WHITHER HILLARY?

Immediately prior to and after the graceful suspension of campaign speech that Hillary Clinton gave in Washington, DC on Saturday, there was much speculation whether she should be offered the candidacy for vice-president, whether she should accept such an offer if made, whether she should instead aim for the governership of New York, or whether Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, should step aside in January and allow Mrs. Clinton to become the new majority leader if, as almost seems certain, the Democrats retain their slim majority at the least or expand upon it in November. Former President Jimmy Carter was perhaps the most outspoken when he declared that under no circumstances should Mrs. Clinton be offered the vice-presidency. Many others, however, were at least open to the idea. Some argued that it was the best way to ensure that the 18 million voters, many fervent supporters of Mrs. Clinton, vote for the Democratic ticket in November. Unfortunately, the baggage that Mrs. Clinton would bring to such a ticket - the repeated missteps and egregious errors in judgement in her own campaign, as well as the ineluctable presence of Bill Clinton on stage or in the background - outweighs any putative strengths.

It is true that many women were drawn to the Clinton candidacy because Mrs. Clinton did represent the first female candidate with a genuine chance at election to the office of the presidency. And, many of those self-same women are deeply dismayed that Mrs. Clinton lost out by the most slender of margins. Indeed, a few still grouse at the "stolen" delegates from Michigan who were taken from Mrs. Clinton's column and awarded to Mr. Obama by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee on Saturday, 31 May. However one chooses to spin Mrs. Clinton's defeat, she still retains a broadly based popularity among many voters. Why not tap into that voting block and make sure those voters vote Democratic in November?

As much sense as such a gambit makes on the surface, it still is quite a risky proposition. Mrs. Clinton, and the coterie of Wall Street executives and Washington insiders who surrounded her, represent the "old" politics. Good old, if you happen to like the Clinton years. Bad old, if you remember the ferocity of Republican attacks on the Clintons. Questionable, if you recall that many of the excesses on Wall Street today are the result of policy changes made under former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and clamored for the Clinton camp. Thus, a marriage between the "new" politics of Obama and the "old" politics of Clinton seems especially problematic.

Still, Obama has not wowed many "leftists" within the Democratic party. As Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times, has repeatedly shown, the Obama health care proposal is woefully inadequate in terms of its professed goal of expanding health insurance coverage in the United States. Both the Edwards' proposal, as well as the Clinton proposal, were better, even if they too were fraught with questions regarding their political viability, as well as their ability to hold down ever rising health care costs. Of course, any of these three programs is a vast improvement over the present and the so-called reform proposal put forth by McCain. But, then, why should one expect any reform to come from a Republican party whose vociferous opposition to Mrs. Clinton's health care reform of the 90s served only to postpone needed reforms and to deepen the crisis in health care.

Wouldn't the presence, then, of Mrs. Clinton on the ticket at least guarantee a strong voice for progressive reforms? But, then, wouldn't Mr. Edwards's presence accomplish the same?

Of course, Mr. Edwards did not receive 18 million votes. Indeed, his campaign failed to generate the expected and hoped for excitement that he seemed capable of igniting. Mrs. Clinton did win a few states, some by very large margins. Thus, if a progressive voice is required to balance Senator Obama, then why not choose the candidate who drew the most support?

Bill Clinton, that's why not! It's hard to imagine how Bill Clinton could resist the urge to impress his views upon a new administration, should the Democrats win in the Fall. If you thought the idea of Emperor Cheney was bad, how could any policy role by the spouse of the elected vice president, especially if it gained the clout that Cheney exuded, be any better. One can easily imagine an administration at war with itself.

Let's not put the cart before the horses, however. Though it may very well be that many of the 18 million Clinton voters will be motivated to support an Obama/Clinton ticket, there may be just as many Republicans energized to fight any Clinton on any Democratic ticket just as they have done for the past 16 years. Why give the Republicans any incentive to turn out during an election when this party ought to receive a firm drubbing for its economic and war policies for the past 8 years. Obama may animate the right as well. But that will be the result, not of any character deficiences or questionable conduct inherent in a Clinton candidacy, but of the deliberate use of residual racist and overtly anti-Islamic sentiment post 9/11.

Whatever the outcome in November, success or failure of Senator Obama should rest squarely on his shoulders. Should he continue the miraculous journey that he has ventured down so far, then let him enjoy the sweet taste of victory. If, on the other hand, his meteoric rise was mere chimera, then let him crash in the agony of defeat. Four years of a McCain presidency may be very bad, especially if it represents a continuation of the Bush quagmire in Iraq and the failed economic policies of the Bush administration domestically. Yet, a Democratic defeat that arises because of the Clinton presence on the Democratic ticket would be inexcusable.