Hillary Clinton’s Hardest Choice Still Lies Ahead

As her book tour kicks off, she can decide whether the high personal costs of a presidential campaign are worth it.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waits to speak at the World Bank May 14, 2014 in Washington, DC. Former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and World Bank President Jim Yong Kim joined others to speak about women's rights. 
National Journal
Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Charlie Cook
June 9, 2014, 5:31 p.m.

A vir­tu­al cot­tage in­dustry has de­veloped from journ­al­ists who do little else but cov­er — or per­haps the bet­ter term is ob­sess over — Hil­lary Clin­ton.

Every week there seem to be hun­dreds of thou­sands, if not mil­lions, of words writ­ten about her, par­tic­u­larly as she kicks off her new book tour Tues­day. Con­sid­er­ing that she is not pres­id­ent of the United States and no elec­tion for the job will be held un­til 2016, that is a pretty re­mark­able feat, and ar­gu­ably an un­pre­ced­en­ted one.

Now that the tour has be­gun, and re­views of her new book Hard Choices are ap­pear­ing every few minutes, it’s like a Niagara Falls of words. Many hav­ing read the book or even just ex­cepts are pars­ing its words the way Krem­lino­lo­gists in our in­tel­li­gence com­munity used to ex­am­ine every mes­sage from Mo­scow to de­term­ine the in­ten­tions of So­viet lead­ers. They mostly con­clude that she is cer­tainly run­ning, while a few have cre­at­ively found what they think are un­mis­tak­able in­dic­a­tions that she won’t.

Per­son­ally, I think all of them should take a deep breath.

The one art­icle in re­cent days that seems to make more sense to me than any oth­er is “Hil­lary Clin­ton’s Gut Check,” by Na­tion­al Journ­al‘s Alex Seitz-Wald. The art­icle pos­its that Clin­ton’s tour, with at least 20 stops in 10 U.S. cit­ies plus two more in Canada, of­fers an op­por­tun­ity for the former sec­ret­ary of State to test the wa­ters, not so much in polit­ic­al as in per­son­al terms. As an un­named former aide to Clin­ton said in the art­icle, “What she’s go­ing to be ask­ing her­self is, am I hav­ing fun? Am I en­joy­ing this? Do I really want to do this again and po­ten­tially risk los­ing again?” Seitz-Wald then makes the point, “While Clin­ton is more fa­mil­i­ar than nearly any­one with what it’s like to run a pres­id­en­tial cam­paign, a lot has changed since her last bid eight years ago: She’s older, and the oth­er per­son­al costs have nev­er been high­er. Even as she’s clearly lean­ing to­ward a run, it’s a chance for due di­li­gence.”

In my view, she al­most cer­tainly hasn’t de­cided wheth­er to run, nor does she need to do so be­fore the end of the year, and the de­cision could eas­ily slip in­to early next year. Quite simply, there is no need to de­cide any soon­er, so why should she? Back in Feb­ru­ary, this column poin­ted out that the choice to run for pres­id­ent is ef­fect­ively a nine-year com­mit­ment. It takes about one year to run for the job. Then, if you win, you serve for four years, and we’ve al­most nev­er seen a first-term pres­id­ent who didn’t want to have a second term, so four more years is needed for that. This is not to ar­gue by any means that Clin­ton is too old to run. After all, if elec­ted, Clin­ton — who is cur­rently 66 and will turn 67 in Oc­to­ber — will be 69, which is ex­actly the same age that Ron­ald Re­agan was when he was first elec­ted in 1980. That works out to 73 at the end of a first term and, if reelec­ted, 77 at the end of a second. This is a com­mit­ment for someone in her late 60s that would re­quire al­most a dec­ade, at a time when most people are start­ing to think about slow­ing down and en­joy­ing life a bit.

In the end, my guess is chances are 70 per­cent chance that she will run, but that one im­port­ant data point will be how she en­joys, or doesn’t en­joy, the taste of be­ing on the road and back in the fray.

What We're Following See More »
DEMOCRATS STILL INSISTING ON DACA
Wednesday Meeting May Be Last Chance to Avoid Shutdown
8 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Chances of a government shutdown grew Monday as Republicans concluded that they would be unable to reach a long-term spending accord by the Friday deadline. GOP leaders are now turning to a short-term funding measure in hopes of keeping agencies open while talks continue, but Democratic leaders say they are unlikely to support any deal that does not protect young illegal immigrants. Aides to key negotiators from both parties planned to meet Tuesday in an effort to rekindle budget talks, setting up a Wednesday meeting of the leaders themselves. If they cannot agree, the government would shut down at midnight Friday for the first time since 2013."

Source:
SAYS HE CAN NO LONGER SERVE UNDER TRUMP
Amb. to Panama John Feeley Resigns
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

“'As a junior foreign service officer, I signed an oath to serve faithfully the president and his administration in an apolitical fashion, even when I might not agree with certain policies. My instructors made clear that if I believed I could not do that, I would be honor bound to resign. That time has come,' Feeley said, according to an excerpt of his resignation letter read to Reuters."

Source:
SPEAKS TO MEDIA IN WAKE OF TRUMP’S DENIAL
Durbin Confirms President’s Remarks
3 days ago
THE LATEST
WYDEN AND PAUL WANT CHANGES TO BILL
Senators Vow FISA Filibuster
3 days ago
THE LATEST

Sens. Ron Wyden and Rand Paul said they will oppose reauthorization of FISA's Section 702 unless the bill contains added "protections for Americans' privacy rights. The powers granted by Section 702 are only supposed to be used against foreigners on foreign soil. But an American's communications can get swept up in the NSA's surveillance dragnet if they communicate with people overseas." More robust privacy protections were voted down by the House this week when it approved the authorization, but without them, Paul and Wyden say they'll filibuster.

Source:
USED “TOUGH LANGUAGE”
Trump: I Didn’t Use a Vulgarity
3 days ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login