Hillary Clinton hints at second presidential run in 2016

Hillary Clinton again hinted that she may run for president in 2016 on Saturday night, telling an audience in Arizona she was "very much concerned" about the direction of the country and was considering “all kinds of decisions” about her future.

The former US secretary of state and first lady, who was beaten by Barack Obama to the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, said at a Clinton Global Initiative event at Arizona State University in Tempe that she was particularly keen to tackle climate change.

Following a discussion with her husband, Bill, and daughter, Chelsea, which was chaired by the talkshow host Jimmy Kimmel, Clinton was asked by a member of the audience: “Ms Clinton, if you won't represent women in politics in America as future president, who will?”

She replied: “Look, I am very much concerned about the direction of our country. And it's not just who runs for office but what they do when they get there and how we bring people together, and particularly empower young people.”

Pressed by Kimmel to give a clearer answer, she added: “I'm obviously thinking about all kinds of decisions.”

Clinton, who represented New York in the US Senate for eight years until stepping down to serve under Obama as America’s most senior diplomat, has repeatedly said she has not yet decided whether to embark on a second campaign for the White House.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/23/hillary-clinton-hints-presidential-run-2016

I'd really like to see her run for president. This time a Black president followed by a woman - now wouldn't that be something.

I would love to see her up against   Condoleezza Rice, that would be some choice for the Americans. 

I think she'd do well in the election and do well as president, too. I'd love to see that Clinton vs. Rice election, but I don't think the Republicans are serious about ever nominating a woman or minority.

I'd love to see Clinton V Palin.

Christ I'd even pay to see that.

Irn Bru wrote:I'd love to see Clinton V Palin.

Christ I'd even pay to see that.

That would be like Reagan's 1984 victory in reverse.

Hold up, it would be worse than that! Even though Reagan won 49 states, he "only" won by an 18 point margin. I'd expect Clinton vs. Palin to go to the Hill by more than 40 points

Oh yes please, get me front row seats!

she was "very much concerned" about the direction of the country

How odd, she wasn't overly concerned about Benghazi. Though she along with a few others did manage to fake holding themselves accountable during the staged hearings that lead to nothing.  Wonder what caused the turn around?

Though we would have a better chance at hitting the lottery, wouldn't it be something if we had two candidates from each side truly worthy of running?

Hotwired wrote:

she was "very much concerned" about the direction of the country

How odd, she wasn't overly concerned about Benghazi. Though she along with a few others did manage to fake holding themselves accountable during the staged hearings that lead to nothing.  Wonder what caused the turn around?

Though we would have a better chance at hitting the lottery, wouldn't it be something if we had two candidates from each side truly worthy of running?

Meh, there was no wrong-doing at Benghazi.  As an issue, there's no there, there.

First, to put matters right, Benghazi was a CIA outpost, not a State Department post.  The CIA director, Republican General David Petraeus, put out the false information to mislead the press away from that fact.  That's why all of the press releases came from Langley.  And it was because of Republican Petraeus that National Security Advisor Susan Rice (and by implication, Clinton) had to take the fall.

Second, only four people died at Benghazi.  And while that is tragic, over twenty people died in action in Afghanistan last month.  IT'S A WAR!  Duh!

Third, yes the war zone is back in Iraq and Afghanistan, but did anyone bother to send the memo to Al Qaeda?  When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, didn't the theatre become the entire Pacific?  Are there any rules for war??? Al Qaeda attacked Benghazi the same as it attacked embassies in Sudan.

Fourth, it's a needless war started by a deaf and dumb Republican administration back in 2003.  In fact, all of the so-called scandals raised by the Issa Commitee in the past two years, go back to Republican initiated wrong doing.  Fast and Furious was a Republican program.  The IRS investigation involves programs started during the Republican administration.  Benghazi was just an extension of a Middle-East war started by a brainless Republican administration.

Fifth, and finally, Daryl Issa and all Republicans are unAmerican liars, who work for the downfall of America.  Close the government?  Ruin America's top credit rating by failing to pass a budget?  Why do you think they lie?  They are traitors.  

Benghazi...phffft...there's no there, there.

good idea jogging will help keep her fit...

Hotwired wrote:

she was "very much concerned" about the direction of the country

How odd, she wasn't overly concerned about Benghazi. Though she along with a few others did manage to fake holding themselves accountable during the staged hearings that lead to nothing.  Wonder what caused the turn around?

Though we would have a better chance at hitting the lottery, wouldn't it be something if we had two candidates from each side truly worthy of running?

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Funny, all these Benghazi-style attacks occurred while Bush was in office and I don't recall a single hearing, or anybody blaming anyone besides the terrorists for the loss of lives ...