Originally posted by trackside528@Jun 5 2008, 01:22 PM
In many ways I feel the Democrats would have been best served by a more "electable" (as bullshit as the phrase may be). Perhaps the likes of John Edwards (*cue Warbler crying hysterically in a corner*) 
)
I'm reminded of what that visiting professor told me way back in the Winter "never under-estimate the Democrats capacity to find the most unelectable candidate they can".
As regards Edwards as VP, it's possible, but he didn't carry the Carolina's for Kerry, even though he has some southern currency. He does have the capacity to reach the blue collar vote though, which would be one of the key things Hillary would bring to the ticket. But he's been defeated once and America doesn't normally warm well to losers. Quite apart from anything though, his VP candidacy represents my best chance of winning a bet I'd long torn up mentally. All I need is an air crash, or a devastating October surprise.
I'm not sure what would happen constitutionally if something happened to Obama after he'd nominated his running mate? Hillary would doubtless claim she's the candidate, but the running mate probably has an equally legitiamte claim, especially if it occurs between the election and taking office.
As regards Hillary's future, it's difficult to see where she goes immediately, but after having given it a lot of thought I've hatched on a zany idea :brows: She has options
A) Stay in the Senate
B) Join the administration in some capacity
C) Seek out a new platform
Now if we assume she has her eyes on another run in 2012 A and B look difficult.
If she stays in the Senate she'll probably find herself tied up into a voting record and support for an Obama Presidency that will make it difficult for her to sustain a challenge that hasn't got holes all the way through it. In this case she'd be relying on Obama to lose this year, so won't do anything too soon anyway. If he fails then she's cleared to run. If he wins, she's got to position herself without upsetting the party.
The second option is intriguing, but equally difficult to launch off I'd have thought for some of the same reasons. In 2012 Obama won't necessarily be able to play this wishy washy 'change' card. By then he'll be considered as part of the establishment and is going to require a new USP. Where as skin colour might be a small factor to the change/ slight novelty agenda he's been able to plug into, he's long gone past that stage now. It might have helped him secure early profile as he came to the media attention, but no more than this. I feel that far more crucial has been the fact that he's not a Clinton or a Bush, and compared to the usual suspects, he's young and energetic, and it's more likely this sense of optimism that he's been able to propogate, that has carried him along. To some extent 'change' and 'optimism' spawns 'hope' and it is this wave that he has plugged into and ridden so well (particularly amongst voters). However, it carries a health warning and a sell by date. If hope isn't managed in context, it can quickly become the self-inflicted wound of 'expectation'
Now unless he's going to be able to reinvent a whole new way of managing a western democracy, then I'd thoroughly expect this expectation to go unmet and flounder on the rocks of pragmatism (everything else always has done). Now at one level this might cause some of those optimists who registered in Democrat primaries this year for the first time, to drift away in disillusion, which would enhance Hillary's prospects? In reality some of her vote will have died off by then too, so they might cancel each other out. Either way, he'll need to march to a different tune in 2012, but that's along way off
Where am I going with this?
Yes... back on track.
It all depends on how popular an Obama administration transpires to be, which is why she can't risk joining it if she harbours ambitions of the top job. If he turns out to be a popular President, then she won't be able to beat him anyway. I'm sure it must have happened? but right now, I can't think of an example where a high profile member of an administration, successfully challenged, and won a nomination from a sitting President. So joining the administration looks like an admission that she'll never achieve her goal.
If it turns out to be an unpopular administration come 2012, and President Obama finds himself echoing the words of LBJ "I Shall not seek, nor shall I accept....etc" then she'll be tarnished by its failure too, and there's every chance that the Democrats record in government has been so poor, that the only way she could win is to get some distance between herself the administration and congress.
Which brings me to the third option, an alternative platform.
It might be that Obama tries to offer her one? Ambassador to the UN would allow her to stay in New York, but the media and public take a pretty dim view of the UN, and it's hardly going to keep her in the spotlight. As mentioned earlier, any of the major offices of state risk her eclipsing Obama, (so he doesn't have the incentive) especially as she'll have access to the networks and experience built up between 1992 - 2000 and could hit the ground running. The major offices of state would also make it very difficult for her to launch a run off regardless of his popularity, and this is backed up with precedent (so she doesn't have an incentive).
Now skulking back to the senate is an obvious thing to do, but..... what if she sought to demonstrate her ability to govern rather than simply vote or sit on committees trying to score points of political rivals?
Now there's two possibilities that come to mind.
1: A run for New York Mayor
2: A run for a State Governorship
Now New York mayors have a bad record of seeking the highest office, and although she would be rolling the dice in the knowledge of this, it would be too high a risk I reckon. New York state governor? well almost uniquely (but not quite) the position of mayor is actually higher profile, which means she'll have to go out of state I'd have thought if she wanted to showcase her achievements. Now Vermont or Rhode Island might be close :laughing: but they hardly register on the richter scale of profile building.
There is of course one very high profile state, that has a history of returning Democrats above Republicans, (unless one of their own stands for President) that currently has the house speaker representing it in Congress (Democrat and another quasi feminist, and influential, who I confess to voting for LTO) the state also voted for Hillary in the primaries, and also carried 57 electoral seats in the college last time I looked. It's present Governor would also guarantee her a high profile shoot out!!! although he must be due to finish his term soon (I think California is 8 years?)
Hillary Clinton versus The Terminator (you couldn't write it) :laughing:
If I were her I'd be inclined to offer Obama (and the party by proxy) my unconditional support and offer the services of the Clinton machine to go and secure California for him, whilst seruptitiously promoting myself norty
I should perhaps say I don't know how she gets on with Nancy Pelosi but wouldn't too surprised to learn they don't.
I'd be more scarred of the CIA Merlin :laughing:
