Who should Democrats have nominated for President in 2008?

[TDAS04]

Vote.

[darklordoftech]

Biden

[Mr. Smith]

Clinton.

[Suburbia]

The same with Obama.

Obama's presidency had to show white America that "colorblind" ain't it. America still has problems.

[dw93]

Out of the two main contenders, Clinton. A world where Clinton wins in 2008 and Obama runs in 2016 after two full terms in the Senate or one full term in the Senate and a term as Governor would be a much better world.

Clinton, if she were to have the same super majorities that Obama had in 09 and 10, would've likely had a lot more to show for them as she wouldn't have been naive in dealing with her opposition the way Obama was, Granted, her foreign policy would've been too hawkish for my taste, but on balance a Clinton Presidency from 2009-17 would be better than OTL.

The runner up, abet with the benefit of hindsight, would be Biden.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Out of the two main contenders, Clinton. A world where Clinton wins in 2008 and Obama runs in 2016 after two full terms in the Senate or one full term in the Senate and a term as Governor would be a much better world.

Clinton, if she were to have the same super majorities that Obama had in 09 and 10, would've likely had a lot more to show for them as she wouldn't have been naive in dealing with her opposition the way Obama was, Granted, her foreign policy would've been too hawkish for my taste, but on balance a Clinton Presidency from 2009-17 would be better than OTL.

The runner up, abet with the benefit of hindsight, would be Biden.

My hot take is Obama never becomes president in a world Clinton wins unless he is her VP . Being in the senate during a Clinton administration would absolutely destroy a lot of his “change” appeal as he’d have to vote for her entire agenda and defend it constantly too .

[😥]

Hillary Clinton

[President Johnson]

I'm still for Obama, not sure Hillary would have accomplished that much more to be honest. And her policies in the Middle East may have been worse, although she had a more realistic approach towards Russia.

On the other hand, Joe Biden would also have been decent due to his long experience. Out of all possible candidates, I think Al Gore should have tried again and pick Obama as his running mate.

Out of the two main contenders, Clinton. A world where Clinton wins in 2008 and Obama runs in 2016 after two full terms in the Senate or one full term in the Senate and a term as Governor would be a much better world.

Clinton, if she were to have the same super majorities that Obama had in 09 and 10, would've likely had a lot more to show for them as she wouldn't have been naive in dealing with her opposition the way Obama was, Granted, her foreign policy would've been too hawkish for my taste, but on balance a Clinton Presidency from 2009-17 would be better than OTL.

The runner up, abet with the benefit of hindsight, would be Biden.

My hot take is Obama never becomes president in a world Clinton wins unless he is her VP . Being in the senate during a Clinton administration would absolutely destroy a lot of his “change” appeal as he’d have to vote for her entire agenda and defend it constantly too .

I agree, Obama would have lost his appeal as outsider had he stayed in the senate. However, I think there's a possibility he runs for governor of Illinois in 2010 instead. It's well known that he didn't like the senate.

[TDAS04]

If Hillary had gotten the nomination—especially after a hotly-contested race—it would have been hard for her not to pick Obama as her running mate.

It should have been Clinton/Obama 2008.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Out of the two main contenders, Clinton. A world where Clinton wins in 2008 and Obama runs in 2016 after two full terms in the Senate or one full term in the Senate and a term as Governor would be a much better world.

Clinton, if she were to have the same super majorities that Obama had in 09 and 10, would've likely had a lot more to show for them as she wouldn't have been naive in dealing with her opposition the way Obama was, Granted, her foreign policy would've been too hawkish for my taste, but on balance a Clinton Presidency from 2009-17 would be better than OTL.

The runner up, abet with the benefit of hindsight, would be Biden.

My hot take is Obama never becomes president in a world Clinton wins unless he is her VP . Being in the senate during a Clinton administration would absolutely destroy a lot of his “change” appeal as he’d have to vote for her entire agenda and defend it constantly too .

I agree, Obama would have lost his appeal as outsider had he stayed in the senate. However, I think there's a possibility he runs for governor of Illinois in 2010 instead. It's well known that he didn't like the senate.

IL Governor though is definitely not a great job to have either especially since Madigan basically still had full control over the IL Dem party then.

[President Johnson]

Out of the two main contenders, Clinton. A world where Clinton wins in 2008 and Obama runs in 2016 after two full terms in the Senate or one full term in the Senate and a term as Governor would be a much better world.

Clinton, if she were to have the same super majorities that Obama had in 09 and 10, would've likely had a lot more to show for them as she wouldn't have been naive in dealing with her opposition the way Obama was, Granted, her foreign policy would've been too hawkish for my taste, but on balance a Clinton Presidency from 2009-17 would be better than OTL.

The runner up, abet with the benefit of hindsight, would be Biden.

My hot take is Obama never becomes president in a world Clinton wins unless he is her VP . Being in the senate during a Clinton administration would absolutely destroy a lot of his “change” appeal as he’d have to vote for her entire agenda and defend it constantly too .

I agree, Obama would have lost his appeal as outsider had he stayed in the senate. However, I think there's a possibility he runs for governor of Illinois in 2010 instead. It's well known that he didn't like the senate.

IL Governor though is definitely not a great job to have either especially since Madigan basically still had full control over the IL Dem party then.

True, I just read this somewhere a while ago that Obama may not have stayed in the senate, had he lost in 2008. He may have been popular enough to dethrone Madigan though.

[beaver2.0]

Edwards but he shouldn't have done what he did.

[West_Midlander]

Gravel

[LBJer]

If Hillary had gotten the nomination—especially after a hotly-contested race—it would have been hard for her not to pick Obama as her running mate

Yes.  Given Obama's enormous popularity with African Americans--a group that constitutes the backbone of the Democratic voting bloc--Clinton would basically have had to choose Obama for VP.  I remember thinking this while the 2008 primary was going on. 

[GregTheGreat657]

Yes. Obama ended up being a more successful, and popular president than the other candidates likely would have been

[dead0man]

I agree, Obama would have lost his appeal as outsider had he stayed in the senate. However, I think there's a possibility he runs for governor of Illinois in 2010 instead. It's well known that he didn't like the senate.

oh sh**t, there is like an 75% chance he'd be in prison now if he was gov of IL.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If Hillary had gotten the nomination—especially after a hotly-contested race—it would have been hard for her not to pick Obama as her running mate

Yes.  Given Obama's enormous popularity with African Americans--a group that constitutes the backbone of the Democratic voting bloc--Clinton would basically have had to choose Obama for VP.  I remember thinking this while the 2008 primary was going on. 

If Obama lost the primary it probably would be early on with either a loss in Iowa meaning he never able to really get on the map and Hillary cruises to the nomination, or a loss in SC meaning Obama never is able to win the African American vote from Hillary(who was leading Obama with those voters in 2007).


The coalition he put together to win Iowa(Progressives) and South Carolina(African Americans) is basically the coalition he put together to beat Clinton

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

In hindsight, Clinton.
Obama wasn't a terrible pick in retrospect, though.

[DaleCooper]

In hindsight it's becoming clearer and clearer to me that candidates like Obama, those who make outrageous promises they have no intention of fulfilling (I know all politicians do this to some degree but Obama took it to a whole new level and many on both sides have been following in his footsteps since), are destined to destroy their party for a while especially if they serve two terms. They enrage the other side and they disappoint their own voters. Had Trump won reelection I suspect he would have left the Republican Party crippled for a few years in much the same way that the Democratic Party seems in Obama's aftermath.

I don't know what the country or the Democratic Party would look like in an alternate timeline, and it's entirely possible that the same consultant class of privileged liberal progressives would've taken over the party after her reelection and put the Democrats in much the same situation that they are in now. That said, I find it hard to believe that if 2008 Hillary had won there would have been quite the same immediate backlash there was to Obama.

[GeneralMacArthur]

As much as I love Obama, I think if I could go back to 2008, I would pick Hillary Clinton, with Obama as the VP.  I think Obama would have won in 2016, and I think the death of Osama bin Laden would have guaranteed Hillary re-election in 2012.  Hillary's experience and connections, especially her past experience in health care negotiations, would also potentially have gotten us a stronger health care bill (not to besmirch Obamacare, but we're really missing that public option).  It's also possible that Obama being next-in-line would have been much more energizing to young voters in 2014, avoiding the voter apathy we suffered that year.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

1. Gravel
2. Pre-scandal Edwards
3. Obama
4. Gore
5. Clinton

But, I supported Obama from the day he announced, and while his naivete was his essentially his Achilles' heel (and Hillary, to her credit, went out of her way as SoS to lobby for the ACA... which did make me wince a little about my candidate of choice) I don't really regret doing so.

I was 13 at the time (12 when he announced) and this was the first election where I was really informed about the candidates and issues. In 2004 I supported Kerry because his hair was nice and he represented my neighbor to the north at the time - and he was the de facto "peace candidate."

Imagine my enthusiasm as a young politico full of hope and optimism. And then reality set in.

[brucejoel99]

Hillary. She still would've beaten McCain in a landslide; she was much more prepared for the presidency than Obama was because, unlike him, she wouldn't have been so naive as to how the opposition would conduct itself given that she'd already lived through it a decade earlier & thus would govern accordingly, like Biden not giving a damn about getting a single Republican vote for the ARP since he remembers that tailoring Obamacare to them did nothing (except Hillary would've actually had a supermajority of her own ITTL's '09); & while killing ObL wouldn't "guarantee" her re-election, it'd certainly grant her the same fundamental advantages in the 2012 race that Obama had during the real life version thereof. After that, a 2-term Senator Obama can run in 2016 & utilize the greater experience that he'd enter office with on Day 1 ITTL (compared to the experience that he actually had on his IRL-Day 1) to be a more effective President than he was IRL.

Alternatively, if Obama had to be the nominee in '08, then Biden - & not Hillary - should've been nominated 8 years later.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

In hindsight it's becoming clearer and clearer to me that candidates like Obama, those who make outrageous promises they have no intention of fulfilling (I know all politicians do this to some degree but Obama took it to a whole new level and many on both sides have been following in his footsteps since), are destined to destroy their party for a while especially if they serve two terms. They enrage the other side and they disappoint their own voters. Had Trump won reelection I suspect he would have left the Republican Party crippled for a few years in much the same way that the Democratic Party seems in Obama's aftermath.

I don't know what the country or the Democratic Party would look like in an alternate timeline, and it's entirely possible that the same consultant class of privileged liberal progressives would've taken over the party after her reelection and put the Democrats in much the same situation that they are in now. That said, I find it hard to believe that if 2008 Hillary had won there would have been quite the same immediate backlash there was to Obama.

In a way, Bill Clinton had the same problem. He didn't run on an "ambitiously progressive" agenda, but his 1992 campaign was objectively one of the most effective ones in history. Then his approval took a dive shortly after he took office (Whitewater) and then of course 1994 happened. And then Lewinsky.

And while people didn't approve of Republican overreach in impeaching Clinton, neither did they feel like they could trust Clinton as someone with integrity. So long Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia... and later Iowa and Ohio.

But still, that "permanent Democratic majority" will come any day now!

[DaleCooper]

In hindsight it's becoming clearer and clearer to me that candidates like Obama, those who make outrageous promises they have no intention of fulfilling (I know all politicians do this to some degree but Obama took it to a whole new level and many on both sides have been following in his footsteps since), are destined to destroy their party for a while especially if they serve two terms. They enrage the other side and they disappoint their own voters. Had Trump won reelection I suspect he would have left the Republican Party crippled for a few years in much the same way that the Democratic Party seems in Obama's aftermath.

I don't know what the country or the Democratic Party would look like in an alternate timeline, and it's entirely possible that the same consultant class of privileged liberal progressives would've taken over the party after her reelection and put the Democrats in much the same situation that they are in now. That said, I find it hard to believe that if 2008 Hillary had won there would have been quite the same immediate backlash there was to Obama.

In a way, Bill Clinton had the same problem. He didn't run on an "ambitiously progressive" agenda, but his 1992 campaign was objectively one of the most effective ones in history. Then his approval took a dive shortly after he took office (Whitewater) and then of course 1994 happened. And then Lewinsky.

And while people didn't approve of Republican overreach in impeaching Clinton, neither did they feel like they could trust Clinton as someone with integrity. So long Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia... and later Iowa and Ohio.

But still, that "permanent Democratic majority" will come any day now!

I don't think it can be argued that Bill Clinton damaged the party brand as thoroughly as Obama did. Those states you mentioned may have been lost at the Presidential level, but most of them remained competitive otherwise until, in many cases, well into Obama's presidency.

Although maybe we shouldn't be thinking about this in terms of individuals. Maybe it's an issue of the entourage and professional strategists that these people associate with. Clinton, for all his failings as a leader, had a brilliant team when it came to campaigning. Obama's crew by the end of his term that Hillary and Biden later used are destructively terrible at appealing to at least half of the country, and they're electorally toxic in a way that the pre-Obama Clintons could never have hoped to be.