Clinton steps down as Secretary of State: will it be 'Hillary for America 2016'?

I watched an interesting documentary over Christmas that mapped the career and life of former President Bill Clinton. His early years as a charismatic but not so well known southerner, the flirt, the women and the many offices held and goals reached. What stood out to me was Hillary. I have never followed her closely but always kept my eye on her, standing always just off to the side. She was not apparently welcomed by Bill's team when she first came aboard the Clinton bus. Too opinionated, too northern, too educated. But on board she came, and from the footage she was the making of his later campaigns. She stood by him, gave him credibility where it was lacking and I think she was courageous for this. It wasn't naivety, and I don't think it was all pragmatism either.

 Clinton in 1992 on the campaign trail for her husband. (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia, File)

Today John Kerry replaces Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, an Office she has held for four years. The articles, blogs and TV montages are already rolling to depict her years as a Public servant. The political wheels are also turning over a possible second Presidential run. Those wheels though are more spinning on the grass, chucking up mud, than they are burning rubber. Clinton refuses at this point to annouce any possibility of a candidacy, saying she is looking forward to the rest. The consensus seems to be she hasn't made up her mind and that much rests on her health, and of course age. Being in your 60s and a woman is a ghastly thing for the public to see apparently!

"Clinton leaves with a mixed record: She has garnered wide admiration around the world but has no major diplomatic achievements on par with those of other well-known secretaries of state, such as Henry Kissinger or George C. Marshall. Rand Corp.’s James Dobbins, a former ambassador and longtime troubleshooter for both Democratic and Republican administrations, said Clinton was denied big diplomatic breakthroughs but also leaves without “catastrophic failures.”

“She turned out, perhaps rather surprisingly given her reputation for sharp elbows, to be a very competent and even quite popular manager of a large, complex bureaucracy and a highly collegial player on a ‘team of rivals,’ ” Dobbins said." http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/what-is-clintons-legacy-at-state--and-her-future/2013/01/31/da204496-6b30-11e2-af53-7b2b2a7510a8_story.html 

Random poll for the day; if Clinton was to run in 2016 she has a chance of winning Texas! 50% of voters view her favourably, that cuts across Republicans and Democrats. (thanks to the Dallas News for that one.) She also leaves the Secretary of State Office with a 70% approval rating. She is liked by Republicans or at least tolerated and hated by some Democrats. But her Husband's support base and ability to fundraise can never been underestimated. When she ran for the New York Senate in 2000, it was the first time a First Lady had run for Public Office and the first time a woman had won New York. With her popularity at an all time high Clinton herself said in 2012, "There's a certain consistency to who I am and what I do, and I think people have finally said, 'Well, you know, I kinda get her now.'" ^{'At the pinnacle of her career' Rachel Combe, Elle.}   I'm not so sure Hillary, I've been reading for the last few hours now, including plenty of comments from the random blogosphere/newscasts and although people have opinions on you they don't seem so clear as to how they were formed.

The thing is and I'm sure I'm open to attack here I'm not overly concerned about her record. Well ok I'm ambivalent about it. I accept that there are those who have been disappointed by her inconsistency as New York Senator and many point the finger at her for the loss of American life in Benghazi. But ultimately I want to see a Female President. I want to taste that piece of history. I know the wrong one can do damage and potentially put us (women who like power) back a few years. Yes I'm thinking of Maggie (but that is another subject, which I'm also divided on). I believe that first and foremost we learn by example and I want my girls to grow up in a world where woman can lead. Lead with a Capital L. It might not be their Mummy ;) but she is a Mom, a wife, an educated, hard working, 'sharp elbowed', glasses wearing and yes still too big haired WOMAN. And that's it for me, that's where the buck stops.

As always thanks for reading, please I would love to hear your thoughts and disagreements :)

www.guardian.co.uk

Labour Leader hits the spot: EU Referendum and One Nation Politics

"Running scared from Ukip,
Giving in to his party,
Can't deliver for the country."

The biting words of opposition Leader Ed Milliband last week, as he harangued the Prime Minister over his decision to give in and hold a referendum on the UK's position in Europe. I have wanted to do a blog on Mr Milliband for a while but there never seems to be quite enough substance to any one thing he says. Which I imagine sums up how many might feel about him.

For example he gave a speech a couple of weeks ago to the Fabian Society where he said:

"Britain is in danger of having two nations divided between those who own their one homes and those who rent.

If we are going to build One Nation, people who rent their homes should have rights and protections as well.

That’s about rooting out the rogue landlords.

Stopping families being ripped off by letting agents.

And giving new security to families who rent.

So we will introduce a national register of landlords, to give greater powers for local authorities to root out and strike off rogue landlords.

We will end the confusing, inconsistent fees and charges in the private rented sector.

And we will seek to give greater security to families who rent and remove the barriers that stand in the way of longer term tenancies"
http://www.labour.org.uk/ed-miliband-speech-fabian-one-nation-labour-change

As a current long-term renter with no security and young children to worry about I actually felt like a Politician was speaking to me and perhaps speaking sense. Regulation of this market is desperately needed, prices should be fairer and I believe long-term lets are the only solution to the housing crisis.

However, 'one nation' was not really hitting the spot. It feels like just another hollow sound bite thought up in a marketing office somewhere far away from Liverpool, Edinburgh, Leeds and SNP Perthshire. Again I'm not saying I'm voting Yes in 2014 but it needs more than Ed repeating 'one nation' over and over for it to be true. We are divided, as he just said, by those who rent and those who own. By those who work and don't. By those who believe in God and don't. And now it seems by those who want a chance to say they don't like that pesky EU and all its laws and migrant workers and business.

Mr Milliband in many ways I do want us to be 'one nation' but I'm yet to understand how you want to make that happen. And cliched as it is we are more than a nation. We are the European Union, we are NATO, we are human. I have more in common sometimes with friends in the US, or with those I support working in Pakistan. Sometimes I want to protect the goat famer in Greece because I love his feta or the wine maker in France. This is our world, we interact every second across the internet, falling in love, bullying people, encouraging one another and learning all the time. We need laws, regualtions, and parliaments that understand this.

Which brings me back to the original quote and how I found myself in agreement with Ed and giving him another chance! Cameron is running scared from Ukip, but worse than that he is giving them power and legitimacy they don't deserve. If Hitler had never been imprisoned but just sent home he would never have recieved so much attention, noteriety or increased support. More than giving in to his party Cameron is also pulling a well worn magic trick. Sleight of hand, distraction, illusion call it what you will. But we are all looking one way, and he's pulling something out of the bag somewhere else. And in this way, yes David Cameron is failing the nation because I'm pretty sure it's not a nice fluffy rabbit.

Off a cliff? Or skipping down a hill?

It's the year 1999 and suddenly there is widespread panic that computers will not be able to cope with the numbers 2,0,0,0. Clocks, calendars, schedules, programme software, banks, wall street will just somehow implode (or that was my memory of it). Now why they didn't see this coming I'll never understand. But with all eyes on Sydney we waited for our digital world to collapse. It didn't. Computers being clever things clicked over to a new day and millennium quite effortlessly. It was a good night as I remember although my sparkly "2000" headband got lost :(

And so we have the 'fiscal cliff'. Plenty of time to predict and prevent and yet here comes the end of Year with panic, negotiations and dugged Politicians. My very simple understanding of the cliff is that a whole bunch of legislation including; the end of the Bush tax cut extensions, the beginning of ObamaCare and spending cuts to several key areas pertaining to the debt ceiling deal, were all coming together on a crash course to reduce the deficit by some $500 billion as the ball dropped on 2013. This reduction instead of being smiled upon was feared for its steep decline and the resulting recession and rise in unemployment. The percentage points that I've heard are not all that extreme, but of course add in a few clips of riots in Greece and the 'cliff' becomes much steeper.

I think what's interesting to me is why the last minute neogtiations? Why was this "messy, short-term deal" necessary? Well with all the Christmas and New Year festivities its easy to forget that we were deep in Election Politics only a few months ago. Gridlock was the Republican tool of choice, fighting the President at every turn in the belief he would soon be booted out. So a pre-emptive deal was off the table, but now more importantly my hope is that some Republicans at least want to get to work and represnt the districts that voted them in. ABC News' polls (sorry if that is a bad source I have 2 children and almost no internet) have 52% believe Obama did a good job with 45% in agreement with the deal. 51% disapproved of Boehner's role - Americans fed up perhaps of the delaying tatics of an unproductive House. Hope at last of future bi-partisanship and genuine progress?

Yet the cliff deal doesn't seem to achieve an awful lot. No immediate cuts for social security and medicare, and a 5 year extension on tax credits is a positive start but the fact that a threatened rise in taxes, however small and effecting relatively so few, is still seen as the bigger burden is surprising and frustrating. Why do taxes send such a chill down the US spine? For a nation made up of such generous individuals I find it strange that the general ethos is still against redistribution of wealth. Hmm.

I'm going to leave my comments on the ever huge defense budget and instead end with this. Obama brought ObamaCare safely through the election and has saved it again (yes ok CLASS was lost but I think was more using the situation to advantage rather than an actual loss - ??) he has taken points from Boehner and opened things up for the Senate to act instead of the House. What this all means I'm not sure but hopefully it'll be "politics as usual" instead of the stalemate that defined so much of Obama's first term.

N.B  - The quotes are from other blogs, articles etc I'm sorry I didn't keep a better note. Blame the 7 month old who keeps interrupting me :)