Hillary Clinton’s presidential race has just about run it’s course — what’s next for her?

With news that Utah just added a superdelegate to Barack Obama’s total, it’s looking more and more like it’s curtains for Hillary Clinton in this presidential race. Mathematically, I think, she’s all but finished. And now that more and more superdelegates are switching to Obama or finally declaring a preference for Obama, it’s hard to see how she will accomplish anything of value by staying in the Democratic Party’s race until the convention.

But I really do not see, as some have seriously suggested, that she and Obama could run on the same ticket, with him picking her as his vice presidential running mate. I simply think Hillary Clinton is too strong-willed to function as “second banana” (this post seems filled with vaudevillian references, doesn’t it?) to Obama. In presidential history there have been a couple of really bad mismatches — Washington and Adams, Kennedy and Johnson are the two which may have been the worst choices. I think Obama and Clinton would be a similar disaster.

Personally, I think Hillary Clinton should continue doing her good work in the Senate, or find a spot in an Obama Cabinet post (perhaps Secretary of State?), and bide her time. Sixty-eight or 69 is not too old to run for president, is it?

Anyway, however it works out, I’m committed to vote either for the Democratic candidates in November, or simply throw my vote as a protest to Ralph Nader (as I’ve mentioned in the past). No matter how genial and jolly McCain may appear on the television talks shows, I cannot vote for a man so committed to Iraq and a number of stands on social issues that are too conservative for me.

Technorati Tags: , ,

addthis button

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.

Comments

Please, please don’t vote for Nader. Whatever Dem we get running for office needs every vote. Let’s not go through what we did back when Al Gore ran again. Those votes for Nader could have given him the win he should have had.

I certainly understand your concerns, and it’s not likely I really would vote for Nader.

But — I heard an interview with Nader shortly after he decided to run in the 2008 election, and he made some very interesting points about that Gore loss. Namely, if Gore had been a strong enough candidate to even carry his home state, Florida never would have been an issue.

He also had some interesting points to make about the flaws of this goofy 2-party system America has locked into, acting as though only Democrats or Republicans somehow were entitled to get the votes. In reality, it’s the height of political arrogance on the part of the Democrats and Republicans to sort of demand voter allegiance, even if there might be other candidates with better ideas.

But, no, I’m really not likely to vote for Nader because, bottom line, we DO live in a 2-political-party nation. Kind of sad, though.

I totally agree with you on the two party system. It’s not changed though as you said so until it does we have to live realistically. As for Gore not carrying his home state, I’d don’t put too much weight on that issue. He did win the popular vote. I feel that counts for more.

There’s so many things about our voting system, such as for the Democrats, delegates and super delegates and for the general election, the whole Electoral College.

Sometimes I have this urge to head for the border — sneak into Canada and find work as an illegal immigrant writer there. LOL!

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)