps, working to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear, banning lobbyist gifts to executive employees, creating new criminal penalties for mortgage fraud, investing in all types of alternative energy, enacted tax credit for consumers for plug-in hybrid cars, investing in public transportation, providing grants to encourage energy-efficient building codes, extending unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspending taxes on these benefits, reversing restrictions on stem cell research, stimulus funds helping teachers keep jobs...

Yeah, it's been just awful little Miss haterade. *rolls eyes*

[Beacool]

54. That laundry list would have been pretty much the same for any Democrat.

Oh, except the extremely premature Nobel Peace Prize.

[mkultra]

56. im sensing some bitterness

did you know that the award comes with $1mil award. I bet that just burns you up.

[Beacool]

62. Which he is donating to charity, as he should.

[mkultra]

76. which only reinforces his status

[firedupdem]

57. You don't know what the list would have looked like for any

other Democrat. You're just a bitter woman. Why do you hate the President so much? What's it really all about?

It couldn't be just the win.

That hatred is going to kill you.

[mkultra]

60. its probably the fact that she will never be president now

its a pretty sensitive issue for those who don't like Obama. They have to live with the fact that she will always be second fiddle to Obama. It would probably be best to show some sympathy.

[Beacool]

63. Hatred? Naaaahhh, I don't hate anyone.

But it sure is fun to see all the riled feathers of his defenders coming en masse to the rescue.

[DonCoquixote]

78. Naaah

You just never miss a chance to knock him down all throughout DU.

Of course, while I am critical of O. on somethings, it is because he is asking very much like Ms. Clinton, hiring Clinton Stooges like Rahm and Geitner, kissing Right wing butt the way Hillary did when she voted for the Iraq war, and making a health insurance reform that ensures Insurance companies make a profit, just like Ms. Clinton.

Dammit Obama, if I wanted a Clinton, I would have voted for her, and thank god I did not, because as much damage as the Blue Dogs, Dinos and DLCs are now, they would be much more empowered if their main boss and champion was in the White House, at which point, she could have lost in 2012.

[firedupdem]

80. No need to rescue. He has the award. Nothing you can do

about it but stomp your feet and blog. Voting for mccain to voice your displeasure didn't work in the presidential race, crying now, along with the rest of those who hate the president won't take away this award.

[Forkboy]

98. You are easily the most transparent bozo on DU.

[CakeGrrl]

66. Which reminds me...

Nobel Laureate, Nobel Laureate, Nobel Laureate. Music to my ears.

[yourguide]

71. If that's the case

why didnt Bill take care of these things? Except New Orleans of course.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

34. I take Hillary at her word & commend her for making a wise decision for the good of the country.

[mkultra]

45. if not belated.

[StevieM]

49. "For the good of the Country"? What a ridiculous thing to say. Her career choices are about

what place she is at in her life at certain points and nothing more. To say that she's making a wise decision for the good of the country is just hateful. Any American who wants to run has the right to run and the people will vote how they vote. She got an awful lot of votes in 08--I guess all of us who supported her didn't have the best interests of the country in mind.

As for "taking her at her word"....nice, pathetic try. You make it sound like she is promising to do something for the American people and you'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she won't "betray" them by running. For the record, Obama said he wasn't going to run in 08...some how I doubt that you minded when he broke his word.

Steve

[Beacool]

53. Stevie, I haven't seen you in a million years.

Not that you missed much; same crap, different day. Ignore the nasties, they live in an alternate reality. Out in the real world, things are not so rosy. Who cares what they think?

Of course she got a lot of votes, she got more votes from registered Democrats than Obama. The left carried Obama on their shoulders and its the left who will end up the most disappointed by him in the long run. Beware of what you wish........

[joeycola]

69. It is beyond rdiculous-and uncalled for.

[Beacool]

38. Stupid question deserved a stupid answer.

No sitting SOS is going to say after a mere 9 months of a new administration that he/she will be running for president in the future. She may honestly feel that way, but life has many twists & turns and no one knows where it'll take us.

I don't even know what I want for lunch tomorrow, let alone what I want to be doing in 7 years. Who has a crystal ball that will tell them how they will feel about anything in several years? The media just likes to create controversy.

[Honeycombe8]

44. I'm not surprised at all. She's in her mid-fifties? She is traveling all over the world...

never a spare moment. No time at home. She has achieved some worthy goals: 8 years in the White House as First Lady, and 4 (or more?) years on the global scene as Sec. of State, making history I'm sure.

I'm a middle aged woman. After all that, I would look forward to semi-retirement to a beautiful home in the country, writing books, raking in the money, spending time with my grandkids, doing other hobbies, shopping, having spa days, exercising on a regular schedule, philanthropy, attending official events (she and Bill will ALWAYS have lots of official events to attend). And the occasional interview.

Ahhhhh. Sounds like a grand life to me. I totally understand it.

[davidpdx]

46. No, she's not in her mid--fifties. She's a bit older then that.

Which would explain why she might want to retire after being SOS and join her husband who is semi-retired.

[CakeGrrl]

48. I think she's 62. n/t

[Bear down under]

55. She was born on October 26, 1947

so she will be 62 in a few weeks.

[CakeGrrl]

64. That would be two weeks, then

Since we're going for accuracy.

[Honeycombe8]

68. Well, she looks good for 62! Imagine how good she'll look when she gets some rest! nt

[Jennicut]

74. She is the same age as my Mom.

I think she looks quite good.
I can imagine that this job will take a lot out of her and she could want to just retire. Who really knows though?

[argonaut]

72. No-one seriously believes Hillary wil run in 2016.

There's not a chance in hell. Biden's more likely to run than Clinton, and I doubt Biden's going to run.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

83. You really think Biden has a better chance in 2016 than Hillary?

I love Joe, but I think most people see him as a likable clown.

Hillary might not run in 2016, but ANYONE in her position would deny running again. It would undermine Pres Obama (the media would constantly start reporting that Hillary wants to challenge Barack in 2012 - and she knows that - which is why she said no way).

She's being respectful to the President (which she should - and Hillary is the ultimate professional on the job, she always has been).

[mkultra]

90. neither will run.

They are both done when this is over.

[karynnj]

105. Likable clown is half right, he is likable, but he is not a clown

He is and accomplished Senator, with many important pieces of legislation with his name on them - legislation on preventing violence to women, legislation to fund more police on the streets, and PEPAR, which provides funding to fight AIDS in Africa. He also is someone with 3 decades of foreign policy experience - a subject he has likely forgotten more than HRC has yet to learn as Secretary of State.
I doubt either will run in 2016.

[kjackson227]

77. I mean really, what did they expect her to say??? Age is just a number...

and I'd vote for her in 2016.

[Beacool]

81. Hillary Was Being Diplomatic

By Steve Kornacki
October 12, 2009

The takeaway from Hillary Clinton’s “Today Show” interview this week, at least to judge by the media’s coverage of it, was the secretary of state’s emphatic-seeming statement that “no, no, no,” she won’t run for president again.

“This is a great job,” Mrs. Clinton said. “It is a 24/7 job, and I’m looking forward to retirement at some point.”

But the more meaningful words from the broadcast actually came from “Today” host Meredith Vieira, who said after the segment aired: “Check her in a few more years, though, on that running for president. We’ll see.”

Ms. Vieira’s skepticism (and that of any similar-minded viewer) is well-grounded—and not just because Mrs. Clinton began her response with out-of-context laughter, generally a signal that whatever follows will be complete hooey.

No matter what she says right now, there really is every reason to suspect that Mrs. Clinton will end up running for president again—in 2016, when the Democratic nomination will be wide open.

http://www.politickerny.com/5621/hillary-was-just-being...

[T116]

82. I agree. She is a professional, and is focused on her current job.

If the opportunity arises, and Hillary feels she can and should win, she'll run and likely win.
I hope that's in the cards!

[Beacool]

88. Me too!!

[emilyg]

89. Me THree.

[Knight Hawk]

93. No Hillary hater here

I do not see her running in 2016 when she will be pushing 70.You do not just age physically when you age,you age psychologically also.I might be wrong but I do not believe she will have that"fire in the belly" you need to run for president and then do the job .Also Bill is aging with her ,she depends on him probably more than most people realize.Her whole "team" will be aging and just not up for it.As Scott Fitzgerald said " there are no second acts in America" or close to that.

[27inCali]

84. oh, she's so full of it.

at least I hope. If she informed a second term Obama that she is planning to run, he could spend his last couple of years leaning hard left because it wouldn't matter if the public got fed up with him -they wouldn't take it out on her,
the whole First-Woman-President phenomenon would just be too strong, no one could beat her, even if the Pubs pulled a woman out of their ass -who do they have? Sarah? wouldn't be fun to watch Hillary dismantle that turd?

[Arugula Latte]

85. Your post doesn't make sense.

"the whole First-Woman-President phenomenon would just be too strong, no one could beat her," --> Didn't work the first time; why would it inevitably work the second time?

Plenty of us who would love a woman president didn't vote for Hillary in the primaries.

[27inCali]

95. I mean Obama was something special in himself

and had his own phenomenon. If the Pubs cannot come up with their own phenomenon of some kind, they can't stop her.

I know I know, netroot lefties like us aren't exactly all that stoked about her, but I think, considering her relatively old age going into office, she might have a sort of fuck-it mentality and go hard left just cuz she can. It would be nice.

[Life Long Dem]

87. She's thinking more about her job she is doing now.

And not about her political life.

[Zavulon]

91. Good.

Anyone who caved into political pressure and voted for Bush's war doesn't deserve the job. She still refuses to admit she was wrong, as other have, which disgusts me even more. Perhaps she was too busy ducking Bosnian sniper fire to think things through?

Anyway, I would abstain rather than vote for her. I need something more than "Well, a-HYUK, she's not Republican."

[rug]

96. I agree. She's been way too supportive of the escalation in Afghanistan.

How can anyone support a prowar president?

[blue_onyx]

101. So you're not voting for Obama in 2012?

Because not only is Obama supportive of the escalation in Afghanistan, he's the one responsible for it.

[quantass]

92. She was one HELLUVA fighter...Obama was just a bit smarter...Love them both nt

[ronnykmarshall]

94. Oh dear .....

[deaniac21]

97. I wouldn't be surprised if she challenges in 2012, at all. She is

probably very excited about the way events are playing out.

[Forkboy]

99. Hope springs eternal.

[CRojas]

100. We have to wait, the Clintons always have surprises...

Let the time go on, because Hillary have more to do for the good of the country. She has proven her leadership, her experience and her patriotism on work side by side with President Obama's Administration. In 2012, she will have a lot of probabilities of be called 'Madam President'.

[karynnj]

106. In 2012, there is ZERO probability, and the probability in 2013 is miniscule

She can't really run in 2012 on working side by side with President Obama - that would be ridiculous.

[Metric System]

110. Oh good grief.

[burning rain]

103. I still suspect she may be our candidate in 2016.

Obama will most likely win a second term, especially as the GOP will surely nominate either Romney or Palin (unlikely, but she has a wisp of a chance). Parties that have held the White House for two consecutive terms don't often generate a lot of new presidential blood, barring some cataclysmic event, like the Vietnam War, which in 1968 did so much to propel Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy forward. Biden--no. Much as I love the guy, he's always been a poor presidential candidate, lacking a grand vision of national politics. Very likely in 2016 we'll look to someone familiar, who already has a huge and enthusiastic following. Who more fits the billz than Hillz?

[Colobo]

104. Expect a new face in 2016.

[burning rain]

107. Democrats are the party of new faces...

since 1960, JFK, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Mike Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama. On the other hand, assuming Obama wins in 2012--and I'm betting pretty heavily on that--we'll have a situation with only one recent analog, namely 2000: nominating a replacement for a Democratic president elected to two consecutive terms, who served the full eight years, and was widely considered successful. And, probably not coincidentally, 2000 was an odd year when we matched the Republicans' royalism by predictably nominating the guy with the most conventional standing: Al Gore. If a similar model obtains in 2016, however, Hillary is a more likely successor than Biden.