Alternate History -- Clinton Without Obama

I think you both missed my point. I think John Kerry was an excellent candidate for President in that he had all the right credentials. I think his career bears that out. He would’ve made an outstanding President. See the 7 part series that the Boston Globe ran about his background, to see what I’m talking about. Part 1.

However, he was a shitty campaigner. He was un-inspirational, WAY too modest about his accomplishments (whoever advised him not to even mention his involvement with Iran-Contra was an idiot) and didn’t bother to fight back against the outrageous Swift boater’s crap.

I think we mostly agree. Perhaps we only part company in thinking he would’ve made a great President if he’d’ve run a better campaign.

Ok, I did misunderstand as even though I voted for him, I only thought he could not be as bad as 4 more years of Bush/Cheney. I don’t find his record appealing in any way.

Being a good motivational speaker and working across the aisle are two areas of strength that a “Great President” needs to have. He lacked in both these areas. He barely speaks better than Bush.

I don’t recall much about BCCI, why it that such a big deal anyway? It was one corrupt bank that Kerry co-wrote a report on.

Jim (Please note, I barely speak better than Bush, but then I don’t hold public office.)

As I think the 2008 primaries have borne out, credentials aren’t enough. He did look like a good candidate on paper, but people said that about Clark too.

I disagree on one of those points. I think he did reach across the aisle, and I think the work he did with McCain in normalizing relations with Viet Nam is a good example of that.

He did more than write a report on it, he blew the whole scandal wide open.

Heh. I mailed my vote in early and voted for Clark, which turned out to be a waste, since he dropped out of the race before our actual primary. That’ll teach me!

I think you’re confusing having the potential to be a good President (and I believe he’d have been a very good President), with being a good candidate for President. [ETA: Never mind, you clarified that.]

The everyday nomenclature whereby someone being a good candidate for a position is synonymous with the expectation that they’d be good in the position, doesn’t apply to political office due to the very different nature of what candidacy entails.

And with respect to the OP, Edwards and others would have done better in the absence of Obama, but Hillary would have landed the knockout blow on Super Tuesday. Al Giordano explained why last September:

It took money for Obama to go toe-to-toe with Clinton on Super Tuesday, which is what Giordano goes on to say would make Clinton’s coronation less than inevitable.

I think I already explained the distinction above.

If Obama had not run, or had fizzled in Iowa, then HRC would’ve won. Her campaign was ready for that quick primary victory. And without this long primary and the awful campaign her team put up, she would’ve had enough support to become President. People like me who had a long standing dislike of her were very winnable. Heck, I disliked Edwards more. She would likely have been an adequate President too. Not great, but adequate.

She will be a great Senator now that she can give up on positioning herself for her Presidential run.

Before anyone knew about Obama, Hillary was considered terrible by much more than just the far right. This is not the “current” perception of her, but the one that polls revealed every step of the way in the primary campaign process, where she consistently led in polls of Democrat voters, but did worse in matchups versus Republicans than almost all of the other Democrat hopefulls. She was NEVER the front runner in matchups against Republicans.

Her support comes from the far left. There absolutely would have been a vacuum filled by someone like Edwards (who consistently did better than her in polls vs. Republican candidates, even up until he withdrew).

Does anyone think that an Obama-less primary and a Clinton-McCain final would have resulted in significantly stronger showing by any of the third parties?

I think there is a strong possibility that a third party candidate could have had a good showing. It’s not inevitable. And I’m not sure that this candidate would have won any states. But I think that someone could have or would have run on the “When we say Change, we mean it” platform, and picked up a lot of votes from people who are unhappy with the status quo (and thus don’t want to vote Republican) and who don’t like Clinton (either because she’s female, because she’s a Clinton, or because she’s a Democrat).