Patterico's Pontifications


Hillary for Governor?

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 4:49 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Weekly Standard floats a fun Hillary rumor:

“The boss hears from two sources that Hillary Clinton is considering stepping down as Secretary of State this fall in order to run for Governor of New York.”

I would normally discount rumors like this but the Clintons are good at telling which way the political winds are blowing. If they think Obama’s ship is sinking, the Governorship of New York might look like a good lifeboat.


35 Responses to “Hillary for Governor?”

  1. A lifeboat indeed. Especially for a primary challenge in 2012 for the Executive Office?

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  2. I would take this with a shaker of salt, too. But the Governorship of New York might look like a good lifeboat… and a possible stepping stone to a primary challenge in 2012, if things looked bad enough.

    Karl (246941)

  3. Eric Blair,

    Jinx! I owe you a Coke.

    Karl (246941)

  4. Ambition, thy name is Hillary. Can you imagine how she grits her teeth daily, watching this crew in charge?

    Karl, thanks for the virtual beverage.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  5. It’s bad when I’m thinking that Hillary would have been better than Obama. Sadly, I actually think she would have been better than McCain too. Gah! This election was worse than 2004 for choices.

    Vivian Louise (e35449)

  6. If Giuliani runs, it would be the Senate race that didn’t happen because of his cancer. Very interesting possibility.

    JEA (384399)

  7. So, Hillary’s plan is:

    1) Give up a safe Senate seat
    2) Be an ineffective (and almost invisible) SecState in a now-unpopular administration
    3) Run for Gov of NY
    4) Serve for 2 years, then run for Pres?

    Does this seem like a rational plan of action to anyone? Or are they just spinning the wheel to see what comes up?

    JayC (c5fb7d)

  8. She is probably making up her mind right now as Obama lies about “hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud” in Medicare. Then he mentions care that “doesn’t improve the health of seniors” and committees of experts.

    Charlie Rangel is right up front stamping out fraud and abuse.

    Run, Hillary, run.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  9. It seems about as rational as running for the Presidency two years after being elected Illinois’ Junior Senator.

    DRJ (6a2898)

  10. Oh dear, Obama has just brought up Ted Kennedy’s letter…. (pan in on Mrs. Kennedy and sons teary-eyed and pained. Exploitation at it’s finest).

    I have no problem believing Hillary is planning something and this makes as much sense as anything else.

    What we know is she is not a woman who takes defeat graciously, nor is she a woman who sees limitations on what *she* can do for us. Also, there’s the whole competition thing she’s got with Bill that’ll drive her on.

    No, she’s not taking the doormat role as her lot. She’s got more people to yell at.

    Dana (863a65)

  11. I will agree with JayC here. The calculus doesn’t work so well for HRC for using the NY Governor job as a springboard to a Presidential run in 2012. I don’t see her “abandoning” Obama in 2010, probably at the point when his poll numbers are at their lowest, then mounting a challenge to him in 2012. The wildcard though is if HRC truly believes that the Obama Administration is going to be an utter wreck by 2012, and that the Dems will call upon her to save the party. Otherwise, she will have a hard time explaining her actions to minorities and hard-core leftists, two of the three big factions (along with unions) who determine that party’s nominee.

    Besides, a Republican candidate for NY Governor with half a brain (OK, I am dreaming here) would probably extract a pledge from HRC that she won’t run for President in 2012. It didn’t work so well for NY the last time a lieutenant governor moved into the big chair, did it?

    However, I do see this as HRC staking a claim to the 2016 Dem nomination. Yeah, I know she’ll be 69, but she will be able to plausibly claim that she is the same age Ronald Reagan was when he was first elected. [Response: “Mrs. Clinton, I knew Ronald Reagan; Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. You are no Ronald Reagan.”]

    JVW (d1215a)

  12. I can see her thinking that Obama will be a “wreck” by 2012. Then, all bets are off. Even the sainted Ted went for Jimmy Carter’s nuts in 1980.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  13. True, Mike K, but he got an ass-whuppin’ from a very awful President. Obama is five times the campaign presence that Carter was, and he will hold on to 50% of the Democrats even if he manages to get Miami nuked and we have to send our unemployed to China to work in Nike factories. No way she can beat him, unless she thinks she can bring a groundswell of Independents into the Dem primaries.

    JVW (d1215a)

  14. With Obama’s foreign policy being the mess that it is, HRC could simply wait until he takes a position that is offensive to his base, then use it as a pretext for resignation from SecState before he can move on to another position on the issue. She then runs for governor of NY, and–if Obama is weakened enough–she can dash into the primaries with Obama’s “betrayal” as her issue and go for broke. It would be a risky scenario, but she ain’t going to be President anyway unless she tries it.

    M. Scott Eiland (5ccff0)

  15. She might also have realized that the Democrat brand will still be poison in 2012, so being Gov is better than being unemployed and would be a pretty safe bet. Who knows what 2016 will bring.

    Gazzer (22ecdc)

  16. JVW,

    But who will still be around to say they knew Ronald Reagan?

    DRJ (6a2898)

  17. Don’t forget that Obama will shortly be auditioning for the job of Secretary General of the UN. I am not convinced he will even run in 2012. He has aged and seems ticked off and detached most of the time these days. He probably knows deep down he’s in over his head and realizes that more and more folks are figuring it out, too. That will make things even harder for him going forward. I think he loves campaigning and the pomp and perks and being the center of attention– but my sense is that having to bear the sober responsibilities and decision making of the presidency along with all its slings and arrows is just not all that enjoyable for him. I peg him as a one termer by choice. Hillary may rise again.

    elissa (c1b4f7)

  18. JVW – Though I normally agree with you, a pledge to not run is absolutely meaningless. Barcky made that pledge and then proceeded to ignore it, with the help of the MSM.

    JD (9d17e7)

  19. elissa – I’d been saying even before the election that the Soroses and the Malloch Browns and so forth are probably beating the bushes to get Obama the Secretary-Generalship.

    It’s the perfect office for him – a big bully pulpit, an enormous budget, and no responsibilities that can’t be sloughed off on someone else.

    As for Hillary – if she doesn’t regret giving up the Senate seat, she’s delusional. Right now she’s a puppet, the least consequential SecState we’ve had since at least Ed Muskie, maybe even Bill Rogers back in Nixon’s first term when he treated State like the UAW jobs bank.

    The NY Governorship is a better place than where she is now, prestigious enough to call it a step up, and she can stay put for a long time if the Oval Office thing doesn’t pan out.

    JEM (a0f32a)

  20. The 2012 dynamic will be interesting here. Despite the outward braggadocio, New Yorkers want celebrities, including politicians, to love them and to want to be with them. That’s why the Democrats gushed over Hillary in 2000, since her run for Senate also meant she and Bill would relocate there after leaving the White House.

    But they also don’t like being used in a totally obvious fashion, like Elliot Spitzer’s latest call girl. That’s the risk Hillary runs in 2010, especially coming off the Spitzer-Patterson debacles in Albany. If it’s so blatently clear that Hill is simply using the job to set up a primary challenge to Obama in 2012 and has no plans to do anything about the mess in the state capitol, there’s a good chance she’s going to be about as “inevitable” a winner as she was last year in the primaries, as long as the Republicans find any sort of credible opponent (i.e. NOT Tom Golisano, as much as his own $$$ could help finance a run against the missus).

    John (da0d60)

  21. HRC has largely been marginalized by Obama in the Sec of State position. All of the hot spots have been assigned to czars. Her responsibility seems to be limited to Africa and (perhaps) Latin America. Her impact on the development of foreign policy appears to be negligible, if at all. Under those circumstances, if she can do so gracefully, I would not be surprised to see her looking about for an alternative career path….especially if the Obama boat seems to be sinking.

    RAZ (996c34)

  22. Rudy will destroy her if he runs. Which he should b/c the State needs him.

    HeavenSent (01a566)

  23. I said back in April that Hillary, being sane, might be looking for a way out of Obama’s foreign policy nightmare. Surely she has got to be uncomfortable being aligned with Chavez, Ortega, Castro etc., not to mention being anti-Israel.

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  24. Rudy is definitely running.

    DelD (8aca80)

  25. Well, Hillary might also consider her home state–the Illinois governorship. Thanks to Blago it has a weak caretaker incumbent and so far a rather uninspiring announced field.

    elissa (c1b4f7)

  26. This is a very interesting proposition, since she has been cut out of the current administration.

    And we know that she, and Bill, will not continence that.

    As the governor of New York, she would assume a great, if not “bully” pulpit for her supporters without having to conflict with the President.

    It also would give her great creditability in the Democratic hinterlands, while distancing herself from the coming Obama disaster.

    And, there’s no question she would defeat Rudy, despite my affection for him.

    To me, it looks as if it is a win-win.

    If I were Carville and Begala, I would say, “Go for it.”

    She could really be the next President. I mean, what do the Republicans have? (before you flame me, look at my posting history. I’m being pragmatic from a Clintonista point of view).

    Ag80 (01be36)

  27. I know a couple decades ago there were some states that had laws requiring a sitting elected official to give up the seat in order to run for a different seat. This obviously wasn’t true of all states and would have no impact on the SecState position. But that should be all state requirements. You want to run for a different job than the government job you have now? Resign and then run.

    If Hillary runs for NY or IL gov, she can do so with her SecState job being safe.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  28. A term in a governor’s office would also be a good credential for her next Presidential campaign.

    I imagine Americans will have relearned the reasons why they so seldom elect Members of Congress to the White House by 2014, and for a long time thereafter.

    LarryD (a8f0bd)

  29. I agree with John Hitchcock. A sitting governor or legislator should have to resign his or her seat before running for a different position. Among other things, that would have spared us eight years of Bill Clinton.

    And unlike my learned friends above, I am not so sure but that the Messiah has a plan in place to deal with Shrillary once and for all. He might deliberately be stoking up trouble in Latin America, so that if things go massively pear-shaped down there, her neck goes on the chopping block. Having been publicly fired as SecState would put an end to her ambitions…I don’t think that even NY would want her back after that.

    technomad (eefe5a)

  30. Obama doesn’t need an excuse to fire her. The red reset button to Russia and the peevishness over being asked about Bill’s views are such elementary errors that it’s obvious she’s incompetent as Secretary of State. As far as I’m concerned, that makes her unfit for office (Dems wil disagree, of course).

    Jim C. (b33a68)

  31. A term in a governor’s office would also be a good credential for her next Presidential campaign.

    Well, okay, but how much of a term? If she runs in 2012, that’s 2 years (1 year if you consider the campaigning).

    Or is she going to wait for 2016, when she’s in her 60s?

    JayC (c5fb7d)

  32. Don’t forget that HRC has a decision making process that is based entirely on expediency. That does not mean that she is always right. It means that she will do whatever she thinks will serve her own ambitions.

    Bar Sinister (d2caac)

  33. Kathryn Jean Lopez writes in The Corner:

    It would have been nice to have gotten my friend Barbara Olson’s reaction to Wednesday night.

    To today.

    And to rumors Hillary might run for governor of the Empire State!

    But she was killed by men who hate America.

    And so that’s that.

    Her comment saddened me. And then I thought, on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary of who is leading our country.
    And then I got depressed.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  34. I don’t believe Hillary will challenge President Obama in 2012. You all may hate Hillary, but I think she would make a good president. President Obama should dump Joe Biden in 2012 and choose Hillary for his running mate. I have no problem with her running for president when she is 69. I think she would be a capable leader. She should be the first female president of the U.S. She is hard working and intelligent. She deserves it.

    Pocoknows (2e7388)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5527 secs.