While Hillary Clinton and her strategists may publicly insist that it ain’t over until it’s over, her campaign is over.
Clinton must concoct an “exit strategy,” so as to minimize personal political damage, generate a modicum of goodwill, and maximize future political opportunity. In short, she must hope that Barack Obama loses the presidency, while avoiding blame for his loss.
So, too, must two prominent Illinois politicians who are poised on the brink of defeat and departure, respectively: Tony Peraica and Rod Blagojevich.
Peraica, Cook County commissioner and 2008 Republican candidate for state’s attorney, will not beat Democrat Anita Alvarez. If he expects to be a viable candidate for county board president in 2010, he can’t be obliterated in a landslide. In fact, he’ll be fortunate to get 35 percent. But the belligerent Peraica got into the race to win, so an exit strategy – and pre-election withdrawal – would make him appear a fool and a coward.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich is up for re-election in 2010, but he may be exiting a bit sooner. If he and/or his campaign committee are indicted by the U.S. Attorney, on charges of trading state jobs and contracts for contributions, the governor needs an exit strategy – or, more appropriately, a don’t-send-me-to-jail strategy. The feds need to extract some visible punishment, so a plea bargain to avoid prison would include resigning the governorship.
That was the intent of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was charged with hiring prostitutes and arranging sexual trysts across state lines. He tried to barter his resignation for a plea bargain. But public outrage over his hypocrisy, not just his infidelity, was too intense, and he had to quit quick. He’s now looking at jail time.
As for Blagojevich, an indictment of his campaign committee would not evoke a drumbeat for resignation, but a personal indictment, alleging actual family gain or enrichment, such as accrued through wife Patti’s real estate earnings, certainly would. Knowing Blagojevich, he would hang on to the bitter end.
Here’s an analysis:
President: In Republican circles, word is that presidential nominee John McCain will seek to electrify the nation by pledging, at the September Republican convention, to be a one-term president. He will aver that, at age 72, he will spend four years fixing problems, devoid of political motivation, absent perpetual fundraising, and without a re-election agenda. That’s a powerful argument for his election.
It also means that the 2012 presidential campaign would begin on Jan. 20, 2009, the day of McCain’s inauguration.
As Clinton ponders her 2008 “exit strategy,” several factors are obvious: She wants to fold before it is evident that she has lost. She does not want to be Senator-for-life from New York. And she lusts for a return to the White House, as does husband Bill.
Her immediate priority, after withdrawing, is to be perceived as an enthusiastic booster of Barack Obama, and to campaign vigorously for his election – while hoping he loses. If Obama wins the presidency, he’d be the Democratic nominee again in 2012, so Hillary would have to wait until 2016 to run again, when she would be age 68, and a political has-been.
If McCain wins, then 2012 would be a Democratic opportunity, especially if he doesn’t seek re-election, and has been an unmitigated disaster as president. If he’s successful, however, his vice-president would run, and be formidable.
But Obama has become a national celebrity and, at age 47, will be viable presidential contender for the foreseeable future. If he loses to McCain, Obama’s base – blacks and liberal whites – will attribute his defeat to endemic “racism,” and demand a second chance for their champion. Hillary’s hope: That Obama loses really big to McCain – in the realm of 55–45 percent. Then she could run in 2012 and blast Obama as damaged goods, and provably “unelectable,” without sounding racist.
If a popular McCain were running for re-election, Obama might take a pass. But if the presidency is open in 2012, Obama would run. In the 2012 Democratic presidential primaries, Hillary would be castigated as a loser, spoiler, and retread. If it’s Obama-Clinton, Part II, in 2012, Hillary loses. And if Obama wins in 2012, Hillary’s next shot is in 2020 – when she will be 72, the same age as McCain in 2008.
My prediction: Say goodbye to the Clintons. If Hillary can’t win in 2008, she never will.
State’s Attorney: A Republican has won this powerful prosecutorial post in five of 14 elections over the past 52 years – 1956, 1972, 1976, 1990 and 1992. Incumbent Democrat Dick Devine, a close ally of Mayor Daley, won in 1996, 2000 and 2004, and is like the proverbial monkey: See nothing, do nothing, hear nothing. Corruption is flourishing in Cook County, and Devine’s office is AWOL.
Peraica is a credible contender. He got 31.5 percent of the Chicago vote, and 60.1 percent of the suburban vote, for an overall 46.5 percent, in his 2006 campaign for county board president against Democrat Todd Stroger. It is no secret that Peraica is running to maintain his visibility for 2010.
Alvarez is Devine’s chief deputy, the number three job in the office hierarchy.
As Alvarez trumpeted during her campaign, she has been a “career prosecutor” for 21 years.
Peraica’s campaign is attempting to develop three issues:
First, that Alvarez is inept. She was once chief of the office’s Public Integrity unit, and had no accomplishments. “She did nothing at the time when corruption was flourishing,” said Peraica. “She will be another stooge of the mayor.”
Second, that Alvarez will be Devine II, much like Democrats are proclaiming that McCain will be Bush II. For 12 years, Devine’s office has studiously ignored official corruption in city and county government, deferring to the feds. “It will be four more years of the status quo,” said Peraica of Alvarez’ tenure.
And third, that Alvarez will not change the “culture” and focus of the office. Peraica wants to redirect office resources to the investigation and prosecution of public corruption. Alvarez is content to let the U.S. Attorney do that job, having told this columnist that, with a $96 million office budget, it can’t compete with the feds, who spent $25 million on the George Ryan trial.
But Alvarez will win – and win big. She is not flawed like Todd Stroger. She is a competent prosecutor, a woman, an Hispanic, and the Democratic candidate in what will be a huge Democratic year. After winning the primary, she has gone underground, uttering nary a word of criticism about her boss or Daley. She knows that the less she says or does, the better are her prospects of victory.
In the 2008 primary, the Democratic candidates for state’s attorney —Alvarez, Tom Allen, Larry Suffredin, Howard Brookins, Bob Milan, Tommy Brewer—amassed 917,737 votes, to Peraica’s 133,052 in the Republican primary. Of that vote cast, Peraica had 22.7 percent. He had 133,052 votes, to the Democrats’ 917,737, in a turnout of 1,050,789. To beat Alvarez, Peraica needs the support of at least 43 percent of the Democratic primary voters, and half of all additional voters.
That just won’t happen. Having run against Stroger, Peraica is toxic in the black community. A white Republican male will not be preferred over a Hispanic female. Peraica will be lucky to get ten percent of the black vote against Alvarez.
Hispanics will vote 85 percent for their candidate, Alvarez. Among white liberals and women, support of Alvarez will be obligatory on ideological and gender grounds. White liberals will embrace Obama and Alvarez, while Hispanics will opt for McCain and Alvarez.
But, most critically, the pro-Daley white committeemen will work hard for Alvarez. She is Daley’s backstop. If Peraica were state’s attorney, he would generate daily headlines, investigating every segment of city and county government, so as to advance his own personal agenda – like a 2010 bid for governor or county board president. Alvarez wouldn’t.
In 2004, in a turnout of 1,690,000, the Republican candidate for state’s attorney got 12.7 percent. In 2000, in turnout of 1,675,000, the Republican got 21.8 percent. In 1996, when Republican incumbent Jack O’Malley lost, he got 42 percent in a turnout of 1,631,000.
Unlike Stroger in 2006, Alvarez is not flawed or repugnant. Black and white liberal voters have plenty of reasons to vote against the obnoxious Peraica. Pro-Daley whites will back her, because she is safe.
The bottom line: Obama will overwhelmingly win Cook County, by less than his 1,299,625 margin in the 2004 Senate race, but by more than John Kerry’s 842,319 in the 2004 presidential race. McCain will get a sizeable white ethnic and Hispanic vote, but Peraica won’t. Alvarez will win with 68 percent, making Peraica damaged goods in 2010.
He needs an exit strategy—but what it is nobody can fathom.

______________________________________________________-
Russ Stewart is a regular columnist for The Chicago Daily Observer