Hillary Clinton resigned as Secretary of State and departed Foggy Bottom with her husband and daughter on Friday.
To be sure, the 2016 drums had been beating long before she wrapped up her tenure at State, but by yesterday they were deafening. Two Super PACs had formed, the website of one, “Ready For Hillary,” went live and also went viral at the many Hillaryland Facebook groups, and speculation ramped up all over the media aided by the fact that HRC seemed to have granted a marathon of interviews at the State Department prior to vacating the seventh floor aka “heaven.”
Now I have stated here many times and will once more today that this blogger will not be part of any pressure group to exact further service from the woman who, in 2008, stated that she brought a lifetime of service to her primary race that year. Anyone who has been following her term as SOS here or on other blogs certainly must be aware of the personal sacrifices she has made these past four years in additional service to her country. It is her decision to make, and she has clearly stated many times that she has been too busy dealing with global events to give that option any consideration. She needs and deserves time to rest, recuperate from her recent health issues, and reflect upon what she wants to do next. Just in case, though, your head is in the clouds in the firm belief that she will reach out and grab the brass ring that so clearly seems meant for her, there are some indications that perhaps things have not changed so much from 2008, and the road might not be as clear as you think it is for her.
Two articles from the New York Times caught my attention, not in a good way. The first two questions in this one slapped me right back into 2008 for two reasons with the first two questions.
Interview With Hillary Clinton
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and MARK LANDLER
Published: February 2, 2013
Question 1:
Q: President Clinton said that one of his greatest regrets was not doing more to stop genocide in Rwanda. We have a situation in Syria where more than 60,000 Syrians have been killed. [U.N. envoy Lakhdar] Brahimi has been making no headway diplomatically. The conflict is beginning to spread regionally with Iran’s intervention with its Quds Forces, its arms supplies, Hezbollah’s participation and now the Israeli strike on the convoy in Syria. Looking back, can you say that the United States has done everything it could have to stem the killing in Syria? And when you look back on this episode in the book you are going to write, do you think that you might regret that the United States wasn’t able to do more in your years here?
Question 2:
Q: If one looks back at how the Clinton administration handled the Kosovo crisis, it became clear that Russia would not support a new Security Council resolution authorizing intervention to protect the Kosovars. So the United States elected not to seek a new resolution and instead justified intervention on the basis of international law. Why have you and the Obama administration taken the position that a stronger stance on Syria requires a new Security Council resolution, which means the formal endorsement of the Russian government, when that has always appeared to be a highly unlikely proposition?
What’s that? President Clinton? Wow! If that doesn’t smack of the 2008 debates, nothing does, and if you think for a minute that this purposeful confounding of Billary will stop now that she has been Secretary of State, dream on. It was used against her in primary debates by her own party in 2008 and will – actually has – arisen again a mere day after she stepped aside at State.
In addition, the implication in that second question that she somehow, as SOS, had the power to force the President’s hand is unreasonable and unfair. Will the morass in Syria move forward with her as one of her huge “failures” as Secretary of State? Well, Gordon and Landler put it out there for any future opponent to use.
Backstage Glimpses of Clinton as Dogged Diplomat, Win or Lose
Patrik Stollarz/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesSecretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton behind President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a meeting in Germany in 2011.
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and MARK LANDLER
Published: February 2, 2013
In the above NYT article, the same two journalists, in a review of her tenure as SOS disguised as a behind-the-scenes glimpse, provide the following yardstick.
As she leaves the State Department, the simplest yardstick for measuring Mrs. Clinton’s legacy has been her tireless travels: 112 countries, nearly a million miles, 401 days on the road. Historians will point to how she expanded the State Department’s agenda to embrace issues like gender violence and the use of social media in diplomacy.
Yes, it is simple, isn’t it? Too simple. In all fairness, Gordon and Landler are not the only pundits citing these stats, but it is irresponsible on the part of all who use them not to analyze the reasons behind all these miles and countries. They break down, really, into two major types of travel. Outreach trips where she toured regions that required her attention in diplomatic, personal, friendship-building ways and trips involving summits, conferences, and meetings, the latter breaking down into long-planned, regular summits like NATO and ASEAN, and emergency meetings like the two trips in one week in March 2011 to deal with the situation in Libya, o
r the three-day whirlwind in the Middle East in September 2010.
Can we please dispel the notion that our top diplomat from 2009 to 2013 was in some kind of competition to tack on the miles and countries? Furthermore, the authors mention her initiatives for women and girls and her use of social nets in diplomacy while ignoring her singular most challenging undertaking, her QDDR (Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review) which overhauled and streamlined both the State Department and USAID and enhanced interagency communication and cooperation. So if you thought that her legacy at the State Department would slide her right into a 2016 nomination, just take a look at some of these reviews for what has been left out. In four years, these are what folks will be quoting, and some of them are thin indeed compared to the actual work put in.
Then on the very parochial domestic scene for the future of the Democratic Party, we have those who cry out that “Yes, she will do this for her country and her party.” (As if her party has ever treated her particularly well.) There is this.
Can Hillary Clinton make Texas turn blue?
Can Hillary Clinton make Texas turn blue?
2:50 PM on 02/01/2013
FILE: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives at NATO headquarters ahead of a two-day NATO foreign ministers in Brussels in this file photo from December 4, 2012. (Photo by Yves Herman/Reuters)
Is Hillary Clinton the game-changing Democrat who can finally realize the liberal dream of turning Texas blue?
A new survey by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling indicates that the answer is yes. The retiring secretary of state could make the Lone Star State competitive in 2016, should she decide to run for president.
In hypothetical matchups, she’d beat GOP heavyweight Florida Sen. Marco Rubio 46% to 45% and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie 45% to 43%. She would even handily beat the state’s governor, Rick Perry, 50% to 42%, according to PPP’s numbers.Pretty impressive for a state that hasn’t voted Democratic since 1976, when Jimmy Carter won Texas in the first presidential election after the GOP disaster of Watergate.
Unless you have amnesia, you do well to consider the source on this one. It is not Hillary Clinton’s “job” to turn those two states blue just because some people think she can.
It will never be easy for Hillary Clinton. Nothing ever has been, and no one knows that better than she. Aside from the hurdles that have been part of her track from the day she wrote to NASA as a schoolgirl, she herself puts pressures on her own performance that are stringent, so a 2016 run, no matter how easy you might think it will be, will not be a cakewalk.
It, of course, is her decision alone to make. She has much to consider. Even if her health had not been challenged toward the end of her tenure, she would still have needed a good long rest as she had been saying for almost a full year before she stepped down. She certainly deserves that rest and recuperation, and perhaps a bit of quiet so she can nap before the din demanding that she take on that fight for that office from age 67 when the campaigning would begin through the age of 78 presuming she won two terms.
Can we ratchet this down a few notches? Give a girl a break!
Still4Hill 
I can’t speak for all Hillary supporters, but I came away from the 2008 experience with a deep distrust of both the mainstream media and the Democratic Party. I know there are some within our little movement who think it’s time to put all that history aside, join hands, and spend the next four years singing “Kumbaya” when we’re not kicking the collective Republican butt. But the bottom line is– I still don’t trust these people! They weren’t there for Hillary or for her voters in 2008. I’ll be polite and not start any trouble with these folks, but I’ll be checking my inner rearview mirror the entire time, waiting for them to sneak up and stab us in the back.
I don’t mind the media taking a critical look at Hillary’s tenure at State; that’s their job. But I do mind when they paint a distorted picture, which is what we’re seeing here.
LikeLike
ditto… for everything you wrote there, Jen.
Frankly, it’s tiring to keep seeing their distortions.
LikeLike
I think the mistrust is why so many of us are hopping aboard the 2016 train so soon. In 2008, we were caught off guard. By the time we got organized and started making noise, the Party and the media had already done their dirty deeds. I don’t think the Hillary 2016 gang intends to pressure her as much as protect her and prevent 2008 from happening again. If Hillary says no, I suppose we’ll find another candidate(s) to support. But even then, we need a fair process with no games, no backroom deals, and no May 31, 2008 type sleaze.
LikeLike
gosh, I hope so.. but May 31, 2008 has left such a bitter taste in my mouth.. and such a huge distate of any party politics..
I hope Hillary 2016 does not pressure her.. but I would be ok if she ran, and would certainly support her with all my energy as in 2008.. I just want her to be well rested and take a good break before making any decision on this, but meanwhile, the rest of us in running readiness is just fine with me… but if she decides to not run, we should still support her with all our heart… It was a bit difficult for many of us (self included initially but I came around say 6-8 months later) when she supported the DNC nominee.. but we trust her, and we have to trust her decisions including those we may not fully fathom at first…
LikeLike
How do we prevent another May 31, 2008? We knew what they were up to back then and we could not stop it.
LikeLike
We knew what we were up against by May 31, but we didn’t know what was going on before then, when Michigan and Florida allowed those early primaries. That’s when and where we could have or should have stopped them and this is where we have to keep our eyes open for any funny business in 2016. We have to stick together and stay organized. Having a superpac helps.
LikeLike
I hate to sound like a pessimist, but after 2008 I think the DNC will do whatever it dang well wants to whether we like it or not and regardless of how many super PACs we have. I have been a registered Democrat all of my adult life (and an unregistered one before that) and I cannot believe how recently they have been sending emails asking for my dues as if they are tithing the membership. I have not sent them money since 2004, and I know that even if I did it would not enhance my chances of being listened to if I disagreed with something they wanted to do. It was particularly galling to read this piece by the arch-hypocrite Donna Brazile who did not have a kind word to say about Hillary when she worked in the Clinton White House and who told us, in 2008, to stay home. She’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a fox in the henhouse. Super PACs will not stop the DNC. The ONLY way the DNC will go in the right direction is if Clinton Dems are back in charge. It has to be changed from the inside.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/01/opinion/brazile-hillary-clinton/index.html
LikeLike
Donna Brazile is one of the individuals I was thinking of when I said I don’t trust the Party or the media.
I agree about changing the Party from the inside. Of course, making change from the inside has always been one of Hillary’s core beliefs. We’ve seen Bill campaigning for Clinton Dems, and I expect we’ll see much more of this as we get closer to the 2014 midterms. But a little pressure from the outside can help, too. This is where the superpacs come in.
LikeLike
Well, I never said the super PACs didn’t have their place and I did put a link to the Ready for Hillary website on the sidebar here, but I think essential change within the party is key. There has been a distinct tone in DNC communications that implies that we have a duty to them rather than the reverse. They demand support even as they put on the table programs we do not want touched. That is screwed up. If we vote for them, they should represent our interests. It should not be that we have a duty to fund their campaigns and then lose programs piecemeal due to their inability or unwillingness to fight for us.
I am sure we will continue to see WJC campaigning for Clinton Dems, and sooner or later, Hillary as well. If this allows our power couple to retake the DNC I am all for it. Even if she never runs again, that would be a great victory.
LikeLike
Yes, this country needs more Clinton Dems! And FDR Dems! Nobody is speaking for the middle and working classes right now.
LikeLike
It is sad that PACS are so influential. Citizens’ United needs to go the way of the dodo.
I’m glad the change you are looking for has to do with those irritating emails rather than a more conservative, third way, New Democrat way of thinking. I have no desire to try to meet a party that has taken a sharp turn to the right in the middle somewhere. They’ve spent the last thirty years or so preaching a philosophy of privatized success and socialized failure and that money trumps community and then they wonder why so few good people get into public service. What we need are Democrats who will encourage civil service as something good.
LikeLike
I can’t stand that woman, “Ms. Uncommitted”. Yeah, uncommitted my rear end!!! I was in DC, I don’t forget what she and the others did with Hillary’s delegates. Hypocrite!!!!
LikeLike
🙂 I know how much you admire her. I know exactly how much.
LikeLike
Don’t doubt the power of independent expenditures. An ineffective fool can get elected if they have effective, well run PACS behind them.
LikeLike
This is news? We all lived through eight years of W.
LikeLike
It’s far worse post Citizens’ United.
LikeLike
I see. And that must be why we have President Romney now.
LikeLike
It isn’t everything, but it is a very large factor. Underestimate it at your chosen candidate’s peril.
LikeLike
I send back their envelopes with no check and a note saying, “You’ll get money from me WHEN Hillary is President and Donna Brazile is fired.”
LikeLike
Reminds me of 2008. I used to stuff the envelopes with the fake Hillary $44 bills. I don’t get much hard mail from them, but I get a lot of email.
LikeLike
I don’t trust them either, that’s why I became an Independent. I’ll only go back to being a Democrat if Hillary does choose to run. I would want to vote for her in my state’s primary.
LikeLike
One of the many I was referring to in the comment thread on the previous post. The DNC still has not acknowledged to attrition of the PUMAs.
LikeLike
The DNC can go to hell, as far as I’m concerned.
LikeLike
Bea,
We will never forget May 31, 2008. What they did to her was a disgrace. All of them are back stabbers. Do not trust the DNC. I have been a Democrate all my life but I really do not trust or like them. It is not the Democratice Party I loved years ago.
LikeLike
In my state, we don’t have to declare a Party affiliation. Any registered voter can vote in a primary. You just pick Dem or Repub on the day of the election and fill out whichever ballot you choose.
LikeLike
Looking at this from a strategic perspective, who else would the party back at this point? I’m not saying they’ll stay with her, but right now there’s no one else so you’ll have to forgive me if I fail to see their motives as sinister.
LikeLike
The names are already out there, Biden, Cuomo, O’Malley.
LikeLike
Yes, there are other names in the field, but she is clearly several orders of magnitude above them in competence. Still, the anti-Clinton party hacks may take just any name and fabricate it into something (like they did with Obama in 2008). It’s up to us to keep the message of “competence over shiny-new-thing” going.
LikeLike
Sophie, you are a great strategist. We are going to be listening for your advice and encouragement.
LikeLike
Thanks, Still. We all are! We are 18 million cracks and we are still chipping away!
LikeLike
I agree. There may be other names out there, but as of now, she’s the only one anyone takes seriously. Cuomo would have problems with his gun control bill for sure and while Joe Biden is well liked, he doesn’t seem to have the gravitas thing down and he’s not the country bumpkin, folksy charm type, really.
LikeLike
The Dems are not going to put all their eggs in one uncommitted. undeclared basket. That’s why Biden is being given high profile, special projects.
LikeLike
Like gun control? But whatever, I won’t say anything more. This is not my area and there is enough real evidence of that.
LikeLike
On Sundays, around this time and later in the evening, I am quite used to looking ahead at what’s ahead next week on Hillary’s schedule… visiting various European news sites and seeing their perspective on these visits, etc… (and bumping into other stories in the process)… I can already feel the void… and I have no real energy to visit any European sites today…
LikeLike
I know what you mean. I feel like a friend moved far way and I won’t get to see her in a long while.
LikeLike
Ironically, she will be closer, but we won’t have a way to see her! It was easier to see her when she was in China. (o/t You are getting a SuperBowl boom next year.)
LikeLike
I know, she’ll be right across the Hudson, but she’ll probably lay low until she’s fully recovered. Although she might be at Koch’s memorial. Bill is one of the speakers.
LikeLike
exactly how I feel. It feels a little empty this morning without her.
LikeLike
Sorry to be OT on this Beauuuuuuuuuuuutiful post, but what’s with @verifiedclinton? A free WP blog? No blue check mark? Surely if anybody can get a checkmark on twitter fast, it’s Hillary? Who are these people and how are they getting away with this, signing “HRC” to tweets calling Austrialans “My friends down under”?
Does this seem even remotely legitimate to you or am I just being overly protective?
LikeLike
Some of us were talking about that on a facebook message thread last night. Very strange. I *followed* and asked that question about the lack of the blue check mark. I also visited the associated blog that has no updates after November and calls itself her “official blog” – WTF?????
LikeLike
[…] I posted this yesterday, Hillary Clinton’s Kitten Heels Not Necessarily A Shoo-In, it triggered a few emails from folks apparently not willing to post publicly in a comment thread […]
LikeLike
[…] was predictable since it had begun years before her departure, a deluge of 2016 speculation, pro and con, was unleashed. We did not expect to be seeing or hearing from Hillary, however, […]
LikeLike
[…] I posted this yesterday, Hillary Clinton’s Kitten Heels Not Necessarily A Shoo-In, it triggered a few emails from folks apparently not willing to post publicly in a comment […]
LikeLike