Why did Hillary Clinton decide to run for President in 2008 and 2016, but not in 2004?

8 comments

1. Because running against a popular incumbent in George W. Bush would be an uphill battle she was unlikely to win, and running and losing would have undermined future attempts.

2. Probably just didn’t see an opportunity to win.

3. If you think people don’t like the Cliton name nowadays, you should have seen it in the aftermath of Bill’s scandal.

   In 2004 the country was somewhat split down the middle over Bush, but he was still broadly popular.

   Her husband’s baggage and the negative impact it would have had on her chances was much more uniform, and running with that looming over your head against a popular incumbent would have just been plain stupid.

   I’ll call her a lot of things, but she ain’t stupid.

4. John Kerry was a far better candidate with very high credentials

5. Kerry was the stronger candidate

6. One of the factors is that when people were deciding whether to run or not in early 2003, George W. Bush was a lot more popular than he ended up being in November 2004.

7. While she was definitely a more involved First Lady than most, and more involved than people likely gave her credit for, that alone wouldn’t fill out a Presidential resume. She needed more credentials and experience independent of Bill. She ran for US Senate from New York in 2002 to get that requisite experience. In 2004 she had just started her first term in the US Senate, and needed to stay in the job a bit longer before running for President. In 2008 she had enough to launch a run (but ultimately lost) and by 2016 she had also served as Secretary of State as well.

8. In addition to what others have mentioned, she had just been elected as a senator and she probably wanted to use that position first to gain support within her party.