|
axeil posted:This is why I'm very bullish on Gillibrand. Obviously if Clinton runs I think she'll get a lot of women voters instead of Gillibrand but if she declines I think Gillibrand is in a strong position due to her record in the Senate and general likability. I've had a very positive opinion of her every time I've seen her speak. I also think the institutional Democrats would be nuts not to get behind the first woman nominee after the party had such good success with the first black one (2010 excluded). If I recall correctly, the sitting President can't get involved in the primary process of his/her own party, publicly at least. Reagan in his memoirs said that during the 1988 Republican primary, he had to keep silent even though he privately wanted Bush Sr to get it. After Bush Sr got it, though, he immediately started campaigning for him.
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
quote:quote: This really disappoints me. Obama should care about who comes after him, party-wise. Then again, this sort of makes sense - Obama has always conveyed that he's the kind of politician and president that sees the best in his opponents, so he may very well think that if a Republican is elected in 2016, they'll put the best interests of the country first above their own party interests and ideology. Thing is, he could be wrong. Nevertheless, I still think that a Democratic President, or even a Republican President for that matter, should be engaged with the matter of and care about who comes after him/her. Renzian fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
Clinton's age has been mentioned as a stumbling block in her candidacy. If she runs, gets elected, and serves two terms, she'll be 77 when she leaves office. What are the odds on her dying in office? Yeah, Reagan was 78 when he left, but there's the rumors that he was senile in his final days in the White House and plus, with that kind of age, it's just up in the air. I mean, 77 is really up there, in my opinion. If she does run, I think her choice for VP will be very important as that'll be a safeguard for the country in the event of her dying in office.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
greatn posted:I think a lot of you are overestimating the impact of age on the electorate. While Biden will be 74 and Hillary 69, the only important part of their age is how they sound, how sharp they are. I have seen no decline in either and don't think I will in four years either. I realize president's are always old, but I hate to say to any person "Hey you're too old, you have outlived your usefulness" and I don't think America as a whole would say that either. The issue, at least as I see it, is that if a President is old enough when he/she starts his/her first term, there's a chance that said President could die in office. If Biden gets elected and serves two full terms, he'll be 82 when he leaves office. The prospect of him dying in office is a very real thing, and if I recall that was a big thing when McCain chose Sarah Palin for VP in 08 - the prospect that he may die in office and leave her in control.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
So I just put a library hold on Hillary's upcoming memoir, Hard Choices which chronicles her tenure as Secretary of State. Think this may get her more publicity + credibility in her (possible, I'd say probable based on what I've read here and elsewhere) run in 2016? For that matter, on the memoir itself, what are your predictions on it? I'm hoping it's a substantive and insightful piece into the workings of the State Dept and a Presidential Administration, the way Kissinger's 1969-1973 memoir (White House Years) was. But who knows! Can't wait to read it, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Thoroughly uncontroversial, with maybe a backhanded comment about people who opposed the Bin Laden raid if Clintonland is concerned about Biden running. Makes sense. I'd also throw in the memoir being written/slanted in such a way to make her come off as a major, pivotal figure in the successes of Obama's foreign policy, even if that's not exactly true the way she writes it. I predict this because a) most, if not all, political memoirs are slanted - either consciously or unconsciously - in a way to make the subject look good, and b) she'll want to play up her experience and successes as SecState, and make herself look as professionally awesome and qualified as possible when 2016 rolls around.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Hey, since Hillary Clinton's candidacy is a Big Topic in this thread and talk of her memoir occurred a while back (brought up by me, admittedly), I thought I'd give an appraisal of it as I've managed to get about 150ish pages into it since picking it up from the library the other day. Honestly? It's a fair bit bland. It's good if you want an 'insider' account of stuff that occurred during Obama's first term from the State Dept perspective/role (such as the Obama Admin's pivot toward Asia (spearheaded by Clinton, of course), Burma/Myanmar's baby steps toward democracy, and Obama's initial decisions on how to handle the Afghanistan War), but aside from that, there's not much interesting in it. Someone here said that it'd be very non-controversial, and they were right. Clinton uses patriotic American rhetoric a fair bit (like talking about America's values of freedom, justice, and fairness, and how they're central to the country and to her conception of herself as a person, citizen and public servant). Also, as this is most likely being used as a way to make her look good in preparation for her 2016 run, the book omits any professional faults or flaws she may have. Again, not surprising. So, it's a good basic insider account, but aside from that, not much else, unless you're sincerely interested in Clinton's perspective on the Obama Administration's foreign policy and inner-workings during her time as SecState (or at least, the perspective she wants to convey to the public). Then again, one thing I did take away from it - how a President's success and policy is the result of a number of different actors working in concert together, whose results are then attributed to the President and shape his/her presidency. An example is how Chen Guangchen, a Chinese activist and dissident, in 2012 sought refuge at the US Embassy in Beijing. Clinton got called at home in the middle of the night, got briefed, and after some discussion in a conference call, made the decision for him to be given sanctuary in the Embassy. The White House found out about it in the morning. Had the Chinese made a huge stink about it and made it into a huge embarassing international incident over it, it's plausible to assume that Obama would have taken the heat for it. So, if you read between the lines, you get some interesting insight into how presidential administration 'teams' work together as one body, and consequently why it's very important that a President pick the right people for his/her cabinet and staff. So, yeah, 'Hard Choices' by Hillary Clinton. Check it out if you're interested.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Books like that will be sanitized to all hell to make sure nothing can be used as future ammo in an election. Yeah, which is why memoirs from high-level but non-elected office-seeking people are amazingly interesting and insightful. Kissinger's memoir is an example - it's like 1400 pages long and I'm only 300 pages in, but it's *jam packed* with interesting insight and a naked appraisal of the Nixon White House and its foreign policy, with Kissinger not shying away from describing Nixon's own peculiar personality and how paranoid he (Nixon) was of his own Administration. If Obama was like Nixon in that way, there's no way in hell you'd ever find that out from Clinton's memoir, or any other memoir from any other individual who might need to be on their boss's good side. EDIT: The Kissinger memoir in question is White House Years, covering Kissinger's time in the WH from '69 to '73.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 22:15
|
|