How now, Hillary?

Current Events US Elections 2004/2008/2012/2016
1

Making predictions is risky. Making political predictions is doubly so. Remember not that long ago the widely held predictions were:

  1. The GOP primaries would be long and drawn out, eventually resulting in Rudy Giuliani as candidate

  2. The Democratic primaries would be decided early, with Hillary Clinton as candidate

To paraphrase Tom Clancy, it’s like predicting who’ll win the Superbowl before the season has even begun.

And yet, I have to wonder what Hillary clinton is going to do now. I believe she’s a woman ambitious for power who will not give up obtaining the presidency. So any talk of her accepting an appointment to the Supreme Court strikes me as foolish, even were Obama to win the presidency and offer her the appointment (neither of which is by any means certain).

She might accept the vice-presidential nomination, though. A great many VPs have been their party’s candidate when their terms expired. Think of Truman, Nixon, Mondale, Gore and H.W. Bush. It took a cold fish like Dick Chenney, who has health problems to boot, to break this cycle (had Bush the elder won two terms, I wonder if Quayle would have obtained his party’s nomination).

But that means waiting until 2016, when her and Pbama’s terms would run out. If Obama were to win in '08 and loose in 2012, Hillary could still not run until 2016. While challenging a sitting president within his party is not unheard of (Ford, Carter), I don’t think the VP would ever do it. And running as VP to a one-term president is hardly easy. a one-term presidency is generally seen as a failure. Remember Mondale lost in 49 states; it doesn’t get any worse than that.

Oh, and there’s the small matter that Obama would probably not offer her the post. But that hardly matters. I don’t think Hillary wants to wait 8 more years for her shot. She has to wait 4 now, at least. No helping that.

What’s left? Why, making sure Obama fails misserably this year. Very few loosing candidates ever run again (not seriously). I can think of only two who did and suceeded: Richard Nixon and Grover Cleveland; keeping in mind that Cleveland lost a re-election bid, then ran again and won four years later, making him the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms (but I digress).

But that’s even more risky than making a political prediction. If she’s seen to be sabotaging Obama’s candidacy, she will surely loose all support from her party, or would cause the party to split. And if she does sabotage Obama, the fact would come out quickly and be widely publicized. That ought to rule sabotage out.

What’s left? Stealing the nomination this year. I don’t think that will happen. It might have, had no candidate gotten enough delegates, and with Democratic rules being more bizarre than a Mad Hatter’s Tea Party™, but it can’t happen now. Not only has Obama the necessary number of delegates, but Hillary herself has conceded. If she were to try to steal the nomination now, the consequences would be the same as outlined above.

This seems to leave Hillary with nothing to do but hope McCain will win (McCain will likely be a one-term president by his own choice) or that Obama fails worse than Carter in the White House (a task for which he’s certainly qualified). As to the latter, a failed Democratic presidency will likely turn the voters in the direction of the GOP, unless they nominate someone like Pat Buchanan. So Hillary’s real hope is that McCain will win.

But she won’t just sit on her hands and wait. She also won’t actively campaign for McCain, or against Obama, nor will she leak info to hurt Obama, nor will she make anti-Obama statements she can claim were taken out of context, nor will she engage in a “misspeaking” tour against Obama. Any of that kills her chances forever. Nobody likes a traitor, not even the people helped by the traitor’s actions.

What I think she will do is let her supporters “defect” to McCain en-masse. This makes all sorts of sense:

  1. Her supporters said Obama is inexperienced and unprepared for the presidency. By voting for McCain they place the country’s interests above their party’s interests and they are acting consistently with what they believe about Obama.

  2. Hillary cannot control her supporters. They are free people with minds of their own, free agents as it were.

  3. They can claim that by supporting McCain, who already believes in big government, they are influencing how he’ll play his mandate out. besides they will vote to renew the Democratic-held Congress. their beef is against the candidate, not the party.

Hillary could also influence, through surrogates, a far-left candidate to run in a third party ticket, following the Nader beats Gore 2000 model. But I doubt that would work this time around, seeing that Obama is plenty far to the left already. If anything, McCain is the one who should be worrying about a third party conservative stealing his votes.

And that might be enough to make Obama loose and Hillary to run again in 2012.

How likely is this? I’ll let you know when I find out how Rudy vs Hillary plays out :wink:

2

Heh, check out

http://www.hcsfjm.com/

Try to figure out what “hcsfjm” stands for before you click the link. :slight_smile:

3

Try to figure out what “hcsfjm” stands for before you click the link. :slight_smile:

I wish I could take credit for it, but since there is, or was, a real organization named “Jews for Jesus,” nothing really surprises me anymore.

4

(McCain will likely be a one-term president by his own choice)

I think this will be the case as well. The man doesn’t seem like he could last for 8 years. He might even die of a heart attack or something. What’s going on with Hillary exactly? I haven’t had time to check up on the primaries and stuff, and honestly, I like Obama way more then Hillary.

5

What’s going on with Hillary exactly?

She’s not running for president, for one.

6

She’s not running for president, for one.

Oh, damn. He got the nomination on June 3rd?! Man, that proves how busy I’ve been. I didn’t even know.

7

I think this will be the case as well. The man doesn’t seem like he could last for 8 years. He might even die of a heart attack or something.

Mc Cain’s old. I don’t think he’s liable to drop dead at any minute, but surely he’s too old to carry the presidency for 8 years. Reagan was made fun of due to his age (he was 70 when elected, if memory serves). I expct the same will be true of McCain, with the specter of death thrown in for good measure.

However, anyone can suddenly drop dead. Just this week Tim Russert died suddenly at age 58. A few years back John Ritter died of a ruptured aorta without warning. With an elderly person you’d worry more about it.

Therefore the choice of VP is more important for McCain than it would be for most other candidates (Reagam ran against a failed president and his failed VP, not quite unopposed but close to it; his coice of VP could be as purely political/electoral as most). And he also has to balance political and electoral considerations. Essentially he will be picking his successor.

If he were to choose Rudy Giuliani, I think it likely large numbers of Republicans wouldn’t vote at all. Likewise if he chooses a Democrat, as many pundits fantasize about. If he picks a religious-right conservative, few Democrats will vote for him; particularly few Hillary supporters would vote for him. His best bet would be a well-known “moderate” Republican.

Of course, regardless of whom he chooses, the Democrats and Obama’s campaign will paint him as the second coming of Dick Cheney, or Karl Rove (boo!), just as they’re making McCain out to be W Bush’s spiritual clone.

At that he might pick Rudy. That would work out to Rudy’s benefit, unless the ticket went down into a really ignomoius Mondale-like defeat. If they win, Rudy will be almost assured the nomination for 2012. A close defeat gurantees him nothing, as it didn’t guarantee Lieberman anything, and the electorate’s mood for 2012 cannot be predicted now; but it remains the next best thing. It would serve Rudy well if he learned anything from the disaster of a campaign he ran this year.

Had Fred Thompson not run, he might have been the hands-down self-evident pick for VP this year regardless of presidential candidate. To the GOP’s good fortune he did run, and revealed himself as an oddly un-telegenic candidate (I say oddly because the man is an actor). since then he has sort of graduated as a popualr GOP elder statesman. Good for him, he was my favorite in L&O, but it will be a cold day in hell before he ever wins an election again.

It’s common to pick one of the also-rans from the primary to serve as VP, but not so common as to be inevitable or even particularly desirable (Bush the elder would have fared better with Bob Dole as VP, IMO). But this year there was little enthusiasm for most GOP prospects, and there’s even a lack of enthusiasm for McCain. I still can’t quite understand how he won.

8

…

If he were to choose Rudy Giuliani, I think it likely large numbers of Republicans wouldn’t vote at all. Likewise if he chooses a Democrat, as many pundits fantasize about. If he picks a religious-right conservative, few Democrats will vote for him; particularly few Hillary supporters would vote for him. His best bet would be a well-known “moderate” Republican.

…

Chuck Hegel?

9

I can’t see McCain picking Chuck Hagel. Given that Hagel has said his vote in favor of the Iraq War was a mistake, this wouldn’t serve McCain well at all. I think he’ll pick someone who is a relatively moderate governor.

As far as Hillary is concerned, I noticed that the media are already rehabilitating her reputation, claiming that she will be “the most powerful member” of the US Senate after the presidential election. I think she is secretly hoping and praying that Obama loses so she can run again in 2012.

10

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

11

As far as Hillary is concerned, I noticed that the media are already rehabilitating her reputation, claiming that she will be “the most powerful member” of the US Senate after the presidential election.

The US primary process is a curious thing. It’s a kind of political civil war within each party, replayed with different characters every four years. But as much as each candidate may despise all the others who stand in the way of his nomination, he despises the other party more. therefore after the bloodletting of the primary there must be peace overtures and declarations of “I dind’t really mean it.” I think that’s one reason why the VP sometimes is one fo the trailing primary contenders; that and the fact that the long primary season makes the trailing candidates well-known during election season.

I think she is secretly hoping and praying that Obama loses so she can run again in 2012.

I’d call it an open secret. Everyone knows it’s in her best interest that Obama should loose, but it would be political death for her to admit it.

Clawg quoth Hillary:

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

I don’t think she was callign for her rabid supporters to rub off Mr. Obama, or wishing he’d drop dead even. I really think she misspoke. In context she’s implying Bobby Kennedy was campaigning as late as June.

But I do wonder. What happens if the presidential nominee dies, however it happens, before the convention? Suppose Obama slips in the shower, or is hit by a car, or has an aneurism, or has a heart attack from suddenly seeing Karl Rove, or something. Or suppose McCain suddenly dies of old age. Either of them before the convention makes their nomination official.

I’ve no idea. One rational answer would be to have a brokered convention. The party leaders and prospective candidates, plus the deceased backers and/or delegates, would decide whom to pledge the dead man’s delegates to, so a nominee would emerge. But I don’t know what the rules are. I’ve no idea if the rules even contemplate such things. Or for that matter what happens if a candidate drops dead after the convention. Does his VP candidate take over?

So conceivably Hillary could win her party’s nod if Obama died. But with that statement on the record, she’d never live it down. In fact, with that statement on her record, she has every reason to hover over Obama and protect his life.

12

I’d like to say that I called it just right, that I successfully predicted something. except that I dind’t, quite. And except that it was as hard to predict as a sunrise.

The “not quite” part is even mroe obvious. Hillary will let Bill do the dirty work. I didn’t predict that. Naturally she will throw some tepid support to Obama and ope for the best.

Instead I will make an observation:

By the morality of altruism, Hillary should sacrifice her presidential ambitions and back Obama fully and sincerely. She should beg her supporters to do likewise (I say beg because merely asking them to support her rival is rather humiliating).

Of course she won’t do that. Does this makes her less altruistic and/or more hypocritical? No, of course not. I believe she’s firmly commited to altruism as the highest moral good. But she’s one of the collectors of sacrifices, not a sacrificial offering.

And that too is obvious.

13

The “not quite” part is even mroe obvious. Hillary will let Bill do the dirty work. I didn’t predict that. Naturally she will throw some tepid support to Obama and ope for the best.

Hillary can put on the phony face and pretend she hopes Obama beats McCain. On the other hand, Bill isn’t very good at hiding his contempt for Obama. His comments yesterday were pretty telling:

“Suppose for example you’re a voter and you have candidate X and you have candidate Y,” Clinton said. “Candidate X agrees with you on everything but you don’t think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver.”

“This is the kind of question that I predict — and this heas nothing to do with what’s going on now — but I am just saying if you look at five, 10, 15 years from now, you may actually see this delivery issue become a serious issue in Democratic debates because it is so hard to figure out how to turn good intentions into real changes in the lives of the people we represent.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/27/clinton-candidate-x/

14

Hillary can put on the phony face and pretend she hopes Obama beats McCain. On the other hand, Bill isn’t very good at hiding his contempt for Obama. His comments yesterday were pretty telling:

They were indeed, and I predict something memorable tonight as well.

Now, is Bill a problem or not? That is, assuming an Obama loss this year, does he hurt, help or make no difference for Hillary’s chances in 2012? I’ve no idea.

He can’t be out and out anti-Obama or pro-McCain, of course. But he is distinct from his wife. He can urge dem voters to vote their conscience and such. Actually I think whatever he does will not be done on the convention floor. He might also provide McCain unwitting or not so unwitting fodder for his ads, kind of like McCain’s been using Hillary in his ads lately.

15

He might also provide McCain unwitting or not so unwitting fodder for his ads, kind of like McCain’s been using Hillary in his ads lately.

The old British tactic of divide and rule!!

16

He can’t be out and out anti-Obama or pro-McCain, of course. But he is distinct from his wife. He can urge dem voters to vote their conscience and such. Actually I think whatever he does will not be done on the convention floor. He might also provide McCain unwitting or not so unwitting fodder for his ads, kind of like McCain’s been using Hillary in his ads lately.

Yes, I thought it was interesting that Clinton has his surrogates out saying Obama acts like a “Chicago thug” at about the same time McCain is running an ad that hits on the Obama / Tony Rezko connection.

“Bill Clinton believes the Democratic nominee, far from practicing a unifying, transformational brand of politics, has the political instincts of “a Chicago thug,” one longtime associate said.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12822_Page3.html

In any event, the Clintons are smart enough to know that if Obama loses, they can’t be seen as having a hand in it. That would be devastating. Therefore, Bill will probably do the necessary thing tonight in his convention speech and say good stuff about Obama.

17

In any event, the Clintons are smart enough to know that if Obama loses, they can’t be seen as having a hand in it. That would be devastating. Therefore, Bill will probably do the necessary thing tonight in his convention speech and say good stuff about Obama.

And yet there is another thing to consider about the Clintons: does their narcissim overpower their thirst for power? If it does, they’ll do something very stupid and possibly kill Hillary’s chances for 2012.

I don’t think they are narcissitic enough, though, to go that far. I think they’ll be satisfied by havin half-stolen the convention from Obama and leave it at that. And compared to Obama, the Clintons are modesty personified.

A more interesting question is what does Hillary do if Obama wins. There are two likely scenarios:

  1. Obama does horribly bad as president.

In this scenario Hillary would be tempted to challenge Obama for the nomination. traditionally no one ever runs against a seating president, no matter how unpopular he is or how badly he’s screwed up. But also traditionally sharks gather around wounded fish bleeding in the water. Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter and he pretty much killed his chances at the presidncy forever. On the other hand, Reagan challenged Gerald Ford and secured the nomination four years later (BTW there was a joke about americans not being concerned about electing an actor, Reagan, to the presidency, since they already had a clown, Carter, in the White House).

But there are differences. Ford was a Vice President in addition to being unpopular and lacking charisma. Carter was the duly elected President, he was charismatic and he retained a measure of popularity with the party’s base. In other words, it would be a bad idea for Hillary to challenge Obama, even if he gives away California to Mexico (slight exaggeration there). But she mioght think she could repeat Reagan’s feat, or even surpass it.

  1. Obama does just well enough or very well as president.

In that case it’s straight political suicide to challenge him. Not only for the Democrats, but almost also for the Republicans as well. Think of the rather weak candidates who have eventually run for the presidency against a popular sitting president during good times: Mondale, Dole and Kerry, to name the latest ones. Of these only Kerry had a real chance and that was only because of the spin put on the 2000 election.

If Obama does well in his first term, expect Hillary to sit quietly in the Senate until 2016, and the GOP to nominate a non-entity or perenial looser along the lines of Bob Dole, say Mitt Romney or, and I hate to suggest it, Rudy Giuliani (I actually like Giuliani and think he’s the least worst the Republicans have to offer, but he showed such political inneptitude in his Primary campaign I wonder if he can ever be elected anything at all; plus he won’t even ahve the 9/11 card to play 4 years from now, hopefully)