I don't know, McCain's semi-somnolent run this year didn't help the case for a candidate who would be seventy-seven by the end of a second term.

Other than Richard Nixon, what first-rank also-ran in an election has gone on to win the nomination, much less the presidency, eight years later? That's just not how politics works, especially among Democrats. We just don't hold the door for the person who finished second eight years ago. Hillary will be eight years less dynamic, the American people will be eight years more tired of the Clintons as a phenomenon, and she'll be running against several much younger and much more talented governors and senators, some of whom don't even hold statewide office yet.

If you asked all the political observers in the country to predict who will be the major-party nominees for president eight years hence, over time you'd find that approximately zero percent of the predictions came true. Hillary ain't gonna be the next Democratic president, and so the idea that becoming secretary of thisthatortheotherthing, or not, will increase or reduce her chances is a fool's errand. You can multiply zero by whatever factor you want, but the answer will always be zero.

Thinking backwards in the elections since Primaries became the main way to select a candidate:

2008: Obama ran for the first time, but McCain came back from being the runner up eight years ago.  Edwards and Biden had no luck a 2nd time around.

2004: Kerry'd never run before, Gephardt had in 1988, and failed again

2000: Bush hadn't run before, Gore had placed a distant 3rd or 4th in 1988.

1996: Dole had failed in 1980 and 1988

1992: Clinton had never run before, Jerry Brown had, and failed twice

1988: Bush had run eight years earlier, but being Veep intervened to set him up.  Dukakis had never run, Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart, who both had come close in 1984, failed again.

1984: Mondale, Hart and Jackson had never run before.  

1980: Reagan had run in 76 and 68, none of the others had

1976: Carter was running for the first time, Scoop Jackson ran again, as did George Wallace.  Neither of them won though.

As far as it goes, I'd say Rhubarbs is right:  The Republicans have a much stronger tradition of nominating a past failed candidate, nominating someone who's "waited their turn," so to speak.  Nominees Reagan, Bush, Dole, and McCain were all those who came back from from previous failures.  (W proves the exception).  Democrats, however, go for the relatively fresh face.  Also, they seem to run fresh faces in each cycle.  Only Edwards, Gore, Jackson and Hart really ran serious second bids for the White House, and the only successful one for the nomination was Gore, with the intervening Vice Presidency.  Vis a vis Hillary, I'd say Rhubs is correct.

Smart post Mr Crowley - I have a feeling that Obama knew every bit of this.

I don't mean to go all primary on us and I'm not but - Hillary's views are malleable to which way the winds are blowing and the winds of change are pretty gale force right now.  

If she makes it past the elephant in the room (Our Bill of course), I have no doubt she'll be singing the Obama tune the loudest - and good for her.  (Can't you just kind of envision Hillary saying in that Chicago meeting: 'look Barack, its your turn to babysit him for awhile.')

Her star power alone will turbo charge Obama's foreign policy agenda.  She'll be a good soldier, probably his best.  It would also help Obama to have someone to share the press laser beam (searing on him right now) with.  All eyes on him weakens him.

Letting a major resource like Hillary Clinton rot in the Senate with no power or platform wouldn't just eventually morph into a headache for Obama. More importantly: it would be a waste to this country of a powerful, unique American icon with a singular influence around the world.  

That's just not smart.  People always make fun of Obama's ego, but his is the strongest, most centered I've observed in an American President in my lifetime.  He knows Hillary will get on his last nerve about once a week and welcomes it.  Who among us would do that?  

"A stint at State, incidentally, would set Hillary up pretty nicely for 2016, if she's interested. "

Sure, but if the perception is that Hillary is looking at this cabinet appointment as a springboard to the Presidency, that's not something that weighs in her favor.   Quite the opposite.

Yes Hillary has "clout" and name recognition.  She also has baggage.  But putting aside Hillary's reputation for divisiveness, does America really need another rock star as Secretary of State?   We have a President from the Senate.  A VP from the Senate.    Do we also need a Secretary of State from the Senate?  Shouldn't Obama bring in some real foreign policy expertise here?  

I'd prefer a seasoned professional like Holbrooke.

Wandreycer1  said

"I don't mean to go all primary on us and I'm not but - Hillary's views are malleable to which way the winds are blowing and the winds of change are pretty gale force right now.  "

I don't mean to go all primary on us and I'm not but - Obama's views are malleable to which way the winds are blowing and the winds of reality  are pretty gale force right now..