A democrat will win in 2016 simply because of Barack Obama. Same as with H.W. except if it's Hillary we will have it for the next 16. Remember what Terry said abou Hillary being VP? Trust me she will run again in 2016 and she very well may win it.

I know that anything I say about this wll be seen as a defense of Sen. Clinton, but that's not really my objection to this reasoning. My problem with a lot of what is going-on in here lately is the recent tendency toward what I have called "...grandiose prophecy..." on virtually EVERY possible subject.

One simply does not KNOW what might happen in the future. If one did, we could ALL make fortunes picking stocks short or long, or betting on basketball games. And picking stocks or basketball games over a window of weeks, is certainly a lot easier task than forecasting an international political environment many years out. How many interesting, clever, and even plausible future scenarios from 9-10-2001 were blasted to bits by the events of the next day?

I've said before that trying to PREDICT the future is an interesting parlor exercise, with a degree of constructive value to the extent it may guide us toward possible opportunities, or help us to avoid possible pitfalls. By and large, however, I think one's time is better spent trying to MAKE a future, and leaving oneself open to adapt to suprising events as they (inevitably) occur.

I'm keeping hope alive Des HRC/Schweitzer 2016!

Ok, I rarely do this, as I hate throwing gas on the HRC-BHO wars, but since you dragged the UN in, and BHO ain't in the picture, I'm gonna respond.

Are you mental?

Yeah, I know a lot of Americans dig Hillary. But the UN is for the world. And you know what? Even though I think they've selected a lot of jack-off's as General Secretary before, HRC - even if she had SoS years would still leave her a far worse choice than many other qualified people. Yeah yeah, I know her supporters are all revved up and she doesn't have enough glorious places to go. But f*ck that kids. It's a big world, with a lot of good people.

HRC at present has very little executive experience, bureaucratic experience, limited language skills, limited international experience. Now, I REPEAT, yes, they've elected lunch-buckets before. But I want the best person for the WORLD for that job. Y'all may think she's dandy, and go head, give her 8 years at SoS, but for God's sake, can we look around a LITTLE? Yes, I'd prefer someone female, even a woman of color, but above all, they need to have exceptional diplomatic, bureaucratic, mediation/negotiation & visionary skills.

Do I want someone whose experience is almost entirely limited to one nation? Go ahead, read me all the detail from her resume if you will, but this is just myopic as hell. Here. Try this. Look at Stephen Lewis' life. Only one person, from one country, but someone we both know something about. Tell me how on Earth you would choose HRC for the UN's top job over him? Add in 8 years of her at SoS, add something juicy to his resume over the same period, and where would you go? Come on. Just for starters, just looking at white politicians, why not Tony Blair? A deeper record in every respect.

I donno Des. This one just felt to me like it was a bit blinded by a Hillary-love thing. And I'm not even going into what I think she WON'T be good at, ok? Just... maybe let's not resolve a domestic political musical chairs problem on the rest of the world's back. And again, YES, i know most S-G's have sucked.

@ Des, above. No way in hell Obama doesn't speak some Bahasa. That shit is the easiest language to learn in the world. I got it in months, and can still rattle off phrases. But no benefit for him to mention that he could get by in Indonesian, eh?

My personal views on HRC? Sigh. Senate, yes?. Not SoS, not Health, not S-Gen. Beyond having some formal opinions you'd regard as debatable (i.e. that the two major projects she's had to manage, health care & the campaign, she's not done well AS A MANAGER), let me try to get at the qualitative thing - what I really feel.

There's a burn-out thing that happens to politicians & staffers at the very top. They ones who're placed, for years, 24/7, under extraordinary pressure. You see it in the rapid aging of Presidents. I was in NYC, 3 years ago, meeting people around HRC. The best way I can describe it is that it was like their skin was too tight. Leathery. These people were brilliant, ok? Had enormous organizational chops, networks, track records. But. They'd been in 10,000 meetings. Lived for years under incredible pressure, day after day when you can't flinch or swear or break cover or talk like a human. It is incredibly rare to find someone who managed to have a home life or art or something, anything, to break this assault on the nervous system.

When you meet them 20 years on, like I did, their eyes are more glazed, they're too quick, too brusque when they meet people down the food-chain. The mental flexibility, the joy in ideas, the freshness of a truly innovative mind that they once HAD.... is gone. They ride, Des, on what they know, on all the patterns they've seen, they're deeply, mentally, fatigued. And it takes an extraordinary effort for them to bring in new people, get hungry about new challenges, to think new.

HRC had all the gifts I mentioned above when she was younger. You can see it in the old pictures & stories of her. She doesn't have it as much now. Bill, even worse - and I love that guy. Nor do her key people. They're slower on the pick-up, the neurons have been so heavily stimulated through 1000 crises, that they find it hard to detect the new. I've known some of these people from 25 years ago, and the comparison to now ain't great. My latest meeting went about as I figured. They didn't "get" it, they had too much force, too many people they knew, too much established money, too much inertia behind their position. So I came off as irritating, challenging, another fucking ideas guy. And they are USED to deference. They're not used to be challenged anymore Des. Later, I heard through the grapevine - and saw in their public shifts - that they admitted I was right. The problem was, it took more than 6 months to get there. GM, plug-in's, the Volt - this shit was on their desk, in their hands, 3 years ago. Others who met them felt the same way. Came out as pissed off as I was. And we all blew them off. ALL.

The same evidence of this is there to see in her campaign. It's not being a bastard to mention that people are human. The campaign - and yes, HRC - were slow to pick up the Obama threat. Slow to find a way through or around it. Firewalls against the threat weren't in place. When the adjustment eventually happened, look at how it happened. HRC had to literally break down, or blow up, the self, the stance, the mindset she'd constructed over 15 years. Her fans won't want to say this in a public place, but the "finding her voice" also meant ditching the one she'd adopted. Which meant they'd been backing her when she WASN'T coming from her real voice, or self. Think about this. You've seen it in bands, in business, in writers, in families even - same thing with pols.

The only question after that was, could she continue down that path, toward regaining herself, get hungry for the new, turn over her staff and get new ideas and new blood in. Now tell the truth. Do you see that happening? Because I don't. I saw a person who's been absolutely hammered by life, and done an incredible job, for 20+ years ok, at the top level, and who then... got probably the greatest "defeat" of their life. I listened to and watched her speeches while she was back on the trail. Everybody said nice things about them. I watched in horror. Put your hand over her face so you can just see the eyes, then watch again. that person, as a person, was unbelievably wounded by this, Des. I can't imagine taking that blow. She's not the same.

People may take this as another Obama-Clinton shot. It's not. I've seen these staffers, ministers, wives, in different places, and human beings are NOT built to sustain that kind of pressure. The rare one does. Not many. And pols in THIS lifetime face 00's of times as much information coming in; many times the meetings and media sessions and gatherings than just 40 years ago; worldwide inspection of every word they make. There's no Kennedy compound to go to for these guys. Blair's done, actually. As is Bill. And lots of others you could name. Truth is, so is Stephen Lewis, much as I love what he's done. He makes a great speech, but a new one? Nope. I want them around, for the incredible experience and mental networks they have. But not to seek and find new solutions, not to make decisions on stuff with wild new variables. And yes, I think that rules out a lot of people beside Hillary as well.

And Hillary took more shots that almost any politician I've ever seen. With less ability to protect herself. She shouldn't be asked to stretch out beyond her strengths, to have to walk beyond areas where she already knows the footing. The Senate's her home court. She'll do fine there. Personally, I think Obama worries about her there, as well as in Cabinet. If she digs in, as she will, and rallies all that old machinery and people behind her, it's gonna be a mess. A foreign stint makes sense from that perspective. New to her, and lots of heavyweight people she'd listen to, but outside her normal bailiwick.

But for all the reasons I've just listed, I don't think it'd be good for the nation. Or Hillary. My 5 cents.