January 10, 2012

battleblogs asked: 2 of 2. Also, Hillary VP would give the Democratic Party a 'way-forward' that could work until 2024, at least from the viewpoint of an optimistic and committed Democrat. Mrs Clinton has lots of energy and would not be any older than the unlamented Ronald Reagan. It took 30 yrs of reactionary leadership to get us into the current set of messes. Will take decades to re-balance Supreme Court, win back border states, et al ad infinitum--and a powerful personality to push through a big agenda.

Under the scenario you outline, Hillary Clinton would be 69 when elected in 2016, 73 if reelected in 2020, and would retire at 77. This exactly parallels our oldest president ever, Ronald Reagan. In 2016 it will have been 24 years since Bill Clinton was first elected President, and 16 since his term ended. Also, no party has controlled the White House for more than three terms since FDR-Truman controlled it for 5 in the 1930s and 40s.  More, I can’t even think of the last time someone who served in an administration as something other than VP later went on to win the presidency. Finally, VPs just don’t matter, no matter how much one might wish they did. 

The hoopla for Hillary Clinton derives from Democrats’ lack of sense of who might follow Obama—who the rising stars of the party are. However good a president she might have made had she been elected in 2008 rather than Barack Obama, she wasn’t. And her window to become president has passed. Democrats need to focus on the next generation of political leaders, not the former one.

7:09am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZPUuPyEYs_69
(Notes: 7)
  
  1. think4yourself reblogged this from politicalprof
  2. politicalprof posted this