sounds like she's not that tired yet.

And I have big time voters remorse with Obama, Hillary would get my vote if I had a Delorean and could go back to summer of 2008...

It may be that once she steps down as Secretary of State, and spends some time assessing the landscape, we will have a better idea based on where and on what issues she decides to focus her time.  But...here's the problem I think she's going to have: given her long history of interest in domestic issues and positions that were arguably well to the left of where Obama is and has been on many of them, how hamstrung is she to direct her efforts there in what would be her traditionally more liberal approach, without undermining Obama and being seen as disloyal, ungrateful and damaging to the cause?

Because the thing about Hillary is that she is and always has been a loyal-to-the-party Democrat, and if she is more or less forced to lay the groundwork for a 2016 run by being a cheerleader for current Democratic policy, what's the point?  I would be looking for a Democrat to run who actually believes in partisan Democratic policy, not someone who's just going to advocate for more of this right-of-center muddled-up mush - I want Democratic policy wrapped in a Democratic package, not GOP policy wrapped in a Democratic package.

I truly don't see Hillary as being the savior of the Democratic brand, and I wouldn't' expect any campaign she might run to be much to the left of where Obama is going to leave things, assuming he gets another four years.  If Obama loses, I think the door opens for her in 2016 - she'd have more ability to be her own person, instead of dutifully being handed the baton and carrying on as her predecessor.

If I had to predict what she'd end up doing, it would be relax for a small stretch of time, then start up a global initiative, along the lines of what Pres. Clinton has done, but focusing on the development of women and girls. It seems to be where her heart lies, and would be an extension of the work she's done all her life and only intensified in her role as Sec. of State. I don't see her leaving policy work, but I would be surprised to see her re-enter politics.

BY 2016 progressives will have had more than enough of third way, DLC types.  And the country as a whole will have had more than enough of supply side economics and the Democrats like the Clintons and Obama who have facilitated it.  Policies designed to cut social support programs, fund wars and keep the rentier class from ever having to even think about taking a haircut on their loans will do nothing to address unemployment and the plight of underwater homeowners.  Four more years of it, which is what we will be subjected to whether it be Obama or Romney (difference if any economically is in degree not direction), will make the failure of supply evident to even the most ignorant devotee of Fox News.

I hope she runs and I think she runs. And wins.

i believe my odds of winning the lottery are better.

secty. clinton will be 8 years older than in 2008.
she'll also probably be a grandmother by that time, and wanting (as do most grandparents) to spend time with the grandkids.

realistically, all the loony tune right-wingnuts that loathe her now will loathe her then. after (most likely) 8 years of obama and (also very likely), 4 years of a democratic majority in both houses of congress, those same loony tune right-wingnuts will have hurled themselves into the abyss. the tea party, as we know it, will be dead, having evolved into simply a way for its "leaders" to glean cash from the rubes. however, egged on by limbaugh, beck, hannity, coulter, et al, those same rubes will be even more dangerous to anyone exhibiting the least sign of intelligent life.

given all this, why on earth would secty. clinton give even two seconds thought (two seconds she can't get back) to running for pres. in 2016? the idea begs credulity.