Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

No President Hillary

By Jo-Ann Armao

Secretary of State, former U.S. senator, former first lady and would-be president Hillary Clinton was just stating the obvious when she, for the first time publicly, dismissed the possibility of ever running again for the country’s highest office. Still, I felt profoundly let down in learning of her remarks to NBC’s Ann Curry.

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

“No,” said Clinton, according to the account by the Post’s Anne E. Kornblut.

Part of the excitement of last year’s presidential contest was the possibility of a woman being elected president. I suspect that women like me -- baby boomers approaching 60 -- felt it more keenly; it was something we wished for but never really saw as doable. Clinton -- who has made a career out of confounding expectations (as evidenced by the litany of the positions she has held) -- changed all that. It was easy to imagine her president; if you've any doubt, just ask her enemies.

It’s disappointing that there’s no other woman now on the political scene that I could even entertain as possible presidential timber. The two most prominent female politicians -- Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Sarah Palin -- are (and I am being really kind here) simply not in Clinton’s league.

It's all the more maddening that what Clinton called “a woman’s thing” in her interview with Curry -- that is, her willingness to delegate authority -- could be the biggest obstacle to ever electing a female president. After all, what male politician (John Kennedy? George Bush? Ronald Reagan? Newt Gingrich? John Edwards? Bill Clinton? ) ever lacked the hubris to expect -- to borrow Clinton’s words -- that “everything must come to me?” On second thought, perhaps I should revise my expectations of Palin's electoral prospects.

By Jo-Ann Armao  | October 13, 2009; 11:16 AM ET
Categories:  Armao  | Tags:  Jo-Ann Armao  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Next Step on Gay Rights
Next: Michael Steele's New Domain

Comments

It will sneak up on us, of course. When President Obama declared his candidacy, I didn't seriously believe a black man could get elected. He did. It's sad, though perhaps ultimately healty, that his election seems to have lanced some kind of healed-over boil of racism that we'd forgotten was there.

When a woman is elected president (and it must NOT be Sarah Palin) I expect the same thing will happen. A woman of presidential stature, someone like Madeline Albright, will emerge soon. She may already be in President Obama's executive branch. As beset as the Obama administration is, I can't think of a better place for our future president to toughen herself up for the ordeal before HER.

Posted by: martimr1 | October 13, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Jo-Ann I wish I could believe that Palin was unelectable but, considering that she came within percentage points of being VP, anything is possible. Never, ever, underestimate the stupidity of the American people.

Posted by: bretb | October 13, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Ms. Armao will defend the RIFfing of the National Board Certified Educator by Mrs. Rhee?

Posted by: edlharris | October 13, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Poor Hillary!!! Look at her face today, as Vladimir Putin said Russia won't back any sanctions on Iran. After Obama loudly threatened Iran a few weeks ago, suddenly, the U.S. policy on Iran has become the world's laughingstock.

Poor Hillary!!! Obama is adamant about respecting the "chain of command" in the military. But he bypasses the Secretary of State all the time, by keeping his own personal envoys here and there.

Poor Hillary!!! Sarah Palin will soon launch her own book too.

Poor Hillary!!! Somehow, Bill always speaks as if Monica is still doing him...

Posted by: tropicalfolk | October 13, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama needs to pucker up and do some more smooching and sniviling. His plan of action is not working on the Russians. They do regard weakness highly as do the Muslim terrorists. Just ask Carter.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | October 13, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

If the Secretary of State was going to run again, Do you think that she would say so, of course not,The President,her boss at the time may run again, your boss is the person that you may have to run against again? BE REAL !!!

Posted by: onesugar | October 13, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Of course she would say No, her boss is The President of The United states of America, Why would she be foolish enough to say yes, and he may run for reelection.
Be real !!!

Posted by: onesugar | October 13, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, and others in Obama's cabinet, if they perform well, could be rising presidential candidates. Jodi Rell in Connecticut would be great, but unacceptable to Republicans. Meg Whitman and Carli Fiorina might represent the future of high-profile female politicians, women who rise high outside the old boys network. I suspect a female president will reach the Oval Office before 2030.

Posted by: freedom41 | October 13, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I think there are some good possibilities for women candidates; i.e. the governor of Michigan, the congresswoman from Florida. But, Palin, no she is far too divisive.

Posted by: paris1969 | October 13, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Run? Against a sitting US President? Is that really even an option; I don't think so. Just to be clear, she married into the first Lady roll, the New York Senate seat was a gift and the SoS was a thank you for not going hard against President Obama during the campaign so at least one of them could win.

Now, the head of the democratic party is President Obama. No one is going to run for President from the Democratic party unless President Obama pulls an LBJ and decides not to run. As for electability, I doubt her national electability is as good as you think. She couldn't get past a first term senator, I doubt she'd do any better against a decnt Republican candidate on the national stage.

Posted by: thensell | October 13, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Yes, and Obama also flatly dismissed the idea of him running in 2008 because he didn't have the experience yet. And Clinton herself also dismissed the idea that she was using the New York Senate seat as a carpetbagging effort to mount a White House run...but that's exactly what she did.

Clinton has to say right now that she won't run. She is Secretary of State to Obama, and she has no choice but to dismiss any talk about future campaigns. After Obama has run for a second term, and a year or two into that second term, should he win, then Clinton can start to change her tune. However, no politician from the Democratic Party is going to admit to presidential aspirations right now. It would be treasonous to the party and to Obama to do so. Why an interviewer even bothered to ask is beyond me.

Posted by: blert | October 13, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

When Hillary sees how bad this country has become under Obama next year she will change her mind. Many of you can go over the cliff with him and keep singing kumbaya but a good majority of Americans can now see that they made a huge mistake in electing this weak, deceitful Kenyan born fraud.

Posted by: JUNGLEJIM123 | October 13, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Whoever runs in the next presidential election will also have to be an agent of change and a financialist who believes in working, saving & investing first, the order of change back to capitalism, and lock up the crooks who proclaim to be capitalists that are giving it a bad name! With Obama's change however, we are headed straight for economic & social disaster that he is happily driving us straight toward. Hillary can live with the far left fringe that Obama answers to and I can see where she is content for now.

Posted by: ssol4569 | October 13, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I don't think she has even the slightest chance - but she must. How else do you explain the botox? Replacing Bill??? :-)

Posted by: thornegp2626 | October 13, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Good for you, Hillary. Go out on top... not down in flames.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | October 13, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

As opposed to the "sterling" job done by "W"? JUNGLEJIM123.....


Were have you been the last 8 years?

Give me a break!!

Posted by: celested91 | October 13, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

We probably will see a woman president within the next couple of decades. It could even happen in 2012. The depressing part is that we'll probably still see business as usual. President Obama had the opportunity to follow up his historic election with bold moves to improve life in America. The jury is still out on his healthcare campaign, but his administration has otherwise been depressingly business as usual.

Posted by: fredfawcett | October 13, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Clinton went with the Pernicious Party rather than stand her ground as a PROUD AMERICAN Democrat.
When they abandoned the US Constitution , she chose her fate....Now Hillary can only win the POTUS as a fraud Mickey Mouse vote gatherer now.
She led no one where we are, because they stopped following when she didn't expose the Court intel hide by Obama.

Hillary began the growth of the Independent Party , and clearly that is all she has brokered.

Posted by: dottydo | October 13, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

fredom41: Carli Fiornia almost broke Hullett Packard,she was one of the worst chief executives in history and is as nuts as Sarah Palin

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | October 13, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I misspelled Hewlett in my other post sorry

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | October 13, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I would have preferred Hillary as President. I voted for her in the primaries. I ended up voting for McCain in the general election because I found the behavior of the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign to be disgusting and disparaging towards her.

Posted by: shewholives | October 13, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Hilary in the primaries & would vote for her again. She reminds me of Margaret Thatcher ... who I respected a lot. Everyone is forgetting Caroline Kennedy. Maybe if she started her political career with less drama than her bid to be appointed Senator from New York "I think lots of that was Ted Kennedy pushing her into it", I believe she'd make a great leader in the future.?

Posted by: wasaUFO | October 13, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

What planet are you on junglejim123? A "good majority" of Americans have decided electing President Obama was a mistake? Recent polls show the president's approval rating at 56 percent, higher than Reagan or Clinton at this early stage of their presidencies.

And anyone who claims the president is a prisoner of the far left must think anyone to the left of the late Barry Goldwater or John McCain is a socialist.

Anyone who thinks the 44th president is a socialist either has no idea what socialism is or has a vested interest in convincing people that Obama is a socialist. The truth of the matter is there are people who would rather see the country go down the tubes than have it progress under this president.

If the eight years of George W. Bush's administration has taught me anything (and I didn't vote for him) it's that when a president fails it has consequences for all of us.

The comments and actions of those running and supporting the GOP these days reinforces my opinion that these folks believe in freedom and democracy only for those who share their world view.

Posted by: Weary | October 13, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

The Persecution of Sarah Palin and the Liberal War Against Red America’ by the Weekly Standard writer Matthew Continetti, published by Sentinel, will hit shelves in April.

He called Palin an instant phenomenon, which made people react to her charm, ambition, political talent, and passion for hockey-mom values.

But he said that what followed was “an unprecedented attack from the media”.

I agree and Letterman has continued the attacks in spite of his issues - which have been taken lightly by the left where you or I would be facing sexual harassment charges or facing the anger of feminists.

Sarah Palin became an easy target as a woman and as a relative unknown. Abortion is the biggest issue of our age and Ms. Palin became ground zero and the continued brunt of Liberal animosity.

Posted by: 2009frank | October 13, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Now that Hillary Clinton is in a position of real responsibility herself, she can see how difficult it is to actually BE the president instead of just being married to one. Arguably, she would have been a far better president than Bill Clinton, but who wouldn't have?

Posted by: ripvanwinkleincollege | October 13, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The Persecution of Sarah Palin and the Liberal War Against Red America’ by the Weekly Standard writer Matthew Continetti, published by Sentinel, will hit shelves in April.

He called Palin an instant phenomenon, which made people react to her charm, ambition, political talent, and passion for hockey-mom values.

But he said that what followed was “an unprecedented attack from the media”.

I agree and Letterman has continued the attacks in spite of his issues - which have been taken lightly by the left where you or I would be facing sexual harassment charges or facing the anger of feminists.

Sarah Palin became an easy target as a woman and as a relative unknown. Abortion is the biggest issue of our age and Ms. Palin became ground zero and the continued brunt of Liberal animosity.
Posted by: 2009frank | October 13, 2009 4:26 PM"

Sarah Palin is a out and out imbecile. All the press had to do was disseminate her moronic drivel. If there was an attack on her, it was her own mouth.

Posted by: mtravali | October 13, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I think Hillary literally means that she will never run again. Sadly, what became clear is that in overcoming the indifference of the fair-weather Democrats (you know whom I am talking about-those that supposedly "propelled" Obama), age is a major liability, and wisdom (God-forbid!) as adhering to the status quo (totally bad!). Mrs. Clinton will be 69 years old during the next election in which she could realistically run.

I don't see certain people, like, getting totally excited over some "shrill" old lady.

Me, I'm not sure how many more centuries of incompetence we will need to endure before people figure out that men generally are incapable leaders.

Posted by: Wallenstein | October 13, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Don't despair Jo-Ann, a woman who actually deserves to be President will be elected and it will happen faster than you think!

The woman, however, will not be a political parasite, intellectual midget nor an integrity tramp!

Posted by: dgward44 | October 13, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama will win a 2nd term in office and I think Hillary will run afterward assuming she is healthy. I am not worried about her age, she has a lot of experience, is a hardworker, sharp and is well respected. We cannot let that go to waste. She'll be there when America needs her.

Posted by: Carrie9501 | October 13, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Letterman has continued the attacks on Sarah Palin in spite of his issues - which have been taken lightly by the left where you or I would be facing sexual harassment charges or facing the anger of feminists.

Sarah Palin became an easy target as a woman and as a relative unknown. Abortion is the biggest issue of our age and Ms. Palin became ground zero and the continued brunt of Liberal animosity.

mtravali wrote:
Sarah Palin is a out and out imbecile. All the press had to do was disseminate her moronic drivel. If there was an attack on her, it was her own mouth.
_____________
Another patronizing, acrimonious attack comment by a Liberal who probably knows nothing about Sarah Palin. I suggest counseling.

The heart of contemporary liberalism is their gluteus maximus!

Posted by: 2009frank | October 13, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately for Clinton, she is in a party that tends to hate older people...If she were to run again, simply due to her age her ideas would be considered tired and old. Yes, the democratic party may be open to any a person of any color or sexual orientation, but age-ism is alive and well in the party.

Posted by: wolfcastle | October 13, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

If the Queen isn't going to run again, then why does she still accept donations as if she were planning another campaign?

Posted by: theBozyn | October 13, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton is a dedicated, intelligent, talented politician, diplomat and patriot. We are fortunate to have such outstanding public servants.
Jeeze! just contrast her to Michael Steele, Mitch McConnell, John A. Boehner, and Sarah Palin.

We should count our blessings.

Posted by: lufrank1 | October 13, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

With all the ongoing lawsuits challenging
Obama's NBC status it is only months now before he will be escorted out of the White House and incarcerated. He is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the POTUS position ---he knows it, Pelosi knows it, the DNC knows it---they are all complicit. HRC will become POTUS without having to run "again."

Posted by: Hillary4President | October 13, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

I was Democrat before the last election but the smug sexism of the Democrats has soured my relationship to the party.

Now I am a much happier Independent who would love to have an opportunity to vote for a woman for President - including Sarah Palin.

I had great respect for Ms. Clinton and took my 14 year old daughter to her concession speech - a dark day in history for all American women.

But as an underclass of second class citizens, we will never rise up if we do not support our own - like Civil Rights. Sarah or Nancy would get my vote without a second thought. We have been denied long enough.

Posted by: mgd1 | October 13, 2009 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton won't run for presidency. It is impossible formally because democrats would be obliged to nominate Obama. However, if Obama's administaration isn't successful with unemployment, health plan, etc., Sarah Palin would be easily able to cash on that women unity, which Mrs. Clinton has been building for more than twenty years or so. In order for Obama to void it, he, surely, should have Mrs. Clinton activities under the permanent and very harsh control, and, surely, not to use her advices and so on. I am not sure that it would be fully sufficient, but, as the day is light, it is the necessary condition.

Posted by: aepelbaum | October 13, 2009 9:42 PM | Report abuse

An often overlooked but major reason for Hillary's not getting the Democratic nomination was the fact that she would have been another Clinton in the White House. The notion that somehow she was entitled to the nomination turned many voters off, who, otherwise, would have liked to vote for a female had there been one, other than Hillary, as capable as Obama. There are several well qualified women who might possibly run in 2016, other than Peloshi or Palin; it's way too soon to say that none is electable.

Posted by: andrewpatejr | October 13, 2009 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Ther article is dead on- there is noone in Hillary's league currently out there- there is noone in the cabinet- Sebellius has had a horrible time with the health care debacle and lacks the general gravitas, Napolitano has personal issues that will stop her from ever being elected to national office.

Additionally, Shirley Chisholm stated that being a women was a much greater obstacle in her quest for the presidency than being black. If someone were to utilize one of the awful stereotypes used against African Americans they would immediately be called racist- in fact currently many people are suggesting racism even when there people are coming out against a plan by the president, where, in fact, the right wingers accused Clinton (Bill) of murder, extortion, etc. during his presidency- opposition is not a racist action. On the other hand, sexism is insidious. The media played on female stereotypes with commentary about "shrillness" and making her out to be lady McBethian for being ambitious- was it not ambitious for a 2-year senator to announce for the presidency? Make no mistakes, I worked for his campaign in several states once he was the nominee, but his campaign did did nothing to stop these stereotypes, if they weren't promoting them.

Posted by: NYClefty | October 13, 2009 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Paris1969: the governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, was born in Canada. Pffft!

Posted by: angelas1 | October 13, 2009 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Clinton will never again run for President? To quote that ole whipper-snapper, Joe Wilson, himself:

YOU LIE!!!!!!!

Posted by: marecek | October 14, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Hillary4President wrote on October 13, 2009 at 7:59 PM: "With all the ongoing lawsuits challenging
Obama's NBC status it is only months now before he will be escorted out of the White House and incarcerated. He is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the POTUS position ---he knows it, Pelosi knows it, the DNC knows it---they are all complicit. HRC will become POTUS without having to run "again.""

Is Hillary4President the nickname for Orly Taitz? Is this person even pretending to be serious? You do not have even a smidgeon of evidence to support that nonsensical claim, yet you suggest that Obama is going to be escorted out of the White House. I guess desparate losers have nothing else to live for but their sick fantasy's. By the way, assuming arguendo that your ridiculous hypothetical had any basis in reality, it is Joe Biden who would take over, not Hillary Clinton. Just so you don't get your hopes up and then have them dashed. LOSER!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: marecek | October 14, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton earned in her first 9 month as Secretary of State praise, even admiration in this country as well as abroad. History will give her credit for standing beside her husband in critical times, serving New York well as Junior Senator, running a spirited campaign to define what American voters want and supports President Obama loyally. In due time she might win a Nobel Peace Price like her predecessor Henry Kissinger.
Much younger extremely succesful women are testing their political ambitions in California. If Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, funding challenges to embedded profis with selfearned $-millions remains to be seen. Senator Snowe surprisingly profiled herself and the unsinkable Sarah Palin might impact American politics one way or another for the foreseable future.

Posted by: EPaulImhof | October 16, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company