Hillary Clinton remains in Senate.

Had Hillary declined to be Secretary of State in 2009 and remained in the Senate. She seeks and wins reelection in 2012 and heads in 2016 as the Democratic front runner at OTL.

With Hillary in Washington rather than overseas (she was the most traveled Sec. of State IIRC), what are the major changes? Who does Obama appoint in her stead? If he appoints John Kerry, is it possible for Clinton to rise to Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Would their be a major change in foreign policy with an earlier Kerry appointment or someone else all together?
 

Deleted member 1487

Had Hillary declined to be Secretary of State in 2009 and remained in the Senate. She seeks and wins reelection in 2012 and heads in 2016 as the Democratic front runner at OTL.

With Hillary in Washington rather than overseas (she was the most traveled Sec. of State IIRC), what are the major changes? Who does Obama appoint in her stead? If he appoints John Kerry, is it possible for Clinton to rise to Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Would their be a major change in foreign policy with an earlier Kerry appointment or someone else all together?
It really doesn't then help her case that she is any more prepared than Senator Sanders, because she still has less experience in Congress than he does by at least 12 years, plus no more foreign policy experience. No one but her more partisan supporters took the 'experience' of being First Lady serious in terms of governance. It would only weaken her position as front runner; the entire reason she was offered the SoS position was to bolster her credentials for another presidential run in 2016, as there was a tradition of SoS running for the presidency and she could claim then valid foreign policy experience and international relationships, which IOTL was her biggest selling point in the primary and general elections. I'd imagine Kerry gets the job instead and does a fine job. Who knows what committees she'd get in the senate, but likely she'd not be a front runner without having had the SoS position, as if Obama didn't offer it to her, she wouldn't have his blessing to be his replacement in 2016, which then really opens the field. She'd likely lose the primary in a more crowded field and with Obama a true neutral. No real change in foreign policy under Obama with Kerry in office, perhaps he doesn't try nearly as hard to sell Libya, but I don't see how Obama could avoid commitments there
 
I don't think our foreign policy would change all that much. She pursued the Russian reset despite almost certainly being against it, so it's not like she wasn't following orders. As for her run, no personal association with Benghazi and no email flap probably help. Some other problems might arise from the ether, probably involving the Clinton Foundation, so who knows how that pans out.
 

Asami

Banned
I don't think our foreign policy would change all that much. She pursued the Russian reset despite almost certainly being against it, so it's not like she wasn't following orders. As for her run, no personal association with Benghazi and no email flap probably help. Some other problems might arise from the ether, probably involving the Clinton Foundation, so who knows how that pans out.

She'd also be less 'the heir of the party' by this point though, since she'd have no foreign experience. Bernie (who did remarkably well against her) would be far more postured as the 'better' choice considering he's been working in Congress longer than she has.
 
. . . no personal association with Benghazi and no email flap probably help. . .
Hillary wins the general election. And rather easily if Trump is the Republican nominee.

As far as the primary, it was an unusual year. Surprising that Bernie did as well as he did. If he's the frontrunner, more of a target for mud slinging, more of the criticism will stick?
 
Hillary wins the general election. And rather easily if Trump is the Republican nominee.

As far as the primary, it was an unusual year. Surprising that Bernie did as well as he did. If he's the frontrunner, more of a target for mud slinging, more of the criticism will stick?

Well, ironically, the same argument advanced by Clinton's defenders, that the particulars of scandal X don't matter, and if it didn't occur at all, then the anti-Clinton media would simply conjure up another one, applies here. I was actually surprised that the email issue so thoroughly overshadowed controversies surrounding the Clinton Foundation, but if it didn't exist, then that might get more attention, or else something to do with being in New York state politics, which are pretty damn corrupt as well.

She had any number of tactical problems that tripped her up, but ultimately, I think her real problem was her position on trade; specifically, her about-face on the TPP that I think may have done her in. Because believe it or not, most Democrats support free trade now, so in turning against it like that, she may well have alienated a number of them and caused them to stay home. She delivered terribly on her promise to win moderate Republicans away from Trump, but outflanking him to the right on trade might actually have worked, if only because he was probably the first protectionist Republican nominee since Herbert Hoover. And for all of that loss, I don't think she actually gained much from opposing the TPP, since the voters who are skeptical of free trade likely didn't see her position as sincere. Clinton's fundamental weakness is, and always has been a fundamental powerlessness in controlling her public image. I don't know if she understands this so well, hence mistakes like this.
 
Former deputy chief of mission in Libya: U.S. military assets told to stand down

CNN, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, May 7, 2013

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/politics/benghazi-whistleblower/

.
.
In February, the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, was asked by Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, why F-16s at Aviano Air Base in Italy weren't deployed to Benghazi that night.

"This is the middle of the night now, these are not aircraft on strip alert," Dempsey said. "They're there as part of our commitment to NATO and Europe. And so, as we looked at the time line , it was pretty clear that it would take up to 20 hours or so to get them there. Secondly, senator, importantly, it was the wrong tool for the job."
.
.
This whole tragedy feeds into such conservative myths that Democrats are weak and that Hillary is an elitist. Within the last year, I've had a young conservative I sometimes see in a bar tell me that 'the' stand-down order came from the Secretary of State's office. I did a little research and on a future occasion told him that it looked like it just wasn't the case. I think he might have partially believed me.

And I wish we had a foreign policy in which four American lives, and more broadly four human lives, was considered very important. Maybe you couldn't make foreign policy this way, but I'd like to give it a try and find a way.
 
This whole tragedy feeds into such conservative myths that Democrats are weak and that Hillary is an elitist. Within the last year, I've had a young conservative I sometimes see in a bar tell me that 'the' stand-down order came from the Secretary of State's office. I did a little research and on a future occasion told him that it looked like it just wasn't the case. I think he might have partially believed me.

And I wish we had a foreign policy in which four American lives, and more broadly four human lives, was considered very important. Maybe you couldn't make foreign policy this way, but I'd like to give it a try and find a way.

In order to have that, you'd first need a domestic policy where four American lives were considered very important. As someone who lived in Connecticut during Sandy Hook, I know all too well how far we are from thinking like that.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/politics/benghazi-whistleblower/

.
.
[Then-Secretary of Defense Leon] Panetta, in his February testimony defending officials' actions, said, "The bottom line is this, that we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault, which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response, very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region. Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.

"Despite the uncertainty at the time, the Department of Defense and the rest of the United States government spared no effort to do everything we could to try to save American lives. Before, during and after the attack, every request the Department of Defense received we did, we accomplished."
He did okay at the beginning, but no. If planes aren't in readiness mode, it's not the case we did everything we could.

Maybe it's not a hundred percent practical to always keep them in readiness mode. But now that this has been made public, maybe we should do a damn sight better. And look beyond all the wild accusations of the Republicans, this is the part they get kind of right.
 
In order to have that, you'd first need a domestic policy where four American lives were considered very important. As someone who lived in Connecticut during Sandy Hook, I know all too well how far we are from thinking like that.
Following the tragedy in Sandy Hook, I gave my thoughts and prayers to the best of my ability.

And last year I started a thread entitled, Reforms acceptable to 70% of gun rights advocates?
 
Last edited:
FWIW, I'd really like to see the discussion limited to foreign policy events in Obama's first term and Clinton's Senate career in that period. Any thoughts on her role in the healthcare battle?

Interesting discussion of course but no need to bedevil Ian with this stuff.
 
This also means that Gillibrand stays in the House, although she might end up losing to Gibson in 2010.
 
NickCT once did a TL where this led to healthcare reform failing and Hillary primarying Obama in 2012 and then beating Mitt Romney to be elected President. Interesting scenario and it was a good TL(The Audacity of Opposition) but I doubt it's plausible.
 
NickCT once did a TL where this led to healthcare reform failing and Hillary primarying Obama in 2012 and then beating Mitt Romney to be elected President. Interesting scenario and it was a good TL(The Audacity of Opposition) but I doubt it's plausible.
Yea, if she primaries Obama, Romney definitely wins the general. In today's political climate, I can't see a sitting President winning re election if he/she gets a serious primary challenge (see Carter in 1980, Ford in '76, LBJ in '68, arguably Bush 41 in '92).
 
FWIW, I'd really like to see the discussion limited to foreign policy events in Obama's first term and Clinton's Senate career in that period. Any thoughts on her role in the healthcare battle? . . .
Okay, in foreign policy, love for us to figure out way to support Arab Spring sooner, primarily in Egypt. And not through magic, but by taking smart medium steps and seeing how it works out.

If we really want to go high trajectory on health care, how about a straight up or down vote on Medicare for all?

PS There might be some discussion of the 2016 election just because it's a real juicy topic. But I'll try to contribute to your two preferred topics as well and hope other people do, too.
 
Top