Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Hillary Clinton Bids Presidential Hopes Adieu

By Garance Franke-Ruta
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first competitive female candidate for the American presidency who famously cracked but did not shatter the ultimate political glass ceiling, said over the weekend she will not run for president again.

She made the statement, her most definitive to date on the subject, in response to a question posed by "Today"'s Ann Curry during an interview in Zurich, Switzerland.

"Will you ever run for president again? Yes or no," Curry asked.

"No," replied Clinton.

"No?" Curry followed up.

"No. No," Clinton emphasized. "I mean, this is a great job. It is a 24/7 job. And I'm looking forward to retirement at some point."

Clinton, who will turn 62 at the end of the month, would be nearing 70 by the time of the 2016 election, the next in which President Obama is not expected to run.

Clinton also called "absurd" what Curry said was a concern by some "that you have been marginalized, that you -- that the highest-ranking woman in the United States [is] having to fight against being marginalized."

"I think there is such a -- you know, maybe there is some misunderstanding which needs to be clarified. I believe in delegating power. You know, I'm not one of these people who feels like I have to have my face in the, you know, front of the newspaper or on the TV every moment of the day," Clinton said.

"I would be irresponsible and negligent were I to say, 'Oh, no, everything must come to me.' Now, maybe that is a woman's thing. Maybe I'm totally secure and feel absolutely no need to go running around in order for people to see what I'm doing. It's just the way I am.

"My goal is to be a very positive force to implement the kind of changes that the president and I believe are in the best interest of our country. But that doesn't mean that it all has to be me, me, me all the time. I like lifting people up."

By Web Politics Editor  |  October 12, 2009; 10:37 AM ET
Categories:  Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Insurance Industry Opens Fire on Reform
Next: Church of the Presidents Gets Presidential Visit


Except for one thing. SHE said never. (Actually, she said "no, no, no.") Are we not supposed to believe anything she says? If so, why would you vote for a liar?

Sure, 70 isn't too old--after all, no one made fun of McCain's age when...oh, never mind.

The unfortunate thing is, 2008 would have been her year if it weren't for Obama. And yes, he could have waited 8 years but it was the right time for him as well. So we have a great prez and a great SecState.

Posted by: mikenmidland | October 13, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Look, I do not believe that Hillary will give up when it comes to her running for the Highest office in America. I like her more now then I did then when she was running to get the nod from the party. I to live in FL but I will not relive that crap of what happened in FL last primary. I will say this and I will go on record, I believe Obama will be a one term Pres. and Hillary will be around to win back the White House if she does not challenge him in 2012...never say never.

Posted by: taylorg11 | October 13, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see the vote theft in Michigan and Florida put on the table. Obama apologists who assert "well, we got a Democrat in" simply prove the point that massive primary overhaul is needed. Ends do not justify means.
It was astounding to see votes in Michigan decertified - as well as Florida. Many other states had (both) state parties break rules and were not reamed like this.
Glad for the chance to put people on alert that Obama's people will rob fellow Dems. of votes if it suits them. And then cover it up with dismisive posts like those here. Ha. Nixon did the same.
For shame. Let's unseat the state party leaders and find people who can stand up to this beat-down.
(The indignant Obama supporters, many ignorant of these goings-on, would go ape if something similar had happened to them...and we'd hear fewer excuses.)
Good dialog here. Live strong!

Posted by: mrcrister3 | October 13, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

I like Hillary a lot and think she's a great Sec. of State and was a great Senator.

People like nancyjeanmail who claim their primary votes are stolen really shouldn't be blaming anyone but their own state party leaders who willingly broke the Democratic Party rules and moved their primary too early knowing that they would be penalized cause they were told in explicit terms they would be. Its over and honestly deal with it and get over yourself if you are still sobbing over a lost primary especially when the Dems finally won a Presidential election after 8 years of Bush and frankly I think Hillary is happy and doing a very good job repairing the State Department that was badly abused during those last 8 years.

Posted by: rawk | October 13, 2009 2:34 AM | Report abuse

FYI - five states had Dem. primaries at the "wrong" time and just two were penalized by cutting their primary vote totals in half. The others were allowed to stand, imperfectly timed or not. They were too small to contest. My Florida vote was among millions that were stolen.
Chicago capos rushed in with excuses like "we didn't campaign there." Nothing was stopping them. They knew she was leading and tossed that excuse on the table as a sop.
Obama's crazed supporters would love to erase this dreadful crime from his past but we in Florida are too smart for this bully precinct-captain mentality.
No-one should 'move on' from this travesty, and in the future made-up reasons (we didn't campaign there) should be ignored in favor of voter sentiment. Every single time. As in the, you know, constitution. A power higher in my view than Rahm Emanuel.
People whose vote was counted are in no position to judge and dismiss those of us whose vote was used as a hockey puck in a rigged game, with bought-in umps.
I would rather live under Ross Perot, fairly elected, than Obama, who was shoehorned into the nomination several times. Google how his henchmen jammed the Iowa functions and caucuses, excluding people from other campaigns. There is You Tube footage of other Dem. supporters being told to "wait in the heated buses" while Obama supporters (many retread Deaniacs) methodically jammed every space in the hall. Clinton supporters never got in. Watch it.
Courage under pressure is a virtue and I am proud of my many fellow Floridians who are still working to make sure this never happens to us again, or anyone.
And do not buy Howard Dean's stupid book or tix to his touring debate. Even the corrupt Obama admin. took a pass on him. You should, too.
Hillary in 2012. I am hopeful.

Posted by: nancyjeanmail | October 12, 2009 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Well, come 2012, won't she have been in office for three terms as it is? Maybe she's Obama's Dick Cheney...sitting in the basement, eating raw fish and shaking her flippers at the television when no one's looking...

Posted by: walkerbert | October 12, 2009 9:37 PM | Report abuse

In the age of Palin I hardly want to think female presidents. Yet, I think it is premature to have asked this question of the Secretary -of -state. But that said, there is something called 'timing' -- and I believe she probably realizes that the momentum for another Clinton in the White House is gone.

Posted by: Victoria5 | October 12, 2009 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Dotty...where do you get this stuff?

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | October 12, 2009 9:09 PM | Report abuse

If they put Obama on medical stand down for NPD sociopathic dual profiles, his signatures void . Biden apeears to want Hillary on board as the Vice President, and many would be happy with that.

This round will find Independents and Republicans in Democrat seats.
Impeach Obama is a foot among the majority of the people.

Posted by: dottydo | October 12, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

CORRECTION!!! Nancy Pelosi is the highest-ranking woman in the United States Government, second in line to the Presidency (behind only Joe Biden).

Thank you, Ann Curry, for that penetrating interview unburdened by objectivity, fact-checking, or a pretense of whom you voted for in last year's primary.

Posted by: EMGenerate | October 12, 2009 7:01 PM | Report abuse


Possibility #1: Machiavellian Socialist Dictator for life O'Bomba-Nation WILL succeed at subverting the US like his Heros Chavez, and the Castro Bros managed to do...

Or, there will be no US Period!

In any case;


There IS still a US that survives to 2012;

There sure as Heck is not going to be anything called a Dimocrat Socialist with a Snowball's chance in Hell of Winning!

Posted by: SAINT---The | October 12, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

C'mon, nancyjeanmail, are you really still in a mood to fight that tired old battle? Clinton won a landslide in Florida because none of the candidates campaigned there or engaged in any get-out-the-vote efforts -- except Hillary. Name recognition alone would have carried her to a sweeping victory, in the absence of any real campaigning.

We all recognize it's not your fault as a voter that the Fla. GOP forced the state's Democrats to break the national party's rule on timing of primaries. But once the candidates had all agreed not to campaign in Fla. or Mich., it would have been unfair to treat those primary results as though they had actually been contested.

It's been almost two years. Hillary has an incredibly high-profile and essential job to do, and she's clearly moved past last year's defeat. So should you.

Posted by: jonfromcali | October 12, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg.

Posted by: jcdooley | October 12, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Sec. Clinton would have had a good shot at the Dem. nomination had her millions of votes (defeating Obama) in Fla. and Mich. not been engineered away by Howard Dean over Memorial Day. Google it.
My Fla. primary vote was reduced to half a vote. Seriously. This happened. The trumped up "reason" was that the state set the primary a week ahead of the national party's preference. One week.
And voters turned out in droves for a landslide for Clinton. We had no choice but to vote during the "wrong" date, a decision none of us had anything to do with.
Chicago-style back-stabbing and wheeler-dealer nonsense the likes of which put 2000 election to shame took place.
Howard Dean did everything he could to kneecap the Clinton race. While I am delighted to see him marginalized and rendered irrelevant, he left Clinton knocked out by the side of the road.
Her brave patriotism and grit were remarkable.
She should be president. Just ask any Democrat in Florida or Michigan....

Posted by: nancyjeanmail | October 12, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

If you think she is ugly now, wait until she is older than Jeasus, and the same faded out kim jong ill pant suit? She is at least facing reality wharas president LaBamba can't seem to comprehend.

Posted by: jcdooley | October 12, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

In spite of the fact that Obama's 3:00am VP announcement was a direct, and not-so-subtle, slap at Hillary and her supporters for her Primary criticism of his notorious and painfully evident inexperience, the Clintons were ecstatic over Obama's pick of "Jawbone" Biden as his VP. A man who can speak eloquently ad-nauseam while saying absolutely nothing of substance. Biden, advertised as the brain-trust for the Obama duo, is the same foreign policy "expert" who told the Israelis that they would have to passively accept a nuclear armed Iran, which of course would eventually guarantee the destruction of their Nation. The same individual who stated that the "Surge" was doomed to failure; and, who promoted the partitioning of Iraq into three separate nations, which would have precipitated a violent Iraqi civil war; and, assured the eventual incorporation of Shia Iraq into Iran. The same individual who , along with Obama, voted to deny our American Forces the bullets and equipments they needed to survive in lethal combat. This from individuals who had earlier voted to commit our troops to the conflict. A despicable breach of trust with our men and women in uniform. Sounds more like a single digit IQ than an expert! Biden was however prophetic in his multiple assertions that Obama was not sufficiently experienced to assume the Presidency; and, who correctly noted that the White House was not the proper venue for Obama's: "On-The-Job-Training". Obviously Obama was smart enough to recognize that he needed a "Handler" close-by 24/7; and, no-doubt scheduled Biden for remedial training in diaper changing. It's a good time to invest in "Pampers". It's become apparent that Obama has some insidious need to constantly poke the Clintons in the eyes. One has to wonder if an "angry" Michelle Obama is prompting such responses! And, as Bill Clinton so aptly said of Obama: "He's simply a typical Chicago thug." However, the Clinton's, astute in the way of politics, as the Obama polls continue to tank, will simply re-enforce their base of supporters in preparation for a now certain 2012 bid. Greg Neubeck

Posted by: gneubeck | October 12, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

If I were Barack Obama, I wouldn't have given her any job, but I would have offered the Secretary of State position to Bill Clinton, or any cabinet position that Bill Clinton would take.

The trouble is, Hillary probably wouldn't allow Bill to be hired instead of her.

I don't like Hillary Clinton, but I feel she's keeping Bill Clinton out of politics and forcing herself on us as if to say, it's gotta be her because she won't allow Bill to do anything.

I wouldn't ask Hillary back for President Obama's second term. It was just a move to make her fans happy in the first place.

Posted by: lindalovejones | October 12, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Hillary who???????

Posted by: djrhood | October 12, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

One wonders what great offense that HRC committed in a past life.. that makes her have to suffer through this inane Q&A ruse. Please run in 2012.. the U.S. people need you.. this kind of stuff will always haunt you.. if you don't!

Posted by: newbeeboy | October 12, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

She's lying.....she'll test the waters in 2012 to see how vulnerable Prez O has become before deciding on challenging him for the Democratic nomination again....

Posted by: WildBill1 | October 12, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

When Bush was president, all I could think:
There is no God!!!!!!

Posted by: play25 | October 12, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Clinton is smart.
Obama picked Biden over Ms. Clinton once and probably regrets it every time Biden opens his mouth.
Biden may have to resign or not run again in 2012 for "health" reasons.
How about a loyal, self-effacing, cooperative Secretary of State as Biden's replacement to unite the party?
Perhaps Ms. Clinton is no longer interested, but her actions to date would be a good strategy if that were her goal.

Posted by: jfv123 | October 12, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

charlietuna666 said, "Why are Democrats so darn ugly?"

Why are Republicans so darn sour?

Posted by: dottie_b | October 12, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Well it is pretty obvious that most of the readers of the Washington Post are either Republican, Conservative, Racist, Hate women who are not sex objects or all of the above.
Either that or the Post is editing out any positive feedback from people who felt and still feel the Clintons have collectively and individually made significant contributions to the World. Why don't the Clinton haters return to Fox news and the Washington Times. Now let me see if I get this right. The Clintons are self-serving but Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, & Dick Cheney are not. Did I get that right?

Posted by: PowerpeaceMaster | October 12, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Well, the woman finally exhibits some intelligence. She CAN'T win the office of President, it's as simple as that. Without riding on the coattails of B.J., her husband, for decades, nobody would've ever even heard of her.

Posted by: TheBoss2 | October 12, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Condi Rice was much better looking and better at the job.

Now that Madeline Albright was a looker. Could you imagine the child that Albright and Henry Waxman would have created. Wouldn't need make up to be child frankenstein. Why are democrats so darn ugly?

Posted by: charlietuna666 | October 12, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: dylansdad15 | October 12, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

URGENT TO SECRETARY CLINTON (staff, please forward):

Summarized below is the technological component of the "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Please read the linked article, by a longtime mainstream journalist who contends that key Team Obama officials, "dissidents" and and opinion leaders could be in the cross-hairs:


• Mind- and body-degrading electromagnetic assaults, vigilante warrantless GPS-activated "community stalking" harassment and vandalism, financial sabotage violate human and civil rights of thousands of unjustly targeted Americans nationwide... ideologically-driven "slow-kill" genocide hiding in plain sight, its victims slandered as "delusional" -- why complicit federal and local authorities refuse to investigate government-enabled crimes against humanity and the Constitution.


Posted by: scrivener50 | October 12, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

She would have made a great President. How awesome would it be to have someone in the Oval office who is too busy doing their job to go on TV over and over and over and over and over, hold on not enough overs yet, over and over and over and over again and say nothing, nothing nothing nothing, still nothing nothing nothing. What a big mistake America made in the primary, :(

Posted by: DCDave11 | October 12, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

The only reason she got as far as she did was because of her philandering husband and dirty politics.

Posted by: citizenchick | October 12, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Eat your bitter little hearts out, Clinton haters. Hillary is more popular than ever, she is doing a great job as Sec. of State, and she would be a great President.

Posted by: rdklingus | October 12, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

What an incredibly stupid story -- and an equally stupid question for NBC to ask. What is the point of this?

Posted by: parkerfl1 | October 12, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"Also, how is 2016 the "next [election] in which President Obama is not expected to run"?!"

JakeD, it is a reasonable expectation, but not certain that President Obama will run for a second term in 2012 and will not be challenged in the primaries by a member of his cabinet. Win or lose in 2012, it's a reasonable expectation that he would not run in 2016, although again not certain if he were to lose in 2012. So what's the problem with the statement as written?

Posted by: silverspring4 | October 12, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Not to start a scandal but rumor has it that she once had sexual relations with Bill Clinton 28 years ago. So whats Monica up to these days?

Posted by: Ashpole | October 12, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Also, how is 2016 the "next [election] in which President Obama is not expected to run"?! Shouldn't that sentence read "The 2016 election would be the first opportunity, assuming Obama wins a second term in 2012 and is precluded by the 22nd Amendment from seeking a third term"? Is there some movement out there to repeal the 22nd Amendment and allow The One to become our permanent Lord and Savior?

Posted by: JakeD | October 12, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

No, chrisbrown12, I am simply praising God that Hillary Clinton will not run for President again. I hope she wasn't lying, jackp1.

Posted by: JakeD | October 12, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

"My goal is to be a very positive force to implement the kind of changes that the president and I believe are in the best interest of our country. But that doesn't mean that it all has to be me, me, me all the time. I like lifting people up."

Good for Hillary, I think she gets it.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | October 12, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Since the Clintons are well known liars, this too is a lie. I do not believe anything she says.

Posted by: jackp1 | October 12, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Good. Now we can be sure to be rid of the Clinton stigma for good. Two of the most dishonest, self-serving people in the history of this nation's politics.

And though I understand that Hillary has been effective while attending luncheons in France or Ireland, she has been absolutely useless when it comes to diplomacy with problem nations like NK and the Middle East.
Most of the nations we have trouble with have no respect for females. Sorry, ladies, but it's true.
Obama would do well to replace her with Bill Richardson if and when he's reelected. If not sooner.

Posted by: captainkona | October 12, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I have said it once and I'l say it again. Its not that Mrs. Clinton was not a good candidate -- she was a great candidate. Is just that the people working around her were not able to tap into her strengths and her history. Yes its true that Americans are more willing to accept an ambitious man over an ambitious woman. I supported President (then candidate) Obama in the primary but have grown to respect Secretary Clinton. Its a shame that she will not run - she'd make a great president, but I am happy that she is representing us abroad, Americans should be elated that we have such an eloquent, smart, tough and empathetic woman as our Secretary of State. You Rock Madam Secretary!

Posted by: sunnyside1 | October 12, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

From this article I take two absolutes. Hitlery has been marginalized and she will run for president. Her ego can't stand being f'd over on an international scale by two men. Maybe she needs to take a lesson from Monika and spend more time with Obozzo in the oval office; talk about your "just desserts".

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 12, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

That's a bit obscure Jake, and writing in caps doesn't help. Let me take a guess, Hillary Clinton has gotten her just deserts?

In the Murdoch Times they're writing that H. Clinton has not been very well received in Stormond Castle. At least no one walked out during her speech. They also held back the snipers.

CB in Hamburg

Posted by: chrisbrown12 | October 12, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse

She sounded tentative in her response and I don't think Hillary is capable of being honest. If Obama spirals downward which is a distinct possibility, I think we will see Hillary allowing herself to be drug into the 2012 race - mind you all because she is so desired, not because she loves power.

Posted by: parlan | October 12, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I guess I will make a point to view the interview. Reading this you can't help but think she is commenting about someone else. The exchanges I have read of late make her seem prickly.Here is my advice for everyone right now, including our Secretary. Relax your shoulders, let your arms hang down, and breath a few times slowly, close your eyes, and imagine Spring will be here soon.

Posted by: gousa1 | October 12, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

While will never know whether she cut a deal during the 2008 election, I honestly think Secretary of State was a good fit: Clinton's been pretty good at her job so far.

Posted by: UnPatriotic | October 12, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: JakeD | October 12, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company