Hillary for Governor?

[MacNut]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129399
Some Democrats terrified that their bloody primary campaign will doom them in November are floating a consolation prize for Hillary Clinton: governor of New York.

The travails of New York Gov. David Paterson have opened up a new potential career path for Clinton, according to well-informed Democratic Party insiders who refused to allow their names to be used when discussing contingencies. They want her to consider the option if she concludes after the April 22 Pennsylvania primary that she cannot overtake Barack Obama for the party's presidential nomination. Hillary Clinton, while fully committed to continuing her presidential campaign, was said to be open to discussing the idea, while Bill Clinton rejected it out of hand.

With former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani now reported by the New York Post to be weighing a race for governor, voters could see a Clinton-Giuliani matchup after all.

[stevento]

hillary only moved to new york to get into the senate so she could later run for the presidency
i dont think she has any interest in being governor of new york
i think rudy is in a much better position to be governor

[MacNut]

I would agree but the argument is that Hillary has no chance of winning the nomination, so she can save face and become governor than in 4 years run for president. The only thing is how would the people of NY take it. Would they want a lame duck governor for 4 years. She has burned most of her bridges in the Senate as it is. What is left for her there when Obama wins the nomination.In the event that Paterson had to resign, the New York State Constitution calls for a gubernatorial election this November. Clinton would be the favorite in that contest if she were interested. Were a politically wounded Paterson to serve out Spitzer's term, which ends in 2010, Clinton would no doubt be a strong potential candidate to succeed him.

Under the scenario sketched out by the insiders, serving two years as governor would give Clinton the executive experience to become the prohibitive favorite for the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton believes that Barack Obama may well lose this year to John McCain, who would be 75 in 2012 and a possible one-term president. Clinton would arguably be better positioned to replace McCain in the White House as a governor than as a senator.

[zioxide]

Here's a better idea:

Hillary for exile to Siberia!

[mgguy]

She doesn't have the independent experience to be mayor, governor, or president. She has accomplished very little in her "career" (except large profit in cattle futures transactions) on her own. Everything she claims as experience for president she owes to her husband, even her Senate seat. Really, does anyone believe that we would even know who she is were it not for her husbands "accomplishments?"

[stevento]

serving in the senate and being first lady are due to bill but they still count as her own experience.

[ucfgrad93]

I don't think she would ever consider that. Doesn't NY have term limits for governor? She would serve her time and then have to leave. If she stays in the Senate, she can serve until she dies there.

[yg17]

serving in the senate and being first lady are due to bill but they still count as her own experience.

Being first lady is NOT experience. She didn't make huge decisions, she wasn't in on meetings, she didn't even have security clearance to see certain things. Being married to someone doesn't automatically make you qualified to do their job. Would you want your doctor's spouse operating on you? Or your mechanic's spouse fixing your car? Or your carpenter's spouse building your house? No, so why would you want your president's wife running the country?

She's only been in the senate 4 more years than Obama, but if you count his time in the Illinois senate, he has more years than her in an elected office. But if we're going to choose the winner based on experience, then both of them might as well drop out and give the presidency to McCain.

[MacHipster]

Or your carpenter's spouse fixing your car?

I don't think I'd want the spouse's spouse working on the car either. :eek::p:D

Silliness aside, I think the jump to Governor would be a downgrade of sorts. Typically, ex-Governors run for the Senate, not the other way around. Also, I think she is a good Senator and would make a good majority leader. Despite her polarization with the GOP supporters, her fellow GOP Senators do like her and like working with her as she's a moderate. Plus, Harry Reid is a terrible majority leader as it stands.

However, if she did go for it along with Giuliani, it'd be their second contest against each other. It'll be interesting to see who wins, assuming Giuliani doesn't get ill again.

[yg17]

I don't think I'd want the spouse's spouse working on the car either. :eek::p:D




lol, crap. That's what I get for posting that late at night. :D Fixed

[stevento]

Being first lady is NOT experience. She didn't make huge decisions, she wasn't in on meetings, she didn't even have security clearance to see certain things. Being married to someone doesn't automatically make you qualified to do their job.
...
No, so why would you want your president's wife running the country?


i have this argument with my brother as well
being first lady DOES count as experience. she WAS NOT just the president's wife. she had her own office in the west wing. she is a competent leader in her own right. that's not to say being first lady alone qualifies you for the job. no one has made that claim but what i hate hearing is that her experience as first lady doesn't count for anything.

she traveled all over the world and fought for people's rights there as first lady and she worked on countless solutions with bill in the 90s so it is totally erroneous to say that doesn't count for anything

[atszyman]

i have this argument with my brother as well
being first lady DOES count as experience. she WAS NOT just the president's wife. she had her own office in the west wing. she is a competent leader in her own right. that's not to say being first lady alone qualifies you for the job. no one has made that claim but what i hate hearing is that her experience as first lady doesn't count for anything.

she traveled all over the world and fought for people's rights there as first lady and she worked on countless solutions with bill in the 90s so it is totally erroneous to say that doesn't count for anything

She didn't have a security clearance. Condi Rice has more experience than Hillary. If she uses her "experience" to manage to pull some miracle win over Obama it will backfire in the general since there's no question who has more "experience" between her and McCain.

Obama has more experience being accountable to the voters who elected him than Hillary, Hillary was not elected to the position of First Lady and was not accountable to the voters, which is what made her a good choice for the failed Healthcare Plan. If it succeeded Bill could take credit for getting it through, if it failed, he could say it was his wife's doing, she was a handy scapegoat for a gamble on legislation.

[stevento]

She didn't have a security clearance. Condi Rice has more experience than Hillary. If she uses her "experience" to manage to pull some miracle win over Obama it will backfire in the general since there's no question who has more "experience" between her and McCain.



i understand she had no security clearance. i'm not saying she was a co president. what i'm saying is it counts for something and its something obama doesn't have. mccain's experience trumps both of them, so i don't see why that's a valid argument.

[atszyman]

i understand she had no security clearance. i'm not saying she was a co president. what i'm saying is it counts for something and its something obama doesn't have. mccain's experience trumps both of them, so i don't see why that's a valid argument.

What about Obama's longer career as an elected official? Does that not count for something? He's been representing the voters longer than Clinton so why does her experience as an active presidential spouse somehow give her more of a boost than someone who has been a representative of the people for longer?

The McCain point is that if the "experience" mantra wins her the nomination (unlikely) McCain can simply turn around and point to how "experience" was the biggest criteria for selecting someone who might be president for the past 8 months. Why would that change now? and then ask the voters "Who has more experience?"

[stevento]

What about Obama's longer career as an elected official? Does that not count for something? He's been representing the voters longer than Clinton so why does her experience as an active presidential spouse somehow give her more of a boost than someone who has been a representative of the people for longer?


yes he's been representing voters as a legislator for longer and that counts for a lot but we're talking about presidential experience.
legislators sit on committees and make laws and that's admirable but Hillary's first lady experience trumps that i think.
i don't even consider her to be bill's spouse because the marriage is in my opinion a sham. she spent 8 years working with the president in his administration, not as his wife. I don't think i'd go as far as to say she was part of his cabinet but she was part of the very successful clinton administration. and that's experience that Obama doesn't have

[yg17]

i understand she had no security clearance. i'm not saying she was a co president. what i'm saying is it counts for something and its something obama doesn't have. mccain's experience trumps both of them, so i don't see why that's a valid argument.

No, it doesn't count for anything. Like every other first lady, she was a figurehead who, in the end, didn't really do anything.

[atszyman]

]i don't even consider her to be bill's spouse because the marriage is in my opinion a sham. she spent 8 years working with the president in his administration, not as his wife. I don't think i'd go as far as to say she was part of his cabinet but she was part of the very successful clinton administration. and that's experience that Obama doesn't have

She rode along for 8 years in Bill's administration. Her biggest task was healthcare reform which failed spectacularly. She did not have security clearance so any big foreign policy tests that occurred she was likely not able to be a part of. Sure she used her position to travel and argue for the rights of oppressed people, but by that logic Angelina Jolie is more qualified then Obama.

If you factor in the first lady experience, Hillary has 4 more years than Obama if you count the experience equally.

I don't think she has a chance, since Obama appears to be rising faster in PA than she is and given past contests, the longer Obama has to campaign the higher he goes in the polls. If she wins by more than 10 points in PA I'd be surprised, and Obama looks poised to win IN and NC as well, making the prospect of winning pledged delegates extremely slim (even if you count FL and MI) and it should also solidify his lead in the popular vote (once again even if you count FL and MI).

If she wants to stay in I think she could actually do some good. If she and Obama were to put a moratorium on attacks, and talk only about the issues, and their solutions, it might actually carry over to the general election making it more about the issues and less about the mud-slinging (I'm not naive enough to think there would be no mudslinging but if the Dems could use the headlines to push the issues it might actually help the general). The other benefit is that as long as she and Obama are not destroying eachother, they can keep the headlines on the Democratic race and keep McCain off the front pages, until he does or says something that gets him there (and most of what could get to the front page in a hurry would be bad).