I really think it was a good thing (for her) she lost the nomination. I think it's made her more popular than ever, and I think she's done a lot of good.
Both she and her husband are saying that she's retiring from political life. I wouldn't blame her if she feels that way. Thirty years (including her time at Arkansas) is a long time to be in the media limelight.
My bigger question is who's going to replace during the next presidential term. Some Republicans are suggesting that Obama will pick John Kerry. And if Romney wins? You can only speculate, but I can visualize Newt Gingrich or Herman Caine on the world stage. (Not!)
If a Republican Secretary of State had said that the Egyptian dictator Mubarak was a “friend of the family,” or stupidly suggested that people who opposed using military force in Libya supported Gadaffi, would she get this much love? Would a Republican Secretary of State be called a “treasure” by Democrats if she had once voted against a ban on using cluster bombs in populated areas and then oversaw the policies which led to using those types of bombs to kill 22 children and a dozen women in a single attack on Yemen (and then colluded with the Yemeni government to deny responsibility for the attack)? What if she approved of policies that used greatly increased drone attacks to target and bomb funerals?
If a Republican Secretary of State’s office had ordered diplomats to spy on their counterparts at the UN, wouldn’t folks here be questioning the legality of that behavior? And if she voiced opposition to gay marriage and had yet to “evolve” on the issue, would she be praised here at Slog?
Comments (13) RSS