WI: Hillary wasn't chosen as secretary of state?

I strongly disagree. You'd either avoid or significantly lessen her disasters in: Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Honduras, and Haiti

That would worsen those "disasters" to the point they become more than Republicans being desperate, plus a bunch of other mistakes would pop up. The sheer role Hillary played in Obama's foreign policy cannot be understated. No one could have and no one can match her sheer competence.
 
Yoy'd worsen those "disasters" to the point they become more than Republicans being desperate, plus a bunch of other mistakes would pop up. The sheer role Hillary played in Obama's foreign policy cannot be understated. No one could have and no one can match her sheer competence.
Again, disagree strongly. She was the one pushing the most for those disasters. You might have had one or two turn out about the same, but Obama's better judgement combined with a more competent SecState with decent judgement and a coherent policy, who's first instinct isn't "WAR!" would do much better.
 
That would worsen those "disasters" to the point they become more than Republicans being desperate, plus a bunch of other mistakes would pop up. The sheer role Hillary played in Obama's foreign policy cannot be understated. No one could have and no one can match her sheer competence.
I don't see any real compelling reason why Clinton is astronomically better than Kerry.
 
Again, disagree strongly. She was the one pushing the most for those disasters. You might have had one or two turn out about the same, but Obama's better judgement combined with a more competent SecState with decent judgement and a coherent policy, who's first instinct isn't "WAR!" would do much better.

Hillary's first instinct was not and is not war. Like pretty much every Democrat, force is a last resort for her.

And I don't think you can find a more competent SoS. She is perhaps one of the best Secretaries of State in recent history.

You really shouldn't let current politics cloud your views like this.
 
I don't see any real compelling reason why Clinton is astronomically better than Kerry.
Agreed, in fact I think John Kerry is doing a better job than Hillary did. At least he's doing more with the position as Secretary of State than just using it as a launching pad for the Presidency.
 
And I don't think you can find a more competent SoS. She is perhaps one of the best Secretaries of State in recent history.
I don't really see a compelling argument for this. Clinton did a decent job, but I honestly think you're letting current politics cloud your judgment by declaring her the greatest SoS ever.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
Would John Kerry really do that badly in Obama's first term?
By most metrics, John Kerry has been an abysmal Secretary of State. Some of that has been beyond his control, but he hasn't had many successes. He is incredibly naive and has not been able to cultivate relationships nearly as successfully as Hillary was able to.
 
By most metrics, John Kerry has been an abysmal Secretary of State. Some of that has been beyond his control, but he hasn't had many successes. He is incredibly naive and has not been able to cultivate relationships nearly as successfully as Hillary was able to.
I think this is more due to Obama's overall foreign policy strategy not working as well among the myriad of different foreign policy challenges of his second term.
 

EMTSATX

Banned
To be fair to Kerry that debacle of a deal with Iran is Obama's doing. The deal at any cost. Hillary was pretty smart not to be involved with that.
 
Hillary's first instinct was not and is not war. Like pretty much every Democrat, force is a last resort for her.

Complete and utter baloney.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27...-2016-military-intervention-libya-iraq-syria/

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...wkishness-began-when-she-was-first-lady-16742

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/2...2/28/hillary-clinton-is-an-unrepentant-warmon

And I don't think you can find a more competent SoS. She is perhaps one of the best Secretaries of State in recent history.

LOL

You really shouldn't let current politics cloud your views like this.

I'm not.
 
Honestly John Kerry would have been on par with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State during Obama's first term. While he may be criticized by the Neocons more he would be much less scandalous. His second term as Secretary of State would be just like OTL. Bin laden is captured at a later point. The 2016 Democratic primary is Kerry v. Sanders v. Clinton. Kerry gets most of the mainstream Democrat support, while Hillary attacks his term as SoS. Hillary's neocon attitudes and scandals as First Lady make her less popular than Kerry. She then adopts policies of the other two but becomes even less of a popular candidate. Kerry gets the nomination and while Trump attacks him for his foreign policy and being another establishment politician, but he has a harder time than in OTL. Kerry portrays himself as a more experienced candidate and has less of the downsides as Hillary, so he wins the election.
 
Honestly John Kerry would have been on par with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State during Obama's first term. While he may be criticized by the Neocons more he would be much less scandalous. His second term as Secretary of State would be just like OTL. Bin laden is captured at a later point. The 2016 Democratic primary is Kerry v. Sanders v. Clinton. Kerry gets most of the mainstream Democrat support, while Hillary attacks his term as SoS. Hillary's neocon attitudes and scandals as First Lady make her less popular than Kerry. She then adopts policies of the other two but becomes even less of a popular candidate. Kerry gets the nomination and while Trump attacks him for his foreign policy and being another establishment politician, but he has a harder time than in OTL. Kerry portrays himself as a more experienced candidate and has less of the downsides as Hillary, so he wins the election.

Cool, definitely plausible, but would Hillary Clinton really try to run at 2016 ?

And @fjihr , you're getting your own politics clouding judgement about Hillary Clinton. I would have to agree with @KiwiEater and @Osakadave on this.
 
Honestly John Kerry would have been on par with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State during Obama's first term. While he may be criticized by the Neocons more he would be much less scandalous. His second term as Secretary of State would be just like OTL. Bin laden is captured at a later point. The 2016 Democratic primary is Kerry v. Sanders v. Clinton. Kerry gets most of the mainstream Democrat support, while Hillary attacks his term as SoS. Hillary's neocon attitudes and scandals as First Lady make her less popular than Kerry. She then adopts policies of the other two but becomes even less of a popular candidate. Kerry gets the nomination and while Trump attacks him for his foreign policy and being another establishment politician, but he has a harder time than in OTL. Kerry portrays himself as a more experienced candidate and has less of the downsides as Hillary, so he wins the election.
I don't think Kerry would run. While I personally don't hold 2004 against him, many other Democrats and Liberals do, so that alone would disqualify him. I think Biden vs. Clinton vs. Sanders is more likely in the event that she's not SoS and even then, Biden is a stretch. She'd have a tougher time winning it but barring a true major scandal undoing her, I think she'd be the nominee, and I say this as a proud Bernie Supporter.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
I don't think Kerry would run. While I personally don't hold 2004 against him, many other Democrats and Liberals do, so that alone would disqualify him. I think Biden vs. Clinton vs. Sanders is more likely in the event that she's not SoS and even then, Biden is a stretch. She'd have a tougher time winning it but barring a true major scandal undoing her, I think she'd be the nominee, and I say this as a proud Bernie Supporter.
The issue that Kerry runs into is that Hillary's lock on the black vote isn't exactly unmoored by Kerry any more than it was by Bernie, except maybe by a tiny bit. He is a white man running in a party currently consumed by an identity politics crusade without deviating from orthodoxy enough to generate his own momentum. He has name recognition for being a loser and not much else.
 
but would Hillary Clinton really try to run at 2016 ?

Definitely. She would have black progressive support if she ran, and I think she'd realize that. And, as 2008 and OTL 2016 show, the candidate with black progressive support is the frontrunner from Super Tuesday on. And though she herself was nearly able to overcome Obama's black progressive support in 2008, that was because she had progressive Hispanic support. And she'd have that support too. So she'd likely realize that she would have the nomination and run for the Presidency.

The only problem is that she is unpopular whenever she doesn't have a job. That's one reason I feel she should have stayed on as SoS, but I digress. However, that unpopularity, as OTL shows, would not extend to the Democratic Party. She would likely stay on as Senator though, so thus she would remain popular. She would win the primaries by a similar margin as OTL and would be a stronger candidate in the general.
 
I think she would have become a major Democratic leader in the Senate, and would never be criticized for Benghazi or all the other stuff that that happened while she was SoS.

She still runs in 2016, but as a Senator instead of SoS, loses the experience factor that gave her an advantage over Sanders. However, she is much more trusted by Americans and is still powerful in Washington and I think would have still won the primary by similar margins as in OTL.

The general election against Trump is much more comfortable than in OTL, as while she never was SoS, that's not a problem compared to the lack of experience Trump has in government, and indeed, with no Benghazi, no emails, no Clinton foundation controversy, there's little for him to attack her on
 
On a domestic front, Obamacare legislative process may have gone better/been a more amenable for Democrats if Clinton remains in the Senate. It was her intention before being asked to take State by Obama to be a leader of the healthcare reform process and it was evident she had learned the lessons of the failed 90s effort so with that experience in mind plus her connections/lobbying, I feel it would have at least helped get a better deal than the one Obama secured.

With regard to foreign policy, it depends on who Obama picks as SoS instead. Clinton recommended Holbrooke but he's out given his lobbying against Obama in the primaries (a particularly aggressive kind that made Obama dislike him) so its probably Kerry or perhaps Susan Rice or Samantha Power if he's feeling more radical. Key areas of difference here are how well ITL SoS manages the relationships with Petraeus, Gates, Panetta, Biden etc etc, how influential the ITL SoS is with Obama and their views on the Arab Spring, bin Laden, the Asia pivot and USFP outlook.
 
Top