Hillary 2016?
The woman who was one of the most polarising figures in American politics now has a glowing 65 per cent approval rating among Independents and healthy 57 per cent among Republicans.
Even sworn enemies on the Right marvelled at her toughness in refusing to concede to Obama until the bitter end in the summer of 2008 and now view her as more hawkish than the president…
Mrs Clinton can afford to be assiduously loyal because her critique of Obama – “a lot of talk, no action” is how she acidly described him in March last year – is already out there and increasingly resonant. She now has unassailable credentials in the one area where she appeared weak in 2008 – foreign policy.
She has been able to stay out of the contentious debates over health care, Wall Street bailouts and the spiraling deficit while her husband, confounding many, has been a low-key apparent model of propriety since she took over at Foggy Bottom.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
2016? As if this nation won’t be looking at someone, anyone else come 2012? Please.
Bishop on December 20, 2009 at 9:43 AM
In it to win it. She ain’t tarrhed….
Fletch54 on December 20, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Hillary is someone who has kept her progressive credentials fairly well hidden from the public. The only real difference between her and Obama is gender.
Her and Bill tried this health care scam before.
darwin on December 20, 2009 at 9:46 AM
London must have some powerful hallucinogens selling on the street these days.
RBMN on December 20, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Yep. The only difference is gender and race.
Buy Danish on December 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM
No. Hillary Clinton’s chance was in 2008, and she lost. Actually, I think 2004 was her chance, but she didn’t take it. She’ll never be president.
ddrintn on December 20, 2009 at 9:52 AM
It will take at least two terms of republican presidents, starting in 2013, to undo the damage so far.
Vashta.Nerada on December 20, 2009 at 9:52 AM
That the left would even dream about running Hillary against President Palin in 2016 proves how idiotic these people are.
Guardian on December 20, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Hillary! ♥
So real! So fierce!
*fans self*
lansing quaker on December 20, 2009 at 9:55 AM
2016? No, 2012. The only way Dems might win in 2016 is if they lose in 2012.
If Barry somehow manages to get a second term, there’ll be such a backlash come 2016 that the Dem candidate won’t stand a snowball’s chance in h*ll. If she’s going to make a run, she’d better make it in 2012.
petefrt on December 20, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Please tell me what Hillary would be doing differently than Obama at this moment? Probably not picking a fight with Fox News but policy related?
deidre on December 20, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Well, I don’t know if Palin’s going to be POTUS, but her?
I can’t believe people think of her like that anymore.
Seriously?
OVER.
B Man on December 20, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Yes, I’m sure by 2016 the American people will be looking for the second wave of Alinski…
…Cause we didn’t get enough hope and change the first time around.
ppffft.
katy on December 20, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Yeah – she goes for women and he goes for guys. Just ask Larry what-his-name.
honsy on December 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM
You know things are going bad when Hillary starts looking good.
Tony737 on December 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM
*high pitched liberal voice* “After Obama wins 57 states again in 2012, it’s HER turn in 2016, cons!”
Just. Wow.
B Man on December 20, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Isn’t that the truth. Plus, I’ve become nostalgic for Bill Clinton’s “stewardship” and I couldn’t stand him.
tru2tx on December 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM
UGH! Hillary hatred on “Conservative” blogs is so pedestrian and flies in the face of the PUMA/Moderate alliance of holiness that will cause a (RED)volution in 2010 and 2012. People not getting this yet. 9_9
HOW HILLARY WOULD BE DIFFO FROM OBAMA, A STORY BY LANSING QUAKER:
1. Hillary would never have had that LOL summit in Cairo like, 1 week in to be like “gj, Muslim world! ^_^”
2. Hillary would have told Iran to STFU and GTFO rather than be like “I dunno, I mean like, you’re so important!”
3. Cash for Clunkers. lolz.
4. EVERYTHING WITH THE MEDIA and Napolitano calling domestic dissenters “terrorists.”
5. No Cap-n-Tax and no EPA ruling-by-bureaucratic-proxy on the matter.
6. Geraldine Ferraro would have been in the admin somewhere and it would have been divine.
7. Kos having epic butthurt from day one, which just fuels my fire as I enjoy him tasting his own tears.
8. Porkulus would never have happened, sorry.
So there you have it. Hillary is a total calculating lifeforce by abandoning the senate so she can keep her delicate hands clean of the Reid-Pelosi-Obama powerbrokers’ magnificent failures. Plus, we HillaryDems are your allies and thus, HillaryHate is counter-productive and gross.
~fin
lansing quaker on December 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Oh Hill no……..
rich801 on December 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM
You got that right. On the other hand it would allow me to bring out my Hillary voo-doo doll again. It’s a shame the toy company that I got it from didn’t have the guts to make a Barry doll….it’d be a best seller.
anniekc on December 20, 2009 at 10:15 AM
My prediction is that by 2012 we are going to be so deep in foreign policy messes around the world that Hillary will be dead in the water and her decision to take the Sec of State position is what is going to sink her presidential aspirations.
Texas Gal on December 20, 2009 at 10:26 AM
2016? I think not. Maybe 2024 after we’ve forgotten about this mess.
milo7 on December 20, 2009 at 10:30 AM
We do need each other … that’s for sure.
darwin on December 20, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Delusional. Hillary’s numbers have improved because she’s not under attack. If she runs, that will change, no matter if it’s 2016 or 2012 (as some have been wet dreaming).
Besides, she’s too old. 68 years old in 2016. Reagan came off as younger than his years, Clinton doesn’t.
And lansing quaker, you are confused if you believe her administration would have been so different. “Porkulus” and Cash For Clunkers were the product of Clinton-era economists who she no doubt would have called upon. Handling of Iran is one of the State Department’s biggest shows of influence. Your assumptions on EPA and Ferraro make little sense. And you do realize she ran to the left of Obama on healthcare as well, right? The only difference is we’d be seeing Howard Wolfson doing the spin, Robert Gibbs.
Siobhan on December 20, 2009 at 10:54 AM
This must be one of those Monty Python satires.
You’ve heard of Almost Famous, this article quantifies its sequel for the Almost Speechless. The Telegraph already has someone serving out a second term. Oh wait, that someone said something about serving 10 years of a potential 8 year presidential stay in office. Maybe they’ll shelve the tie, slap a wig on and have him wearing pant suits for the 9th & 10th years.
The American people don’t even know what’s going to be happening with this country next week let alone years from now. We’re not sure if the democrat party will exist after 2012. They campaign as centrist but govern like socialist. The current POTUS is in the process of creating empires within our republic. Czar here, czar there, and soon to be czars everywhere when the largest empire of government bureaucraticly run health care is implemented possibly starting in 2013/2014. What will be the tipping point for those running as democrats to adopt their true socialist moniker? Socialist American Party or S.A.P’s for short.
No one has answered this question for me. Why would the Secretary of State of the US make a pledge of billions of dollars at a Global Warming get together in Copenhagen. Is that part of the new job description for the Secretary of State?
The biggest joke of this article is the claim that since Hillary has serve as S of S for the US, she has foreign policy credentials. Joe Biden had foreign policy credentials too and it didn’t make him any better of a candidate.
Americannodash on December 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM
It will be HRC in 2012. She will wait until healthcare is passed and when BHO’s and congress’s poll numbers tank pathetically (and they will), she’ll then resign as SOS and lay low for a little bit. She’ll play coy, but then she’ll start making speeches and statements. I’ve said this since she was named SOS.
She’ll overtake BHO in 2012 and be the nominee.
Oink on December 20, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Furthermore, she’s got the dirt on BHO and she’ll use it. It was obvious to her as it was the rest of us that the media was in the public for BHO. She’s got aces up her sleeve and she WILL play them.
Oink on December 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Sadly, the Party of NO doesn’t have even one serious contender for the WH. Sure, the angry white losers will vote for anyone that the GOP puts up (like that old man and his idiot sidekick) but there is NO ONE who can capture the middle.
simplesimon on December 20, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Sounds like someone is trying to hit the reset button!
Won’t work, she shows herself to be a complete fool every time she opens her mouth.
Lonetown on December 20, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Glenn Beck will probably want to vote for her.
terryannonline on December 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM
No way will this country elect a donk in 2016.
Blake on December 20, 2009 at 12:05 PM
First, Clinton will not win her party’s primary in 2012.
Second, it is debatable whether the donks win in 2012.
Third and last, there is no way the donks will win in 2016.
Some of you need to learn a few lessons from history.
Blake on December 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM
When all’s said and done, though, I’d bet 95% of those HillaryDems voted for Obama anyway. The PUMAs were supposed to come to McCain’s rescue, as I recall.
ddrintn on December 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Hillary in ’12!!
Little Boomer on December 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM
simplesimon is still simple.
Hillary challenging the ‘great’ One will be delicious.
The author doesn’t know U.S. Americans. They can be pretty naive, but they’re not fooled twice in a row. They always do the right thing, after they fark up.
Schadenfreude on December 20, 2009 at 1:03 PM
You mean that middle that’s abandoning Obama in droves? He’ll be lucky to hold on to his 15% moonbat base.
ddrintn on December 20, 2009 at 1:21 PM
True that brother.
CP on December 20, 2009 at 3:04 PM
I have friends who know the Clintons and have worked on their campaigns. They think it highly unlikely Hillary will ever run for president again.
NoLeftTurn on December 20, 2009 at 4:19 PM