Hillary Clinton has just the right strategy — for 2012

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH ^ | 4-25-08 | Bill McClellan

[kingattax]

Sometimes you have to tip your hat to people you don't necessarily like, and I feel that way these days about the Clintons. Bill and Hillary are smarter than the rest of us. They're playing chess while we're playing checkers.

That's because we're looking ahead a couple of months. Who will get the nomination? Or we're looking toward November. Who will win the election?

The Clintons are several moves ahead of us. They're looking toward 2012.

It became clear a couple of months ago that Barack Obama was going to get the nomination. Given the way the delegates are allotted on a proportional basis rather than on a winner-take-all basis, Obama's lead became insurmountable during his winning streak. And there was never a realistic hope that the superdelegates would overrule the will of the voters. If they did, there would be chaos. The party would risk alienating its single most faithful bloc — African-Americans.

So let's play chess. Let's look ahead. Let's assume that Obama wins the nomination. If you are the Clintons, what then?

You've got to hope that he loses the general election. If he wins in 2008, he'll run for re-election in 2012. That means the next chance for Hillary would be 2016. She'll be 69 by the time that election comes around. (She'll be 61 in October of this year.) Chances are, her time will have passed.

Also, the odds will be against the Democrat in 2016. This is true no matter how Obama does in 2012. If he were to win re-election, we would have had eight years of a Democrat in the White House. After eight years, people are usually ready for a change. Plus, there would be a vice president who might seek the nomination.

[napscoordinator]

This is exactly the reason that the country is conservative. With people like Barack and Hillary on full display it is inevitable, in the end, that conservatism will triumph.

So who is the mystical conservative who will triumph in 2008?

[writer33]

So who is the mystical conservative who will triumph in 2008?

None. You're right, but that doesn't mean we sit around and sulk. The House and Senate races are important, and conservatism can be implemented there.

[napscoordinator]

That’s true!

[04-Bravo]

I bet Hillary wonders if she should have run for president in 2004, even if it meant going against an incumbent. By waiting until 2008, she was able to avoid an incumbent opponent (or even a former Veep opponent), and must have thought she would have no real opposition in the primaries. Her strategy seems to have been based on her belief that she would automatically be her party’s nominee.

Poor Hillary.

If Obama is elected in 2008, but the party is divided, I hope Hillary runs against him in 2012. Gene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy ran against their party’s incumbent President Johnson in 1968.

My hope is that the current Democrats screw things up like their predecessors did from 1968-1972.

[SunkenCiv]

It became clear a couple of months ago that Barack Obama was going to get the nomination. Given the way the delegates are allotted on a proportional basis rather than on a winner-take-all basis, Obama's lead became insurmountable during his winning streak. And there was never a realistic hope that the superdelegates would overrule the will of the voters. If they did, there would be chaos. The party would risk alienating its single most faithful bloc -- African-Americans... You've got to hope that [Obama] loses the general election. If he wins in 2008, he'll run for re-election in 2012. That means... Hillary would be... 69 by [2016]... Also, the odds will be against the Democrat in 2016. This is true no matter how Obama does in 2012.