Here is a weekend factoid for you: among all living politicians in the United States who have ever held elected office, Hillary Clinton the most popular.
That's right. Ever since she became Secretary of State, her favorables have soared into the mid-60's, putting her well clear of any other statewide officeholder in the country. The only national figures who are viewed as favorably as Clinton are Michelle Obama, Colin Powell, and David Patraeus. However, they have never run for office, which invariably lowers your favorables.
Hillary Clinton will turn 69 in in the final week of the 2016 campaign, which makes her slightly younger than Ronald Reagan when he first was elected in 1980. Also, as Secretary of State, a major presidential candidate, a U.S. Senator, and First Lady, she is also probably more credentialed than any other potential Presidential candidate, too. There is even talk she may become the next Secretary of Defense, further adding to her credentials.
Some have said that, in choosing Joe Biden as Vice-President, Barack Obama did not pick a successor to lead the Democratic Party. However, that needs rethinking. Because Barack obama made her Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton remains remarkably well-positioned to run for President in 2016, even more so than she was in 2008.
Congressional Democrats have scored positive, or even, favorable / approval ratings according to all eight polling firms that have conducted public opinion surveys on them since the Inauguration. These figures are remarkable because, in most polls, they are the first positive approval ratings from Congressional Democrats since early 2007 (and, in some cases, since early 2002, after the September 11th attacks). However, it is not just Congressional Democrats who have seen a dramatic improvement in their image since President Obama took office. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also entered stratospheric, 2-1 positive territory on favorabliliy over the past few months.
Check out Clinton's favorability ratings compared to this time one year ago (more in the extended entry):
President-elect Barack Obama offered Sen. Hillary Clinton the position of Secretary of State during their meeting Thursday in Chicago, according to two senior Democratic officials. She requested time to consider the offer, the officials said.
This is a high-risk, high-reward opportunity for Hillary Clinton. If she accepts, and serves out six or eight years in a popular Obama administration, then she is practically guaranteed the Presidency in 2016. Consider that the Secretary of State has been the most popular political figure in the entire nation for about twelve years running now, starting with Albright, then to Powell, then to Rice. It makes sense, since about all Americans see the Secretary of State doing is looking stately while meeting with powerful foreign leaders who suck up to him or her.
However, there is always a chance she will be replaced, or that Obama will not be a popular President. In either of these scenarios, taking the job might make it the last job Hillary Clinton has in politics.
In terms of politics, some progressives are worried that Clinton voted for a resolution that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, thus making it difficult for her to hold the job. However, given that the other names most commonly floated are Kerry and Lugar, I fail to see how Clinton is inferior to either option.
Update: I should also add the rumors about Durbin and Kennedy supposedly denying Clinton a leading role on health care reform. If those rumors are true, then Clinton should probably take the job. It is the best leadership position available to her.
Update 2: Some people in the comments are saying they would have preferred Bill Richardson or Wes Clark. Clark would be a great choice, I think. Also, I did cut a television ad for Richardson, he is already proven in dealing with foreign governments, and it would be fantastic to have a proponent of No Residual Forces in Iraq so close to the top. However, I have not heard either Clark or Richardson floated as serious contenders.
Update 3: Some are expressing frustration over such a high profile position for Hillary Clinton, since they supported and worked for Obama in the primaries. All I have to say to that is any belief that defeating Clinton in the primaries would somehow vanquish all Clintonistas from the reigns of power was foolish. Obama's appointments so far are full of Clinton administration officials. It makes sense, since lots of Democrats went to work for Clinton, and if Obama wants people with prior executive branch experience, that is where he has to look. Further, while the party is supposed to come together after the primaries, that doesn't mean one side is supposed to be entirely subservient to the other side.
I don't care about the Clinton vs. Obama battle anymore. I can't even believe some people are still living through it. I care about the progressive vs. centrist struggle, and that is not, and never has been, the same thing as Obama vs. Clinton.
I have acted in a way that violated the obligations to my family and that violates my - or any - sense of right and wrong. I apologize first, and most importantly, to my family. I apologize to the public, whom I promised better. I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals. It is about ideas, the public good and doing what is best for the State of New York. But I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard that I expect of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family. I will not be taking questions. Thank you very much. I will report back to you in short order. Thank you very much.
This is a serious blow. I feel as though progressives have lost their top bench contender for President of the Unites States. Spitzer could have run against a Republican in 2012 or 2016. He could have run for an open seat in 2016. He could have even been a possible primary challenger in 2012 if a Democratic President had screwed up and sold us out really badly.
Even though the two actions are not comparable, I feel about the same today as I did back in April of 2005 when Russ Feingold announced that he was getting a second divorce. The progressive bench for possible presidents is pretty darn thin, suffering from the electoral bloodbaths progressives received, both in general elections and in primaries, from 1980-2004. And yes, obviously, when I talk about progressive presidents I mean something different than either Obama or Clinton (or probably Edwards for that matter). Centrist policy positions and faux transformative progressivism dominate even non-DLC Democratic politics these days. Remembering how much days like these hurt reminds us that we need to embrace the few progressive we have, and help incubate a bunch more, in order to one day build a progressive national leader. It takes a long time to build a President.
Among Democrats who have never run for President, who do you see as possible leaders in four, eight, or even twelve years time?
STATE BLOGS
